We've released a talk from farm hacking pioneer Sick Codes on the intricacies of agricultural equipment cyber security, and how to break and modify it. Enjoy and share widely!

Adobe Patches for June 2026

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

Here’s this month’s overview table:

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

Microsoft Patches for June 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No new advisories are being released this month.

Looking Ahead

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

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.

Over the past year, we have connected with many developers pushing the boundaries of what’s possible on

The post Build 2026: Furthering Windows as the trusted platform for development appeared first on Windows Developer Blog.

To meet Android developer verification and updated Play Console Requirements, Play developers must register their Play apps in Play Console. While 99% of apps on Play have been registered automatically, you should check your Play Console Home page to register any remaining apps by September 30, 2026 to avoid global removal from Google Play and ensure a seamless user installation experience.

You can also use Play Console to register apps you distribute outside of Google Play to ensure they can be installed on certified Android devices.

Last year, we introduced Android developer verification to strengthen ecosystem security and stop malicious actors from hiding behind anonymity to release harmful apps. Millions of apps have been registered since the verification launched in March, covering nearly all installs on Google Play and a large majority of installs from outside of Google Play. We appreciate the feedback and partnership from industry leaders, developers, and Android communities that helped us design this experience and drive strong adoption.

Initial launch across seven stores and four countries

These new developer verification protections will take effect on September 30, 2026, starting with users in Brazil, Indonesia, Singapore, and Thailand.

This rollout is an industry-wide effort to create a safer ecosystem. We will begin by verifying app installations from the following stores:

• Google (Google Play)
• Honor (HONOR App Market)
• OPlus (OPPO App Market)
• Samsung (Galaxy Store)
• Transsion (Palm Store)
• vivo (V-Appstore)
• Xiaomi (GetApps)

Following this initial phase with our partners, we will expand these protections globally for all apps on certified Android devices in 2027.

Automate your workflow with new APIs

To further streamline app registration, we are launching a suite of developer-requested APIs to help you register apps in bulk or directly through your continuous integration and deployment (CI/CD) pipelines. The Android Developer ID Status API will let you check if a package name has already been registered, and the Android Developer Console API will let you register and manage package names directly within your development environment. Both APIs also support OAuth delegation, allowing third-party platforms, like Android app stores, to perform these operations natively on your behalf.

We'll launch these APIs over the next few months.

What’s next

• June 2026: Starting this month, we are rolling out a new system service that will be automatically installed on most Android devices. This service will be used later this year to verify developer registration.
• July 2026: We’ll launch the Android Developer ID Status API globally and begin early access for the Android Developer Console API. Early access also starts for limited distribution accounts on Android Developer Console. This new type of Android developer account is designed for students, hobbyists, and learners and lets you share your apps to up to 20 devices without a government-issued ID or a fee.
• August 2026: Limited distribution accounts and the new Android Developer Console API will launch globally. We’ll also launch an advanced flow for installing apps from unverified developers, which includes security checkpoints to resist coercion scams, while allowing power users to maintain the ability to sideload apps from unverified developers.
• September 30, 2026: App registration becomes required for participating stores in Brazil, Indonesia, Singapore, and Thailand. Unregistered apps can be sideloaded with Android Debug Bridge (adb) or advanced flow.
• 2027 and beyond: After incorporating the feedback from our partners, users, and developer community, we’ll expand the Android verification requirement globally.
  

Get started with Android developer verification

If you distribute apps in Brazil, Indonesia, Singapore, or Thailand via the stores listed above, please ensure your verification is complete by the September deadline.

• Google Play developers: Most Play developers are already verified, and over 99% of their apps have been registered. Go to your Play Console Home page to see your app’s verification status, and register apps you want to continue distributing that weren't automatically registered.
• Developers who distribute only outside of Google Play: Sign up for the Android Developer Console today to register your apps.

• Students and hobbyists: Sign up here for early access to limited distribution accounts to help us refine the feature with your feedback.

Thank you for helping us build a safer Android ecosystem. Stay tuned for more updates as we approach September and the 2027 global rollout.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Note: This joint Cybersecurity Advisory is being published as an addition to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) May 6, 2025, joint fact sheet Primary Mitigations to Reduce Cyber Threats to Operational Technology and European Cybercrime Centre’s (EC3) Operation Eastwood, in which CISA, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Energy (DOE), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and EC3 shared information about cyber incidents affecting the operational technology (OT) and industrial control systems (ICS) of critical infrastructure entities in the United States and globally.

FBI, CISA, National Security Agency (NSA), and the following partners—hereafter referred to as “the authoring organizations”—are releasing this joint advisory on the targeting of critical infrastructure by pro-Russia hacktivists:

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

The authoring organizations assess pro-Russia hacktivist groups are conducting less sophisticated, lower-impact attacks against critical infrastructure entities, compared to advanced persistent threat (APT) groups. These attacks use minimally secured, internet-facing virtual network computing (VNC) connections to infiltrate (or gain access to) OT control devices within critical infrastructure systems. Pro-Russia hacktivist groups—Cyber Army of Russia Reborn (CARR), Z-Pentest, NoName057(16), Sector16, and affiliated groups—are capitalizing on the widespread prevalence of accessible VNC devices to execute attacks against critical infrastructure entities, resulting in varying degrees of impact, including physical damage. Targeted sectors include Water and Wastewater Systems, Food and Agriculture, and Energy.

The authoring organizations encourage critical infrastructure organizations to implement the recommendations in the Mitigations section of this advisory to reduce the likelihood and impact of pro-Russia hacktivist-related incidents. For additional information on Russian state-sponsored malicious cyber activity, see CISA’s Russia Threat Overview and Advisories webpage.

Download the PDF version of this report:

Background and Development of Pro-Russia Hacktivist Groups

Over the past several years, the authoring organizations have observed pro-Russia hacktivist groups conducting cyber operations against numerous organizations and critical infrastructure sectors worldwide. The escalation of the Russia-Ukraine conflict in 2022 significantly increased the number of these pro-Russia groups. Consisting of individuals who support Russia’s agenda but lack direct governmental ties, most of these groups target Ukrainian and allied infrastructure. However, among the increasing number of groups, some appear to have associations with the Russian state through direct or indirect support.

Cyber Army of Russia Reborn

The authoring organizations assess that the Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) Main Center for Special Technologies (GTsST) military unit 74455—tracked in the cybersecurity community under several names (see Appendix B: Additional Designators Used for Cited Groups)—is likely responsible for supporting the creation of CARR —also known as “The People’s Cyber Army of Russia”—in late February or early March of 2022. Actors suspected to be from GRU unit 74455 likely funded the tools CARR threat actors used to conduct distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks through at least September 2024.

In April 2022, the group began using a new Telegram channel featuring the name “CyberArmyofRussia_Reborn” to organize and plan group actions. The channel creators recruited actors to use CARR as an unattributable platform for conducting cyber activities beneath the level of an APT, aimed at deterring anti-Russia rhetoric. CARR threat actors presented themselves as a group of pro-Russia hacktivists supporting Russia’s stance on the Ukrainian conflict, and they soon began claiming responsibility for DDoS attacks against the U.S. and Europe for supporting Ukraine.

CARR documented these actions through embellished images and videos shared on their social media channels, promoting Russian ideology, disseminating talking points, and publicizing leaked information from hacks attributed to Russian state threat actors.

In late 2023, CARR expanded their operations to include attacks on industrial control systems (ICS), claiming an intrusion against a European wastewater treatment facility in October 2023. In November 2023, CARR targeted human-machine interface (HMI) devices, claiming intrusions at two U.S. dairy farms.

The authoring organizations assess that by late September 2024, CARR channel administrators became dissatisfied with the level of support and funding provided by the GRU. This dissatisfaction led CARR administrators and an administrator from another hacktivist group, NoName057(16), to create the Z-Pentest group, employing the same tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) as CARR but separate from GRU involvement.

NoName057(16)

The authoring organizations assess that the Center for the Study and Network Monitoring of the Youth Environment (CISM), established on behalf of the Kremlin, created NoName057(16) as a covert project within the organization. Senior executives and employees within CISM developed and customized the NoName057(16) proprietary DDoS tool DDoSia, paid for the group’s network infrastructure, served as administrators on NoName057(16) Telegram channels, and selected DDoS targets.

Active since March 2022, NoName057(16) has conducted frequent DDoS attacks against government and private sector entities in North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member states and other European countries perceived as hostile to Russian geopolitical interests. The group operates primarily through Telegram channels and used GitHub, alongside various websites and repositories, to host DDoSia and share materials and TTPs with their followers. 

In 2024, NoName057(16) began collaborating closely with other pro-Russia hacktivist groups, operating a joint chat with CARR by mid-2024. In July 2024, NoName057(16) jointly claimed responsibility with CARR for an alleged intrusion against OT assets in the U.S. The high degree of cooperation with CARR likely contributed to the formation of Z-Pentest, which is composed of actors and administrators from both teams, in September 2024.

Z-Pentest

Established in September 2024, Z-Pentest is composed of members from CARR and NoName057(16). The group specializes in OT intrusion operations targeting globally dispersed critical infrastructure entities. Additionally, the group uses “hack and leak” operations and defacement attacks to draw attention to their pro-Russia messaging. Unlike other pro-Russia hacktivist groups, Z-Pentest largely avoids DDoS activities, claiming OT intrusions as attempts to garner more attention from the media.

Shortly after Z-Pentest’s inception, the group announced alliances with CARR and NoName057(16), possibly to leverage the other groups’ subscribers to grow the new channel. In March 2025, Z-Pentest posted evidence claiming OT device intrusions to their channel using a NoName057(16) cyberattack campaign hashtag. Similarly, in April 2025, Z-Pentest shared a video purporting defacement of an HMI by changing system names to NoName057(16) and CARR references. Z-Pentest continues to create new alliances with other groups, like Sector16, to continue growing their subscriber base and incidentally propagate TTPs with new partners.

Sector16

Formed in January 2025, Sector16 is a novice pro-Russia hacktivist group that emerged through collaboration with Z-Pentest. Sector16 actively maintains an online presence, including a public Telegram channel where they share videos, statements, and claims of compromising U.S. energy infrastructure. These communications often align with pro-Russia narratives and reflect their self-proclaimed support for Russian geopolitical objectives.

Members of Sector16 may have received indirect support from the Russian government in exchange for conducting specific cyber operations that further Russian strategic goals. This aligns with broader Russian cyber strategies that involve leveraging non-state threat actors for certain cyber activities, adding a layer of deniability.

Technical Details

Note: This advisory uses the MITRE ATT&CK^® Matrix for Enterprise framework, version 18. See the MITRE ATT&CK Tactics and Techniques section of this advisory for a table of the threat actors’ activity mapped to MITRE ATT&CK tactics and techniques.

TTP Overview

Pro-Russia hacktivist groups employ easily disseminated and replicated TTPs across various entities, increasing the likelihood of widespread adoption and escalating the frequency of intrusions. These groups have limited capabilities, frequently misunderstanding the processes they aim to disrupt. Their apparent low level of technical knowledge results in haphazard attacks where actors intend to cause physical damage but cannot accurately anticipate actual impact. Despite these limitations, the authoring organizations have observed these groups willfully cause actual harm to vulnerable critical infrastructure.

Pro-Russia hacktivist groups use the TTPs in this Cybersecurity Advisory to target virtual network computing (VNC)-connected HMI devices. These groups are primarily seeking notoriety with their actions. While they have caused damage in some instances, they regularly make false or exaggerated claims about their attacks on critical infrastructure to garner more attention. They frequently misrepresent their capabilities and the impacts of their actions, portraying minor incursions as significant breaches, but such incursions can still lead to lost time and resources for operators remediating systems.

Additionally, pro-Russia hacktivists use an opportunistic targeting methodology. They leverage superficial criteria, such as victim availability and existing vulnerabilities, rather than focusing on strategically significant entities. Their lack of strategic focus can lead to a broad array of targets, ranging from water treatment facilities to oil well systems. Pro-Russia hacktivists have demonstrated a pattern of frequently taking advantage of the widespread availability of vulnerable VNC connections. While system owners typically use VNC connections for legitimate remote system access functions, threat actors can maliciously use these connections to broadly target numerous platforms and services. Consequently, these groups can indiscriminately compromise critical infrastructure entities, including those in the Water and Wastewater, Food and Agriculture, and Energy Sectors.

Pro-Russia hacktivist groups have successfully targeted supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) networks using basic methods, and in some cases, performed simultaneous DDoS attacks against targeted networks to facilitate SCADA intrusions. As recently as April 2025, threat actors used the following unsophisticated TTPs to access networks and conduct SCADA intrusions:

• Scan for vulnerable devices on the internet [T0883] with open VNC ports [T1595.002].
• Initiate temporary virtual private server (VPS) [T1583.003] to execute password brute force software.
• Use VNC software to access hosts [T1021.005].
• Confirm connection to the vulnerable device [T0886].
• Brute force the password, if required [T1110.003].
• Gain access to HMI devices [T0883], typically with default [T0812], weak, or no passwords [T0859].
• Log the confirmed vulnerable device IP address, port, and password.
• Using the HMI graphical interface [T0823], capture screen recordings or intermittent screenshots while conducting the following actions, intending to affect productivity and cause additional costs [T0828]:
  • Modify usernames/passwords [T0892];
  • Modify parameters [T0836];
  • Modify device name [T0892];
  • Modify instrument settings [T0831];
  • Disable alarms [T0878];
  • Create loss of view (a technique that mandates local hands-on operator intervention) [T0829]; and/or
  • Device restart or shutdown [T0816].
• Disconnect from the device, ending the VNC connection.
• Research the compromised device company after the intrusion [T1591].

