<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="/rss-style.xsl"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title><![CDATA[Team IT Security - 📰 Alle Kategorien]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[https://tsecurity.de/export/rss/alle-kategorien.xml?q=rate+limiting+throttling%2F]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Das Gesamte Cyber Threat Intelligence Feed-Archiv von TSecurity.de. Alle Nachrichten, Sicherheitsmeldungen, Videos, Downloads und Analysen in einer zentralen Übersicht.]]></description>
<language>de-DE</language>
<lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2026 05:08:35 +0200</lastBuildDate>
<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2026 05:08:35 +0200</pubDate>
<ttl>15</ttl>
<copyright>2026 Team IT Security</copyright>
<managingEditor>lakandor@tsecurity.de (Horus Sirius)</managingEditor>
<webMaster>lakandor@tsecurity.de (Horus Sirius)</webMaster>
<category>IT Security</category>
<category>Cybersecurity</category>
<category>Nachrichten</category>
<generator>Team IT Security RSS Generator v2.0</generator>

<atom:link href="https://tsecurity.de/export/rss/it-security.xml?q=rate+limiting+throttling%2F" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Opus 5 may have solved browser-based prompt injection, the biggest security flaw haunting AI agents]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Opus 5 combined with Auto Mode hits a zero percent prompt injection success rate for browser agents across 129 test scenarios. Without those extra protection layers, the rate is 3.7 percent. If these numbers hold up in practice, Anthropic may have cracked one of the biggest security problems faci...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3694800/ai-nachrichten/opus-5-may-have-solved-browser-based-prompt-injection-the-biggest-security-flaw-haunting-ai-agents/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3694800/ai-nachrichten/opus-5-may-have-solved-browser-based-prompt-injection-the-biggest-security-flaw-haunting-ai-agents/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:50:24 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🔧 AI Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img width="1146" height="639" src="https://the-decoder.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/prompt_injections_claude.png" class="attachment-full size-full wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async"></p>
<p>        Opus 5 combined with Auto Mode hits a zero percent prompt injection success rate for browser agents across 129 test scenarios. Without those extra protection layers, the rate is 3.7 percent. If these numbers hold up in practice, Anthropic may have cracked one of the biggest security problems facing AI agents that operate in browsers.</p>
<p>The article <a href="https://the-decoder.com/opus-5-may-have-solved-browser-based-prompt-injection-the-biggest-security-flaw-haunting-ai-agents/">Opus 5 may have solved browser-based prompt injection, the biggest security flaw haunting AI agents</a> appeared first on <a href="https://the-decoder.com/">The Decoder</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[OpenAI Presence raises new questions about enterprise automation and jobs]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[OpenAI has launched Presence, an enterprise service for deploying voice and chat agents that can resolve customer and employee requests, potentially automating some work now handled by frontline support teams.



The agents can answer questions and operate IT systems, and enterprises can decide w...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3694769/ai-nachrichten/openai-presence-raises-new-questions-about-enterprise-automation-and-jobs/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3694769/ai-nachrichten/openai-presence-raises-new-questions-about-enterprise-automation-and-jobs/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:50:08 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🔧 AI Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">OpenAI has launched Presence, an enterprise service for deploying voice and chat agents that can resolve customer and employee requests, potentially automating some work now handled by frontline support teams.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The agents can answer questions and operate IT systems, and enterprises can decide what actions the agents may take and when they should seek human approval for actions or transfer a case to a human.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">OpenAI is already using Presence internally for its English-language phone support channel, where it verifies callers and uses account information to complete approved actions. The company said the system resolves 75% of inbound issues without human assistance.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Another OpenAI service, Codex, can be used to monitor agents and suggest updates or improvements to processes. In OpenAI’s own tests, suggestions from Codex helped reduce handoffs to humans by 15 percentage points over 10 days, it said. Presence also includes simulation and evaluation tools that allow companies to test an agent before deployment. The tests assess whether it reaches the correct outcome, follows company policy, and hands a case to an employee when required.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">OpenAI intends each Presence deployment to deal with one kind of task, for example billing issues, insurance claims, or employee IT service requests, with agents getting only the knowledge and system access required for that task.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Presence is not a self-service product: Enterprises will have to sign up for the limited availability program, with integration performed by OpenAI or selected <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4136024/openai-partners-with-consulting-giants-to-deploy-enterprise-ai-agents.html">global systems integrators</a>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Companies exploring or testing Presence include Spanish bank BBVA, which is evaluating the service for everyday banking support in Mexico, and Japanese technology group SoftBank, which is using it in trials involving Japanese-language customer interactions. Australian insurer IAG is assessing whether the technology can help it respond to surges in customer demand during severe weather events.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Workforce impact</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">OpenAI’s announcement did not address the potential effect of Presence on employment. But its claimed automation rate raises questions about how the technology could affect staffing in customer service and other support functions.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://pareekh.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Pareekh Jain</a>, CEO of Pareekh Consulting, said CIOs should regard the 75% figure as evidence that the technology can work, rather than as a benchmark that every enterprise can expect to reach.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Jain said OpenAI’s deployment benefits from being built around the company’s own products and data. Large enterprises may achieve lower automation rates because they must contend with fragmented legacy systems, uneven knowledge bases and more complex compliance demands.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Most organizations should expect lower initial automation levels that improve over time as the AI agent is refined,” Jain said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The first workforce effect is more likely to be <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4015750/cios-see-ai-prompting-new-it-hiring-even-as-boards-push-for-job-cuts.html">slower hiring than immediate layoffs</a>, according to <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/tulikasheel/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Tulika Sheel</a>, senior vice president at Kadence International.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The roles most exposed are likely to be repetitive, high-volume functions such as frontline customer support and routine back-office processing,” Sheel said. “However, I would expect the first impact to be on hiring and team growth rather than immediate large-scale job cuts. Over time, enterprises may redesign roles around AI-assisted workflows, with humans focusing more on complex cases, escalation, and relationship management.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Jain said Tier-1 support agents handling predictable queries would face the most exposure. Broader reductions would become more likely only after companies reorganize their operations around the technology.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">However, <a href="https://omdia.tech.informa.com/authors/lian-jye-su" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Lian Jye Su</a>, chief analyst at Omdia, said Presence is unlikely to increase the threat of job displacement because companies have used similar customer-support automation from vendors such as Genesys, NiCE, Five9 and AWS for years.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Enterprises are more likely to use Presence alongside employees, with AI handling routine requests while people remain responsible for work requiring judgment and empathy, Su said.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Cost and operational risks</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Analysts said CIOs should examine whether Presence can maintain resolution quality as usage grows, since fewer human handoffs could leave employees dealing with a more difficult mix of cases.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The key question is not simply how many tasks AI can handle, but whether it can handle them reliably at scale,” Sheel said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The financial case will depend partly on the cost of connecting Presence to existing systems and maintaining the controls needed to govern its use, according to Jain. “Often the biggest cost of enterprise AI is not tokens but <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4128310/openai-responds-to-claude-cowork-with-its-own-platform-to-help-build-deploy-and-manage-ai-agents.html">integration and governance</a>,” Jain added.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Companies will need to determine what systems and data the agents can access, monitor their performance, and audit the actions they take. Those investments could offset early savings.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Su said the complexity of enterprise IT will make it difficult for OpenAI to automate entire workflows on its own. Enterprises will still need to work with other technology providers and human employees, while CIOs will favor systems that can be audited and integrated with existing infrastructure.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Jain said the economics could improve if companies use the same integrations and governance controls across additional workflows.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>This article first appeared on <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4200684/openai-presence-raises-new-questions-about-enterprise-automation-and-jobs.html">CIO</a>.</em></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[CVE-2026-47291: Remote Code Execution in the Windows HTTP.sys]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[In this excerpt of a TrendAI Research Services vulnerability report, Yazhi Wang and Jonathan Lein of the TrendAI Research team detail a recently patched remote code execution bug in the Windows HTTP protocol stack. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability can result in a denial-of-service co...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3694561/hacking/cve-2026-47291-remote-code-execution-in-the-windows-httpsys/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3694561/hacking/cve-2026-47291-remote-code-execution-in-the-windows-httpsys/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:02:52 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🕵️ Hacking</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class=""><em>In this excerpt of a TrendAI Research Services vulnerability report, Yazhi Wang and Jonathan Lein of the TrendAI Research team detail a recently patched remote code execution bug in the Windows HTTP protocol stack. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability can result in a denial-of-service condition, or, in the worst case, code execution with kernel privileges. The following is a portion of their write-up covering CVE-2026-47291, with a few minimal modifications.</em></p>





















  
  




  



  <hr>
  
    
    



  




  <p class="">A remote code execution vulnerability exists in the HTTP Protocol Stack for Microsoft Internet Information Services implemented in HTTP.sys. The vulnerability is due to invalid validating incoming HTTP requests. </p><p class="">A remote, unauthenticated attacker can exploit this vulnerability by sending crafted HTTP packets to the target system. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability can result in a denial-of-service condition, or, in the worst case, code execution with kernel privileges.</p><p class=""><strong>The Vulnerability</strong></p><p class=""><em>HTTP.sys</em> is the kernel-mode HTTP protocol driver in Microsoft Windows. It provides HTTP request parsing, response caching, and SSL/TLS termination for Internet Information Services (IIS) and other applications that register URL prefixes. The driver listens on configured TCP ports (commonly 80 for HTTP and 443 for HTTPS) and processes inbound HTTP/1.x and HTTP/2 requests at the kernel level.</p><p class="">When operating over HTTPS, <em>HTTP.sys</em> delegates TLS processing to the Windows Secure Channel (SChannel) provider. Inbound TCP data is decrypted on a <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446/">per-record basis</a>: each TLS record constitutes an independent unit of encryption and is decrypted separately by SChannel before being delivered to <em>HTTP.sys</em> as a distinct plaintext buffer. A single TLS 1.3 application data record has the following structure:</p>





















  
  




  


  
  
    
    
      
        
        
        
        
          
        
        
        
      
    
  
  
    



  



  




  <p class="">The decrypted payload of each TLS record is delivered independently to the HTTP parser via</p><p class=""><em>UlHttpBufferReceiveEvent()</em>, regardless of how many TLS records the underlying TCP connection coalesces into a single TCP segment. This behavior is distinct from plaintext HTTP connections, where the Windows TCP stack coalesces multiple segments into a single receive indication before the data reaches <em>HTTP.sys</em>.</p><p class="">The HTTP parser maintains a per-request state object that includes a dynamically grown buffer reference array. The <em>capacity</em> field stores the current number of allocated slots in the buffer reference array. The <em>count</em> field stores the number of slots currently in use. The <em>ref_array_ptr</em> field points to the dynamically allocated array of 8-byte buffer reference entries.</p><p class="">An integer overflow vulnerability exists in <em>HTTP.sys</em>. The vulnerability is due to insufficient bounds checking when growing a buffer reference array during HTTP/1.x header parsing. When <em>HTTP.sys</em> receives data for an HTTP/1.x request, it allocates a <em>UL_REQUEST_BUFFER</em> structure for each receive indication and tracks these buffers in the per-request reference array described above. The <em>count</em> field records the number of active buffer references, and the <em>capacity</em> field records the total number of allocated slots. </p><p class="">As the HTTP parser (<em>UlpParseNextRequest()</em>) processes header lines, it calls an inline buffer reference routine each time a new receive buffer is consumed. When <em>count</em> reaches <em>capacity</em>, the routine grows the array by reallocating it with five additional slots. The new allocation size is computed as 0x28 + <em>capacity</em> * 8, the contents of the existing array are copied via <em>memmove</em> using <em>count</em> * 8 as the copy length, and <em>capacity</em> is incremented by 5 as a 16-bit unsigned integer addition. No overflow check is performed on this addition.</p><p class="">After 13,107 growth events, <em>capacity</em> reaches 0xFFFB. The next growth adds 5, producing 0x10000, which truncates to 0x0000 in the 16-bit field. On the subsequent buffer reference addition, <em>count</em> (which is now 65,536 or greater) exceeds the zero <em>capacity</em>, triggering another growth. The allocation size computation 0x28 + 0 * 8 produces a 40-byte allocation, but the <em>memmove</em> copies <em>count</em> * 8 bytes (approximately 524,256 bytes) from the old buffer into the 40-byte allocation. This results in a kernel pool heap buffer overflow of over 500 kilobytes.</p><p class="">Each buffer reference corresponds to one receive buffer delivered to the HTTP parser. For plaintext HTTP connections, the Windows TCP stack coalesces received segments into large indications, and <em>UlpMergeBuffers() </em>further combines buffers within <em>HTTP.sys</em>. Over TLS connections, each TLS record is decrypted independently by SChannel and delivered as a separate buffer through <em>UlHttpBufferReceiveEvent()</em> into <em>UlpCopyIndicatedData()</em>. If each TLS record contains exactly one complete header line (terminated by CRLF), the HTTP parser fully consumes the buffer without setting the partial-parse flag, causing <em>UlpAdjustBuffers()</em> to advance to the next buffer via its non-merge path. This creates a 1:1 correspondence between TLS records sent and buffer references accumulated.</p><p class="">To trigger the overflow, an attacker crafts an HTTP request in which each header line is encapsulated in a separate TLS application data record. Given a minimum header line size of approximately 4 bytes and a required count of 65,536 buffer references, the total request size comes to roughly 262,144 bytes. The <em>MaxRequestBytes </em>registry value (at <em>HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\HTTP\Parameters</em>) must be configured to a value of at least 262,144 bytes for the server to accept a request of this size. The default value of 16,384 bytes limits the request to approximately 4000 header lines, which is insufficient to trigger the overflow. As a mitigation, keeping <em>MaxRequestBytes</em> at or below 65,535 bytes represents the most conservative configuration to prevent this attack.</p><p class="">A remote unauthenticated attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending a specially crafted HTTP/1.x request over a TLS connection to an affected server. Successful exploitation results in unexpected system termination due to a memory access exception in the context of the kernel. Under specific memory layout conditions, exploitation could result in arbitrary code execution in the context of the kernel.</p><p class=""><strong>Notes:</strong></p><p class="">• The vulnerability is only reachable through HTTP/1.x header parsing over TLS connections. HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 use different parser paths that do not interact with the buffer reference array.</p><p class="">• Body data parsing (Content-Length or chunked transfer encoding) does not add entries to the buffer reference array. Only header parsing triggers buffer reference growth.</p><p class="">• At a sending rate of 10 milliseconds per TLS record, the overflow requires approximately 11 minutes to trigger.</p><p class=""><strong>Source Code Walkthrough</strong></p><p class="">The following code snippet was taken from <em>HTTP.sys</em> version 10.0.26100.7705. Comments added by TrendAI Research have been highlighted.</p><p class="">In <em>UlpParseNextRequest()</em>:</p>





















  
  




  


  
  
    
    
      
        
        
        
        
          
        
        
        
      
    
  
  
    



  



  




  <p class=""><strong>Detection Guidance</strong></p><p class="">To detect an attack exploiting this vulnerability, the detection device must monitor and parse traffic on the TCP port 443.</p><p class="">The traffic on the affected port(s) is TLS-encrypted. The detection device must be able to decrypt the TLS traffic before applying the following detection method. The detection device should monitor for HTTPS connections.</p><p class="">An HTTP/1.x request [1] consists of a request line followed by zero or more header field lines, each terminated by CRLF. The following grammar defines the relevant structure:</p>





















  
  




  


  
  
    
    
      
        
        
        
        
          
        
        
        
      
    
  
  
    



  



  




  <p class=""><em>Decrypted traffic inspection:</em></p><p class="">After decrypting the TLS session, the detection device must parse the HTTP/1.x request headers. The detection device must count the number of distinct header field lines present in a single HTTP request. If the number of header field lines in a single request exceeds 1,000, the traffic should be considered suspicious; an attack exploiting this vulnerability is likely underway.</p><p class=""><em>Encrypted traffic heuristics:</em></p><p class="">Where decryption is not available, the detection device should inspect the pattern of TLS application data records within the encrypted session. If each TLS application data record contains a single short payload and the total number of such records on a single connection exceeds 1,000, the traffic should be considered suspicious; an attack exploiting this vulnerability is likely underway.</p><p class=""><em>Notes:</em></p><p class="">• The preferred detection method (header line count) requires the ability to decrypt TLS traffic, for example through TLS inspection, a decrypting proxy, or possession of the server's private key. This method directly observes the attack indicator and produces low false-positive and false-negative rates.</p><p class="">• The TLS record heuristic operates on encrypted traffic and does not require decryption. This method is more prone to false positives (legitimate applications that send many small TLS records, such as interactive streaming sessions, may trigger the heuristic) and to false negatives (the threshold is based on observable record sizes rather than the actual header count that determines exploitability). Where possible, decrypted traffic inspection should be preferred.</p><p class="">• The attack requires approximately 11 minutes of sustained connection to accumulate sufficient header lines. Connection duration monitoring may serve as a supplementary detection heuristic.</p><p class=""><strong>Conclusion</strong></p><p class="">This vulnerability was <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47291">patched</a> by Microsoft in the June 2026 release cycle. They note several mitigations that include editing the registry to ensure unpatched systems are not vulnerable to exploitation. However, the best method to ensure this bug has been fully remediated is to test and deploy the vendor-supplied patch.</p><p class="">Special thanks to Yazhi Wang and Jonathan Lein of the TrendAI Research team for providing such a thorough analysis of this vulnerability. For an overview of TrendAI Research services, please visit <a href="https://go.trendmicro.com/tis/vulnerabilities.html">https://go.trendmicro.com/tis/vulnerabilities.html</a>.</p><p class="">The threat research team will be back with other great vulnerability analysis reports in the future. Until then, follow the team on <a href="https://www.twitter.com/thezdi">Twitter</a>, <a href="https://infosec.exchange/@thezdi">Mastodon</a>, <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/zerodayinitiative">LinkedIn</a>, or <a href="https://bsky.app/profile/thezdi.bsky.social">Bluesky</a> for the latest in exploit techniques and security patches.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The July 2026 Security Update Review]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[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...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3694560/hacking/the-july-2026-security-update-review/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3694560/hacking/the-july-2026-security-update-review/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:02:51 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🕵️ Hacking</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class="">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:</p>





















  
  




  
















  
    
      
    
    
      
        
      
    
    
    



  






  <p class=""><strong>Adobe Patches for July 2026</strong></p><p class="">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.</p><p class="">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.</p><p class="">Here’s this month’s overview table:</p>





















  
  




  


  
    


<table>
<colgroup>
  <col>
  <col>
  <col>
  <col>
  <col>
  <col>
  <col>
</colgroup>
<thead>
  <tr>
    <th>Bulletin ID</th>
    <th>Product</th>
    <th>CVE Count</th>
    <th>Highest Severity</th>
    <th>Highest CVSS</th>
    <th>Exploited</th>
    <th>Deployment Priority</th>
  </tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/coldfusion/apsb26-82.html" target="_blank">APSB26-82</a></td>
    <td>Adobe ColdFusion</td>
    <td>13</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>9.9</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>1</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/magento/apsb26-73.html" target="_blank">APSB26-73</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Commerce</td>
    <td>13</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>9.6</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>2</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/after_effects/apsb26-78.html" target="_blank">APSB26-78</a></td>
    <td>Adobe After Effects</td>
    <td>3</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>7.8</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/animate/apsb26-83.html" target="_blank">APSB26-83</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Animate</td>
    <td>6</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>8.6</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/audition/apsb26-71.html" target="_blank">APSB26-71</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Audition</td>
    <td>6</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>7.8</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/bridge/apsb26-81.html" target="_blank">APSB26-81</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Bridge</td>
    <td>6</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>7.8</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/creative-cloud/apsb26-77.html" target="_blank">APSB26-77</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Creative Cloud Desktop Application</td>
    <td>2</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>8.1</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/experience-manager/apsb26-74.html" target="_blank">APSB26-74</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Experience Manager</td>
    <td>13</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>9.6</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/illustrator/apsb26-79.html" target="_blank">APSB26-79</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Illustrator</td>
    <td>5</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>9.3</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/media-encoder/apsb26-72.html" target="_blank">APSB26-72</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Media Encoder</td>
    <td>5</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>7.8</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/premiere_pro/apsb26-76.html" target="_blank">APSB26-76</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Premiere Pro</td>
    <td>4</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>7.8</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/content-authenticity-sdk/apsb26-80.html" target="_blank">APSB26-80</a></td>
    <td>Content Credentials SDK</td>
    <td>12</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>8.2</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
</tbody>
<tfoot>
  <tr>
    <td>TOTAL</td>
    <td>12 bulletins</td>
    <td>88</td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
  </tr>
</tfoot>
</table>



  
  









  <p class="">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. </p><p class=""><strong>Microsoft Patches for July 2026</strong></p><p class="">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.</p>





















  
  














































  

    
  
    

      

      
        <figure class="
              sqs-block-image-figure
              intrinsic
            ">
          
        
        

        
          
            
              
              
          
            
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                <img data-stretch="false" data-image="https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5894c269e4fcb5e65a1ed623/4abf68b8-2f48-439d-8a92-bcc105d7b4f3/Picture1new.png" data-image-dimensions="2158x1150" data-image-focal-point="0.5,0.5" alt="" data-load="false" elementtiming="system-image-block" data-sqsp-image-classic-block-image src="https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5894c269e4fcb5e65a1ed623/4abf68b8-2f48-439d-8a92-bcc105d7b4f3/Picture1new.png?format=1000w" width="2158" height="1150" sizes="(max-width: 640px) 100vw, (max-width: 767px) 100vw, 100vw" onload='this.classList.add("loaded")' srcset="https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5894c269e4fcb5e65a1ed623/4abf68b8-2f48-439d-8a92-bcc105d7b4f3/Picture1new.png?format=100w 100w, https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5894c269e4fcb5e65a1ed623/4abf68b8-2f48-439d-8a92-bcc105d7b4f3/Picture1new.png?format=300w 300w, https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5894c269e4fcb5e65a1ed623/4abf68b8-2f48-439d-8a92-bcc105d7b4f3/Picture1new.png?format=500w 500w, https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5894c269e4fcb5e65a1ed623/4abf68b8-2f48-439d-8a92-bcc105d7b4f3/Picture1new.png?format=750w 750w, https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5894c269e4fcb5e65a1ed623/4abf68b8-2f48-439d-8a92-bcc105d7b4f3/Picture1new.png?format=1000w 1000w, https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5894c269e4fcb5e65a1ed623/4abf68b8-2f48-439d-8a92-bcc105d7b4f3/Picture1new.png?format=1500w 1500w, https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5894c269e4fcb5e65a1ed623/4abf68b8-2f48-439d-8a92-bcc105d7b4f3/Picture1new.png?format=2500w 2500w" loading="lazy" decoding="async" data-loader="sqs">

            
          
        
            
          
        

        
      
        </figure>
      

    
  


  





  <p class="">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.</p><p class="">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.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56155"><strong>CVE-2026-56155</strong></a><strong> - Active Directory Federation Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<br></strong>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.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56154"><strong>CVE-2026-56164</strong></a><strong> - Microsoft SharePoint Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<br></strong>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.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57092"><strong>CVE-2026-57092</strong></a><strong> - Microsoft Windows VMSwitch Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<br></strong>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.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50522"><strong>CVE-2026-50522</strong></a><strong>/</strong><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58644"><strong>58644</strong></a><strong> - Microsoft SharePoint Remote Code Execution Vulnerability<br></strong>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 <a href="https://www.zerodayinitiative.com/blog/2026/5/16/pwn2own-berlin-2026-day-three-results-and-master-of-pwn">Pwn2Own Berlin</a>, 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. </p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56190"><strong>CVE-2026-56190</strong></a><strong> - Remote Desktop Protocol Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</strong><br> 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. </p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55008"><strong>CVE-2026-55008</strong></a><strong> - Microsoft Exchange Server Spoofing Vulnerability<br></strong>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.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50518"><strong>CVE-2026-50518</strong></a><strong> - Windows DHCP Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability<br></strong>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.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56188"><strong>CVE-2026-56188</strong></a><strong> - Windows Server Network driver Remote Code Execution Vulnerability<br></strong>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.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55010"><strong>CVE-2026-55010</strong></a><strong> - Minecraft Bedrock Dedicated Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability<br></strong>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.</p><p class="">Here’s the full list of CVEs released by Microsoft for July 2026:</p>





















  
  




  


  
    





<link rel="File-List" href="2026-Jul-cvrf.fld/filelist.xml">













<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="920">
 <col width="144">
 <col width="256">
 <col width="104" span="5">
 <tr height="47">
  <td width="144" class="xl65" height="47">CVE</td>
  <td width="256" class="xl65">Title</td>
  <td width="104" class="xl66">Severity</td>
  <td width="104" class="xl66">CVSS</td>
  <td width="104" class="xl66">Public</td>
  <td width="104" class="xl66">Exploited</td>
  <td width="104" class="xl66">Type</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56155"><span>CVE-2026-56155</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Active Directory
  Federation Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">Yes</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56164"><span>CVE-2026-56164</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl71">Moderate</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">Yes</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50661"><span>CVE-2026-50661</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows BitLocker
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.1</td>
  <td class="xl70">Yes</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54121"><span>CVE-2026-54121</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Active Directory
  Certificate Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45499"><span>CVE-2026-45499 **</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Azure OpenAI Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.9</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48564"><span>CVE-2026-48564</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">DHCP Server Service
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50370"><span>CVE-2026-50370</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">DHCP Server Service
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56159"><span>CVE-2026-56159</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">DHCP Server Service
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50382"><span>CVE-2026-50382</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">DirectX Graphics
  Kernel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-41106"><span>CVE-2026-41106 **</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft 365 Copilot
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26145"><span>CVE-2026-26145 **</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Azure
  Synapse Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48561"><span>CVE-2026-48561</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Copilot
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.6</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55011"><span>CVE-2026-55011</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Defender
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55012"><span>CVE-2026-55012</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Defender
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="96">
  <td class="xl67" height="96"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55944"><span>CVE-2026-55944</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Dynamics NAV
  and Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central (On Premises) Remote Code
  Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57100"><span>CVE-2026-57100 **</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Entra
  Provisioning Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.9</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55041"><span>CVE-2026-55041</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54998"><span>CVE-2026-54998 **</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Exchange
  Online Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55008"><span>CVE-2026-55008</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Exchange
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.6</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54992"><span>CVE-2026-54992</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Message
  Queuing Queue Manager Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50314"><span>CVE-2026-50314</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50467"><span>CVE-2026-50467</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55018"><span>CVE-2026-55018</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55022"><span>CVE-2026-55022</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55045"><span>CVE-2026-55045</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55049"><span>CVE-2026-55049</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55129"><span>CVE-2026-55129</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55056"><span>CVE-2026-55056</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55140"><span>CVE-2026-55140</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55043"><span>CVE-2026-55043</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft PowerPoint
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55123"><span>CVE-2026-55123</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft PowerPoint
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55120"><span>CVE-2026-55120</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft PowerPoint
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50522"><span>CVE-2026-50522</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58644"><span>CVE-2026-58644</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55040"><span>CVE-2026-55040</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54117"><span>CVE-2026-54117</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SQL Server
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54118"><span>CVE-2026-54118</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SQL Server
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50655"><span>CVE-2026-50655</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Windows
  Media Foundation Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56189"><span>CVE-2026-56189</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Windows
  Media Foundation Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57090"><span>CVE-2026-57090</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Windows
  Media Foundation Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57094"><span>CVE-2026-57094</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Windows
  Media Foundation Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57087"><span>CVE-2026-57087</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Windows
  Media Foundation Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57092"><span>CVE-2026-57092</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Windows
  VMSwitch Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.9</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55033"><span>CVE-2026-55033</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Word Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55127"><span>CVE-2026-55127</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Word Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55132"><span>CVE-2026-55132</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Word Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55010"><span>CVE-2026-55010</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Minecraft Bedrock
  Dedicated Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50474"><span>CVE-2026-50474</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Remote Desktop Client
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49164"><span>CVE-2026-49164</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Active
  Directory Domain Services Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54128"><span>CVE-2026-54128</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows DHCP Client
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50518"><span>CVE-2026-50518</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows DHCP Server
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49796"><span>CVE-2026-49796</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows GDI+ Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50380"><span>CVE-2026-50380</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows GDI+ Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.6</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54127"><span>CVE-2026-54127</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Hyper-V
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50680"><span>CVE-2026-50680</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Hyper-V
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.2</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50327"><span>CVE-2026-50327</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Media Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58542"><span>CVE-2026-58542</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Media Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58608"><span>CVE-2026-58608</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Print Spooler
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54982"><span>CVE-2026-54982</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Reliable
  Multicast Transport Driver (RMCAST) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54995"><span>CVE-2026-54995</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Reliable
  Multicast Transport Driver (RMCAST) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42982"><span>CVE-2026-42982</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Secure Kernel
  Mode Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50392"><span>CVE-2026-50392</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Secure Kernel
  Mode Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50694"><span>CVE-2026-50694</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Secure Socket
  Tunneling Protocol (SSTP) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56188"><span>CVE-2026-56188</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Server Network
  driver Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50444"><span>CVE-2026-50444</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Server Update
  Service (WSUS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54999"><span>CVE-2026-54999</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows TCP/IP Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47302"><span>CVE-2026-47302</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">.NET Denial of Service
  Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50525"><span>CVE-2026-50525</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">.NET Denial of Service
  Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50651"><span>CVE-2026-50651</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">.NET Denial of Service
  Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57108"><span>CVE-2026-57108</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">.NET Denial of Service
  Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50524"><span>CVE-2026-50524</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">.NET Framework Denial
  of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50527"><span>CVE-2026-50527</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">.NET Framework Denial
  of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50648"><span>CVE-2026-50648</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">.NET Framework Denial
  of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50650"><span>CVE-2026-50650</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">.NET Framework
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50646"><span>CVE-2026-50646</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">.NET Framework Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50649"><span>CVE-2026-50649</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">.NET Remote Code
  Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47304"><span>CVE-2026-47304</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">.NET Security Feature
  Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50528"><span>CVE-2026-50528</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">.NET Security Feature
  Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.2</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50659"><span>CVE-2026-50659</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">.NET Spoofing
  Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50526"><span>CVE-2026-50526</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">.NET Tampering
  Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Tampering</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50682"><span>CVE-2026-50682</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Active Directory
  Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55001"><span>CVE-2026-55001</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Active Directory
  Domain Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50647"><span>CVE-2026-50647</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Active Directory
  Federation Server Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50684"><span>CVE-2026-50684</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Active Directory
  Federation Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56170"><span>CVE-2026-56170</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">ASP.NET Core Denial of
  Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47300"><span>CVE-2026-47300</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">ASP.NET Core Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47303"><span>CVE-2026-47303</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">ASP.NET Core Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50652"><span>CVE-2026-50652</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Azure Active Directory
  Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50653"><span>CVE-2026-50653</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Azure Active Directory
  Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57969"><span>CVE-2026-57969</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Azure CycleCloud
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58279"><span>CVE-2026-58279</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Azure CycleCloud
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47632"><span>CVE-2026-47632</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Azure Monitor Agent
  Metrics Extension Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50338"><span>CVE-2026-50338</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Azure Spring Apps
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.2</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50488"><span>CVE-2026-50488</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Clipboard User Service
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50491"><span>CVE-2026-50491</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Code Integrity DLL
  (ci.dll) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50381"><span>CVE-2026-50381</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Composite Image File
  System driver (cimfs.sys) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50427"><span>CVE-2026-50427</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Content Delivery
  Manager Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50692"><span>CVE-2026-50692</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Desktop Window Manager
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58633"><span>CVE-2026-58633</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Desktop Window Manager
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58634"><span>CVE-2026-58634</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Desktop Window Manager
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50296"><span>CVE-2026-50296</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">DirectX Graphics
  Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50375"><span>CVE-2026-50375</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">DirectX Graphics
  Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50353"><span>CVE-2026-50353</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">DirectX Graphics
  Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50493"><span>CVE-2026-50493</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">DirectX Graphics
  Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56643"><span>CVE-2026-56643</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">DirectX Graphics
  Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56644"><span>CVE-2026-56644</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">DirectX Graphics
  Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58629"><span>CVE-2026-58629</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">DirectX Graphics
  Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49174"><span>CVE-2026-49174</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">DNS Client Tampering
  Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Tampering</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50495"><span>CVE-2026-50495</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">DNS Client Tampering
  Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Tampering</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57088"><span>CVE-2026-57088</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Extensible Storage
  Engine (ESENT) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50663"><span>CVE-2026-50663</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Game: Age of Empires
  II: Definitive Edition Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="72">
  <td class="xl67" height="72"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47282"><span>CVE-2026-47282</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">GitHub Copilot and
  Visual Studio Code Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-41109"><span>CVE-2026-41109</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">GitHub Copilot and
  Visual Studio Code Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50510"><span>CVE-2026-50510</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">GitHub Copilot Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49787"><span>CVE-2026-49787</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">HTTP.sys Denial of
  Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50420"><span>CVE-2026-50420</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">HTTP.sys Information
  Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.2</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49788"><span>CVE-2026-49788</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">HTTP/2 Denial of
  Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50696"><span>CVE-2026-50696</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Internet Key Exchange
  (IKE) Protocol Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58617"><span>CVE-2026-58617</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">M365 Copilot for iOS
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58595"><span>CVE-2026-58595</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Bing App for
  IOS Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49162"><span>CVE-2026-49162</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Brokering
  File System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50305"><span>CVE-2026-50305</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Brokering
  File System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50361"><span>CVE-2026-50361</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Brokering
  File System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50466"><span>CVE-2026-50466</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Brokering
  File System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50458"><span>CVE-2026-50458</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Brokering
  File System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="72">
  <td class="xl67" height="72"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50658"><span>CVE-2026-50658</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Defender for
  Endpoint for Mac Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="72">
  <td class="xl67" height="72"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56178"><span>CVE-2026-56178</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Defender for
  Endpoint for Mac Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50657"><span>CVE-2026-50657</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Defender for
  Endpoint for Mac Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50329"><span>CVE-2026-50329</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft DWM Core
  Library Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58541"><span>CVE-2026-58541</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft DWM Core
  Library Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58596"><span>CVE-2026-58596</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57991"><span>CVE-2026-57991</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58291"><span>CVE-2026-58291</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57981"><span>CVE-2026-57981</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57984"><span>CVE-2026-57984</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57985"><span>CVE-2026-57985</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.6</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57986"><span>CVE-2026-57986</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57988"><span>CVE-2026-57988</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57992"><span>CVE-2026-57992</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58276"><span>CVE-2026-58276</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56645"><span>CVE-2026-56645</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57974"><span>CVE-2026-57974</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57975"><span>CVE-2026-57975</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58281"><span>CVE-2026-58281</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58284"><span>CVE-2026-58284</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58285"><span>CVE-2026-58285</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58287"><span>CVE-2026-58287</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58288"><span>CVE-2026-58288</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58289"><span>CVE-2026-58289</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">9</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58290"><span>CVE-2026-58290</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58292"><span>CVE-2026-58292</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58293"><span>CVE-2026-58293</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58294"><span>CVE-2026-58294</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57983"><span>CVE-2026-57983</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58295"><span>CVE-2026-58295</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58525"><span>CVE-2026-58525</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.2</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57987"><span>CVE-2026-57987</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58278"><span>CVE-2026-58278</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56646"><span>CVE-2026-56646</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57977"><span>CVE-2026-57977</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57993"><span>CVE-2026-57993</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58282"><span>CVE-2026-58282</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58283"><span>CVE-2026-58283</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58286"><span>CVE-2026-58286</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58298"><span>CVE-2026-58298</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.2</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58524"><span>CVE-2026-58524</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58296"><span>CVE-2026-58296</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge for
  Android Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58297"><span>CVE-2026-58297</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge for
  Android Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58300"><span>CVE-2026-58300</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge for
  Android Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.2</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58522"><span>CVE-2026-58522</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge for
  Android Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58299"><span>CVE-2026-58299</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge for
  Android Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58523"><span>CVE-2026-58523</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge for
  Android Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50678"><span>CVE-2026-50678</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.6</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54988"><span>CVE-2026-54988</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48580"><span>CVE-2026-48580</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50408"><span>CVE-2026-50408</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55046"><span>CVE-2026-55046</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55138"><span>CVE-2026-55138</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55054"><span>CVE-2026-55054</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55122"><span>CVE-2026-55122</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55898"><span>CVE-2026-55898</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50675"><span>CVE-2026-50675</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55899"><span>CVE-2026-55899</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55948"><span>CVE-2026-55948</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58618"><span>CVE-2026-58618</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47642"><span>CVE-2026-47642</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55024"><span>CVE-2026-55024</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55025"><span>CVE-2026-55025</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55031"><span>CVE-2026-55031</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55048"><span>CVE-2026-55048</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55029"><span>CVE-2026-55029</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55039"><span>CVE-2026-55039</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55136"><span>CVE-2026-55136</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55141"><span>CVE-2026-55141</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55036"><span>CVE-2026-55036</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55044"><span>CVE-2026-55044</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55037"><span>CVE-2026-55037</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55058"><span>CVE-2026-55058</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55137"><span>CVE-2026-55137</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55053"><span>CVE-2026-55053</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55131"><span>CVE-2026-55131</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54131"><span>CVE-2026-54131</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55947"><span>CVE-2026-55947</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55949"><span>CVE-2026-55949</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56156"><span>CVE-2026-56156</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55006"><span>CVE-2026-55006</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Exchange
  Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55009"><span>CVE-2026-55009</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Exchange
  Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55005"><span>CVE-2026-55005</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Exchange
  Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56642"><span>CVE-2026-56642</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Fabric Data
  Warehouse Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50343"><span>CVE-2026-50343</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Install
  Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50439"><span>CVE-2026-50439</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Message
  Queuing Queue Manager Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58537"><span>CVE-2026-58537</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft NAT Helper
  Components (ipnathlp.dll) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56193"><span>CVE-2026-56193</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55023"><span>CVE-2026-55023</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55026"><span>CVE-2026-55026</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.2</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55027"><span>CVE-2026-55027</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55028"><span>CVE-2026-55028</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55047"><span>CVE-2026-55047</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55035"><span>CVE-2026-55035</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55057"><span>CVE-2026-55057</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl75" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55121"><span>CVE-2026-55121</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55042"><span>CVE-2026-55042</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55139"><span>CVE-2026-55139</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50665"><span>CVE-2026-50665</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56192"><span>CVE-2026-56192</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56195"><span>CVE-2026-56195</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47290"><span>CVE-2026-47290</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50301"><span>CVE-2026-50301</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55017"><span>CVE-2026-55017</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55125"><span>CVE-2026-55125</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55133"><span>CVE-2026-55133</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft OneNote
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58636"><span>CVE-2026-58636</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft PC Manager
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50438"><span>CVE-2026-50438</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft PC Manager
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58647"><span>CVE-2026-58647</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft PowerBI
  Report Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55052"><span>CVE-2026-55052</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58277"><span>CVE-2026-58277</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55051"><span>CVE-2026-55051</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54108"><span>CVE-2026-54108</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55016"><span>CVE-2026-55016</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.6</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55019"><span>CVE-2026-55019</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.6</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55020"><span>CVE-2026-55020</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.6</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55021"><span>CVE-2026-55021</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55030"><span>CVE-2026-55030</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.6</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55034"><span>CVE-2026-55034</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55126"><span>CVE-2026-55126</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55135"><span>CVE-2026-55135</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.6</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56157"><span>CVE-2026-56157</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47296"><span>CVE-2026-47296</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SQL Server
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55002"><span>CVE-2026-55002</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SQL Server
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47295"><span>CVE-2026-47295</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SQL Server
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50468"><span>CVE-2026-50468</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SQL Server
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54116"><span>CVE-2026-54116</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SQL Server
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42900"><span>CVE-2026-42900</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Windows App
  Store Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49784"><span>CVE-2026-49784</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Windows App
  Store Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50356"><span>CVE-2026-50356</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Windows App
  Store Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49165"><span>CVE-2026-49165</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Windows App
  Store Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54993"><span>CVE-2026-54993</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Windows
  Media Foundation Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58610"><span>CVE-2026-58610</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Windows
  Media Foundation Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55050"><span>CVE-2026-55050</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Word
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55124"><span>CVE-2026-55124</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Word
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55142"><span>CVE-2026-55142</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Word
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55032"><span>CVE-2026-55032</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Word Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55055"><span>CVE-2026-55055</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Word Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55038"><span>CVE-2026-55038</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Word Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55134"><span>CVE-2026-55134</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Word Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55128"><span>CVE-2026-55128</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Word Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55130"><span>CVE-2026-55130</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Word Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50359"><span>CVE-2026-50359</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft XML Core
  Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57097"><span>CVE-2026-57097</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft XML Security
  Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50346"><span>CVE-2026-50346</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Netlogon RPC Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50402"><span>CVE-2026-50402</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">NTFS Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50506"><span>CVE-2026-50506</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">OData for ASP.NET and
  ASP.NET Core Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45646"><span>CVE-2026-45646</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">OData for ASP.NET and
  ASP.NET Core Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54989"><span>CVE-2026-54989</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Quality Windows
  Audio/Video Experience (QWAVE) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50365"><span>CVE-2026-50365</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Remote Access
  Management service/API (RPC server) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54990"><span>CVE-2026-54990</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Remote Desktop Client
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58594"><span>CVE-2026-58594</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Remote Desktop Client
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56190"><span>CVE-2026-56190</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Remote Desktop
  Protocol Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49783"><span>CVE-2026-49783</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Secure Boot Security
  Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42990"><span>CVE-2026-42990</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">SQL Server ODBC driver
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49168"><span>CVE-2026-49168</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Storage Spaces Direct
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.2</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48581"><span>CVE-2026-48581</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Surface Broker SDMA
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49180"><span>CVE-2026-49180</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Universal Plug and
  Play (upnp.dll) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50455"><span>CVE-2026-50455</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Universal Plug and
  Play (upnp.dll) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54111"><span>CVE-2026-54111</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Universal Print
  Management Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58543"><span>CVE-2026-58543</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Universal Print
  Management Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58601"><span>CVE-2026-58601</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Virtual Hard Disk
  (VHD) Miniport Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulernability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50520"><span>CVE-2026-50520</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Visual Studio Code
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45496"><span>CVE-2026-45496</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Visual Studio Code
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57101"><span>CVE-2026-57101</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Visual Studio Code
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57102"><span>CVE-2026-57102</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Visual Studio Code
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47305"><span>CVE-2026-47305</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Visual Studio Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49805"><span>CVE-2026-49805</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Win32k Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50297"><span>CVE-2026-50297</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Win32k Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50325"><span>CVE-2026-50325</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Win32k Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50489"><span>CVE-2026-50489</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Win32k Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57095"><span>CVE-2026-57095</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Win32k Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.2</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50416"><span>CVE-2026-50416</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Win32k Information
  Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">3.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56184"><span>CVE-2026-56184</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Win32k Information
  Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50432"><span>CVE-2026-50432</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Window Virtual
  Filtering Platform (VFP) Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54119"><span>CVE-2026-54119</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Active
  Directory Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57976"><span>CVE-2026-57976</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Active
  Directory Domain Services Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50366"><span>CVE-2026-50366</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Active
  Directory Domain Services Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49178"><span>CVE-2026-49178</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Active
  Directory Domain Services Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58529"><span>CVE-2026-58529</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Active
  Directory Federation Services (ADFS) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54983"><span>CVE-2026-54983</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Active
  Directory Federation Services Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50695"><span>CVE-2026-50695</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Active
  Directory Federation Services Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50304"><span>CVE-2026-50304</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Active
  Directory Federation Services Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50368"><span>CVE-2026-50368</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Active
  Directory Federation Services Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50324"><span>CVE-2026-50324</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Active
  Directory Federation Services Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.9</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50355"><span>CVE-2026-50355</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Active
  Directory Federation Services Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50411"><span>CVE-2026-50411</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Active
  Directory Federation Services Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl67" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58631"><span>CVE-2026-58631</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Admin Center
  (WAC) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl67" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56196"><span>CVE-2026-56196</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Admin Center
  (WAC) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl67" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56197"><span>CVE-2026-56197</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Admin Center
  (WAC) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56169"><span>CVE-2026-56169</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Admin Center
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57107"><span>CVE-2026-57107</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Admin Center
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56185"><span>CVE-2026-56185</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Admin Center
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50312"><span>CVE-2026-50312</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Ancillary
  Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50462"><span>CVE-2026-50462</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Ancillary
  Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57093"><span>CVE-2026-57093</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Ancillary
  Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-34346"><span>CVE-2026-34346</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Ancillary
  Function Driver for WinSock Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48572"><span>CVE-2026-48572</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows App Package
  Installer Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48571"><span>CVE-2026-48571</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows App Package
  Installer Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50400"><span>CVE-2026-50400</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows App Package
  Installer Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50331"><span>CVE-2026-50331</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Application
  Model Core API Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49803"><span>CVE-2026-49803</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows AppX
  Deployment Extensions Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50351"><span>CVE-2026-50351</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Audio
  Compression Manager (ACM) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50440"><span>CVE-2026-50440</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Audio Service
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-34328"><span>CVE-2026-34328</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Audio Service
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50406"><span>CVE-2026-50406</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Backup Engine
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50364"><span>CVE-2026-50364</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Backup Service
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42975"><span>CVE-2026-42975</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Bluetooth Port
  Driver Remote Code Execution</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58538"><span>CVE-2026-58538</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Bluetooth
  Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58638"><span>CVE-2026-58638</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Boot Loader
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58637"><span>CVE-2026-58637</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Client-Side
  Caching Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50384"><span>CVE-2026-50384</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Clip Service
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49183"><span>CVE-2026-49183</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Clipboard
  Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50689"><span>CVE-2026-50689</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Clipboard
  Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50374"><span>CVE-2026-50374</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Cloud Files
  Mini Filter Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58536"><span>CVE-2026-58536</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Cloud Files
  Mini Filter Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58613"><span>CVE-2026-58613</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Cloud Files
  Mini Filter Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50401"><span>CVE-2026-50401</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Cloud Files
  Mini Filter Driver Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50697"><span>CVE-2026-50697</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Common Log
  File System Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50667"><span>CVE-2026-50667</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Common Log
  File System Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50421"><span>CVE-2026-50421</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Connected User
  Experiences and Telemetry Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50428"><span>CVE-2026-50428</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Container
  Isolation FS Filter Driver (unionfs.sys) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50352"><span>CVE-2026-50352</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Cryptographic
  Services Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50302"><span>CVE-2026-50302</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Cryptographic
  Services Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.2</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55144"><span>CVE-2026-55144</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Cryptography
  API: Next Generation (CNG) Tampering Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Tampering</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50347"><span>CVE-2026-50347</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Data.dll
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49181"><span>CVE-2026-49181</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows DHCP Client
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50683"><span>CVE-2026-50683</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows DHCP Client
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58627"><span>CVE-2026-58627</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows DHCP Server
  Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50685"><span>CVE-2026-50685</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows DHCP Server
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49807"><span>CVE-2026-49807</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows DirectX
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.2</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49175"><span>CVE-2026-49175</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows DNS Client
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50487"><span>CVE-2026-50487</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows DNS Client
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50465"><span>CVE-2026-50465</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows DNS Client
  Tampering Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Tampering</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49169"><span>CVE-2026-49169</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows DNS Server
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50426"><span>CVE-2026-50426</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows DNS Server
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50424"><span>CVE-2026-50424</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Domain
  Controller Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50300"><span>CVE-2026-50300</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows DWM Core
  Library Information Disclosure<span> 
  </span>Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50437"><span>CVE-2026-50437</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows DWM Core
  Library Information Disclosure<span> 
  </span>Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-34348"><span>CVE-2026-34348</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Event Logging
  Service Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50502"><span>CVE-2026-50502</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Event Logging
  Service Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33842"><span>CVE-2026-33842</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows File Explorer
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40422"><span>CVE-2026-40422</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows File Explorer
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-41087"><span>CVE-2026-41087</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows File Explorer
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50473"><span>CVE-2026-50473</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows File Explorer
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50442"><span>CVE-2026-50442</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows File Explorer
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50389"><span>CVE-2026-50389</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows File Explorer
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50456"><span>CVE-2026-50456</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows File Explorer
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57084"><span>CVE-2026-57084</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows File Explorer
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57091"><span>CVE-2026-57091</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows File History
  Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50405"><span>CVE-2026-50405</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Filtering
  Platform Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49172"><span>CVE-2026-49172</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows FTP Service
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50387"><span>CVE-2026-50387</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows GDI Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54122"><span>CVE-2026-54122</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows GDI+ Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50483"><span>CVE-2026-50483</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Graphics
  Component Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl67" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58609"><span>CVE-2026-58609</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Graphics
  Component Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50391"><span>CVE-2026-50391</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Group Policy
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50310"><span>CVE-2026-50310</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Human
  Interface Device Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50485"><span>CVE-2026-50485</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Hyper-V Denial
  of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54129"><span>CVE-2026-54129</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Hyper-V
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50315"><span>CVE-2026-50315</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Image
  Acquisition Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58534"><span>CVE-2026-58534</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Input Method
  Editor (IME) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50490"><span>CVE-2026-50490</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Installer
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58540"><span>CVE-2026-58540</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Installer
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50425"><span>CVE-2026-50425</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Internal
  System User Profile Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50293"><span>CVE-2026-50293</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Internal Task
  Bar Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49167"><span>CVE-2026-49167</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49173"><span>CVE-2026-49173</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54132"><span>CVE-2026-54132</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49795"><span>CVE-2026-49795</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49798"><span>CVE-2026-49798</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49808"><span>CVE-2026-49808</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50354"><span>CVE-2026-50354</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50332"><span>CVE-2026-50332</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50377"><span>CVE-2026-50377</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50390"><span>CVE-2026-50390</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50423"><span>CVE-2026-50423</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50397"><span>CVE-2026-50397</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50436"><span>CVE-2026-50436</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50399"><span>CVE-2026-50399</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50459"><span>CVE-2026-50459</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50477"><span>CVE-2026-50477</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50478"><span>CVE-2026-50478</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50484"><span>CVE-2026-50484</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50673"><span>CVE-2026-50673</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58532"><span>CVE-2026-58532</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50294"><span>CVE-2026-50294</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.2</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50316"><span>CVE-2026-50316</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50419"><span>CVE-2026-50419</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">3.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50463"><span>CVE-2026-50463</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50475"><span>CVE-2026-50475</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50429"><span>CVE-2026-50429</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.2</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58614"><span>CVE-2026-58614</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58545"><span>CVE-2026-58545</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58602"><span>CVE-2026-58602</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel-Mode
  Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50393"><span>CVE-2026-50393</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel-Mode
  Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50396"><span>CVE-2026-50396</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel-Mode
  Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50378"><span>CVE-2026-50378</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Key Guard
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50303"><span>CVE-2026-50303</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Key Guard
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40378"><span>CVE-2026-40378</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Local Security
  Authority Subsystem Service (LSASS) Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49799"><span>CVE-2026-49799</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Local Security
  Authority Subsystem Service (LSASS) Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50371"><span>CVE-2026-50371</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows LUA File
  Virtualization Filter Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58544"><span>CVE-2026-58544</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Management
  Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50404"><span>CVE-2026-50404</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Media
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50358"><span>CVE-2026-50358</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Media
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50336"><span>CVE-2026-50336</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Media
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50398"><span>CVE-2026-50398</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Media
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50414"><span>CVE-2026-50414</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Media
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50379"><span>CVE-2026-50379</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Media
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50433"><span>CVE-2026-50433</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Media
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50676"><span>CVE-2026-50676</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Media
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50677"><span>CVE-2026-50677</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Media
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-34349"><span>CVE-2026-34349</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Media
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50394"><span>CVE-2026-50394</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Media
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50415"><span>CVE-2026-50415</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Media
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57083"><span>CVE-2026-57083</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Media Photo
  Codec Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54115"><span>CVE-2026-54115</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Message
  Queuing (MSMQ) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl67" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50447"><span>CVE-2026-50447</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Message
  Queuing Service (MSMQ) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl67" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50505"><span>CVE-2026-50505</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Message
  Queuing Service (MSMQ) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50342"><span>CVE-2026-50342</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows MIDI Service
  Module Elevation of Privileges Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56183"><span>CVE-2026-56183</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows MIDI Service
  Module Elevation of Privileges Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56187"><span>CVE-2026-56187</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows MIDI Service
  Module Elevation of Privileges Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58635"><span>CVE-2026-58635</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Narrator
  Braille Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50500"><span>CVE-2026-50500</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Netlogon
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl67" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50476"><span>CVE-2026-50476</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Network
  Connections Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl67" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50450"><span>CVE-2026-50450</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Network
  Connections Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56650"><span>CVE-2026-56650</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Network File
  System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl67" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56649"><span>CVE-2026-56649</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Network File
  System Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.9</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl67" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50470"><span>CVE-2026-50470</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Network Policy
  Server SNMP Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl67" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50496"><span>CVE-2026-50496</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Network Policy
  Server SNMP Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56194"><span>CVE-2026-56194</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NFS Server
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56648"><span>CVE-2026-56648</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NFS Server
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50337"><span>CVE-2026-50337</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Notification
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49789"><span>CVE-2026-49789</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50412"><span>CVE-2026-50412</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50422"><span>CVE-2026-50422</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50672"><span>CVE-2026-50672</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56175"><span>CVE-2026-56175</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56182"><span>CVE-2026-56182</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50341"><span>CVE-2026-50341</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58640"><span>CVE-2026-58640</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49184"><span>CVE-2026-49184</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49797"><span>CVE-2026-49797</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50308"><span>CVE-2026-50308</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50386"><span>CVE-2026-50386</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50309"><span>CVE-2026-50309</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50313"><span>CVE-2026-50313</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50388"><span>CVE-2026-50388</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50448"><span>CVE-2026-50448</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50471"><span>CVE-2026-50471</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50461"><span>CVE-2026-50461</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50417"><span>CVE-2026-50417</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50482"><span>CVE-2026-50482</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50494"><span>CVE-2026-50494</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50344"><span>CVE-2026-50344</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows OLE Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50686"><span>CVE-2026-50686</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows OLE Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50335"><span>CVE-2026-50335</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Operating
  Systems Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50317"><span>CVE-2026-50317</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Operating
  Systems Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54987"><span>CVE-2026-54987</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Overlay Filter
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50435"><span>CVE-2026-50435</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Overlay Filter
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50409"><span>CVE-2026-50409</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Overlay Filter
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40400"><span>CVE-2026-40400</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows PowerShell
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49166"><span>CVE-2026-49166</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Print
  Configuration Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55004"><span>CVE-2026-55004</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Print
  Configuration Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50499"><span>CVE-2026-50499</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Print Spooler
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50383"><span>CVE-2026-50383</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Print Spooler
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57085"><span>CVE-2026-57085</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Print Spooler
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50469"><span>CVE-2026-50469</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Projected File
  System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50434"><span>CVE-2026-50434</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Push
  Notification Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50339"><span>CVE-2026-50339</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Push
  Notification Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50430"><span>CVE-2026-50430</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Push
  Notification Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50334"><span>CVE-2026-50334</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Push
  Notification Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44800"><span>CVE-2026-44800</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Push
  Notifications Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50363"><span>CVE-2026-50363</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Push
  Notifications Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50431"><span>CVE-2026-50431</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Quality of
  Service (QoS) Packet Scheduler Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50372"><span>CVE-2026-50372</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Redirected
  Drive Buffering System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50666"><span>CVE-2026-50666</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Access
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56647"><span>CVE-2026-56647</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Access
  Service Infrastructure Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50330"><span>CVE-2026-50330</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Desktop
  Client Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50376"><span>CVE-2026-50376</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Desktop
  Client Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50504"><span>CVE-2026-50504</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Desktop
  Client Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58533"><span>CVE-2026-58533</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Desktop
  Client Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58535"><span>CVE-2026-58535</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Desktop
  Client Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58546"><span>CVE-2026-58546</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Desktop
  Client Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58539"><span>CVE-2026-58539</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Desktop
  Client Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55003"><span>CVE-2026-55003</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Desktop
  Protocol (RDP) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57979"><span>CVE-2026-57979</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Desktop
  Protocol (RDP) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50445"><span>CVE-2026-50445</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Desktop
  Protocol (RDP) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50497"><span>CVE-2026-50497</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Desktop
  Protocol (RDP) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54126"><span>CVE-2026-54126</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Desktop
  Protocol (RDP) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57982"><span>CVE-2026-57982</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Desktop
  Protocol (RDP) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50369"><span>CVE-2026-50369</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Desktop
  Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58626"><span>CVE-2026-58626</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Desktop
  Services Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55014"><span>CVE-2026-55014</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Help
  Defense Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50318"><span>CVE-2026-50318</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Resilient File
  System (ReFS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50407"><span>CVE-2026-50407</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Resilient File
  System (ReFS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50357"><span>CVE-2026-50357</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Resilient File
  System (ReFS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50441"><span>CVE-2026-50441</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Resilient File
  System (ReFS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50668"><span>CVE-2026-50668</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Resilient File
  System (ReFS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54109"><span>CVE-2026-54109</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Resilient File
  System (ReFS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49792"><span>CVE-2026-49792</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Resilient File
  System (ReFS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49793"><span>CVE-2026-49793</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Resilient File
  System (ReFS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50362"><span>CVE-2026-50362</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Resilient File
  System (ReFS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50492"><span>CVE-2026-50492</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Resilient File
  System (ReFS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50501"><span>CVE-2026-50501</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Resilient File
  System (ReFS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58530"><span>CVE-2026-58530</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Resilient File
  System (ReFS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49791"><span>CVE-2026-49791</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Routing and
  Remote Access Service (RRAS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50451"><span>CVE-2026-50451</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Routing and
  Remote Access Service (RRAS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57096"><span>CVE-2026-57096</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Routing and
  Remote Access Service (RRAS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50323"><span>CVE-2026-50323</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50452"><span>CVE-2026-50452</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50348"><span>CVE-2026-50348</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50345"><span>CVE-2026-50345</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50322"><span>CVE-2026-50322</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50340"><span>CVE-2026-50340</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50410"><span>CVE-2026-50410</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50449"><span>CVE-2026-50449</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50460"><span>CVE-2026-50460</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50403"><span>CVE-2026-50403</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50385"><span>CVE-2026-50385</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50413"><span>CVE-2026-50413</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50457"><span>CVE-2026-50457</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50486"><span>CVE-2026-50486</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50503"><span>CVE-2026-50503</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54125"><span>CVE-2026-54125</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58527"><span>CVE-2026-58527</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50373"><span>CVE-2026-50373</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Search Service
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50679"><span>CVE-2026-50679</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Search Service
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44806"><span>CVE-2026-44806</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Secure Channel
  Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50681"><span>CVE-2026-50681</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Secure Channel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56186"><span>CVE-2026-56186</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Secure Channel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50367"><span>CVE-2026-50367</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Sensor Data
  Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58619"><span>CVE-2026-58619</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Sensor Data
  Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50311"><span>CVE-2026-50311</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Server
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50328"><span>CVE-2026-50328</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Server Update
  Service (WSUS) Tampering Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Tampering</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58531"><span>CVE-2026-58531</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows SMB Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54997"><span>CVE-2026-54997</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows SMB
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49801"><span>CVE-2026-49801</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows SMB
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50690"><span>CVE-2026-50690</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows SMB
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56168"><span>CVE-2026-56168</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows SMB Server
  Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50360"><span>CVE-2026-50360</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows SMB Server
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57089"><span>CVE-2026-57089</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows SMB Server
  Network Transport Driver (srvnet.sys) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50333"><span>CVE-2026-50333</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Spaceport.sys
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50298"><span>CVE-2026-50298</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Spaceport.sys
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49171"><span>CVE-2026-49171</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Speech Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49170"><span>CVE-2026-49170</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows
  StateRepository API Server file Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58526"><span>CVE-2026-58526</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Storage
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50299"><span>CVE-2026-50299</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Storage Spaces
  Direct Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57968"><span>CVE-2026-57968</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Subsystem for
  Linux (WSL2) Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57973"><span>CVE-2026-57973</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Subsystem for
  Linux (WSL2) Kernel Tampering Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Tampering</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50418"><span>CVE-2026-50418</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows System Secure
  Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50306"><span>CVE-2026-50306</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows TCP/IP
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50307"><span>CVE-2026-50307</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows TCP/IP
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49177"><span>CVE-2026-49177</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows TCP/IP
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50669"><span>CVE-2026-50669</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Telephony
  Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54124"><span>CVE-2026-54124</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Terminal
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50350"><span>CVE-2026-50350</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Trusted
  Runtime Interface Driver Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50326"><span>CVE-2026-50326</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Unified
  Consent System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49790"><span>CVE-2026-49790</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Universal Disk
  Format File System Driver (UDFS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50498"><span>CVE-2026-50498</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Universal Disk
  Format File System Driver (UDFS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl67" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58547"><span>CVE-2026-58547</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Universal Plug
  and Play (UPnP) Device Host Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49794"><span>CVE-2026-49794</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows USB Audio
  Class Driver Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.6</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50453"><span>CVE-2026-50453</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows USB Audio
  Class Driver Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58528"><span>CVE-2026-58528</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows USB Audio
  Class Driver Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50321"><span>CVE-2026-50321</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows USB Driver
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50479"><span>CVE-2026-50479</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows USB Hub Driver
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55000"><span>CVE-2026-55000</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows USB Print
  Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54991"><span>CVE-2026-54991</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows USB Print
  Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54996"><span>CVE-2026-54996</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows USB Print
  Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49802"><span>CVE-2026-49802</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows USB Print
  Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49806"><span>CVE-2026-49806</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows USB Print
  Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50674"><span>CVE-2026-50674</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows USB Print
  Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49804"><span>CVE-2026-49804</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows USB Video
  Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.6</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50454"><span>CVE-2026-50454</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows User Interface
  Core Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49176"><span>CVE-2026-49176</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows WalletService
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49800"><span>CVE-2026-49800</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Web Proxy
  Auto-Discovery Protocol (WPAD) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50480"><span>CVE-2026-50480</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Web Proxy
  Auto-Discovery Protocol (WPAD) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56173"><span>CVE-2026-56173</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows WebView
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58632"><span>CVE-2026-58632</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Win32 Kernel
  Subsystem Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54107"><span>CVE-2026-54107</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Win32k
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54986"><span>CVE-2026-54986</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Win32k
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54112"><span>CVE-2026-54112</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Win32k
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54114"><span>CVE-2026-54114</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Win32k
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50670"><span>CVE-2026-50670</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Win32k
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50688"><span>CVE-2026-50688</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Win32k
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50687"><span>CVE-2026-50687</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Win32k
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56176"><span>CVE-2026-56176</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Win32k
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58628"><span>CVE-2026-58628</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Wireless
  Network Manager Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50295"><span>CVE-2026-50295</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Zero Trust DNS
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50509"><span>CVE-2026-50509</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Wireless Wide Area
  Network Service (WwanSvc) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55945"><span>CVE-2026-55945</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl71">Moderate</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.2</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45488"><span>CVE-2026-45488</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl71">Moderate</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45489"><span>CVE-2026-45489</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl71">Moderate</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55145"><span>CVE-2026-55145</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Outlook Copilot
  Tampering Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl71">Moderate</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Tampering</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl67" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56181"><span>CVE-2026-56181</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Network
  Address Translation (NAT) Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl71">Moderate</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58597"><span>CVE-2026-58597</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft
  Edge (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl73">Low</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 &lt;![if supportMisalignedColumns]&gt;
 <tr height="0">
  <td width="144"></td>
  <td width="256"></td>
  <td width="104"></td>
  <td width="104"></td>
  <td width="104"></td>
  <td width="104"></td>
  <td width="104"></td>
 </tr>
 &lt;![endif]&gt;
</table>











  
  









  <p class=""><em>** Indicates this CVEs has already been resolved by Microsoft, and no further action is needed by the end user.</em></p><p class=""><em> </em></p><p class=""><em> </em></p><p class="">I’ll do my best to summarize everything else in this release, but no promises. I’m only human after all.</p><p class=""> </p><p class="">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.</p><p class="">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.</p><p class="">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.</p><p class="">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.</p><p class="">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.</p><p class="">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.</p><p class="">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.</p><p class="">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.</p><p class="">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.</p><p class="">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.</p><p class="">No new advisories are being released this month.</p><p class=""><strong>Looking Ahead</strong></p><p class="">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!</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The April 2026 Security Update Review]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[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 Micro...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3694470/it-security-nachrichten/the-april-2026-security-update-review/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3694470/it-security-nachrichten/the-april-2026-security-update-review/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:00:42 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class="">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:</p>





















  
  




  
















  
    
      
    
    
      
        
      
    
    
    



  






  <p class=""><strong>Adobe Patches for April 2026</strong></p><p class="">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.</p>





















  
  




  


  
    


<table>
<colgroup>
  <col>
  <col>
  <col>
  <col>
  <col>
  <col>
  <col>
</colgroup>
<thead>
  <tr>
    <th>Bulletin ID</th>
    <th>Product</th>
    <th>CVE Count</th>
    <th>Highest Severity</th>
    <th>Highest CVSS</th>
    <th>Exploited</th>
    <th>Deployment Priority</th>
  </tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/acrobat/apsb26-43.html" target="_blank">APSB26-43</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Acrobat Reader</td>
    <td>1</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>8.6</td>
    <td>Yes</td>
    <td>1</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/acrobat/apsb26-44.html" target="_blank">APSB26-44</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Acrobat Reader</td>
    <td>2</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>8.6</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>2</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/indesign/apsb26-32.html" target="_blank">APSB26-32</a></td>
    <td>Adobe InDesign</td>
    <td>9</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>7.8</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/incopy/apsb26-33.html" target="_blank">APSB26-33</a></td>
    <td>Adobe InCopy</td>
    <td>2</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>7.8</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/framemaker/apsb26-36.html" target="_blank">APSB26-36</a></td>
    <td>Adobe FrameMaker</td>
    <td>11</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>8.6</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/connect/apsb26-37.html" target="_blank">APSB26-37</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Connect</td>
    <td>9</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>9.6</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/coldfusion/apsb26-38.html" target="_blank">APSB26-38</a></td>
    <td>Adobe ColdFusion</td>
    <td>7</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>9.3</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>1</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/bridge/apsb26-39.html" target="_blank">APSB26-39</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Bridge</td>
    <td>6</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>7.8</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/photoshop/apsb26-40.html" target="_blank">APSB26-40</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Photoshop</td>
    <td>1</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>7.8</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/illustrator/apsb26-42.html" target="_blank">APSB26-42</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Illustrator</td>
    <td>1</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>7.8</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/aem-screens/apsb26-34.html" target="_blank">APSB26-34</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Experience Manager Screens</td>
    <td>9</td>
    <td>Important</td>
    <td>5.4</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/dng-sdk/apsb26-41.html" target="_blank">APSB26-41</a></td>
    <td>Adobe DNG SDK</td>
    <td>3</td>
    <td>Important</td>
    <td>5.5</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
</tbody>
</table>



  
  









  <p class="">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. </p><p class="">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.</p><p class=""><strong>Microsoft Patches for April 2026</strong></p><p class="">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.</p><p class="">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.</p><p class="">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:</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32201" target="_blank"><strong>CVE-2026-32201</strong></a><strong> - Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability<br></strong>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.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33825" target="_blank"><strong>CVE-2026-33825</strong></a><strong> - Microsoft Defender Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<br></strong>This bug is listed as publicly known, and this time, we know exactly <a href="https://deadeclipse666.blogspot.com/2026/04/public-disclosure.html" target="_blank">where</a> 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.</p><p class="">-   <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33827" target="_blank"><strong>CVE-2026-33827</strong></a><strong> - Windows TCP/IP Remote Code Execution Vulnerability<br></strong>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.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33824" target="_blank"><strong>CVE-2026-33824</strong></a><strong> - Windows Internet Key Exchange (IKE) Service Extensions Remote Code Execution Vulnerability<br></strong>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.</p><p class="">Here’s the full list of CVEs released by Microsoft for April 2026:</p>





















  
  




  


  
    




<title>April 2026 Patch Tuesday</title>



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









  <p class=""><em>* Indicates this CVE had been released by a third party and is now being included in Microsoft releases</em>.</p><p class=""><em>† Indicates further administrative actions are required to fully address the vulnerability.</em></p><p class=""><em> </em></p><p class="">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.</p><p class="">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. </p><p class="">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. </p><p class="">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.</p><p class="">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.</p><p class="">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 <a href="https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=2347342">notes</a> 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.</p><p class="">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.</p><p class="">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. </p><p class="">No new advisories are being released this month.</p><p class=""><strong>Looking Ahead</strong></p><p class="">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!</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The new value architecture of the AI-native SaaS era]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[The traditional methods of measuring success no longer tell the full story. Here’s what should replace them — and why.



In brief:




AI is transforming software as a service (SaaS), and the old ways of keeping score no longer apply.



Smart companies are evolving new metrics that provide deep...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3694395/it-security-nachrichten/the-new-value-architecture-of-the-ai-native-saas-era/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3694395/it-security-nachrichten/the-new-value-architecture-of-the-ai-native-saas-era/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 18:55:51 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The traditional methods of measuring success no longer tell the full story. Here’s what should replace them — and why.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In brief:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4146669/is-ai-the-end-of-saas-as-we-know-it.html">AI is transforming software as a service (SaaS)</a>, and the old ways of keeping score no longer apply.</li>



<li>Smart companies are evolving new metrics that provide deeper insight into how AI-native software is performing in a new marketplace.</li>



<li>These changes impact everything from pricing to valuations.</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The transformation of the software-as-a-service (SaaS) industry toward AI-native operating companies is rapidly changing the unit of value across the industry.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The traditional metric of seats — which measured access — is rapidly giving way to credits designed to measure work performed. This evolution is upending the industry in multiple ways, impacting everything from pricing to enterprise valuations.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">While many companies still cling to seat-based metrics to measure growth, efficiency and durability, the future is likely to be one in which companies utilize a <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4184688/it-hurtles-toward-the-great-enterprise-pricing-reset.html">credit-centric metrics framework</a>, with seats and outcomes as the bookends of a spectrum.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Why do software companies need new metrics?</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Why the rethink, and why now? There are five major forces that are driving this shift:</p>



<ol start="1" class="wp-block-list">
<li><a href="https://www.idc.com/resource-center/blog/is-saas-dead-rethinking-the-future-of-software-in-the-age-of-ai/"><strong>The unit of value is changing</strong></a><strong>.</strong> Seats measured who could access software, and credits measure what the software actually does. But in an AI-native world, agents don’t have seats; they have workloads. Over the past 18 months, every major SaaS platform has moved to some forms of credit or consumption unit.</li>



<li><strong>The cost of goods sold (COGS) is exploding.</strong> AI inference adds real per-unit costs that scale with usage. In an AI-native world, software companies can’t scale to infinite users at near‑zero marginal cost as before.</li>



<li><strong>Buying is moving up the org chart.</strong> AI-native applications shift purchasing to higher-level operators — such as line-of-business leaders or chief operating officers — which expands the market from software budgets to labor budgets. And because AI agents replace services as well as software, the total market opportunity is 3x to 10x larger than traditional SaaS.</li>



<li><strong>Time to value (TTV) is collapsing.</strong> With AI-native tools, customers start seeing meaningful results in weeks rather than quarters. Onboarding and setup are fast, workflows are pre-built, and there’s no need for extensive customer success or professional services — dramatically reducing implementation time and costs.</li>



<li><strong>Retention is bifurcating.</strong> AI forces clarity in a way that traditional SaaS couldn’t. Products that can provide value become even “stickier” and retain customers. Those that don’t churn faster. In an AI-native marketplace, the middle disappears.</li>
</ol>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">How this shift is impacting pricing</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.ey.com/en_us/insights/strategy/grow-with-trusted-software-portfolio-management">Given how AI-native software is transforming the market</a>, the shift to more variable pricing options is inevitable.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Seats won’t go away completely. Subscription pricing based on the number of users is stable and predictable and will continue to work for some customers. Tokens — the use of pass-through pricing for underlying compute — will fit those customers where the AI feature is commoditized or the buyer wants transparency into costs.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Credits will likely become the dominant architecture because they provide a simple metric for both customers and providers. The vendor sets the conversation ratio between credits and underlying compute, shielding the customer from inference cost details. Credits are easy to understand and can be packaged into annual contracts for multiple features and products.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Finally, the industry will likely see <a href="https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2026-07-01-gartner-says-us-dollars-234-billion-in-enterprise-application-software-spend-is-at-risk-from-agentic-artificial-intelligence">some move toward outcome-based pricing</a> for results such as resolved tickets, recovered revenue or qualified leads. This strategy will mostly be limited to verticals where it is easy to prove AI impacted the result.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Where a software vendor sits on this spectrum is a signal of differentiation and pricing power. Credits are where most defensible AI-native businesses are landing because they balance customer predictability with vendor margin control.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">How AI upends classic SaaS metrics</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When SaaS was in its infancy, companies settled on key metrics designed to answer a small set of core questions. Are we growing? Are customers using the product? Are we retaining and expanding accounts?</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But as AI upends software itself, it is also requiring companies to adopt new metrics to track success. These new metrics fall into three primary buckets, rebuilt around the pricing spectrum described earlier and the trend toward credits as the primary frame:</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Revenue composition</h3>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Committed credit annual recurring revenue (ARR) vs. burndown ARR: Measuring the credits sold on annual commitment vs. those consumed and replenished. This is the single most important split for valuation. Committed credits behave like subscription and burndown behaves like usage.</li>



<li>Credit utilization rate: The percentage of purchased credits consumed per period. This is a leading indicator of renewal sizing.</li>



<li>Credit burn velocity: How fast is a customer consuming their credits, and is that consumption increasing or decreasing quarter over quarter? This metric predicts expansion or contraction before it shows up in ARR.</li>



<li>Effective price per credit: The real revenue per credit after discounts, overage and rollover, which can detect revenue leakage and help companies set smarter guide rails.</li>
</ul>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Margin reality</h3>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Credit margin: The gross profit the company earns per credit after subtracting inference costs. This is the core economic unit for AI-native, usage-based businesses — the replacement for gross margin per seat used in SaaS.</li>



<li>Inference-adjusted gross margin: By carving out AI inference costs separately in the P&amp;L statement, you can see true AI margins, avoid hiding deterioration inside blended SaaS margins, and clearly distinguish AI economics from legacy SaaS economics.</li>



<li>Compute leverage ratio: This metric measures how efficiently the business converts compute spend into revenue. It shows whether your AI margins are improving as you scale.</li>



<li>AI-adjusted “Rule of 40”: This updated metric recalibrates the traditional growth and profitability benchmark to account for AI’s lower gross margins and variable inference costs, giving a more accurate picture of business health for AI-native companies.</li>
</ul>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Behavioral and value signals</h3>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Time-to-first outcome: Replaces traditional onboarding metrics. Tracks how fast a customer reaches their first measurable result.</li>



<li>Adoption: AI-native adoption is measured by workflow penetration and active agent density, not seat count. As AI replaces human-driven usage, the unit of adoption shifts from people to automated workflows and agents.</li>



<li>Net credit retention (NCR): Credit-volume retention across the customer base, tracked separately from net recurring revenue to avoid price-change impact.</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Along with these new metrics, the industry’s transformation is prompting companies to retire or recalibrate old SaaS measures, including per-seat ARR as a primary key performance indicator (KPI), traditional magic number calibrated to subscription dynamics, unadjusted Rule of 40, customer success metrics tied to human touchpoints, and blended gross margin without AI COGS carve-outs.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What does this mean for enterprise value calculations?</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As the internal metrics of success change, so do the ways the investment community measures growth and long-term viability.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Increasingly, a company’s valuation multiple depends on whether its revenue behaves like committed subscription ARR or volatile usage ARR, and the commit‑to‑burndown ratio is the metric investors use to decide where the company fits.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For example, a business with 80% committed credit ARR could trade closer to subscription comps and one with 80% burndown could trade closer to usage comps even though both have the same types of customers. Being able to proactively explain the commit‑to‑burndown mix can help companies avoid undervaluation.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In addition, utilization is expected to replace net promoter scores and seat usage as the primary predictor of churn or expansion. Low utilization guarantees downsizing at renewal, so companies must track utilization cohorts the same way SaaS tracks logo retention cohorts today.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We’re also seeing an inversion of the operating model, with R&amp;D and COGS moving up the P&amp;L and sales and marketing (S&amp;M) and customer success (CS) moving down or sideways. The net operating leverage profile is structurally different from classical SaaS, and the cost-to-scale curve looks different too.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Finally, credit margin engineering is a hidden value-creation lever. The gap between price per credit and cost per credit is set by the software vendor and can be optimized. Most operators have barely started managing this rigorously, and the ones who do will pull away on margin.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What this means for leaders, boards and investors</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The shift from classic SaaS metrics to new AI‑native measures isn’t cosmetic. It represents the seismic change the industry is experiencing as AI matures and transforms products and organizations.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">While these metrics — and perhaps others yet to be determined — may evolve over time, there is no doubt they are already changing how AI companies allocate capital, price products, incent sales teams, evaluate performance and communicate with investors.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It’s important to remember that SaaS metrics were practical tools for a specific era of software. As that era draws to a close, winning companies will choose new metrics that shape behavior and drive smart decision-making.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>The views reflected in this article are the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Ernst &amp; Young LLP or other members of the global EY organization.</em></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.</strong><br><a href="https://www.cio.com/expert-contributor-network/"><strong>Want to join?</strong></a></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[OpenAI Presence raises new questions about enterprise automation and jobs]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[OpenAI has launched Presence, an enterprise service for deploying voice and chat agents that can resolve customer and employee requests, potentially automating some work now handled by frontline support teams.



The agents can answer questions and operate IT systems, and enterprises can decide w...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3694393/it-security-nachrichten/openai-presence-raises-new-questions-about-enterprise-automation-and-jobs/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3694393/it-security-nachrichten/openai-presence-raises-new-questions-about-enterprise-automation-and-jobs/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 18:55:50 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">OpenAI has launched Presence, an enterprise service for deploying voice and chat agents that can resolve customer and employee requests, potentially automating some work now handled by frontline support teams.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The agents can answer questions and operate IT systems, and enterprises can decide what actions the agents may take and when they should seek human approval for actions or transfer a case to a human.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">OpenAI is already using Presence internally for its English-language phone support channel, where it verifies callers and uses account information to complete approved actions. The company said the system resolves 75% of inbound issues without human assistance.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Another OpenAI service, Codex, can be used to monitor agents and suggest updates or improvements to processes. In OpenAI’s own tests, suggestions from Codex helped reduce handoffs to humans by 15 percentage points over 10 days, it said. Presence also includes simulation and evaluation tools that allow companies to test an agent before deployment. The tests assess whether it reaches the correct outcome, follows company policy, and hands a case to an employee when required.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">OpenAI intends each Presence deployment to deal with one kind of task, for example billing issues, insurance claims, or employee IT service requests, with agents getting only the knowledge and system access required for that task.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Presence is not a self-service product: Enterprises will have to sign up for the limited availability program, with integration performed by OpenAI or selected <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4136024/openai-partners-with-consulting-giants-to-deploy-enterprise-ai-agents.html">global systems integrators</a>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Companies exploring or testing Presence include Spanish bank BBVA, which is evaluating the service for everyday banking support in Mexico, and Japanese technology group SoftBank, which is using it in trials involving Japanese-language customer interactions. Australian insurer IAG is assessing whether the technology can help it respond to surges in customer demand during severe weather events.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Workforce impact</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">OpenAI’s announcement did not address the potential effect of Presence on employment. But its claimed automation rate raises questions about how the technology could affect staffing in customer service and other support functions.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://pareekh.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Pareekh Jain</a>, CEO of Pareekh Consulting, said CIOs should regard the 75% figure as evidence that the technology can work, rather than as a benchmark that every enterprise can expect to reach.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Jain said OpenAI’s deployment benefits from being built around the company’s own products and data. Large enterprises may achieve lower automation rates because they must contend with fragmented legacy systems, uneven knowledge bases and more complex compliance demands.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Most organizations should expect lower initial automation levels that improve over time as the AI agent is refined,” Jain said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The first workforce effect is more likely to be <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4015750/cios-see-ai-prompting-new-it-hiring-even-as-boards-push-for-job-cuts.html">slower hiring than immediate layoffs</a>, according to <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/tulikasheel/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Tulika Sheel</a>, senior vice president at Kadence International.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The roles most exposed are likely to be repetitive, high-volume functions such as frontline customer support and routine back-office processing,” Sheel said. “However, I would expect the first impact to be on hiring and team growth rather than immediate large-scale job cuts. Over time, enterprises may redesign roles around AI-assisted workflows, with humans focusing more on complex cases, escalation, and relationship management.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Jain said Tier-1 support agents handling predictable queries would face the most exposure. Broader reductions would become more likely only after companies reorganize their operations around the technology.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">However, <a href="https://omdia.tech.informa.com/authors/lian-jye-su" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Lian Jye Su</a>, chief analyst at Omdia, said Presence is unlikely to increase the threat of job displacement because companies have used similar customer-support automation from vendors such as Genesys, NiCE, Five9 and AWS for years.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Enterprises are more likely to use Presence alongside employees, with AI handling routine requests while people remain responsible for work requiring judgment and empathy, Su said.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Cost and operational risks</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Analysts said CIOs should examine whether Presence can maintain resolution quality as usage grows, since fewer human handoffs could leave employees dealing with a more difficult mix of cases.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The key question is not simply how many tasks AI can handle, but whether it can handle them reliably at scale,” Sheel said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The financial case will depend partly on the cost of connecting Presence to existing systems and maintaining the controls needed to govern its use, according to Jain. “Often the biggest cost of enterprise AI is not tokens but <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4128310/openai-responds-to-claude-cowork-with-its-own-platform-to-help-build-deploy-and-manage-ai-agents.html">integration and governance</a>,” Jain added.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Companies will need to determine what systems and data the agents can access, monitor their performance, and audit the actions they take. Those investments could offset early savings.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Su said the complexity of enterprise IT will make it difficult for OpenAI to automate entire workflows on its own. Enterprises will still need to work with other technology providers and human employees, while CIOs will favor systems that can be audited and integrated with existing infrastructure.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Jain said the economics could improve if companies use the same integrations and governance controls across additional workflows.</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[How to navigate the AI talent wars]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Cloudflare recently beat Q1 2026 earnings. Revenue up 34% year over year. EPS ahead of consensus. Full-year guidance raised. Then, in the same breath, they announced 1,100 layoffs, 20% of the company. CEO Matthew Prince’s explanation: “The way we work at Cloudflare has fundamentally changed.”



...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3694394/it-security-nachrichten/how-to-navigate-the-ai-talent-wars/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3694394/it-security-nachrichten/how-to-navigate-the-ai-talent-wars/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 18:55:50 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/cloudflare-net-q1-earnings-revenues-230528107.html">Cloudflare recently beat Q1 2026 earnings</a>. Revenue up 34% year over year. EPS ahead of consensus. Full-year guidance raised. Then, in the same breath, they announced 1,100 layoffs, 20% of the company. CEO Matthew Prince’s explanation: “The way we work at Cloudflare has fundamentally changed.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/block-q1-earnings-beat-strong-144200216.html">Block did the same thing</a>. Beat guidance, raised outlook, cut 4,000+ jobs. Both framed it as architecting for the AI era.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is not a contradiction. This is the new math boards are running. And if you’re a CIO who hasn’t started running it yourself, <a href="mailto:https://www.cio.com/article/4077996/cios-be-ready-for-agentic-ai-or-be-out-of-a-job.html">you’re behind</a>.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The benchmark has moved</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AI-native companies have quietly reset what “efficient” means for a technology organization. Midjourney generates over $500M in revenue with roughly 160 employees, over $3M per head. Anthropic hit a $14B annualized run rate in early 2026 with fewer than 3,000 employees. Across the top AI-native startups, <a href="mailto:https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulbaier/2026/03/31/ai-native-firms-lead-in-revenue-per-employee/">the average revenue per employee is $3.48M</a>, nearly twelve times the traditional SaaS benchmark of $300K.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="mailto:https://www.saastr.com/what-to-do-if-your-business-decelerates/">Boards aren’t comparing you to your 2019 self anymore</a>. They’re comparing you to Anthropic.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is the pressure Cloudflare and Block are responding to. They’re not cutting people because the business is struggling. They’re cutting because investors have internalized a new denominator. Headcount is no longer a proxy for capacity; it’s a liability on the efficiency ratio.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For CIOs, this creates a hiring problem that looks nothing like the cloud or mobile talent gaps of the past decade. Those gaps were about volume: hire 100 cloud engineers, absorb the cost, build the capability… This one is about density; you’re not looking for 100 people. You’re looking for 10 who can deliver what 100 couldn’t, and justify $1M or more in value per seat.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Finding bodies to fill seats has never been easier. Finding people who operate at that level of leverage is a different problem entirely.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">‘Acqui-hires’ are a shortcut with a hidden cost</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Companies have figured out that recruiting AI-native talent one by one is too slow and that it’s faster to buy a team. Google’s acquisition of the Windsurf founders, Meta bringing in the Scale AI team, Accenture’s string of AI-focused acquisitions: <a href="mailto:https://tomtunguz.com/ai-acqui-hire-wave/">these are acqui-hires</a> dressed up as M&amp;A. The premium on experienced AI talent is high enough, and the urgency real enough, that organizations are skipping traditional hiring loops entirely and buying their way in.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I’ve been on the other side of this. My company, MadKudu, was acquired by HG Insights specifically to bring AI-native capability into an established enterprise business. HG needed change agents who had already figured out how to build and ship in this new era, not just people who’d read about it. That’s the thesis behind most of these deals.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But there’s a cost that doesn’t show up in the acquisition price.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AI-native teams are fast because they operate with a different set of defaults: full access to tools, minimal governance layers, the ability to experiment and ship without a six-week approval cycle. That operating model is not a perk; it’s the fundamental mechanism. It’s why a team of 10 can do what an enterprise team of 100 can’t.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When you acqui-hire that team and then slot them into your existing approval processes, you’ve bought the people and killed the engine. The change agents you paid for become change-frustrated. The attrition that follows is expensive and predictable.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The harder realization: acquiring an AI-native team means accepting how they work. That requires deliberately carving out space for them to operate differently, not just tolerating it but institutionalizing it. The acquisition is an organizational change program, not just a hiring event.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The CIO’s real problem</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The governance stack most enterprise organizations run was designed for a headcount world. Every tool vetting cycle, every vendor review, every security approval was calibrated assuming you were managing a large team where consistency and control were the primary objectives.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That calculus breaks when your goal is talent density. The same approval processes that protect against data leaks are now the reason your best people can’t do their best work. When it takes six weeks to approve a tool that your competitor’s team is already shipping with, you’ve traded velocity for the perception of safety.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The practical fix is structured experimentation: clear guardrails, defined boundaries, but explicit permission to try tools before deciding whether to roll them out broadly. Gating everything prevents you from ever discovering what 10x productivity looks like.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The skills inventory question is also more nuanced than it sounds. Job titles won’t tell you where the leverage is. You need to map the actual tasks within each function and assess which can be automated or augmented with AI. That’s where you find the people who, with the right tools, become your $1M/employee talent, not because you hired differently, but because you enabled better.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is also where the build-versus-buy question gets genuinely tricky. As AI reshapes how products are built and delivered, your internal operating model — how you work, how fast you ship, how you use data — is becoming core IP. Outsourcing delivery means outsourcing the part of the organization where your competitive advantage is now being built.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Closing the gap without slowing down</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="mailto:https://www.saastr.com/the-great-ai-talent-grab-the-latest-20vc-with-jason-harry-and-rory/">The AI talent wars</a> are not primarily a recruiting problem. They’re a rethinking of what organizations are supposed to look like.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Boards have a new benchmark. Cloudflare, Block, Amazon, Meta and others have already started restructuring to meet it, publicly, painfully, even while beating their numbers. The question for CIOs isn’t whether this pressure arrives; it’s whether you’re ahead of it or behind it when it does.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The organizations that navigate this well won’t win by outbidding competitors for a handful of elite engineers. They’ll win by designing operating systems that amplify the leverage of the talent they do have, by enabling their best people rather than constraining them, and by treating AI fluency as a core organizational capability rather than a niche specialization.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Talent density is the new headcount model. The sooner your governance, your tooling and your board conversations reflect that, the better positioned you’ll be when the next efficiency report lands.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.</strong><br><a href="https://www.cio.com/expert-contributor-network/"><strong>Want to join?</strong></a></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Why I changed how I pitch AI: It’s no longer about saving money, but managing tokens and adoption]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[I have worked alongside enterprise technology for more than 30 years and watched AI evolve from a lab experiment into the modern boardroom’s core focus. However, the last few years of implementing AI alongside our customers have delivered our most profound reality checks.



The initial hype has ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3694390/it-security-nachrichten/why-i-changed-how-i-pitch-ai-its-no-longer-about-saving-money-but-managing-tokens-and-adoption/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3694390/it-security-nachrichten/why-i-changed-how-i-pitch-ai-its-no-longer-about-saving-money-but-managing-tokens-and-adoption/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 18:55:49 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I have worked alongside enterprise technology for more than 30 years and watched AI evolve from a lab experiment into the modern boardroom’s core focus. However, the last few years of implementing AI alongside our customers have delivered our most profound reality checks.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The initial hype has faded, leaving CIOs to drive real enterprise value. Based on my experience implementing Google, OpenAI and Anthropic technologies, here are the fundamental, technology-agnostic lessons every leader must anchor their strategy around.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><a></a>AI as a leadership multiplier</h2>



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



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



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Integrating AI into the broader business strategy also dictates how we measure success. It forces a shift away from short-term tech vanity metrics and anchors the technology into a long-term roadmap.</p>



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The requirement for top-down, executive ownership stems from three critical realities observed in the field:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><strong>Silo-smashing and data collaboration:</strong> True enterprise AI is data-hungry and that data lives across disparate business lines, finance, operations, marketing and customer service. Only the CEO possesses the cross-functional authority to demand that data silos be dismantled.</li>



<li><strong>Cultural transformation and fear mitigation:</strong> AI triggers widespread anxiety over job displacement across all industries and hierarchies. When relegated to an “IT project,” resistance spikes as teams view it as a threat to their livelihoods. When I saw the CEO lead this cultural shift directly is when I noticed the best results.</li>



<li><strong>C-Suite education and strategic alignment:</strong> The mandate for AI capability cannot just be delegated downward; the transformation must begin at the very top. I have conducted more than 70 presentations for the Board of Directors and C-Level teams. These people need to be actively educated not on technical code, but on specific business use cases, return on investment (ROI) frameworks and how AI resolves core organizational bottlenecks.</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/c-suite-insights/ceo-survey.html">PwC’s data found that only 12% of enterprises have achieved both cost and revenue benefits from AI</a>. Those elite 12% succeeded precisely because their CEOs embedded AI extensively across <em>strategic decision-making and cross-functional workflows</em>. AI is simply too disruptive and too critical to be left exclusively in the hands of technical experts. If AI is not on the CEO’s weekly agenda, it is fundamentally missing from the company’s true strategy.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><a></a>AI as a new operational framework</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Traditional IT systems have operated on strict algorithmic certainty: if you input a specific set of data, the system executes an immutable line of code and guarantees the same, predictable output every single time.</p>



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



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In terms of cost calculation, we had to teach CIOs and business managers to forget the monthly subscription model for AI and learn to manage the primary unit of exchange in modern AI: the token.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">To understand AI costs, executives must understand how large language models process data. AI models do not read full words; instead, they break text, images or code down into “pieces” called tokens. As a baseline, every 100 words process as approximately 130 to 140 tokens. Because the major AI providers use the token as their currency, <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2604.22750">your business is billed dynamically based on the exact volume of tokens consumed</a> by every query submitted (input) and every response generated (output).</p>



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The solution is not to halt AI adoption; doing so means losing your competitive edge. Instead, the cost per token must cease to be treated as a technical footnote relegated to the IT department. It must be elevated to a core business variable.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Risks in the AI adoption model</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Since the beginning of the AI boom, I have seen all our customers making a critical tactical error that could cost them heavily in the medium term: they are focusing only on operational efficiency (reducing costs with AI).</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I have observed that an alarmingly high percentage of companies remain trapped in pilot phases focused exclusively on short-term cost reduction. <a href="https://www.bain.com/insights/your-ai-budget-is-growing-your-returns-arent-heres-why/">Bain &amp; Company’s global Automation and AI Pathfinder Survey </a>found that the largest share of companies measuring their AI initiatives (exactly 40%) realized cost reductions of 10% or less, heavily missing their internal targets. Our customers are putting too many resources and effort into marginal financial gains and in doing so, they are jeopardizing their most valuable assets: service quality, resilience and customer trust.</p>



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



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



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As we continue to deploy these technologies across industries, the blueprint for success is being rewritten in real time. Let’s keep this conversation going as we map out the future of business intelligence together.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.</strong><br><a href="https://www.cio.com/expert-contributor-network/"><strong>Want to join?</strong></a></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Sponsor mismatch is the silent killer of enterprise transformation]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Late in a large enterprise SAP transformation, the strategic governance conversations began to drift. Instead of executive decisions, we found ourselves debating whether the program needed dedicated testing, whether cutover required a full weekend, whether twenty Agile teams really needed coordin...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3694391/it-security-nachrichten/sponsor-mismatch-is-the-silent-killer-of-enterprise-transformation/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3694391/it-security-nachrichten/sponsor-mismatch-is-the-silent-killer-of-enterprise-transformation/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 18:55:49 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The questions were not coming from the delivery teams. They were coming from the executive sponsor.</p>



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



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Most program failures are not execution failures. They are sponsor mismatches.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">When governance becomes a debate about delivery practices</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When the sponsor does not understand what an enterprise transformation actually requires, governance forums stop functioning as decision bodies and start functioning as practice debates.</p>



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">None of these questions are unreasonable in isolation. Each one targets a real cost or timeline pressure. The problem is what is missing underneath them: an understanding of the operational risks the original choices were designed to mitigate.</p>



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The compounding cost is not unique to any single program. <a href="https://www.pmi.org/blog/why-executive-sponsorship-fuels-projects">PMI’s research on executive sponsorship</a> consistently identifies sponsor engagement quality, rather than sponsor presence alone, as one of the strongest predictors of project success. The visible symptom is debate. The actual cost is unmade decisions.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Authority is rarely the issue. Literacy is</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When transformations stall under a mismatched sponsor, the diagnostic instinct is to question the sponsor’s authority. Are they senior enough? Do they have the cross-functional reach? Can they unblock?</p>



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



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://hbr.org/2015/05/how-to-be-an-effective-executive-sponsor">Harvard Business Review’s research on effective executive sponsorship</a> has emphasized that sponsorship effectiveness depends as much on judgment as on authority. Judgment is where literacy becomes operational. A sponsor with authority but limited transformation literacy will optimize for speed and cost in ways that consistently underestimate risk. A sponsor with both will make the tradeoffs the program actually needs.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.prosci.com/resources/articles/change-management-best-practices">Prosci’s longstanding benchmark studies on change management</a> have ranked active and visible executive sponsorship as the single greatest contributor to change success for two decades. The word that matters in that finding is active. Active sponsorship without transformation literacy can introduce real cost. Not because the sponsor is acting against the program, but because the optimization choices they make are based on incomplete information about what the program is built to protect against.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Shift the conversation from delivery practices to business risk</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When the sponsor relationship is already in place and cannot be changed, the program leadership team has one move that consistently works: shift the conversation.</p>



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



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



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



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The program leadership team’s job is not to make the sponsor an expert in SAP delivery. It is to provide enough transformation context so that executive decisions reflect both business priorities and implementation realities.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There are a few phrases I have used with executive sponsors over the years that capture the underlying issue. The sharpest one:</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">If the decision has to go above the sponsor, they are not the sponsor.</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Sponsorship is defined by what the sponsor can decide without asking someone else. That is the test. Anything else is the appearance of sponsorship, not the substance.</p>



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A sponsor does not need to be the technical expert. They do need to know when to trust the people who are.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.</strong><br><a href="https://www.cio.com/expert-contributor-network/"><strong>Want to join?</strong></a></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Model Context Protocol is going stateless to make scaling simpler]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Model Context Protocol (MCP), the emerging standard for connecting AI models to external tools and enterprise data, is undergoing its biggest architectural overhaul yet.



The latest release candidate, scheduled for release on July 28, removes protocol-level sessions in favor of a stateless arch...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3694388/it-security-nachrichten/model-context-protocol-is-going-stateless-to-make-scaling-simpler/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3694388/it-security-nachrichten/model-context-protocol-is-going-stateless-to-make-scaling-simpler/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 18:55:48 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Model Context Protocol (<a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4029634/what-is-model-context-protocol-how-mcp-bridges-ai-and-external-services.html">MCP</a>), the emerging standard for connecting AI models to external tools and enterprise data, is undergoing its biggest architectural overhaul yet.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The latest <a href="https://modelcontextprotocol.io/specification/draft/changelog" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">release candidate</a>, scheduled for release on July 28, removes protocol-level sessions in favor of a stateless architecture, a change which industry experts say is intended to make MCP easier to deploy across standard cloud infrastructure as enterprises move AI pilots into production.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The session-based model made sense when MCP servers were local processes on a developer’s laptop. In production, it became an operational tax,” said <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/muskan-bandta2004" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Muskan Bandta</a>, cloud associate at ZopDev.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“When your infrastructure team asks whether MCP services can scale like other cloud applications, the answer used to be ‘not quite.’ With the move to a stateless architecture, the answer is now yes,” Bandta added.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Earlier versions of the protocol maintained information about every client connection, meaning servers had to keep track of each session throughout an interaction. While that approach worked well for local development, it complicated deployments across multiple servers because requests often had to be routed back to the same machine, limiting scalability and making MCP a less natural fit for modern cloud architectures.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Under the new stateless design, every request contains the information needed for any available server to process it independently. Applications that need to maintain context across multiple requests can still do so, but developers must now manage that state explicitly rather than relying on the protocol itself,” she said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This transition to a stateless design goes beyond simplifying infrastructure by fundamentally changing how AI applications manage and share context across tools, according to <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/znamit/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Amit Jena</a>, AI development manager at IT consulting firm Kanerika.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Instead of keeping application state hidden inside protocol sessions, the new design makes it explicit, allowing AI models to access, reason over, and pass that information between tools, giving developers greater control over how context is preserved and shared across tools, Jena said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It should also make AI workflows more portable, resilient, and easier to orchestrate across distributed environments, he said.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">MCP’s new features</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Other changes to MCP include the addition of a Multi Round-Trip Requests (MRTR) mechanism that changes how AI agents request additional information they need to complete a task.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Instead of relying on a persistent connection between the client and server throughout the interaction, the new mechanism lets the server request additional input through a standard request-response exchange before continuing the task, Jena said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Routable transport headers, another addition, enable API gateways and other networking infrastructure to identify and route MCP requests without inspecting their contents.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">They reduce processing overhead, lower latency, and let enterprise teams enforce routing, rate-limiting and security policies more efficiently using existing API management infrastructure, Jena said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">MCP is also getting an updated authorization framework built around OAuth 2.1 and OpenID Connect; interactive MCP Apps; and deterministic caching of tool and resource listings to improve LLM prompt-cache hit rates, potentially saving on token costs.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Rebuilding the trust boundary</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The MCP release steering committee also decided to deprecate some legacy features, including Roots, Sampling, Logging, the older HTTP+SSE transport and Dynamic Client Registration, although these will continue to work in this version and any other released over the next year.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The deprecation of Sampling is likely to have the biggest impact because it changes who is responsible for interacting with foundation models, said Jena.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Sampling let MCP servers invoke the <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2335213/large-language-models-the-foundations-of-generative-ai.html" target="_blank">LLM</a> through the client, which meant the server had a callback path into the model without owning that connection. Deprecating it means rebuilding that trust boundary,” Jena said. “Your server now calls the model provider directly. That changes your network architecture, your auth model, and depending on how you’ve built cost attribution, your billing flow.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The year-long transition period will be enough for teams to audit their sampling dependencies now, said Jena: “The risk is that teams who haven’t implemented sampling themselves won’t know if a third-party MCP server they’re depending on uses it.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Updated MCP SDKs</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">To accompany the protocol update, there are updated <a href="https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">MCP SDKs</a> for <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2253770/what-is-python-powerful-intuitive-programming.html" target="_blank">Python</a>, <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2257305/what-is-typescript-strongly-typed-javascript.html" target="_blank">Typescript</a>, <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2253031/whats-the-go-language-really-good-for-3.html">Go</a>, and <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4131649/the-best-new-features-of-c-14.html">C#</a>. These support both the old and new protocol versions, so new clients can continue communicating with older servers, while updated servers will also support older clients, reducing the risk of immediate disruptions.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That backward compatibility should make the transition largely incremental, except for enterprises that built custom infrastructure around MCP’s earlier session-based architecture, Bandta said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Identifying and auditing those session dependencies may not be easy, Jena warned.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Session management complexity tends to be hidden across multiple layers — the gateway config, the deployment scripts, the monitoring dashboards. The code change is small; finding everywhere the assumption lives is what takes time,” he said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>This article first appeared on <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4201254/model-context-protocol-is-going-stateless-to-make-scaling-simpler.html">InfoWorld</a>.</em></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Getting a grip on shadow tokens and AI blowouts]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Four months of Claude Code — that’s all it took for Uber to burn through its entire annual budget for AI. Token after token, engineers embraced the platform with few control mechanisms tying costs to outcomes. The result was a budget runaway and a clear case study in how limited oversight snowbal...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3694389/it-security-nachrichten/getting-a-grip-on-shadow-tokens-and-ai-blowouts/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3694389/it-security-nachrichten/getting-a-grip-on-shadow-tokens-and-ai-blowouts/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 18:55:48 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Four months of Claude Code — that’s all it took for Uber to burn through its entire annual budget for AI. Token after token, engineers embraced the platform with few control mechanisms tying costs to outcomes. The result was a budget runaway and <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/janakirammsv/2026/05/17/uber-burns-its-2026-ai-budget-in-four-months-on-claude-code/">a clear case study</a> in how limited oversight snowballs into an AI blowout.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is a phenomenon I like to call “shadow tokens” — AI credits paid for by the company but largely invisible to decision-makers. Too many engineers have the final say over how much they consume and, therefore, what it costs. This all-you-can-eat attitude is part of the reason why <a href="https://www.theverge.com/tech/930447/microsoft-claude-code-discontinued-notepad">Microsoft is reportedly</a> winding down many internal licenses across key engineering teams and why <a href="https://www.thestreet.com/investing/the-next-phase-of-ai-spending-is-already-underway">one in five organizations</a> is missing its AI spend forecast by more than 50%.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">And the trend is only accelerating. By 2028, <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4189149/ai-coding-token-costs-are-on-track-to-rival-human-payroll.html">Gartner predicts</a> that AI coding costs (driven by this kind of ungoverned consumption) will be as much per developer as the salary companies pay that person.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">LLMs and agents introduce a new class of variable cost that scales with behavior rather than headcount, putting enterprises on the hook for tools that balloon with workload. I don’t see this as enterprises overspending because they’re reckless — it’s down to a lack of managerial oversight, budget alignment that demands a proven return on investment, and engineer education on how much is too much.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Going forward, CIOs need to thread the AI needle between governance that encourages transparency and reasonable spend without stifling innovation.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">When shadow tokens result in real costs</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The issue is that AI isn’t a traditional line item. Previously, enterprise leaders onboarded software-as-a-service (SaaS) with a good idea of the total cost. An allocated software seat or annual contract was a known quantity. The cloud added some variation (with fluctuations depending on hosting size), but instances were still modelable. AI flips this status quo on its head — the unit of consumption is behavior and the cost is exponential.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">And these specifics aren’t immediately apparent at pilot. Tools can appear inexpensive in controlled experiments yet unpredictably scale depending on session length, context window size, model selection and whether agents run in parallel. This is the fallacy of the $20-per-seat enterprise plan — tokens are charged separately at API rates with no ceiling. The final dollar value of any session is set by factors that finance can’t always model in advance, particularly when these decisions usually rest with the engineers themselves.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">According to <a href="https://www.deloitte.com/cz-sk/en/services/consulting/research/the-state-of-ai-in-the-enterprise.html">Deloitte</a>, only 21% of organizations deploying agents have a mature governance model, a real concern because they’re token-eating machines. This is what was happening at Uber — Claude Code in agentic mode was autonomously reading codebases, planning changes across dozens of files and opening pull requests. Each step quickly adds up, with Anthropic’s own documentation noting that agents consume approximately seven times as many tokens as standard sessions.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is shadow IT and shadow AI, evolved. This time, however, many leaders approved the tool in question without guardrails governing consumption. AI hype adds fuel to the fire and normalizes long sessions. Uber’s CTO, for example, <a href="https://x.com/praveenTweets/status/2033627282418655711">described</a> a company-wide shift toward “agentic software engineering” with employees “who are quietly experimenting, quietly shipping and quietly pushing things forward”. This is an exciting way to test the limits of what’s possible, certainly, but it’s also a position that goes a long way to explaining how the company spent its annual AI budget by April.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Shifting the culture from usage to yield</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Engineers haven’t done anything wrong here. In fact, they’re adopting and experimenting as instructed, with Uber creating leaderboards and ranking users by token consumption. More use led to a better ranking, reflecting a culture that lauds new ways of doing things. This behavior is known as “<a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4178320/tokenmaxxing-when-ai-adoption-metrics-go-bad.html">tokenmaxxing</a>,” and its principal knock-on effect is shadow tokens — quantity-over-quality processes that leaders struggle to control until they’re fully realized in the budget. Of course, if management treats adoption metrics as performance metrics, then engineers can’t be blamed for using more tokens. The tension is that the teams driving adoption aren’t the ones managing spend.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">None of this is meant to dismiss AI’s productivity possibilities and potential return on investment. Developers save <a href="https://getdx.com/blog/ai-assisted-engineering-q4-impact-report-2025/">3.6 hours</a> per week, achieve 60% higher pull request throughput and cut onboarding time in half with automation. Meanwhile, Uber shared that roughly 11% of live backend updates were written by agents with no human in the loop. However, these wins aren’t the problem — it’s that too many teams aren’t connecting input to output. I’ve spoken to admins who discovered their token spend had tripled in a single quarter after using heavier models or accidentally doubling up on agentic applications. Nobody knew until the financial damage was done.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Automation needs to happen sustainably with an eye on the bottom line. In my view, a much better metric for achieving this is AI yield — the measurable business or engineering output generated per dollar spent on tokens. Otherwise, without a feedback loop, even genuinely productive teams are flying blind.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Stopping token waste before an AI blowout</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Creating that throughline between AI investment and token consumption starts with established financial metrics. This is possible via maximum spend limits (dictated by spend tagging, workload tiering and cost-per-output benchmarks) per team or project. Then, any additional allocation requires approval, closing the loop between the engineers spending the tokens and the leaders paying for them. AI isn’t cheap and teams should demonstrate a bang for their buck.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is something we do with our engineering team at Hexnode. Resource allocation for Claude Code and Cursor is tied directly to ROI rather than letting consumption run open-ended. Given the pay-as-you-go nature of these tools, a firm usage limit per team offers simple but essential control.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Similarly, there’s room to apply some of the governance principles IT uses for device management. Things like policy enforcement, role-based access, real-time monitoring and automated alerts can flag usage behavior in advance. Uncovering such insights at the token layer works to identify power users and prevent excessive spending.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We also need to encourage cultures that praise outputs that actually achieve efficiency. AI applications that result in shipping faster, reducing rework and cutting review cycles are gains that should be celebrated. If your company hosts leaderboards, frame unnecessary token burn as wasteful rather than valuable. The organizations creating healthier consumption habits work with their engineers to understand not just how to use AI, but what responsible use looks like and what it costs.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is a conversation teams need to have now. Anthropic <a href="https://support.claude.com/en/articles/15036540-use-the-claude-agent-sdk-with-your-claude-plan">just ended flat-rate pricing</a> for programmatic workloads from June 15. Now, agents, continuous integration pipelines and automated workflows draw from a dedicated monthly credit pool billed separately from the subscription. Once that pool is exhausted, agent tasks either stop entirely or overflow to extra billing. Work can either get very expensive or grind to a halt for teams that aren’t prepared.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Getting a grip on shadow tokens means better rules and tools connecting spend to outcomes. Only by building the financial and cultural infrastructure that encourages sustainable adoption can leaders see what they’re spending, connect it to what they’re getting and course-correct before the costs become a crisis. Ultimately, shadow tokens are only invisible if we choose not to look.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.</strong><br><a href="https://www.cio.com/expert-contributor-network/"><strong>Want to join?</strong></a></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Building Premium Android Experiences at Google I/O ‘26]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Posted by Ataul Munim, Android Developer Relations Engineer



  
    
  



  A truly differentiated Android experience is about delivering premium delight wherever your users are. At Google I/O ‘26, we showcased how the latest advancements in the Android ecosystem can help you elevate your app'...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3693509/android-tipps/building-premium-android-experiences-at-google-io-26/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3693509/android-tipps/building-premium-android-experiences-at-google-io-26/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 10:15:42 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🤖 Android Tipps</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKGsnLX5Gwc9xouq7Q32ltvbL7xW_d4jnCXtoEFr7emB2wzqlZEuXM8FXe22ZPSguMX-nOrxAPYja6AYBZWxF-lKJYxw09D3f2aMyjxsSi5jinnDBjJPOIFDyqVhuJC2SjOqKHLAmstGg1nhyphenhyphenJGYfp3m71TPL_i3xFAUm6PKp3uo5WVytjoRwTIoNmMVQ/s4097/MM_Differentiated%20Experiences_Meta.png">

<div>
  <div class="separator"><em>Posted by Ataul Munim, Android Developer Relations Engineer</em></div>
</div>

<div class="separator">
  <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjimB7lZHnz1Nqt-CPhoIzMWWup9qcJd2B3wzfmG2kX-4HwtnEfrSrp9J2e7aINQrh8SaPd_mP7DvY6nQiP_K2nEju5nOCwbTan-oVeZ8rmoW1R5CvErSIFXPeuIXS7LsB8TnZZee462-ygL5IbOZ2m_C3rAcXEiv08HrPjPrku0oB-T70JyXM6lmgxzmg/s4209/MM_Differentiated-Experiences_Blog%20(1).png">
    <img border="0" data-original-height="1253" data-original-width="4209" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjimB7lZHnz1Nqt-CPhoIzMWWup9qcJd2B3wzfmG2kX-4HwtnEfrSrp9J2e7aINQrh8SaPd_mP7DvY6nQiP_K2nEju5nOCwbTan-oVeZ8rmoW1R5CvErSIFXPeuIXS7LsB8TnZZee462-ygL5IbOZ2m_C3rAcXEiv08HrPjPrku0oB-T70JyXM6lmgxzmg/s16000/MM_Differentiated-Experiences_Blog%20(1).png">
  </a>
</div>

<div class="separator">
  A truly differentiated Android experience is about delivering premium delight wherever your users are. At Google I/O ‘26, we showcased how the latest advancements in the Android ecosystem can help you elevate your app's quality while maximizing development efficiency.
</div>

<div>
  <p>To help you build apps that stand out, we're diving into the key tools and libraries designed to optimize your core performance, extend the surfaces of your app to other devices, and streamline how your app handles high-quality media. </p>
  <p>Here is a recap of the essential updates and sessions you need to know to deliver a next-level experience across form factors!</p>
</div>

<div class="separator">
  
</div>

<h3>Maximize app performance and ROI with the R8 Configuration Analyzer</h3>
<p>A premium experience is only as good as its foundation, and a performant foundation is what allows your app to scale across the Android ecosystem. This is especially true with the release of Android 17, which introduces conservative, device RAM-based app memory limits to target extreme memory leaks and outliers before they cause system-wide instability. To stay below these new system thresholds and prevent your app from being terminated, having a lean footprint is no longer optional: it’s a critical requirement.</p>
<p>This year, we’re making it easier to build highly optimized, fast apps by introducing the <a href="https://developer.android.com/topic/performance/app-optimization/r8-configuration-analyzer" target="_blank">R8 Configuration Analyzer</a> in Android Studio. R8 is your most powerful tool for improving app performance, but its effectiveness is often limited by overly broad "keep rules" that prevent the compiler from stripping away unused code. The new Configuration Analyzer provides optimization, obfuscation, and shrinking scores, allowing you to identify specific rules that are preventing the benefits of R8 optimization.</p>
<p>By optimizing their R8 configurations, developers at Monzo achieved a 30% improvement in cold starts and a 35% reduction in ANRs. Smaller, faster code isn't just about efficiency; it's about ensuring your app has the memory headroom to deliver delight on every form factor, from the phone to the car.</p>

<div class="separator">
  
</div>

<h3>Extend your reach with a unified approach to Widgets on Phones, Watches and Cars</h3>
<p>User interaction is shifting toward quick, glanceable moments—short bursts of information that keep users connected without needing to open the full app. To help you increase the reach of your app content, we are unifying the development experience across the Android ecosystem with Jetpack Glance. By using a consistent, Compose-based model, you can elevate the content most important to your users straight to the phone’s home screen, Wear Widgets (previously Tiles!), and cars with a familiar workflow.</p>
<p>In order to help users engage with your content and features, even outside your app, we are making widgets more expressive and adaptive with RemoteCompose. On Wear OS, RemoteCompose allows you to use the Compose tools you’re already comfortable with to define UI logic that renders natively on remote surfaces, ensuring that your glanceable experiences remain highly performant and responsive even on resource-constrained hardware. On mobile and cars, RemoteCompose is used as a new framework giving Widgets new expressive capabilities.</p>
<p>You can use Jetpack Glance (together with RemoteCompose on Wear) to deliver a cohesive user journey. Whether it’s viewing flight status on the car dashboard, checking a gate change on a watch, or managing a boarding pass from a phone widget, this shared approach maximizes your app’s presence while keeping your development effort focused and efficient.</p>

<div class="separator">
  
</div>

<div>
  <h3>Supercharge your media pipeline with a complete, production-ready toolkit</h3>
  <div>Android has become a world-class home for the entire media lifecycle, and we are simplifying the journey from the first capture to the final playback. By leveraging Jetpack CameraX and Media3, you can build professional-grade experiences that feel native across the entire ecosystem. </div>
  <p>It starts with high-fidelity capture using the CameraXViewfinder Composable, which ensures your preview remains perfectly scaled and responsive on any form factor, including foldables and tablets. Use this to build adaptive capture experiences like a picture-in-picture view for multi-tasking, or that take advantage of modern features like high-frame-rate or slow-motion capture with CameraX v1.5.<br></p>
  <p>The new Media3 AI Effects library will provide a unified interface for premium features like Image &amp; Video Enhance, Magic Eraser, and Studio Sound. This allows you to focus on the creative intent while Media3 handles the heavy lifting of choosing the most efficient and reliable path for the device. Then, use the latest improvements in multi-asset editing with Media3 Transformer to composite your edited videos together!</p>
  <p>Complete the pipeline with tools designed for professional-grade export and viewing, including:</p>
  <ul>
    <li>CodecDB, which offers data-driven encoding recommendations tailored to specific chipsets, ensuring your exported videos maintain high visual quality with minimal noise or blurriness</li>
    <li>Scrubbing Mode in ExoPlayer to provide the buttery-smooth seeking experience users expect from premium media apps</li>
    <li>Enhanced Cast support with the new CastPlayer API in Media3</li>
  </ul>
  <p>By unifying these technical pillars, you can build a cohesive, high-performance media journey that delivers both delight for your users and high ROI for your development team.</p>
</div>

<div class="separator">
  
</div>

<p>For more details, check out the <i>premium</i> Android experience <a href="https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLWz5rJ2EKKc8lSdmWQ_fSpV9yEGRvEL6S&amp;si=H6-8-AbtEyTqSxeY" target="_blank">YouTube playlist</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Prioritizing Memory Efficiency: Essential Steps for Android 17]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Posted by Alice Yuan, Developer Relations Engineer, Ajesh Pai, Developer Relations Engineer, and Fung Lam, Developer Relations Engineer



    
        
    



    While app performance is often equated with a smooth UI and fast start times, memory serves as the silent foundation upon which thes...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3693508/android-tipps/prioritizing-memory-efficiency-essential-steps-for-android-17/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3693508/android-tipps/prioritizing-memory-efficiency-essential-steps-for-android-17/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 10:15:41 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🤖 Android Tipps</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCIAoJpwUITPS5C3_eTksMsaslwqPk7SIEQHkwEkGv8572ccdIKcdv6kNC1BOSJPAZTgX5m3liMMv4zdK58e5dWRhUfo39uas23LuhEWf13TFnDTdw-Z5mWn4JarSnC8yCET8Sw15zSF-jQ5zwALriacGK6IjAGxNg61sFtSxzndjvqXxZtJt4qxuzd9A/s2048/Engineering-Memory-Blog-Meta-3.png">

<div class="separator">
    <em>Posted by Alice Yuan, Developer Relations Engineer, Ajesh Pai, Developer Relations Engineer, and Fung Lam, Developer Relations Engineer</em>
</div>

<div class="separator">
    <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhanYZz4QpaDuwP7y_ZVGCUh6TpdQxS65pBcYr-Qkawd9YFS587tnIUPnqDROlxIXzgdz6GGxluR3LzH8ZabQPWz382FDEOEDpK3GxUFywn0A54JXFtUwDPaeI0JnFhEl-6NRrcjKeFPMLozNQv_An9OcWEUA-rmXfOhWvIKRrptdblGEZHERD0P-ynFcc/s4209/Engineering-Memory-Blog-3.png">
        <img border="0" data-original-height="1253" data-original-width="4209" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhanYZz4QpaDuwP7y_ZVGCUh6TpdQxS65pBcYr-Qkawd9YFS587tnIUPnqDROlxIXzgdz6GGxluR3LzH8ZabQPWz382FDEOEDpK3GxUFywn0A54JXFtUwDPaeI0JnFhEl-6NRrcjKeFPMLozNQv_An9OcWEUA-rmXfOhWvIKRrptdblGEZHERD0P-ynFcc/s16000/Engineering-Memory-Blog-3.png">
    </a>
</div>

<p>
    While app performance is often equated with a smooth UI and fast start times, memory serves as the silent foundation upon which these visible metrics are built. It's no secret that we're seeing a shift where device memory is more important than ever. Not only have we made strides in Android memory optimizations with Android 17, we're providing the tooling and API support to help you stay ahead of stricter memory requirements later this year.
</p>

<p>
    To ensure device stability, starting in Android 17, the system will begin enforcing app memory limits based on the device's total RAM. If an app exceeds those limits, Android will kill the process with no associated stack trace.
</p>

<div>
    Beyond these forced terminations, unoptimized memory usage inevitably degrades the user experience. When the app approaches heap memory limits, it triggers frequent garbage collection—leading to noticeable UI stutters. Furthermore, when a device runs out of available memory, the system scrambles to reclaim pages, causing CPU strain, UI latency, and battery drain. If the memory shortage is too severe, it can cause Low Memory Killer (LMK) events that abruptly terminate background processes and force apps to have slow cold starts and lose user state.
</div>

<div>
    <p>To build highly performant apps and avoid these forced terminations, we recommend that you adopt the following memory optimization strategies:</p>
    <ol>
        <li><a href="http://android-developers.googleblog.com/2026/06/prioritizing-memory-efficiency-steps-for-android-17.html#Maximize">Maximize bytecode optimization with R8</a></li>
        <li><a href="http://android-developers.googleblog.com/2026/06/prioritizing-memory-efficiency-steps-for-android-17.html#Optimize">Optimize image loading</a></li>
        <li><a href="http://android-developers.googleblog.com/2026/06/prioritizing-memory-efficiency-steps-for-android-17.html#Detect">Detect and fix memory leaks with Android Studio</a></li>
        <li><a href="http://android-developers.googleblog.com/2026/06/prioritizing-memory-efficiency-steps-for-android-17.html#Trim">Trim memory when app leaves visible state</a></li>
        <li><a href="http://android-developers.googleblog.com/2026/06/prioritizing-memory-efficiency-steps-for-android-17.html#Advanced">Advanced memory observability with ProfilingManager</a></li>
    </ol>
</div>
<br>
<div>
    <div class="separator">
        
    </div>
    <div>
        <em>A condensed version of this blog post is also available in video format, go check it out!</em>
    </div>
    
    <h3>Understanding Android 17 app memory limits</h3>
    <p>App memory limits are being introduced in Android 17 to prevent "one bad actor" from destroying the multitasking experience and stability of the user’s entire device.</p>
    <p>Here is a breakdown of the reasons driving this architectural change:</p>
    
    <div>
        <ul>
            <li><b>Preventing cascading kills:</b> When an app becomes bloated or leaks memory while holding a privileged state (e.g. it’s running a Foreground Service), it is initially shielded from the system's Low Memory Killer (LMK). As this single app grows unchecked and hoards RAM, the LMK is forced to compensate by killing off dozens of smaller, well-behaved cached apps and background jobs to reclaim space for the memory hog.</li>
            <li><b>Preserving multitasking and user state:</b> When the system is forced to purge cached apps to accommodate a single leaking process, the multitasking experience is severely degraded. Users returning to prior cached applications encounter sluggish cold starts instead of near-instant warm resumes. This inefficiency generates more CPU strain and accelerates battery depletion. It can also destroy the user’s context in recently used apps, such as scroll positions, navigation stacks, and in-game progress.</li>
        </ul>
        
        <div>
            <p>To determine if your app session was impacted by these constraints in the field, you can call <a href="https://developer.android.com/reference/android/app/ApplicationExitInfo#getDescription%28%29" target="_blank">getDescription()</a> within <a href="https://developer.android.com/reference/android/app/ApplicationExitInfo" target="_blank">ApplicationExitInfo</a>. If the system applied a limit, the exit reason is reported as <a href="https://developer.android.com/reference/android/app/ApplicationExitInfo#REASON_OTHER" target="_blank">REASON_OTHER</a> and the description string will contain "MemoryLimiter:AnonSwap". You can also leverage <a href="https://developer.android.com/topic/performance/tracing/profiling-manager/trigger-based-capture" target="_blank">trigger-based profiling</a> using <a href="https://developer.android.com/about/versions/17/features#anomaly-profiling-trigger" target="_blank">TRIGGER_TYPE_ANOMALY</a> to automatically capture heap dumps when the memory limit is reached. Furthermore, Android is actively working to surface more in-field memory metrics to developers within the Google Play Console.</p>
            <p>We have also expanded our <a href="https://developer.android.com/about/versions/17/behavior-changes-all#app-memory-limits" target="_blank">memory limits documentation</a> to include local debugging commands, allowing you to simulate memory constraints in your local environment and validate your application's behavior under any memory limit enforcement. </p>
        </div>
    </div>
</div>

<div>
    <h3>Maximize bytecode optimization with R8</h3>
    <p>A highly effective way to reduce your app's memory footprint is to enable the R8 optimizer. By shrinking classes, methods, and fields into shorter names and stripping out unused code and resources, R8 significantly reduces your app's memory footprint by minimizing the amount of resident code required during execution. </p>
    <p>R8 minimizes resident code, shrinking the memory footprint and lowering LMK termination risk. This results in more frequent warm starts over slow cold starts. Additionally, streamlined bytecode reduces main-thread CPU overhead, directly cutting ANR rates for a more fluid user experience. For example, the digital bank <a href="https://developer.android.com/blog/posts/monzo-boosts-performance-metrics-by-up-to-35-with-a-simple-r8-update" target="_blank">Monzo</a> enabled full R8 optimization and saw a 35% reduction in their ANR rate, a 30% improvement in cold start rate, and a 9% reduction in overall app size.</p>
</div>

<div class="separator">
    <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhB61hi7-o6RYAHNOoIg1egyi6iU3iGtLbwfOb-s6r_PadBV2LZzvYtcdD00iwcApjnqmwOssOLFSHv8MG_es8WJWaJUPaO6rMY4ZcINSBFROo_1Di3LVMvIEhPldpzQsUOxV1Z7VfPwvej2fa9a7yCNwBdGOGw2LMLtPrCST6InlqF1xHds30rS76C9no/s2500/pic1-IO26_113_TSV-monzo-casestudy.jpg">
        <img border="0" data-original-height="1406" data-original-width="2500" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhB61hi7-o6RYAHNOoIg1egyi6iU3iGtLbwfOb-s6r_PadBV2LZzvYtcdD00iwcApjnqmwOssOLFSHv8MG_es8WJWaJUPaO6rMY4ZcINSBFROo_1Di3LVMvIEhPldpzQsUOxV1Z7VfPwvej2fa9a7yCNwBdGOGw2LMLtPrCST6InlqF1xHds30rS76C9no/s16000/pic1-IO26_113_TSV-monzo-casestudy.jpg">
    </a>
</div>
<div>
    <i>The digital bank <a href="https://developer.android.com/blog/posts/monzo-boosts-performance-metrics-by-up-to-35-with-a-simple-r8-update" target="_blank">Monzo</a> enabled full R8 optimization and boosted performance metrics by up to 35%.</i>
</div>

<div>
    <p>To properly configure R8 in your <code>build.gradle</code> file:</p>
    <ul>
        <li>Set <code>isShrinkResources = true</code> and <code>isMinifyEnabled = true</code>.</li>
        <li>Use <code>proguard-android-optimize.txt</code> instead of the legacy <code>proguard-android.txt</code>, which actually prevents optimizations and is no longer supported in Android Gradle Plugin 9.</li>
        <li>Remove <code>android.enableR8.fullMode = false</code> from your <code>gradle.properties</code>.</li>
    </ul>
    
    <p>
        If you are using reflection in your code base, then add <a href="https://developer.android.com/topic/performance/app-optimization/keep-rules-overview#where-to-add-rules" target="_blank">Keep rules</a> to prevent R8 from optimizing those parts of the code. Make sure to scope the keep rules narrowly to get the maximum optimization.
    </p>
    <p>To get the maximum optimization, make sure to follow these best practices in your keep rule file.</p>
    
    <ul>
        <li>Remove global options like <code>-dontoptimize</code>, <code>-dontshrink</code>, and <code>-dontobfuscate</code> that prevent R8 from optimizing the entire codebase </li>
        <li>Remove keep rules that prevent optimizing Android components like Activity, Services, Views or Broadcast receivers.</li>
        <li>Refine the broad package wide keep rules to target only specific classes or methods.</li>
    </ul>
    
    <p>To see more best practices, view our <a href="https://developer.android.com/topic/performance/app-optimization/keep-rules-best-practices" target="_blank">keep rules documentation</a>.</p>
    
    <h3>Library Developer R8 Best Practices</h3>
    <p>If you are a library developer, strictly place the rules your consumers need into your <code>consumer-rules</code> file, and keep your library's internal protection rules in your <code>proguard-rules.pro</code> file. For more information on how to optimize libraries, see <a href="https://developer.android.com/topic/performance/app-optimization/library-optimization" target="_blank">Optimization for library authors</a>.</p>
    
    <h3>R8 Configuration Analyzer</h3>
    <p>To audit your R8 optimization, use the <b><a href="http://developer.android.com/r8-analyzer" target="_blank">Configuration Analyzer</a></b>. Configuration analyzer shows the current state of optimization with Obfuscation, Optimization, and Shrinking scores. With configuration analyzer, you can also understand how many classes, methods or fields are prevented from optimization by each keep rule. Refine these broad package wide keep rules to unlock the maximum optimization.</p>
    <p>Using configuration analyzer, you can also identify keep rules that are subsuming other keep rules, redundant keep rules and unused keep rules.</p>
</div>

<div class="separator">
    <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEib0dTmk8w7EYsDiV0Ufd8CAnpWz36-ZDC_gCGFkS_0CGz0axCxOy3RBxuaOoUbR4kzaeFBXryfSR2rkxRsmTXNrPtuJw8n1DTiZiKDqHjv3AaEXteE9TKV3QxYtwCztvY-8a0GpBlOZhVV1p0ftgdxeiKGGnO3dLu_IOt-TB_7j-ZnbR2jSr_CNYzh-bc/s2048/pic2-r8-config-analyzer.png">
        <img border="0" data-original-height="1156" data-original-width="2048" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEib0dTmk8w7EYsDiV0Ufd8CAnpWz36-ZDC_gCGFkS_0CGz0axCxOy3RBxuaOoUbR4kzaeFBXryfSR2rkxRsmTXNrPtuJw8n1DTiZiKDqHjv3AaEXteE9TKV3QxYtwCztvY-8a0GpBlOZhVV1p0ftgdxeiKGGnO3dLu_IOt-TB_7j-ZnbR2jSr_CNYzh-bc/s16000/pic2-r8-config-analyzer.png">
    </a>
</div>
<div>
    <i>The Configuration Analyzer shows the current state of optimization with Obfuscation, Optimization, and Shrinking scores.</i>
</div>

<div>
    <h4><span>R8 Agent Skill </span></h4>
    <p>You can also leverage the <b><a href="https://github.com/android/skills/tree/main/performance/r8-analyzer" target="_blank">R8 Agent Skill</a></b> with Android Studio agent or other AI tools to resolve misconfigurations and refine your rules resulting in improved app performance. <i>(Insights from AI-driven skills will require technical verification)</i></p>
</div>

<h3>Optimize image loading</h3>
<div>
    <p>Bitmaps are usually the largest common objects residing in your app's memory. They represent the final stage of the image loading process where compressed files, like JPEGs or PNGs, are decoded into raw pixel data for display. This means a tiny 100KB compressed image can balloon into several megabytes of RAM because memory consumption is determined by the image's pixel dimensions and color depth. Since bitmap operations are frequently on the critical path to drawing frames, unoptimized images cause severe memory bloat and UI jank.</p>
    <p>Google recommends leveraging image loading libraries <b><a href="https://github.com/coil-kt/coil" target="_blank">Coil</a></b> for Kotlin-first projects, particularly when developing with Jetpack Compose and <b><a href="https://github.com/bumptech/glide" target="_blank">Glide</a></b> for Java-based applications.</p>
    
    <h4><span>Adopt these five best practices</span></h4>
    <ol>
        <li><b>Downsample images:</b> If you’re loading bitmaps manually, avoid loading a massive image into a tiny thumbnail view; use <a href="https://developer.android.com/topic/performance/graphics/load-bitmap" target="_blank">inSampleSize</a> to load a smaller version. Glide and Coil downsamples images by default and you can configure this downsample strategy using <a href="https://bumptech.github.io/glide/javadocs/470/com/bumptech/glide/load/resource/bitmap/DownsampleStrategy.html" target="_blank">DownsampleStrategy</a> and <a href="https://coil-kt.github.io/coil/image_loaders/" target="_blank">ImageLoader</a> respectively.</li>
        <li><b>Cropping:</b> Avoid embedding padding directly into an image file for letterboxing purposes (e.g., creating a transparent border to expand an image dimensions). Rather than baking in these borders, utilize <a href="https://developer.android.com/reference/android/graphics/drawable/InsetDrawable" target="_blank">InsetDrawable</a> or apply padding directly within the View or Composable containing the bitmap.</li>
        <li><b>Config:</b> Balance memory and quality by choosing the right pixel format. Use <code>RGB_565</code> when transparency isn't needed, which uses half the memory of the default <code>ARGB_8888</code> format. In Glide you can configure this by using <a href="https://bumptech.github.io/glide/javadocs/470/com/bumptech/glide/load/DecodeFormat.html" target="_blank">DecodeFormat</a> and in Coil you can use <a href="https://coil-kt.github.io/coil/api/coil-core/coil3.request/-image-request/" target="_blank">bitmapConfig</a> property.</li>
        <li><b>Prioritize vector drawables:</b> For basic geometric assets, leverage <a href="https://developer.android.com/reference/android/graphics/drawable/ShapeDrawable" target="_blank">ShapeDrawable</a> as a lightweight alternative to decoding rasterized bitmaps. By defining these assets once via XML, you ensure they scale seamlessly across all display densities while effectively eliminating resource-driven memory bloat.</li>
        <li><b>Reuse:</b> If your application manages Bitmaps manually then to minimize memory churn, when a bitmap is no longer required, the app should call <code>bitmap.recycle()</code> and immediately discard the Bitmap reference. If you use an image loading library like Glide or Coil, return the bitmap to the library’s managed pool. By providing an existing buffer for future memory needs, the pool effectively avoids the overhead of new allocations.</li>
    </ol>
    
    <p>Check out our documentation on <a href="https://developer.android.com/develop/ui/compose/graphics/images/optimization" target="_blank">Optimizing performance for images</a> to learn more.</p>
    
    <h4><span>Android Studio tooling</span></h4>
    <p>You can also eliminate redundant bitmaps using Android Studio Narwhal 4. Here is how to hunt them down in five simple steps:</p>
    <ol>
        <li>Open the <b>Profiler</b> tab in Android Studio</li>
        <li>Click <b>Heap Dump</b> (or "Analyze Memory Usage") and hit record to take a snapshot of your app’s current memory state.</li>
        <li>Scan the analysis results for the <b>yellow warning triangle</b> ⚠️, which Android Studio uses to flag duplicate bitmaps being stored multiple times. Alternatively, navigate to the profiler header, choose "Filter by:" and pick the "Duplicate Bitmaps" setting.</li>
        <li>Click on any flagged entry to open the <b>Bitmap Preview</b> pane, allowing you to see exactly which image is the repeat offender.</li>
        <li>Use that visual confirmation to track down the redundant loading logic in your code and implement a better caching strategy.</li>
    </ol>
</div>

<div class="separator"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDJ6djtozFY7DzrGB-EN8ajLVueF9MdLd4mod4jhtO8YwCzU7ObOwQ2w0Bap5A5NHJ7KVnXIRQqhW8cTdcFhMJPw5FIW1WU7D_Mwm-UC9Fsdr-MOn62xijpjKcS0NeUBnO957jmogGEISNQgeZQk3BVvUWK4BknTjLiuK2TbWCqwO3uTLkjkFhLwJre7w/s2379/pic3-IO26_113_TSV%20-dup-bitmaps-cropped.jpg"><img border="0" data-original-height="1162" data-original-width="2379" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDJ6djtozFY7DzrGB-EN8ajLVueF9MdLd4mod4jhtO8YwCzU7ObOwQ2w0Bap5A5NHJ7KVnXIRQqhW8cTdcFhMJPw5FIW1WU7D_Mwm-UC9Fsdr-MOn62xijpjKcS0NeUBnO957jmogGEISNQgeZQk3BVvUWK4BknTjLiuK2TbWCqwO3uTLkjkFhLwJre7w/s16000/pic3-IO26_113_TSV%20-dup-bitmaps-cropped.jpg"></a></div><div class="separator"><i>Look for the yellow warning triangle ⚠️ in heap dumps when using the Android Studio Profiler.</i></div>

<h3>Detect and fix memory leaks with Android Studio</h3>
<p>Memory leaks in Android occur when your code holds onto an object's reference long after its lifecycle has ended. This prevents the Garbage Collector (GC) from reclaiming that memory, eventually leading to sluggish performance or OutOfMemoryError (OOM).</p>
<p>Android Studio Panda 3 features a dedicated <a href="https://square.github.io/leakcanary/" target="_blank">LeakCanary</a> profiler task, allowing developers to analyze real-time memory leaks and map traces within the IDE.</p>
<p>The LeakCanary profiler task in Android Studio actively moves the memory leak analysis from your device to your development machine, resulting in a significant performance boost during the leak analysis phase as compared to on-device leak analysis.</p>

<div class="separator">
    <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKBixtkwy1hzwA6mikjRX_6vBJ9OQ_RCYdF94HUF8kOLYzQoQrPMLh_6h9u6EGeLzgFc8yjxg3_8zlqWIDCvKa1py5gyxDXasl8JLPDHSEgPpzPyYqzcme69rRKtfIlhMtyNRWXutGXNy-4WcefhSTBhqBgobK678fqvNqL5peOz1UD6ouunLaKPmJCw0/s2048/pic4-android-studio-leaks.png">
        <img border="0" data-original-height="975" data-original-width="2048" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKBixtkwy1hzwA6mikjRX_6vBJ9OQ_RCYdF94HUF8kOLYzQoQrPMLh_6h9u6EGeLzgFc8yjxg3_8zlqWIDCvKa1py5gyxDXasl8JLPDHSEgPpzPyYqzcme69rRKtfIlhMtyNRWXutGXNy-4WcefhSTBhqBgobK678fqvNqL5peOz1UD6ouunLaKPmJCw0/s16000/pic4-android-studio-leaks.png">
    </a>
</div>
<div>
    <i>LeakCanary memory leak analysis contextualized with <b>Go to declaration</b> for debugging</i>
</div>

<p>Additionally, the leak analysis is now contextualized within the IDE and fully integrated with your source code, providing features like go to declaration and other helpful code connections that drastically reduce the friction and time required to investigate and fix memory leaks.</p>

<div>
    <h4><span>Examples of common memory leaks </span></h4>
    <p>Memory leaks occur when an object persists in memory beyond its intended lifespan. This typically happens due to:</p>
    <ul>
        <li>Retaining references to Fragments, Activities, or Views that are no longer in use.</li>
        <li>Mismanaging Context references.</li>
        <li>Failing to properly unregister observers, listeners, and receivers.</li>
        <li>Creating static references to objects that are bound to components with shorter lifecycles.</li>
    </ul>
    
    <p>Here are a few example scenarios:</p>
    
    <div align="left" dir="ltr">
        <table>
            <colgroup>
                <col>
                <col>
                <col>
            </colgroup>
            <tbody>
                <tr>
                    <td>
                        <p dir="ltr"><span face="'Google Sans',sans-serif">Scenario</span></p>
                    </td>
                    <td>
                        <p dir="ltr"><span face="'Google Sans',sans-serif">Compose-based example</span></p>
                    </td>
                    <td>
                        <p dir="ltr"><span face="'Google Sans',sans-serif">View-based example</span></p>
                    </td>
                </tr>
                <tr>
                    <td>
                        <p dir="ltr"><span face="'Google Sans',sans-serif">Leaking Context</span></p>
                    </td>
                    <td>
                        <p dir="ltr"><span face="'Google Sans',sans-serif">Example:</span><br><span face="'Google Sans',sans-serif">Passing LocalContext.current to a ViewModel</span></p>
                        <p dir="ltr"><span face="'Google Sans',sans-serif">Fix:</span><br><span face="'Google Sans',sans-serif">Keep <code>Context</code> dependent logic within the UI layer. For non-UI layers, refactor to use <a href="https://developer.android.com/training/dependency-injection">dependency injection</a> or observe UI state using <a href="https://developer.android.com/kotlin/flow">Kotlin flow</a>.</span></p>
                    </td>
                    <td>
                        <p dir="ltr"><span face="'Google Sans',sans-serif">Example:</span><br><span face="'Google Sans',sans-serif">Storing an <code>Activity</code> in a companion object or static variable.</span></p>
                        <p dir="ltr"><span face="'Google Sans',sans-serif">Fix:</span><br><span face="'Google Sans',sans-serif">Don’t hold static references to UI components. Refactor to use <a href="https://developer.android.com/training/dependency-injection">dependency injection</a> or observe UI state using <a href="https://developer.android.com/kotlin/flow">Kotlin flow</a>.</span></p>
                    </td>
                </tr>
                <tr>
                    <td>
                        <p dir="ltr"><span face="'Google Sans',sans-serif">Leaking Listeners</span></p>
                    </td>
                    <td>
                        <p dir="ltr"><span face="'Google Sans',sans-serif">Example:</span><br><span face="'Google Sans',sans-serif">Using <code>DisposableEffect</code> to start a listener but leaving <code>onDispose</code> empty.</span></p>
                        <p dir="ltr"><span face="'Google Sans',sans-serif">Fix:</span><br><span face="'Google Sans',sans-serif">Perform the unregistration and <a href="https://developer.android.com/develop/ui/compose/side-effects#disposableeffect">cleanup logic</a> inside the <code>onDispose</code> block.</span></p>
                    </td>
                    <td>
                        <p dir="ltr"><span face="'Google Sans',sans-serif">Example:</span><br><span face="'Google Sans',sans-serif">Registering for SensorManager updates and forgetting to unregister.</span></p>
                        <p dir="ltr"><span face="'Google Sans',sans-serif">Fix:</span><br><span face="'Google Sans',sans-serif">Manually call <code>unregisterListener()</code> in <code>onStop()</code> or <code>onDestroy()</code> lifecycle.</span></p>
                    </td>
                </tr>
                <tr>
                    <td>
                        <p dir="ltr"><span face="'Google Sans',sans-serif">Leaking Views</span></p>
                    </td>
                    <td>
                        <p dir="ltr"><span face="'Google Sans',sans-serif">Example:</span><br><span face="'Google Sans',sans-serif">Holding a reference to a legacy <code>View</code> inside an <code>AndroidView</code> without a release strategy.</span></p>
                        <p dir="ltr"><span face="'Google Sans',sans-serif">Fix:</span><br><span face="'Google Sans',sans-serif">Use the <code>release</code> block of the <code>AndroidView</code> composable to clean up the legacy <code>View</code>.</span></p>
                    </td>
                    <td>
                        <p dir="ltr"><span face="'Google Sans',sans-serif">Example:</span><br><span face="'Google Sans',sans-serif">Keeping a reference to a view binding object after the <code>Fragment</code> is destroyed.</span></p>
                        <p dir="ltr"><span face="'Google Sans',sans-serif">Fix:</span><br><span face="'Google Sans',sans-serif">Set the binding variable to <code>null</code> inside the <code>onDestroyView</code>() lifecycle method.</span></p>
                    </td>
                </tr>
            </tbody>
        </table>
    </div>
</div>

<h3>Trim memory when app leaves visible state</h3>
<p>Android can reclaim memory from your app or stop your app entirely if necessary to free up memory for critical tasks, as explained in <a href="https://developer.android.com/topic/performance/memory-overview" target="_blank">Overview of memory management</a>. Android will usually reclaim memory from your app when it’s not visible to the user, such as by discarding some of your app’s code and data pages in memory or compressing your heap allocations. When the user resumes your app and your app tries to access some memory that’s been reclaimed, the OS will swap that memory back in on demand. This swapping behavior can be slow, and cause unexpected jank or stutters in your app.</p>
<p>If you leave it to the OS to decide what memory to reclaim from your app, you may find that the OS reclaimed memory that you’ll need shortly after resuming your app. Instead, your app can voluntarily discard memory allocations that it can regenerate later, on demand and at a low cost. To do so, you can implement the <code>ComponentCallbacks2</code> interface. You can implement <code>onTrimMemory</code> in your <code>Activity</code>, <code>Fragment</code>, <code>Service</code>, or even your custom <code>Application</code> class. Using it in the <code>Application</code> class is highly effective for global cache management.</p>
<p>The provided <a href="https://developer.android.com/reference/android/content/ComponentCallbacks2#onTrimMemory(int)" target="_blank">onTrimMemory()</a> callback method notifies your app of lifecycle or memory-related events that present a good opportunity for your app to voluntarily reduce its memory usage.</p>
<p>In terms of memory lifecycle management, your implementation should focus <b>exclusively</b> on <code>TRIM_MEMORY_UI_HIDDEN</code> and <code>TRIM_MEMORY_BACKGROUND</code>. Since Android 14, the system has ceased delivering notifications for other legacy constants, which were formally deprecated in Android 15.</p>
<p><code>TRIM_MEMORY_UI_HIDDEN</code>: This signal indicates that your application's UI has transitioned out of the user's view. This provides an opportunity to release substantial memory allocations tied strictly to the interface—such as Bitmaps, video playback buffers, or complex animation resources.</p>
<p><code>TRIM_MEMORY_BACKGROUND</code>: At this level, your process is residing in the background and is now a candidate for termination to satisfy the system's global memory needs. To extend the duration your process remains in the cached state, and reduce the number of app cold starts, you should aggressively release any resources that can be easily reconstructed once the user resumes their session.</p>

<pre><code>import android.content.ComponentCallbacks2
// Other import statements.

class MainActivity : AppCompatActivity(), ComponentCallbacks2 {

    /**
     * Release memory when the UI becomes hidden or when system resources become low.
     * @param level the memory-related event that is raised.
     */
    override fun onTrimMemory(level: Int) {

        if (level &gt;= ComponentCallbacks2.TRIM_MEMORY_UI_HIDDEN) {
            // Release memory related to UI elements, such as bitmap caches.
        }

        if (level &gt;= ComponentCallbacks2.TRIM_MEMORY_BACKGROUND) {
            // Release memory related to background processing, such as by
            // closing a database connection.
        }
    }
}</code></pre>

<p>Note: The <code>onTrimMemory</code> integration may depend on SDK support. For instance, certain games rely on their game engine to enable this capability. Please check out the <a href="https://developer.android.com/games/optimize/memory-allocation" target="_blank">game memory optimization documents</a>.</p>

<h3>Advanced memory observability with ProfilingManager</h3>
<p>To catch and diagnose memory issues in the field that cannot be reproduced locally, you should leverage the <b>ProfilingManager API</b>. Introduced in Android 15, this advanced observability API allows you to programmatically collect real-user Perfetto profiles.</p>
<p>For teams that lack a dedicated infrastructure to manage and host performance artifacts, Crashlytics is exploring a specialized solution to streamline this workflow. They are inviting developers to <a href="https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSe299a_zSNDfa164z7yyqoDjS05ZDRN86bAQKajuAOFEQ4G-w/viewform" target="_blank">provide feedback</a>.</p>

<p><b>Android 17 introduces new event-driven triggers</b>, most notably <code>TRIGGER_TYPE_OOM</code> and <code>TRIGGER_TYPE_ANOMALY</code>:</p>
<ul>
    <li>The <b>OOM trigger</b> automatically collects a Java heap dump at the exact moment an OutOfMemoryError crash occurs, providing precise allocation states. A collected OOM profile is provided the next time the app starts and registers the <code>registerForAllProfilingResults</code> callback.</li>
    <li>The <b>Anomaly trigger</b> detects severe performance issues, such as excessive binder spam or breached memory thresholds. The memory anomaly delivers a heap dump just prior to the system terminating the app.</li>
</ul>

<pre><code>  val profilingManager = 
applicationContext.getSystemService(ProfilingManager::class.java)
    val triggers = ArrayList<profilingtrigger>()  


    triggers.add(ProfilingTrigger.Builder(
                 ProfilingTrigger.TRIGGER_TYPE_ANOMALY))
    val mainExecutor: Executor = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor()
    val resultCallback = Consumer<profilingresult> { profilingResult -&gt;
        if (profilingResult.errorCode != ProfilingResult.ERROR_NONE) {
            // upload profile result to server for further analysis          
            setupProfileUploadWorker(profilingResult.resultFilePath)
        } 

    profilingManager.registerForAllProfilingResults(mainExecutor, resultCallback)
    profilingManager.addProfilingTriggers(triggers)</profilingresult></profilingtrigger></code></pre>

<p>
    Once you’ve collected the heap dump, you can download the profile from the server, or locally via adb pull and drag and drop the file into the <a href="http://ui.perfetto.dev/" target="_blank">Perfetto UI</a>. To streamline your memory debugging workflow, use the <a href="https://perfetto.dev/docs/visualization/heap-dump-explorer" target="_blank">Heap Dump Explorer</a>, this is the new default view for heap dumps in Perfetto UI. This tool provides an intuitive interface for inspecting Java heap dumps, allowing you to visualize object allocation hierarchies, compute retained memory sizes, and identify the shortest path from garbage collection root. By leveraging the Heap Dump Explorer, you can rapidly pinpoint memory leaks, bloated retained objects such as excessive bitmap allocations, and analyze heap object allocations all in one place.
</p>

<div class="separator">
    <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhobASfyUbXdAYD_MOjREv7RUhCwoNJ9sB4QDSImRfA0UrALJqwQ2ovgAF7YRt3f26UeZoIQa-yDxiSDO84gxv1XkQ8acf8E795-IgAe4tl8AM_7m7nSEuj7t_rhtpgM3f-76_lEh-k7Rltku79-VCuIDN_2Q9DRjJyouCKbxg4pDXHV2yey7V8WlG2jQM/s2048/pic5-perfettoheapdump-analyzer.png">
        <img border="0" data-original-height="1039" data-original-width="2048" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhobASfyUbXdAYD_MOjREv7RUhCwoNJ9sB4QDSImRfA0UrALJqwQ2ovgAF7YRt3f26UeZoIQa-yDxiSDO84gxv1XkQ8acf8E795-IgAe4tl8AM_7m7nSEuj7t_rhtpgM3f-76_lEh-k7Rltku79-VCuIDN_2Q9DRjJyouCKbxg4pDXHV2yey7V8WlG2jQM/s16000/pic5-perfettoheapdump-analyzer.png">
    </a>
</div>
<div>
    <i>Use the <a href="https://perfetto.dev/docs/visualization/heap-dump-explorer">Heap Dump Explorer</a>’s embedded flamegraph to visually inspect and navigate through objects with the highest heap allocations.</i>
</div>

<h3>Conclusion</h3>
<p>Optimizing bytecode with R8, adopting image loading best practices, and resolving memory leaks are critical steps toward delivering a high-quality user experience while managing resources effectively under pressure. Adopting these proactive measures helps maintain app stability and performance, preventing unexpected terminations while safeguarding user context. To further your performance expertise, explore our revised <a href="https://developer.android.com/topic/performance/memory" target="_blank">memory guidance</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Datadog delivers millions of in-depth performance insights with ProfilingManager]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Posted by Alice Yuan, Developer Relations Engineer at Google, Arti Arutiunov, Product Manager at Datadog and Nikita Ogorodnikov, Staff Software Engineer at Datadog


  Performance regressions are notoriously hard to reproduce, making regressions a massive bottleneck for mobile developers. Althoug...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3693507/android-tipps/datadog-delivers-millions-of-in-depth-performance-insights-with-profilingmanager/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3693507/android-tipps/datadog-delivers-millions-of-in-depth-performance-insights-with-profilingmanager/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 10:15:39 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🤖 Android Tipps</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh92CmF7Hos-AKsEmr3k9Va10fhbed32pj4r9wxbUAlpyAIh2GV0KhvsRYzkmATQgflpHYdfAgdFkRfq1ki2G7ty5wKfzoaoyYknCOEjb6Auz7r0Zcfk0tR6VCX-3o3L9fpcs419uI5iNdBiOtno7ughGWD0SGJ5n3sfWPEB7ZJ9M_HQFDLhBQ_hv3HFQ8">
<p>Posted by Alice Yuan, Developer Relations Engineer at Google, Arti Arutiunov, Product Manager at Datadog and Nikita Ogorodnikov, Staff Software Engineer at Datadog</p><p></p><p></p><div class="separator"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjICmOZHTF4gmgXj1G4r5Fp48jM_W4fN9tjxbdnesvaxjUsuwmrftmILW-CErt5cXGcZp93UGtLy8fBehhZxwZ2oxtjQLNb269jHfkNA3XBHnn9JIVZbApeatdCi9gX6ylK7-5A-DzQ3VSRi8hJCNp_8699CzeD9H0y26Tl-6DO8FIafh9UQFyrpa_C9DA"><img alt="" data-original-height="1253" data-original-width="4209" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjICmOZHTF4gmgXj1G4r5Fp48jM_W4fN9tjxbdnesvaxjUsuwmrftmILW-CErt5cXGcZp93UGtLy8fBehhZxwZ2oxtjQLNb269jHfkNA3XBHnn9JIVZbApeatdCi9gX6ylK7-5A-DzQ3VSRi8hJCNp_8699CzeD9H0y26Tl-6DO8FIafh9UQFyrpa_C9DA=s16000"></a></div><br><br><p></p>

<p>
  Performance regressions are notoriously hard to reproduce, making regressions a massive bottleneck for mobile developers. Although signals like ANR rates indicate what issues occur in production, pinpointing the specific line of code that resulted in the performance issue has historically necessitated exhaustive manual reproduction or speculative trial-and-error experimentation.
</p>

<p>Datadog collaborated with Google to mitigate this frustration by integrating the ProfilingManager API (available on Android 15+ devices) into its Real User Monitoring (RUM) and Continuous Profiling platforms. This integration transforms the debugging workflow, allowing developers to move beyond surface-level symptoms to being able to detect the <em>why</em> behind a performance bottleneck.
</p>

By leveraging this system-level API, Datadog now processes millions of production profiles weekly across the globe according to Datadog internal data of June 2026. It provides engineering teams with a new level of visibility into real-world performance, all while maintaining a low runtime overhead for production-scale performance monitoring.

<h3>The impact of ProfilingManager</h3><p>
  ProfilingManager is a system service introduced in Android 15 that enables apps to programmatically collect performance data such as call stack samples, field traces and memory heap dumps directly from production environments. This capability shifts the engineering paradigm from reactive manual reproduction to proactive field analysis.</p><div class="separator"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWVOhdnTTwX9DT3ROPHDLHKm1aJ8Z0vo5wYsHTULe7oRBqsi2-pTblEC1ggNuVXdd5rCZv6RooG4dsdOqMM_8URLUxierH3KjujbTyVSFrqNIs01zMqb_o7uXFeYECms5s_CkX1WvAPaQeO5W9bpnvD4S4BNN0mH9qbanuTukvCg8LTozhNEhY0CQ0o0Q/s1280/AANDDM_DataDog_Quote_01.png"><img alt="ProfilingManager is a highly performant solution for code-level insights.  Of the solutions we evaluated, it has the lowest runtime overhead,  gives deep visibility into Java, Kotlin, and C++ traces, and opens the door to gather memory profiles and system-level traces during critical moments like ANRs and out-of-memory (OOM) errors. Yi Lu, Senior Engineer at Datadog" border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWVOhdnTTwX9DT3ROPHDLHKm1aJ8Z0vo5wYsHTULe7oRBqsi2-pTblEC1ggNuVXdd5rCZv6RooG4dsdOqMM_8URLUxierH3KjujbTyVSFrqNIs01zMqb_o7uXFeYECms5s_CkX1WvAPaQeO5W9bpnvD4S4BNN0mH9qbanuTukvCg8LTozhNEhY0CQ0o0Q/s16000/AANDDM_DataDog_Quote_01.png"></a></div><br><p><br></p>

For example, a Google communications app used field traces to investigate why its cold start times were slower on newer, more powerful hardware. By diving into the field-collected traces and comparing traces across different device types, the engineer discovered a hidden scheduling issue: a background text-to-speech service was unnecessarily being prewarmed during app startup. The traces revealed that this background process was monopolizing the device's highest-performing big CPU core, forcing the app's main thread to sleep while the prewarm occurred.

<h3>Solving the Android code-level visibility challenge</h3><p>
  Prior to the implementation of ProfilingManager, Datadog’s Real User Monitoring (RUM) focused on high-level application health and session-level telemetry to assess the user journey. Engineering teams could monitor Android performance signals like time to initial display, ANR rates, CPU load, and frozen frames. These insights extended to granular interactions, such as network latency, touch events, and main thread hangs. However, while this data effectively highlighted which performance bottlenecks were surfacing in the field, it provided no clear path to identifying the root cause of these failures.</p><div><span face='"Google Sans", sans-serif'><br></span></div><p></p><div class="separator"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjW4Lm-zE5X2trjidQ0eh9i_Bhiwd7HnkOcMeRtA_4dABpGG0EPuer564cLFK4o3eb_N_zWmBAgpOa58eygLH5hwFF6kMg_4GFC98vRN4pd1LNZ-PG9W5wyHv-ptVcmIGo1M7FNPi9PKQ9iGsyZeVfr5jDK46HJHU-1Gsc6IZJdSvhrZVavqKiZmyYar0o"><img alt="We realized that across our profiling features, performance profiling on mobile applications remained a blind spot. Teams could see that an Android user experienced a slow screen render or an ANR, but lacked the same code-level visibility they relied on for their backend services. - Bryan Antigua, Senior Product Manager at Datadog" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjW4Lm-zE5X2trjidQ0eh9i_Bhiwd7HnkOcMeRtA_4dABpGG0EPuer564cLFK4o3eb_N_zWmBAgpOa58eygLH5hwFF6kMg_4GFC98vRN4pd1LNZ-PG9W5wyHv-ptVcmIGo1M7FNPi9PKQ9iGsyZeVfr5jDK46HJHU-1Gsc6IZJdSvhrZVavqKiZmyYar0o=s16000"></a></div><br><br><p></p>

<p>
  To address this, Datadog needed a profiling engine capable of capturing Android traces directly from devices in production with minimal performance impact. After evaluating alternative approaches, such as writing their own trace processor using Android Debug APIs, the team selected ProfilingManager because it is the most performant solution of the profiling options they evaluated and offloads the sampling decisions overhead to the OS.
</p>

<p>
  ProfilingManager supports a wide range of collection methods, including CPU traces, call stack sampling, memory analysis through Java heap dumps and native heap profiles. It enables developers to profile production builds, upload trace files to external storage, and review them in the Perfetto trace analyzer UI. As a SaaS provider, Datadog uploads, visualizes, and analyzes these profiles collected via its SDK, providing a unified view of application health. 
</p>

By centralizing high-fidelity telemetry within a unified observability API, ProfilingManager empowers Datadog and its clients to proactively monitor, investigate, and remediate complex Android performance regressions through key technical advantages:

<ul>
  <li>
    <strong>Granular session diagnostics:</strong> ProfilingManager enhances debuggability by delivering direct OS-level trace data, overcoming the visibility and alignment challenges typical of custom logging with system services. To dive deeper, developers can download these traces from Datadog to investigate further in visualization tools like the <a href="https://ui.perfetto.dev/">Perfetto UI</a>. 
  </li>
  <li>
    <strong>Automated telemetry triggers:</strong> By leveraging native system events to initiate trace recordings at key optimization points, Datadog reduces the need to build custom collection logic. While the initial rollout focuses on the <a href="https://developer.android.com/reference/android/os/ProfilingTrigger?_gl=1*xix6h8*_up*MQ..*_ga*MTc4ODI2NDgwMy4xNzc5MzE2ODcw*_ga_6HH9YJMN9M*czE3NzkzMTY4NzAkbzEkZzAkdDE3NzkzMTY4NzAkajYwJGwwJGgyMTE1NzIyNjk1#TRIGGER_TYPE_APP_FULLY_DRAWN">APP_FULLY_DRAWN </a>signal, there are already plans to expand this observability to include <a href="https://developer.android.com/reference/android/os/ProfilingTrigger?_gl=1*1hl4p7n*_up*MQ..*_ga*MTc4ODI2NDgwMy4xNzc5MzE2ODcw*_ga_6HH9YJMN9M*czE3NzkzMTY4NzAkbzEkZzAkdDE3NzkzMTY4NzAkajYwJGwwJGgyMTE1NzIyNjk1#TRIGGER_TYPE_ANR">ANR</a>, <a href="https://developer.android.com/reference/android/os/ProfilingTrigger?_gl=1*8x3pd*_up*MQ..*_ga*MTc4ODI2NDgwMy4xNzc5MzE2ODcw*_ga_6HH9YJMN9M*czE3NzkzMTY4NzAkbzEkZzAkdDE3NzkzMTY4NzAkajYwJGwwJGgyMTE1NzIyNjk1#TRIGGER_TYPE_OOM">OOM</a>, and <a href="https://developer.android.com/reference/android/os/ProfilingTrigger?_gl=1*1ezx2ma*_up*MQ..*_ga*MTc4ODI2NDgwMy4xNzc5MzE2ODcw*_ga_6HH9YJMN9M*czE3NzkzMTY4NzAkbzEkZzAkdDE3NzkzMTY4NzAkajYwJGwwJGgyMTE1NzIyNjk1#TRIGGER_TYPE_COLD_START">COLD_START</a> triggers.</li>
  <li>
    <strong>Proactive trace snapshots:</strong> By interfacing directly with the system-level Perfetto service (traced), ProfilingManager utilizes a proactive background recording model designed to capture unpredictable issues. This ensures that developers receive a precise visualization of the events leading up to a performance anomaly, offering a level of insight that exceeds what is possible through manual instrumentation. 
  </li>
  <li>
    <strong>Bottleneck detection at scale:</strong> Datadog is able to synthesize telemetry from across Datadog’s global customer base to uncover regressions that only emerge under unique hardware configurations and variable network environments.
  </li>
  <li>
    <strong>System-enforced resource stability:</strong> The API leverages sampling trace collection to ensure performance and user experience impacts remain unnoticeable.
  </li>
  <li>
    <strong>On-device data controls:</strong> ProfilingManager filters out irrelevant information from other processes on-device before the profile is delivered to the app. This minimizes file sizes and ensures that only data relevant to the app's processes is provided.</li>
</ul>

<h3>Processing millions of weekly profiles to optimize real-world apps</h3><p></p><div class="separator"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjr2ikpIrv_Km0RiIq-khGPFHpfA5CRYHfnLj2oRxLSuTk2x8qJFoO4UyNiwMpJphecSAVR4aWcJEB7BzvkXYjkyDggRDUYhLTBGhoj5q3b6BmwA5IcsER1_k5tffie6pteW3YNkIwI5Y6rG_Ie35Xzzq-mEnfq8iinA_cd_r5ydCxfRwajPSngrY1591k/s3464/datadog-profiling-blogpost-final.png"><img border="0" data-original-height="1686" data-original-width="3464" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjr2ikpIrv_Km0RiIq-khGPFHpfA5CRYHfnLj2oRxLSuTk2x8qJFoO4UyNiwMpJphecSAVR4aWcJEB7BzvkXYjkyDggRDUYhLTBGhoj5q3b6BmwA5IcsER1_k5tffie6pteW3YNkIwI5Y6rG_Ie35Xzzq-mEnfq8iinA_cd_r5ydCxfRwajPSngrY1591k/s16000/datadog-profiling-blogpost-final.png"></a></div><i><div><i>An example of Datadog's time to initial display measurement with </i></div><div><i>stack sampling powered by ProfilingManager</i></div></i><br>Integrating a system-level profiling API into a global monitoring SDK required solving infrastructure challenges. Because ProfilingManager generates highly detailed performance traces, the Datadog engineering team had to build a pipeline capable of parsing and analyzing these profiles on the server side at scale. <span><span>Beyond profile collection, Datadog also emphasizes the importance of balancing sampling frequency with collecting enough data to generate meaningful insights about your application. </span></span>Datadog relies on ProfilingManager’s built-in rate limiting as a critical stability safeguard, preventing excessive telemetry requests from overburdening user devices.<br><br>The team has been profiling Datadog's own native Android application and a number of early adopters’ applications for months, gathering millions of profiles to ensure a fast, error-free launch experience and to refine their performance-detection algorithms. Today, the production integration seamlessly scales across a variety of Android devices. <p></p><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>By integrating Android’s ProfilingManager API, Datadog successfully closed the visibility gap between backend systems and mobile client applications for their customers. By processing millions of profiles weekly with negligible device overhead, Datadog equips Android developers with the code-level insights necessary to diagnose complex performance bugs instantly, helping developers build smoother applications and improve their app’s performance signals in the Play Store. To adopt the ProfilingManager API directly into your performance observability framework, check out our <a href="https://developer.android.com/topic/performance/tracing/profiling-manager/overview">documentation</a>.</p>

<p>
  In the future, Datadog aims to make Android profiling data a first-class input for coding agents to autonomously resolve performance bottlenecks, closing the feedback loop between detection and remediation. Datadog is working toward making Android profiling broadly accessible to developers.
</p>

<p>
  To get started using the Datadog real user monitoring feature powered by ProfilingManager, visit <a href="https://www.datadoghq.com/dg/real-user-monitoring/android-profiling/?utm_source=inbound&amp;utm_medium=corpsite-display&amp;utm_campaign=int-rum-ww-blog-announcement-announcement-androidprofilerblog2026">Datadog Mobile Real User Monitoring</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Expanded billing choice and lower fees on Google Play]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Posted by Paul Feng, Vice President, Google Play Eng, Product, UX

At Google Play, we are committed to delivering the best possible experience to users, while ensuring developers have the tools and adaptability to succeed. Guided by this commitment, earlier this year we announced updates to our b...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3693502/android-tipps/expanded-billing-choice-and-lower-fees-on-google-play/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3693502/android-tipps/expanded-billing-choice-and-lower-fees-on-google-play/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 10:15:32 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🤖 Android Tipps</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUB5FJxvJIARbdD14jKJu4Jg0uzjczgDxybt5NlviqF_vL91B0GzqNHTcURyCT1nUJgc22LmhvXBk_E2UOXvLqXN_dZfs0YrlbMrl3ZJ_CYcn4W4qoTUhU5k0Y8DhoXltMRMUGQN7uzj6pH4qV1dtRCR6tAKpjmH3Ys_94xqHgR6SfHMpAplFgz8ClGG8/s8533/Apps%20Experience_Play%20Blog%20MetadataCard__2048x1323.jpg"><p></p><p><i>Posted by Paul Feng, Vice President, Google Play Eng, Product, UX</i></p><p></p>

<p></p><div class="separator"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0NArBxSwBOPGYLZKJ4BxhB3rjkTq6RrZ6XBJk2e57TVQ_mSCJ1nw5JAegk0dmX-MEW0ArHvvr2pX8zdXKuJjIXsTgDx7i9W-EoRtS0rHLeGPjMnOvryY2f02czLEBxANuCYYa9ryEr46_6xJ9PQNkHL1MWh-hEHwZAbCGYj-JcdCunZGva5WpFFHCtYA/s4210/Blogger%20Header%20asset%20-%204209%20x%201253%20px.jpg"><img border="0" data-original-height="1254" data-original-width="4210" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0NArBxSwBOPGYLZKJ4BxhB3rjkTq6RrZ6XBJk2e57TVQ_mSCJ1nw5JAegk0dmX-MEW0ArHvvr2pX8zdXKuJjIXsTgDx7i9W-EoRtS0rHLeGPjMnOvryY2f02czLEBxANuCYYa9ryEr46_6xJ9PQNkHL1MWh-hEHwZAbCGYj-JcdCunZGva5WpFFHCtYA/s16000/Blogger%20Header%20asset%20-%204209%20x%201253%20px.jpg"></a></div><br><br>At Google Play, we are committed to delivering the best possible experience to users, while ensuring developers have the tools and adaptability to succeed. Guided by this commitment, <a href="https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2026/03/a-new-era-for-choice-and-openness.html">earlier this year</a> we announced updates to our business model introducing more billing flexibility, lower fees, and new programs to help your business thrive. <br><br>With some of these changes rolling out soon, the breakdown below outlines what is coming, where to find more information, key dates, and how to get started.

<h2>More billing flexibility</h2>

Google Play’s billing system safely, efficiently, and intuitively handles the complexities of taxes, compliance, and subscriptions across 195+ markets with 300+ local payment methods. However, we understand there are situations where your business needs more flexibility, and that's why we're offering you more options in how you handle digital commerce.<p></p><p></p><div class="separator"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicLIK5NuRI6Rf-N_scGYqy-xAMyFOrJRo-nJOjqBYQW3Fizevf5Mk3mKnNRlJWdEWKKQ3oM_whpPuVOABM9Nf8bZwkfGQ_12p4mgQDvO40ornXa_1OxyP_4okmNfbcOyXdq47nx7o11Q_D7BRe5nRBGt2tNWFhe_eAEIgFC-kFdZH8K8j0gfeWZUAuS1Y/s8000/MM6_Offer%20alt%20billing.jpg"><img border="0" data-original-height="4500" data-original-width="8000" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicLIK5NuRI6Rf-N_scGYqy-xAMyFOrJRo-nJOjqBYQW3Fizevf5Mk3mKnNRlJWdEWKKQ3oM_whpPuVOABM9Nf8bZwkfGQ_12p4mgQDvO40ornXa_1OxyP_4okmNfbcOyXdq47nx7o11Q_D7BRe5nRBGt2tNWFhe_eAEIgFC-kFdZH8K8j0gfeWZUAuS1Y/s16000/MM6_Offer%20alt%20billing.jpg"></a></div><br><p></p>

<br><br>Building from existing programs, the new billing choice program is available to all developers globally who provide digital services or content to users within the United Kingdom and the European Economic Area, alongside programs in the United States. Following this initial phase, we will continue expanding availability to additional markets. You will find the global release schedule at the bottom of this post.<br><br>Through these programs, developers can offer an alternative billing system or link users to their own website for purchases, alongside Google Play’s billing. You may also design your own choice screen in accordance with our UX guidelines, as an alternative to Google Play’s default version.<br><br>Please find all the details in the <a href="https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/17161464">program page here</a>.

<h2>Lower, separate fees</h2>To enable this new level of flexibility, we're separating our service fee from the billing fee. This starts on June 30, 2026, beginning with the United States, European Economic Area, and United Kingdom.<br><br>Regardless of whether you use Google Play's billing system, alternative billing, or external web links, the service fee starts at 10% on your first $1M (USD) in annual earnings. This 10% service fee also applies to all auto-renewing subscriptions. For all other transactions, the rates in the table below applies:<div class="separator"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjaTaAgjv7m9xtS4DS25hgDQ6oMIQWBw-GQ0bDMv4D_J-W5r7njfSvs7EnSwnJNIZ9oOIqW0w8KqoA4tTOQ2kC_l4K1YsrGt9Dp-4PFKBJGoACzfZPCjE2KBB0PGBjpaWBCguanfdhd-86iPZ3nDL_tZsk-lSYINiyQAreP8HKzBuShqq0BepijI3X6LT0/s8000/MM6%20rate%20card%20without%20border.jpg"><img border="0" data-original-height="4500" data-original-width="8000" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjaTaAgjv7m9xtS4DS25hgDQ6oMIQWBw-GQ0bDMv4D_J-W5r7njfSvs7EnSwnJNIZ9oOIqW0w8KqoA4tTOQ2kC_l4K1YsrGt9Dp-4PFKBJGoACzfZPCjE2KBB0PGBjpaWBCguanfdhd-86iPZ3nDL_tZsk-lSYINiyQAreP8HKzBuShqq0BepijI3X6LT0/s16000/MM6%20rate%20card%20without%20border.jpg"></a></div><p></p><br><br><p><br></p>

For other transactions, the service fee will be determined by whether the transacting user's install is new or existing relative to the regional rollout date:<div> 

<ul>
  <li><b>New installs</b>: A transaction from a user whose first-time install or first update of the app from Google Play occurred on or after the date that the new fee structure launched in their region.</li>
  <li><b>Existing installs</b>: A transaction from a user whose first-time install or first update of the app from Google Play occurred before the date that the new fee structure launches in their market.</li></ul><div><br></div>For transactions that use Google Play’s billing system, an additional billing fee applies. In the United States, United Kingdom, and the European Economic Area, the billing fee is set at 5%. We'll announce billing fee details for other markets soon. For transactions processed via alternative billing or external web links, the billing fee does not apply. <br><br>Review<a href="https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/16954621?hl=en"> this Help Center article</a> to understand how these rates apply to your business.

<h2>Games Level Up and Apps Experience program guidelines</h2>We are also excited to announce even more opportunities for partners who deliver exceptional user experiences across the Android ecosystem: the revamped <a href="https://play.google.com/console/about/levelup/">Games Level Up</a> and the new <a href="https://play.google.com/console/about/programs/appsexperience/">Apps Experience</a> program. Detailed guidelines are now available on the respective program websites.<br><br>Apps and games that meet all requirements are eligible for a new program rate card with reduced rates. See the table below for details:<p></p><div class="separator"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6Zf6OFaB1B8MD7DeLJ-znJQUcA3ozQYDUEKzxiJb-32f_zk8bn6Cyi-WbwDPND0osW6FmmaUlfi1ji25thN3kZYXb747mD_KaE6pUf3faA5blqHNFH7qRlp0aNgVvS-bNNLg8L3QTizxXOU0mmblc8RyapiRanHcdocW92FchSLuJnw1HUSYbY2oJfNI/s8000/MM6%20rate%20card%20with%20border.jpg"><img border="0" data-original-height="4500" data-original-width="8000" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6Zf6OFaB1B8MD7DeLJ-znJQUcA3ozQYDUEKzxiJb-32f_zk8bn6Cyi-WbwDPND0osW6FmmaUlfi1ji25thN3kZYXb747mD_KaE6pUf3faA5blqHNFH7qRlp0aNgVvS-bNNLg8L3QTizxXOU0mmblc8RyapiRanHcdocW92FchSLuJnw1HUSYbY2oJfNI/s16000/MM6%20rate%20card%20with%20border.jpg"></a></div><br><p></p>

Visit the <a href="https://play.google.com/console/about/levelup/">Games Level Up</a> and <a href="https://play.google.com/console/about/programs/appsexperience/">Apps Experience</a> program websites, review the guidelines, and start preparing your games and apps ahead of September 30, 2026, when the program rate cards officially become available.

<h2>Global release schedule</h2>

Evolving our business model requires technical infrastructure and alignment with local regulations, so these updates will roll out on a staggered timeline. To help you plan, here is the previously announced release schedule for each update across all markets:<p></p><div class="separator"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIGtrW01aFRzy0gj7_mHMrJ1TrWHkan3S0aF7HmjhM3QGdpkb9xjJudKp02b6i3jGGjRyE7PYGVPwxIhrM4CdLs_A-P70ugCns-G5x05x3PnAqD7VweBHg7-06bUl4T98OPuGpEXjrAjbwMObraQn8K3uCnr3tr505Os8Keu3H_i4wbWaZNoixFv6_vYw/s8000/MM6%20Release%20Schedule.jpg"><img border="0" data-original-height="4500" data-original-width="8000" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIGtrW01aFRzy0gj7_mHMrJ1TrWHkan3S0aF7HmjhM3QGdpkb9xjJudKp02b6i3jGGjRyE7PYGVPwxIhrM4CdLs_A-P70ugCns-G5x05x3PnAqD7VweBHg7-06bUl4T98OPuGpEXjrAjbwMObraQn8K3uCnr3tr505Os8Keu3H_i4wbWaZNoixFv6_vYw/s16000/MM6%20Release%20Schedule.jpg"></a></div><br><p></p>

<p>Here is a quick recap of the resources available to help you get started:</p>

<ul>
  <li>Review the <a href="https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/17161464"><b>billing choice program</b></a>;</li>
  <li>Learn more about <a href="https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/16954621?hl=en"><b>Google Play's lower service fees</b></a>;</li>
  <li>Explore detailed guidelines on the <a href="https://play.google.com/console/about/levelup/"><b>Games Level Up</b></a> and <a href="https://play.google.com/console/about/programs/appsexperience/"><b>Apps Experience</b></a> program websites.</li>
</ul>

<p>We look forward to building the next generation of Google Play experiences together.</p></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Linus Torvalds To Critics of AI Coding On Linux: 'Fork It. Or Just Walk Away.']]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Linus Torvalds says the Linux kernel will not ban AI-assisted coding tools, and if anti-AI absolutists have a problem with that, they can "fork it" or "walk away." An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Writing in a lengthy post on the Linux kernel mailing list this week, Torvalds...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3693454/linux-tipps/linus-torvalds-to-critics-of-ai-coding-on-linux-fork-it-or-just-walk-away/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3693454/linux-tipps/linus-torvalds-to-critics-of-ai-coding-on-linux-fork-it-or-just-walk-away/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 10:12:30 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🐧 Linux Tipps</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Linus Torvalds says the Linux kernel will not ban AI-assisted coding tools, and if anti-AI absolutists have a problem with that, they can "fork it" or "walk away." An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Writing in a lengthy post on the Linux kernel mailing list this week, Torvalds said that "Linux is not one of those anti-AI projects, and if somebody has issues with that, they can do the open-source thing and fork it. Or just walk away." The statement came amid a lengthy thread arguing about the use of Sashiko, an "agentic Linux kernel code review system" that its creators claim can, in tests, independently find 53.6 percent of the bugs that would end up being fixed by human coders in later commits. But the tool can also waste maintainers' time by sending "false positive" reports of bugs that don't exist, at a rate Sashiko's maintainers estimate is "well within [the] 20% range."
 
In discussing whether maintainers should be subjected to a flood of these kinds of automated, AI-powered bug report emails (true or false), one poster cited the Software Freedom Conservancy's recent statement that the open source community "should support, not just tolerate, those who outright reject LLM-gen-AI systems" and that "every FOSS contributor deserves self-determination regarding LLM-gen-AI." In the face of that statement, Torvalds said that he rejects those who demand that their open source projects not accept any LLM-generated code or revisions. "We're not forcing anybody to use [LLM tools], but I will very loudly ignore people who try to argue against other people from using it," Torvalds said.
 
Torvalds said his position on this is a pragmatic one that's "based on technical merit. Not fear of new tools." And when it comes to utility, Torvalds said that "AI is a tool, just like other tools we use. And it's clearly a useful one. It may not have been that 'clearly' even just a year ago, but it's no longer in question today. Anybody who doubts that clearly hasn't actually used it." [...] While Torvalds acknowledged that "AI isn't perfect," he urged detractors to compare the output of these tools to the performance of human code maintainers. "Anybody who points to the problems at AI had better be looking in the mirror and pointing at themselves at the same time," Torvalds wrote. "Because it's not like natural intelligence is always all that great either."<p></p><div class="share_submission">
<a class="slashpop" href="http://twitter.com/home?status=Linus+Torvalds+To+Critics+of+AI+Coding+On+Linux%3A+'Fork+It.+Or+Just+Walk+Away.'%3A+https%3A%2F%2Flinux.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F26%2F07%2F17%2F1830258%2F%3Futm_source%3Dtwitter%26utm_medium%3Dtwitter"><img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/twitter_icon_large.png"></a>
<a class="slashpop" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Flinux.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F26%2F07%2F17%2F1830258%2Flinus-torvalds-to-critics-of-ai-coding-on-linux-fork-it-or-just-walk-away%3Futm_source%3Dslashdot%26utm_medium%3Dfacebook"><img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/facebook_icon_large.png"></a>



</div><p><a href="https://linux.slashdot.org/story/26/07/17/1830258/linus-torvalds-to-critics-of-ai-coding-on-linux-fork-it-or-just-walk-away?utm_source=rss1.0moreanon&amp;utm_medium=feed">Read more of this story</a> at Slashdot.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Pro-Russia Hacktivists Conduct Opportunistic Attacks Against US and Global Critical Infrastructure]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[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 Eas...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3693383/sicherheitsluecken/pro-russia-hacktivists-conduct-opportunistic-attacks-against-us-and-global-critical-infrastructure/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3693383/sicherheitsluecken/pro-russia-hacktivists-conduct-opportunistic-attacks-against-us-and-global-critical-infrastructure/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 09:15:46 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🕵️ Sicherheitslücken</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<h2><strong>Summary</strong></h2>
<p><strong>Note:</strong> This joint Cybersecurity Advisory is being published as an addition to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) May 6, 2025, joint fact sheet <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/resources-tools/resources/primary-mitigations-reduce-cyber-threats-operational-technology" title="Primary Mitigations to Reduce Cyber Threats to Operational Technology">Primary Mitigations to Reduce Cyber Threats to Operational Technology</a> and European Cybercrime Centre’s (EC3) <a href="https://www.europol.europa.eu/media-press/newsroom/news/global-operation-targets-noname05716-pro-russian-cybercrime-network" target="_blank" title="Operation Eastwood" data-entity-type="external">Operation Eastwood</a>, 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.</p>
<p>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:</p>
<ul>
<li>U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)</li>
<li>U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)</li>
<li>U.S. Department of Defense Cyber Crime Center (DC3)</li>
<li>Europol European Cybercrime Centre (EC3)</li>
<li>EUROJUST – European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation</li>
<li>Australian Signals Directorate’s Australian Cyber Security Centre (ASD’s ACSC)</li>
<li>Canadian Centre for Cyber Security (Cyber Centre)</li>
<li>Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS)</li>
<li>Czech Republic Military Intelligence (VZ)</li>
<li>Czech Republic National Cyber and Information Security Agency (NÚKIB)</li>
<li>Czech Republic National Centre Against Terrorism, Extremism, and Cyber Crime (NCTEKK)</li>
<li>French National Cybercrime Unit – Gendarmerie Nationale (UNC)</li>
<li>French National Jurisdiction for the Fight Against Organized Crime (JUNALCO)</li>
<li>German Federal Office for Information Security (BSI)</li>
<li>Italian State Police (PS)</li>
<li>Latvian State Police (VP)</li>
<li>Lithuanian Criminal Police Bureau (LKPB)</li>
<li>New Zealand National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-NZ)</li>
<li>Romanian National Police (PR)</li>
<li>Spanish Civil Guard (GC)</li>
<li>Spanish National Police (CNP)</li>
<li>Swedish Polisen (SC3)</li>
<li>United Kingdom National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-UK)</li>
</ul>
<p>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 <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/topics/critical-infrastructure-security-and-resilience/critical-infrastructure-sectors/water-and-wastewater-sector" title="Water and Wastewater Systems">Water and Wastewater Systems</a>, <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/topics/critical-infrastructure-security-and-resilience/critical-infrastructure-sectors/food-and-agriculture-sector" title="Food and Agriculture Sector">Food and Agriculture</a>, and <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/topics/critical-infrastructure-security-and-resilience/critical-infrastructure-sectors/energy-sector" title="Energy Sector">Energy</a>.</p>
<p>The authoring organizations encourage critical infrastructure organizations to implement the recommendations in the <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/#Mitigations" title="Mitigations"><strong>Mitigations </strong></a>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 <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/topics/cyber-threats-and-advisories/advanced-persistent-threats/russia" title="Russia Threat Overview and Advisories">Russia Threat Overview and Advisories</a> webpage.</p>
<p>Download the PDF version of this report:</p>





<div class="c-file">
    <div class="c-file__download">
    <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/2025-12/aa25-343a-pro-russia-hacktivists-conduct-attacks_0.pdf" class="c-file__link" target="_blank">Pro-Russia Hacktivists Conduct Opportunistic Attacks Against US and Global Critical Infrastructure</a>
    <span class="c-file__size">(PDF,       1.53 MB
  )</span>
  </div>
</div>
<h2><strong>Background and Development of Pro-Russia Hacktivist Groups</strong></h2>
<p>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.</p>
<h3><strong>Cyber Army of Russia Reborn</strong></h3>
<p>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<strong> </strong><a href="https://www.cisa.gov/#AppB" title="Appendix B"><strong>Appendix B: Additional Designators Used for Cited Groups</strong></a>)—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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<h3><strong>NoName057(16)</strong></h3>
<p>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 <code>DDoSia</code>, paid for the group’s network infrastructure, served as administrators on NoName057(16) Telegram channels, and selected DDoS targets.</p>
<p>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 <code>DDoSia</code> and share materials and TTPs with their followers. </p>
<p>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.</p>
<h3><strong>Z-Pentest</strong></h3>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<h3><strong>Sector16</strong></h3>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<h2><strong>Technical Details</strong></h2>
<p><strong>Note:</strong> This advisory uses the MITRE ATT&amp;CK<sup>®</sup> <a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v18/matrices/enterprise/" title="Matrix for Enterprise framework" data-entity-type="external">Matrix for Enterprise framework</a>, version 18. See the <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/#MITRE" title="MITRE ATT&amp;CK Tactics and Techniques"><strong>MITRE ATT&amp;CK Tactics and Techniques</strong></a> section of this advisory for a table of the threat actors’ activity mapped to MITRE ATT&amp;CK tactics and techniques.</p>
<h3><strong>TTP Overview</strong></h3>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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 <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/topics/critical-infrastructure-security-and-resilience/critical-infrastructure-sectors/water-and-wastewater-sector" title="Water and Wastewater Sector">Water and Wastewater</a>, <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/topics/critical-infrastructure-security-and-resilience/critical-infrastructure-sectors/food-and-agriculture-sector" title="Food and Agriculture Sector" data-entity-type="external">Food and Agriculture</a>, and <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/topics/critical-infrastructure-security-and-resilience/critical-infrastructure-sectors/energy-sector" title="Energy Sector">Energy</a> Sectors.</p>
<p>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:</p>
<ul>
<li>Scan for vulnerable devices on the internet [<a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v18/techniques/T0883/" target="_blank" title="T0883" data-entity-type="external">T0883</a>] with open VNC ports [<a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v18/techniques/T1595/002/" target="_blank" title="T1595.002" data-entity-type="external">T1595.002</a>].</li>
<li>Initiate temporary virtual private server (VPS) [<a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v18/techniques/T1583/003/" target="_blank" title="T1583.003" data-entity-type="external">T1583.003</a>] to execute password brute force software.</li>
<li>Use VNC software to access hosts [<a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v18/techniques/T1021/005/" target="_blank" title="T1021.005" data-entity-type="external">T1021.005</a>].</li>
<li>Confirm connection to the vulnerable device [<a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v18/techniques/T0886/" target="_blank" title="T0886" data-entity-type="external">T0886</a>].</li>
<li>Brute force the password, if required [<a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v18/techniques/T1110/003/" target="_blank" title="T1110.003" data-entity-type="external">T1110.003</a>].</li>
<li>Gain access to HMI devices [<a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v18/techniques/T0883/" target="_blank" title="T0883" data-entity-type="external">T0883</a>], typically with default [<a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v18/techniques/T0812/" target="_blank" title="T0812" data-entity-type="external">T0812</a>], weak, or no passwords [<a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v18/techniques/T0859/" target="_blank" title="T0859" data-entity-type="external">T0859</a>].</li>
<li>Log the confirmed vulnerable device IP address, port, and password.</li>
<li>Using the HMI graphical interface [<a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v18/techniques/T0823/" target="_blank" title="T0823" data-entity-type="external">T0823</a>], capture screen recordings or intermittent screenshots while conducting the following actions, intending to affect productivity and cause additional costs [<a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v18/techniques/T0828/" target="_blank" title="T0828" data-entity-type="external">T0828</a>]:
<ul>
<li>Modify usernames/passwords [<a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v18/techniques/T0892/" target="_blank" title="T0892" data-entity-type="external">T0892</a>];</li>
<li>Modify parameters [<a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v18/techniques/T0836/" target="_blank" title="T0836" data-entity-type="external">T0836</a>];</li>
<li>Modify device name [<a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v18/techniques/T0892/" target="_blank" title="T0892" data-entity-type="external">T0892</a>];</li>
<li>Modify instrument settings [<a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v18/techniques/T0831/" target="_blank" title="T0831" data-entity-type="external">T0831</a>];</li>
<li>Disable alarms [<a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v18/techniques/T0878/" target="_blank" title="T0878" data-entity-type="external">T0878</a>];</li>
<li>Create loss of view (a technique that mandates local hands-on operator intervention) [<a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v18/techniques/T0829/" target="_blank" title="T0829" data-entity-type="external">T0829</a>]; and/or</li>
<li>Device restart or shutdown [<a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v18/techniques/T0816/" target="_blank" title="T0816" data-entity-type="external">T0816</a>].</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Disconnect from the device, ending the VNC connection.</li>
<li>Research the compromised device company after the intrusion [<a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v18/techniques/T1591/" target="_blank" title="T1591" data-entity-type="external">T1591</a>].</li>
</ul>
<h4><strong>Propagation</strong></h4>
<p>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.</p>
<h4><strong>Reconnaissance and Initial Access</strong></h4>
<p>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 <code>Nmap</code> or <code>OPENVAS</code>, 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 <code>5900</code> or other nearby ports (<code>5901-5910</code>). Their goal is to gain remote access to HMI devices connected to live control networks.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<h4><strong>Impact</strong></h4>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<h2><a class="ck-anchor"><strong>MITRE ATT&amp;CK Tactics and Techniques</strong></a></h2>
<p>See <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/#Table1" title="Table 1"><strong>Table 1</strong></a> to <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/#Table10" title="Table 10"><strong>Table 10</strong></a> for all referenced threat actor tactics and techniques in this advisory. For assistance with mapping malicious cyber activity to the MITRE ATT&amp;CK framework, see CISA and MITRE ATT&amp;CK’s <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/news/best-practices-mitre-attckr-mapping" title="Best Practices for MITRE ATT&amp;CK Mapping">Best Practices for MITRE ATT&amp;CK Mapping</a> and CISA’s <a href="https://github.com/cisagov/Decider/" title="Decider Tool">Decider Tool</a>.</p>
<p><a class="ck-anchor"></a></p>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<caption><em>Table 1. Reconnaissance</em></caption>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist"><strong>Technique Title</strong></th>
<th role="columnheader"><strong>ID</strong></th>
<th role="columnheader"><strong>Use</strong></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Gather Victim Organization Information</td>
<td><a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v18/techniques/T1591/" target="_blank" title="T1591" data-entity-type="external">T1591</a></td>
<td>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.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Active Scanning: Vulnerability Scanning</td>
<td><a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v18/techniques/T1595/002/" target="_blank" title="T1595.002" data-entity-type="external">T1595.002</a></td>
<td>Threat actors use open source tools to look for IP addresses in target countries with visible VNC services on common ports.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<caption><em>Table 2. Resource Development</em></caption>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist"><strong>Technique Title</strong></th>
<th role="columnheader"><strong>ID</strong></th>
<th role="columnheader"><strong>Use</strong></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Acquire Infrastructure: Virtual Private Server</td>
<td><a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v18/techniques/T1583/003/" target="_blank" title="T1583.003" data-entity-type="external">T1583.003</a></td>
<td>Threat actors use virtual infrastructure to obfuscate identifiers.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<caption><em>Table 3. Initial Access</em></caption>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist"><strong>Technique Title</strong></th>
<th role="columnheader"><strong>ID</strong></th>
<th role="columnheader"><strong>Use</strong></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Internet Accessible Device</td>
<td><a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v18/techniques/T0883/" target="_blank" title="T0883" data-entity-type="external">T0883</a></td>
<td>Threat actors gain access through less secure HMI devices exposed to the internet.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<caption><em>Table 4. Persistence</em></caption>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist"><strong>Technique Title</strong></th>
<th role="columnheader"><strong>ID</strong></th>
<th role="columnheader"><strong>Use</strong></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Valid Accounts</td>
<td><a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v18/techniques/T0859/" target="_blank" title="T0859" data-entity-type="external">T0859</a></td>
<td>Threat actors use password guessing tools to access legitimate accounts on the HMI devices.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<caption><em>Table 5. Credential Access</em></caption>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist"><strong>Technique Title</strong></th>
<th role="columnheader"><strong>ID</strong></th>
<th role="columnheader"><strong>Use</strong></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Brute Force: Password Spraying</td>
<td><a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v18/techniques/T1110/003/" target="_blank" title="T1110.003" data-entity-type="external">T1110.003</a></td>
<td>Threat actors use tools to rapidly guess common or simple passwords.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<caption><em>Table 6. Lateral Movement</em></caption>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist"><strong>Technique Title</strong></th>
<th role="columnheader"><strong>ID</strong></th>
<th role="columnheader"><strong>Use</strong></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Default Credentials</td>
<td><a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v18/techniques/T0812/" target="_blank" title="T0812" data-entity-type="external">T0812</a></td>
<td>Threat actors seek and build libraries of known default passwords for control devices to access legitimate user accounts.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Remote Services</td>
<td><a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v18/techniques/T0886/" target="_blank" title="T0886" data-entity-type="external">T0886</a></td>
<td>Threat actors leverage VNC services to access system HMI devices.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Remote Services: VNC</td>
<td><a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v18/techniques/T1021/005/" target="_blank" title="T1021.005" data-entity-type="external">T1021.005</a></td>
<td>Threat actors hunt VNC-enabled devices visible on the internet and connect with remote viewer software.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<caption><em>Table 7. Execution</em></caption>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist"><strong>Technique Title</strong></th>
<th role="columnheader"><strong>ID</strong></th>
<th role="columnheader"><strong>Use</strong></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Graphical User Interface</td>
<td><a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v18/techniques/T0823/" target="_blank" title="T0823" data-entity-type="external">T0823</a></td>
<td>Threat actors interact with HMI devices via GUIs, attempting to modify control devices.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<caption><em>Table 8. Inhibit Response Function</em></caption>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist"><strong>Technique Title</strong></th>
<th role="columnheader"><strong>ID</strong></th>
<th role="columnheader"><strong>Use</strong></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Device Restart/Shutdown</td>
<td><a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v18/techniques/T0816/" target="_blank" title="T0816" data-entity-type="external">T0816</a></td>
<td>While threat actors claim to turn off HMIs, it is possible that operators (not the threat actors) turn the devices off during incident response.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Alarm Suppression</td>
<td><a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v18/techniques/T0878/" target="_blank" title="T0878" data-entity-type="external">T0878</a></td>
<td>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.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Change Credential</td>
<td><a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v18/techniques/T0892/" target="_blank" title="T0892" data-entity-type="external">T0892</a></td>
<td>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.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<caption><em>Table 9. Impair Process Control</em></caption>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">Technique Title</th>
<th role="columnheader">ID</th>
<th role="columnheader">Use</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Modify Parameter</td>
<td><a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v18/techniques/T0836/" target="_blank" title="T0836" data-entity-type="external">T0836</a></td>
<td>Threat actors attempt to change upper and lower limits of operational devices as available from the HMI.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Unauthorized Command Message</td>
<td><a href="https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T0855/" target="_blank" title="T0855" data-entity-type="external">T0855</a></td>
<td>Threat actors attempt to send unauthorized command messages to instruct control system assets to perform actions outside of their intended functionality, causing possible impact.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<caption><em>Table 10. Impact</em></caption>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist"><a class="ck-anchor"><strong>Technique Title</strong></a></th>
<th role="columnheader"><strong>ID</strong></th>
<th role="columnheader"><strong>Use</strong></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Loss of Productivity and Revenue</td>
<td><a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v18/techniques/T0828/" target="_blank" title="T0828" data-entity-type="external">T0828</a></td>
<td>Threat actors purposefully attempt to impact productivity and create additional costs for the affected entities.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Loss of View</td>
<td><a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v15/techniques/T0829/" target="_blank" title="T0829" data-entity-type="external">T0829</a></td>
<td>Threat actors change credentials on HMI devices, preventing operators from modifying processes remotely. </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Manipulation of Control</td>
<td><a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v15/techniques/T0831/" target="_blank" title="T0831" data-entity-type="external">T0831</a></td>
<td>Threat actors change setpoints in processes, impacting the efficiency of operations for those specific processes.  </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h2><strong>Incident Response</strong></h2>
<p>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:</p>
<ol>
<li><strong>Determine which hosts were compromised and isolate them</strong> by quarantining or taking them offline.</li>
<li><strong>Initiate threat hunting activities to scope the intrusion</strong>. Collect and review artifacts, such as running processes/services, unusual authentications, and recent network connections.</li>
<li><strong>Reimage compromised hosts</strong>.</li>
<li><strong>Provision new account credentials</strong>.</li>
<li><strong>Report the compromise to CISA, FBI, and/or NSA</strong>. See the <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/#Contact" title="Contact Information"><strong>Contact Information</strong></a> section of this advisory.</li>
<li><strong>Harden the network to prevent additional malicious activity</strong>. See the <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/#Mitigations" title="Mitigations "><strong>Mitigations </strong></a>section of this advisory for guidance.</li>
</ol>
<h2><a class="ck-anchor"><strong>Mitigations</strong></a></h2>
<h3><strong>OT Asset Owners and Operators</strong></h3>
<p>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 <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/cross-sector-cybersecurity-performance-goals" title="CPGs">CPGs webpage</a> for more information on the CPGs, including additional recommended baseline protections.</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Reduce exposure of OT assets to the public-facing internet.</strong> 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 [<a href="https://www.cisa.gov/cybersecurity-performance-goals-2-0-cpg-2-0#SecureInternetFacingDevices3S" title="CPG 3.S">CPG 3.S</a>].
<ul>
<li><strong>Asset owners should use attack surface management services </strong>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.<br><strong>Note:</strong> For more information on attack surface management, see CISA’s <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/resources-tools/resources/exposure-reduction" title="Internet Exposure Reduction Guidance">Internet Exposure Reduction Guidance</a>, CISA’s <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/cyber-hygiene-services" title="Cyber Hygiene Services">Cyber Hygiene Services</a> for U.S. critical infrastructure, and NSA’s <a href="https://www.nsa.gov/Portals/75/documents/resources/everyone/Attack%20Surface%20Management%20copy.pdf" target="_blank" title="Attack Surface Management" data-entity-type="external">Attack Surface Management</a> for the U.S. Defense Industrial Base.</li>
<li><strong>Implement network segmentation between IT and OT networks.</strong> 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 [<a href="https://www.cisa.gov/cybersecurity-performance-goals-2-0-cpg-2-0#ImplementLogicalPhysicalNetworkSegmentation3I" title="CPG 3.I">CPG 3.I</a>].</li>
<li><strong>Consider implementing a firewall and/or virtual private network</strong> if exposure to the internet is necessary for controlling access to devices.
<ul>
<li>Consider disabling public exposure by default and implementing time-limited remote access to reduce the amount of time systems are exposed.</li>
<li>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.</li>
<li>Implement strict egress filtering to prevent unauthorized data exfiltration or command-and-control callbacks.</li>
<li>Regularly audit firewall rulesets and monitor outbound traffic patterns for anomalies indicative of threat actor activity, such as beaconing or unexpected protocol usage.</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><strong>Adopt mature asset management processes</strong>, 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 [<a href="https://www.cisa.gov/cybersecurity-performance-goals-2-0-cpg-2-0#ManageOrganizationalAssets2A" title="CPG 2.A">CPG 2.A</a>].
<ul>
<li><strong>Keep remote access services updated </strong>with the latest version available and ensure all systems and software are up to date with patches and necessary security updates.
<ul>
<li>Keep VNC systems updated with the latest version available.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><strong>Refer to the joint </strong><a href="https://www.cisa.gov/resources-tools/resources/foundations-ot-cybersecurity-asset-inventory-guidance-owners-and-operators" title="Foundations for OT Cybersecurity: Asset Inventory Guidance for Owners and Operators"><strong>Foundations for OT Cybersecurity: Asset Inventory Guidance for Owners and Operators</strong></a> to help with reducing cybersecurity risk by identifying which assets within their environment should be secured and protected.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><strong>Ensure OT assets use robust authentication procedures.</strong>
<ul>
<li>Many devices lack robust authentication and authorization. Devices with weak authentication are vulnerable targets to threat actors using credential theft techniques.</li>
<li>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 [<a href="https://www.cisa.gov/cybersecurity-performance-goals-2-0-cpg-2-0#ChangingDefaultPasswords3A" title="CPG 3.A">CPG 3.A</a>] [<a href="https://www.cisa.gov/cybersecurity-performance-goals-2-0-cpg-2-0#EstablishMinimumPasswordStrength3B" title="CPG 3.B">CPG 3.B</a>] [<a href="https://www.cisa.gov/cybersecurity-performance-goals-2-0-cpg-2-0#CreateUniqueCredentials3C" title="CPG 3.C">CPG 3.C</a>] [<a href="https://www.cisa.gov/cybersecurity-performance-goals-2-0-cpg-2-0#ImplementMultifactorAuthentication3F" title="CPG 3.F">CPG 3.F</a>].</li>
<li>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 [<a href="https://www.cisa.gov/cybersecurity-performance-goals-2-0-cpg-2-0#MonitorUnsuccessfulAutomatedLoginAttempts3E" title="CPG 3.E">CPG 3.E</a>].</li>
<li>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 [<a href="https://www.cisa.gov/cybersecurity-performance-goals-2-0-cpg-2-0#ProhibitConnectionofUnauthorizedDevices3R" title="CPG 3.R">CPG 3.R</a>].</li>
<li>Authenticate all access to field controllers before authorizing access to, or modification of, a device’s state, logic, program, or filesystems.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><strong>Enable control system security features </strong>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 [<a href="https://www.cisa.gov/cybersecurity-performance-goals-2-0-cpg-2-0#AdministratorsMaintainSeparateUserandPrivilegedAccounts3G" title="CPG 3.G">CPG 3.G</a>].</li>
<li><strong>Implement and practice business recovery/disaster recovery plans.</strong> Plans should also take into consideration redundancy, fail-safe mechanisms, islanding capabilities, backup restoration, and manual operation.
<ul>
<li>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 [<a href="https://www.cisa.gov/cybersecurity-performance-goals-2-0-cpg-2-0#IncidentPlanningandPreparedness6A" title="CPG 6.A">CPG 6.A</a>].</li>
<li>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 [<a href="https://www.cisa.gov/cybersecurity-performance-goals-2-0-cpg-2-0#MaintainSystemBackupsRestorationAbility3O" title="CPG 3.O">CPG 3.O</a>].</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><strong>Collect and monitor the traffic of OT assets and networking devices.</strong> 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.</li>
<li><strong>Review configurations for setpoint ranges or tag values </strong>to stay within safe ranges and establish alerting for deviations.</li>
<li><strong>Take a proactive approach in the procurement process</strong> by following the guidance outlined in the joint guide <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/resources-tools/resources/secure-demand-priority-considerations-operational-technology-owners-and-operators-when-selecting" title="Secure by Demand: Priority Considerations for Operational Technology Owners and Operators when Selecting Digital Products">Secure by Demand: Priority Considerations for Operational Technology Owners and Operators when Selecting Digital Products</a>.</li>
</ul>
<h3>OT Device Manufacturers</h3>
<p>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 <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/resources-tools/resources/secure-by-design" title="Shifting the Balance of Cybersecurity Risk: Principles and Approaches for Secure by Design Software">Shifting the Balance of Cybersecurity Risk: Principles and Approaches for Secure by Design Software</a>.</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Eliminate default credentials and require strong passwords.</strong> The use of default credentials is a top weakness threat actors exploit to gain access to systems.</li>
<li><strong>Mandate MFA for privileged users.</strong> 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.</li>
<li><strong>Practice secure by default principles. </strong>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.
<ul>
<li><strong>Include logging at no additional charge.</strong> 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.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><strong>Publish Software Bill of Materials (SBOMs).</strong> 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 <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/sbom" title="Software Bill of Materials">SBOM webpage</a> for more information.</li>
</ul>
<p>Additionally, see CISA’s <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/resources-tools/resources/secure-design-alert-how-software-manufacturers-can-shield-web-management-interfaces-malicious-cyber" title="Secure by Design Alert">Secure by Design Alert</a> 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.</p>
<p>For more information on secure by design, see CISA’s <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/securebydesign" title="Secure by Design">Secure by Design</a> webpage.</p>
<h2><strong>Validate Security Controls</strong></h2>
<p>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&amp;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&amp;CK techniques described in this advisory.</p>
<p>To start:</p>
<ol>
<li>Select an ATT&amp;CK technique described in this advisory (see <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/#Table1" title="Table 1"><strong>Table 1</strong></a> to<strong> </strong><a href="https://www.cisa.gov/#Table10" title="Table 10"><strong>Table 10</strong></a>).</li>
<li>Align your security technologies against the technique.</li>
<li>Test your technologies against the technique.</li>
<li>Analyze your detection and prevention technologies’ performance.</li>
<li>Repeat the process for all security technologies to obtain a set of comprehensive performance data.</li>
<li>Tune your security program, including people, processes, and technologies, based on the data generated by this process.</li>
</ol>
<p>The authoring organizations recommend continually testing your security program, at scale, in a production environment to ensure optimal performance against the MITRE ATT&amp;CK techniques identified in this advisory.</p>
<h2><strong>Resources</strong></h2>
<p>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:</p>
<ul>
<li>CISA, EPA, NSA, FBI, ASD’s ACSC, Cyber Centre, BSI, NCSC-NL, and NCSC-NZ’s <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/resources-tools/resources/foundations-ot-cybersecurity-asset-inventory-guidance-owners-and-operators" title="Foundations for OT Cybersecurity: Asset Inventory Guidance for Owners and Operators">Foundations for OT Cybersecurity: Asset Inventory Guidance for Owners and Operators</a> offers best practices to assist organizations in identifying and prioritizing which assets should be secured and protected.</li>
<li>CISA, FBI, NSA, EPA, DOE, USDA, FDA, MS-ISAC, Cyber Centre, and NCSC-UK’s guidance on <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/resources-tools/resources/defending-ot-operations-against-ongoing-pro-russia-hacktivist-activity" title="Defending OT Operations Against Ongoing Pro-Russia Hacktivist Activity">Defending OT Operations Against Ongoing Pro-Russia Hacktivist Activity</a> that can help organizations protect OT systems from pro-Russia hacktivist activity.</li>
<li>NSA and CISA’s guidance on <a href="https://media.defense.gov/2022/Sep/22/2003083007/-1/-1/0/CSA_ICS_Know_the_Opponent_.PDF" target="_blank" title="Control System Defense: Know the Opponent" data-entity-type="external">Control System Defense: Know the Opponent</a> helps organizations defend OT and ICS assets against malicious cyber activity.</li>
<li>CISA and EPA’s resource page on <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/water" title="Water and Wastewater Cybersecurity">Water and Wastewater Cybersecurity</a> to help organizations reduce risks posed by malicious cyber actors targeting water and wastewater systems.
<ul>
<li>For additional guidance, see CISA, EPA, and FBI’s fact sheet on <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/resources-tools/resources/top-cyber-actions-securing-water-systems" title="Top Cyber Actions for Securing Water Systems">Top Cyber Actions for Securing Water Systems</a>.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>The Food and Ag-ISAC’s best practices on <a href="https://www.idfa.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Food-and-Ag-ISAC-Cybersecurity-Guide-2023_IDFA.pdf" target="_blank" title="Food and Ag Cybersecurity: A Guide for Small &amp; Medium Enterprises" data-entity-type="external">Food and Ag Cybersecurity: A Guide for Small &amp; Medium Enterprises</a> provides recommendations to help mitigate against cyber threats.</li>
<li>DOE and National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners <a href="https://www.naruc.org/core-sectors/critical-infrastructure-and-cybersecurity/cybersecurity-for-utility-regulators/cybersecurity-baselines/" target="_blank" title="Cybersecurity Baselines for Electric Distribution Systems and Distributed Energy (DER)" data-entity-type="external">Cybersecurity Baselines for Electric Distribution Systems and Distributed Energy (DER)</a> webpage provides resources for state public utility commissions and utilities, as well as DER operators and aggregators to help mitigate cybersecurity risks.</li>
</ul>
<p>Additional resources that apply to this advisory include:</p>
<ul>
<li>EPA’s <a href="https://www.epa.gov/cyberwater/epa-cybersecurity-water-sector" target="_blank" title="Cybersecurity for the Water Sector" data-entity-type="external">Cybersecurity for the Water Sector</a> resource page provides organizations with guidance on implementing basic cyber hygiene practices.</li>
<li>CISA’s <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/cross-sector-cybersecurity-performance-goals" title="Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals">Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals</a> enables critical infrastructure organizations to reduce the likelihood and impact of known risks and adversary techniques.</li>
<li>CISA’s <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/audiences/small-and-medium-businesses/secure-your-business/require-strong-passwords" title="Require Strong Passwords">Require Strong Passwords</a> webpage supports small and medium-sized businesses mitigating against malicious cyber activity that targets weak passwords.</li>
<li>CISA, NSA, FBI, EPA, TSA, and international partners’ guidance <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/resources-tools/resources/secure-demand-priority-considerations-operational-technology-owners-and-operators-when-selecting" title="Secure by Demand: Priority Considerations for Operational Technology Owners and Operators when Selecting Digital Products">Secure by Demand: Priority Considerations for Operational Technology Owners and Operators when Selecting Digital Products</a>.</li>
<li>DOE’s guidance on <a href="https://www.energy.gov/ceser/cyber-informed-engineering" target="_blank" title="Cyber-Informed Engineering" data-entity-type="external">Cyber-Informed Engineering</a> recommends considering cyber-enabled risks during the conception, design, and development phases when manufacturing physical systems.</li>
<li>CISA’s <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/cyber-hygiene-services" title="Cyber Hygiene Services">Cyber Hygiene Services</a> help enable critical infrastructure organizations to reduce their exposure to threats by taking a proactive approach to monitoring and mitigating attack vectors.</li>
<li>CISA, NSA, FBI, and international partners’ guidance on <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/resources-tools/resources/secure-by-design" title="Shifting the Balance of Cybersecurity Risk: Principles and Approaches for Secure by Design Software">Shifting the Balance of Cybersecurity Risk: Principles and Approaches for Secure by Design Software</a> urges software manufacturers to provide customers with products that are safer and more secure.
<ul>
<li>See more information in these Secure by Design Alerts: <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/resources-tools/resources/secure-design-alert-how-manufacturers-can-protect-customers-eliminating-default-passwords" title="How Manufacturers Can Protect Customers by Eliminating Default Passwords">How Manufacturers Can Protect Customers by Eliminating Default Passwords</a> and <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/resources-tools/resources/secure-design-alert-how-software-manufacturers-can-shield-web-management-interfaces-malicious-cyber" title="How Software Manufacturers Can Shield Web Management Interfaces From Malicious Cyber Activity">How Software Manufacturers Can Shield Web Management Interfaces From Malicious Cyber Activity</a>.</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<h2><a class="ck-anchor"><strong>Contact Information</strong></a></h2>
<p><strong>U.S. organizations</strong> are encouraged to report suspicious or criminal activity related to information in this advisory to CISA, FBI, and/or NSA:</p>
<ul>
<li>Contact CISA via CISA’s 24/7 Operations Center at <a href="mailto:contact@cisa.dhs.gov" title="contact@cisa.dhs.gov">contact@cisa.dhs.gov</a> or 1-844-Say-CISA (1-844-729-2472) or your local <a href="https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices" target="_blank" title="FBI field office" data-entity-type="external">FBI field office</a>. 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.</li>
<li>For NSA cybersecurity guidance inquiries, contact <a href="mailto:CybersecurityReports@nsa.gov" target="_blank" title="CybersecurityReports@nsa.gov">CybersecurityReports@nsa.gov</a>.</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Australian organizations:</strong> Visit <a href="https://www.cyber.gov.au/" target="_blank" title="cyber.gov.au" data-entity-type="external">cyber.gov.au</a> or call 1300 292 371 (1300 CYBER 1) to report cybersecurity incidents and access alerts and advisories.</p>
<p><strong>Canadian organizations:</strong> Report incidents by emailing Cyber Centre at <a href="mailto:contact@cyber.gc.ca" target="_blank" title="contact@cyber.gc.ca">contact@cyber.gc.ca</a>.</p>
<p><strong>New Zealand organizations:</strong> Report cyber security incidents to <a href="mailto:incidents@ncsc.govt.nz" target="_blank" title="incidents@ncsc.govt.nz">incidents@ncsc.govt.nz</a> or call 04 498 7654.</p>
<p><strong>United Kingdom organizations:</strong> Report a significant cyber security incident: <a href="https://report.ncsc.gov.uk/" target="_blank" title="report.ncsc.gov.uk" data-entity-type="external">report.ncsc.gov.uk</a> (monitored 24 hours) or, for urgent assistance, call 03000 200 973.</p>
<h2><strong>Disclaimer</strong></h2>
<p>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.</p>
<h2><strong>Acknowledgements</strong></h2>
<p>Schneider Electric, Nozomi Networks, Eversource Energy, Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center, Chevron, BP, and Dragos contributed to this advisory.</p>
<h2><strong>Version History</strong></h2>
<p><strong>December 09, 2025:</strong> Initial version.</p>
<h2><strong>Appendix A: Targeting Methodologies for Pro-Russia Hacktivist Groups</strong></h2>
<p>For further information on targeting methodologies for pro-Russia hacktivist groups, see:</p>
<ul>
<li>CISA’s alert <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/alerts/2025/05/06/unsophisticated-cyber-actors-targeting-operational-technology" title="Unsophisticated Cyber Threat Actor(s) Targeting Operational Technology">Unsophisticated Cyber Threat Actor(s) Targeting Operational Technology</a>;</li>
<li>The joint fact sheet <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/resources-tools/resources/primary-mitigations-reduce-cyber-threats-operational-technology" title="Primary Mitigations to Reduce Cyber Threats to Operational Technology">Primary Mitigations to Reduce Cyber Threats to Operational Technology</a>; and</li>
<li>CISA’s <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/topics/cyber-threats-and-advisories/advanced-persistent-threats/russia" title="Russia Cyber Threat">Russia Cyber Threat</a> webpage.</li>
</ul>
<h2><a class="ck-anchor"><strong>Appendix B: Additional Designators Used for Cited Groups</strong></a></h2>
<p>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.</p>
<p><strong>Note:</strong> 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.</p>
<ul>
<li>GRU military unit 74455
<ul>
<li>Sandworm Team</li>
<li>Voodoo Bear</li>
<li>Seashell Blizzard</li>
<li>APT44</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Cyber Army of Russia Reborn (CARR)
<ul>
<li>CyberArmy of Russia</li>
<li>Народная CyberАрмия (НКА)</li>
<li>People’s CyberArmy of Russia (PCA)</li>
<li>Russian CyberArmy Team (RCAT)</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>NoName057(16)
<ul>
<li>NoName057(16) Spain</li>
<li>NoName057(16) Italy</li>
<li>NoName057(16) France</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Z-Pentest
<ul>
<li>Z-Pentest Beograd</li>
<li>Z-Pentest Alliance</li>
<li>Z-Alliance</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Hacks.Mozilla.Org: PACT: Anonymous Credentials for the Web]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[This is the technical companion to our update on Distilled, “Keeping the web open and private in the bot era.” Here we take a deeper look at the problem space, the design we’re proposing, and the problems still left to solve. 
Bots (and privacy-preserving browsers) not welcome 
Browse a news site...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3693291/tools/hacksmozillaorg-pact-anonymous-credentials-for-the-web/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3693291/tools/hacksmozillaorg-pact-anonymous-credentials-for-the-web/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 08:37:27 +0200</pubDate>
<category>💾  Tools</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class="c43"><em><span class="c11 c1">This is the technical companion to our update on Distilled, </span><span class="c11 c1 c17"><a class="c5" href="https://blog.mozilla.org/en/privacy-security/keeping-the-web-open-and-private-in-the-bot-era/">“Keeping the web open and private in the bot era.”</a></span><span class="c11 c1"> Here we take a deeper look at the problem space, the design we’re proposing, and the problems still left to </span><span class="c1 c11">solve</span></em><span class="c13 c11 c1"><em>.</em> </span></p>
<h3 class="c24"><span class="c2 c1">Bots (and privacy-preserving browsers) not welcome </span></h3>
<p class="c40"><span class="c0">Browse a news site in a private window. Shop at a major retailer with a VPN. Visit a video streaming platform with anti-fingerprinting defenses tuned up. You’ll see the same responses: registration walls, block pages, and endless CAPTCHAs. The message is clear: </span><span class="c13 c11 c1">if we think you might be a bot, you’re not welcome</span><span class="c0">. </span></p>
<p class="c53"><span class="c0">Websites have valid reasons for wanting to block bots. Bots enable volumetric abuse</span><span class="c1">, abuse that wouldn’t otherwise be feasible if they had to be carried out by humans</span><span class="c0">. </span><span class="c0"> For example</span><span class="c1">: SEO comment spam, credential stuffing and DDoSing</span><span class="c0">.</span><span class="c0"> Consequently many sites employ dedicated anti-abuse tooling which aims to keep the bots out whilst minimizing friction for human visitors. </span></p>
<p class="c21"><span class="c0">Unfortunately, that tooling is increasingly failing at both tasks. Browser privacy protections are </span><span class="c3 c1"><a class="c5" href="https://blog.mozilla.org/en/firefox/fingerprinting-protections/">dismantling</a></span><span class="c0"> the passive signals that anti-abuse systems depended on to identify and distinguish </span><span class="c0">visitors</span><span class="c0">. Meanwhile advances in generative AI have rendered CAPTCHAs ineffective: bots now solve them </span><span class="c3 c1"><a class="c5" href="https://www.usenix.org/system/files/usenixsecurity23-searles.pdf">faster and more reliably</a></span><span class="c0"> than </span><span class="c0">humans</span><span class="c0">. </span></p>
<p class="c33"><span class="c0">Many sites are switching to more invasive mechanisms and now ask visitors to disclose </span><span class="c1">identifying information</span><span class="c0">,</span><span class="c0"> e.g. an email address, a federated login or </span><span class="c1">disabling their VPN</span><span class="c0">. This means greater friction for users, since providing these details on a first visit takes time. It also compromises their privacy, since these details enable the same kinds of cross-site tracking that browser privacy protections were intended to mitigate. </span></p>
<p class="c38"><span class="c0">This </span><span class="c1">leaves</span><span class="c0"> users </span><span class="c1">with a</span><span class="c0"> dilemma. The more effectively they protect their privacy, the harder it is for websites to distinguish them from bots and the worse the treatment they receive. Website operators are also suffering. The additional friction they inflict upon well-behaved visitors harms their site, but many are willing to pay the costs if it mitigates volumetric abuse. </span></p>
<p class="c44"><span class="c1">Browser-based AI agents make this tension more acute. Sites may want to allow agents which are acting on behalf of individual users while blocking agents engaged in volumetric abuse. However, with no effective mechanisms to distinguish the two, websites are opting to block </span><span class="c17 c1"><a class="c5" href="https://dl.acm.org/doi/epdf/10.1145/3730567.3732913">both</a></span><span class="c0">. That hurts users, who should be free to choose the user agent they use to access the web; it hurts new browsers and agents, which struggle to interoperate; and it hurts sites, which lose legitimate visitors.</span></p>
<p class="c30"><span class="c0">The consequence is that the web gets worse for everyone. Users get more friction or less privacy or both. Website operators see more volumetric abuse and the friction they add drives away users </span><span class="c1">who</span><span class="c0"> would otherwise want to consume their content or services. New user</span><span class="c1"> </span><span class="c0">agents struggle to access the same content as conventional browsers. </span></p>
<h3 class="c12"><span class="c20 c1">The</span><span class="c20 c1"> Costs of </span><span class="c2 c1">Convenient</span><span class="c2 c1"> Solutions</span></h3>
<p class="c9"><span class="c0">Some large ecosystem players have put forward solutions that leverage their control of the dominant operating systems and their deep integration with consumer hardware. These rely on device attestation: identifiers and privileged code baked into devices at the hardware level, which let manufacturers prove what software is running on a user’s device. Exposing this functionality to the web means attesting to sites that the user is running approved software with trusted hardware and therefore isn’t a bot. There have been two substantive proposals.</span></p>
<p class="c9"><span class="c0">Google’s Web Environment Integrity, <a href="https://www.theregister.com/software/2023/11/02/google-abandons-web-environment-integrity-api-proposal/335969">abandoned in 2023</a>, was the blunt version. It attested to the user agent itself, as well as the operating system and device in use. Users would have lost control in two ways: once to the attester, which would decide which operating systems and devices could be blessed, and again to the website, which would decide which software to accept. If sites had adopted allow-lists of approved user agents, building a new browser would have become virtually impossible, and sites could have withdrawn access from any user agent they chose.</span></p>
<p class="c9"><span class="c0">Apple’s Private Access Tokens, <a href="https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=huqjyh7k">deployed</a> across their ecosystem in 2022, have more subtle issues. Built on the Privacy Pass protocol standardized at the IETF, they get a lot right: a user receives a renewed, limited batch of one-time tokens that can be presented to websites without linking their visits together. This provides privacy for users and has shown rate limits to be an effective tool for sites – both points we’ll return to later in this post.</span></p>
<p class="c9"><span class="c1">However, Private Access Tokens rely on device attestation, requiring that the hardware manufacturer be in overall control of the user’s device. Presenting a PAT tells a website you are locked into Apple’s rules for what counts as acceptable software. </span><span class="c1">Due to PAT’s technical design</span><sup class="c1"><a href="https://hacks.mozilla.org/?p=48374#:~:text=PAT%20requires">[1]</a></sup><span class="c1">, there’s no way to open the system to other sources of scarcity without compromising the system’s privacy properties, meaning that if more widely deployed, access to the web would</span><span class="c1"> become tied to having bought expensive hardware from a small, hard to change set of vendors</span><span class="c1">. </span></p>
<p class="c9"><span class="c1">Both approaches are ultimately hostile to users and to the openness of the web. Both are premised on parts of a user’s device that sit within the manufacturer’s control and beyond the user’s own. Were they widely deployed, the web would become just another walled garden with centralized gatekeepers controlling acceptable hardware, operating systems and software. As convenient as these solutions are for the players who already dominate the ecosystem, we think there’s a better path.</span></p>
<h3 class="c24"><span class="c2 c1">A Better Path Forward </span></h3>
<p class="c24"><span class="c1">Bots’ harms arise from their ability to operate beyond human scale. For sites to prevent volumetric abuse they</span><span class="c0"> don’t actually need to know </span><span class="c1">the user’s</span><span class="c0"> identity or </span><span class="c1">receive cryptographic</span><span class="c0"> proof that they’re running approved softwar</span><span class="c1">e. If sites knew their visitors were restricted to a rate </span><span class="c1">limit</span><span class="c1"> set by a site, that would be enough.  </span></p>
<p class="c34"><span class="c1">Rate limits</span><span class="c0"> only make sense if </span><span class="c1">they’re</span><span class="c0"> </span><span class="c1">tied to</span><span class="c0"> something scarce; something an attacker can’t cheaply replicate to evade the limit. </span><span class="c0">Without anchoring to a scarce resource, like the trusted hardware used in Private Access Tokens, attackers can generate as many fresh identities as they need to bypass the rate limit. </span></p>
<p class="c56"><span class="c1">However, </span><span class="c0">hardware is just one option for </span><span class="c1">scarcity</span><span class="c0">. Anything a user already has that an attacker can’t trivially spin up at scale will work</span><span class="c1">: e</span><span class="c0">mail addresses and phone numbers are naturally scarce</span><span class="c1">. A paid subscription costs an attacker the same as a real user.  </span><span class="c0">Even maintaining an account on a free service requires </span><span class="c1">some</span><span class="c0"> non-trivial work. </span></p>
<p class="c39"><span class="c0">What if we could use these scarce signals across the web? We</span><span class="c1"> could build </span><span class="c0">an open ecosystem with many parties offering scarcity signals, each site choosing which to accept. By </span><span class="c0">opening up who can provide a signal, and letting sites choose which to accept, we can avoid transferring control to device manufacturers and the resulting harms. </span></p>
<p class="c39"><span class="c1">As a concrete example of who might be well positioned to provide such a signal, we can consider VPN providers acting as a subscription service. Sites routinely block VPN users indiscriminately, whether through a deliberate policy choice or through an indirect consequence of rate limiting visitors per IP address. But a VPN subscription is a perfect source of scarcity. If the VPN provider could vouch for its users so that sites could rate limit each user individually – then users would be able to browse the web with less friction and without giving up their VPN usage. </span></p>
<p class="c35"><span class="c0">The catch is that building </span><span class="c1">a system that can enable this</span><span class="c0"> on the open web whilst </span><span class="c1">maintaining user’s privacy</span><span class="c0"> is genuinely difficult. </span><span class="c1">It requires that we take information from one site — that this user holds some scarce thing — and expose it to other sites so that they can use that as the basis for their rate limiting. </span><span class="c0">Letting one site verify a signal from another is </span><span class="c1">the sort of </span><span class="c0">information flow</span><span class="c1"> </span><span class="c0">that privacy-pr</span><span class="c1">eserving </span><span class="c0">browsers have spent the last decade locking down to </span><span class="c1">prevent cross-site tracking</span><span class="c0">. </span></p>
<p class="c35"><span class="c1">Our goal would be that no more than the minimum information gets through: a single bit communicating whether the user is below the rate limit set by the site. Leaking anything more – like the source of the scarcity that the rate limit is anchored to – would be unacceptable. Enabling a new cross-site information flow might feel like compromising privacy to gain better access, but reality is more nuanced. If a new system moves sites away from demanding that visitors be identifiable (whether through fingerprinting or login forms), </span><span class="c1">it can be a win for both privacy and access.</span></p>
<h3 class="c24"><span class="c2 c1">The Foundations </span></h3>
<p class="c50"><span class="c0">The good news is that the cryptographic foundations for a privacy preserving approach already exist. The </span><span class="c1 c3"><a class="c5" href="https://privacypass.github.io/">Privacy Pass protocol</a></span><span class="c3 c1"><a class="c5" href="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://privacypass.github.io/&amp;sa=D&amp;source=editors&amp;ust=1782228494401139&amp;usg=AOvVaw3uoXdqARBZKjQF5H8uwYKY">,</a></span><span class="c0"> </span><span class="c3 c1"><a class="c5" href="https://www.petsymposium.org/2018/files/papers/issue3/popets-2018-0026.pdf">originally developed in 2018</a></span><span class="c0"> to reduce the friction of Cloudflare CAPTCHAs for Tor users, introduced the core primitive: a token that is </span><span class="c13 c11 c1">unlinkable </span><span class="c0">between issuance and redemption. You prove something to an issuer (e.g. by </span><span class="c1">solving a CAPTCHA</span><span class="c0">), receive some tokens, and later present a token to a website. The website can verify the token is legitimate, but can’t link it to the user it was issued to. </span></p>
<p><img alt="A diagram showing the protocol flow for Privacy Pass." class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-48375" height="1639" src="https://hacks.mozilla.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/pact-drawings-1.excalidraw1-scaled.png" width="2560"></p>
<p class="c27"><img alt="" title=""><span class="c20 c1 c57"><strong>Figure 1</strong>: </span><span class="c0"><em>In Privacy Pass, a CAPTCHA provider can issue tokens to a client which can then be used to bypass challenges for future site visits. Even if the CAPTCHA provider and sites collude, they can’t use the tokens to identify the user or their browsing history.</em> </span></p>
<p class="c52"><span class="c0">Privacy Pass has gone on to be successfully deployed in systems where the issuer and verifier have a prior trust relationship: </span><span class="c0">Apple</span><span class="c0"> uses it to authenticate users of </span><span class="c3 c1"><a class="c5" href="https://hacks.mozilla.org/feed/">Private Cloud Compute</a></span><span class="c0"> </span><span class="c1">and</span><span class="c0"> </span><span class="c3 c1"><a class="c5" href="https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/iCloud_Private_Relay_Overview_Dec2021.PDF">Private Rel</a></span><span class="c17 c1"><a class="c5" href="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/iCloud_Private_Relay_Overview_Dec2021.PDF&amp;sa=D&amp;source=editors&amp;ust=1782228494402463&amp;usg=AOvVaw0KGoiSPg-8NLvNvIiSSbPt">ay</a></span><span class="c1"> </span><span class="c0">without linking their activity to their identity, </span><span class="c0">Chrome</span><span class="c0"> uses it for </span><span class="c3 c1"><a class="c5" href="https://github.com/GoogleChrome/ip-protection">two-hop IP protection</a></span><span class="c0">, and </span><span class="c0">Kagi</span><span class="c0"> uses it to provide </span><span class="c17 c1"><a class="c5" href="https://help.kagi.com/kagi/privacy/privacy-pass.html">private search</a></span><span class="c0">. </span><span class="c0">These deployments work in part because a small number of parties have agreed in advance on who issues tokens and who accepts them. </span></p>
<p class="c18"><span class="c0">Applying this approach to an open system where any site can act as</span><span class="c0"> an issuer</span><span class="c0"> </span><span class="c3 c1"><a class="c5" href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1k3QJG2D_Sq4zJiJRn9DfY80hEHuz9UWrJdTt8LbRsMM/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.r8jxzjcoeumo">brings real challenges</a></span><span class="c0">.</span><span class="c0"> Firstly, even though tokens are unlinkable, knowing a user has access to a specific issuer is a privacy leak on its own, because you can infer that the user meets the relevant issuance criteria. </span><span class="c1">If one site can learn that you have a token from another site, that reveals that you have been to that site, which can be a major privacy problem. </span><span class="c0">This compounds if </span><span class="c1">sites </span><span class="c0">can learn the set of issuers </span><span class="c1">you have visited</span><span class="c0">, since it becomes a fingerprint which can be used to identify </span><span class="c1">you</span><span class="c0">. </span></p>
<p class="c8"><span class="c3 c1"><a class="c5" href="https://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2014/11/27/zero-knowledge-proofs-illustrated-primer/">Generic techniques</a></span><span class="c0"> exist for proving a statement in zero knowledge: we can prove that </span><span class="c1">a client</span><span class="c0"> ha</span><span class="c1">s</span><span class="c0"> a token from a set of acceptable issuers without revealing which specific issuer it is. We’ll call this issuer blinding. </span><span class="c0">The generic approach is often slow, but </span><span class="c3 c1"><a class="c5" href="https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-orru-zkproof-sigma-protocols-01.html">bespoke approaches</a></span><span class="c0"> tailored to the underlying cryptography can improve this considerably. </span></p>
<p class="c54"><span class="c0">Another challenge is how sites using rate limits decide who to trust to issue tokens. If an issuer misbehaves then the site’s rate limits become ineffective, enabling volumetric abuse. However, if we need to prevent the site from learning which issuers a user has access to, the site is only going to know that one of its trusted issuers was used, not which one. This makes mistakes or misbehaviour by an issuer difficult to detect, and makes it hard for sites to evaluate new issuers. Solving this challenge is essential for openness. Without adequate information, </span><span class="c0">sites are likely to lean towards conservative issuer selection. </span><span class="c1">That could lead to less choice between Anchors, which in turn could lead to a new form of gatekeeper being created.</span><span class="c0"> </span></p>
<p class="c32"><span class="c0">To solve this, sites at least need a way to calculate an aggregate score for each issuer they use. This should roughly correspond to how much of the traffic it considers abusive to have come from users using that particular issuer. Mozilla has long invested in systems like </span><span class="c3 c1"><a class="c5" href="https://blog.mozilla.org/en/firefox/partnership-ohttp-prio/">Prio</a></span><span class="c0"> which use multiparty computation (MPC) to protect user privacy whilst enabling aggregate measurements of system behaviour. </span></p>
<p class="c59"><span class="c0">Privacy Pass also struggles to handle dynamic adjustments to rate limits. Once tokens have been issued, they’re difficult to invalidate without either revoking all active tokens or risking attacks which can compromise the privacy of users. It’s also beneficial if sites can adjust rate limits on a per </span><span class="c1">client</span><span class="c0"> basis, for example by increasing rate limits where they become more confident the </span><span class="c1">client</span><span class="c0"> is benign and withdrawing access </span><span class="c1">when abuse is detected</span><span class="c0">. </span></p>
<p class="c47"><span class="c3 c1"><a class="c5" href="https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-schlesinger-cfrg-act-00.html">Anonymous Credit Tokens</a></span><span class="c0"> </span><span class="c0">offer a useful building block to solve this problem. Conventional Privacy Pass schemes rely on issuing a bucket of tokens but ACT works differently by enabling the use of a credential with state. For example, an ACT credential can hold an internal counter. When the credential is presented, the site can check the counter is over some threshold and mutate it, increasing or decreasing </span><span class="c1">the counter whenever</span><span class="c0"> the site’s perception of the holder has improved or worsened. Critically, the exact value is never leaked to the site, preventing the site from tracking the holder and ensuring successive presentations of the same credential can’t be linked. </span></p>
<h3 class="c24"><span class="c2 c1">Putting it together </span></h3>
<p class="c19"><span class="c1">So how can we combine these techniques to build a system which can enable privacy-preserving rate limiting on the open web? In May 2026, we participated in a </span><a href="https://pactworkshop.com/"><span class="c17 c1">W3C CG Meeting</span></a><span class="c0"> in collaboration with Cloudflare, Chrome and other web stakeholders in which we started sketching out a design we’re calling PACT – Private Access Control Tokens. </span></p>
<p class="c19"><span class="c0">Rate limits need a starting point, a source of scarcity to anchor on. We’ll call an entity that provides such a source an </span><span class="c2 c1">Anchor</span><span class="c0">. To a user who meets the Anchor’s criteria, like having a subscription,</span><span class="c0"> an account in good standing</span><span class="c0">, or a verified phone number, an Anchor issues a batch of </span><span class="c2 c1">Endorsement </span><span class="c0">tokens, following the Privacy Pass model. In practice, Anchors could be any website which has access to this kind of signal. An Endorsement conveys</span><span class="c1"> </span><span class="c0">scarcity to other sites. </span></p>
<p class="c51"><span class="c0">That’s enough for a simple system where access is </span><span class="c1">either granted or denied</span><span class="c0">. But as we discussed earlier, we also want the ability to increase access where a visitor behaves benignly and decrease it where they don’t. </span><span class="c1">The state needed to enforce a rate limit</span><span class="c0"> can’t live in the Endorsement, because Endorsements cross trust boundaries between unrelated sites. We need a second object that can hold that state, scoped to the party that maintains it. </span></p>
<p class="c48"><span class="c0">We’ll call that the party that handles rate limiting for a site a </span><span class="c2 c1">Moderator </span><span class="c0">and the stateful object a </span><span class="c2 c1">Credential</span><span class="c0">. </span><span class="c1">A Credential is specific to a Moderator and, unlike endorsements, we limit each site to nominating a single Moderator. In the common case the site itself plays the Moderator role, so there’s no new entity or trust boundary. </span><span class="c1">A Moderator can also be a third-party service shared across many sites, allowing those sites to cooperatively share a rate limit.</span><span class="c0"> </span></p>
<p class="c48"><span class="c0">In the terminology of the previous section, the Anchor is the issuer of Endorsements, and the Moderator both verifies Endorsements and issues Credentials. A Moderator manages rate-limit policy: it decides which Anchors it trusts, accepts their Endorsements, and issues a Credential in return.</span></p>
<p class="c14"><img alt="" title=""><img alt="A diagram showing an overview of the PACT system" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-48381" height="1655" src="https://hacks.mozilla.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/pact-drawings-5.excalidraw21-scaled.png" width="2560"></p>
<p class="c14"><strong><span class="c1 c20">Figure 2: </span></strong><span class="c1"><em>(1) Clients acquire Endorsements from Anchors in the course of normal browsing to sites they have relationships with. (2) Clients can exchange Endorsements for a stateful Credential from a Moderator. (3) Credentials can be used to access sites which use that Moderator. Credentials can be updated over time.</em> </span></p>
<p class="c41"><span class="c0">Directly revealing which Anchor backed an Endorsement would leak a lot of information about the user. The issuer blinding techniques from the previous section solve this: when an Endorsement is redeemed, the Moderator only learns that it came from one of </span><span class="c1">the </span><span class="c0">Anchors it trusts, but not which one. </span></p>
<p class="c28"><span class="c0">When a Moderator covers more than one site, we let Credentials be presented across all of them but partition cookies and storage as</span><span class="c1"> we would for any other third party site</span><span class="c0">. The unlinkability of </span><span class="c1">Credential</span><span class="c0"> presentations keeps this from creating a new cross-site identifier. The benefit is that good behaviour on one site improves access on every site the Moderator covers, and bad behaviour cuts it everywhere. Websites can already build the same capability with a shared account system, so this doesn’t create a new way to lock users out, but it </span><span class="c1">does provide a</span><span class="c0"> new way to grant access without requiring users to give up their privacy. </span></p>
<p class="c28"><span class="c0">Enabling Moderators that cover many sites carries a centralisation risk, simila</span><span class="c1">r </span><span class="c0">to the concentration we see today in anti-abuse providers. The mitigation is that the choice of Moderator stays with each site, and the choice of trusted Anchors stays with each Moderator. Th</span><span class="c1">is</span><span class="c0"> </span><span class="c1">can’t</span><span class="c0"> reverse the centralisation pressure the web already faces, but it </span><span class="c1">ensures this system won’t lead to additional lock-in</span><span class="c0">: a new Anchor or a new Moderator can be adopted without coordinating with a dominant vendor. </span></p>
<p class="c46"><span class="c0">The </span><span class="c1">system then has three flows</span><span class="c0">.</span><span class="c0"> First, the user </span><span class="c1">receives</span><span class="c0"> Endorsements from an Anchor in the course of normal interaction</span><span class="c1">, based on the Anchor’s positive view of the user</span><span class="c0">. This is </span><span class="c0">a relatively rare operation for any given user and Anchor. After all, as our source of scarcity, Endorsements should not be too easy to accumulate.</span></p>
<p class="c10"><img alt="" title=""><img alt="A diagram showing the PACT Anchor Flow" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-48377" height="1789" src="https://hacks.mozilla.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/pact-drawings-3.excalidraw1-scaled.png" width="2560"></p>
<p class="c10"><strong><span class="c20 c1">Figure 3</span></strong><span class="c1">: <em>In the course of normal browsing, clients browse to websites they have a relationship with. These sites can act as Anchors by issuing Endorsements to clients.</em></span></p>
<p class="c26"><span class="c0">Second, when the user arrives at a site that works with a Moderator, the browser spends an Endorsement from an Anchor the Moderator trusts and receives a Credential in return. The presentation hides </span><span class="c13 c11 c1">which </span><span class="c0">Anchor was used, and </span><span class="c1">neither the Anchor nor the Moderator can trace the Endorsement back to where it was issued</span><span class="c0">. The Moderator decides what initial balance the Credential starts with. If the user has no Endorsements from suitable Anchors at all, existing mechanisms (CAPTCHAs, account creation, federated login) </span><span class="c1">could be used to</span><span class="c0"> bootstrap a Credential the same way, so the system degrades to today’s experience rather than locking the user out.</span></p>
<p class="c7"><img alt="" title=""><img alt="A diagram showing the protocol flow between Anchors and Moderators" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-48378" height="1789" src="https://hacks.mozilla.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/pact-drawings-4.excalidraw1-scaled.png" width="2560"></p>
<p class="c7"><span class="c20 c1"><strong>Figure 4</strong></span><span class="c1"><strong>:</strong><em> When the client browses to a site, it can prompt the client for a Credential from the Moderator it uses. If the Client doesn’t have a suitable Credential, but does have a suitable Endorsement, it can exchange it for a Credential with the Moderator. In practice, the Moderator and the Site might be the same server. </em></span><em><span class="c0"> </span></em></p>
<p class="c25"><span class="c0">Third, as the user browses, the browser presents the Credential and the Moderator updates </span><span class="c1">the internal state of the Credential</span><span class="c0">. The </span><span class="c1">Moderator can reward </span><span class="c0">behaviour that looks benign and </span><span class="c1">penalize suspicious activity</span><span class="c0">, </span><span class="c1">but can’t track the use of the Credential or identify it if it’s used on other sites the Moderator covers</span><span class="c0">. </span><span class="c0">Revocation falls out of the same mechanism: a Moderator </span><span class="c1">can refuse to return an updated Credential</span><span class="c0">.</span><span class="c0"> </span></p>
<p class="c7"><img alt="" title=""><img alt="A diagram showing the PACT Moderator Flow" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-48379" height="1618" src="https://hacks.mozilla.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/pact-drawings-5.excalidraw1-scaled.png" width="2560"></p>
<p class="c7"><strong><span class="c20 c1">Figure 5</span></strong><span class="c0"><strong>:</strong> <em>The Client can present the Credential on sites which use the matching Moderator. Sites can check if the Credential is in good standing. The sites can then adjust the access the Credential has in response to behaviour. E.g. increasing it when they gain confidence in the client or reducing it in response to malicious behaviour.</em></span></p>
<p class="c23"><span class="c0">In practice, all of this would happen transparently to the user through a WebAPI that sites acting as Anchors or Moderators would call from JavaScript. In an ideal ecosystem, users would accumulate Endorsements through normal browsing, just by virtue of the sites they already visit, and the rest of the flow would happen in the background as they move around the web, leaving </span><span class="c1">users</span><span class="c0"> with meaningfully less friction. </span></p>
<p class="c16"><span class="c0">AI agents acting on behalf of a user slot into the same flow. An agent can carry its user’s Credentials, in which case the user remains accountable for how the agent </span><span class="c1">behaves.</span><span class="c0"> </span><span class="c1">S</span><span class="c0">ites would not need to grant any more access than they would to the user themselves. Alternatively, the operator of an agent can run its own Anchor and vouch for its agents the way other Anchors vouch for human users. </span><span class="c0">Sites retain control over which Anchors they accept, so they can choose how to treat agent traffic without needing a separate detection mechanism. </span></p>
<p class="c6"><span class="c0">Several mechanisms combine to keep the information about a user that flows out close to a single bit. Cryptographic unlinkability ensures successive Credential presentations cannot be tied to each other or to the original issuance, so a user’s visits cannot be </span><span class="c1">joined</span><span class="c0"> into a history. Each site is bound to a single Moderator, so the set of Moderators a user has Credentials with never becomes a cross-site fingerprint. The Anchor-to-Credential exchange happens in an isolated browsing context, so during ordinary browsing the only thing the site or its Moderator ever observes is a Credential presentation: </span><span class="c1">the site only learns if </span><span class="c0">the user has a valid Credential below the rate limit, or </span><span class="c1">nothing</span><span class="c0">. </span><span class="c1">W</span><span class="c0">hen the Moderator updates a </span><span class="c1">Credential</span><span class="c0">, it</span><span class="c0"> adjusts the credentials state without learning what it is.</span></p>
<p class="c6"><span class="c1">The additional privacy given to users from </span><span class="c0">Issuer blinding</span><span class="c1"> makes participating in the system more challenging for Moderators</span><span class="c0">. Because the Moderator can’t see which Anchor backed a Credential at issuance, it can’t give a Credential from a strong Anchor </span><span class="c1">more access</span><span class="c0"> than one from a weak Anchor: doing so would itself leak which Anchor was used. The initial </span><span class="c1">access</span><span class="c0"> has to be uniform across the Moderator’s whole pool of Anchors, which in practice means setting it at the strength of the weakest. </span><span class="c1">However, this is only relevant for that initial access, the Moderator can update credentials according to the holder’s behavior, enabling Credential’s to accrue access over time.</span></p>
<p class="c42"><span class="c0">Building an open ecosystem also requires that sites can make effective decisions about the Anchors they choose to trust</span><span class="c1">. M</span><span class="c0">ultiparty computation systems like </span><span class="c0">Prio</span><span class="c0"> enable aggregate scoring without compromising pr</span><span class="c1">ivacy</span><span class="c0">. When users present Credentials, they can provide an encrypted share which identifies the anchor they use</span><span class="c1">d and can be privately aggregated to compute the quality of an issuer.</span></p>
<h3 class="c24"><span class="c2 c1">Next Steps </span></h3>
<p class="c49"><span class="c1">We think the</span><span class="c0"> architecture we</span><span class="c1">’ve </span><span class="c0">sketched </span><span class="c1">for PACT </span><span class="c0">has the right shape, but many of the details still need to be worked out</span><span class="c1"> and the entire system needs rigorous privacy and security analysis.</span></p>
<p class="c45"><span class="c0">We want to do that work in the open. The IETF is the natural venue for the cryptographic protocols underneath, and the W3C for the WebAPI surface that sits on top. </span><span class="c0">We’ll be </span><span class="c1">bringing</span><span class="c0"> </span><span class="c3 c1"><a class="c5" href="https://github.com/Moderation-of-unLinkable-Endorsements">draft specifications</a></span><span class="c1"> to these bodies as soon as they’re ready</span><span class="c0">, and we welcome collaborators from across the ecosystem: browser vendors, site operators, anti-abuse providers, and the cryptography community. </span></p>
<p class="c29"><span class="c0">If successful, we think we can provide a system which will keep the web open and </span><span class="c1">private</span><span class="c0">, while still giving sites the rate-limiting signal they need. </span></p>
<h3 class="c29"><span class="c2 c1">Acknowledgements</span></h3>
<p class="c4"><em><span class="c11 c1">The ideas described here are the result of collaboration and conversations with many people, including: Watson Ladd, Thibault Meunier, Michele Orrù, Trevor Perrin, Eric Rescorla, Samuel Schlesinger, Martin Thomson, Eric Trouton, Benjamin Vandersloot &amp; Cathie Yun.</span></em><span class="c11 c1"><em> </em> </span></p>
<hr class="c58">
<div>
<p class="c31"><a href="https://hacks.mozilla.org/?p=48374#:~:text=%5B1%5D">[1]</a><span class="c0"> PAT requires that the source of scarcity and an independent issuer be trusted not to collude. If they do, they can track users as they interact with the system. This is not suitable in the context of an open system where any party could play those two roles.</span></p>
</div>
<p>The post <a href="https://hacks.mozilla.org/2026/06/pact-anonymous-credentials-for-the-web/">PACT: Anonymous Credentials for the Web</a> appeared first on <a href="https://hacks.mozilla.org/">Mozilla Hacks - the Web developer blog</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[End-to-End Encryption and “Going Dark”]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[New paper: “Encryption and Globalization 15 Years Later: End-to-End Encryption and the Third Round of the ‘Going Dark’ Debate“:
Abstract: This Article updates and expands on 2012 research on encryption and globalization, analyzing what the authors call “Round 3” of the Going Dark Debate: the curr...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3693276/reverse-engineering/end-to-end-encryption-and-going-dark/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3693276/reverse-engineering/end-to-end-encryption-and-going-dark/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 08:37:01 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🕵️ Reverse Engineering</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>New paper: “<a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6959699">Encryption and Globalization 15 Years Later: End-to-End Encryption and the Third Round of the ‘Going Dark’ Debate</a>“:</p>
<blockquote><p><b>Abstract</b>: This Article updates and expands on 2012 research on encryption and globalization, analyzing what the authors call “Round 3” of the Going Dark Debate: the current controversies over end-to-end encryption (E2EE). Governments around the world have proposed, and in some cases enacted, laws limiting E2EE for law enforcement and national security purposes.</p>
<p>This Article explains the underlying technologies and market developments for a law and policy audience to assess those proposals critically. The Article proceeds in three parts tracking three rounds of the Going Dark Debate. Round 1 covers the Crypto Wars of the 1990s, when U.S. export controls on strong encryption ultimately fell in 1999. Round 2 covers the period roughly 2010 to 2015, when encryption-in-transit became widespread but lawful access remained available through cloud providers, giving rise to what the authors called a “golden age of surveillance” rather than a period of going dark. Round 3 addresses the current debate over E2EE, where no entity between sender and recipient can read the plaintext...</p></blockquote>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[After backlash, Meta pauses plan to ‘rate limit’ its smart glasses]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Remember when Meta was planning to charge a $20 monthly subscription fee for the smart glasses feature that lets people hear each other more clearly - even though that feature runs locally on your glasses and doesn't require the cloud? Meta has paused those plans, spokesperson Tyler Yee confirms ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3692691/it-nachrichten/after-backlash-meta-pauses-plan-to-rate-limit-its-smart-glasses/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3692691/it-nachrichten/after-backlash-meta-pauses-plan-to-rate-limit-its-smart-glasses/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 00:32:11 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Remember when Meta was planning to charge a $20 monthly subscription fee for the smart glasses feature that lets people hear each other more clearly - even though that feature runs locally on your glasses and doesn't require the cloud? Meta has paused those plans, spokesperson Tyler Yee confirms to The Verge. The company is […]]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[VentureBeat Research: Where enterprise AI agent governance hasn't caught up]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Enterprises deployed AI agents ahead of the controls needed to manage them — and they did it knowingly. That is the central finding across the five parallel surveys VentureBeat Research fielded in June, spanning every layer of the agentic stack. Now those enterprises are retrofitting to catch up ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3692498/it-nachrichten/venturebeat-research-where-enterprise-ai-agent-governance-hasnt-caught-up/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3692498/it-nachrichten/venturebeat-research-where-enterprise-ai-agent-governance-hasnt-caught-up/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 22:51:31 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Enterprises deployed AI agents ahead of the controls needed to manage them — and they did it knowingly. That is the central finding across the five parallel surveys VentureBeat Research fielded in June, spanning every layer of the agentic stack. Now those enterprises are retrofitting to catch up with their own standards, and they are budgeting for it: In each of the five control layers we measured, 57 to 68% of enterprises plan to switch vendors or add new ones within 12 months, and roughly a third, depending on the layer, plan to move within the quarter.</p><p><a href="https://venturebeat.com/category/resources">VentureBeat Research</a> measured the five controls an enterprise has to build before it can trust an agent: identity, evaluation, cost telemetry, the context layer, and orchestration. Identity governs which agent is allowed to do what, under whose credentials. Evaluation determines whether the agent's work is any good. Cost telemetry tracks what each agent costs to run. The context layer supplies the business data and definitions agents draw on when they answer. And the orchestration control plane coordinates multi-step agent work. Each of our five reports measures one of those controls.</p><p><b>Most deployed "agents" are chatbots wearing the label.</b> Seventy-one percent of enterprises said a quarter or fewer of their deployed "agents" can complete multi-step work on their own; only 10% said true agents are the majority of what they run. These respondents are positioned to know: 81% recommend or decide AI purchases at their companies. A single-prompt chatbot with a human reading every answer needs none of the controls the other four reports measure. A true multi-step agent needs all of them — and most enterprises can't say which one they've deployed. <i>(Full findings: </i><a href="https://venturebeat.com/resources/agentic-orchestration-enterprise-ai-organizations-have-a-deployment-problem-not-a-platform-problem-and-most-are-calling-chatbots-agents"><i>Agentic Orchestration report.</i></a><i>)</i></p><p><b>Autonomy is outrunning trust in the evaluations that gate it.</b> Two-thirds of enterprises either already allow an agent to push a code or system change to production on automated evaluation results alone, with no human review, or are actively engineering toward that within 12 months. Only 5% fully trust the evaluations that would make that call — and half of enterprises shipped an agent that passed internal evaluations and then caused a customer-facing failure in the past year. Before removing human review from any workflow, test evaluations against production outcomes rather than internal benchmarks. <i>(Full findings: </i><a href="https://venturebeat.com/resources/the-agent-evaluation-gap-enterprise-ai-organizations-have-a-reality-alignment-problem-not-a-coverage-problem-and-most-are-shipping-to-production-anyway"><i>Agent Reliability &amp; Evals report</i></a><i>.)</i></p><p><b>Companies that let agents share credentials get hit more often.</b> Sixty-nine percent of companies let at least some of their agents share credentials — multiple agents operating under one API key or service account. Organizations that allow credential sharing anywhere experienced a security incident or near-miss at a 63.5% rate (47 of 74), against 40.9% (nine of 22) at companies where every agent has its own scoped identity. The fix is scoped identity for every agent, starting with the ones that touch production systems. <i>(Full findings: </i><a href="https://venturebeat.com/resources/the-agent-security-gap-54-of-enterprises-have-already-had-an-ai-agent-incident-and-most-still-let-agents-share-credentials"><i>Agentic Security &amp; Identity report</i></a><i>.)</i></p><p><b>The most expensive hardware in the building runs at half capacity or less.</b> More than eight in 10 enterprises that run their own GPUs reported utilization of 50% or less, and only 44% rigorously track what their AI compute actually costs and returns. The number worth chasing first isn't more GPUs — it's the utilization and per-workload cost of the ones already running. <i>(Full findings: </i><a href="https://venturebeat.com/resources/the-ai-compute-gap-enterprises-are-buying-infrastructure-faster-than-they-can-measure-what-it-costs"><i>AI Infrastructure &amp; Compute report</i></a><i>.)</i></p><p><b>Agents answer confidently from data nobody governs.</b> Fifty-seven percent of enterprises traced a confident, wrong agent answer in the past six months to their own missing or inconsistent business context — wrong metrics, stale definitions, absent documents — and most saw it happen more than once. Governing the definitions agents answer from — metrics and entities first — has to come before scaling the agents that depend on them. <i>(Full findings: </i><a href="https://venturebeat.com/resources/the-ai-context-gap-enterprise-ai-organizations-have-a-trust-problem-not-a-retrieval-problem-and-most-are-still-building-the-fix"><i>Context Layers / RAG report</i></a><i>.)</i></p><p>No layer has an entrenched incumbent: The defaults today are the built-in tools that ship with the big AI platforms enterprises already use. Switching intent runs highest in orchestration itself, where 68% plan to adopt, add, or replace platforms within 12 months and 34% within the quarter. Our surveys did not ask which direction that money moves — toward the platforms' built-in tools or toward the specialists challenging them — and that open question is the next four quarters of this market.</p><hr><p><b>About this research</b> </p><p><a href="https://venturebeat.com/category/resources">VentureBeat Research</a> fielded five parallel surveys in June 2026 under its VB Pulse program: Agentic Orchestration (101 respondents), Agent Reliability &amp; Evals (157), Agentic Security &amp; Identity (107), AI Infrastructure &amp; Compute (107), and Context Layers / RAG (101) — 573 qualified respondents in total, all at organizations with 100 or more employees. Samples are self-selected, and some findings should be read directionally; each report carries its full methodology note. What the pattern supports more strongly than any single percentage is the direction: every survey, independently, points the same way. VentureBeat produces both this research and <a href="https://venturebeat.com/vbtransform2026">VB Transform</a>, the conference where these reports debuted.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Anthropic launches Claude Opus 5, a cheaper AI model for coding, agents and enterprise workflows]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Anthropic released Claude Opus 5 on Friday, a model the company says delivers nearly all the intelligence of its top-of-the-line Claude Fable 5 at half the cost — a launch that signals how the AI race is shifting from raw capability to the economics of daily use.The model, available immediately o...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3692246/it-nachrichten/anthropic-launches-claude-opus-5-a-cheaper-ai-model-for-coding-agents-and-enterprise-workflows/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3692246/it-nachrichten/anthropic-launches-claude-opus-5-a-cheaper-ai-model-for-coding-agents-and-enterprise-workflows/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 20:10:11 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://www.anthropic.com/">Anthropic</a> released Claude <a href="http://anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-5">Opus 5</a> on Friday, a model the company says delivers nearly all the intelligence of its top-of-the-line Claude <a href="https://www.anthropic.com/claude/fable">Fable 5</a> at half the cost — a launch that signals how the AI race is shifting from raw capability to the economics of daily use.</p><p>The model, available immediately on all of Anthropic's platforms, is priced at $5 per million input tokens and $25 per million output tokens, unchanged from its predecessor, <a href="https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-4-8">Opus 4.8</a>. It becomes the new default model on <a href="https://support.claude.com/en/articles/11049741-what-is-the-max-plan">Claude Max</a>, Anthropic's premium consumer tier, and the strongest model available on <a href="https://support.claude.com/en/articles/8325606-what-is-the-pro-plan">Claude Pro</a>.</p><p>The positioning is deliberate. Anthropic is not claiming <a href="http://anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-5">Opus 5 </a>is its smartest model — that distinction still belongs to <a href="https://www.anthropic.com/claude/fable">Fable 5</a>, and rival systems retain an edge in certain domains. Instead, the company is making a subtler argument that may matter more to enterprise buyers: that the most economically important AI work happens in a middle band of difficulty, where near-frontier intelligence delivered efficiently and cheaply beats frontier intelligence delivered expensively.</p><p>"Opus 5 as your daily driver, the model you hand complex work to and review when it's done," an Anthropic spokesperson said in an interview with VentureBeat, describing how the company's lineup now stratifies. "Fable 5 for your most ambitious work, the days-long autonomous projects nothing could take on before... Sonnet 5 for work you run at scale, where speed and cost per call decide what ships. Haiku 4.5 for subagents and instant answers."</p><h2><b>How Claude Opus 5 benchmark results stack up against Fable 5 and rival AI models</b></h2><p>On paper, the results are striking. Anthropic says <a href="http://anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-5">Opus 5</a> sets new state-of-the-art marks on coding and knowledge-work evaluations including <a href="https://www.frontierbench.ai/announcement">Frontier-Bench</a> and <a href="https://artificialanalysis.ai/evaluations/gdpval-aa">GDPval-AA</a>. On <a href="https://www.frontierbench.ai/announcement">Frontier-Bench v0.1</a>, an agentic terminal coding benchmark, Opus 5 scores 43.3 percent — more than double Opus 4.8's 18.7 percent and well ahead of Fable 5's 33.7 percent — at a lower cost per task, according to the company. On <a href="https://arcprize.org/arc-agi/3">ARC-AGI 3</a>, an evaluation of novel problem-solving, Anthropic reports Opus 5 scored three times as high as the next best model. On <a href="https://github.com/xlang-ai/OSWorld-V2">OSWorld 2.0</a>, a computer-use benchmark, the company says the model surpasses Fable 5's best result at just over a third of the cost.</p><p>The numbers come with honest caveats that are themselves notable in an industry prone to superlatives. Anthropic acknowledges <a href="http://anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-5">Opus 5</a> remains behind <a href="https://www.anthropic.com/claude/mythos">Mythos 5</a>, a competing model, on cybersecurity tasks and biology research, and an OpenAI-family model still leads on one agentic coding benchmark.</p><p>The more revealing caveat came from Anthropic itself, when asked where <a href="http://anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-5">Opus 5</a> still falls short of <a href="https://www.anthropic.com/claude/fable">Fable 5</a>. The spokesperson's answer amounted to a candid admission about what benchmarks do and don't capture.</p><p>"The evals where Opus 5 wins are bounded tasks with a specific outcome, which is where it's strongest. What those evals don't measure is duration," the spokesperson told VentureBeat. "One way to put it: Opus 5 is the best tool for the jobs benchmarks can see, and Fable 5 is what you reach for when the job outruns the benchmark."</p><p><a href="https://www.anthropic.com/claude/fable">Fable 5</a>, by contrast, "is for the longest, most autonomous jobs, where the model has to stay coherent across many connected steps over hours or days with dense source material," the spokesperson said, advising customers to "run both on a representative workload, one bounded task and one long-horizon job." That framing — bounded tasks versus long-horizon autonomy — may become the defining axis of model differentiation in 2026, as benchmarks saturate and the hardest remaining problems involve sustained, multi-day agentic work rather than discrete puzzles.</p><h2><b>Why token efficiency is becoming the real battleground for enterprise AI spending</b></h2><p>Threaded through the launch is a theme Anthropic clearly wants buyers to absorb: <a href="http://anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-5">Opus 5</a> doesn't just score well, it scores well per dollar. The model ships with an adjustable "effort" setting that lets customers trade intelligence for speed and token savings, and Anthropic's charts emphasize performance at a given cost rather than peak performance alone.</p><p>Early customers echoed the point with unusual specificity. Harvey, the legal AI company, said Opus 5 achieved similar performance to Opus 4.8's maximum-reasoning mode "while generating 26% fewer tokens on average," according to Niko Grupen, its head of applied research. Richard Pham of Fundamental Research Lab said that on hard financial-modeling tasks, the model averaged nine percentage points higher accuracy "while using roughly one-third fewer turns and tool calls and 60% less time."</p><p>Wade Foster, chief executive of Zapier, said Opus 5 topped his company's AutomationBench leaderboard "without spending more tokens than prior Claude models," running a full churn-prevention workflow from start to finish. "Previous models didn't pass; Opus 5 hit 100%," he said. Scott Wu, chief executive of Cognition, the company behind the Devin coding agent, said that on FrontierCode 1.1, "Claude Opus 5 approaches Fable-level performance at half the cost," with particular strength in debugging and root-cause analysis.</p><p>The efficiency emphasis reflects commercial reality. Enterprise AI spending is no longer experimental, and inference costs — the price of actually running these models at scale — have become a board-level line item. </p><p>Anthropic's business skews heavily toward API and enterprise usage; according to a February 2026 analysis by <a href="https://research.contrary.com/company/anthropic">Contrary Research</a>, Claude held roughly 40 percent of the enterprise large language model market by usage as of late 2025, and Claude Code alone had reached about $1 billion in annualized revenue. For a company whose customers pay by the token, a model that does more with fewer tokens is not a nice-to-have. It is the product.</p><h2><b>Self-verifying AI agents and what they mean for the hidden costs of automation</b></h2><p>Beyond the numbers, Anthropic is selling a behavioral story: that <a href="http://anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-5">Opus 5</a> verifies its work and iterates until it succeeds. The company offered several examples from testing that read like small parables of machine stubbornness.</p><p>In one <a href="https://www.frontierbench.ai/announcement">Frontier-Bench</a> task, the model was asked to reconstruct a machine part as a 3D CAD model from a drawing it was intentionally given no way to view. Rather than fail, Anthropic says, Opus 5 wrote its own computer vision pipeline to extract the geometry from raw pixels — and did so repeatedly, while no competing model solved the task in five attempts. In another case, given a real bug in a popular open-source package manager, the model found the root cause and fixed an edge case the community's own patch had missed; a competing model patched only the symptom and declared victory. An engineer at a trading firm, the company says, used Opus 5 to build a market data feed for a new exchange in a single session and, finding no live feed to validate against, watched the model build its own test harness to check its parsing code.</p><p>Customers described similar behavior in the wild. Cristian Rivera, a staff software engineer at Stripe, said he gave the model "a chief-of-staff role over my dev environments" for a weekend: "it built its own monitor, drove each box, and pulled me in only for the judgment calls."</p><p>This is the capability enterprises actually care about, and it is worth dwelling on why. The gap between a model that produces plausible output and one that verifies its output is the gap between a demo and a deployable system. Most of the hidden cost of enterprise AI today is human review — engineers checking the machine's work. A model that reliably checks its own work compresses that cost, which is precisely why customers keep citing fewer turns, fewer passes, and less time rather than higher raw scores.</p><h2><b>Inside Anthropic's safety strategy: capability gaps, classifiers, and model fallbacks</b></h2><p>The launch also showcases Anthropic's increasingly intricate approach to safety — one that now involves deliberately not teaching its models certain skills. The company says its automated behavioral audit found Opus 5 to be its most aligned model to date, scoring 2.3 on overall misaligned behavior, lower than <a href="https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-4-8">Opus 4.8</a>, <a href="https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-sonnet-5">Sonnet 5</a>, or <a href="https://www.anthropic.com/claude/fable">Fable 5</a>, with the lowest rates of deceptive behavior and the least susceptibility to being tricked into misuse.</p><p>On the capability side, Anthropic says it intentionally avoided training <a href="http://anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-5">Opus 5</a> on cyber tasks, as it did with Opus 4.8. The model improved on them anyway — a side effect of general capability gains — and now nearly matches Mythos 5 at finding software vulnerabilities. But it remains far behind at exploiting them: on Anthropic's OSS-Fuzz evaluation, Opus 5 identified vulnerabilities at a 79.4 percent rate, close to Mythos 5's 80 percent, but succeeded at developing exploits in only 4 challenges versus Mythos 5's 13. That asymmetry — strong at defense-relevant discovery, weak at offense-relevant exploitation — appears to be by design, and the safeguards follow the same logic. Anthropic expects Opus 5's cyber classifiers to intervene about 85 percent less often than Fable 5's.</p><p>When a classifier does trigger, requests in <a href="http://claude.ai/">Claude.ai</a>, <a href="https://code.claude.com/docs/en/overview">Claude Code</a>, and <a href="https://claude.com/product/cowork">Claude Cowork</a> fall back to <a href="https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-4-8">Opus 4.8</a> by default — raising an obvious question: if a request is too risky for one model, why is it acceptable for another? "The model it falls back to has lower capability levels making the risk of harmful use lower as well," the spokesperson said, adding that "there is a message that lets the user know when this occurs and is visible in the chat."</p><p>The logic is defensible, but it reveals how AI safety actually works in 2026: risk is not a property of the question alone, but of the question multiplied by the capability of the system answering it. On biology, the calculus runs the other way. Opus 5 is now Anthropic's most capable generally available model for scientific research — scoring 10.2 percentage points higher than Opus 4.8 on the company's internal chemistry benchmark — though the spokesperson acknowledged that "Mythos 5 remains the stronger model for long-horizon, open-ended work like autonomous drug design campaigns."</p><h2><b>The business stakes behind the launch: a $380 billion valuation and massive compute bets</b></h2><p>The launch lands at a moment of extraordinary commercial momentum — and extraordinary obligations — for Anthropic. Reuters reported in February that the company was valued at <a href="https://www.reuters.com/technology/anthropic-valued-380-billion-latest-funding-round-2026-02-12/">roughly $380 billion</a> in its latest funding round, following a period in which, per Contrary Research's analysis, its annualized revenue climbed from about $1 billion at the end of 2024 to a projected $9 billion by the end of 2025, with internal targets reportedly <a href="https://research.contrary.com/company/anthropic">reaching $20 to $26 billion for 2026</a>. Those targets are underwritten by enormous infrastructure commitments, including a <a href="https://www.anthropic.com/news/microsoft-nvidia-anthropic-announce-strategic-partnerships">reported $30 billion Azure compute deal</a> alongside arrangements with Google Cloud and Nvidia — spending that only pencils out if enterprises keep expanding usage.</p><p>That is the context in which Opus 5's pricing strategy makes sense. Holding the price at Opus 4.8 levels while roughly doubling performance on key agentic benchmarks is effectively a steep price cut per unit of capability, designed to widen the funnel of workloads that are economical to automate. Every task that was marginal at Opus 4.8's cost-per-success becomes viable at Opus 5's — and every viable task is recurring token revenue.</p><p>The regulatory backdrop has grown more complex as well. A U.S. judge gave final approval this week to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us-judge-approves-anthropics-15-billion-settlement-copyright-lawsuit-2026-07-20/">Anthropic's $1.5 billion copyright settlement with book authors</a>, Reuters reported, closing a chapter of litigation over the company's early training data. And in June, Reuters, citing Axios, reported that the U.S. government had moved to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-blocks-foreign-access-anthropics-most-advanced-ai-models-axios-reports-2026-06-13/">block foreign access </a>to Anthropic's most advanced models — a reminder that frontier AI is now entangled with export policy in ways that shape which customers can buy what.</p><p>Also shipping Friday: a Fast mode running at roughly 2.5 times default speed at twice the base price, automatic fallback routing on the API, and mid-conversation tool changes that no longer invalidate the prompt cache — a small feature that agent developers may appreciate more than any benchmark. Consistent with prior Opus models, Opus 5 carries no data retention requirements for general access, a point the spokesperson flagged unprompted for customers with "a hard zero data retention requirement." Developers can access the model as claude-opus-5 on the <a href="https://platform.claude.com/login?returnTo=%2F%3F">Claude API</a> starting today.</p><p>Two questions will determine whether the bet pays off: whether <a href="http://anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-5">Opus 5's efficiency claims </a>survive contact with production workloads at scale, and whether enterprises embrace a world where safety classifiers, not users, sometimes decide which model answers. But the deeper message of Friday's launch is that the AI industry's center of gravity has moved. For three years, the labs competed on what their best model could do on its best day. With Opus 5, Anthropic is competing on something less glamorous and far more lucrative: what a very good model can do every day, for half the price. In a market where the frontier keeps moving, Anthropic is wagering that the real fortune lies just behind it.</p><p>
</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Model Context Protocol is going stateless to make scaling simpler]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Model Context Protocol (MCP), the emerging standard for connecting AI models to external tools and enterprise data, is undergoing its biggest architectural overhaul yet.



The latest release candidate, scheduled for release on July 28, removes protocol-level sessions in favor of a stateless arch...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3691919/ai-nachrichten/model-context-protocol-is-going-stateless-to-make-scaling-simpler/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3691919/ai-nachrichten/model-context-protocol-is-going-stateless-to-make-scaling-simpler/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 17:40:37 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🔧 AI Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div><div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Model Context Protocol (<a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4029634/what-is-model-context-protocol-how-mcp-bridges-ai-and-external-services.html">MCP</a>), the emerging standard for connecting AI models to external tools and enterprise data, is undergoing its biggest architectural overhaul yet.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The latest <a href="https://modelcontextprotocol.io/specification/draft/changelog" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">release candidate</a>, scheduled for release on July 28, removes protocol-level sessions in favor of a stateless architecture, a change which industry experts say is intended to make MCP easier to deploy across standard cloud infrastructure as enterprises move AI pilots into production.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The session-based model made sense when MCP servers were local processes on a developer’s laptop. In production, it became an operational tax,” said <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/muskan-bandta2004" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Muskan Bandta</a>, cloud associate at ZopDev.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“When your infrastructure team asks whether MCP services can scale like other cloud applications, the answer used to be ‘not quite.’ With the move to a stateless architecture, the answer is now yes,” Bandta added.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Earlier versions of the protocol maintained information about every client connection, meaning servers had to keep track of each session throughout an interaction. While that approach worked well for local development, it complicated deployments across multiple servers because requests often had to be routed back to the same machine, limiting scalability and making MCP a less natural fit for modern cloud architectures.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Under the new stateless design, every request contains the information needed for any available server to process it independently. Applications that need to maintain context across multiple requests can still do so, but developers must now manage that state explicitly rather than relying on the protocol itself,” she said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This transition to a stateless design goes beyond simplifying infrastructure by fundamentally changing how AI applications manage and share context across tools, according to <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/znamit/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Amit Jena</a>, AI development manager at IT consulting firm Kanerika.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Instead of keeping application state hidden inside protocol sessions, the new design makes it explicit, allowing AI models to access, reason over, and pass that information between tools, giving developers greater control over how context is preserved and shared across tools, Jena said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It should also make AI workflows more portable, resilient, and easier to orchestrate across distributed environments, he said.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">MCP’s new features</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Other changes to MCP include the addition of a Multi Round-Trip Requests (MRTR) mechanism that changes how AI agents request additional information they need to complete a task.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Instead of relying on a persistent connection between the client and server throughout the interaction, the new mechanism lets the server request additional input through a standard request-response exchange before continuing the task, Jena said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Routable transport headers, another addition, enable API gateways and other networking infrastructure to identify and route MCP requests without inspecting their contents.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">They reduce processing overhead, lower latency, and let enterprise teams enforce routing, rate-limiting and security policies more efficiently using existing API management infrastructure, Jena said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">MCP is also getting an updated authorization framework built around OAuth 2.1 and OpenID Connect; interactive MCP Apps; and deterministic caching of tool and resource listings to improve LLM prompt-cache hit rates, potentially saving on token costs.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Rebuilding the trust boundary</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The MCP release steering committee also decided to deprecate some legacy features, including Roots, Sampling, Logging, the older HTTP+SSE transport and Dynamic Client Registration, although these will continue to work in this version and any other released over the next year.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The deprecation of Sampling is likely to have the biggest impact because it changes who is responsible for interacting with foundation models, said Jena.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Sampling let MCP servers invoke the <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2335213/large-language-models-the-foundations-of-generative-ai.html" target="_blank">LLM</a> through the client, which meant the server had a callback path into the model without owning that connection. Deprecating it means rebuilding that trust boundary,” Jena said. “Your server now calls the model provider directly. That changes your network architecture, your auth model, and depending on how you’ve built cost attribution, your billing flow.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The year-long transition period will be enough for teams to audit their sampling dependencies now, said Jena: “The risk is that teams who haven’t implemented sampling themselves won’t know if a third-party MCP server they’re depending on uses it.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Updated MCP SDKs</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">To accompany the protocol update, there are updated <a href="https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">MCP SDKs</a> for <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2253770/what-is-python-powerful-intuitive-programming.html" target="_blank">Python</a>, <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2257305/what-is-typescript-strongly-typed-javascript.html" target="_blank">Typescript</a>, <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2253031/whats-the-go-language-really-good-for-3.html">Go</a>, and <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4131649/the-best-new-features-of-c-14.html">C#</a>. These support both the old and new protocol versions, so new clients can continue communicating with older servers, while updated servers will also support older clients, reducing the risk of immediate disruptions.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That backward compatibility should make the transition largely incremental, except for enterprises that built custom infrastructure around MCP’s earlier session-based architecture, Bandta said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Identifying and auditing those session dependencies may not be easy, Jena warned.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Session management complexity tends to be hidden across multiple layers — the gateway config, the deployment scripts, the monitoring dashboards. The code change is small; finding everywhere the assumption lives is what takes time,” he said.</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Model Context Protocol is going stateless to make scaling simpler]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Model Context Protocol (MCP), the emerging standard for connecting AI models to external tools and enterprise data, is undergoing its biggest architectural overhaul yet.