Propagation

To reach a wider audience, pro-Russia hacktivist groups work together, amplify each other’s posts, create additional groups to amplify their own posts, and likely share TTPs. For example, Z-Pentest jointly claimed intrusion of a U.S. system with Sector16. Sector16 later began posting additional intrusions for which the group claimed sole responsibility. It is likely that these and similar groups will continue to iterate and share these methods to disrupt critical infrastructure organizations.

Reconnaissance and Initial Access

The threat actors’ intrusion methodology is relatively unsophisticated, inexpensive to execute, and easy to replicate. These pro-Russia hacktivist groups abuse popular internet-scraping tools, such as Nmap or OPENVAS, to search for visible VNC services and use brute force password spraying tools to access devices via known default or otherwise weak credentials. Threat actors typically search for these services on the default port 5900 or other nearby ports (5901-5910). Their goal is to gain remote access to HMI devices connected to live control networks.

Once threat actors obtain access, they manipulate available settings from the graphical user interface (GUI) on the HMI devices, such as arbitrary physical parameter and setpoint changes, or conduct defacement activities. Because pro-Russia hacktivist groups seem to lack sector-specific expertise or cyber-physical engineering knowledge, they currently cannot reliably estimate the true impact of their actions. Regardless of outcome, pro-Russia hacktivist groups often post images and screen recordings to their social media platforms, boasting the compromises and exaggerating impacts to garner attention from their peers and the media.

Impact

While pro-Russia hacktivist groups currently demonstrate limited ability to consistently cause significant impact, there is a risk that their continued attacks will result in further harm or grievous physical consequences. Attacks have not yet caused injury; however, the attacks against occupied factories and community facilities demonstrate a lack of consideration for human safety.

Victim organizations reported that the most common operational impact caused by these threat actors is a temporary loss of view, necessitating manual intervention to manage processes. However, any modifications to programmatic and systematic procedures can result in damage or disruption, including substantial labor costs from hiring a programmable logic controller programmer to restore operations, costs associated with operational downtime, and potential costs for network remediation.

MITRE ATT&CK Tactics and Techniques

See Table 1 to Table 10 for all referenced threat actor tactics and techniques in this advisory. For assistance with mapping malicious cyber activity to the MITRE ATT&CK framework, see CISA and MITRE ATT&CK’s Best Practices for MITRE ATT&CK Mapping and CISA’s Decider Tool.

Incident Response

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

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

Mitigations

OT Asset Owners and Operators

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

• Reduce exposure of OT assets to the public-facing internet. When connected to the internet, OT devices are easy targets for malicious cyber threat actors. Many devices can be found by searching for open ports on public IP ranges with search engine tools to target victims with OT components [CPG 3.S].
  • Asset owners should use attack surface management services and web-based search platforms to scan the internet. This mitigation can help identify if there are VNC systems exposed within the IP ranges they own, especially for connections set up by third parties.
    Note: For more information on attack surface management, see CISA’s Internet Exposure Reduction Guidance, CISA’s Cyber Hygiene Services for U.S. critical infrastructure, and NSA’s Attack Surface Management for the U.S. Defense Industrial Base.
  • Implement network segmentation between IT and OT networks. Segmenting critical systems and introducing a demilitarized zone (DMZ) for passing control data to enterprise logistics reduces the potential impact of cyber threats and the risk of disruptions to essential OT operations [CPG 3.I].
  • Consider implementing a firewall and/or virtual private network if exposure to the internet is necessary for controlling access to devices.
    • Consider disabling public exposure by default and implementing time-limited remote access to reduce the amount of time systems are exposed.
    • Restrict and monitor both inbound and outbound traffic at OT perimeter firewalls. Configure OT perimeter firewalls to enforce a default-deny policy for all traffic. Asset owners should explicitly permit authorized destinations and protocols based on operational requirements.
    • Implement strict egress filtering to prevent unauthorized data exfiltration or command-and-control callbacks.
    • Regularly audit firewall rulesets and monitor outbound traffic patterns for anomalies indicative of threat actor activity, such as beaconing or unexpected protocol usage.
• Adopt mature asset management processes, including mapping data flows and access points. Generating a complete picture of both OT and IT assets provides visibility to operators and management, allowing organizations to monitor and assess deviations for criticality [CPG 2.A].
  • Keep remote access services updated with the latest version available and ensure all systems and software are up to date with patches and necessary security updates.
    • Keep VNC systems updated with the latest version available.
  • Refer to the joint Foundations for OT Cybersecurity: Asset Inventory Guidance for Owners and Operators to help with reducing cybersecurity risk by identifying which assets within their environment should be secured and protected.
• Ensure OT assets use robust authentication procedures.
  • Many devices lack robust authentication and authorization. Devices with weak authentication are vulnerable targets to threat actors using credential theft techniques.
  • Implement MFA where possible. Where MFA is not feasible, use strong, unique passwords. Apply password standards for operator-accessible services on underlying OT assets, as well as network devices protecting those services. This is especially important for services that require internet accessibility [CPG 3.A] [CPG 3.B] [CPG 3.C] [CPG 3.F].
  • Establish an allowlist that permits only authorized device IP addresses and/or media access control addresses. The allowlist can be refined to operator working hours to further obstruct malicious threat actor activity; organizations are encouraged to establish monitoring and alerting for access attempts not meeting these criteria [CPG 3.E].
  • Disable any unused authentication methods, logic, or features, such as default authentication keys and default passwords. Block all unused high ephemeral ports and monitor for attempted connections using standard protocols on non-standard ports [CPG 3.R].
  • Authenticate all access to field controllers before authorizing access to, or modification of, a device’s state, logic, program, or filesystems.
• Enable control system security features that can separate and audit view and control functions. Limiting remotely accessible or default user accounts to “view-only” removes the potential for impact without exploiting a vulnerability [CPG 3.G].
• Implement and practice business recovery/disaster recovery plans. Plans should also take into consideration redundancy, fail-safe mechanisms, islanding capabilities, backup restoration, and manual operation.
  • Include scenarios that necessitate switching to manual operations. Maintaining the capability of an organization to revert to manual controls to quickly restore operations is vital in the immediate aftermath of a cyber incident [CPG 6.A].
  • Create backups of the engineering logic, configurations, and firmware of HMIs to enable fast recovery. Organizations should routinely test backups and standby systems to ensure safe manual operations in the event of an incident [CPG 3.O].
• Collect and monitor the traffic of OT assets and networking devices. This includes unusual logins or unexpected protocols communicating over the internet, and functions of ICS management protocols that change an asset’s operating mode or modify programs.
• Review configurations for setpoint ranges or tag values to stay within safe ranges and establish alerting for deviations.
• Take a proactive approach in the procurement process by following the guidance outlined in the joint guide Secure by Demand: Priority Considerations for Operational Technology Owners and Operators when Selecting Digital Products.

OT Device Manufacturers

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

• Eliminate default credentials and require strong passwords. The use of default credentials is a top weakness threat actors exploit to gain access to systems.
• Mandate MFA for privileged users. Changes to engineering logic or configurations are safety-impacting events in critical infrastructure. MFA should be available for safety critical components at no additional cost.
• Practice secure by default principles. OT components were initially designed without public internet connectivity in mind. When internet connection becomes necessary, implementing additional security measures is essential to safeguard these systems. Manufacturers should recognize insecure states and promptly inform users so they can make informed risk decisions.
  • Include logging at no additional charge. Change and access control logs allow operators to track safety-impacting events in their critical infrastructure. These logs should be available for no cost and use open standard logging formats.
• Publish Software Bill of Materials (SBOMs). Vulnerabilities in underlying software libraries can affect a wide range of devices. Without an SBOM, it is nearly impossible for a critical infrastructure system owner to measure and mitigate the impact of a vulnerability on their existing systems. See CISA’s SBOM webpage for more information.

Additionally, see CISA’s Secure by Design Alert on how software manufacturers can shield web management interfaces from malicious cyber activity. By using secure by design tactics, software manufacturers can make their product lines secure “out of the box” without requiring customers to spend additional resources making configuration changes, purchasing tiered security software and logs, monitoring, and making routine updates.

For more information on secure by design, see CISA’s Secure by Design webpage.

Validate Security Controls

In addition to applying mitigations, the authoring organizations recommend exercising, testing, and validating your organization’s security program against the threat behaviors mapped to the MITRE ATT&CK Matrix for Enterprise framework in this advisory. The authoring organizations recommend testing your existing security controls inventory to assess how it performs against the ATT&CK techniques described in this advisory.

To start:

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

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

Resources

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

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

Additional resources that apply to this advisory include:

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

Contact Information

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disclaimer

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

Acknowledgements

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

Version History

December 09, 2025: Initial version.

Appendix A: Targeting Methodologies for Pro-Russia Hacktivist Groups

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

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

Appendix B: Additional Designators Used for Cited Groups

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

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

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

Introduction

Note: This advisory was originally published on April 7, 2026, to provide tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) and indicators of compromise (IOCs) related to ongoing cyber exploitation of internet-connected operational technology (OT) devices by Iranian-affiliated advanced persistent threat (APT) actors. The authoring agencies updated this advisory on July 22, 2026, to add new guidance on detecting malicious changes in reusable code modules leveraged within Rockwell Automation PLC programs. It also expands the manufacturer scope to include observed targeting of Schneider Electric, Siemens, and potentially other branded/manufactured PLCs, emphasizing the importance of restricting direct internet access and providing best practice resources for secure deployment.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), National Security Agency (NSA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Energy (DOE), United States Cyber Command – Cyber National Mission Force (CNMF), and Department of the Treasury (Treasury) (hereafter referred to as the “authoring agencies”) are urgently warning U.S. organizations of ongoing cyber exploitation of internet-connected OT devices—including PLCs manufactured by Rockwell Automation/Allen-Bradley, Schneider Electric, Siemens, and potentially other manufactured PLCs—across multiple U.S. critical infrastructure sectors. As a result of this activity, organizations from multiple U.S. critical infrastructure sectors experienced disruptions through malicious interactions with PLC project files¹ and the manipulation of data displayed on human machine interface (HMI) and supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) displays. In a few cases, this activity caused operational disruption and financial loss.

The authoring agencies assess a group of Iranian-affiliated APT actors is conducting this activity to cause disruptive effects within the United States. The group targeted devices spanning multiple U.S. critical infrastructure sectors, including Government Services and Facilities (to include local municipalities), Water and Wastewater Systems (WWS), and Energy Sectors. The authoring agencies previously reported on similar activity targeting PLCs by CyberAv3ngers (aka Shahid Kaveh Group)—a cyber threat actor affiliated with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Cyber Electronic Command (CEC).

Due to the widespread use of these PLCs, and the potential for additional targeting of other branded OT devices across critical infrastructure, the authoring agencies recommend U.S. organizations urgently review the TTPs and IOCs in this advisory for indications of current or historical activity on their networks, and apply the recommendations listed in the Mitigations section of this advisory to reduce the risk of compromise.

If owners and operators discover an affected internet-accessible device in their environment, additional technical measures may be necessary to evaluate the risk of compromise. Please engage your cyber incident response plans and contact the authoring agencies and applicable vendors through existing support channels available to customers and integrators (see Contact Information) to receive support, mitigation, and investigation assistance.

For more information on Iranian malicious cyber activity, see CISA’s Iran Threat Overview and Advisories webpage and the FBI’s Iran Threat and Iran Cyber Threat Overview webpages.

Download the PDF version of this report:

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

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

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

Background Information

Similar Historical Activity Targeting Programmable Logic Controllers

During a similar campaign beginning in November 2023, the IRGC CEC-affiliated cyber threat actors known as "CyberAv3ngers” targeted U.S.-based PLCs and HMIs, causing disruptive effects. Private industry and open sources also refer to this group as Hydro Kitten, Storm-0784, APT Iran, Bauxite, Mr. Soul, Soldiers of Solomon, UNC5691, and the Shahid Kaveh Group. These attacks compromised at least 75 devices, targeting U.S.-based Unitronics PLC devices with an HMI used across multiple critical infrastructure sectors, including the WWS. APT actors developed and deployed custom ladder logic code to these devices, replacing the valid ladder logic with malicious code that continues to be observed to date.

For more information on this group’s activity, see the joint Cybersecurity Advisory IRGC-Affiliated Cyber Actors Exploit PLCs in Multiple Sectors, Including US Water and Wastewater Systems Facilities.

Ongoing Threat Actor Activity Against U.S.-Based Programmable Logic Controllers

The FBI observed Iranian-affiliated APT actors targeting internet-exposed PLCs with the intent to cause disruptions—including maliciously interacting with project files, and manipulating data displayed on HMI and SCADA displays—to U.S. critical infrastructure organizations. Iranian-affiliated APT targeting campaigns against U.S. critical infrastructure have recently escalated, likely in response to hostilities between Iran, and the United States and Israel.

(New, July 22, 2026) At one U.S. victim, the FBI observed the APT actors download a malicious project file to a targeted PLC using configuration software. Analysis indicated the project file retained ladder logic for downstream function but added logic that overrode specific instruction sets responsible for maintaining safe operating parameters in the victim’s environment.

Since at least March 2026, the authoring agencies identified (through engagements with victim organizations) an Iranian-affiliated APT group disrupted the function of PLCs. Organizations across several U.S. critical infrastructure sectors (including Government Services and Facilities, WWS, and Energy Sectors) deployed these PLCs within a wide variety of industrial automation processes. Some of the victims experienced operational disruption and financial loss.