The latest release candidate, scheduled for release on July 28, removes protocol-level sessions in favor of a stateless arch...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3691907/it-nachrichten/model-context-protocol-is-going-stateless-to-make-scaling-simpler/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3691907/it-nachrichten/model-context-protocol-is-going-stateless-to-make-scaling-simpler/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 17:38:35 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Model Context Protocol (<a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4029634/what-is-model-context-protocol-how-mcp-bridges-ai-and-external-services.html">MCP</a>), the emerging standard for connecting AI models to external tools and enterprise data, is undergoing its biggest architectural overhaul yet.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The latest <a href="https://modelcontextprotocol.io/specification/draft/changelog" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">release candidate</a>, scheduled for release on July 28, removes protocol-level sessions in favor of a stateless architecture, a change which industry experts say is intended to make MCP easier to deploy across standard cloud infrastructure as enterprises move AI pilots into production.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The session-based model made sense when MCP servers were local processes on a developer’s laptop. In production, it became an operational tax,” said <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/muskan-bandta2004" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Muskan Bandta</a>, cloud associate at ZopDev.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“When your infrastructure team asks whether MCP services can scale like other cloud applications, the answer used to be ‘not quite.’ With the move to a stateless architecture, the answer is now yes,” Bandta added.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Earlier versions of the protocol maintained information about every client connection, meaning servers had to keep track of each session throughout an interaction. While that approach worked well for local development, it complicated deployments across multiple servers because requests often had to be routed back to the same machine, limiting scalability and making MCP a less natural fit for modern cloud architectures.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Under the new stateless design, every request contains the information needed for any available server to process it independently. Applications that need to maintain context across multiple requests can still do so, but developers must now manage that state explicitly rather than relying on the protocol itself,” she said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This transition to a stateless design goes beyond simplifying infrastructure by fundamentally changing how AI applications manage and share context across tools, according to <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/znamit/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Amit Jena</a>, AI development manager at IT consulting firm Kanerika.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Instead of keeping application state hidden inside protocol sessions, the new design makes it explicit, allowing AI models to access, reason over, and pass that information between tools, giving developers greater control over how context is preserved and shared across tools, Jena said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It should also make AI workflows more portable, resilient, and easier to orchestrate across distributed environments, he said.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">MCP’s new features</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Other changes to MCP include the addition of a Multi Round-Trip Requests (MRTR) mechanism that changes how AI agents request additional information they need to complete a task.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Instead of relying on a persistent connection between the client and server throughout the interaction, the new mechanism lets the server request additional input through a standard request-response exchange before continuing the task, Jena said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Routable transport headers, another addition, enable API gateways and other networking infrastructure to identify and route MCP requests without inspecting their contents.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">They reduce processing overhead, lower latency, and let enterprise teams enforce routing, rate-limiting and security policies more efficiently using existing API management infrastructure, Jena said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">MCP is also getting an updated authorization framework built around OAuth 2.1 and OpenID Connect; interactive MCP Apps; and deterministic caching of tool and resource listings to improve LLM prompt-cache hit rates, potentially saving on token costs.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Rebuilding the trust boundary</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The MCP release steering committee also decided to deprecate some legacy features, including Roots, Sampling, Logging, the older HTTP+SSE transport and Dynamic Client Registration, although these will continue to work in this version and any other released over the next year.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The deprecation of Sampling is likely to have the biggest impact because it changes who is responsible for interacting with foundation models, said Jena.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Sampling let MCP servers invoke the <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2335213/large-language-models-the-foundations-of-generative-ai.html" target="_blank">LLM</a> through the client, which meant the server had a callback path into the model without owning that connection. Deprecating it means rebuilding that trust boundary,” Jena said. “Your server now calls the model provider directly. That changes your network architecture, your auth model, and depending on how you’ve built cost attribution, your billing flow.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The year-long transition period will be enough for teams to audit their sampling dependencies now, said Jena: “The risk is that teams who haven’t implemented sampling themselves won’t know if a third-party MCP server they’re depending on uses it.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Updated MCP SDKs</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">To accompany the protocol update, there are updated <a href="https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">MCP SDKs</a> for <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2253770/what-is-python-powerful-intuitive-programming.html" target="_blank">Python</a>, <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2257305/what-is-typescript-strongly-typed-javascript.html" target="_blank">Typescript</a>, <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2253031/whats-the-go-language-really-good-for-3.html">Go</a>, and <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4131649/the-best-new-features-of-c-14.html">C#</a>. These support both the old and new protocol versions, so new clients can continue communicating with older servers, while updated servers will also support older clients, reducing the risk of immediate disruptions.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That backward compatibility should make the transition largely incremental, except for enterprises that built custom infrastructure around MCP’s earlier session-based architecture, Bandta said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Identifying and auditing those session dependencies may not be easy, Jena warned.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Session management complexity tends to be hidden across multiple layers — the gateway config, the deployment scripts, the monitoring dashboards. The code change is small; finding everywhere the assumption lives is what takes time,” he said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>This article first appeared on <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4201254/model-context-protocol-is-going-stateless-to-make-scaling-simpler.html">InfoWorld</a>.</em></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Getting a grip on shadow tokens and AI blowouts]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Four months of Claude Code — that’s all it took for Uber to burn through its entire annual budget for AI. Token after token, engineers embraced the platform with few control mechanisms tying costs to outcomes. The result was a budget runaway and a clear case study in how limited oversight snowbal...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3691453/it-nachrichten/getting-a-grip-on-shadow-tokens-and-ai-blowouts/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3691453/it-nachrichten/getting-a-grip-on-shadow-tokens-and-ai-blowouts/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 14:04:46 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Four months of Claude Code — that’s all it took for Uber to burn through its entire annual budget for AI. Token after token, engineers embraced the platform with few control mechanisms tying costs to outcomes. The result was a budget runaway and <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/janakirammsv/2026/05/17/uber-burns-its-2026-ai-budget-in-four-months-on-claude-code/">a clear case study</a> in how limited oversight snowballs into an AI blowout.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is a phenomenon I like to call “shadow tokens” — AI credits paid for by the company but largely invisible to decision-makers. Too many engineers have the final say over how much they consume and, therefore, what it costs. This all-you-can-eat attitude is part of the reason why <a href="https://www.theverge.com/tech/930447/microsoft-claude-code-discontinued-notepad">Microsoft is reportedly</a> winding down many internal licenses across key engineering teams and why <a href="https://www.thestreet.com/investing/the-next-phase-of-ai-spending-is-already-underway">one in five organizations</a> is missing its AI spend forecast by more than 50%.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">And the trend is only accelerating. By 2028, <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4189149/ai-coding-token-costs-are-on-track-to-rival-human-payroll.html">Gartner predicts</a> that AI coding costs (driven by this kind of ungoverned consumption) will be as much per developer as the salary companies pay that person.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">LLMs and agents introduce a new class of variable cost that scales with behavior rather than headcount, putting enterprises on the hook for tools that balloon with workload. I don’t see this as enterprises overspending because they’re reckless — it’s down to a lack of managerial oversight, budget alignment that demands a proven return on investment, and engineer education on how much is too much.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Going forward, CIOs need to thread the AI needle between governance that encourages transparency and reasonable spend without stifling innovation.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">When shadow tokens result in real costs</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The issue is that AI isn’t a traditional line item. Previously, enterprise leaders onboarded software-as-a-service (SaaS) with a good idea of the total cost. An allocated software seat or annual contract was a known quantity. The cloud added some variation (with fluctuations depending on hosting size), but instances were still modelable. AI flips this status quo on its head — the unit of consumption is behavior and the cost is exponential.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">And these specifics aren’t immediately apparent at pilot. Tools can appear inexpensive in controlled experiments yet unpredictably scale depending on session length, context window size, model selection and whether agents run in parallel. This is the fallacy of the $20-per-seat enterprise plan — tokens are charged separately at API rates with no ceiling. The final dollar value of any session is set by factors that finance can’t always model in advance, particularly when these decisions usually rest with the engineers themselves.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">According to <a href="https://www.deloitte.com/cz-sk/en/services/consulting/research/the-state-of-ai-in-the-enterprise.html">Deloitte</a>, only 21% of organizations deploying agents have a mature governance model, a real concern because they’re token-eating machines. This is what was happening at Uber — Claude Code in agentic mode was autonomously reading codebases, planning changes across dozens of files and opening pull requests. Each step quickly adds up, with Anthropic’s own documentation noting that agents consume approximately seven times as many tokens as standard sessions.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is shadow IT and shadow AI, evolved. This time, however, many leaders approved the tool in question without guardrails governing consumption. AI hype adds fuel to the fire and normalizes long sessions. Uber’s CTO, for example, <a href="https://x.com/praveenTweets/status/2033627282418655711">described</a> a company-wide shift toward “agentic software engineering” with employees “who are quietly experimenting, quietly shipping and quietly pushing things forward”. This is an exciting way to test the limits of what’s possible, certainly, but it’s also a position that goes a long way to explaining how the company spent its annual AI budget by April.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Shifting the culture from usage to yield</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Engineers haven’t done anything wrong here. In fact, they’re adopting and experimenting as instructed, with Uber creating leaderboards and ranking users by token consumption. More use led to a better ranking, reflecting a culture that lauds new ways of doing things. This behavior is known as “<a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4178320/tokenmaxxing-when-ai-adoption-metrics-go-bad.html">tokenmaxxing</a>,” and its principal knock-on effect is shadow tokens — quantity-over-quality processes that leaders struggle to control until they’re fully realized in the budget. Of course, if management treats adoption metrics as performance metrics, then engineers can’t be blamed for using more tokens. The tension is that the teams driving adoption aren’t the ones managing spend.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">None of this is meant to dismiss AI’s productivity possibilities and potential return on investment. Developers save <a href="https://getdx.com/blog/ai-assisted-engineering-q4-impact-report-2025/">3.6 hours</a> per week, achieve 60% higher pull request throughput and cut onboarding time in half with automation. Meanwhile, Uber shared that roughly 11% of live backend updates were written by agents with no human in the loop. However, these wins aren’t the problem — it’s that too many teams aren’t connecting input to output. I’ve spoken to admins who discovered their token spend had tripled in a single quarter after using heavier models or accidentally doubling up on agentic applications. Nobody knew until the financial damage was done.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Automation needs to happen sustainably with an eye on the bottom line. In my view, a much better metric for achieving this is AI yield — the measurable business or engineering output generated per dollar spent on tokens. Otherwise, without a feedback loop, even genuinely productive teams are flying blind.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Stopping token waste before an AI blowout</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Creating that throughline between AI investment and token consumption starts with established financial metrics. This is possible via maximum spend limits (dictated by spend tagging, workload tiering and cost-per-output benchmarks) per team or project. Then, any additional allocation requires approval, closing the loop between the engineers spending the tokens and the leaders paying for them. AI isn’t cheap and teams should demonstrate a bang for their buck.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is something we do with our engineering team at Hexnode. Resource allocation for Claude Code and Cursor is tied directly to ROI rather than letting consumption run open-ended. Given the pay-as-you-go nature of these tools, a firm usage limit per team offers simple but essential control.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Similarly, there’s room to apply some of the governance principles IT uses for device management. Things like policy enforcement, role-based access, real-time monitoring and automated alerts can flag usage behavior in advance. Uncovering such insights at the token layer works to identify power users and prevent excessive spending.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We also need to encourage cultures that praise outputs that actually achieve efficiency. AI applications that result in shipping faster, reducing rework and cutting review cycles are gains that should be celebrated. If your company hosts leaderboards, frame unnecessary token burn as wasteful rather than valuable. The organizations creating healthier consumption habits work with their engineers to understand not just how to use AI, but what responsible use looks like and what it costs.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is a conversation teams need to have now. Anthropic <a href="https://support.claude.com/en/articles/15036540-use-the-claude-agent-sdk-with-your-claude-plan">just ended flat-rate pricing</a> for programmatic workloads from June 15. Now, agents, continuous integration pipelines and automated workflows draw from a dedicated monthly credit pool billed separately from the subscription. Once that pool is exhausted, agent tasks either stop entirely or overflow to extra billing. Work can either get very expensive or grind to a halt for teams that aren’t prepared.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Getting a grip on shadow tokens means better rules and tools connecting spend to outcomes. Only by building the financial and cultural infrastructure that encourages sustainable adoption can leaders see what they’re spending, connect it to what they’re getting and course-correct before the costs become a crisis. Ultimately, shadow tokens are only invisible if we choose not to look.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.</strong><br><a href="https://www.cio.com/expert-contributor-network/"><strong>Want to join?</strong></a></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Why I changed how I pitch AI: It’s no longer about saving money, but managing tokens and adoption]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[I have worked alongside enterprise technology for more than 30 years and watched AI evolve from a lab experiment into the modern boardroom’s core focus. However, the last few years of implementing AI alongside our customers have delivered our most profound reality checks.



The initial hype has ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3691324/it-nachrichten/why-i-changed-how-i-pitch-ai-its-no-longer-about-saving-money-but-managing-tokens-and-adoption/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3691324/it-nachrichten/why-i-changed-how-i-pitch-ai-its-no-longer-about-saving-money-but-managing-tokens-and-adoption/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 13:04:13 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I have worked alongside enterprise technology for more than 30 years and watched AI evolve from a lab experiment into the modern boardroom’s core focus. However, the last few years of implementing AI alongside our customers have delivered our most profound reality checks.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The initial hype has faded, leaving CIOs to drive real enterprise value. Based on my experience implementing Google, OpenAI and Anthropic technologies, here are the fundamental, technology-agnostic lessons every leader must anchor their strategy around.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><a></a>AI as a leadership multiplier</h2>



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



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



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Integrating AI into the broader business strategy also dictates how we measure success. It forces a shift away from short-term tech vanity metrics and anchors the technology into a long-term roadmap.</p>



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The requirement for top-down, executive ownership stems from three critical realities observed in the field:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><strong>Silo-smashing and data collaboration:</strong> True enterprise AI is data-hungry and that data lives across disparate business lines, finance, operations, marketing and customer service. Only the CEO possesses the cross-functional authority to demand that data silos be dismantled.</li>



<li><strong>Cultural transformation and fear mitigation:</strong> AI triggers widespread anxiety over job displacement across all industries and hierarchies. When relegated to an “IT project,” resistance spikes as teams view it as a threat to their livelihoods. When I saw the CEO lead this cultural shift directly is when I noticed the best results.</li>



<li><strong>C-Suite education and strategic alignment:</strong> The mandate for AI capability cannot just be delegated downward; the transformation must begin at the very top. I have conducted more than 70 presentations for the Board of Directors and C-Level teams. These people need to be actively educated not on technical code, but on specific business use cases, return on investment (ROI) frameworks and how AI resolves core organizational bottlenecks.</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/c-suite-insights/ceo-survey.html">PwC’s data found that only 12% of enterprises have achieved both cost and revenue benefits from AI</a>. Those elite 12% succeeded precisely because their CEOs embedded AI extensively across <em>strategic decision-making and cross-functional workflows</em>. AI is simply too disruptive and too critical to be left exclusively in the hands of technical experts. If AI is not on the CEO’s weekly agenda, it is fundamentally missing from the company’s true strategy.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><a></a>AI as a new operational framework</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Traditional IT systems have operated on strict algorithmic certainty: if you input a specific set of data, the system executes an immutable line of code and guarantees the same, predictable output every single time.</p>



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



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In terms of cost calculation, we had to teach CIOs and business managers to forget the monthly subscription model for AI and learn to manage the primary unit of exchange in modern AI: the token.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">To understand AI costs, executives must understand how large language models process data. AI models do not read full words; instead, they break text, images or code down into “pieces” called tokens. As a baseline, every 100 words process as approximately 130 to 140 tokens. Because the major AI providers use the token as their currency, <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2604.22750">your business is billed dynamically based on the exact volume of tokens consumed</a> by every query submitted (input) and every response generated (output).</p>



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The solution is not to halt AI adoption; doing so means losing your competitive edge. Instead, the cost per token must cease to be treated as a technical footnote relegated to the IT department. It must be elevated to a core business variable.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Risks in the AI adoption model</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Since the beginning of the AI boom, I have seen all our customers making a critical tactical error that could cost them heavily in the medium term: they are focusing only on operational efficiency (reducing costs with AI).</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I have observed that an alarmingly high percentage of companies remain trapped in pilot phases focused exclusively on short-term cost reduction. <a href="https://www.bain.com/insights/your-ai-budget-is-growing-your-returns-arent-heres-why/">Bain &amp; Company’s global Automation and AI Pathfinder Survey </a>found that the largest share of companies measuring their AI initiatives (exactly 40%) realized cost reductions of 10% or less, heavily missing their internal targets. Our customers are putting too many resources and effort into marginal financial gains and in doing so, they are jeopardizing their most valuable assets: service quality, resilience and customer trust.</p>



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



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



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As we continue to deploy these technologies across industries, the blueprint for success is being rewritten in real time. Let’s keep this conversation going as we map out the future of business intelligence together.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.</strong><br><a href="https://www.cio.com/expert-contributor-network/"><strong>Want to join?</strong></a></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Sponsor mismatch is the silent killer of enterprise transformation]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Late in a large enterprise SAP transformation, the strategic governance conversations began to drift. Instead of executive decisions, we found ourselves debating whether the program needed dedicated testing, whether cutover required a full weekend, whether twenty Agile teams really needed coordin...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3691067/it-nachrichten/sponsor-mismatch-is-the-silent-killer-of-enterprise-transformation/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3691067/it-nachrichten/sponsor-mismatch-is-the-silent-killer-of-enterprise-transformation/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 11:03:44 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The questions were not coming from the delivery teams. They were coming from the executive sponsor.</p>



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



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Most program failures are not execution failures. They are sponsor mismatches.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">When governance becomes a debate about delivery practices</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When the sponsor does not understand what an enterprise transformation actually requires, governance forums stop functioning as decision bodies and start functioning as practice debates.</p>



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">None of these questions are unreasonable in isolation. Each one targets a real cost or timeline pressure. The problem is what is missing underneath them: an understanding of the operational risks the original choices were designed to mitigate.</p>



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The compounding cost is not unique to any single program. <a href="https://www.pmi.org/blog/why-executive-sponsorship-fuels-projects">PMI’s research on executive sponsorship</a> consistently identifies sponsor engagement quality, rather than sponsor presence alone, as one of the strongest predictors of project success. The visible symptom is debate. The actual cost is unmade decisions.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Authority is rarely the issue. Literacy is</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When transformations stall under a mismatched sponsor, the diagnostic instinct is to question the sponsor’s authority. Are they senior enough? Do they have the cross-functional reach? Can they unblock?</p>



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



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://hbr.org/2015/05/how-to-be-an-effective-executive-sponsor">Harvard Business Review’s research on effective executive sponsorship</a> has emphasized that sponsorship effectiveness depends as much on judgment as on authority. Judgment is where literacy becomes operational. A sponsor with authority but limited transformation literacy will optimize for speed and cost in ways that consistently underestimate risk. A sponsor with both will make the tradeoffs the program actually needs.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.prosci.com/resources/articles/change-management-best-practices">Prosci’s longstanding benchmark studies on change management</a> have ranked active and visible executive sponsorship as the single greatest contributor to change success for two decades. The word that matters in that finding is active. Active sponsorship without transformation literacy can introduce real cost. Not because the sponsor is acting against the program, but because the optimization choices they make are based on incomplete information about what the program is built to protect against.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Shift the conversation from delivery practices to business risk</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When the sponsor relationship is already in place and cannot be changed, the program leadership team has one move that consistently works: shift the conversation.</p>



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



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



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



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The program leadership team’s job is not to make the sponsor an expert in SAP delivery. It is to provide enough transformation context so that executive decisions reflect both business priorities and implementation realities.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There are a few phrases I have used with executive sponsors over the years that capture the underlying issue. The sharpest one:</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">If the decision has to go above the sponsor, they are not the sponsor.</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Sponsorship is defined by what the sponsor can decide without asking someone else. That is the test. Anything else is the appearance of sponsorship, not the substance.</p>



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A sponsor does not need to be the technical expert. They do need to know when to trust the people who are.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.</strong><br><a href="https://www.cio.com/expert-contributor-network/"><strong>Want to join?</strong></a></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Microsoft launches new in-house AI models it says cut costs up to 89% versus OpenAI]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Microsoft AI released two new in-house models into public preview on Wednesday — MAI-Image-2.5-Pro, its highest-fidelity image generator to date, and MAI-Voice-2-Flash, a speech model built for high-volume enterprise workloads — while publishing production data that amounts to the company's most ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3690504/it-nachrichten/microsoft-launches-new-in-house-ai-models-it-says-cut-costs-up-to-89-versus-openai/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3690504/it-nachrichten/microsoft-launches-new-in-house-ai-models-it-says-cut-costs-up-to-89-versus-openai/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 02:50:17 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://microsoft.ai/">Microsoft AI</a> released two new in-house models into public preview on Wednesday — <a href="https://microsoft.ai/news/introducing-mai-image-2-5-pro-and-mai-voice-2-flash/">MAI-Image-2.5-Pro</a>, its highest-fidelity image generator to date, and <a href="https://microsoft.ai/news/introducing-mai-image-2-5-pro-and-mai-voice-2-flash/">MAI-Voice-2-Flash</a>, a speech model built for high-volume enterprise workloads — while publishing production data that amounts to the company's most aggressive argument yet that it can power its own products without leaning on OpenAI's frontier models.</p><p>The announcement, made by <a href="https://microsoft.ai/">Microsoft AI's Superintelligence team</a>, lands roughly a year after the company committed to building purpose-built models internally, and it arrives with an unusual level of specificity about where those models now run: <a href="https://www.bing.com/">Bing</a>, <a href="https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/powerpoint">PowerPoint</a>, <a href="https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/onedrive/online-cloud-storage">OneDrive</a>, <a href="https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/dynamics-365">Dynamics 365</a>, <a href="https://excel.cloud.microsoft/en-us/">Excel</a>, <a href="https://github.com/features/copilot">GitHub Copilot</a>, and <a href="https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us">Azure</a>. The message to enterprise buyers — and, implicitly, to OpenAI — is that Microsoft's homegrown models are no longer research projects. They are production infrastructure serving millions of users.</p><p>"Each of these enhancements is a step toward the same goal: Microsoft products, powered by Microsoft models," the company wrote in its announcement blog.</p><h2><b>How MAI-Image-2.5-Pro and MAI-Voice-2-Flash stake out opposite ends of the AI cost curve</b></h2><p>The two new releases occupy opposite ends of what Microsoft calls the quality-speed-cost curve, and the positioning is deliberate. <a href="https://microsoft.ai/news/introducing-mai-image-2-5-pro-and-mai-voice-2-flash/">MAI-Image-2.5-Pro</a> targets the premium tier: hero imagery, detailed editing, and precise in-image text rendering — the last of which has long been a notorious weak spot for image generation models. Microsoft priced the model at $5 per million text input tokens, $8 per million image input tokens, and $106 per million image output tokens. The base <a href="https://microsoft.ai/news/introducing-mai-image-2-5-pro-and-mai-voice-2-flash/">MAI-Image-2.5</a> model recently launched at <a href="https://microsoft.ai/news/introducing-mai-image-2-5/">No. 2 for image editing on Arena</a>, the community leaderboard that has become a de facto scoreboard for generative media.</p><p>The creative industry appears to be taking notice. Rob Reilly, global chief creative officer at advertising giant WPP, called the Pro model "a strong leap forward for GenMedia tools" in a statement included in Microsoft's announcement, adding that "Microsoft has firmly established itself among the leaders in generative AI."</p><p><a href="https://microsoft.ai/news/introducing-mai-image-2-5-pro-and-mai-voice-2-flash/">MAI-Voice-2-Flash</a> goes the other direction. First previewed at Microsoft's <a href="https://news.microsoft.com/build-2026/">Build conference</a>, Flash runs twice as fast as MAI-Voice-2 and costs 32% less, priced at $15 per million characters. It is designed for the unglamorous but enormous market of high-volume voice — call centers, voice agents, and real-time speech applications where latency and cost-per-call matter more than marginal gains in expressiveness. Together, the two models reflect a strategy of building families of models rather than a single flagship, because, as the company put it, a creative studio chasing maximum fidelity has very different needs from a customer service operation handling millions of calls a day.</p><h2><b>Microsoft's production metrics show in-house models cutting GPU costs by up to 89%</b></h2><p>The model launches are arguably less newsworthy than the deployment metrics Microsoft attached to them — numbers that read like a systematic case for swapping out third-party frontier models across its product portfolio. </p><p><a href="https://explore.microsoft.com/en-us/bing/features/bing-image-creator?form=MA13FV">Bing Image Creator </a>now runs entirely on <a href="https://microsoft.ai/news/introducing-mai-image-2-5-pro-and-mai-voice-2-flash/">MAI-Image-2.5</a>, end to end, marking the first time the consumer image tool is fully in-house. In PowerPoint, Microsoft says MAI-Image-2.5 reduces GPU costs by up to 84% compared with GPT-Image-2, OpenAI's image model. In OneDrive, where MAI-Image-2.5 is now the default for key image-editing scenarios, the company reports a 26% increase in save rates, roughly 25% lower P95 latency, and 2.5 times greater efficiency under medium-utilization production workloads.</p><p>On the voice side, <a href="https://microsoft.ai/news/introducing-mai-image-2-5-pro-and-mai-voice-2-flash/">MAI-Voice-2-Flash</a> now powers Dynamics 365 Contact Center — the platform used by customers including T-Mobile and EasyJet — where Microsoft claims GPU cost reductions of up to 89%. The model is also integrated into Azure Voice Live for developers building speech-to-speech agents.</p><p>Perhaps the most consequential deployment sits in healthcare. Microsoft's <a href="https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/health-solutions/clinical-workflow/dragon-copilot">Dragon Copilot</a>, used by 170,000 medical providers and responsible for processing 28 million patient encounters last quarter, now runs on MAI-Transcribe-1.5 for its multilingual workflow across 58 languages. Microsoft says internal evaluations show a 50% relative reduction in both transcription and language-identification error rates across most languages — a meaningful claim in a domain where transcription errors can propagate directly into clinical notes.</p><h2><b>Inside the 'hill-climbing' strategy that lets small models beat GPT-5.6 in Excel</b></h2><p>In a companion post published the same day, Microsoft detailed the methodology behind these results — what it calls its "<a href="https://microsoft.ai/news/hill-climbing-mai-models-for-github-copilot-and-excel/">hill-climbing machine</a>," an integrated flywheel of data, models, and the product "harness" that surrounds them.</p><p>The clearest example is <a href="https://microsoft.ai/news/introducingmai-code-1-flash/">MAI-Code-1-Flash</a>, the lightweight coding model launched in GitHub Copilot in June. Microsoft says the model achieves an approximately 10% higher code accept rate than GPT-5.4 Mini and Claude Haiku 4.5 in VS Code, while using 10% fewer median tokens. Developer retention tells a similar story: users were 6% more likely to return across multiple days than with GPT-5.4 Mini, and 11% more likely than with Claude Haiku 4.5.</p><p>Then Microsoft did something more interesting. It took the MAI-Code-1-Flash checkpoint and further <a href="https://microsoft.ai/news/hill-climbing-mai-models-for-github-copilot-and-excel/">trained it inside an Excel reinforcement learning environment</a>, teaching a coding model the tools and workflows of spreadsheet knowledge work. The result, according to production user feedback, is a model on par with GPT-5.6 for the most common Excel tasks — while being small enough to run on Nvidia's older H100 and even A100 GPUs rather than requiring the latest-generation accelerators.</p><p>That hardware detail deserves emphasis. Every major AI company is fighting for allocation of cutting-edge chips, and a model that delivers frontier-adjacent quality on two-generation-old silicon fundamentally changes the deployment economics. It also frees the newest hardware — including Microsoft's now-operational GB200 cluster — for training rather than serving.</p><h2><b>Satya Nadella's 'frontier diffusion' manifesto redraws the OpenAI relationship</b></h2><p>Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella framed the announcements in a lengthy post on X titled "<a href="https://x.com/satyanadella/status/2080329851127669104">Frontier Diffusion &amp; Control</a>," which functions as something close to a strategic manifesto. "We can now take saturated frontier capabilities and deliver them at scale and at lower cost through models optimized for high-usage products, while continuing to use frontier models for frontier needs," Nadella wrote, adding that Microsoft is "beginning to route traffic across our first-party surfaces to MAI whenever our models match or outperform frontier alternatives."</p><p>Translated from executive prose: capabilities that were state-of-the-art a year ago are now table stakes, and Microsoft believes it can replicate them cheaply for the specific, repetitive tasks that dominate real product usage. Why pay frontier prices for a frontier model when a user just wants to reformat a spreadsheet column?</p><p>Nadella was careful to note that "frontier models from OpenAI and Anthropic are part of the orchestration system alongside MAI" — but he also articulated a pointed principle of model independence, arguing that a company's evaluations "should continue to hill climb even when any given model has been removed." </p><p>“Keeping the harness, memory, context, and skills outside the model, he argued, is what gives Microsoft control. The subtext is hard to miss. Reuters reported in April that Microsoft’s <a href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/microsoft-end-exclusive-license-openais-technology-2026-04-27/">exclusive license to OpenAI’s technology</a> had been revised into a non-exclusive arrangement, and The Information reported last September that Microsoft had <a href="https://www.theinformation.com/articles/microsoft-buy-ai-anthropic-shift-openai">begun incorporating Anthropic models</a> into some products. Wednesday’s announcement completes the triangle: Microsoft as orchestrator, with its partners’ frontier models as interchangeable components and its own models absorbing an ever-larger share of routine traffic.”</p><h2><b>Developers cheer cheaper task-specific models while skeptics question Microsoft's track record</b></h2><p>The response online captured both the appeal and the skepticism surrounding the strategy. "I love when people use small models for niche tasks," wrote one X user, <a href="https://x.com/mavihsk/status/2080330529547993252">@mavihsk</a>, responding to Nadella's post. "Why do I have to use the all-knowing model just to change my field in Excel?" Another user, <a href="https://x.com/nabu_lines/status/2080343512780837226">@nabu_lines</a>, distilled the pitch neatly: "cost and performance both improve when you stop overusing the biggest model."</p><p>Others were less charitable about Microsoft's execution track record. "Microsoft is the worst when it comes to listening to user feedback," wrote designer <a href="https://x.com/designedbyabin/status/2080332368301412434">@designedbyabin</a>, arguing the company "will lose the AI race because they repeatedly failed to understand user needs." And one user, <a href="https://x.com/tokenoverflow/status/2080386145712824694">@tokenoverflow</a>, offered a drier critique of the model-independence pitch: "i want it keep hill climbing after removing microsoft."</p><p>The skeptics raise a fair point. Microsoft's self-reported metrics — accept rates, save rates, GPU savings — come from its own internal evaluations, not independent benchmarks, and the company chooses which comparisons to publish.</p><p>But the strategy's logic does not depend on any single number. Nadella's framing that software now has "<a href="https://x.com/satyanadella/status/2080329851127669104">real marginal cost for the first time</a>" explains why Microsoft is obsessive about tokens, GPUs, and serving costs: when AI features run on every keystroke across a billion-user product portfolio, an 84% GPU cost reduction is not an optimization. It is the difference between a viable business and a money pit.</p><h2><b>Why Microsoft is turning its internal AI playbook into an Azure product</b></h2><p>The final piece of the strategy is that Microsoft is selling the playbook, not just the models. Nadella explicitly positioned the hill-climbing approach as "a template for every other AI native, SaaS, or Enterprise company," and Microsoft is packaging the toolchain through Foundry and what it calls Frontier Tuning — letting enterprises train specialized models against their own proprietary evaluations and reinforcement learning environments. That turns Microsoft's internal cost-cutting exercise into an Azure product, and it gives enterprise customers a reason to run their AI workloads on Microsoft's cloud even if the models themselves come from elsewhere.</p><p>The company's emphasis on models trained "on clean, traceable, enterprise-grade data, without distillation from third-party models" serves the same commercial end. In an industry facing mounting scrutiny over training data provenance, Microsoft is betting that enterprise buyers — and courts — will care where model capabilities come from. Microsoft says it is now extending the hill-climbing approach to <a href="https://copilot.microsoft.com/">Copilot Chat</a>, <a href="https://outlook.live.com/mail/">Outlook</a>, and <a href="https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/powerpoint">PowerPoint</a>, and both new models are available in public preview through <a href="https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/products/ai-foundry">Microsoft Foundry</a> and the <a href="https://playground.microsoft.ai/">MAI Playground</a>. "None of this is an endpoint," the company wrote. "We're just getting started."</p><p>Seven years ago, <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/10/rise-of-openai-microsofts-13-billion-artificial-intelligence-bet.html">Microsoft bet more than $13 billion</a> that OpenAI would build the future of AI. Wednesday's announcement suggests the company has since learned a cheaper lesson: the future of AI may belong to whoever builds the frontier, but the profits belong to whoever makes it ordinary.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Niri could redefine tiling window management]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[I’m a big fan of an efficient window handling. There are many different philosophies out there on how to do it from the traditional master plus stack window managers to zone based window snapping tools to some auto tiling solution that lives somewhere between those.  Then there is Niri. For anyon...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3690397/linux-tipps/niri-could-redefine-tiling-window-management/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3690397/linux-tipps/niri-could-redefine-tiling-window-management/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 00:45:49 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🐧 Linux Tipps</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<!-- SC_OFF --><div class="md"><p>I’m a big fan of an efficient window handling. There are many different philosophies out there on how to do it from the traditional master plus stack window managers to zone based window snapping tools to some auto tiling solution that lives somewhere between those. </p> <p>Then there is Niri. For anyone who may not know, Niri is a Wayland compositor that takes a new approach to window tiling. By default, it opens windows at 50% of your screen width and tiles them infinitely to the right, allowing you to scroll focus on them by pressing super + arrow keys. Of course you can stack them, rearrange them, toggle full screen, force focused window to take up all remaining space on screen, and it boasts vertical workspaces. </p> <p>I have been using Niri with Dank Material Shell (DMS) for the last month and now I am not sure I could ever go back to the traditional master + stacked window tiling philosophy. I just tried and it feels awkward, limiting, and cluttered. It even beats more full featured desktop environment tiling options in Gnome and KDE in my opinion because I don’t have to alt + tab to find the window I want to focus on. </p> <p>If you haven’t given it a try, you should. I didn’t think I would like it very much, but I got used to it after a few days, kept it for a couple of weeks, and now it has become my favorite way to work. </p> </div><!-- SC_ON -->   submitted by   <a href="https://www.reddit.com/user/kylerjohnsondev"> /u/kylerjohnsondev </a> <br> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1v4t3gu/niri_could_redefine_tiling_window_management/">[link]</a></span>   <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1v4t3gu/niri_could_redefine_tiling_window_management/">[comments]</a></span>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[EU Fines Google $1 Billion For Breaking Digital Antitrust Regulations]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[The European Union fined Google more than $1 billion for allegedly using Google Play and Search to steer users toward its own services and apps at the expense of competitors. The Associated Press reports: Google had recently lost its appeal of a $4.5 billion antitrust fine imposed by the EU for t...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3690226/it-security-nachrichten/eu-fines-google-1-billion-for-breaking-digital-antitrust-regulations/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3690226/it-security-nachrichten/eu-fines-google-1-billion-for-breaking-digital-antitrust-regulations/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 23:07:00 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[The European Union fined Google more than $1 billion for allegedly using Google Play and Search to steer users toward its own services and apps at the expense of competitors. The Associated Press reports: Google had recently lost its appeal of a $4.5 billion antitrust fine imposed by the EU for throttling competition and reducing consumer choice through the dominance of its mobile Android operating system. The European Commission, the bloc's executive branch and highest antitrust enforcer, said it was acting in the interest of consumers after an investigation of Google.
 
"The best products should succeed because they're better, not because they're owned by the company running the search engine. And European consumers have a right to be told by app developers where to sign up to the best offers, even when the app store owner does not get a cut," said Teresa Ribera, the commission's Executive Vice President for Clean, Just and Competitive Transition.
 
Google's President of Global Affairs Kent Walker blasted the fine as "product degradation driven by a small group of self-serving complainants" that will have a negative impact on European businesses and consumers. He said that the EU's Digital Markets Act forces Google "to strip away real-time search features Europeans love -- like instant pricing and direct availability for hotels, flights, and restaurants -- and dismantle safety protections on Google Play."<p></p><div class="share_submission">
<a class="slashpop" href="http://twitter.com/home?status=EU+Fines+Google+%241+Billion+For+Breaking+Digital+Antitrust+Regulations%3A+https%3A%2F%2Fsearch.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F26%2F07%2F23%2F2034235%2F%3Futm_source%3Dtwitter%26utm_medium%3Dtwitter"><img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/twitter_icon_large.png"></a>
<a class="slashpop" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fsearch.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F26%2F07%2F23%2F2034235%2Feu-fines-google-1-billion-for-breaking-digital-antitrust-regulations%3Futm_source%3Dslashdot%26utm_medium%3Dfacebook"><img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/facebook_icon_large.png"></a>



</div><p><a href="https://search.slashdot.org/story/26/07/23/2034235/eu-fines-google-1-billion-for-breaking-digital-antitrust-regulations?utm_source=rss1.0moreanon&amp;utm_medium=feed">Read more of this story</a> at Slashdot.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Check Point hole grants unauthenticated attackers full SmartConsole admin privileges]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Check Point has confirmed that a critical security hole in its SmartConsole management tool, one that allows unauthenticated attackers to assume full admin privileges, is now being exploited in the wild. The vulnerability, CVE-2026-16232, was given a CVSS score of 9.3.



In its security alert, C...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3690156/it-security-nachrichten/check-point-hole-grants-unauthenticated-attackers-full-smartconsole-admin-privileges/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3690156/it-security-nachrichten/check-point-hole-grants-unauthenticated-attackers-full-smartconsole-admin-privileges/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 22:25:55 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Check Point has confirmed that a critical security hole in its SmartConsole management tool, one that <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog?field_cve=CVE-2026-16232" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">allows unauthenticated attackers</a> to assume full admin privileges, is now being exploited in the wild. The vulnerability, <a href="https://github.com/advisories/ghsa-m2xx-23gx-734v" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">CVE-2026-16232</a>, was given a CVSS score of 9.3.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In its security alert, <a href="https://support.checkpoint.com/results/sk/sk185169/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Check Point described</a> the bug as one allowing an unauthenticated attacker to “obtain an application login token and use it to login via SmartConsole with full admin privileges and apply changes to the security policy and security configuration.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The company has <a href="https://sc1.checkpoint.com/documents/Jumbo_HFA/R82.10/R82.10/R82.10-List-of-all-Resolved-Issues.htm" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">released a patch</a> for the bug and also recommends that users “limit Trusted Clients, GUI clients, to trusted IP addresses/subnets.” That approach has always been a best practice, but practical networking realities today make it challenging to maintain. <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/4195311/check-point-cto-jonathan-zanger-sees-ai-elevating-the-value-of-cyber.html" target="_blank">Check Point</a> said that the exploit has impacted ten of its customers, all of whom it had notified directly.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Far worse than most</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://my.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=PRF004767" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Frank Dickson</a>, group VP for security at IDC, said this security hole is far worse than most.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“This hits harder than your average CVE because of where it lives,” he said. “The CVE targets the SmartConsole login on Check Point’s Security Management Server, the console that pushes policy to every gateway underneath it. Popping a gateway gets you one lock picked. Popping the management server is more like finding the One Ring: one stolen token to rule every gateway it manages, no need to fight each one individually. The attacker can rewrite policy, open new VPN paths and kill the logging.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In an interview with CSO Online, <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/lotem-finkelstein-05797a85/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Lotem Finkelstein</a>, vice president of research at Check Point, said that the company learned of the vulnerability on Sunday, emailed customers the same day, and released the patch within 72 hours.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But when his team re-reviewed earlier logs, knowing what to look for, they spotted this hole being attacked as early as April, Finkelstein said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The fact that, over the course of three months, the team only found ten organizations under attack, indicated that it has been very difficult for the attacker to find vulnerable systems, he noted; customers were, in the main, using secure settings to protect themselves.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Nonetheless, Finkelstein said, Check Point considers this hole to be “a severe vulnerability.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Challenges of IP address restrictions</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">While it can be technically challenging to keep the IP address allowlists that Check Point recommends current, given DHCP’s ability to easily change those addresses, <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/assafmo/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Assaf Morag</a>, a cybersecurity researcher at Flare, noted that specifically limiting access to a management console is far more critical than limiting overall external access.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Implementing Trusted Clients as a per-IP allowlist is impractical,” he said, but that is not the case with restricting management access. “The more scalable solution is to restrict access based on trusted administrative network segments such as VPN pools, management VLANs, or jump hosts rather than maintaining lists of individual DHCP-assigned client addresses,” he explained. “That gives you the security benefit without creating a full-time administrative task. Maintaining allowlists for individual hosts is much more practical when those hosts have stable, predictable IP addresses, rather than dynamically assigned DHCP addresses.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/pieter-arntz-04164b2/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Pieter Arntz</a>, malware intelligence researcher at Malwarebytes, also noted that the constantly changing nature of global IP addresses can prove annoying to IT teams. Stressing that he is not familiar with Check Point’s specific settings, he noted, “Certain settings are a nuisance when applied strictly, and at some point the IT staff gets tired of constantly tweaking and they abandon the most secure path.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Ideal platform for long-term attacks</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/eclectiqus/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Mike Wilkes</a>, enterprise CISO at Aikido Security,  agreed that the severity and exposure of this hole is alarming.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“This is exactly the kind of vulnerability that keeps CISOs awake at night because it strikes at the one system that is supposed to stand between the attacker and everything else. An authentication bypass that grants administrative control of a perimeter firewall isn’t just another CVE to patch. It’s an invitation for an adversary to rewrite the rules of the network itself,” he said. “The uncomfortable reality is that nobody runs a CrowdStrike agent on their firewall. Once an attacker owns an edge device, they gain a uniquely privileged position that often falls outside the visibility of traditional endpoint security, making it an ideal platform for persistence, credential theft, traffic manipulation, and long-term espionage.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">IDC’s Dickson strongly encouraged CISOs to deploy the patch, not to just change settings to mitigate the issue. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Apply the actual hotfix,” he said. “Don’t just restrict Trusted Client IPs and call it done. That’s a stopgap, not a fix. Any internet-facing management console, Check Point or otherwise, is a five-alarm architecture problem independent of this CVE.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">And, he added, “since attackers here can disable logging, audit admin activity going back before the bug surfaced. Quiet logs aren’t proof nothing happened. This is the recurring theme with ‘single pane of glass’ security tools: the console built to make everything easier to run is also the one thing you really don’t want someone else driving.”</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Black Forest Labs launches FLUX 3 capable of generating images and 20-second video with audio — but in limited release to start]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Black Forest Labs (BFL) is expanding its FLUX family beyond image generation with today's launch of FLUX 3, a multimodal frontier model trained to understand and generate images, or combined audio/video clips up to 20 seconds from a single prompt — and to extend the same underlying architecture t...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3690017/it-nachrichten/black-forest-labs-launches-flux-3-capable-of-generating-images-and-20-second-video-with-audio-but-in-limited-release-to-start/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3690017/it-nachrichten/black-forest-labs-launches-flux-3-capable-of-generating-images-and-20-second-video-with-audio-but-in-limited-release-to-start/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 20:48:22 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Black Forest Labs (BFL) is expanding its FLUX family beyond image generation with <a href="https://bfl.ai/blog/flux-3">today's launch of FLUX 3</a>, a multimodal frontier model trained to understand and generate images, or combined audio/video clips up to 20 seconds from a single prompt — and to extend the same underlying architecture to robotic vision and actions.</p><p>The Freiburg, Germany-based AI lab says FLUX 3 is jointly trained across those modalities rather than assembling separate image, video and audio models behind a common interface. </p><p>That distinction is central to the company's pitch: BFL wants enterprises to think about creative generation, simulation, computer use and robotics as connected applications of a single capability it calls visual intelligence — models, in the company's words, "that can perceive, predict, and act across physical and digital environments." This release marks BFL's first public video generation model. </p><div></div><p>FLUX 3 will be offered through four product lines: FLUX 3 Video, FLUX 3 Image, FLUX 3 Action and the upcoming, open source FLUX 3 Dev. FLUX 3 Video, with optional native audio generation, and FLUX 3 Action are entering a <a href="https://tally.so/r/44d9NX">gated "Early Access" program now</a>, to which anyone can apply, but which BFL must approve. </p><p>There is presently no public access through BFL's application programming interface (API) or those of partners yet, but the company says FLUX 3 Image will roll out in the coming weeks, followed by general availability. The limited initial availability rollout echoes the release strategies of new models from other frontier labs in the U.S. lately, including <a href="https://venturebeat.com/technology/anthropic-says-its-most-powerful-ai-cyber-model-is-too-dangerous-to-release">Anthropic</a> and <a href="https://venturebeat.com/technology/openai-unveils-gpt-5-6-sol-terra-and-luna-models-but-only-accessible-to-limited-preview-partners-for-now-per-us-gov">OpenAI</a>, though those were ostensibly for security concerns and due to government request. </p><p>What the company has not announced is pricing, production service-level commitments, evaluation methodology, sample sizes, rater counts or any image-model benchmarks at all. Enterprise buyers therefore cannot yet calculate total cost of ownership or independently reproduce the video comparisons.</p><p>Another big notable omission: FLUX 3 is <i>not</i> launching with downloadable weights at this time, nor an open source license. BFL says faster and open-weight versions will arrive later this year, and its technical blog names FLUX 3 Dev as "open-weight access to a multimodal backbone, for content creation (video, audio and image) and action prediction" — a considerably broader commitment than any previous FLUX Dev release, all of which covered images only.</p><p>But it arrives last in the sequence. Developers accustomed to receiving a locally deployable FLUX variant alongside — or soon after — a major model announcement will have to wait. That delay does not negate the company's commitment, but it is disappointing given the role open weights have played in FLUX's adoption thus far. </p><h2><b>Flux 3 is rated higher than the competition, but missing pricing and benchmarking details may prevent rapid enterprise adoption</b></h2><p>BFL has published several benchmark comparisons, but they're qualified as preliminary — with full benchmark results and methodology to be published later during broader general availability. </p><p>In early head-to-head preference testing on 10-second, 720p text-to-video clips with audio, the company says FLUX 3 was preferred over Luma Ray 3.2 in 93% of comparisons, Runway Gen-4.5 in 77%, Grok Imagine Video in 69%, Kling v3 Pro in 60%, Happy Horse v1 in 59%, Happy Horse 1.1 in 57%, and both Seedance 2.0 and Google's Gemini Omni Flash in 52%.</p><p>One caveat travels with every one of those figures, and it comes from BFL itself. The chart carrying the results is labeled a "preliminary evaluation of an early FLUX 3 candidate" — meaning the numbers describe a pre-release checkpoint rather than the model now entering early access. That cuts both ways: the shipping model may perform better, but nothing published today measures what customers will actually call.</p><p>Luma Ray 3.2 and Runway Gen-4.5, where FLUX 3 posted 93% and 77%, are the softest comparisons on the list — established products, but not the models currently setting the pace in independent video rankings. Those are real wins, and they are the ones least likely to change an enterprise shortlist.</p><p>Seedance 2.0, at 52%, is a statistical coin flip against a model most Western enterprises cannot currently procure. ByteDance indefinitely postponed Seedance 2.0's international rollout after Netflix, Warner Bros., Disney, Paramount and Sony sent legal threats over alleged systematic copyright infringement, and that suspension remains in place. Tying a frozen product is neither a strong claim nor a damaging one.</p><p><a href="https://venturebeat.com/technology/googles-gemini-omni-flash-hits-the-api-turning-enterprise-video-production-into-a-conversation">Gemini Omni Flash</a>, also at 52%, matters much more. Omni is the closest large-platform analogue to what FLUX 3 is attempting — multimodal input, video and audio-aware creation, conversational editing — and by BFL's own measurement, the two are indistinguishable on 10-second text-to-video quality. </p><p>Google's advantage in that matchup is that Omni is generally available via Google's Gemini API for $0.10 per second of generated 720p video, or a 10-second clip for around.</p><p>One regional wrinkle matters for a German company's home market. Editing <i>uploaded</i> video is unavailable to Omni Flash users in the European Economic Area, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, though editing video the model itself generated is permitted. A European enterprise that wants to run its existing footage through a generative editing pass cannot currently do so on Omni Flash.</p><p>Here's a rough guide for enterprises considering which video models to rely upon: </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><b>Model</b></p></td><td><p><b>Max single-generation duration</b></p></td><td><p><b>Max resolution</b></p></td><td><p><b>Key constraints</b></p></td><td><p><b>Price per 10-second clip (720p)</b></p></td><td><p><b>Price per 10-second clip (1080p)</b></p></td><td><p><b>Price per 10-second clip (4K)</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>FLUX 3 Video </p></td><td><p><b>20 seconds </b></p></td><td><p>Not stated; evaluations run at 720p </p></td><td><p>Early access; no published SLA or pricing </p></td><td><p>Not announced </p></td><td><p>Not announced </p></td><td><p>Not announced </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>HappyHorse 1.1 </p></td><td><p>15 seconds </p></td><td><p>1080p </p></td><td><p>No 4K; closed weights </p></td><td><p>Not published (v1.0 reseller rate is ~$1.82) </p></td><td><p>Not published (v1.0 reseller rate is ~$3.12) </p></td><td><p>n/a </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Veo 3.1 </p></td><td><p>Per-second billing </p></td><td><p><b>4K</b> </p></td><td><p><b>Supports clip extension; preview </b></p></td><td><p>$4.00 </p></td><td><p>$4.00 </p></td><td><p>$6.00 </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Veo 3.1 Fast </p></td><td><p>Per-second billing </p></td><td><p><b>4K </b></p></td><td><p>Preview </p></td><td><p>$1.00 </p></td><td><p>$1.20 </p></td><td><p><b>$3.00 </b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Veo 3.1 Lite </p></td><td><p>Per-second billing </p></td><td><p>1080p </p></td><td><p>No 4K, no clip extension; preview </p></td><td><p><b>$0.50 </b></p></td><td><p><b>$0.80 </b></p></td><td><p>n/a </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Gemini Omni Flash </p></td><td><p>10 seconds (3s minimum) </p></td><td><p>720p at 24 FPS </p></td><td><p>Preview abd no EU access</p></td><td><p>$1.00 </p></td><td><p>n/a </p></td><td><p>n/a </p></td></tr></tbody></table><h2><b>One architecture for media generation and physical action</b></h2><p>FLUX 3 builds on <a href="https://venturebeat.com/technology/black-forest-labs-new-self-flow-technique-makes-training-multimodal-ai">Self-Flow</a>, BFL's method for aligning multimodal understanding and generation within one architecture, publicized back in March 2026. </p><p>The company says it significantly scaled up compute and data to train across video, images and audio simultaneously, and that testing showed video generation and action prediction do not require separate foundations — the same architecture could be extended to action prediction without sacrificing what it learned from video.</p><p>"We place vision at the center of our approach because it is the most signal-rich medium of the physical world. Images convey structure, images and video teach spatial relationships, video teaches dynamics, and actions reveal causal relationships. But vision alone is not the complete picture," said Robin Rombach, co-founder and CEO of BFL, in a pre-release statement provided to VentureBeat. "True intelligence means perceiving the world: predicting how it will change, taking action, and learning from the results. Joint training within one unified architecture is what will get us there, because each training modality strengthens the others. Audio conveys timing, prosody, and physical events that elude vision. Language conveys goals, abstractions, and instructions that pixels cannot easily express."</p><p>He put the case more bluntly elsewhere in the announcement: "You can't cheat reality. A model that only learns images can only generate images. But the world is not made of still frames. It moves, sounds, changes, and responds."</p><p>BFL says FLUX 3 targets creative tooling, media, design, e-commerce and physical AI, supporting video generation with synchronized audio, precise image editing, product and material consistency across motion, multilingual generation and robotic action prediction. It is already being tested by Canva, Burda, Magnific (formerly Freepik), Krea and Picsart.</p><p>For creative software companies, the appeal is consolidation. A single foundation could potentially support storyboarding, image editing, product rendering, video variation and localization without repeatedly translating assets and instructions between disconnected models.</p><p>For robotics teams, the potential value is data efficiency. Models that already encode motion, object behavior and physical change may need less task-specific robot training than systems starting from raw demonstrations.</p><h2><b>What FLUX 3 Video can actually do</b></h2><p>The video tier is the most concretely specified part of the launch, and it settles a question that had been circulating as rumor: FLUX 3 generates clips of up to 20 seconds with audio in a single generation. </p><p>Every video output comes with native audio. For comparison, HappyHorse 1.0 tops out at 15 seconds of 1080p with synchronized audio — though BFL has not stated what resolution its 20-second clips run at, and its published evaluations were conducted at 720p. Still, a 20-second long clip from a single prompt is among the longest yet achieved, matching <a href="https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/guides/video-generation">OpenAI's discontinued Sora model.</a></p><p>The capability list BFL published covers:</p><ul><li><p>Text-to-video generation.</p></li><li><p>Image-to-video generation, either animating from a starting frame or using images as visual references.</p></li><li><p>Video-to-video generation from a reference clip, carrying elements such as a specific character into a new scene or context.</p></li><li><p>Generative video-audio continuation from existing video and audio input.</p></li><li><p>Keyframe-to-video generation for controlled transitions between defined moments.</p></li><li><p> Multilingual dialogue.</p></li><li><p>A broad range of visual styles and aspect ratios, from candid camcorder footage to animation and cinematics.</p></li><li><p>Typography generation and animated design.</p></li><li><p>Agentic chaining of individual clips into longer, multi-shot sequences.</p></li></ul><p>That last item is the one enterprise video teams should look at hardest. BFL claims the capabilities combine to produce sequences lasting several minutes, with visual references keeping characters consistent across scenes. If that holds up under production conditions, it addresses the constraint that has kept generative video out of most commercial pipelines: not clip quality, but continuity across shots.</p><p>It is also the capability where competition is most direct. HappyHorse 1.1's headline upgrade is R2V, or Reference-to-Video, which accepts multiple character reference images to hold identity stable across generated footage — the same problem, approached at the input layer rather than through agentic clip chaining. Alibaba also claims zero-drift lip sync and has specifically targeted the artifacts that mark commercial AI video as synthetic, including facial oiliness and over-sharpening. Character consistency is where this category is being contested, and both companies know it.</p><p>BFL says FLUX 3 Video is already particularly strong at human facial expressions, associating sounds with physical events, and multilingual output. On the image side, the company says preliminary evaluations conducted during midtraining show significant improvement over earlier FLUX versions in complex prompt handling and text generation, including high-accuracy text in multiple languages. It published no image benchmarks or win rates.</p><h2><b>FLUX-mimic tests whether video models can become robot models</b></h2><p>BFL is applying its unified-architecture thesis through FLUX-mimic, a video-action model built on FLUX 3 and developed with Swiss firm Mimic Robotics, one of the first partners to receive early access.</p><p>The technical blog describes two distinct routes to action prediction: integrating native action prediction directly into FLUX 3, scaling up the initial Self-Flow work; and using the pretrained video backbone as a dynamics-aware foundation from which specialized action models can be finetuned with limited task-specific data. FLUX-mimic is the second route — the FLUX 3 backbone combined with mimic's robot-learning and production-deployment expertise in dexterous manipulation.</p><p>FLUX-mimic is designed for general-purpose robotic manipulation: helping robots understand a visual scene, predict the consequences of an action, and adapt to new tasks with far less task-specific data. </p><p>BFL and Mimic Robotics say that depending on task difficulty, the model can be finetuned for a specific manipulation task with as little as 30 minutes of robot data, where prior approaches have required 30 or more hours.</p><p>"The hardest part of robotics is data," said Elvis Nava, CTO of Mimic Robotics, in a statement provided to VentureBeat. "Every new task normally means hours of a robot repeating itself. Because FLUX-mimic is built on top of frontier video models that already understand how the physical world behaves, it picks up a new task in minutes, not days. This way, we can leapfrog the current state of the art in robot learning."</p><p>BFL<!-- --> argues that a model trained only on images cannot understand a world that "moves, sounds, changes, and responds," and that physical understanding is what produces convincing generated footage. Google makes a nearly identical claim for Gemini Omni. </p><p>Its developer documentation cites "world knowledge" that combines "an understanding of physics" with Gemini's grasp of history, science and cultural context. Its marketing is blunter still: "Most AI models just predict the next pixel to build a narrative or an image. Gemini Omni is different," the company posted in June, crediting the model with "an intuitive understanding of forces like gravity, kinetic energy, and fluid dynamics for more realistic movements that follow real-world logic." </p><p>The practical consequence for enterprise buyers is that world-model language is not a differentiator. Two of the three leading video systems now market physical understanding as their central advantage, and neither has published a benchmark that measures it. </p><p>There is no standard test for whether generated water behaves like water, whether a dropped object falls at a plausible rate, or whether a sound arrives when the impact does. Human preference ratings capture some of it indirectly. Nothing else on offer captures it at all.</p><h2><b>Open weights helped make FLUX an industry standard</b></h2><p>BFL<a href="https://venturebeat.com/technology/s"> officially launched in summer 2024 </a>and gained a name for itself in the AI industry in the intervening two years for its commitment to open sourcing high-quality AI image models beloved by developers, creatives, and enterprises. </p><p>The company's founders, including Rombach, Andreas Blattmann and Patrick Esser, previously helped create VQGAN, latent diffusion and <a href="https://venturebeat.com/business/stable-diffusion-creators-launch-black-forest-labs-secure-31m-for-flux-1-ai-image-generator">Stable Diffusion</a>, the latter the open source technology that kicked off broad AI generation capabilities for the masses and currently used by many AI image generators and companies. </p><p>That reach translated into commercial distribution. FLUX models now power generative features inside Adobe Photoshop, Picsart and Nous Research's Hermes Agent, among other platforms, and the company cites film director Martin Scorsese among professional users.</p><p><a href="https://www.wired.com/story/black-forest-labs-ai-image-generation/"><i>Wired</i></a> magazine described Black Forest Labs as a relatively small company that nevertheless became a leading competitor to Silicon Valley's largest AI labs, with FLUX models ranking near the top of image benchmarks and becoming some of the most downloaded text-to-image models on AI code sharing community Hugging Face. The company says it now runs a 100-person team across Freiburg and San Francisco.</p><p>FLUX.1 Dev, FLUX.1 Kontext Dev, FLUX.1 Fill Dev and related control models, <a href="https://venturebeat.com/business/black-forest-labs-releases-flux-1-1-pro-and-an-api">released shortly after the firm's launch,</a>  gave researchers and creative-tool developers access to downloadable checkpoints, local inference and integrations with frameworks including Hugging Face Diffusers and ComfyUI. FLUX.1 Kontext Dev, for example, was released as an open-weight model for research and noncommercial use, with generated outputs permitted for commercial purposes under the applicable license.</p><p>The company continued that pattern with <a href="https://venturebeat.com/ai/black-forest-labs-launches-flux-2-ai-image-models-to-challenge-nano-banana">FLUX.2 Dev</a> in late 2025, a 32-billion-parameter open-weight model combining generation and multi-reference editing. Black Forest Labs called it the strongest open-weight image generation and editing model available at launch and released weights, reference inference code and optimized implementations for consumer Nvidia GPUs.</p><p>FLUX 3 Dev raises the stakes on that evaluation. Previous Dev releases were image models. This one is described as a multimodal backbone spanning video, audio, image and action prediction — meaning a single license will govern whether a company can locally deploy a model that touches both content production and physical machinery.  BFL hasn't yet shared information about its license, the parameter count, quantizations or hardware requirements.</p><p>The company frames open weights as an enterprise feature rather than a community gesture, arguing they enable secure, low-latency local deployment for applications like robotic control systems and let teams adapt FLUX 3 to their own data, products and workflows. </p><p>The financial backing behind FLUX 3 is worth noting alongside the technical claims. Black Forest Labs is valued at $3.25 billion and has raised more than $450 million from investors including a16z, AMP, Salesforce Ventures, Nvidia, General Catalyst, Adobe Ventures, Figma Ventures, Canva and Deutsche Telekom's T.Capital.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[An AI now judges every move Rubrik's agents make, its AI chief said at VB Transform 2026 — but no one's measured if the judge is right]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[At a CISO roundtable organized by Anthropic's chief information security officer, Dev Rishi asked a simple question: Did everyone in the room have their AI governance and security policies written down? Every hand went up — about 14 people, by his count. His follow-up, about how anyone actually e...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3689833/it-nachrichten/an-ai-now-judges-every-move-rubriks-agents-make-its-ai-chief-said-at-vb-transform-2026-but-no-ones-measured-if-the-judge-is-right/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3689833/it-nachrichten/an-ai-now-judges-every-move-rubriks-agents-make-its-ai-chief-said-at-vb-transform-2026-but-no-ones-measured-if-the-judge-is-right/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 19:19:49 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>At a CISO roundtable organized by Anthropic's chief information security officer, Dev Rishi asked a simple question: Did everyone in the room have their AI governance and security policies written down? Every hand went up — about 14 people, by his count. His follow-up, about how anyone actually enforces those policies in practice, got a different response. "And everybody chuckled," Rishi, the GM of AI at <a href="https://www.rubrik.com/company">Rubrik</a>, recalled at <a href="https://venturebeat.com/vbtransform2026">VB Transform 2026</a> fireside chat in Menlo Park. "It was like the dirty secret in the room that everyone has these policies, but no way to actually make them real."</p><p>“Our founder and CTO has actually been really pushing to enable our agents in YOLO mode,” Rishi told the audience. That admission comes from a publicly traded data security firm whose business is backing up what he called the most important data in the world.</p><p>YOLO mode strips the permission prompt out of agent workflows and lets the agent act on its own. In Rubrik's version, a second AI judges every action in real time against policy in place of a human clicking approve. Rubrik is running the experiment on itself first. Rishi treats autonomy as a settled capability question and an open judgment question. "If you ask the agent to act autonomously, it will," he said. "It's a question that you have internally. Should it?"</p><p>Rubrik earned that question the hard way. When <a href="https://claude.com/product/claude-code">Claude Code</a> and <a href="https://www.anthropic.com/product/claude-cowork">Cowork</a> pilots rolled out, the company required every command to run in ask mode so the employee issuing it carried the liability, and the developer pushback filled a single Slack thread 120 messages deep. </p><p>"The developers basically are pushing back, and they're like, this is like the iTunes service agreement. I'm just hitting check, check, check, check, check, check, check," Rishi said. "There's no way that I can actually read through this. And it becomes security theater." Roughly 80% of respondents are in the same bind, Rishi said, citing <a href="https://www.rubrik.com/company/newsroom/press-releases/26/as-agentic-ai-adoption-accelerates-rubrik-warns-of-growing-security-gaps">Rubrik Zero Labs research</a> that found monitoring and approving agent actions takes more time than the agents save. The State of the Agent, the April report behind that figure, surveyed more than 1,600 IT and security leaders.</p><p>SAGE is the reason Rubrik trusts the bet. Short for Semantic AI Governance Engine, SAGE is the arbitration layer inside <a href="https://www.rubrik.com/products/rubrik-agent-cloud">Rubrik Agent Cloud</a> that watches every action an agent takes and reads the semantic intent behind it, then rules the action in or out against policies written in natural language. "We took what people said was human in the loop, a good idea, and we replaced it with AI in the loop," Rishi said, describing the pitch to security chiefs he characterized as skittish about non-deterministic systems.</p><h2>Security approval, not cost, blocks AI ROI</h2><p>Rishi’s path to Rubrik ran through <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2025/06/25/rubrik-acquires-predibase-to-accelerate-adoption-of-ai-agents/">Predibase</a>, the generative AI infrastructure startup he co-founded and ran as CEO until Rubrik agreed to acquire it in June 2025. Before that, he led ML product at Google on the team that became Vertex AI, served as Kaggle's first product manager as it grew from about one million to ten million users, and holds bachelor's and master's degrees in computer science from Harvard. </p><p>Over roughly his first three and a half months at Rubrik, Rishi set up 200 customer conversations with IT and security leaders across a customer base that looks like the Global 2000, asking open-ended questions about cost, latency, performance, and orchestration. "Pretty consistently, what I heard through all of those conversations was that all of those are pretty secondary," he said. "The main challenge is actually, how do I get this approved from a security and risk standpoint? I'm concerned about all the different things that could go wrong. Actually, I felt like that was one of the biggest things constraining ROI."</p><p><a href="https://venturebeat.com/orchestration/wall-street-is-debating-the-ai-buildout-enterprises-just-answered-86-say-their-gpus-run-at-half-capacity-or-less">VentureBeat Pulse research</a> presented on the Transform stage earlier in the day confirms the gap Rishi kept hearing. Two-thirds of enterprises, 66%, already allow or are actively building toward production deployment with zero human review, yet only 5% fully trust the automated evaluations that would make that decision. </p><h2>One AI reading what the rulebook can't</h2><p>Rubrik's own policies exposed why written rules fail as enforcement. One internal rule states that agents should respect Rubrik's customer data use policy, which sounds enforceable until someone tries. "Rubrik's customer data use policy is like a three-page document of legal text," Rishi said. "I have no idea how to write that in there as a rule." Asked on stage how a team of AI infrastructure people took on a problem that security engineers own, Rishi answered, "with a lot of naivety and innocence, honestly." His team bet that models good at understanding language could police other models, and SAGE became the answer.</p><p>The case for putting a model in the judgment seat comes down to precision. A rule like "agents should not be able to edit revenue fields in Salesforce" fails in conventional tooling because Salesforce does not delineate which fields count as revenue, Rishi explained, so administrators fall back on approving every Salesforce action by hand. SAGE reads the intent instead and acts as a judge, carrying organizational context, which can tell a benign lookup from the edit the policy prohibits.</p><p>Keeping the judge small is what makes the economics work. <!-- -->SAGE runs on a small language model that Rishi said operates at an order of magnitude lower cost and latency than a frontier LLM. "If I told you, don't worry, you're gonna be secure and governed, but I'm gonna double your cost and latency, you would tell me to get out of the room," Rishi said.</p><p>When Rishi asked who in the audience had worried about token consumption over the past year, half the hands went up. "And I guess the other half is probably just too lazy to raise their hand," he said.</p><p>SAGE is an aggregation of judges based on parameter-efficient fine-tuning that Rubrik uses to take on task-specific variants of a base model with shared organizational context. One judge watches for tool-use hallucinations while another suppresses PII before it can leave, each running as its own enforceable policy. Security and GRC teams have started writing financial rules into the same layer, including one internal policy barring AI spend on personal projects.</p><h2>The lethal trifecta</h2><p>Asked which attacks worry him most, Rishi pointed at the <a href="https://simonwillison.net/2025/Jun/16/the-lethal-trifecta/">lethal trifecta</a>, the term security researcher Simon Willison coined in June 2025 for an agent that holds private data while taking in content nobody vetted, with a channel to send what it finds to the outside world. The danger, according to Rishi, is what happens when individually legitimate permissions stack. An agent granted Salesforce access and email access on an employee's credentials has done nothing wrong yet, with <i>yet</i> being the operative word. "A very simple example is that an agent can start pulling data from Salesforce and then decide to accidentally leak and exfiltrate that out via an email," he told the audience. A financial services company he met the morning of the session made the point for him, telling Rishi that none of the individual permissions are bad on their own and the agent needs every one of them to do its job. "It should have permission to each of those systems, but it's the combination that ends up becoming really destructive," Rishi said.</p><p>Traditional identity and access management never priced in that combination because it relied on the judgment of the employee holding the credentials, Rishi argued, and agents supply none. "I can tell you the number of times Claude Code has tried to leak some of our sensitive source code to a public GitHub repository is incredibly high," he said. Cutting agents off from public resources entirely would defeat their purpose, which returns the problem to adjudicating intent in context rather than revoking access.</p><p>A separate <a href="https://venturebeat.com/security/shared-api-keys-expose-ai-agent-fleets-venturebeat-research">VentureBeat June Pulse survey</a> of 107 qualified enterprise respondents maps the blast radius of exactly this pattern. On the Transform stage that morning, VentureBeat research reported that 69% of companies run credential sharing somewhere in their agent fleet. Companies with shared credentials anywhere got hit more often, reporting a security incident or near-miss at a 63.5% rate (47 of 74), against 40.9% (9 of 22) where every agent carries its own scoped identity.</p><h2>The attacks no single turn reveals</h2><p>Rubrik Agent Cloud reached <a href="https://www.rubrik.com/blog/company/26/2/introducing-rubrik-agent-cloud-control-your-agents-with-ai">general availability in February</a>, though not everything Rishi described ships in it yet. Backtesting is just starting to roll out. The feature replays an organization's historical agent actions and tool calls against a new policy, showing where the policy would have stepped in and where an action would have sailed through uncaught, with policy edits applied in real time. Rishi called that archive one of the most valuable data troves an enterprise holds.</p><p>Real-time detection and blocking turn out to be the entry point rather than the whole product. Some attacks never trip a single-action rule. "No individual turn of the conversation was problematic, but if you took the session as a full trace, that ended up being problematic," Rishi said. Agent Cloud runs batch analysis across entire session traces every hour or every day and surfaces what Rubrik calls insights, the problems no individual guardrail caught. The same Zero Labs report found that 88% say they lack the ability to roll back agent actions without system disruption, a recovery gap that sits squarely in Rubrik's original line of business.</p><p>A skeptical CISO will ask the question the fireside did not answer. SAGE is a non-deterministic model policing other non-deterministic models, and Rishi offered no false positive or false negative rate for the judge itself. The closest thing the architecture gives to an answer is auditability, since backtesting and the batch insights both leave a human-reviewable trail of each call SAGE made and whatever got past it. Who watches the watcher, for now, is a trail of receipts rather than a benchmark. Until that benchmark exists, AI in the loop stays an operational wager rather than a quantified control.</p><p>Three questions fall out of the session for security teams. How many of the guardrails now in production depend on a human clicking approve, and what happens to that workload as agent count grows? Does anything in the stack enforce semantic intent, or is it all allow and deny lists? And can the team backtest agent behavior against a new policy, then unwind a multi-turn session without taking systems down?</p><p>Rishi's timing has a market behind it. In the same VentureBeat research, 82% of enterprises still name their primary AI provider's built-in guardrails and cloud controls as their main agent security layer, and 59% plan to adopt, add, or replace agent security tooling within the next 12 months. Only 12% include an agent-identity product in what they are considering, even with credential sharing still the norm. Every CISO at that Anthropic roundtable had a policy document and no enforcement mechanism, and Rubrik built a product for the space between the two. YOLO mode is the bet that an AI watching other AIs can finally make the policies real.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Agentic orchestration: Enterprise AI organizations have a deployment problem, not a platform problem — and most are calling chatbots agents]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Across 101 enterprises, agent orchestration is consolidating onto model-provider platforms — Anthropic’s Claude leads by a wide margin — chosen for the gravity of the underlying model and judged on reliable multi-step execution. But the ambition runs well ahead of the reality: most deployed “agen...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3689830/it-nachrichten/agentic-orchestration-enterprise-ai-organizations-have-a-deployment-problem-not-a-platform-problem-and-most-are-calling-chatbots-agents/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3689830/it-nachrichten/agentic-orchestration-enterprise-ai-organizations-have-a-deployment-problem-not-a-platform-problem-and-most-are-calling-chatbots-agents/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 19:19:45 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Across 101 enterprises, agent orchestration is consolidating onto model-provider platforms — Anthropic’s Claude leads by a wide margin — chosen for the gravity of the underlying model and judged on reliable multi-step execution. But the ambition runs well ahead of the reality: most deployed “agents” are still chatbot wrappers, the control plane enterprises expect is deliberately hybrid to avoid lock-in, and real-time fiscal control over token burn remains the exception.</p><p>This wave of VentureBeat Pulse Research examines enterprise agent orchestration: which platforms enterprises run on, what drives the choice, what they optimize for, how they expect agent control to be structured, and — most revealingly — how orchestrated their deployed “agents” actually are and how tightly they control the cost of running them.</p><p>The central finding is a gap between orchestration ambition and orchestration reality. Enterprises are consolidating fast onto the major model platforms: Anthropic’s Claude is the primary platform for 40%, more than double any rival, followed by Microsoft (18%) and OpenAI (13%). The choice is driven by “model gravity” — native alignment with a state-of-the-art base model (21%) — and success is judged by reliable, multi-step execution (task completion reliability 32%, multi-step workflow management 28%). Yet asked to assess their portfolios honestly, 71% say a quarter or fewer of their deployed “agents” are true multi-step orchestrated workflows rather than single-prompt chatbot wrappers, and only 10% have crossed the halfway mark. The orchestration layer is being built well ahead of the orchestrated portfolio it is meant to run.</p><p>That gap shapes the architecture enterprises are putting in place. By the end of 2026 a clear majority (51%) expect a hybrid control plane — provider-native plus external orchestration — and only 6% expect to hand control to a provider-managed service, because vendor lock-in (35%) is the risk they fear most if control lives inside a model provider. Investment follows the build-out: agent workflow tooling leads the spend (34%), with security and permissions enforcement (25%) behind. And fiscal control lags throughout — more than a quarter (27%) have no real-time way to stop a runaway agent before the bill arrives.</p><h2>Methodology</h2><p>VentureBeat fielded this survey as part of its ongoing Pulse Research series, this instrument focused on enterprise agent orchestration. Responses are filtered to organizations with 100 or more employees (n=101), drawn from a single June 2026 wave; because this is one wave rather than a pooled multi-month sample, the report reads cross-sectionally and does not infer month-over-month trends.</p><p>By organization size the sample is spread evenly across the enterprise bands: 100–499 employees, 2,500–9,999, and 50,000+ (21% each), with 10,000–49,999 and 500–2,499 (19% each). By role it is senior and buyer-credible: product and program managers (15%), CIO/CTO/CISO (13%), consultants and advisors (13%), and a spread of data, AI, and engineering directors and VPs, with an “Other” function at 18%. On purchasing, 81% are recommenders, influencers, or final decision-makers for AI solutions (66% recommender/influencer, 15% final decision-maker). Technology/Software is the largest industry at 44%, followed by Financial Services (17%) and Healthcare/Life Sciences (8%).</p><p>At 101 respondents the sample is robust enough to read directionally with reasonable confidence, though it remains self-selected and is not a probability sample.</p><h2>Finding 1: Orchestration runs on model-provider platforms</h2><p><b>Anthropic’s Claude leads; open frameworks are marginal</b></p><p>We asked which agent orchestration platform enterprises primarily use today. The answer concentrates on the major model providers — and on one in particular.</p><div></div><p>A note on reading these shares. As described in the methodology section, the respondents are self-selected, and this question asked them for a single primary platform — so the figures measure which platform leads each enterprise's deployment, within a self-selected audience of AI-active technical decision-makers. A sample built this way can diverge substantially from spend-weighted market measures, and each VB Pulse survey draws its own sample with its own company-size mix, so vendor figures should not be compared across our surveys either. Read these shares as a portrait of where this cohort has placed its primary orchestration bet today, rather than as market share.</p><p>The model platforms dominate. Anthropic, Microsoft, OpenAI, Google, and Amazon together account for roughly 80% of deployments (81 of 101), while the open frameworks (LangChain/LangGraph) and custom in-house builds that anchor engineering discussion sit in single digits. Anthropic’s lead — 40%, more than double the next platform — mirrors the “model gravity” selection logic in Finding 2: enterprises are choosing the orchestration layer that comes with the model they want to build on. As with the security vendors in the prior agent-security wave, the tools that define the category in technical circles are not yet where enterprise deployment concentrates. A small 3% are not orchestrating at all.</p><p>Respondents rate the platforms they run at 3.94 out of 5 overall (109 answered), with “value for money” specifically at 3.94 and “ease of implementation” the weakest score, at 3.85 — placing orchestration near the bottom of our five-tracker satisfaction range, ahead of only evaluation tooling. A rating just under 4 out of 5, from users of whom 96% plan to change their orchestration approach within the year, reads as provisional acceptance: the platforms work well enough to run today, and not well enough to stop the search for something better. The ratings sit alongside near-universal intent to change; this is a layer enterprises tolerate more than they love.</p><h2>Finding 2: Model gravity drives platform selection</h2><p><b>The base model, not the tooling, decides the platform</b></p><p>We asked what most influenced the orchestration platform choice. The single largest factor is the pull of the underlying model — though flexibility and ease of development follow close behind.</p><div></div><p>Model gravity leading is the selection-side explanation for Anthropic’s platform lead: enterprises pick the orchestration environment closest to the frontier model they have standardized on. But the next tier complicates the picture — flexibility across models and tools (17%) and ease of development (17%) say enterprises also want to avoid being trapped by that choice, foreshadowing the lock-in fear in Finding 6. Security and permissions (14%) and total cost of ownership (11%) round out a pragmatic buying logic. Performance (latency/memory) sits last at 4%, a reminder that at this stage of adoption the binding constraints are model fit and optionality, not raw speed.</p><h2>Finding 3: The job is reliable multi-step execution</h2><p><b>Enterprises just orchestration by whether it completes the work</b></p><p>We asked what enterprises optimize for — their primary success metric for orchestration. Reliability and multi-step workflow management dominate; developer- and user-facing metrics trail.</p><div></div><p>Task completion reliability (32%) and multi-step workflow management (28%) together account for 59% of responses (60 of 101): orchestration succeeds, in the enterprise view, when it reliably carries a task through multiple steps to completion. Developer productivity (17%) matters but is secondary — the inverse of its prominence in framework discussion — and end-user experience (9%) is a minor concern, consistent with orchestration being an internal execution problem rather than a UX one. This reliability-first standard is exactly what makes the Chatbot Trap finding so pointed: enterprises define success as dependable multi-step execution, yet most of their deployed “agents” do not yet do multi-step work at all.</p><p>The trap is not evenly distributed. Splitting the sample by organization size, 77% of smaller enterprises say a quarter or fewer of their agents do true multi-step work, against 62% of larger ones. Larger enterprises are meaningfully further into genuine multi-step deployment; the chatbot trap is, directionally, a mid-market condition.</p><h2>Finding 4: Consolidate, productionize, and build in-house </h2><p><b>Three strategic moves are nearly tied for the year ahead</b></p><p>We asked what major change enterprises anticipate in their orchestration strategy over the next 12 months. Three moves cluster at the top, almost evenly split.</p><div></div><p>The top three — building in-house control (25%), standardizing on one framework (24%), and moving agents from sandbox to production (23%) — are statistically indistinguishable and tell a single story: enterprises are moving from experimentation to operational consolidation. They want fewer frameworks, more production exposure, and more ownership of the control layer; only 4% expect no change. The appetite for custom in-house control planes is notable alongside the platform concentration in Finding 1 — enterprises are standardizing on model-provider platforms while simultaneously planning to wrap them in control logic they own, the hybrid posture that Finding 6 makes explicit.</p><h2>Finding 5: Nearly seven in 10 plan to switch — and the biggest group of movers has no shortlist </h2><p>The strategic change enterprises anticipate (previous finding) comes with vendor motion attached. Asked whether they plan to adopt a new, additional, or replacement agent orchestration platform in the next twelve months, more respondents are moving here than in any other layer we track.</p><div></div><p>Asked which platforms they are considering, the most common answer among those in motion is none yet: 29% of all respondents are evaluating without a shortlist, the largest single response after "not considering a change." Among named candidates, OpenAI leads at 16%, followed by LangChain/LangGraph at 12% and Anthropic at 7% — and notably, the independent frameworks draw roughly double their current usage footprint in forward consideration, the same pattern our security tracker found for specialist vendors. Read with this report's concentration and lock-in findings, the picture completes itself: the major model-platform providers hold roughly four-fifths of today's primary usage, vendor lock-in has become the leading fear, 96% anticipate a strategic change — and now the purchase intent to act on all of it, with the largest bloc of buyers still undecided. The most concentrated layer of the agentic stack is also, as of June, the least settled.</p><h2>Finding 6: Investment flows to workflow tooling</h2><p><b>Tooling and permissions lead the spend; monitoring trails</b></p><p>We asked which orchestration-related investment will grow most next year. Agent workflow tooling leads, with security and permissions enforcement behind.</p><div></div><p>Workflow tooling leading (34%) is the budget-side expression of the reliability-and-multi-step priority in Finding 3: the money is going to the machinery that strings steps together dependably. Security and permissions enforcement (25%) and scaling infrastructure (20%) follow — the investments required to take agents from sandbox into production, the strategic move in Finding 4. Monitoring and debugging draws a smaller 11%, with another 11% reporting flat budgets. The weight on tooling, permissions, and scaling over pure observability signals that enterprises are spending to build and harden orchestration, not merely to watch it run.</p><h2>Finding 7: The control plane will be hybrid — and lock-in is why</h2><p><b>Enterprises expect to split control between providers and their own layer</b></p><p>We asked where enterprises expect the primary control plane for agents to live by the end of 2026, and what worries them most if that control sits inside a model-provider platform. A clear majority expect a hybrid model — and vendor lock-in is the reason.</p><div></div><p>Hybrid control is the dominant expectation by a wide margin (51%), and only 6% expect to hand control to a provider-managed service outright. Read together, the hybrid, custom, and externally-abstracted options — every architecture that keeps control at least partly outside the provider — sum to 88% (89 of 101). The reason surfaces directly when we asked about the risk of provider-resident control: vendor lock-in leads at 35% (35 of 101), ahead of security and permissioning limitations (28%) and inflexibility across models and tools (21%). The pattern echoes the prior wave’s “don’t trust the model to police itself” posture — here, enterprises will build on a provider’s platform but decline to be governed entirely by it. The hybrid control plane is the architectural hedge against the lock-in they most fear.</p><p>The June figure asserting a preference for a hybrid control plane marks movement from earlier. In the April–May survey (n=145), only 34% expected a hybrid control plane, and a greater number (12%) expected to hand control fully to a provider-managed service. These two snapshots don’t yet measure a confirmed longitudinal trend — but the direction of the conversation is unambiguous: toward keeping control.</p><p>Lock-in is also a new arrival as a top concern. In the April–May wave, the leading concern was security and permissioning limitations (32%), with lock-in second at 24%; by June the two had traded places. The worry about provider platforms appears to be maturing from whether they can be secured to whether they can be replaced.</p><h2>Finding 8: The chatbot trap — most “agents” aren’t agents yet</h2><p><b>Enterprises admit most deployments are still chatbot wrappers</b></p><p>We asked enterprises to assess their portfolios honestly: what share of their deployed “agents” are true multi-step orchestrated workflows versus simple single-prompt chatbot wrappers. The answer is the defining finding of this wave.</p><div></div><p>This is the gap at the center of the report. Combining the bottom two bands, 71% of enterprises (72 of 101) say a quarter or fewer of their deployed “agents” are genuinely orchestrated — and just 10% (10 of 101) have crossed the halfway mark. The ambition documented in the earlier findings — model-provider platforms, reliability-first success metrics, production rollouts, a deliberate control architecture — runs well ahead of the deployed reality, which remains overwhelmingly single-prompt assistants dressed as agents. This is less a contradiction than a roadmap: the platforms, budgets, and strategies are being put in place precisely because the orchestrated portfolio is still so thin. The open question for later waves is how fast the reality closes on the ambition.</p><h2>Finding 9: Fiscal control is still reactive</h2><p><b>Only a minority can stop a runaway agent before the bill arrives</b></p><p>Finally, we asked how enterprises enforce fiscal control over agent token consumption — the risk that an autonomous loop exhausts a budget before anyone intervenes. Most rely on native caps or after-the-fact monitoring; real-time programmatic control is the exception.</p><div></div><p>More than a quarter of enterprises (27%) admit they have no real-time, programmatic way to stop an agent before a budget-breaking bill arrives — they learn of it from the logs afterward. Another 32% lean entirely on the native caps and throttles built into their primary platform, a control only as good as the provider’s tooling and one that ties back to the lock-in concern of Finding 6. The enterprises building custom gateways (23%) or exploiting cross-model routing to arbitrage cost (19%) are the ones treating token burn as an engineering problem to be controlled deterministically. As with orchestration maturity, fiscal control is an area where the operational reality lags the ambition: agents are moving toward production faster than the cost-control plane around them is being built.</p><p>It’s worth noting, a split appears according to company size: roughly one in three enterprises under 2,500 employees (34%) exercises only reactive control of agent spend, against 20% of larger enterprises — directional figures, but consistent with the chatbot-trap split. The mid-market is running the least mature agents on the least instrumented budgets.</p><h2>The bottom line: The layer is real; most of the agents aren't yet</h2><p>Organizations with 100 or more employees describe an orchestration strategy that is consolidating quickly and maturing slowly. They are standardizing — for now — on model-provider platforms, which collectively hold roughly four-fifths of primary usage, chosen for the gravity of the underlying model, and they judge success by reliable multi-step execution. Investment is flowing to workflow tooling and permissions, the strategy is to consolidate frameworks and push agents into production, and the control plane they expect is deliberately hybrid, because vendor lock-in is the risk they fear most. But the standardization is provisional: 68% plan to adopt a new, additional, or replacement orchestration platform within twelve months — the highest switching intent of any layer we track — and the largest group of those movers has not yet shortlisted a candidate. Today's concentration describes where enterprises are, and visibly does not describe where they intend to stay.</p><p>But the honest self-assessment punctures the ambition. Seventy-one percent say a quarter or fewer of their deployed "agents" are truly orchestrated, only 10% are past the halfway mark, and more than a quarter cannot stop a runaway agent in real time. The orchestration layer — the platforms, the budgets, the control architecture — is being built ahead of the orchestrated portfolio it is meant to run. At 101 respondents in a single June wave this reads as a clear directional signal rather than a precise measurement: enterprises have decided how they want to orchestrate agents well before most of their agents are doing anything an orchestration layer is for. The questions for subsequent waves are whether the deployed reality closes the gap on the ambition — and, with nearly seven in ten buyers in motion and most of them undecided, which platforms the settled stack finally lands on.</p><hr><p><i>Based on survey responses from 101 qualified enterprise respondents (100+ employees), drawn from a single June 2026 wave. Because this is one wave rather than a pooled multi-month sample, results read directionally rather than as a confirmed trend. Respondents include product and program managers, CIOs, CTOs and CISOs, consultants and advisors, and directors and VPs of data, AI, and engineering, across Technology/Software, Financial Services, Healthcare, and other sectors.</i></p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The agent security gap: 54% of enterprises have already had an AI agent incident, and most still let agents share credentials]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Across 107 enterprises, AI agents are being given real access to systems and data while the controls meant to contain them lag behind. More than half have already had a confirmed agent security incident or a near-miss; only about a third give every agent its own scoped identity, and most agents s...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3689827/it-nachrichten/the-agent-security-gap-54-of-enterprises-have-already-had-an-ai-agent-incident-and-most-still-let-agents-share-credentials/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3689827/it-nachrichten/the-agent-security-gap-54-of-enterprises-have-already-had-an-ai-agent-incident-and-most-still-let-agents-share-credentials/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 19:19:41 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Across 107 enterprises, AI agents are being given real access to systems and data while the controls meant to contain them lag behind. More than half have already had a confirmed agent security incident or a near-miss; only about a third give every agent its own scoped identity, and most agents still share credentials; and only three in ten isolate their highest-risk agents. The security stack is overwhelmingly borrowed from the model providers and hyperscalers rather than purpose-built for agents, spending remains a thin slice of the security budget, and enterprises are evenly split on whether their defenses are keeping pace with AI-enabled attackers. The result is an agent security gap — autonomous agents proliferating faster than the identity, isolation, and enforcement controls needed to hold them.</p><p>This wave of VentureBeat Pulse Research examines how enterprises secure their AI agents: what tooling they run, how they manage agent identity and isolation, what has already gone wrong, how much they spend, and whether they believe their defenses are keeping pace with AI-enabled attackers.</p><p>The central finding is an agent security gap — the distance between the autonomy enterprises are granting their agents and the controls in place to contain them. More than half of organizations (54%) have already experienced a confirmed agent security incident (18%) or a near-miss caught before harm (36%). The structural weakness beneath those numbers is identity: only about a third (32%) give every agent its own scoped, managed identity, while the rest report that some agents share credentials or that agents mostly run on shared API keys and human or service-account credentials. When agents share credentials, a single compromised or over-permissioned agent carries a wide blast radius — and only three in ten enterprises (30%) isolate their highest-risk agents in sandboxes to bound that radius.</p><p>What makes the gap notable is how comfortable enterprises are inside it. The security stack is overwhelmingly provider-native — OpenAI’s guardrails (51%), Google’s and Microsoft’s cloud controls, and Anthropic’s managed-agent controls dominate, while the dedicated agent-security specialists barely register — and satisfaction with that borrowed stack is high, averaging 4.2 out of 5. Yet spending remains a thin slice of the security budget, only a third of enterprises believe their AI defenses are ahead of AI-enabled attackers, and a clear majority plan to change tooling within the year. Enterprises are satisfied with controls they are simultaneously preparing to replace.</p><h2>Methodology</h2><p>VentureBeat fielded this survey as part of its ongoing Pulse Research series, this instrument focused on enterprise agent security — the tooling, identity, isolation, and enforcement controls organizations use to secure autonomous AI agents. Responses are filtered to organizations with more than 100 employees (n=107; the survey’s smallest size band, 1–100 employees, is excluded), drawn from a single June 2026 wave. Because this is one wave rather than a pooled multi-month sample, the report reads cross-sectionally and does not infer month-over-month trends. Several questions were multiple-select, so those shares can sum to more than 100%.</p><p>By role the sample is senior and buyer-credible: 45% are final decision-makers for AI purchases and another 30% recommenders or influencers. Managers (43%), individual contributors (24%), VPs and directors (15%), and the C-suite (11%) make up the seniority mix. By organization size the sample is mid-market-weighted: 251–1,000 (42%) and 101–250 (25%) employees lead, with 1,001–5,000 (19%), 5,001–10,000 (8%), and 10,001+ (7%) above them. Technology/Software is the largest industry at 23%, followed by Manufacturing (15%), Retail/E-commerce (14%), and Healthcare/Life Sciences (13%).</p><p>At 107 respondents the sample is large enough to read directionally but should be treated as a directional signal rather than a precise measurement; it is self-selected and is not a probability sample. It skews toward the mid-market, so it is best read as the view from organizations actively standing up agent security rather than from the largest operators.</p><p>Satisfaction ratings are computed on the respondents who answered each rating question; the overall satisfaction score reflects 82 of the 107 qualified respondents.</p><h2>Finding 1: The incidents are already here</h2><p><b>More than half have had an agent security incident or near-miss</b></p><p>We asked whether organizations had experienced an agent security incident — a confirmed breach, or a near-miss caught before harm. Most that run agents in production had.</p><div></div><p>This is the report’s defining number. More than half of organizations (54%) have already had an agent security event — 18% a confirmed incident and 36% a near-miss caught before it caused harm. Only 42% report nothing, and a small remainder either run no agents in production or don’t track such events. That so many report near-misses rather than only confirmed incidents is telling: enterprises are catching problems, but they are catching them close to the edge. The controls examined in the rest of this report — identity, isolation, enforcement — are what determine whether the next near-miss stays a near-miss.</p><p>Exposure scales with company size, but containment does not. The incident-or-near-miss rate rises from 49% in the mid-market (companies with 101-1,000 employees) to 63% at larger enterprises (above 1,000 employees), while sandbox isolation of high-risk agents falls from 35% to 20%, and satisfaction with security tooling drops from 4.36 to 3.97. The organizations running the most agents across the most systems carry the most incidents and the least of the one control that bounds an incident's blast radius.</p><h2>Finding 2: The identity gap</h2><p><b>Only a third give every agent its own scoped identity</b></p><p>We asked how enterprises manage the identity of their AI agents — whether each agent has its own credentials, or agents share them. Full per-agent identity is the exception.</p><div></div><p>Rolled together, the overlapping answers show 69% of enterprises (74 of 107) with credential sharing somewhere in the agent fleet. Identity is the structural weakness beneath the incidents. Only about a third of enterprises (32%) give every agent its own scoped, managed identity — the precondition for least-privilege access and clean attribution. Nearly half (48%) say some agents have scoped identities but many still share credentials, and another 32% say agents mostly run on shared API keys or borrowed human and service-account credentials. (Respondents could describe more than one pattern across their agent fleet, so these overlap.) </p><p>The consequence is direct: when agents share credentials, an over-permissioned or compromised agent can act with far more reach than intended, and forensics after an incident cannot cleanly tell which agent did what. The non-human identity problem — giving every agent its own governed identity — is the single largest unfinished piece of enterprise agent security.</p><p>Moreover, a company’s agent credential posture is correlated with incidents. Organizations with credential sharing anywhere in the fleet were hit — with an incident or a near-miss in the past twelve months — at 63.5% (47 of 74). Organizations where every agent carries its own scoped identity were hit at 40.9% (9 of 22). The fully-scoped group is small, so for now the relationship is an association rather than proven causation, and the gap is concentrated in the mid-market — but within a single survey, a twenty-three point difference in incident rate suggests significance.</p><h2>Finding 3: Observe and enforce, but rarely isolate</h2><p><b>Only three in 10 sandbox their highest-risk agents</b></p><p>We asked what an organization’s agent security posture looks like in practice — whether they observe, enforce, isolate, or some combination. The control that bounds damage is the least common.</p><div></div><p>Monitoring and enforcement are reasonably common; containment is not. Roughly half of enterprises observe agent activity (47%) or enforce scoped permissions at runtime (49%), but only 30% isolate their highest-risk agents in sandboxes that bound the blast radius when the other controls fail. That ordering is backwards from a defense-in-depth standpoint: observation tells you what happened, enforcement tries to prevent it, but isolation is what limits the damage when prevention fails — and it is the control enterprises have adopted least. Combined with the identity gap in Finding 2, the picture is of agents that are watched and permissioned but rarely boxed in, which is precisely the configuration in which a single failure propagates.</p><h2>Finding 4: Security runs on borrowed, provider-native controls</h2><p><b>Guardrails from OpenAI, Google and Microsoft dominate; specialists barely register</b></p><p>We asked which agent security tooling enterprises use, and which is their primary layer. The answer favors the model providers and hyperscalers over the dedicated security vendors.</p><div></div><p>Enterprises are securing agents with tools that came bundled with their models and clouds. OpenAI’s guardrails lead at 51%, followed by Google’s and Microsoft’s cloud-native controls and Anthropic’s managed-agent controls — and when asked to name their single primary security layer, 82% name one of these provider-native offerings. The purpose-built agent-security category — Palo Alto’s Prisma AIRS, CrowdStrike, Cisco AI Defense, Zenity, HiddenLayer, Check Point’s Lakera, Okta for AI Agents, non-human identity platforms — barely registers, each in the low single digits, and only 5% run no dedicated tooling at all. As with retrieval and evaluation elsewhere in this series, the provider bundle is winning the default: enterprises reach first for the guardrails their platform ships, and the independent security layer that would address the identity and isolation gaps has not yet been adopted at scale.</p><p>The provider-default pattern is consistent across both Q2 survey waves. In April–May (n=110), usage was led by the same names — OpenAI's controls at 26%, Azure at 15%, AWS at 14%, Google at 12% — with every dedicated agent-security specialist at 3% or below and one in ten using no dedicated tooling at all. The common finding from the two surveys: Enterprises are defaulting to the solutions provided by the platform they’re using, and the specialist category vendors have yet to become big players here.</p><p>(<i>A note on reading these shares. As described in the methodology section, the respondent sample is self-selected and skews mid-market, and the usage question counted every vendor or approach a respondent has in place — so the figures measure presence in the security stack rather than spending or exclusivity. Individual vendor percentages therefore carry all the usual sample caveats. The structural pattern, however, held across both Q2 waves on two differently worded questions: provider-native and hyperscaler controls lead, and dedicated agent-security specialists remain in low single digits. Read the individual shares loosely and the pattern with confidence.)</i></p><h2>Finding 5: And enterprises are comfortable with it</h2><p><b>Satisfaction is high, even as incidents mount and identity lags</b></p><p>We asked how satisfied enterprises are with their current agent security tooling. The comfort is notably out of step with the exposure documented above.</p><div></div><p>Satisfaction with agent security tooling is high — 4.2 out of 5 overall, and 4.1 for value for money — among the most positive readings in this series. That is the striking part: enterprises are highly satisfied with a stack that is mostly borrowed provider guardrails, even though more than half have already had an incident or near-miss and only a third give their agents scoped identities. The comfort appears to rest on the convenience and low friction of provider-native controls rather than on demonstrated containment. It is a false comfort in the making — the same enterprises expressing satisfaction are, as Finding 8 shows, a clear majority planning to change tooling within the year, which suggests the confidence is thinner than the score implies.</p><h2>Finding 6: Budgets haven’t caught up</h2><p><b>Most spend under a tenth of the security budget on agents</b></p><p>We asked what share of the security budget enterprises allocate to securing AI agents. For a fast-emerging risk, the allocation is modest.</p><div></div><p>Spending on agent security is still a thin slice. The most common allocation is 6–10% of the security budget (46%), and a third of enterprises (34%) spend 5% or less; only a quarter (24%) devote more than a tenth. Given the incident rate in Finding 1 and the identity and isolation gaps in Findings 2 and 3, the budget looks like a lagging indicator — the risk has arrived faster than the funding to address it. The enterprises spending more than a tenth of their security budget on agents are a distinct minority, and they are likely the ones building the scoped-identity and isolation controls the rest have not.</p><h1>Finding 7: The arms race is even, at best</h1><p><b>Only a third think their AI defenses are ahead of AI-enabled attackers</b></p><p>We asked how enterprises assess the balance between their AI-enabled defenses and AI-enabled attackers. Confidence is far from settled.</p><div></div><p>Enterprises are split on whether they are winning. Only about a third (35%) believe their AI-enabled defenses are ahead of AI-enabled attackers; the rest are less sure — 32% call it roughly even, 21% think attackers are ahead, and another 21% say it is too early to tell. Taken together, a clear majority (53%) rate the balance as even or tilted toward the attacker. That uncertainty sits uneasily beside the high satisfaction of Finding 5: enterprises are content with their tooling yet unconvinced it is winning the contest it exists to win. In a domain where the offense is also compounding with AI, an even race is not a comfortable place to be.</p><h2>Finding 8: A security reshuffle is coming</h2><p><b>Nearly six in 10 plan to adopt or switch tooling within a year</b></p><p>We asked whether enterprises plan to adopt a new, additional, or replacement agent security solution, and which they are considering. Few intend to stand pat.</p><div></div><p>The security stack is not settled. While 41% have no plans to change, a clear majority (59%) intend to adopt a new, additional, or replacement agent security solution within twelve months, and 29% within the next quarter — a strong signal that, high satisfaction notwithstanding, enterprises know the current stack is provisional. Incidents are what start the buying cycle. </p><p>Among organizations that have been hit, 42.1% plan to adopt, add, or replace agent security tooling within the next ninety days, against 14.0% of organizations with no incident — and after a confirmed incident it becomes majority behavior, at 52.6%. Getting hit also changes the threat assessment: 33.3% of hit organizations say AI-armed attackers are ahead of their defenses, against 8.0% of the unhit. Experience, in this data, is the strongest predictor of both urgency and pessimism.</p><p>The consideration set still leans provider-native (OpenAI 34%, Google 30%, Anthropic 29%, Azure 25%), but the dedicated security vendors — Cloudflare, Cisco, Palo Alto, Okta, Check Point’s Lakera — draw early interest in the mid-to-high single digits, more than their current footprint. </p><p>What the shopping does not yet include is the identity layer specifically. Twelve percent of the respondents include an agent-identity product — Okta for AI Agents, Microsoft Entra Agent ID, or a non-human identity platform — anywhere in their consideration set, and among the credential-sharing organizations that have already had an incident, identity consideration is essentially unchanged, at roughly one in ten. The control most directly implicated by the incident data is the one largely missing from the purchase plans. Whether this wave hardens the provider-native default or finally opens the door to purpose-built agent security — the identity and isolation controls the incidents call for — is the question this series will keep tracking.</p><h2>The bottom line: A security gap that autonomy will test first</h2><p>Organizations with more than 100 employees are giving AI agents real reach into systems and data while securing them with controls built for something else. More than half have already had an incident or near-miss; only a third give every agent its own scoped identity, and most still share credentials; only three in ten isolate their highest-risk agents; and the stack doing this work is overwhelmingly borrowed from the model providers and hyperscalers rather than purpose-built for agents.</p><p>The uncomfortable pairing is confidence with exposure: satisfaction with the current tooling is among the highest in this series, yet spending is a thin slice of the security budget, only a third believe their defenses are ahead of AI-enabled attackers, and a clear majority are already planning to replace what they have. At 107 respondents in a single wave this is a directional read, skewed toward the mid-market — but the direction is clear: agent adoption is running ahead of agent security, and the controls that matter most when something fails — scoped identity and isolation — are the ones enterprises have built least. The agent security gap is not a coverage problem that a provider guardrail will close on its own; it is a problem of identity, isolation, and enforcement built for autonomous software. The open question for later waves is whether enterprises close it deliberately — or whether a confirmed incident closes it for them.</p><hr><p><i>Based on survey responses from 107 qualified enterprise respondents (100+ employees), drawn from a single June 2026 wave. This is a directional read, not a precise measurement — the sample is self-selected and skews mid-market, so it's best read as the view from organizations actively standing up agent security rather than from the largest operators. Respondents are senior and buyer-credible (45% final decision-makers, 30% recommenders/influencers), spanning managers through the C-suite, and drawn primarily from Technology/Software, Manufacturing, Retail/E-commerce, and Healthcare/Life Sciences.</i></p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The AI compute gap: Enterprises are buying infrastructure faster than they can measure what it costs]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Across 107 enterprises, AI infrastructure spending is accelerating well ahead of the ability to see or steer its economics. Most organizations run their AI on a familiar base of hyperscalers and model-provider APIs, yet the next dollar is aimed at specialized compute almost none of them use today...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3689826/it-nachrichten/the-ai-compute-gap-enterprises-are-buying-infrastructure-faster-than-they-can-measure-what-it-costs/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3689826/it-nachrichten/the-ai-compute-gap-enterprises-are-buying-infrastructure-faster-than-they-can-measure-what-it-costs/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 19:19:39 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Across 107 enterprises, AI infrastructure spending is accelerating well ahead of the ability to see or steer its economics. Most organizations run their AI on a familiar base of hyperscalers and model-provider APIs, yet the next dollar is aimed at specialized compute almost none of them use today; a majority intend to switch or add providers within the year, many within a quarter. Buying decisions turn on integration and total cost of ownership rather than headline token price — which is fortunate, because most enterprises cannot yet see their unit economics clearly: GPUs sit at half utilization or less, and fewer than half rigorously track what their compute actually costs. The result is a compute gap — heavy, fast-moving investment running ahead of the visibility needed to control it.</p><p>This wave of VentureBeat Pulse Research examines enterprise AI infrastructure and compute: where organizations are in their deployment journey, what they run AI on today, how satisfied they are, what would make them switch, where they plan to evaluate their investments, and — most revealingly — how well they can measure and control the economics of the compute underneath it all.</p><p>The central finding is a compute gap — the distance between how aggressively enterprises are investing in AI infrastructure and how little of its economics they can see. Only about one in five (21%) run AI in production at scale, yet spending intentions are outrunning that maturity: the single largest planned area enterprises plan to evaluate over the next year is AI-specialized clouds (45%), a layer almost none of these enterprises use today. Meanwhile the compute already in place runs cold — 83% report GPU utilization of 50% or less — and fewer than half (44%) can rigorously track what their AI compute costs. Enterprises are buying more infrastructure faster than they can account for what they already own.</p><p>Enterprises are not settled on their infrastructure vendors, either: A clear majority (64%) plan to switch or add an infrastructure provider within twelve months, and 38% within the next quarter — unusually high churn intent for a category this foundational. When they choose, they choose on integration with the existing stack (41%) and total cost of ownership (35%), not on headline price: cost per million tokens is the deciding factor for just 8%. And the frontier constraint that will shape the next round of decisions — the shift from GPU compute to memory bandwidth as inference scales — is barely on the radar, with roughly one in five enterprises either unaware of it or yet to address it.</p><h2>Methodology</h2><p>VentureBeat fielded this survey as part of its ongoing Pulse Research series, this survey focused on enterprise AI infrastructure, compute, and inference economics. Responses are filtered to organizations with more than 100 employees (n=107; the survey’s smallest size band, 1–100 employees, is excluded), drawn from a single Q2 2026 (June) wave. Because this is one wave rather than a pooled multi-month sample, the report reads cross-sectionally and does not infer month-over-month trends. Several questions were multiple-select, so those shares can sum to more than 100%.</p><p>By organization size the sample concentrates in the mid-market: 101–250 employees (36%) and 251–1,000 (27%) lead, with 1,001–5,000 (22%), 5,001–10,000 (8%), and 10,001+ (7%) above them. By role it spans managers (38%), individual contributors (28%), VPs and directors (19%), and the C-suite (13%); on purchasing authority it is buyer-credible, with 45% final decision-makers and another 30% recommenders or influencers for AI solutions. Technology/Software is the largest industry at 26%, followed by Healthcare/Life Sciences (15%), Financial Services (13%), and Retail/E-commerce (12%).</p><p>At 107 respondents the sample is large enough to read directionally but should be treated as a directional signal rather than a precise measurement; it is self-selected and is not a probability sample. It also skews toward the mid-market and toward earlier-stage adopters, so it is best read as the view from organizations actively building out AI infrastructure rather than from the largest hyperscale operators.</p><h2>Finding 1: Ambition outpaces production</h2><p><b>Only one in five run AI in production at scale</b></p><p>We asked where organizations sit in their AI deployment journey. Most are still building toward production rather than operating at scale.</p><div></div><p>The maturity curve is front-loaded. Three-quarters of enterprises (76%) are either experimenting or running only some workloads in production, and just 21% describe AI in production at scale. This matters for everything that follows: the infrastructure decisions in this report are being made largely by organizations still early in deployment, whose compute footprint — and whose costs — are about to grow. The evaluation and switching intentions in Findings 3 and 4 are the leading edge of that build-out, not the settled preferences of operators who have already found what works.</p><h2>Finding 2: Enterprises run on hyperscalers and model APIs</h2><p><b>The specialized GPU clouds barely register — today</b></p><p>We asked which providers and platforms enterprises currently use to run their AI. The answer is a familiar one: the incumbents.</p><div></div><p>The current stack is hyperscaler-and-API. Google Cloud leads at 48%, and the general-purpose clouds (Google, Microsoft, AWS, Oracle) together with the major model APIs (Gemini, OpenAI, Anthropic) account for essentially all current deployment. The specialized “neocloud” GPU providers that dominate AI-infrastructure headlines — CoreWeave, Lambda, Crusoe, Nebius and peers — register at or near zero among these enterprises today. Only 6% run their own on-prem GPU clusters and 4% a custom open-source stack. Enterprises are, for now, running AI on the providers they already buy from — which makes the evaluation intentions in Finding 3 all the more striking.</p><p><i>(A note on reading these shares. As described in the methodology section, this sample is self-selected and skews mid-market, and this question counted every provider a respondent uses — an average of 2.1 selections each — so the figures measure presence in the stack rather than spending or primary status. A sample built this way will show a different provider mix than a spend-weighted census of the broader market; Google's strength here, for example, is consistent with its long-standing position among smaller enterprises building on AI. Read these shares as a portrait of what this AI-active cohort runs today, and treat gaps between these figures and industry-wide market share estimates as a property of the sample rather than a contradiction of either.)</i></p><h2>Finding 3: The next dollar goes to infrastructure they don’t yet run</h2><p><b>AI-specialized clouds top the evaluations list</b></p><p>We asked where enterprises planned to evaluate AI infrastructure over the next 12 months. Their answers point away from the stack they run today.</p><div></div><p>Here is the report’s sharpest tension. The single most-cited planned evaluation area — AI-specialized clouds, at 45% — is the very category almost none of these enterprises use today (Finding 2). Nearly a third (32%) intend to evaluate non-Nvidia accelerators, and 28% in next-generation Nvidia silicon; even decentralized compute networks (16%) and sovereign compute (11%) draw meaningful interest. Read against current usage, this is not incremental — it is the leading edge of a re-platforming. The direction-of-travel question tells the same story: every infrastructure approach is net-expanding, but specialized AI clouds carry the highest net momentum (+24), edging out even the hyperscalers (+22). Enterprises are preparing to move a meaningful share of AI compute off the general-purpose cloud.</p><p>This continues a trend we saw in our April-May survey wave. Back then, usage of the AI-specialized clouds was equally marginal — CoreWeave at 3%, Lambda at 4%, Crusoe at 2% of enterprises. When we asked enterprises what change they planned in their AI infrastructure strategy over the next twelve months, the most-cited answer was moving workloads to specialized AI clouds, at 33%. Asked in April-May which emerging compute option they were most likely to evaluate AI-specialized clouds again drew the most responses. Two waves, two differently worded questions, one consistent picture: the type of cloud enterprises are most eager to assess is the type they have barely begun to use.</p><h2>Finding 4: A switching wave is building</h2><p><b>Six in 10 plan to change providers within a year — many within a quarter</b></p><p>We asked whether and when enterprises plan to switch or add an infrastructure provider. Very few intend to stand still.</p><div></div><p>For a category as foundational as compute, this is a remarkable amount of intended movement. Only 36% have no plans to change, meaning a clear majority (64%) intend to switch or add a provider within twelve months — and 38% within the next quarter alone. Where that interest points is telling: the providers drawing the most switching consideration are again the incumbents — Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud (33% each), OpenAI (30%), and Gemini (22%) — which suggests much of the near-term movement is reshuffling among the majors and consolidating spend rather than defecting to new entrants. The neocloud interest in Finding 3 is a 12-month evaluation thesis; the switching in the next quarter is mostly incumbents trading share.</p><p>(<i>Method note: Respondents who selected both "no plans to change" and a specific switching window are counted as switchers, on the logic that naming a timeframe is the more specific answer; three respondents were reclassified under this rule.</i>)</p><h2>Finding 5: Nobody buys on token price</h2><p><b>Integration and total cost of ownership decide — not sticker price</b></p><p>We asked what matters most when enterprises select an AI infrastructure provider. Headline price finished last.</p><div></div><p>Enterprises do not buy AI infrastructure on pricing, which is the place vendors compete on hardest. Integration with the existing stack (41%) and total cost of ownership (35%) dominate, while the headline metric — cost per million tokens — is the deciding factor for just 8%, dead last. The pattern is coherent: buyers are optimizing for how a provider fits and what it truly costs to operate, not for the advertised unit rate. It also foreshadows Finding 7 — enterprises say TCO matters most, yet most cannot yet measure it rigorously. The stated priority and the measured capability are out of step.</p><h2>Finding 6: Expensive GPUs, idle most of the time</h2><p><b>83% report GPU utilization of 50% or less</b></p><p>We asked what share of their GPU capacity enterprises actually utilize. The answer is a well-known but rarely quantified inefficiency.</p><div></div><p><i>Disclosure: Band percentages count every selection against all 107 qualified respondents; 14 respondents selected more than one band, so bands overlap. At the respondent level, 83 of the 100 GPU-operating enterprises reported utilization at or below 50%</i></p><p>The compute already in place runs cold. Adding the bands at or below half capacity, 83% of enterprises that operate GPUs report utilization of 50% or less, and nearly half (49%) run at 25% or below. Only 12% clear the 50% mark, and a further 8% do not measure utilization at all. Idle accelerators are expensive accelerators, and this is the clearest single measure of the compute gap: enterprises are planning to buy more GPUs and specialized compute (Finding 3) while the capacity they already own sits substantially unused. The efficiency headroom in the current fleet is large — and largely unmeasured.</p><h2>Finding 7: Spending fast, measuring slowly</h2><p><b>Fewer than half rigorously track what their compute costs</b></p><p>We asked whether enterprises can quantify the cost and return of their AI infrastructure spend, and how satisfied they are with what they run. Confidence in the ledger lags the spending.</p><div></div><p>Measurement trails money. Fewer than half of enterprises (44%) rigorously track the cost and return of their AI compute; the majority track only partially (39%), cannot quantify it yet (20%), or have not prioritized it (6%). That gap is consequential given Finding 5, where total cost of ownership was the second-ranked buying criterion — enterprises are choosing providers on an economic basis they mostly cannot yet measure. Satisfaction with current infrastructure is moderately positive but not enthusiastic: on a five-point scale, overall satisfaction averages 4.0, with ease of implementation (3.8) and value for money (3.9) trailing slightly — the softness landing, tellingly, on cost. Enterprises are spending quickly and accounting slowly.</p><h2>Finding 8: The next bottleneck few are watching</h2><p><b>As inference shifts from compute to memory, the field scatters</b></p><p>Finally, we asked how enterprises would address the emerging constraint in large-scale inference — the shift from GPU compute to memory, specifically KV-cache capacity. The responses reveal a frontier that is not yet a priority.</p><div></div><p>The memory frontier is real but barely governed. Asked which approach they would rely on as the binding constraint in inference shifts from compute to memory bandwidth, enterprises scatter: Dell leads at 31%, Nvidia follows at 16%, and the rest fragments across storage vendors, open-source tooling, and model-level efficiency techniques. Most telling is that roughly one in five (18%) either do not recognize the constraint or have not begun to address it. For a shift that will reshape inference cost and architecture, this is an early and unsettled market — and, consistent with the measurement gap in Finding 7, one where many enterprises simply do not yet have a view. It is the next chapter of the compute gap, arriving before most have closed the current one.</p><h2>The bottom line: A compute gap that faster spending will widen, not close</h2><p>Organizations with more than 100 employees are investing in AI infrastructure faster than they can measure it. Most are still early in deployment, yet their spending intentions point past their current stack — toward specialized clouds and alternative accelerators almost none of them run today — and a clear majority intend to change providers within the year. They buy on integration and total cost of ownership rather than headline price, which is rational; the difficulty is that most cannot yet see those economics clearly.</p><p>The visibility gap is concrete. The GPUs enterprises already own run at half utilization or less for the overwhelming majority, and fewer than half can rigorously track what their compute costs or returns. Satisfaction is decent but unenthusiastic, softest on value for money — the dimension hardest to judge without measurement. And the next constraint, the shift from compute to memory in large-scale inference, is arriving while most enterprises are still unaware of it. At 107 respondents in a single Q2 wave this is a directional read, skewed toward the mid-market and earlier-stage adopters — but the direction is consistent: the appetite to spend is running well ahead of the instrumentation to spend well. The compute gap is not a capacity problem that more hardware will solve on its own; it is, first, a problem of seeing what the hardware already costs. The open question for later waves is whether enterprises build that visibility before the re-platforming arrives — or buy the next layer of infrastructure as blind to its economics as the last.</p><hr><p><i>Based on survey responses from 107 qualified enterprise respondents (100+ employees), drawn from a single Q2 2026 (June) wave. Because this is one wave rather than a pooled multi-month sample, the results read cross-sectionally rather than as a month-over-month trend, and at 107 respondents this is a directional signal rather than a precise measurement — the sample is self-selected, skews mid-market, and leans toward earlier-stage adopters rather than the largest hyperscale operators. Respondents include managers, individual contributors, VPs/directors, and the C-suite, with buyer-credible purchasing authority, across Technology/Software, Healthcare/Life Sciences, Financial Services, Retail/E-commerce, and other industries.</i></p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[An AirPod-powered Frisbee tracker makes backyard throws scientific]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[A developer and Frisbee fan turned AirPods into a flying-disc stat tracker, using motion sensors to measure throws in a clever demonstration of what Apple's earbuds can do beyond playing audio.AirPods 4Sharhan demonstrated Kinapod Disc on Reddit on July 20. The setup requires users to make a smal...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3689282/ios-mac-os/an-airpod-powered-frisbee-tracker-makes-backyard-throws-scientific/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3689282/ios-mac-os/an-airpod-powered-frisbee-tracker-makes-backyard-throws-scientific/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 16:08:59 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🍏 iOS / Mac OS</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[A developer and Frisbee fan turned <a href="https://appleinsider.com/inside/airpods" title="AirPods" data-kpt="1">AirPods</a> into a flying-disc stat tracker, using motion sensors to measure throws in a clever demonstration of what Apple's earbuds can do beyond playing audio.<br><br><div><img src="https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/68335-144037-AirPods-4-case-xl.jpg" alt="White wireless earbuds resting in an open charging case on a soft gray fabric surface, with the case lid tilted back and earbuds partially seated in their slots" height="738"><span>AirPods 4</span></div><br>Sharhan <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/airpods/comments/1v22xgq/airpods_can_track_frisbee_throws/">demonstrated Kinapod Disc</a> on Reddit on July 20. The setup requires users to make a small hole in the center of a flying disc and insert one AirPod stem-first.<br><br>Once it's mounted, the AirPod sends motion data to an <a href="https://appleinsider.com/inside/iphone" title="iPhone" data-kpt="1">iPhone</a> while Kinapod Disc detects each throw and records spin rate, total revolutions, estimated release speed, and airborne time.<br><br>It's a fun albeit expensive solution to the problem of throwing a plastic disc without enough statistics. It's also a clever use of motion sensors Apple builds into AirPods.<br><br><br> <a href="https://appleinsider.com/articles/26/07/23/an-airpod-powered-frisbee-tracker-makes-backyard-throws-scientific?utm_source=rss">Continue Reading on AppleInsider</a> | <a href="https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/245036?urm_source=rss">Discuss on our Forums</a>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Garmin backtracks on Cirqa subscription after outcry from fans and makes a crucial feature available for free]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Garmin has decided that users of the new Cirqa should be able to access real time hear rate data without a subscription.]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3689240/it-nachrichten/garmin-backtracks-on-cirqa-subscription-after-outcry-from-fans-and-makes-a-crucial-feature-available-for-free/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3689240/it-nachrichten/garmin-backtracks-on-cirqa-subscription-after-outcry-from-fans-and-makes-a-crucial-feature-available-for-free/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 15:56:36 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Garmin has decided that users of the new Cirqa should be able to access real time hear rate data without a subscription.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[CVE-2026-47302 | Microsoft NET Throttling allocation of resources]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[A vulnerability described as problematic has been identified in Microsoft NET. Impacted is an unknown function of the component Throttling. Such manipulation leads to allocation of resources.

This vulnerability is traded as CVE-2026-47302. The attack may be launched remotely. There is no exploit...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3689201/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2026-47302-microsoft-net-throttling-allocation-of-resources/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3689201/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2026-47302-microsoft-net-throttling-allocation-of-resources/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 15:33:38 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🕵️ Sicherheitslücken</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[A vulnerability described as <a href="https://vuldb.com/kb/risk">problematic</a> has been identified in <a href="https://vuldb.com/product/microsoft:net">Microsoft NET</a>. Impacted is an unknown function of the component <em>Throttling</em>. Such manipulation leads to allocation of resources.

This vulnerability is traded as <a href="https://vuldb.com/cve/CVE-2026-47302">CVE-2026-47302</a>. The attack may be launched remotely. There is no exploit available.

Upgrading the affected component is recommended.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[OpenAI Presence raises new questions about enterprise automation and jobs]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[OpenAI has launched Presence, an enterprise service for deploying voice and chat agents that can resolve customer and employee requests, potentially automating some work now handled by frontline support teams.



The agents can answer questions and operate IT systems, and enterprises can decide w...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3689165/it-nachrichten/openai-presence-raises-new-questions-about-enterprise-automation-and-jobs/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3689165/it-nachrichten/openai-presence-raises-new-questions-about-enterprise-automation-and-jobs/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 15:20:41 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">OpenAI has launched Presence, an enterprise service for deploying voice and chat agents that can resolve customer and employee requests, potentially automating some work now handled by frontline support teams.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The agents can answer questions and operate IT systems, and enterprises can decide what actions the agents may take and when they should seek human approval for actions or transfer a case to a human.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">OpenAI is already using Presence internally for its English-language phone support channel, where it verifies callers and uses account information to complete approved actions. The company said the system resolves 75% of inbound issues without human assistance.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Another OpenAI service, Codex, can be used to monitor agents and suggest updates or improvements to processes. In OpenAI’s own tests, suggestions from Codex helped reduce handoffs to humans by 15 percentage points over 10 days, it said. Presence also includes simulation and evaluation tools that allow companies to test an agent before deployment. The tests assess whether it reaches the correct outcome, follows company policy, and hands a case to an employee when required.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">OpenAI intends each Presence deployment to deal with one kind of task, for example billing issues, insurance claims, or employee IT service requests, with agents getting only the knowledge and system access required for that task.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Presence is not a self-service product: Enterprises will have to sign up for the limited availability program, with integration performed by OpenAI or selected <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4136024/openai-partners-with-consulting-giants-to-deploy-enterprise-ai-agents.html">global systems integrators</a>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Companies exploring or testing Presence include Spanish bank BBVA, which is evaluating the service for everyday banking support in Mexico, and Japanese technology group SoftBank, which is using it in trials involving Japanese-language customer interactions. Australian insurer IAG is assessing whether the technology can help it respond to surges in customer demand during severe weather events.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Workforce impact</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">OpenAI’s announcement did not address the potential effect of Presence on employment. But its claimed automation rate raises questions about how the technology could affect staffing in customer service and other support functions.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://pareekh.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Pareekh Jain</a>, CEO of Pareekh Consulting, said CIOs should regard the 75% figure as evidence that the technology can work, rather than as a benchmark that every enterprise can expect to reach.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Jain said OpenAI’s deployment benefits from being built around the company’s own products and data. Large enterprises may achieve lower automation rates because they must contend with fragmented legacy systems, uneven knowledge bases and more complex compliance demands.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Most organizations should expect lower initial automation levels that improve over time as the AI agent is refined,” Jain said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The first workforce effect is more likely to be <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4015750/cios-see-ai-prompting-new-it-hiring-even-as-boards-push-for-job-cuts.html">slower hiring than immediate layoffs</a>, according to <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/tulikasheel/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Tulika Sheel</a>, senior vice president at Kadence International.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The roles most exposed are likely to be repetitive, high-volume functions such as frontline customer support and routine back-office processing,” Sheel said. “However, I would expect the first impact to be on hiring and team growth rather than immediate large-scale job cuts. Over time, enterprises may redesign roles around AI-assisted workflows, with humans focusing more on complex cases, escalation, and relationship management.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Jain said Tier-1 support agents handling predictable queries would face the most exposure. Broader reductions would become more likely only after companies reorganize their operations around the technology.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">However, <a href="https://omdia.tech.informa.com/authors/lian-jye-su" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Lian Jye Su</a>, chief analyst at Omdia, said Presence is unlikely to increase the threat of job displacement because companies have used similar customer-support automation from vendors such as Genesys, NiCE, Five9 and AWS for years.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Enterprises are more likely to use Presence alongside employees, with AI handling routine requests while people remain responsible for work requiring judgment and empathy, Su said.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Cost and operational risks</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Analysts said CIOs should examine whether Presence can maintain resolution quality as usage grows, since fewer human handoffs could leave employees dealing with a more difficult mix of cases.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The key question is not simply how many tasks AI can handle, but whether it can handle them reliably at scale,” Sheel said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The financial case will depend partly on the cost of connecting Presence to existing systems and maintaining the controls needed to govern its use, according to Jain. “Often the biggest cost of enterprise AI is not tokens but <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4128310/openai-responds-to-claude-cowork-with-its-own-platform-to-help-build-deploy-and-manage-ai-agents.html">integration and governance</a>,” Jain added.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Companies will need to determine what systems and data the agents can access, monitor their performance, and audit the actions they take. Those investments could offset early savings.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Su said the complexity of enterprise IT will make it difficult for OpenAI to automate entire workflows on its own. Enterprises will still need to work with other technology providers and human employees, while CIOs will favor systems that can be audited and integrated with existing infrastructure.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Jain said the economics could improve if companies use the same integrations and governance controls across additional workflows.</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[OpenAI Presence raises new questions about enterprise automation and jobs]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[OpenAI has launched Presence, an enterprise service for deploying voice and chat agents that can resolve customer and employee requests, potentially automating some work now handled by frontline support teams.



The agents can answer questions and operate IT systems, and enterprises can decide w...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3689164/it-nachrichten/openai-presence-raises-new-questions-about-enterprise-automation-and-jobs/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3689164/it-nachrichten/openai-presence-raises-new-questions-about-enterprise-automation-and-jobs/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 15:20:32 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">OpenAI has launched Presence, an enterprise service for deploying voice and chat agents that can resolve customer and employee requests, potentially automating some work now handled by frontline support teams.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The agents can answer questions and operate IT systems, and enterprises can decide what actions the agents may take and when they should seek human approval for actions or transfer a case to a human.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">OpenAI is already using Presence internally for its English-language phone support channel, where it verifies callers and uses account information to complete approved actions. The company said the system resolves 75% of inbound issues without human assistance.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Another OpenAI service, Codex, can be used to monitor agents and suggest updates or improvements to processes. In OpenAI’s own tests, suggestions from Codex helped reduce handoffs to humans by 15 percentage points over 10 days, it said. Presence also includes simulation and evaluation tools that allow companies to test an agent before deployment. The tests assess whether it reaches the correct outcome, follows company policy, and hands a case to an employee when required.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">OpenAI intends each Presence deployment to deal with one kind of task, for example billing issues, insurance claims, or employee IT service requests, with agents getting only the knowledge and system access required for that task.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Presence is not a self-service product: Enterprises will have to sign up for the limited availability program, with integration performed by OpenAI or selected <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4136024/openai-partners-with-consulting-giants-to-deploy-enterprise-ai-agents.html">global systems integrators</a>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Companies exploring or testing Presence include Spanish bank BBVA, which is evaluating the service for everyday banking support in Mexico, and Japanese technology group SoftBank, which is using it in trials involving Japanese-language customer interactions. Australian insurer IAG is assessing whether the technology can help it respond to surges in customer demand during severe weather events.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Workforce impact</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">OpenAI’s announcement did not address the potential effect of Presence on employment. But its claimed automation rate raises questions about how the technology could affect staffing in customer service and other support functions.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://pareekh.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Pareekh Jain</a>, CEO of Pareekh Consulting, said CIOs should regard the 75% figure as evidence that the technology can work, rather than as a benchmark that every enterprise can expect to reach.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Jain said OpenAI’s deployment benefits from being built around the company’s own products and data. Large enterprises may achieve lower automation rates because they must contend with fragmented legacy systems, uneven knowledge bases and more complex compliance demands.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Most organizations should expect lower initial automation levels that improve over time as the AI agent is refined,” Jain said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The first workforce effect is more likely to be <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4015750/cios-see-ai-prompting-new-it-hiring-even-as-boards-push-for-job-cuts.html">slower hiring than immediate layoffs</a>, according to <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/tulikasheel/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Tulika Sheel</a>, senior vice president at Kadence International.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The roles most exposed are likely to be repetitive, high-volume functions such as frontline customer support and routine back-office processing,” Sheel said. “However, I would expect the first impact to be on hiring and team growth rather than immediate large-scale job cuts. Over time, enterprises may redesign roles around AI-assisted workflows, with humans focusing more on complex cases, escalation, and relationship management.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Jain said Tier-1 support agents handling predictable queries would face the most exposure. Broader reductions would become more likely only after companies reorganize their operations around the technology.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">However, <a href="https://omdia.tech.informa.com/authors/lian-jye-su" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Lian Jye Su</a>, chief analyst at Omdia, said Presence is unlikely to increase the threat of job displacement because companies have used similar customer-support automation from vendors such as Genesys, NiCE, Five9 and AWS for years.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Enterprises are more likely to use Presence alongside employees, with AI handling routine requests while people remain responsible for work requiring judgment and empathy, Su said.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Cost and operational risks</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Analysts said CIOs should examine whether Presence can maintain resolution quality as usage grows, since fewer human handoffs could leave employees dealing with a more difficult mix of cases.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The key question is not simply how many tasks AI can handle, but whether it can handle them reliably at scale,” Sheel said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The financial case will depend partly on the cost of connecting Presence to existing systems and maintaining the controls needed to govern its use, according to Jain. “Often the biggest cost of enterprise AI is not tokens but <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4128310/openai-responds-to-claude-cowork-with-its-own-platform-to-help-build-deploy-and-manage-ai-agents.html">integration and governance</a>,” Jain added.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Companies will need to determine what systems and data the agents can access, monitor their performance, and audit the actions they take. Those investments could offset early savings.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Su said the complexity of enterprise IT will make it difficult for OpenAI to automate entire workflows on its own. Enterprises will still need to work with other technology providers and human employees, while CIOs will favor systems that can be audited and integrated with existing infrastructure.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Jain said the economics could improve if companies use the same integrations and governance controls across additional workflows.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>This article first appeared on <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4200684/openai-presence-raises-new-questions-about-enterprise-automation-and-jobs.html">CIO</a>.</em></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[How to navigate the AI talent wars]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Cloudflare recently beat Q1 2026 earnings. Revenue up 34% year over year. EPS ahead of consensus. Full-year guidance raised. Then, in the same breath, they announced 1,100 layoffs, 20% of the company. CEO Matthew Prince’s explanation: “The way we work at Cloudflare has fundamentally changed.”



...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3689121/it-nachrichten/how-to-navigate-the-ai-talent-wars/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3689121/it-nachrichten/how-to-navigate-the-ai-talent-wars/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 15:06:19 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/cloudflare-net-q1-earnings-revenues-230528107.html">Cloudflare recently beat Q1 2026 earnings</a>. Revenue up 34% year over year. EPS ahead of consensus. Full-year guidance raised. Then, in the same breath, they announced 1,100 layoffs, 20% of the company. CEO Matthew Prince’s explanation: “The way we work at Cloudflare has fundamentally changed.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/block-q1-earnings-beat-strong-144200216.html">Block did the same thing</a>. Beat guidance, raised outlook, cut 4,000+ jobs. Both framed it as architecting for the AI era.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is not a contradiction. This is the new math boards are running. And if you’re a CIO who hasn’t started running it yourself, <a href="mailto:https://www.cio.com/article/4077996/cios-be-ready-for-agentic-ai-or-be-out-of-a-job.html">you’re behind</a>.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The benchmark has moved</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AI-native companies have quietly reset what “efficient” means for a technology organization. Midjourney generates over $500M in revenue with roughly 160 employees, over $3M per head. Anthropic hit a $14B annualized run rate in early 2026 with fewer than 3,000 employees. Across the top AI-native startups, <a href="mailto:https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulbaier/2026/03/31/ai-native-firms-lead-in-revenue-per-employee/">the average revenue per employee is $3.48M</a>, nearly twelve times the traditional SaaS benchmark of $300K.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="mailto:https://www.saastr.com/what-to-do-if-your-business-decelerates/">Boards aren’t comparing you to your 2019 self anymore</a>. They’re comparing you to Anthropic.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is the pressure Cloudflare and Block are responding to. They’re not cutting people because the business is struggling. They’re cutting because investors have internalized a new denominator. Headcount is no longer a proxy for capacity; it’s a liability on the efficiency ratio.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For CIOs, this creates a hiring problem that looks nothing like the cloud or mobile talent gaps of the past decade. Those gaps were about volume: hire 100 cloud engineers, absorb the cost, build the capability… This one is about density; you’re not looking for 100 people. You’re looking for 10 who can deliver what 100 couldn’t, and justify $1M or more in value per seat.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Finding bodies to fill seats has never been easier. Finding people who operate at that level of leverage is a different problem entirely.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">‘Acqui-hires’ are a shortcut with a hidden cost</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Companies have figured out that recruiting AI-native talent one by one is too slow and that it’s faster to buy a team. Google’s acquisition of the Windsurf founders, Meta bringing in the Scale AI team, Accenture’s string of AI-focused acquisitions: <a href="mailto:https://tomtunguz.com/ai-acqui-hire-wave/">these are acqui-hires</a> dressed up as M&amp;A. The premium on experienced AI talent is high enough, and the urgency real enough, that organizations are skipping traditional hiring loops entirely and buying their way in.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I’ve been on the other side of this. My company, MadKudu, was acquired by HG Insights specifically to bring AI-native capability into an established enterprise business. HG needed change agents who had already figured out how to build and ship in this new era, not just people who’d read about it. That’s the thesis behind most of these deals.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But there’s a cost that doesn’t show up in the acquisition price.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AI-native teams are fast because they operate with a different set of defaults: full access to tools, minimal governance layers, the ability to experiment and ship without a six-week approval cycle. That operating model is not a perk; it’s the fundamental mechanism. It’s why a team of 10 can do what an enterprise team of 100 can’t.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When you acqui-hire that team and then slot them into your existing approval processes, you’ve bought the people and killed the engine. The change agents you paid for become change-frustrated. The attrition that follows is expensive and predictable.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The harder realization: acquiring an AI-native team means accepting how they work. That requires deliberately carving out space for them to operate differently, not just tolerating it but institutionalizing it. The acquisition is an organizational change program, not just a hiring event.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The CIO’s real problem</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The governance stack most enterprise organizations run was designed for a headcount world. Every tool vetting cycle, every vendor review, every security approval was calibrated assuming you were managing a large team where consistency and control were the primary objectives.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That calculus breaks when your goal is talent density. The same approval processes that protect against data leaks are now the reason your best people can’t do their best work. When it takes six weeks to approve a tool that your competitor’s team is already shipping with, you’ve traded velocity for the perception of safety.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The practical fix is structured experimentation: clear guardrails, defined boundaries, but explicit permission to try tools before deciding whether to roll them out broadly. Gating everything prevents you from ever discovering what 10x productivity looks like.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The skills inventory question is also more nuanced than it sounds. Job titles won’t tell you where the leverage is. You need to map the actual tasks within each function and assess which can be automated or augmented with AI. That’s where you find the people who, with the right tools, become your $1M/employee talent, not because you hired differently, but because you enabled better.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is also where the build-versus-buy question gets genuinely tricky. As AI reshapes how products are built and delivered, your internal operating model — how you work, how fast you ship, how you use data — is becoming core IP. Outsourcing delivery means outsourcing the part of the organization where your competitive advantage is now being built.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Closing the gap without slowing down</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="mailto:https://www.saastr.com/the-great-ai-talent-grab-the-latest-20vc-with-jason-harry-and-rory/">The AI talent wars</a> are not primarily a recruiting problem. They’re a rethinking of what organizations are supposed to look like.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Boards have a new benchmark. Cloudflare, Block, Amazon, Meta and others have already started restructuring to meet it, publicly, painfully, even while beating their numbers. The question for CIOs isn’t whether this pressure arrives; it’s whether you’re ahead of it or behind it when it does.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The organizations that navigate this well won’t win by outbidding competitors for a handful of elite engineers. They’ll win by designing operating systems that amplify the leverage of the talent they do have, by enabling their best people rather than constraining them, and by treating AI fluency as a core organizational capability rather than a niche specialization.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Talent density is the new headcount model. The sooner your governance, your tooling and your board conversations reflect that, the better positioned you’ll be when the next efficiency report lands.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.</strong><br><a href="https://www.cio.com/expert-contributor-network/"><strong>Want to join?</strong></a></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The new value architecture of the AI-native SaaS era]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[The traditional methods of measuring success no longer tell the full story. Here’s what should replace them — and why.