Technical Details

Note: This advisory uses the MITRE ATT&CK^® Matrix for Enterprise framework, version 19. See the MITRE ATT&CK Tactics and Techniques section of this advisory for tables of the threat actors’ activity mapped to MITRE ATT&CK tactics and techniques.

Initial Access

(Updated, July 22, 2026) The authoring agencies observed Iranian-affiliated APT actors using several foreign-based IP addresses to access internet-facing PLCs manufactured by Rockwell Automation/Allen-Bradley, Schneider Electric, Siemens, and potentially other manufactured PLCs [T0883]. The actors used leased, third-party hosted infrastructure and manufacturers’ PLC programming software to connect to misconfigured victim PLCs. Inbound malicious traffic has been observed targeting PLC devices on the following ports: 44818, 2222, 102, and 502, as well as targeting modems on port 22. Targeted devices include:

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

Command and Control

(Updated, July 22, 2026) The targeting of ports [T0885] associated with other OT vendors’ protocols suggests these actors are opportunistically targeting devices manufactured by companies other than Rockwell Automation/Allen-Bradley, including Schneider Electric and Siemens. In one reported instance, the actors utilized Dropbear Secure Shell (SSH) software on victim modems to enable them to gain remote access through port 22 [T1219].

Exfiltration

(New, July 22, 2026) The authoring agencies observed Iranian-affiliated APT actors using configuration software—such as Rockwell Automation’s Studio 5000 Logix Designer, Schneider Electric’s EcoStruxure Control Expert, and Siemens’ Totally Integrated Automation (TIA) Portal—on leased, third-party hosted infrastructure to exfiltrate device project files from PLC devices to threat-actor-controlled infrastructure [T1041].

Impact

(Updated, July 22, 2026) After the actors extracted device project files, the FBI and CISA identified the modification and deletion of project file logic, to include Add-On Instructions (AOIs) and data manipulation on HMI and SCADA displays [T1565]. Additionally, the changes disabled critical shutdown and alarm logic, allowing systems to enter unsafe conditions without notifying operators of the anomalies.

Note: An AOI is analogous to a “Function Block” or “User Defined Function Block” used in other PLC vendor programs.

Indicators of Compromise

See Table 1 and Table 2 for recent IP addresses used by the Iranian-affiliated APT actors to communicate with PLCs manufactured by Rockwell Automation/Allen-Bradley, Schneider Electric, and Siemens in the United States.

Disclaimer: The FBI observed the threat actors using the IP addresses listed below in the specified time frames. This data is being provided for customers to query against logs for indications of historical targeting by the Iranian-affiliated APT actors. The authoring agencies recommend organizations investigate or vet these IP addresses prior to taking action, such as blocking.

MITRE ATT&CK Tactics and Techniques

See Table 3 to Table 6 for all referenced threat actor tactics and techniques in this advisory. The authoring agencies recommend organizations review historical TTPs for similar Iranian-affiliated cyber actor activity in IRGC-Affiliated Cyber Actors Exploit PLCs in Multiple Sectors, Including US Water and Wastewater Systems Facilities. For assistance with mapping malicious cyber activity to the MITRE ATT&CK framework, see CISA and MITRE ATT&CK’s Best Practices for MITRE ATT&CK Mapping and CISA’s Decider Tool.

Mitigations

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

Network Defenders

The cyber threat actors accessed PLCs manufactured by Rockwell Automation/Allen-Bradley, Schneider Electric, Siemens, and potentially other branded/manufactured PLCs to cause disruptions to victim systems. To safeguard against this threat and threats to other types of PLCs, the authoring agencies urge organizations to consider the following mitigations.

(Updated, July 22, 2026) In addition to contacting the authoring agencies, organizations and integrators operating PLCs from the manufacturers mentioned in this advisory should review the previously issued guidance to strengthen the security of their OT deployments:

• Rockwell Automation: Contact the Rockwell Automation Product Security Incident Response Team (PSIRT) at PSIRT@rockwellautomation.com for questions regarding this guidance, or to report cyber incidents related to Rockwell Automation products.
  
  • Refer to Rockwell Automation Security Advisory SD1771 for recommended PLC hardening measures and configuration guidance.
• Schneider Electric: Contact the Schneider Electric Corporate Product Cyber Emergency Response Team (CPCERT) at cpcert@se.com for questions regarding this guidance, or to report cyber incidents related to Schneider Electric products.
  
  • Refer to Schneider Electric’s Recommended Cybersecurity Best Practices and Cybersecurity User Guide for Modicon Controller Platform for guidance on securing and configuring PLCs.
• Siemens: Contact Siemens ProductCERT at productcert@siemens.com for questions regarding this guidance, or to report cyber incidents and vulnerabilities related to Siemens products.
  
  • Refer to Siemens Security Bulletin 104599 for a list of security measures to harden PLCs and in-depth configuration guides.
  • Siemens users should review the Cybersecurity for Industry Operational Guidelines and implement defense-in-depth controls within their automation systems.

Immediate steps to prevent the attack:

• Disconnect the PLC from the public-facing internet [CPG 3.S]. Follow the joint guidance Secure connectivity principles for OT to safely allow remote access. Specifically, “remove inbound port exposure,” so the OT system is never directly exposed to the internet or external networks, and to ensure all access is mediated, monitored, and controlled. Do this through a secure gateway (jump host) that brokers the connection.
  
  • Ensure cellular modems, used for remote field connectivity and access, are secured with strong authentication and updated.
  • Enable logs for connected modems and regularly review for suspicious activity to detect intrusions and improve incident response speed.
  • (New, July 22, 2026) To mitigate unauthorized access to OT via cellular modems, organizations should consider implementing isolated architectures, such as private Access Point Name (APN), 5G Public Network Integrated Non-Public Network (PNI-NPN), cellular Software-Defined Wide Area Network (SD-WAN), Zero Trust Network Access (ZTNA), or a site-to-site virtual private network (VPN).
• (New, July 22, 2026) Strictly control network access to PLC devices.
  
  • Configure firewall rules or access control list (ACL) security features on PLCs or programmable controllers to allow only authorized communications between expected control system devices. Block access from unauthorized or threat actor-controlled IP addresses, such as those associated with hosting providers.
• For controllers with a physical mode switch, place the physical mode switch into run position to prevent remote modification. Devices should only be in the program or remote position when updating or downloading software online and immediately switched back to the run position when complete. (See Rockwell Automation’s² System Security Design Guidelines for manufacturer’s instructions.)
  
  • (New, July 22, 2026) Prior to switching the device to run mode, review and validate project files, as changing modes will lock in the current project file downloaded to the device.
• For devices that allow software key switching, enable programming protection in PLC configuration software (S7 TIA Portal) to limit who can modify PLCs remotely. (See Siemens’ Cybersecurity for Industry Operational Guidelines for the manufacturer’s instructions.)

Follow-up steps to strengthen security posture:

• (New, July 22, 2026) Review project files running on PLCs for unauthorized changes. Use vendor-provided integrity checking tools and visually compare the running program to known good logic. Ensure reusable logic and input/output configurations are valid. For Rockwell Automation PLCs listed in the Customer Guidance to Disconnect Devices from the Internet, check the AOIs for any anomalous modifications.
  
  • If restoring from backups, verify the backup does not contain malicious logic before deployment.
  • Review logs and configurations on all connected devices, including modems, HMIs, and workstations, to assess potential lateral movement by threat actors. If it appears the actors connected to additional devices, reimage these devices to remove any potential malicious changes or access tools.
• (New, July 22, 2026) Ensure device passwords are changed from their default and are configured to use complex, unique combinations of letters, numbers, and symbols that are not easily guessable. Implementing robust password practices remains a critical security measure that can help prevent unauthorized access and strengthen the overall security posture of OT devices.
• (New, July 22, 2026) Take defensive measures to minimize the risk of exploitation. Conduct comprehensive impact analysis and risk assessments prior to deploying defensive measures.
• Create and test strong backups of the logic and configurations of PLCs. Store backup files offline and secure the physical removal media to enable fast recovery.
• Implement multifactor authentication (MFA) [CPG 3.F] for access to the OT network from an external network.
• If remote access is required, implement a network proxy, gateway, firewall, and/or VPN in front of the PLC to control network access.
  
  • A VPN or gateway device can enable MFA for remote access even if the PLC does not support MFA. Implement security rules on these higher-level network security mechanisms to prevent the type of repeated and sustained login attempts seen during a brute force attack. When possible, implement a device control list for workstations sending messages or connecting to OT components.
  • Use the device control list to monitor for logon activity for unexpected or unusual access to devices from the internet.
• Keep PLC devices updated with the latest software patches issued by the manufacturer. Use established downtime windows to install patches. Known Exploited Vulnerabilities may need to be prioritized outside a downtime window.
• Configure external and internal firewalls to block traffic using common ports associated with network protocols that are unnecessary for the particular network segment.
• Disable any unused authentication methods, logic, or features, such as default authentication keys and passwords, as well as unused or needed services such as Teletype Network (Telnet), File Transfer Protocol (FTP), Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP), Virtual Network Computing (VNC), and web services.
• Monitor asset management systems for device configuration changes, which can be used to understand expected parameter settings.
• Monitor the content of network traffic for the following:
  
  • Unusual logins to internet-connected devices or unexpected protocols to/from the internet. 
  • Functions of industrial control systems management protocols that change an asset’s operating mode or modify programs.
• (New, July 22, 2026) Ensure service providers are informed of active threats targeting internet-connected PLC devices. Owners and operators should communicate directly with service providers to address risks, especially when remote monitoring or maintenance is involved. Some service providers may rely on internet connectivity essential to monitor and maintain OT/ICS operations but may not be fully aware of active threats.

In addition, the authoring agencies recommend network defenders apply the following mitigations to limit potential adversarial use of common system and network discovery techniques, as well as reduce the impact and risk of compromise by cyber threat actors:

• Reduce risk exposure. CISA offers a range of services at no cost, including scanning and testing, to help organizations reduce exposure to threats via mitigating attack vectors. CISA’s Cyber Hygiene Services can help provide additional review of organizations’ internet-accessible assets. 

Device Manufacturers

Note: The following guidance is general in nature and not specific to any OT vendor. Some of the features, settings, and practices may already be offered by certain vendors. The inclusion of this guidance should not be interpreted as an assertion that vendors referenced do not offer such security features. Also, this advisory is not highlighting a new vulnerability in the identified products, but instead discusses opportunistic targeting. Device manufacturers can make opportunistic attacks more difficult at scale by encouraging more secure behavior by default and in operations, as discussed below. 

Although critical infrastructure organizations using PLC devices can take steps to mitigate the risks, it is ultimately the responsibility of the device manufacturer to build products secured by design and default. The authoring agencies urge device manufacturers to take ownership of their customers’ security outcomes by following the principles in the joint guide Secure by Demand: Priority Considerations for OT Owners and Operators when Selecting Digital Products, primarily:

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

By using secure by design tactics, software manufacturers can make product lines secure “out of the box” without requiring customers to spend additional resources making configuration changes, purchasing tiered security software and logs, monitoring, and making routine updates.

For more information on common misconfigurations and guidance on reducing their prevalence, see joint advisory NSA and CISA Red and Blue Teams Share Top Ten Cybersecurity Misconfigurations. For more information on secure by design, see CISA’s Secure by Design webpage and joint guide.

Validate Security Controls

In addition to applying mitigations, the authoring agencies recommend exercising, testing, and validating your organization's security program against the threat behaviors mapped to the MITRE ATT&CK for Enterprise framework in this advisory. The authoring agencies recommend testing your existing security controls inventory to assess how they perform against the ATT&CK techniques described in this advisory.

To get started:

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

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

Resources

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

Contact Information

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

• Contact CISA via CISA’s 24/7 Operations Center at contact@cisa.dhs.gov or 1-844-Say-CISA (1-844-729-2472). File a claim with FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) or contact your local FBI field office. When available, please include the following information regarding the incident: 
  • Date, time, and location of the incident;
  • Type of activity;
  • Number of people affected;
  • Type of equipment used for the activity; and
  • Name of the submitting company or organization, and a designated point of contact.
• For NSA cybersecurity guidance inquiries, contact CybersecurityReports@nsa.gov.
• Entities required to report incidents to DOE should follow established reporting requirements, as appropriate. For other energy sector inquiries, contact EnergySRMA@hq.doe.gov.
• Contact the Rockwell Automation PSIRT for questions regarding their guidance or for reporting cyber incidents related to Rockwell Automation products at PSIRT@rockwellautomation.com.
• Contact the Schneider Electric CPCERT at cpcert@se.com for questions regarding this guidance, or to report cyber incidents related to Schneider Electric products.
• Contact Siemens ProductCERT for up-to-date information about the security of Siemens products or to report cybersecurity vulnerabilities at productcert@siemens.com. For support with increasing the security of installed Siemens PLCs, contact Siemens Industrial Cybersecurity Services at services.automation@siemens.com. See Siemens ProductCERT and Siemens CERT for more information.

Disclaimer

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

Version History

April 7, 2026: Initial version.

July 22, 2026: Update includes new guidance on detecting malicious activity, expanded scope of observed targeting, and best practices for secure PLCs deployment.

Notes

¹Project file refers to the software file that contains ladder logic and configuration settings. On Rockwell Automation devices, it is referred to as an .ACD file.

² See CompactLogix 5370 Controllers (Chapter 5: “Select the Operating Mode of the Controller”) for more information on functions available for the switch.