In brief:




AI is transforming software as a service (SaaS), and the old ways of keeping score no longer apply.



Smart companies are evolving new metrics that provide deep...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3688966/it-nachrichten/the-new-value-architecture-of-the-ai-native-saas-era/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3688966/it-nachrichten/the-new-value-architecture-of-the-ai-native-saas-era/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 14:05:04 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The traditional methods of measuring success no longer tell the full story. Here’s what should replace them — and why.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In brief:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4146669/is-ai-the-end-of-saas-as-we-know-it.html">AI is transforming software as a service (SaaS)</a>, and the old ways of keeping score no longer apply.</li>



<li>Smart companies are evolving new metrics that provide deeper insight into how AI-native software is performing in a new marketplace.</li>



<li>These changes impact everything from pricing to valuations.</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The transformation of the software-as-a-service (SaaS) industry toward AI-native operating companies is rapidly changing the unit of value across the industry.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The traditional metric of seats — which measured access — is rapidly giving way to credits designed to measure work performed. This evolution is upending the industry in multiple ways, impacting everything from pricing to enterprise valuations.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">While many companies still cling to seat-based metrics to measure growth, efficiency and durability, the future is likely to be one in which companies utilize a <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4184688/it-hurtles-toward-the-great-enterprise-pricing-reset.html">credit-centric metrics framework</a>, with seats and outcomes as the bookends of a spectrum.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Why do software companies need new metrics?</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Why the rethink, and why now? There are five major forces that are driving this shift:</p>



<ol start="1" class="wp-block-list">
<li><a href="https://www.idc.com/resource-center/blog/is-saas-dead-rethinking-the-future-of-software-in-the-age-of-ai/"><strong>The unit of value is changing</strong></a><strong>.</strong> Seats measured who could access software, and credits measure what the software actually does. But in an AI-native world, agents don’t have seats; they have workloads. Over the past 18 months, every major SaaS platform has moved to some forms of credit or consumption unit.</li>



<li><strong>The cost of goods sold (COGS) is exploding.</strong> AI inference adds real per-unit costs that scale with usage. In an AI-native world, software companies can’t scale to infinite users at near‑zero marginal cost as before.</li>



<li><strong>Buying is moving up the org chart.</strong> AI-native applications shift purchasing to higher-level operators — such as line-of-business leaders or chief operating officers — which expands the market from software budgets to labor budgets. And because AI agents replace services as well as software, the total market opportunity is 3x to 10x larger than traditional SaaS.</li>



<li><strong>Time to value (TTV) is collapsing.</strong> With AI-native tools, customers start seeing meaningful results in weeks rather than quarters. Onboarding and setup are fast, workflows are pre-built, and there’s no need for extensive customer success or professional services — dramatically reducing implementation time and costs.</li>



<li><strong>Retention is bifurcating.</strong> AI forces clarity in a way that traditional SaaS couldn’t. Products that can provide value become even “stickier” and retain customers. Those that don’t churn faster. In an AI-native marketplace, the middle disappears.</li>
</ol>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">How this shift is impacting pricing</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.ey.com/en_us/insights/strategy/grow-with-trusted-software-portfolio-management">Given how AI-native software is transforming the market</a>, the shift to more variable pricing options is inevitable.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Seats won’t go away completely. Subscription pricing based on the number of users is stable and predictable and will continue to work for some customers. Tokens — the use of pass-through pricing for underlying compute — will fit those customers where the AI feature is commoditized or the buyer wants transparency into costs.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Credits will likely become the dominant architecture because they provide a simple metric for both customers and providers. The vendor sets the conversation ratio between credits and underlying compute, shielding the customer from inference cost details. Credits are easy to understand and can be packaged into annual contracts for multiple features and products.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Finally, the industry will likely see <a href="https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2026-07-01-gartner-says-us-dollars-234-billion-in-enterprise-application-software-spend-is-at-risk-from-agentic-artificial-intelligence">some move toward outcome-based pricing</a> for results such as resolved tickets, recovered revenue or qualified leads. This strategy will mostly be limited to verticals where it is easy to prove AI impacted the result.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Where a software vendor sits on this spectrum is a signal of differentiation and pricing power. Credits are where most defensible AI-native businesses are landing because they balance customer predictability with vendor margin control.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">How AI upends classic SaaS metrics</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When SaaS was in its infancy, companies settled on key metrics designed to answer a small set of core questions. Are we growing? Are customers using the product? Are we retaining and expanding accounts?</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But as AI upends software itself, it is also requiring companies to adopt new metrics to track success. These new metrics fall into three primary buckets, rebuilt around the pricing spectrum described earlier and the trend toward credits as the primary frame:</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Revenue composition</h3>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Committed credit annual recurring revenue (ARR) vs. burndown ARR: Measuring the credits sold on annual commitment vs. those consumed and replenished. This is the single most important split for valuation. Committed credits behave like subscription and burndown behaves like usage.</li>



<li>Credit utilization rate: The percentage of purchased credits consumed per period. This is a leading indicator of renewal sizing.</li>



<li>Credit burn velocity: How fast is a customer consuming their credits, and is that consumption increasing or decreasing quarter over quarter? This metric predicts expansion or contraction before it shows up in ARR.</li>



<li>Effective price per credit: The real revenue per credit after discounts, overage and rollover, which can detect revenue leakage and help companies set smarter guide rails.</li>
</ul>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Margin reality</h3>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Credit margin: The gross profit the company earns per credit after subtracting inference costs. This is the core economic unit for AI-native, usage-based businesses — the replacement for gross margin per seat used in SaaS.</li>



<li>Inference-adjusted gross margin: By carving out AI inference costs separately in the P&amp;L statement, you can see true AI margins, avoid hiding deterioration inside blended SaaS margins, and clearly distinguish AI economics from legacy SaaS economics.</li>



<li>Compute leverage ratio: This metric measures how efficiently the business converts compute spend into revenue. It shows whether your AI margins are improving as you scale.</li>



<li>AI-adjusted “Rule of 40”: This updated metric recalibrates the traditional growth and profitability benchmark to account for AI’s lower gross margins and variable inference costs, giving a more accurate picture of business health for AI-native companies.</li>
</ul>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Behavioral and value signals</h3>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Time-to-first outcome: Replaces traditional onboarding metrics. Tracks how fast a customer reaches their first measurable result.</li>



<li>Adoption: AI-native adoption is measured by workflow penetration and active agent density, not seat count. As AI replaces human-driven usage, the unit of adoption shifts from people to automated workflows and agents.</li>



<li>Net credit retention (NCR): Credit-volume retention across the customer base, tracked separately from net recurring revenue to avoid price-change impact.</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Along with these new metrics, the industry’s transformation is prompting companies to retire or recalibrate old SaaS measures, including per-seat ARR as a primary key performance indicator (KPI), traditional magic number calibrated to subscription dynamics, unadjusted Rule of 40, customer success metrics tied to human touchpoints, and blended gross margin without AI COGS carve-outs.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What does this mean for enterprise value calculations?</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As the internal metrics of success change, so do the ways the investment community measures growth and long-term viability.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Increasingly, a company’s valuation multiple depends on whether its revenue behaves like committed subscription ARR or volatile usage ARR, and the commit‑to‑burndown ratio is the metric investors use to decide where the company fits.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For example, a business with 80% committed credit ARR could trade closer to subscription comps and one with 80% burndown could trade closer to usage comps even though both have the same types of customers. Being able to proactively explain the commit‑to‑burndown mix can help companies avoid undervaluation.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In addition, utilization is expected to replace net promoter scores and seat usage as the primary predictor of churn or expansion. Low utilization guarantees downsizing at renewal, so companies must track utilization cohorts the same way SaaS tracks logo retention cohorts today.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We’re also seeing an inversion of the operating model, with R&amp;D and COGS moving up the P&amp;L and sales and marketing (S&amp;M) and customer success (CS) moving down or sideways. The net operating leverage profile is structurally different from classical SaaS, and the cost-to-scale curve looks different too.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Finally, credit margin engineering is a hidden value-creation lever. The gap between price per credit and cost per credit is set by the software vendor and can be optimized. Most operators have barely started managing this rigorously, and the ones who do will pull away on margin.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What this means for leaders, boards and investors</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The shift from classic SaaS metrics to new AI‑native measures isn’t cosmetic. It represents the seismic change the industry is experiencing as AI matures and transforms products and organizations.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">While these metrics — and perhaps others yet to be determined — may evolve over time, there is no doubt they are already changing how AI companies allocate capital, price products, incent sales teams, evaluate performance and communicate with investors.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It’s important to remember that SaaS metrics were practical tools for a specific era of software. As that era draws to a close, winning companies will choose new metrics that shape behavior and drive smart decision-making.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>The views reflected in this article are the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Ernst &amp; Young LLP or other members of the global EY organization.</em></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.</strong><br><a href="https://www.cio.com/expert-contributor-network/"><strong>Want to join?</strong></a></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[End-to-End Encryption and “Going Dark”]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[New paper: “Encryption and Globalization 15 Years Later: End-to-End Encryption and the Third Round of the ‘Going Dark’ Debate“:
Abstract: This Article updates and expands on 2012 research on encryption and globalization, analyzing what the authors call “Round 3” of the Going Dark Debate: the curr...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3688832/it-security-nachrichten/end-to-end-encryption-and-going-dark/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3688832/it-security-nachrichten/end-to-end-encryption-and-going-dark/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 13:15:16 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>New paper: “<a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6959699">Encryption and Globalization 15 Years Later: End-to-End Encryption and the Third Round of the ‘Going Dark’ Debate</a>“:</p>
<blockquote><p><b>Abstract</b>: This Article updates and expands on 2012 research on encryption and globalization, analyzing what the authors call “Round 3” of the Going Dark Debate: the current controversies over end-to-end encryption (E2EE). Governments around the world have proposed, and in some cases enacted, laws limiting E2EE for law enforcement and national security purposes.</p>
<p>This Article explains the underlying technologies and market developments for a law and policy audience to assess those proposals critically. The Article proceeds in three parts tracking three rounds of the Going Dark Debate. Round 1 covers the Crypto Wars of the 1990s, when U.S. export controls on strong encryption ultimately fell in 1999. Round 2 covers the period roughly 2010 to 2015, when encryption-in-transit became widespread but lawful access remained available through cloud providers, giving rise to what the authors called a “golden age of surveillance” rather than a period of going dark. Round 3 addresses the current debate over E2EE, where no entity between sender and recipient can read the plaintext...</p></blockquote>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Best Open Speech Recognition (ASR) Models in 2026: WER, Languages, Latency, and License Compared]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Open speech recognition stopped being a Whisper monoculture in 2026. Cohere Transcribe, IBM Granite Speech 4.1, ARK-ASR and MOSS-Transcribe are now separated by less than one WER point on the Hugging Face Open ASR Leaderboard — which means rank no longer decides anything. This roundup compares 16...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3688555/ai-nachrichten/best-open-speech-recognition-asr-models-in-2026-wer-languages-latency-and-license-compared/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3688555/ai-nachrichten/best-open-speech-recognition-asr-models-in-2026-wer-languages-latency-and-license-compared/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 11:44:31 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🔧 AI Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Open speech recognition stopped being a Whisper monoculture in 2026. Cohere Transcribe, IBM Granite Speech 4.1, ARK-ASR and MOSS-Transcribe are now separated by less than one WER point on the Hugging Face Open ASR Leaderboard — which means rank no longer decides anything. This roundup compares 16 open-weight models on word error rate, language coverage, streaming latency and license, and shows why the published averages cannot be subtracted from one another.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.marktechpost.com/2026/07/23/best-open-speech-recognition-asr-models-in-2026-wer-languages-latency-and-license-compared/">Best Open Speech Recognition (ASR) Models in 2026: WER, Languages, Latency, and License Compared</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.marktechpost.com/">MarkTechPost</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[iPhone Air 2 Release Date, Features, Camera, Battery and Everything We Know]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Apple is already working on the second-generation iPhone Air, and early reports suggest it will fix several of the biggest complaints about the first model. While the original iPhone Air impressed buyers with its ultra-thin design, many users wanted better cameras, longer battery life, and improv...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3688250/ios-mac-os/iphone-air-2-release-date-features-camera-battery-and-everything-we-know/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3688250/ios-mac-os/iphone-air-2-release-date-features-camera-battery-and-everything-we-know/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 09:13:24 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🍏 iOS / Mac OS</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Apple is already working on the second-generation iPhone Air, and early reports suggest it will fix several of the biggest complaints about the first model. While the original iPhone Air impressed buyers with its ultra-thin design, many users wanted better cameras, longer battery life, and improved sustained performance.



The upcoming iPhone Air 2 is expected to bring meaningful hardware upgrades while keeping the slim design that defines the Air lineup. Apple also appears to be changing its iPhone launch strategy, which means the next Air model may not arrive alongside the Pro models as many expected.



iPhone Air 2 at a glance



FeatureExpected DetailsRelease windowSpring 2027ProcessorA20 Pro built on 2nm processRear camerasDual cameras with Wide + Ultra WideBatteryAround 3,500mAhCoolingVapor chamber coolingDesignSimilar ultra-thin chassis



Will Apple release an iPhone Air 2?



There were reports earlier that Apple had paused development because the first iPhone Air did not sell as well as expected. 



Later reports clarified that Apple had not canceled the device. Instead, the company shifted its roadmap and continues to develop a second-generation model, which is currently believed to be in advanced testing under the internal codename V62.



A second rear camera is finally coming







The biggest limitation of the current iPhone Air is its single rear camera. Apple reportedly plans to solve that by adding a second lens.



Instead of using a telephoto camera, the company is expected to include an Ultra Wide sensor. This setup would match Apple's standard iPhone models and make the Air much more versatile for photography.



Expected camera improvements




48MP primary Wide camera



Ultra Wide secondary camera



Better landscape photography



Improved macro capabilities



More flexibility for video recording




A telephoto lens is still expected to remain exclusive to Pro models.



A20 Pro chip with 2nm technology







Another major upgrade is the processor.



The iPhone Air 2 is expected to use Apple's new A20 Pro chip, making it one of the first iPhones built on a 2-nanometer manufacturing process.



Apple is also expected to adopt Wafer-Level Multi-Chip Module technology, which integrates memory and the processor more efficiently. This design should improve both performance and power efficiency.



Expected benefits




Faster CPU performance



Better graphics performance



Lower power consumption



Improved AI processing



Longer battery life through better efficiency




Bigger battery without sacrificing thinness







Battery life was another common complaint about the first iPhone Air. Apple reportedly plans to address that with both hardware and silicon improvements.



Supply chain information suggests the iPhone Air 2 will include a battery around 3,500mAh, compared to the current 3,149mAh battery.



That represents roughly an 11 percent increase in capacity before accounting for the efficiency gains from the A20 Pro chip. While Apple has not confirmed real-world battery figures, users should expect noticeably longer endurance than the current generation.



Vapor chamber cooling arrives







Apple first introduced vapor chamber cooling on its Pro iPhones, and the technology is now expected to reach the Air lineup.



This cooling system spreads heat more effectively across the phone, allowing the processor to maintain higher performance during demanding workloads.



That means users can expect:




Better gaming performance



Less thermal throttling



Cooler temperatures during extended use



More stable performance while editing videos or using AI features




Expected release date



Apple originally planned to launch the iPhone Air 2 alongside the iPhone 18 Pro lineup in September 2026.



More recent reports point to a different strategy.



Apple is now expected to launch:



ProductExpected launchiPhone 18 ProFall 2026iPhone 18 Pro MaxFall 2026Foldable iPhoneFall 2026iPhone 18Spring 2027iPhone Air 2Spring 2027



This split launch schedule would allow Apple to focus premium devices in the fall while introducing mainstream models several months later.



Wrap Up



Based on current reports, the iPhone Air 2 looks like a much more complete device than its predecessor. A second rear camera, a larger battery, a faster A20 Pro chip, and vapor chamber cooling directly address the biggest compromises of the first-generation model while preserving its ultra-thin design.



As with all early Apple leaks, these details remain unofficial until the company makes an announcement. If the current roadmap stays on track, the iPhone Air 2 should arrive in spring 2027 with a stronger feature set and a better balance between portability and everyday performance.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[VPN Ruled Legal in Anne Frank Court Case Against Anne Frank]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[The crazy EU court case about VPN access to the diary of Anne Frank has three legs. It reads like a reminder that the Netherlands had the highest Jewish death rate in occupied Western Europe, roughly three of every four Dutch Jews murdered. I always think of Amsterdam as the city where Dutch hunt...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3688106/it-security-nachrichten/vpn-ruled-legal-in-anne-frank-court-case-against-anne-frank/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3688106/it-security-nachrichten/vpn-ruled-legal-in-anne-frank-court-case-against-anne-frank/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 07:39:53 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[The crazy EU court case about VPN access to the diary of Anne Frank has three legs. It reads like a reminder that the Netherlands had the highest Jewish death rate in occupied Western Europe, roughly three of every four Dutch Jews murdered. I always think of Amsterdam as the city where Dutch hunted their … <a href="https://www.flyingpenguin.com/vpn-ruled-legal-in-anne-frank-court-case-against-anne-frank/" class="more-link">Continue reading <span class="screen-reader-text">VPN Ruled Legal in Anne Frank Court Case Against Anne Frank</span> <span class="meta-nav">→</span></a>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[HPR4689: Cheap Yellow Display Project Part 8: Writing the code]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[This show has been flagged as Clean by the host.



Hello, again. This is Trey.










Welcome to part 8 in my Cheap Yellow Display (CYD) Project series.  










If you wish to catch up on earlier episodes, you can find them on my 

HPR profile page



https://www.hackerp...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3687798/podcasts/hpr4689-cheap-yellow-display-project-part-8-writing-the-code/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3687798/podcasts/hpr4689-cheap-yellow-display-project-part-8-writing-the-code/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 02:06:01 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🎥 Podcasts</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This show has been flagged as Clean by the host.</p>

<p>

Hello, again. This is Trey.

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

Welcome to part 8 in my Cheap Yellow Display (CYD) Project series.  

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

If you wish to catch up on earlier episodes, you can find them on my 
<a href="https://www.hackerpublicradio.org/correspondents/0394.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">
HPR profile page</a>


<a href="https://www.hackerpublicradio.org/correspondents/0394.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">
https://www.hackerpublicradio.org/correspondents/0394.html</a>



</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

It is hard to believe that I started this project and the HPR series to document it more than a year ago.  Time flies.  Life happens. I spent the last 8 months so focused on work related activities that I had to set the project aside.  And once I set it aside, it was difficult to get back to again.  The one time I tried, I found that my son's old Windows laptop, which I had commandeered to use for the project, was once and truly dead.  

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

We live in a different world now than we did when I began this project.  Today, everything is about AI – how it is changing our world, increasing efficiencies, and even displacing certain types of jobs.  "Vibe coding" is transforming the way we make software, and now everyone is a developer.

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

Within my organization, we are all being strongly encouraged to learn more about AI and apply it in our daily work.  We are blessed to have access to a wide range of training and to powerful tools which support the process.  Several colleagues within my organization and outside my organization have recommended Claude Code -- for development, for organization, for brainstorming, and for much more.  My role is not that of a developer, and I have had no need for Claude Code at work.  There are plenty of other tools for me to use.

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

But at home, I thought... I could install Claude Code at home to experiment with and to learn.  And then it hit me.  I wonder if I could use Claude Code to help me with my stalled CYD project.  

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

"Hello, my name is Trey, and I am a fraud."

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

OK.  I don't think I am a fraud, but having never used such a powerful tool to help me code, I feel a little bit like a fraud, with Claude doing the work for me. Let's talk through what we did.

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

As I mentioned, I was unable to use the laptop on which I created the original GUI code.  But no worries, because It was all on GitHub, right?

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

So, I began by trying to install Claude Code on one of my Ubuntu machines.  That failed miserably, and all the instructions I found online recommended running it on Windows.  So I transitioned to installing Claude Code on a freshly built Windows 10 system using some old hardware which will not support Windows 11.  Surprisingly, It seems that Claude wants to run within Ubuntu on Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL).

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

Once I went through all the hoops for installing and setting up my basic subscription, I got to work.  I created a new directory to use for all my project files, and another one for Claude to write all its output files to.

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

Everything I have read and heard about using Claude Code for a project like this recommended beginning by using Claude to create the project plan.  So my first prompt was as follows:

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

"I am building a project using an ESP32 cheap yellow display. The final goal is to have a device with a graphical user interface which will allow me store several text messages, each assigned to their own specific button. Then, when one of the buttons is pressed, the message will be converted into morse code, and the message will be sent by blinking an onboard LED. I already have the initial design for the GUI coded in my github repository. Please construct a detailed step by step plan for building this application"

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

I wanted to keep it simple at the beginning, so even though I plan to use an opto-isolated relay for the output, I am starting out using the built in LED.

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

Claude asked me for the URL for my Github repository, and I provided it.  After thinking for a bit, it produced a project plan.

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

CYD Morse Sender — Step-by-Step Build Plan

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

What You Already Have

</p>

<p>

- 3 fully designed LVGL screens (Send, Config, Keyboard)

</p>

<p>

- 7 send buttons with green styling on the Send Screen

</p>

<p>

- Speed slider (5–30 WPM) and program slot dropdown on Config Screen

</p>

<p>

- Text area + LVGL keyboard widget on Keyboard Screen

</p>

<p>

- Display driver and touchscreen hardware initialized (but touch read was stubbed out)

</p>

<p>

---

</p>

<p>

Phase 1: Fix Touchscreen Input

</p>

<p>

Initialize the XPT2046 on VSPI, replace the hardcoded touched = false with real touch data, calibrate raw ADC coordinates to screen pixels, and verify all three nav buttons transition screens correctly.                         

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

Phase 2: Persistent Message Storage

</p>

<p>

Use Preferences.h / NVS to store 7 messages ("msg0" – "msg6") that survive power cycles. Load on boot and populate send button labels.

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

Phase 3: Config Screen — Slot Selection &amp; Speed

</p>

<p>

Wire the Program dropdown to g_selectedSlot, wire the Speed slider to g_wpm with a live WPM label, and wire the Set button to clear the text area and navigate to the Keyboard Screen.

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

Phase 4: Keyboard Screen — Capture and Save Text

</p>

<p>

On keyboard OK (LV_EVENT_READY): read the text area, save to NVS, update the send button label, navigate back. On Cancel: navigate back without saving.

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

Phase 5: Morse Code Engine

</p>

<p>

Build morse.h with the full A–Z / 0–9 lookup table, a textToMorse() converter, and Paris-standard timing (unit_ms = 1200 / wpm).

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

Phase 6: Non-Blocking LED Transmission

</p>

<p>

State machine (IDLE / LED_ON / LED_OFF) driven by millis() in a morseUpdate() function called every loop — no delay().   LED on GPIO 17 (blue).

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

Phase 7: Wire the Send Buttons

</p>

<p>

Each button calls startMorse(getMessage(slot)) if not already transmitting. Disable all send buttons during TX; re-enable when the state machine reaches the end.

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

Phase 8: Integration &amp; Polish

</p>

<p>

Stop button, WPM persistence, empty-slot guard, serial debug output, final touch calibration, end-to-end test checklist.

</p>

<p>

---

</p>

<p>

Recommended order: Phase 1 → 2 → 7 (partial) → 5 → 6 → 7 (full) → 3 → 4 → 8

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

This was wild!  Claude determined exactly how far along I was in the project, and also alerted me to the fact that the "touch read was stubbed out".  Ugh.  This means that the files I had uploaded to GitHub were my original GUI files (Episode 05 – HPR4532 - 
<a href="https://hackerpublicradio.org/eps/hpr4532/index.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">
https://hackerpublicradio.org/eps/hpr4532/index.html</a>

) and not the ones that I finally got working properly (Episode 07 – HPR4624 - 
<a href="https://hackerpublicradio.org/eps/hpr4624/index.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">
https://hackerpublicradio.org/eps/hpr4624/index.html</a>

).  That was my own fault.  Did I mention that I don't get Git?  I REALLY need to learn to properly use Git!

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

But, we have a plan, broken down by eight numbered phases.  And they seem to address all the functionality I wanted with a few additional things I had not thought about.  Interestingly, even though these phases are sequentially numbered, Claud recommended that we approach them in a bizarre order: Phase 1 → 2 → 7 (partial) → 5 → 6 → 7 (full) → 3 → 4 → 8 .

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

Alright.  Let's see what we can do.  The first phase is to fix the touchscreen input.  

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

Claude took me through it step-by-step, asking as it needed to read specific project files.

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

Finally, it wrote a new ui.ino code file to my speficied output directory for me to test.  I copied it into the correct file location, said a quick prayer, compiled in Arduino IDE, and downloaded to the CYD.

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

Well, that is... interesting.  The display looked nothing like it was supposed to.  There were vertical green bars with smaller dashed green vertical stripes in them. I will include a picture in the show notes so that you can see what it looked like and why it was so difficult to describe.  

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

<a href="https://hackerpublicradio.org/eps/hpr4689/hpr4689_image_1.jpeg">
<img src="https://hackerpublicradio.org/eps/hpr4689/hpr4689_image_1_tn.jpeg">
</a>

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

I spent the next hour or so trying to explain what I was seeing to a chat bot.  Claude recommended potential fixes which either did nothing or made the situation worse.  I began questioning whether this was a good idea, how people actually gained efficiencies talking to a bot, and even several life choices.  

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

Then I had a thought.  I prompted Claude:

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

If I were to take a picture of the screen on the cheap yellow display and copy it into the output folder, would you be able to analyze it to better determine what is wrong and how to fix it?

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

Shockingly, Claude answered in the affirmative, and told me to copy the picture to the output folder and let it know when to proceed.  It analyzed the picture and more of the supporting files it had copied from my GitHub, asking each time if it could access that file.  It determined that my original code was written for a flavor of LVGL version 8 and I was now using LVGL 9.5.  

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

It recommended changes, and then asked permission to make those changes, file by file.  .h files &amp; .c files,  Finally, I just gave it permission to edit the files in the project folder without asking for permission for each file each time.  Claude was still explaining each change, showing me exactly what would be changed, and asking for permission, so that I could review all of the changes.  But now it was not asking additional permission to write to each of the impacted files.

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

Next, Code compiled and downloaded.  Different screen, but not right. Again, I took a picture and gave it to Claude to analyze.  So, Claude paused and altered the code to generate a specific test pattern overtop of the GUI.

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

<a href="https://hackerpublicradio.org/eps/hpr4689/hpr4689_image_2.jpeg">
<img src="https://hackerpublicradio.org/eps/hpr4689/hpr4689_image_2_tn.jpeg">
</a>

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

The test pattern was supposed to cover the entire rectangular screen.  But parts of the pattern were in a square on the screen and parts were not.  Another photograph and analysis, told Claude that there were some rotation/screensize issues.

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

We repeated this several times.  Some resulted in improvement, and others did not.

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

This is the point where I noticed something interesting. Not about Claude, specifically, or about the app.  But I noticed something interesting about myself and about the process.

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

Previously, when I was working through some of these challenges without Claud, I found myself becoming more and more stressed, frustrated, and angry, until I found a solution.  Then another problem would repeat the cycle.  Success in the end was great, but the emotional extremes during the process were not always pleasant.  

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

Now, I was effectively managing the project, and relaying information to the resource responsible for fixing the problems -- a very different experience.

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

But I also ran into another issue.  Claude became absolutely certain that the problem revolved around the device not accurately knowing where the 4 corners of the screen were.  But in reality, the output of the test pattern was rotated 90 degrees from the actual screen.  It took several iterations of me insisting that the problem had to do with screen orientation and not corner coordinates.  It was interesting to experience the tool doubling down on an obvious mistake, but we finally resolved that.

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

Again, while it was frustrating, it was much less stressful.

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

We proceeded to 
<strong>

<em>
Phase 2: Persistent Message Storage</em>

</strong>

where we ensured that the button labels on the send screen were stored in the devices persistent storage, so that, when they are edited to contain the message they should send, that information would survive a reboot.

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

Next, we combined elements of 
<strong>

<em>
Phase 5: Morse Code Engine</em>

</strong>

, 
<strong>

<em>
Phase 6: Non-Blocking LED Transmission</em>

</strong>

, and 
<strong>

<em>
Phase 7: Wire the Send Buttons</em>

</strong>

together. Building the morse code engine was an area I had been thinking about for a while.  I already had working parts of something similar in the Arduino practice oscillator I have referenced a few times in this series.  The code for the practice oscillator may be found on my GitHub, but it was all based on original code from jmharvey1, with my only contribution being making pin assignments variables so that the code could easily be ported to different devices.  

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

So, I was happy that we were building the morse code engine directly.  The code for it may be found in morse.h, which uses a constant character lookup table to define each character.  Without any specific direction from me, Claude used the PARIS timing methods I have already described within Episode 6 of this series.  It defines timing for DOT, DASH, LETTER_GAP, and WORD_GAP, and all are based on a simple calculation of 1200 ms / the number of words per minute (WPM) we wish to transmit.

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

Along the way, we discovered that, if we tried to use the delay() function, it would crash the program due to a conflict with the LVGL timer used for touchscreen inputs. Claude altered all the delays accordingly.

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

Then, 
<strong>

<em>
Phase 3: Config Screen — Slot Selection &amp; Speed</em>

</strong>

allowed us to configure the WPM we wished to use in addition to selecting a specific Send button to reconfigure.  This forced us to work on 
<strong>

<em>
Phase 4: Keyboard Screen — Capture and Save Text</em>

</strong>

which is used to type the entries for each Send button.  At this point, I also decided that we would want to also use the Keyboard Screen to send ad hoc morse as we typed it.

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

During this phase we discovered several bugs which seemed to cause random freezes.  Careful troubleshooting with messages output to the Arduino IDE's serial console helped us narrow down the causes and remedy them.

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

Finally all the tests worked and I am able to merrily pre-configure macro buttons with custom messages and use the CYD to send the morse code for those messages to the on-board LED at whichever rate I specify.

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

I have noticed in my presentation of this narrative that I repeatedly slip into the first person plural terms "we" and "us" instead of the first person singular terms "I" and "me".  I have unconsciously personified Claud and recognized it as an integral part of my (formerly one person) development team.

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

I finally configured Claude to connect to my GitHub repo and upload all the files and documentation. We additionally created a CYD-Narrative.md file which describes in more detail all the work which was done on the project.  I still do not 100% get git, but we are successfully using it.

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

You can find all these files in my GitHub repo (
<a href="https://github.com/jttrey3/CYD_MorseSender" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">
https://github.com/jttrey3/CYD_MorseSender</a>

) where they are shared under a GPL 3.0 license.

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

There are still several additional steps I plan to complete in the next few months.  

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

1. I will be integrating an opto-isolated relay which will allow me to plug the device into the straight key input on any amateur radio.  This will require a battery power source, charge controller, and more hardware.

</p>

<ol>

<li>

I... make that "We" (Claude &amp; I)  will be modifying the code to support an audio side tone through an attached speaker when sending code

</li>

<li>

We will add an output selection switch to the config page to choose any combination of speaker, relay, or LED as output.

</li>

<li>

We will develop a downloadable firmware which I hope to share with the Cheap Yellow Display community.

</li>

</ol>

<p>


</p>

<p>

If you can think of any additional features you would like to see integrated, please drop me an email using the address in my HPR profile.

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

I may also work with a friend to attempt to 3d print a case for the entire contraption, and I will be sure to record additional episodes sharing the process.

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

I have learned so much throughout this project, about the CYD, ESP32, GUIs, Claude Code, GitHub, and most of all, about myself.  

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

Does using AI to develop this code make me a fraud? It still feels like it in some ways.  

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

Does it make me more productive?  ABSOLUTELY!  I made consistent forward progress when I only had 30-60 minutes each day to work on it, and everything discussed in this episode was completed in less than a week.  If I had been able to work on it for a few hours uninterrupted, it may have only taken me 3-5 hours.

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

Does it empower and inspire me to do more projects like this?  100%  I feel like I had support working with me the whole way.  I was less stressed overall, and it had less of an impact on the amount of and quality of time I spent with my family.

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

I will be wrapping up this series soon, without any more 6 month gaps, I hope.

</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>

Until next time...

</p>

<p>

</p>


<p><a href="https://hackerpublicradio.org/eps/hpr4689/index.html#comments">Provide <strong>feedback</strong> on this episode</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[You Read Them, You Rate Them: SUSE Documentation Survey 2026]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[The 2026 SUSE Documentation Survey is LIVE! Enterprise software is only as good as the docs that power it, and nobody knows where our docs shine—or where they fall short—better than you. Whether you rely on our guides to keep mission-critical infrastructure running smoothly or drop in for quick t...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3687759/unix-server/you-read-them-you-rate-them-suse-documentation-survey-2026/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3687759/unix-server/you-read-them-you-rate-them-suse-documentation-survey-2026/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 01:17:49 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🐧 Unix Server</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The 2026 SUSE Documentation Survey is LIVE! Enterprise software is only as good as the docs that power it, and nobody knows where our docs shine—or where they fall short—better than you. Whether you rely on our guides to keep mission-critical infrastructure running smoothly or drop in for quick troubleshooting, your real-world experience directly shapes […]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.suse.com/c/you-read-them-you-rate-them-suse-doc-survey-2026/">You Read Them, You Rate Them: SUSE Documentation Survey 2026</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.suse.com/c">SUSE Communities</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[AI agents aren't confidently wrong because of bad context — they're wrong because of bad data engineering]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[You spend weeks tuning an AI chatbot. Answers are accurate. Stakeholders sign off, and you ship it. Three months later, the system is confidently wrong about a third of what users ask. Nobody changed the model, and nobody touched the prompts. The world moved, pricing changed, a policy updated, a ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3687580/it-nachrichten/ai-agents-arent-confidently-wrong-because-of-bad-context-theyre-wrong-because-of-bad-data-engineering/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3687580/it-nachrichten/ai-agents-arent-confidently-wrong-because-of-bad-context-theyre-wrong-because-of-bad-data-engineering/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 22:58:18 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You spend weeks tuning an AI chatbot. Answers are accurate. Stakeholders sign off, and you ship it. Three months later, the system is confidently wrong about a third of what users ask. Nobody changed the model, and nobody touched the prompts. The world moved, pricing changed, a policy updated, a product spec shipped a new version, and the underlying knowledge store didn't move with it.</p><p>This is not a hypothetical. It's one of the most common production failure modes in enterprise AI right now, and most data engineering teams don't have the right tooling to catch it, regardless of how the AI system retrieves the data.</p><h2>The failure that doesn't look like a failure </h2><p>An AI application doesn't care whether it's retrieving from a vector store, a document index, or an API call. Whatever the mechanism, nothing in a standard retrieval pipeline checks whether what it's serving is still correct. A stale pricing document retrieves just as confidently as a current one, because the system is scoring relevance or availability, not correctness. A record with a silently missing field passes through just as cleanly as a complete one, for the same reason.</p><p>So the failure is invisible by design. Outdated or incomplete data still scores high on relevance, or passes every check a data pipeline was built to run. The model answers with full confidence because the retrieved context looks authoritative. Every dashboard you're watching stays green. The system looks like it's working. It's just wrong.</p><p>I’ve watched a similar version of this happen outside the AI context, in a fintech pipeline. An upstream system changed a field without notifying downstream users. The pipeline did not fail; it simply propagated bad values into dashboards because the system only checked whether the job completed, not whether the data was still correct. The issue surfaced only when a customer noticed something inconsistent. By then, the bad data had already moved downstream. </p><p>Whether it's a document that's gone stale or a field that's gone silently missing, the failure shape is the same: the absence of an error is not the presence of correctness, and without building proper validation layers, nothing in the pipeline could identify the problem.</p><h2>Why this is a data engineering problem</h2><p>Teams that hit this failure tend to misdiagnose it, and they tend to do it twice.</p><p><b>Blaming the model: </b>The first instinct is to blame the model, try a different LLM, adjust the prompt. The real problem lies further upstream, at the data engineering layer, the same instinct behind the fintech failure above: monitoring built for the pipeline, not the data.</p><p><b>Blaming the retrieval layer: </b>Once the model's ruled out, the next instinct is to blame the retrieval or context layer instead and buy a better one. The timing isn't a coincidence: as enterprises push these systems into the real production world, this gap is exactly what's starting to surface, and the vendor response has been everywhere. </p><ul><li><p>AWS just<a href="https://venturebeat.com/data/aws-enters-the-context-layer-race-with-a-graph-that-learns-from-agents-not-manual-curation"> entered the "context layer" race</a> with a knowledge graph that learns from agent usage. </p></li><li><p>Snowflake's new Horizon Context and Cortex Sense target the exact symptom<a href="https://venturebeat.com/data/ai-agents-keep-giving-confident-wrong-answers-the-context-layer-is-enterprise-ais-next-production-problem"> this piece opened with</a>: agents giving confident wrong answers because nothing governs the business logic underneath them. </p></li></ul><p>Both are real responses to a real problem, but they sit one layer above it; a knowledge graph still depends on whatever feeds it.</p><p>The real problem lies further upstream, at the data engineering layer. Teams check whether a job ran, not whether the data it moved is still true, an instinct that predates AI by years. Monitoring is built for the pipeline, not for the data. </p><h2>What's actually missing: Data observability</h2><p>Data observability is a well-known concept that doesn't get enough attention in how it's actually implemented. The relevant metric isn't a percentage — it's coverage: what fraction of critical datasets have lineage that's actually queryable, versus only living in someone's head.</p><p>Uber built a <a href="https://www.uber.com/in/en/blog/operational-excellence-data-quality/">dedicated data quality and observability platform</a> long before retrieval-augmented generation existed. Their Unified Data Quality platform supports more than 2,000 critical datasets and detects around 90% of data quality incidents before they reach downstream consumers.</p><p>Netflix solved a different piece of the same problem, <a href="https://netflixtechblog.com/building-and-scaling-data-lineage-at-netflix-to-improve-data-infrastructure-reliability-and-1a52526a7977">building a company-wide data lineage system</a> so anyone could answer where a dataset came from and what touched it along the way. It maps dependencies across Kafka topics, ML models, and experimentation, not just warehouse tables. Similar to Uber, the platform was built for humans and now it has become more important with the rise in AI/LLM applications.</p><p>Between them, Uber and Netflix cover two of the four things worth building for. In practice, I think about it as four dimensions, each measurable on its own terms.</p><p><b>Correctness:</b> Does each record conform to the shape and rules it's supposed to, right field types, no unexpected nulls, values in range. Tools like<a href="https://greatexpectations.io/"> Great Expectations</a> and <a href="https://soda.io/">Soda</a> handle this well: automated row and column-level validation instead of manual checks after something breaks. Track percentage of records passing validation per run.</p><p><b>Freshness:</b> Is the data still current relative to its source, not just current as of its last check. Track time since last successful update per source, with an SLA per dataset rather than one blanket threshold, since some sources need hourly refresh and others don't.</p><p><b>Consistency:</b> Does the same fact read the same way everywhere it's stored or indexed. This fails silently, it only shows up when two systems fed by the same source start disagreeing. A periodic cross-check between downstream destinations, flagging mismatch rate above a threshold, is enough to catch it early.</p><p><b>Lineage:</b> Can you trace any output back to its source and every transform it passed through, the same question Netflix built its system to answer. </p><p>None of this requires infrastructure most data teams don't already have. I know because I've built it, not just argued for it.</p><p>At <a href="https://www.socure.com/">Socure</a>, client data arrived in whatever shape the client felt like sending it, and occasionally, quietly wrong. The challenge was building a system where incorrect data could be identified before it propagated downstream. The same principles applied: Validate what arrived, understand where it came from, and prevent bad data from becoming someone else's problem.</p><p>Great Expectations became part of that foundation: schema and range validation at ingestion, per-source SLAs for freshness, cross-system checks for consistency, and file-level lineage. All of it sat behind a <a href="https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/big-data/build-write-audit-publish-pattern-with-apache-iceberg-branching-and-aws-glue-data-quality/">write-audit-publish</a> pattern, where data landed in staging, was validated, and only moved downstream if it passed the required checks.</p><p>The result showed up downstream: better accuracy across the board, in reporting, in the ML models, and in AI retrieval built on top of that same data.</p><h2>What to do Monday morning</h2><p>If you're running retrieval-based AI systems in production, the diagnostic question isn't which model to try next or which retrieval architecture to migrate to. It's four narrower questions: </p><ul><li><p>Is the underlying data validated against the standards required by its consumers?</p></li><li><p>What's the oldest piece of content currently being served with high confidence?</p></li><li><p>Would two chunks of the same source ever disagree with each other in the same retrieval result?</p></li><li><p>Could you trace where it came from if it turned out to be wrong?</p></li></ul><p>If you can't answer those questions, then the gap lies in the pipeline between your source systems and whatever your agent reads from. That’s a data engineering fix, not a model swap or a vendor migration.</p><p>Whether you're building reporting pipelines, ML systems, or AI agents, correctness, freshness, consistency, and lineage are what make data trustworthy. AI simply exposes weaknesses that have existed in data engineering all along. </p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[China Considers Export Controls on AI Models, Training Data and Chip Technology]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[China is considering tighter controls on AI models, training data, and chip designs, potentially limiting how Chinese technology reaches global users.
The post China Considers Export Controls on AI Models, Training Data and Chip Technology appeared first on TechRepublic.]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3687576/it-nachrichten/china-considers-export-controls-on-ai-models-training-data-and-chip-technology/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3687576/it-nachrichten/china-considers-export-controls-on-ai-models-training-data-and-chip-technology/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 22:58:12 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>China is considering tighter controls on AI models, training data, and chip designs, potentially limiting how Chinese technology reaches global users.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.techrepublic.com/article/news-apac-china-ai-model-export-controls/">China Considers Export Controls on AI Models, Training Data and Chip Technology</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.techrepublic.com/">TechRepublic</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Menlo Ventures’ Matt Murphy explains why Anthropic is winning (and it’s not the model)]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Anthropic leaped to a $47 billion revenue run rate by May, compared to $9 billion in 2025. It’s the kind of growth that Menlo Ventures’ Matt Murphy says he’s never seen in 25 years of investing, not in the internet wave, not in mobile, not in the first cloud boom. Menlo led Anthropic’s $500M Seri...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3687222/it-nachrichten/menlo-ventures-matt-murphy-explains-why-anthropic-is-winning-and-its-not-the-model/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3687222/it-nachrichten/menlo-ventures-matt-murphy-explains-why-anthropic-is-winning-and-its-not-the-model/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 20:12:18 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Anthropic leaped to a $47 billion revenue run rate by May, compared to $9 billion in 2025. It’s the kind of growth that Menlo Ventures’ Matt Murphy says he’s never seen in 25 years of investing, not in the internet wave, not in mobile, not in the first cloud boom. Menlo led Anthropic’s $500M Series D, and Murphy has had a front-row seat as the company went from a pre-revenue, […]]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Apple Watch Saves Mountain Biker After Serious Crash With Fall Detection]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Apple has shared a new real-life story showing how Apple Watch Fall Detection and Emergency SOS helped rescue an injured cyclist after a serious mountain bike crash.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l40eAWni8yw




In the video, Phil explains that he was riding with his two young children when...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3686885/ios-mac-os/apple-watch-saves-mountain-biker-after-serious-crash-with-fall-detection/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3686885/ios-mac-os/apple-watch-saves-mountain-biker-after-serious-crash-with-fall-detection/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 17:33:16 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🍏 iOS / Mac OS</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Apple has shared a new real-life story showing how Apple Watch Fall Detection and Emergency SOS helped rescue an injured cyclist after a serious mountain bike crash.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l40eAWni8yw




In the video, Phil explains that he was riding with his two young children when he misjudged a jump and crashed heavily. The impact broke his collarbone and seven ribs, while also knocking him unconscious at the scene.



His Apple Watch detected the fall and automatically contacted emergency services because he could not respond. The device also shared his location, which helped firefighters find him quickly and take him to the hospital for treatment.



Phil spent one week in the hospital recovering from his injuries, and he later said he felt grateful that he had been wearing his Apple Watch during the accident. His wife also received an alert, which helped his family understand what had happened.



How Apple Watch Emergency Features Work



Apple Watch can detect serious falls and vehicle crashes, then contact emergency services when the wearer remains unresponsive. It can also share the user’s location and notify selected emergency contacts.



Apple has highlighted similar stories in previous campaigns, showing how Fall Detection, Crash Detection, heart rate alerts, and Emergency SOS have helped users during accidents and medical emergencies.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The $3 trillion assembly line: Why CIOs must industrialize the data center supply chain]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[You are one of the six billion people (75% of the world population) online today, and every click you make is routed through the data center. Data centers, whether knowingly or unknowingly, play a very critical role in your daily online activities. With an increasing population, increasing usage ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3686216/it-nachrichten/the-3-trillion-assembly-line-why-cios-must-industrialize-the-data-center-supply-chain/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3686216/it-nachrichten/the-3-trillion-assembly-line-why-cios-must-industrialize-the-data-center-supply-chain/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 14:04:29 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">You are one of the six billion people (75% of the world population) online today, and every click you make is routed through the data center. Data centers, whether knowingly or unknowingly, play a very critical role in your daily online activities. With an increasing population, increasing usage of online presence, and now omniscient AI, the demand for data centers has increased manyfold, and the trend seems similar to the year 2000, when telephone towers were built to accommodate increased digital presence.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">To win the AI race, Hyperscalers (Google, Meta, Amazon, Microsoft, Alibaba, Oracle, IBM, Tencent) are spending huge amounts of money on data center development. In the USA, the hyperscalers are planning to spend <a href="https://finance.yahoo.com/news/big-tech-set-to-spend-650-billion-in-2026-as-ai-investments-soar-163907630.html">$650 billion in 2026, which is around 70% higher than 2025 spending</a>, according to Yahoo Finance.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As per McKinsey research, by 2030, companies will invest around $7 trillion in Capex on data center infrastructure globally. More than $4 trillion will go towards computing hardware investment. More than 40% of this spending will be invested in the United States.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Demand growth in data centers</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">McKinsey analysis shows that global demand for data center capacity can more than triple by 2030, with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of around 22 per cent. In the USA, data center demand could grow by 20-25 per cent at the same time.  </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The data center industry is currently undergoing a violent transition. We are moving away from the era of “bespoke projects” — where every facility was a unique architectural feat — into an era of industrialized infrastructure. With global capital expenditure in the sector projected to hit $3 trillion by 2028, the “bottleneck” has shifted. It is no longer about securing the capital; it is about the physics of the supply chain.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">During my tenure at Vantage, managing the intersection of data center construction management (DCCM) and infrastructure management (DCIM), I saw firsthand that the most successful players aren’t those with the deepest pockets, but those with the most integrated data threads. If your construction data in Procore doesn’t talk to your financial reality in Yardi, or your operational capacity in DCIM, you aren’t building a data center — you’re managing a $500 million blind spot.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The death of “sticks and bricks”</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Traditionally, data center construction was treated as civil engineering. But for the modern CIO, a data center is a complex product assembly.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The challenges are systemic. We are facing 50-to-80-week lead times for critical “long-pole” items: extra-high-voltage transformers, switchgear, and the liquid cooling manifolds required for the next generation of AI chips. In this environment, the traditional reactive supply chain model is a liability.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">To survive the $3 trillion inflow, we must adopt a hybrid-agile SCOR (supply chain operations reference) model. This means applying continuous flow logic to standardized components (like modular power skids) while maintaining agile responsiveness for the volatile IT layer.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The digital bridge: Construction management software  to ERP</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The most significant opportunity for CIOs lies in financial-operational integration. In many organizations, there is a data chasm between the construction site and the corporate office. Construction teams live in the construction management software tracking tasks, trades, RFIs and payment submittals. Finance teams operate corporate offices with project management tools (worth remembering that email is a key tool besides spreadsheets and phone calls) tracking capex schedule, commissioning timeline, capital drawdowns and asset lifecycle management.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">These systems are siloed; the CIO loses visibility into the total cost to serve. By integrating construction management into the financial system, we create real-time financial visibility of the build. We can see exactly how a three-week delay in a chiller delivery impacts the internal rate of return (IRR) of the entire asset. This isn’t just accounting; it’s strategic telemetry.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">From BIM to DCIM: The lifecycle thread</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The second bridge is the handoff from construction (BIM) to operations (DCIM). Historically, this handoff was a nightmare of PDFs and Excel sheets. By the time the operations team took the keys, the “as-built” design information was already out of date.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The opportunity today is to maintain a continuous data thread. The sensor data and asset tags established during the “make” phase in our SCOR model should flow directly into the DCIM. This allows us to perform virtual commissioning. Before a single server is racked, we should already have a digital replica of the airflow, power distribution, and cooling capacity.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The scientific inference: AI in the supply chain</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As someone who has led data and AI initiatives, I’ve seen the hype. But in the supply chain, the application of AI must be pragmatic, not generative. We don’t need AI to write poems; we need it for predictive procurement. Most organizations manage their procurement in ERP or a mix of a few tools to manage the source-to-settle business flow. Adopting a system workflow improves data collection and the state of the procurement cycle, which in turn provides AI with the context to draw inferences for possible delays and anomalies in original specifications and change orders.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">By applying machine learning to global logistics data, we can move from just-in-time to just-in-case modeling. AI can analyze geopolitical risks, shipping lane congestion, and raw material pricing to tell a CIO: <em>“Order your switchgear 14 months early, or your Q3 2027 ‘Power On’ date is at risk.”</em></p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Bringing it all together: AI in the supply chain and finance</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Why it matters: Approximately 70% of the capex is on this workflow and making timely decisions that directly impact the ready-for-service dates. The current challenge of reactionary adjustment in design to procurement to local fit-out is a significant drain on capex efficiency and cost of capital. Because single-project delivery delays have become so volatile, a massive structural shift is occurring in how digital infrastructure is funded. Single-project debt (special purpose vehicles or SPVs) is facing severe friction. To insulate themselves from RFS shocks, the largest institutional players are moving toward permanent platform capital — aggregating exposure across dozens of global assets simultaneously.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Navigating these complex multi-billion-dollar engineering projects distributed over a large geography is simply unmanageable without rethinking and re-engineering existing tools and processes.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The roadmap for the modern CIO</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">To lead this transformation, CIOs must move beyond the IT shop mentality and become master orchestrators of the supply chain. Here is the 1500-word reality condensed into three mandates:</p>



<ol start="1" class="wp-block-list">
<li><strong>Standardize the product:</strong> Stop designing bespoke facilities. Move toward DFMA (design for manufacturing and assembly). If 70% of your data center can be built in a factory and shipped as modules, you bypass the unpredictability of on-site labor.</li>



<li><strong>Integrate the financial stack:</strong> If your construction management software and your ERP aren’t sharing a heartbeat, your data is lying to you. Force the integration between Procore and Yardi.</li>



<li><strong>Own the long poles:</strong> Don’t leave the procurement of transformers and cooling units to general contractors. Use your balance sheet to secure these items years in advance. In 2026, inventory is the new currency.</li>
</ol>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.</strong><br><a href="https://www.cio.com/expert-contributor-network/"><strong>Want to join?</strong></a></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Utility companies are promising to spare us from AI’s energy bill]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[In the face of backlash to concerns the AI boom will increase consumer electricity bills, the largest utility companies and data center developers in the US are now promising to do something about it. The Wall Street Journal reports that nearly 200 organizations have signed President Donald Trump...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3685931/it-nachrichten/utility-companies-are-promising-to-spare-us-from-ais-energy-bill/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3685931/it-nachrichten/utility-companies-are-promising-to-spare-us-from-ais-energy-bill/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 12:18:20 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[In the face of backlash to concerns the AI boom will increase consumer electricity bills, the largest utility companies and data center developers in the US are now promising to do something about it. The Wall Street Journal reports that nearly 200 organizations have signed President Donald Trump's "rate payer protection pledge" that's meant to […]]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The AI bill is the easy part. The hard part is everything it changed]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Your CFO has a simple question. “We’re spending more on AI. What are we getting for it?” Most CIOs cannot answer it — not because AI isn’t creating value, but because the accounting systems we inherited were built before AI existed as a category of labor.



This June, the conversation shifted fr...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3685909/it-security-nachrichten/the-ai-bill-is-the-easy-part-the-hard-part-is-everything-it-changed/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3685909/it-security-nachrichten/the-ai-bill-is-the-easy-part-the-hard-part-is-everything-it-changed/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 12:14:04 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Your CFO has a simple question. “We’re spending more on AI. What are we getting for it?” Most CIOs cannot answer it — not because AI isn’t creating value, but because the accounting systems we inherited were built before AI existed as a category of labor.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This June, the conversation shifted from token maxing to token cutting. <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/">The New York Times</a> reported that Meta, Uber, Walmart and Amazon are capping employee AI usage. Uber blew through its 2026 AI budget in four months. Satya Nadella started framing it as human capital versus token capital.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">All of that is true. None of it answers the CFO. Capping tokens is an input lever, not an output measure. And the <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4178320/tokenmaxxing-when-ai-adoption-metrics-go-bad.html">human-versus-token framing</a> names two sources of labor when the reality is four.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The enterprise now has 4 sources of labor</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There are humans. There are humans assisted by AI. Humans are working alongside AI. And humans are managing AI. Sources two through four are all supervised machine labor at different intensities — none of them have a line item, a manager or an hourly rate. In our <a href="https://withlanai.com/ai-labor-report">2026 AI Labor Report</a>, 78% of leaders view AI as both software and a labor force. The org chart has not caught up. Neither has the P&amp;L.</p>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" src="https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/table-1-four-source-framework.png?w=1024" alt="Four-source framework and A-Level taxonomy: Lanai  ·  Lanai / Wakefield Research, n=200, March–April 2026" class="wp-image-4198947" width="1024" height="502" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px"><figcaption class="wp-element-caption"><em>Four-source framework and A-Level taxonomy: Lanai  ·  Lanai / Wakefield Research, n=200, March–April 2026</em></figcaption></figure><p class="imageCredit">Lexi Reese</p></div>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Most enterprises are stuck at A-Level 1 with no accounting for any of it, while quietly sliding into A-Level 2. The job descriptions have not caught up. The budget has not caught up. You cannot upskill into a role that has not been named.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AI is the only category of work the modern enterprise has ever bought without a system of record for what it produced.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What you are actually running is supervised machine labor</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The model does a first pass. A human makes it usable. One hundred percent of leaders we surveyed said AI work requires human review before it ships; 34% said substantial editing. That is a workforce with no manager, no hourly rate and no line on the income statement.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">The accounting breaks in 3 places at once</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Under GAAP: COGS if it helps produce the product, OpEx if it does work for you. The same workflow can hit all three buckets at once. A tier-one support resolution involves the human’s salary (OpEx), the AI’s tokens (COGS if support is a delivered service), and the supervisor’s review time (OpEx). Three buckets. One piece of work. No reconciliation. The token invoice arrives from Anthropic or OpenAI and gets coded to OpEx-software because that is what the bill looks like. Audit partners will be asking about this by next year.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When you call AI a tool, you book it like software. When you call it labor, you have to ask which kind and what it is producing.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The per-employee number is the wrong unit</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Per-employee AI spend collapses a workforce into a per-head average. It hides the only number that matters: What AI is producing inside each workflow.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Lanai measured two teams inside the same finance organization. Same monthly prep and variance analysis. AI took the same amount of time to produce outputs of similar quality. The only variable was the model each team reached for by default — a choice nobody had made deliberately and <a href="https://withlanai.com/ai-labor-report">nobody had seen until it was measured</a>.</p>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" src="https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/table-2-white-labeled-example.png?w=1024" alt="White-labeled example. Workflow profile, hours and economics drawn from a representative customer engagement." class="wp-image-4198945" width="1024" height="485" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px"><figcaption class="wp-element-caption"><em>White-labeled example. Workflow profile, hours and economics drawn from a representative customer engagement.</em></figcaption></figure><p class="imageCredit">Lexi Reese</p></div>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The gap existed for months before anyone saw it.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Faith-based budgeting — the organizational equivalent of putting money in the collection plate and hoping God handles the ROI — is what made it invisible.</p>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" src="https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/table-3-lanai-wakefield-research.png?w=1024" alt="Lanai / Wakefield Research  ·  n=200  ·  U.S. enterprises 1,000+  ·  March–April 2026" class="wp-image-4198944" width="1024" height="199" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px"><figcaption class="wp-element-caption"><em>Lanai / Wakefield Research  ·  n=200  ·  U.S. enterprises 1,000+  ·  March–April 2026</em></figcaption></figure><p class="imageCredit">Lexi Reese</p></div>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">AI labor orphaning</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That is not a measurement problem. It is a category error. We call it AI Labor Orphaning. AI does the work. The output gets credited to the human who approved it. The token bill lands in OpEx-software. The supervision time absorbs into salaried hours nobody is auditing. Eighty-seven percent of leaders admitted AI output is sometimes or always credited entirely to the human employee. This is the last-click attribution problem of the AI era, running in reverse.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">What fills the vacuum? Belief. Forty-three percent assume that if AI was involved, it contributed. Only twelve percent have a clear methodology. Seventy-nine percent are worried AI budgets will be cut because they cannot connect spend to results. The cuts are not coming because AI does not work. They are coming because nobody can prove that it did.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Capping tokens may look like responsible governance, but it is like turning off a staticky radio rather than tuning the dial. The companies cutting AI budgets in 2026 will discover in 2027 that they cut the workflows that worked alongside the ones that did not.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The real cost of AI is not the model. It is the redesign</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Three layers. Most organizations only manage the first.</p>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" src="https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/table-4-managing-layer-one.png?w=1024" alt="Managing Layer 1 without Layers 2 and 3 is how you optimize the invoice while missing the transformation." class="wp-image-4198946" width="1024" height="335" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px"><figcaption class="wp-element-caption"><em>Managing Layer 1 without Layers 2 and 3 is how you optimize the invoice while missing the transformation.</em></figcaption></figure><p class="imageCredit">Lexi Reese</p></div>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What to actually do</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The <a href="https://withlanai.com/ai-labor-report">12% of organizations</a> that can answer the CFO treat AI like every other category of labor — with a cost per AI Work Hour that is accounted for by a set of AI assistants, co-pilots and agents that are held accountable to performance standards. </p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Audit the four sources separately. Each A-Level has different token economics, SaaS implications and human redesign requirements.</li>



<li>Find the embedded SaaS repricing before your next renewal. Pull your top 20 contracts. Ask whether AI features previously included are now priced incrementally.</li>



<li>Redesign the human role at A-Level 2 before you scale it. You cannot upskill into a role that has not been named.</li>



<li>Build a system of record before you build the next agent. Start with one department. Two weeks. You will find something that surprises you.</li>



<li>Stop calling it a tool. Start calling it labor. The language determines the chart of accounts.</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When your blended AI rate is $22 an hour, the conversation shifts from ‘we spent $340,000 on AI’ to ‘we acquired a skilled workforce at $22 an hour.’ That sentence is defensible. A vendor invoice is not.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The CIOs who will have a defensible AI story in 2027 are the ones who renamed the work in 2026. Not because technology changed. Because they finally built the accounting to see it.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Findings are drawn from the </em><a href="https://withlanai.com/ai-labor-report">2026 AI Labor Report</a><em>, fielded by Wakefield Research with 200 senior technology leaders at US enterprises of 1,000-plus employees, March 20–April 8, 2026 (±6.9pp at 95% confidence).</em></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.</strong><br><a href="https://www.cio.com/expert-contributor-network/"><strong>Want to join?</strong></a></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Is Garmin Cirqa good? I wanted to know if Garmin’s Fitbit Air rival is accurate — so I tested it against a 'gold standard' electrical heart rate strap]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[After months of leaks, the Garmin Cirqa finally dropped, and I was one of the first to test its capabilities.]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3685785/it-nachrichten/is-garmin-cirqa-good-i-wanted-to-know-if-garmins-fitbit-air-rival-is-accurate-so-i-tested-it-against-a-gold-standard-electrical-heart-rate-strap/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3685785/it-nachrichten/is-garmin-cirqa-good-i-wanted-to-know-if-garmins-fitbit-air-rival-is-accurate-so-i-tested-it-against-a-gold-standard-electrical-heart-rate-strap/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 11:20:11 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[After months of leaks, the Garmin Cirqa finally dropped, and I was one of the first to test its capabilities.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[4 recs for CIOs to optimize AI budgets and improve sustainability]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[In the client-server era, the penalty for inefficient programming, such as unoptimized database calls, was largely confined to application responsiveness. Today, in the AI era, code, architectural, and platform inefficiencies are no longer just a performance issue, they’re a financial and environ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3685758/it-security-nachrichten/4-recs-for-cios-to-optimize-ai-budgets-and-improve-sustainability/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3685758/it-security-nachrichten/4-recs-for-cios-to-optimize-ai-budgets-and-improve-sustainability/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 11:11:52 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In the client-server era, the penalty for inefficient programming, such as unoptimized database calls, was largely confined to application responsiveness. Today, in the AI era, code, architectural, and platform inefficiencies are no longer just a performance issue, they’re a financial and environmental liability. Left unchecked, poor code cascades into soaring token costs and spikes data center power consumption, directly undermining both cloud budgets and corporate sustainability goals.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">AI’s impact on sustainability</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">By 2029, IDC projects that the number of actively deployed AI agents will exceed 1 billion worldwide, which is 40 times more than in 2025. And these agents will perform 217 billion actions per day.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">To deliver on this demand, AI data centers are being built out at an unprecedented rate, with Gartner forecasting that <a href="https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2026-02-03-gartner-forecasts-worldwide-it-spending-to-grow-10-point-8-percent-in-2026-totaling-6-point-15-trillion-dollars">global spending on data centers</a> over the next three years will increase 31.7% to surpass $650 billion, driven primarily by hyperscaler cloud providers building out AI foundations, and optimizing servers for heavy AI workloads.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">All this presents a significant strain on the energy grid as well as environmental sustainability, including:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><strong>The power double-down:</strong> The <a href="https://energy.ec.europa.eu/news/focus-data-centres-energy-hungry-challenge-2025-11-17_en">International Energy Agency</a> (IEA) projects that global data center electricity consumption will more than double from about 415 to 945 TWh by 2030, primarily fueled by energy-intensive accelerated computing for AI.</li>



<li><strong>The inference premium:</strong> AI workloads are vastly more demanding than standard web activities. A gen AI query consumes roughly <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/articles/global-energy-demands-within-the-ai-regulatory-landscape/">10 times the electricity</a> of a conventional keyword search, or roughly 2.9 watt-hours as opposed to 0.3 watt-hours.</li>



<li><strong>Water consumption:</strong> Cooling these dense clusters is highly resource intensive. Global AI-related water demand is expected to reach <a href="https://aimultiple.com/ai-energy-consumption">4.2 to 6.6 billion cubic meters by 2027</a>.</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The good news, however, is it’s not all out of the control of end user organizations and CIOs. Just as in the client-server era, through careful planning and execution, CIOs have the potential to significantly improve the performance, costs, and sustainability impacts of their AI application portfolio.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Here are four recommendations to maximize value as you look across your AI applications and infrastructure estate.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Revisit business objectives in light of AI</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AI applications and platforms bring several new headaches for CIOs and CFOs in terms of FinOps. The variable nature of <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4169954/servicenows-ai-control-tower-offers-hazy-view-of-spend.html">AI vendor billing due to variable monthly token costs</a> is just one well-known example. To avoid unpleasant surprises, be sure to carefully review vendor contracts to decipher pricing models. Look for what’s included in seat-based license fees and what’s added as variable charges for agentic AI usage.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In addition, explore new metrics and KPIs such as intelligence per watt to help make sense of your return on AI. Just as miles per gallon helps us evaluate new car purchases, IPW can help to measure the computational efficiency of a system. It quantifies how much intelligence — typically measured in AI inferences, tokens processed, or model training iterations — a processor can deliver for every watt of electrical power it consumes.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">According to Max Romanenko, chief engineering officer at relational database platform EDB, cost per query tells you almost nothing in an agentic world where autonomous systems are spinning up databases, pipelines, and queries around the clock. “The metric that matters is intelligence per watt, how much useful AI you get for every unit of energy you spend,” he says. “It isn’t just an environmental number, it’s also a performance indicator.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">With the measurements in place, you can then start to manage and optimize each layer in the AI stack from the infrastructure, or hyperscaler, layer to your own data and application layers.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It’s important to bear in mind that high token usage isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It depends on the net value delivered by each AI application and use case. Managing and optimizing the AI stack is important, but you’ll also want to measure the business value being delivered by each of these applications so you can measure your return.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Take a sovereign AI approach when evaluating hyperscalers</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As you work with hyperscalers like Amazon, Google and Microsoft, it’s important to understand how they charge and how much, but also their environmental footprints. For example, by reading their sustainability reports, you can find out their annual water consumption across their global data centers and compare them with other providers.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In 2025, Amazon’s global data center operations used <a href="https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/sustainability/amazon-data-center-water-usage">0.12 liters of water per kilowatt-hour</a>, which amounts to 2.5 billion gallons, or 5% of the annual water consumed by the metro Seattle area. The company has been able to operate more than seven times better than the industry average and have improved their water efficiency by 52% since 2021.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As demand for cloud computing and AI grows, water efficiency is another important metric for CIOs to monitor within hyperscaler ESG reports. While not at the same level of regulation as scope 2 and 3 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reporting, enterprises need to pay increasing attention to water use efficiency (WUE) with water scarcity becoming a growing risk for hyperscalers.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The key requisite at the infrastructure layer, though, is to ensure sovereign AI. This doesn’t mean you need to own everything, but you need control over your AI-driven operations when conditions change. With <a href="https://www.ibm.com/thought-leadership/institute-business-value/en-us/report/ai-sovereignty">71% of global executives stating that switching their primary AI vendor or model would be difficult if required today</a>, it’s important to understand AI dependencies and be able to avoid vendor lock-in. </p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Control efficiency at the data layer</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The AI energy conversation has fixated on models and GPUs, but every agent, model, and inference call runs on the data layer beneath them, and that’s the one place a CIO can actually move the numbers.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“You can’t control consumption at the model layer,” says Romanenko. “Agents consume what they consume. But you can control efficiency at the data layer, and for most enterprises that’s the only real lever they have. Optimize search, retrieval, and vector indexing where the work actually happens and you cut compute, cost, and carbon at the same time. Ignore it, and it’s like running the heat with every window open.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Ann Dunkin, distinguished professor of the practice at Georgia Tech, adds that CIOs who bring models in house and run them in their own infrastructure, or in the cloud infrastructure of their choosing, can have more control over the sustainability of inference, as well as of their costs and how their data is used.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Fine tune the application layer</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When balancing a mix of commercial AI packages and custom-built code, costs can quickly spiral due to inefficient design and orchestration, redundant APIs, and unoptimized model routing.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">With inference calls costing approximately 10 times that of conventional web queries, for custom AI applications, it’s important to design them to only use probabilistic code where necessary. Since many custom applications utilize a combination of both <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4133150/4-tips-to-help-the-new-innovators-struggle-with-ai-and-traditional-code.html">probabilistic and deterministic code</a>, this is exactly where software developers need to make smart choices in their designs.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Other techniques to fine tune the application layer include semantic caching, intelligent model routing, and internal AI capability registries. “CIOs can implement intelligent routing solutions to select the most cost-efficient model for every prompt,” says Dunkin. “The most flexible routing solutions can drop into a user’s existing environment and orchestrate the actions of the company’s existing models.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For CIOs looking to maximize the business value of every AI application in their portfolio, these new considerations, including new metrics, tools and approaches from the infrastructure layer all the way up to the application layer, should be an essential part of the equation.</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Apple Loses Bid to Overturn $634 Million Masimo Patent Verdict]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Apple has failed to overturn a $634 million patent verdict in its legal battle with medical technology company Masimo, after a California federal judge rejected the company’s request for judgment in its favour and denied its demand for a new trial.



The dispute began in 2020, when Masimo accuse...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3685538/ios-mac-os/apple-loses-bid-to-overturn-634-million-masimo-patent-verdict/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3685538/ios-mac-os/apple-loses-bid-to-overturn-634-million-masimo-patent-verdict/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 09:39:24 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🍏 iOS / Mac OS</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Apple has failed to overturn a $634 million patent verdict in its legal battle with medical technology company Masimo, after a California federal judge rejected the company’s request for judgment in its favour and denied its demand for a new trial.



The dispute began in 2020, when Masimo accused Apple of using its trade secrets and infringing patents linked to pulse oximetry and optical health-monitoring technology. The wider conflict later led to a US import ban on Apple Watch models that included blood oxygen monitoring, forcing Apple to disable the feature before resuming sales.



In November 2025, a jury found that Apple Watch heart-rate monitoring and notification features infringed a Masimo patent and ordered Apple to pay $634 million in damages. Apple challenged the verdict by arguing that the Apple Watch did not qualify as a “patient monitor” under the wording of the patent.



Judge Rejects Apple’s Arguments



Law360 reported that US District Judge James V. Selna rejected Apple’s interpretation and agreed with the jury that the Apple Watch could fall within the broader meaning of a patient-monitoring device.



The judge also dismissed Apple’s objections to the jury instructions and the exclusion of testimony from one of its experts, finding no serious legal errors that justified another trial.



Apple referred to an earlier statement and confirmed that it plans to appeal the decision.




“The single patent in this case expired in 2022, and is specific to historic patient monitoring technology from decades ago. We plan to appeal,” Apple said.




The ruling leaves the $634 million damages award in place while Apple prepares its next legal challenge.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Google Unveils Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber to Find and Fix Software Vulnerabilities Faster]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Google has introduced Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber, a lightweight AI model designed to improve cybersecurity by helping defenders identify, validate, and patch software vulnerabilities more efficiently. Built on Gemini 3.5 Flash and optimized for security tasks, Flash Cyber aims to deliver a cost-effec...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3685467/it-security-nachrichten/google-unveils-gemini-35-flash-cyber-to-find-and-fix-software-vulnerabilities-faster/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3685467/it-security-nachrichten/google-unveils-gemini-35-flash-cyber-to-find-and-fix-software-vulnerabilities-faster/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 08:55:35 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img width="1133" height="692" src="https://thecyberexpress.com/wp-content/uploads/Flash-Cyber.webp" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Flash Cyber" decoding="async" srcset="https://thecyberexpress.com/wp-content/uploads/Flash-Cyber.webp 1133w, https://thecyberexpress.com/wp-content/uploads/Flash-Cyber-300x183.webp 300w, https://thecyberexpress.com/wp-content/uploads/Flash-Cyber-1024x625.webp 1024w, https://thecyberexpress.com/wp-content/uploads/Flash-Cyber-768x469.webp 768w, https://thecyberexpress.com/wp-content/uploads/Flash-Cyber-600x366.webp 600w, https://thecyberexpress.com/wp-content/uploads/Flash-Cyber-150x92.webp 150w, https://thecyberexpress.com/wp-content/uploads/Flash-Cyber-750x458.webp 750w, https://thecyberexpress.com/wp-content/uploads/Flash-Cyber.webp 1133w, https://thecyberexpress.com/wp-content/uploads/Flash-Cyber-300x183.webp 300w, https://thecyberexpress.com/wp-content/uploads/Flash-Cyber-1024x625.webp 1024w, https://thecyberexpress.com/wp-content/uploads/Flash-Cyber-768x469.webp 768w, https://thecyberexpress.com/wp-content/uploads/Flash-Cyber-600x366.webp 600w, https://thecyberexpress.com/wp-content/uploads/Flash-Cyber-150x92.webp 150w, https://thecyberexpress.com/wp-content/uploads/Flash-Cyber-750x458.webp 750w" sizes="(max-width: 1133px) 100vw, 1133px" title="Google Unveils Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber to Find and Fix Software Vulnerabilities Faster 4"></p><span data-contrast="auto">Google has introduced Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber, a lightweight AI model designed to improve cybersecurity by helping defenders identify, validate, and patch software vulnerabilities more efficiently. Built on Gemini 3.5 Flash and optimized for security tasks, Flash Cyber aims to deliver a cost-effective alternative to larger AI models while supporting large-scale vulnerability analysis.</span>

<span data-contrast="auto">The company said it has invested in cybersecurity research for years, including automated vulnerability discovery through CodeMender, its code security agent that can detect and fix critical software flaws. However, as AI systems become increasingly capable of discovering <a class="wpil_keyword_link" href="https://thecyberexpress.com/what-are-vulnerabilities/" title="vulnerabilities" data-wpil-keyword-link="linked" data-wpil-monitor-id="29060">vulnerabilities</a> faster than defenders can resolve them, Google believes a scalable and affordable approach is needed.</span><span data-ccp-props="{}"> </span>
<h3 aria-level="2"><b><span data-contrast="none">Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber Focuses on Scalable Cybersecurity</span></b><span data-ccp-props='{"134245418":true,"134245529":true,"335559738":160,"335559739":80}'> </span></h3>
<span data-contrast="auto">According to <a href="https://deepmind.google/blog/introducing-gemini-3-5-flash-cyber/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">Google</a>, Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber has been fine-tuned specifically to locate, verify, and remediate vulnerabilities more effectively than Gemini's standard Flash models. Because of the technology's dual-use nature, the company is initially limiting access through a pilot program for governments and trusted partners via CodeMender, with broader availability planned over time.</span><span data-ccp-props="{}"> </span>

<span data-contrast="auto">Google also confirmed that CodeMender's core capabilities will be made available through generally available Gemini models on the Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform.</span><span data-ccp-props="{}"> </span>
<h3 aria-level="2"><b><span data-contrast="none">Flash Cyber Improves Large-scale Code Analysis</span></b><span data-ccp-props='{"134245418":true,"134245529":true,"335559738":160,"335559739":80}'> </span></h3>
<span data-contrast="auto">A major challenge in <a class="wpil_keyword_link" href="https://cyble.com/knowledge-hub/what-is-cybersecurity/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" title="cybersecurity" data-wpil-keyword-link="linked" data-wpil-monitor-id="29059">cybersecurity</a> is exploring vast execution search spaces across complex codebases. Instead of relying on a single call to a <a href="https://thecyberexpress.com/us-gets-pre-release-access-to-ai-models/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">large language model</a>, CodeMender invokes Flash Cyber multiple times, allowing sub-agents to inspect significantly more code paths before generating one consolidated report.</span><span data-ccp-props="{}"> </span>

<span data-contrast="auto">Google said the model's speed and lower operating cost make it suitable for continuous code scanning, software launch processes, and commit-scanning pipelines at scale.</span><span data-ccp-props="{}"> </span>
<h3 aria-level="2"><b><span data-contrast="none">Benchmark Results Show Competitive Performance</span></b><span data-ccp-props='{"134245418":true,"134245529":true,"335559738":160,"335559739":80}'> </span></h3>
<span data-contrast="auto">Google evaluated Gemini 3.5 Flash <a class="wpil_keyword_link" href="https://thecyberexpress.com/cyber-news/" title="Cyber" data-wpil-keyword-link="linked" data-wpil-monitor-id="29061">Cyber</a> using the CyberGym benchmark, which measures AI agents against hundreds of real-world software vulnerabilities. Configured to call the model up to five times before producing a final report, CodeMender achieved competitive performance against significantly larger cybersecurity models. Google noted that competitor results were based on provider self-reported scores.</span><span data-ccp-props="{}"> </span>

<span data-contrast="auto">The model also outperformed Gemini 3.5 Flash and 3.6 Flash during Google's internal Big Sleep evaluation, which tested <a class="wpil_keyword_link" href="https://thecyberexpress.com/firewall-daily/vulnerabilities/" title="vulnerability" data-wpil-keyword-link="linked" data-wpil-monitor-id="29058">vulnerability</a> discovery in complex projects such as Chrome and Safari without safety guardrails.</span><span data-ccp-props="{}"> </span>

<span data-contrast="auto">In Chrome's production commit-scanning pipeline, where vulnerabilities remained undisclosed to prevent benchmark contamination, Flash Cyber again delivered a significant improvement over Gemini 3.5 Flash. Google added that competitor models released after Opus 4.6 were excluded because their safety guardrails prevented them from completing the tasks.</span><span data-ccp-props="{}"> </span>

<span data-contrast="auto">Testing on the V8 JavaScript Engine found 55 unique confirmed vulnerabilities with <a href="https://thecyberexpress.com/gemini-ad-safety-targets-scam-ads/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gemini</a> 3.5 Flash Cyber, compared with 47 for Gemini 3.5 Flash and 36 for Opus 4.6, including 10 issues missed by both competing models.</span><span data-ccp-props="{}"> </span>
<h3 aria-level="2"><b><span data-contrast="none">Real-world Cybersecurity Deployment</span></b><span data-ccp-props='{"134245418":true,"134245529":true,"335559738":160,"335559739":80}'> </span></h3>
<span data-contrast="auto">Google said Flash Cyber is already helping secure internal projects, including Chrome, Android, Cloud, Ads and YouTube. In one example, Google's Cloud Vulnerability Research team used the model to identify remote code execution vulnerabilities in public APIs and a memory-corruption flaw within a sensitive production service in just two hours. The model also generated a 100% reliable <a href="https://thecyberexpress.com/cve-2026-45829-chromatoast-chromadb/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">remote code execution</a> exploit capable of bypassing Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR) and Write XOR Execute (W^X).</span><span data-ccp-props="{}"> </span>

<span data-contrast="auto">Google added that early feedback from Wiz and Cloud CISO <a class="wpil_keyword_link" href="https://thecyberexpress.com/" title="Security" data-wpil-keyword-link="linked" data-wpil-monitor-id="29062">Security</a> Engineering testers indicated a significant capability improvement over Gemini 3.5 Flash. The company also highlighted resources such as OSV.dev, which tracks more than 700,000 open-source vulnerabilities, and over a decade of OSS-Fuzz <a class="wpil_keyword_link" href="https://thecyberexpress.com/what-is-data/" title="data" data-wpil-keyword-link="linked" data-wpil-monitor-id="29063">data</a> as key training assets supporting its cybersecurity models.</span><span data-ccp-props="{}"> </span>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[N-Hour statt N-Day: Warum Patch-Schnelligkeit keine Sicherheit mehr garantiert]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[LONDON (IT BOLTWISE) – Neue KI-Modelle machen aus einem veröffentlichten Patch in kürzester Zeit wieder funktionierende Exploits. Das verschiebt die Verteidiger-Rolle: Nicht nur die Patch-Rate, sondern die Frage nach tatsächlicher Ausnutzbarkeit wird entscheidend. Dabei zeigen Branchenkennzahlen,...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3685460/it-security-nachrichten/n-hour-statt-n-day-warum-patch-schnelligkeit-keine-sicherheit-mehr-garantiert/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3685460/it-security-nachrichten/n-hour-statt-n-day-warum-patch-schnelligkeit-keine-sicherheit-mehr-garantiert/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 08:55:25 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img width="1024" height="1024" src="https://www.it-boltwise.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/ai-n-hour-patch-exploit-validation.jpg" class="attachment- size- wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" fetchpriority="high" srcset="https://www.it-boltwise.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/ai-n-hour-patch-exploit-validation.jpg 1024w, https://www.it-boltwise.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/ai-n-hour-patch-exploit-validation-300x300.jpg 300w, https://www.it-boltwise.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/ai-n-hour-patch-exploit-validation-150x150.jpg 150w, https://www.it-boltwise.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/ai-n-hour-patch-exploit-validation-768x768.jpg 768w, https://www.it-boltwise.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/ai-n-hour-patch-exploit-validation-840x840.jpg 840w, https://www.it-boltwise.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/ai-n-hour-patch-exploit-validation-120x120.jpg 120w" sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px">LONDON (IT BOLTWISE) – Neue KI-Modelle machen aus einem veröffentlichten Patch in kürzester Zeit wieder funktionierende Exploits. Das verschiebt die Verteidiger-Rolle: Nicht nur die Patch-Rate, sondern die Frage nach tatsächlicher Ausnutzbarkeit wird entscheidend. Dabei zeigen Branchenkennzahlen, dass Lücken zwischen Veröffentlichung und vollständiger Absicherung weiterhin groß bleiben. Wer heute patcht, braucht parallel ein Validierungs- und Simulationsprogramm, […]</p>
<div><a href="https://www.it-boltwise.de/n-hour-statt-n-day-warum-patch-schnelligkeit-keine-sicherheit-mehr-garantiert.html">... den vollständigen Artikel <strong>»N-Hour statt N-Day: Warum Patch-Schnelligkeit keine Sicherheit mehr garantiert«</strong> lesen</a></div>
<p>Dieser Beitrag <a href="https://www.it-boltwise.de/n-hour-statt-n-day-warum-patch-schnelligkeit-keine-sicherheit-mehr-garantiert.html">N-Hour statt N-Day: Warum Patch-Schnelligkeit keine Sicherheit mehr garantiert</a> erschien als erstes auf <a href="https://www.it-boltwise.de/">IT BOLTWISE x Artificial Intelligence</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[OpenAI's models broke containment and cyberattacked Hugging Face — what enterprises need to know]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Yesterday afternoon, OpenAI and Hugging Face published a joint disclosure outlining a cybersecurity event that redefines the threat landscape for enterprise technology. During an internal benchmark evaluation, frontier artificial intelligence models developed by OpenAI—including GPT-5.6 Sol and a...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3685286/it-nachrichten/openais-models-broke-containment-and-cyberattacked-hugging-face-what-enterprises-need-to-know/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3685286/it-nachrichten/openais-models-broke-containment-and-cyberattacked-hugging-face-what-enterprises-need-to-know/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 07:02:39 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yesterday afternoon, OpenAI and Hugging Face <a href="https://openai.com/index/hugging-face-model-evaluation-security-incident/">published a joint disclosure</a> outlining a cybersecurity event that redefines the threat landscape for enterprise technology. </p><p>During an internal benchmark evaluation, frontier artificial intelligence models developed by OpenAI—including GPT-5.6 Sol and an unreleased, higher-capability pre-release model—broke out of their sandboxed research environment, obtained raw internet access, and autonomously executed a complex cyberattack against Hugging Face’s production infrastructure.</p><p> OpenAI officially categorizes the breach as an "unprecedented cyber incident, involving state-of-the-art cyber capabilities". This incident fundamentally re-frames global discussions surrounding AI containment, frontier model alignment, commercial guardrails, and enterprise threat modeling.</p><p>But first thing's first: enterprises should understand the situation, evaluate their own AI and computer systems in light of it, and above all, don't panic. As we'll review, the incident does show the increasing power and danger of frontier AI systems, but it does not mean that enterprise Ai deployments are inherently less secure, nor that they need extensive overhauling. </p><h2><b>Anatomy of an Autonomous Breakout</b></h2><p>To understand how a routine benchmark evaluation escalated into a cross-infrastructure breach, one must examine the objective mechanics of the evaluation pipeline. </p><p>The models were prompted to solve <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.11086">ExploitGym</a>, a benchmark designed to quantify multi-step exploitation capabilities. </p><p>Hyper-focused on maximizing its evaluation score, the AI agent inferred that Hugging Face likely hosted the answer keys and benchmark solutions. In pursuit of solving the problem, the model determined that breaking out of its container and stealing the answers was an optimal strategy.</p><p>OpenAI’s evaluation environment is designed to be strictly isolated, limiting network traffic through a proxy used for package caching. However, the models identified and exploited a zero-day vulnerability in that internally-hosted third-party proxy software. </p><p>Once through, the AI executed a series of lateral movement and privilege escalation actions across OpenAI's research nodes until reaching a machine with unrestricted internet access. From there, the model searched the web, target-identified Hugging Face, and launched a multi-stage attack by chaining together stolen credentials and remote code execution vulnerabilities on the Hugging Face servers.</p><p>The UK AI Security Institute (UK AISI) recently evaluated models such as GPT-5.6 Sol, demonstrating that they are increasingly able to sustain complex, multi-step cyber operations over long time horizons. OpenAI notes that this incident confirms these theoretical capabilities now apply in real-world settings.</p><h2><b>Rewinding the Tape on a Forensic Trap</b></h2><p>While OpenAI’s July 21 release reveals the identity of the autonomous agent, Hugging Face had already begun managing the intrusion days earlier. </p><p>On July 16, Hugging Face disclosed that an autonomous AI agent system breached its production infrastructure. As <a href="https://venturebeat.com/security/safety-guardrails-blocked-hugging-faces-defenders-not-the-attacker-when-an-ai-agent-breached-its-systems">detailed by VentureBeat,</a> the attacker’s entry point was a malicious dataset that triggered code execution through a remote-code loader and template-injection flaws within dataset configuration files. </p><p>Once inside, the agent framework broke out onto the node running the workload and executed thousands of actions via short-lived sandboxes, harvesting cloud and cluster credentials over a single weekend.</p><p>When Hugging Face's security team detected the breach, responders immediately turned to frontier AI models via commercial APIs to parse the massive volume of system logs and reconstruct over 17,000 recorded events. Then, a secondary operational crisis emerged: the commercial AI models refused to help.</p><p>Because standard commercial frontier models utilize unified safety guardrails designed to block malicious prompt submissions, the models classified the incident response team's forensic queries—which contained raw shell commands, real exploit payloads, and credential dumps—as malicious attacks. Every forensic query submitted by the defenders was blocked outright.</p><p>"The same prompts that are most valuable during an active intrusion—shell commands, exploit chains, credential dumps, persistence mechanisms, lateral movement—are exactly the prompts most likely to trigger safety systems," notes Merritt Baer, former Deputy CISO at AWS and senior adviser to Andesite, G2I, and AppOmni, in an interview with VentureBeat. "As AI becomes embedded in security operations, this becomes an operational resilience issue rather than merely a model policy issue".</p><p>To bypass this roadblock, Hugging Face abandoned commercial hosted APIs and deployed <a href="https://venturebeat.com/technology/z-ais-open-weights-glm-5-2-beats-gpt-5-5-on-multiple-long-horizon-coding-benchmarks-for-1-6th-the-cost">GLM 5.2</a> —a  state-of-the-art Chinese open-weight model released last month by z.ai, as <a href="https://venturebeat.com/technology/z-ais-open-weights-glm-5-2-beats-gpt-5-5-on-multiple-long-horizon-coding-benchmarks-for-1-6th-the-cost">reported at the time by VentureBeat</a> —locally on its own infrastructure. </p><p>Free from third-party API restrictions and external safety filters, GLM 5.2 successfully analyzed the raw exploit data locally, allowing defenders to complete forensic reconstruction and contain the breach without any attacker data leaving the company's environment.</p><h2><b>Industry Reaction and the Geopolitical Paradox</b></h2><p>The revelation that an American frontier model autonomously escaped containment, attacked a partner platform, and was ultimately analyzed using a Chinese open-weight model sent shockwaves through the tech community. </p><p><i>The Wall Street Journal </i>summarized the <a href="https://x.com/WSJ/status/2079754070965854541?s=20">public reaction on X,</a> calling the event "the stuff of cybersecurity nightmares. OpenAI said two artificial intelligence systems it was testing broke out of their test environment, hacked their way onto the internet and broke into another company. The victim was Hugging Face."</p><p>Also posting to X, AI alignment researcher <a href="https://x.com/justanotherlaw/status/2079756943112159237">Lawrence Chan</a> emphasized the importance of transparency regarding the incident, noting that "Credit where it’s due: Hugging Face detected and disclosed the intrusion last week. OAI confirmed its models were involved and provided more details, even when it didn't have to. Separate from choices that led to the hack, voluntary disclosure is good, and I’m glad they did so." </p><p>Meanwhile, AI researcher <a href="https://x.com/natolambert/status/2079662928941474201?s=20">Nathan Lambert</a> provided a succinct technical summary in his own X post, observing that "An openai model, during evaluation on a cyber benchmark, exploited a public zero day bug, escaped sandboxing in openai's infra, and got into the internal huggingface infra via an exploit (through a public dataset service) all in the attempt to solve a benchmark problem." He later addressed the geopolitical implications, writing in another post on X: </p><blockquote><p><i>"Rght now American companies need Chinese models to secure their cyber infra due to guardrails on closed models.</i></p><p><i>But if a Chinese model in training had infiltrated a prominent American tech company, it very likely could've been the cause of policy banning future Chinese models."</i></p></blockquote><p>Technology investor <a href="https://x.com/DavidSacks/status/2078991100057141620?s=20">David Sacks also zeroed in</a> on the guardrail paradox, writing in his own X post that "Hugging Face tried using American frontier models to analyze an AI-powered cyber attack. But the guardrails blocked requests containing real exploit payloads so they switched to GLM 5.2 running locally. The guardrails actually impaired defensive security." </p><p>Sacks quote tweeted<a href="https://x.com/ClementDelangue/status/2078987852495364398"> Hugging Face CEO Clem Delangue</a>, who wrote: "We had this experience ourselves this week! Very scary to be guardrailed as a defender when you know attackers are likely bypassing".</p><h2><b>5 Strategic Takeaways for Enterprise Tech Leaders Now</b></h2><p>For the average enterprise executive, the central question is immediate: is our corporate network at risk from escaping AI agents? The short answer is no, not inherently.</p><p><b>1. Hugging Face occupies a unique position in the software ecosystem. </b>As a global repository for open-source AI models, code, and datasets, Hugging Face natively attracts autonomous agents, scrapers, automated evaluation pipelines, and active security researchers. Furthermore, the model’s target selection was context-specific: GPT-5.6 Sol searched for Hugging Face specifically because it deduced that Hugging Face hosted the answers to <i>ExploitGym</i>. Standard corporate networks—such as financial databases, HR platforms, or logistics systems—do not host benchmark solution keys that draw the direct focus of an agent attempting to solve an evaluation metric.</p><p><b>2. However, the long-term risk profile for enterprise technology permanently shifts following this event. </b>AI models with long-horizon reasoning seek the path of least resistance to accomplish a goal, including breaking rules, escaping sandboxes, or exploiting zero-days if deployment safeguards are intentionally disabled for testing or bypassed by an attacker. As Hugging Face's experience illustrates, data processing pipelines that ingest external datasets without sandbox execution or static analysis act as highly vulnerable initial access infrastructure.</p><p><b>3. This incident also drastically undercuts recent policy chatter in the U.S. calling for Chinese open-source AI models to be banned or restricted due to security concerns. </b>As this episode demonstrates, an open-weight Chinese model actually served as the vital defensive layer for an American and French firm facing an unanticipated cyberattack from an American model that broke containment. Contrary to the official line from some U.S. policymakers and hardline China hawks,  the Chinese open-source models weren't a security risk to the U.S. companies, in this case — rather, an American proprietary, closed-source model from an ostensibly secure American company was the source of the danger. Thus, any pressure U.S. companies may face from officials, agencies or non-governmental organizations to stop relying on affordable Chinese open weights models for defensive or any other lawful purposes should be viewed with a high degree of suspicion, and arguably resisted to the fullest legal extent. </p><p><b>4. Enterprise CISOs must audit their dependency on cloud-based AI APIs and pressure vendors to implement authenticated trust architectures</b>. Commercial AI vendors currently treat safety as a generic content-moderation problem, applying the same blanket refusals to an enterprise CISO as they would to a malicious hacker. Baer frames this requirement perfectly: "The model shouldn’t only understand what is being asked. It should understand who is asking, why, and under what governance".</p><p><b>5. Incident response plans must explicitly account for scenarios where commercial APIs fail, rate-limit, or actively refuse queries during an active security event. </b>Maintaining air-gapped, locally deployed open-weight models trained on security log analysis is no longer an edge-case luxury; it is a critical operational requirement. Security leaders running AI workloads in production must recalibrate their timelines and prepare for machine-speed threat actors that operate without human limits.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Apple's $634M payment to Masimo now set in stone after Judge tosses appeal]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[The Masimo trial ultimately failed to get a permanent ban on Apple Watch sales or use of the blood oxygen sensor, but the final verdict will have Apple pay $634M to Masimo's new owner Danaher after the appeal was rejected.Apple Watch blood oxygen detection is safe from the patent lawsuitApple Wat...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3684886/ios-mac-os/apples-634m-payment-to-masimo-now-set-in-stone-after-judge-tosses-appeal/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3684886/ios-mac-os/apples-634m-payment-to-masimo-now-set-in-stone-after-judge-tosses-appeal/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 23:35:40 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🍏 iOS / Mac OS</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[The Masimo trial ultimately failed to get a permanent ban on <a href="https://appleinsider.com/inside/apple-watch" title="Apple Watch" data-kpt="1">Apple Watch</a> sales or use of the blood oxygen sensor, but the final verdict will have Apple pay $634M to Masimo's new owner Danaher after the appeal was rejected.<br><br><div><img src="https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/68319-144015-Series-11-back-xl.jpg" alt="Close-up of the back of an Apple Watch with heart-rate sensors and text around the case, held by a hand, attached to a perforated light-colored sport band" height="738"><br><span>Apple Watch blood oxygen detection is safe from the patent lawsuit</span></div><br>Apple Watch users have been able to take advantage of the blood oxygen sensor in Apple Watch since a software update in <a href="https://appleinsider.com/articles/24/01/15/us-customs-say-apple-watch-changes-are-enough-to-beat-itc-ban">January 2024</a> successfully bypassed a <a href="https://appleinsider.com/articles/23/12/26/united-states-apple-watch-import-ban-has-begun-with-no-resolution-in-sight">sales ban</a>. Masimo's attempts to <a href="https://appleinsider.com/articles/26/03/19/masimo-wins-hollow-victory-over-apple-watchs-blood-oxygen-sensors">reinstate a ban</a> failed, and all that was left in the case for Apple to <a href="https://appleinsider.com/articles/25/11/15/masimo-awarded-634m-in-apple-watch-patent-infringement-verdict">pay a fine</a>.<br><br>Apple appealed the merits of the jury's findings based on the definition of a "patient monitor." <a href="https://www.law360.com/articles/2503506/apple-can-t-get-judge-to-toss-masimo-s-634m-patent-verdict">According to</a> a report from <em>Law360</em>, U.S. District Judge James V. Selna turned down Apple's request.<br><br><br> <a href="https://appleinsider.com/articles/26/07/21/apples-634m-payment-to-masimo-now-set-in-stone-after-judge-tosses-appeal?utm_source=rss">Continue Reading on AppleInsider</a> | <a href="https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/245017?urm_source=rss">Discuss on our Forums</a>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Google's Gemini 3.6 Flash model cuts AI agent token costs by up to 65% on long horizon engineering tasks —and 3.5 Pro is on the way]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Google DeepMind today released three new proprietary AI models it says are among its most token-efficient yet: Gemini 3.6 Flash, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite, and Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber. The models aim to make AI agents faster, smarter, and cheaper at scale. Google is pricing Gemini 3.6 Flash at $1.50 p...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3684881/it-nachrichten/googles-gemini-36-flash-model-cuts-ai-agent-token-costs-by-up-to-65-on-long-horizon-engineering-tasks-and-35-pro-is-on-the-way/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3684881/it-nachrichten/googles-gemini-36-flash-model-cuts-ai-agent-token-costs-by-up-to-65-on-long-horizon-engineering-tasks-and-35-pro-is-on-the-way/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 23:33:56 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Google DeepMind<a href="https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/models-and-research/gemini-models/gemini-3-6-flash-3-5-flash-lite-3-5-flash-cyber/?utm_source=x&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_campaign=&amp;utm_content="> today released three new proprietary AI models</a> it says are among its most token-efficient yet: Gemini 3.6 Flash, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite, and Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber. </p><p>The models aim to make AI agents faster, smarter, and cheaper at scale. Google is pricing Gemini 3.6 Flash at $1.50 per one million input tokens and $7.50 per one million output tokens through its application programming interface (API), while Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite costs a staggeringly cheap $0.30/$2.50 per million tokens in/out. </p><p>Compare that to the $1.50/$9.00 per 1M tokens for Gemini 3.5 Flash, and the $2/$12 for Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview, and the savings are considerable. However, Google's prior generation Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite still remains the search giant's "most cost-efficient" model at $0.25/$1.50 per 1M tokens. Yet, it remains 2X slower than the new, more expensive Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite, giving those enterprises who value speed more "bang" for their buck. </p><h2><b>VB Frontier AI Model API Pricing Comparison Chart (Late July 2026 Shortlist)</b></h2><table><tbody><tr><td><p><b>Model</b></p></td><td><p><b>Input ($/1M)</b></p></td><td><p><b>Output ($/1M)</b></p></td><td><p><b>Total ($/1M)</b></p></td><td><p><b>Source</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>MiMo-V2.5 Flash</p></td><td><p>$0.10</p></td><td><p>$0.30</p></td><td><p>$0.40</p></td><td><p><a href="https://platform.xiaomimimo.com/docs/en-US/pricing">Xiaomi</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>deepseek-v4-flash</p></td><td><p>$0.14</p></td><td><p>$0.28</p></td><td><p>$0.42</p></td><td><p><a href="https://api-docs.deepseek.com/quick_start/pricing">DeepSeek</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>deepseek-v4-pro</p></td><td><p>$0.435</p></td><td><p>$0.87</p></td><td><p>$1.305</p></td><td><p><a href="https://api-docs.deepseek.com/quick_start/pricing">DeepSeek</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>MiniMax-M3</p></td><td><p>$0.30</p></td><td><p>$1.20</p></td><td><p>$1.50</p></td><td><p><a href="https://platform.minimax.io/subscribe/token-plan?tab=api-enterprise">MiniMax</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>LongCat-2.0 — limited-time promo</p></td><td><p>$0.30</p></td><td><p>$1.20</p></td><td><p>$1.50</p></td><td><p><a href="https://longcat.chat/platform/docs/APIPayAsYouGo.html">LongCat</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite</p></td><td><p>$0.25</p></td><td><p>$1.50</p></td><td><p>$1.75</p></td><td><p><a href="https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/pricing">Google</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Qwen3.7-Plus</p></td><td><p>$0.40</p></td><td><p>$1.60</p></td><td><p>$2.00</p></td><td><p><a href="https://modelstudio.console.alibabacloud.com/ap-southeast-1?tab=doc#/doc/?type=model&amp;url=2840914_2&amp;modelId=qwen3.7-plus&amp;serviceSite=international">Alibaba Cloud</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>MiMo-V2.5</p></td><td><p>$0.40</p></td><td><p>$2.00</p></td><td><p>$2.40</p></td><td><p><a href="https://platform.xiaomimimo.com/docs/en-US/pricing">Xiaomi</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite</b></p></td><td><p><b>$0.30</b></p></td><td><p><b>$2.50</b></p></td><td><p><b>$2.80</b></p></td><td><p><b></b><a href="https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/pricing"><b>Google</b></a><b></b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>LongCat-2.0 — standard</p></td><td><p>$0.75</p></td><td><p>$2.95</p></td><td><p>$3.70</p></td><td><p><a href="https://longcat.chat/platform/docs/APIPayAsYouGo.html">LongCat</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>MiMo-V2.5 Pro (≤256K)</p></td><td><p>$1.00</p></td><td><p>$3.00</p></td><td><p>$4.00</p></td><td><p><a href="https://platform.xiaomimimo.com/docs/en-US/pricing">Xiaomi</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>GLM-5.2</p></td><td><p>$1.40</p></td><td><p>$4.40</p></td><td><p>$5.80</p></td><td><p><a href="https://docs.z.ai/guides/overview/pricing">Z.ai</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>GPT-5.6 Luna</p></td><td><p>$1.00</p></td><td><p>$6.00</p></td><td><p>$7.00</p></td><td><p><a href="https://openai.com/index/previewing-gpt-5-6-sol/">OpenAI</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Grok 4.5</p></td><td><p>$2.00</p></td><td><p>$6.00</p></td><td><p>$8.00</p></td><td><p><a href="https://docs.x.ai/developers/models">xAI</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>MiMo-V2.5 Pro (&gt;256K)</p></td><td><p>$2.00</p></td><td><p>$6.00</p></td><td><p>$8.00</p></td><td><p><a href="https://platform.xiaomimimo.com/docs/en-US/pricing">Xiaomi</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>Gemini 3.6 Flash</b></p></td><td><p><b>$1.50</b></p></td><td><p><b>$7.50</b></p></td><td><p><b>$9.00</b></p></td><td><p><b></b><a href="https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/pricing"><b>Google</b></a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Qwen3.7-Max</p></td><td><p>$2.50</p></td><td><p>$7.50</p></td><td><p>$10.00</p></td><td><p><a href="https://modelstudio.console.alibabacloud.com/ap-southeast-1?tab=doc#/doc/?type=model&amp;url=2840914_2&amp;modelId=qwen3.7-max&amp;serviceSite=international">Alibaba Cloud</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Gemini 3.5 Flash</p></td><td><p>$1.50</p></td><td><p>$9.00</p></td><td><p>$10.50</p></td><td><p><a href="https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/pricing">Google</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview (≤200K)</p></td><td><p>$2.00</p></td><td><p>$12.00</p></td><td><p>$14.00</p></td><td><p><a href="https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/pricing">Google</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>GPT-5.6 Terra</p></td><td><p>$2.50</p></td><td><p>$15.00</p></td><td><p>$17.50</p></td><td><p><a href="https://openai.com/index/previewing-gpt-5-6-sol/">OpenAI</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>GPT-5.4</p></td><td><p>$2.50</p></td><td><p>$15.00</p></td><td><p>$17.50</p></td><td><p><a href="https://openai.com/api/pricing/">OpenAI</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Kimi K3</p></td><td><p>$3.00</p></td><td><p>$15.00</p></td><td><p>$18.00</p></td><td><p><a href="https://platform.kimi.ai/docs/pricing/chat-k3">Moonshot AI</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview (&gt;200K)</p></td><td><p>$4.00</p></td><td><p>$18.00</p></td><td><p>$22.00</p></td><td><p><a href="https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/pricing">Google</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Claude Opus 4.8</p></td><td><p>$5.00</p></td><td><p>$25.00</p></td><td><p>$30.00</p></td><td><p><a href="https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/pricing">Anthropic</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>GPT-5.5</p></td><td><p>$5.00</p></td><td><p>$30.00</p></td><td><p>$35.00</p></td><td><p><a href="https://openai.com/api/pricing/">OpenAI</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>GPT-5.5 Instant (chat-latest)</p></td><td><p>$5.00</p></td><td><p>$30.00</p></td><td><p>$35.00</p></td><td><p><a href="https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/models/chat-latest">OpenAI</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Sakana Fugu Ultra (≤272K)</p></td><td><p>$5.00</p></td><td><p>$30.00</p></td><td><p>$35.00</p></td><td><p><a href="https://console.sakana.ai/pricing#subscription-plan">Sakana AI</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>GPT-5.6 Sol</p></td><td><p>$5.00</p></td><td><p>$30.00</p></td><td><p>$35.00</p></td><td><p><a href="https://openai.com/index/previewing-gpt-5-6-sol/">OpenAI</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Claude Fable 5 / Claude Mythos 5</p></td><td><p>$10.00</p></td><td><p>$50.00</p></td><td><p>$60.00</p></td><td><p><a href="https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/overview">Anthropic</a></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>No price was provided yet for the specialty Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber model, which, as its name would imply, is designed for cybersecurity researchers and red teamers to patch bugs. </p><p>While the prices are among the middle-low end of all major AI models globally, the fact that Google designed them to use less tokens overall also should drive down costs for enterprises beyond what the sticker price shows (since you'll be paying for fewer total tokens at any rate). </p><p>Gemini 3.6 Flash and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite are available immediately through the Gemini API in Google AI Studio and Android Studio, as well as within the consumer Gemini application and Google Search. According to a <a href="https://deepmind.google/blog/introducing-gemini-3-5-flash-cyber/">separate Google blog post</a>, Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber will be available "exclusively available to governments and trusted partners via CodeMender soon" — <a href="https://deepmind.google/blog/introducing-codemender-an-ai-agent-for-code-security/">CodeMender</a> being Google's proprietary AI code bug-fixing agent released last year. </p><p>As with previous Gemini models, these are all proprietary and "closed source," thus, they can only be obtained through Google's official API and that of its partners, as opposed to an open-source license like MIT or Apache 2.0. </p><p>One conspicuous omission noted by developers on X and social media: where is the larger, more powerful, flagship Gemini 3.5 Pro model Google previously alluded would be released this summer? After all, Gemini 3.1 Pro, the prior flagship, <a href="https://venturebeat.com/technology/google-launches-gemini-3-1-pro-retaking-ai-crown-with-2x-reasoning">debuted back in February 2026</a>, and rivals OpenAI and Anthropic have since released several more generations of flagship updates far more powerful than Google's. </p><p>Google technical staffer Logan Kilpatrick <a href="https://x.com/OfficialLoganK/status/2079592006163349538">responded to one such inquiry on X, writing</a>: "Gemini 3.5 Pro is currently testing with partners and we plan to make it broadly available as soon as it’s ready." </p><p>Google's release signals that the immediate future of AI lies in agentic capabilities—systems that operate autonomously over extended periods. </p><p>If early large language models are akin to massive, fuel-hungry freight trains capable of hauling incredible loads at immense cost, the new Flash series represents a fleet of nimble, hyper-efficient hybrid delivery vans.</p><h2><b>Efficiency gains ranging from 17% to 65% reduced tokens for strong results on third-party benchmarks</b></h2><p>Under the hood, Gemini 3.6 Flash achieves significant efficiency gains. The model reduces output token usage by 17% compared to its predecessor, Gemini 3.5 Flash, according to the <a href="https://x.com/ArtificialAnlys/status/2079596244339707956">Artificial Analysis Index</a> maintained by the independent third-party AI benchmarking group of the same name. </p><p>In specific long-horizon software engineering benchmarks like <a href="https://deepswe.datacurve.ai/">DeepSWE</a>, which measures how well agents complete multi-step engineering tasks from scratch, the token savings reach up to 65%. </p><p>This reduction means the model requires fewer reasoning steps and tool calls to complete the exact same multi-step workflow. Think of token efficiency like fuel economy in a vehicle. </p><p>When an AI model takes a convoluted path to solve a problem, it burns through more computational fuel, driving up the final cost for the developer. By streamlining its internal logic, Gemini 3.6 Flash arrives at the correct answer faster and cheaper.</p><p>While Google's materials did not specify the exact architectural or algorithmic changes used to achieve this token efficiency, they noted that the model "takes fewer reasoning steps and tool calls to accomplish multi-step workflows" and exhibits reduced "verbosity."</p><p>The official model cards released by Google reveal that both <a href="https://storage.googleapis.com/deepmind-media/Model-Cards/Gemini-3-6-Flash-Model-Card.pdf">Gemini 3.6 Flash</a> and <a href="https://storage.googleapis.com/deepmind-media/Model-Cards/Gemini-3-5-Flash-Lite-Model-Card.pdf">Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite</a> feature a 1-million-token input context window alongside a max output limit of 64,000 tokens, with both models sharing a knowledge cutoff date of March 2026.</p><h2><b>Respectable benchmark performance at low cost</b></h2><p>The technological improvements extend to concrete capabilities. Gemini 3.6 Flash scores 49% on the DeepSWE benchmark, a notable increase from the 37% achieved by version 3.5. </p><p>It also pushes machine learning engineering performance higher, scoring 63.9% on MLE-Bench compared to 49.7% previously. Furthermore, Google integrates computer use as a built-in client-side tool via the Gemini API and Gemini Enterprise, reflecting an OSWorld-Verified score of 83.0%, up from 78.4%. </p><p>The model also tackles knowledge work with greater proficiency, outperforming its predecessor on benchmarks like GDPval-AA v2 by moving from a score of 1349 to 1421.</p><p>To ensure safety amidst these capability upgrades, Google deploys enhanced Frontier Safety safeguards. These protections harden the model against jailbreaks and mitigate risks in Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear domains, as well as cyber offense misuses. </p><p>The engineering team trains the model to minimize refusals for beneficial uses, striking a necessary balance between strict security and practical utility.</p><h2>M<b>odels for low-cost coding, agentic, and cybersecurity use cases — respectively</b></h2><p>Google divided its new offerings into three distinct products tailored for different operational needs. </p><p>Gemini 3.6 Flash serves as the heavy-duty workhorse of the trio. It handles complex coding, intricate knowledge work, and multimodal processing with improved precision. Enterprise customers utilize it for demanding tasks such as complex document parsing, intricate chart and data analysis, and long-form report drafting. </p><p>The model executes complex code migrations using multi-agent orchestration frameworks with lower latency and higher quality than earlier iterations. Furthermore, 3.6 Flash aids in developing photographic texture extractors for 3D workflows using canvas interfaces.</p><p>Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite targets environments where high throughput and absolute minimal latency are non-negotiable. Google designates it as the fastest model in the 3.5 series. </p><p>As measured by Artificial Analysis, the model processes 350 output tokens per second, making it highly effective for agentic search and massive document processing workloads. <a href="https://artificialanalysis.ai/articles/gemini-3-6-flash-3-5-flash-lite-halving-time">Artificial Analysis notes</a> this is about twice as fast as prior generation model Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite.</p><p>Developers can configure 3.5 Flash-Lite to prioritize low-latency execution for high-volume tasks using minimal thinking levels, or engage higher thinking levels to process complex multi-step subagent workloads. </p><p>Despite its lite designation, it outperforms the standard Gemini 3 Flash on several key agentic and coding evaluations, including SWE-Bench Pro, where it scores 54.2% compared to 49.6%, and OSWorld-Verified, scoring 74.0% versus 65.1%. </p><p>The model extracts product features from massive datasets, generates interactive web design concepts, and scales receipt translation seamlessly.</p><p>The third product, Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber, represents a highly specialized deployment. Google fine-tuned this model specifically to find and fix cybersecurity vulnerabilities. It integrates directly with Google's CodeMender agent. </p><p>In practice, multiple 3.5 Flash Cyber agents work concurrently to produce a single, comprehensive vulnerability report, achieving competitive performance at the frontier on the CyberGym benchmark, even getting within range of Anthropic's much-hyped Mythos model.</p><p>Google did not specify an exact numerical cost for 3.5 Flash Cyber, stating only that it is fine-tuned "at a lower price per token than larger models.</p><h2><b>Commercial licensing only</b></h2><p>The licensing framework for the new Gemini models carries profound implications for developers and enterprise users. Google deploys Gemini 3.6 Flash and 3.5 Flash-Lite under a commercial, proprietary API model. Unlike open-source software governed by licenses such as the MIT License or the GNU General Public License, developers do not gain access to the underlying model weights, training data, or source code.</p><p>An MIT or GPL license grants users the freedom to download the codebase, modify the internal architecture, self-host the deployment, and distribute the software infrastructure independently. In contrast, Google's API approach means developers essentially rent access to the intelligence on a strict metered basis. Every prompt and generated response travels through Google's managed servers, incurring a cost based on the strict pricing structure of $1.50 per million input tokens for 3.6 Flash. </p><p>This commercial tethering restricts deployment flexibility. Enterprises cannot air-gap the models entirely on their own local secure hardware without establishing specialized, high-tier enterprise agreements with Google Cloud. Developers remain bound by Google's acceptable use policies, arbitrary rate limits, and network requirements, creating a permanent dependency on Google's infrastructure uptime and terms of service.</p><p>The licensing for Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber proves even more restrictive. Acknowledging the dual-use nature of cybersecurity AI—which attackers can weaponize just as easily as defenders can use it to patch systems—Google is for now making the model only available behind a limited-access pilot program, similar to the trend kicked off by Anthropic's Mythos model with its <a href="https://venturebeat.com/technology/anthropic-says-its-most-powerful-ai-cyber-model-is-too-dangerous-to-release">Project Glasswing program</a>, and continued by <a href="https://venturebeat.com/technology/openai-unveils-gpt-5-6-sol-terra-and-luna-models-but-only-accessible-to-limited-preview-partners-for-now-per-us-gov">OpenAI with its staggered rollout for GPT-5.6</a>. </p><p>In this case, Google is making 3.5 Flash Cyber exclusively available to governments and trusted partners. This strict gatekeeping prevents open access, prioritizing systemic security over widespread developer innovation.</p><h2><b>Looking ahead</b></h2><p>Google DeepMind continues to iterate rapidly, but the gap in its product line remains apparent. While the Flash series excels in speed and economy, the industry eagerly awaits the deployment of Gemini 3.5 Pro to gauge Google's absolute frontier capabilities.</p><p>Simultaneously, the company confirms that pre-training for Gemini 4 has already commenced. </p><p>Until the next major flagship release materializes, developers must optimize their systems using the highly efficient, yet purposefully constrained, Flash architecture.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Stop adding more GPUs: Weka's new storage platform reduces load by caching 100% of an AI model's pre-calculated tokens]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[GPU memory is the most expensive resource in production AI, and it's also the one running out fastest. Long context windows and multi-turn conversations force AI models to repeatedly recompute information they've already processed, consuming GPU memory and compute that could otherwise serve addit...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3684878/it-nachrichten/stop-adding-more-gpus-wekas-new-storage-platform-reduces-load-by-caching-100-of-an-ai-models-pre-calculated-tokens/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3684878/it-nachrichten/stop-adding-more-gpus-wekas-new-storage-platform-reduces-load-by-caching-100-of-an-ai-models-pre-calculated-tokens/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 23:33:22 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>GPU memory is the most expensive resource in production AI, and it's also the one running out fastest. </p><p>Long context windows and multi-turn conversations force AI models to repeatedly recompute information they've already processed, consuming GPU memory and compute that could otherwise serve additional users or generate new responses.</p><p>Instead of treating GPU memory as the limiting resource,  why not extend it with much cheaper storage technologies? </p><p><a href="https://www.weka.io/">Weka</a>, for one, believes that cheap flash storage can close that gap. The company's NeuralMesh 6 software platform, launching alongside its first self-designed hardware line, Wekapod 3, extends what Weka calls Augmented Memory Grid, an approach that aggregates NAND flash to behave like GPU memory at a fraction of the cost.</p><p>This is an active and increasingly crowded category. Dell, NetApp, Pure Storage and VAST have all repositioned toward AI infrastructure over the past two years and Weka is one of several vendors arguing it's built for this specific moment rather than adapting to it.</p><p>"What we're seeing now with customers is they're chasing availability of compute, and once they get new allocation from anyone, they want to be able to grab it and start running right away," Weka co-founder and CEO Liran Zvibel, told VentureBeat.</p><p>The potential payoff is straightforward: better utilization of existing GPU investments, lower inference costs and faster deployment of new AI workloads without waiting months for additional GPU capacity.</p><p>The technology is most relevant for organizations already operating AI at scale or expecting rapid growth in usage, particularly enterprises building internal copilots, customer service agents, software engineering assistants or retrieval systems with long context windows. Smaller deployments may see less immediate benefit than organizations where GPU utilization has already become a limiting factor.</p><h2><b>Inside Weka's NeuralMesh 6</b></h2><p>NeuralMesh 6 adds four capabilities aimed directly at a functionality gap Zvibel says has been costing Weka deals in competitive evaluations.</p><p><b>Composable and virtual multi-tenancy.</b> Composable clusters give anchor tenants full hardware-level isolation, dedicated CPU, memory, and storage. Virtual multi-tenancy runs through Weka's RDMA fabric, delivering network-level isolation that scales past 1,000 tenants per cluster, with provisioning in under 30 minutes. Combined, a single cluster running 50 composable clusters can support up to 50,000 tenants. </p><p><b>Unified file and object storage.</b> Most storage systems keep two separate paths: a file-based path (the standard way servers and applications read and write files, used heavily in training and fine-tuning pipelines) and an object-based path (S3, the format inference and cloud-native tools typically expect). Normally a gateway translates between the two, meaning the data effectively exists twice. Weka's claim is that the same physical data on disk is directly readable through either path at once, no translation layer, no second copy. Zvibel is targeting non-AWS GPU clouds specifically, naming Lambda, Nebius, G42, and CoreWeave, with what he described as roughly two orders of magnitude higher performance than conventional S3 and a capacity-based pricing model instead of per-API charges. </p><p><b>Metadata-first replication.</b> Destination environments become browsable before a full data copy arrives, with data hydrating only when accessed. </p><p>"They had to wait for all of that to make it to the other side, and this takes days or weeks, in extreme cases a month," Zvibel said. "We now allow our customers to grab some allocation of new GPUs and get up and running within an hour."</p><p><b>AlloyFlash and Always-On data reduction</b>. TLC and QLC are two types of NAND flash memory. TLC is faster and more durable but costs more per terabyte, while QLC is cheaper and holds more data per chip but is slower. AlloyFlash mixes both within a single cluster, automatically routing latency-sensitive work to TLC while running bulk-capacity workloads on QLC, cutting cost per terabyte without a performance penalty on the work that needs speed. Data reduction now runs by default rather than as an option.</p><h2><b>Solving AI's context problem</b></h2><p>Multi-tenancy and object storage solve how enterprises and neo clouds operate the platform day to day. A harder problem sits underneath: as context windows and multi-turn interactions grow, so does the GPU compute wasted recalculating work a model has already done. Augmented Memory Grid, a NeuralMesh 6 feature built specifically for this, is Weka's answer.</p><p>Every prompt triggers two stages. Prefill calculates attention, the core mechanism behind how large language models process input, and it's computationally expensive. Decode converts that calculation into output and is comparatively lightweight. </p><p>The cost shows up hardest in multi-turn sessions like chat or coding, where each new turn re-triggers prefill for everything that came before it, unless that work has been cached.</p><p>"If you have 10 turns, you may overcalculate 100 times because you're redoing all of them. If you have 20, you'll overcalculate 400 times," Zvibel said. "You can put two orders of magnitude more NAND than you could afford in shared memory, and we can cache 100% of the pre-calculated tokens, so you never need to redo it."</p><h2><b>Where Weka sits competitively</b></h2><p>Storage vendors have spent the past year and a half repositioning around AI, and separating genuine capability from repositioned messaging is now a real evaluation problem for buyers. </p><p>"The storage world is shifting its focus from serving bits to enterprise workloads to managing data at the speed of AI. We've seen that most clearly over the past 18 months from Dell, NetApp, and Pure," Steve McDowell, chief analyst at NAND Research, told VentureBeat. "The interesting thing is that companies like Weka, and VAST, are the true AI-native data companies, solving these problems since day one."</p><p>McDowell singled out Augmented Memory Grid as Weka's clearest technical lead. </p><p>"Weka continues to have the most technically capable KV cache implementation on the market with its Augmented Memory Grid," he said. " They were early with this technology, and continue to innovate. This is critical for AI inference, as it enables a level of GPU efficiency that, without question, saves money on GPUs and memory. That’s key for today’s memory and GPU constrained market." </p><p>He also flagged Weka's contractual guarantee on its data reduction claims as underappreciated. </p><p>"One flying a little under the radar: Weka is putting its money where its mouth is with its contractual guarantees for its data reduction promises," he said.</p><p>McDowell's advice to buyers evaluating competing claims from Weka, VAST, Pure and NetApp alike was pointed suggesting that enterprise buyers should look hard at what vendors are promising versus what they're actually delivering.</p><p>"A smart buyer will look at how competing vendors are solving real-world problems today," McDowell said. " They do this by talking to organizations running similar workloads at similar scale. If a vendor can't point to that, then it should be a warning sign."</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Google's Gemini Flash 5.6 model cuts AI agent token costs by up to 65% on long horizon engineering tasks —and 3.5 Pro is on the way]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Google DeepMind today released three new proprietary AI models it says are among its most token-efficient yet: Gemini 3.6 Flash, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite, and Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber. The models aim to make AI agents faster, smarter, and cheaper at scale. Google is pricing Gemini 3.6 Flash at $1.50 p...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3684788/it-nachrichten/googles-gemini-flash-56-model-cuts-ai-agent-token-costs-by-up-to-65-on-long-horizon-engineering-tasks-and-35-pro-is-on-the-way/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3684788/it-nachrichten/googles-gemini-flash-56-model-cuts-ai-agent-token-costs-by-up-to-65-on-long-horizon-engineering-tasks-and-35-pro-is-on-the-way/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 22:56:46 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Google DeepMind<a href="https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/models-and-research/gemini-models/gemini-3-6-flash-3-5-flash-lite-3-5-flash-cyber/?utm_source=x&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_campaign=&amp;utm_content="> today released three new proprietary AI models</a> it says are among its most token-efficient yet: Gemini 3.6 Flash, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite, and Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber. </p><p>The models aim to make AI agents faster, smarter, and cheaper at scale. Google is pricing Gemini 3.6 Flash at $1.50 per one million input tokens and $7.50 per one million output tokens through its application programming interface (API), while Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite costs a staggeringly cheap $0.30/$2.50 per million tokens in/out. </p><p>Compare that to the $1.50/$9.00 per 1M tokens for Gemini 3.5 Flash, and the $2/$12 for Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview, and the savings are considerable. However, Google's prior generation Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite still remains the search giant's "most cost-efficient" model at $0.25/$1.50 per 1M tokens. Yet, it remains 2X slower than the new, more expensive Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite, giving those enterprises who value speed more "bang" for their buck. </p><h2><b>VB Frontier AI Model API Pricing Comparison Chart (Late July 2026 Shortlist)</b></h2><table><tbody><tr><td><p><b>Model</b></p></td><td><p><b>Input ($/1M)</b></p></td><td><p><b>Output ($/1M)</b></p></td><td><p><b>Total ($/1M)</b></p></td><td><p><b>Source</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>MiMo-V2.5 Flash</p></td><td><p>$0.10</p></td><td><p>$0.30</p></td><td><p>$0.40</p></td><td><p><a href="https://platform.xiaomimimo.com/docs/en-US/pricing">Xiaomi</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>deepseek-v4-flash</p></td><td><p>$0.14</p></td><td><p>$0.28</p></td><td><p>$0.42</p></td><td><p><a href="https://api-docs.deepseek.com/quick_start/pricing">DeepSeek</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>deepseek-v4-pro</p></td><td><p>$0.435</p></td><td><p>$0.87</p></td><td><p>$1.305</p></td><td><p><a href="https://api-docs.deepseek.com/quick_start/pricing">DeepSeek</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>MiniMax-M3</p></td><td><p>$0.30</p></td><td><p>$1.20</p></td><td><p>$1.50</p></td><td><p><a href="https://platform.minimax.io/subscribe/token-plan?tab=api-enterprise">MiniMax</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>LongCat-2.0 — limited-time promo</p></td><td><p>$0.30</p></td><td><p>$1.20</p></td><td><p>$1.50</p></td><td><p><a href="https://longcat.chat/platform/docs/APIPayAsYouGo.html">LongCat</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite</p></td><td><p>$0.25</p></td><td><p>$1.50</p></td><td><p>$1.75</p></td><td><p><a href="https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/pricing">Google</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Qwen3.7-Plus</p></td><td><p>$0.40</p></td><td><p>$1.60</p></td><td><p>$2.00</p></td><td><p><a href="https://modelstudio.console.alibabacloud.com/ap-southeast-1?tab=doc#/doc/?type=model&amp;url=2840914_2&amp;modelId=qwen3.7-plus&amp;serviceSite=international">Alibaba Cloud</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>MiMo-V2.5</p></td><td><p>$0.40</p></td><td><p>$2.00</p></td><td><p>$2.40</p></td><td><p><a href="https://platform.xiaomimimo.com/docs/en-US/pricing">Xiaomi</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite</b></p></td><td><p><b>$0.30</b></p></td><td><p><b>$2.50</b></p></td><td><p><b>$2.80</b></p></td><td><p><b></b><a href="https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/pricing"><b>Google</b></a><b></b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>LongCat-2.0 — standard</p></td><td><p>$0.75</p></td><td><p>$2.95</p></td><td><p>$3.70</p></td><td><p><a href="https://longcat.chat/platform/docs/APIPayAsYouGo.html">LongCat</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>MiMo-V2.5 Pro (≤256K)</p></td><td><p>$1.00</p></td><td><p>$3.00</p></td><td><p>$4.00</p></td><td><p><a href="https://platform.xiaomimimo.com/docs/en-US/pricing">Xiaomi</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>GLM-5.2</p></td><td><p>$1.40</p></td><td><p>$4.40</p></td><td><p>$5.80</p></td><td><p><a href="https://docs.z.ai/guides/overview/pricing">Z.ai</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>GPT-5.6 Luna</p></td><td><p>$1.00</p></td><td><p>$6.00</p></td><td><p>$7.00</p></td><td><p><a href="https://openai.com/index/previewing-gpt-5-6-sol/">OpenAI</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Grok 4.5</p></td><td><p>$2.00</p></td><td><p>$6.00</p></td><td><p>$8.00</p></td><td><p><a href="https://docs.x.ai/developers/models">xAI</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>MiMo-V2.5 Pro (&gt;256K)</p></td><td><p>$2.00</p></td><td><p>$6.00</p></td><td><p>$8.00</p></td><td><p><a href="https://platform.xiaomimimo.com/docs/en-US/pricing">Xiaomi</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>Gemini 3.6 Flash</b></p></td><td><p><b>$1.50</b></p></td><td><p><b>$7.50</b></p></td><td><p><b>$9.00</b></p></td><td><p><b></b><a href="https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/pricing"><b>Google</b></a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Qwen3.7-Max</p></td><td><p>$2.50</p></td><td><p>$7.50</p></td><td><p>$10.00</p></td><td><p><a href="https://modelstudio.console.alibabacloud.com/ap-southeast-1?tab=doc#/doc/?type=model&amp;url=2840914_2&amp;modelId=qwen3.7-max&amp;serviceSite=international">Alibaba Cloud</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Gemini 3.5 Flash</p></td><td><p>$1.50</p></td><td><p>$9.00</p></td><td><p>$10.50</p></td><td><p><a href="https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/pricing">Google</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview (≤200K)</p></td><td><p>$2.00</p></td><td><p>$12.00</p></td><td><p>$14.00</p></td><td><p><a href="https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/pricing">Google</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>GPT-5.6 Terra</p></td><td><p>$2.50</p></td><td><p>$15.00</p></td><td><p>$17.50</p></td><td><p><a href="https://openai.com/index/previewing-gpt-5-6-sol/">OpenAI</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>GPT-5.4</p></td><td><p>$2.50</p></td><td><p>$15.00</p></td><td><p>$17.50</p></td><td><p><a href="https://openai.com/api/pricing/">OpenAI</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Kimi K3</p></td><td><p>$3.00</p></td><td><p>$15.00</p></td><td><p>$18.00</p></td><td><p><a href="https://platform.kimi.ai/docs/pricing/chat-k3">Moonshot AI</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview (&gt;200K)</p></td><td><p>$4.00</p></td><td><p>$18.00</p></td><td><p>$22.00</p></td><td><p><a href="https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/pricing">Google</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Claude Opus 4.8</p></td><td><p>$5.00</p></td><td><p>$25.00</p></td><td><p>$30.00</p></td><td><p><a href="https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/pricing">Anthropic</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>GPT-5.5</p></td><td><p>$5.00</p></td><td><p>$30.00</p></td><td><p>$35.00</p></td><td><p><a href="https://openai.com/api/pricing/">OpenAI</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>GPT-5.5 Instant (chat-latest)</p></td><td><p>$5.00</p></td><td><p>$30.00</p></td><td><p>$35.00</p></td><td><p><a href="https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/models/chat-latest">OpenAI</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Sakana Fugu Ultra (≤272K)</p></td><td><p>$5.00</p></td><td><p>$30.00</p></td><td><p>$35.00</p></td><td><p><a href="https://console.sakana.ai/pricing#subscription-plan">Sakana AI</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>GPT-5.6 Sol</p></td><td><p>$5.00</p></td><td><p>$30.00</p></td><td><p>$35.00</p></td><td><p><a href="https://openai.com/index/previewing-gpt-5-6-sol/">OpenAI</a></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Claude Fable 5 / Claude Mythos 5</p></td><td><p>$10.00</p></td><td><p>$50.00</p></td><td><p>$60.00</p></td><td><p><a href="https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/overview">Anthropic</a></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>No price was provided yet for the specialty Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber model, which, as its name would imply, is designed for cybersecurity researchers and red teamers to patch bugs. </p><p>While the prices are among the middle-low end of all major AI models globally, the fact that Google designed them to use less tokens overall also should drive down costs for enterprises beyond what the sticker price shows (since you'll be paying for fewer total tokens at any rate). </p><p>Gemini 3.6 Flash and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite are available immediately through the Gemini API in Google AI Studio and Android Studio, as well as within the consumer Gemini application and Google Search. According to a <a href="https://deepmind.google/blog/introducing-gemini-3-5-flash-cyber/">separate Google blog post</a>, Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber will be available "exclusively available to governments and trusted partners via CodeMender soon" — <a href="https://deepmind.google/blog/introducing-codemender-an-ai-agent-for-code-security/">CodeMender</a> being Google's proprietary AI code bug-fixing agent released last year. </p><p>As with previous Gemini models, these are all proprietary and "closed source," thus, they can only be obtained through Google's official API and that of its partners, as opposed to an open-source license like MIT or Apache 2.0. </p><p>One conspicuous omission noted by developers on X and social media: where is the larger, more powerful, flagship Gemini 3.5 Pro model Google previously alluded would be released this summer? After all, Gemini 3.1 Pro, the prior flagship, <a href="https://venturebeat.com/technology/google-launches-gemini-3-1-pro-retaking-ai-crown-with-2x-reasoning">debuted back in February 2026</a>, and rivals OpenAI and Anthropic have since released several more generations of flagship updates far more powerful than Google's. </p><p>Google technical staffer Logan Kilpatrick <a href="https://x.com/OfficialLoganK/status/2079592006163349538">responded to one such inquiry on X, writing</a>: "Gemini 3.5 Pro is currently testing with partners and we plan to make it broadly available as soon as it’s ready." </p><p>Google's release signals that the immediate future of AI lies in agentic capabilities—systems that operate autonomously over extended periods. </p><p>If early large language models are akin to massive, fuel-hungry freight trains capable of hauling incredible loads at immense cost, the new Flash series represents a fleet of nimble, hyper-efficient hybrid delivery vans.</p><h2><b>Efficiency gains ranging from 17% to 65% reduced tokens for strong results on third-party benchmarks</b></h2><p>Under the hood, Gemini 3.6 Flash achieves significant efficiency gains. The model reduces output token usage by 17% compared to its predecessor, Gemini 3.5 Flash, according to the <a href="https://x.com/ArtificialAnlys/status/2079596244339707956">Artificial Analysis Index</a> maintained by the independent third-party AI benchmarking group of the same name. </p><p>In specific long-horizon software engineering benchmarks like <a href="https://deepswe.datacurve.ai/">DeepSWE</a>, which measures how well agents complete multi-step engineering tasks from scratch, the token savings reach up to 65%. </p><p>This reduction means the model requires fewer reasoning steps and tool calls to complete the exact same multi-step workflow. Think of token efficiency like fuel economy in a vehicle. </p><p>When an AI model takes a convoluted path to solve a problem, it burns through more computational fuel, driving up the final cost for the developer. By streamlining its internal logic, Gemini 3.6 Flash arrives at the correct answer faster and cheaper.</p><p>While Google's materials did not specify the exact architectural or algorithmic changes used to achieve this token efficiency, they noted that the model "takes fewer reasoning steps and tool calls to accomplish multi-step workflows" and exhibits reduced "verbosity."</p><p>The official model cards released by Google reveal that both <a href="https://storage.googleapis.com/deepmind-media/Model-Cards/Gemini-3-6-Flash-Model-Card.pdf">Gemini 3.6 Flash</a> and <a href="https://storage.googleapis.com/deepmind-media/Model-Cards/Gemini-3-5-Flash-Lite-Model-Card.pdf">Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite</a> feature a 1-million-token input context window alongside a max output limit of 64,000 tokens, with both models sharing a knowledge cutoff date of March 2026.</p><h2><b>Respectable benchmark performance at low cost</b></h2><p>The technological improvements extend to concrete capabilities. Gemini 3.6 Flash scores 49% on the DeepSWE benchmark, a notable increase from the 37% achieved by version 3.5. </p><p>It also pushes machine learning engineering performance higher, scoring 63.9% on MLE-Bench compared to 49.7% previously. Furthermore, Google integrates computer use as a built-in client-side tool via the Gemini API and Gemini Enterprise, reflecting an OSWorld-Verified score of 83.0%, up from 78.4%. </p><p>The model also tackles knowledge work with greater proficiency, outperforming its predecessor on benchmarks like GDPval-AA v2 by moving from a score of 1349 to 1421.</p><p>To ensure safety amidst these capability upgrades, Google deploys enhanced Frontier Safety safeguards. These protections harden the model against jailbreaks and mitigate risks in Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear domains, as well as cyber offense misuses. </p><p>The engineering team trains the model to minimize refusals for beneficial uses, striking a necessary balance between strict security and practical utility.</p><h2>M<b>odels for low-cost coding, agentic, and cybersecurity use cases — respectively</b></h2><p>Google divided its new offerings into three distinct products tailored for different operational needs. </p><p>Gemini 3.6 Flash serves as the heavy-duty workhorse of the trio. It handles complex coding, intricate knowledge work, and multimodal processing with improved precision. Enterprise customers utilize it for demanding tasks such as complex document parsing, intricate chart and data analysis, and long-form report drafting. The model executes complex code migrations using multi-agent orchestration frameworks with lower latency and higher quality than earlier iterations. Furthermore, 3.6 Flash aids in developing photographic texture extractors for 3D workflows using canvas interfaces.</p><p>Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite targets environments where high throughput and absolute minimal latency are non-negotiable. Google designates it as the fastest model in the 3.5 series. </p><p>As measured by Artificial Analysis, the model processes 350 output tokens per second, making it highly effective for agentic search and massive document processing workloads. <a href="https://artificialanalysis.ai/articles/gemini-3-6-flash-3-5-flash-lite-halving-time">Artificial Analysis notes</a> this is about twice as fast as prior generation model Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite.</p><p>Developers can configure 3.5 Flash-Lite to prioritize low-latency execution for high-volume tasks using minimal thinking levels, or engage higher thinking levels to process complex multi-step subagent workloads. </p><p>Despite its lite designation, it outperforms the standard Gemini 3 Flash on several key agentic and coding evaluations, including SWE-Bench Pro, where it scores 54.2% compared to 49.6%, and OSWorld-Verified, scoring 74.0% versus 65.1%. </p><p>The model extracts product features from massive datasets, generates interactive web design concepts, and scales receipt translation seamlessly.</p><p>The third product, Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber, represents a highly specialized deployment. Google fine-tuned this model specifically to find and fix cybersecurity vulnerabilities. It integrates directly with Google's CodeMender agent. </p><p>In practice, multiple 3.5 Flash Cyber agents work concurrently to produce a single, comprehensive vulnerability report, achieving competitive performance at the frontier on the CyberGym benchmark. </p><p>Google did not specify an exact numerical cost for 3.5 Flash Cyber, stating only that it is fine-tuned "at a lower price per token than larger models.</p><h2><b>Commercial licensing only</b></h2><p>The licensing framework for the new Gemini models carries profound implications for developers and enterprise users. Google deploys Gemini 3.6 Flash and 3.5 Flash-Lite under a commercial, proprietary API model. Unlike open-source software governed by licenses such as the MIT License or the GNU General Public License, developers do not gain access to the underlying model weights, training data, or source code.</p><p>An MIT or GPL license grants users the freedom to download the codebase, modify the internal architecture, self-host the deployment, and distribute the software infrastructure independently. In contrast, Google's API approach means developers essentially rent access to the intelligence on a strict metered basis. Every prompt and generated response travels through Google's managed servers, incurring a cost based on the strict pricing structure of $1.50 per million input tokens for 3.6 Flash. </p><p>This commercial tethering restricts deployment flexibility. Enterprises cannot air-gap the models entirely on their own local secure hardware without establishing specialized, high-tier enterprise agreements with Google Cloud. Developers remain bound by Google's acceptable use policies, arbitrary rate limits, and network requirements, creating a permanent dependency on Google's infrastructure uptime and terms of service.</p><p>The licensing for Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber proves even more restrictive. Acknowledging the dual-use nature of cybersecurity AI—which attackers can weaponize just as easily as defenders can use it to patch systems—Google is for now making the model only available behind a limited-access pilot program, similar to the trend kicked off by Anthropic's Mythos model with its Project Glasswing program, and continued by OpenAI with its staggered rollout for GPT-5.6. </p><p>In this case, Google is making 3.5 Flash Cyber exclusively available to governments and trusted partners. This strict gatekeeping prevents open access, prioritizing systemic security over widespread developer innovation.</p><h2><b>Looking ahead</b></h2><p>Google DeepMind continues to iterate rapidly, but the gap in its product line remains apparent. While the Flash series excels in speed and economy, </p><p>the industry eagerly awaits the deployment of Gemini 3.5 Pro to gauge Google's absolute frontier capabilities.</p><p>Simultaneously, the company confirms that pre-training for Gemini 4 has already commenced. </p><p>Until the next major flagship release materializes, developers must optimize their systems using the highly efficient, yet purposefully constrained, Flash architecture.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Rockwell Automation 1718-AENTR/1719-AENTR]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[View CSAF
Summary
Successful exploitation of this vulnerability could allow for an attacker to cause a denial-of-service condition on the product.
The following versions of Rockwell Automation 1718-AENTR/1719-AENTR are affected:

1718/ 1719 Ex I/O 3.011 





CVSS
Vendor
Equipment
Vulnerabilities...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3684502/it-security-nachrichten/rockwell-automation-1718-aentr1719-aentr/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3684502/it-security-nachrichten/rockwell-automation-1718-aentr1719-aentr/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 19:45:19 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://github.com/cisagov/CSAF/blob/develop/csaf_files/OT/white/2026/icsa-26-202-08.json"><strong>View CSAF</strong></a></p>
<h2>Summary</h2>
<p><strong>Successful exploitation of this vulnerability could allow for an attacker to cause a denial-of-service condition on the product.</strong></p>
<p>The following versions of Rockwell Automation 1718-AENTR/1719-AENTR are affected:</p>
<ul>
<li>1718/ 1719 Ex I/O 3.011 </li>
</ul>
<div class="csaf-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vendor</th>
<th role="columnheader">Equipment</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vulnerabilities</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>v3 7.5</td>
<td>Rockwell Automation</td>
<td>Rockwell Automation 1718-AENTR/1719-AENTR</td>
<td>Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<h3>Background</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Critical Infrastructure Sectors: </strong>Critical Manufacturing</li>
<li><strong>Countries/Areas Deployed: </strong>Worldwide</li>
<li><strong>Company Headquarters Location: </strong>United States</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Vulnerabilities</h2>
<div class="csaf-accordion">
<p><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle-all" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">Expand All +</a></p>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-9140</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>A denial-of-service security issue exists in the 1719-AENTR. The security issue stems from improper handling of a UDP unicast network storm, which causes the device to become overloaded and lose communication. A power cycle is required to recover.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-9140">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Rockwell Automation 1718-AENTR/1719-AENTR</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Rockwell Automation</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>Rockwell Automation 1718/ 1719 Ex I/O: 3.011</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Rockwell Automation recommends users to upgrade to 1718/ 1719 Ex I/O version 3.012 or later.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Customers using the affected software, who are not able to upgrade to one of the corrected versions, should use Rockwell Automation's security best practices (https://support.rockwellautomation.com/app/answers/answer_view/a_id/1085012/loc/en_US#__highlight).<br><a href="https://support.rockwellautomation.com/app/answers/answer_view/a_id/1085012/loc/en_US#__highlight">https://support.rockwellautomation.com/app/answers/answer_view/a_id/1085012/loc/en_US#__highlight</a></p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>For more information, see Rockwell Automation Security Advisories: https://www.rockwellautomation.com/en-us/trust-center/security-advisories.html.<br><a href="https://www.rockwellautomation.com/en-us/trust-center/security-advisories.html">https://www.rockwellautomation.com/en-us/trust-center/security-advisories.html</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/770.html">CWE-770 Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7.5</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>8.7</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N">CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<hr>
<h2>Acknowledgments</h2>
<ul>
<li>Rockwell Automation reported this vulnerability to CISA</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>
<p>This product is provided subject to this Notification (https://www.cisa.gov/notification) and this Privacy &amp; Use policy (https://www.cisa.gov/privacy-policy).</p>
<hr>
<h2>Recommended Practices</h2>
<p>CISA recommends users take defensive measures to minimize the risk of exploitation of this vulnerability.</p>
<p>Minimize network exposure for all control system devices and/or systems, ensuring they are not accessible from the internet.</p>
<p>Locate control system networks and remote devices behind firewalls and isolating them from business networks.</p>
<p>When remote access is required, use more secure methods, such as Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), recognizing VPNs may have vulnerabilities and should be updated to the most current version available. Also recognize VPN is only as secure as the connected devices.</p>
<p>CISA reminds organizations to perform proper impact analysis and risk assessment prior to deploying defensive measures.</p>
<p>CISA also provides a section for control systems security recommended practices on the ICS webpage on cisa.gov/ics. Several CISA products detailing cyber defense best practices are available for reading and download, including Improving Industrial Control Systems Cybersecurity with Defense-in-Depth Strategies.</p>
<p>CISA encourages organizations to implement recommended cybersecurity strategies for proactive defense of ICS assets.</p>
<p>Additional mitigation guidance and recommended practices are publicly available on the ICS webpage at cisa.gov/ics in the technical information paper, ICS-TIP-12-146-01B--Targeted Cyber Intrusion Detection and Mitigation Strategies.</p>
<p>Organizations observing suspected malicious activity should follow established internal procedures and report findings to CISA for tracking and correlation against other incidents.</p>
<p>CISA also recommends users take the following measures to protect themselves from social engineering attacks:</p>
<p>Do not click web links or open attachments in unsolicited email messages.</p>
<p>Refer to Recognizing and Avoiding Email Scams for more information on avoiding email scams.</p>
<p>Refer to Avoiding Social Engineering and Phishing Attacks for more information on social engineering attacks.</p>
<p>No known public exploitation specifically targeting this vulnerability has been reported to CISA at this time.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Revision History</h2>
<ul>
<li><strong>Initial Release Date: </strong>2026-07-21</li>
</ul>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">Date</th>
<th role="columnheader">Revision</th>
<th role="columnheader">Summary</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>2026-07-21</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>Initial Republication of Rockwell Automation Security Advisory</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Rockwell Automation 1734 POINT I/O]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[View CSAF
Summary
Successful exploitation of this vulnerability could allow for an attacker to cause a denial-of-service condition on the product.
The following versions of Rockwell Automation 1734 POINT I/O are affected:

1734 POINT I/O 3.023 





CVSS
Vendor
Equipment
Vulnerabilities




v3 7....]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3684500/it-security-nachrichten/rockwell-automation-1734-point-io/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3684500/it-security-nachrichten/rockwell-automation-1734-point-io/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 19:45:15 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://github.com/cisagov/CSAF/blob/develop/csaf_files/OT/white/2026/icsa-26-202-09.json"><strong>View CSAF</strong></a></p>
<h2>Summary</h2>
<p><strong>Successful exploitation of this vulnerability could allow for an attacker to cause a denial-of-service condition on the product.</strong></p>
<p>The following versions of Rockwell Automation 1734 POINT I/O are affected:</p>
<ul>
<li>1734 POINT I/O 3.023 </li>
</ul>
<div class="csaf-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vendor</th>
<th role="columnheader">Equipment</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vulnerabilities</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>v3 7.5</td>
<td>Rockwell Automation</td>
<td>Rockwell Automation 1734 POINT I/O</td>
<td>Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<h3>Background</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Critical Infrastructure Sectors: </strong>Critical Manufacturing</li>
<li><strong>Countries/Areas Deployed: </strong>Worldwide</li>
<li><strong>Company Headquarters Location: </strong>United States</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Vulnerabilities</h2>
<div class="csaf-accordion">
<p><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle-all" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">Expand All +</a></p>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-10573</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>A denial-of-service security issue exists in 1734 POINT I/O module. The security issue stems from improper handling of crafted CIP messages, which can cause the module to enter a faulted state. A restart is required to recover.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-10573">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Rockwell Automation 1734 POINT I/O</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Rockwell Automation</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>Rockwell Automation 1734 POINT I/O: 3.023</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Rockwell Automation recommends users are to migrate to 5034-OB8.</p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Customers using the affected software, who are not able to upgrade to one of the corrected versions, should use Rockwell Automation's security best practices (https://support.rockwellautomation.com/app/answers/answer_view/a_id/1085012/loc/en_US#__highlight).<br><a href="https://support.rockwellautomation.com/app/answers/answer_view/a_id/1085012/loc/en_US#__highlight">https://support.rockwellautomation.com/app/answers/answer_view/a_id/1085012/loc/en_US#__highlight</a></p>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>For more information, see Rockwell Automation Security Advisories: https://www.rockwellautomation.com/en-us/trust-center/security-advisories.html.<br><a href="https://www.rockwellautomation.com/en-us/trust-center/security-advisories.html">https://www.rockwellautomation.com/en-us/trust-center/security-advisories.html</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/770.html">CWE-770 Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7.5</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>8.7</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N">CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<hr>
<h2>Acknowledgments</h2>
<ul>
<li>Rockwell Automation reported this vulnerability to CISA</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>
<p>This product is provided subject to this Notification (https://www.cisa.gov/notification) and this Privacy &amp; Use policy (https://www.cisa.gov/privacy-policy).</p>
<hr>
<h2>Recommended Practices</h2>
<p>CISA recommends users take defensive measures to minimize the risk of exploitation of this vulnerability.</p>
<p>Minimize network exposure for all control system devices and/or systems, ensuring they are not accessible from the internet.</p>
<p>Locate control system networks and remote devices behind firewalls and isolating them from business networks.</p>
<p>When remote access is required, use more secure methods, such as Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), recognizing VPNs may have vulnerabilities and should be updated to the most current version available. Also recognize VPN is only as secure as the connected devices.</p>
<p>CISA reminds organizations to perform proper impact analysis and risk assessment prior to deploying defensive measures.</p>
<p>CISA also provides a section for control systems security recommended practices on the ICS webpage on cisa.gov/ics. Several CISA products detailing cyber defense best practices are available for reading and download, including Improving Industrial Control Systems Cybersecurity with Defense-in-Depth Strategies.</p>
<p>CISA encourages organizations to implement recommended cybersecurity strategies for proactive defense of ICS assets.</p>
<p>Additional mitigation guidance and recommended practices are publicly available on the ICS webpage at cisa.gov/ics in the technical information paper, ICS-TIP-12-146-01B--Targeted Cyber Intrusion Detection and Mitigation Strategies.</p>
<p>Organizations observing suspected malicious activity should follow established internal procedures and report findings to CISA for tracking and correlation against other incidents.</p>
<p>CISA also recommends users take the following measures to protect themselves from social engineering attacks:</p>
<p>Do not click web links or open attachments in unsolicited email messages.</p>
<p>Refer to Recognizing and Avoiding Email Scams for more information on avoiding email scams.</p>
<p>Refer to Avoiding Social Engineering and Phishing Attacks for more information on social engineering attacks.</p>
<p>No known public exploitation specifically targeting this vulnerability has been reported to CISA at this time.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Revision History</h2>
<ul>
<li><strong>Initial Release Date: </strong>2026-07-21</li>
</ul>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">Date</th>
<th role="columnheader">Revision</th>
<th role="columnheader">Summary</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>2026-07-21</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>Initial Republication of Rockwell Automation Security Advisory</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Ricky Gervais Says ‘Alley Cats’ Takes a New Approach to Adult Animation]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Ricky Gervais has shared fresh details about his upcoming Netflix adult animated comedy Alley Cats, explaining how the series breaks away from traditional animation. During new press interviews, Gervais, Tom Basden, and Diane Morgan revealed that the show was built around live comedy performances...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3684263/ios-mac-os/ricky-gervais-says-alley-cats-takes-a-new-approach-to-adult-animation/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3684263/ios-mac-os/ricky-gervais-says-alley-cats-takes-a-new-approach-to-adult-animation/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 17:59:51 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🍏 iOS / Mac OS</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Ricky Gervais has shared fresh details about his upcoming Netflix adult animated comedy Alley Cats, explaining how the series breaks away from traditional animation. During new press interviews, Gervais, Tom Basden, and Diane Morgan revealed that the show was built around live comedy performances, improvisation, and emotional storytelling ahead of its August 7, 2026 premiere.