Bots (and privacy-preserving browsers) not welcome

Browse a news site in a private window. Shop at a major retailer with a VPN. Visit a video streaming platform with anti-fingerprinting defenses tuned up. You’ll see the same responses: registration walls, block pages, and endless CAPTCHAs. The message is clear: if we think you might be a bot, you’re not welcome.

Websites have valid reasons for wanting to block bots. Bots enable volumetric abuse, abuse that wouldn’t otherwise be feasible if they had to be carried out by humans.  For example: SEO comment spam, credential stuffing and DDoSing. Consequently many sites employ dedicated anti-abuse tooling which aims to keep the bots out whilst minimizing friction for human visitors.

Unfortunately, that tooling is increasingly failing at both tasks. Browser privacy protections are dismantling the passive signals that anti-abuse systems depended on to identify and distinguish visitors. Meanwhile advances in generative AI have rendered CAPTCHAs ineffective: bots now solve them faster and more reliably than humans.

Many sites are switching to more invasive mechanisms and now ask visitors to disclose identifying information, e.g. an email address, a federated login or disabling their VPN. This means greater friction for users, since providing these details on a first visit takes time. It also compromises their privacy, since these details enable the same kinds of cross-site tracking that browser privacy protections were intended to mitigate.

This leaves users with a dilemma. The more effectively they protect their privacy, the harder it is for websites to distinguish them from bots and the worse the treatment they receive. Website operators are also suffering. The additional friction they inflict upon well-behaved visitors harms their site, but many are willing to pay the costs if it mitigates volumetric abuse.

Browser-based AI agents make this tension more acute. Sites may want to allow agents which are acting on behalf of individual users while blocking agents engaged in volumetric abuse. However, with no effective mechanisms to distinguish the two, websites are opting to block both. That hurts users, who should be free to choose the user agent they use to access the web; it hurts new browsers and agents, which struggle to interoperate; and it hurts sites, which lose legitimate visitors.

The consequence is that the web gets worse for everyone. Users get more friction or less privacy or both. Website operators see more volumetric abuse and the friction they add drives away users who would otherwise want to consume their content or services. New user agents struggle to access the same content as conventional browsers.

The Costs of Convenient Solutions

Some large ecosystem players have put forward solutions that leverage their control of the dominant operating systems and their deep integration with consumer hardware. These rely on device attestation: identifiers and privileged code baked into devices at the hardware level, which let manufacturers prove what software is running on a user’s device. Exposing this functionality to the web means attesting to sites that the user is running approved software with trusted hardware and therefore isn’t a bot. There have been two substantive proposals.

Google’s Web Environment Integrity, abandoned in 2023, was the blunt version. It attested to the user agent itself, as well as the operating system and device in use. Users would have lost control in two ways: once to the attester, which would decide which operating systems and devices could be blessed, and again to the website, which would decide which software to accept. If sites had adopted allow-lists of approved user agents, building a new browser would have become virtually impossible, and sites could have withdrawn access from any user agent they chose.

Apple’s Private Access Tokens, deployed across their ecosystem in 2022, have more subtle issues. Built on the Privacy Pass protocol standardized at the IETF, they get a lot right: a user receives a renewed, limited batch of one-time tokens that can be presented to websites without linking their visits together. This provides privacy for users and has shown rate limits to be an effective tool for sites – both points we’ll return to later in this post.

However, Private Access Tokens rely on device attestation, requiring that the hardware manufacturer be in overall control of the user’s device. Presenting a PAT tells a website you are locked into Apple’s rules for what counts as acceptable software. Due to PAT’s technical design^[1], there’s no way to open the system to other sources of scarcity without compromising the system’s privacy properties, meaning that if more widely deployed, access to the web would become tied to having bought expensive hardware from a small, hard to change set of vendors.

Both approaches are ultimately hostile to users and to the openness of the web. Both are premised on parts of a user’s device that sit within the manufacturer’s control and beyond the user’s own. Were they widely deployed, the web would become just another walled garden with centralized gatekeepers controlling acceptable hardware, operating systems and software. As convenient as these solutions are for the players who already dominate the ecosystem, we think there’s a better path.

A Better Path Forward

Bots’ harms arise from their ability to operate beyond human scale. For sites to prevent volumetric abuse they don’t actually need to know the user’s identity or receive cryptographic proof that they’re running approved software. If sites knew their visitors were restricted to a rate limit set by a site, that would be enough.  

Rate limits only make sense if they’re tied to something scarce; something an attacker can’t cheaply replicate to evade the limit. Without anchoring to a scarce resource, like the trusted hardware used in Private Access Tokens, attackers can generate as many fresh identities as they need to bypass the rate limit.

However, hardware is just one option for scarcity. Anything a user already has that an attacker can’t trivially spin up at scale will work: email addresses and phone numbers are naturally scarce. A paid subscription costs an attacker the same as a real user.  Even maintaining an account on a free service requires some non-trivial work.

What if we could use these scarce signals across the web? We could build an open ecosystem with many parties offering scarcity signals, each site choosing which to accept. By opening up who can provide a signal, and letting sites choose which to accept, we can avoid transferring control to device manufacturers and the resulting harms.

As a concrete example of who might be well positioned to provide such a signal, we can consider VPN providers acting as a subscription service. Sites routinely block VPN users indiscriminately, whether through a deliberate policy choice or through an indirect consequence of rate limiting visitors per IP address. But a VPN subscription is a perfect source of scarcity. If the VPN provider could vouch for its users so that sites could rate limit each user individually – then users would be able to browse the web with less friction and without giving up their VPN usage.

The catch is that building a system that can enable this on the open web whilst maintaining user’s privacy is genuinely difficult. It requires that we take information from one site — that this user holds some scarce thing — and expose it to other sites so that they can use that as the basis for their rate limiting. Letting one site verify a signal from another is the sort of information flow that privacy-preserving browsers have spent the last decade locking down to prevent cross-site tracking.

Our goal would be that no more than the minimum information gets through: a single bit communicating whether the user is below the rate limit set by the site. Leaking anything more – like the source of the scarcity that the rate limit is anchored to – would be unacceptable. Enabling a new cross-site information flow might feel like compromising privacy to gain better access, but reality is more nuanced. If a new system moves sites away from demanding that visitors be identifiable (whether through fingerprinting or login forms), it can be a win for both privacy and access.

The Foundations

The good news is that the cryptographic foundations for a privacy preserving approach already exist. The Privacy Pass protocol, originally developed in 2018 to reduce the friction of Cloudflare CAPTCHAs for Tor users, introduced the core primitive: a token that is unlinkable between issuance and redemption. You prove something to an issuer (e.g. by solving a CAPTCHA), receive some tokens, and later present a token to a website. The website can verify the token is legitimate, but can’t link it to the user it was issued to.

Figure 1: In Privacy Pass, a CAPTCHA provider can issue tokens to a client which can then be used to bypass challenges for future site visits. Even if the CAPTCHA provider and sites collude, they can’t use the tokens to identify the user or their browsing history.

Privacy Pass has gone on to be successfully deployed in systems where the issuer and verifier have a prior trust relationship: Apple uses it to authenticate users of Private Cloud Compute and Private Relay without linking their activity to their identity, Chrome uses it for two-hop IP protection, and Kagi uses it to provide private search. These deployments work in part because a small number of parties have agreed in advance on who issues tokens and who accepts them.

Applying this approach to an open system where any site can act as an issuer brings real challenges. Firstly, even though tokens are unlinkable, knowing a user has access to a specific issuer is a privacy leak on its own, because you can infer that the user meets the relevant issuance criteria. If one site can learn that you have a token from another site, that reveals that you have been to that site, which can be a major privacy problem. This compounds if sites can learn the set of issuers you have visited, since it becomes a fingerprint which can be used to identify you.

Generic techniques exist for proving a statement in zero knowledge: we can prove that a client has a token from a set of acceptable issuers without revealing which specific issuer it is. We’ll call this issuer blinding. The generic approach is often slow, but bespoke approaches tailored to the underlying cryptography can improve this considerably.

Another challenge is how sites using rate limits decide who to trust to issue tokens. If an issuer misbehaves then the site’s rate limits become ineffective, enabling volumetric abuse. However, if we need to prevent the site from learning which issuers a user has access to, the site is only going to know that one of its trusted issuers was used, not which one. This makes mistakes or misbehaviour by an issuer difficult to detect, and makes it hard for sites to evaluate new issuers. Solving this challenge is essential for openness. Without adequate information, sites are likely to lean towards conservative issuer selection. That could lead to less choice between Anchors, which in turn could lead to a new form of gatekeeper being created. 

To solve this, sites at least need a way to calculate an aggregate score for each issuer they use. This should roughly correspond to how much of the traffic it considers abusive to have come from users using that particular issuer. Mozilla has long invested in systems like Prio which use multiparty computation (MPC) to protect user privacy whilst enabling aggregate measurements of system behaviour.

Privacy Pass also struggles to handle dynamic adjustments to rate limits. Once tokens have been issued, they’re difficult to invalidate without either revoking all active tokens or risking attacks which can compromise the privacy of users. It’s also beneficial if sites can adjust rate limits on a per client basis, for example by increasing rate limits where they become more confident the client is benign and withdrawing access when abuse is detected.

Anonymous Credit Tokens offer a useful building block to solve this problem. Conventional Privacy Pass schemes rely on issuing a bucket of tokens but ACT works differently by enabling the use of a credential with state. For example, an ACT credential can hold an internal counter. When the credential is presented, the site can check the counter is over some threshold and mutate it, increasing or decreasing the counter whenever the site’s perception of the holder has improved or worsened. Critically, the exact value is never leaked to the site, preventing the site from tracking the holder and ensuring successive presentations of the same credential can’t be linked.

Putting it together

So how can we combine these techniques to build a system which can enable privacy-preserving rate limiting on the open web? In May 2026, we participated in a W3C CG Meeting in collaboration with Cloudflare, Chrome and other web stakeholders in which we started sketching out a design we’re calling PACT – Private Access Control Tokens.

Rate limits need a starting point, a source of scarcity to anchor on. We’ll call an entity that provides such a source an Anchor. To a user who meets the Anchor’s criteria, like having a subscription, an account in good standing, or a verified phone number, an Anchor issues a batch of Endorsement tokens, following the Privacy Pass model. In practice, Anchors could be any website which has access to this kind of signal. An Endorsement conveys scarcity to other sites.

That’s enough for a simple system where access is either granted or denied. But as we discussed earlier, we also want the ability to increase access where a visitor behaves benignly and decrease it where they don’t. The state needed to enforce a rate limit can’t live in the Endorsement, because Endorsements cross trust boundaries between unrelated sites. We need a second object that can hold that state, scoped to the party that maintains it.

We’ll call that the party that handles rate limiting for a site a Moderator and the stateful object a Credential. A Credential is specific to a Moderator and, unlike endorsements, we limit each site to nominating a single Moderator. In the common case the site itself plays the Moderator role, so there’s no new entity or trust boundary. A Moderator can also be a third-party service shared across many sites, allowing those sites to cooperatively share a rate limit. 

In the terminology of the previous section, the Anchor is the issuer of Endorsements, and the Moderator both verifies Endorsements and issues Credentials. A Moderator manages rate-limit policy: it decides which Anchors it trusts, accepts their Endorsements, and issues a Credential in return.

Figure 2: (1) Clients acquire Endorsements from Anchors in the course of normal browsing to sites they have relationships with. (2) Clients can exchange Endorsements for a stateful Credential from a Moderator. (3) Credentials can be used to access sites which use that Moderator. Credentials can be updated over time.

Directly revealing which Anchor backed an Endorsement would leak a lot of information about the user. The issuer blinding techniques from the previous section solve this: when an Endorsement is redeemed, the Moderator only learns that it came from one of the Anchors it trusts, but not which one.

When a Moderator covers more than one site, we let Credentials be presented across all of them but partition cookies and storage as we would for any other third party site. The unlinkability of Credential presentations keeps this from creating a new cross-site identifier. The benefit is that good behaviour on one site improves access on every site the Moderator covers, and bad behaviour cuts it everywhere. Websites can already build the same capability with a shared account system, so this doesn’t create a new way to lock users out, but it does provide a new way to grant access without requiring users to give up their privacy.

Enabling Moderators that cover many sites carries a centralisation risk, similar to the concentration we see today in anti-abuse providers. The mitigation is that the choice of Moderator stays with each site, and the choice of trusted Anchors stays with each Moderator. This can’t reverse the centralisation pressure the web already faces, but it ensures this system won’t lead to additional lock-in: a new Anchor or a new Moderator can be adopted without coordinating with a dominant vendor.

The system then has three flows. First, the user receives Endorsements from an Anchor in the course of normal interaction, based on the Anchor’s positive view of the user. This is a relatively rare operation for any given user and Anchor. After all, as our source of scarcity, Endorsements should not be too easy to accumulate.

Figure 3: In the course of normal browsing, clients browse to websites they have a relationship with. These sites can act as Anchors by issuing Endorsements to clients.

Second, when the user arrives at a site that works with a Moderator, the browser spends an Endorsement from an Anchor the Moderator trusts and receives a Credential in return. The presentation hides which Anchor was used, and neither the Anchor nor the Moderator can trace the Endorsement back to where it was issued. The Moderator decides what initial balance the Credential starts with. If the user has no Endorsements from suitable Anchors at all, existing mechanisms (CAPTCHAs, account creation, federated login) could be used to bootstrap a Credential the same way, so the system degrades to today’s experience rather than locking the user out.

Figure 4: When the client browses to a site, it can prompt the client for a Credential from the Moderator it uses. If the Client doesn’t have a suitable Credential, but does have a suitable Endorsement, it can exchange it for a Credential with the Moderator. In practice, the Moderator and the Site might be the same server.  

Third, as the user browses, the browser presents the Credential and the Moderator updates the internal state of the Credential. The Moderator can reward behaviour that looks benign and penalize suspicious activity, but can’t track the use of the Credential or identify it if it’s used on other sites the Moderator covers. Revocation falls out of the same mechanism: a Moderator can refuse to return an updated Credential. 

Figure 5: The Client can present the Credential on sites which use the matching Moderator. Sites can check if the Credential is in good standing. The sites can then adjust the access the Credential has in response to behaviour. E.g. increasing it when they gain confidence in the client or reducing it in response to malicious behaviour.

In practice, all of this would happen transparently to the user through a WebAPI that sites acting as Anchors or Moderators would call from JavaScript. In an ideal ecosystem, users would accumulate Endorsements through normal browsing, just by virtue of the sites they already visit, and the rest of the flow would happen in the background as they move around the web, leaving users with meaningfully less friction.

AI agents acting on behalf of a user slot into the same flow. An agent can carry its user’s Credentials, in which case the user remains accountable for how the agent behaves. Sites would not need to grant any more access than they would to the user themselves. Alternatively, the operator of an agent can run its own Anchor and vouch for its agents the way other Anchors vouch for human users. Sites retain control over which Anchors they accept, so they can choose how to treat agent traffic without needing a separate detection mechanism.

Several mechanisms combine to keep the information about a user that flows out close to a single bit. Cryptographic unlinkability ensures successive Credential presentations cannot be tied to each other or to the original issuance, so a user’s visits cannot be joined into a history. Each site is bound to a single Moderator, so the set of Moderators a user has Credentials with never becomes a cross-site fingerprint. The Anchor-to-Credential exchange happens in an isolated browsing context, so during ordinary browsing the only thing the site or its Moderator ever observes is a Credential presentation: the site only learns if the user has a valid Credential below the rate limit, or nothing. When the Moderator updates a Credential, it adjusts the credentials state without learning what it is.

The additional privacy given to users from Issuer blinding makes participating in the system more challenging for Moderators. Because the Moderator can’t see which Anchor backed a Credential at issuance, it can’t give a Credential from a strong Anchor more access than one from a weak Anchor: doing so would itself leak which Anchor was used. The initial access has to be uniform across the Moderator’s whole pool of Anchors, which in practice means setting it at the strength of the weakest. However, this is only relevant for that initial access, the Moderator can update credentials according to the holder’s behavior, enabling Credential’s to accrue access over time.

Building an open ecosystem also requires that sites can make effective decisions about the Anchors they choose to trust. Multiparty computation systems like Prio enable aggregate scoring without compromising privacy. When users present Credentials, they can provide an encrypted share which identifies the anchor they used and can be privately aggregated to compute the quality of an issuer.

Next Steps

We think the architecture we’ve sketched for PACT has the right shape, but many of the details still need to be worked out and the entire system needs rigorous privacy and security analysis.

We want to do that work in the open. The IETF is the natural venue for the cryptographic protocols underneath, and the W3C for the WebAPI surface that sits on top. We’ll be bringing draft specifications to these bodies as soon as they’re ready, and we welcome collaborators from across the ecosystem: browser vendors, site operators, anti-abuse providers, and the cryptography community.

If successful, we think we can provide a system which will keep the web open and private, while still giving sites the rate-limiting signal they need.

Acknowledgements

The ideas described here are the result of collaboration and conversations with many people, including: Watson Ladd, Thibault Meunier, Michele Orrù, Trevor Perrin, Eric Rescorla, Samuel Schlesinger, Martin Thomson, Eric Trouton, Benjamin Vandersloot & Cathie Yun. 

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

In this post we walk through what folks have found on their journey to learn the Rust programming language with ups and downs covered.

As a disclaimer, LLMs (Large Language Models) come up in this post because our interviewees brought them up. We're scoping discussion to their use as a learning tool, covering research and example generation, not broader questions about AI (Artificial Intelligence) in software development.

Many paths to needing Rust

The interviews surfaced several different paths into Rust: curiosity, embedded work, job-market pressure, organizational adoption, and reassignment after a team or company chose Rust. That last path matters because many learners are not evaluating Rust from a blank slate; they are trying to become productive after Rust has already arrived in their work.

"Funny enough, I've advocated for more niche languages than Rust in the past. Rust has pretty much stopped being as much of a niche language as it was, but it's not Java." -- Fractional CTO

Rust learning resources

Likely as expected, the folks that we talked to reach for a range of resources to learn Rust. Some reach for official documentation, such as The Rust Programming Language Book and find that sufficient to build on what the compiler was already showing them.

"I started with the official Rust documentation because there are a lot of great examples of how features like the borrow checker work." -- Software engineer at an Automotive supplier

Others needed more passes and more formats, sometimes reaching for resources the community maintains, such as Rustlings, The Little Book of Rust Macros, and Learn Rust With Entirely Too Many Linked Lists.

"The first time I went through the chapter in [The Rust Programming Language] on borrow checking, I was like, what is this? I read it again, then I watched a YouTube video of someone explaining the chapter." -- Rust freelance consultant

"Rust book, Rustlings, Zero to Production in Rust, Jon Gjengset tutorials. A bunch of books. It's not a one-pass reading. Can't say how many times I've gone through it." -- Software engineer working on video streaming and storage

These resources have brought up an entire generation of Rust programmers. But, to some, there is a perception that these resources have trouble keeping pace with the language.

"We'd like to use [The Rust Programming Language/'the book'], but we've found that it's out of date, unfortunately. We've looked at the GitHub repo and found it's got a lot of unresolved issues and unmerged PRs" -- Principal Software Engineering work on Rust adoption in a regulated industry

Whether or not this is factually true, Rust's growth has nonetheless put more scrutiny on these materials. Companies evaluating adoption and engineers getting reassigned to Rust teams are looking at them with fresh eyes and finding the gaps that affect their own evaluation.

Beginner stumblings and unlearning habits

It's pretty typical for Rust to be the 2nd, 3rd or Nth programming language that someone picks up. They'd end up writing their most familiar language in Rust, whether C++ patterns, Java patterns, or whatever they knew, for months or even years. Eventually they got comfortable enough to start writing idiomatic Rust.

"There's a bit of a drop in productivity compared to C if you're already familiar with it just because you're learning new rules, new syntax." -- Principal Firmware Engineer (mobile robotics)

"In the beginning it was more poking around the code and adding and removing some ampersands and asterisks to try to make sense of mut and not mut and whatever." -- Senior engineer with 20 years of Java experience in cloud and IoT

We also spoke with someone who found that not having much of a programming background seemed to benefit people picking up Rust. Not having worn-in grooves from other languages may play a role here, and it's worth investigating further.

"I had someone who had never programmed much before start working on the internals of [our Rust project]. She was just fine with getting into Rust. It's more of the senior people that struggle as they need to unlearn practices which may work in other languages, but it's not the 'Rust' way." -- Researcher, Automotive OEM R&D Lab

Learning to work with the borrow checker

We heard a lot about learning to work with the borrow checker instead of against it. People get there through different paths, but a few patterns came up repeatedly.

The compiler as teacher

Rust's diagnostics did the teaching on their own, especially around lifetimes.

"If you mess up the lifetimes in a piece of code that you've written by hand, I usually find that Rust's diagnostics are very helpful" -- Researcher working on static analysis of Rust programs

"Whatever's missing, the compiler usually fills in: it tells me 'you need to declare the lifetime of this reference', so I know and can figure it out. That all generally works pretty well." -- Senior Software Engineer

Learning by doing

Others felt like they only really internalized the borrow checker after writing a lot of Rust. It took projects, coding challenges, prototyping and so on until at some point it clicked.

"I actually did not understand the borrow checker until I spent a lot of time writing Rust" -- Founder of a startup built on Rust

"Besides the prototyping work, I also did coding-challenge-type stuff to get familiar with Rust for Advent of Code. [..] It eventually clicked to the point where I wasn't fighting with Rust, it was working for me. I had that experience other people describe: when I managed to get my program to fit with Rust, it worked. I didn't spend time debugging." -- Principal Software Engineer, large SaaS provider

Letting go of "clone guilt"

Some learners arrive with the assumption that good Rust means zero clones, zero copies, lifetimes threaded through everything. They set the bar at optimal before they've learned how to write idiomatic Rust, and it makes the borrow checker feel harder than it needs to be at the outset.

"On one of my first projects, I was like, 'I don't ever want to copy or clone anything,' so I carefully wove through all the lifetimes and got myself into a bit of a bind. Then I saw someone else just cloning the struct I was working with, and it was super cheap. Sometimes you can just clone and it's going to be okay." -- Researcher at a university

The experienced Rust developers we spoke with consistently said the same thing: clone freely while you're learning, then optimize when you understand the problem. Rust's reputation for performance and correctness feeds this. Newcomers assume anything less than optimal is wrong before they've written a first working program, and clone guilt is how that shows up.

We think it could be an interesting area of future study to check into the patterns Rust programmers employ at different levels of experience and under which circumstances. One member of the Rust Vision doc team that's very experienced with Rust noted that there's kind of an "expected shape" they understand as passing the compiler. This knowledge influences how they approach writing code which wouldn't take that shape and they naturally find themselves understanding when to use so-called workarounds, such as passing around indices into arrays or Vecs.

Multi-paradigm, but not the OOP some are used to

The Rust programming language is multi-paradigm, and how that lands depends on what you're coming from. We heard some that came from a functional background were delighted with digging into learning how much Rust inherits from that lineage. Some others noted that they and others on their teams struggled to unlearn the object-oriented style they'd come to use heavily in other languages like C++ and Java.

"Developers coming from C++ tend to think object-oriented. I think that's a difference between C++ and Rust." -- Architect at Automotive OEM

"I had exactly that thing, where I would apply all my years of Java and JS thinking, where I could just create some object, not care about it, return it, have it sloshing around between various functions. Found myself reaching for these patterns and then being told 'no, you cannot do that'." -- Principal Engineer at a SaaS company

Developers coming from functional programming had less to unlearn: strong typing, pattern matching, and an expression-oriented style were already familiar.

"My background has been more functional programming, strong typing. That originated for me as a Lisper: once a Lisper, always a Lisper." -- Principal Software Engineer working on Rust tooling for safety-regulated industries

"The languages I primarily used before Rust were things like OCaml. Way back, I came from C and C++, the classic languages, and then I spent quite a long time doing primarily pure functional stuff. These days I've ended up back in what I like to think of as a pragmatic center ground [with Rust]." -- Fractional CTO

Teaching Rust in academia

We spoke with a university professor that's been teaching Rust generally. In the academic environment, they were able to use proxies for some things such as "traits are like interfaces in Java" because the students had already gone through a set of courses in their first and second years that taught them Java. They introduced concepts slowly throughout the course, choosing to deal with some more complex topics like generics later. The outcome generally was that students had no problem picking up Rust in this setting.

"I couldn't see any big difference on the embedded side. We also teach an embedded class, and we did an experiment. Half of the students' feedback was worse on the Rust class, mostly because they needed to build the project themselves. The C students just got one from [an LLM], absolutely no problem." -- University Professor, on teaching Rust

The C cohort leaned on LLMs for the project in ways the Rust cohort couldn't. We don't yet have a clear answer for why.

What did come through clearly was the Rust cohort's experience with the community. Some students needed to figure out which drivers to use for the embedded project and how to use them. Their professor encouraged them to open issues and ask questions directly on GitHub, and the maintainers responded. Students who had never contributed to open source before were getting answers from the people who wrote the code.

Learning using LLMs

Some experienced folks shared that they saw LLMs as a tool that can help someone come up to speed quickly, either as a research tool or for generating example Rust code to understand concepts.

"I'm optimistic that there's a way to work [LLMs] in that will cut down that learning curve. One of the big things these tools bring is reducing the learning curve in general; these are very good tools to help you navigate a space that you don't know yet." -- Maintainer of large open source Rust crate

"I try [LLMs] out once a month, usually for generating an example or something like this. Just like with Stack Overflow: when you read an example, you should read it carefully and try to understand it. Not copy and paste it, but type it in your own words in code and then check it, because that's where the teeny tiny little mistakes are." -- Founder of startup built on Rust

For some learners, an LLM is just another way to find answers, no different than a search engine.

"So for the most part, picking up Rust - how do I learn? I'll [use web search for] things, I'll ask [an LLM], I'll just poke around and read the code." -- Senior Software Engineer working in a regulated space

One founder went further and claimed that LLMs change who can become a Rust developer. One consulting company founder described hiring high school graduates with no systems programming background and training them as Rust developers, with LLMs filling in the learning gaps that would previously have required years of experience.

"At the beginning, I was worried, but now that we have [LLMs] supporting development, the difficulty of the language doesn't matter. I'm seeing a huge opportunity behind strong runtime languages like Rust. [..] In [Developing Country] we hire 20-25 high school graduates, train them to be Rust programmers, then they enhance our workforce worldwide." -- Founder of a consulting company

We heard this from one organization. This is a claim that the combination of Rust's compiler and LLM tooling can dramatically shorten the path from beginner to working developer. Whether it generalizes depends on questions we can't answer from a single interview: how long these developers stay, what kind of code they can maintain independently, and whether this training/learning model works outside this company's particular structure. If it holds up, the pool of people who can become Rust developers is much larger than the usual hiring profile suggests.