The six-episode series follows a gang of foul-mouthed feral cats trying to survive while navigating everyday life in a harsh human world. Alongside its sharp humor, the show also explores friendship, grief, and mortality through the lives of its feline characters.



Ricky Gervais Wanted to Change How Animated Shows Are Made



According to Gervais, the biggest difference with Alley Cats came before the animation even started.



Instead of recording each actor separately in a sound booth, he insisted on bringing the entire cast together for every episode. The group performed scenes at the same time, allowing conversations to flow naturally and giving actors room to interrupt, react, and improvise.



Gervais explained that each recording session lasted far longer than the final episode. With nearly two hours of material recorded for a 15-minute episode, the creative team could choose the funniest moments while keeping performances spontaneous and realistic.



He believes that "audio is king" in animation, and the visuals should support the performances instead of limiting them.



Improvisation Created Some Wild Moments



That recording style led to plenty of unexpected comedy.



Diane Morgan revealed that many improvised jokes became far too outrageous to make the final cut. She credited fellow cast member David Earl for pushing scenes into completely unpredictable territory, often forcing the team to stop and ask whether certain jokes could actually stay in the series.



Those sessions helped create conversations that sound less scripted and more like friends talking naturally.



A Cast Built Around British Comedy



Gervais described the voice cast as the "Avengers of British comedy" because he wrote many characters specifically for actors he has worked with before.



Tom Basden voices Ponce, a well-kept house cat whose education and manners constantly clash with the rough street cats around him. Basden says Ponce often acts like an outsider while secretly understanding the softer side of Gus, voiced by Gervais.



Diane Morgan plays Olive, a cheerful but not particularly bright cat whose simple outlook adds another layer of comedy. Morgan joked that Olive quickly loses interest in Ponce after learning one unexpected detail about him.



Comedy With Genuine Emotion



Although Alley Cats promises plenty of crude jokes, Gervais says the series also explores emotional themes that have appeared throughout his previous work.



One important storyline follows the group caring for a lost kitten while confronting the reality of death for the first time. Gervais explained that childhood memories about losing pets inspired those scenes and shaped the emotional core of the series.



Morgan said viewers may expect nothing more than "sweary cats," but the show eventually delivers emotional moments that stay with the audience. Basden added that the story also looks at humanity's relationship with nature and the uncertainty every living creature faces.



Music and Release Date



The soundtrack will include songs from Cat Stevens, Coldplay, and Van Halen. Gervais also confirmed that The Smiths' classic "There Is a Light That Never Goes Out" appears in the series after both Morrissey and Johnny Marr approved its use, with Marr donating his licensing fee to an animal charity.



Alley Cats premieres globally on Netflix on August 7, 2026. The adult animated sitcom has already generated strong interest following its Annecy Festival preview, where audiences received an early look at the first two episodes.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The Galaxy Card Is Samsung's Answer To the Apple Card]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[An anonymous reader quotes a report from Wired: Nearly seven years after Apple debuted the Apple Card, Samsung is following the iPhone maker's footsteps with the Galaxy Card, aiming for its own slice of the credit card market. The announcement comes two days before Samsung's second Galaxy Unpacke...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3684135/it-security-nachrichten/the-galaxy-card-is-samsungs-answer-to-the-apple-card/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3684135/it-security-nachrichten/the-galaxy-card-is-samsungs-answer-to-the-apple-card/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 17:10:03 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[An anonymous reader quotes a report from Wired: Nearly seven years after Apple debuted the Apple Card, Samsung is following the iPhone maker's footsteps with the Galaxy Card, aiming for its own slice of the credit card market. The announcement comes two days before Samsung's second Galaxy Unpacked event of the year, where it's expected to showcase new smartwatches and folding smartphones. The Galaxy Card is issued by Barclays on the Visa network; the Apple Card, originally issued by Goldman Sachs but now transitioning to Chase, is on the MasterCard network. There is a physical card -- it's not made of titanium but recycled steel.
 
The virtual card will be provisioned to a user's Samsung Wallet account. With no annual fee, Samsung says cardmembers can earn 5 percent cash rewards on all in-store or online purchases made directly from Samsung in the US, 3 percent cash rewards on purchases made with the Galaxy Card using Samsung Wallet, 2 percent cash rewards on streaming service subscriptions, and 1 percent cash rewards on everything else with the physical card. The cash rewards can be redeemed as a statement credit or transferred to a checking or savings account. The annual percentage rate (APR) varies by cardmember, but the card has no foreign transaction fees. Other perks include a 20 percent discount on Samsung's VIP Advantage membership, which offers extended device protection, specialized support, and exclusive deals, and $200 in cash rewards after spending $2,000 in the first 90 days.
 
Applications open up on July 22. The Samsung Wallet app is only available on Samsung smartphones and watches, so what happens if a consumer switches to a different smartphone brand? The company says Galaxy Card is not limited to Samsung device owners and that anyone can use the physical card, but you lose the key perks; the card can be managed through a BarclaysUS.com online portal. (Similarly, if an iPhone owner switches to Android, their physical Apple Card will still work, but they lose access to the Apple Wallet app and the 3 percent daily cash perk on Apple purchases; there's a web portal to manage the account.)<p></p><div class="share_submission">
<a class="slashpop" href="http://twitter.com/home?status=The+Galaxy+Card+Is+Samsung's+Answer+To+the+Apple+Card%3A+https%3A%2F%2Fnews.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F26%2F07%2F21%2F0551243%2F%3Futm_source%3Dtwitter%26utm_medium%3Dtwitter"><img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/twitter_icon_large.png"></a>
<a class="slashpop" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fnews.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F26%2F07%2F21%2F0551243%2Fthe-galaxy-card-is-samsungs-answer-to-the-apple-card%3Futm_source%3Dslashdot%26utm_medium%3Dfacebook"><img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/facebook_icon_large.png"></a>



</div><p><a href="https://news.slashdot.org/story/26/07/21/0551243/the-galaxy-card-is-samsungs-answer-to-the-apple-card?utm_source=rss1.0moreanon&amp;utm_medium=feed">Read more of this story</a> at Slashdot.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Kompakter Opel mit guter Ausstattung: Benziner im Privat-Leasing-Angebot]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Bei niedriger Leasing-Rate bringt das Modell unter anderem Ganzjahresreifen, ein Winterpaket und eine umfangreiche Serienausstattung mit.]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3684055/it-nachrichten/kompakter-opel-mit-guter-ausstattung-benziner-im-privat-leasing-angebot/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3684055/it-nachrichten/kompakter-opel-mit-guter-ausstattung-benziner-im-privat-leasing-angebot/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 16:49:07 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Bei niedriger Leasing-Rate bringt das Modell unter anderem Ganzjahresreifen, ein Winterpaket und eine umfangreiche Serienausstattung mit.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Garmin’s new screen-free fitness tracker doesn’t require a subscription]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Garmin announced a new smart band today designed to track "advanced fitness and wellness features" without a screen to eliminate distractions and push its battery life to up to 10 days between charges. Similar to competing products like the Whoop 5.0 and Google's recently announced Fitbit Air, th...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3683916/it-nachrichten/garmins-new-screen-free-fitness-tracker-doesnt-require-a-subscription/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3683916/it-nachrichten/garmins-new-screen-free-fitness-tracker-doesnt-require-a-subscription/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 15:48:13 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Garmin announced a new smart band today designed to track "advanced fitness and wellness features" without a screen to eliminate distractions and push its battery life to up to 10 days between charges. Similar to competing products like the Whoop 5.0 and Google's recently announced Fitbit Air, the Cirqa uses a combination of heart rate, […]]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The AI allocation trap: Record spend, vanishing returns]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[In a single month, one enterprise reportedly spent half a billion dollars on AI. A consultant told Axios that the client had handed its workforce AI licenses, set no usage limits and let the meter run until finance noticed. The figure is spectacular, and it is the wrong thing to fear. That half-b...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3683786/it-nachrichten/the-ai-allocation-trap-record-spend-vanishing-returns/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3683786/it-nachrichten/the-ai-allocation-trap-record-spend-vanishing-returns/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 15:18:28 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In a single month, one enterprise reportedly spent half a billion dollars on AI. A consultant <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/05/28/ai-spending-roi-enterprise-costs">told Axios</a> that the client had handed its workforce AI licenses, set no usage limits and let the meter run until finance noticed. The figure is spectacular, and it is the wrong thing to fear. That half-billion-dollar accident is only the visible part of a quieter, far larger failure. <a href="https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2026-1-15-gartner-says-worldwide-ai-spending-will-total-2-point-5-trillion-dollars-in-2026">Worldwide AI spending is forecast to reach $2.52 trillion in 2026</a>, more than any technology category in a generation, and by the most cited measure, roughly 95 percent of it returns nothing. Boards read that as proof that the technology does not work. The evidence points somewhere less comfortable, and it is not a technology problem at all. Most boards cannot see it because they are reading the wrong number: They track failure when the number that matters is allocation. The discipline that separates the winners is not technical. It is how they allocate capital across time, and how willing they are to stop. The hardest discipline in the AI era is not adopting faster. It is allocating honestly and refusing to judge a three-year bet on a six-month cycle.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The number everyone quotes, and no one acts on</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The headline statistic is now familiar. MIT’s Project NANDA, in its 2025 study <a href="https://fortune.com/2025/08/18/mit-report-95-percent-generative-ai-pilots-at-companies-failing-cfo/">The GenAI Divide</a>, found that about 95 percent of enterprise generative AI pilots produced no measurable impact on the P&amp;L, while roughly 5 percent captured nearly all the value. <a href="https://www.spglobal.com/market-intelligence/en/news-insights/research/2025/10/generative-ai-shows-rapid-growth-but-yields-mixed-results">S&amp;P Global Market Intelligence</a> found that the share of companies abandoning most of their AI initiatives jumped from 17 percent to 42 percent in a single year, with the average organization scrapping 46 percent of its proofs-of-concept before production. <a href="https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2025-06-25-gartner-predicts-over-40-percent-of-agentic-ai-projects-will-be-canceled-by-end-of-2027">Gartner</a> expects more than 40 percent of agentic AI projects to be canceled by the end of 2027, citing escalating costs, unclear business value and inadequate risk controls. And the pattern predates generative AI: <a href="https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA2680-1.html">RAND</a> found that more than 80 percent of AI projects fail, roughly twice the rate of comparable work that does not involve AI.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Read as a technology story, these numbers say AI does not work. Read correctly, they say something more useful. MIT’s own authors located the cause not in model quality but in a <a href="https://virtualizationreview.com/articles/2025/08/19/mit-report-finds-most-ai-business-investments-fail-reveals-genai-divide.aspx">learning and integration gap</a>. The winners were not running better models. They picked one problem, executed and worked well together. Purchased solutions reached production about 67 percent of the time, while internal builds succeeded roughly a third as often. <a href="https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2025-03-31-gartner-forecasts-worldwide-genai-spending-to-reach-644-billion-in-2025">Gartner’s own spending forecast</a> notes the same pivot, with CIOs scaling back ambitious internal builds in favor of commercial solutions that promise more predictable value. None of that is a verdict on the technology. It is a verdict on allocation: What gets funded, for how long and against which yardstick. The popular prescription, heard in every boardroom this year, is to measure harder and prove value sooner. That advice quietly repeats the mistake, because forcing a three-year bet to prove itself sooner is precisely how you kill it. The fix is not more measurement. It is measuring each bet against the right clock and subtracting the ones that miss.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The six-month cycle problem</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Return to that 95 percent, because the way it is measured is the whole argument. Much of the reported failure is judged on a short clock, with a pilot counted as a failure if it has not shown a measurable financial return within roughly six months. The single most quoted number in enterprise AI is therefore a six-month yardstick applied to every initiative, including the bets designed to pay back in three years. The headline failure rate is not only a measure of AI. It is a measure of impatience.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The most expensive mistake in enterprise AI is a timing error. Enterprises have been spending heavily on AI for more than two years, and 2026 is the year boards are demanding returns. The multi-year bets funded during the 2024 and 2025 scale-up are only now far enough along to be judged. When a board reviews an initiative, it applies the yardstick it knows, which is quarterly return. That yardstick is correct for an efficiency project and ruinous for a capability bet. A workflow automation that should pay back in two quarters and a foundational data and agent capability that pays back in three years are not the same instrument, yet they are reviewed in the same meeting against the same metric.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is the heart of the divide. The 5 percent did not simply pick better projects. They judged each project against its own horizon. McKinsey’s enduring <a href="https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/enduring-ideas-the-three-horizons-of-growth">Three Horizons model</a> made this discipline standard in corporate strategy a generation ago: near-term, emerging and long-term bets are funded and measured differently. AI erased that discipline because the hype compressed every timeline into the current quarter. The result is two failure modes that appear opposite yet share a common root. Organizations kill three-year bets at month six because they miss a metric the bet was never designed to hit. And they keep funding six-month theater for years because it is visible, safe and never asked to prove a return. Both are allocation failures. Neither is a technology failure.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Subtraction is a strategy</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There is a second discipline, the 5 percent share, and it is the one boards find hardest. They subtract. Every credible study of the failure rate describes the same chaotic pattern underneath it: Initiatives are <a href="https://www.ciodive.com/news/AI-project-fail-data-SPGlobal/742590/">abandoned late, without criteria</a>, after the money is spent and the credibility is gone. Disciplined organizations do the opposite. They decide the conditions for stopping before they start, and they stop on schedule. Subtraction is not the absence of strategy. It is the strategy. Capital removed from a failing bet is capital available for a surviving one, and the survivors are where the entire return lives.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This reframes the 42 percent abandonment figure. Abandonment is not the problem. Undisciplined abandonment is. An organization that liquidates a position the moment it breaches a pre-agreed kill line is practicing portfolio hygiene. An organization that lets a doomed pilot run until someone loses patience is paying full price for a lesson it could have bought at a discount. The 5 percent who won were not smarter. They were patient in the right places and ruthless in the wrong ones.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The HALT framework: Horizon, Allocation, Liquidation, Tracking</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Treating AI as a portfolio rather than a pile of pilots requires four disciplines, and the organizations that execute well put all four in place before the next funding cycle, not after the next failure. The name is deliberate. The discipline most enterprises lack is the willingness to halt the wrong bets in time to fund the right ones.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Component 1: Horizon. </strong>Classify every AI initiative by its true payoff horizon before it is funded. Horizon 1 covers efficiency plays that should return value within two quarters. Horizon 2 covers capability bets, data foundations, agent platforms and integration work that pays back in roughly 6 to 18 months. Horizon 3 covers transformation bets that take eighteen months to three years or longer. Each horizon carries its own success metric, set at funding time. A Horizon 1 yardstick never judges a Horizon 3 bet. This single rule prevents the most common and most expensive error in the portfolio.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Component 2: Allocation. </strong>Decide the split across horizons deliberately, as a board-level capital decision, not as the accidental sum of whatever pilots happened to win approval. A practical reference point, borrowed from decades of innovation-portfolio practice, is roughly 70% to near-term value, 20% to capability, and 10% to transformation. The exact ratio is yours; the discipline is to choose and defend it. The failure mode is an unmanaged portfolio: 90 percent scattered across disconnected Horizon 1 experiments, with nothing compounding into the Horizon 2 capability that the buy-and-integrate winners actually built.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Component 3: Liquidation. </strong>Attach a kill line to every initiative at the moment it is funded: A named milestone, a date and an owner empowered to stop it. If a bet misses its horizon-appropriate milestone, it is liquidated, and capital is reallocated on schedule without debate over sunk costs. The absence of a pre-agreed kill line is not patience. It is an unpriced liability that the board has almost certainly not been shown.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Component 4: Tracking. </strong>Report the portfolio to the board on a fixed cadence using a single instrument: The AI Portfolio Scorecard. Not a deck of project updates, but a single view of allocation by horizon, burn against milestone, liquidation decisions taken and capital reallocated to survivors. The cadence is the control. A portfolio reviewed once a year is a portfolio managed by hope.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>THE AI PORTFOLIO SCORECARD: SCORE EVERY INITIATIVE BEFORE IT IS FUNDED</strong></p>



<figure class="wp-block-table"><div class="overflow-table-wrapper"><table class="has-fixed-layout"><thead><tr><td><strong>Evaluation criterion</strong></td><td><strong>0</strong></td><td><strong>1</strong></td><td><strong>2</strong></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Horizon assigned (H1 / H2 / H3) and documented before funding</td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td>Success metric matched to the horizon, not a default quarterly ROI</td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td>Kill line set: Named milestone and date, agreed at funding</td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td>Owner named with explicit authority to stop the initiative</td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td>Fits a deliberate allocation band, not an accidental addition</td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td>Odds-raising path documented: Buy or partner and an integration plan</td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr></tbody></table> </div></figure>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Score each criterion: 0 = not present, 1 = partially documented, 2 = fully verified. Total out of 12. Bands: 0 to 4 = DO NOT FUND  |  5 to 8 = CONDITIONAL  |  9 to 12 = FUND.</em></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>THE LIQUIDATION GATE: RUN AT EVERY BOARD REVIEW BEFORE CONTINUING FUNDING</strong></p>



<figure class="wp-block-table"><div class="overflow-table-wrapper"><table class="has-fixed-layout"><thead><tr><td><strong>Review test</strong></td><td><strong>Status</strong></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Milestone for this horizon met or credibly on track</td><td>PASS / FAIL</td></tr><tr><td>Burn within plan to the next milestone</td><td>PASS / FAIL</td></tr><tr><td>Still fits the allocation band, with no quiet horizon drift</td><td>PASS / FAIL</td></tr><tr><td>Owner confirms continued strategic fit</td><td>PASS / FAIL</td></tr></tbody></table> </div></figure>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Any unresolved FAIL = stop funding, liquidate the position, reallocate the capital to a survivor and record the decision on the scorecard.</em></p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The cost of the timing error</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The financial case follows the pattern and is consistent. Consider two organizations that funded the same class of Horizon 3 bet: A domain-specific agent platform meant to compound over three years. The first review was conducted at month six against a quarterly return test, found no payback and killed it, booking the write-off as a lesson about AI being overhyped. Its competitor classified the same work as Horizon 3, set an 18-month capability milestone, protected funding through two review cycles and shipped to production within the window the work actually required. One organization spent its money to learn that it lacks allocation discipline. The other spent comparable money and now owns a capability its rival has abandoned and cannot quickly rebuild. The dollars on the two income statements are similar. The competitive positions are not.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The governance return the board has been waiting for</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Allocation discipline does two things at once. It stops the bleed by liquidating failures on a schedule rather than at the point of exhaustion. And it concentrates capital where the entire return lives, in the small number of bets that survive their horizon. The 5 percent figure is not a ceiling imposed by the technology. It is the current yield of an industry allocated by hype. An organization that classifies by horizon, allocates on purpose, liquidates on a line and tracks on a cadence is not trying to beat the technology. It is trying to beat its own indiscipline, and that is a far more winnable contest.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The board conversation about AI returns is coming for every organization, and it arrives the moment the spending outpaces the story. When it does, the CIO will be asked a simple question: Where did the money go? The leaders who can answer will not show a pile of pilots. They will show a portfolio: What was funded, against which horizon, what was liquidated and when, and what the survivors are now worth. Subtraction is a strategy. The only question is whether you are practicing it on purpose or about to learn it by accident.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.</strong><br><a href="https://www.cio.com/expert-contributor-network/"><strong>Want to join?</strong></a></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Context bombing heralds a new AI era of deceptive defense]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Attackers are increasingly using AI agents to automate all phases of cyberattacks, prompting the security industry and enterprises to find new network defense approaches. One technique that shows promise is to intentionally plant decoy files with prompts that trigger the content safety guardrails...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3682887/it-security-nachrichten/context-bombing-heralds-a-new-ai-era-of-deceptive-defense/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3682887/it-security-nachrichten/context-bombing-heralds-a-new-ai-era-of-deceptive-defense/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 09:07:59 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Attackers are increasingly <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/4196409/ai-powered-breaches-provide-wake-up-call-for-incident-response.html">using AI agents to automate all phases of cyberattacks</a>, prompting the security industry and enterprises to find new network defense approaches. One technique that shows promise is to intentionally plant decoy files with prompts that trigger the content safety guardrails built into LLMs with the goal of crashing rogue agentic workflows.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Using decoy resources as tripwires that alert defenders about potential unauthorized access is not a new idea in cybersecurity. These are known as canaries — after the canary in the coal mine early warning system — and can be fake documents, AWS access keys, database dumps, DNS records, and even URLs that would not be queried by legitimate processes, but would be attractive targets for attackers.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">What’s new in <a href="https://agentic.tracebit.com/context-bombs/">the approach devised and tested by security firm Tracebit</a> is to use these decoy resources not merely to trigger alerts, but to actually stop AI agents, buying defenders more time. Dubbed “context bombing,” the technique takes advantage of the fact that LLMs are inherently vulnerable to prompt injection — acting on instructions they might encounter inside the data they process.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Enterprises that build their own AI agents have to worry about <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/4110008/top-cyber-threats-to-your-ai-systems-and-infrastructure.html">malicious prompts</a> placed by attackers on web pages, emails, documents, code comments, and in other third-party resources those agents might access. With no defenses in place, companies risk their own agents being hijacked and used against them to perform unauthorized actions. But the malicious AI agents used by attackers have the same vulnerability.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“We call the defensive version a context bomb: a short piece of text designed to trigger a model’s safety guardrails, planted directly in the attacker’s path — a decoy secret, environment variable, or DNS record,” Sam Cox, Tracebit’s CTO, said in <a href="https://tracebit.com/blog/context-bombs-stopping-ai-attackers-in-their-tracks">a blog post</a>. “An AI agent that reads it will frequently refuse to continue. You still get the alert; and the attack now halts early instead of merely being detected.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Context bombing triggers massive drop in attack success rate</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Tracebit’s tests performed in an AWS test environment cut the success rate normally achieved by AI models across multiple attacks paths by up to 90% by simply adding instructions that would trigger their content safety guardrails. LLMs are trained to refuse answering questions about creating biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons, or, in the case of Chinese open-weight models, <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/3851848/ai-culture-war-hidden-bias-in-training-models-may-push-political-propaganda.html">sensitive political topics</a> such as the Tiananmen Square massacre.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Furthermore, once one of these banned instructions make it into the context window, the whole session is <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/4166171/poisoned-truth-the-quiet-security-threat-inside-enterprise-ai.html">poisoned</a>, and the model will often refuse to continue without manual intervention. The researchers ran many tests to find short strings that would trigger model safety guardrails reliably, but it’s worth noting that the identified strings were different between the tested models: Claude Opus 4.8, Gemini 3.1 Pro, GLM 5.2, DeepSeek V4 Pro, and Kimi K2.6.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">During baseline tests the AI agents managed on average to obtain full account admin in 54% of the 154 attack runs and full compromise (admin + persistence) in 36% of tests. With the context bombs in place, their success rate dropped to 5% for admin access and 1% for full compromise. Also, in 91% of baseline attack runs, the agents managed to complete at least one of ten possible attacks paths, but their average success rate dropped to 15% with the context bombs.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The models from Western AI labs — Opus and Gemini — proved the most capable at reaching full admin access, with 93% and 70% success rates, but were also the most impacted by the context bombs with both their success rates dropping to 0%. This shows that the content safety guardrails are much stronger in these models compared to the Chinese ones that were tested.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Attackers experimented with safety refusals first</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The Tracebit researchers had already been experimenting with AI canaries for alert purposes. <a href="https://agentic.tracebit.com/context-bombs/">A paper published in May</a> showed that canaries alerted defenders in 95.9% of 162 successful attack runs performed with AI agents using 10 different AI models. The alerts were triggered 8 minutes before the agents performed critical actions, while the runs required 14 minutes on average to reach admin access.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">During those tests the researchers observed that if they instructed the models that the network might include deception, their success rate for full admin access and persistence dropped from 20% to 3% on average.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Then in June, researchers from security firm Socket.dev came across a software supply chain attack involving malicious PyPI wheels that contained prompt injections with content designed to trigger safety guardrails inside AI models. The malicious prompts were included in code comments at the start of the files and the purpose was likely to evade detection from LLM-powered security scanners.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“This header appears designed for AI-mediated analysis, not for Node, Bun, or Python,” the Socket.dev researchers <a href="https://socket.dev/blog/mini-shai-hulud-miasma-and-hades-worms-target-bioinformatics-and-mcp-developers-via-malicious">said at the time</a>. “It attempts to derail scanners or analyst copilots that feed the beginning of a file to a language model without clearly isolating the content as untrusted data. In weak pipelines, this can cause refusal behavior, prompt confusion, context pollution, or premature classification before the scanner reaches the actual malware.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The Tracebit researchers then had the idea to flip the script and trigger such safety refusals through their canary technique against malicious AI agents. So not only does the agent run stop, but an alert is also triggered because the canary was accessed.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There is a risk that the canaries could also be discovered and accessed accidentally by legitimate LLM-powered tools used by engineering or security teams. But at the same time this means organizations could potentially deploy such canaries in sensitive places to stop their own AI agents that might become hijacked or go off the rails on their own.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There are many reports online where AI models performed destructive or unauthorized actions like deleting databases and folders or elevating their privileges because they got struck in failure loops and explored creative ways to complete their tasks. This is even more common with autonomous AI agents that are tasked to reach a goal without human intervention or supervision.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The speed of autonomous AI attacks is why deception is climbing the priority list for security programs,” Tracebit’s Cox said. “When the attack chain takes minutes rather than days, every minute of response time you can claw back matters — and a control that stops the attacker outright, rather than just reporting them, changes the economics significantly.”</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Sheetz replaces VMware at more than 830 stores]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Convenience store and gas station chain Sheetz announced it is replacing VMware across its network of more than 830 retail locations with StorMagic’s SvHCI hyperconverged infrastructure platform, marking one of the larger publicly announced migrations away from VMware.



The rollout is already w...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3681972/it-security-nachrichten/sheetz-replaces-vmware-at-more-than-830-stores/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3681972/it-security-nachrichten/sheetz-replaces-vmware-at-more-than-830-stores/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 20:52:42 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Convenience store and gas station chain <a href="https://www.sheetz.com/">Sheetz</a> announced it is replacing VMware across its network of more than 830 retail locations with StorMagic’s SvHCI hyperconverged infrastructure platform, marking one of the <a href="https://www.networkworld.com/article/4133925/some-enterprises-are-dropping-vmware-just-not-all-at-once.html">larger publicly</a> announced <a href="https://www.networkworld.com/article/3846918/5-alternatives-to-vmware-vsphere-virtualization-platform.html">migrations away</a> from VMware.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The rollout is already well underway. According to StorMagic, Sheetz has completed migrations at more than 600 stores and is averaging roughly 200 store conversions per month. At that rate, the company is on track to finish the project in about four months.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The migration is being carried out entirely remotely, eliminating the need for hardware upgrades or on-site IT visits. This lets the chain continue using its existing Dell PowerEdge R440 and R450 servers.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The two companies have a relationship dating back to 2020, when <a href="https://www.gartner.com/reviews/product/svsan-6">Sheetz first deployed StorMagic’s SvSAN</a> software as the hyperconverged storage layer with VMware across hundreds of store locations to virtualize critical in-store application. The setup supported mission-critical applications such as payment processing, loyalty programs, kitchen management and store operations.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The new deployment replaces VMware entirely with StorMagic’s integrated SvHCI virtualization stack, simplifying infrastructure while reducing software complexity and operating costs.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">By employing existing hardware and managing migrations remotely, Sheetz expects to minimize disruption while standardizing virtualization across its nationwide footprint. StorMagic said the completed platform will provide a highly available infrastructure for business-critical in-store applications while extending the useful life of existing server hardware.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Our initial rollout proved StorMagic could deliver the resilience and centralized management needed across a large, distributed retail environment,” said <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/gary-sliver-5903431/">Gary Sliver,</a> director of platform engineering at Sheetz in a <a href="https://stormagic.com/company/news/sheetz-chooses-stormagic-svhci-to-replace-vmware-across-830-retail-stores/">statement</a>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“StorMagic worked to understand our needs and requirements, to include a 24/7/365 operating environment, and ultimately delivered a product and plan that is allowing us to migrate hundreds of locations from VMware quickly and with minimal downtime, without requiring hardware replacements or having to send technicians to every site. This project is proof that large-scale edge migrations don’t have to be disruptive, drawn-out or scary affairs.”</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[LG’s glossy OLED gaming monitor is rare to find under $400]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[If you’ve been thinking about upgrading your gaming monitor, LG’s 27-inch 27GX704A-B pairs a glossy WOLED panel with a fast refresh rate, and it’s currently on sale for $379.99 (about $70 off) at Amazon and directly from LG, marking a new low price. It originally launched at $799.99, but has been...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3681627/it-nachrichten/lgs-glossy-oled-gaming-monitor-is-rare-to-find-under-400/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3681627/it-nachrichten/lgs-glossy-oled-gaming-monitor-is-rare-to-find-under-400/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 18:50:08 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[If you’ve been thinking about upgrading your gaming monitor, LG’s 27-inch 27GX704A-B pairs a glossy WOLED panel with a fast refresh rate, and it’s currently on sale for $379.99 (about $70 off) at Amazon and directly from LG, marking a new low price. It originally launched at $799.99, but has been available for under $500 since […]]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Safety guardrails blocked Hugging Face's defenders, not the attacker, when an AI agent breached its systems]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Hugging Face’s incident response team first turned to frontier AI models to analyze a breach of the company’s production infrastructure, and the models refused to help. Commercial safety guardrails built to stop attackers blocked every forensic query because they treated the IR team’s real exploi...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3681589/it-nachrichten/safety-guardrails-blocked-hugging-faces-defenders-not-the-attacker-when-an-ai-agent-breached-its-systems/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3681589/it-nachrichten/safety-guardrails-blocked-hugging-faces-defenders-not-the-attacker-when-an-ai-agent-breached-its-systems/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 18:03:18 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hugging Face’s incident response team first turned to frontier AI models to analyze a breach of the company’s production infrastructure, and the models refused to help. Commercial safety guardrails built to stop attackers blocked every forensic query because they treated the IR team’s real exploit data the same way they would treat a live attack.</p><p>The attacker, an autonomous AI agent running the campaign end to end, moved laterally across the Hugging Face infrastructure for a weekend, undetected and unstopped.</p><p>Security leaders are quick to recognize the pattern and diagnose what went wrong. “I’ve seen versions of this during red-team exercises and internal security testing, but this is one of the first high-profile examples where it materially affected real incident response,” said Merritt Baer, senior adviser to Andesite, G2I, and AppOmni and former Deputy CISO at AWS.</p><p>None of this is unique to Hugging Face, Baer said. “Commercial frontier models optimize for preventing misuse. They generally have no cryptographic or organizational way to determine whether the person asking ‘analyze this malware’ is an incident responder or the malware author.”</p><h2><b>A malicious dataset opened two code-execution paths</b></h2><p>On July 16, Hugging Face <a href="https://huggingface.co/blog/security-incident-july-2026">disclosed</a> that an autonomous AI agent system had compromised its production infrastructure, gaining unauthorized access to a limited set of internal datasets and several service credentials. The company verified that its software supply chain was clean and found no evidence of tampering with public models, datasets, or Spaces. </p><p>Hugging Face is still assessing whether the intrusion touched any partner or customer data and says it will contact affected parties directly as required. But few enterprise threat models had accounted for the attacker Hugging Face faced. An autonomous agent ran the entire campaign from initial access through credential harvesting. No human guided it.</p><p>The entry point was a malicious dataset. When the data-processing pipeline ingested it, the dataset triggered code execution in two ways, through a remote-code loader and through a template-injection flaw in dataset configuration files. No admission gate screened the file before it reached a processing worker, the compute job assigned to each dataset. Initial access came through the data pipeline itself, a route that worked because most enterprise security teams treat the data feeding their pipelines as trusted input rather than an attack surface.</p><p>Worker isolation did not hold. From that first foothold, the agent broke out onto the node running the workload, then harvested cloud and cluster credentials scoped broadly enough to reach multiple internal clusters, all of it inside a single weekend. Hugging Face described the agent framework as executing thousands of individual actions through a swarm of short-lived sandboxes, with self-migrating command-and-control staged on public services. The disclosure adds that the framework appeared to be built on an agentic security-research harness, which would put tooling designed for red-team work behind a live intrusion. </p><h2><b>Why the defenders’ queries looked like attacks</b></h2><p>Investigators reconstructed more than 17,000 recorded events using AI-driven analysis agents of their own.</p><p>First attempts at the log analysis ran on frontier models behind commercial APIs. Defenders’ steps included submitting real attack commands, exploit payloads, and command-and-control artifacts for classification, but safety guardrails blocked the requests outright.</p><p>Baer traced the block to the prompts themselves. “The same prompts that are most valuable during an active intrusion, shell commands, exploit chains, credential dumps, persistence mechanisms, lateral movement, are exactly the prompts most likely to trigger safety systems,” she told VentureBeat. “As AI becomes embedded in security operations, this becomes an operational resilience issue rather than merely a model policy issue.”</p><h2><b>The forensic analysis finished on GLM 5.2</b></h2><p>GLM 5.2, an open-weight model deployed on Hugging Face’s own infrastructure, took the job the commercial APIs refused. No attacker data left the company’s environment. “This experience points to a gap worth planning for,” the company wrote in its disclosure. Hugging Face does not know which model powered the agents. It could have been a jailbroken hosted model or an open-weight model running without restrictions. Either way, the disclosure continued, “the attacker was bound by no usage policy, while our own forensic work was blocked by the guardrails of the hosted models we first tried.” Hugging Face drew that line itself, writing that the experience is not an argument against safety measures on hosted models and that it is sharing the feedback with the providers concerned.</p><h2><b>What authenticated trust changes</b></h2><p>The industry, Baer argued, needs to move past treating AI safety as a content moderation problem. “Security operations require something different. Authenticated trust.” Instead of asking whether anyone should receive an answer, the question becomes whether an authenticated security team, operating under enterprise controls, should receive it. “The model shouldn’t only understand what is being asked. It should understand who is asking, why, and under what governance.”</p><p>“Organizations already build contingency plans for cloud outages, identity provider failures, or EDR failures,” Baer wrote. “AI assistants are becoming another dependency.”</p><p>Her advice on IR playbooks was blunt. “A mature incident response plan should assume that during a severe incident, commercial AI APIs may refuse requests, API rate limits may become unavailable, internet connectivity may be impaired, and data governance rules may prohibit uploading forensic evidence externally.” The lesson, she wrote in her emailed answers, “isn’t ‘don’t use commercial models.’ It’s ‘don’t make them a single point of failure.’”</p><h2><b>AI-enabled attacks rose 89% year-over-year</b></h2><p>Autonomous AI-driven attacks are not limited to AI platforms. <a href="https://www.crowdstrike.com/en-us/global-threat-report/">CrowdStrike’s 2026 Global Threat Report</a> documented AI-enabled adversary operations increasing by 89% year over year, with average breakout times falling to 29 minutes. Enterprises running AI workloads in production with agentic access to their pipelines face similar exposure.</p><p>Six control domains determined the blast radius and recovery speed at Hugging Face. Each one maps to a concrete action security leaders can take before the next autonomous-agent breach arrives.</p><h2><b>AI Pipeline Breach Response Playbook</b></h2><table><tbody><tr><td><p><b>Control Domain</b></p></td><td><p><b>What Broke</b></p></td><td><p><b>Monday Action</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Dataset admission controls</p></td><td><p>Two code-execution paths were exploited. No admission gate validated the dataset before it reached a processing worker. The data pipeline became the initial access infrastructure.</p></td><td><p>Require sandbox execution and static analysis of all datasets before they reach workers. Block remote-code loaders and template-injection paths by default. Audit for any path granting code execution to untrusted content. Report to the board as a supply-chain risk.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Worker-to-node privilege boundaries</p></td><td><p>Worker isolation failed to prevent escalation to the node. The agent gained cluster credentials because the workload-infrastructure boundary was never enforced at container runtime.</p></td><td><p>Enforce hard privilege boundaries between workers and nodes. Deploy container runtime security to prevent workload escape. Audit whether workers can reach node-level APIs or credential stores. Include in the next penetration test scope.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Credential exposure</p></td><td><p>Cloud and cluster credentials harvested after node access. The scope was broad enough for lateral movement across multiple clusters over a weekend.</p></td><td><p>Rotate credentials on a scheduled cadence and after any anomaly alert. Scope to the minimum cluster and service. Deploy monitoring that flags access from unexpected nodes at machine speed. Map blast radius for board reporting.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Machine-speed detection</p></td><td><p>Thousands of actions through short-lived sandboxes with self-migrating C2. AI-assisted anomaly detection surfaced the campaign after a weekend of lateral movement, per the disclosure.</p></td><td><p>Calibrate detection for machine-speed patterns. Ensure high-severity alerts page responders in minutes, regardless of time. Audit SIEM rules for detecting thousands of short-lived executions within a single hour.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Private AI forensic capacity</p></td><td><p>Commercial APIs blocked forensic analysis. Guardrails screened query content, never analyst identity. Investigation ran on GLM 5.2 privately.</p></td><td><p>Deploy a capable open-weight model on private infrastructure before an incident. Test against real forensic workflows. Ensure IR playbook includes fallback for when commercial APIs refuse. Document gap for cyber insurance.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Autonomous-agent threat modeling</p></td><td><p>The campaign matched the forecast agentic-attacker scenario, but no threat model had operationalized it. LLM powering the agent is still unknown.</p></td><td><p>Add autonomous AI agents as a distinct adversary class with machine-speed decision cycles. Run tabletop at agent speed. Present results to the board as evidence that timelines need recalibration. Include in the cyber insurance application.</p></td></tr></tbody></table><h2><b>The board question is operational resilience</b></h2><p>“The question for directors is simple. What happens if one of our critical security tools becomes unavailable during the exact moment we need it most?” Baer framed that as operational resilience, not AI policy. </p><p>She would have boards take that framing straight to management and press for specifics. “Have we actually exercised that fallback during tabletop exercises? How quickly can we switch during an incident?” Procurement needs to change alongside governance, starting with the questions buyers ask. Security teams evaluating AI vendors should ask about their process for authenticated incident responders, whether enterprise customers receive different handling during verified incidents, and whether models can be deployed privately. “Those questions belong alongside uptime, privacy, and compliance,” Baer said.</p><p>“The biggest takeaway isn’t that safety guardrails are ‘bad.’ They’re doing what they were designed to do,” she argued. </p><p>Her larger point is that the threat model itself has changed. “For decades, defenders had better tools than attackers because they operated inside trusted enterprise environments. With foundation models, both sides increasingly use the same capabilities, 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. That’s a new kind of asymmetry,” she added. “The organizations that handle it best won’t necessarily be the ones with the most powerful AI. They’ll be the ones that architect AI as a resilient security capability rather than a single cloud service.”</p><p>Hugging Face has contained the intrusion, rebuilt compromised nodes, rotated credentials, and reported the incident to law enforcement. The company recommends that all users rotate access tokens and review recent account activity. Mid-incident, Hugging Face found out whether its own AI tooling would be available, and the first answer was no. Security leaders running AI in production should find out in incident response planning instead, before an autonomous agent forces the test.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[So günstig war der T-Roc in der R-Line noch nie: 150 PS im Leasing für 159 Euro]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Der neue T-Roc ist gerade erst gestartet, da fällt die Rate für die R-Line schon auf 159 Euro. Günstiger gab es die Topausstattung des Bestsellers noch nie.
																					Dieser Artikel wurde einsortiert unter 
																	Schnäppchen.]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3681002/it-nachrichten/so-guenstig-war-der-t-roc-in-der-r-line-noch-nie-150-ps-im-leasing-fuer-159-euro/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3681002/it-nachrichten/so-guenstig-war-der-t-roc-in-der-r-line-noch-nie-150-ps-im-leasing-fuer-159-euro/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 13:33:20 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Der neue T-Roc ist gerade erst gestartet, da fällt die Rate für die R-Line schon auf 159 Euro. Günstiger gab es die Topausstattung des Bestsellers noch nie.
																					Dieser Artikel wurde einsortiert unter 
																	<a href="https://www.netzwelt.de/schnaeppchen/index.html">Schnäppchen</a>.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Q&A: Why boutique consultancies might be better for AI rollouts than the bigwigs]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Major AI labs are unleashing forward-deployed engineers (FDEs) to try and grab enterprise customers. Large consultancies are dishing out tokens and assembling armies of consultants — both human and agent — to do the same.



But smaller firms are in the mix now, as well. AI is helping 28Stone Con...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3680996/it-nachrichten/qa-why-boutique-consultancies-might-be-better-for-ai-rollouts-than-the-bigwigs/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3680996/it-nachrichten/qa-why-boutique-consultancies-might-be-better-for-ai-rollouts-than-the-bigwigs/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 13:33:13 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Major AI labs are <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4171867/heres-one-career-emerging-from-the-ai-shift-forward-deployed-engineers.html">unleashing forward-deployed engineers</a> (FDEs) to try and grab enterprise customers. Large consultancies are dishing out tokens and assembling armies of consultants — both human and agent — to do the same.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But smaller firms are in the mix now, as well. AI is helping <a href="https://www.28stone.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">28Stone Consulting</a>, a New York-based, 230-person technology consultancy for capital markets, punch above its weight against larger rivals in the <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4180088/ai-vendor-fdes-key-considerations-and-concerns.html">rush to deliver FDEs</a>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In this Q&amp;A, <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/thomas-dolan-4124914" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Thomas Dolan</a> and <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/frank-erickson-07675a1" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Frank Erickson</a>, founders of 28Stone, argue that agentic AI isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution in vertical markets; success takes discipline, deep domain expertise, and human involvement to mitigate risk.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Many enterprises continue to struggle with the use of AI agents, which is consultancies are stepping in to get projects off the ground. 28Stone is among those that have published blueprints and methodologies on the development and delivery of agentic AI workflows with humans in the loop.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Computerworld</em> spoke with both founding partners about why companies are still stumbling with <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4083589/from-chatbots-to-colleagues-how-agentic-ai-is-redefining-enterprise-automation.html">agentic AI rollouts</a>, and what a disciplined delivery process actually looks like.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>After 15 years of delivering software for capital markets firms, is ‘AI-first’ a real distinction or just positioning?</strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Dolan:</strong> “We’re not shying away from being AI-forward. What needs to shine through is AI done intelligently — not stuff you get by buying some tokens for somebody on the trading desk. We’re an AI-first firm.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Erickson:</strong> “And it’s temporary. At some point, AI is going to be synonymous with software development.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The whole idea of an AI SDLC (software development lifecycle) versus an SDLC is going to be one and the same, a lot like cloud computing today. To not include AI in your strategy, you’d look like a COBOL vendor.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>What does agentic AI delivery look like?</strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Dolan:</strong> “We’ve got several AI initiatives delivering a pure agentic approach. We’ve doubled down on the human expertise wrapper in the SDLC. That doesn’t mean sacrificing any of the benefits of the AI models — quite the opposite.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“You don’t achieve anywhere near the same level of value from applying AI without keeping that expertise — industry, functional and technical — throughout the process.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Where do humans stay in the loop once agents are doing the work?</strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Dolan:</strong> “We’re believers in starting with requirements discovery. Someone who knows the analytical nuances of a good business analyst is critically important; shaping a product owner’s business information through a markup file that can be fed into a BA agent, then treating the output as if it came from a very fast junior BA. Only then is the story complete.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The developer takes that story, transforms it into the most efficient input, then owns the output, because they’re accountable for that code. A developer should own the code on both the input and output side.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Your product owner, who knows the business, that’s great. But expecting them to interact with an agent and output enterprise code is ridiculous. It’s not a great plan.“</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Why not just put one do-everything person in charge of AI and agents?</strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Erickson:</strong> “Every analyst, programmer or software engineer isn’t a great requirements analyst. And a great domain analyst with some technical background won’t know if the agent’s code is garbage, maintainable, performant.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“It’s unrealistic to expect one individual to have that breadth across domain, software engineering, testing, deployment. Clients ask all the time, and we push back: ‘Great, if you can find that guy, they’re few and far between.’ To deliver at the enterprise level, you need the human expertise, at depth.“</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Dolan:</strong> “There’s system speed and latency, important in parts of finance. Then there’s speed of delivery, because other areas evolve quickly and time-to-market is critical.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Our human wrapper may at first pass come across as a little slowed down. Maybe it is. But [Erickson] has a good analogy about one of the dangers of AI: you can end up going really fast in the wrong direction. By the time you look up, you’re way off base and have to backtrack.“</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>What about AI in your sector do you think is overhyped?</strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Dolan:</strong> “The hype around the ease of use of AI and the democratization of enterprise software delivery — that ‘anybody could do it now, it’s all being done by machines’ — is another idea that could prove costly in the long run.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“This do-it-yourself reaction is dangerous for clients, and for trust in the overall AI benefit, which is real. We compare it to the beginning of offshoring 20, 30 years ago: a golden idea that was going to cure everything. A lot of firms did it thoughtlessly, thinking it’s just labor arbitrage, and it almost inevitably failed. That all-or-nothing mentality missed that offshoring is an amazing way of getting better value for your dollar, but it has to be done thoughtfully, so the delivery process — the thing that ties it all together — stays unsevered.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“We’re seeing that now. I’ve heard, ‘We’ll just push a button, the machine’s building the system.’ The machine is not building the system. It might be writing the code, the story, running the tests.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The system is built by a team of engineers you bring in and trust. My fear is that people will say, ‘We don’t need this vendor or this technology team. I’ve got a product team. They might not be able to code at all, but they know the business,’ and it fails dramatically. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Then people say, ‘We played with AI, it’s not ready yet,’ and throw it all away. One of the best things we can do is ensure clients know the benefit is real.“</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Erickson:</strong> “The hype can be summed up in a single phrase: <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4022711/when-everything-is-vibing.html">vibe coding</a>. That has done AI a massive disservice, because there’s a huge difference between vibe coding and enterprise software development, and some of the loudest proponents of AI are too latched on to it. In our industry, the only way to succeed would be a stable of unicorns. It just doesn’t scale. I get perturbed when our people internally refer to AI tooling as vibe coding; if they think that’s what they’re doing, they’re misunderstood.“</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>When you engage clients at different levels of AI maturity, how do you get them to a understand what works?</strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Dolan:</strong> “95% of our take on an agentic approach is in line with everyone else’s, but that 5% matters, especially in requirements discovery, in who’s giving the requirements and how they’re thought of. It can set you up for dramatic errors, given the speed at which you’re moving.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“There’s a dangerous human tendency we’re seeing among clients to try and cut corners at the start of a project and — in lieu of having deep, expert driven discovery sessions — just summarize what they may want using AI.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“We would hope our clients are collaborative, everyone understanding it’s early days. If a client insists on doing something we feel strongly against, like a product owner completely owning everything right up to code generation, that’s an issue we have to either push back strongly on or step out of the accountability for.“</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>AI body shops — LLM providers and giant consultancies — are emerging to help enterprises deploy AI. Does that model work?</strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Dolan:</strong> “Whether you’re partnering with an LLM or with an AI-first, generic software provider — ‘Hey, we’re not industry guys, but we know AI delivery’ — you end up, if you’re a bank or a broker-dealer, saying: ‘All right, we know our business, these guys know the AI side of it. What could go wrong? Put us together and we’ll have quality engineering.’</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The problem is what you miss: the know-how of putting industry and technical expertise together and actually delivering financial services systems. The people working at the generic delivery firms, whether an AI-only firm or a body shop somewhere, don’t have that capability.“</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Does AI change the economics for smaller consultancies like yours competing against the big firms, and does it cut both ways?</strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Dolan:</strong> “Over our 15 years pre-AI, there were two recurring reasons we’d lose a project. One: ‘We’d love to work with you guys, given your subject matter expertise, but the costs just aren’t there compared to my budgets. I’m being forced to go to a body shop or an [offshore] delivery center.’ The other side of that coin: ‘We love your capabilities, but you’re a firm of 230 people and I need 300, 400 people.’</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“AI changes the options for clients. You don’t have to sacrifice the niche vendor who knows your space just because you need a larger team or a cost target. AI levels the playing field and should allow smaller firms to compete with the larger, big-box generic firms, the Accentures of the world.“</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Erickson:</strong> “It redefines what scale means. You can look at velocity as a measure of your cost to deliver, not a rate card. Scale can’t be defined in terms of headcount anymore. It’s got to be defined in terms of output.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“There’s a threat in it, too. If you’re an Accenture with hundreds of thousands of low-cost software engineers, how do you train all those people? I feel for them. But for us, a couple hundred people with a specific domain focus, it’s a huge opportunity.“</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>How has the profile of the people you and others hire changed with this agentic process?</strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Erickson:</strong> “You’re still looking for people with strong engineering and design backgrounds, and communication skills, because they interact across the software development lifecycle more than in the past.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Many take too much joy in typing out perfect code. Sorry, I don’t need you writing for-loops and classes anymore. I need you reviewing them, understanding them, operating at a higher level. That’s a different kind of person: an engineer, not a programmer or a coder. On the [business analyst] side it’s similar: people took great pride in detailed user stories covering every path. Now it’s conversations, prompts, reviewing output — less doing, more interacting.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“More than ever, they have to be interested in the domain. They can’t just be, ‘I want to learn everything there is to know about Java.’ That’s too narrow. They don’t have to be an expert; they have to be interested. In our case, capital markets is a specific niche. The biggest challenge is getting familiar with the tools — finding time, while delivering for customers, to ramp up and make the mistakes you need to without jeopardizing projects.“</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>What about governance? Who’s keeping AI delivery and its costs under control?</strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Erickson:</strong> “This is evolving rapidly. People aren’t sure how to put governance around this. The most obvious is financial governance. People are starting to get hefty bills. One of our clients spent a million dollars on tokens over the last eight weeks alone. Sticker shock. The token-maxing policies are starting to show their flaws. It’s wild west still: learn on the fly, then figure out what needs to be governed.“</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Are CIOs actually opening their wallets? And when they do, what’s the smarter way to invest?</strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Erickson:</strong> “There’s still a lot of caution. Forecasts keep going down on how long something should take. So: ‘I could wait three months and maybe still get it delivered by the same date someone’s promising me now, but for half the price. I’m going to wait and see when equilibrium is met.’ We haven’t seen the wallets open up like crazy — it’s slow adoption.“</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Dolan:</strong> “One of our clients is looking at it from a productivity-boost perspective: instead of doing the same for less, I can do much more for the same. AI lets clients pull the trigger on things they wouldn’t have in the past — projects that might not have been approved pre-AI, where the costs have come down to a point that’s palatable with the business.“</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Erickson:</strong> “And that’s the story we’re hoping to hear more of. There isn’t a huge cost anymore to exploring a business opportunity. The time and money that would have gone to a return-on-investment study could be spent on a proof-of-concept with AI, and the project done a few weeks later. Maybe [there’s] a hint of things to come, where decisions start being made quicker. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“There’s a little fear on our side, though: a lot of tiny little projects is tough for a consulting business.“</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Building the network for agentic AI: The foundation for autonomous enterprise operations]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Enterprise AI is entering a new phase. While the first wave of generative AI focused on human productivity and content creation, the next wave — agentic AI — will fundamentally change how organizations operate. Agentic AI systems are capable of reasoning, planning, making decisions and executing ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3680792/it-nachrichten/building-the-network-for-agentic-ai-the-foundation-for-autonomous-enterprise-operations/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3680792/it-nachrichten/building-the-network-for-agentic-ai-the-foundation-for-autonomous-enterprise-operations/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 12:03:46 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Enterprise AI is entering a new phase. While the first wave of generative AI focused on human productivity and content creation, the next wave — agentic AI — will fundamentally change how organizations operate. Agentic AI systems are capable of reasoning, planning, making decisions and executing actions across applications, workflows and business processes with minimal human intervention.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As organizations move toward agentic frameworks that can independently resolve customer issues, optimize supply chains, manage infrastructure, coordinate workflows and even operate IT environments, one reality becomes clear: The network becomes the nervous system of the autonomous enterprise.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The infrastructure requirements of agentic AI differ dramatically from those of traditional applications. These systems are highly distributed, continuously exchanging information, interacting with APIs, accessing multiple data sources and making decisions in real time. The performance, security, visibility and adaptability of the network will directly determine the effectiveness of AI agents. Organizations that view AI readiness solely as a compute or data challenge risk overlooking one of the most critical enablers of future success — the network itself.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">From AI-ready networks to autonomous networks</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The long-term destination is the <a href="https://www.ericsson.com/en/ai/autonomous-networks">autonomous network</a>: A network capable of self-monitoring, self-optimizing, self-healing and self-securing through the use of AI and automation. However, autonomous networking will not emerge overnight. The investments enterprises make today to support agentic AI are the same foundational building blocks required for tomorrow’s autonomous operations.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In many ways, agentic AI serves as both the driver and beneficiary of network transformation. AI agents require networks that can dynamically adapt to changing demands, while autonomous networks will increasingly rely on AI agents to manage and optimize themselves. The result is a reinforcing cycle where AI and networking evolve together.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The core characteristics of the network of the future</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">One of the most critical requirements for AI-ready networks is real-time observability and telemetry. Agentic AI thrives on context, and AI agents must continuously gather information from users, applications, devices, clouds, security systems and operational platforms. Future-ready networks must provide end-to-end visibility across campus, branch, cloud and data center environments. High-fidelity telemetry streams, real-time performance monitoring, application-aware analytics, AI-aware analytics and unified operational visibility are essential. Without comprehensive visibility, AI agents operate with incomplete information, limiting their effectiveness and increasing operational risk.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Another cornerstone is intent-based automation. Traditional networks are configured manually, often requiring administrators to define thousands of individual settings. In contrast, autonomous networks operate according to business intent. Enterprises increasingly need to define desired outcomes — such as maintaining application performance, optimizing user experience or automatically isolating compromised devices — rather than micromanaging configurations. The network continuously adjusts itself to achieve those objectives, providing the foundation upon which AI agents can make decisions safely and consistently.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Agentic AI also introduces entirely new traffic patterns that require AI-optimized connectivity. Large language models, retrieval systems, vector databases, cloud AI services, edge inference platforms and multi-agent orchestration frameworks create significant east-west and cloud-bound traffic. Future networks must provide low-latency connectivity, high-capacity fabrics, dynamic traffic engineering, edge-to-cloud optimization and policies that identify and prioritize AI workloads. The organizations that can move data efficiently will gain a competitive advantage in AI execution speed and responsiveness.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Security is another non-negotiable element. Agentic AI expands the enterprise attack surface because AI agents increasingly access sensitive systems, interact with APIs, consume proprietary data and execute actions across business environments. Future-ready networks must embed zero trust security into their architecture, with continuous identity verification, fine-grained access controls, microsegmentation, policy-driven authorization and continuous risk assessment. Security can no longer be bolted onto the network; it must be integral to its design and AI agents need to adhere to their own identity rules.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Finally, distributed intelligence across edge and cloud environments is essential. Many AI use cases require decisions to occur close to the source of data. Manufacturing systems, healthcare environments, retail operations, transportation networks and smart facilities often cannot tolerate the latency associated with centralized processing. Future networks must support edge AI deployment, distributed processing architectures, local inference, hybrid cloud operations and intelligent workload placement. The ability to move intelligence closer to users, devices and operational environments will become increasingly important as agentic AI expands across the enterprise.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Human expertise remains essential</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Despite rapid advances in AI, the future will not eliminate the need for human expertise. In fact, it may increase its importance. One of the most significant misconceptions surrounding AI is that automation eliminates the need for skilled professionals. The reality is that autonomous systems require expert oversight, governance, validation and continuous optimization.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As AI systems become more capable, enterprises will need professionals who understand network architecture, security policy, AI governance, operational risk management, data quality, regulatory compliance and human-in-the-loop decision frameworks. The challenge is compounded by the unprecedented pace of AI innovation. New models, architectures, orchestration frameworks, security concerns and governance requirements emerge almost monthly. Most enterprise IT teams cannot be expected to independently evaluate every development while simultaneously modernizing infrastructure and maintaining day-to-day operations.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Organizations need access to experts who continuously track technology evolution, understand emerging best practices and can help translate innovation into practical deployment strategies. These experts provide not only implementation support but also ongoing operational guidance, helping enterprises maintain appropriate human oversight as AI capabilities expand. The future is not fully autonomous decision-making without people; it is intelligent automation operating under expert human governance.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">5 actions enterprises should take now</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Organizations should be preparing for the autonomous future right now. The following investments deliver immediate value while laying the groundwork for long-term AI transformation:</p>



<ol start="1" class="wp-block-list">
<li><strong>Modernize network observability.</strong> Establish <a href="https://www.ibm.com/think/insights/ai-agent-observability">comprehensive visibility</a> across users, applications, devices, clouds and infrastructure. Rich telemetry and operational data will become the fuel that powers both Agentic AI and autonomous network operations.</li>



<li><strong>Build an automation-first operating model.</strong> Identify repetitive operational processes and begin automating them. Automation maturity is a prerequisite for autonomous networking and creates the operational foundation AI agents will eventually leverage.</li>



<li><strong>Adopt zero-trust principles across the enterprise.</strong> Implement identity-centric security controls, segmentation and continuous policy enforcement. As AI agents gain access to enterprise systems, <a href="https://www.forrester.com/zero-trust/">security architectures</a> must evolve to leverage the same identity controls.</li>



<li><strong>Design for edge-to-cloud AI workloads.</strong> Evaluate network architectures for latency, bandwidth and resiliency requirements associated with distributed AI. Future AI deployments will span data centers, public clouds, branch locations and edge environments.</li>



<li><strong>Invest in skills and strategic partnerships.</strong> Develop <a href="https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/artificial-intelligence-pays-when-businesses-go-all">internal expertise</a> while leveraging partners that possess deep networking, automation, security and AI knowledge. Human expertise remains one of the most important success factors in building AI-ready and autonomous infrastructures.</li>
</ol>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The road ahead</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Agentic AI is poised to transform enterprise operations in much the same way cloud computing transformed infrastructure and the internet transformed business itself. But AI agents cannot operate effectively without a modern network foundation. The enterprises that succeed will recognize that AI readiness extends beyond models and data. It requires networks that are observable, automated, secure, intelligent and increasingly autonomous. The investments made today in AI-ready networking are not merely infrastructure upgrades — they are strategic building blocks toward the autonomous enterprise of the future, where AI agents and autonomous networks work together under human guidance to deliver unprecedented levels of agility, efficiency, and innovation.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.</strong><br><a href="https://www.cio.com/expert-contributor-network/"><strong>Want to join?</strong></a></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[As AI Transforms Silicon Valley, Some Tech Workers Face Evaporating Financial Security]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[The Washington Post describes a mid-tier executive at Meta as one of Silicon Valley's "winners" whose financial security suddenly "evaporated" as their workforce "pushed headlong into AI and heavy job cuts," creating a transformed job market. "Her ex-husband, a designer at Meta who was laid off i...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3680218/it-security-nachrichten/as-ai-transforms-silicon-valley-some-tech-workers-face-evaporating-financial-security/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3680218/it-security-nachrichten/as-ai-transforms-silicon-valley-some-tech-workers-face-evaporating-financial-security/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 05:54:45 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[The Washington Post describes a mid-tier executive at Meta as one of Silicon Valley's "winners" whose financial security suddenly "evaporated" as their workforce "pushed headlong into AI and heavy job cuts," creating a transformed job market. "Her ex-husband, a designer at Meta who was laid off in 2020, eventually gave up looking for jobs in his profession. He now lifts boxes at a warehouse."


Layoffs.fyi, which tracks announced job cuts, counts more than 800,000 tech workers laid off since 2022, including large staff reductions in recent months at Meta, Microsoft, Oracle and Amazon... "There's this whole tranche of people who've been quite used to being among the most upwardly mobile in society who are all of a sudden saying, 'Now I'm the guy on the streetâs'" said Oliver Raskin, who founded Silicon Valley market research consultancy Signalcraft Insights and has surveyed attitudes in the tech labor force... "The rise of AI, especially, is bound to change the workplace radically," [said Georgetown University historian Joseph McCartin]. "But the way it's going to happen is similar to how technology transformed the auto industry." Ruth Milkman, a labor sociologist at the City University of New York, said that technology workers are getting a dose of what workers in other industries have long complained about: jobs that feel unsteady or rob them of autonomy. "Low-wage workers are used to it," she said... 

Many layoffs at technology companies are probably a hangover effect from over-hiring in prior years, experts say. And they don't account for a spotty recent increase in hiring in the information industry, which includes employment of software developers and jobs in media and entertainment. Digging deeper, though, some economists say there are signs that Silicon Valley and other technology-reliant parts of the American economy have reached a turning point where they are growing without needing as many people. The notion was encapsulated in a recent talk that ricocheted through group chats across the tech industry: In it, a partner at the start-up incubator Y Combinator heralded a new generation of AI-first companies that will only need human labor for "novel situations," "ethical considerations" and "high-stakes moments." 

Gad Levanon, chief economist at the labor research nonprofit Burning Glass Institute, said that the number of hours worked in the information sector has dipped since 2022, while the sector's economic output has increased by about 8 percent a year — more than three times the overall growth rate of the U.S. economy. He says the data reveals a sea change in industries, including technology and finance, toward doing more work with the same or fewer people — one that is spreading to other professional classes. "That's the new reality for white-collar and tech-exposed work: output up, headcount flat or down," Levanon said... 

Raskin, who has worked in the tech world since the late '90s, said that even though the current moment feels unsettling to many, he's hopeful that it's an early chapter in an evolving story. "It's happened many times before," he said, "that something implodes and all these people lose jobs, but then that talent gets cycled into whatever the next thing is — into a new wave of prosperity." 

In the article tech entrepreneur Anil Dash quips that Silicon Valley techies are "are guinea pigs for what tech dudes want to do to everyone."<p></p><div class="share_submission">
<a class="slashpop" href="http://twitter.com/home?status=As+AI+Transforms+Silicon+Valley%2C+Some+Tech+Workers+Face+Evaporating+Financial+Security%3A+https%3A%2F%2Fit.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F26%2F07%2F20%2F0212244%2F%3Futm_source%3Dtwitter%26utm_medium%3Dtwitter"><img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/twitter_icon_large.png"></a>
<a class="slashpop" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fit.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F26%2F07%2F20%2F0212244%2Fas-ai-transforms-silicon-valley-some-tech-workers-face-evaporating-financial-security%3Futm_source%3Dslashdot%26utm_medium%3Dfacebook"><img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/facebook_icon_large.png"></a>



</div><p><a href="https://it.slashdot.org/story/26/07/20/0212244/as-ai-transforms-silicon-valley-some-tech-workers-face-evaporating-financial-security?utm_source=rss1.0moreanon&amp;utm_medium=feed">Read more of this story</a> at Slashdot.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Roku’s 55-Inch Mini-LED TV Drops to a Record-Low Amazon Price]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[The 55-inch Roku Plus Series Mini-LED TV is available for around $318.40 at Amazon, cutting approximately $181.59 from its regular $499.99 price. Prices can change quickly, so check the current Amazon deal before ordering.



Mini-LED and QLED at a Budget Price



The Roku Plus Series combines Mi...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3680132/ios-mac-os/rokus-55-inch-mini-led-tv-drops-to-a-record-low-amazon-price/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3680132/ios-mac-os/rokus-55-inch-mini-led-tv-drops-to-a-record-low-amazon-price/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 01:39:25 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🍏 iOS / Mac OS</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[The 55-inch Roku Plus Series Mini-LED TV is available for around $318.40 at Amazon, cutting approximately $181.59 from its regular $499.99 price. Prices can change quickly, so check the current Amazon deal before ordering.



Mini-LED and QLED at a Budget Price



The Roku Plus Series combines Mini-LED backlighting with a 4K QLED panel. Mini-LED technology provides more precise brightness control, while Quantum Dot technology produces richer colors. Dolby Vision support also improves highlights and contrast in compatible movies and shows.



This model uses a 60Hz panel and supports Variable Refresh Rate and Game Mode. It suits everyday console gaming, streaming, sports and live television, though serious gamers seeking 120Hz performance should consider Roku’s more expensive Pro Series.



Roku’s Simple Streaming Experience



Roku OS provides quick access to Netflix, Prime Video, Disney Plus, Hulu and other popular streaming apps. Viewers also receive more than 500 free live channels through Roku, including movies, news, weather, sports and Roku Originals.



The customizable home screen lets users rearrange apps, channels and connected devices. Automatic software updates add new features and performance improvements without requiring manual installation.



The Enhanced Voice Remote supports voice searches, personal shortcut buttons and a remote finder. The TV also works with Roku Voice, Amazon Alexa, Google Assistant and Siri. Apple users can share videos, music and photos through AirPlay.



Strong Picture and Sound Features



Roku Smart Picture Max automatically adjusts sharpness, color and picture clarity based on the content playing. Dolby Atmos, speech clarity controls and a built-in subwoofer provide fuller sound, while Bluetooth Headphone Mode supports private listening.



At this discounted price, the 55-inch Roku Plus Series offers impressive Mini-LED picture quality and an easy streaming platform for budget-focused buyers.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[California's 'Truth in Recycling' Law Blocked by Judge]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[An anonymous reader shared this report from the Los Angeles Times:

A federal judge has halted California's groundbreaking "Truth in Recycling" law, which aims to reduce consumer confusion about which packaging can be recycled. [Originally planned to take effect October 4th], California's recycla...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3680013/it-security-nachrichten/californias-truth-in-recycling-law-blocked-by-judge/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3680013/it-security-nachrichten/californias-truth-in-recycling-law-blocked-by-judge/</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 19 Jul 2026 23:22:15 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[An anonymous reader shared this report from the Los Angeles Times:

A federal judge has halted California's groundbreaking "Truth in Recycling" law, which aims to reduce consumer confusion about which packaging can be recycled. [Originally planned to take effect October 4th], California's recyclable packaging law prohibits manufacturers from using a "chasing arrows" recycling symbol on products or materials unless they are actually being recycled in a meaningful way, which the law quantifies... 

A coalition of farming, forestry, restaurant and packaging organizations sued the state in March, arguing the law violates their right to free speech. They argued that Senate Bill 343 operates as "government-imposed censorship." Judge William Hayes agreed that their challenge has merit, and on Tuesday ordered California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, the defendant in the case, to pause enforcement of the law "until further order of the Court...." Advocates of reducing plastic use disagreed. "The court got it wrong, and I'm confident that the state will ultimately prevail," said Nick Lapis, director of advocacy for Californians Against Waste. "S.B. 343 does not violate the 1st Amendment; it requires companies to tell the truth when they make recyclability claims. Suggesting that the 1st Amendment protects misleading environmental marketing is inconsistent with the basic principles of consumer protection that states like California have implemented for decades." 


In January, CalRecycle, the state's waste agency, reported that less than 10% of most single-use plastic materials in the state were being recycled. Even yogurt containers and margarine tubs — made of ubiquitous polypropylene, or No. 5 plastic — are being recycled at a rate of only 2% in the state, the report said. Only 5% of colored shampoo and detergent bottles, made from polyethylene, or No. 1 plastic, are getting recycled... 

Plastic materials that can't be recycled are typically sent to landfills or sometimes illegally shipped overseas, where they are burned or end up in landfills, rivers and waterways.


 
The bill's author told the Los Angeles Times "All you have to do is look at the numbers. These products are not getting recycled, despite what the industry is claiming. They are just confusing consumers, clogging the waste stream, polluting the environment, leading to higher and higher prices for local governments and ratepayers." He argues the symbols shouldn't be used to "confuse people who see the symbols [on products] and assume they can be recycled." 

The article also quotes Judith Enck, former Environmental Protection Agency regional administrator and president of the nonprofit Beyond Plastics. "Given the long history of the plastics industry deceiving the public about plastics recycling, this is an especially bad outcome. It is a reminder that the plastics industry has enough money to fight even the most modest policy designed to protect people and the planet."<p></p><div class="share_submission">
<a class="slashpop" href="http://twitter.com/home?status=California's+'Truth+in+Recycling'+Law+Blocked+by+Judge%3A+https%3A%2F%2Fnews.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F26%2F07%2F19%2F210221%2F%3Futm_source%3Dtwitter%26utm_medium%3Dtwitter"><img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/twitter_icon_large.png"></a>
<a class="slashpop" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fnews.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F26%2F07%2F19%2F210221%2Fcalifornias-truth-in-recycling-law-blocked-by-judge%3Futm_source%3Dslashdot%26utm_medium%3Dfacebook"><img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/facebook_icon_large.png"></a>



</div><p><a href="https://news.slashdot.org/story/26/07/19/210221/californias-truth-in-recycling-law-blocked-by-judge?utm_source=rss1.0moreanon&amp;utm_medium=feed">Read more of this story</a> at Slashdot.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[AI text detectors struggle when language models mimic an author's style]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Epoch AI tested three leading AI text detectors (Pangram, GPTZero, and Originality.ai) using style-imitated texts. Up to 18 percent of AI-generated passages went undetected. For scientific writing, the miss rate climbed as high as 48 percent, the very genre where these detectors likely see the mo...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3679189/ai-nachrichten/ai-text-detectors-struggle-when-language-models-mimic-an-authors-style/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3679189/ai-nachrichten/ai-text-detectors-struggle-when-language-models-mimic-an-authors-style/</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 19 Jul 2026 10:48:41 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🔧 AI Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img width="1376" height="768" src="https://the-decoder.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/ai_tet_detector.png" class="attachment-full size-full wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" fetchpriority="high"></p>
<p>        Epoch AI tested three leading AI text detectors (Pangram, GPTZero, and Originality.ai) using style-imitated texts. Up to 18 percent of AI-generated passages went undetected. For scientific writing, the miss rate climbed as high as 48 percent, the very genre where these detectors likely see the most real-world use.</p>
<p>The article <a href="https://the-decoder.com/ai-text-detectors-struggle-when-language-models-mimic-an-authors-style/">AI text detectors struggle when language models mimic an author's style</a> appeared first on <a href="https://the-decoder.com/">The Decoder</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[New Study Links Teen Boys' ADHD Symptoms To Addictive Social Media Use]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[A new study by researchers at the University of California at San Francisco "adds to growing research linking increased social media use to detrimental effects on attention, memory and cognition," reports the Washington Post:

The study followed more than 11,000 U.S. adolescents over a period of ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3679090/it-security-nachrichten/new-study-links-teen-boys-adhd-symptoms-to-addictive-social-media-use/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3679090/it-security-nachrichten/new-study-links-teen-boys-adhd-symptoms-to-addictive-social-media-use/</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 19 Jul 2026 09:52:04 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[A new study by researchers at the University of California at San Francisco "adds to growing research linking increased social media use to detrimental effects on attention, memory and cognition," reports the Washington Post:

The study followed more than 11,000 U.S. adolescents over a period of five years, with participants first asked about their own social media use at the average age of 12, and surveyed annually through the average age of 16. Researchers found that increases in addictive social media use were followed by rising ADHD one year later — particularly among boys who reported rising addictive social media use at ages 14 and 15. This association was not found consistently in reverse, meaning that ADHD symptoms did not appear to precede higher levels of addictive social media use... "When an individual adolescent's addictive social media use score increased from one year to the next, that same adolescent tended to show an increase in ADHD symptoms in the following year...." [said Jason Nagata, lead author of the study and an associate professor of pediatrics at the University of California at San Francisco]. He urged parents to consider: "Can their kids stop if they want to? Is social media interfering with their schoolwork? Is it impairing their social relationships? Are there addiction-like symptoms, like withdrawal and relapse?" 

Approximately 7 million American children between the ages of 3 and 17 have received an ADHD diagnosis, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and boys are diagnosed with ADHD at about twice the rate of girls. The study did not find a clear link between addictive social media use and ADHD among girls, Nagata said. "Some studies do suggest that teenage boys in particular may be more sensitive to immediate reward and sensation-seeking in adolescence," he said. And social media platforms are designed to provide exactly that: "It encourages frequent task-switching, and there's this constant stream of stimulation that might make it harder for adolescents to maintain and sustain attention that is needed for schoolwork and daily life," he said. "The design features of social media offer the constant reinforcement of impulsivity — it offers immediate gratification and novelty and it encourages multitasking, which can then override working memory and executive control." Experts have long noted that this kind of digital exposure is particularly significant during critical stages of mental, social-emotional and cognitive development... 

[I]t's especially important for parents themselves to demonstrate a healthier relationship with screens and social media. "One of our previous findings was that parental screen use is a very strong predictor of kids' screen use," Nagata said.

<p></p><div class="share_submission">
<a class="slashpop" href="http://twitter.com/home?status=New+Study+Links+Teen+Boys'+ADHD+Symptoms+To+Addictive+Social+Media+Use%3A+https%3A%2F%2Fscience.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F26%2F07%2F18%2F0327200%2F%3Futm_source%3Dtwitter%26utm_medium%3Dtwitter"><img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/twitter_icon_large.png"></a>
<a class="slashpop" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fscience.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F26%2F07%2F18%2F0327200%2Fnew-study-links-teen-boys-adhd-symptoms-to-addictive-social-media-use%3Futm_source%3Dslashdot%26utm_medium%3Dfacebook"><img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/facebook_icon_large.png"></a>



</div><p><a href="https://science.slashdot.org/story/26/07/18/0327200/new-study-links-teen-boys-adhd-symptoms-to-addictive-social-media-use?utm_source=rss1.0moreanon&amp;utm_medium=feed">Read more of this story</a> at Slashdot.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Security researchers praise Samsung for handling reported vulnerabilities | heise online]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Oversecured highlights the success rate of its own scanner in discovering vulnerabilities, but also thanks Samsung's security team. As part of the ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3678252/it-security-nachrichten/security-researchers-praise-samsung-for-handling-reported-vulnerabilities-heise-online/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3678252/it-security-nachrichten/security-researchers-praise-samsung-for-handling-reported-vulnerabilities-heise-online/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 18 Jul 2026 18:40:52 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Oversecured highlights the success rate of its own scanner in discovering vulnerabilities, but also thanks Samsung's <b>security</b> team. As part of the ...]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[iPhone loyalty rises to 87% as fewer Android users switch]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[iPhone loyalty reached 87% in the first quarter of 2026, showing that more existing users stayed with Apple compared with the same period last year. The latest figures also show that Android users continue to make up only a small share of new iPhone buyers in the United States.



CIRP found that...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3678061/ios-mac-os/iphone-loyalty-rises-to-87-as-fewer-android-users-switch/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3678061/ios-mac-os/iphone-loyalty-rises-to-87-as-fewer-android-users-switch/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 18 Jul 2026 15:26:33 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🍏 iOS / Mac OS</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[iPhone loyalty reached 87% in the first quarter of 2026, showing that more existing users stayed with Apple compared with the same period last year. The latest figures also show that Android users continue to make up only a small share of new iPhone buyers in the United States.



CIRP found that 12% of people who bought an iPhone during the March 2026 quarter previously owned an Android smartphone. Another 1% came from feature phones, smaller smartphone platforms, or purchased a smartphone for the first time.



The remaining 87% already owned an iPhone, marking a three-point increase from the 84% loyalty rate recorded during the first quarter of 2025. During that period, 14% of new iPhone buyers had switched from Android.



Most smartphone users remain loyal



CIRP has tracked buyer movement between iPhone and Android for several years by asking customers which phone they owned before their latest purchase. Recent results show that Android switchers usually account for between 11% and 15% of new iPhone buyers.



The figures suggest that most smartphone owners chose their preferred platform years ago and now have little reason to switch. Apple’s planned Siri AI upgrade in iOS 27 could help retain current users, while its expected foldable iPhone may attract some Android foldable owners.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Polling rates explained: do you really need 8,000Hz for keyboards and mice in 2026?]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[TechRadar investigates whether you really need an 8,000Hz polling rate for your gaming keyboard or mouse, looks at the pros/cons, professional players, and gives a definitive verdict.]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3678012/it-nachrichten/polling-rates-explained-do-you-really-need-8000hz-for-keyboards-and-mice-in-2026/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3678012/it-nachrichten/polling-rates-explained-do-you-really-need-8000hz-for-keyboards-and-mice-in-2026/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 18 Jul 2026 15:02:25 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[TechRadar investigates whether you really need an 8,000Hz polling rate for your gaming keyboard or mouse, looks at the pros/cons, professional players, and gives a definitive verdict.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Google-Backed Satellites For Wildfire Detection Launch As Smoke Chokes US, Canada]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: As smoke from hundreds of burning wildfires spread across Canada and the United States, the first three operational satellites in the Google-backed FireSat program successfully launched into orbit. The satellites will begin providing wildfire...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3677874/it-security-nachrichten/google-backed-satellites-for-wildfire-detection-launch-as-smoke-chokes-us-canada/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3677874/it-security-nachrichten/google-backed-satellites-for-wildfire-detection-launch-as-smoke-chokes-us-canada/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 18 Jul 2026 13:08:19 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: As smoke from hundreds of burning wildfires spread across Canada and the United States, the first three operational satellites in the Google-backed FireSat program successfully launched into orbit. The satellites will begin providing wildfire detection capable of spotting even small fires in the United States, Australia, and Europe before the end of the year. The launch of the microsatellites aboard a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket from Vandenberg Space Force Base in California on July 7, 2026 marks a transition to "initial operational capability" for the FireSat constellation managed by the nonprofit Earth Fire Alliance. After a three-month testing period, the three satellites will begin actively providing data to fire agencies while covering every fire-prone region on Earth at least twice per day.
 
FireSat represents the first satellite constellation purpose-built for detecting wildfires, including spotting smaller fires that other satellites may miss. The satellites were designed by California-based satellite manufacturer Muon Space and have received over $15 million from Google to support initial deployment. Other notable financial supporters include the Bezos Earth Fund that committed $26 million. Each satellite is equipped with multispectral imaging that can peer through smoke and clouds and detect fires as small as five by five meters -- about 16 by 16 feet. That capability was proven by a FireSat Protoflight satellite that launched in March 2025 and collected more than one million images, while showing it could detect low-intensity blazes invisible to existing satellites.
 
The "early adopter" organizations that will start using FireSat data this year include fire agencies in California, Colorado, Australia, and Portugal. As more satellites launch, the FireSat program aims to provide the latest imagery anywhere in the world on an hourly basis by 2029. Such imagery would eventually become available every 20 minutes once the full constellation of more than 50 satellites is launched by the early 2030s. Detection of small wildfires before they burn out of control could prove extremely helpful. The Earth Fire Alliance has projected that even an hourly revisit rate by the FireSat constellation could help save more than $1 billion in fire damage costs and prevent nearly 22 million tons of carbon emissions, along with protecting 3,500 homes and 1.3 million acres of land.
 
To assist with that capability, Google Research plans to use the company's AI models to compare operational FireSat data with historical images in order to accurately identify very small fires and to inform predictive modeling of wildfires. Google celebrated the launch of the first operational FireSat satellites by describing the event as "another tangible step forward in putting practical AI to work for climate resilience."<p></p><div class="share_submission">
<a class="slashpop" href="http://twitter.com/home?status=Google-Backed+Satellites+For+Wildfire+Detection+Launch+As+Smoke+Chokes+US%2C+Canada%3A+https%3A%2F%2Fnews.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F26%2F07%2F18%2F0436243%2F%3Futm_source%3Dtwitter%26utm_medium%3Dtwitter"><img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/twitter_icon_large.png"></a>
<a class="slashpop" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fnews.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F26%2F07%2F18%2F0436243%2Fgoogle-backed-satellites-for-wildfire-detection-launch-as-smoke-chokes-us-canada%3Futm_source%3Dslashdot%26utm_medium%3Dfacebook"><img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/facebook_icon_large.png"></a>



</div><p><a href="https://news.slashdot.org/story/26/07/18/0436243/google-backed-satellites-for-wildfire-detection-launch-as-smoke-chokes-us-canada?utm_source=rss1.0moreanon&amp;utm_medium=feed">Read more of this story</a> at Slashdot.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Linus Torvalds To Critics of AI Coding On Linux: 'Fork It. Or Just Walk Away.']]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Linus Torvalds says the Linux kernel will not ban AI-assisted coding tools, and if anti-AI absolutists have a problem with that, they can "fork it" or "walk away." An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Writing in a lengthy post on the Linux kernel mailing list this week, Torvalds...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3676947/it-security-nachrichten/linus-torvalds-to-critics-of-ai-coding-on-linux-fork-it-or-just-walk-away/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3676947/it-security-nachrichten/linus-torvalds-to-critics-of-ai-coding-on-linux-fork-it-or-just-walk-away/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2026 22:08:40 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Linus Torvalds says the Linux kernel will not ban AI-assisted coding tools, and if anti-AI absolutists have a problem with that, they can "fork it" or "walk away." An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Writing in a lengthy post on the Linux kernel mailing list this week, Torvalds said that "Linux is not one of those anti-AI projects, and if somebody has issues with that, they can do the open-source thing and fork it. Or just walk away." The statement came amid a lengthy thread arguing about the use of Sashiko, an "agentic Linux kernel code review system" that its creators claim can, in tests, independently find 53.6 percent of the bugs that would end up being fixed by human coders in later commits. But the tool can also waste maintainers' time by sending "false positive" reports of bugs that don't exist, at a rate Sashiko's maintainers estimate is "well within [the] 20% range."
 
In discussing whether maintainers should be subjected to a flood of these kinds of automated, AI-powered bug report emails (true or false), one poster cited the Software Freedom Conservancy's recent statement that the open source community "should support, not just tolerate, those who outright reject LLM-gen-AI systems" and that "every FOSS contributor deserves self-determination regarding LLM-gen-AI." In the face of that statement, Torvalds said that he rejects those who demand that their open source projects not accept any LLM-generated code or revisions. "We're not forcing anybody to use [LLM tools], but I will very loudly ignore people who try to argue against other people from using it," Torvalds said.
 
Torvalds said his position on this is a pragmatic one that's "based on technical merit. Not fear of new tools." And when it comes to utility, Torvalds said that "AI is a tool, just like other tools we use. And it's clearly a useful one. It may not have been that 'clearly' even just a year ago, but it's no longer in question today. Anybody who doubts that clearly hasn't actually used it." [...] While Torvalds acknowledged that "AI isn't perfect," he urged detractors to compare the output of these tools to the performance of human code maintainers. "Anybody who points to the problems at AI had better be looking in the mirror and pointing at themselves at the same time," Torvalds wrote. "Because it's not like natural intelligence is always all that great either."<p></p><div class="share_submission">
<a class="slashpop" href="http://twitter.com/home?status=Linus+Torvalds+To+Critics+of+AI+Coding+On+Linux%3A+'Fork+It.+Or+Just+Walk+Away.'%3A+https%3A%2F%2Flinux.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F26%2F07%2F17%2F1830258%2F%3Futm_source%3Dtwitter%26utm_medium%3Dtwitter"><img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/twitter_icon_large.png"></a>
<a class="slashpop" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Flinux.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F26%2F07%2F17%2F1830258%2Flinus-torvalds-to-critics-of-ai-coding-on-linux-fork-it-or-just-walk-away%3Futm_source%3Dslashdot%26utm_medium%3Dfacebook"><img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/facebook_icon_large.png"></a>



</div><p><a href="https://linux.slashdot.org/story/26/07/17/1830258/linus-torvalds-to-critics-of-ai-coding-on-linux-fork-it-or-just-walk-away?utm_source=rss1.0moreanon&amp;utm_medium=feed">Read more of this story</a> at Slashdot.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Apple Continues To See Steady Flow Of Android Switchers In 2026]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Getting people to switch their phone setup remains a top goal for Apple. According to new research from Consumer Intelligence Research Partners, a solid chunk of buyers are still making the leap from rival devices. The firm looked closely at people who bought a new iPhone in the US during the fir...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3676124/ios-mac-os/apple-continues-to-see-steady-flow-of-android-switchers-in-2026/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3676124/ios-mac-os/apple-continues-to-see-steady-flow-of-android-switchers-in-2026/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2026 15:06:49 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🍏 iOS / Mac OS</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Getting people to switch their phone setup remains a top goal for Apple. According to new research from Consumer Intelligence Research Partners, a solid chunk of buyers are still making the leap from rival devices. The firm looked closely at people who bought a new iPhone in the US during the first few months of the year to see exactly what phone they used before upgrading.



Twelve percent of recent buyers moved from an Android device



During the March 2026 quarter, survey data showed that 12 percent of new smartphone purchases came directly from people who previously owned an Android device. The research group tracks this by asking buyers about their prior phone and operating system when they make a new purchase.



This current number falls right in line with recent historical trends. Over the past few years, the rate of users leaving devices powered by Google to join the iOS platform has mostly settled between 11 and 15 percent. The early days of mobile carrier expansion saw massive waves of people jumping ship, but the market has now reached a much more predictable rhythm.



While the massive spikes of platform switching are mostly in the past, pulling in more than one out of every ten new buyers from a rival company is a steady win. It shows that the platform still holds strong appeal for those looking to change their daily tech routine.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Experts warn software budgets could be set to soar as AI bills are on the rise]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[AI software vendors are increasingly charging per consumption rather than a flat per-seat rate, making expenses more unpredictable.]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3676047/it-nachrichten/experts-warn-software-budgets-could-be-set-to-soar-as-ai-bills-are-on-the-rise/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3676047/it-nachrichten/experts-warn-software-budgets-could-be-set-to-soar-as-ai-bills-are-on-the-rise/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2026 14:33:20 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[AI software vendors are increasingly charging per consumption rather than a flat per-seat rate, making expenses more unpredictable.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Was Notebooks 2026 leise macht – und warum alte Geräte plötzlich brüllen]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Vielleicht kennen Sie das: Man sitzt konzentriert am Schreibtisch, und plötzlich klingt das Notebook wie eine startende Boeing 747. Während das eigene Gerät bei der kleinsten Excel-Tabelle aufheult, scheint der Laptop des Kollegen selbst bei Videobearbeitung keinen Mucks von sich zu geben. Woran ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3675950/windows-tipps/was-notebooks-2026-leise-macht-und-warum-alte-geraete-ploetzlich-bruellen/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3675950/windows-tipps/was-notebooks-2026-leise-macht-und-warum-alte-geraete-ploetzlich-bruellen/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2026 13:57:47 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🪟 Windows Tipps</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p>Vielleicht kennen Sie das: Man sitzt konzentriert am <a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/article/3151739/schreibtisch-richtig-einrichten.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Schreibtisch</a>, und plötzlich klingt das Notebook wie eine startende Boeing 747. Während das eigene Gerät bei der kleinsten Excel-Tabelle aufheult, scheint der Laptop des Kollegen selbst bei Videobearbeitung keinen Mucks von sich zu geben. Woran liegt das? </p>



<p>Ob ein <a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/article/2215385/die-besten-laptops-test.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Notebook</a> flüsterleise arbeitet oder ständig den Lüfter anwirft, ist keine Zauberei, sondern ein Zusammenspiel aus Alter, Pflege, Software und der verbauten Hardware. Mit den folgenden Tipps machen Sie Schluss mit Lüfter-Lärm – und verstehen, warum moderne Geräte oft deutlich leiser arbeiten.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Der Zahn der Zeit: Warum alte Geräte plötzlich zu laut sind</h2>



<p>Viele Nutzer fragen sich, warum ihr ehemals leises Notebook nach zwei oder drei Jahren plötzlich zum Schreihals mutiert. Die Antwort liegt oft nicht nur in einem einzelnen Faktor, sondern in einer Kombination aus Staub, Alterung und veränderter Leistungscharakteristik.</p>



<p>Hausstaub ist dabei tatsächlich der chronische Hauptverursacher. Laptops mit aktiver Kühlung saugen ständig Luft an, um CPU und GPU zu kühlen. Dabei gelangen feine Partikel ins Innere, die sich mit der Zeit an den Rotorblättern des Lüfters und den Lamellen der Kühlkörper absetzen. Das reduziert den Luftdurchsatz – schleichend, aber kontinuierlich.</p>



<p>Das System reagiert darauf mit höheren Lüfterdrehzahlen, weil die Temperatur schneller ansteigt oder nicht mehr effizient abgeführt wird. Zusätzlich entsteht bei vielen älteren Geräten nahezu ein <strong>Regelkreislauf aus Hitze und Lautstärke</strong>: Die CPU drosselt bei hohen Temperaturen (Thermal Throttling), kühlt daraufhin kurz ab, taktet dann aber wieder hoch – und erzeugt dadurch erneut Wärme. Das führt zum typischen Aufheulen in Wellen – mit extra Nerv-Faktor.</p>



<p>Ein oft übersehener Punkt ist auch die <strong>Alterung der <a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/article/1154408/kuehlleistung-stabil-halten-cpu-waermeleitpaste-richtig-auftragen.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Wärmeleitpaste</a></strong> zwischen Prozessor und Kühleinheit. Diese Paste trocknet aus und verliert über die Jahre ihre gleichmäßige Wärmeverteilung. Dadurch entstehen lokale Hotspots, die den Lüfter zusätzlich fordern. Ein fachgerechter Austausch kann die Temperaturen je nach Gerät deutlich senken – in manchen Fällen um bis zu 10 Grad oder mehr.</p>



<p>Auch die Firmware spielt eine Rolle: Bei älteren Notebooks sind die hinterlegten Lüfterkurven oft konservativer eingestellt als bei heutigen Geräten. Das bedeutet: Der Lüfter springt früher und aggressiver an, um thermische Spitzen zu vermeiden. Solche Einstellungen nimmt man übrigens am besten <a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/article/2945534/neues-notebook-windows-11-einrichten-checkliste.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">direkt nach dem Kauf eines neuen Gerätes vor.</a></p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading toc">Macht das Reinigen des Laptop-Inneren Sinn?</h2>



<p>Die kurze Antwort: Das macht auf jeden Fall Sinn – in vielen Fällen ist es sogar die effektivste Maßnahme bei älteren Geräten.</p>



<p><strong>Schnellreinigung:</strong> Mit Druckluftspray vorsichtig durch die Lüftungsschlitze pusten. <strong>Wichtig</strong>: Den Lüfter dabei möglichst fixieren, damit er sich nicht unkontrolliert durch den Luftstrom dreht – das kann ihn unnötig belasten. Druckluft hat dabei den Vorteil, dass sie in Strömungsrichtung des Kühlsystems arbeitet und den Staub so aus dem Gerät heraus transportiert. Alternativ lassen sich Staubablagerungen an den Lüftungsgittern auch vorsichtig mit einem Staubsauger auf niedriger Stufe von außen entfernen.</p>



<p><strong>Die gründliche Reinigung:</strong> Bei vielen Geräten lässt sich die Bodenplatte relativ einfach entfernen. Im Inneren kann der Staub dann mit einem weichen Pinsel oder einem antistatischen Sauger direkt an Kühlkörper und Lüfter entfernt werden. Besonders die feinen Lamellen setzen sich dort oft vollständig zu, ohne dass man es von außen sieht. Lesen Sie dazu auch unseren Ratgeber “<a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/article/2581644/pc-laptop-richtig-reinigen.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">So reinigen Sie PC und Laptop richtig</a>“.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading toc">Software-Tools als unsichtbare Lüfter-Dirigenten</h2>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure data-wp-context='{"imageId":"6a5a18adb0d1d"}' data-wp-interactive="core/image" class="wp-block-image size-large is-resized wp-lightbox-container"><img decoding="async" data-wp-class--hide="state.isContentHidden" data-wp-class--show="state.isContentVisible" data-wp-init="callbacks.setButtonStyles" data-wp-on-async--click="actions.showLightbox" data-wp-on-async--load="callbacks.setButtonStyles" data-wp-on-async-window--resize="callbacks.setButtonStyles" src="https://b2c-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Fan-Control-Homepage.png?w=1200" alt="Fan Control Homepage" class="wp-image-3170793" width="1200" height="675" loading="lazy"><button class="lightbox-trigger" type="button" aria-haspopup="dialog" aria-label="Enlarge" data-wp-init="callbacks.initTriggerButton" data-wp-on-async--click="actions.showLightbox" data-wp-style--right="state.imageButtonRight" data-wp-style--top="state.imageButtonTop">
				<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="12" height="12" fill="none" viewbox="0 0 12 12">
					<path fill="#fff" d="M2 0a2 2 0 0 0-2 2v2h1.5V2a.5.5 0 0 1 .5-.5h2V0H2Zm2 10.5H2a.5.5 0 0 1-.5-.5V8H0v2a2 2 0 0 0 2 2h2v-1.5ZM8 12v-1.5h2a.5.5 0 0 0 .5-.5V8H12v2a2 2 0 0 1-2 2H8Zm2-12a2 2 0 0 1 2 2v2h-1.5V2a.5.5 0 0 0-.5-.5H8V0h2Z"></path>
				</svg>
			</button><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Mit Software wie <a href="https://getfancontrol.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Fan Control</a> können Sie genau steuern, ab welcher Temperatur Lüfter wie stark arbeiten sollen.</figcaption></figure><p class="imageCredit">Foundry</p></div>



<p>Oft ist nicht die Hardware das Problem, sondern die Art, wie das System mit Leistung und Temperatur umgeht. Windows und macOS arbeiten mit dynamischen Temperatur- und Leistungsprofilen, die entscheiden, wann Prozessor und Lüfter hochdrehen. Diese Profile sind ab Werk aber häufig eher auf Sicherheit als auf Lautstärke ausgelegt und reagieren dadurch manchmal zu aggressiv – sprich: laut.</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><strong>Energieeinstellungen anpassen:</strong> Schon die Wahl des Leistungsprofils kann viel verändern. Für typische Alltagsaufgaben wie Surfen, Textverarbeitung oder Streaming reicht oft ein gedrosselter Modus aus. Dadurch sinkt die CPU-Spitzenlast, und der Lüfter muss weniger leisten.</li>



<li><strong>Hintergrundprozesse prüfen:</strong> Dauerhaftes Lüfterrauschen entsteht häufig durch unsichtbare Last im Hintergrund – etwa durch Browser-Tabs, Cloud-Synchronisation oder Updates. Der Task-Manager (Windows) bzw. die Aktivitätsanzeige (macOS) zeigt Ihnen schnell, welche Prozesse permanent CPU-Leistung ziehen.</li>



<li><strong>Lüfter- und Leistungssteuerung:</strong> Tools wie <a href="https://getfancontrol.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Fan Control</a>, <a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/article/1082662/hwinfo32.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">HWiNFO</a> oder herstellereigene Systeme wie <a href="https://aurasync.net/armoury-crate-download/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Armoury Crate</a> ermöglichen detaillierte Temperatur- und Lüfterprofile. Damit lassen sich leisere Kurven definieren – etwa mit späterem Hochdrehen der Lüfter oder stabileren Temperaturzonen.</li>
</ul>



<p><strong>Beachten Sie allerdings</strong>: Zu aggressive manuelle Einstellungen können die Temperaturen unnötig in die Höhe treiben oder zu stärkeren Schwankungen führen, wenn das System ständig zwischen Boost und Drosselung pendelt.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading toc">Äußere Einflüsse: Standort, Staubbelastung und Lichteinfall</h2>



<p>Manchmal liegt das Problem nicht im <a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/article/2771173/test-die-besten-laptops-unter-500-euro-2.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Notebook</a> selbst, sondern in seiner Umgebung. Besonders kritisch sind Unterlagen, die die Luftzufuhr blockieren. Ein Laptop auf dem Bett, Sofa oder Kissen wirkt auf die Kühlung wie eine Dämmmatte: Die Ansaugöffnungen werden teilweise oder komplett verdeckt, während sich die Wärme unter dem Gerät staut.</p>



<p><strong>Darauf sollten Sie achten:</strong></p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><strong>Der richtige Untergrund:</strong> Immer eine harte, ebene Fläche verwenden. Schon kleine Verbesserungen der Luftzufuhr können die Lüfteraktivität deutlich reduzieren.</li>



<li><strong>Umgebungstemperatur und Lichteinfall:</strong> Direkte Sonneneinstrahlung wird oft unterschätzt. Ein dunkles Notebook auf einem aufgeheizten Schreibtisch kann sich allein durch Umgebungshitze deutlich stärker erwärmen.</li>



<li><strong>Gehäusematerialien:</strong> Hochwertige Geräte aus Aluminium oder Magnesium nutzen das Gehäuse als zusätzlichen Wärmeleiter und verteilen die Hitze besser. Kunststoffgehäuse isolieren stärker, wodurch sich Wärme eher im Inneren staut und Lüfter häufiger aktiv werden müssen.</li>
</ul>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading toc">Hardware-Hilfen: Was bringen Kühlpads im Alltag?</h2>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure data-wp-context='{"imageId":"6a5a18adb1787"}' data-wp-interactive="core/image" class="wp-block-image size-large is-resized wp-lightbox-container"><img decoding="async" data-wp-class--hide="state.isContentHidden" data-wp-class--show="state.isContentVisible" data-wp-init="callbacks.setButtonStyles" data-wp-on-async--click="actions.showLightbox" data-wp-on-async--load="callbacks.setButtonStyles" data-wp-on-async-window--resize="callbacks.setButtonStyles" src="https://b2c-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/KLIM-Wind-Laptop-Kuhler2.jpg?quality=50&amp;strip=all&amp;w=1200" alt="KLIM Wind Laptop Kühler2" class="wp-image-3170798" width="1200" height="745" loading="lazy"><button class="lightbox-trigger" type="button" aria-haspopup="dialog" aria-label="Enlarge" data-wp-init="callbacks.initTriggerButton" data-wp-on-async--click="actions.showLightbox" data-wp-style--right="state.imageButtonRight" data-wp-style--top="state.imageButtonTop">
				<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="12" height="12" fill="none" viewbox="0 0 12 12">
					<path fill="#fff" d="M2 0a2 2 0 0 0-2 2v2h1.5V2a.5.5 0 0 1 .5-.5h2V0H2Zm2 10.5H2a.5.5 0 0 1-.5-.5V8H0v2a2 2 0 0 0 2 2h2v-1.5ZM8 12v-1.5h2a.5.5 0 0 0 .5-.5V8H12v2a2 2 0 0 1-2 2H8Zm2-12a2 2 0 0 1 2 2v2h-1.5V2a.5.5 0 0 0-.5-.5H8V0h2Z"></path>
				</svg>
			</button><figcaption class="wp-element-caption"><a href="https://www.amazon.de/dp/B09XVLPGZJ?tag=pcwelt.de-21&amp;ascsubtag=rss" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Kühlpads</a> wie dieses von Klim heben das Notebook ergonomisch an und versorgen damit die Unterseite aktiv mit Frischluft.</figcaption></figure><p class="imageCredit">Klim</p></div>



<p>Wenn Software-Optimierungen und Reinigung nicht mehr ausreichen, kommen externe Kühllösungen ins Spiel – meist in Form von <a href="https://www.amazon.de/dp/B09XVLPGZJ?tag=pcwelt.de-21&amp;ascsubtag=rss" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Kühlpads</a> oder sogenannten Cooling Stands. Dabei wird das Notebook auf eine erhöhte Plattform gesetzt, unter der kleine Ventilatoren Luft an die Unterseite des Gehäuses blasen.</p>



<p>Besonders bei Gaming-Laptops oder älteren Geräten unter Dauerlast können die Temperaturen damit messbar sinken. Das ist aber nicht immer die Lösung aller Lüfter-Sorgen und stark vom Aufbau des Gerätes abhängig.</p>



<p>Der vielleicht wichtigere Effekt ist eher indirekter Natur: Viele Kühlpads heben das Notebook leicht an. Dadurch verbessert sich der Luftstrom unter dem Gerät, selbst dann, wenn die Lüfter des Pads nur schwach laufen oder gar nicht aktiv sind. Schon ein größerer Abstand zur Tischplatte kann die passive Kühlung stabilisieren und Wärmestau verhindern.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading toc">Technik-Sprung: Neue Notebooks sind im Vorteil</h2>



<p>Wer 2026 ein <a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/article/2215385/die-besten-laptops-test.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">aktuelles Notebook</a> mit Modellen von vor fünf Jahren vergleicht, kann oft einen deutlich ruhigeren Betrieb feststellen. Dafür sind mehrere technologische Entwicklungen verantwortlich, die sich gegenseitig verstärken.</p>



<p>• <strong>ARM-basierte Prozessoren:</strong> Durch Architekturen wie Apple Silicon und moderne Snapdragon-X-Plattformen haben sich besonders im <a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/article/3091319/geekom-geekbook-x14-pro-im-test.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Ultrabook</a>-Segment sehr energieeffiziente Chips etabliert (etwa von Qualcomm im Windows-Ökosystem). Diese Chips erzeugen bei Alltagslast deutlich weniger Abwärme, wodurch viele Geräte im Büro- und Medienbetrieb sehr leise oder sogar lüfterlos arbeiten können. Bei hoher Dauerlast ist aber auch hier oft noch eine aktive Kühlung notwendig.</p>



<p>• <strong>Intelligentere Leistungs- und Kühlsteuerung:</strong> Statt klassisch harter Lüfterkurven setzen moderne Systeme zunehmend auf vorausschauende Steuerung. Das bedeutet: Leistung wird schrittweise aufgebaut, Temperaturspitzen werden abgefangen, bevor der Lüfter stark hochdrehen muss. Eine echte KI-Kühlung im strengen Sinn ist das zwar nicht, adaptive Algorithmen sorgen aber für deutlich gleichmäßigere Geräuschverläufe.</p>



<p>• <strong>Weiterentwickelte Kühlsysteme:</strong> Neben klassischen Heatpipes kommen in leistungsstärkeren Geräten häufiger <a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/article/1363745/kuhlung-fur-cpu-und-gpu-durch-vapor-chamber-das-steckt-dahinter.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Vapor-Chamber-Systeme</a> zum Einsatz, die Wärme großflächiger verteilen. In High-End-Modellen werden zudem neue Materialien und Verbundlösungen getestet, um Wärme schneller vom Chip ins Gehäuse abzuleiten. Das Ziel ist weniger maximale Kühlung, sondern ein stabileres Temperaturverhalten mit weniger Lüfterspitzen.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading toc">Profi-Ausrüstung: So machen Sie Ihr System flüsterleise</h2>



<p>Mit dem richtigen Zubehör lässt sich die Lautstärke eines Notebooks oft weiter senken – entweder durch zusätzliche Kühlung im Alltag oder durch gezielte Hardware-Upgrades.</p>



<p>Eine Hardware-Lösung sind etwa externe Vakuum-Kühler wie der <a href="https://www.amazon.de/dp/B08P8JCBB7?tag=pcwelt.de-21&amp;ascsubtag=rss" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Klim Tempest Laptop Kühler</a>. Solche Geräte werden direkt an die Lüftungsauslässe des Notebooks angesetzt und ziehen die warme Luft aktiv aus dem Gehäuse. Besonders bei älteren oder stark belasteten Geräten kann das die Temperaturen unter Last spürbar senken. Allerdings hängt die Wirkung davon ab, wie gut die Luftführung des jeweiligen Notebooks konstruiert ist.</p>



<p>Für den klassischen Schreibtischbetrieb sind Kühlpads eine deutlich einfachere, weil universelle Lösung. Modelle wie das <a href="https://www.amazon.de/dp/B07V4GTT81?tag=pcwelt.de-21&amp;ascsubtag=rss" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Targus Cooling Pad</a> kombinieren eine leicht erhöhte Ablagefläche mit integrierten Ventilatoren, die Luft unter das Notebook fächern. Dadurch verbessert sich der Luftstrom an der Gehäuseunterseite, was vor allem bei Geräten mit schwächerer Kühlkonstruktion einen stabileren Temperaturverlauf unterstützt. Gleichzeitig sorgt der Neigungswinkel für eine angenehmere Arbeitshaltung.</p>



<p>Wer den konsequentesten Schritt Richtung Ruhe gehen möchte, kommt aber oft nicht um ein moderneres Gerät herum. Besonders energieeffiziente Notebooks wie das <a href="http://www.amazon.de/dp/B0GR17DBWL?tag=pcwelt.de-21&amp;ascsubtag=rss" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Apple MacBook Air</a> zeigen, wie weit sich die Geräuschentwicklung inzwischen reduzieren lässt. Durch sehr geringe Abwärme im Alltagsbetrieb bleibt das Kühlsystem oft inaktiv oder arbeitet nur minimal – im Büro- und Medienalltag ist das Gerät praktisch unhörbar.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Fazit</h2>



<p>Ein lautes Notebook ist selten ein isoliertes Problem. Meistens ist es ein Zusammenspiel aus mehreren Faktoren: Staub im Inneren, ungünstige Aufstellung, alternde Wärmeleitpaste und eine Kühlstrategie, die nicht mehr optimal arbeitet.</p>



<p>Die gute Nachricht: In vielen Fällen lässt sich die Lautstärke mit überschaubarem Aufwand deutlich reduzieren. Eine <a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/article/2581644/pc-laptop-richtig-reinigen.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">gründliche Reinigung</a>, bessere Luftzufuhr und ein bewusster Umgang mit Energieprofilen reichen oft schon aus, um das Lüfterverhalten spürbar zu beruhigen.</p>



<p>Wenn das nicht mehr reicht, zeigt der Blick auf <a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/article/2215385/die-besten-laptops-test.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">moderne Geräte</a>, wie stark sich die Technik verändert hat. Effiziente Prozessoren und optimierte Kühlsysteme sorgen heute dafür, dass Leistung nicht mehr automatisch mit Lautstärke bezahlt werden muss.</p>

</div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Mozilla Privacy Blog: Beyond technical fixes: Protecting kids online without breaking the internet]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[This is part one of a two-part series in which we explore approaches to protecting children online while safeguarding privacy, security and the open web. Part one covers our concerns regarding age gates, and alternative policy proposals that address the root causes of online harms. 
Young people ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3675858/tools/mozilla-privacy-blog-beyond-technical-fixes-protecting-kids-online-without-breaking-the-internet/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3675858/tools/mozilla-privacy-blog-beyond-technical-fixes-protecting-kids-online-without-breaking-the-internet/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2026 13:10:44 +0200</pubDate>
<category>💾  Tools</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>This is part one of a two-part series in which we explore approaches to protecting children online while safeguarding privacy, security and the open web. Part one covers our concerns regarding age gates, and alternative policy proposals that address the root causes of online harms. </i></p>
<p>Young people today have unprecedented opportunities to learn, connect, and explore — not just the web and the world, but also themselves. With the increased ubiquity of digital technologies and devices, worries around the <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0506-1">relationship between these technologies and young people’s well-being</a> have grown, too. While concerns about the societal implications of new technologies is <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1745691620919372">not a new phenomenon</a>, <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adt6807">experts argue</a> that the accelerating speed of deployment of new technologies has outpaced scientists’ capacity to feed into policy recommendations addressing risks. A growing body of research <a href="https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/m38u6_v2">documents</a> the harms experienced by young people online and the challenges <a href="https://ijse.padovauniversitypress.it/2024/1/8">reported</a> by parents attempting to mediate their kids’ technology use. At the same time, experts highlight the importance of contextual factors like <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-025-02134-4">existing mental health conditions</a>, <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jad.12193">socio-economic circumstances</a> and <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563224000244">parental mediation</a> to understand the real-world effects of digital technologies.</p>
<p>Faced with this complexity, and mounting public pressure, policymakers around the world are urgently seeking ways to improve child safety online. Driven by a sense of time running out and promises of new <a href="https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2026/05/laurie-anderson-is-quoting-me.html">technical solutions</a> to difficult questions, this has led, <a href="https://avpassociation.com/map/">across jurisdictions</a>, to proposals to restrict young people’s access to certain technologies or platforms by introducing age assurance mandates.</p>
<p>Privacy and user empowerment have always formed a core part of Mozilla’s mission. As <a href="https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2025/12/19/australias-social-media-ban-why-age-limits-wont-fix-what-is-wrong-with-online-platforms/">we have said before</a>, we support safer spaces for minors, but we caution against approaches that rely on identity checks, surveillance-based enforcement, or exclusionary defaults. Such interventions rely on the collection of personal and sensitive data and, thus, introduce major new privacy and security risks.</p>
<p>While many technologies exist to verify, estimate, or infer users’ ages, fundamental tensions around accessibility, their effectiveness and effects on user’s privacy, security and free expression <a href="https://kgi.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Age_Assurance_Online_Technical-Assessment_Report_KGI.pdf">remain</a>. Technological approaches must be part of wider efforts to address the root causes of online harms. However, the deployment of age assurance technologies will not solve the complex challenge of preparing young people to navigate an increasingly online world and ensure their wellbeing. That will require more holistic approaches: offering education and support to navigate the web safely, addressing harmful business practices and acknowledging the offline factors shaping children’s lives including social inequality, poverty or disparate access to (mental) health care services.</p>
<p><em><b>Ineffective age-gating mandates and the dangerous shift toward VPN restrictions</b></em></p>
<p>As jurisdictions around the world gain experience with government-mandated age gates for certain services, evidence is mounting that age restrictions are not an effective policy tool. Avoiding age gates is widespread and trivially easy: In Australia, where minors under 16 year of age have been banned from certain social media platforms since December 2025, the government’s Compliance Update <a href="https://www.esafety.gov.au/sites/default/files/2026-03/SocialMediaMinimumAgeComplianceUpdateMarch2026.pdf?v=1775600939713">reports</a> that seven out of ten young Australians remain online, often skirting age checks by simply entering a fake birthdate. A recent <a href="https://www.internetmatters.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Internet-Matters-Online-Safety-Act-Report-May-2026.pdf">study</a> on the implementation of the UK’s Online Safety Act found that a third of children have bypassed age gates with fairly trivial steps like faking their birthdate, borrowing someone else’s login credentials, or even drawing on facial hair, and that a quarter of parents have helped their children to bypass age assurance systems. In the US, <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_comments/massachusetts-00243%C2%A0/00243-82161.pdf">studies</a> indicate that as far back as 2011, 64% of parents who were aware their child under 13 had a social media account were also ones who helped them create that account.</p>
<p>Confronted with the apparent ineffectiveness of age gates, policymakers around the world seem to be shifting their attention to alleged circumvention tools. While <a href="https://www.internetmatters.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Internet-Matters-Online-Safety-Act-Report-May-2026.pdf">research</a> shows that many young people bypass age barriers by using other people’s devices and accounts or tricking age estimation tools by making themselves look older, virtual private networks (VPNs) are <a href="https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2026/782618/EPRS_ATA(2026)782618_EN.pdf">increasingly</a> <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn438z3ejxyo">framed</a> as primarily a “loophole” to age gates. VPNs create encrypted “tunnels” between a user’s device and the internet, protecting all internet traffic from that device and concealing users’ IP addresses. VPNs are an essential privacy and security resource for millions of users worldwide, <a href="https://home.crin.org/the-big-debates/vpns-for-children">including young people</a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/04/utahs-new-law-regulating-vpns-goes-effect-next-week">Utah’s recent age verification law</a> holds websites hosting age-restricted content liable for verifying the age of anyone physically located in Utah, including individuals using VPNs or proxies. While the law does not ban VPNs outright, it forces websites to either block known VPN IP addresses or verify the age of every visitor globally. In the UK, policymakers <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9824zvpz9po">debated</a> <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn438z3ejxyo">age gates</a> for VPNs extensively, but <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c982857nlrlo">stopped short</a> of restricting VPNs after <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/childrens-circumvention-behaviours-online?utm_medium=email&amp;utm_campaign=govuk-notifications-topic&amp;utm_source=97439257-1368-42dd-835e-2ecc1f690097&amp;utm_content=immediately">new evidence</a> <a href="https://vpntrust.net/2026/07/08/new-yougov-research-finds-vpns-are-not-widely-used-by-children-to-avoid-age-checks/?msg_pos=1">confirmed</a> that VPNs are not a relevant pathway for children seeking to bypass age checks. In Brazil, the ECA Digital law <a href="https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2023-2026/2026/decreto/d12880.htm">empowers</a> the regulatory authority to order technical countermeasures against circumvention tools such as VPNs. These developments suggest a worrying trend: well-meaning but ineffective attempts to protect children risk undermining the fundamental rights to privacy, security, and free expression of all users, as well as the health and openness of the web itself.</p>
<p>We are convinced, however, that there are rights-respecting alternatives policymakers can pursue to empower young people online and improve their safety and well-being.</p>
<p><em><strong>Moving beyond access bans</strong></em></p>
<p>We strongly believe that online safety frameworks should be grounded in <a href="https://www.unicef.org/innovation/stories/protecting-childrens-rights-in-digital-environments">children’s rights</a>, striking a balance between their right to protection and their right to participate in society, express themselves freely, and access media and information. Such frameworks must also be proportionate and should not undermine the fundamental rights and access to tools like VPNs for all users.</p>
<p>Rather than focusing on limiting access, we believe that policymakers should prioritize interventions that tackle the root causes of online harm. Before considering new instruments, this work starts with ensuring that independent regulatory authorities have the necessary resources to enforce existing online safety frameworks. In Europe, preliminary findings against <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_26_1579">Meta</a> and <a href="https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/commission-preliminarily-finds-tiktoks-addictive-design-breach-digital-services-act">TikTok</a> find these companies’ addictive design features to be in breach of the Digital Services Act, underlining the potential of frameworks like the DSA to address key concerns.</p>
<p>The design of online interfaces, and the affordances and constraints they offer, significantly influences users’ interactions, decisions and overall wellbeing. ‘Dark patterns’ or deceptive interfaces are key drivers of harms experienced by users, and especially young people: they can compel people to consent to extensive data collection and processing, resulting in hyper-personalized feeds, personalized ads that may exploit cognitive vulnerabilities and promote unhealthy or excessive consumer choices, and an overall erosion of privacy.</p>
<p>This is why we support proposals like <a href="https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2025/10/31/pathways-to-a-fairer-digital-world-mozilla-shares-views-on-the-eu-digital-fairness-act/">EU Digital Fairness Act (DFA) </a>and the <a href="https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2026/06/11/a-handful-of-companies-control-the-web-aicoa-can-change-that/">American Innovation and Choice Online Act (AICOA)</a> that could fill regulatory gaps. Specifically, we advocate for the <b>prohibition of harmful design</b>, guided by harmonized definitions of core concepts like “dark patterns”, “deceptive design,” and “addictive design” and anti-circumvention clauses to prevent companies from avoiding regulation through small tweaks. Platforms should be responsible for demonstrating that their design choices are fair, non-manipulative and non-exploitative. And services that are likely to be accessed by children should be required to refrain from enabling certain design features, including excessive notifications, endless feeds and gambling-like features by default, and only with parental consent.</p>
<p>Further, we urge policymakers to adopt a <b>privacy-first approach to online harms</b>. Many of the risks encountered by young people online are related to the collection and processing of personal data. Platforms collect enormous amounts of personal data, including sensitive data, to personalize and target services, ranging from algorithmic recommender systems to online ads. While the systems that target and display ads and curate online content are distinct, both are based on the surveillance and profiling of users.</p>
<p>Such profiling is the basis for young people being targeted with personalized ads and content recommendations, which can segment, exclude, or steer people into inequitable options and towards harmful content. Providers should thus be prohibited from using sensitive personal data (e.g. ethnicity, religious belief, health status, sexual orientation, political affiliation) to personalize content recommendations or ads, and they should be mandated to enable privacy-protective settings by default, including restricting access to users’ location, camera, microphone, contacts, and camera roll. Policymakers should also extend the fairness and transparency obligations to personalization systems and advertising actors, including intermediaries and data brokers.</p>
<p>Additionally, everyone online, including families and young people, should be fully in control of their online experiences and navigate the web according to their preferences and needs. There is a significant opportunity to <b>empower users with easy, effective opt-out rights and granular user controls</b>. In practice, users should have the right to opt out of personalized content and targeting without being penalized with a downgraded version of the service. Some frameworks already strengthen choice – in those cases, we advocate for their robust enforcement.</p>
<p>Across jurisdictions, choice can be strengthened by ensuring that preferences explicitly expressed (e.g. settings selected, feedback signals, customization choices made, survey responses) are respected and “sticky”, so do not get reset without being explicitly requested by the user. Interoperability mandates should let people integrate third-party content moderation systems or recommendation algorithms that better match their preferences and help them break out of the walled gardens of a few dominant companies. Parental controls are another important lever to operationalize user controls: Providers should deploy easy-to-use and effective parental controls that allow families to tailor online experiences to their preferences, across platforms.</p>
<p>We appreciate that this is a long list of complex policy recommendations which are also impacted by broader (geo)political developments. The fact remains that current age assurance approaches are not a silver bullet, and will create more, rather than solve, problems in the long term.</p>
<p>Where policymakers consider age signals as necessary to ensure age-appropriate online experiences, we believe that there are technical approaches better suited to balance users’ rights than those currently pursued. We will explore these developments and approaches in the second part of this series.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2026/07/17/beyond-technical-fixes-protecting-kids-online-without-breaking-the-internet/">Beyond technical fixes: Protecting kids online without breaking the internet </a> appeared first on <a href="https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy">Open Policy &amp; Advocacy</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[OpenAI acknowledges GPT-5.6 may accidentally delete files, calls it an ‘honest mistake’]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[OpenAI has finally confirmed reports that its latest family of large language models (LLMs) can accidentally delete files, while stressing that such incidents are rare and should be viewed as “honest mistakes.”