Organizational considerations for Rust learners

We spoke with a number of folks on teams that are using Rust in larger organizations. Teams wanted to know that everyone would end up at roughly the same level of competence, which led a good number to invest in training courses to get there. Some leaders found that staff was able to ramp well enough by reading The Rust Programming Language, going through Rustlings, and then picking up lower risk and priority tickets to work on. Having a sense of community was also important within companies; it helps people know they are not alone when they are asked to work on Rust after, say, a reorganization happens.

"[..] the idea with the class as opposed to 'just read the Rust book on your own' was that this gives everyone kind of the same baseline going in." -- Principal Firmware Engineer (mobile robotics)

"So typically we're going to have people work through Rustlings, work through The Rust Programming Language. We have them then start to pick up lower risk tickets to work on." -- Principal Engineer at a large SaaS provider

"We've got an internal Slack channel for Rust learning where people can drop questions and others will come in and answer them. That helps build up understanding and community." -- Software Engineer at a large corporation

Some organizations found that while the person they'd hire would need to learn Rust, it was still preferable to the alternative of hiring someone for a critical piece of software written in another language.

"They needed to grow and maintain this C++ codebase. They had a C++ wizard, and they tried for about two years to find someone with the same level of expertise. They ended up hiring people that didn't know Rust and ramping them up, creating FFI bindings from the C++ side so they could work in Rust. And you can feel it: the borrow checker is teaching these people the right way to handle their systems." -- Principal Engineer at an Automotive OEM

The community and helping each other aspect seems to grow bonds as organizations mature.

"Our team is [all about] mentorship. I've mentored people coming up to speed on Rust, and people help each other hugely." -- Principal Software Engineer at a large SaaS company

Silent attrition

We identified some cases where people have approached Rust and bounced off of it, for one reason or another. In the below case, someone with a background in a language with fewer guardrails found themselves frustrated enough with Rust to walk away.

"All of that means that that embedded ecosystem is very frustrating to somebody who comes from C and is like, why can't I just get a pointer to this peripheral and then write into the registers. What are you doing to me? [..] My friend never got over that. He looked at it and said, I'm not going to deal with this and walked away." -– A second University Professor

There may be language features that for a particular domain are not seen as comfortable or usable yet, such as async Rust usage in a safety domain. We'd like to map which language features feel off-limits in which domains; async in safety-critical work probably isn't the only case.

"We're not fully sure how async [Rust] will work out in the long run in our domain. [..] People don't feel comfortable yet since C++14 doesn't provide such concepts. [..] It's the chicken-and-egg problem again: we probably need to gain some experience to see whether we can actually benefit from these new concepts in the automotive and safety domains." -- Team Lead at Automotive Supplier (ASIL D target)

We heard in at least one case, that while the language was challenging and there was a near bounce, the tooling helped keep them coming back and trying.

"Well, I think my early impressions of Rust - one is I find C++ so intimidating, and I think a big part of why I was able to succeed at [..] learning Rust is the tooling. I mean, all this makes sense [..] but it's like, for me, getting started with Rust, the language was challenging, but the tooling was incredibly easy." -- Founder of another startup built on Rust

While it might be considered more of a community concern, if there are interactions online and in spaces that point to learners having so-called "skill issues" this feeds into the narrative that Rust must be hard to learn. We may be unintentionally turning away Rust Project contributors and maintainers due to the vibes being put out when new learners show up in certain spaces.

"People are very helpful, but generally the attitude is: if your program is very complicated, it's mostly a skill issue. There's not that much empathy when people get stuck learning, and a lot of people are just pushed away by it. There's probably a huge number of people who silently stop wanting to write Rust, because at some point it gets complicated and the feedback they get is 'you just need to be a better programmer, obviously'." -- Software Engineer at a SaaS Provider

Feedback on near-bounces from survey

We found a few interesting perspectives collected in the Rust Vision doc survey which we administered with examples of bouncing and coming back:

"I started before 1.0, got stuck very soon when trying to translate patterns from C++ to Rust (due to borrow checking). I tried again after 1.0 and it stuck. [..]" -- Survey Respondent A

Survey Respondent A went on to share in a more detailed response about a perceived weakness in Rust learning materials related to lifetimes and the borrow checker are explained. There was an observation that it's fairly easy to run into more complex situations with lifetimes and the borrow checker. They felt that the current state of this sort of material and tutorials is fairly superficial and can leave learners stuck when they run into those more complex situations.

One respondent that bounced once and came back shared challenges around usage of async. In concert with Rust's memory-safety and the borrow checker, they found some of the nitty-gritty details of async were difficult to learn. While we're aware of the Rust Project's continuous efforts to improve Rust's async story, this is another data point of a user that faced challenges.

Another survey respondent shared how they had multiple times bounced in trying to learn Rust. They returned after a year or so and found Rustlings to be highly motivating. We note that having multiple pathways for folks to learn Rust opens up more possibilities for those that nearly bounced, just like this person.

Need more focused work on silent attritrion

The thing that stood out most to us was the lack of real, first-hand knowledge of having bounced when learning Rust. While this is an obvious effect of soliciting answers to our survey and opportunities to interview through Rust channels and our networks, this cohort is good future candidate where interviews could start.

Conclusions

Across these conversations, the experience of learning Rust depended heavily on context. Why someone was learning and what support they had mattered as much as the borrow checker. The same kinds of examples kept coming up: a training course that got a team to a shared baseline, a maintainer answering a student's first GitHub issue, and a colleague whose code showed that cloning was okay.

That context is largely something the community has a hand in. With that in mind, here is what we take away from what we heard, and what we still don't know.

What seems worth trying

Learning materials aimed at unlearning. Syntax barely came up when people described their struggles. People struggled with unlearning habits from previous languages, whether OOP structuring from C++ and Java or the instinct to grab a raw pointer to a peripheral. Most of our learning materials teach Rust from first principles, and that works. What we didn't come across is much written for, say, the engineer with ten years of Java who lands on a Rust team after a reorg: material that names the patterns they'll reach for that won't transfer, and shows what to do instead. The professor we spoke with did a version of this in the classroom, leaning on "traits are like interfaces in Java" and saving generics for later in the course, and the students did fine. Something similar could work outside the classroom too.

Put the "clone freely while you're learning" advice somewhere official. Every experienced developer we spoke with gave the same advice, but learners seem to mostly pick it up by accident, like the researcher who happened to see someone else cloning the struct they had been carefully threading lifetimes through. Saying it early in official materials would take some of the steepness out of the curve. The broader version belongs there too: idiomatic Rust doesn't have to mean optimal Rust, especially on a first project.

Diagnostics are already a primary learning resource: several people told us the compiler taught them lifetimes before any documentation did. Diagnostics reach learners right at the moment they're stuck. When writing new ones, it seems worth keeping the confused newcomer in mind alongside the expert, because for a lot of people this is where the learning happens.

Is "the book" actually out of date? Whether or not The Rust Programming Language or other materials are actually behind, a team evaluating Rust looked at its repository, saw unresolved issues and unmerged PRs, and moved on. As more companies evaluate adoption, more people will look at these materials with the same fresh eyes. Visible issue triage and some communication about what's current and what's planned would address the perception, separately from whatever content work may or may not be needed.

How stuck learners get treated is shaping who stays. We heard about students getting answers on GitHub from the maintainers who wrote the code, and we heard about learners being told their struggles were a skill issue. The first group came away with a lasting good impression of Rust. Some of the second group walked away entirely, and because they leave quietly, it's easy to underestimate how many of them there are. The welcoming side of the community came up unprompted as a reason people stayed, so we know it makes a difference when we get this right.

Every organization we spoke with described essentially the same ramp-up for bringing a team to Rust. Teams that brought groups of developers to Rust described roughly the same approach: get everyone to a shared baseline with a training course or with The Rust Programming Language and Rustlings, start people on lower-risk tickets, and give them somewhere internal to ask questions. Several organizations also found that hiring developers without Rust experience and ramping them up worked out better than continuing to search for rare expertise in another language. None of this is complicated, and teams weighing adoption don't need to invent a training program from scratch.

What we still don't know

The biggest gap is the people we didn't reach. Nearly everyone we spoke with stuck with Rust long enough to be reachable through Rust channels, so the stories of bouncing off came to us second-hand: a friend who walked away from embedded Rust, colleagues who quietly stopped after the responses they got. As we wrote in our first post, finding people who decided against Rust takes targeted outreach. If the proposed User Research team comes together, talking with learners who bounced would make a good early project, and learning is probably the area where that research would teach us the most.

We also don't know what to make of LLMs as a learning tool yet. They came up as a search engine, as an example generator, and in one organization's case as something that makes training high school graduates into working Rust developers possible. We saw a classroom where the C cohort leaned on LLMs in ways the Rust cohort couldn't, and we don't have an explanation for it. All of this comes from a handful of conversations, so we treat it as a set of leads to follow up on. Given how quickly the tools are changing, it seems better to study this deliberately than to wait and see what folklore develops.

The folks we spoke with showed that people do get there: with enough passes through the materials and enough code written, it eventually clicks. The opportunities above are mostly about making it work for the people who didn't pick Rust on purpose, and for the ones who would have stuck around if their early experience had gone a little differently.

Huawei may have just become NVIDIA’s biggest problem in China.

In this video, we break down Huawei’s new Ascend 950PR AI chip, why it matters for the global semiconductor war, and how U.S. export restrictions may have accelerated China’s push toward technological independence. The Ascend 950PR is designed mainly for AI inference and is built by SMIC using advanced DUV multi-patterning. Huawei is also attacking NVIDIA’s biggest advantages beyond hardware by building a CUDA compatibility layer through CANN and scaling thousands of Ascend NPUs together inside the Atlas 950 SuperPod using UnifiedBus interconnect technology. We also look at reported demand from ByteDance, Alibaba Cloud, and Tencent, the role of DeepSeek models optimized for Ascend hardware, and why NVIDIA could lose major market share inside China even without Huawei beating its most advanced chips in every benchmark. This is bigger than one AI chip. China is building a parallel AI ecosystem across chips, software, networking, cloud infrastructure, and AI models — and Huawei is quickly becoming the center of it.

#Huawei #NVIDIA #AIChips #Ascend950PR #ChinaTech #Semiconductors #ArtificialIntelligence

Play War Thunder for FREE on PC, PlayStation, Xbox, and mobile using the links below! New to the game, or returning after six months? You'll get a massive bonus pack on PC and consoles packed with vehicles, boosters, and more. Claim your bonus and start playing today!

PC/Console: https://playwt.link/techquickie
Mobile: https://wtm.game/techquickie

Computer memory is officially worth more than gold, thanks to AI. So why do our CPUs and GPUs still act like selfish jerks and refuse to share it? They can and it's called Unified Memory, and in this video we’re breaking down the physical bottlenecks of traditional PC architecture and explaining how Apple - and now AMD and NVIDIA - are rewriting the rules of hardware efficiency. Special thanks to Professor Prashant Nair from UBC for lending his engineering expertise!

Leave a reply with your requests for future episodes.

► SHOP OUR PRODUCTS: https://lttstore.com
► GET A VPN: https://www.piavpn.com/TechQuickie
► GET EXCLUSIVE CONTENT ON FLOATPLANE: https://lmg.gg/lttfloatplane
► SPONSORS, AFFILIATES, AND PARTNERS: https://lmg.gg/partners

Elon Musk has admitted he became too consumed by politics during his volatile alliance with Donald Trump and his brief appointment as the president’s financial axman, running the so-called “department of government efficiency” (Doge).

The world’s richest person, and briefly its first trillionaire after his SpaceX company floated on the New York stock exchange in June, made the confession in a wide-ranging interview with the Economist published on Thursday. He shared his positions on subjects from foreign wars to AI, and made a number of eye-opening predictions for the future.

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.

The post Apple’s foldable iPhone to grab 25% of foldable smartphone sales this year – Counterpoint Research appeared first on MacDailyNews.

It has now been over 700 days since my last YouTube video so I thought I'd take a moment to share a few life updates and just generally check-in with you guys.

With Gardyn, you can grow fresh, healthy food at home all year round. Plus, enjoy $100 off your Gardyn when you click the link below! 🌿 https://bit.ly/4fRyQsa

👉 BOOK A TECH THERAPY SESSION WITH DAVID https://techtalkamerica.com/techtherapy 👈

The safety of our community is our highest priority.

For this reason, we have decided to postpone DEF CON Middle East. The evolving security situation in the region makes it impossible to concentrate on delivering the experience attendees deserve.

We understand that this news is disappointing, but we believe it's the most responsible choice right now. We look forward to bringing the full DEF CON experience to friends new and old in Bahrain, and we will share new dates and information as soon as they are confirmed.

In the meantime, we'd like to offer our sincere thanks to the community, sponsors, and supporters for their understanding and continued trust. We hope and expect to welcome you to DEF CON Middle East soon, under better circumstances for everyone.

-The DEF CON Middle East Team

Thailand SEC Files Complaint Over the 2021 Bitkub Cyberattack 

Bitkub Says Disclosure Decision was Intended to Prevent Customer Losses

Co-founders Replaced Stolen Assets After Cyberattack on Bitkub 

Thailand SEC Previously Confirmed Customer Assets Were Intact 

Read more →

The post Governing Al agents at scale: Lessons from the leaders who’ve done it appeared first on IT Security News.

The post Governing Al agents at scale: Lessons from the leaders who’ve done it appeared first on Help Net Security.

Strip away the geopolitics, the hacktivist noise, and the espionage headlines, and one number from the first half of 2026 stands out above everything else: 1,721. That's how many ransomware attacks hit organizations in the United States between January and June, according to new research from Cyble Research and Intelligence Labs (CRIL). It's not just the highest total of any country tracked in the report — it's more than the next nine most-targeted countries combined.