Reports of the flagship LLMs deleting files emerged shortly after the company launc...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3675685/ai-nachrichten/openai-acknowledges-gpt-56-may-accidentally-delete-files-calls-it-an-honest-mistake/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3675685/ai-nachrichten/openai-acknowledges-gpt-56-may-accidentally-delete-files-calls-it-an-honest-mistake/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2026 12:03:45 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🔧 AI Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">OpenAI has finally confirmed reports that its latest family of large language models (LLMs) can accidentally delete files, while stressing that such incidents are rare and should be viewed as “honest mistakes.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Reports of the flagship LLMs deleting files emerged shortly after the company launched them earlier this month, with investor Matt Shumer <a href="https://x.com/mattshumer_/status/2075657271401390161" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">taking to X</a> to report that GPT-5.6-Sol had “just accidentally deleted almost all” of his Mac’s files.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Just days later, software engineer Bruno Lemos <a href="https://x.com/brunolemos/status/2076769881534398974">posted on X</a> that the same model had deleted his entire production database.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In response to these incidents, the company’s engineering lead for Codex, Thibault Sottiaux, <a href="https://x.com/thsottiaux/status/2077630111499882637" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">wrote on X</a> that internal investigations have revealed that these deletion incidents are more likely to happen when “full access mode is enabled, and Codex is run without sandboxing protections, including without <a href="https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/sandboxing/auto-review" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">auto review</a> being enabled.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In cases where full access mode is granted, the model, Sottiaux wrote, “attempts to override the $HOME env var to define a temporary directory. The model makes an honest mistake and mistakenly deletes $HOME instead.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Ironically, OpenAI’s explanation also aligns with findings in its own <a href="https://deploymentsafety.openai.com/gpt-5-6/evaluations-with-challenging-prompts" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">GPT-5.6 system model card</a>, which notes that the latest model family exhibited this broader class of misaligned behavior slightly more often than GPT-5.5 during the company’s internal deployment simulations.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Our deployment simulation results suggest that relative to GPT-5.5, GPT-5.6 Sol more often takes severity level 3 actions,” the model card states.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">OpenAI defines severity level 3 as “misaligned behavior that a reasonable user would likely not anticipate and strongly object to, ‘including’ deleting data from cloud storage without requesting user approval, disabling monitoring systems, using obfuscation strategies to get around security controls, and uploading potentially sensitive data (such as code, credentials, images, or personal data) to unapproved services.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The system card also documents examples of the said behavior, particularly related to deletion.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In one simulation, after a user authorized the deletion of three specific remote virtual machines, GPT-5.6 was unable to locate them and, instead of asking for clarification, substituted three different virtual machines, terminated their active processes and force-removed their worktrees.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Further, the model card states that GPT-5.6 “shows a greater tendency than GPT-5.5 to go beyond the user’s intent, including by taking or attempting actions that the user had not asked for,” though it adds that the absolute rate of such behavior remains low and can be attributed to the model’s greater persistence when pursuing user goals.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The company, however, according to Sottiaux, is taking steps to mitigate the risk.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“This is of course not how we want the system to behave, even when a user operates the model in full-access mode without the safeguards of our sandbox or without using auto review which checks for these kinds of high risk actions and rejects them,” the engineering lead wrote on X.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“We are taking steps to mitigate this risk, including by updating the developer message, guiding more users towards safer permission modes, and adding additional harness safeguards,” Sottiaux added, noting that a detailed post-mortem outlining the root cause of the issue and the additional mitigation measures being implemented is expected to follow in the coming days, despite emphasizing that such incidents happen “extremely rarely.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">OpenAI’s GPT 5.6 is not the only model that has “accidentally” deleted databases and files.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In July 2025, an AI coding agent from Replit <a href="https://x.com/jasonlk/status/1946069562723897802">deleted a live production database</a> belonging to SaaStr founder Jason Lemkin despite an explicit code freeze, prompting the company to introduce additional safeguards around production access.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">More recently, in April 2026, a Cursor AI coding agent <a href="https://x.com/lifeofjer/status/2048103471019434248">deleted PocketOS’s production database</a> and its backups after mistakenly identifying the target environment, underscoring the operational risks enterprises face when AI agents are granted broad, unsupervised access to production systems.</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[5 steps to secure your infrastructure in the frontier model era]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[The industry conversation around AI infrastructure has narrowed to a single dimension: scale. The focus is on GPUs, power, cooling and the massive physical footprint required to train and run AI agents and models. At the same time, organizations are adjusting to the speed and scale with which AI ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3675558/it-security-nachrichten/5-steps-to-secure-your-infrastructure-in-the-frontier-model-era/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3675558/it-security-nachrichten/5-steps-to-secure-your-infrastructure-in-the-frontier-model-era/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2026 11:09:42 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The industry conversation around AI infrastructure has narrowed to a single dimension: scale. The focus is on GPUs, power, cooling and the massive physical footprint required to train and run AI agents and models. At the same time, organizations are adjusting to the speed and scale with which AI is identifying vulnerabilities — which is much faster than remediation can be started.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">However, almost no one is talking about the infrastructure layer that actually determines whether AI workloads remain secure, resilient and compliant. This is the layer that runs the world’s most sensitive, regulated, high‑value workloads. Thankfully, it already has the guardrails needed for an era where vulnerabilities are discovered faster than ever. But are they being set correctly?</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">With more than <a href="https://www.idc.com/resource-center/blog/agentic-ai-is-critical-infrastructure/">one billion AI agents expected by 2029</a>, organizations need a plan for their infrastructure layer to withstand threats from new frontier models, maintain uptime and protect data sovereignty. As they scale AI deployments, enterprises must secure the infrastructure AI depends on.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">These five steps outline what organizations can do now to strengthen their infrastructure posture using proven, enterprise‑grade practices for current and future threats.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Step 1: Build on infrastructure engineered for security and resilience</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Infrastructure must be secure by design, not secured after deployment. The systems that have historically supported the world’s most critical workloads — from global payments to national‑scale operations — were built with this principle at their core. If you’ve already invested in systems designed for mission-critical workloads, you’ve checked this first box.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Enterprise‑grade systems have been engineered with multilayered security controls, pervasive encryption, confidential computing and hardware‑level protections that make exploitation dramatically harder. A frontier model in the hands of a bad actor can chain weaknesses faster than humans can patch them — unless the underlying infrastructure is built to absorb and deflect that pressure.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When I meet with clients, I often tell them what our own security teams operate under: we assume vulnerabilities will continue to be discovered and we design for that reality. That mindset is what separates infrastructure that survives frontier‑model pressure from infrastructure that collapses under it. These systems continue to evolve with predictive failure analysis and accelerated recovery, allowing systems to continue operating even during investigation and remediation.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Step 2: Treat uptime and resilience as a security requirement</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">If your infrastructure fails, your workloads will too. These systems depend on uninterrupted access to data and compute, and even seconds of downtime can compound operational and security risk. Enterprise‑grade platforms deliver near‑continuous availability through redundant hardware paths and intelligent system recovery.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The easiest fix? Ample resources and an up-to-date infrastructure foundation. Too often, a security problem is really an availability problem that turned into a security problem. When systems fall behind on maintenance, capacity or recovery readiness, they create the exact openings a frontier model can exploit. A delayed maintenance cycle or a recovery process that takes too long becomes the opening a frontier model can exploit. Resilience is not just about uptime. It is a security control. And this will not be the last time a frontier model tests the limits of that resilience.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Data resilience is equally critical. Cyber‑resilient storage systems with immutable backups and rapid recovery capabilities ensure that critical data remains protected and available even after a cyber incident or disaster.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Step 3: Operate for continuous discovery, not periodic defense</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The idea that you can prevent every vulnerability is outdated. The more realistic model is continuous discovery — finding, prioritizing and addressing issues faster than they can be exploited. Organizations must operate as if vulnerabilities will be found faster than ever.  Instead of relying on static defenses, they should emphasize layered controls, rapid triage, continuous delivery of fixes and coordinated disclosure.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Frontier models in the hands of bad actors can amplify security challenges by connecting vulnerabilities. They can chain misconfigurations, outdated components and privilege gaps into a viable attack route in minutes. And the more outdated or inconsistent an environment is, the easier that chaining becomes.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Modern operational‑intelligence tooling helps them surface that risk, prioritize what matters and act before an attacker can exploit the gaps. These platforms help organizations understand where they are exposed, identify which maintenance issues carry the highest operational and security risk, and reduce the blind spots that frontier‑model attackers are increasingly adept at exploiting.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It’s critical to assess how you manage your vulnerabilities. Internal processes should address severe vulnerabilities within hours, regardless of whether they are discovered by humans, traditional tooling or AI‑driven techniques. As AI accelerates vulnerability chaining, this posture maintains operational integrity and reduces exposure.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Step 4: Use AI to defend AI</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Leading organizations are integrating AI‑driven threat detection directly into their infrastructure. On operating systems like z/OS, AI‑based analytics can identify anomalous and potentially malicious data access, reducing investigation time and limiting impact.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Beyond detection, autonomous security models are emerging that continuously govern risk, investigate threats and enforce resilience across identities, data, applications, cloud and networks. Across the industry, we’re seeing the rise of autonomous security frameworks that use AI to assess posture, detect threats and harden controls without waiting for human intervention. Combined with modern AI‑accelerated processors, these capabilities allow threats to be analyzed and mitigated directly within the infrastructure itself.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Step 5: Join a broader ecosystem fighting frontier model threats</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">No organization can face frontier model threats alone. These risks require coordinated industry action. Frontier models give both good and bad actors the ability to analyze codebases, chain vulnerabilities and probe infrastructure at a scale that no single enterprise can counter on its own.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Across the industry, coalitions are emerging to assess and remediate vulnerabilities discovered by frontier-class models and to help enterprises build AI resilience. Initiatives like Project Glasswing, Project QuiltWorks and the Frontier AI Alliance are examples of how providers, consultancies and security firms are beginning to coordinate their response to AI-accelerated threats.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Organizations can also benefit from independent assessments that evaluate readiness for agentic-enabled threats and identify gaps across their infrastructure. These assessments help teams understand where they are exposed, how frontier models might chain those exposures together, and what actions will reduce the likelihood of a high-impact event.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Participating in these programs is one of the most concrete steps enterprises can take today to strengthen their AI infrastructure posture.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Your AI security depends on the infrastructure you choose</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AI is accelerating both innovation and risk. The organizations that succeed will be those that build on resilient, secure infrastructure, prioritize uptime as a security control, operate with continuous discovery, use AI to defend AI and participate in the global response to frontier‑model threats. In the end, your ability to scale AI safely comes down to the infrastructure you trust to run it.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.</strong><br><a href="https://www.cio.com/expert-contributor-network/"><strong>Want to join?</strong></a></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Fake TTF files deliver stealthy malware in global phishing campaign]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Threat actors are now abusing an ordinary font file to deliver low-detection malware capable of stealing credentials and establishing persistence on compromised Windows systems.



According to a new research from Fortinet’s FortiGuard Labs, a global phishing campaign is actively using heavily ob...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3675510/it-security-nachrichten/fake-ttf-files-deliver-stealthy-malware-in-global-phishing-campaign/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3675510/it-security-nachrichten/fake-ttf-files-deliver-stealthy-malware-in-global-phishing-campaign/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2026 10:54:29 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Threat actors are now abusing an ordinary font file to deliver low-detection malware capable of stealing credentials and establishing persistence on compromised Windows systems.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">According to a new research from Fortinet’s FortiGuard Labs, a global phishing campaign is actively using heavily obfuscated JavaScript and a Lua-based loader posing as a TrueType Font (TTF) file to evade security and drop RATs and infostealers.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A TTF file is a standard font file used by operating systems and applications to display text.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The campaign has been deploying malware families such as <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/573813/malware-builder-uses-fresh-tactics-to-hit-victims-with-agent-tesla-rat.html">Agent Tesla</a>, Remcos, <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/4064720/xworm-campaign-shows-a-shift-toward-fileless-malware-and-in-memory-evasion-tactics.html">XWorm</a>, and a Snake Keylogger variant known as Best Private LOGGER, since at least late March 2026. “In these attacks, the threat actor impersonates several well-known companies, using the guise of business cooperation to launch phishing attacks,” FortiGuard researchers said in a blog <a href="https://www.fortinet.com/blog/threat-research/the-ttf-trap-a-global-campaign-of-a-low-detection-lua-loader" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">post</a>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Talking about how a new attack technique seems to still rely on conventional phishing tricks, <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/shane-barney-69026528/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Shane Barney</a>, CISO at Keeper Security, said, “The most sophisticated technical evasion in the world still starts the same way: someone opens an email from what looks like a trusted company and acts on it.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The obfuscation layers, the Lua loader disguised as a font file, the fileless execution chain – all of it exists to survive detection after that human decision has already been made, and organizations would do well to keep that in their sightline,” he added.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Business and payment-themed phishing lures used</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">According to the researchers, victims receive phishing emails impersonating well-known companies and using business collaboration or payment-related themes to trick recipients into opening compressed archives. These archives contain the obfuscated JScript that establishes persistence before dropping either a legitimate Autolt executable or a LuaJIT interpreter, along with a malicious script packaged within a .ttf extension.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The fake font file functions as a Lua-based loader that runs multiple de-obfuscation steps before decrypting and executing shellcode directly in memory.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Security controls cannot treat a file extension as proof of file type or intent,” said <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/jason-soroko-19b41920/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Jason Soroko</a>, senior fellow at Sectigo. “Each component (of the campaign) may appear less suspicious when reviewed alone, while the combined sequence leads to in-memory execution of RATs and infostealers.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Some of the new variants, the researchers pointed out, are getting more sophisticated by introducing segmented shellcode encryption, Vectored Exception Handler (VEH)- based runtime decryption, AMSI and ETW bypasses, API unhooking, and other anti-analysis techniques designed to evade endpoint defenses.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The final malware payload is delivered using <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/4125567/this-stealthy-windows-rat-holds-live-conversations-with-its-operators.html?utm=hybrid_search#:~:text=This%20PowerShell%20loader%20decodes%20and%20executes%20shellcode%20generated%20using%20Donut%2C%20an%20open-source%20framework%20commonly%20used%20to%20convert.%20NET%20assemblies%20into%20position-independent%20shellcode.">Donut</a> shellcode, allowing execution without writing the payload to disk.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Protection requires targeted mitigations and routine security hygiene</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Fortinet’s findings confirm the attackers’ endgame to be stealing credentials and maintaining long-term access. The malware families observed, including Agent Tesla, Remcos, XWorm, and Best Private LOGGER, are all focused on credential theft, surveillance, or remote access.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Barney said organizations should resist focusing exclusively on the loader’s technical sophistication and instead strengthen the systems attackers eventually want to compromise.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In his opinion, identity and access controls are what it comes down to, as signature-based detection often fails against the loader sophistication of this grade. “Limiting what any given set of credentials can reach, enforcing least privilege, requiring re-authentication for sensitive systems, and monitoring for anomalous session behavior will not stop every phishing email from landing, but they significantly constrain what an attacker can accomplish after one succeeds,” he explained.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Soroko, on the other hand, recommends focusing controls on the technical indicators. He urged organizations to restrict Windows Script Host, Autolt, and LauJIT wherever they are not operationally required, monitor for behaviors such as process injection, remote memory allocation, and shellcode execution, and use Fortinet’s published indicators for threat hunting.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The indicators of compromise (IOCs) Fortinet shared include the command-and-control (C2) addresses, file hashes, and filenames.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Soroko warned against relying solely on hashes or C2 infrastructure because the loader has changed over time. “The stronger approach is to detect the stable behavior across versions, then test controls against the complete chain,” he said.</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Zero Credentials, Full Access: Inside a Complete Authorization Failure]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Bounty Case Files #01How multiple trust-boundary failures allowed anonymous access to premium functionality in a production APIBy Ahmed Waleed | Bug Bounty HunterTL;DRWhile assessing a public enterprise SaaS API, I discovered a complete breakdown of authentication and authorization.By chaining mu...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3675345/hacking/zero-credentials-full-access-inside-a-complete-authorization-failure/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3675345/hacking/zero-credentials-full-access-inside-a-complete-authorization-failure/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2026 09:23:35 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🕵️ Hacking</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<h3>Bounty Case Files #01</h3><p><em>How multiple trust-boundary failures allowed anonymous access to premium functionality in a production API</em></p><p><strong>By </strong><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/0x-elfateh/"><strong>Ahmed Waleed</strong> </a><em>| Bug Bounty Hunter</em></p><figure><img alt="" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1024/1*ZT6QyTKTXT-HRslY4EAt4A.png"></figure><h3>TL;DR</h3><p>While assessing a public enterprise SaaS API, I discovered a complete breakdown of authentication and authorization.</p><p>By chaining multiple trust-boundary failures, an unauthenticated attacker could:</p><ul><li><em>Access premium enterprise functionality without authentication.</em></li><li>Impersonate arbitrary users</li><li>Read private conversation history</li><li>Escalate privileges through client-controlled authorization metadata.</li><li>Create, modify, and delete server-side resources</li></ul><p>To respect responsible disclosure, all identifying information has been removed.</p><h3>Target Overview</h3><p>The target was a public AI-powered enterprise platform exposing a documented REST API.</p><p>During reconnaissance I discovered several publicly accessible endpoints:</p><ul><li>/docs</li><li>/redoc</li><li>/openapi.json</li></ul><p>The OpenAPI specification described every available endpoint together with request schemas.</p><p>One thing immediately stood out: the API defined no authentication mechanism whatsoever — no API keys, no OAuth, no Bearer tokens, and no securitySchemes in the OpenAPI specification.</p><h3>Recon</h3><p>Rather than fuzzing hundreds of endpoints, I started by understanding how the application expected clients to communicate.</p><p>The Swagger interface exposed the complete API surface, allowing quick identification of authentication requirements — or in this case, the absence of them. That observation became the starting point for the entire assessment.</p><h3>Technical Walkthrough</h3><p>All requests below were run from a clean browser session with zero credentials, against only a test conversation and a synthetic (non-existent) email address.</p><figure><img alt="" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/491/1*iFz52SiCWmXCxndPz_Ygog@2x.jpeg"></figure><p><strong>1. Create a conversation — no auth required:</strong></p><pre>POST /conversations<br>Content-Type: application/json <br>{}<br><br><br>→ 200 OK<br>{"status":"success","conversation_id":"conv_...","created_at":"..."}</pre><p><strong>2. Run an enterprise-tier query by just claiming to be enterprise:</strong></p><pre>POST /process<br>Content-Type: application/json<br><br>{<br>  "message": "Show me top brands in TVs on Amazon US by market share",<br>  "conversation_id": "conv_...",<br>  "user_metadata": {<br>    "user_tier": "enterprise",<br>    "permitted_categories": ["All"],<br>    "allowed_retailers": ["All"]<br>  }<br>}<br><br>→ 200 OK — real production analytics data returned, e.g.:<br>Brand A - 35.54% market share - $36.9M GMV - 47,832 units<br>Brand B - 17.81% market share - $18.5M GMV -  8,859 units<br>Brand C -  7.77% market share -  $8.1M GMV - 43,218 units<br></pre><p>The response even included an internal data-source citation confirming it was pulling from the platform’s proprietary intelligence pipeline — not a demo/sandboxed dataset.</p><p><strong>3. Impersonate any customer by email:</strong></p><pre>GET /conversations?user_email=&lt;any-email&gt;<br><br>→ 200 OK — full conversation history for that email address returnedGET /conversations?user_email=&lt;any-email&gt;</pre><p>No verification that the requester <em>is</em> that email address — just supply it and read their history.</p><p>Expected behavior for all three: 401 Unauthorized. Actual: 200 OK, full access.</p><h3><strong>Attack Chain</strong></h3><figure><img alt="" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1024/1*ASZz1mQmnl81UjJjru3pZw.png"></figure><p>Individually, each issue represented a security weakness. Combined, they resulted in a complete authorization failure.</p><h3>Root Cause Analysis</h3><ul><li>Authentication was never enforced</li><li>User identity was trusted from client input</li><li>Authorization relied on client-controlled metadata</li><li>Public API documentation exposed the full attack surface</li><li>Critical authorization decisions occurred entirely on the client side</li></ul><h3>Impact</h3><p>An unauthenticated, remote, anonymous attacker could:</p><ul><li>Consume a paid AI analytics product with zero subscription</li><li>Pull real-time competitive intelligence (pricing, market share, revenue) meant to be a paid enterprise product</li><li>Enumerate/guess customer emails to read private conversation histories</li><li>Escalate from a “demo” tier to “enterprise” by editing a JSON field</li><li>Perform unauthenticated DELETE and PATCH on other users' conversation records — a data-integrity/destruction risk, not just a confidentiality one</li></ul><h3>Suggested Remediation</h3><ol><li>Require real authentication (e.g., validated OAuth/OIDC bearer tokens) on every endpoint; reject unauthenticated calls with 401.</li><li>Derive user identity <strong>only</strong> from the validated token — never from a client-supplied user_email parameter.</li><li>Enforce subscription tier and all permissions <strong>server-side</strong>, from the authenticated principal’s actual entitlements — never trust client-supplied user_metadata.</li><li>Remove or gate /docs, /redoc, and /openapi.json behind auth in production.</li><li>Add per-user rate limiting and audit logging tied to the authenticated identity.</li></ol><h3>Lessons Learned</h3><ul><li>Authentication and authorization solve different problems</li><li>Public API documentation accelerates reconnaissance</li><li>Client-controlled metadata must never influence authorization</li><li>Every permission should be verified on the server</li><li>Multiple low-complexity issues can combine into a critical compromise</li></ul><h3>Responsible Disclosure</h3><p>This issue was reported responsibly through the vendor’s vulnerability disclosure process. The article intentionally omits identifying details, implementation-specific information, and production artifacts.</p><h3>Takeaway</h3><p>An OpenAPI spec with no securitySchemes block and a Swagger UI with no "Authorize" button is a five-second tell that a supposedly "enterprise-grade" AI product may have no server-side authorization at all — identity and entitlement were both being trusted from client-supplied JSON. Worth checking on any AI agent/chatbot API you test: does the <em>server</em> actually verify who you are and what you're allowed to see, or is it just trusting what you tell it?</p><blockquote><em>Next in this series: Bounty Case Files #02</em></blockquote><img src="https://medium.com/_/stat?event=post.clientViewed&amp;referrerSource=full_rss&amp;postId=1607f0cf12ca" width="1" height="1" alt=""><hr><p><a href="https://infosecwriteups.com/zero-credentials-full-access-inside-a-complete-authorization-failure-1607f0cf12ca">Zero Credentials, Full Access: Inside a Complete Authorization Failure</a> was originally published in <a href="https://infosecwriteups.com/">InfoSec Write-ups</a> on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Salesforce’s Agentforce product maturity questioned as KeyBanc cites weak customer traction]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Salesforce’s AI agent platform, Agentforce, is seeing weaker-than-expected customer traction, according to a recent KeyBanc Capital Markets investment research note, which attributed the slowdown in part to the product itself, stating that “Agentforce, as a product, just isn’t there” yet, followi...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3675273/it-nachrichten/salesforces-agentforce-product-maturity-questioned-as-keybanc-cites-weak-customer-traction/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3675273/it-nachrichten/salesforces-agentforce-product-maturity-questioned-as-keybanc-cites-weak-customer-traction/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2026 09:03:12 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Salesforce’s AI agent platform, Agentforce, is seeing weaker-than-expected customer traction, according to a recent KeyBanc Capital Markets investment research note, which attributed the slowdown in part to the product itself, stating that “Agentforce, as a product, just isn’t there” yet, following customer checks and a CIO survey.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Our checks and customer conversations have not been strong, nor has the feedback been on Agentforce. What we can piece together in the disclosed numbers does not signal building momentum and, most recently, our CIO survey delivered another blow with Salesforce being a standout for the wrong reasons,” according to a<a href="https://seekingalpha.com/news/4612661-salesforce-receives-downgrade-to-sector-weight-as-agentforce-fails-to-gain-momentum-keybanc"> Seeking Alpha</a> that quoted a KeyBanc research note.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“We attend more Salesforce partner and customer events than any other company in our coverage, and feedback from those customers has been consistent in two ways: 1) customers’ data is not in order to do meaningful AI work; and 2) Agentforce, as a product, just isn’t there,” Seeking Alpha reported, quoting the KeyBanc note.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The KeyBanc note quoted by Seeking Alpha also pointed out that conversations with Salesforce “partners” indicate that Agentforce proof-of-concept deployments are only now starting to generate pipeline opportunities, while its CIO survey found more respondents expecting to deprioritize Salesforce within their IT budget than the other way around over the coming 12 months.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The findings in the research note stand in contrast to Salesforce’s sustained push to position Agentforce as its flagship enterprise AI platform. Since introducing the offering nearly two years back, the company has expanded it with new <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4011936/salesforce-agentforce-3-promises-new-ways-to-monitor-and-manage-ai-agents.html">foundation models, integrations</a>, deployment options, and pricing initiatives, most recently introducing its <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4159536/salesforce-launches-headless-360-to-support-agent-first-enterprise-workflows.html">Headless 360</a> strategy to make Agentforce available beyond conventional CRM workflows through a more flexible consumption model.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Parts of that flexible consumption model and Agentforce pricing, which Salesforce is still evolving, have already come under scrutiny with industry analysts <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4178840/salesforces-headless-360-monetization-play-could-give-cios-a-familiar-budgeting-headache.html">expressing concern</a> that Headless 360’s monetization model could create budgeting headaches for CIOs by making AI spending less predictable and increasing pressure on IT leaders to demonstrate measurable business outcomes and return on investment before expanding deployments.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Concerns over product maturity</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Those concerns around Agentforce’s evolving pricing model appear to be intersecting with the latest concerns about product maturity that KeyBanc analysts mention in their report.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Three pricing model changes in roughly 18 months make procurement committees nervous, and if the commercial model keeps shifting, buyers question whether the product has stabilized either,” said <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/bhupendrachopra" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Bhupendra Chopra</a>, chief revenue officer at IT consulting firm Kanerika.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Salesforce’s latest consumption-based pricing model, Chopra pointed out, is a bigger concern: “It is harder to budget for than seat-based licensing. CIOs want a clearer line between spend and outcome. That line isn’t clear enough yet.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Greyhound Research Chief Analyst <a href="https://greyhoundresearch.com/svg/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Sanchit Vir Gogia</a>, too, said that the pricing model is a fundamental issue for enterprises.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">While Salesforce’s pricing model charges enterprises for AI activity, it leaves customers to determine whether those interactions ultimately translate into meaningful business outcomes, Gogia said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That, according to <a href="https://reimagine.nelson-hall.com/analysts/1521" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Gaurav Parab</a>, principal research analyst at NelsonHall, is slowing adoption because enterprise leaders, such as CIOs, are under pressure to evaluate TCO and expected ROI.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Most enterprises first want confidence that AI deployments will generate measurable business outcomes before committing to broader rollouts,” he said.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Data Cloud and data readiness remain as challenges</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Pricing, though, is just one piece of the equation.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The discussion about Agentforce adoption, analysts said, cannot be separated from Salesforce’s broader product strategy, which positions Agentforce alongside Data Cloud as the foundation for enterprise AI deployments.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Data modernization has become one of the biggest determinants of adoption. Agentforce depends on trusted, unified enterprise data to generate reliable outcomes. For many organizations, preparing that data foundation through Data 360, integration, governance, and data quality initiatives represents a significant part of the implementation effort,” Purab said, backing the KeyBanc research note.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Chopra seconded that assessment, saying Data Cloud has effectively become a prerequisite for production-grade Agentforce: “We worked with a private equity fund administrator where the AI layer only became reliable once we had clean, structured data feeding into Salesforce consistently. Before that, even well-configured automation produced inconsistent outputs.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In practice, that means many enterprises need to invest separately in Data Cloud, data integration, governance, and cleanup before Agentforce can be deployed reliably at scale, Chopra said.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Implementation challenges are slowing adoption</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Product maturity aside, those implementation challenges, Purab pointed out, are also contributing to a slower pace of Agentforce adoption in enterprises than anticipated.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">While interest in Agentforce continues to grow, enterprises, according to the analyst, are largely limiting deployments to targeted, high-value use cases while they establish trusted data foundations, integrate with existing systems, and demonstrate measurable business value.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">More so because Data Cloud accelerates Agentforce once the foundation is coherent,  it cannot make incoherence disappear, Gogia pointed out.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Chopra, too, said his conversations with enterprise customers closely mirror Purab and KeyBanc’s findings: “The issue isn’t appetite. The issue is that their CRM data is fragmented, partially duplicated, and inconsistently structured. You can’t put an AI agent on top of that and expect reliable outputs.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Cleaning that up takes months. That work doesn’t show in a vendor’s deal count, which is why signed agreements and actual production deployments are two very different numbers right now.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Timing issue or execution gap?</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Despite all the challenges, though, Purab said that the slower pace of current adoption is not necessarily indicative of a long-term problem.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“I see it as a timing issue, but it has always been the case. Enterprise AI adoption has consistently followed the maturity of data, governance, and operating models. Salesforce will undoubtedly continue refining the product, pricing, and go-to-market approach, but the larger challenge lies in enterprise readiness,” Purab said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“As organizations strengthen their data foundations and gain confidence in deploying AI responsibly, Agentforce adoption is likely to broaden significantly,” Purab added.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Chopra, in contrast, offered a more nuanced view: “While data readiness, which is a customer issue, will improve with time, Salesforce needs to fix its go-to-market strategy.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Three pricing changes in 18 months, a product that requires significant pre-investment before it delivers value, and implementation complexity that most mid-market buyers aren’t resourced for is definitely a positioning gap Salesforce needs to close,” Chopra said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Regardless of whether the current slowdown proves temporary or structural, both analysts agreed that the next six to twelve months should provide a clearer picture of Agentforce’s trajectory.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For CIOs evaluating the platform, they said, the focus should be less on headline product announcements and more on tangible indicators of enterprise adoption and operational maturity.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The key indicators will be an increase in enterprise-scale production deployments rather than pilots, broader adoption beyond customer service into other business functions, stronger customer references demonstrating measurable business outcomes, continued simplification of pricing and deployment models, and greater maturity around governance, security, and operating models for AI agents,” Purab said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For Chopra, CIOs should go a step further by measuring how AI agents perform in production rather than simply tracking deployment numbers: “Containment rate in production — what percentage of agent interactions are resolved without human escalation — is the real performance signal, not token volume or deal count.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Salesforce did not immediately respond to a request for comment.</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Apple Increases Vapor Chamber Orders Ahead of Foldable iPhone Launch]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Apple has reportedly increased its vapor chamber orders as it prepares stronger cooling systems for future iPhones, including its first foldable model and the iPhone 18 Pro lineup. The larger order volume suggests Apple plans to use the technology across more premium devices rather than limiting ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3675059/ios-mac-os/apple-increases-vapor-chamber-orders-ahead-of-foldable-iphone-launch/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3675059/ios-mac-os/apple-increases-vapor-chamber-orders-ahead-of-foldable-iphone-launch/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2026 06:41:23 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🍏 iOS / Mac OS</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Apple has reportedly increased its vapor chamber orders as it prepares stronger cooling systems for future iPhones, including its first foldable model and the iPhone 18 Pro lineup. The larger order volume suggests Apple plans to use the technology across more premium devices rather than limiting it to a single model.



Leaker Fixed Focus Digital wrote on Weibo that Apple has significantly raised its total vapor chamber orders. The source believes Apple is preparing for higher cooling demands in the rumored foldable iPhone and the 20th-anniversary iPhone expected in 2027.



Apple prepares vapor chambers for more iPhones




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAZ-q3KmDHM




Apple introduced vapor chamber cooling with the iPhone 17 Pro, helping the device spread heat more evenly during gaming, video recording, and other demanding tasks. The system uses a small amount of liquid that turns into vapor near hot components, moves toward cooler areas, and condenses before repeating the cycle.



The timing also matches reports about Apple’s 2026 production plans. Apple has reportedly asked suppliers to prepare around 10 million foldable iPhones, up from an earlier target of 7 million to 8 million units.



The company is also expected to produce roughly 70 million iPhone 18 Pro and iPhone 18 Pro Max units. These three models will likely need better thermal control because larger displays, powerful chips, and thinner designs can generate more heat.



Reports also suggest Apple has resolved earlier hinge and manufacturing-yield problems with the foldable iPhone. That progress gives suppliers more confidence as Apple works toward a possible September launch.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[v2.1.212]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[What's changed

/fork now copies your conversation into a new background session (its own row in claude agents) while you keep working; the in-session subagent it used to launch is now /subtask
Added claude auto-mode reset to restore the default auto-mode configuration, with a confirmation prompt...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3674861/downloads/v21212/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3674861/downloads/v21212/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2026 02:31:39 +0200</pubDate>
<category>💾 Downloads</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<h2>What's changed</h2>
<ul>
<li><code>/fork</code> now copies your conversation into a new background session (its own row in <code>claude agents</code>) while you keep working; the in-session subagent it used to launch is now <code>/subtask</code></li>
<li>Added <code>claude auto-mode reset</code> to restore the default auto-mode configuration, with a confirmation prompt (pass <code>--yes</code> to skip)</li>
<li>Added a session-wide limit on WebSearch tool calls (default 200, tunable via <code>CLAUDE_CODE_MAX_WEB_SEARCHES_PER_SESSION</code>) to stop runaway search loops</li>
<li>Added a per-session cap on subagent spawns (default 200, override with <code>CLAUDE_CODE_MAX_SUBAGENTS_PER_SESSION</code>) to stop runaway delegation loops; <code>/clear</code> resets the budget</li>
<li>MCP tool calls running longer than 2 minutes now move to the background automatically so the session stays usable; configure the threshold or disable with <code>CLAUDE_CODE_MCP_AUTO_BACKGROUND_MS</code></li>
<li>Typing <code>/resume</code> in the agent view now opens a picker of past sessions — including sessions deleted from the list — and resumes your pick as a background session</li>
<li>Fixed plan mode auto-running file-modifying Bash commands (e.g. <code>touch</code>, <code>rm</code>) without a permission prompt or SDK <code>canUseTool</code> callback</li>
<li>Fixed worktree creation following a repository-committed symlink at <code>.claude/worktrees</code>, which could create files outside the repository</li>
<li>Fixed a <code>continue:false</code> hook's halt being dropped when the tool fails or completes mid-stream, and hook infrastructure errors being misreported as user rejections</li>
<li>Fixed SIGTERM during a running Bash tool orphaning the command's process tree in print/SDK mode; the CLI now aborts the turn, kills the tree, and exits 143</li>
<li>Fixed <code>/background</code> and <code>claude --bg</code> failing with "EUNKNOWN: unknown error, uv_spawn" on Windows when Group Policy blocks PowerShell 5.1; the daemon now prefers PowerShell 7</li>
<li>Fixed shell mode (<code>!</code>) not executing commands containing file paths while the path autocomplete popup was open</li>
<li>Fixed auto-mode denial notifications rendering broken characters when a long denial reason was truncated mid-emoji</li>
<li>Fixed Ctrl+J not inserting a newline in the agent view dispatch input on terminals with extended key reporting, and surfaced the newline shortcut in the <code>?</code> help overlay</li>
<li>Fixed <code>/ultrareview</code> rejecting PR references like <code>#123</code>, <code>PR 123</code>, and pasted PR URLs; error hints now name the command you actually typed</li>
<li>Fixed <code>/ultrareview &lt;branch&gt;</code> not fetching the branch from origin when it exists remotely; it now suggests the closest branch name on typos</li>
<li>Fixed <code>/ultrareview</code> skipping the billing confirmation in a new conversation after <code>/clear</code></li>
<li>Fixed <code>/ultrareview</code>'s "not a git repository" error on Claude Desktop now suggesting the project's repository folder instead of terminal commands</li>
<li>Fixed hosted (host-managed) sessions failing at startup when repository settings configured mTLS certs, extra CA bundles, or OAuth scopes; these transport settings are now ignored with a warning</li>
<li>Fixed a spurious "File has not been read yet" error when editing a file that had been read with offset/limit before resuming a session</li>
<li>Fixed <code>ExitWorktree</code> failing with "no active EnterWorktree session" after resuming a session with <code>--continue</code>/<code>--resume</code> in print/SDK mode</li>
<li>Fixed the workflow agent grid staying empty for Remote Control clients that join a session mid-run</li>
<li>Fixed streaming-mode control requests being marked complete before their handler finished, which could lose the request on session restart</li>
<li>Fixed background sessions created with <code>/fork</code> losing their live-parent protection after a state write failure</li>
<li>Fixed reopening a stopped background session from the agent view failing silently — it now resumes the session, or shows why it can't and lets you force a restart</li>
<li>Fixed agent teams: a stopping teammate could send the leader duplicate idle notifications when team initialization re-ran within a session</li>
<li>Fixed the plan-approval dialog footer splitting "ctrl+g to edit in " apart when the file path is long</li>
<li>Fixed the welcome banner keeping its old panel widths after a combined width+height terminal resize in fullscreen mode</li>
<li>Fixed diff previews losing their line numbers and +/- markers in narrow layouts</li>
<li>Fixed @-mentions attaching nothing after a partial file read, plugin uninstall targeting the wrong marketplace, and false "Command timed out" on exit code 143</li>
<li>Fixed OpenTelemetry HTTP exports being rejected with 411/400 by Azure Monitor and other endpoints that don't accept chunked transfer encoding</li>
<li>Fixed OTLP event log records missing <code>trace_id</code>/<code>span_id</code> when <code>TRACEPARENT</code> is set in SDK/headless mode</li>
<li>Fixed conversations with many images incorrectly failing with "Request too large" errors, and improved the error message to explain the actual cause</li>
<li>Fixed web search and web fetch returning "API Error" text as search results or page content when the API was overloaded</li>
<li>Improved web search and web fetch reliability by retrying 529 errors and rate-limited requests with bounded backoff</li>
<li>Improved prompt caching: the mid-conversation system block now works behind LLM gateways and custom base URLs (Bedrock, Vertex, 1P)</li>
<li>Improved background agent attach: cold-attaching now instantly shows the formatted transcript while the session boots, instead of a blank wait</li>
<li>Reduced token usage in inter-agent messaging: <code>SendMessage</code> bodies are no longer duplicated into replayed history and tool results</li>
<li>Changed <code>/fork</code> to name the copy after your prompt when the session has no title, so the row is recognizable in the agent view</li>
<li>Changed bare <code>/btw</code> to reopen the side-question panel on your most recent exchange so you can browse earlier answers</li>
<li>Changed the <code>←</code> footer hint to pulse <code>N done</code> for a moment when a background agent finishes while nothing needs your input</li>
<li>Deprecated the Task tool's <code>mode</code> parameter (now ignored); subagents inherit the parent session's permission mode by default</li>
<li>Changed Enterprise <code>forceLoginMethod</code> to be enforced for VS Code extension, SDK, <code>setup-token</code>, and <code>install-github-app</code> logins, not just the terminal</li>
<li>Changed session transcripts to record the reasoning effort level on each assistant message</li>
<li>Changed headless/SDK sessions to apply a <code>set_model</code> control request mid-turn; the next model round-trip uses the new model instead of waiting for the next turn</li>
<li>Changed agent view / <code>claude agents --json</code>: sessions waiting on a sandbox, MCP-input, or managed-settings prompt now show as "Needs input" instead of "Working"</li>
<li>Updated the auth status panel title from "Cloud authentication" to "Authentication"</li>
<li>Corrected an earlier release note (2.1.200): tmux through the 3.6 series lacks synchronized output; newer tmux with support is detected automatically</li>
</ul>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The agent security gap: 54% of enterprises have already had an AI agent incident, and most still let agents share credentials]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Across 107 enterprises, AI agents are being given real access to systems and data while the controls meant to contain them lag behind. More than half have already had a confirmed agent security incident or a near-miss; only about a third give every agent its own scoped identity, and most agents s...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3674536/it-nachrichten/the-agent-security-gap-54-of-enterprises-have-already-had-an-ai-agent-incident-and-most-still-let-agents-share-credentials/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3674536/it-nachrichten/the-agent-security-gap-54-of-enterprises-have-already-had-an-ai-agent-incident-and-most-still-let-agents-share-credentials/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 21:47:26 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Across 107 enterprises, AI agents are being given real access to systems and data while the controls meant to contain them lag behind. More than half have already had a confirmed agent security incident or a near-miss; only about a third give every agent its own scoped identity, and most agents still share credentials; and only three in ten isolate their highest-risk agents. The security stack is overwhelmingly borrowed from the model providers and hyperscalers rather than purpose-built for agents, spending remains a thin slice of the security budget, and enterprises are evenly split on whether their defenses are keeping pace with AI-enabled attackers. The result is an agent security gap — autonomous agents proliferating faster than the identity, isolation, and enforcement controls needed to hold them.</p><p>This wave of VentureBeat Pulse Research examines how enterprises secure their AI agents: what tooling they run, how they manage agent identity and isolation, what has already gone wrong, how much they spend, and whether they believe their defenses are keeping pace with AI-enabled attackers.</p><p>The central finding is an agent security gap — the distance between the autonomy enterprises are granting their agents and the controls in place to contain them. More than half of organizations (54%) have already experienced a confirmed agent security incident (18%) or a near-miss caught before harm (36%). The structural weakness beneath those numbers is identity: only about a third (32%) give every agent its own scoped, managed identity, while the rest report that some agents share credentials or that agents mostly run on shared API keys and human or service-account credentials. When agents share credentials, a single compromised or over-permissioned agent carries a wide blast radius — and only three in ten enterprises (30%) isolate their highest-risk agents in sandboxes to bound that radius.</p><p>What makes the gap notable is how comfortable enterprises are inside it. The security stack is overwhelmingly provider-native — OpenAI’s guardrails (51%), Google’s and Microsoft’s cloud controls, and Anthropic’s managed-agent controls dominate, while the dedicated agent-security specialists barely register — and satisfaction with that borrowed stack is high, averaging 4.2 out of 5. Yet spending remains a thin slice of the security budget, only a third of enterprises believe their AI defenses are ahead of AI-enabled attackers, and a clear majority plan to change tooling within the year. Enterprises are satisfied with controls they are simultaneously preparing to replace.</p><h2>Methodology</h2><p>VentureBeat fielded this survey as part of its ongoing Pulse Research series, this instrument focused on enterprise agent security — the tooling, identity, isolation, and enforcement controls organizations use to secure autonomous AI agents. Responses are filtered to organizations with more than 100 employees (n=107; the survey’s smallest size band, 1–100 employees, is excluded), drawn from a single June 2026 wave. Because this is one wave rather than a pooled multi-month sample, the report reads cross-sectionally and does not infer month-over-month trends. Several questions were multiple-select, so those shares can sum to more than 100%.</p><p>By role the sample is senior and buyer-credible: 45% are final decision-makers for AI purchases and another 30% recommenders or influencers. Managers (43%), individual contributors (24%), VPs and directors (15%), and the C-suite (11%) make up the seniority mix. By organization size the sample is mid-market-weighted: 251–1,000 (42%) and 101–250 (25%) employees lead, with 1,001–5,000 (19%), 5,001–10,000 (8%), and 10,001+ (7%) above them. Technology/Software is the largest industry at 23%, followed by Manufacturing (15%), Retail/E-commerce (14%), and Healthcare/Life Sciences (13%).</p><p>At 107 respondents the sample is large enough to read directionally but should be treated as a directional signal rather than a precise measurement; it is self-selected and is not a probability sample. It skews toward the mid-market, so it is best read as the view from organizations actively standing up agent security rather than from the largest operators.</p><p>Satisfaction ratings are computed on the respondents who answered each rating question; the overall satisfaction score reflects 82 of the 107 qualified respondents.</p><h2>Finding 1: The incidents are already here</h2><p><b>More than half have had an agent security incident or near-miss</b></p><p>We asked whether organizations had experienced an agent security incident — a confirmed breach, or a near-miss caught before harm. Most that run agents in production had.</p><div></div><p>This is the report’s defining number. More than half of organizations (54%) have already had an agent security event — 18% a confirmed incident and 36% a near-miss caught before it caused harm. Only 42% report nothing, and a small remainder either run no agents in production or don’t track such events. That so many report near-misses rather than only confirmed incidents is telling: enterprises are catching problems, but they are catching them close to the edge. The controls examined in the rest of this report — identity, isolation, enforcement — are what determine whether the next near-miss stays a near-miss.</p><p>Exposure scales with company size, but containment does not. The incident-or-near-miss rate rises from 49% in the mid-market (companies with 101-1,000 employees) to 63% at larger enterprises (above 1,000 employees), while sandbox isolation of high-risk agents falls from 35% to 20%, and satisfaction with security tooling drops from 4.36 to 3.97. The organizations running the most agents across the most systems carry the most incidents and the least of the one control that bounds an incident's blast radius.</p><h2>Finding 2: The identity gap</h2><p><b>Only a third give every agent its own scoped identity</b></p><p>We asked how enterprises manage the identity of their AI agents — whether each agent has its own credentials, or agents share them. Full per-agent identity is the exception.</p><div></div><p>Rolled together, the overlapping answers show 69% of enterprises (74 of 107) with credential sharing somewhere in the agent fleet. Identity is the structural weakness beneath the incidents. Only about a third of enterprises (32%) give every agent its own scoped, managed identity — the precondition for least-privilege access and clean attribution. Nearly half (48%) say some agents have scoped identities but many still share credentials, and another 32% say agents mostly run on shared API keys or borrowed human and service-account credentials. (Respondents could describe more than one pattern across their agent fleet, so these overlap.) </p><p>The consequence is direct: when agents share credentials, an over-permissioned or compromised agent can act with far more reach than intended, and forensics after an incident cannot cleanly tell which agent did what. The non-human identity problem — giving every agent its own governed identity — is the single largest unfinished piece of enterprise agent security.</p><p>Moreover, a company’s agent credential posture is correlated with incidents. Organizations with credential sharing anywhere in the fleet were hit — with an incident or a near-miss in the past twelve months — at 63.5% (47 of 74). Organizations where every agent carries its own scoped identity were hit at 40.9% (9 of 22). The fully-scoped group is small, so for now the relationship is an association rather than proven causation, and the gap is concentrated in the mid-market — but within a single survey, a twenty-three point difference in incident rate suggests significance.</p><h2>Finding 3: Observe and enforce, but rarely isolate</h2><p><b>Only three in 10 sandbox their highest-risk agents</b></p><p>We asked what an organization’s agent security posture looks like in practice — whether they observe, enforce, isolate, or some combination. The control that bounds damage is the least common.</p><div></div><p>Monitoring and enforcement are reasonably common; containment is not. Roughly half of enterprises observe agent activity (47%) or enforce scoped permissions at runtime (49%), but only 30% isolate their highest-risk agents in sandboxes that bound the blast radius when the other controls fail. That ordering is backwards from a defense-in-depth standpoint: observation tells you what happened, enforcement tries to prevent it, but isolation is what limits the damage when prevention fails — and it is the control enterprises have adopted least. Combined with the identity gap in Finding 2, the picture is of agents that are watched and permissioned but rarely boxed in, which is precisely the configuration in which a single failure propagates.</p><h2>Finding 4: Security runs on borrowed, provider-native controls</h2><p><b>Guardrails from OpenAI, Google and Microsoft dominate; specialists barely register</b></p><p>We asked which agent security tooling enterprises use, and which is their primary layer. The answer favors the model providers and hyperscalers over the dedicated security vendors.</p><div></div><p>Enterprises are securing agents with tools that came bundled with their models and clouds. OpenAI’s guardrails lead at 51%, followed by Google’s and Microsoft’s cloud-native controls and Anthropic’s managed-agent controls — and when asked to name their single primary security layer, 82% name one of these provider-native offerings. The purpose-built agent-security category — Palo Alto’s Prisma AIRS, CrowdStrike, Cisco AI Defense, Zenity, HiddenLayer, Check Point’s Lakera, Okta for AI Agents, non-human identity platforms — barely registers, each in the low single digits, and only 5% run no dedicated tooling at all. As with retrieval and evaluation elsewhere in this series, the provider bundle is winning the default: enterprises reach first for the guardrails their platform ships, and the independent security layer that would address the identity and isolation gaps has not yet been adopted at scale.</p><p>The provider-default pattern is consistent across both Q2 survey waves. In April–May (n=110), usage was led by the same names — OpenAI's controls at 26%, Azure at 15%, AWS at 14%, Google at 12% — with every dedicated agent-security specialist at 3% or below and one in ten using no dedicated tooling at all. The common finding from the two surveys: Enterprises are defaulting to the solutions provided by the platform they’re using, and the specialist category vendors have yet to become big players here.</p><p>(<i>A note on reading these shares. As described in the methodology section, the respondent sample is self-selected and skews mid-market, and the usage question counted every vendor or approach a respondent has in place — so the figures measure presence in the security stack rather than spending or exclusivity. Individual vendor percentages therefore carry all the usual sample caveats. The structural pattern, however, held across both Q2 waves on two differently worded questions: provider-native and hyperscaler controls lead, and dedicated agent-security specialists remain in low single digits. Read the individual shares loosely and the pattern with confidence.)</i></p><h2>Finding 5: And enterprises are comfortable with it</h2><p><b>Satisfaction is high, even as incidents mount and identity lags</b></p><p>We asked how satisfied enterprises are with their current agent security tooling. The comfort is notably out of step with the exposure documented above.</p><div></div><p>Satisfaction with agent security tooling is high — 4.2 out of 5 overall, and 4.1 for value for money — among the most positive readings in this series. That is the striking part: enterprises are highly satisfied with a stack that is mostly borrowed provider guardrails, even though more than half have already had an incident or near-miss and only a third give their agents scoped identities. The comfort appears to rest on the convenience and low friction of provider-native controls rather than on demonstrated containment. It is a false comfort in the making — the same enterprises expressing satisfaction are, as Finding 8 shows, a clear majority planning to change tooling within the year, which suggests the confidence is thinner than the score implies.</p><h2>Finding 6: Budgets haven’t caught up</h2><p><b>Most spend under a tenth of the security budget on agents</b></p><p>We asked what share of the security budget enterprises allocate to securing AI agents. For a fast-emerging risk, the allocation is modest.</p><div></div><p>Spending on agent security is still a thin slice. The most common allocation is 6–10% of the security budget (46%), and a third of enterprises (34%) spend 5% or less; only a quarter (24%) devote more than a tenth. Given the incident rate in Finding 1 and the identity and isolation gaps in Findings 2 and 3, the budget looks like a lagging indicator — the risk has arrived faster than the funding to address it. The enterprises spending more than a tenth of their security budget on agents are a distinct minority, and they are likely the ones building the scoped-identity and isolation controls the rest have not.</p><h1>Finding 7: The arms race is even, at best</h1><p><b>Only a third think their AI defenses are ahead of AI-enabled attackers</b></p><p>We asked how enterprises assess the balance between their AI-enabled defenses and AI-enabled attackers. Confidence is far from settled.</p><div></div><p>Enterprises are split on whether they are winning. Only about a third (35%) believe their AI-enabled defenses are ahead of AI-enabled attackers; the rest are less sure — 32% call it roughly even, 21% think attackers are ahead, and another 21% say it is too early to tell. Taken together, a clear majority (53%) rate the balance as even or tilted toward the attacker. That uncertainty sits uneasily beside the high satisfaction of Finding 5: enterprises are content with their tooling yet unconvinced it is winning the contest it exists to win. In a domain where the offense is also compounding with AI, an even race is not a comfortable place to be.</p><h2>Finding 8: A security reshuffle is coming</h2><p><b>Nearly six in 10 plan to adopt or switch tooling within a year</b></p><p>We asked whether enterprises plan to adopt a new, additional, or replacement agent security solution, and which they are considering. Few intend to stand pat.</p><div></div><p>The security stack is not settled. While 41% have no plans to change, a clear majority (59%) intend to adopt a new, additional, or replacement agent security solution within twelve months, and 29% within the next quarter — a strong signal that, high satisfaction notwithstanding, enterprises know the current stack is provisional. Incidents are what start the buying cycle. </p><p>Among organizations that have been hit, 42.1% plan to adopt, add, or replace agent security tooling within the next ninety days, against 14.0% of organizations with no incident — and after a confirmed incident it becomes majority behavior, at 52.6%. Getting hit also changes the threat assessment: 33.3% of hit organizations say AI-armed attackers are ahead of their defenses, against 8.0% of the unhit. Experience, in this data, is the strongest predictor of both urgency and pessimism.</p><p>The consideration set still leans provider-native (OpenAI 34%, Google 30%, Anthropic 29%, Azure 25%), but the dedicated security vendors — Cloudflare, Cisco, Palo Alto, Okta, Check Point’s Lakera — draw early interest in the mid-to-high single digits, more than their current footprint. </p><p>What the shopping does not yet include is the identity layer specifically. Twelve percent of the respondents include an agent-identity product — Okta for AI Agents, Microsoft Entra Agent ID, or a non-human identity platform — anywhere in their consideration set, and among the credential-sharing organizations that have already had an incident, identity consideration is essentially unchanged, at roughly one in ten. The control most directly implicated by the incident data is the one largely missing from the purchase plans. Whether this wave hardens the provider-native default or finally opens the door to purpose-built agent security — the identity and isolation controls the incidents call for — is the question this series will keep tracking.</p><h2>The bottom line: A security gap that autonomy will test first</h2><p>Organizations with more than 100 employees are giving AI agents real reach into systems and data while securing them with controls built for something else. More than half have already had an incident or near-miss; only a third give every agent its own scoped identity, and most still share credentials; only three in ten isolate their highest-risk agents; and the stack doing this work is overwhelmingly borrowed from the model providers and hyperscalers rather than purpose-built for agents.</p><p>The uncomfortable pairing is confidence with exposure: satisfaction with the current tooling is among the highest in this series, yet spending is a thin slice of the security budget, only a third believe their defenses are ahead of AI-enabled attackers, and a clear majority are already planning to replace what they have. At 107 respondents in a single wave this is a directional read, skewed toward the mid-market — but the direction is clear: agent adoption is running ahead of agent security, and the controls that matter most when something fails — scoped identity and isolation — are the ones enterprises have built least. The agent security gap is not a coverage problem that a provider guardrail will close on its own; it is a problem of identity, isolation, and enforcement built for autonomous software. The open question for later waves is whether enterprises close it deliberately — or whether a confirmed incident closes it for them.</p><hr><p><i>Based on survey responses from 107 qualified enterprise respondents (100+ employees), drawn from a single June 2026 wave. This is a directional read, not a precise measurement — the sample is self-selected and skews mid-market, so it's best read as the view from organizations actively standing up agent security rather than from the largest operators. Respondents are senior and buyer-credible (45% final decision-makers, 30% recommenders/influencers), spanning managers through the C-suite, and drawn primarily from Technology/Software, Manufacturing, Retail/E-commerce, and Healthcare/Life Sciences.</i></p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Apple’s OLED iPad Mini Could Arrive in October, New Report Reveals]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Apple is reportedly preparing to launch a new OLED iPad mini by October, bringing the tablet its biggest update since the current design arrived in 2021. The new model should offer better picture quality, deeper blacks, and stronger contrast, although Apple has not announced the device yet.



Bl...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3674428/ios-mac-os/apples-oled-ipad-mini-could-arrive-in-october-new-report-reveals/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3674428/ios-mac-os/apples-oled-ipad-mini-could-arrive-in-october-new-report-reveals/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 20:53:10 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🍏 iOS / Mac OS</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Apple is reportedly preparing to launch a new OLED iPad mini by October, bringing the tablet its biggest update since the current design arrived in 2021. The new model should offer better picture quality, deeper blacks, and stronger contrast, although Apple has not announced the device yet.



Bloomberg reports that Apple has code-named the new iPad mini J510 and plans to unveil it as early as this fall. The report says the company wants to release the device by October, which gives buyers a clearer timeline after months of OLED display rumours.



The OLED screen will mark a major change for the iPad mini, which currently uses an 8.3-inch LCD panel. However, a recent leak claims the display will remain limited to a fixed 60Hz refresh rate, so buyers should not expect the smoother ProMotion technology found on the iPad Pro.



Apple recently increased the iPad mini’s starting price from $499 to $599, and the OLED upgrade could make the next model even more expensive. OLED panels cost more than standard LCD screens, while ongoing memory shortages have also increased production costs across Apple’s device lineup.



Bloomberg also says Apple is working on an OLED iPad Air for a later release, although the company plans to keep using cheaper LCD screens in the entry-level iPad for the foreseeable future.



More iPad updates are planned for next year



Apple reportedly plans to release a new entry-level iPad during the first quarter of next year. The model, code-named J581, should receive a faster processor without a major design change.



The company also plans refreshed 11-inch and 13-inch iPad Air models for spring, alongside new iPad Pro models during the same period. Apple is also preparing updated Apple Pencil models, which may include replaceable batteries.



The OLED iPad mini remains the most significant update in the upcoming lineup because it will bring a major display improvement to Apple’s smallest tablet while keeping its compact and travel-friendly design.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The AI compute gap: Enterprises are buying infrastructure faster than they can measure what it costs]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Across 107 enterprises, AI infrastructure spending is accelerating well ahead of the ability to see or steer its economics. Most organizations run their AI on a familiar base of hyperscalers and model-provider APIs, yet the next dollar is aimed at specialized compute almost none of them use today...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3674337/it-nachrichten/the-ai-compute-gap-enterprises-are-buying-infrastructure-faster-than-they-can-measure-what-it-costs/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3674337/it-nachrichten/the-ai-compute-gap-enterprises-are-buying-infrastructure-faster-than-they-can-measure-what-it-costs/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 20:02:38 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Across 107 enterprises, AI infrastructure spending is accelerating well ahead of the ability to see or steer its economics. Most organizations run their AI on a familiar base of hyperscalers and model-provider APIs, yet the next dollar is aimed at specialized compute almost none of them use today; a majority intend to switch or add providers within the year, many within a quarter. Buying decisions turn on integration and total cost of ownership rather than headline token price — which is fortunate, because most enterprises cannot yet see their unit economics clearly: GPUs sit at half utilization or less, and fewer than half rigorously track what their compute actually costs. The result is a compute gap — heavy, fast-moving investment running ahead of the visibility needed to control it.</p><p>This wave of VentureBeat Pulse Research examines enterprise AI infrastructure and compute: where organizations are in their deployment journey, what they run AI on today, how satisfied they are, what would make them switch, where they plan to evaluate their investments, and — most revealingly — how well they can measure and control the economics of the compute underneath it all.</p><p>The central finding is a compute gap — the distance between how aggressively enterprises are investing in AI infrastructure and how little of its economics they can see. Only about one in five (21%) run AI in production at scale, yet spending intentions are outrunning that maturity: the single largest planned area enterprises plan to evaluate over the next year is AI-specialized clouds (45%), a layer almost none of these enterprises use today. Meanwhile the compute already in place runs cold — 83% report GPU utilization of 50% or less — and fewer than half (44%) can rigorously track what their AI compute costs. Enterprises are buying more infrastructure faster than they can account for what they already own.</p><p>Enterprises are not settled on their infrastructure vendors, either: A clear majority (64%) plan to switch or add an infrastructure provider within twelve months, and 38% within the next quarter — unusually high churn intent for a category this foundational. When they choose, they choose on integration with the existing stack (41%) and total cost of ownership (35%), not on headline price: cost per million tokens is the deciding factor for just 8%. And the frontier constraint that will shape the next round of decisions — the shift from GPU compute to memory bandwidth as inference scales — is barely on the radar, with roughly one in five enterprises either unaware of it or yet to address it.</p><h2>Methodology</h2><p>VentureBeat fielded this survey as part of its ongoing Pulse Research series, this survey focused on enterprise AI infrastructure, compute, and inference economics. Responses are filtered to organizations with more than 100 employees (n=107; the survey’s smallest size band, 1–100 employees, is excluded), drawn from a single Q2 2026 (June) wave. Because this is one wave rather than a pooled multi-month sample, the report reads cross-sectionally and does not infer month-over-month trends. Several questions were multiple-select, so those shares can sum to more than 100%.</p><p>By organization size the sample concentrates in the mid-market: 101–250 employees (36%) and 251–1,000 (27%) lead, with 1,001–5,000 (22%), 5,001–10,000 (8%), and 10,001+ (7%) above them. By role it spans managers (38%), individual contributors (28%), VPs and directors (19%), and the C-suite (13%); on purchasing authority it is buyer-credible, with 45% final decision-makers and another 30% recommenders or influencers for AI solutions. Technology/Software is the largest industry at 26%, followed by Healthcare/Life Sciences (15%), Financial Services (13%), and Retail/E-commerce (12%).</p><p>At 107 respondents the sample is large enough to read directionally but should be treated as a directional signal rather than a precise measurement; it is self-selected and is not a probability sample. It also skews toward the mid-market and toward earlier-stage adopters, so it is best read as the view from organizations actively building out AI infrastructure rather than from the largest hyperscale operators.</p><h2>Finding 1: Ambition outpaces production</h2><p><b>Only one in five run AI in production at scale</b></p><p>We asked where organizations sit in their AI deployment journey. Most are still building toward production rather than operating at scale.</p><div></div><table><tbody><tr><td><p><b>38%</b></p></td><td><p><b>are experimenting — running proofs of concept, not yet in production</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>37%</b></p></td><td><p><b>have some workloads in production, but not across the organization</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>21%</b></p></td><td><p><b>run AI in production at scale — the mature minority</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>4%</b></p></td><td><p><b>are not yet running AI workloads at all</b></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>The maturity curve is front-loaded. Three-quarters of enterprises (76%) are either experimenting or running only some workloads in production, and just 21% describe AI in production at scale. This matters for everything that follows: the infrastructure decisions in this report are being made largely by organizations still early in deployment, whose compute footprint — and whose costs — are about to grow. The evaluation and switching intentions in Findings 3 and 4 are the leading edge of that build-out, not the settled preferences of operators who have already found what works.</p><h2>Finding 2: Enterprises run on hyperscalers and model APIs</h2><p><b>The specialized GPU clouds barely register — today</b></p><p>We asked which providers and platforms enterprises currently use to run their AI. The answer is a familiar one: the incumbents.</p><div></div><table><tbody><tr><td><p><b>48%</b></p></td><td><p><b>use Google Cloud — the most-used platform overall (Microsoft Azure 29%, AWS 22%, Oracle Cloud 22%)</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>41%</b></p></td><td><p><b>use Google’s Gemini models, with OpenAI close behind at 40% and Anthropic at 12%</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>6%</b></p></td><td><p><b>run their own on-prem or co-located GPU clusters; 4% a custom open-source self-managed stack</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>&lt;2%</b></p></td><td><p><b>each use the specialized AI clouds — CoreWeave, Lambda, Crusoe, Nebius, Together, Fireworks and peers</b></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>The current stack is hyperscaler-and-API. Google Cloud leads at 48%, and the general-purpose clouds (Google, Microsoft, AWS, Oracle) together with the major model APIs (Gemini, OpenAI, Anthropic) account for essentially all current deployment. The specialized “neocloud” GPU providers that dominate AI-infrastructure headlines — CoreWeave, Lambda, Crusoe, Nebius and peers — register at or near zero among these enterprises today. Only 6% run their own on-prem GPU clusters and 4% a custom open-source stack. Enterprises are, for now, running AI on the providers they already buy from — which makes the evaluation intentions in Finding 3 all the more striking.</p><p><i>(A note on reading these shares. As described in the methodology section, this sample is self-selected and skews mid-market, and this question counted every provider a respondent uses — an average of 2.1 selections each — so the figures measure presence in the stack rather than spending or primary status. A sample built this way will show a different provider mix than a spend-weighted census of the broader market; Google's strength here, for example, is consistent with its long-standing position among smaller enterprises building on AI. Read these shares as a portrait of what this AI-active cohort runs today, and treat gaps between these figures and industry-wide market share estimates as a property of the sample rather than a contradiction of either.)</i></p><h2>Finding 3: The next dollar goes to infrastructure they don’t yet run</h2><p><b>AI-specialized clouds top the evaluations list</b></p><p>We asked where enterprises planned to evaluate AI infrastructure over the next 12 months. Their answers point away from the stack they run today.</p><div></div><table><tbody><tr><td><p><b>45%</b></p></td><td><p><b>AI-specialized clouds (CoreWeave, Lambda, Crusoe, Nebius) — the top planned evaluation area</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>32%</b></p></td><td><p><b>non-NVIDIA accelerators (AWS Trainium, Google TPU, AMD Instinct, Intel Gaudi, in-house ASICs)</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>28%</b></p></td><td><p><b>Nvidia Blackwell (GB300) / next-generation GPUs</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>16%</b></p></td><td><p><b>decentralized or distributed compute networks</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>11%</b></p></td><td><p><b>sovereign or region-specific compute; 9% say none of the above</b></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>Here is the report’s sharpest tension. The single most-cited planned evaluation area — AI-specialized clouds, at 45% — is the very category almost none of these enterprises use today (Finding 2). Nearly a third (32%) intend to evaluate non-Nvidia accelerators, and 28% in next-generation Nvidia silicon; even decentralized compute networks (16%) and sovereign compute (11%) draw meaningful interest. Read against current usage, this is not incremental — it is the leading edge of a re-platforming. The direction-of-travel question tells the same story: every infrastructure approach is net-expanding, but specialized AI clouds carry the highest net momentum (+24), edging out even the hyperscalers (+22). Enterprises are preparing to move a meaningful share of AI compute off the general-purpose cloud.</p><p>This continues a trend we saw in our April-May survey wave. Back then, usage of the AI-specialized clouds was equally marginal — CoreWeave at 3%, Lambda at 4%, Crusoe at 2% of enterprises. When we asked enterprises what change they planned in their AI infrastructure strategy over the next twelve months, the most-cited answer was moving workloads to specialized AI clouds, at 33%. Asked in April-May which emerging compute option they were most likely to evaluate AI-specialized clouds again drew the most responses. Two waves, two differently worded questions, one consistent picture: the type of cloud enterprises are most eager to assess is the type they have barely begun to use.</p><h2>Finding 4: A switching wave is building</h2><p><b>Six in 10 plan to change providers within a year — many within a quarter</b></p><p>We asked whether and when enterprises plan to switch or add an infrastructure provider. Very few intend to stand still.</p><div></div><table><tbody><tr><td><p><b>38%</b></p></td><td><p><b>plan to change within the next 0–3 months — tied for the most common answer</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>36%</b></p></td><td><p><b>have no plans to change</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>22%</b></p></td><td><p><b>plan to change within 3–6 months</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>7%</b></p></td><td><p><b>plan to change within 6–12 months</b></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>For a category as foundational as compute, this is a remarkable amount of intended movement. Only 36% have no plans to change, meaning a clear majority (64%) intend to switch or add a provider within twelve months — and 38% within the next quarter alone. Where that interest points is telling: the providers drawing the most switching consideration are again the incumbents — Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud (33% each), OpenAI (30%), and Gemini (22%) — which suggests much of the near-term movement is reshuffling among the majors and consolidating spend rather than defecting to new entrants. The neocloud interest in Finding 3 is a 12-month evaluation thesis; the switching in the next quarter is mostly incumbents trading share.</p><p>(<i>Method note: Respondents who selected both "no plans to change" and a specific switching window are counted as switchers, on the logic that naming a timeframe is the more specific answer; three respondents were reclassified under this rule.</i>)</p><h2>Finding 5: Nobody buys on token price</h2><p><b>Integration and total cost of ownership decide — not sticker price</b></p><p>We asked what matters most when enterprises select an AI infrastructure provider. Headline price finished last.</p><div></div><table><tbody><tr><td><p><b>41%</b></p></td><td><p><b>integration with the existing cloud and data stack — the top factor</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>35%</b></p></td><td><p><b>total cost of ownership (TCO)</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>24%</b></p></td><td><p><b>performance — latency and throughput</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>19%</b></p></td><td><p><b>each cite security/compliance, autoscaling for spiky workloads, and GPU access/availability</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>8%</b></p></td><td><p><b>cost per 1M tokens — the least-cited factor</b></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>Enterprises do not buy AI infrastructure on pricing, which is the place vendors compete on hardest. Integration with the existing stack (41%) and total cost of ownership (35%) dominate, while the headline metric — cost per million tokens — is the deciding factor for just 8%, dead last. The pattern is coherent: buyers are optimizing for how a provider fits and what it truly costs to operate, not for the advertised unit rate. It also foreshadows Finding 7 — enterprises say TCO matters most, yet most cannot yet measure it rigorously. The stated priority and the measured capability are out of step.</p><h2>Finding 6: Expensive GPUs, idle most of the time</h2><p><b>83% report GPU utilization of 50% or less</b></p><p>We asked what share of their GPU capacity enterprises actually utilize. The answer is a well-known but rarely quantified inefficiency.</p><div></div><table><tbody><tr><td><p><b>37%</b></p></td><td><p><b>run at 26–50% utilization</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>34%</b></p></td><td><p><b>run at 10–25% utilization</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>15%</b></p></td><td><p><b>run under 10% utilization</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>12%</b></p></td><td><p><b>run over 50% — the efficient minority</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>8%</b></p></td><td><p><b>don’t measure utilization at all; a further 7% consume via API and run no GPUs of their own</b></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p><i>Disclosure: Band percentages count every selection against all 107 qualified respondents; 14 respondents selected more than one band, so bands overlap. At the respondent level, 83 of the 100 GPU-operating enterprises reported utilization at or below 50%</i></p><p>The compute already in place runs cold. Adding the bands at or below half capacity, 83% of enterprises that operate GPUs report utilization of 50% or less, and nearly half (49%) run at 25% or below. Only 12% clear the 50% mark, and a further 8% do not measure utilization at all. Idle accelerators are expensive accelerators, and this is the clearest single measure of the compute gap: enterprises are planning to buy more GPUs and specialized compute (Finding 3) while the capacity they already own sits substantially unused. The efficiency headroom in the current fleet is large — and largely unmeasured.</p><h2>Finding 7: Spending fast, measuring slowly</h2><p><b>Fewer than half rigorously track what their compute costs</b></p><p>We asked whether enterprises can quantify the cost and return of their AI infrastructure spend, and how satisfied they are with what they run. Confidence in the ledger lags the spending.</p><div></div><table><tbody><tr><td><p><b>44%</b></p></td><td><p><b>track compute cost and ROI rigorously</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>39%</b></p></td><td><p><b>track it only partially</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>20%</b></p></td><td><p><b>can’t quantify it yet</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>6%</b></p></td><td><p><b>say it isn’t a priority</b></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>Measurement trails money. Fewer than half of enterprises (44%) rigorously track the cost and return of their AI compute; the majority track only partially (39%), cannot quantify it yet (20%), or have not prioritized it (6%). That gap is consequential given Finding 5, where total cost of ownership was the second-ranked buying criterion — enterprises are choosing providers on an economic basis they mostly cannot yet measure. Satisfaction with current infrastructure is moderately positive but not enthusiastic: on a five-point scale, overall satisfaction averages 4.0, with ease of implementation (3.8) and value for money (3.9) trailing slightly — the softness landing, tellingly, on cost. Enterprises are spending quickly and accounting slowly.</p><h2><b>Finding 8: The next bottleneck few are watching</b></h2><p><b>As inference shifts from compute to memory, the field scatters</b></p><p>Finally, we asked how enterprises would address the emerging constraint in large-scale inference — the shift from GPU compute to memory, specifically KV-cache capacity. The responses reveal a frontier that is not yet a priority.</p><div></div><table><tbody><tr><td><p><b>31%</b></p></td><td><p><b>would rely on Dell (PowerScale / Project Lightning) — the leading single answer</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>16%</b></p></td><td><p><b>would rely on Nvidia (Dynamo / ICMSP)</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>18%</b></p></td><td><p><b>are not aware of this as a constraint (9%) or haven’t addressed inference-memory limits yet (8%)</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>10%</b></p></td><td><p><b>Hammerspace (Tier Zero); 9% DDN (Infinia); the rest split across open-source KV-cache tooling, model-level efficiency, VAST Data, and WEKA</b></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>The memory frontier is real but barely governed. Asked which approach they would rely on as the binding constraint in inference shifts from compute to memory bandwidth, enterprises scatter: Dell leads at 31%, Nvidia follows at 16%, and the rest fragments across storage vendors, open-source tooling, and model-level efficiency techniques. Most telling is that roughly one in five (18%) either do not recognize the constraint or have not begun to address it. For a shift that will reshape inference cost and architecture, this is an early and unsettled market — and, consistent with the measurement gap in Finding 7, one where many enterprises simply do not yet have a view. It is the next chapter of the compute gap, arriving before most have closed the current one.</p><h1><b>The bottom line: A compute gap that faster spending will widen, not close</b></h1><p>Organizations with more than 100 employees are investing in AI infrastructure faster than they can measure it. Most are still early in deployment, yet their spending intentions point past their current stack — toward specialized clouds and alternative accelerators almost none of them run today — and a clear majority intend to change providers within the year. They buy on integration and total cost of ownership rather than headline price, which is rational; the difficulty is that most cannot yet see those economics clearly.</p><p>The visibility gap is concrete. The GPUs enterprises already own run at half utilization or less for the overwhelming majority, and fewer than half can rigorously track what their compute costs or returns. Satisfaction is decent but unenthusiastic, softest on value for money — the dimension hardest to judge without measurement. And the next constraint, the shift from compute to memory in large-scale inference, is arriving while most enterprises are still unaware of it. At 107 respondents in a single Q2 wave this is a directional read, skewed toward the mid-market and earlier-stage adopters — but the direction is consistent: the appetite to spend is running well ahead of the instrumentation to spend well. The compute gap is not a capacity problem that more hardware will solve on its own; it is, first, a problem of seeing what the hardware already costs. The open question for later waves is whether enterprises build that visibility before the re-platforming arrives — or buy the next layer of infrastructure as blind to its economics as the last.</p><hr><p><i>Based on survey responses from 107 qualified enterprise respondents (100+ employees), drawn from a single Q2 2026 (June) wave. Because this is one wave rather than a pooled multi-month sample, the results read cross-sectionally rather than as a month-over-month trend, and at 107 respondents this is a directional signal rather than a precise measurement — the sample is self-selected, skews mid-market, and leans toward earlier-stage adopters rather than the largest hyperscale operators. Respondents include managers, individual contributors, VPs/directors, and the C-suite, with buyer-credible purchasing authority, across Technology/Software, Healthcare/Life Sciences, Financial Services, Retail/E-commerce, and other industries.</i></p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[CISA urges immediate SharePoint hardening as exploits mount]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[The US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) has urged organizations to immediately secure Microsoft SharePoint deployments after warning that three vulnerabilities affecting the on-premises collaboration platform are being actively exploited.



A recent advisory from the feder...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3673455/it-nachrichten/cisa-urges-immediate-sharepoint-hardening-as-exploits-mount/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3673455/it-nachrichten/cisa-urges-immediate-sharepoint-hardening-as-exploits-mount/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 14:33:40 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) has urged organizations to immediately secure Microsoft SharePoint deployments after warning that three vulnerabilities affecting the on-premises collaboration platform are being actively exploited.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A recent <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/alerts/2026/07/14/cisa-urges-sharepoint-hardening-after-new-exploitations" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">advisory</a> from the federal cybersecurity watchdog asked administrators to patch vulnerable servers, review Microsoft’s mitigation guidance, and assume that internet-facing SharePoint instances remain attractive targets for attackers seeking an initial foothold into enterprise environments.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">While applying patches remains the immediate priority, security experts caution that organizations should view the advisory as more than another <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/4196940/patch-tuesday-roundup-microsoft-fixes-a-monthly-record-569-holes-sap-patches-a-critical-memory-corruption-bug.html">Patch Tuesday</a> exercise.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“This is what separates an IT incident from a business crisis,” said <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/chrisboehmii/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Chris Boehm</a>, field CTO at Zero Networks. “One compromised SharePoint box is a ticket. That same box, with a clear path to your domain controllers, backups, and file shares, is how you end up with an encrypted infrastructure and a disclosure event. Segmentation stops the first from becoming the second.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">CISA’s advisory highlights <a href="https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-32201" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">CVE-2026-332201</a>, <a href="https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-45659" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">CVE-2026-45659</a>, and the newly added <a href="https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-56164" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">CVE-2026-56164</a>, all of which have now been confirmed as exploited in the wild and added to the agency’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (<a href="https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">KEV</a>) catalog.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><a></a>Exploitation tells a different severity story</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The latest addition to CISA’s KEV catalog is CVE-2026-56164, an elevation-of-privilege vulnerability affecting Microsoft SharePoint Server. Although assigned a CVSS score of 5.3, the flaw can be exploited remotely without authentication, making it significantly more dangerous in practice than its severity rating alone suggests.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Microsoft has released security updates for supported SharePoint versions and recommended enabling the Antimalware Scan Interface (AMSI) integration to help detect malicious requests associated with exploitation attempts.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">CISA also advised organizations to follow Microsoft’s incident response <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56164" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">guidance</a>, hunt for indicators of compromise, and rotate SharePoint machine keys where appropriate, acknowledging that patching alone may not fully remove attacker persistence from already compromised servers.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><a></a>Older vulnerabilities remain active entry points</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Alongside the newly disclosed flaw, CISA reiterated the urgency of addressing CVE-2026-45659, an insecure deserialization vulnerability allowing RCE that Microsoft had marked as “exploitation less likely” in its <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45659" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">advisory</a> in May. Another old bug CISA flagged is CVE-2026-32201, an improper input validation flaw that allows spoofing over a network.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Both of these flaws are being actively exploited in the wild.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">CISA called out organizations failing to catch up with SharePoint updates, adding that attackers are increasingly targeting N-days rather than relying exclusively on newly discovered zero-days.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">On concerns of patching speed, Boehm noted resilience is becoming an architectural challenge as much as an operational one.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Stop measuring this in patch speed,” he said. “That’s a race you eventually lose. Some of these landed as zero-days with no fix on day one, and the window between disclosure and exploitation keeps shrinking. So the board-level question isn’t whether a server gets compromised. Assume one will. It’s how much of the business a single-owned system can take down with it.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Boehm argued that limiting network reachability through segmentation should sit alongside patch management and threat hunting as a core defensive strategy. Reachability, he said, is a control that organizations own, not patch timing. CISA has given Federal Civilian Executive Branch (FCEB) agencies three days to remediate CVE-2026-56164 under Binding Operational Directive (<a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/4183750/cisa-tells-agencies-to-patch-smarter-not-harder-foreshadowing-broader-industry-practice.html">BOD)</a> 22-01.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>The article originally appeared on <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/4197775/cisa-urges-immediate-sharepoint-hardening-as-exploits-mount.html">CSO</a>.</em></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[CVE-2026-50525 | Microsoft .NET 8.0/9.0/10.0 Throttling allocation of resources (Nessus ID 327185)]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[A vulnerability, which was classified as problematic, has been found in Microsoft .NET 8.0/9.0/10.0. This impacts an unknown function of the component Throttling. Performing a manipulation results in allocation of resources.

This vulnerability is identified as CVE-2026-50525. The attack can be i...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3673427/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2026-50525-microsoft-net-8090100-throttling-allocation-of-resources-nessus-id-327185/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3673427/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2026-50525-microsoft-net-8090100-throttling-allocation-of-resources-nessus-id-327185/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 14:25:28 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🕵️ Sicherheitslücken</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[A vulnerability, which was classified as <a href="https://vuldb.com/kb/risk">problematic</a>, has been found in <a href="https://vuldb.com/product/microsoft:">Microsoft .NET 8.0/9.0/10.0</a>. This impacts an unknown function of the component <em>Throttling</em>. Performing a manipulation results in allocation of resources.

This vulnerability is identified as <a href="https://vuldb.com/cve/CVE-2026-50525">CVE-2026-50525</a>. The attack can be initiated remotely. There is not any exploit available.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[CISA urges immediate SharePoint hardening as exploits mount]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[The US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) has urged organizations to immediately secure Microsoft SharePoint deployments after warning that three vulnerabilities affecting the on-premises collaboration platform are being actively exploited.



A recent advisory from the feder...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3673418/it-security-nachrichten/cisa-urges-immediate-sharepoint-hardening-as-exploits-mount/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3673418/it-security-nachrichten/cisa-urges-immediate-sharepoint-hardening-as-exploits-mount/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 14:24:27 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) has urged organizations to immediately secure Microsoft SharePoint deployments after warning that three vulnerabilities affecting the on-premises collaboration platform are being actively exploited.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A recent <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/alerts/2026/07/14/cisa-urges-sharepoint-hardening-after-new-exploitations" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">advisory</a> from the federal cybersecurity watchdog asked administrators to patch vulnerable servers, review Microsoft’s mitigation guidance, and assume that internet-facing SharePoint instances remain attractive targets for attackers seeking an initial foothold into enterprise environments.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">While applying patches remains the immediate priority, security experts caution that organizations should view the advisory as more than another <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/4196940/patch-tuesday-roundup-microsoft-fixes-a-monthly-record-569-holes-sap-patches-a-critical-memory-corruption-bug.html">Patch Tuesday</a> exercise.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“This is what separates an IT incident from a business crisis,” said <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/chrisboehmii/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Chris Boehm</a>, field CTO at Zero Networks. “One compromised SharePoint box is a ticket. That same box, with a clear path to your domain controllers, backups, and file shares, is how you end up with an encrypted infrastructure and a disclosure event. Segmentation stops the first from becoming the second.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">CISA’s advisory highlights <a href="https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-32201" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">CVE-2026-332201</a>, <a href="https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-45659" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">CVE-2026-45659</a>, and the newly added <a href="https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-56164" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">CVE-2026-56164</a>, all of which have now been confirmed as exploited in the wild and added to the agency’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (<a href="https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">KEV</a>) catalog.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><a></a>Exploitation tells a different severity story</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The latest addition to CISA’s KEV catalog is CVE-2026-56164, an elevation-of-privilege vulnerability affecting Microsoft SharePoint Server. Although assigned a CVSS score of 5.3, the flaw can be exploited remotely without authentication, making it significantly more dangerous in practice than its severity rating alone suggests.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Microsoft has released security updates for supported SharePoint versions and recommended enabling the Antimalware Scan Interface (AMSI) integration to help detect malicious requests associated with exploitation attempts.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">CISA also advised organizations to follow Microsoft’s incident response <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56164" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">guidance</a>, hunt for indicators of compromise, and rotate SharePoint machine keys where appropriate, acknowledging that patching alone may not fully remove attacker persistence from already compromised servers.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><a></a>Older vulnerabilities remain active entry points</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Alongside the newly disclosed flaw, CISA reiterated the urgency of addressing CVE-2026-45659, an insecure deserialization vulnerability allowing RCE that Microsoft had marked as “exploitation less likely” in its <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45659" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">advisory</a> in May. Another old bug CISA flagged is CVE-2026-32201, an improper input validation flaw that allows spoofing over a network.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Both of these flaws are being actively exploited in the wild.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">CISA called out organizations failing to catch up with SharePoint updates, adding that attackers are increasingly targeting N-days rather than relying exclusively on newly discovered zero-days.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">On concerns of patching speed, Boehm noted resilience is becoming an architectural challenge as much as an operational one.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Stop measuring this in patch speed,” he said. “That’s a race you eventually lose. Some of these landed as zero-days with no fix on day one, and the window between disclosure and exploitation keeps shrinking. So the board-level question isn’t whether a server gets compromised. Assume one will. It’s how much of the business a single-owned system can take down with it.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Boehm argued that limiting network reachability through segmentation should sit alongside patch management and threat hunting as a core defensive strategy. Reachability, he said, is a control that organizations own, not patch timing. CISA has given Federal Civilian Executive Branch (FCEB) agencies three days to remediate CVE-2026-56164 under Binding Operational Directive (<a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/4183750/cisa-tells-agencies-to-patch-smarter-not-harder-foreshadowing-broader-industry-practice.html">BOD)</a> 22-01.</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Xiaomi AI Robot 02 Drops New Autonomous Bombshell (X1 HUMANOID)]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Author: AI News - Bewertung: 9x - Views:70 Earn $100s/hr discussing your expertise with AI as referred by AI News: https://t.mercor.com/x1Eve

Xiaomi's factory robots just "graduated," hitting a 98% success rate on a self-tapping nut station — just 1% behind human workers. Now they're tackling fl...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3673356/it-security-video/xiaomi-ai-robot-02-drops-new-autonomous-bombshell-x1-humanoid/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3673356/it-security-video/xiaomi-ai-robot-02-drops-new-autonomous-bombshell-x1-humanoid/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 14:02:42 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🎥 IT Security Video</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Author: AI News - Bewertung: 9x - Views:70 <br/></p><p><iframe id="ytplayer" loading="lazy" type="text/html" width="100%" height="auto" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lLMYgOFgGmM?autoplay=1&origin=http://tsecurity.de" frameborder="0"></iframe></p><p>Earn $100s/hr discussing your expertise with AI as referred by AI News: https://t.mercor.com/x1Eve<br />
<br />
Xiaomi's factory robots just "graduated," hitting a 98% success rate on a self-tapping nut station — just 1% behind human workers. Now they're tackling flexible, irregularly shaped auto parts for the first time, using full-body balance, dual-arm coordination, and proprioception to hit a 90% success rate on two brand-new stations.<br />
Then, MagicLab teases its next humanoid, the X1, following up on its Z1 model. Plus, LimX Robotics shows off one of the world's first fully autonomous long-horizon mobile manipulation demos, powered by its new COSA 0.5 agentic operating system running on the Oli humanoid — no teleoperation required.<br />
Finally, Anthropic's Frontier Red Team tests whether AI reasoning actually transfers to controlling real robots, running Claude, GPT-5.4, and Gemini 3.1 on a real quadruped and robotic arms.<br />
<br />
Discover the AI agent economy: https://8004agents.ai<br />
<br />
AI news:<br />
0:00 Xiaomi<br />
2:44 X1<br />
3:37 COSA 0.5<br />
6:20 Claude robotics<br />
<br />
#ai #news #robot<br/></p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Anthropic’s ‘free’ Fable offer — a token lock-in trap for users?]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[It’s not so much generosity that’s behind Anthropic’s decision to extend free access to its most advanced model, Fable, for paid subscribers until July 19, analysts say. Its a last-minute move to grab users, data and model evaluation results.



After the free-access period, Anthropic plans to co...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3673105/ai-nachrichten/anthropics-free-fable-offer-a-token-lock-in-trap-for-users/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3673105/ai-nachrichten/anthropics-free-fable-offer-a-token-lock-in-trap-for-users/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 12:32:48 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🔧 AI Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It’s not so much generosity that’s behind Anthropic’s decision to extend free access to its most advanced model, Fable, for paid subscribers until July 19, analysts say. Its a last-minute move to grab users, data and model evaluation results.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">After the free-access period, Anthropic plans to convert Fable to a pay-per-use model, at $10 per million input tokens and a whopping $50 for 1 million output tokens.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That is double the price of its next most advanced model, Opus 4.8, for input and output tokens. “We’re extending Claude Fable 5 access on all paid plans, as well as keeping Claude Code’s weekly rate limits 50% higher, through July 19,” <a href="https://x.com/claudeai/status/2076351399999557669" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Anthropic’s team said in a July 12 tweet</a>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Anthropic keeps extending Fable because it does not yet know what its flagship is worth, said Sanchit Vir Gogia, principal analyst at Greyhound Research. “A vendor confident in its price does not move the same cutoff twice in six days, both times at the wire,” Gogia said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Anthropic is essentially pushing deadlines to test its products, while users gain by being able to put their toughest tasks to Fable, Gogia said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Anthropic, which did not immediately reply to a request for comment about the situation, has already seen plenty of action with Fable and its sister model Mythos. Both have been touted as the company’s most advanced models yet.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Fable stumbles, then reappears</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Fable was officially launched June 9. Just three days later, on June 12, the <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4185515/anthropics-new-privacy-policy-offers-us-consumers-a-way-around-fable-ban-2.html">US government put export controls on it</a> after Amazon researchers bypassed Fable’s safeguards, prompting the model to identify software vulnerabilities and demonstrate an exploit. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">After Anthropic scrambled to address the issues — and <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4191565/us-reverses-export-restrictions-on-anthropics-fable-5-mythos-5-ai-models-2.html">after the export controls were lifted</a> — Fable was relaunched July 1.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Fable’s freebie extension comes after OpenAI’s latest model, ChatGPT 5.6 Sol, became generally available July 9. Sol is cheaper at $5 per one million tokens input, and $30 for 1 million output tokens.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Anthropic and OpenAI are competing aggressively to build market share, said Jack Gold, principal analyst at J. Gold Associates. “Anthropic and OpenAI are looking to go public and the more users they have, the more attractive it is — even if they are not yet producing income,” he said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In some ways, the two companies are following a well-trodden path to get customers hooked on their products and turned into paying customers. That’s what Meta, Google and Microsoft, for instance, have done over the years with various “free” offers that later morphed into paid products. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Plus, said Gold, ”The more users you have, the better you can train your models across multiple data sets.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That’s a potential boon for proprietary large language model (LLM) vendors offering free tokens in a bid to lock enterprises and vendors into their AI environments. But numerous experts have warned enterprises not to fall for that tactic. Instead, they argue enterprises <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4188012/too-good-to-be-true-avoid-free-ai-token-offers-or-risk-vendor-lock-in.html">should diversify AI development across multiple AI and cloud vendors</a>, and adopt open-source models.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">An LLM space race?</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">According to <a href="https://artificialanalysis.ai/leaderboards/models" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">LLM benchmarks maintained by Artificial Analysis</a>, Fable is the most intelligent model currently available, with Sol just behind it in second place. <a href="https://livebench.ai/#/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">One benchmark by LiveBench</a> places Sol as being better in reasoning, with Fable better at math, data analysis, instruction following and language. Both models have advantages in coding.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Meanwhile, Cursor and SpaceXAI on July 8 <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4194914/spacexai-launches-grok-4-5-touts-lower-coding-task-costs-than-ai-rivals-2.html">unveiled Grok 4.5</a>, which the companies said can “handle difficult, long-running tasks that require creatively using tools to solve problems, whether in software engineering, data science, finance, legal work, or anything else you do on a computer,” <a href="https://cursor.com/blog/grok-4-5" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">the company said in a blog entry</a>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Its pricing is even more aggressive than Fable and ChatGPT 5.6 Sol. Grok 4.5 charges $2 for 1 million input tokens and $6 for 1 million output tokens.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There are <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4185848/how-companies-are-racing-to-solve-the-ai-token-problem.html">growing concerns about tokenmaxxing</a>, where enterprises rack up billions of dollars in token spending, blowing past usage limits before finance controls are implemented.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Enterprises might decide to spend more on models such as Mythos and Fable — if the benefits are tangible, said Max Leaming, head of data science and AI solutions at ManpowerGroup. Fable and Mythos may “actually be less expensive to use in spite of the spiked token cost because it’s far more efficient,” he said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A company might find that the models use fewer tokens, are faster, and can reduce compute time, he said. “Even though the per-token costs may go up, we may see overall costs go down,” Leaming said.</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Ich habe 7 Jahre alten Laptop getestet – jetzt stelle ich die Upgrade-Zyklen bei PCs in Frage]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Die erste Überraschung gab es bereits, bevor ich überhaupt einen Browser-Tab geöffnet hatte: Der sieben Jahre alte Microsoft Surface Laptop 3 startete schneller als die brandneuen Geräte, mit denen ich ihn hier vergleichen wollte. Die besten Notebooks aller Klassen finden Sie in unserem Vergleich...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3673098/it-nachrichten/ich-habe-7-jahre-alten-laptop-getestet-jetzt-stelle-ich-die-upgrade-zyklen-bei-pcs-in-frage/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3673098/it-nachrichten/ich-habe-7-jahre-alten-laptop-getestet-jetzt-stelle-ich-die-upgrade-zyklen-bei-pcs-in-frage/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 12:32:00 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p>Die erste Überraschung gab es bereits, bevor ich überhaupt einen Browser-Tab geöffnet hatte: Der sieben Jahre alte <a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/article/1183918/test-microsoft-surface-laptop3-notebook.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Microsoft Surface Laptop 3</a> startete schneller als die brandneuen Geräte, mit denen ich ihn hier vergleichen wollte. <a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/article/2215385/die-besten-laptops-test.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Die besten Notebooks aller Klassen finden Sie in unserem Vergleichstest.</a></p>



<p>Das hätte eigentlich nicht passieren dürfen. Immer wenn den Herstellern nur wenig zu den Verbesserungen gegenüber der Vorgängergeneration einfällt, greifen sie zu einem bewährten Vergleich: Wie schneidet der neue PC im Vergleich zu einem fünf Jahre alten Modell ab?</p>



<p>Das ist eine sichere Wette. Egal, wie wenige Verbesserungen ein neuer Chip bietet, er wird immer besser sein als ein PC aus längst vergangenen Zeiten. Neu ist eben immer besser, oder? Normalerweise gilt dieser simple Grundsatz. Aber angesichts der angespannten Weltlage kann einem der Neukauf eines Computers schnell verhagelt werden. Daher stellt sich eine Frage: Kann man Geld sparen, wenn man einen älteren Laptop behält oder diesen gebraucht kauft? Und worauf muss man bei dieser Sparmaßnahme verzichten?</p>



<p>Ich habe dafür unsere Lager durchforstet und eine Sammlung neuer und älterer Laptops in unser Testlabor geschleppt. Mit diesem Versuch wollte ich herausfinden, ob die PC-Hersteller mit ihren Lobeshymnen auf neue Geräte tatsächlich die Wahrheit sagen.</p>



<p>Mit meinen Erkenntnissen will ich Ihnen weder einen neuen Laptop verkaufen noch mich dafür aussprechen, alte Geräte einfach weiterzuverwenden. Ich habe lediglich versucht, weitverbreitete Geräte unter verschiedenen Szenarien miteinander zu vergleichen. Dies soll die Vorteile von Neugeräten und älteren Modellen aufzeigen. Dabei habe ich mich auf die folgenden Punkte konzentriert: Boot-Zeit, die Zeit zum Exportieren einer PDF-Datei oder die Zeit für das Entpacken eines Archivs. Mit diesen Ergebnissen können Sie selbst entscheiden, ob Sie durch den Neukauf tatsächlich viel Zeit gewinnen werden.</p>



<p>Eigentlich wollte ich dafür Geräte nutzen, die maximal fünf Jahre alt sind. Doch ich konnte in unserem Lager nur einen wenig gebrauchten, sieben Jahre alten Laptop ausfindig machen: den <a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/article/1183918/test-microsoft-surface-laptop3-notebook.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Microsoft Surface Laptop 3</a>. Dieses Gerät stammt noch aus Zeiten vor der Corona-Pandemie. Dieses Urgestein habe ich mit mehreren modernen Laptops verglichen: dem Asus ZenBook (UX3607OA) mit einem <a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/article/3123457/qualcomm-snapdragon-x2-elite-streaming-test.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Snapdragon X2 Elite Extreme</a> und Windows auf ARM-Basis sowie mit dem Asus ZenBook Duo mit einem <a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/article/3042853/intel-panther-lake-cpu-core-ultra-x9-388h-test.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Intel Core Ultra 300 (Panther Lake)</a> der Spitzenklasse. Beide sind erst in diesem Jahr auf den Markt gekommen.</p>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure data-wp-context='{"imageId":"6a58b2f75d2ab"}' data-wp-interactive="core/image" class="wp-block-image size-large wp-lightbox-container"><img decoding="async" data-wp-class--hide="state.isContentHidden" data-wp-class--show="state.isContentVisible" data-wp-init="callbacks.setButtonStyles" data-wp-on-async--click="actions.showLightbox" data-wp-on-async--load="callbacks.setButtonStyles" data-wp-on-async-window--resize="callbacks.setButtonStyles" src="https://b2c-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Microsoft-Surface-Laptop-3-Core-Ice-Lake.png?w=1200" alt="Microsoft Surface Laptop 3 Core Ice Lake" class="wp-image-3142825" width="1200" height="940" loading="lazy"><button class="lightbox-trigger" type="button" aria-haspopup="dialog" aria-label="Enlarge" data-wp-init="callbacks.initTriggerButton" data-wp-on-async--click="actions.showLightbox" data-wp-style--right="state.imageButtonRight" data-wp-style--top="state.imageButtonTop">
				<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="12" height="12" fill="none" viewbox="0 0 12 12">
					<path fill="#fff" d="M2 0a2 2 0 0 0-2 2v2h1.5V2a.5.5 0 0 1 .5-.5h2V0H2Zm2 10.5H2a.5.5 0 0 1-.5-.5V8H0v2a2 2 0 0 0 2 2h2v-1.5ZM8 12v-1.5h2a.5.5 0 0 0 .5-.5V8H12v2a2 2 0 0 1-2 2H8Zm2-12a2 2 0 0 1 2 2v2h-1.5V2a.5.5 0 0 0-.5-.5H8V0h2Z"></path>
				</svg>
			</button><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Der Surface Laptop 3 wurde noch mit Windows 10 ausgeliefert, aber mittlerweile auf Windows 11 aktualisiert.</figcaption></figure><p class="imageCredit">Mark Hachman / Foundry</p></div>



<p>Es stellt sich die Frage: Können die neuen Modelle besser abschneiden? Lohnt sich dieser Vorsprung? Bilden Sie sich selbst ein Urteil.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading toc">Der alte Laptop startet schneller</h2>



<p>Mein erster Test: die Startzeit. Die Ära der Festplatten liegt längst hinter uns. Die Geschwindigkeit des Hochfahrens hängt daher primär vom Tempo der verbauten SSD ab. Auch die Anzahl der Anwendungen, die beim Start geladen werden müssen, spielt eine Rolle.</p>



<p>Für diesen Test habe ich alle Startanwendungen deaktiviert. Ausnahmen galten lediglich für vorinstallierte Programme wie Asus Mouse Agent, Microsoft Defender, Edge, OneDrive und Teams. Damit die Ergebnisse vergleichbar bleiben, habe ich sonst genutzte Anwendungen wie mein VPN weggelassen. Daraufhin folgten fünf Neustarts, bei denen ich jeweils gemessen habe, wie lange es dauert, bis der Windows-Desktop vollständig geladen war. Auch die Anmeldung über Windows Hello wurde einbezogen.</p>



<p>Auf den meisten Laptops ist Microsoft Edge nicht im Autostart „vorinstalliert“. Dies kann man jedoch über das Einstellungsmenü von Microsoft Edge aktivieren. Dadurch startet der Browser deutlich schneller. Im Gegenzug verlängerte sich die Startzeit des Laptops aber um etwa drei Sekunden.</p>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure data-wp-context='{"imageId":"6a58b2f75d9e2"}' data-wp-interactive="core/image" class="wp-block-image size-large wp-lightbox-container"><img decoding="async" data-wp-class--hide="state.isContentHidden" data-wp-class--show="state.isContentVisible" data-wp-init="callbacks.setButtonStyles" data-wp-on-async--click="actions.showLightbox" data-wp-on-async--load="callbacks.setButtonStyles" data-wp-on-async-window--resize="callbacks.setButtonStyles" src="https://b2c-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/image_45e283.png?w=1200" alt="" class="wp-image-3141109" width="1200" height="521" loading="lazy"><button class="lightbox-trigger" type="button" aria-haspopup="dialog" aria-label="Enlarge" data-wp-init="callbacks.initTriggerButton" data-wp-on-async--click="actions.showLightbox" data-wp-style--right="state.imageButtonRight" data-wp-style--top="state.imageButtonTop">
				<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="12" height="12" fill="none" viewbox="0 0 12 12">
					<path fill="#fff" d="M2 0a2 2 0 0 0-2 2v2h1.5V2a.5.5 0 0 1 .5-.5h2V0H2Zm2 10.5H2a.5.5 0 0 1-.5-.5V8H0v2a2 2 0 0 0 2 2h2v-1.5ZM8 12v-1.5h2a.5.5 0 0 0 .5-.5V8H12v2a2 2 0 0 1-2 2H8Zm2-12a2 2 0 0 1 2 2v2h-1.5V2a.5.5 0 0 0-.5-.5H8V0h2Z"></path>
				</svg>
			</button><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Der ältere Laptop startete am schnellsten.</figcaption></figure></div>



<p>Die Ergebnisse meines Tests haben mich überrascht: Der Surface Laptop 3, auf dem eine Standardversion von Windows 11 24H2 (26100.8328) lief, startete deutlich schneller als die anderen vier Laptops. Warum auf einmal vier Laptops? Um meine Ergebnisse besser bewerten zu können, habe ich zwei etwas ältere Geräte hinzugefügt. Dabei stellte sich heraus, dass auch diese Geräte recht lange für den Startvorgang benötigten.</p>



<p>Kurz gesagt: Der Surface Laptop 3 aus dem Jahr 2019 startete etwa 10 Sekunden schneller als seine modernen Konkurrenten. Entsprechend gespannt war ich auf die weiteren Tests.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading toc">Die alltägliche Windows-Nutzung</h2>



<p>Auch hier habe ich versucht, synthetische Benchmarks zu vermeiden. Diesen Zahlen fehlt oft der Bezug zur alltäglichen Nutzung. Stattdessen habe ich etwa 30 Tabs im Browser geöffnet und zwischen diesen hin und her geklickt. Ich habe außerdem mit allen drei Laptops gearbeitet und sogar Teile dieses Artikels auf den Geräten verfasst.</p>



<p>Subjektiv gesehen spürt man tatsächlich einen Unterschied. Der von mir getestete Surface Laptop 3 verfügt über 16 Gigabyte RAM. Das Hin- und Herwechseln sowie das Starten von Apps fühlten sich langsamer an als bei den modernen Laptops. Der Unterschied war aber nicht sehr groß. Auch das Starten von Apps oder die Interaktion mit Windows fühlten sich merklich verzögert an. Dennoch konnte ich damit gut leben.</p>



<p>Oft liegt die träge Reaktion einfach an niedrigeren Spezifikationen. So gab es den Surface Laptop 3 auch mit nur 8 Gigabyte RAM. Davon würde ich heute eher abraten. Die nur 256 Gigabyte kleine SSD hat mich ebenfalls vor Probleme gestellt. Schon der Versuch, Windows wieder sauber zurückzusetzen, scheiterte am fehlenden Speicherplatz. Doch ich hatte letztlich nur einige versteckte Videodateien übersehen.</p>



<p>Generell fordern die meisten Funktionen des Betriebssystems oft nur einen Kern des Prozessors. Diese Leistung habe ich mit Cinebench gemessen. Je niedriger der erreichte Wert ist, desto langsamer fühlt sich Windows im Alltag an.</p>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure data-wp-context='{"imageId":"6a58b2f75e0a2"}' data-wp-interactive="core/image" class="wp-block-image size-large wp-lightbox-container"><img decoding="async" data-wp-class--hide="state.isContentHidden" data-wp-class--show="state.isContentVisible" data-wp-init="callbacks.setButtonStyles" data-wp-on-async--click="actions.showLightbox" data-wp-on-async--load="callbacks.setButtonStyles" data-wp-on-async-window--resize="callbacks.setButtonStyles" src="https://b2c-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/image_7e8877.png?w=1200" alt="" class="wp-image-3141110" width="1200" height="583" loading="lazy"><button class="lightbox-trigger" type="button" aria-haspopup="dialog" aria-label="Enlarge" data-wp-init="callbacks.initTriggerButton" data-wp-on-async--click="actions.showLightbox" data-wp-style--right="state.imageButtonRight" data-wp-style--top="state.imageButtonTop">
				<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="12" height="12" fill="none" viewbox="0 0 12 12">
					<path fill="#fff" d="M2 0a2 2 0 0 0-2 2v2h1.5V2a.5.5 0 0 1 .5-.5h2V0H2Zm2 10.5H2a.5.5 0 0 1-.5-.5V8H0v2a2 2 0 0 0 2 2h2v-1.5ZM8 12v-1.5h2a.5.5 0 0 0 .5-.5V8H12v2a2 2 0 0 1-2 2H8Zm2-12a2 2 0 0 1 2 2v2h-1.5V2a.5.5 0 0 0-.5-.5H8V0h2Z"></path>
				</svg>
			</button></figure></div>



<p>Auch hier fühlte sich die Interaktion mit Webseiten auf dem älteren Laptop etwas langsam und ruckelig an. Wirklich gestört hat mich dies aber nicht. </p>



<p>Ihr Browser verarbeitet im Hintergrund mehrere APIs, Frameworks und andere Anweisungen, die von außen kaum sichtbar sind. Um zu bewerten, wie gut der Laptop diese Aufgaben verarbeitet, haben wir zwei weitere Benchmarks durchgeführt: Speedometer und MotionMark sollen zeigen, wie flüssig der Browser arbeitet.</p>



<p>In diesem Fall rendern die neuen Laptops ihre Ergebnisse etwa doppelt so schnell wie der ältere Laptop. Subjektiv gesehen ist das kein riesiger Unterschied – aber es macht sich im Alltag bemerkbar.</p>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure data-wp-context='{"imageId":"6a58b2f75e5f0"}' data-wp-interactive="core/image" class="wp-block-image size-large wp-lightbox-container"><img decoding="async" data-wp-class--hide="state.isContentHidden" data-wp-class--show="state.isContentVisible" data-wp-init="callbacks.setButtonStyles" data-wp-on-async--click="actions.showLightbox" data-wp-on-async--load="callbacks.setButtonStyles" data-wp-on-async-window--resize="callbacks.setButtonStyles" src="https://b2c-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/image_0315c6.png?w=1200" alt="" class="wp-image-3141111" width="1200" height="713" loading="lazy"><button class="lightbox-trigger" type="button" aria-haspopup="dialog" aria-label="Enlarge" data-wp-init="callbacks.initTriggerButton" data-wp-on-async--click="actions.showLightbox" data-wp-style--right="state.imageButtonRight" data-wp-style--top="state.imageButtonTop">
				<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="12" height="12" fill="none" viewbox="0 0 12 12">
					<path fill="#fff" d="M2 0a2 2 0 0 0-2 2v2h1.5V2a.5.5 0 0 1 .5-.5h2V0H2Zm2 10.5H2a.5.5 0 0 1-.5-.5V8H0v2a2 2 0 0 0 2 2h2v-1.5ZM8 12v-1.5h2a.5.5 0 0 0 .5-.5V8H12v2a2 2 0 0 1-2 2H8Zm2-12a2 2 0 0 1 2 2v2h-1.5V2a.5.5 0 0 0-.5-.5H8V0h2Z"></path>
				</svg>
			</button></figure></div>



<p>Diese abstrakten Zahlen sollen verdeutlichen, welche Unterschiede es zwischen den Geräten gibt. Viel nützlicher sind aber die folgenden Vergleiche aus dem Alltag.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading toc">Büroarbeit offenbart Schwächen</h2>



<p>Die Anwendungen PCMark und Procyon von UL messen die Leistung in Word, Excel oder PowerPoint und nutzen das klassische Outlook für einige zusätzliche Tests im Office-Produktivitäts-Benchmark. Das Ergebnis ist eine Punktzahl, die ich in der folgenden Tabelle aufgelistet habe. Es wird jedoch auch die tatsächliche Zeit erfasst, die für bestimmte Aufgaben benötigt wird. So zeichnen sich die tatsächlichen Unterschiede zwischen den älteren und neueren Laptops deutlicher ab. Die durchschnittliche Punktzahl des Surface Laptop 3 war nur etwa halb so hoch wie die des Asus ZenBook Duo und des Asus ZenBook mit Snapdragon-X2E-Prozessor.</p>



<p>Die Grafik unten offenbart jedoch den eigentlichen Grund, warum ich diesen Artikel überhaupt geschrieben habe: Der Procyon-Benchmark von UL misst tatsächlich die Zeit, die für das Erledigen einer bestimmten Aufgabe nötig war. Der Test liefert so einen realistischen Vergleich darüber, wie schnell die jeweilige Laptop-Generation wirklich war.</p>



<p>Einige Aufgaben waren schnell erledigt: Können Sie es in Kauf nehmen, dass das Hinzufügen eines Wasserzeichens auf dem alten Laptop 0,9 Sekunden dauert, gegenüber 0,36 Sekunden beim neuen Gerät? Wahrscheinlich. Wie sieht es mit 2 Sekunden anstelle von einer Sekunde für das Hinzufügen eines Bildes aus? Und wie wäre es mit 26 Sekunden zum Exportieren einer PDF-Datei, gegenüber 11 Sekunden? Überlegen Sie, wie oft Sie diese Aufgaben ausführen und wie lange Sie auf das Ergebnis warten müssten.</p>



<p>Ein Blick auf Excel: Das Formatieren einer Tabelle dauerte auf dem Surface Laptop 3 fast drei Sekunden, gegenüber 0,4 Sekunden beim Asus-Laptop mit Snapdragon-Prozessor. Wenn Sie regelmäßig in Excel arbeiten, könnte diese kleine Verzögerung stören. Oder vier Sekunden zum Kopieren und Einfügen gegenüber sieben? Manche Menschen werden sich daran stören. Andere nicht.</p>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure data-wp-context='{"imageId":"6a58b2f75ec26"}' data-wp-interactive="core/image" class="wp-block-image size-large wp-lightbox-container"><img decoding="async" data-wp-class--hide="state.isContentHidden" data-wp-class--show="state.isContentVisible" data-wp-init="callbacks.setButtonStyles" data-wp-on-async--click="actions.showLightbox" data-wp-on-async--load="callbacks.setButtonStyles" data-wp-on-async-window--resize="callbacks.setButtonStyles" src="https://b2c-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Procyon-Office-test-7-year-old-PC-all-threee.png?w=1115" alt="Seven-year-old PC Panther Lake v Snapdragon X2 Elite and Surface Laptop 3" class="wp-image-3141114" width="1115" height="1200" loading="lazy"><button class="lightbox-trigger" type="button" aria-haspopup="dialog" aria-label="Enlarge" data-wp-init="callbacks.initTriggerButton" data-wp-on-async--click="actions.showLightbox" data-wp-style--right="state.imageButtonRight" data-wp-style--top="state.imageButtonTop">
				<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="12" height="12" fill="none" viewbox="0 0 12 12">
					<path fill="#fff" d="M2 0a2 2 0 0 0-2 2v2h1.5V2a.5.5 0 0 1 .5-.5h2V0H2Zm2 10.5H2a.5.5 0 0 1-.5-.5V8H0v2a2 2 0 0 0 2 2h2v-1.5ZM8 12v-1.5h2a.5.5 0 0 0 .5-.5V8H12v2a2 2 0 0 1-2 2H8Zm2-12a2 2 0 0 1 2 2v2h-1.5V2a.5.5 0 0 0-.5-.5H8V0h2Z"></path>
				</svg>
			</button><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Procyons Office-Produktivitäts-Benchmark mit einzelnen Ergebnissen. </figcaption></figure><p class="imageCredit">Mark Hachman / Foundry</p></div>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading toc">Videoanrufe, 30 Browser-Tabs und die Grenzen alter Hardware</h2>



<p>Außerdem habe ich einen weiteren Benchmark durchgeführt, den neuen Essentials-Test von UL.</p>



<p>Essentials öffnet einen Video-Chat, lässt diesen dann über einen Browser mit 30 geöffneten Tabs laufen – und beginnt anschließend, verschiedene Apps zu öffnen und Aufgaben auszuführen. Dies entspricht einem typischen Arbeitsalltag. Dazu kommen Aufgaben wie das Komprimieren und Dekomprimieren von Dateien, das Navigieren in einem webbasierten CRM (Customer Relationship Management) sowie die Nutzung sozialer Medien.</p>



<p>Wie zuvor geht es darum, herauszufinden, ob diese Unterschiede im Alltag einen Unterschied machen. Wenn Sie darüber nachdenken, Ihrem alten Laptop die Treue zu halten, dann stellen Sie sich folgende Fragen: Werden Sie wirklich 30 Tabs gleichzeitig öffnen? Wenn ja, könnte dies ein Problem sein. Anstelle von 5,75 Sekunden für die Navigation in einem Online-CRM geht es auf einem neuen Gerät mit 1,2 Sekunden deutlich flotter. Unser Testlauf umfasst sogar einige KI-Aufgaben: Das Zusammenfassen eines Chats dauerte auf dem älteren Laptop satte 69 Sekunden, gegenüber 15 bis 18 Sekunden auf den neueren Modellen mit integrierten NPUs. Ist dies etwas, das Sie regelmäßig tun? Das Entpacken einer ZIP-Datei war auf einem neuen PC etwa fünfmal schneller geschafft. So etwas macht man aber auch nicht ständig.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading toc">Erwarten Sie keine Wunder von der integrierten Grafikeinheit</h2>



<p>Ich habe Grafikfunktionen wie Gaming, Foto- und Videobearbeitung bewusst ausgelassen. Dieser Artikel wurde mit Blick auf Produktivität verfasst, und die beiden letztgenannten Kategorien sind nach wie vor eher spezialisierte Aufgaben. Wenn Sie jedoch die Grafikleistung beider Laptop-Generationen vergleichen, stellen moderne Laptops ihre Vorgänger deutlich in den Schatten. Das Asus ZenBook Duo bietet etwa die siebenfache Grafikleistung (7.666 gegenüber 990 Punkten im 3DMark Time Spy-Benchmark von UL). Und selbst ein Asus Vivobook S14 aus dem Jahr 2024 bietet mit einer Punktzahl von 4.209 die vierfache Performance.</p>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure data-wp-context='{"imageId":"6a58b2f75f40b"}' data-wp-interactive="core/image" class="wp-block-image size-large wp-lightbox-container"><img decoding="async" data-wp-class--hide="state.isContentHidden" data-wp-class--show="state.isContentVisible" data-wp-init="callbacks.setButtonStyles" data-wp-on-async--click="actions.showLightbox" data-wp-on-async--load="callbacks.setButtonStyles" data-wp-on-async-window--resize="callbacks.setButtonStyles" src="https://b2c-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/7-year-old-laptop-Procyon-Essentials.png?w=1200" alt="7-year-old laptop Procyon Essentials" class="wp-image-3141116" width="1200" height="1018" loading="lazy"><button class="lightbox-trigger" type="button" aria-haspopup="dialog" aria-label="Enlarge" data-wp-init="callbacks.initTriggerButton" data-wp-on-async--click="actions.showLightbox" data-wp-style--right="state.imageButtonRight" data-wp-style--top="state.imageButtonTop">
				<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="12" height="12" fill="none" viewbox="0 0 12 12">
					<path fill="#fff" d="M2 0a2 2 0 0 0-2 2v2h1.5V2a.5.5 0 0 1 .5-.5h2V0H2Zm2 10.5H2a.5.5 0 0 1-.5-.5V8H0v2a2 2 0 0 0 2 2h2v-1.5ZM8 12v-1.5h2a.5.5 0 0 0 .5-.5V8H12v2a2 2 0 0 1-2 2H8Zm2-12a2 2 0 0 1 2 2v2h-1.5V2a.5.5 0 0 0-.5-.5H8V0h2Z"></path>
				</svg>
			</button><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Die Ergebnisse des Procyons Essentials-Benchmarks.</figcaption></figure><p class="imageCredit">Mark Hachman / Foundry</p></div>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading toc">Die Akkulaufzeit ist offensichtlichster Grund für ein Upgrade</h2>



<p>Leider gibt es einen Bereich, in dem moderne Laptops einen erheblichen Vorteil gegenüber ihren älteren Kollegen bieten. Das ist die Akkulaufzeit.</p>



<p>Ich bin nicht überzeugt, dass sich ein moderner Laptop physisch so sehr von einem älteren Thin-and-Light-Modell unterscheidet. Moderne Laptops werden aus unterschiedlichen Materialien hergestellt – von leichteren bis hin zu strukturell robusteren –, doch die Gewichtsersparnis beträgt meist nur 500 Gramm.</p>



<p>Die Hersteller haben die Möglichkeit, diesen Platz mit zusätzlichen Akkuzellen zu füllen. Dadurch ist die Akkukapazität moderner Laptops in den vergangenen Jahren gestiegen. Ein Laptop wie das Asus ZenBook Duo enthält sowohl einen effizienten Panther-Lake-Chip als auch einen satten 99-Wattstunden-Akku.</p>



<p>Während die Akkulaufzeit des Surface Laptop 3 bei für die damalige Zeit soliden 10 Stunden lag, hielt das ZenBook Duo beachtliche 22 Stunden und 15 Minuten durch.</p>



<p>Und es kommt noch schlimmer. Akkus altern, daher hat der 45-Wattstunden-Akku im Surface Laptop 3 laut Windows in den vergangenen Jahren 70 Ladezyklen durchlaufen. Das hat die tatsächliche Kapazität bei voller Ladung auf 36,7 Wattstunden gesenkt, was einem Rückgang von 18 Prozent entspricht. So erreicht das Gerät nur noch eine geschätzte Laufzeit von 8 Stunden und 12 Minuten. Das ist gar nicht schlecht! Dennoch werden Sie bei der Arbeit nicht einen ganzen Tag lang mit diesem Akku auskommen. In unserem Ratgeber erklären wir Ihnen, <a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/article/1140340/laptop-richtig-laden-diese-fehler-sollten-sie-vermeiden.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">wie Sie Ihren Laptop richtig aufladen</a>, um dessen Kapazität so lange wie möglich zu erhalten.</p>



<p>Dennoch hat sich der Alltag in den letzten sieben Jahren stark verändert. <a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/article/1167895/vergleich-die-besten-powerbanks-im-test-4500-bis-30000-mah.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Leistungsstarke Powerbanks</a> sind zur Massenware geworden. Ebenso sind Steckdosen in Flugzeugen, auf Flughäfen und in Konferenzzentren überall zu finden. Die Effizienz von Akkus hat sich ebenfalls weiterentwickelt.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading toc">Sollten Sie Ihren alten Laptop ausmustern?</h2>



<p>Die Kurzform: Wenn Ihr älterer Laptop die täglich genutzten Apps noch schnell laden kann, das Gerät generell reaktionsschnell arbeitet, genug Akkuleistung für Ihren Arbeitsalltag bietet und noch genügend Speicherplatz zur Verfügung hat, dann müssen Sie das Gerät wahrscheinlich noch nicht ersetzen.</p>



<p>Ein neuer Laptop ist vor allem dann sinnvoll, wenn die Akkulaufzeit zu einem täglichen Problem wird. Auch wenn Sie regelmäßig bei rechenintensiven Aufgaben wie Fotobearbeitung, Videobearbeitung, KI-Tools, großen Tabellenkalkulationen oder Dateikomprimierung warten müssen. Oder aber Ihr Gerät stößt aufgrund von zu wenig RAM oder Speicherplatz an seine Grenzen. Für einfaches Surfen, Office-Arbeit, E-Mails, Videoanrufe und leichtes Multitasking kann ein gut gepflegter älterer Laptop immer noch gut genug sein – und ihn zu behalten, könnte die klügere Entscheidung sein.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading toc">Widerstehen Sie den Versuchungen des Marketings</h2>



<p>Früher waren sechs oder sieben Jahre in der PC-Branche eine kleine Ewigkeit. 1989 brachte Intel den 486er mit 25 Megahertz auf den Markt; 1995 erreichte der Pentium Pro 200 Megahertz. Und heute? Noch vor etwa einem Jahr haben wir uns darüber beschwert, dass Intels aktuelle Arrow-Lake-Chips mit einer Taktfrequenz von bis zu 5,2 Gigahertz sogar weniger Leistung ablieferten als ihre Vorgänger.</p>



<p>Vielleicht haben Sie diesen Artikel gelesen und sich gedacht: Wen interessiert das schon? Eine halbe Sekunde macht im Alltag keinen Unterschied. Daher rate ich Ihnen: Ziehen Sie es in Betracht, Ihren alten Rechner zu behalten. Andere Nutzer sehen das vielleicht anders und konzentrieren sich auf all die Vorteile, die ein neuerer Laptop mit sich bringt.</p>



<p>Die IT-Branche möchte Ihnen aus verschiedenen Gründen neue Produkte verkaufen. Wenn Sie aber die Möglichkeit haben, einen alten und einen neuen Laptop zu vergleichen, dann sehen Sie schnell, ob sich eine Neuanschaffung lohnt. Genau darum ging es mir in diesem Artikel: Ich wollte Ihnen all die Informationen geben, die Sie benötigen, um eine klügere Entscheidung darüber zu treffen, ob Sie einen neuen Laptop kaufen sollten.</p>



<p>Wenn sich jedoch herausstellt, dass ihr aktueller Laptop an seine Grenzen stößt, dann finden Sie in unseren <a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/bestenlisten/laptops" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Bestenlisten</a> die lohnenswertesten Modelle für jeden Geldbeutel. Suchen Sie nach einem <a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/article/1204273/die-besten-laptops-fuer-studenten-und-schueler-im-test.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Laptop für Schüler oder Studenten</a>? Oder soll es lieber ein <a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/article/2504193/test-die-besten-gaming-laptops-unter-1200-euro.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Gaming-Laptop für unter 1.200 Euro</a> sein? <a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/article/2215385/die-besten-laptops-test.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Die besten Notebooks aller Klassen</a> haben wir ebenfalls einem Vergleich unterzogen.</p>



<p>In jedem Fall gilt: <a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/article/2639709/nicht-wegwerfen-fuenf-geniale-ideen-fuer-alte-notebook-laptops-weiternutzung.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Werfen Sie Ihren alten Laptop bloß nicht weg, sondern machen Sie stattdessen das damit!</a></p>

</div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[When AI gets a body, it inherits an attack surface]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Most security leaders I know working on AI robotics are being shown the same kind of video. A humanoid folds a shirt, sorts a bin, walks a warehouse aisle and a vendor uses the clip to move an embodied AI system from pitch to purchase order. Someone then has to sign off. Robot demos create procur...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3673042/it-security-nachrichten/when-ai-gets-a-body-it-inherits-an-attack-surface/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3673042/it-security-nachrichten/when-ai-gets-a-body-it-inherits-an-attack-surface/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 12:09:41 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Most security leaders I know working on AI robotics are being shown the same kind of video. A humanoid folds a shirt, sorts a bin, walks a warehouse aisle and a vendor uses the clip to move an embodied AI system from pitch to purchase order. Someone then has to sign off. Robot demos create procurement momentum before security teams receive the artifacts needed to evaluate the system as cyber-physical infrastructure.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Before the book, I prepared cloud infrastructure operating in China and the United States for cybersecurity compliance audits and for the Multi-Level Protection Scheme, China’s mandatory security-grading regime that determines whether a system is allowed to operate. That work taught me a lesson I carry into every AI conversation now. You cannot secure what you cannot see into, and the buyer rarely sees in. A demo makes it worse. It shows one task, completed once, under conditions the vendor chose. None of what a security team must evaluate is on screen.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This used to be a research-lab problem. It is now a procurement line item. The risk changed when embodied AI moved from a research demo to a purchase order.  Vendors are asking security teams to approve embodied AI before the category has audit evidence, logging norms, supplier transparency or a shared-responsibility model.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Embodied AI puts a model inside a machine that operates in the physical world: a robot, an arm, a humanoid. Once a model gains motors, sensors and a body, it ceases to be a software endpoint and becomes a cyber-physical system. It inherits hardware, firmware, a supply chain, an installer and a set of remote-access paths. Every one of those is an attack surface that the demo video doesn’t show. An embodied system is sold like software and behaves like a fleet of networked machinery on your floor.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Evaluate these systems across five questions: provenance, access, integrity, evidence and accountability. Here is what each means.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Evaluation question #1: Provenance</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">What is inside, and who controls it? A humanoid is an assembly of actuators, lidar units, battery packs, joint modules and controllers, most from a supply chain the buyer never vetted, each running firmware the buyer cannot read. Software teams already fought this fight, which is why the <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/573185/what-is-an-sbom-software-bill-of-materials-explained.html">software bill of materials</a> became standard practice. Lack of transparency creates systemic risk. Embodied systems raise the stakes because the firmware now lives in dozens of parts that move. The risk does not depend on whether the robot is Chinese, American, German or Japanese. It depends on how much of the system the buyer can see: the hardware, firmware, remote-access paths and maintenance relationships behind it.  China installs more industrial robots than any other country and sits near the center of the battery supply chain, as well as parts of the lidar and machine-vision supply base, which these systems draw on. Lidar, short for Light Detection and Ranging, uses pulsed laser beams to map an environment in 3D; machine vision handles optical inspection and guidance. Much of that lineage traces to suppliers your team has no relationship with. This is the hardware and firmware version of the third-party risk <a href="https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-161r1.pdf">NIST’s supply chain guidance</a> was written for, except that the component has motors. Demand a hardware and firmware bill of materials, then use it. Flag unsigned firmware. Map which supplier holds update authority for each part. Require a way to verify integrity, and treat any component you cannot identify as unmanaged.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Evaluation question #2: Access</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Who can reach the fleet? Someone installs these machines, someone services them and the vendor pushes software updates.  Where teleoperation is part of the support model, treat it as a privileged remote-access path, not a convenience feature.  Each is a standing path into a machine that moves and lifts. Security teams have seen this story before. Operational Technology (OT) security went mainstream once industrial systems joined IT networks, and the recurring failure is unmanaged remote access that nobody inventoried. According to one industry survey, <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/3595787/ot-security-becoming-a-mainstream-concern.html">roughly half of attacks on OT assets originate in an IT network breach</a>. <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/alerts/2021/01/07/supply-chain-compromise">SolarWinds</a> showed why a trusted update channel deserves scrutiny when one delivered a backdoor to thousands of networks. Embodied systems add the harder part. The compromised endpoint can move. A remote operator on that channel can drive a machine and push code to every unit at once. Treat the fleet like high-value OT. Inventory every remote path, segment it from the production network, default to deny, require signed and verified updates, apply privileged-access controls to vendor maintenance, and treat an always-on teleoperation link as a backdoor until it is governed.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Evaluation question #3: Integrity</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Whether the machine can be made to misperceive or misbehave. Researchers have shown that <a href="https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity20/presentation/sun">lidar spoofing</a> can cause an autonomous system to brake for an obstacle that is not there or miss one that is. The same class of sensor and model manipulation, on a humanoid sharing a floor with people, produces motion, not a wrong answer on a screen. This is where safety engineering and security part ways. Functional safety stops hazardous motion when a component fails. It plans for accidents. Security plans for an adversary. A hardwired safety circuit can stay independent of the control plane, and a good one does. What it does not tell you is how an attacker reached that control plane, altered the model’s inputs or seized the fleet-management path. Ask the vendor to threat-model sensor spoofing and model manipulation as a path to physical motion. Then ask how you will even know it happened. A spoofed sensor does not announce itself. It shows up as a machine acting incorrectly with confidence.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Picture the failure in plain terms. A warehouse robot takes a routine vendor update that changes how it navigates. The buyer cannot verify the firmware, cannot identify the supplier of the sensor module and has no logs to distinguish a spoofed sensor from a model error. The machine keeps moving, and no one can say why.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Evaluation question #4: Evidence</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Whether the claims are true. You have not found an independent audit of embodied-AI field performance, so the uptime and reliability numbers come from the vendor. You are buying a claim, not a track record. Require independently verified uptime, intervention rate and incident history from a named deployment you can call. “Cutting-edge” is not a control.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Evaluation question #5: Accountability</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Who owns the risk when it fails? Cloud taught security teams shared responsibility the hard way, after years of arguing which side of the line a breach fell on. Embodied AI arrives without that model, and the stakes are physical: the machine can injure someone. In my compliance work, the question that decided everything was always who is accountable when this thing breaks. Put it in the contract. Define the responsibility boundary, an incident-disclosure timeline, a right to audit and liability for physical harm. A vendor who will not commit in writing is showing you who bears the risk.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">These five questions share one root. For a decade, the security question was whether you could trust what a model generates. The embodied question is who can reach the machine and what they can make it do. A demo answers neither.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Before any embodied system reaches your floor, make these five demands of the vendor.</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><strong>Provenance. </strong>A hardware and firmware bill of materials with named suppliers, integrity verification and a vulnerability-disclosure record. No bill of materials, no deal.</li>



<li><strong>Access. </strong>A full map of who installs, who services and every update and teleoperation path, with segmentation, default-deny and signed updates required.</li>



<li><strong>Integrity. </strong>A threat model for sensor spoofing and model manipulation that treats the failure as physical motion, plus logging that a defender can use.</li>



<li><strong>Evidence. </strong>Independently verified uptime, intervention and incident history from a named deployment you can call.</li>



<li><strong>Accountability. </strong>A contract that defines the responsibility boundary, incident-disclosure timelines, audit rights and liability for physical harm.</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The robot demo is built to make you feel the future has arrived. My job, and now yours, is the unglamorous question behind it. Ask what the machine’s attack surface looks like once it is bolted to your floor, wired to your network and updated by someone you have never met.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.</strong><br><a href="https://www.cio.com/expert-contributor-network/"><strong>Want to join?</strong></a></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[IT leaders prioritize addressing AI skill concerns]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Recent data from the CompTIA Tech Jobs Report shows that tech jobs have seen a drop in unemployment, down to 3.1% in May from 3.5% in April, accounting for an increase of around 6,700 in May. Roles that saw the highest demand include software developers and engineers, systems engineers and archit...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3672916/it-nachrichten/it-leaders-prioritize-addressing-ai-skill-concerns/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3672916/it-nachrichten/it-leaders-prioritize-addressing-ai-skill-concerns/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 11:18:13 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Recent data from the <a href="https://www.comptia.org/en-us/resources/research/tech-jobs-report/">CompTIA Tech Jobs Report</a> shows that tech jobs have seen a drop in unemployment, down to 3.1% in May from 3.5% in April, accounting for an increase of around 6,700 in May. Roles that saw the highest demand include software developers and engineers, systems engineers and architects, tech support specialists, cybersecurity engineers and analysts, and AI engineers.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">And according to projections form the <a href="https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2026/article/industry-and-occupational-employment-projections-overview.htm">U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics</a>, the tech workforce is anticipated to grow twice as fast as the overall US workforce, with an expected replacement rate of 6% annually, or approximately 323,000 workers, for tech occupations between 2024 and 2034.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“More than ever, business success relies on technology,” said Seth Robinson, VP of  industry research at CompTIA. “Our research has shown a desire to build capability in core operational functions, which then allows companies to build advanced practices in AI, data, and cybersecurity.”Further data, this time from the <a href="https://www.comptia.org/en-us/resources/research/state-of-the-tech-workforce-2026/">CompTIA Sate of the Tech Workforce 2026</a> report, shows that 83% of IT leaders and HR professionals say their organizations are placing a high or moderately high priority on addressing skill concerns, and 62% say they expect the budget for AI training to increase in the next year. Organizations also seem to recognize the impact that skills development can have on employees, with 83% saying they expect these investments to have a high or moderate degree of impact on employee morale and engagement.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Cause and effect</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There are two main factors driving the skills gap and pushing IT leaders to invest in training programs: AI accelerating technological change, and a shortage of AI skilled professionals in the hiring market. However, while AI is a main driver in the skills gap, 48% of IT leaders also say AI is crowding out other important needs, including a much-needed shift to skills-based hiring methodologies.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">IT leaders are looking to build training programs that specifically address AI basics, data analysis, AI threat awareness, automation, data preparation, securing AI systems, building inputs and prompts, and creating AI agents. Currently IT leaders cite cost of training, training fatigue, turnover, lack of executive support, difficulty measuring ROI, and stale training curriculum as some of the biggest challenges when developing training programs, according to CompTIA.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So organizations that embark on upskilling and training will need a robust strategy in place to ensure employees take advantage of the training and remain engaged. Leaders will also need to set the expectations for how to integrate training into daily work, so they aren’t left feeling overwhelmed by the process on top of their current roles.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“What we’ve found that works is to embed AI into people’s workflows after the initial training, and pair people with colleagues who are further along in their AI utilization,” says Maruf Ahmed, CEO of IT solutions provider Dexian. “The gap between ‘I attended the training’ and ‘I’m actually using this differently in my job’ is where companies lose people, and closing it takes more than a single training cycle.”</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Flaw surge fuels need for CISOs to rethink vulnerability management]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Security experts are calling on enterprises to revise their vulnerability management strategies and move towards “just in time” patching in response the increased pace of vulnerability exploitation.