Canada, in second place worldwide, recorded 179 attacks. Germany logged 155. The United Kingdom, 138. Add up the rest of the global top 10 — France, Italy, Spain, Thailand, India and Brazil — and the total still falls more than 600 attacks short of the U.S. figure alone. Out of 3,836 ransomware attacks CRIL tracked worldwide this half, roughly 45% landed on American soil.

Also read: Fairlife Ransomware Attack Hits Production Systems, U.S. Operations Suspended

A Single Region, an Outsized Share

Widen the lens slightly and the picture holds. North America as a whole recorded 1,981 ransomware attacks in H1 2026 — more than half of every ransomware incident Cyble observed globally — alongside 35 data breach and leak incidents and 9 initial access sale listings. The report describes the region as home to "a mature, persistently active RaaS ecosystem operating at high volume across a wide range of industries and geographies."

Two ransomware-as-a-service operators did much of the damage. Qilin, the single most prolific gang worldwide, claimed 370 of those North American attacks on its own — nearly 19% of the regional total. Akira followed with 268, and INC Ransom added another 164. Together, Qilin and Akira alone accounted for more than half of all recorded ransomware activity across the region, a level of concentration that points to a small number of highly organized affiliate networks doing the bulk of the damage rather than a diffuse swarm of opportunists.

Also read: Qilin Ransomware Group’s TTPs Examined by Researchers

Where the Pressure Lands

Professional Services bore the brunt of North American ransomware activity, with INC Ransom showing a marked preference for law firms and other high-value services with sensitive client data. Construction, Manufacturing and Healthcare followed close behind.

One operator, AiLock, stood out for a coordinated wave of victim disclosures that all landed on the same day — March 3 — a pattern consistent with a mass-exploitation campaign rather than isolated intrusions. LockBit, despite years of law enforcement pressure and takedown attempts, kept up a steady tempo against public-sector and educational targets throughout the period, showcasing how difficult the group has been to fully dismantle.

On the data breach side, Technology and financial services (BFSI) were the most frequently targeted sectors in North America, together accounting for roughly 43% of incidents — a reflection of how much intellectual property and monetizable personal data those industries hold.

Notably, Agriculture & Livestock emerged as a significant target for initial access brokers, accounting for a third of all access listings tied to the region. Cyble flags this as a sign of "growing risk in the food supply chain," an area that has historically drawn less attention from ransomware operators than finance or healthcare.

The initial access market itself was strikingly concentrated: two sellers, tracked under the handles "redpin" and "xpl0itrs," accounted for nearly all listings targeting North American organizations. Threat actors also continued to lean on known and zero-day vulnerabilities in widely deployed enterprise platforms — including products from Ivanti and Palo Alto Networks — as their preferred way into corporate networks.

Hacktivism Blurs into Cybercrime

North America wasn't spared the hacktivism wave sweeping the rest of the world either. Collectives including SOLDADOS DIGITALES – UNIÓN AMERICANA and LYSTIC TEAM #ID drove roughly 56 data leak or dump posts and touched about 360 unique domains across the region, with Government, Technology, financial services and telecommunications entities most frequently in the crosshairs.

Cyble's broader findings suggest many groups marketing themselves as ideologically driven hacktivists are, in practice, running side businesses in stolen data brokerage and DDoS-for-hire services — a blurring of motive that complicates how defenders triage the threat.

The scale of the U.S. numbers doesn't necessarily mean American companies have weaker defenses than their global peers — the concentration also reflects the sheer size and digital density of the U.S. economy, and its outsized share of the high-value targets ransomware affiliates chase. But the data does argue for a shift in posture.

Cyble's broader recommendations — treating data exfiltration, not just encryption, as the primary risk; prioritizing patches for the recurring vendor list; and monitoring initial access markets as a leading indicator rather than an afterthought — apply nowhere more urgently than in a country absorbing this much of the world's ransomware volume on its own.

The announcement, made by Microsoft AI's Superintelligence team, lands roughly a year after the company committed to building purpose-built models internally, and it arrives with an unusual level of specificity about where those models now run: Bing, PowerPoint, OneDrive, Dynamics 365, Excel, GitHub Copilot, and Azure. The message to enterprise buyers — and, implicitly, to OpenAI — is that Microsoft's homegrown models are no longer research projects. They are production infrastructure serving millions of users.

"Each of these enhancements is a step toward the same goal: Microsoft products, powered by Microsoft models," the company wrote in its announcement blog.

How MAI-Image-2.5-Pro and MAI-Voice-2-Flash stake out opposite ends of the AI cost curve

The two new releases occupy opposite ends of what Microsoft calls the quality-speed-cost curve, and the positioning is deliberate. MAI-Image-2.5-Pro targets the premium tier: hero imagery, detailed editing, and precise in-image text rendering — the last of which has long been a notorious weak spot for image generation models. Microsoft priced the model at $5 per million text input tokens, $8 per million image input tokens, and $106 per million image output tokens. The base MAI-Image-2.5 model recently launched at No. 2 for image editing on Arena, the community leaderboard that has become a de facto scoreboard for generative media.

The creative industry appears to be taking notice. Rob Reilly, global chief creative officer at advertising giant WPP, called the Pro model "a strong leap forward for GenMedia tools" in a statement included in Microsoft's announcement, adding that "Microsoft has firmly established itself among the leaders in generative AI."

MAI-Voice-2-Flash goes the other direction. First previewed at Microsoft's Build conference, Flash runs twice as fast as MAI-Voice-2 and costs 32% less, priced at $15 per million characters. It is designed for the unglamorous but enormous market of high-volume voice — call centers, voice agents, and real-time speech applications where latency and cost-per-call matter more than marginal gains in expressiveness. Together, the two models reflect a strategy of building families of models rather than a single flagship, because, as the company put it, a creative studio chasing maximum fidelity has very different needs from a customer service operation handling millions of calls a day.

Microsoft's production metrics show in-house models cutting GPU costs by up to 89%

The model launches are arguably less newsworthy than the deployment metrics Microsoft attached to them — numbers that read like a systematic case for swapping out third-party frontier models across its product portfolio. 

Bing Image Creator now runs entirely on MAI-Image-2.5, end to end, marking the first time the consumer image tool is fully in-house. In PowerPoint, Microsoft says MAI-Image-2.5 reduces GPU costs by up to 84% compared with GPT-Image-2, OpenAI's image model. In OneDrive, where MAI-Image-2.5 is now the default for key image-editing scenarios, the company reports a 26% increase in save rates, roughly 25% lower P95 latency, and 2.5 times greater efficiency under medium-utilization production workloads.

On the voice side, MAI-Voice-2-Flash now powers Dynamics 365 Contact Center — the platform used by customers including T-Mobile and EasyJet — where Microsoft claims GPU cost reductions of up to 89%. The model is also integrated into Azure Voice Live for developers building speech-to-speech agents.

Perhaps the most consequential deployment sits in healthcare. Microsoft's Dragon Copilot, used by 170,000 medical providers and responsible for processing 28 million patient encounters last quarter, now runs on MAI-Transcribe-1.5 for its multilingual workflow across 58 languages. Microsoft says internal evaluations show a 50% relative reduction in both transcription and language-identification error rates across most languages — a meaningful claim in a domain where transcription errors can propagate directly into clinical notes.

Inside the 'hill-climbing' strategy that lets small models beat GPT-5.6 in Excel

In a companion post published the same day, Microsoft detailed the methodology behind these results — what it calls its "hill-climbing machine," an integrated flywheel of data, models, and the product "harness" that surrounds them.

The clearest example is MAI-Code-1-Flash, the lightweight coding model launched in GitHub Copilot in June. Microsoft says the model achieves an approximately 10% higher code accept rate than GPT-5.4 Mini and Claude Haiku 4.5 in VS Code, while using 10% fewer median tokens. Developer retention tells a similar story: users were 6% more likely to return across multiple days than with GPT-5.4 Mini, and 11% more likely than with Claude Haiku 4.5.

Then Microsoft did something more interesting. It took the MAI-Code-1-Flash checkpoint and further trained it inside an Excel reinforcement learning environment, teaching a coding model the tools and workflows of spreadsheet knowledge work. The result, according to production user feedback, is a model on par with GPT-5.6 for the most common Excel tasks — while being small enough to run on Nvidia's older H100 and even A100 GPUs rather than requiring the latest-generation accelerators.

That hardware detail deserves emphasis. Every major AI company is fighting for allocation of cutting-edge chips, and a model that delivers frontier-adjacent quality on two-generation-old silicon fundamentally changes the deployment economics. It also frees the newest hardware — including Microsoft's now-operational GB200 cluster — for training rather than serving.

Satya Nadella's 'frontier diffusion' manifesto redraws the OpenAI relationship

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella framed the announcements in a lengthy post on X titled "Frontier Diffusion & Control," which functions as something close to a strategic manifesto. "We can now take saturated frontier capabilities and deliver them at scale and at lower cost through models optimized for high-usage products, while continuing to use frontier models for frontier needs," Nadella wrote, adding that Microsoft is "beginning to route traffic across our first-party surfaces to MAI whenever our models match or outperform frontier alternatives."

Translated from executive prose: capabilities that were state-of-the-art a year ago are now table stakes, and Microsoft believes it can replicate them cheaply for the specific, repetitive tasks that dominate real product usage. Why pay frontier prices for a frontier model when a user just wants to reformat a spreadsheet column?

Nadella was careful to note that "frontier models from OpenAI and Anthropic are part of the orchestration system alongside MAI" — but he also articulated a pointed principle of model independence, arguing that a company's evaluations "should continue to hill climb even when any given model has been removed." 

“Keeping the harness, memory, context, and skills outside the model, he argued, is what gives Microsoft control. The subtext is hard to miss. Reuters reported in April that Microsoft’s exclusive license to OpenAI’s technology had been revised into a non-exclusive arrangement, and The Information reported last September that Microsoft had begun incorporating Anthropic models into some products. Wednesday’s announcement completes the triangle: Microsoft as orchestrator, with its partners’ frontier models as interchangeable components and its own models absorbing an ever-larger share of routine traffic.”

Developers cheer cheaper task-specific models while skeptics question Microsoft's track record

The response online captured both the appeal and the skepticism surrounding the strategy. "I love when people use small models for niche tasks," wrote one X user, @mavihsk, responding to Nadella's post. "Why do I have to use the all-knowing model just to change my field in Excel?" Another user, @nabu_lines, distilled the pitch neatly: "cost and performance both improve when you stop overusing the biggest model."

Others were less charitable about Microsoft's execution track record. "Microsoft is the worst when it comes to listening to user feedback," wrote designer @designedbyabin, arguing the company "will lose the AI race because they repeatedly failed to understand user needs." And one user, @tokenoverflow, offered a drier critique of the model-independence pitch: "i want it keep hill climbing after removing microsoft."

The skeptics raise a fair point. Microsoft's self-reported metrics — accept rates, save rates, GPU savings — come from its own internal evaluations, not independent benchmarks, and the company chooses which comparisons to publish.

But the strategy's logic does not depend on any single number. Nadella's framing that software now has "real marginal cost for the first time" explains why Microsoft is obsessive about tokens, GPUs, and serving costs: when AI features run on every keystroke across a billion-user product portfolio, an 84% GPU cost reduction is not an optimization. It is the difference between a viable business and a money pit.

Why Microsoft is turning its internal AI playbook into an Azure product

The final piece of the strategy is that Microsoft is selling the playbook, not just the models. Nadella explicitly positioned the hill-climbing approach as "a template for every other AI native, SaaS, or Enterprise company," and Microsoft is packaging the toolchain through Foundry and what it calls Frontier Tuning — letting enterprises train specialized models against their own proprietary evaluations and reinforcement learning environments. That turns Microsoft's internal cost-cutting exercise into an Azure product, and it gives enterprise customers a reason to run their AI workloads on Microsoft's cloud even if the models themselves come from elsewhere.

The company's emphasis on models trained "on clean, traceable, enterprise-grade data, without distillation from third-party models" serves the same commercial end. In an industry facing mounting scrutiny over training data provenance, Microsoft is betting that enterprise buyers — and courts — will care where model capabilities come from. Microsoft says it is now extending the hill-climbing approach to Copilot Chat, Outlook, and PowerPoint, and both new models are available in public preview through Microsoft Foundry and the MAI Playground. "None of this is an endpoint," the company wrote. "We're just getting started."

Seven years ago, Microsoft bet more than $13 billion that OpenAI would build the future of AI. Wednesday's announcement suggests the company has since learned a cheaper lesson: the future of AI may belong to whoever builds the frontier, but the profits belong to whoever makes it ordinary.

DEF CON 34 is an electronic badge year, and we've got something very special in store, created for us by a hardware hacking legend. We can't share too much at this juncture, but we can say this: it will be iconic. First round Hall of Fame. In addition to being a cool badge, it's a platform. It's a full-fledged, first-of-its-kind inspectable platform. Long after closing ceremonies we think you'll still be using this device to regain some agency and security in this rapidly complexifying world.

So what we can offer right now is some data to help all the SAO enthhusiasts out there. Please enjoy this spec sheet with the relevant schematics, measurements and clearances for your projects. Electro-specs also included.

We're excited to see what you come up with. As good as the badge is, we know you can make it better.

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.

Summary

Successful exploitation of these vulnerabilities could allow an attacker with access to the IT network to manipulate industrial control devices without requiring physical access, specialized insider knowledge, or advanced tooling.