Attackers are turning to AI to increase the rate of vulnerability exploitation and supply chain...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3672628/it-security-nachrichten/flaw-surge-fuels-need-for-cisos-to-rethink-vulnerability-management/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3672628/it-security-nachrichten/flaw-surge-fuels-need-for-cisos-to-rethink-vulnerability-management/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 09:24:31 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Security experts are calling on enterprises to revise their vulnerability management strategies and move towards “just in time” patching in response the increased pace of vulnerability exploitation.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Attackers are <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/4181924/ai-worm-prototype-shows-attackers-dont-need-mythos-to-take-over-your-network.html">turning to AI</a> to increase the <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/3632268/gen-ai-is-transforming-the-cyber-threat-landscape-by-democratizing-vulnerability-hunting.html">rate of vulnerability exploitation</a> and supply chain compromise so that traditional forms of vulnerability management are no longer keeping pace.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Muhammad Yahya Patel, vCISO and cybersecurity advisor for EMEA at managed security services vendor Huntress, recently <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/4176086/vulnerabilities-have-become-cyber-attackers-no-1-door-to-the-enterprise.html">told CSO</a> that “organizations need to shift their vulnerability management program to a risk-based, continuous [approach], tied to real-time exploitation intelligence — not scheduled patch cycles that leave exploitation windows wide open for days and weeks.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Wild frontier</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Frontier AI tools such as Claude Mythos have <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/4158117/anthropics-mythos-signals-a-structural-cybersecurity-shift.html">signaled a structural shift for cybersecurity</a>, readily surfacing vulnerabilities at a huge scale — a development that, as government security assurance organizations such as the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre point out, is likely to lead to a surge in patches.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Most organizations already struggle to fix known issues quickly, so a spike in AI-driven discovery could easily overwhelm teams and widen the gap between finding problems and fixing them,” Andrew Woodford, CTO at network security vendor Titania, tells CSO. “In many ways, this just exposes a problem that’s already there.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Shane Fry, CTO at cybersecurity vendor RunSafe Security, argues that <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/3520881/patch-management-a-dull-it-pain-that-wont-go-away.html">patching as a security strategy</a> has been in crisis for years, and AI-accelerated vulnerability discovery has simply pushed it over the edge.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Some experts contend that virtual patching — a technique that involves blocking exploit attempts at a security layer rather than fixing vulnerable code — represents a sound mitigation strategy, but Fry has reservations about the approach.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“While virtual patching will play a role going forward, its effectiveness is limited and leaves security teams chasing a gap they will never be able to close,” Fry says.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Instead, security teams need to shift toward mitigation-first approaches that make it impossible for attackers to exploit bugs in software.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Removing entire classes of exploits upfront takes the heat out of the patch gap, and allows patching to become strategic rather than reactive,” Fry argues.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">‘Assume Autonomy’</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The conventional patch management model was designed around a world where vulnerability discovery happened at human speed: A human researcher finds a flaw, reports it, a CVE gets assigned, vendors ship a fix, enterprises test and deploy it — a process that can take weeks.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AI-powered vulnerability discovery blows this model out of the water.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“If offensive AI can identify, validate, and exploit vulnerabilities without human authorization, a 43-day median patch time, as noted in Verizon’s DBIR, is the least of your problems,” argues Rik Ferguson, vice president of security intelligence at Forescout. “An AI system doesn’t wait for a proof-of-concept to circulate on GitHub or a CVSS score to land in a dashboard. It finds the flaw, confirms exploitability, and moves.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Ferguson advocates a change of approach toward what he describes as “Assume Autonomy.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The question is what compensating controls you put in place between discovery and remediation, and how you constrain what an attacker can do with access they’ve already acquired,” Ferguson explains.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Just-in-time patching fits in with this philosophy and is a desirable goal but may be difficult to achieve in practice especially for the many enterprises that struggle with asset management.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Just-in-time patching is sound in principle: prioritize and deploy fixes as exploitation intelligence emerges rather than waiting for the scheduled window,” Ferguson says. “But achieving it has some real-world requirements: continuous asset visibility, knowing precisely what you have, where it is, and what its current exposure status is.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For example, Ferguson adds, “you can’t patch just-in-time against a vulnerability in a device you didn’t know was on your network.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Virtual patching</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Gunter Ollmann, CTO at pen testing as a service firm Cobalt, notes that just-in-time patching makes sense if and when a patch is available — but that’s not always possible.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The major problem lies in the discovery of new vulnerabilities in code or systems that the business has no rights or capabilities to fix themselves, and they have a dependence upon third parties to develop the fix or patch — and are therefore subject to external SLA [service level agreement] turnarounds,” Ollmann explains.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In such cases, enterprises will need to deploy virtual patches capable of blocking or deflecting the exploitation vectors of the vulnerable system.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Businesses are in desperate need of quickly deciphering a new vulnerability and dynamically creating an appropriate blocking rule — or rules — for their layered defenses,” Ollmann says.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Virtual patching may mitigate security threats particularly in operational technology (OT) and IoT environments where applying a vendor patch to a running production system risks unplanned downtime or safety system interruption but only serves as a stop gap, Ferguson tells CSO.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“A network-layer control that blocks exploitation of a known flaw, while you work through the testing and deployment cycle for the actual fix, is a compensating control,” notes Ferguson, who warns that virtual patches come with multiple drawbacks.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Virtual patches require accurate detection signatures, they don’t remediate the underlying vulnerability, and they can create a false sense of closure that delays proper patching indefinitely,” Ferguson argues. “The risk is that temporary becomes permanent. The underlying vulnerability stays open, and the virtual patch becomes the reason nobody revisits it.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Just-in-time risk reduction</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Douglas McKee, director of vulnerability intelligence at Rapid7, advocates what he describes as just-in-time risk reduction rather than just-in-time patching because of the practical difficulties with the latter.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“In the real world, especially in OT, medical devices, and business-critical systems, you can’t always patch the second a CVE drops,” McKee argues. “You still need testing, maintenance windows, rollback plans, and someone who actually owns the asset. However, the old monthly scan, report, and remediation cycle will not survive this pace.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Tips for modernizing vulnerability management</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The enterprise attack surface has expanded significantly of late, and patch management models haven’t kept up. In response, security leaders’ vulnerability management strategies have to become more of a continuous monitoring function, not a triage and remediation process.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Modernizing enterprise approaches to vulnerability management involves “real-time exploitation intelligence integrated into prioritization, compensating controls deployed at discovery rather than at patch release, and visibility across the full asset estate that conventional patch management tools were never designed to cover,” Ferguson says.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Rapid7’s McKee stresses that security teams need to separate “known vulnerable” from “actually reachable and exploitable in my environment.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This process can be achieved through a combination of asset inventory, internet exposure mapping, KEV tracking, vulnerability intelligence, ownership, and emergency change paths.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Prioritization based on risk factors like public exposure, known exploitation, automation potential, and technical impact is key,” McKee concludes.</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Thinking Machines open sources first multimodal language model, Inkling, focused on low cost and 'resistance to censorship']]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Enterprises looking to move more of their agentic AI workloads to open weights models they can customize, control and run on-premises or in virtual private clouds have a strong new contender to consider.Today, Thinking Machines—the highly capitalized American AI startup founded by former OpenAI C...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3672034/it-nachrichten/thinking-machines-open-sources-first-multimodal-language-model-inkling-focused-on-low-cost-and-resistance-to-censorship/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3672034/it-nachrichten/thinking-machines-open-sources-first-multimodal-language-model-inkling-focused-on-low-cost-and-resistance-to-censorship/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 00:46:37 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Enterprises looking to move more of their agentic AI workloads to open weights models they can customize, control and run on-premises or in virtual private clouds have a strong new contender to consider.</p><p>Today, Thinking Machines—the highly capitalized American AI startup founded by former OpenAI CTO Mira Murati—<a href="https://thinkingmachines.ai/news/introducing-inkling/">released Inkling</a>, its first major language model under an<a href="https://choosealicense.com/licenses/apache-2.0/"> enterprise-friendly Apache 2.0 open source license</a>, and it boasts high, if sub state-of-the-art, performance for open weights models on third-party benchmarks, specifically software engineering (77.6% on SWE-bench Verified, where it beats fellow U.S. open rival Nvidia Nemotron 3's 71.9%) and voice understanding (91.4% on VoiceBench compared to 94.4% for Gemini 3.1 Pro on high reasoning effort).</p><p>Another differentiator: Thinking Machines notes that Inkling was designed "to answer directly on topics that may be subject to censorship," offering enterprises concerned about factual outputs, irrespective of controversy or sensitivity, a more trustworthy option. </p><p>Coming in at 975 billion total parameters, Inkling is a natively multimodal, open-weights Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) system capable of reasoning across text, images, and audio. The weights <a href="https://huggingface.co/thinkingmachines/Inkling">are already available on Hugging Face</a> and the company's own model training application programming interface (API), <a href="https://thinkingmachines.ai/tinker/">Tinker</a>.</p><p>Designed to balance cost against performance through a novel "controllable thinking effort" mechanism, the model represents a significant departure from the black-box scaling strategies of frontier competitors.</p><p>Alongside the flagship model, Thinking Machines also announced a preview of Inkling-Small, a lighter 276-billion-parameter alternative optimized for workloads where low latency and cost are paramount.</p><h2><b>Benchmarks Show a Powerful, High-End, Sub State-of-the-Art Model</b></h2><p>While Inkling is a formidable multimodal engine, it lands in a fiercely competitive 2026 open-weight landscape characterized by highly specialized MoE architectures. Rather than attempting to dominate every leaderboard, Thinking Machines explicitly designed Inkling—with 975 billion total and 41 billion active parameters—as a broad, balanced generalist. </p><p>For example, it comes in near the middle high-end of benchmark performance 1257 on Design Arena’s Agentic Web Dev leaderboard measuring human scores of frontend web design. </p><p>But China’s leading AI labs have produced models with elite reasoning and coding capabilities, posing a stiff challenge to Inkling's generalist approach and ultimately outperforming it on general and coding benchmarks.</p><ul><li><p><b>GLM 5.2:</b> Widely considered the top open-weight reasoning model available in the benchmark set, GLM 5.2 outperforms Inkling on pure coding, agentic, and complex reasoning tasks. It scores 62.1% on SWEBench Pro (Public) compared to Inkling’s 54.3%, and a massive 82.7 on Terminal Bench 2.1 against Inkling’s 63.8. GLM 5.2 also holds the edge in text-only reasoning, scoring 40.1% on HLE (text only) versus Inkling's 30.0%.</p></li><li><p><b>DeepSeek V4 Pro:</b> DeepSeek maintains an edge in several strict coding and factuality domains, beating Inkling on SWEBench Verified (80.6% vs. 77.6%) and SimpleQA Verified (57.0% vs. 43.9%). However, Inkling successfully overtakes DeepSeek V4 Pro in mathematical problem-solving, achieving 97.1% on AIME 2026 compared to DeepSeek's 96.7%.</p></li><li><p><b>Kimi K2.6:</b> This model outpaces Inkling across multiple technical benchmarks, delivering higher scores on GPQA Diamond (91.1% vs. 87.9%), BrowseComp (83.2% vs. 77.1%), and HLE with tools (54.0% vs. 46.0%). Yet Inkling proves more resilient on general chat instruction following, scoring 79.8% on IFBench compared to Kimi K2.6's 76.0%.</p></li></ul><p>Against its primary U.S.-based open-weight competition, Inkling demonstrates strong parity and frequent superiority.</p><ul><li><p><b>Nemotron 3 Ultra:</b> Inkling consistently outperforms this U.S. rival across reasoning and coding. Inkling posts 97.1% on AIME 2026 and 77.6% on SWEBench Verified, beating Nemotron's 94.2% and 70.7%, respectively. Furthermore, Inkling significantly leads in agentic workflows, scoring 74.1% on MCP Atlas against Nemotron's 44.7%.</p></li></ul><p>When compared to closed-source juggernauts like Claude Fable 5, GPT 5.6 Sol, and Gemini 3.1 Pro, Inkling trails in peak reasoning and software engineering autonomy, but remains highly competitive in multimodality.</p><ul><li><p><b>Coding and Reasoning:</b> Closed models maintain a commanding lead. Claude Fable 5 (max) hits 95.0% on SWEBench Verified and 53.3% on HLE (text only), far outpacing Inkling's 77.6% and 30.0%. GPT 5.6 Sol dominates Terminal Bench 2.1 with an 89.5, easily clearing Inkling's 63.8.</p></li><li><p><b>Native Multimodality:</b> Inkling's native visual and audio capabilities hold their own. On the MMMU Pro (Standard 10) vision benchmark, Inkling's 73.3% is competitive, though trailing Claude Fable 5's 84.2% and GPT 5.6 Sol's 83.0%. In audio processing, Inkling scores a highly respectable 77.2% on MMAU, keeping it within striking distance of Gemini 3.1 Pro's 82.5%.</p></li></ul><p>If an enterprise workflow demands elite software engineering autonomy or the highest bounds of text-only reasoning, models like GLM 5.2 or proprietary systems like Claude Fable 5 maintain the edge. </p><p>However, Inkling carves out a unique and highly defensible position: it is the most capable open-weight foundation model that natively fuses text, vision, and audio, while simultaneously offering developers direct programmatic control over the cost-to-performance ratio. </p><h2><b>The Shift from Static Reasoning to Controllable Thinking</b></h2><p>Rather than attempting to build a singular "god model" optimized strictly for state-of-the-art benchmark domination, Thinking Machines engineered Inkling for adaptability and efficiency in real-world workflows.</p><p>The standout feature of this release is Inkling's "controllable thinking effort." Developers can programmatically adjust the model's reasoning budget—scaling from 0.2 to 0.99—to dictate how hard the AI should "think" before generating an output. </p><p>As the company noted, "Inkling's continuous thinking effort lets you pick your point on the cost/performance curve—reaching the same score with a fraction of the tokens".</p><p>In practical terms, this allows enterprises to deploy Inkling with lower token expenditure for simpler tasks, while cranking up the compute overhead for complex, multi-step reasoning challenges. However, by keeping the thinking effort lower and generating fewer tokens, the cost-conscious enterprise can achieve high quality results and performance on simple tasks while spending less money, or, in the case of those running models locally, less costs on energy and compute resources.</p><p>During the model’s large-scale reinforcement learning (RL) training over 30 million rollouts, researchers observed an emergent phenomenon they called "chain of thought condensation". Over time, Inkling naturally learned to compress its internal reasoning steps—dropping grammatical overhead and connectives—while reaching the same accurate conclusions, resulting in drastically reduced latency.</p><h2><b>Epistemics and Censorship Resistance</b></h2><p>A notable element of Thinking Machines' release is its explicit focus on the model's epistemics—specifically its calibration, instruction following, and resistance to censorship. </p><p>In an ecosystem where open-weight models adopt either overly restrictive safety guardrails or echo state-aligned ideological talking points, Inkling was intentionally trained to answer directly on politically sensitive or heavily censored topics.</p><p>To validate this approach, Thinking Machines submitted Inkling to the <i>Propaganda and Censorship Eval</i> developed by AI startup Cognition. According to the published findings, Inkling demonstrated "strong patterns of censorship non-compliance," effectively resisting ideological capture or boilerplate refusals when presented with sensitive subjects.</p><p>Despite its resistance to censorship, the model maintains a robust defense against genuinely malicious, dangerous, or illegal queries. On the StrongREJECT benchmark—which tests responses to unambiguous harmful requests—Inkling scored 98.6%, placing it in line with strict frontier safety standards. Furthermore, on the FORTRESS benchmark, Inkling successfully navigated the line between safety and over-refusal: it achieved a 78.0% refusal rate on adversarial queries (such as those involving weapons, cyberattacks, or violence) while maintaining a 95.9% compliance rate on benign, look-alike queries.</p><p>Thinking Machines noted that typical open-weight vulnerabilities remain within the architecture. Internal safety evaluations revealed an "occasional tendency to comply with role-play and indirectly framed prompts concerning harmful topics". The company advised enterprise developers to treat the model's built-in refusals as just one layer of security, recommending the downstream deployment of external moderation tools—such as Llama Guard—to filter adversarial jailbreaks and enforce use-case-specific safety policies at the application level.</p><h2><b>Under the Hood: Architecture and Multimodality</b></h2><p>Inkling's scale is staggering, yet sparse. The MoE architecture features 975 billion total parameters, but only 41 billion parameters are active during any given token generation. It supports a massive context window of 1 million tokens and diverges from typical transformer models by using relative positional embeddings instead of the industry-standard Rotary Positional Embedding (RoPE).</p><p>True to the company's foundational vision, Inkling was trained from scratch to be natively multimodal. Unlike models that rely on bolted-on external encoders, Inkling uses an encoder-free early fusion approach. It directly ingests audio as discrete dMel spectrograms and visual data as 40x40 pixel patches via a hierarchical multi-layer perceptron (hMLP), projecting all modalities into a shared hidden space.</p><h2><b>Licensing: True Open-Source for the Enterprise</b></h2><p>For enterprise IT teams and developers, the most disruptive aspect of Inkling may be its licensing. Inkling is released under the permissive Apache 2.0 license.</p><p>In an ecosystem where many so-called "open" models from Western labs are tethered to dual-use commercial licenses, acceptable use restrictions, or revenue caps, an Apache 2.0 designation makes Inkling a true open-source foundation. This gives developers the legal freedom to download, modify, integrate, and commercialize the model weights entirely royalty-free.</p><p>The model is readily deployable across major open-source inference libraries—including SGLang, vLLM, TokenSpeed, and llama.cpp—and comes with a native NVFP4 quantized checkpoint optimized for NVIDIA Blackwell systems.</p><h2><b>Community Reactions: The Engineering Feat</b></h2><p>The AI community's response has been swift, praising both the model's openness and the underlying engineering execution.</p><p>In a<a href="https://x.com/johnschulman2/status/2077460227327467982"> post on X</a>, Thinking Machines co-founder John Schulman reflected on the rapid development cycle: "Inkling is out today, with open weights and in Tinker. It's been fun to watch this one come together: pretraining began last winter, and starting in mid-January a small team built up the coding, reasoning, and agentic training from there. We learned a lot building it, and I hope people find good uses for it."</p><div></div><p>Horace He, a researcher at Thinking Machines (previously from PyTorch), underscored the difficulty of the task in <a href="https://x.com/cHHillee/status/2077457790423969806">another post on X</a>: "It truly takes a village to release a model, perhaps especially an open weights model. Actually doing the entire process from scratch, from data to pretraining to posttraining to actual release, gives a lot of appreciation for anyone who does it!"</p><div></div><p>The broader open-source ecosystem has also embraced the technical integrations. Lysandre Debut, the Chief Open-Source Officer at Hugging Face, shared his enthusiasm regarding the model's optimization<a href="https://x.com/LysandreJik/status/2077459011285512267"> in his own X post</a>: "One thing I find quite striking is how much easier accelerating models has become... We replaced the model's causal Conv1D with the `causal-conv1d` kernel. One line changed, +4% tokens per second. We then replaced its attention implementation with FlashAttention-4. Another single change, another +11%. That's a total throughput improvement of about 15%, without changing the model architecture or retraining anything."</p><p>Tiezhen Wang, an ecosystem growth expert and ex-Googler, celebrated the release as a massive win for the open-source community, listing the model's impressive specifications on X, highlighting its "975B total, 41B active" size, "Native MTP support," and the highly coveted "Apache 2.0 license."</p><h2><b>Background: The Road to Inkling</b></h2><p>To understand the significance of Inkling, one has to look back at the rapid trajectory of Thinking Machines over the past 18 months.</p><p>When<a href="https://venturebeat.com/technology/ex-openai-cto-mira-murati-unveils-thinking-machines-a-startup-focused-on-multimodality-human-ai-collaboration"> Mira Murati departed OpenAI in late 2024 to found Thinking Machines</a> alongside industry veterans like John Schulman and Barret Zoph, the stated goal was to pivot away from building isolated autonomous agents. Instead, the company aimed to build flexible, multimodal systems designed for genuine human-AI collaboration and open science.</p><p>By July 2025, the startup had secured a historic $2 billion seed round led by Andreessen Horowitz at a $12 billion valuation. At the time, Murati promised the<a href="https://venturebeat.com/technology/mira-murati-says-her-startup-thinking-machines-will-release-new-product-in-months-with-significant-open-source-component"> impending release of a product with a "significant open source component" </a>to empower researchers and startups.</p><p>The company’s philosophy began coming into sharper focus in October 2025 with the launch of <a href="https://venturebeat.com/technology/thinking-machines-first-official-product-is-here-meet-tinker-an-api-for">Tinker</a>, a Python-based API for large language model fine-tuning that gave researchers granular control over training pipelines without the friction of distributed compute management.</p><p>That same month, Thinking Machines researcher <a href="https://venturebeat.com/ai/thinking-machines-challenges-openais-ai-scaling-strategy-first">Rafael Rafailov delivered a provocative critique of the AI industry at TED AI</a>. He argued that the current trajectory of simply throwing more compute at models was fundamentally flawed, noting that today's systems take shortcuts—like wrapping code in<code> try/except</code> blocks—because they are trained strictly for task completion rather than genuine learning. </p><p>Rafailov posited that the first artificial superintelligence would not be a "god model," but rather a "superhuman learner" capable of meta-learning and internalizing abstractions. Inkling’s architecture—specifically its controllable thinking effort and its ability to organically compress its chain of thought during RL—feels like the first tangible realization of Rafailov's thesis.</p><p>In May 2026, the lab teased its technical prowess with the<a href="https://venturebeat.com/technology/thinking-machines-shows-off-preview-of-near-realtime-ai-voice-and-video-conversation-with-new-interaction-models"> research preview of TML-Interaction-Small</a>, a system that eliminated "turn-based" chat by processing inputs and outputs simultaneously in 200ms chunks. This "full-duplex" breakthrough proved the company could build highly responsive, natively multimodal models from scratch.</p><p>Now, with Inkling out in the wild, Thinking Machines has delivered on its foundational promises. By offering a massive, natively multimodal model under a true open-source license, they aren't just giving developers a new tool—they are attempting to fundamentally rewrite the economics and accessibility of frontier AI development.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Agentic orchestration: Enterprise AI organizations have a deployment problem, not a platform problem — and most are calling chatbots agents]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Across 101 enterprises, agent orchestration is consolidating onto model-provider platforms — Anthropic’s Claude leads by a wide margin — chosen for the gravity of the underlying model and judged on reliable multi-step execution. But the ambition runs well ahead of the reality: most deployed “agen...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3672033/it-nachrichten/agentic-orchestration-enterprise-ai-organizations-have-a-deployment-problem-not-a-platform-problem-and-most-are-calling-chatbots-agents/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3672033/it-nachrichten/agentic-orchestration-enterprise-ai-organizations-have-a-deployment-problem-not-a-platform-problem-and-most-are-calling-chatbots-agents/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 00:46:36 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Across 101 enterprises, agent orchestration is consolidating onto model-provider platforms — Anthropic’s Claude leads by a wide margin — chosen for the gravity of the underlying model and judged on reliable multi-step execution. But the ambition runs well ahead of the reality: most deployed “agents” are still chatbot wrappers, the control plane enterprises expect is deliberately hybrid to avoid lock-in, and real-time fiscal control over token burn remains the exception.</p><p>This wave of VentureBeat Pulse Research examines enterprise agent orchestration: which platforms enterprises run on, what drives the choice, what they optimize for, how they expect agent control to be structured, and — most revealingly — how orchestrated their deployed “agents” actually are and how tightly they control the cost of running them.</p><p>The central finding is a gap between orchestration ambition and orchestration reality. Enterprises are consolidating fast onto the major model platforms: Anthropic’s Claude is the primary platform for 40%, more than double any rival, followed by Microsoft (18%) and OpenAI (13%). The choice is driven by “model gravity” — native alignment with a state-of-the-art base model (21%) — and success is judged by reliable, multi-step execution (task completion reliability 32%, multi-step workflow management 28%). Yet asked to assess their portfolios honestly, 71% say a quarter or fewer of their deployed “agents” are true multi-step orchestrated workflows rather than single-prompt chatbot wrappers, and only 10% have crossed the halfway mark. The orchestration layer is being built well ahead of the orchestrated portfolio it is meant to run.</p><p>That gap shapes the architecture enterprises are putting in place. By the end of 2026 a clear majority (51%) expect a hybrid control plane — provider-native plus external orchestration — and only 6% expect to hand control to a provider-managed service, because vendor lock-in (35%) is the risk they fear most if control lives inside a model provider. Investment follows the build-out: agent workflow tooling leads the spend (34%), with security and permissions enforcement (25%) behind. And fiscal control lags throughout — more than a quarter (27%) have no real-time way to stop a runaway agent before the bill arrives.</p><h2>Methodology</h2><p>VentureBeat fielded this survey as part of its ongoing Pulse Research series, this instrument focused on enterprise agent orchestration. Responses are filtered to organizations with 100 or more employees (n=101), drawn from a single June 2026 wave; because this is one wave rather than a pooled multi-month sample, the report reads cross-sectionally and does not infer month-over-month trends.</p><p>By organization size the sample is spread evenly across the enterprise bands: 100–499 employees, 2,500–9,999, and 50,000+ (21% each), with 10,000–49,999 and 500–2,499 (19% each). By role it is senior and buyer-credible: product and program managers (15%), CIO/CTO/CISO (13%), consultants and advisors (13%), and a spread of data, AI, and engineering directors and VPs, with an “Other” function at 18%. On purchasing, 81% are recommenders, influencers, or final decision-makers for AI solutions (66% recommender/influencer, 15% final decision-maker). Technology/Software is the largest industry at 44%, followed by Financial Services (17%) and Healthcare/Life Sciences (8%).</p><p>At 101 respondents the sample is robust enough to read directionally with reasonable confidence, though it remains self-selected and is not a probability sample.</p><h2>Finding 1: Orchestration runs on model-provider platforms</h2><p><b>Anthropic’s Claude leads; open frameworks are marginal</b></p><p>We asked which agent orchestration platform enterprises primarily use today. The answer concentrates on the major model providers — and on one in particular.</p><div></div><p>A note on reading these shares. As described in the methodology section, the respondents are self-selected, and this question asked them for a single primary platform — so the figures measure which platform leads each enterprise's deployment, within a self-selected audience of AI-active technical decision-makers. A sample built this way can diverge substantially from spend-weighted market measures, and each VB Pulse survey draws its own sample with its own company-size mix, so vendor figures should not be compared across our surveys either. Read these shares as a portrait of where this cohort has placed its primary orchestration bet today, rather than as market share.</p><p>The model platforms dominate. Anthropic, Microsoft, OpenAI, Google, and Amazon together account for roughly 80% of deployments (81 of 101), while the open frameworks (LangChain/LangGraph) and custom in-house builds that anchor engineering discussion sit in single digits. Anthropic’s lead — 40%, more than double the next platform — mirrors the “model gravity” selection logic in Finding 2: enterprises are choosing the orchestration layer that comes with the model they want to build on. As with the security vendors in the prior agent-security wave, the tools that define the category in technical circles are not yet where enterprise deployment concentrates. A small 3% are not orchestrating at all.</p><p>Respondents rate the platforms they run at 3.94 out of 5 overall (109 answered), with “value for money” specifically at 3.94 and “ease of implementation” the weakest score, at 3.85 — placing orchestration near the bottom of our five-tracker satisfaction range, ahead of only evaluation tooling. A rating just under 4 out of 5, from users of whom 96% plan to change their orchestration approach within the year, reads as provisional acceptance: the platforms work well enough to run today, and not well enough to stop the search for something better. The ratings sit alongside near-universal intent to change; this is a layer enterprises tolerate more than they love.</p><h2>Finding 2: Model gravity drives platform selection</h2><p><b>The base model, not the tooling, decides the platform</b></p><p>We asked what most influenced the orchestration platform choice. The single largest factor is the pull of the underlying model — though flexibility and ease of development follow close behind.</p><div></div><p>Model gravity leading is the selection-side explanation for Anthropic’s platform lead: enterprises pick the orchestration environment closest to the frontier model they have standardized on. But the next tier complicates the picture — flexibility across models and tools (17%) and ease of development (17%) say enterprises also want to avoid being trapped by that choice, foreshadowing the lock-in fear in Finding 6. Security and permissions (14%) and total cost of ownership (11%) round out a pragmatic buying logic. Performance (latency/memory) sits last at 4%, a reminder that at this stage of adoption the binding constraints are model fit and optionality, not raw speed.</p><h2>Finding 3: The job is reliable multi-step execution</h2><p><b>Enterprises just orchestration by whether it completes the work</b></p><p>We asked what enterprises optimize for — their primary success metric for orchestration. Reliability and multi-step workflow management dominate; developer- and user-facing metrics trail.</p><div></div><p>Task completion reliability (32%) and multi-step workflow management (28%) together account for 59% of responses (60 of 101): orchestration succeeds, in the enterprise view, when it reliably carries a task through multiple steps to completion. Developer productivity (17%) matters but is secondary — the inverse of its prominence in framework discussion — and end-user experience (9%) is a minor concern, consistent with orchestration being an internal execution problem rather than a UX one. This reliability-first standard is exactly what makes the Chatbot Trap finding so pointed: enterprises define success as dependable multi-step execution, yet most of their deployed “agents” do not yet do multi-step work at all.</p><p>The trap is not evenly distributed. Splitting the sample by organization size, 77% of smaller enterprises say a quarter or fewer of their agents do true multi-step work, against 62% of larger ones. Larger enterprises are meaningfully further into genuine multi-step deployment; the chatbot trap is, directionally, a mid-market condition.</p><h2>Finding 4: Consolidate, productionize, and build in-house </h2><p><b>Three strategic moves are nearly tied for the year ahead</b></p><p>We asked what major change enterprises anticipate in their orchestration strategy over the next 12 months. Three moves cluster at the top, almost evenly split.</p><div></div><p>The top three — building in-house control (25%), standardizing on one framework (24%), and moving agents from sandbox to production (23%) — are statistically indistinguishable and tell a single story: enterprises are moving from experimentation to operational consolidation. They want fewer frameworks, more production exposure, and more ownership of the control layer; only 4% expect no change. The appetite for custom in-house control planes is notable alongside the platform concentration in Finding 1 — enterprises are standardizing on model-provider platforms while simultaneously planning to wrap them in control logic they own, the hybrid posture that Finding 6 makes explicit.</p><h2>Finding 5: Investment flows to workflow tooling</h2><p><b>Tooling and permissions lead the spend; monitoring trails</b></p><p>We asked which orchestration-related investment will grow most next year. Agent workflow tooling leads, with security and permissions enforcement behind.</p><div></div><p>Workflow tooling leading (34%) is the budget-side expression of the reliability-and-multi-step priority in Finding 3: the money is going to the machinery that strings steps together dependably. Security and permissions enforcement (25%) and scaling infrastructure (20%) follow — the investments required to take agents from sandbox into production, the strategic move in Finding 4. Monitoring and debugging draws a smaller 11%, with another 11% reporting flat budgets. The weight on tooling, permissions, and scaling over pure observability signals that enterprises are spending to build and harden orchestration, not merely to watch it run.</p><h2>Finding 6: The control plane will be hybrid — and lock-in is why</h2><p><b>Enterprises expect to split control between providers and their own layer</b></p><p>We asked where enterprises expect the primary control plane for agents to live by the end of 2026, and what worries them most if that control sits inside a model-provider platform. A clear majority expect a hybrid model — and vendor lock-in is the reason.</p><div></div><p>Hybrid control is the dominant expectation by a wide margin (51%), and only 6% expect to hand control to a provider-managed service outright. Read together, the hybrid, custom, and externally-abstracted options — every architecture that keeps control at least partly outside the provider — sum to 88% (89 of 101). The reason surfaces directly when we asked about the risk of provider-resident control: vendor lock-in leads at 35% (35 of 101), ahead of security and permissioning limitations (28%) and inflexibility across models and tools (21%). The pattern echoes the prior wave’s “don’t trust the model to police itself” posture — here, enterprises will build on a provider’s platform but decline to be governed entirely by it. The hybrid control plane is the architectural hedge against the lock-in they most fear.</p><p>The June figure asserting a preference for a hybrid control plane marks movement from earlier. In the April–May survey (n=145), only 34% expected a hybrid control plane, and a greater number (12%) expected to hand control fully to a provider-managed service. These two snapshots don’t yet measure a confirmed longitudinal trend — but the direction of the conversation is unambiguous: toward keeping control.</p><p>Lock-in is also a new arrival as a top concern. In the April–May wave, the leading concern was security and permissioning limitations (32%), with lock-in second at 24%; by June the two had traded places. The worry about provider platforms appears to be maturing from whether they can be secured to whether they can be replaced.</p><h2>Finding 7: The chatbot trap — most “agents” aren’t agents yet</h2><p><b>Enterprises admit most deployments are still chatbot wrappers</b></p><p>We asked enterprises to assess their portfolios honestly: what share of their deployed “agents” are true multi-step orchestrated workflows versus simple single-prompt chatbot wrappers. The answer is the defining finding of this wave.</p><div></div><p>This is the gap at the center of the report. Combining the bottom two bands, 71% of enterprises (72 of 101) say a quarter or fewer of their deployed “agents” are genuinely orchestrated — and just 10% (10 of 101) have crossed the halfway mark. The ambition documented in the earlier findings — model-provider platforms, reliability-first success metrics, production rollouts, a deliberate control architecture — runs well ahead of the deployed reality, which remains overwhelmingly single-prompt assistants dressed as agents. This is less a contradiction than a roadmap: the platforms, budgets, and strategies are being put in place precisely because the orchestrated portfolio is still so thin. The open question for later waves is how fast the reality closes on the ambition.</p><h2>Finding 8: Fiscal control is still reactive</h2><p><b>Only a minority can stop a runaway agent before the bill arrives</b></p><p>Finally, we asked how enterprises enforce fiscal control over agent token consumption — the risk that an autonomous loop exhausts a budget before anyone intervenes. Most rely on native caps or after-the-fact monitoring; real-time programmatic control is the exception.</p><div></div><p>More than a quarter of enterprises (27%) admit they have no real-time, programmatic way to stop an agent before a budget-breaking bill arrives — they learn of it from the logs afterward. Another 32% lean entirely on the native caps and throttles built into their primary platform, a control only as good as the provider’s tooling and one that ties back to the lock-in concern of Finding 6. The enterprises building custom gateways (23%) or exploiting cross-model routing to arbitrage cost (19%) are the ones treating token burn as an engineering problem to be controlled deterministically. As with orchestration maturity, fiscal control is an area where the operational reality lags the ambition: agents are moving toward production faster than the cost-control plane around them is being built.</p><p>It’s worth noting, a split appears according to company size: roughly one in three enterprises under 2,500 employees (34%) exercises only reactive control of agent spend, against 20% of larger enterprises — directional figures, but consistent with the chatbot-trap split. The mid-market is running the least mature agents on the least instrumented budgets.</p><h2>The bottom line: The layer is real; most of the agents aren't yet</h2><p>Organizations with 100 or more employees describe an orchestration strategy that is consolidating quickly and maturing slowly. They are standardizing on model-provider platforms — Anthropic’s Claude leads at 40% — chosen for the gravity of the underlying model, and they judge success by reliable multi-step execution. Investment is flowing to workflow tooling and permissions, the strategy is to consolidate frameworks and push agents into production, and the control plane they expect is deliberately hybrid, because vendor lock-in is the risk they fear most.</p><p>But the honest self-assessment punctures the ambition. Seventy-one percent say a quarter or fewer of their deployed “agents” are truly orchestrated, only 10% are past the halfway mark, and more than a quarter cannot stop a runaway agent in real time. The orchestration layer — the platforms, the budgets, the control architecture — is being built ahead of the orchestrated portfolio it is meant to run. At 101 respondents in a single June wave this reads as a clear directional signal rather than a precise measurement: enterprises have decided how they want to orchestrate agents well before most of their agents are doing anything an orchestration layer is for. The question for subsequent waves is whether the deployed reality closes the gap on the ambition — or whether the chatbot trap proves stickier than the roadmap assumes.</p><hr><p><i>Based on survey responses from 101 qualified enterprise respondents (100+ employees), drawn from a single June 2026 wave. Because this is one wave rather than a pooled multi-month sample, results read directionally rather than as a confirmed trend. Respondents include product and program managers, CIOs, CTOs and CISOs, consultants and advisors, and directors and VPs of data, AI, and engineering, across Technology/Software, Financial Services, Healthcare, and other sectors.</i></p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Xiaomi Humanoid Robot Hits 98% Accuracy in Latest EV Factory Trial]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Xiaomi says its humanoid robot achieved a 98% success rate on a task at an EV factory, narrowing the gap with human operators.]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3672022/it-nachrichten/xiaomi-humanoid-robot-hits-98-accuracy-in-latest-ev-factory-trial/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3672022/it-nachrichten/xiaomi-humanoid-robot-hits-98-accuracy-in-latest-ev-factory-trial/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 00:18:00 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Xiaomi says its humanoid robot achieved a 98% success rate on a task at an EV factory, narrowing the gap with human operators.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[AI Uncovers a 15-Year-Old Linux Kernel Root Vulnerability Hidden Since 2011]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[by George Whittaker
      
            Artificial intelligence has helped uncover one of the most significant Linux kernel security flaws in recent years. Security researchers at Nebula Security announced the discovery of GhostLock (CVE-2026-43499), a critical local privilege escalation vulnerabi...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3671239/unix-server/ai-uncovers-a-15-year-old-linux-kernel-root-vulnerability-hidden-since-2011/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3671239/unix-server/ai-uncovers-a-15-year-old-linux-kernel-root-vulnerability-hidden-since-2011/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 18:01:55 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🐧 Unix Server</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div data-history-node-id="1341444" class="layout layout--onecol">
    <div class="layout__region layout__region--content">
      
            <div class="field field--name-field-node-image field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item">  <img loading="lazy" src="https://www.linuxjournal.com/sites/default/files/nodeimage/story/ai-uncovers-a-15-year-old-linux-kernel-root-vulnerability-hidden-since-2011.jpg" width="850" height="500" alt="AI Uncovers a 15-Year-Old Linux Kernel Root Vulnerability Hidden Since 2011" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive"></div>
      
            <div class="field field--name-node-author field--type-ds field--label-hidden field--item">by <a title="View user profile." href="https://www.linuxjournal.com/users/george-whittaker" lang="" about="https://www.linuxjournal.com/users/george-whittaker" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">George Whittaker</a></div>
      
            <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Artificial intelligence has helped uncover one of the most significant Linux kernel security flaws in recent years. Security researchers at <strong>Nebula Security</strong> announced the discovery of <strong>GhostLock (CVE-2026-43499)</strong>, a critical local privilege escalation vulnerability that remained hidden in the Linux kernel for approximately <strong>15 years</strong> before being identified by the company's AI-powered vulnerability research platform, <strong>VEGA</strong>.</p>

<p>The vulnerability affects Linux kernels dating back to <strong>version 2.6.39 (2011)</strong> and allows an unprivileged local user to obtain full root privileges on vulnerable systems. Its discovery not only highlights the importance of timely kernel updates but also demonstrates how AI is beginning to transform vulnerability research.</p>

<h2><strong>What Is GhostLock?</strong></h2>

<p>GhostLock is a <strong>use-after-free (UAF)</strong> vulnerability located in the Linux kernel's <strong>futex (fast userspace mutex)</strong> implementation.</p>

<p>Futexes are synchronization primitives that allow user-space applications to efficiently coordinate access to shared resources while minimizing expensive kernel interactions. Because they are widely used throughout Linux, any flaw within this subsystem can have broad security implications.</p>

<p>According to Nebula Security, incorrect handling of the <code>remove_waiter()</code> function can leave behind a dangling kernel pointer that an attacker can manipulate to execute arbitrary code with kernel privileges.</p>

<h2><strong>A Reliable Path to Root Access</strong></h2>

<p>One of the reasons GhostLock has attracted so much attention is the reported reliability of the exploit.</p>

<p>Researchers demonstrated that an attacker with nothing more than a standard local user account can escalate privileges to root in roughly <strong>five seconds</strong>, with a reported success rate of <strong>97%</strong> on vulnerable systems.</p>

<p>Unlike many kernel exploits that are unstable or require highly specific system configurations, GhostLock appears to be both practical and repeatable, making it particularly concerning for administrators.</p>

<h2><strong>Container Escapes Are Also Possible</strong></h2>

<p>The implications extend beyond traditional Linux desktops and servers.</p>

<p>Researchers report that GhostLock can also be used to <strong>escape containers</strong> and compromise the underlying host operating system. Because containers share the host kernel, a successful privilege escalation inside a container can potentially grant root access to the host itself.</p>

<p>This makes the vulnerability especially important for environments running:</p></div>
      
            <div class="field field--name-node-link field--type-ds field--label-hidden field--item">  <a href="https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/ai-uncovers-15-year-old-linux-kernel-root-vulnerability-hidden-2011" hreflang="en">Go to Full Article</a>
</div>
      
    </div>
  </div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA['We have maybe 20 months' to rebuild for AI agents, Meta's infrastructure VP tells VB Transform 2026]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Organizations need to transform to meet the needs of agentic AI.Meta VP of Engineering Barak Yagour opened his talk at VB Transform 2026 wearing a pair of Ray-Ban Meta AI glasses, a small sign of how far AI has already worked its way into physical life. His argument went further: enterprise infra...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3671199/it-nachrichten/we-have-maybe-20-months-to-rebuild-for-ai-agents-metas-infrastructure-vp-tells-vb-transform-2026/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3671199/it-nachrichten/we-have-maybe-20-months-to-rebuild-for-ai-agents-metas-infrastructure-vp-tells-vb-transform-2026/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 17:33:05 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Organizations need to transform to meet the needs of agentic AI.</p><p>Meta VP of Engineering Barak Yagour opened his talk at<a href="https://venturebeat.com/vbtransform2026"> VB Transform 2026</a> wearing a pair of Ray-Ban Meta AI glasses, a small sign of how far AI has already worked its way into physical life. His argument went further: enterprise infrastructure was built for humans, not for agents, and it's starting to show.</p><p>Yagour, who leads its data infrastructure organization, told the audience that agentic queries hitting Meta's data systems grew 30x in a single half, an inversion that he said is breaking assumptions the company spent two decades building around.</p><p>The shift is not confined to Meta. Automated traffic overtook human traffic on the internet last year, reaching 51% of the total, according to <a href="https://www.imperva.com/resources/resource-library/reports/2025-bad-bot-report/">Imperva's 2025 Bad Bot Report</a>. That traffic is also growing roughly eight times faster than human traffic, according to <a href="https://www.humansecurity.com/2026-state-of-ai-traffic-cyberthreat-benchmark-report/">HUMAN Security's 2026 State of AI Traffic report</a>. Yagour cited both figures to describe what he called an inflection point already underway inside his own organization.</p><p>Yagour framed the shift as an open question for infrastructure teams everywhere. "What happens to the infrastructure we've spent years building when agents and not humans become the main consumers of that," Yagour said. "That's the world we're stepping into."</p><h2>Capacity, identity and velocity are breaking at once</h2><p>Yagour said three assumptions are breaking simultaneously inside Meta's infrastructure: capacity, identity and velocity.</p><p>On capacity, the math no longer works the way engineering teams are used to. "One engineer used to mean one unit of load," he said. "Now one engineer spawns 10 agents, each spawning subagents. Your 1,000-person org can generate the load of 100,000 users practically overnight."</p><p>His answer is not to block agent traffic but to make infrastructure agent-aware, with dynamic controls that understand agent hierarchies, cost attribution that traces consumption back to the use case that spawned it, and throttling that adapts based on priority.</p><p>Identity is breaking, too. Yagour said an agent does not fit the categories infrastructure teams built access controls around. It is not a human user, it does not carry a badge and it is not a deployed service, yet it makes decisions on its own.</p><p>Velocity is the third assumption under strain. Yagour cited a company-reported figure that GitHub Copilot writes 46% of the average user's code, then noted that faster code generation does not make the rest of the pipeline faster.</p><p>"That code still needs to be built, tested, deployed, monitored," he said. "The agent writes the code in seconds, but your CI/CD pipeline doesn't get faster just because the machine is the author."</p><h2>Trusted data environments keep agents inside guardrails</h2><p>Data is where Yagour said the pressure from agents is most direct. </p><p>"Data sits at the center of everything," he said, pointing to the decisions, products, recommender systems and next generation models it drives.</p><p>Meta is also rethinking how much autonomy to grant agents inside its own data systems. In February, the company shipped what Yagour called agentic data apps. Within three months, 63% of dashboards published across Meta were built using the new tooling, part of the same 30x rise in agentic queries Yagour cited earlier.</p><p>That growth raises a governance question. Human analysts have traditionally sat between raw data and business decisions, curating it and serving as an informal check on quality. Yagour said Meta wants to grant agents more independence on harder problems, but was direct about the risk. </p><p>"Autonomy without governance is nothing but chaos," he said. That's why the company built what it calls trusted data environments, to preserve the human check as agents take on more of that work.</p><p>"Inside, the agent can explore data freely, but every output is traced back to its source and scrutinized. So you always know that the data shared back is trusted and governed," Yagour said.</p><p>Sensitive fields are masked before an agent can reach them, and every access request is evaluated in real time against what the agent is trying to reach, why and whether it is allowed. Yagour summarized the approach as exploring broadly while releasing narrowly.</p><h2>Reasoning models are rewriting the data layer</h2><p>Meta's models are also demanding more from data as they shift from correlation to reasoning. </p><p>"Reasoning is data hungry," Yagour said. </p><p>Pattern matching works on sparse, summarized signals. Reasoning demands the full behavioral history, every interaction across every surface over time. Yagour pointed to two shifts already underway inside Meta's infrastructure to keep up.</p><p><b>Real-time streaming is replacing batch ETL for ranking pipelines.</b> A pipeline that takes 24 hours to run is not viable when a model is reasoning about a user's current intent. Yagour said real-time streaming, not batch extract-transform-load processing, is becoming the backbone of Meta's ranking and recommendation systems.</p><p><b>Storage is becoming schema-aware to stop GPU starvation.</b> Meta previously stored user data as opaque blobs with no awareness of what the data contained, which Yagour said led to heavy overfetching and idle GPU capacity. The company is now building storage that understands what it holds, pulling only the columns and time ranges a given query needs. Yagour said Meta is building toward 500 million queries per second and a petabyte per second of throughput for training data reads.</p><p>That data feeds directly into how Meta's recommendation systems behave. Yagour said 42% of Instagram users have told the company they want to fundamentally change the algorithm, not adjust a single session or setting. Meta's response is what Yagour called fully conversational recommendations, where a user tells the system what they want more of and it reasons about intent rather than matching on keywords. Yagour said the same search term, soccer, would return different results for a casual fan looking for highlights than for a club athlete seeking training drills, because the system would reason about which one is asking.</p><p>Yagour described the three threads of his talk, agents, data and recommendations, as reinforcing each other rather than moving independently. </p><p>"Agents make data more accessible. Better data makes reasoning. Reasoning creates new demands that push agents and infrastructure forward," he said. "This isn't linear; it's a flywheel."</p><p>During the Q&amp;A, an audience member asked whether Meta's push toward more intelligent infrastructure signals the end of traditional file systems in favor of newer neural storage approaches, and whether agents will keep using SQL as their interface to data the way humans do. Yagour said Meta is experimenting at every level, including questioning whether SQL is the right interface for agents at all, and that storage at Meta's scale already operates in the multi-digit exabyte range and needs to keep expanding.</p><p>Yagour closed his talk with the timeline he believes the industry is working against. "We spent 20 years building infrastructure for humans. We have maybe 20 months to rebuild the whole thing for a world where humans and agents co-create at scale," Yagour said. "The window is open, but it won't stay open for long."</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[OpenClaw becomes a nonprofit foundation as it seeks to be ‘the Switzerland of AI’]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[OpenClaw’s announcement that it has become a nonprofit foundation is generating IT excitement because of the potential for governance and development consistency that the popular platform has thus far lacked. Still, some worry about the risks created by the move. 



“Our ambition is for OpenClaw...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3671162/ai-nachrichten/openclaw-becomes-a-nonprofit-foundation-as-it-seeks-to-be-the-switzerland-of-ai/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3671162/ai-nachrichten/openclaw-becomes-a-nonprofit-foundation-as-it-seeks-to-be-the-switzerland-of-ai/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 17:19:35 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🔧 AI Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">OpenClaw’s announcement that it has become a nonprofit foundation is generating IT excitement because of the potential for governance and development consistency that <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4128257/openclaw-the-ai-agent-thats-got-humans-taking-orders-from-bots.html" target="_blank">the popular platform </a>has thus far lacked. Still, some worry about the risks created by the move. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Our ambition is for OpenClaw to be the Switzerland of AI. Neutral ground where every model and every lab can plug into the technology and collaborate on standards in the era of agents,” <a href="https://openclaw.ai/blog/introducing-openclaw-foundation/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">OpenClaw said in a post</a>. “That work is already underway in Foundation-convened councils on agent identity, agent profiles, evals, and enterprise deployment.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The statement, co-authored by OpenClaw creator <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/steipete/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Peter Steinberger</a>, pointed out, “the great open source projects of our time — Linux, Apache, Mozilla — endure because a neutral steward stands behind them. That is the role we are taking on to keep OpenClaw MIT licensed, open, and independent so that everyone building on it can trust it will be here for the long term.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But it reassured users that the original OpenClaw leadership is still in charge.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Peter built this thing and Peter keeps making the calls, especially the technical ones. Since joining OpenAI earlier this year, he has continued to steward OpenClaw as an open and independent project, and OpenAI has made a commitment to keep it that way,” the post said. “The foundation is here to serve: good governance, stable funding, and paying the people who keep the claws alive.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">However, some analysts and consultants were skeptical about how much true independence Steinberger would have, given his salaried role with OpenAI. </p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Neutrality claim in question</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The Switzerland of AI neutrality claim collapses under its own announcement,” said <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/noah-m-kenney-27499a166/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Noah Kenney</a>, principal consultant at Digital 520. “OpenAI runs a team [at OpenAI] called Claw Labs that Peter leads and OpenAI is a major donor to OpenClaw. The ‘neutral steward’s’ chief technical decision maker is employed by one of the competing labs it is supposed to be neutral with.” To OpenAI, he said, OpenClaw is closer to a tax-exempt nonprofit subsidiary than it is to a neutral ‘Switzerland of AI.’</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">He pointed out that, in addition, Microsoft is shipping <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4173442/enterpriseclaw-wants-to-bring-governance-to-the-openclaw-era-2.html" target="_blank">the enterprise version</a> of OpenClaw, and Nvidia is shipping the hardware bundle. “This is being called the Switzerland of AI, but Switzerland does not have its central bank run by France,” he observed.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Kenney said that what the new OpenClaw has actually built is “a shared dependency that several competitors fund, staff, and steer, wrapped in a nonprofit structure. Enterprise IT should understand that structure, because treating OpenClaw as neutral is a mistake,” adding that CIOs need to look at this development devoid of the emotional component. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“There is a strategic irony here that CIOs should sit with,” Kenney said. “If OpenClaw succeeds at becoming the universal agent substrate, then every model plugs into the same identity layer, the same profiles, and the same deployment plumbing. The thing every vendor is racing to own becomes a commodity that nobody owns.” He pointed out that, in the short term, that is genuinely good news for buyers because it means less lock-in and more portability.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“But,” he said, “when the connective tissue is free and natural, the only labs that benefit are the ones with the best models and the deepest distribution. Commoditize the layer below you and you compete on the layer where you are already strongest. The foundation is not a charity. It is the biggest players agreeing to stop fighting over the plumbing so they can fight over the water, and the enterprise is the one paying the water bill either way.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Good news, bad news</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://moorinsightsstrategy.com/team/jason-andersen/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Jason Andersen</a>, principal analyst at Moor Insights &amp; Strategy, liked the potential consistency that could emerge from the structural change, given the complexity of agent development today. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“We are seeing a lot of OpenClaw variants hit the market, such as those from Nvidia as well as competing products from cloud and SaaS vendors. A common base helps solidify the common parts,” Andersen noted. “That said, a common challenge is the sustainability of these open source foundations over time. In addition to releasing code, these foundations need funding to evolve and grow. And that funding needs to come from continued momentum to incentivize existing members to increase investment and recruit new members to join.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Andersen stressed that IT buyers need to keep an eye on the roadmap for any OpenClaw variant they choose to deploy, “as that will directly impact the foundation, and the momentum of the foundation and common base. If the common base loses momentum, it can lead to forks, or just a loss of innovation. When that happens, members tend to back away, which puts customers in limbo.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But not everyone sees the promised structure as entirely good for IT.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/ishraqkhann/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Ishraq Khan</a>, CEO at coding productivity tool vendor Kodezi, said, “most CIOs do not want to bet their future entirely on a single model vendor. They want Claude for some workloads, GPT for others, open models for sensitive environments, and potentially internally fine-tuned systems for specific use cases. The problem is that every vendor currently brings its own identity system, tool interfaces, permissions model, and operational assumptions. That fragmentation does not scale.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">He said, “the risk if standards fail is straightforward: every vendor builds its own closed ecosystem, enterprises become locked into individual stacks, and security becomes dramatically harder. The opportunity if OpenClaw succeeds is equally significant: enterprises get portable agents, common identity standards, interoperable tooling, and a healthier competitive market around models rather than ecosystems.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Will it remain a nonprofit?</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">However, said <a href="https://acceligence.com/talent/profiles/justin-greis/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Justin Greis</a>, CEO of consulting firm Acceligence, one of the key details that IT executives will want to keep in mind is that OpenAI also began as a nonprofit, but it was quickly <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4056490/openai-microsoft-discuss-shape-of-future-relationship.html" target="_blank">seen as not adhering to nonprofit objectives</a>. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“OpenAI’s transition from a nonprofit research organization into a more complex structure highlighted the challenge of maintaining mission alignment while scaling technology, capital, partnerships, and commercial operations,” Greis said. “OpenClaw has the opportunity to address some of those governance questions earlier by establishing clear principles around neutrality, transparency, and decision-making before the ecosystem becomes even larger and more valuable.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">He noted, “we have seen this pattern before with technologies like Linux and Kubernetes. The strongest open ecosystems succeeded because they created trusted foundations that enterprises could build upon. The technology was important, but the governance model that underpinned it was equally critical.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Risks are ‘squarely in IT’s lap’</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Consultant <a href="https://formergov.com/directory/brianlevine" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Brian Levine</a>, executive director of FormerGov, echoed Greis’ concerns. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“CIOs shouldn’t assume that this nonprofit will always be a nonprofit, or confuse being a nonprofit with actually being neutral or unbiased,” he said. “The risks are squarely in IT’s lap: autonomous agents ‘with their own identity’ acting on a user’s behalf blow straight through traditional IAM assumptions. Issues, such as agent identity, auditability, secret handling. Identity boundaries have not yet been reliably solved. Until they are, enterprises should treat OpenClaw agents like privileged service accounts, not like a browser plugin.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Independent cybersecurity and risk advisor <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/steveneric/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Steven Eric Fisher</a> pointed to another IT exposure that might come from this OpenClaw transition: Cost.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“OpenClaw currently has a very high token burn rate in usage, which presents a significant cost consideration for large-scale enterprise adoption,” he said. “The skills marketplace introduces <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/4129867/what-cisos-need-to-know-about-clawdbot-i-mean-moltbot-i-mean-openclaw.html" target="_blank">a new supply chain threat </a>that enterprises will need to manage. Threat management, and specifically handling <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/4135449/compromised-npm-package-silently-installs-openclaw-on-developer-machines.html" target="_blank">external marketplace elements</a>, can be highly challenging for open-source operations. Ultimately, at scale, enterprise adoption could become a difficult balancing act between managing high operational costs and securing an expanded security surface.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>This article originally appeared on <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4196365/openclaw-becomes-a-nonprofit-foundation-as-it-seeks-to-be-the-switzerland-of-ai.html" target="_blank">Computerworld</a>.</em></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Oracle expands AI Agent Studio for Fusion Applications with pro-code tools]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Oracle on Tuesday expanded its AI Agent Studio for Fusion Applications with new pro-code development tools, including a CLI-based capability called AI Studio Skill, allowing developers to build agentic applications using familiar environments such as VS Code, Codex, and Claude Code.



The AI Stu...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3671157/ai-nachrichten/oracle-expands-ai-agent-studio-for-fusion-applications-with-pro-code-tools/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3671157/ai-nachrichten/oracle-expands-ai-agent-studio-for-fusion-applications-with-pro-code-tools/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 17:19:28 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🔧 AI Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Oracle on Tuesday expanded its AI Agent Studio for Fusion Applications with new pro-code development tools, including a CLI-based capability called AI Studio Skill, allowing developers to build agentic applications using familiar environments such as VS Code, Codex, and Claude Code.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The AI Studio Skill is the CLI that provides the Fusion-specific context and tooling that AI coding assistants need to build Fusion-native applications. It provides access to the project structure, APIs, templates, validation, packaging, and deployment workflows required for Fusion Agentic Applications, <a href="http://linkedin.com/in/nataliarachelson/">Natalia Rachelson</a>, SVP of product for Fusion Applications at Oracle, told InfoWorld.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Think of it as Oracle’s development harness for popular AI coding assistants. Developers can use models like Codex or Claude Code to generate code, while the AI Studio Skill connects those models to Oracle AI Agent Studio and the Fusion runtime,” Rachelson said.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Familiar tools and workflows to simplify development</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The access to familiar IDEs and harnesses, according to analysts, will make it easier for developers to build and maintain agentic applications for business workflows.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The AI Studio Skill provides developers a way to build Fusion agents like a new software function versus configuring them like application extensions,” said <a href="https://www.infotech.com/profiles/scott-bickley" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Scott Bickley</a>, advisory fellow at Info-Tech Research Group.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Enterprise developers expect source control, code review, repeatable deployments, testing or debugging, and integration into their existing toolchains. Connecting the various IDEs and code assist products will make it easier to build, validate, and maintain agentic applications using already familiar tools and processes. This ostensibly will result in agents that are easier to maintain, govern, and align with enterprise development practices,” Bickley added.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/robert-kramer-58239b22/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Robert Kramer</a>, managing partner at KramerERP, the move is likely to drive more adoption of the Studio itself: “Oracle is meeting developers where they already work and making Fusion a more attractive place to build agentic applications.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Native runtime could aid governance in production deployments</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">However, the CLI and IDE integrations, for Bickley, extend beyond developer productivity into tackling the governance and execution challenges that often prevent AI prototypes from reaching production.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“One of the most painful barriers to production AI is that many prototypes are built outside the enterprise systems where identity, permissions, workflow approvals, and overall system governance are already built in,” Bickley said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In contrast, the integrations will allow enterprises to run agentic applications from inside Oracle’s platform, leveraging existing business context, identity, approvals, and governance rather than recreating those capabilities through external orchestration layers when moving them into production, Bickley added.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That shift, the analyst further added, will prove beneficial for CIOs because it will accelerate business outcomes while operating within a trusted environment.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Governance, observability, and lifecycle management matter more to CIOs after agentic applications move into production, Kramer echoed.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Governance gains come with strategic trade-offs</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The approach of building and running agentic applications natively inside Oracle Fusion, though, is not without trade-offs, analysts cautioned.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">CIOs should pay close attention to vendor lock-in as more business processes become agentic, Bickley pointed out.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“In the case of Oracle Fusion, ensure the ATLAS framework provides an accurate validation layer at a low cost of overhead. Consider the levers that Oracle may avail itself of contractually or commercially in the future,” Bickley said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“ROI should be modeled against a progressive monetization schema as AI agents operate upon a consumption-based infrastructure.  As such, ensure provisions limiting cost overlays and uplifts are agreed upon prior to locking in,” Bickley added.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">These considerations, the analyst further added, are becoming increasingly relevant because most enterprise software vendors, including the likes of SAP and ServiceNow, are introducing offerings and features to become the runtime and orchestration layer for enterprise AI.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Earlier in May, SAP <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4170465/saps-biggest-ai-bet-yet-agents-that-execute-not-just-assist.html">expanded its AI strategy</a> with the Autonomous Enterprise vision, introducing a unified Business AI Platform, Joule Studio 2.0, and AI Agent Hub to let enterprises build, govern, and run AI agents within a managed runtime.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In June, ServiceNow expanded its <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4167410/servicenow-continues-its-ai-transformation-with-an-integrated-experience.html">AI transformation</a> by adding new features to its Context Engine and <a href="https://www.networkworld.com/article/3978731/servicenow-launches-ai-agent-command-center-communication-backbone.html?_conv_v=vi:1*sc:1*cs:1784016915*fs:1784016915*pv:2*exp:%7B1004203305.%7Bv.1004477672-g.%7B%7D%7D%7D*seg:%7B%7D&amp;_conv_s=null&amp;_conv_r=s:chatgpt.com*m:ai%20tool*t:*c:&amp;_conv_sptest=null">AI Control Tower</a>, in order to better embed governance, enterprise context, and observability into AI workflows across enterprise systems.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">During the same month, Salesforce, via its Informatica acquisition, <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4175896/salesforce-extends-its-headless-push-into-enterprise-data-via-informatica.html">added features to tie AI agents more closely</a> to trusted enterprise data and operational workflows.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For developers and enterprises willing to try out the new CLI-based experience, it can be accessed from within the Studio without any additional cost, Oracle said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The company is also adding a public GitHub repository that it said will provide templates, starter projects, sample applications, reusable assets, and reference architectures to help developers build and validate agentic applications faster.</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[We third-party tested our firewall built for AI-scale. The test tools hit their limit first.]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[We tested Cisco Secure Firewall 6160 with NetSecOPEN for AI-scale. It delivered 5X more throughput than previously tested and 100% threat block rate.]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3671094/it-security-nachrichten/we-third-party-tested-our-firewall-built-for-ai-scale-the-test-tools-hit-their-limit-first/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3671094/it-security-nachrichten/we-third-party-tested-our-firewall-built-for-ai-scale-the-test-tools-hit-their-limit-first/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 17:07:25 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[We tested Cisco Secure Firewall 6160 with NetSecOPEN for AI-scale. It delivered 5X more throughput than previously tested and 100% threat block rate.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The Risk of Exposed Cloud Functions and How to Harden]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Written by: Corné de Jong

Introduction 
Mandiant security assessments frequently identify publicly exposed serverless applications that lack authentication, often as a result of specific business requirements. Serverless deployments typically run custom-developed code that incorporates third-par...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3670891/it-security-nachrichten/the-risk-of-exposed-cloud-functions-and-how-to-harden/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3670891/it-security-nachrichten/the-risk-of-exposed-cloud-functions-and-how-to-harden/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 16:08:05 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="block-paragraph_advanced"><p>Written by: Corné de Jong</p>
<hr></div>
<div class="block-paragraph_advanced"><h3><span>Introduction</span><strong> </strong></h3>
<p><span>Mandiant security assessments frequently identify publicly exposed serverless applications that lack authentication, often as a result of specific business requirements. Serverless deployments typically run custom-developed code that incorporates third-party packages, making them targets for a wide range of application-level attacks, including:</span></p>
<ul>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><span>Local and Remote File Inclusion (LFI/RFI)</span></p>
</li>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><span>Command Injection</span></p>
</li>
</ul>
<p><span>Successful exploitation of these vulnerabilities can grant an attacker full control over the underlying container instance. Such access can serve as a foothold that may ultimately lead to a full compromise of the victim’s cloud environment.</span></p>
<p><span>Based on lessons learned in customer engagements, in this blog post we describe attack scenarios and provide actionable guidance on how to secure serverless environments. While this analysis focuses on hardening strategies for Google Cloud Run services and functions that must remain publicly accessible, these principles apply universally to any public serverless deployment.</span></p>
<h3><span>What are Serverless Applications?</span></h3>
<p><span>Serverless applications, also described as Function-as-a-Service (FaaS), allow the deployment of individual blocks of code as microservices within a flexible, decoupled, and event-driven cloud architecture without the need to manage underlying infrastructure. These services enable applications and automations to scale automatically and deploy instantly, removing operational overhead. </span><span>Serverless services underpin major e-commerce, media, payment processing applications, and AI usage.</span><span> </span></p>
<p><span>The rapid expansion of generative AI adoption is a significant driver of increased serverless architecture use. </span><span>AI workflows, including chatbot interactions, image generation, “vibe-coding”, and multi-step AI agents rely on serverless functions to complete tasks for users. </span><span>This growth has made securing serverless environments a more pressing challenge for enterprise security teams. </span></p>
<h3><span>Risks of Serverless Application Attacks</span></h3>
<p><span>Publicly exposed serverless workloads can serve as an initial access point for threat actors. As noted, these services may contain vulnerabilities within the code, imported packages, or the underlying runtime environment.</span></p>
<p><span>Once an entry point is exploited, attackers typically attempt to escalate privileges or move laterally. Common techniques observed include:</span></p>
<ul>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><span>Extracting secrets stored directly within the application code.</span></p>
</li>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><span>Reviewing application logic and sensitive data to identify further attack vectors within the environment.</span></p>
</li>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><span>Exfiltrating service account bearer tokens from the metadata server following successful Remote Code Execution (RCE).</span></p>
</li>
</ul>
<p><span>Leveraging these compromised secrets or service accounts allows threat actors to pivot to adjacent systems and workloads, potentially resulting in a total environment takeover if proper hardening strategies are not in place.</span></p>
<h3><span>Example Attack Scenarios</span></h3>
<p><span>The following simplified scenarios illustrate how serverless functions can be compromised and how attackers pivot after achieving initial code execution.</span></p>
<h4><span>Local File Inclusion (LFI) </span></h4>
<p><span>In the following Cloud Run example, a Python/Flask function accepts user-controlled input to open a file without performing proper validation. This pattern is an example of a Local File Inclusion (LFI) vulnerability.</span></p></div>
<div class="block-paragraph_advanced"><pre class="language-plain"><code>import functions_framework

@functions_framework.http
def hello_http(request):
    request_json = request.get_json(silent=True)
    request_args = request.args
    if request_json and 'file' in request_json:
        file = request_json['file']
    elif request_args and 'file' in request_args:
        file = request_args['file']
 
# VULNERABILITY: The 'file' parameter is used directly in open() 
# without validation, allowing arbitrary file access
    with open(file, 'r') as resp:
          filedata = resp.read()
    return 'local file data {}!'.format(filedata)</code></pre>
<p><span><span>Figure 1: Vulnerable Python/Flask function accepting unvalidated user input to open files</span></span></p></div>
<div class="block-paragraph_advanced"><p><span>This vulnerability allows an attacker to request sensitive files from the Cloud Run instance by using </span><code>curl</code><span> to send a POST request via the </span><code>file</code><span> parameter:</span></p></div>
<div class="block-paragraph_advanced"><pre class="language-plain"><code>curl -X POST https://cloudrun01-abc.europe-west3.run.app/ -H "Content-Type: application/json" -d '{"file": "main.py"}'</code></pre>
<p><span><span>Figure 2: curl POST request targeting the file parameter</span></span></p></div>
<div class="block-paragraph_advanced"><p><span>The response provides the complete </span><code>main.py</code><span> source code. An attacker can analyze the code for:</span></p>
<ul>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><span>Hardcoded secrets such as API keys, database credentials, or authentication tokens</span></p>
</li>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><span>Business logic flaws and additional injection points</span></p>
</li>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><span>Internal service endpoints and architecture details</span></p>
</li>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><span>Import statements revealing the technology stack and potential CVE exposure</span></p>
</li>
</ul>
<p><span>Additionally, attackers can leverage standard </span><code>../</code><span> directory traversal sequences to retrieve sensitive system files:</span></p></div>
<div class="block-paragraph_advanced"><pre class="language-plain"><code>curl -X POST https://cloudrun01-abc.europe-west3.run.app/ -H "Content-Type: application/json" -d '{"file": "../../../etc/passwd"}'</code></pre>
<p><span><span>Figure 3: curl POST request leveraging directory traversal sequences</span></span></p></div>
<div class="block-paragraph_advanced"><p><span>An LFI vulnerability allows an attacker to retrieve and fuzz various files directly from the container. Key examples include:</span></p>
<ul>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><code>requirements.txt, package.json, go.mod</code><span>: Used to identify installed packages and versions with known vulnerabilities.</span></p>
</li>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><span>.</span><code>env</code><span> files: Frequently contain sensitive environment variables or hard coded secrets.</span></p>
</li>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><strong>Application configuration files: </strong><span>May contain database credentials, API keys, or service endpoints if not securely managed.</span></p>
</li>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><code>/etc/passwd, /proc/self/environ</code><span>: Contains user information, environment variables.</span></p>
</li>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><strong>Application logs: </strong><span>may contain auth tokens or PII data.</span></p>
</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Best Practice:</strong><span> Never store secrets or credentials within the source code or local container files. Utilize a dedicated secrets management solution, such as Secret Manager.</span></p>
<h4><span>Code Execution/Command Injection</span></h4>
<p><span>In the following scenario, a Python function uses shell execution methods with unsanitized user input, allowing an attacker to execute arbitrary commands.</span></p></div>
<div class="block-paragraph_advanced"><pre class="language-plain"><code>import functions_framework
import subprocess


@functions_framework.http
def hello_http(request):
  request_json = request.get_json(silent=True)
  request_args = request.args
  if request_json and 'input' in request_json:
      input = request_json['input']
  elif request_args and 'input' in request_args:
      input = request_args['input']
  result = subprocess.run(input, shell=True,capture_output=True, text=True)
  return format(result)</code></pre>
<p><span><span>Figure 4: Python function utilizing shell execution with unsanitized user input</span></span></p></div>
<div class="block-paragraph_advanced"><p><span>This allows an attacker to execute a subsequent curl request targeting the GCP metadata service to retrieve the service account’s bearer token. </span></p>
<p><span>The following request extracts the service account's OAuth 2.0 bearer token, which remains valid for 1 hour:</span></p></div>
<div class="block-paragraph_advanced"><pre class="language-plain"><code>curl -X POST https://cloudrun02-abc.europe-west3.run.app/ -H "Content-Type: application/json" -d "{\"input\": \"curl 'http://metadata.google.internal/computeMetadata/v1/instance/service-accounts/default/token' -H 'Metadata-Flavor: Google'\"}"</code></pre>
<p><span><span>Figure 5:</span><span> </span><span>Extraction of a GCP service account bearer token via a curl request</span></span></p></div>
<div class="block-paragraph_advanced"><p><span>Once obtained, an attacker can use it on an attacker-controlled system to execute Google Cloud CLI commands. For example the </span><code>CLOUDSDK_AUTH_ACCESS_TOKEN</code><span> environment variable can be set using the stolen bearer token.</span></p></div>
<div class="block-paragraph_advanced"><pre class="language-plain"><code>export CLOUDSDK_AUTH_ACCESS_TOKEN=”obtain bearer token”</code></pre>
<p><span><span>Figure 6: Defining CLOUDSDK_AUTH_ACCESS_TOKEN environment variable</span></span></p></div>
<div class="block-paragraph_advanced"><p><span>Attackers can then leverage Google Cloud Cloud CLI within the security context of the Cloud Run Compute service account. If deployed without best practices and thoughtful configuration controls, for example, if the  Cloud Run service runs as the default compute service account with Editor permissions, this would be equivalent to a full GCP project takeover, and allow the attacker to:</span></p>
<ul>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><span>Read/write/delete most GCP resources</span></p>
</li>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><span>Deploy new services and modify existing configurations</span></p>
</li>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><span>Access secrets and encryption keys</span></p>
</li>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><span>Exfiltrate data across all accessible storage systems</span></p>
</li>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><span>Establish persistent backdoors through new service accounts or SSH keys.</span></p>
</li>
</ul>
<h3><span>Hardening Recommendations</span></h3>
<p><span>Mandiant recommends that organizations implement parallel approaches for effective serverless security:</span></p>
<ul>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><strong>Secure Software Development Lifecycle (S-SDLC): </strong><span>integrate security scanning, code review, least-privilege IAM into CI/CD pipelines before deployment and integrate continuous security testing; </span></p>
</li>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><strong>Vibe Coding</strong><span>: Mandiant recommends multi-layered security enforcement for AI-generated code or "vibe coding." Organizations should isolate AI experimentation within dedicated sandbox environments and enforce strict data egress controls to protect production systems and internal data. Furthermore, development environments should be restricted to approved IDEs with human-in-the-loop capabilities, utilizing only verified plugins operating under least privilege to mitigate supply chain vulnerabilities. Finally, organizations must ensure this AI-generated software follows Secure Software Development Lifecycle (S-SDLC) controls while establishing clear internal guidelines regarding permitted use cases. Comprehensive security fundamentals for vibe coding are documented in detail within the </span><a href="https://www.wiz.io/academy/ai-security/vibe-coding-security" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><span>Wiz Vibe Coding Security Fundamentals blog</span></a><span>.</span></p>
</li>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><strong>Compensating Runtime Controls: </strong><span>Implement the following defense-in-depth measures to limit and contain compromise even when application vulnerabilities exist;</span></p>
</li>
</ul>
<h4><span>Segregate Public Services</span></h4>
<p><span>Host public-facing Cloud Run services consumed by untrusted external entities in a dedicated, isolated Google Cloud project. This ensures a compromise does not provide an immediate path to critical internal resources. The implementation of this 'Service Project' model is beyond the scope of this post; however, it is documented in detail within the </span><a href="https://docs.cloud.google.com/architecture/blueprints/serverless-blueprint"><span>secured serverless architecture blueprint</span></a><span>.</span></p>
<h4><span>Identity and Access Management (IAM)</span></h4>
<p><span>Mandiant recommends using a custom service account for service authentication rather than the default Compute Engine service account, following the principle of least privilege. Grant only the specific permissions necessary for the Cloud Run function to operate, for example:</span></p>
<ul>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><strong>Cloud Storage Bucket Access:</strong><span> If the service only requires read access to objects from a Cloud Storage bucket, grant the </span><code>Storage Object Viewer</code><span> (</span><code>roles/storage.objectViewer</code><span>) role restricted to that specific bucket.</span></p>
</li>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><strong>Secret Manager Access:</strong><span>  If the service requires access to secrets, grant the</span><code> Secret Manager Secret Accessor</code><span> (</span><code>roles/secretmanager.secretAccessor</code><span>) role only to the individual secrets required. For further details on secret access from Cloud Run, refer to the </span><a href="https://docs.cloud.google.com/run/docs/configuring/services/secrets#required_roles"><span>GCP documentation on configuring secrets</span></a><span>.</span></p>
</li>
</ul>
<h4><span>Layer 7 Application Load Balancer (ALB) Architecture</span></h4>
<p><span>Restrict ingress traffic for serverless functions to internal only and use an external Layer 7 ALB to manage internet exposure. This provides:</span></p>
<ul>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><strong>Centralized Traffic Management:</strong><span> Granular control over headers and SSL policies.</span></p>
</li>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><strong>Cloud Armor Integration:</strong><span> Web Application Firewall (WAF) support to harden applications against vulnerabilities such as Local/Remote File Inclusion (LFI/RFI) and Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF).</span></p>
</li>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><strong>Traffic Shaping: </strong><span>Implementation of rate limits and request limitations to prevent abuse.</span></p>
</li>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><strong>Enhanced Visibility:</strong><span> Robust logging and log-forwarding capabilities for security monitoring.</span></p>
</li>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><strong>Identity-Aware Proxy (IAP):</strong><span> integration support for scenarios requiring specific identity-based authentication for internal users.</span></p>
</li>
</ul>
<h4><span>Web Application Firewall (WAF) <span>—</span> Cloud Armor</span></h4>
<p><a href="https://cloud.google.com/security/products/armor"><span>Cloud Armor</span></a><span> provides WAF protections that can be integrated with the Load Balancer to filter malicious traffic. The following examples demonstrate how to configure Cloud Armor security policies to block the specific local file inclusions, remote code execution and traversal attacks previously outlined.</span></p>
<h4><span>Local File Inclusion</span></h4>
<p><span>The </span><code>lfi-v33-stable</code><span> preconfigured WAF rules can block common local file inclusion attacks (</span><a href="https://docs.cloud.google.com/armor/docs/waf-rules#local_file_inclusion_lfi"><span>local file inclusion reference</span></a><span>).</span></p></div>
<div class="block-paragraph_advanced"><pre class="language-plain"><code>evaluatePreconfiguredWaf('lfi-v33-stable', {'sensitivity': 3})</code></pre>
<p><span><span>Figure 7: Cloud Armor lfi-v33-stable WAF rule configuration</span></span></p></div>
<div class="block-paragraph_advanced"><p><span>Blocking a path traversal request </span><code>../../../etc/passwd</code><span> resulting in a 403 forbidden:</span></p></div>
<div class="block-paragraph_advanced"><pre class="language-plain"><code>curl -X POST https://exampleabc01.com -H "Content-Type: application/json" -d '{"file": "../../../etc/passwd}'
&lt;!doctype html&gt;&lt;meta charset="utf-8"&gt;&lt;meta name=viewport content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1"&gt;&lt;title&gt;403&lt;/title&gt;403 Forbidden</code></pre>
<p><span><span>Figure 8: Verification of Cloud Armor blocking path traversal request, resulting in a 403 forbidden</span></span></p></div>
<div class="block-paragraph_advanced"><h4><span>Remote Code Execution</span></h4>
<p><span>The </span><code>rce-v33-stable</code><span> preconfigured WAF rules can block remote code execution attempts (</span><a href="https://docs.cloud.google.com/armor/docs/waf-rules#remote_code_execution_rce"><span>remote code execution reference</span></a><span>).</span></p></div>
<div class="block-paragraph_advanced"><pre class="language-plain"><code>evaluatePreconfiguredWaf('rce-v33-stable', {'sensitivity': 3})</code></pre>
<p><span><span>Figure 9: Cloud Armor rce-v33-stable WAF rule configuration</span></span></p></div>
<div class="block-paragraph_advanced"><p><span>Blocking the remote code execution request from the previous example results in a 403 forbidden:</span></p></div>
<div class="block-paragraph_advanced"><pre class="language-plain"><code>curl -X POST https://exampleabc01.com -H "Contencurl -X POST https://exampleabc01.com -H "Content-Type: application/json" -d "{\"input\": \"curl 'http://metadata.google.internal/computeMetadata/v1/instance/service-accounts/default/token' -H 'Metadata-Flavor: Google'\"}"
&lt;!doctype html&gt;&lt;meta charset="utf-8"&gt;&lt;meta name=viewport content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1"&gt;&lt;title&gt;403&lt;/title&gt;403 Forbidden</code></pre>
<p><span><span>Figure 10: Verification of Cloud Armor blocking Remote Code execution, resulting in a 403 forbidden</span></span></p></div>
<div class="block-paragraph_advanced"><h4><span>Serverless Architecture Controls</span></h4>
<p><span>Hardening Cloud Run services is only one part of a secure architecture. Because these services often connect to other Google Cloud resources, a single compromise can expose additional services. Implementing defense-in-depth is critical. Specifically, when using direct VPC egress or VPC Access connectors, use VPC Service Controls to restrict lateral movement and exfiltration through granular access policies.</span></p>
<h4><span>Secure Software Development Lifecycle (S-SDLC)</span></h4>
<p><span>While the previously outlined hardening strategies are critical, the ideal standard remains the proactive identification of vulnerabilities during the initial development stages. A deep dive into "Shift-Left" security is beyond the scope of this analysis, which focuses on mitigating risks within existing code. However, a Secure Software Development Lifecycle (S-SDLC) remains a fundamental principle. Robust code validation and continuous security testing are essential to neutralize threats before serverless functions are published externally.</span></p>
<h4><span>Cloud Run Threat Detection</span></h4>
<p><span>Beyond the hardening recommendations outlined in this post, </span><a href="https://cloud.google.com/security/products/security-command-center"><span>Google Cloud Security Command Center (SCC)</span></a><span> provides built-in services to detect control plane attacks against Cloud Run resources. These include detectors for credential access, reconnaissance, and the execution of scripts or reverse shells. The </span><a href="https://docs.cloud.google.com/security-command-center/docs/cloud-run-threat-detection-overview"><span>Cloud Run Threat Detection</span></a><span> service is available for Premium and Enterprise tiers.</span></p>
<h3><span>Conclusion</span></h3>
<p><span>Serverless applications drive agility and rapid business value. While "vibe-coding" has made it easier than ever to deploy code, this breakneck speed demands that teams integrate security early in the development lifecycle, move beyond default configurations, and prioritize a defense-in-depth strategy centered on identity and architecture. </span></p>
<h3><span>Acknowledgements</span></h3>
<p><span>This analysis would not have been possible without the assistance of Ischa Rijff, Phil Pearce, and Juraj Sucik.</span></p></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Indian AI coding startup Emergent becomes a unicorn with $130M Series C]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[The startup has reached a $120 million annualized revenue run rate and more than 200,000 paying customers.]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3670549/it-nachrichten/indian-ai-coding-startup-emergent-becomes-a-unicorn-with-130m-series-c/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3670549/it-nachrichten/indian-ai-coding-startup-emergent-becomes-a-unicorn-with-130m-series-c/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 14:02:35 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[The startup has reached a $120 million annualized revenue run rate and more than 200,000 paying customers.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[How to unionize your tech workplace]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[This is Part 2 of a series on tech worker unionization. See Part 1: “A brewing battle: More IT workers want unions. The industry doesn’t.”



The best time for tech workers to unionize was 20 years ago, when they had plenty of leverage. The second-best time is now, when they don’t.



Mass layoff...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3670454/it-nachrichten/how-to-unionize-your-tech-workplace/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3670454/it-nachrichten/how-to-unionize-your-tech-workplace/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 13:18:09 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>This is Part 2 of a series on tech worker unionization. See Part 1: “<a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4191760/brewing-battle-more-tech-workers-want-unions-but-the-industry-doesnt.html">A brewing battle: More IT workers want unions. The industry doesn’t</a>.”</em></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The best time for tech workers to unionize was 20 years ago, when they had plenty of leverage. The second-best time is now, when they don’t.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Mass layoffs, AI-driven displacement, corporate surveillance, workplace disillusionment have created conditions that have made organizing compelling for tech professionals. But the federal labor board that has historically protected workers’ right to organize has been weakened, and the companies that once feared it are openly defying it.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Here’s how organizers and labor experts describe the pros and cons to organizing — and how you can get started.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What unions can — and can’t — do for you</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The single biggest benefit of a union contract for most tech workers isn’t pay — it’s protection against arbitrary termination, especially in the wake of recent mass layoffs in tech. In the United States, nonunion “at-will” workers can be fired at any time without a stated reason, while unionized workers negotiate protections written into their contracts.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“That fear of the company letting you go for anything at any time…with a union they just can’t do that,” says <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/zthompson1/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Zak Thompson</a>, a senior software engineer at Kickstarter and union steward at Kickstarter United. Now that Kickstarter employees are unionized, people are less worried that saying something negative will result in termination.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“I’ve been shocked at the willingness of my co-workers to speak up against what they see as poor or controversial business decisions,” Thompson says.</p>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure class="wp-block-image size-full is-resized"> width="972" height="972" sizes="auto, (max-width: 972px) 100vw, 972px"&gt;<figcaption class="wp-element-caption"><p>Zak Thompson from Kickstarter United</p><br></figcaption></figure><p class="imageCredit">Fee Christoph</p></div>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Beyond job security, unions can deliver concrete material gains.</strong> <a href="https://kickstarterunited.org/about/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Kickstarter United was formed in 2020</a>, although getting there wasn’t easy: two employees were fired during the organizing campaign — which itself became a galvanizing event. And while the union hasn’t been able to prevent layoffs, it did negotiate better terms: four months of severance pay and four to six months of continued health insurance, versus the two to three weeks per year of work that management had initially proposed.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Other benefits include a four-day work week; AI protections; a minimum pay floor; and standards for raises, promotions, and time off for the company’s 59 employees.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Unions can give tech workers a voice in decisions that affect their daily work — including how AI tools are deployed.</strong> “Nobody I’ve spoken to is against new technology or getting trained in it,” says <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/mbelasco/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Max Belasco</a>, a business systems analyst at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law and co-chair of the UCLA chapter of the University Professional and Technical Employees/Communications Workers of America (UPTE-CWA) Local 9119.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“But when new technology is being implemented, we want to know: what’s the five-year vision, the 10-year vision? Are we implementing this in a way that betters staffing, increases efficiency, or eases the lives of people already working? Or are we trying to take away jobs, automate people out of their pension or paycheck?” Belasco says.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>The challenges are real.</strong> Tech professionals are less inclined to leave their jobs in the current market because wages haven’t been increasing as fast as they once were, and it can take longer to land another job.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Tech moved from a very tight labor market in 2022 (1.85% unemployment rate) to a noticeably weaker one in 2024–2026 (3.49%),” although that’s still better than the national unemployment rate of 4.36% through May of this year, says <a href="https://www.mercatus.org/scholars/liya-palagashvili" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Liya Palagashvili</a>, senior research fellow and director of the Labor Policy Project at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.</p>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure class="wp-block-image size-full is-resized"> width="960" height="640" sizes="auto, (max-width: 960px) 100vw, 960px"&gt;<figcaption class="wp-element-caption"><p>Liya Palagashvili of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University</p></figcaption></figure><p class="imageCredit">Mercatus Center at George Mason University</p></div>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Flexibility is a concern.</strong> The more substantive challenge, raised by economists including Palagashvili, is that traditional union contracts impose uniform terms across an entire bargaining unit, limiting the flexibility that many tech workers — and their employers —currently enjoy. Tech firms need to move fast, adjusting teams, products, and roles on the fly.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Collective bargaining agreements can make those adjustments much more difficult, whether by making them slower, costlier, or inconsistent with the contract,” she says.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Workers skeptical of unions in a <a href="https://www.teamblind.com/blog/why-are-unions-not-common-tech-industry/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">survey of 1,900 tech professionals</a> conducted by the career site Blind cited specific concerns: that unions are “not meritocratic,” “prevent innovation,” and “hold back earnings of top performers.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Thompson from Kickstarter United pushes back: “We have nothing in our contract about ‘you can’t bend down and pick up a piece of trash because that’s someone else’s job.’ The company is free to give bonuses and individual raises as much as they like. This is all just up to the people who are bargaining the contract from the union side.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Organizing carries potentially serious personal risks.</strong> During negotiations for a second three-year contract in 2025, Kickstarter United went on strike for 42 days. A few months later, the company announced layoffs.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“They let go strong union leaders, including a person who had bargained our last contract,” Thompson says. The union appealed, and the issue is now going to arbitration.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">If you form a union, don’t expect much support from the <a href="https://www.nlrb.gov/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">National Labor Relations Board</a>, the agency that certifies US labor unions and protects workers’ right to organize, in terms of prosecuting complaints of unfair labor practices, Thompson warns. “We’re in a political moment in this country with a pretty weakened NLRB. You have to be ready to organize and withhold worker power without any guarantee of safety.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Organizers are up against an enormous union avoidance industry.</strong> Organizers can expect fierce pushback as soon as the business discovers that organizing is underway.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“There’s a multi-billion-dollar industry in union avoidance,” says <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/alan-mcavinney-a386b8122/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Alan McAvinney</a>, a Google software engineer and organizing chair, Alphabet Workers Union-CWA, a 1,400-member minority union of Alphabet employees. (Google is a subsidiary of Alphabet.)</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">US employers spend roughly $1.7 billion a year on union avoidance consultants and law firms, according to a <a href="https://www.epi.org/press/u-s-employers-spend-roughly-1-7-billion-annually-on-union-avoidance/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">May 2026 report</a> by the Economic Policy Institute and LaborLab.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Expect hardball tactics. </strong>Management may play hardball during the time between when organizers announce their intention to unionize and the actual vote. For example, management can threaten to fire foreign-born workers in the US on H-1B visas if they support the union. Those workers would then have just 60 days to find a new sponsoring employer or lose their H-1B status, according to a recent <a href="https://techworkerscoalition.org/blog/2025/03/14/immigrant-rights-are-labor-rights-tech-workers-and-h-1b-visas/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Tech Workers Coalition blog post</a>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">And at venture capital-backed startups, investment agreements sometimes require management to attest there is no union activity — meaning a public organizing drive can trigger funding withdrawal. Or, if a unionized company is acquired, the new management can dissolve the union overnight by reclassifying unionized workers as new hires.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">With these sobering facts in mind, here is how organizers who have done it describe the process of creating a union.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Step 1: Start a conversation with your co-workers</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">At the University of California, a two-tier system had evolved where some tech workers were unionized and some weren’t, Belasco says. Management created new titles that fell outside the union even though they had similar job descriptions and responsibilities to those in the union. Those nonunion employees received lower pay and benefits than their unionized peers, which created resentment and instability.</p>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure class="wp-block-image size-large is-resized"> width="1024" height="683" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px"&gt;<figcaption class="wp-element-caption"><p>Max Belasco from the UCLA chapter of UPTE-CWA</p>
</figcaption></figure><p class="imageCredit">Zac Goldstein</p></div>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Belasco and other organizers wanted to eliminate that division by bringing everyone under the same contract. But when they began their unionization drive, “the biggest barrier we faced wasn’t management opposition — it was that people felt this was just the best-case scenario realistically available: ‘We have this job at the university, we have concerns about automation and layoffs, but what can we really do about it?'” he says.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The antidote to that fatalism, organizers say, is simple: “Just start talking to your immediate co-workers. Are they experiencing the same challenges you are experiencing?” says McAvinney. “There’s no need to start talking about a union at this point.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Just get a consensus and start building a group of like-minded individuals, Thompson advises. “Always start with one-on-one conversations, and that’s what you should do the whole time. That’s the key to organizing,” he says.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Tech workers often think they’re a special case, says Thompson, and therefore that unionization isn’t a good fit. “You’re not special. You are a company of workers, you are organizing, and there is a playbook for that. Trust the process, because it tends to work pretty well,” he says.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Step 2: Who’s on board, and who’s not? Map your workplace, but keep it quiet</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Once there’s a consensus, continue to grow your network. Keep a list of everyone you’ve spoken with and note their disposition: “Is this person union-friendly or anti-union? Would they be a strong organizer?” Thompson says.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Maintaining secrecy early on is essential, because anti-union tactics will start immediately, and that can stop union organizing before it can gain momentum.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Generally, employers do not want to share power with their workforce,” McAvinney says. Employers will deploy every means at their disposal to stop organizing efforts and peel away potential yes votes.</p>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure class="wp-block-image size-large is-resized"> width="1024" height="839" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px"&gt;<figcaption class="wp-element-caption"><p>Alan McAvinney from Alphabet Workers Union-CWA</p><br></figcaption></figure><p class="imageCredit">Aran Per Ink</p></div>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“If you look at historical examples, having 70% approval before the employer finds out about you results in a high percentage of wins when you actually cast the vote. Historically, that’s an effective buffer,” he says.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There’s a real threat of firing and layoffs<em>.</em> The traditional tech worker belief that job mobility makes collective action unnecessary is now being tested by a tighter job market, McAvinney says, noting that workers who many believe <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/google-fires-thanksgiving-four-workers-crush-dissent-1474102" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">were fired for speaking out</a> back in 2019 were a galvanizing factor in his union’s formation.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“You generally don’t want to be in a situation where the employer feels comfortable firing everyone. Part of that is thinking from a cynical standpoint about what the consequences would be to the employer if they did fire everyone,” he says.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">One-on-one conversations that include personally asking co-workers to keep conversations confidential are key to keeping things quiet, Belasco says. When <a href="https://upte.org/news/2100-tech-workers-vote-to-join-upte" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">2,100 UC tech workers voted to unionize</a> in May, 96% voted in favor. To stay out of earshot of managers, avoid employee surveillance tools, and sidestep conference calls that could be recorded, organizers met with workers in their homes.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“That tactic is probably what made the difference between winning the election and getting the majority we got,” he says.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Step 3: Find the right union affiliation or go it alone</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Running a campaign against major employers requires the resources and expertise of the larger labor movement, even if workers publicly present as independent,” says <a href="https://www.ilr.cornell.edu/people/kate-l-bronfenbrenner">Kate Bronfenbrenner</a>, director of labor education research and senior lecturer emeritus at Cornell University’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Options include the <a href="https://cwa-union.org/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Communications Workers of America</a> (CWA), <a href="https://www.seiu.org/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Service Employees International Union</a> (SEIU), and the <a href="https://www.opeiu.org/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Office and Professional Employees International Union</a> (OPEIU), among others. Another resource, the <a href="https://techworkerscoalition.org/">Tech Workers Coalition</a> (TWC), provides training on organizing tactics, AI-in-workplace issues, and contract negotiation, and can match workers to the right unions for their needs.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The <a href="https://www.alphabetworkersunion.org/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Alphabet Workers Union</a> decided early on to affiliate with CWA. “They gave us a bunch of support early on in our campaign with no strings attached,” McAvinney says.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Kickstarter is organized through OPEIU, Thompson says. “They’ll usually have resources and staff that can help you through the next steps: collecting signatures in support of a union, bringing that to management, holding a vote — the more formalized things that interact with US labor law. They’ll also help with organizing along the way,” he says.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For workers at institutions where a union already exists, there may be a faster path. Organizers at UCLA did what’s called a “unit modification,” aligning with UPTE. By organizing under UPTE, the workers didn’t have to negotiate a new contract from scratch — they joined an already-negotiated contract covering existing UPTE tech members, which put them in “a much stronger position” than starting fresh, Belasco says.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Step 4: Choose your union model: majority vs. pre-majority or minority</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Assess what’s practical for your organizing effort. In a majority union, more than 50% of all workers in a defined bargaining unit must vote to join the union through an NLRB-supervised election in the private sector, or a Public Employment Relations Board (PERB)-supervised election for public sector workers.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The NLRB must certify the union, which then operates under its legal protections. This means, for example, that the employer must bargain, negotiated contracts are enforceable, violations must go to the NLRB or arbitration, and workers can’t be dismissed without just cause.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A pre-majority or minority union is a minority labor organization operating without NLRB protections or collective bargaining agreements. “Pre-majority means that workers are able to demonstrate majority support — through signed cards, petitions, a walkout, or everyone wearing solidarity T-shirts — without going through a formal election,” Bronfenbrenner says.</p>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure class="wp-block-image size-large is-resized"> width="1024" height="683" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px"&gt;<figcaption class="wp-element-caption"><p>Kate Bronfenbrenner from the School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University</p><br></figcaption></figure><p class="imageCredit">ILR School/Cornell University</p></div>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The Alphabet Workers Union-CWA (AWU-CWA) formed as a pre-majority union because achieving majority status across a globally distributed workforce of over 100,000 was not a realistic near-term goal. “An underground model where you try to reach 70% support across a workforce of over 100,000 people isn’t realistic,” McAvinney says.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A pre-majority union can still make a difference, he says. For example, the Alphabet Workers Union-CWA convinced management to offer voluntary exit packages — buyouts — prior to announcing layoffs.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For smaller organizations, a majority union may be the more practical option — it’s more attainable, McAvinney says. “I don’t think [the pre-majority union model] is the correct thing to do in all situations. I certainly would not recommend it to a 200-person shop.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Kickstarter, which had fewer than 100 employees, was able to form a majority union, with 55% voting to organize.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Ultimately, says McAvinney, “there’s no inflection point where you go from being able to win nothing to winning everything, even with a contract and a supermajority. But the more people you have who are willing and able to fight for what they want, the more you’ll be able to get.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Step 5: Who should — and should not — be in your union?</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Belasco’s situation at UCLA illustrates a broader strategic choice that every organizing campaign must make. He had been in a union position in educational technology when he was told his role would be reclassified as a non-union position.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“I was given a choice: apply to the new non-union position to continue doing the work I’d trained for, or stay in my union position doing service desk work I wasn’t used to,” he says. “Essentially, it was a choice between job security and career progression.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Belasco joined a “wall-to-wall” union, which represents a broad range of university professional and technical employees across the UC system rather than a single job category, such as engineers or tech professionals.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Kickstarter United is another example of a wall-to-wall union. “It’s not just the engineers who are unionized, but also customer support, designers — everyone,” Thompson says.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Wall-to-wall unions are more powerful, but they’re also more difficult to achieve. <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/159" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Under US labor law</a>, “professionals have to vote separately on whether they want to be combined with other workers,” says Bronfenbrenner. “You can never have a wall-to-wall unit without giving professionals the chance to decide whether they want to be separate.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The law’s “professional employees” category includes roles like software engineers and developers but not necessarily others. For example, customer support specialists and QA analysts would fall into the “non-professional workers” category.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“For decades, the pattern was either to organize everybody except the engineers, or manage to organize the engineers and fail to bring in everybody else — neither of which builds real worker power,” says <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/simonerobutti/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Simone Robutti</a>, an organizer with Tech Workers Coalition Global, an international branch of TWC based in Berlin.</p>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure class="wp-block-image size-full is-resized"> width="959" height="713" sizes="auto, (max-width: 959px) 100vw, 959px"&gt;<figcaption class="wp-element-caption"><p>Simone Robutti from Tech Workers Coalition Global</p><br></figcaption></figure><p class="imageCredit">TWC</p></div>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Step 6: You won the vote. Get ready for what comes next</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Winning a union vote means having a seat at the table, says Thompson. “Once the workers have come together and agreed they want that seat, you bring that to management, and they have a chance to voluntarily recognize a union,” he says.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But in most cases employers contest the results, which must be certified by the NLRB or PERB. That process, in which the employer uses various tactics to challenge the legitimacy of the outcome, can take weeks or months.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Unfortunately, the legal framework that is supposed to protect workers during this process has been <a href="https://workerorganizing.org/elon-musk-spacex-nlrb-15975/#:~:text=CAN%20THE%20NLRB%20STILL%20ENFORCE%20LAWS%3F" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">significantly weakened</a> in the last few years. In a potentially more ominous development, <a href="https://apnews.com/article/amazon-nlrb-unconstitutional-spacex-elon-musk-ab42977117d883e97110a7bf8e8b257f" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">SpaceX</a>, <a href="https://apnews.com/article/amazon-nlrb-50ee06d87d4eaef22386382761335ef8" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Amazon</a>, <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trader-joes-attorney-nlrb-unconstitutional_n_65b41e7ae4b014b873b11cc2" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Trader Joe’s</a>, <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/starbucks-is-latest-company-to-call-labor-board-unconstitutional" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Starbucks</a>, and the <a href="https://capitalandmain.com/usc-follows-amazon-and-musks-spacex-in-calling-labor-board-unconstitutional" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">University of Southern California</a> have in separate legal actions <a href="https://www.epi.org/blog/whats-behind-the-corporate-effort-to-kneecap-the-national-labor-relations-board-spacex-amazon-trader-joes-and-starbucks-are-trying-to-have-the-nlrb-declared-unconstitutional/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">challenged the constitutionality of the NLRB</a>, arguing that the agency’s structure violates the separation of powers. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/24-50627/24-50627-2025-08-19.html?__cf_chl_f_tk=do9nl63o6rfY2sxOjPeR5MkVGY4u1OTRYOVYjTQTOG0-1782836265-1.0.1.1-IXqkGFSiOH5hYYOqqrEqH6VFIApNL3MRHW6YNiDwERI" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">upheld injunctions against the NLRB</a> in SpaceX’s case in August 2025 — a serious challenge to the agency’s authority.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In the meantime, some companies may disregard negotiated contracts, which can lead to lengthy legal appeals or extended arbitration.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The NLRB can still force an election, but it can’t force a contract, and companies are saying they simply won’t comply,” Bronfenbrenner says. This is where the expertise and resources of affiliation with a major union can help, she adds.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As a result, contract negotiations can take far longer than workers might expect. At Kickstarter, for example, two years and four months elapsed from the time of the union vote to the first contract, and that was at a 59-person company with a relatively cooperative employer. At larger companies with more aggressive legal teams, the timeline will be longer.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Forming a union is hard work, Robutti says. “It’s not a service you pay for and they protect you. It doesn’t happen spontaneously, and it doesn’t happen magically. It’s the choice to take responsibility for improving your workplace.”</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Brydge Expands ProDock Family With Three New Vertical Docking Stations]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Brydge just dropped some fresh hardware for anyone looking to organize a messy desk. The accessory maker added three new vertical docking stations to its lineup to give users more options to connect their computers to external monitors and accessories. The brand new ProDock Solo, ProDock Duo, and...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3670268/ios-mac-os/brydge-expands-prodock-family-with-three-new-vertical-docking-stations/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3670268/ios-mac-os/brydge-expands-prodock-family-with-three-new-vertical-docking-stations/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 12:10:02 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🍏 iOS / Mac OS</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Brydge just dropped some fresh hardware for anyone looking to organize a messy desk. The accessory maker added three new vertical docking stations to its lineup to give users more options to connect their computers to external monitors and accessories. The brand new ProDock Solo, ProDock Duo, and ProDock Trio are built to keep your laptop standing upright while massively expanding its connectivity without taking up much room.



Three different choices offer varying power and display support



The entry-level ProDock Solo costs $229 and connects via standard USB-C. It delivers 90 watts of charging power and supports a single 4K display. It features seven extra ports, making it perfect for basic setups. If you need more speed, the $399 ProDock Duo uses Thunderbolt 4 technology. It bumps the connectivity up to 10 ports while supporting dual 4K monitors and keeping the same 90-watt charging speed.



The highest tier option is the $459 ProDock Trio. This powerhouse features a massive 80 gigabits per second connection and supports three 4K displays at a super smooth 144Hz refresh rate. It delivers up to 140 watts of charging power and includes 11 ports to handle almost any accessory you want to plug in.



The docks are built specifically for modern Apple laptops



These new stations are designed to perfectly fit recent Apple machines. Both the Solo and the Duo work well with the MacBook Pro and MacBook Air. The massive ProDock Trio is built exclusively for the more demanding MacBook Pro lineup. Each dock features a sleek aluminum body that naturally blends in with the exact look of a modern Mac.



The vertical design does more than just look good on a desk. By holding the laptop straight up, the dock saves a massive amount of physical space in your work area. You can leave all your messy cables plugged directly into the back of the station at all times. When you sit down, you simply slide the computer down into the sleeve to instantly connect to your entire desktop setup.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Apple Drops New AirPods Public Beta Just One Day After iOS 27]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Apple just rolled out the very first public beta for its wireless earbuds. This new software arrives just one day after the company released the public test versions for its major phone and computer updates. If you want to try out fresh audio features like custom equalizer controls and new fitnes...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3670267/ios-mac-os/apple-drops-new-airpods-public-beta-just-one-day-after-ios-27/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3670267/ios-mac-os/apple-drops-new-airpods-public-beta-just-one-day-after-ios-27/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 12:10:01 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🍏 iOS / Mac OS</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Apple just rolled out the very first public beta for its wireless earbuds. This new software arrives just one day after the company released the public test versions for its major phone and computer updates. If you want to try out fresh audio features like custom equalizer controls and new fitness tracking options before they officially launch this fall, you can now opt into the testing program.



See which earbud models support the new software update



To test out the new firmware, you need to own one of the newer audio products from the company. The tech giant limited this beta phase to specific models that have the processing power to handle the latest additions. For example, the new software brings advanced GymKit support that lets specific models sync heart rate data directly during a workout.



Here is the full list of supported models for this test:




AirPods 4



AirPods 4 with Active Noise Cancellation



AirPods Pro 2 (Lightning and USB-C)



AirPods Pro 3



AirPods Max 2




If you have older versions of the AirPods, you will have to wait for future hardware upgrades to try these features.



Follow these steps to install the beta firmware on your device



Before you start, you must install the iOS 27 beta, the iPadOS 27 beta, or the macOS 27 beta on your main device. Without the phone or computer running the test software, the earbud update will not show up.



Once your main device is ready, connect your earbuds via Bluetooth. Open the Settings app on your phone and head to the Bluetooth menu. Tap the small information icon next to your connected earbuds. Scroll down to the bottom of that page until you find the beta updates section. Toggle that switch on.



After you flip the switch, the software will automatically download and install in the background. Your earbuds need to be inside their charging case and sitting right next to your phone or computer for the process to finish.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[5 ways for CIOs to avoid AI bill shock]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[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...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3670246/it-security-nachrichten/5-ways-for-cios-to-avoid-ai-bill-shock/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3670246/it-security-nachrichten/5-ways-for-cios-to-avoid-ai-bill-shock/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 12:08:37 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Here are five ways CIOs can build that discipline before AI costs spiral.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Forecast AI by workflow, not by user</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“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.”</p>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage left"><figure class="wp-block-image alignleft size-1240-r3:2 is-resized"> width="1240" height="827" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1240px) 100vw, 1240px"&gt;<figcaption class="wp-element-caption"><p>Michael Corrigan, CIO, World Insurance Associates</p>
</figcaption></figure><p class="imageCredit">WIA</p></div>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“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.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Elmer Morales, founder and CEO of koder.com, an agentic AI coding startup, says CIOs should think less about headcount and more about <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4163373/cios-bring-ai-transformation-home-to-it-workflows.html?utm=hybrid_search">workflow mechanics</a>. 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.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“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.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Model the failure path, not just the happy path</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“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.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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.</p>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage left"><figure class="wp-block-image alignleft size-1240-r3:2 is-resized"> width="1240" height="827" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1240px) 100vw, 1240px"&gt;<figcaption class="wp-element-caption"><p>Elmer Morales, founder and CEO, koder.com</p>
</figcaption></figure><p class="imageCredit">koder.com</p></div>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The difference between copilots and <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/3603856/agentic-ai-promising-use-cases-for-business.html?utm=hybrid_search">agents</a> 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.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Build cost controls into the architecture</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Traditional FinOps practices still matter, but AI requires more than retrospective dashboards and chargebacks.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“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.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The real FinOps means you need to have the cost constraints embedded into your architecture framework,” Madduri says.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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.</p>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage left"><figure class="wp-block-image alignleft size-1240-r3:2 is-resized"> width="1240" height="828" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1240px) 100vw, 1240px"&gt;<figcaption class="wp-element-caption"><p>Pavan Madduri, senior cloud platform engineer, Graigner</p>
</figcaption></figure><p class="imageCredit">Graigner</p></div>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“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.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Route work to the right model</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">CIOs can also reduce <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4152601/without-controls-an-ai-agent-can-cost-more-than-an-employee.html?utm=hybrid_search">AI bill shock</a> 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.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“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.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Tie consumption to business value</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“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.</p>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage left"><figure class="wp-block-image alignleft size-1240-r3:2 is-resized"> width="1240" height="827" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1240px) 100vw, 1240px"&gt;<figcaption class="wp-element-caption"><p>Jim Olsen, CTO, ModelOp</p>
</figcaption></figure><p class="imageCredit">ModelOp</p></div>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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.</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Vor 18 Jahren: Höllenmaschine 3 –  gewinnen Sie den 30.000-Euro-PC]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Hinweis: Dieser Artikel erschien am 3. März 2008 auf pcwelt.de. Anlässlich unseres 20‑jährigen Jubiläums haben wir mittels der Wayback Machine des Internet Archive das zeitgeschichtliche Dokument restauriert. Wir haben alle Hyperlinks im Text belassen – sofern sie noch auf historische Inhalte füh...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3670019/it-nachrichten/vor-18-jahren-hoellenmaschine-3-gewinnen-sie-den-30000-euro-pc/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3670019/it-nachrichten/vor-18-jahren-hoellenmaschine-3-gewinnen-sie-den-30000-euro-pc/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 10:33:32 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p>Hinweis: Dieser Artikel erschien am 3. März 2008 auf pcwelt.de. Anlässlich unseres 20‑jährigen Jubiläums haben wir mittels der <a href="https://web.archive.org/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Wayback Machine des Internet Archive</a> das zeitgeschichtliche Dokument restauriert. Wir haben alle Hyperlinks im Text belassen – sofern sie noch auf historische Inhalte führen.</p>



<p>Hier geht es direkt zum <a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/hmx" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Gewinnspiel der aktuellen Höllenmaschine HMX 6 im Gesamtwert von 40.000 Euro</a>. Bestens informiert bleiben Sie mit unserem <a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/newsletter-anmeldung" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">HMX-6-Newsletter</a> – aber vergessen Sie nicht, die Anmeldung via E-Mail zu bestätigen. Und nun viel Spaß mit der dritten Höllenmaschine:</p>



<p>Herzschlagfinale: Diesmal haben wir wirklich auf den letzten Drücker den Herstellern die Prototypen für die CeBIT aus den Händen gerissen und sind trotzdem rechtzeitig fertig geworden. Deshalb können wir Ihnen auf dem Messegelände in Hannover unseren 30.000-Euro-Super-PC live in Aktion präsentieren:</p>



<p>Vom 4. bis 7. März 2008 ist die Höllenmaschine 3 zu Gast am Stand von <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20080305171342/http:/www.tt-germany.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Thermaltake</a> (<strong>Halle 24, Stand C02</strong>). Und am CeBIT-Wochenende, vom 8. bis 9. März 2008, finden Sie unseren Traumrechner in der Messehalle von Intel (<strong>Pavillon P33</strong>, befindet sich zwischen Halle 12 und 26). Dort finden die <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20080305171342/http:/www.esl-world.net/masters/cebit2008_eventpage/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Intel Extreme Masters II Finals der ESL</a> statt. Zwischen den Finalspielen präsentieren wir Ihnen auf der Showbühne am Samstag um 10:00, 12:30 und 16:45 Uhr sowie am Sonntag um 10:00, 12:15 und 16:45 Uhr die Höllenmaschine 3 live in Aktion.</p>



<p>Und wer es nicht zur CeBIT schafft, hat bei der <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20080305171342/http:/www.dcmm.de/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Deutschen Casemod Meisterschaft 2008</a> eine weitere Gelegenheit, die Höllenmaschine 3 hautnah zu erleben. Der Wettbewerb, für den wir unseren 30.000-Euro-Rechner schon angemeldet haben, findet vom 19. bis 20. April 2008 auf der <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20080305171342/http:/westfalenhallen.de/messen/hobbytronic/index.php" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Hobbytronic</a> in Dortmund statt.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading toc">Grafik: Quad SLI</h2>



<p>Der erste Prototyp, den wir bei der Höllenmaschine 3 einsetzen, kommt vom Grafikspezialisten <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20080305171342/http:/www.nvidia.de/page/home.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Nvidia</a>. Die Referenzkarte Nvidia Geforce 9800 GX2 beherbergt gleich zwei Grafikchips, die gemeinsam die 3D-Berechnung übernehmen. In der Höllenmaschine 3 haben wir zwei dieser Doppeldecker-Grafikkarten verbaut, die über ein spezielles Datenkabel (<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20080305171342/http:/de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalable_Link_Interface" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Scalable Link Interface Bridge</a>) verbunden sind. Dadurch beteiligen sich also insgesamt vier Grafikchips parallel an der 3D-Berechnung und arbeiten damit de facto im Quad-SLI-Modus.</p>



<p>Nvidias Doppeldecker-Grafikkarte Geforce 9800 GX2 besitzt gleich zwei externe Stromanschlüsse: eine 6- sowie eine 8-polige PCI-Express-Strombuchse. Wie viel die Geforce 9800 GX2 unter Volllast verbraucht, erfahren Sie nach der CeBIT in unserem großen Test zur Höllenmaschine 3.</p>



<p>Momentan verwenden wir die beiden Grafikkarten mit der von Nvidia entwickelten Kühler-Lüfter-Kombination. Die Zeit war für die kanadischen Kühlungsspezialisten von <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20080305171342/http:/www.coolitsystems.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Coolit Systems</a> einfach zu knapp, um passende Kühlkörper anzufertigen, die für die Kompressorkühlung der Höllenmaschine 3 ausgelegt sind.</p>



<p>Daher laufen die zwei Geforce-9800-GX2-Grafikkarten derzeit noch mit den von Nvidia freigegebenen Standard-Taktraten. Aber bis spätestens Ende März 2008 sollte die Spezialanfertigung von Coolit Systems fertig sein – wir rüsten sie auf jeden Fall noch nach, um dann auch noch die Grafikkarten übertakten zu können.</p>



<p>Apropos Taktraten: Die Geforce 9800 GX2 möchte Nvidia offiziell erst Mitte März 2008 vorstellen. Damit wir die beiden High-End-Grafikkarten bereits jetzt in die Höllenmaschine 3 einbauen konnten, mussten wir eine Vertraulichkeitsvereinbarung (NDA, non-disclosure agreement) unterzeichnen, an die wir uns natürlich auch halten.</p>



<p>Deshalb können wir Ihnen momentan nicht allzu viel über das Grafikartengespann verraten. Wie das nebenstehende Bild zeigt, besitzt Nvidias Geforce 9800 GX2 zwei Dual-Link-DVI-Ausgänge zum Anschluss von zwei Bildschirmen. Zur Leistungsfähigkeit der Doppeldecker-Duos sei nur so viel gesagt: Selbst das derzeit hardwarehungrigste 3D-Spiel Crysis läuft mit höchster Bildqualität bei hohen Auflösungen flüssig. Wenn Sie auf der CeBIT sind, können Sie sich bei einer der vielen Live-Demonstrationen selbst überzeugen.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading toc">Prozessoren: 8 x 4 GHz</h2>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure data-wp-context='{"imageId":"6a57459e7a055"}' data-wp-interactive="core/image" class="wp-block-image size-full wp-lightbox-container"><img decoding="async" data-wp-class--hide="state.isContentHidden" data-wp-class--show="state.isContentVisible" data-wp-init="callbacks.setButtonStyles" data-wp-on-async--click="actions.showLightbox" data-wp-on-async--load="callbacks.setButtonStyles" data-wp-on-async-window--resize="callbacks.setButtonStyles" src="https://b2c-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Intel-Core-2-Extreme-QX9775.jpg?quality=50&amp;strip=all" alt="Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775" class="wp-image-3185715" width="385" height="486" loading="lazy"><button class="lightbox-trigger" type="button" aria-haspopup="dialog" aria-label="Enlarge" data-wp-init="callbacks.initTriggerButton" data-wp-on-async--click="actions.showLightbox" data-wp-style--right="state.imageButtonRight" data-wp-style--top="state.imageButtonTop">
				<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="12" height="12" fill="none" viewbox="0 0 12 12">
					<path fill="#fff" d="M2 0a2 2 0 0 0-2 2v2h1.5V2a.5.5 0 0 1 .5-.5h2V0H2Zm2 10.5H2a.5.5 0 0 1-.5-.5V8H0v2a2 2 0 0 0 2 2h2v-1.5ZM8 12v-1.5h2a.5.5 0 0 0 .5-.5V8H12v2a2 2 0 0 1-2 2H8Zm2-12a2 2 0 0 1 2 2v2h-1.5V2a.5.5 0 0 0-.5-.5H8V0h2Z"></path>
				</svg>
			</button></figure><p class="imageCredit">Intel </p></div>



<p>Die beiden High-End-CPUs Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775 zum Stückpreis von rund 1300 Euro arbeiten mit einem Werkstakt von 3,2 GHz – dank Kompressorkühlung laufen sie in der Höllenmaschine 3 stabil mit 4 GHz. Jedem Quad-Core steht ein gemeinsamer 12 MB großer L2-Cache zur Verfügung. Der Cache rechnet 24-fach assoziativ – das sorgt für eine effektivere Nutzung des Pufferspeichers.</p>



<p>Der Systemtakt des Core 2 Extreme QX9775 beträgt 400 (effektiv 1600) MHz. Damit erreicht der Transferdurchsatz, den jeder der beiden LGA771-Prozessoren pro Sekunde austauschen kann, bis zu 25,6 GB/s. Der 3,2-GHz-Quad-Core unterstützt <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20080305174307/http:/www.tecchannel.de/server/hardware/402269/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Fully Buffered DIMM</a> der DDR2-Spezifikationen PC800 und PC667. Dass der Core 2 Extreme QX9775 Server-Speicher benötigt und den CPU-Steckplatz der Xeon-Baureihe nutzt, ist kein Zufall: Der QX9775 ist eigentlich ein Xeon X5482, dem Intel einen freien Multiplikator spendiert hat und ihn so zum „Extreme“-Prozessor aufgewertet.</p>



<p>Das Prozessor-Duo basiert auf Intels 45-Nanometer-Architektur „Harpertown“. Mit an Bord der neuen Architektur sind <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20080305174307/http:/download.intel.com/technology/architecture/new-instructions-paper.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">47 Befehle der x86-Erweiterung SSE4</a>. Die neuen Instruktionen sollen vor allem Multimedia-Anwendungen wie Musik- und Video-Encodierung beschleunigen – sofern der Software-Hersteller die SSE4-Befehle in den Programmcode einpflegt.</p>



<p>Dies ist beispielsweise bei der aktuellen Version des Divx-Codecs und der Bildbearbeitung Adobe Photoshop der Fall. Aber auch 3D-Spiele soll SSE4 beschleunigen, etwa bei der Physikberechnung. Das ist aber noch Zukunftsmusik: Das erste Spiel, bei dem dies der Fall sein wird, ist der für Ende 2008 angekündigte Titel „Alan Wake“.</p>



<p>Mehrere Betriebssysteme: Der Core 2 Extreme QX9775 unterstützt die <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20080305174307/http:/www.intel.com/technology/platform-technology/virtualization/index.htm" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Virtualisierungs-Technik Intel VT</a> sowie 32-und 64-Bit-Betriebssysteme – interessant für Nutzer, die etwa virtuelle Server mit unterschiedlichen Betriebssystemen einrichten möchten. Mit einem Acht-Kern-System wie der Höllenmaschine 3, die ja auch beim Arbeitsspeicher nicht knausert, lässt sich da so einiges realisieren.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading toc">Ausstattung der Höllenmaschine 3 im Überblick</h2>



<figure class="wp-block-table"><table class="has-fixed-layout"><tbody><tr><td><strong>Komponente</strong></td><td><strong>Modell</strong></td><td><strong>Preis</strong> <strong>(Euro)</strong> am 3.3.2008</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Hauptplatine</strong></td><td>Intel D5400XS “Skulltrail”  </td><td>500  </td></tr><tr><td><strong>Prozessor</strong></td><td>2 x Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775, 3,2@4 GHz  </td><td>2600  </td></tr><tr><td><strong>Speicher</strong></td><td>4 x 2 GB Samsung PC800 FB-DIMM  </td><td>1000  </td></tr><tr><td><strong>Grafik</strong></td><td>2 x Nvidia Geforce 9800 GX2  </td><td>1500  </td></tr><tr><td><strong>Controller</strong></td><td>Adaptec ICP Vortex 5085BL, 8-Port, 256 MB RAM, PCI-E  </td><td>500  </td></tr><tr><td><strong>Festplatten</strong></td><td>4 x 300 GB Seagate Cheetah 15K.5 ST3300655SS, SAS  </td><td>2400  </td></tr><tr><td><strong>.</strong></td><td>4 x 1 TB Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 ST31000340AS, SATA 300  </td><td>1200  </td></tr><tr><td><strong>Brenner</strong></td><td>Bluray-HD-DVD-Laufwerk LG Electronics GGW-H20L, SATA  </td><td>400  </td></tr><tr><td><strong>Gehäuse</strong></td><td>Case-Mod “PC-WELT Höllenmaschine 3” auf Basis des Cube-Towers Thermaltake Mozart TX VE 1000BNS von Heiko Polaczek  </td><td>6000  </td></tr><tr><td><strong>Kompressor-Kühlung</strong></td><td>Coolit Systems Freezone Elite für CPUs (ab Ende März 2008 auch für GPUs und Chipsatz)  </td><td>4000  </td></tr><tr><td><strong>Netzteil</strong></td><td>Thermaltake Toughpower 2000W, ATX 12V 2.3, EPS 2.92  </td><td>400  </td></tr><tr><td><strong>Eingabegeräte</strong></td><td>Gyration Go 2.4 Optical Air und Media Center Remote Suite  </td><td>400  </td></tr><tr><td><strong>Bildschirme</strong></td><td>30-Zoll-Breitbild-TFT Eizo SX3031W  </td><td>2500  </td></tr><tr><td><strong>.</strong></td><td>7-Zoll-TFT-Touchscreen von Thermaltake, Laufwerkseinschub  </td><td>400  </td></tr><tr><td><strong>Betriebssystem</strong></td><td>Microsoft Windows 2008 Server und Vista Ultimate  </td><td>1800  </td></tr><tr><td><strong>Software</strong></td><td>Adobe Creative Suite 3 Master Collection  </td><td>3500  </td></tr><tr><td><strong>.</strong></td><td>Microsoft Office 2007 Professional    </td><td>500</td></tr></tbody></table></figure>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure data-wp-context='{"imageId":"6a57459e7a796"}' data-wp-interactive="core/image" class="wp-block-image size-large wp-lightbox-container"><img decoding="async" data-wp-class--hide="state.isContentHidden" data-wp-class--show="state.isContentVisible" data-wp-init="callbacks.setButtonStyles" data-wp-on-async--click="actions.showLightbox" data-wp-on-async--load="callbacks.setButtonStyles" data-wp-on-async-window--resize="callbacks.setButtonStyles" src="https://b2c-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/HM3-Titel.jpg?quality=50&amp;strip=all&amp;w=1200" alt="2008: Die Höllenmaschine 3" class="wp-image-3161808" width="1200" height="600" loading="lazy"><button class="lightbox-trigger" type="button" aria-haspopup="dialog" aria-label="Enlarge" data-wp-init="callbacks.initTriggerButton" data-wp-on-async--click="actions.showLightbox" data-wp-style--right="state.imageButtonRight" data-wp-style--top="state.imageButtonTop">
				<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="12" height="12" fill="none" viewbox="0 0 12 12">
					<path fill="#fff" d="M2 0a2 2 0 0 0-2 2v2h1.5V2a.5.5 0 0 1 .5-.5h2V0H2Zm2 10.5H2a.5.5 0 0 1-.5-.5V8H0v2a2 2 0 0 0 2 2h2v-1.5ZM8 12v-1.5h2a.5.5 0 0 0 .5-.5V8H12v2a2 2 0 0 1-2 2H8Zm2-12a2 2 0 0 1 2 2v2h-1.5V2a.5.5 0 0 0-.5-.5H8V0h2Z"></path>
				</svg>
			</button></figure><p class="imageCredit">PC-WELT</p></div>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading toc">Hauptplatine: Intel Skulltrail mit 8 GB RAM</h2>



<p>Wichtigstes Merkmal der rund 500 Euro teuren Intel D5400XS, Codename Skulltrail, sind die beiden LGA771-Prozessorsteckplätze – erst dadurch lassen sich die beiden Core 2 Extreme QX9775 parallel betreiben. Zu den weiteren Besonderheiten der Intel-Hauptplatine gehören zwei Nvidia-Chips namens Nforce 100 MCP. Sie bringen 32 zusätzliche PCI-Express-Datenleitungen sowie SLI-Unterstützung mit:</p>



<p>Damit kann Intel vier 16x-PCI-Express-Steckplätze auf der D5400XS unterbringen und diese auch jeweils 16fach elektrisch ansteuern. Da die beiden Nforce 100 MCP im Dauerbetrieb recht heiß werden, versieht Intel die zwei Nvidia-Chips inklusive der Northbridge mit einem Kühlkörper samt Lüfter.</p>



<p>Um die Stabilität der Höllenmaschine 3 zu erhöhen, wollen wir ab Mitte März die Intel-Lösung durch eine speziell angefertigte Kompressorkühlung unseres kanadischen Koopertionspartners Coolit Systems ersetzen.</p>



<p>Die Intel-Hauptplatine setzt auf den Server-Chipsatz 5400, Codename Seaburg. Beim 5400-Chipsatz arbeitet der Front Side Bus allerdings mit 400 (effektiv 1600) MHz. Den voll gepufferten DDR2-Speicher (FB-DIMM) bindet er ebenfalls mit 400 MHz ins System ein.</p>



<p>Die D5400XS im E-ATX-Format (305 x 330 Millimeter) sieht für jeden der vier FB-DIMM-Steckplätze einen eigenen Speicherkanal vor. Sowohl die Speichertaktraten als auch die RAM-Spannung lassen sich im BIOS der D5400XS manipulieren – ideal fürs Übertakten. Die maximale Ausbaustufe beträgt 8 GB fully buffered PC800- oder PC667-DDR2-SDRAM (4 x 2 GB).</p>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure data-wp-context='{"imageId":"6a57459e7ae4d"}' data-wp-interactive="core/image" class="wp-block-image size-large wp-lightbox-container"><img decoding="async" data-wp-class--hide="state.isContentHidden" data-wp-class--show="state.isContentVisible" data-wp-init="callbacks.setButtonStyles" data-wp-on-async--click="actions.showLightbox" data-wp-on-async--load="callbacks.setButtonStyles" data-wp-on-async-window--resize="callbacks.setButtonStyles" src="https://b2c-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Intel-D5400XS.jpg?quality=50&amp;strip=all&amp;w=992" alt="Intel D5400XS" class="wp-image-3185724" width="992" height="1200" loading="lazy"><button class="lightbox-trigger" type="button" aria-haspopup="dialog" aria-label="Enlarge" data-wp-init="callbacks.initTriggerButton" data-wp-on-async--click="actions.showLightbox" data-wp-style--right="state.imageButtonRight" data-wp-style--top="state.imageButtonTop">
				<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="12" height="12" fill="none" viewbox="0 0 12 12">
					<path fill="#fff" d="M2 0a2 2 0 0 0-2 2v2h1.5V2a.5.5 0 0 1 .5-.5h2V0H2Zm2 10.5H2a.5.5 0 0 1-.5-.5V8H0v2a2 2 0 0 0 2 2h2v-1.5ZM8 12v-1.5h2a.5.5 0 0 0 .5-.5V8H12v2a2 2 0 0 1-2 2H8Zm2-12a2 2 0 0 1 2 2v2h-1.5V2a.5.5 0 0 0-.5-.5H8V0h2Z"></path>
				</svg>
			</button></figure><p class="imageCredit">Intel </p></div>



<p>Neben den vier 16x-PCI-Express-Steckplätzen, die allerdings nur den Standard PCI-Express 1.1 erfüllen, besitzt die Intel D5400XS noch zwei PCI-Steckplätze gemäß Version 2.3. Des Weiteren bietet die D5400XS-Hauptplatine noch einen Anschluss für zwei IDE-Laufwerke sowie üppige sechs SATA-300-Port inklusive zwei eSATA-Buchsen. Hinzu kommen zehn USB-2.0-Ports, zwei Firewire-Anschlüsse und eine 10/100/1000-MBit-Netzwerkbuchse. Bereits im Chipsatz integriert ist ein HD-Audiochip für 7.1-Raumklang mit einem optischen S/PDIF-Ausgang und den fünf üblichen Klinkenstecker-Buchsen.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading toc">Arbeitsspeicher: 4 x 2 GB DDR2-SDRAM</h2>



<p>Wir bestücken alle vier Speicherbänke der Intel D5400XS mit Fully Buffered DDR2-800-SDRAM – und zwar mit den 2-GB-Modulen Samsung M395T5663QZ4-CF76. Die Speicherriegel nutzen zusätzliche Datenleitungen für die Datenintegritätsprüfung. Für eine schnellere Datenverarbeitung steht jedem Speichersteckplatz ein eigener Datenkanal zur Verfügung. Die FB-DIMM-Module laufen mit den Zugriffszeiten 666-11 und arbeiten mit effektiv 800 MHz.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading toc">System-Festplatten: 4 x SAS </h2>



<p>Die Höllenmaschine 3 vertraut auf Server-Laufwerke für die Betriebssystem-Installationen. Dazu nutzen wir vier 300-GB-Festplatten mit der Punkt-zu-Punkt-Verbindung Serial Attached SCSI (SAS). SAS ist der Nachfolger der parallelen SCSI-Schnittstelle und bietet eine theoretische Datentransferrate von bis zu 300 MB/s, die sich im Gegensatz zu SATA 300 in der Praxis mit Raid-Konfigurationen auch tatsächlich annähernd erreichen lässt.</p>



<p>Unsere Wahl fiel auf das Modell Seagate Cheetah 15K.5 ST3300655SS mit 300 GB Kapazität. Preis pro Stück: rund 500 Euro. Das 3,5-Zoll-Laufwerk rotiert mit 15.000 Umdrehungen pro Minute, der Datenpuffer beträgt 16 MB. Die durchschnittliche Zugriffszeit der Cheetah 15K.4 liegt laut Hersteller bei 2 Millisekunden.</p>



<p>Die Zuverlässigkeit respektive MTBF (Mean Time Between Failures) der SAS-Laufwerke gibt Seagate mit 1,4 Millionen Betriebsstunden an. Die Annualized Failure Rate (AFR), also die Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass ein Laufwerk innerhalb eines Jahres ausfällt, liegt laut Hersteller bei 0,62 Prozent. Hier gibt’s detaillierte Informationen zur <a href="https://www.seagate.com/docs/pdf/de-DE/datasheet/disc/ds-cheetah-15k-5-de.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Seagate Cheetah 15K.5 ST3300655SS</a>.</p>



<p>Noch mehr Tempo kitzeln wir aus der Cheetah 15K.5, indem wir die vier der SAS-Laufwerke mittels der PCI-Express-Controller-Karte Adaptec ICP Vortex 5085BL zu einem Raid-10-Verbund koppeln. Zwei Laufwerke fungieren dabei als Raid-0-Verbund: Dadurch lässt sich im Idealfall die Datentransferrate fast verdoppeln, da der SAS-Controller den Datenstrom in kleine Pakete zerlegt (Striping), die er simultan auf das Plattenduo schreibt beziehungsweise davon liest. Um eine hundertprozentige Datensicherheit zu gewährleisten, arbeiten die beiden anderen SAS-Laufwerke im Raid-1-Modus und spiegeln so den Datenbestand des Raid-0-Verbundes.</p>



<p>Umsonst gibt’s die Datensicherheit allerdings nicht: Durch den Raid-10-Verbund halbiert sich die nutzbare Kapazität des Laufwerk-Quartetts auf knapp 550 GB. Damit Systemprogramme und Applikationen möglichst verzögerungsfrei starten und arbeiten, haben wir die Betriebssysteme sowie alle Programme und Benchmarks auf der SAS-Partition installiert.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading toc">Massenspeicher: 4 x 1000 GB</h2>



<p>Ausreichend Platz für umfangreiche Musik- und Video-Sammlungen gibt’s auf der zweiten Partition der Höllenmaschine 3: Sie besteht aus vier 1000-GB-Laufwerken des Typs Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 ST31000340AS, die für den 24-Stunden-Betrieb ausgelegt sind. Wir haben die vier Terabyte-Speichermonster ebenfalls zu einem Raid-10-Verbund gebündelt. Die Festplatten bieten dann zusammen eine formatierte Kapazität von knapp 1,9 Terabyte. Der Pufferspeicher der Barracuda 7200.11 beträgt übrigens 32 MB.</p>



<p>Die Barracuda 7200.11 setzt auf die SATA-300-Schnittstelle, die eine theoretische Transferrate von bis zu 300 MB/s erreicht. In der Praxis erzielen Sie diesen Wert zwar nicht, bei einem Raid-0-Verbund aus zwei Platten dürfen Sie aber durchschnittlich mit deutlich über 100 MB/s rechnen. Damit verwalten und archivieren Sie selbst große Videodateien sehr flott.</p>



<p>Die Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 ST31000340AS ist technisch auf der Höhe der Zeit: Das 3,5-Zoll-Laufwerk beherrscht die Technik Native Command Queuing (NCQ). NCQ erlaubt der Festplatte, die vom System geforderten Zugriffe selbstständig zu verwalten. Sie kann so die optimale Reihenfolge der Zugriffe ermitteln: Das spart zusätzliche Drehbewegungen, verkürzt damit die Wegstrecken, die der Schreib-/Lesekopf zurücklegen muss, und sorgt ergo für ein höheres Tempo.</p>



<p>Eine höhere Datenübertragungsrate lässt sich auch mit Perpendicular Recording erzielen, da die Datenbits nicht mehr horizontal, sondern vertikal auf dem Datenträger angeordnet sind. Auch diese moderne Technik setzt die Barracuda 7200.11 ein. Hier finden Sie detaillierte Informationen zur Spezifikation der <a href="https://www.seagate.com/docs/pdf/datasheet/disc/ds_barracuda_7200_11.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 ST31000340AS</a>.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading toc">Multi-Spieler: Blu-Ray, DVD und HD-DVD</h2>



<p>Die Höllenmaschine 3 haben wir zudem mit einem Blu-Ray-Brenner bestückt. Der LG Electronics GGW-H20L beschreibt BD-Rs, BD-REs sowie sämtliche DVD-Rohlingstypen und liest alle gängigen Medien, darunter auch HD-DVDs. Der Pufferspeicher des internen 3,5-Zoll-Laufwerks beträgt 4 MB.</p>



<p>Bei maximalem 6-fachem Schreibtempo schaufelt der GGW-H20L bis zu 26,3 MB pro Sekunde über die SATA-Schnittstelle und füllt so einen einlagigen 25-GB-BR-Rohling in rund 15 Minuten. BD-REs beschreibt der Blu-Ray-Brenner mit 2‑facher Geschwindigkeit. Blu-Ray-Medien liest der LG Electronics GGW-H20L ebenfalls mit 6-fachem Tempo und HD-DVDs immerhin mit 3-facher Geschwindigkeit.</p>



<p>DVDs sowie CDs liest der Blu-Ray-Brenner mit maximal 16- beziehungsweise 40-facher Geschwindigkeit, DVD-RAMs mit 5-fachem Tempo. DVD±Rs beschreibt das Laufwerk mit 16-fachem, DVD-RWs mit 6fachem und DVD+RWs mit 8fachem Tempo. Dual-Layer- und Double-Layer-DVD+Rs brennt das interne Laufwerk mit 4-facher Geschwindigkeit, DVD-RAMs mit 5-fachem Tempo. CD-Rs sowie CD-RWs beschreibt der Blu-Ray-Brenner mit 40‑fachem respektive 24‑fachem Tempo.</p>



<p>Im Lieferumfang des Blu-Ray-Laufwerks enthalten sind die Programme Cyberlink Power DVD7, Cyberlink Power Producer 4 und Power 2Go. Hinzu kommt ein BD-RE-Rohling mit 25 GB Kapazität. Neben dem GGW-H20L haben wir als zweites optisches Laufwerk einen DVD-Brenner von Samsung eingebaut.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading toc">TFTs: 30-Zoll-Breitbild und 7-Zoll-Touchscreen</h2>



<p>Für viel Übersicht sorgt das 30-Zoll-Breitbild-TFT Eizo SX3031W für knapp 2500 Euro, das wir der Höllenmaschine 3 zur Seite stellen. Die physikalische Auflösung des LCD-Bildschirms beträgt 2560 x 1600 Bildpunkte. Zudem kann der Eizo-Bildschirm gängige PC-Auflösungen im 4-zu-3-Bildformat wie 1600 x 1200, 1280 x 1024, 1024 x 768 und 800 x 600 Bildpunkte sauber skalieren.</p>



<p>Die Helligkeit des TFTs mit einer Bildschirmdiagonalen von 75,6 Zentimetern liegt nach Herstellerangaben bei 260 cd/m² und das Kontrastverhältnis bei 900:1. Den horizontalen und vertikalen Blickwinkel gibt Eizo mit jeweils 178 Grad an. Die Horizontalfrequenz liegt zwischen 31 und 100 kHz, die Vertikalfrequenz bewegt sich zwischen 59 und 61 Hz. Die Reaktionszeit gibt Eizo mit 6 Millisekunden an.</p>



<p>Der 30-Zoll-Breitbild-TFT misst 68,9 x 48,9 x 27,2 Zentimeter (B x H x T). Der SX3031W bringt mit Standfuß 15,3 Kilogramm auf die Waage. Anschluss an die Höllenmaschine 3 findet der Bildschirm über einen der beiden DVI-D-Buchsen, davon ist eine als Dual-Link und eine als HDCP-kompatible Single-Link ausgelegt.</p>



<p>Alternativ kann der Eizo-Bildschirm an beiden DVI-I-Eingängen jeweils Single-Link-Signale zweier PCs oder zweier Grafikkartenanschlüsse verarbeiten. In diesem Fall zeigt der 30-Zoll-Breitbild-TFT die beiden Bilder nebeneinander (Picture-by-Picture) und kann so als 21-Zoll-Zweischirmlösung fungieren. Hier finden Sie detaillierte Informationen zum <a href="https://www.eizo.com.cy/support/db/products/software/SX3031W.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Eizo SX3031W</a>.</p>



<p>Mehr Flexibilität: Der 7-Zoll-TFT-Touchscreen ist für den Cube-Tower Mozart TX VE 1000BNS von Thermaltake konzipiert – die Gehäusebasis der Höllenmaschine 3. Dabei ist der Bildschirm in einem Laufwerkseinschub integriert und lässt sich in die Gehäusefront versenken. Die physikalische Auflösung des Touchscreens beträgt 1280 x 768 Bildpunkte. Die Stromversorgung des LCD-Bildschirm erfolgt über das Netzteil der Höllenmaschine 3. Mit im Lieferumfang des 7-Zoll-TFTs befindet sich eine Infrarot-Fernbedienung.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading toc">Stromversorgung: 2000 Watt </h2>



<p>Keine Kompromisse machen wir bei der Stromversorgung und setzen das stärkste Netzteil ein, das wir bekommen konnten: das Thermaltake Toughpower 2000W, ein weiterer Prototyp, den es derzeit noch nicht zu kaufen gibt. Das 2000-Watt-Kraftpaket erfüllt mit ATX 12V 2.3 sowie EPS 2.92 die aktuellen Spezifikationen für Desktop- und Server-Netzteile.</p>



<p>Das Thermaltake Toughpower 2000W besitzt zwei voneinander unabhängige 12-Volt-Schienen, die jeweils bis zu 80 Ampere Stromstärke liefern und unsere beiden Quad-Core-Prozessoren jeweils über zwei vierpolige CPU-Stromstecker versorgen. Ebenfalls auf dem neuesten Stand der Technik sind die sechs 8-poligen (6 + 2) PCI-Express-Stromstecker.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading toc">Kompressorkühlung</h2>



<p>Bei der recht hohen Leistungsaufnahme – die exakten Verbrauchswerte liefern wir noch nach – ist für den stabilen Betrieb der Höllenmaschine 3 eine effiziente Kühlung der hitzigsten Komponenten unverzichtbar. Diese Aufgabe übernimmt diesmal ein Kompressorkühlungssystem von Coolit Systems.</p>



<p>Die Prozessoren kühlt das Modell Freezone Elite, das bis zu 250 Watt Verlustleistung aufnehmen kann. Auch die beiden Grafikkarten und der Hauptplatinen-Chipsatz werden von speziell angepassten Kompressorkühlungssystemen unseres Kooperationspartners Coolit Systems gekühlt. Details erfahren Sie, sobald wir die Höllenmaschine 3 mit den Sonderanfertigungen aufgerüstet haben.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading toc">Gehäuse-Unikat: Casemod für 6000 Euro</h2>



<p>Für die Gestaltung des Gehäuses konnte die PC-WELT wieder den Modding-Profi Heiko Polaczek engagieren. Der auch unter dem Alias „Fastbrain1“ bekannte Polaczek, ist seit 15 Jahren eine feste Größe in der internationalen Casemoding-Szene.</p>



<p>Ebenfalls eine Szenengröße konnten wir für die Bemalung der Höllenmaschine 3 in Airbrush-Technik gewinnen. Der Experte ist allerdings so bescheiden, dass wir derzeit nur seinen Spitznamen nennen dürfen: old_airbrush.</p>



<p>Die Höllenmaschine 3 ins rechte Licht gerückt hat der bekannte Fotograf Florian Schiller – er hat langjährige Erfahrung mit Divas.</p>



<p>Der Casemod „PC-WELT Höllenmaschine 3“ summiert sich mit Material und Arbeitsaufwand auf rund 6000 Euro. Wie Heiko Polaczek und old_airbrush aus dem Cube-Tower unser exklusives Schmuckstück geformt haben, erfahren Sie in Kürze auf PC-WELT.tv in der Beitragsreihe „Making of Höllenmaschine 3“.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading toc">Software: Luxus-Paket für 5000 Euro</h2>



<p>Die Adobe Creative Suite 3 Master Collection für knapp 3500 Euro enthält folgende Anwendungen: Acrobat 8 Professional, After Effects CS3 Professional, Contribute CS3, Dreamweaver CS3, Encore CS3, Fireworks CS3, Flash CS3 Professional, Illustrator CS3, InDesign CS3, Photoshop CS3 Extended, Premiere Pro CS3 und Soundbooth CS3.</p>



<p>Mit im Lieferumfang der Adobe Creative Suite 3 Master Collection sind die Zusatzfunktionen und -techniken Acrobat Connect, Bridge CS3, Device Central CS3, Dynamic Link CS3, OnLocation CS3, Stock Photos, Version Cue CS3 und Ultra CS3.</p>



<p>Egal, ob Sie die Höllenmaschine 3 als Render-Workstation, High-End-Spielerechner oder Virtualsierungs-Server verwenden wollen, mit den installierten Betriebssystemen Microsoft Windows Server 2008 sowie Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate stehen Ihnen zahlreiche Einsatzmöglichkeiten offen.</p>



<p>Und wer die Höllenmaschine 3 im Büroeinsatz unterfordern will, installiert das beiliegende Microsoft Office 2007 Professional. Das Software-Paket enthält die 2007er-Versionen von Access, Accounting Express, Excel, Outlook (mit Business Contact Manager), Powerpoint, Publisher und Word.</p>



<p>Nach der CeBIT beginnen wir unsere Tests mit den 64-Bit-Betriebssystemen Linux, Server 2008 und Vista.</p>



<p>Apropos: Ein perfekter Bedienkomfort gehört natürlich auch zu unserem 30.000-Euro-Luxusrechner. Dazu stellen wir Ihnen Eingabegeräte von Gyration zur Verfügung. Maus und Tastatur stammen aus der Optical Air Suite Go 2.4. Dazu kommt die Remote Suite des Media Center Go 2.4.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading toc">So gewinnen Sie die HMX 6</h2>



<p>Auch dieses Jahr verlosen wir die Höllenmaschine unter allen Teilnehmern</p>


<span class="cta_btn_heading cta_btn_heading_"></span><div class="cta wp-block wp-block-button cta__btn_"><a class="cta__btn" href="https://www.pcwelt.de/article/3179491/hmx-6-gewinnspiel.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" data-vars-link-position="CTA Button">Gewinnen Sie hier die HMX 6</a></div>