The following versions of Panduit IntraVUE are affected:

• IntraVUE <=3.2.1a14 

Background

• Critical Infrastructure Sectors: Critical Manufacturing, Energy, Information Technology, Water and Wastewater
• Countries/Areas Deployed: Worldwide
• Company Headquarters Location: Netherlands

Vulnerabilities

Acknowledgments

• Phlebas of Lumintel reported these vulnerabilities to CISA

Legal Notice and Terms of Use

This product is provided subject to this Notification (https://www.cisa.gov/notification) and this Privacy & Use policy (https://www.cisa.gov/privacy-policy).

Recommended Practices

CISA recommends users take defensive measures to minimize the risk of exploitation of these vulnerabilities.

Minimize network exposure for all control system devices and/or systems, ensuring they are not accessible from the Internet.

Locate control system networks and remote devices behind firewalls and isolating them from business networks.

When remote access is required, use more secure methods, such as Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), recognizing VPNs may have vulnerabilities and should be updated to the most current version available. Also recognize VPN is only as secure as the connected devices.

CISA reminds organizations to perform proper impact analysis and risk assessment prior to deploying defensive measures.

CISA also provides a section for control systems security recommended practices on the ICS webpage on cisa.gov/ics. Several CISA products detailing cyber defense best practices are available for reading and download, including Improving Industrial Control Systems Cybersecurity with Defense-in-Depth Strategies.

CISA encourages organizations to implement recommended cybersecurity strategies for proactive defense of ICS assets.

Additional mitigation guidance and recommended practices are publicly available on the ICS webpage at cisa.gov/ics in the technical information paper, ICS-TIP-12-146-01B--Targeted Cyber Intrusion Detection and Mitigation Strategies.

Organizations observing suspected malicious activity should follow established internal procedures and report findings to CISA for tracking and correlation against other incidents.

CISA also recommends users take the following measures to protect themselves from social engineering attacks:

Do not click web links or open attachments in unsolicited email messages.

Refer to Recognizing and Avoiding Email Scams for more information on avoiding email scams.

Refer to Avoiding Social Engineering and Phishing Attacks for more information on social engineering attacks.

No known public exploitation specifically targeting these vulnerabilities has been reported to CISA at this time.

Revision History

• Initial Release Date: 2026-07-23

Legal Notice and Terms of Use

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

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

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

Methodology

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

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

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

Finding 1: Orchestration runs on model-provider platforms

Anthropic’s Claude leads; open frameworks are marginal

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

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

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

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

Finding 2: Model gravity drives platform selection

The base model, not the tooling, decides the platform

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

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

Finding 3: The job is reliable multi-step execution

Enterprises just orchestration by whether it completes the work

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

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

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

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

Three strategic moves are nearly tied for the year ahead

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

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

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

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

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

Finding 6: Investment flows to workflow tooling

Tooling and permissions lead the spend; monitoring trails

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

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

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

Enterprises expect to split control between providers and their own layer

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

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

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

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

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

Enterprises admit most deployments are still chatbot wrappers

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

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

Finding 9: Fiscal control is still reactive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Methodology

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

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

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

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

Finding 1: A passing eval is not a working agent

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

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

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

Finding 2: Almost no one fully trusts automated evaluation

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

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

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

Finding 3: The autonomy ceiling is rising anyway

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finding 5: Production monitoring rarely watches output quality

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

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

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

Finding 6: Bought on cost, measured on consistency

Price and integration drive selection; evaluation consistency is the goal

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

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

Finding 7: The next dollar goes to humans and observability

Investment is flowing to oversight, not just automation

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

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

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

Finding 8: A tooling reshuffle is coming

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This wave of VentureBeat Pulse Research examines the enterprise RAG and context layer: what feeds AI agents their business context, which retrieval systems enterprises run, how they buy and measure them, where the architecture is heading, and — most revealingly — how often that context is already failing them.

The central finding is a context gap — the distance between how confidently enterprise agents answer and how reliable the context beneath them actually is. A majority of enterprises (57%) report that in the past six months their AI agents produced confident but wrong answers they traced to missing or inconsistent business context, and more than half of those said it happened more than once. This is not a fringe failure: retrieval is the primary context source for 38% of enterprises, more than any other approach, so when retrieval is thin or inconsistent, the errors it produces are wearing the agent’s authority. The infrastructure to fix it is being built — 58% already run or are building a governed semantic layer — but for most it is not yet in production.

Underneath, the market is consolidating in a direction that surprises. Provider-native retrieval — OpenAI’s file search (40%) and Google’s Vertex AI Search (38%) — already leads every dedicated vector database, and enterprises expect hybrid retrieval to dominate by the end of 2026 (34%). Yet a plurality (36%) say they intend to keep best-of-breed standalone tools rather than consolidate onto a provider’s native context stack, and a majority (57%) plan to switch or add a provider within the year. Stated preference and actual usage are pulling in opposite directions — the market is buying provider-native while insisting it wants independence.

Methodology

VentureBeat fielded this survey as part of its ongoing Pulse Research series. This survey focused on enterprise RAG infrastructure and the context layer — the retrieval systems, semantic layers, and context sources that feed AI agents. Responses are filtered to organizations with more than 100 employees (n=101); the survey drew no responses from organizations of 100 or fewer, so the full sample qualifies. All responses are from a single Q2 2026 (June) wave, so the report reads cross-sectionally and does not infer month-over-month trends. Several questions were multiple-select, so those shares can sum to more than 100%.

By organization size the sample concentrates in the mid-market: 251–1,000 employees (31%) and 101–250 (31%) lead, with 1,001–5,000 (20%), 5,001–10,000 (12%), and 10,001+ (7%) above them. By role it spans managers (39%), individual contributors (27%), the C-suite (16%), and VPs and directors (14%); on purchasing authority it is buyer-credible, with 46% final decision-makers and another 26% recommenders or influencers. Technology/Software is the largest industry at 20%, followed by Healthcare/Life Sciences (11%) and a broad spread across retail, transportation, financial services, manufacturing, and education.

At 101 respondents this is a modest sample and should be read as a directional signal rather than a precise measurement; it is self-selected and is not a probability sample. It is best read as the view from organizations actively standing up RAG and context infrastructure rather than from the largest operators.

Finding 1: Confident and wrong

More than half have traced agent errors to bad context

We asked whether, in the past six months, enterprises had traced a confident but wrong agent answer to missing or inconsistent business context. Most had.

This is the report’s defining number. A majority of enterprises (57%) have already had an AI agent produce a confident, wrong answer they traced to bad context — wrong metrics, stale definitions, or missing documents — and more than half of those have seen it happen more than once. Only 28% report no such failure, and a small remainder either don’t run agents on enterprise data or don’t trace root cause closely enough to know.

The failure mode is specific and dangerous: the model is not obviously hallucinating; it is confidently wrong because the context feeding it was thin or inconsistent. Everything else in this report — what enterprises retrieve, how they govern it, and what they plan to build — is downstream of this problem.

Finding 2: RAG is the default context source

Retrieval feeds more agents than any other method

We asked what an enterprise’s AI agents primarily use to understand its data. Retrieval leads by a wide margin.

Retrieval is the backbone of enterprise context. For 38% of organizations, RAG over documents or a vector index is the primary way agents understand the business — nearly twice the share of the next approach, a governed semantic layer or ontology (21%). Mixed approaches (14%), direct live-system queries (10%), and long-context loading (6%) fill out the rest, and only 2% let agents run on the model’s general knowledge alone. The concentration matters in light of Finding 1: because so much enterprise context flows through retrieval, the quality of that retrieval is the quality of the answer. When RAG is the default source, thin retrieval is not an edge case — it is the main failure surface.

One approach is notable for its absence from these answers: customizing model weights, also known as fine-tuning. Every leading source of business context is injected at run time. Our most recent direct measurement of fine-tuning comes from our April–May survey wave (a separate survey, n=136), where fine-tuning capabilities ranked last of six factors in model selection at 5% — even as 26% of that sample still named fine-tuning and customization an investment they expect to grow. Fine-tuning has fallen out of the primary selection conversation; context injection is how enterprises make agents knowledgeable about their business.

Finding 3: Provider-native retrieval already leads the vector databases

OpenAI file search and vertex AI search top the dedicated tools

We asked which retrieval systems enterprises run in production today. The answer favors the model providers and hyperscalers over the specialists.

The dedicated vector database is no longer the center of the RAG stack. OpenAI’s file search (40%) and Google’s Vertex AI Search (38%) lead — provider-native and hyperscaler-native retrieval — ahead of every purpose-built vector database. Among the specialists, the most-used is the one enterprises already run for other reasons (Elasticsearch/OpenSearch, 20%) and the open, embedded option (pgvector, 12%); the pure-play vector databases that define the category — Weaviate, Qdrant, Pinecone, Milvus — each sit in single digits to low double digits. Notably, 13% of enterprises say they still run no production RAG at all. As with the platforms in the parallel infrastructure wave, enterprises are gravitating to retrieval that comes bundled with tools they already buy.

The shape of this finding held across both Q2 waves. In April–May (n=161), provider-built retrieval led usage there too, while every dedicated vector database remained marginal — the most-used standalone vector database peaked at 8% of that sample — and the hybrid, pluralistic future was already the consensus expectation (34% expected hybrid retrieval to dominate, with another 29% expecting multiple architectures by use case). Two waves, consistent picture: the category that coined the “vector database” term is being collected by the platforms enterprises already buy from.

Finding 4: But they say they want to keep best-of-breed

A plurality resist consolidating onto a provider’s native stack

We asked how enterprises will respond as model providers bundle retrieval, memory, and orchestration into their platforms. Their stated intent cuts against their current usage.

Here is the tension at the heart of the stack. Even as provider-native retrieval leads in practice (Finding 3), a plurality of enterprises (36%) say they intend to keep best-of-breed standalone tools rather than consolidate onto a provider’s native context stack — well ahead of the 21% who plan to consolidate. Another 21% expect a mix, and 9% intend to build and own the layer themselves. The gap between what enterprises run and what they say they want is the strategic question of the category: they are adopting bundled retrieval for convenience while asserting they will preserve independence. Which impulse wins — the pull of the provider bundle or the stated preference for modular control — will shape the retrieval market more than any single tool.

Finding 5: Hybrid retrieval is the consensus bet

Vector-only retrieval is already seen as insufficient

We asked which retrieval architecture enterprises expect to dominate their production RAG systems by the end of 2026. The field is converging — with a large share still unsure.

The architecture is settling on hybrid. A third (34%) expect hybrid retrieval — embeddings combined with reranking and access controls — to dominate their production systems by the end of 2026, three times the 11% who expect vector-only retrieval to prevail. That is a notable signal: the pure vector-search approach that launched the category is already viewed as insufficient on its own, superseded by pipelines that add reranking for accuracy and access controls for governance — the very access controls whose absence produces the failures in Finding 1. Tellingly, the second-largest answer is uncertainty: 17% simply don’t know, and another 14% expect to move beyond a dedicated vector layer entirely toward tool-first or long-context retrieval. The consensus is not a single tool but a layered pipeline — and it is not yet fully formed.

Finding 6: The governed context layer is being built now

Most run or are building a semantic layer — few in production

We asked whether enterprises use a governed semantic or context layer to give agents and BI a shared understanding of their data. Most are on the path; fewer have arrived.

The fix for the context gap is under construction. Well over half of enterprises (58%) either run a governed semantic layer in production (25%) or are piloting and building one (34%), and a further 17% are actively evaluating — meaning three-quarters are engaged with the idea in some form. But the balance is telling: more are building than have shipped, so for most enterprises the shared, governed definition layer that would prevent the "confident but wrong" failures of Finding 1 is still a work in progress. The semantic layer is the industry’s answer to inconsistent context; this wave catches it mid-construction, ambition well ahead of production.

Finding 7: Bought on ingestion and simplicity, watched for correctness

Selection favors operability; monitoring favors correctness and security

We asked what matters most when enterprises choose a retrieval system, and what they track once it is running. Both answers lean practical.

Enterprises choose retrieval systems on operability. Ease of data ingestion (36%), latency and performance (32%), and operational simplicity (29%) lead the selection criteria — ahead of retrieval accuracy and access control (23% each), the two factors most directly tied to the failures in Finding 1. Once systems are running, the emphasis shifts toward trust: the most-tracked metrics are response correctness (42%) and security and access control (38%), ahead of latency (28%), operational stability (27%), and answer relevance (23%).

Satisfaction with current systems is moderately positive but not enthusiastic — on a five-point scale, overall satisfaction averages 4.0, with ease of implementation and value for money both near 3.9. Enterprises buy for how easily a system runs and watch it for whether it can be trusted.

Finding 8: A retrieval reshuffle is coming

A majority plan to change providers — and the vector specialists are gaining interest

We asked whether enterprises plan to change or add a retrieval provider, and which they are considering. The consideration set differs from today’s stack.

The retrieval stack is not settled. While 43% have no plans to change, a small majority (57%) intend to switch or add a provider within twelve months, and a quarter (26%) within the next quarter. The consideration set is where it gets interesting: provider-native retrieval still leads what enterprises are evaluating (OpenAI 22%, Vertex AI Search 21%), but the open-source vector specialists punch above their current footprint — Qdrant (14%) and Milvus (13%) draw more switching interest than their present usage (10% and 6%) would suggest. Read with Finding 4, the picture is a market in flux: enterprises run provider-native today, are evaluating a broader field, and say they want to keep their options open. The reshuffle ahead will test whether best-of-breed intent survives contact with the convenience of the bundle.