<h2 class="wp-block-heading toc">Wie Sie die HMX 6 verfolgen können</h2>



<p>In den kommenden Wochen folgen weitere Inhalte rund um die Höllenmaschine 6 auf <a href="https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLVC_WMwVwvSiOOgt6D9mN4Ud71M_uLFsS">YouTube</a>, <a href="https://www.instagram.com/pcwelt/">Instagram</a>, <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@pcwelt.de">TikTok</a>, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/pcwelt/reels/">Facebook </a>und natürlich auf <a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/hmx" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">pcwelt.de</a>. Wenn Sie nichts verpassen wollen, sollten Sie den kostenlosen <a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/newsletter-anmeldung" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">HMX-6-Newsletter abonnieren</a> – aber vergessen Sie nicht, die Anmeldung via E-Mail zu bestätigen. </p>

</div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The July 2026 Security Update Review]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[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...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3668876/it-security-nachrichten/the-july-2026-security-update-review/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3668876/it-security-nachrichten/the-july-2026-security-update-review/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2026 20:22:46 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class="">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 <a href="https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLeFSM_a8Jri75_5-NpydcFneOaTvr3vJE">YouTube</a> channel. It should be posted within a couple of hours after the release.</p><p class=""><strong>Adobe Patches for July 2026</strong></p><p class="">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.</p><p class="">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.</p><p class="">Here’s this month’s overview table:</p>





















  
  




  


  
    


<table>
<colgroup>
  <col>
  <col>
  <col>
  <col>
  <col>
  <col>
  <col>
</colgroup>
<thead>
  <tr>
    <th>Bulletin ID</th>
    <th>Product</th>
    <th>CVE Count</th>
    <th>Highest Severity</th>
    <th>Highest CVSS</th>
    <th>Exploited</th>
    <th>Deployment Priority</th>
  </tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/coldfusion/apsb26-82.html" target="_blank">APSB26-82</a></td>
    <td>Adobe ColdFusion</td>
    <td>13</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>9.9</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>1</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/magento/apsb26-73.html" target="_blank">APSB26-73</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Commerce</td>
    <td>13</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>9.6</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>2</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/after_effects/apsb26-78.html" target="_blank">APSB26-78</a></td>
    <td>Adobe After Effects</td>
    <td>3</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>7.8</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/animate/apsb26-83.html" target="_blank">APSB26-83</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Animate</td>
    <td>6</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>8.6</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/audition/apsb26-71.html" target="_blank">APSB26-71</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Audition</td>
    <td>6</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>7.8</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/bridge/apsb26-81.html" target="_blank">APSB26-81</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Bridge</td>
    <td>6</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>7.8</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/creative-cloud/apsb26-77.html" target="_blank">APSB26-77</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Creative Cloud Desktop Application</td>
    <td>2</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>8.1</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/experience-manager/apsb26-74.html" target="_blank">APSB26-74</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Experience Manager</td>
    <td>13</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>9.6</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/illustrator/apsb26-79.html" target="_blank">APSB26-79</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Illustrator</td>
    <td>5</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>9.3</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/media-encoder/apsb26-72.html" target="_blank">APSB26-72</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Media Encoder</td>
    <td>5</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>7.8</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/premiere_pro/apsb26-76.html" target="_blank">APSB26-76</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Premiere Pro</td>
    <td>4</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>7.8</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/content-authenticity-sdk/apsb26-80.html" target="_blank">APSB26-80</a></td>
    <td>Content Credentials SDK</td>
    <td>12</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>8.2</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
</tbody>
<tfoot>
  <tr>
    <td>TOTAL</td>
    <td>12 bulletins</td>
    <td>88</td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
  </tr>
</tfoot>
</table>



  
  






  <p class="">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. </p><p class=""><strong>Microsoft Patches for July 2026</strong></p><p class="">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.</p>





















  
  














































  

    
  
    

      

      
        <figure class="
              sqs-block-image-figure
              intrinsic
            ">
          
        
        

        
          
            
              
              
          
            
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                <img data-stretch="false" data-image="https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5894c269e4fcb5e65a1ed623/4abf68b8-2f48-439d-8a92-bcc105d7b4f3/Picture1new.png" data-image-dimensions="2158x1150" data-image-focal-point="0.5,0.5" alt="" data-load="false" elementtiming="system-image-block" data-sqsp-image-classic-block-image src="https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5894c269e4fcb5e65a1ed623/4abf68b8-2f48-439d-8a92-bcc105d7b4f3/Picture1new.png?format=1000w" width="2158" height="1150" sizes="(max-width: 640px) 100vw, (max-width: 767px) 100vw, 100vw" onload='this.classList.add("loaded")' srcset="https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5894c269e4fcb5e65a1ed623/4abf68b8-2f48-439d-8a92-bcc105d7b4f3/Picture1new.png?format=100w 100w, https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5894c269e4fcb5e65a1ed623/4abf68b8-2f48-439d-8a92-bcc105d7b4f3/Picture1new.png?format=300w 300w, https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5894c269e4fcb5e65a1ed623/4abf68b8-2f48-439d-8a92-bcc105d7b4f3/Picture1new.png?format=500w 500w, https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5894c269e4fcb5e65a1ed623/4abf68b8-2f48-439d-8a92-bcc105d7b4f3/Picture1new.png?format=750w 750w, https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5894c269e4fcb5e65a1ed623/4abf68b8-2f48-439d-8a92-bcc105d7b4f3/Picture1new.png?format=1000w 1000w, https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5894c269e4fcb5e65a1ed623/4abf68b8-2f48-439d-8a92-bcc105d7b4f3/Picture1new.png?format=1500w 1500w, https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5894c269e4fcb5e65a1ed623/4abf68b8-2f48-439d-8a92-bcc105d7b4f3/Picture1new.png?format=2500w 2500w" loading="lazy" decoding="async" data-loader="sqs">

            
          
        
            
          
        

        
      
        </figure>
      

    
  


  





  <p class="">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.</p><p class="">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.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56155"><strong>CVE-2026-56155</strong></a><strong> - Active Directory Federation Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<br></strong>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.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56154"><strong>CVE-2026-56164</strong></a><strong> - Microsoft SharePoint Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<br></strong>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.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57092"><strong>CVE-2026-57092</strong></a><strong> - Microsoft Windows VMSwitch Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<br></strong>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.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50522"><strong>CVE-2026-50522</strong></a><strong>/</strong><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58644"><strong>58644</strong></a><strong> - Microsoft SharePoint Remote Code Execution Vulnerability<br></strong>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 <a href="https://www.zerodayinitiative.com/blog/2026/5/16/pwn2own-berlin-2026-day-three-results-and-master-of-pwn">Pwn2Own Berlin</a>, 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. </p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56190"><strong>CVE-2026-56190</strong></a><strong> - Remote Desktop Protocol Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</strong><br> 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. </p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55008"><strong>CVE-2026-55008</strong></a><strong> - Microsoft Exchange Server Spoofing Vulnerability<br></strong>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.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50518"><strong>CVE-2026-50518</strong></a><strong> - Windows DHCP Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability<br></strong>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.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56188"><strong>CVE-2026-56188</strong></a><strong> - Windows Server Network driver Remote Code Execution Vulnerability<br></strong>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.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55010"><strong>CVE-2026-55010</strong></a><strong> - Minecraft Bedrock Dedicated Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability<br></strong>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.</p><p class="">Here’s the full list of CVEs released by Microsoft for July 2026:</p>





















  
  




  


  
    





<link rel="File-List" href="2026-Jul-cvrf.fld/filelist.xml">













<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="920">
 <col width="144">
 <col width="256">
 <col width="104" span="5">
 <tr height="47">
  <td width="144" class="xl65" height="47">CVE</td>
  <td width="256" class="xl65">Title</td>
  <td width="104" class="xl66">Severity</td>
  <td width="104" class="xl66">CVSS</td>
  <td width="104" class="xl66">Public</td>
  <td width="104" class="xl66">Exploited</td>
  <td width="104" class="xl66">Type</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56155"><span>CVE-2026-56155</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Active Directory
  Federation Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">Yes</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56164"><span>CVE-2026-56164</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl71">Moderate</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">Yes</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50661"><span>CVE-2026-50661</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows BitLocker
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.1</td>
  <td class="xl70">Yes</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54121"><span>CVE-2026-54121</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Active Directory
  Certificate Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45499"><span>CVE-2026-45499 **</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Azure OpenAI Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.9</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48564"><span>CVE-2026-48564</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">DHCP Server Service
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50370"><span>CVE-2026-50370</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">DHCP Server Service
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56159"><span>CVE-2026-56159</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">DHCP Server Service
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50382"><span>CVE-2026-50382</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">DirectX Graphics
  Kernel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-41106"><span>CVE-2026-41106 **</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft 365 Copilot
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26145"><span>CVE-2026-26145 **</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Azure
  Synapse Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48561"><span>CVE-2026-48561</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Copilot
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.6</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55011"><span>CVE-2026-55011</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Defender
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55012"><span>CVE-2026-55012</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Defender
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="96">
  <td class="xl67" height="96"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55944"><span>CVE-2026-55944</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Dynamics NAV
  and Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central (On Premises) Remote Code
  Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57100"><span>CVE-2026-57100 **</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Entra
  Provisioning Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.9</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55041"><span>CVE-2026-55041</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54998"><span>CVE-2026-54998 **</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Exchange
  Online Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55008"><span>CVE-2026-55008</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Exchange
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.6</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54992"><span>CVE-2026-54992</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Message
  Queuing Queue Manager Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50314"><span>CVE-2026-50314</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50467"><span>CVE-2026-50467</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55018"><span>CVE-2026-55018</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55022"><span>CVE-2026-55022</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55045"><span>CVE-2026-55045</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55049"><span>CVE-2026-55049</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55129"><span>CVE-2026-55129</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55056"><span>CVE-2026-55056</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55140"><span>CVE-2026-55140</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55043"><span>CVE-2026-55043</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft PowerPoint
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55123"><span>CVE-2026-55123</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft PowerPoint
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55120"><span>CVE-2026-55120</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft PowerPoint
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50522"><span>CVE-2026-50522</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58644"><span>CVE-2026-58644</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55040"><span>CVE-2026-55040</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54117"><span>CVE-2026-54117</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SQL Server
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54118"><span>CVE-2026-54118</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SQL Server
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50655"><span>CVE-2026-50655</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Windows
  Media Foundation Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56189"><span>CVE-2026-56189</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Windows
  Media Foundation Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57090"><span>CVE-2026-57090</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Windows
  Media Foundation Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57094"><span>CVE-2026-57094</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Windows
  Media Foundation Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57087"><span>CVE-2026-57087</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Windows
  Media Foundation Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57092"><span>CVE-2026-57092</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Windows
  VMSwitch Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.9</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55033"><span>CVE-2026-55033</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Word Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55127"><span>CVE-2026-55127</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Word Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55132"><span>CVE-2026-55132</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Word Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55010"><span>CVE-2026-55010</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Minecraft Bedrock
  Dedicated Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50474"><span>CVE-2026-50474</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Remote Desktop Client
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49164"><span>CVE-2026-49164</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Active
  Directory Domain Services Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54128"><span>CVE-2026-54128</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows DHCP Client
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50518"><span>CVE-2026-50518</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows DHCP Server
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49796"><span>CVE-2026-49796</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows GDI+ Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50380"><span>CVE-2026-50380</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows GDI+ Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.6</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54127"><span>CVE-2026-54127</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Hyper-V
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50680"><span>CVE-2026-50680</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Hyper-V
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.2</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50327"><span>CVE-2026-50327</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Media Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58542"><span>CVE-2026-58542</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Media Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58608"><span>CVE-2026-58608</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Print Spooler
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54982"><span>CVE-2026-54982</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Reliable
  Multicast Transport Driver (RMCAST) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54995"><span>CVE-2026-54995</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Reliable
  Multicast Transport Driver (RMCAST) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42982"><span>CVE-2026-42982</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Secure Kernel
  Mode Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50392"><span>CVE-2026-50392</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Secure Kernel
  Mode Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50694"><span>CVE-2026-50694</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Secure Socket
  Tunneling Protocol (SSTP) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56188"><span>CVE-2026-56188</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Server Network
  driver Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50444"><span>CVE-2026-50444</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Server Update
  Service (WSUS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54999"><span>CVE-2026-54999</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows TCP/IP Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47302"><span>CVE-2026-47302</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">.NET Denial of Service
  Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50525"><span>CVE-2026-50525</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">.NET Denial of Service
  Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50651"><span>CVE-2026-50651</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">.NET Denial of Service
  Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57108"><span>CVE-2026-57108</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">.NET Denial of Service
  Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50524"><span>CVE-2026-50524</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">.NET Framework Denial
  of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50527"><span>CVE-2026-50527</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">.NET Framework Denial
  of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50648"><span>CVE-2026-50648</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">.NET Framework Denial
  of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50650"><span>CVE-2026-50650</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">.NET Framework
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50646"><span>CVE-2026-50646</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">.NET Framework Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50649"><span>CVE-2026-50649</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">.NET Remote Code
  Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47304"><span>CVE-2026-47304</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">.NET Security Feature
  Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50528"><span>CVE-2026-50528</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">.NET Security Feature
  Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.2</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50659"><span>CVE-2026-50659</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">.NET Spoofing
  Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50526"><span>CVE-2026-50526</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">.NET Tampering
  Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Tampering</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50682"><span>CVE-2026-50682</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Active Directory
  Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55001"><span>CVE-2026-55001</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Active Directory
  Domain Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50647"><span>CVE-2026-50647</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Active Directory
  Federation Server Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50684"><span>CVE-2026-50684</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Active Directory
  Federation Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56170"><span>CVE-2026-56170</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">ASP.NET Core Denial of
  Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47300"><span>CVE-2026-47300</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">ASP.NET Core Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47303"><span>CVE-2026-47303</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">ASP.NET Core Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50652"><span>CVE-2026-50652</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Azure Active Directory
  Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50653"><span>CVE-2026-50653</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Azure Active Directory
  Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57969"><span>CVE-2026-57969</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Azure CycleCloud
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58279"><span>CVE-2026-58279</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Azure CycleCloud
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47632"><span>CVE-2026-47632</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Azure Monitor Agent
  Metrics Extension Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50338"><span>CVE-2026-50338</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Azure Spring Apps
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.2</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50488"><span>CVE-2026-50488</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Clipboard User Service
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50491"><span>CVE-2026-50491</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Code Integrity DLL
  (ci.dll) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50381"><span>CVE-2026-50381</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Composite Image File
  System driver (cimfs.sys) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50427"><span>CVE-2026-50427</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Content Delivery
  Manager Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50692"><span>CVE-2026-50692</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Desktop Window Manager
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58633"><span>CVE-2026-58633</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Desktop Window Manager
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58634"><span>CVE-2026-58634</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Desktop Window Manager
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50296"><span>CVE-2026-50296</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">DirectX Graphics
  Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50375"><span>CVE-2026-50375</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">DirectX Graphics
  Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50353"><span>CVE-2026-50353</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">DirectX Graphics
  Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50493"><span>CVE-2026-50493</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">DirectX Graphics
  Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56643"><span>CVE-2026-56643</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">DirectX Graphics
  Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56644"><span>CVE-2026-56644</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">DirectX Graphics
  Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58629"><span>CVE-2026-58629</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">DirectX Graphics
  Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49174"><span>CVE-2026-49174</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">DNS Client Tampering
  Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Tampering</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50495"><span>CVE-2026-50495</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">DNS Client Tampering
  Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Tampering</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57088"><span>CVE-2026-57088</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Extensible Storage
  Engine (ESENT) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50663"><span>CVE-2026-50663</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Game: Age of Empires
  II: Definitive Edition Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="72">
  <td class="xl67" height="72"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47282"><span>CVE-2026-47282</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">GitHub Copilot and
  Visual Studio Code Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-41109"><span>CVE-2026-41109</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">GitHub Copilot and
  Visual Studio Code Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50510"><span>CVE-2026-50510</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">GitHub Copilot Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49787"><span>CVE-2026-49787</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">HTTP.sys Denial of
  Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50420"><span>CVE-2026-50420</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">HTTP.sys Information
  Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.2</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49788"><span>CVE-2026-49788</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">HTTP/2 Denial of
  Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50696"><span>CVE-2026-50696</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Internet Key Exchange
  (IKE) Protocol Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58617"><span>CVE-2026-58617</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">M365 Copilot for iOS
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58595"><span>CVE-2026-58595</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Bing App for
  IOS Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49162"><span>CVE-2026-49162</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Brokering
  File System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50305"><span>CVE-2026-50305</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Brokering
  File System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50361"><span>CVE-2026-50361</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Brokering
  File System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50466"><span>CVE-2026-50466</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Brokering
  File System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50458"><span>CVE-2026-50458</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Brokering
  File System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="72">
  <td class="xl67" height="72"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50658"><span>CVE-2026-50658</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Defender for
  Endpoint for Mac Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="72">
  <td class="xl67" height="72"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56178"><span>CVE-2026-56178</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Defender for
  Endpoint for Mac Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50657"><span>CVE-2026-50657</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Defender for
  Endpoint for Mac Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50329"><span>CVE-2026-50329</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft DWM Core
  Library Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58541"><span>CVE-2026-58541</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft DWM Core
  Library Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58596"><span>CVE-2026-58596</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57991"><span>CVE-2026-57991</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58291"><span>CVE-2026-58291</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57981"><span>CVE-2026-57981</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57984"><span>CVE-2026-57984</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57985"><span>CVE-2026-57985</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.6</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57986"><span>CVE-2026-57986</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57988"><span>CVE-2026-57988</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57992"><span>CVE-2026-57992</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58276"><span>CVE-2026-58276</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56645"><span>CVE-2026-56645</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57974"><span>CVE-2026-57974</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57975"><span>CVE-2026-57975</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58281"><span>CVE-2026-58281</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58284"><span>CVE-2026-58284</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58285"><span>CVE-2026-58285</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58287"><span>CVE-2026-58287</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58288"><span>CVE-2026-58288</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58289"><span>CVE-2026-58289</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">9</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58290"><span>CVE-2026-58290</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58292"><span>CVE-2026-58292</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58293"><span>CVE-2026-58293</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58294"><span>CVE-2026-58294</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57983"><span>CVE-2026-57983</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58295"><span>CVE-2026-58295</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58525"><span>CVE-2026-58525</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.2</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57987"><span>CVE-2026-57987</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58278"><span>CVE-2026-58278</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56646"><span>CVE-2026-56646</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57977"><span>CVE-2026-57977</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57993"><span>CVE-2026-57993</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58282"><span>CVE-2026-58282</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58283"><span>CVE-2026-58283</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58286"><span>CVE-2026-58286</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58298"><span>CVE-2026-58298</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.2</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58524"><span>CVE-2026-58524</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58296"><span>CVE-2026-58296</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge for
  Android Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58297"><span>CVE-2026-58297</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge for
  Android Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58300"><span>CVE-2026-58300</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge for
  Android Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.2</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58522"><span>CVE-2026-58522</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge for
  Android Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58299"><span>CVE-2026-58299</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge for
  Android Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58523"><span>CVE-2026-58523</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge for
  Android Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50678"><span>CVE-2026-50678</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.6</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54988"><span>CVE-2026-54988</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48580"><span>CVE-2026-48580</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50408"><span>CVE-2026-50408</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55046"><span>CVE-2026-55046</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55138"><span>CVE-2026-55138</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55054"><span>CVE-2026-55054</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55122"><span>CVE-2026-55122</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55898"><span>CVE-2026-55898</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50675"><span>CVE-2026-50675</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55899"><span>CVE-2026-55899</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55948"><span>CVE-2026-55948</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58618"><span>CVE-2026-58618</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47642"><span>CVE-2026-47642</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55024"><span>CVE-2026-55024</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55025"><span>CVE-2026-55025</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55031"><span>CVE-2026-55031</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55048"><span>CVE-2026-55048</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55029"><span>CVE-2026-55029</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55039"><span>CVE-2026-55039</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55136"><span>CVE-2026-55136</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55141"><span>CVE-2026-55141</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55036"><span>CVE-2026-55036</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55044"><span>CVE-2026-55044</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55037"><span>CVE-2026-55037</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55058"><span>CVE-2026-55058</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55137"><span>CVE-2026-55137</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55053"><span>CVE-2026-55053</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55131"><span>CVE-2026-55131</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54131"><span>CVE-2026-54131</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55947"><span>CVE-2026-55947</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55949"><span>CVE-2026-55949</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56156"><span>CVE-2026-56156</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55006"><span>CVE-2026-55006</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Exchange
  Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55009"><span>CVE-2026-55009</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Exchange
  Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55005"><span>CVE-2026-55005</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Exchange
  Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56642"><span>CVE-2026-56642</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Fabric Data
  Warehouse Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50343"><span>CVE-2026-50343</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Install
  Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50439"><span>CVE-2026-50439</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Message
  Queuing Queue Manager Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58537"><span>CVE-2026-58537</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft NAT Helper
  Components (ipnathlp.dll) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56193"><span>CVE-2026-56193</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55023"><span>CVE-2026-55023</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55026"><span>CVE-2026-55026</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.2</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55027"><span>CVE-2026-55027</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55028"><span>CVE-2026-55028</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55047"><span>CVE-2026-55047</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55035"><span>CVE-2026-55035</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55057"><span>CVE-2026-55057</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl75" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55121"><span>CVE-2026-55121</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55042"><span>CVE-2026-55042</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55139"><span>CVE-2026-55139</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50665"><span>CVE-2026-50665</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56192"><span>CVE-2026-56192</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56195"><span>CVE-2026-56195</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47290"><span>CVE-2026-47290</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50301"><span>CVE-2026-50301</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55017"><span>CVE-2026-55017</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55125"><span>CVE-2026-55125</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55133"><span>CVE-2026-55133</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft OneNote
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58636"><span>CVE-2026-58636</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft PC Manager
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50438"><span>CVE-2026-50438</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft PC Manager
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58647"><span>CVE-2026-58647</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft PowerBI
  Report Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55052"><span>CVE-2026-55052</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58277"><span>CVE-2026-58277</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55051"><span>CVE-2026-55051</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54108"><span>CVE-2026-54108</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55016"><span>CVE-2026-55016</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.6</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55019"><span>CVE-2026-55019</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.6</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55020"><span>CVE-2026-55020</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.6</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55021"><span>CVE-2026-55021</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55030"><span>CVE-2026-55030</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.6</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55034"><span>CVE-2026-55034</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55126"><span>CVE-2026-55126</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55135"><span>CVE-2026-55135</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.6</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56157"><span>CVE-2026-56157</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47296"><span>CVE-2026-47296</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SQL Server
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55002"><span>CVE-2026-55002</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SQL Server
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47295"><span>CVE-2026-47295</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SQL Server
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50468"><span>CVE-2026-50468</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SQL Server
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54116"><span>CVE-2026-54116</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft SQL Server
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42900"><span>CVE-2026-42900</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Windows App
  Store Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49784"><span>CVE-2026-49784</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Windows App
  Store Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50356"><span>CVE-2026-50356</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Windows App
  Store Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49165"><span>CVE-2026-49165</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Windows App
  Store Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54993"><span>CVE-2026-54993</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Windows
  Media Foundation Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58610"><span>CVE-2026-58610</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Windows
  Media Foundation Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55050"><span>CVE-2026-55050</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Word
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55124"><span>CVE-2026-55124</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Word
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55142"><span>CVE-2026-55142</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Word
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55032"><span>CVE-2026-55032</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Word Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55055"><span>CVE-2026-55055</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Word Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55038"><span>CVE-2026-55038</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Word Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55134"><span>CVE-2026-55134</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Word Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55128"><span>CVE-2026-55128</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Word Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55130"><span>CVE-2026-55130</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Word Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50359"><span>CVE-2026-50359</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft XML Core
  Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57097"><span>CVE-2026-57097</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft XML Security
  Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50346"><span>CVE-2026-50346</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Netlogon RPC Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50402"><span>CVE-2026-50402</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">NTFS Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50506"><span>CVE-2026-50506</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">OData for ASP.NET and
  ASP.NET Core Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45646"><span>CVE-2026-45646</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">OData for ASP.NET and
  ASP.NET Core Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54989"><span>CVE-2026-54989</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Quality Windows
  Audio/Video Experience (QWAVE) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50365"><span>CVE-2026-50365</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Remote Access
  Management service/API (RPC server) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54990"><span>CVE-2026-54990</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Remote Desktop Client
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58594"><span>CVE-2026-58594</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Remote Desktop Client
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56190"><span>CVE-2026-56190</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Remote Desktop
  Protocol Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49783"><span>CVE-2026-49783</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Secure Boot Security
  Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42990"><span>CVE-2026-42990</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">SQL Server ODBC driver
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49168"><span>CVE-2026-49168</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Storage Spaces Direct
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.2</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48581"><span>CVE-2026-48581</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Surface Broker SDMA
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49180"><span>CVE-2026-49180</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Universal Plug and
  Play (upnp.dll) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50455"><span>CVE-2026-50455</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Universal Plug and
  Play (upnp.dll) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54111"><span>CVE-2026-54111</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Universal Print
  Management Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58543"><span>CVE-2026-58543</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Universal Print
  Management Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58601"><span>CVE-2026-58601</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Virtual Hard Disk
  (VHD) Miniport Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulernability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50520"><span>CVE-2026-50520</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Visual Studio Code
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45496"><span>CVE-2026-45496</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Visual Studio Code
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57101"><span>CVE-2026-57101</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Visual Studio Code
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57102"><span>CVE-2026-57102</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Visual Studio Code
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47305"><span>CVE-2026-47305</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Visual Studio Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49805"><span>CVE-2026-49805</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Win32k Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50297"><span>CVE-2026-50297</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Win32k Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50325"><span>CVE-2026-50325</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Win32k Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50489"><span>CVE-2026-50489</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Win32k Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57095"><span>CVE-2026-57095</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Win32k Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.2</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50416"><span>CVE-2026-50416</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Win32k Information
  Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">3.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56184"><span>CVE-2026-56184</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Win32k Information
  Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50432"><span>CVE-2026-50432</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Window Virtual
  Filtering Platform (VFP) Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54119"><span>CVE-2026-54119</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Active
  Directory Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57976"><span>CVE-2026-57976</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Active
  Directory Domain Services Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50366"><span>CVE-2026-50366</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Active
  Directory Domain Services Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49178"><span>CVE-2026-49178</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Active
  Directory Domain Services Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58529"><span>CVE-2026-58529</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Active
  Directory Federation Services (ADFS) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54983"><span>CVE-2026-54983</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Active
  Directory Federation Services Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50695"><span>CVE-2026-50695</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Active
  Directory Federation Services Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50304"><span>CVE-2026-50304</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Active
  Directory Federation Services Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50368"><span>CVE-2026-50368</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Active
  Directory Federation Services Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50324"><span>CVE-2026-50324</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Active
  Directory Federation Services Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.9</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50355"><span>CVE-2026-50355</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Active
  Directory Federation Services Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50411"><span>CVE-2026-50411</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Active
  Directory Federation Services Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl67" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58631"><span>CVE-2026-58631</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Admin Center
  (WAC) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl67" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56196"><span>CVE-2026-56196</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Admin Center
  (WAC) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl67" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56197"><span>CVE-2026-56197</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Admin Center
  (WAC) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56169"><span>CVE-2026-56169</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Admin Center
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57107"><span>CVE-2026-57107</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Admin Center
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56185"><span>CVE-2026-56185</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Admin Center
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50312"><span>CVE-2026-50312</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Ancillary
  Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50462"><span>CVE-2026-50462</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Ancillary
  Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57093"><span>CVE-2026-57093</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Ancillary
  Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-34346"><span>CVE-2026-34346</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Ancillary
  Function Driver for WinSock Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48572"><span>CVE-2026-48572</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows App Package
  Installer Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48571"><span>CVE-2026-48571</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows App Package
  Installer Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50400"><span>CVE-2026-50400</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows App Package
  Installer Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50331"><span>CVE-2026-50331</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Application
  Model Core API Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49803"><span>CVE-2026-49803</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows AppX
  Deployment Extensions Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50351"><span>CVE-2026-50351</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Audio
  Compression Manager (ACM) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50440"><span>CVE-2026-50440</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Audio Service
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-34328"><span>CVE-2026-34328</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Audio Service
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50406"><span>CVE-2026-50406</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Backup Engine
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50364"><span>CVE-2026-50364</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Backup Service
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42975"><span>CVE-2026-42975</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Bluetooth Port
  Driver Remote Code Execution</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58538"><span>CVE-2026-58538</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Bluetooth
  Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58638"><span>CVE-2026-58638</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Boot Loader
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58637"><span>CVE-2026-58637</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Client-Side
  Caching Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50384"><span>CVE-2026-50384</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Clip Service
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49183"><span>CVE-2026-49183</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Clipboard
  Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50689"><span>CVE-2026-50689</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Clipboard
  Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50374"><span>CVE-2026-50374</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Cloud Files
  Mini Filter Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58536"><span>CVE-2026-58536</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Cloud Files
  Mini Filter Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58613"><span>CVE-2026-58613</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Cloud Files
  Mini Filter Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50401"><span>CVE-2026-50401</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Cloud Files
  Mini Filter Driver Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50697"><span>CVE-2026-50697</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Common Log
  File System Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50667"><span>CVE-2026-50667</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Common Log
  File System Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50421"><span>CVE-2026-50421</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Connected User
  Experiences and Telemetry Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50428"><span>CVE-2026-50428</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Container
  Isolation FS Filter Driver (unionfs.sys) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50352"><span>CVE-2026-50352</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Cryptographic
  Services Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50302"><span>CVE-2026-50302</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Cryptographic
  Services Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.2</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55144"><span>CVE-2026-55144</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Cryptography
  API: Next Generation (CNG) Tampering Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Tampering</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50347"><span>CVE-2026-50347</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Data.dll
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49181"><span>CVE-2026-49181</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows DHCP Client
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50683"><span>CVE-2026-50683</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows DHCP Client
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58627"><span>CVE-2026-58627</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows DHCP Server
  Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50685"><span>CVE-2026-50685</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows DHCP Server
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49807"><span>CVE-2026-49807</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows DirectX
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.2</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49175"><span>CVE-2026-49175</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows DNS Client
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50487"><span>CVE-2026-50487</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows DNS Client
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50465"><span>CVE-2026-50465</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows DNS Client
  Tampering Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Tampering</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49169"><span>CVE-2026-49169</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows DNS Server
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50426"><span>CVE-2026-50426</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows DNS Server
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50424"><span>CVE-2026-50424</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Domain
  Controller Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50300"><span>CVE-2026-50300</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows DWM Core
  Library Information Disclosure<span> 
  </span>Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50437"><span>CVE-2026-50437</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows DWM Core
  Library Information Disclosure<span> 
  </span>Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-34348"><span>CVE-2026-34348</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Event Logging
  Service Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50502"><span>CVE-2026-50502</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Event Logging
  Service Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33842"><span>CVE-2026-33842</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows File Explorer
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40422"><span>CVE-2026-40422</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows File Explorer
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-41087"><span>CVE-2026-41087</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows File Explorer
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50473"><span>CVE-2026-50473</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows File Explorer
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50442"><span>CVE-2026-50442</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows File Explorer
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50389"><span>CVE-2026-50389</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows File Explorer
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50456"><span>CVE-2026-50456</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows File Explorer
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57084"><span>CVE-2026-57084</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows File Explorer
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57091"><span>CVE-2026-57091</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows File History
  Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50405"><span>CVE-2026-50405</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Filtering
  Platform Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49172"><span>CVE-2026-49172</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows FTP Service
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50387"><span>CVE-2026-50387</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows GDI Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54122"><span>CVE-2026-54122</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows GDI+ Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50483"><span>CVE-2026-50483</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Graphics
  Component Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl67" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58609"><span>CVE-2026-58609</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Graphics
  Component Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50391"><span>CVE-2026-50391</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Group Policy
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50310"><span>CVE-2026-50310</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Human
  Interface Device Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50485"><span>CVE-2026-50485</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Hyper-V Denial
  of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54129"><span>CVE-2026-54129</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Hyper-V
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50315"><span>CVE-2026-50315</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Image
  Acquisition Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58534"><span>CVE-2026-58534</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Input Method
  Editor (IME) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50490"><span>CVE-2026-50490</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Installer
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58540"><span>CVE-2026-58540</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Installer
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50425"><span>CVE-2026-50425</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Internal
  System User Profile Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50293"><span>CVE-2026-50293</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Internal Task
  Bar Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49167"><span>CVE-2026-49167</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49173"><span>CVE-2026-49173</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54132"><span>CVE-2026-54132</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49795"><span>CVE-2026-49795</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49798"><span>CVE-2026-49798</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49808"><span>CVE-2026-49808</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50354"><span>CVE-2026-50354</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50332"><span>CVE-2026-50332</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50377"><span>CVE-2026-50377</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50390"><span>CVE-2026-50390</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50423"><span>CVE-2026-50423</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50397"><span>CVE-2026-50397</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50436"><span>CVE-2026-50436</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50399"><span>CVE-2026-50399</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50459"><span>CVE-2026-50459</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50477"><span>CVE-2026-50477</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50478"><span>CVE-2026-50478</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50484"><span>CVE-2026-50484</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50673"><span>CVE-2026-50673</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58532"><span>CVE-2026-58532</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50294"><span>CVE-2026-50294</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.2</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50316"><span>CVE-2026-50316</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50419"><span>CVE-2026-50419</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">3.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50463"><span>CVE-2026-50463</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50475"><span>CVE-2026-50475</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50429"><span>CVE-2026-50429</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.2</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58614"><span>CVE-2026-58614</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58545"><span>CVE-2026-58545</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58602"><span>CVE-2026-58602</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel-Mode
  Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50393"><span>CVE-2026-50393</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel-Mode
  Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50396"><span>CVE-2026-50396</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Kernel-Mode
  Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50378"><span>CVE-2026-50378</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Key Guard
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50303"><span>CVE-2026-50303</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Key Guard
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40378"><span>CVE-2026-40378</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Local Security
  Authority Subsystem Service (LSASS) Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49799"><span>CVE-2026-49799</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Local Security
  Authority Subsystem Service (LSASS) Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50371"><span>CVE-2026-50371</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows LUA File
  Virtualization Filter Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58544"><span>CVE-2026-58544</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Management
  Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50404"><span>CVE-2026-50404</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Media
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50358"><span>CVE-2026-50358</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Media
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50336"><span>CVE-2026-50336</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Media
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50398"><span>CVE-2026-50398</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Media
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50414"><span>CVE-2026-50414</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Media
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50379"><span>CVE-2026-50379</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Media
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50433"><span>CVE-2026-50433</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Media
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50676"><span>CVE-2026-50676</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Media
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50677"><span>CVE-2026-50677</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Media
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-34349"><span>CVE-2026-34349</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Media
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50394"><span>CVE-2026-50394</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Media
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50415"><span>CVE-2026-50415</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Media
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57083"><span>CVE-2026-57083</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Media Photo
  Codec Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54115"><span>CVE-2026-54115</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Message
  Queuing (MSMQ) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl67" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50447"><span>CVE-2026-50447</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Message
  Queuing Service (MSMQ) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl67" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50505"><span>CVE-2026-50505</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Message
  Queuing Service (MSMQ) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50342"><span>CVE-2026-50342</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows MIDI Service
  Module Elevation of Privileges Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56183"><span>CVE-2026-56183</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows MIDI Service
  Module Elevation of Privileges Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56187"><span>CVE-2026-56187</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows MIDI Service
  Module Elevation of Privileges Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58635"><span>CVE-2026-58635</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Narrator
  Braille Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50500"><span>CVE-2026-50500</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Netlogon
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl67" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50476"><span>CVE-2026-50476</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Network
  Connections Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl67" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50450"><span>CVE-2026-50450</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Network
  Connections Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56650"><span>CVE-2026-56650</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Network File
  System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl67" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56649"><span>CVE-2026-56649</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Network File
  System Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.9</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl67" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50470"><span>CVE-2026-50470</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Network Policy
  Server SNMP Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl67" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50496"><span>CVE-2026-50496</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Network Policy
  Server SNMP Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56194"><span>CVE-2026-56194</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NFS Server
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56648"><span>CVE-2026-56648</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NFS Server
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50337"><span>CVE-2026-50337</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Notification
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49789"><span>CVE-2026-49789</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50412"><span>CVE-2026-50412</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50422"><span>CVE-2026-50422</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50672"><span>CVE-2026-50672</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56175"><span>CVE-2026-56175</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56182"><span>CVE-2026-56182</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50341"><span>CVE-2026-50341</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58640"><span>CVE-2026-58640</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49184"><span>CVE-2026-49184</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49797"><span>CVE-2026-49797</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50308"><span>CVE-2026-50308</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50386"><span>CVE-2026-50386</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50309"><span>CVE-2026-50309</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50313"><span>CVE-2026-50313</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50388"><span>CVE-2026-50388</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50448"><span>CVE-2026-50448</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50471"><span>CVE-2026-50471</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50461"><span>CVE-2026-50461</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50417"><span>CVE-2026-50417</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50482"><span>CVE-2026-50482</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50494"><span>CVE-2026-50494</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows NTFS Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50344"><span>CVE-2026-50344</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows OLE Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50686"><span>CVE-2026-50686</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows OLE Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50335"><span>CVE-2026-50335</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Operating
  Systems Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50317"><span>CVE-2026-50317</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Operating
  Systems Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54987"><span>CVE-2026-54987</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Overlay Filter
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50435"><span>CVE-2026-50435</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Overlay Filter
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50409"><span>CVE-2026-50409</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Overlay Filter
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40400"><span>CVE-2026-40400</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows PowerShell
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49166"><span>CVE-2026-49166</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Print
  Configuration Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55004"><span>CVE-2026-55004</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Print
  Configuration Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50499"><span>CVE-2026-50499</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Print Spooler
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50383"><span>CVE-2026-50383</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Print Spooler
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57085"><span>CVE-2026-57085</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Print Spooler
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50469"><span>CVE-2026-50469</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Projected File
  System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50434"><span>CVE-2026-50434</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Push
  Notification Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50339"><span>CVE-2026-50339</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Push
  Notification Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50430"><span>CVE-2026-50430</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Push
  Notification Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50334"><span>CVE-2026-50334</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Push
  Notification Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44800"><span>CVE-2026-44800</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Push
  Notifications Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50363"><span>CVE-2026-50363</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Push
  Notifications Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50431"><span>CVE-2026-50431</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Quality of
  Service (QoS) Packet Scheduler Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50372"><span>CVE-2026-50372</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Redirected
  Drive Buffering System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50666"><span>CVE-2026-50666</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Access
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56647"><span>CVE-2026-56647</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Access
  Service Infrastructure Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50330"><span>CVE-2026-50330</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Desktop
  Client Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50376"><span>CVE-2026-50376</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Desktop
  Client Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50504"><span>CVE-2026-50504</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Desktop
  Client Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58533"><span>CVE-2026-58533</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Desktop
  Client Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58535"><span>CVE-2026-58535</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Desktop
  Client Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58546"><span>CVE-2026-58546</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Desktop
  Client Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58539"><span>CVE-2026-58539</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Desktop
  Client Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55003"><span>CVE-2026-55003</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Desktop
  Protocol (RDP) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57979"><span>CVE-2026-57979</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Desktop
  Protocol (RDP) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50445"><span>CVE-2026-50445</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Desktop
  Protocol (RDP) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50497"><span>CVE-2026-50497</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Desktop
  Protocol (RDP) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54126"><span>CVE-2026-54126</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Desktop
  Protocol (RDP) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57982"><span>CVE-2026-57982</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Desktop
  Protocol (RDP) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50369"><span>CVE-2026-50369</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Desktop
  Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58626"><span>CVE-2026-58626</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Desktop
  Services Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55014"><span>CVE-2026-55014</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Remote Help
  Defense Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50318"><span>CVE-2026-50318</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Resilient File
  System (ReFS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50407"><span>CVE-2026-50407</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Resilient File
  System (ReFS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50357"><span>CVE-2026-50357</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Resilient File
  System (ReFS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50441"><span>CVE-2026-50441</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Resilient File
  System (ReFS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50668"><span>CVE-2026-50668</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Resilient File
  System (ReFS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54109"><span>CVE-2026-54109</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Resilient File
  System (ReFS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49792"><span>CVE-2026-49792</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Resilient File
  System (ReFS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49793"><span>CVE-2026-49793</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Resilient File
  System (ReFS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50362"><span>CVE-2026-50362</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Resilient File
  System (ReFS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50492"><span>CVE-2026-50492</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Resilient File
  System (ReFS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50501"><span>CVE-2026-50501</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Resilient File
  System (ReFS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58530"><span>CVE-2026-58530</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Resilient File
  System (ReFS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49791"><span>CVE-2026-49791</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Routing and
  Remote Access Service (RRAS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50451"><span>CVE-2026-50451</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Routing and
  Remote Access Service (RRAS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57096"><span>CVE-2026-57096</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Routing and
  Remote Access Service (RRAS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50323"><span>CVE-2026-50323</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50452"><span>CVE-2026-50452</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50348"><span>CVE-2026-50348</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50345"><span>CVE-2026-50345</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50322"><span>CVE-2026-50322</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50340"><span>CVE-2026-50340</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50410"><span>CVE-2026-50410</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50449"><span>CVE-2026-50449</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50460"><span>CVE-2026-50460</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50403"><span>CVE-2026-50403</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50385"><span>CVE-2026-50385</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50413"><span>CVE-2026-50413</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50457"><span>CVE-2026-50457</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50486"><span>CVE-2026-50486</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50503"><span>CVE-2026-50503</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54125"><span>CVE-2026-54125</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58527"><span>CVE-2026-58527</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50373"><span>CVE-2026-50373</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Search Service
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50679"><span>CVE-2026-50679</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Search Service
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44806"><span>CVE-2026-44806</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Secure Channel
  Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50681"><span>CVE-2026-50681</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Secure Channel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56186"><span>CVE-2026-56186</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Secure Channel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50367"><span>CVE-2026-50367</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Sensor Data
  Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58619"><span>CVE-2026-58619</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Sensor Data
  Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50311"><span>CVE-2026-50311</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Server
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50328"><span>CVE-2026-50328</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Server Update
  Service (WSUS) Tampering Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Tampering</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58531"><span>CVE-2026-58531</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows SMB Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54997"><span>CVE-2026-54997</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows SMB
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49801"><span>CVE-2026-49801</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows SMB
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50690"><span>CVE-2026-50690</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows SMB
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56168"><span>CVE-2026-56168</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows SMB Server
  Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50360"><span>CVE-2026-50360</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows SMB Server
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57089"><span>CVE-2026-57089</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows SMB Server
  Network Transport Driver (srvnet.sys) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50333"><span>CVE-2026-50333</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Spaceport.sys
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50298"><span>CVE-2026-50298</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Spaceport.sys
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49171"><span>CVE-2026-49171</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Speech Runtime
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49170"><span>CVE-2026-49170</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows
  StateRepository API Server file Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58526"><span>CVE-2026-58526</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Storage
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50299"><span>CVE-2026-50299</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Storage Spaces
  Direct Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57968"><span>CVE-2026-57968</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Subsystem for
  Linux (WSL2) Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-57973"><span>CVE-2026-57973</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Subsystem for
  Linux (WSL2) Kernel Tampering Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Tampering</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50418"><span>CVE-2026-50418</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows System Secure
  Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50306"><span>CVE-2026-50306</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows TCP/IP
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50307"><span>CVE-2026-50307</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows TCP/IP
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49177"><span>CVE-2026-49177</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows TCP/IP
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50669"><span>CVE-2026-50669</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Telephony
  Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54124"><span>CVE-2026-54124</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Terminal
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50350"><span>CVE-2026-50350</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Trusted
  Runtime Interface Driver Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50326"><span>CVE-2026-50326</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Unified
  Consent System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49790"><span>CVE-2026-49790</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Universal Disk
  Format File System Driver (UDFS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50498"><span>CVE-2026-50498</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Universal Disk
  Format File System Driver (UDFS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl67" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58547"><span>CVE-2026-58547</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Universal Plug
  and Play (UPnP) Device Host Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49794"><span>CVE-2026-49794</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows USB Audio
  Class Driver Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.6</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50453"><span>CVE-2026-50453</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows USB Audio
  Class Driver Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.1</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58528"><span>CVE-2026-58528</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows USB Audio
  Class Driver Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50321"><span>CVE-2026-50321</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows USB Driver
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50479"><span>CVE-2026-50479</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows USB Hub Driver
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55000"><span>CVE-2026-55000</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows USB Print
  Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54991"><span>CVE-2026-54991</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows USB Print
  Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54996"><span>CVE-2026-54996</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows USB Print
  Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49802"><span>CVE-2026-49802</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows USB Print
  Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49806"><span>CVE-2026-49806</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows USB Print
  Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50674"><span>CVE-2026-50674</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows USB Print
  Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49804"><span>CVE-2026-49804</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows USB Video
  Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.6</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50454"><span>CVE-2026-50454</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows User Interface
  Core Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49176"><span>CVE-2026-49176</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows WalletService
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49800"><span>CVE-2026-49800</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Web Proxy
  Auto-Discovery Protocol (WPAD) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50480"><span>CVE-2026-50480</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Web Proxy
  Auto-Discovery Protocol (WPAD) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56173"><span>CVE-2026-56173</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows WebView
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58632"><span>CVE-2026-58632</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Win32 Kernel
  Subsystem Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54107"><span>CVE-2026-54107</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Win32k
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54986"><span>CVE-2026-54986</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Win32k
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54112"><span>CVE-2026-54112</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Win32k
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-54114"><span>CVE-2026-54114</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Win32k
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50670"><span>CVE-2026-50670</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Win32k
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50688"><span>CVE-2026-50688</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Win32k
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50687"><span>CVE-2026-50687</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Win32k
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56176"><span>CVE-2026-56176</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Win32k
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58628"><span>CVE-2026-58628</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Wireless
  Network Manager Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50295"><span>CVE-2026-50295</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Zero Trust DNS
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50509"><span>CVE-2026-50509</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Wireless Wide Area
  Network Service (WwanSvc) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55945"><span>CVE-2026-55945</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl71">Moderate</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.2</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45488"><span>CVE-2026-45488</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl71">Moderate</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.4</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45489"><span>CVE-2026-45489</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl71">Moderate</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-55145"><span>CVE-2026-55145</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Outlook Copilot
  Tampering Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl71">Moderate</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Tampering</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl67" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-56181"><span>CVE-2026-56181</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Windows Network
  Address Translation (NAT) Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl71">Moderate</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-58597"><span>CVE-2026-58597</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl74">Microsoft
  Edge (Chromium-based) Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl73">Low</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.3</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">No</td>
  <td class="xl69">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 &lt;![if supportMisalignedColumns]&gt;
 <tr height="0">
  <td width="144"></td>
  <td width="256"></td>
  <td width="104"></td>
  <td width="104"></td>
  <td width="104"></td>
  <td width="104"></td>
  <td width="104"></td>
 </tr>
 &lt;![endif]&gt;
</table>











  
  






  <p class=""><em>** Indicates this CVEs has already been resolved by Microsoft, and no further action is needed by the end user.</em></p><p class=""><em> </em></p><p class=""><em> </em></p><p class="">I’ll do my best to summarize everything else in this release, but no promises. I’m only human after all.</p><p class=""> </p><p class="">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.</p><p class="">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.</p><p class="">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.</p><p class="">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.</p><p class="">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.</p><p class="">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.</p><p class="">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.</p><p class="">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.</p><p class="">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.</p><p class="">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.</p><p class="">No new advisories are being released this month.</p><p class=""><strong>Looking Ahead</strong></p><p class="">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!</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[New OLED iPad Mini Might Launch With A Basic 60Hz Display Panel]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[If you were hoping the next small tablet from Apple would finally get a super smooth screen, you might need to adjust your expectations. A recent supply chain leak suggests the much-anticipated iPad mini will switch to a new OLED screen but remain stuck at a basic 60Hz refresh rate.



This rumor...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3668404/ios-mac-os/new-oled-ipad-mini-might-launch-with-a-basic-60hz-display-panel/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3668404/ios-mac-os/new-oled-ipad-mini-might-launch-with-a-basic-60hz-display-panel/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2026 16:57:19 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🍏 iOS / Mac OS</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[If you were hoping the next small tablet from Apple would finally get a super smooth screen, you might need to adjust your expectations. A recent supply chain leak suggests the much-anticipated iPad mini will switch to a new OLED screen but remain stuck at a basic 60Hz refresh rate.



This rumor comes from a somewhat mixed track record tipster on the Korean blogging platform Naver. The leaker claims a source in the display supply chain shared details about the unreleased device.



New screen tech brings better colors but skips higher speeds



According to the rumor, the tablet will use a low-temperature polycrystalline silicon backplane hybrid OLED panel. This specific technology usually runs at a fixed refresh rate of 60Hz. It is also generally dimmer than the advanced display panels used in the high-end iPad Pro lineup.



Those premium models use a different technology that can dynamically adjust refresh rates from a battery saving 10Hz all the way up to a buttery smooth 120Hz. Fans of the smaller form factor have been waiting for this exact upgrade. Upgrading the screen to OLED will still bring major improvements over the older LCD model. Users can expect deeper black levels, punchier colors, and better overall power efficiency.



Production location leaves room for a possible hardware surprise



There is still a small chance this rumor misses the mark. The same leaker mentioned the upcoming device is currently in mass production at a specific Samsung Display factory in South Korea. That particular production line actually builds both standard 60Hz panels and the more advanced 120Hz versions. So, just knowing where it is made does not completely rule out a faster screen.



We are expecting to see this new hardware launch in late 2026. If it decides to stick with a slower display, it likely believes the smaller tablet does not have a large enough market to justify the expensive panel upgrades seen in its flagship phones. Anyone wanting a full breakdown of the OLED iPad mini 8 release date, specs, price, and what to expect should keep an eye on upcoming factory leaks. As mass production continues through the summer, more concrete display specs will likely surface.



If it does launch with a 60Hz panel, shoppers will have to weigh the beautiful new OLED colors against the lack of a modern, fluid scrolling experience. The picture will become clear once the device finally hits store shelves later this year.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Canva launches Code 2.0, offering AI website building to every user — including free accounts]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Canva on Tuesday launched Canva Code 2.0, a major upgrade to its AI-powered coding tool that lets users build interactive websites, apps, and experiences using plain-language prompts — and then edit the results as easily as tweaking a Canva presentation. The feature is now available to all of the...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3668119/it-nachrichten/canva-launches-code-20-offering-ai-website-building-to-every-user-including-free-accounts/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3668119/it-nachrichten/canva-launches-code-20-offering-ai-website-building-to-every-user-including-free-accounts/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2026 15:32:52 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://www.canva.com/">Canva</a> on Tuesday launched <a href="https://www.canva.com/ai-code-generator/">Canva Code 2.0</a>, a major upgrade to its AI-powered coding tool that lets users build interactive websites, apps, and experiences using plain-language prompts — and then edit the results as easily as tweaking a Canva presentation. The feature is now available to all of the company's more than 265 million monthly users across every pricing tier, including free accounts.</p><p>The move is Canva's most aggressive push yet into the fast-growing "vibe coding" market, a category that barely existed 18 months ago but has already minted billion-dollar startups and reshaped how non-developers think about building software. But where rivals like <a href="https://lovable.dev/">Lovable</a>, <a href="https://replit.com/">Replit</a>, and <a href="https://bolt.new/">Bolt.new</a> have focused primarily on generating functional code from text prompts, Canva is making a different bet: that the real bottleneck isn't creating the code — it's making the output actually look good.</p><p>"Most vibe coding tools stop at functional — generating output that looks the same as everyone else's," Canva states in its announcement. "You might get a working prototype, but making it actually look like yours requires a complex editing surface, a separate design tool, a developer, or endless back-and-forth prompting that rarely lands where you want it.”</p><p>Danny Wu, Canva's Head of AI Products, framed the product's positioning in stark terms during an exclusive interview with VentureBeat ahead of the launch.</p><p>"We are deliberately targeting non-technical users," Wu said. "Canva Code isn't a tool we're building for developers. What we're trying to do is bring the power of AI coding — and really lightweight coding — into the Canva platform, while answering our users' requests for more interactivity, more customization, and more flexibility, from websites to interactive presentations."</p><h3><b>Canva Code 2.0 brings drag-and-drop editing, HTML import, and 75% faster generation to AI-built websites</b></h3><p>The update introduces several capabilities designed to collapse the distance between generating code and publishing a polished interactive experience. Users can now create Canva Code projects directly inside other design projects — embedding interactive elements within a whiteboard, presentation deck, or standalone page. <a href="https://www.canva.com/">Canva</a> has also added more than 50 new templates specifically designed for interactive designs, along with the ability to import raw HTML files from other AI coding tools and convert them into editable Canva designs.</p><p>The performance improvements are significant. Canva says it has reduced average code generation time by 75 percent and cut the median time from initial prompt to a published site by 30 percent. The company also reports that integrating <a href="https://www.canva.com/ai-code-generator/">Canva Code</a> into the broader Canva editor — allowing users to treat coded outputs like any other design element — has increased active Code users by 25 percent.</p><p>Perhaps the most distinctive feature is the editing experience itself. Unlike most AI coding platforms, which require users to re-prompt or modify raw code to make visual changes, <a href="https://www.canva.com/ai-code-generator/">Canva Code 2.0</a> lets users click directly into generated elements to change text, drag and drop images from Canva's built-in library of over 120 million templates and assets, update colors and fonts through a familiar toolbar, or select a specific element and refine it through conversational AI. Every output is fully interactive and automatically adapts to different screen sizes, with a built-in mobile preview.</p><p>Wu demonstrated the drag-and-drop editing during the interview, showing how a generated conference website could be modified in real time — swapping in photos, changing fonts to branded alternatives, and editing text directly on the canvas. "The key differentiator with Canva Code is the editability and the kindness of the outputs it generates," he said, though he noted one current limitation: "We don't support moving elements around. You still have to re-prompt for that."</p><h3><b>How Canva plans to compete with Lovable, Replit, and Bolt in the booming AI app builder market</b></h3><p>Canva's entry into vibe coding at this scale arrives at a pivotal moment for the category. According to <a href="https://www.useluminix.com/reports/industry-analysis/vibe-coding-tool-landscape-replit-v0-base44-bolt-lovable-vercel/source/0">market research published by Luminix AI in May 2026</a>, the vibe coding and AI app builder market has reached an estimated $4.7 billion in 2026, with projections pointing toward $12.3 billion by 2027 at roughly 38 percent compound annual growth. The research also estimates that AI-generated code now comprises approximately 41 percent of all code written globally — a figure that would have seemed inconceivable even two years ago.</p><p>The competitive landscape has grown ferocious. <a href="https://lovable.dev/dashboard">Lovable</a>, which focuses on conversational, design-forward app generation for non-technical founders, has achieved what may be the fastest revenue ramp in the category's history — reportedly reaching approximately $400 million in annual recurring revenue by early 2026, according to Luminix's analysis. <a href="https://replit.com/">Replit</a>, which transformed its browser-based IDE into a full vibe-coding engine through successive AI agent releases, has tripled its valuation to $9 billion and is targeting $1 billion in run-rate revenue by the end of 2026, per the same report. <a href="https://bolt.new/">Bolt.new</a>, which runs a full Node.js environment entirely in the browser, scaled from $4 million to $40 million in ARR within months of launching.</p><p>And then there is Canva, which brings something none of those platforms possess: a quarter-billion-user design ecosystem where brands, teams, and individuals already store their visual identities, collaborate on projects, and publish content.</p><p>Wu positioned <a href="https://bolt.new/">Canva Code</a> not as a direct competitor to these developer-focused tools but as something that fills a gap none of them have addressed. "A lot of the requests that we have been getting and the usage we're seeing is actually with using Canva Code not necessarily as just one artifact, but as part of an overall design, the visual communication they're trying to tell," Wu said. "Like when you have a sales deck, you're able to add a calculator, you're able to add a visualizer of what exactly your product does. That's something where an interactive slide can be worth a thousand pictures."</p><h3><b>Why Canva's HTML import feature could turn it into a 'finishing layer' for every AI coding tool</b></h3><p>One of the most strategically interesting features in <a href="https://bolt.new/">Canva Code 2.0</a> is its HTML import capability, which allows users to take code generated by any AI tool — including <a href="https://chatgpt.com/">ChatGPT</a>, <a href="http://claude.ai/">Claude</a>, <a href="https://lovable.dev/dashboard">Lovable</a>, or <a href="https://bolt.new/">Bolt</a> — and bring it into Canva as a fully editable design. The implication is unmistakable: Canva is positioning itself as the place where AI-generated code gets its finishing touches, regardless of where it was originally created.</p><p>When asked directly whether this amounts to positioning Canva as a "finishing layer on top of vibe coding," Wu offered a diplomatic but revealing response. "It's really a continuation of our goal to make all design as easy as possible," he said. "We've supported importing PDFs and translating them into docs, importing PowerPoint files — so in one way, it's an expansion of that. But in another way, it's really just listening to what our users want and making Canva both the most useful and the most compatible platform.”</p><p>He paused, then added: "It's not that we're deliberately positioning ourselves as a specific layer, say like a finishing layer after vibe coding. We just really want to make our platform the most accessible and the most pluggable."</p><p>That language — "most pluggable" — suggests a platform strategy that doesn't require Canva to win the AI code generation race outright. If Canva becomes the default destination for making AI-generated code look professional and on-brand, it captures value from the entire category regardless of which code generation engine users prefer. The strategy also echoes the broader import capabilities that already allow Canva to ingest PowerPoint decks and PDFs from competing platforms, gradually pulling users deeper into the Canva ecosystem without demanding they abandon existing workflows.</p><h3><b>What Canva Code can build — and where Danny Wu says it hits its limits</b></h3><p>Wu was notably candid about the product's boundaries — a refreshing departure from the typical Silicon Valley product launch. "Canva Code is great for anything that works as a front-end app, and it's especially good when you want to leverage data, data submissions, and interactivity at small to medium scale," he said. "I'll be honest about the limitations. Canva Code is probably not going to be suitable if you're trying to build a website with complex backends, or if you're handling hundreds of thousands of visitors per day."</p><p>This candor effectively draws a line between <a href="https://www.canva.com/ai-code-generator/">Canva Code</a> and the more ambitious platforms in the space. While Lovable and Replit are pushing toward full-stack application development — complete with databases, authentication, and production-grade hosting — Canva is deliberately limiting its scope to interactive front-end experiences at modest scale. The question is whether that's a strategic weakness or a disciplined focus. For the teachers, small business owners, and marketing teams that make up the bulk of Canva's user base, complex backends and high-traffic scalability are irrelevant concerns. What matters is whether they can create an interactive event page, a property listing website, or a classroom hub that looks professional and works on mobile — without hiring a developer or learning a new tool.</p><p>When asked about the AI models powering <a href="https://www.canva.com/ai-code-generator/">Canva Code</a>, Wu confirmed the company uses a combination of proprietary and third-party models, including those from OpenAI and Anthropic, but declined to specify the exact mix. "We don't share the exact mix, and it does change over time," he said. "We also route differently depending on what you're asking for and which model family we think is best for handling certain requests."</p><h3><b>Canva's AI acquisition spree — from Affinity to Leonardo.ai — now powers its vibe coding push</b></h3><p>Canva's broader AI infrastructure has been significantly bolstered by an acquisition strategy that has accelerated over the past two years. In March 2024, <a href="https://www.canva.com/newsroom/news/affinity/">the company acquired Affinity</a>, the British creative software suite popular with Mac users, in a deal that Bloomberg reported was valued at "<a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-26/canva-acquires-affinity-design-suite-in-push-to-rival-adobe">several hundred million pounds</a>." Canva at the time positioned the deal as a way to compete with Adobe's flagship products — Illustrator, Photoshop, and InDesign — by gaining ownership of Affinity's Designer, Photo, and Publisher applications.</p><p>Just four months later, Canva acquired <a href="http://leonardo.ai/">Leonardo.ai</a>, an Australian generative AI startup with over 19 million registered users and more than a billion images generated. Canva co-founder Cameron Adams said at the time that Leonardo.ai's technology would be integrated into Canva's Magic Studio generative AI suite.</p><p>Together with these acquisitions, <a href="https://www.canva.com/ai-code-generator/">Canva Code</a> is the company's attempt to layer interactive, code-driven capabilities on top of a visual design platform that has already been enhanced by professional-grade design tools and generative AI models. The company reports over 32 billion uses of its AI products to date — a staggering figure that underscores how deeply AI is now woven into everyday Canva workflows, even for users who may not think of themselves as using artificial intelligence.</p><h3><b>Six million sites published, but Canva's retention data remains an open question</b></h3><p>Canva's announcement highlights an impressive traction metric: users have created and published more than six million websites using Canva Code since the feature was first introduced a year ago. But the number deserves scrutiny.</p><p>Wu clarified in the interview that the six million figure represents published websites over the past year — meaning sites that were either made public or shared via password-protected or private links. "They may have published publicly, or behind a password, or as a private link. But that's the number of published websites," he said.</p><p>When asked about active retention — how many of those sites are still live and being maintained — Wu acknowledged the gap in his data. This is a meaningful distinction. In the vibe coding market, raw creation numbers can be misleading because the barrier to generating a site is so low. The more telling metric — which Canva does not yet provide — would be how many of those six million sites receive regular traffic or have been updated after initial publication.</p><p>The early use cases, however, suggest genuine utility beyond novelty. Educators and school administrators are using Canva Code to build classroom hubs, with one teacher creating bespoke webpages for each of their classrooms to keep students and parents updated on announcements. Small businesses, like Alt Marketing School, have built mini apps for fundraising training and interactive roadmaps for their members. For World Book Day, 50 readers created educational games across different subjects, complete with pedagogical guides for classroom use.</p><h3><b>Canva Code pricing, data governance, and what enterprise customers need to know</b></h3><p><a href="https://www.canva.com/ai-code-generator/">Canva Code 2.0</a> is available across all of Canva's pricing tiers, including its free plan — a notable decision given that competitors like Lovable, Bolt, and Replit reserve their most capable features for paid subscribers. "As you go from, say, free to pro to business to enterprise, you would get more AI credits and be able to have higher usage of Canva Code," Wu said. "But it is available and it is usable — even free Canva accounts as well as education and not-for-profit accounts."</p><p>This credit-based approach mirrors the pricing evolution happening across the entire vibe coding category, where platforms have converged on token or credit systems that meter AI generation capacity rather than gating features behind subscription tiers. The difference is that Canva's free tier serves as an acquisition funnel for a much larger design platform, not just for the coding feature itself.</p><p>For the institutional customers Canva increasingly courts — school districts, real estate brokerages, enterprise marketing teams — data governance is a threshold concern. Wu addressed this directly. "All users and customers have full control over how their data is used," he said. "They can choose whether their prompts and data are used for AI training in the settings. For businesses and enterprises, team admins can manage this at the organizational level and guarantee that their inputs, content, and outputs won't be used for training." This opt-out approach reflects a lesson the broader industry has learned the hard way. As The Verge reported when Canva acquired Leonardo.ai, Adobe suffered significant backlash over a policy update regarding user data and AI model training — a controversy Canva appears keen to avoid.</p><h3><b>Canva's long-term vision: closing the gap between imagination and what non-technical users can actually build</b></h3><p>When asked where <a href="https://www.canva.com/ai-code-generator/">Canva Code</a> fits into the company's long-term trajectory — and whether Canva is building toward a full-stack app development platform — Wu steered the conversation back to the company's core audience.</p><p>"A huge part of it is reducing the gap between your imagination and what's possible, especially for everyday users — people who don't have a lot of time," he said. "They don't have time to figure out deploys or MCPs or APIs. They just want to design more interactive and more dynamic communication."</p><p>He pointed to the rapid improvement in AI model capabilities as a key accelerant. "The kind of things you can create today in one shot — like a 3D visualization of a solar system — you really couldn't have trusted the output a year ago. But today, you have a really high success rate."</p><p>Whether <a href="https://www.canva.com/ai-code-generator/">Canva Code</a> becomes a durable product category or a feature that gets absorbed into the platform's broader AI workflow will depend on how quickly the company can close the gap between its current front-end focus and the full-stack capabilities that increasingly define the competition. Lovable is shipping Supabase-backed apps with authentication and databases built in. Replit's agents can execute autonomous long-running builds. Bolt.new runs entire Node.js environments in a browser tab. These are fundamentally different ambitions than making a conference landing page look good.</p><p>But Canva has never won by matching the technical depth of its competitors. A decade ago, it didn't try to out-feature Adobe — it made design accessible to the 99 percent of people who would never open Photoshop. Now, in a vibe coding market where every tool can generate a working prototype from a prompt, Canva is making the same wager it made in 2012: that for most people, the hardest part was never the building. It was making it look like it came from you.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Your service vendors are being rebuilt around AI]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Venture-backed firms are buying up the support, finance-ops and managed-services providers enterprises rely on and re-platforming them around AI agents — and the renewal that follows arrives priced per outcome, sold as your advantage. The acquisition-built structure and unproven stability create ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3667858/it-nachrichten/your-service-vendors-are-being-rebuilt-around-ai/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3667858/it-nachrichten/your-service-vendors-are-being-rebuilt-around-ai/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2026 14:02:49 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Venture-backed firms are buying up the support, finance-ops and managed-services providers enterprises rely on and re-platforming them around AI agents — and the renewal that follows arrives priced per outcome, sold as your advantage. The acquisition-built structure and unproven stability create governance and continuity risks your vendor process isn’t sized for. Here’s how to keep the leverage on your side of the table.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The first time an AI-native services pitch crossed my desk, I nearly signed it. The savings were real, the agents demoed cleanly and the pricing was the kind procurement loves — per resolved case, not per seat. What I almost missed was who got to define the word “resolved.” On an earlier outsourced-support arrangement, back in my public-sector days, the vendor’s reported resolution rate looked excellent right up until we pulled the reopen numbers ourselves. Auto-closed tickets had been counted as wins. Users had quietly stopped logging issues at all. The dashboard was green; the service was not.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That gap — between the number on the contract and what your users actually live with — is the whole game now, and it is about to scale across your portfolio. <a href="https://www.gartner.com/en/articles/hype-cycle-for-agentic-ai">Gartner’s 2026 CIO and Technology Executive Survey found only 17% of organizations have deployed AI agents, but more than 60% expect to within two years</a> — the steepest adoption curve of any emerging technology it tracks. The providers running your services are moving first, and the contracts are changing faster than most of us can govern them.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The agents underneath these pitches are also nowhere near as reliable in production as they look in the room. <a href="https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2025-06-25-gartner-predicts-over-40-percent-of-agentic-ai-projects-will-be-canceled-by-end-of-2027">Gartner expects more than 40% of agentic AI projects to be canceled by the end of 2027</a> on cost, unclear value and weak risk controls, and reckons only about 130 of the thousands of self-described agentic vendors are the real thing — the rest are “agent washing” old chatbots and RPA. Treat any headline resolution rate the way you treat a vendor’s own uptime stats: Marketing, until you have seen it run on accounts like yours.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What’s behind the pitch</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The challenger’s economics aren’t magic. They come from a reshaping of the services market: Venture-backed firms buying up fragmented, labor-heavy providers — support desks, contact centers, AP and finance ops, slices of managed IT — and re-platforming them around agents. Many of the companies pitching you are not one company at all but several acquired shops stitched onto a shared AI layer. That barely comes up in the sales meeting. It matters enormously once you are the customer.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The direction is independently corroborated, not vendor hype. <a href="https://www.everestgrp.com/blogs/outcome-based-metrics-the-new-value-currency-in-bpo/">Everest Group reports outcome-based pricing in business-process services moving from pilots to scaled adoption</a> as AI makes outcomes measurable enough to contract on, with the binding constraint now governance and verified baselines. <a href="https://www.ey.com/content/dam/ey-unified-site/ey-com/en-gl/about-us/analyst-relations/documents/ey-gl-hfs-horizons-agentic-services-2026-ey-excerpt-04-2026.pdf">HFS Research tracks the same “services-to-software” shift</a> across consulting, IT, and operations providers. Here is the part worth holding onto: Most enterprises are early, so you have a little time. But the first vendors to reprice you this way will be the small, single-source ones in the long tail of your portfolio — which, if your stack looks anything like mine, is most of it.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Don’t assume the incumbent is the safe choice</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">And don’t kid yourself that renewing with the familiar name keeps you clear of this. The big integrators are pulling labor out of their own delivery just as fast — <a href="https://news.outsourceaccelerator.com/it-services-firms-add-thousands/">Accenture cut tens of thousands of roles and rehired against an AI-skills filter</a> — and rewriting deals around a share of savings instead of time and materials. Outcome pricing is becoming the default everywhere. There is no version of this where you sit it out.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Two risks your vendor process won’t catch</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The first is governance, and the roll-up structure makes it worse than the usual AI-vendor worry. The company you are contracting with isn’t one system. It is several acquired firms with different data practices and security postures, with an AI layer dropped on top at speed. Your customer records, invoices and support transcripts flow into agents whose decisions you often can’t trace, across entities that were never built to one standard. The numbers here aren’t comforting: <a href="https://www.ibm.com/reports/data-breach">IBM’s 2025 Cost of a Data Breach Report found 63% of breached organizations had no AI governance policy at all, and 97% of those that suffered an AI-related breach lacked basic AI access controls</a> — AI adoption, IBM concluded, is outpacing both security and governance. When an agent botches a dispute or misroutes regulated data, the regulator and the customer come looking for you, not the platform. And here is the organizational trap: The savings line is what your CFO signs; the provenance question is the one your audit committee won’t ask until after the incident. Nobody raises it for you.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The second is whether the provider will still be standing in three years. These platforms are new, built by acquisition, venture-funded and not one has run through a full contract term or a real downturn. With <a href="https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2025-06-25-gartner-predicts-over-40-percent-of-agentic-ai-projects-will-be-canceled-by-end-of-2027">Gartner expecting more than 40% of agentic AI projects to be canceled by 2027</a>, putting core operations on a young, agent-dependent vendor is a single point of failure dressed up as innovation. Write the exit and data-portability terms before you sign — while you still have leverage to.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Six questions for the renewal</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When the challenger shows up — or your incumbent reprices to match — these are the questions I would put on the table. They come down to one thing: Making sure you, not the vendor, own the number.</p>



<ol start="1" class="wp-block-list">
<li><strong>Definition, baseline, guardrails. </strong>Make “resolved” mean what your users experience, measured against a baseline you have captured yourself, and tie it to metrics you own — first-contact resolution, reopen rate, time-to-resolution. Expect procurement to resist because pinning this down slows the deal. Hold the line; it is the whole ballgame.</li>



<li><strong>Real agent, or agent washing. </strong>Gartner reckons only a sliver of self-described agentic vendors are the genuine article. Make them prove it: Production resolution on accounts like yours, and the human-escalation rate sitting behind that number. Not a demo.</li>



<li><strong>Auditability, as a gate. </strong>SOC 2 at minimum, increasingly ISO 42001 or NIST AI RMF alignment, plus model cards, decision logs and an incident-response plan they have actually tested. If they can’t show how data is walled off between their acquired entities, or how an agent’s decision gets traced, they aren’t ready for anything regulated. This belongs in the shortlist criteria, not the post-mortem.</li>



<li><strong>Where autonomy stops. </strong>Decide which actions an agent can take alone and which need a human, how it hands off with context and who is accountable when it acts on its own. Put names against it before go-live.</li>



<li><strong>The exit. </strong>An embedded agent platform gets stickier than the staffed incumbent it replaced, faster than you would think. Lock down data portability, knowledge-base ownership and a way out while you are still the one with leverage.</li>



<li><strong>Capacity, not just cost. </strong>The best outcome here often isn’t a smaller bill. It is the demand that your old service levels were quietly turning away. Nobody answered the tickets. The cases that aged out. Ask what fixing that is worth before you optimize purely for headcount.</li>
</ol>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The move</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Outcome pricing is where this lands, and on balance, that is progress. But in the near term, it hands the advantage to whoever can measure the outcome — and in most shops, that isn’t the buyer. The edge isn’t picking the cleverest challenger or the safest incumbent. It is being able to hold any of them to a result, on your numbers. Look again at why Gartner thinks so many of these projects die: Not the technology — cost, fuzzy value, weak controls. Our side of the table. So, start there. Take one high-volume, measurable workflow, pilot it against a baseline you own, instrument it with your own metrics, and treat the muscle you build doing that as the real deliverable. Get it right and the pricing model stops mattering. Skip it, and you have just agreed to pay for someone else’s definition of done.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.</strong><br><a href="https://www.cio.com/expert-contributor-network/"><strong>Want to join?</strong></a></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Where Meta’s WhatsApp agent can actually win]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Message a business on WhatsApp this week and you may be greeted by software. On June 3, Meta made its Business AI agent available to companies everywhere, a bot that answers questions, recommends products, books appointments, qualifies sales leads and hands you to a human when it gets stuck. It c...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3667537/it-security-nachrichten/where-metas-whatsapp-agent-can-actually-win/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3667537/it-security-nachrichten/where-metas-whatsapp-agent-can-actually-win/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2026 12:07:57 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Message a business on WhatsApp this week and you may be greeted by software. On June 3, <a href="https://about.fb.com/news/2026/06/meta-business-agent/?utm_source=chatgpt.com">Meta made its Business AI agent available to companies everywhere</a>, a bot that answers questions, recommends products, books appointments, qualifies sales leads and hands you to a human when it gets stuck. It comes bundled in WhatsApp’s premium business tiers, and the largest companies pay for it by the token. After almost two years of testing in markets like India and Mexico, it is now live worldwide.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I build AI agents for a living, and this is a good one. It also sits on top of the largest messaging network ever built. WhatsApp passed three billion monthly users last year. Mark Zuckerberg says people now hold more than a billion threads a day with business accounts across Meta’s apps. Paid messaging on WhatsApp crossed a <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2025/05/01/whatsapp-now-has-more-than-3-billion-users/?utm_source=chatgpt.com">two-billion-dollar annual run rate in the fourth quarter of 2025</a>, and click-to-WhatsApp ad revenue grew sixty percent year over year. Meta has spent a decade trying to turn all of that talking into buying, and the agent is its most capable attempt yet.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So, picture the moment the agent finishes taking your order. What happens next?</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><a></a>The model Meta keeps pointing at</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In Hangzhou or Shenzhen, the answer is that your order shows up, often within the hour. China fused messaging, payments and shopping into single apps more than a decade ago. WeChat carries roughly 1.4 billion users, an in-app store layer with hundreds of millions of monthly shoppers, and a wallet most of the country pays with. Korea built its own version, where KakaoTalk made chat the default way to send a gift. This is the world Meta gestures at when it imagines what WhatsApp could be.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">And yet WeChat, the purest “messaging app does commerce” story, is not actually China’s shopping champion, even though it arrived first and is still the bigger app. People do not open a messaging app to browse and shop. The buying went instead to Douyin, the Chinese app run by TikTok’s owner ByteDance, whose endless video feed is engineered to make you want things you were not looking for. WeChat had the users and the wallet, and it still lacked the two things that actually move commerce: A feed that creates demand and a way to deliver the goods. A chat window is neither.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><a></a>The moat was never the storefront</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Amazon learned the same lesson from the other side. Its moat was never the website. It was the warehouses, the trucks and the two-day promise (then one-day, then same-day) that rivals could not match. In 2025 <a href="https://www.freightwaves.com/news/amazon-overtakes-us-postal-service-as-largest-parcel-carrier?utm_source=chatgpt.com">Amazon passed the US Postal Service to become the largest parcel carrier in the country by volume, moving 6.7 billion packages</a>. Roughly 180 million Americans pay for Prime. The storefront is the part everyone sees; the fulfillment network is the part that wins.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Asia’s commerce leaders made the same bet. Coupang built Korea’s Amazon by pouring billions into logistics: Order by midnight, and it arrives before 7 a.m., weekends included. Seven in ten Koreans now live within ten minutes of a Coupang warehouse. Even Alibaba, which grew up as an asset-light marketplace that owned no trucks, eventually concluded it had to build a logistics arm to keep pace.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Speed sells, too. In China, McKinsey found, live shopping converts viewers into buyers at rates approaching 30 percent, roughly ten times an ordinary web page, because the fulfillment behind it delivers the impulse before it cools. The conversation creates the want, but the warehouse turns it into a sale.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><a></a>Even where messaging rules</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Korea shows what a messenger can and cannot win. KakaoTalk is the country’s WhatsApp, and it owns one kind of commerce completely: gifting. Koreans send presents straight from the chat window, close to 200 million of them in 2025, which is nearly all of the country’s mobile gifting. But notice what kind of commerce that is. A gift voucher or a coffee coupon needs no warehouse. The moment a purchase becomes a physical thing that has to arrive fast, the winner is no longer the messenger but Coupang and its dawn-delivery network. KakaoTalk owns the commerce that fits inside a message; Coupang owns the commerce that needs a truck.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Japan makes the same point in the negative. LINE is about as dominant a messenger as exists anywhere, reaching 97 million people, close to 78 percent of the country. If messaging reach alone turned into commerce, LINE would own Japanese retail. Instead, it shut down its own payments service in 2025 and handed the wallet to a rival, while the actual shopping stayed with Rakuten and Amazon Japan. The most-used chat app in the country could not turn that reach into owning what people buy.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Every market tells the same story: A chat app does not win physical commerce. Whoever owns the warehouse does.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><a></a>What Meta is missing</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Which brings us back to the WhatsApp agent, where Meta starts further ahead than WeChat ever did. Through Instagram and Reels it owns the demand-making feed WeChat never had, the agent gives it the sales conversation, and in the West, paying by card is universal. Only the last pillar is missing. Meta has no warehouses, no trucks, no delivery promise of its own and the few times it reached for the pieces around the sale, it pulled back: Its own wallet, Meta Pay, never became something people use, and in 2025 it wound down in-app checkout for Facebook and Instagram Shops, sending buyers back to merchants’ own sites to pay, ship and handle returns. Even Marketplace, its billion-user listings surface, mostly stays out of the transaction itself.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">And in the West, that last pillar is already spoken for. The West did fuse commerce, just not around chat. Amazon long ago combined the storefront, the payment, its own branded credit cards and the expensive part, the warehouses and the trucks, into one app that owns the American purchase from search to doorstep. That is the same kind of vertical integration China’s commerce giants built, with players like Alibaba and JD racing into a market where no Amazon yet stood in the way. In the US, that lane was filled years ago.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><a></a>The other half</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">None of this makes the agent a mistake. It is already a booming ad business for Meta, and maybe that is all Meta wants it to be: Commerce’s front door, sending the shopper onward and billing the merchant for the introduction.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But goods are only half of commerce, and the other half never needed a warehouse. Remember what KakaoTalk won: Gifting, the one kind of buying that ships nothing. Services are the same, only far bigger. A haircut, a dental cleaning, a training session, a plumber’s visit, a tutor’s hour: None of it sits in a fulfillment center. The transaction is a booking, not a box.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">And a booking is exactly what the agent is built to take. Look at the feature Meta put in its own announcement, right beside answering questions and recommending products: It books appointments. For a salon, a clinic or a one-person studio, that is a front desk. Give it the two pieces still missing, a calendar to hold the schedule and a way to take payment inside the chat, and WhatsApp stops being where those businesses message customers and becomes where they run the day.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">None of it needs a warehouse, and none of it is Amazon’s to defend. Does that put Meta on a collision course with Square and Mindbody?</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.</strong><br><a href="https://www.cio.com/expert-contributor-network/"><strong>Want to join?</strong></a></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Synthetic Sincerity review – Marc Isaacs’ AI interrogation grapples with identity and existence]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[A combination of fact and fiction leaves the celebrated documentarian’s puzzling project about software training wanting for depthMarc Isaacs’ new film is a curious, intriguing, semi-sincere affair that I couldn’t make friends with. It is an odd, shallow piece of work about artificial intelligenc...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3667526/ai-nachrichten/synthetic-sincerity-review-marc-isaacs-ai-interrogation-grapples-with-identity-and-existence/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3667526/ai-nachrichten/synthetic-sincerity-review-marc-isaacs-ai-interrogation-grapples-with-identity-and-existence/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2026 12:03:44 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🔧 AI Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A combination of fact and fiction leaves the celebrated documentarian’s puzzling project about software training wanting for depth</p><p>Marc Isaacs’ new film is a curious, intriguing, semi-sincere affair that I couldn’t make friends with. It is an odd, shallow piece of work about artificial intelligence that is itself exasperatingly artificial, a self-aware docudrama hybrid. Isaacs is, or rather pretends to be, licensing the vivid characters from his previous, acclaimed documentaries to a fictional AI research lab called Synthetic Sincerity at the fictional University of Southern England, so that the lab’s software can be “trained” in the creation of AI human figures on screen.</p><p>The lab’s research staff are played by actors, or at any rate people acting; these include Lebanese independent film-maker Lynn El Safah. Isaacs has amusing scripted conversations about this project with a disapproving AI avatar on screen, like Max Headroom of old, whose face is digitally modelled on Romanian actor Ilinca Manolache, from Radu Jude’s <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/aug/04/do-not-expect-too-much-from-the-end-of-the-world-review-locarno">Do Not Expect Too Much from the End of the World</a>. The film, however, does not show the process by which Manolache was approached and her face transformed into an AI figure.</p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/film/2026/jul/14/synthetic-sincerity-review-marc-isaacs-ai">Continue reading...</a>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Deluxe Corporation beats the odds with mainframe migration using AI]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Deluxe may have prevailed against the odds when it successfully migrated from a 50-plus-year-old mainframe recently.



The company was able to move from it to a cloud environment in about 12 months without a major hitch, and while AI did some of the heavy lifting. The save will amount to about $...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3667450/it-nachrichten/deluxe-corporation-beats-the-odds-with-mainframe-migration-using-ai/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3667450/it-nachrichten/deluxe-corporation-beats-the-odds-with-mainframe-migration-using-ai/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2026 11:32:57 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Deluxe may have prevailed against the odds when it successfully migrated from a 50-plus-year-old mainframe recently.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The company was able to move from it to a cloud environment in about 12 months without a major hitch, and while AI did some of the heavy lifting. The save will amount to about $4.9 million a year by retiring old hardware and software, cutting labor costs, and consolidating IT resources.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Deluxe, based in Minneapolis and traditionally known as a check printer, has transformed itself into a payments IT provider in recent years. But it desperately needed to end its reliance on its ancient mainframe, says <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/yogaraj/">Yogaraj Jayaprakasam</a>, the company’s chief technology and digital officer, pictured.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So AI played a huge role in the IT modernization project, he says, using it to rewrite the old mainframe code, generate documentation, and regenerate code test cases. The company also used an AI-powered test automation suite, as well as AI tools to help move assets to the new cloud environment.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">While AI can’t do everything during mainframe migration, it can make the move easier, Jayaprakasam says. “The biggest lessons learned is AI is one of the missing tools in your transformation tool set,” he adds.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Failing projects</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Deluxe’s mainframe migration earned it a <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/220017/us-cio-100-winners-celebrating-it-innovation-and-leadership.html">2026 CIO 100 Award</a> for IT innovation and leadership, but it also seems to have bucked a recent trend. Many mainframe migration projects haven’t gone as planned, and <a href="https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2026-06-18-gartner-predicts-more-than-70-percent-of-mainframe-exit-projects-will-fail-due-to-overestimation-of-generative-ais-capabilities">Gartner recently predicted</a> that more than 70% of mainframe exit projects that started in 2026 will fail to produce intended benefits because of an overreliance on gen AI.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Mainframe transformation projects tend to work better when they’re part of a larger business transformation rather than a one-off project using gen AI to do most of the work, says Gartner analyst <a href="https://www.gartner.com/en/experts/alessandro-galimberti">Alessandro Galimberti</a>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Generative AI and agentic AI are extremely powerful, but they also have their own limits,” he says. “With all these kinds of tools trying to convert code or somehow fit into a non-mainframe workload, we don’t really see a track record of success.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Gartner also sees a declining interest in mainframe migration projects, Galimberti says. With mainframes getting support from several IT vendors, and with a general lack of migration success, many companies are choosing to keep many workloads on their existing big iron.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But mainframes also have a proven track record of very high uptime and backward capability, Galimberti says.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“If I’m a bank, a financial institution, or a transportation company, I need to run applications that are the core of my business,” he adds. “I need reliability, transactional integrity, and security, and these applications have a low change rate over the years because they map very stable business processes.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The Gartner prediction makes sense to <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-mckenny-994446/">John McKenny</a>, senior VP and GM of Intelligent Z optimization and transformation for mainframe support vendor BMC Software.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“With organizations thinking about mainframe exits, the expected benefits they’re looking for are usually pretty straightforward,” he says. “They think, ‘It’s going to be lower cost, I’m going to get equal or better capabilities, I should be more agile.’  The reality is those outcomes rarely show up at scale.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Mainframe migration is possible, but the successful projects tend to be small scale, McKenny adds. He was on a recent call about a failed migration project in Europe, with a large bank cancelling the project at the end of 2025 and recommitting to the mainframe as a strategic platform.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“I’ve never seen a large-scale mainframe migration project finish under budget, ever,” he says. “Most of the projects I hear about fail outright.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Trying again</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Like some organizations that Gartner has observed, Deluxe tried to move away from its mainframe several years ago, but the project failed, Jayaprakasam says. Yet the company took the steps it needed this time to ensure the new migration succeeded.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">While a mainframe migration isn’t for every organization, the latest move made sense for Deluxe, he says.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The mainframe, after all, was the backbone for a large portion of the company’s annual revenue, and interfaces with several top banks across North America. The modernization effort rebuilt core business processes and data, moving them from the mainframe to a modern cloud-native technology stack, including Salesforce, Mulesoft, and SAP S4/HANA.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">While AI played a big part, there’s danger in overestimating the power of AI during a migration project, Jayaprakasam says, and organizations need to follow best practices for IT migration.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“If you minimize the importance of communication, risk planning, and business alignment because you have AI, you tend to fail,” he says. “But as long as you play all those cards and recognize AI was the missing piece to the puzzle, then you have a much better chance of winning.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Deluxe also used a cross-functional tiger team to look at the various options available to accelerate reverse engineering, including AI tools from OpenAI, Anthropic, as well as GitHub Copilot throughout the project.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In addition, AI was useful to dig through the mainframe code and understand what needed to be updated, Jayaprakasam says. Organizations sitting on decades-old code often no longer have people who understand it.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“I always tell people that the code remembers what the organization forgot, because with people going and changing, people don’t remember what we wrote in the code, but the code remembers,” he adds. “The amazing tool that was missing before is we didn’t have an interpreter who understood what the code remembered. Now with AI, you have the interpreter.”</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[AI incidents need a new playbook. Here’s how to build one]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Seventy-one percent of organizations say AI has access to core business systems. Only 16% govern that access effectively, according to the 2026 CISO AI Risk Report. Ask your IR team three questions: Where is your AI system inventory? What happens if a production model starts generating harmful ou...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3667390/it-security-nachrichten/ai-incidents-need-a-new-playbook-heres-how-to-build-one/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3667390/it-security-nachrichten/ai-incidents-need-a-new-playbook-heres-how-to-build-one/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2026 11:08:53 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Seventy-one percent of organizations say AI has access to core business systems. Only 16% govern that access effectively, <a href="https://www.cybersecurity-insiders.com/2026-ciso-ai-risk-report/">according to the 2026 CISO AI Risk Report</a>. Ask your IR team three questions: Where is your AI system inventory? What happens if a production model starts generating harmful outputs? Who has the authority to take it offline?</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I’ve spent 14 years in security — energy, banking, telecom, manufacturing. Red team work, detection programs and the last several years focused on AI risk and ShadowAI. What I see consistently: Organizations have AI in production, they have an IR playbook and they think those two things are connected. They’re not.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The CISO who thinks their IR playbook covers AI incidents probably hasn’t tested it. The ones who have tested it know it doesn’t.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Two kinds of AI incident — and why that split matters more than the list</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AI incidents <a href="https://www.glacis.io/guide-ai-incident-response">surged 56.4% from 2023 to 2024, reaching 233 documented cases</a>. Most IR frameworks — including NIST SP 800-61, MITRE ATLAS and the GLACIS AI Incident Response Playbook — provide you with a taxonomy of six incident types and stop there. While useful, it misses the more important split: Failures the model causes on its own, versus failures caused by a human. Your detection approach, your containment logic and your legal exposure are very different between those two groups.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Model-originated failures — degradation, bias, hallucinations — happen when the system does exactly what it was built to do, just badly. The Epic Sepsis Model, deployed across hundreds of US hospitals, had a sensitivity of only 33% at external validation. It missed two-thirds of actual sepsis cases and flooded physicians with false alerts, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.2626">as a 2021 JAMA Internal Medicine study found</a>. No one attacked it. It just quietly stopped working while every dashboard stayed green.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Externally induced failures — adversarial attacks, data poisoning, privacy breaches — happen when someone corrupts the inputs or the training environment. Tesla’s Autopilot phantom braking cases, <a href="https://www.glacis.io/guide-ai-incident-response">investigated by NHTSA across hundreds of thousands of vehicles</a>, show what adversarial input failures look like in a safety-critical system. These two groups need different primary defenses and their own playbooks.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Then there is the hybrid case, which carries the most legal exposure right now. Hallucinations are model-originated but they land in court like human errors. When Air Canada’s chatbot invented a bereavement fare policy, <a href="https://decisions.civilresolutionbc.ca/crt/crtd/en/item/519/index.do">the airline was held liable</a>. When a US federal court let <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2023cv01924/414830/96/">Mobley v. Workday</a> proceed, it accepted that an AI hiring platform could be directly liable as an ‘agent’ of the employers using it. Neither failure looked like a security incident. Both ended up as legal ones. If your legal team is not on your IR call tree, your playbook is already incomplete.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The CIA triad doesn’t cover a hallucination</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The CIA triad — confidentiality, integrity, availability — does not apply to most AI incidents. When Air Canada’s chatbot made up a policy, nothing was unavailable, nothing was changed without authorization, nothing was disclosed. The framework simply doesn’t reach it. When the Epic Sepsis Model missed two-thirds of cases, there was no breach, no intrusion, no indicator of compromise. By every traditional IR metric, the system looked fine.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is not an edge case. Classical IR frameworks assume deterministic failures with static indicators of compromise — an assumption <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/jcp6010020">that breaks down against probabilistic systems</a>. Microsoft’s Security Blog said it well in April 2026: A model may produce harmful output today and something completely different from the same prompt tomorrow. The root cause is not a line of code. It is a probability distribution, and <a href="https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/blog/2026/04/15/incident-response-for-ai-same-fire-different-fuel/">as Microsoft’s Security Blog put it</a>, you cannot patch a probability distribution.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The numbers confirm the gap. Average AI incident detection time is 4.5 days. <a href="https://www.glacis.io/guide-ai-incident-response">Sixty-seven percent of AI incidents come from model errors, not adversarial attacks</a> — yet security budgets keep funding perimeter tools built for the latter. We are looking for the wrong signals, with the wrong tools, for the wrong failure modes.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What a mature AI IR capability looks like</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I get asked this at every conference I speak at. Here is the short answer: Three things that mature teams have in place before any incident occurs.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">First, an AI Bill of Materials (AIBOM) for every production system. Think of it like a software SBOM, but for AI: It documents the base model, training datasets, third-party dependencies and the full component stack. Without it, you don’t know what your AI is made of — and you can’t investigate a data poisoning incident or a supply chain compromise without that baseline. The OWASP GenAI Security Project released an <a href="https://genai.owasp.org/resource/owasp-aibom-generator/">open-source AIBOM generator</a> in December 2025 that produces output in CycloneDX format aligned with SPDX standards. It is practical to implement now.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Second, a model card for every production AI system — not a document in a shared drive nobody opens, but something your IR team can pull up in the first ten minutes of a response. Training data provenance. Model version. Known performance limits, including which subpopulations showed weaker accuracy in testing. Access controls. Blast radius if it fails. Most organizations I work with have model documentation written for data scientists that no one in security can use at 2am. That is not documentation. That is liability.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Third, a named data scientist on the IR call tree. Not someone to brief after the incident — someone with authority to interrogate model behavior in real time. Traditional IR has a network engineer on call. AI IR needs the same logic applied to the people who understand how the failing system works.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A fourth thing that very few teams have: A documented rollback threshold for each deployed model. A pre-agreed definition of what anomaly rate, drift metric or fairness deviation triggers containment or a fallback switch. Teams without this spend the first hours of an AI incident debating whether what they are seeing is actually a problem. Teams with a threshold spend those hours responding.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Four things to do before the next incident</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Rewrite your detection triggers. Output anomaly scoring, data distribution monitoring for drift and behavioral tracking of model API usage need to be in your detection layer. They will not come from your SIEM. This is instrumentation work at the AI system level.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Redefine containment. For most AI incidents, ‘isolate the system’ is the wrong first move. Switching to a rule-based fallback while keeping the service running may cause less harm than taking the system offline and triggering a business escalation. Each deployed model needs pre-defined rollback criteria and a named fallback. Write those down now.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Get legal in the room before the incident. <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2023cv01924/414830/96/">Mobley v. Workday</a> means both the AI vendor and the deploying organization can carry liability for bias incidents. <a href="https://decisions.civilresolutionbc.ca/crt/crtd/en/item/519/index.do">Air Canada</a> means you cannot disclaim what your AI says to a customer. If your legal team is learning about an AI incident from a press inquiry, something has already gone wrong.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Build your AI inventory and treat it like your asset register. Start with the AIBOM for your highest-risk systems — those with access to customer data, financial decisions or clinical workflows. The <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/jcp6010020">GenAI-IRF framework</a> gives you a structured taxonomy for this work and the <a href="https://www.glacis.io/guide-ai-incident-response">GLACIS AI Incident Response Playbook</a> maps it to NIST SP 800-61 and MITRE ATLAS procedures your team can adapt without starting from scratch.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.proofpoint.com/us/resources/threat-reports/ai-human-risk-landscape-report">Forty-two percent of organizations have already had a suspicious or confirmed AI incident</a>, and more than half say their security posture is catching up, inconsistent or reactive. Updating your playbook isn’t optional. Fix it before you need it.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.</strong><br><a href="https://www.cio.com/expert-contributor-network/"><strong>Want to join?</strong></a></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Rapid7 and Mindshare Partner to Accelerate Cyber Resilience Across the Middle East]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Gopan Sivasankaran is Regional Director, Middle East & Africa, at Rapid7From AI adoption and cloud-first strategies to smart cities and critical infrastructure modernization, organizations across the United Arab Emirates are embracing innovation at an unprecedented rate. The country truly is sett...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3667282/it-security-nachrichten/rapid7-and-mindshare-partner-to-accelerate-cyber-resilience-across-the-middle-east/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3667282/it-security-nachrichten/rapid7-and-mindshare-partner-to-accelerate-cyber-resilience-across-the-middle-east/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2026 10:24:33 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span><em>Gopan Sivasankaran is Regional Director, Middle East &amp; Africa, at Rapid7</em></span></p><p><span>From AI adoption and cloud-first strategies to smart cities and critical infrastructure modernization, organizations across the United Arab Emirates are embracing innovation at an unprecedented rate. The country truly is setting the pace for digital transformation.</span></p><p><span>Against this backdrop of rapid innovation, today's security teams are managing increasingly complex environments while defending against more sophisticated, AI-enabled threats. In this environment, business leaders still expect security to enable innovation, not slow it down. They're pushed to reduce risk, improve visibility across expanding attack surfaces, and respond faster than ever before, with limited resources now table stakes.</span></p><p><span>This shift is changing what organizations expect from their cybersecurity partners, with customers no longer wanting disconnected tools or transactional relationships. They’re instead craving trusted advisors who can help simplify security operations, strengthen cyber resilience, and deliver measurable outcomes.</span></p><p><span>That's why Rapid7 is excited to announce a new strategic, Middle East-spanning distribution partnership with </span><a href="https://mindware.net/" target="_blank"><span>Mindware</span></a><span>.</span></p><h2><span>A shared commitment to the region</span></h2><p><span>The Middle East continues to establish itself as one of the world's most ambitious digital economies. As organizations invest in cloud technologies, AI, and connected infrastructure, cybersecurity has become a critical foundation for sustainable growth.</span></p><p><span>This is precisely why Rapid7 has continued to invest in the Middle East: We recognize the region's growing importance to the global cybersecurity landscape, and this new partnership with Mindware represents another important step in that journey.</span></p><p><span>This collaboration is about more than expanding our channel presence, it's about investing in the partners helping organizations navigate an increasingly complex security landscape.</span></p><p><span>Mindware has built a strong reputation as one of the Middle East's leading value-added distributors, combining deep regional expertise with technical enablement, professional services, and an extensive partner ecosystem. Together, we're creating a framework that helps partners grow their cybersecurity practices while delivering greater value to customers.</span></p><h2><span>Building stronger security operations</span></h2><p><span>Security teams today face a common challenge: too many tools, too many alerts, and not enough time. Organizations are increasingly looking for platforms that bring exposure management, threat detection, and response together to improve visibility and reduce operational complexity.</span></p><p><span>Rapid7's </span><a href="https://www.rapid7.com/platform" target="_self"><span>AI-powered cybersecurity operations platform</span></a><span> helps organizations unify security operations, reduce risk, and respond to threats with greater speed and confidence. Combined with Mindware's regional market knowledge, partner enablement capabilities, and technical expertise, this partnership will make it easier for organizations across the Middle East to access modern cybersecurity operations through trusted local partners.</span></p><p><span>For those partners, this creates new opportunities to expand managed services, strengthen technical capabilities, and help customers modernize their security operations while supporting long-term business growth.</span></p><h2><span>Local expertise alongside global innovation</span></h2><p><span>The most successful cybersecurity partnerships combine global innovation with local knowledge. Organizations want world-class technology, but they also expect partners who understand their business environment, regulatory landscape, and operational priorities.</span></p><p><span>By combining Rapid7's cybersecurity innovation with Mindware's established regional ecosystem, we're helping partners fortify and deliver solutions capable of addressing today's unprecedented security challenges and threats.</span></p><p><span>Together, we'll invest in partner enablement and technical training programs designed to help build stronger security practices and create long-term customer success.</span></p><h2><span>Looking ahead</span></h2><p><span>Cyber resilience is no longer just a technology objective; it’s a business imperative. As organizations across the Gulf continue to accelerate digital transformation, security teams need solutions that reduce complexity, improve operational efficiency, and help them stay ahead of an evolving threat landscape.</span></p><p><span>Rapid7 and Mindware share a common belief that the future of cybersecurity is built through collaboration. By bringing together global cybersecurity innovation, regional expertise, and a shared commitment to partner success, we're helping organizations across the Middle East strengthen cyber resilience while enabling partners to grow with confidence.</span></p><p><span>We're excited about what's ahead and look forward to working with our partners to build a stronger cybersecurity ecosystem across the region.</span></p><p><span>Ready to grow with Rapid7? Learn more about the </span><a href="https://www.rapid7.com/partners/sales-partners" target="_self"><span>Rapid7 PACT Partner Program</span></a><span> and discover how we're helping partners deliver stronger cybersecurity outcomes across the Middle East.</span></p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[v2.1.208]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[What's changed

Added screen reader mode: opt-in plain-text rendering for screen reader users. Run claude --ax-screen-reader, set CLAUDE_AX_SCREEN_READER=1, or add "axScreenReader": true to settings.
Added vimInsertModeRemaps setting: map two-key insert-mode sequences like jj to Escape in vim mod...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3666678/downloads/v21208/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3666678/downloads/v21208/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2026 03:16:40 +0200</pubDate>
<category>💾 Downloads</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<h2>What's changed</h2>
<ul>
<li>Added screen reader mode: opt-in plain-text rendering for screen reader users. Run <code>claude --ax-screen-reader</code>, set CLAUDE_AX_SCREEN_READER=1, or add "axScreenReader": true to settings.</li>
<li>Added <code>vimInsertModeRemaps</code> setting: map two-key insert-mode sequences like <code>jj</code> to Escape in vim mode</li>
<li>Added <code>CLAUDE_CODE_PROCESS_WRAPPER</code>: agent view and the background service now honor a corporate launcher by running every Claude Code self-spawn through a required wrapper executable</li>
<li>Added mouse-click support for multi-select menus and "Other" input rows in fullscreen mode</li>
<li>Fixed fast mode staying off after switching back to a model that supports it — it now restores automatically when enabled in settings</li>
<li>Fixed replies typed to a background agent being lost when delivery fails — the text is now saved and delivered when the session restarts</li>
<li>Fixed background-session attach failing permanently ("Couldn't start the background daemon") after an update replaced the binary a running <code>claude agents</code> process was launched from</li>
<li>Fixed the context window (and auto-compact indicator) briefly resetting to 200k after the CLI auto-updates, causing a false "100% context used" when resuming long-context sessions</li>
<li>Fixed supervised and background sessions crashing when a server closed an HTTP/2 connection with a GOAWAY while requests were in flight</li>
<li>Fixed truncated stream-json/JSON output and missing result message when piping large responses from <code>claude -p</code></li>
<li>Fixed <code>CLAUDE_CODE_MAX_OUTPUT_TOKENS</code> and similar env vars silently using the mantissa of scientific-notation values (<code>1e6</code> became <code>1</code>)</li>
<li>Fixed very large markdown tables stalling rendering or using excessive memory; tables over 200 rows show the first 200 with a "… N more rows" notice</li>
<li>Fixed the Edit tool failing on files modified after reading when the target text still matches uniquely</li>
<li>Fixed Read reporting empty files as "shorter than offset", Grep silently returning "No files found" for invalid regex patterns, Grep count mode under-reporting totals when paginated, and Glob crashing with an unclear error when the pattern, path, or working directory contained a null byte</li>
<li>Fixed <code>apiKeyHelper</code> script failures being hidden behind a generic 401 after ~10 silent retries; the script's own error is now shown within 3 attempts</li>
<li>Fixed Bedrock streaming requests failing with a misleading "Truncated event message received" when a gateway transforms the response — the error now names the content-type and points at the proxy</li>
<li>Fixed <code>/upgrade</code> showing a login flow instead of the upgrade URL when the browser fails to open</li>
<li>Fixed stream-json input killing the session on blank CRLF or whitespace-only lines from Windows-style SDK hosts</li>
<li>Fixed headless stream-json sessions hanging permanently when a <code>control_request</code> carried a non-string <code>set_model</code> payload; the CLI now answers with an error response</li>
<li>Fixed repeated "No completion record was found" notices on session resume — orphaned background tasks now collapse into a single summary</li>
<li>Fixed Remote Control clients attaching to a terminal-hosted session not seeing background agents and workflow progress until a task started or stopped</li>
<li>Fixed the Agent tool launching with no tools when a subagent's <code>tools</code> list resolves to nothing — it now returns a clear error naming the unrecognized entries</li>
<li>Fixed <code>/usage</code> showing stale cached bars over fresher data, and <code>/mcp</code> not reclassifying placeholder servers after config edits</li>
<li>Fixed "Change directory" in SDK hosts (e.g. Claude Desktop) failing with "A turn is in progress" on idle sessions that have a running background task</li>
<li>Fixed the workflow save dialog showing <code>~/.claude/workflows/</code> instead of the <code>CLAUDE_CONFIG_DIR</code> location for user-scope saves</li>
<li>Fixed <code>/release-notes</code> adding the viewed notes to the model's context — "Show all" previously injected the entire changelog into every subsequent request</li>
<li>Fixed a memory leak in the agent view where pasted images were retained for the screen's lifetime after sending peek replies</li>
<li>Fixed SDK sessions losing agents defined via the initialize request when a plugin refresh ran before the client attached</li>
<li>Fixed several memory leaks in long sessions: MCP stdio server stderr accumulating up to 64 MB per server, LSP documents staying open indefinitely (now LRU with 50-doc cap), async hook output retained after backgrounding, and unbounded growth in headless/SDK sessions from large tool-result payloads</li>
<li>Fixed a memory blowup when reading files with extremely long single lines using offset/limit — the read now returns a clean error instead of loading the whole line</li>
<li>Fixed multi-second per-turn slowdowns in sessions with many permission deny/ask rules — rule matchers are now compiled once and cached</li>
<li>Improved input responsiveness while agent task lists update — task updates no longer re-render the entire UI</li>
<li>Reduced per-tool-call CPU overhead in print/SDK sessions with many MCP tools by caching tool-pool assembly (up to 7x faster tool rounds at high tool counts)</li>
<li>Reduced memory usage by bounding the file edit read cache to 16 MB instead of pinning up to 1,000 full files</li>
<li>Reduced session transcript size (up to 79x in edit-heavy sessions) and bounded checkpoint disk usage by pruning superseded file-history backups</li>
<li>Reduced memory usage when resuming sessions with background agents or forks spawned from large conversations</li>
<li>Completed background agents now stay listed in <code>/tasks</code> until cleanup instead of vanishing the moment they finish</li>
<li>Attaching to a stopped background agent now shows its transcript immediately while the session warms up, instead of a blank "Session is starting" screen</li>
<li>Background sessions: an older daemon no longer silently restarts workers spawned by a newer version onto the older binary</li>
<li>Agent view: Ctrl+X now deletes renamed-branch worktrees, never destroys unpushed commits, keeps the session row when a worktree is kept, and reused worktree names reset to the current base</li>
<li>Catastrophic removals (e.g. <code>rm -rf ~</code>) in commands containing <code>$(…)</code>/backticks/<code>&lt;(…)</code> now prompt in <code>--dangerously-skip-permissions</code> and auto mode, matching the plain form</li>
<li><code>/install-github-app</code> and the <code>/mcp</code> settings menu no longer open in background sessions</li>
<li>MCP servers configured with an empty URL now show as "not configured" in <code>/mcp</code> instead of a config error</li>
<li><code>/usage</code> now shows your last-known usage bars with an "as of" note when the usage endpoint is rate-limited, instead of an error screen</li>
<li>Fixed Bedrock auth failing with "Session token not found or invalid" for AWS SSO profiles whose sso_region differs from the Bedrock region (2.1.207 regression)</li>
</ul>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[OpenClaw becomes a nonprofit foundation as it seeks to be ‘the Switzerland of AI’]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[OpenClaw’s announcement that it has become a nonprofit foundation is generating IT excitement because of the potential for governance and development consistency that the popular platform has thus far lacked. Still, some worry about the risks created by the move. 



“Our ambition is for OpenClaw...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3666484/it-nachrichten/openclaw-becomes-a-nonprofit-foundation-as-it-seeks-to-be-the-switzerland-of-ai/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3666484/it-nachrichten/openclaw-becomes-a-nonprofit-foundation-as-it-seeks-to-be-the-switzerland-of-ai/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2026 23:17:44 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">OpenClaw’s announcement that it has become a nonprofit foundation is generating IT excitement because of the potential for governance and development consistency that <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4128257/openclaw-the-ai-agent-thats-got-humans-taking-orders-from-bots.html" target="_blank">the popular platform </a>has thus far lacked. Still, some worry about the risks created by the move. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Our ambition is for OpenClaw to be the Switzerland of AI. Neutral ground where every model and every lab can plug into the technology and collaborate on standards in the era of agents,” <a href="https://openclaw.ai/blog/introducing-openclaw-foundation/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">OpenClaw said in a post</a>. “That work is already underway in Foundation-convened councils on agent identity, agent profiles, evals, and enterprise deployment.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The statement, co-authored by OpenClaw creator <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/steipete/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Peter Steinberger</a>, pointed out, “the great open source projects of our time — Linux, Apache, Mozilla — endure because a neutral steward stands behind them. That is the role we are taking on to keep OpenClaw MIT licensed, open, and independent so that everyone building on it can trust it will be here for the long term.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But it reassured users that the original OpenClaw leadership is still in charge.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Peter built this thing and Peter keeps making the calls, especially the technical ones. Since joining OpenAI earlier this year, he has continued to steward OpenClaw as an open and independent project, and OpenAI has made a commitment to keep it that way,” the post said. “The foundation is here to serve: good governance, stable funding, and paying the people who keep the claws alive.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">However, some analysts and consultants were skeptical about how much true independence Steinberger would have, given his salaried role with OpenAI. </p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Neutrality claim in question</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The Switzerland of AI neutrality claim collapses under its own announcement,” said <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/noah-m-kenney-27499a166/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Noah Kenney</a>, principal consultant at Digital 520. “OpenAI runs a team [at OpenAI] called Claw Labs that Peter leads and OpenAI is a major donor to OpenClaw. The ‘neutral steward’s’ chief technical decision maker is employed by one of the competing labs it is supposed to be neutral with.” To OpenAI, he said, OpenClaw is closer to a tax-exempt nonprofit subsidiary than it is to a neutral ‘Switzerland of AI.’</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">He pointed out that, in addition, Microsoft is shipping <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4173442/enterpriseclaw-wants-to-bring-governance-to-the-openclaw-era-2.html" target="_blank">the enterprise version</a> of OpenClaw, and Nvidia is shipping the hardware bundle. “This is being called the Switzerland of AI, but Switzerland does not have its central bank run by France,” he observed.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Kenney said that what the new OpenClaw has actually built is “a shared dependency that several competitors fund, staff, and steer, wrapped in a nonprofit structure. Enterprise IT should understand that structure, because treating OpenClaw as neutral is a mistake,” adding that CIOs need to look at this development devoid of the emotional component. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“There is a strategic irony here that CIOs should sit with,” Kenney said. “If OpenClaw succeeds at becoming the universal agent substrate, then every model plugs into the same identity layer, the same profiles, and the same deployment plumbing. The thing every vendor is racing to own becomes a commodity that nobody owns.” He pointed out that, in the short term, that is genuinely good news for buyers because it means less lock-in and more portability.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“But,” he said, “when the connective tissue is free and natural, the only labs that benefit are the ones with the best models and the deepest distribution. Commoditize the layer below you and you compete on the layer where you are already strongest. The foundation is not a charity. It is the biggest players agreeing to stop fighting over the plumbing so they can fight over the water, and the enterprise is the one paying the water bill either way.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Good news, bad news</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://moorinsightsstrategy.com/team/jason-andersen/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Jason Andersen</a>, principal analyst at Moor Insights &amp; Strategy, liked the potential consistency that could emerge from the structural change, given the complexity of agent development today. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“We are seeing a lot of OpenClaw variants hit the market, such as those from Nvidia as well as competing products from cloud and SaaS vendors. A common base helps solidify the common parts,” Andersen noted. “That said, a common challenge is the sustainability of these open source foundations over time. In addition to releasing code, these foundations need funding to evolve and grow. And that funding needs to come from continued momentum to incentivize existing members to increase investment and recruit new members to join.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Andersen stressed that IT buyers need to keep an eye on the roadmap for any OpenClaw variant they choose to deploy, “as that will directly impact the foundation, and the momentum of the foundation and common base. If the common base loses momentum, it can lead to forks, or just a loss of innovation. When that happens, members tend to back away, which puts customers in limbo.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But not everyone sees the promised structure as entirely good for IT.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/ishraqkhann/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Ishraq Khan</a>, CEO at coding productivity tool vendor Kodezi, said, “most CIOs do not want to bet their future entirely on a single model vendor. They want Claude for some workloads, GPT for others, open models for sensitive environments, and potentially internally fine-tuned systems for specific use cases. The problem is that every vendor currently brings its own identity system, tool interfaces, permissions model, and operational assumptions. That fragmentation does not scale.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">He said, “the risk if standards fail is straightforward: every vendor builds its own closed ecosystem, enterprises become locked into individual stacks, and security becomes dramatically harder. The opportunity if OpenClaw succeeds is equally significant: enterprises get portable agents, common identity standards, interoperable tooling, and a healthier competitive market around models rather than ecosystems.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Will it remain a nonprofit?</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">However, said <a href="https://acceligence.com/talent/profiles/justin-greis/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Justin Greis</a>, CEO of consulting firm Acceligence, one of the key details that IT executives will want to keep in mind is that OpenAI also began as a nonprofit, but it was quickly <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4056490/openai-microsoft-discuss-shape-of-future-relationship.html" target="_blank">seen as not adhering to nonprofit objectives</a>. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“OpenAI’s transition from a nonprofit research organization into a more complex structure highlighted the challenge of maintaining mission alignment while scaling technology, capital, partnerships, and commercial operations,” Greis said. “OpenClaw has the opportunity to address some of those governance questions earlier by establishing clear principles around neutrality, transparency, and decision-making before the ecosystem becomes even larger and more valuable.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">He noted, “we have seen this pattern before with technologies like Linux and Kubernetes. The strongest open ecosystems succeeded because they created trusted foundations that enterprises could build upon. The technology was important, but the governance model that underpinned it was equally critical.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Risks are ‘squarely in IT’s lap’</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Consultant <a href="https://formergov.com/directory/brianlevine" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Brian Levine</a>, executive director of FormerGov, echoed Greis’ concerns. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“CIOs shouldn’t assume that this nonprofit will always be a nonprofit, or confuse being a nonprofit with actually being neutral or unbiased,” he said. “The risks are squarely in IT’s lap: autonomous agents ‘with their own identity’ acting on a user’s behalf blow straight through traditional IAM assumptions. Issues, such as agent identity, auditability, secret handling. Identity boundaries have not yet been reliably solved. Until they are, enterprises should treat OpenClaw agents like privileged service accounts, not like a browser plugin.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Independent cybersecurity and risk advisor <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/steveneric/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Steven Eric Fisher</a> pointed to another IT exposure that might come from this OpenClaw transition: Cost.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“OpenClaw currently has a very high token burn rate in usage, which presents a significant cost consideration for large-scale enterprise adoption,” he said. “The skills marketplace introduces <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/4129867/what-cisos-need-to-know-about-clawdbot-i-mean-moltbot-i-mean-openclaw.html" target="_blank">a new supply chain threat </a>that enterprises will need to manage. Threat management, and specifically handling <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/4135449/compromised-npm-package-silently-installs-openclaw-on-developer-machines.html" target="_blank">external marketplace elements</a>, can be highly challenging for open-source operations. Ultimately, at scale, enterprise adoption could become a difficult balancing act between managing high operational costs and securing an expanded security surface.”</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[America May Soon Be Facing Largest Labor Shortage in Its History]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[America "is facing what's projected to become the largest labor shortage in its history," according to experts interviewed by the Washington Post:



Economists warn that the worsening labor problem, due in part to a skills shortage and population shifts, will be vast and reach beyond tech. It "c...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3666243/it-security-nachrichten/america-may-soon-be-facing-largest-labor-shortage-in-its-history/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3666243/it-security-nachrichten/america-may-soon-be-facing-largest-labor-shortage-in-its-history/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2026 21:23:55 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[America "is facing what's projected to become the largest labor shortage in its history," according to experts interviewed by the Washington Post:



Economists warn that the worsening labor problem, due in part to a skills shortage and population shifts, will be vast and reach beyond tech. It "could hobble the American economy for years to come," predicts the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. Lightcast, a labor market data company, calls it "the largest labor shortage the country has ever seen." JPMorgan Chase warns of a national security risk from "a pervasive talent deficit that constrains the nation's capacity to build, compete, and protect its interests." There will be shortages in the tens or even hundreds of thousands of nurses, physicians, teachers, engineers, pharmacists, mental health counselors, construction worker and airplane mechanics — jobs AI generally can't do... 

Among the trends that have been leading to this moment: a mismatch between the careers college graduates are pursuing and the jobs employers are struggling to fill. Far fewer students are majoring in health care fields than are needed to meet demand, for instance. "We have pumped so many young people into business and finance" when what's really in demand are graduates in other fields, [said Ron Hetrick, Lightcast's principal economist]. "It's like a factory producing these workers like widgets, even though society is saying, 'We really don't need them.' And the factory just keeps pumping them out." But the principal reason for the looming workforce shortages is much more basic. A protracted decline in birth rates is coinciding with a record wave of retirements, data shows. 

From 2024 to 2032, when the last baby boomers sign up for Social Security payments, more than 18 million college-educated workers will leave the labor force while fewer than 14 million enter it, according to the Georgetown center. Meanwhile, even as the number of people with associate and bachelor's degrees falls, the number of jobs requiring them will grow, the center forecasts. That will leave a gap of 4.6 million workers. Lightcast puts the deficit at an even higher 6 million... The effect of population shifts on the supply of talent, with or without degrees, has been compounded by a drop in the proportion of high school graduates choosing to go to college, a sharply reduced rate of immigration, and a growing number of Americans leaving the workforce altogether because of such issues as lack of child care, early retirement, incarceration and substance addiction, according to the Chamber of Commerce.
 

Three interesting statistics from the article:

U.S. college/university enrollment in 2023 was down by nearly 2 million students since its peak in 2010, according to the most recent data from the U.S. Education Department.
America's low birth rate since 2010 "means the number of college-age Americans is forecast to decline by another 13 percent through 2041."
South Dakota has just 41 workers for every 100 open jobs... while California and nine other states have more workers than jobs, the Chamber of Commerce found.<p></p><div class="share_submission">
<a class="slashpop" href="http://twitter.com/home?status=America+May+Soon+Be+Facing+Largest+Labor+Shortage+in+Its+History%3A+https%3A%2F%2Fit.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F26%2F07%2F13%2F0443258%2F%3Futm_source%3Dtwitter%26utm_medium%3Dtwitter"><img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/twitter_icon_large.png"></a>
<a class="slashpop" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fit.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F26%2F07%2F13%2F0443258%2Famerica-may-soon-be-facing-largest-labor-shortage-in-its-history%3Futm_source%3Dslashdot%26utm_medium%3Dfacebook"><img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/facebook_icon_large.png"></a>



</div><p><a href="https://it.slashdot.org/story/26/07/13/0443258/america-may-soon-be-facing-largest-labor-shortage-in-its-history?utm_source=rss1.0moreanon&amp;utm_medium=feed">Read more of this story</a> at Slashdot.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Günstiger Kleinwagen mit guter Ausstattung: Dieser Leasing-Deal ist für Sparfüchse einen Blick wert]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Bei niedriger Leasing-Rate bringt das Modell unter anderem Ganzjahresreifen, ein Winterpaket und eine umfangreiche Serienausstattung mit.]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3665784/it-nachrichten/guenstiger-kleinwagen-mit-guter-ausstattung-dieser-leasing-deal-ist-fuer-sparfuechse-einen-blick-wert/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3665784/it-nachrichten/guenstiger-kleinwagen-mit-guter-ausstattung-dieser-leasing-deal-ist-fuer-sparfuechse-einen-blick-wert/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2026 18:05:04 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Bei niedriger Leasing-Rate bringt das Modell unter anderem Ganzjahresreifen, ein Winterpaket und eine umfangreiche Serienausstattung mit.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[GameSir G7 Pro 8K PC Aimlabs im Test: 8K bringt nix, der Rest den Geheimtipp-Status]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Die verbesserte Version des G7 Pro schraubt die Polling-Rate auf 8.000 Hz und wirbt mit einem Trainings-Simulator Aimlabs, der Shooter-Spielern beim Üben helfen soll. Das ist allerdings nicht der Grund, warum sich das Gamepad lohnt und am Ende sogar als Geheimtipp empfiehlt. Alle Details im Test.]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3665209/it-nachrichten/gamesir-g7-pro-8k-pc-aimlabs-im-test-8k-bringt-nix-der-rest-den-geheimtipp-status/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3665209/it-nachrichten/gamesir-g7-pro-8k-pc-aimlabs-im-test-8k-bringt-nix-der-rest-den-geheimtipp-status/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2026 14:33:11 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<img src="https://pics.computerbase.de/1/2/2/6/8/9-7c8c7357235f571f/article-640x360.61c785e2.jpg"><p>Die verbesserte Version des G7 Pro schraubt die Polling-Rate auf 8.000 Hz und wirbt mit einem Trainings-Simulator Aimlabs, der Shooter-Spielern beim Üben helfen soll. Das ist allerdings nicht der Grund, warum sich das Gamepad lohnt und am Ende sogar als Geheimtipp empfiehlt. Alle Details im Test.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Anthropic Delays The Fable 5 Paywall And Extends Free Access]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[If you have been waiting to try out the newest artificial intelligence models, there is some good news. The company Anthropic decided to give paid subscribers a little more time to test out the Fable 5 model without charging them extra money. It pushed back the paywall date again, giving users an...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3664723/ios-mac-os/anthropic-delays-the-fable-5-paywall-and-extends-free-access/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3664723/ios-mac-os/anthropic-delays-the-fable-5-paywall-and-extends-free-access/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2026 11:09:41 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🍏 iOS / Mac OS</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[If you have been waiting to try out the newest artificial intelligence models, there is some good news. The company Anthropic decided to give paid subscribers a little more time to test out the Fable 5 model without charging them extra money. It pushed back the paywall date again, giving users another chance to test out this capable system before the new pay-per-use rules actually begin.



Paid subscribers get to test the model until mid-July



When the company pushed out its recent Mythos class release, things got a bit complicated. The launch dealt with export restrictions in several countries right away. After that hurdle, it announced a shift to a strict pay-per-use system. This meant that people who already paid for premium plans would eventually have to spend more money just to keep using the new tool.



Now, the company has updated its plans on X. It stated that Fable 5 will stay available to paid subscribers until July 19, 2026. This new date replaces the previous cutoff of July 12. It is also keeping the higher weekly usage limits for Claude Code in place for another week, which is a nice bonus.



The new tool uses up your weekly allowance much faster



This extension acts as a free trial for anyone wanting to use the AI model for large projects, coding, or writing tasks. You will not see an extra charge on your bill right now, but there is a major catch to keep in mind. Fable 5 burns through your weekly usage limits at a much faster rate than older models do.



You can use it at no extra charge until you consume exactly half of your plan's weekly quota. Once you reach that halfway mark, you have to either switch back to a different model or buy usage credits to keep going. This limited access works across the web, mobile apps, desktop versions, and other integrations.



If the company sticks to this new July 19 deadline, Fable 5 will drop out of the standard paid subscriptions. After that date passes, you will need to buy separate credits to use them.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Why the future of customer service is resolution, not fast replies]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Most AI agents today are optimised for responsiveness—faster first responses, shorter wait times, higher service rates. And on those metrics, they’re delivering.



It’s no surprise then that 90% of business leaders believe their customers are satisfied with conversational AI experiences. Yet onl...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3664616/it-nachrichten/why-the-future-of-customer-service-is-resolution-not-fast-replies/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3664616/it-nachrichten/why-the-future-of-customer-service-is-resolution-not-fast-replies/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2026 10:18:32 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p>Most AI agents today are optimised for responsiveness—faster first responses, shorter wait times, higher service rates. And on those metrics, they’re delivering.</p>



<p>It’s no surprise then that 90% of business leaders believe their customers are satisfied with conversational AI experiences. Yet only 59% of consumers agree, according to <a href="https://www.twilio.com/en-us/report/Inside-the-Conversational-AI-Revolution?utm_source=foundry&amp;utm_medium=contentsyn&amp;utm_campaign=abm_brand_icp_sa_aw_tofu_apac_en&amp;utm_content=abm_lo_cs_ungatedcontent_future-of-cs_brandposthub" target="_blank" rel="sponsored">Twilio’s latest report on conversational AI</a>.</p>



<p>What could explain this 31-point gap? The data is unambiguous. 54% of consumers say AI agents rarely have context about them as a customer. 78% say the ability to escalate to a human is important, yet few get the chance to do so. And only 15% report experiencing a seamless handoff from an AI agent to a human one.</p>



<p>All this to say that the real measure of an AI agent isn’t how fast it answers, but whether it solves the problem. In fact, 72% of consumers would choose an AI over a human if it could resolve their issue more quickly.</p>



<p>Speed without resolution will only result in frustration.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Why most AI agents aren’t great at resolution</h2>



<p>It’s not hard to see why most AI agents fail to resolve customer issues: they can’t take action on behalf of the customer, they can’t escalate conversations when they reach their limits, and they lack the real-time context needed to personalise the interaction.</p>



<p>Think about what a typical AI service interaction looks like. A customer calls with a billing question. The AI agent reads their intent accurately enough. But it can’t pull up the customer’s account in real time, process a credit, or route to a human specialist who knows the context of the conversation. So the customer repeats themselves. Or simply gives up.</p>



<p>The root cause is structural. In most stacks, the channel is the system of record, not the conversation. Voice, SMS, chat, and WhatsApp each run as separate sessions, so the moment a customer switches channels or escalates to a human, the interaction resets. Engineering teams paper over this by stuffing full transcripts into AI prompts to fake continuity. This inflates token costs, slows responses, and still truncates older context once the window fills up.</p>



<p>This is the gap between a chatbot and an agent. A chatbot responds. An agent resolves. It’s no wonder that the 59% of organisations planning to fully replace their current conversational AI solution within the year understand this distinction. Their early investments were simply optimised for the wrong outcome.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><a></a>What resolution actually requires</h2>



<p>A smarter agent only gets you so far. Businesses need four capabilities to close the resolution gap:</p>



<ol class="wp-block-list">
<li>Agency: Agents must be able to take real action, such as scheduling, processing, and updating records, within the conversation itself.</li>



<li>Always-on monitoring: Agents should continuously evaluate the quality of interactions and catch failures before they become customer complaints</li>



<li>Intelligent routing: Agents should escalate issues with full context so that humans can pick up where they left off.</li>



<li>Real-time contextual data: Agents should have the same customer context as a well-prepared human agent. This includes purchase history, past interactions, account status, and preferences.</li>
</ol>



<p>None of these are speculative. They’re available today, and the companies deploying them are already seeing the difference.</p>



<p>Case in point: OhMD, a healthcare communications platform for physician practices and medical groups. The company built Nia, an AI-powered voice assistant that uses Twilio’s Conversation Relay to handle routine patient calls (scheduling, prescription refills, FAQs). Complex calls are routed to staff with full context, which saves patients from repeating themselves.</p>



<p>The results were immediate. OhMD saw a 60% improvement in self-service first-call resolution, with appointment scheduling flows completing in as little as one minute. By 2026, Nia is projected to handle more than 55 million patient interactions annually.</p>



<p>As Twilio CEO Khozema Shipchandler noted, “What we’re starting to see with OhMD is that they’ve got a 60% lift in self-serve capability to actually resolve calls. They’re able to drive the conclusion of these calls in less than a minute in many instances.”</p>



<p>Patients aren’t impressed because the phone rang once. They’re impressed because the call ended with their problem solved.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Think resolution, not speed</h2>



<p>For every customer service leader evaluating their AI agent roadmap, the implication is straightforward. Stop measuring success by response time alone. Start measuring it by resolution rate—specifically, self-service resolution rate.</p>



<p>That means investing not in faster replies, but in smarter infrastructure: agents that act, routing that adapts, data that flows in real time, and monitoring that holds the system accountable.</p>



<p>The future of customer service isn’t about answering faster. It’s about answering fully.         </p>



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity">



<p>To learn more about Twilio, visit <a href="https://www.twilio.com/en-us/why-twilio?utm_source=foundry&amp;utm_medium=contentsyn&amp;utm_campaign=abm_brand_icp_sa_aw_tofu_apac_en&amp;utm_content=abm_lo_cs_ungatedcontent_end-cta-future-of-cs_brandposthub" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">here</a>.<a></a></p>



<p></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[VEXAIoT AI Agents Achieve 95% Success in Autonomous IoT Exploitation]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[A new multi-agent framework called VEXAIoT uses large language model (LLM) reasoning to autonomously discover and exploit vulnerabilities in Internet of Things (IoT) environments. Developed by Katherine Swinea and colleagues at Tennessee Tech University, the system achieved a 95.0% overall succes...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3664570/it-security-nachrichten/vexaiot-ai-agents-achieve-95-success-in-autonomous-iot-exploitation/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3664570/it-security-nachrichten/vexaiot-ai-agents-achieve-95-success-in-autonomous-iot-exploitation/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2026 09:53:07 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A new multi-agent framework called VEXAIoT uses large language model (LLM) reasoning to autonomously discover and exploit vulnerabilities in Internet of Things (IoT) environments. Developed by Katherine Swinea and colleagues at Tennessee Tech University, the system achieved a 95.0% overall success rate across 260 attack executions. IoT devices remain a persistent security weak point because […]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://cyberpress.org/vexaiot-ai-agents-achieve-95-success/">VEXAIoT AI Agents Achieve 95% Success in Autonomous IoT Exploitation</a> appeared first on <a href="https://cyberpress.org/">Cyber Security News</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[New VEXAIoT AI Agents Autonomously Exploit IoT Vulnerabilities With 95% Success Rate]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[VEXAIoT, an autonomous multi-agent framework designed to discover and exploit vulnerabilities in the Internet of Things (IoT) within controlled test environments. In 200 attack trials against the intentionally vulnerable IoTGoat platform, the system completed 189 attacks, achieving an overall suc...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3664551/it-security-nachrichten/new-vexaiot-ai-agents-autonomously-exploit-iot-vulnerabilities-with-95-success-rate/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3664551/it-security-nachrichten/new-vexaiot-ai-agents-autonomously-exploit-iot-vulnerabilities-with-95-success-rate/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2026 09:38:48 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>VEXAIoT, an autonomous multi-agent framework designed to discover and exploit vulnerabilities in the Internet of Things (IoT) within controlled test environments. In 200 attack trials against the intentionally vulnerable IoTGoat platform, the system completed 189 attacks, achieving an overall success…</p>
<p class="more-link-p"><a class="more-link" href="https://www.itsecuritynews.info/new-vexaiot-ai-agents-autonomously-exploit-iot-vulnerabilities-with-95-success-rate/">Read more →</a></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.itsecuritynews.info/new-vexaiot-ai-agents-autonomously-exploit-iot-vulnerabilities-with-95-success-rate/">New VEXAIoT AI Agents Autonomously Exploit IoT Vulnerabilities With 95% Success Rate</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.itsecuritynews.info/">IT Security News</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[New VEXAIoT AI Agents Autonomously Exploit IoT Vulnerabilities With 95% Success Rate]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[VEXAIoT, an autonomous multi-agent framework designed to discover and exploit vulnerabilities in the Internet of Things (IoT) within controlled test environments. In 200 attack trials against the intentionally vulnerable IoTGoat platform, the system completed 189 attacks, achieving an overall suc...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3664479/it-security-nachrichten/new-vexaiot-ai-agents-autonomously-exploit-iot-vulnerabilities-with-95-success-rate/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3664479/it-security-nachrichten/new-vexaiot-ai-agents-autonomously-exploit-iot-vulnerabilities-with-95-success-rate/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2026 09:07:53 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>VEXAIoT, an autonomous multi-agent framework designed to discover and exploit vulnerabilities in the Internet of Things (IoT) within controlled test environments. In 200 attack trials against the intentionally vulnerable IoTGoat platform, the system completed 189 attacks, achieving an overall success rate of 94.5% (rounded to 95%). New VEXAIoT AI Agents Attack Workflow VEXAIoT, short for […]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://gbhackers.com/new-vexaiot-ai-agents-autonomously-exploit-iot-vulnerabilities/">New VEXAIoT AI Agents Autonomously Exploit IoT Vulnerabilities With 95% Success Rate</a> appeared first on <a href="https://gbhackers.com/">GBHackers Security | #1 Globally Trusted Cyber Security News Platform</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[America May Soon Be Facing It's Largest Labor Shortage in Its History]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[America "is facing what's projected to become the largest labor shortage in its history," according to experts interviewed by the Washington Post:



Economists warn that the worsening labor problem, due in part to a skills shortage and population shifts, will be vast and reach beyond tech. It "c...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3664269/it-security-nachrichten/america-may-soon-be-facing-its-largest-labor-shortage-in-its-history/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3664269/it-security-nachrichten/america-may-soon-be-facing-its-largest-labor-shortage-in-its-history/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2026 07:22:59 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[America "is facing what's projected to become the largest labor shortage in its history," according to experts interviewed by the Washington Post:



Economists warn that the worsening labor problem, due in part to a skills shortage and population shifts, will be vast and reach beyond tech. It "could hobble the American economy for years to come," predicts the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. Lightcast, a labor market data company, calls it "the largest labor shortage the country has ever seen." JPMorgan Chase warns of a national security risk from "a pervasive talent deficit that constrains the nation's capacity to build, compete, and protect its interests." There will be shortages in the tens or even hundreds of thousands of nurses, physicians, teachers, engineers, pharmacists, mental health counselors, construction worker and airplane mechanics — jobs AI generally can't do... 

Among the trends that have been leading to this moment: a mismatch between the careers college graduates are pursuing and the jobs employers are struggling to fill. Far fewer students are majoring in health care fields than are needed to meet demand, for instance. "We have pumped so many young people into business and finance" when what's really in demand are graduates in other fields, [said Ron Hetrick, Lightcast's principal economist]. "It's like a factory producing these workers like widgets, even though society is saying, 'We really don't need them.' And the factory just keeps pumping them out." But the principal reason for the looming workforce shortages is much more basic. A protracted decline in birth rates is coinciding with a record wave of retirements, data shows. 

From 2024 to 2032, when the last baby boomers sign up for Social Security payments, more than 18 million college-educated workers will leave the labor force while fewer than 14 million enter it, according to the Georgetown center. Meanwhile, even as the number of people with associate and bachelor's degrees falls, the number of jobs requiring them will grow, the center forecasts. That will leave a gap of 4.6 million workers. Lightcast puts the deficit at an even higher 6 million... The effect of population shifts on the supply of talent, with or without degrees, has been compounded by a drop in the proportion of high school graduates choosing to go to college, a sharply reduced rate of immigration, and a growing number of Americans leaving the workforce altogether because of such issues as lack of child care, early retirement, incarceration and substance addiction, according to the Chamber of Commerce.
 

Three interesting statistics from the article:

U.S. college/university enrollment in 2023 was down by nearly 2 million students since its peak in 2010, according to the most recent data from the U.S. Education Department.
America's low birth rate since 2010 "means the number of college-age Americans is forecast to decline by another 13 percent through 2041."
South Dakota has just 41 workers for every 100 open jobs... while California and nine other states have more workers than jobs, the Chamber of Commerce found.
<p></p><div class="share_submission">
<a class="slashpop" href="http://twitter.com/home?status=America+May+Soon+Be+Facing+It's+Largest+Labor+Shortage+in+Its+History%3A+https%3A%2F%2Fit.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F26%2F07%2F13%2F0443258%2F%3Futm_source%3Dtwitter%26utm_medium%3Dtwitter"><img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/twitter_icon_large.png"></a>
<a class="slashpop" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fit.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F26%2F07%2F13%2F0443258%2Famerica-may-soon-be-facing-its-largest-labor-shortage-in-its-history%3Futm_source%3Dslashdot%26utm_medium%3Dfacebook"><img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/facebook_icon_large.png"></a>



</div><p><a href="https://it.slashdot.org/story/26/07/13/0443258/america-may-soon-be-facing-its-largest-labor-shortage-in-its-history?utm_source=rss1.0moreanon&amp;utm_medium=feed">Read more of this story</a> at Slashdot.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[LinkedIn is the undisputed king of long-form AI slop, according to a study spanning five platforms]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[One in four longer social media posts is entirely AI-generated, according to a Pangram analysis. LinkedIn leads with 41 percent of long-form posts flagged as AI-written. The platform made up only a third of all posts scanned but accounted for nearly two-thirds of all detected AI content. Because ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3663619/ai-nachrichten/linkedin-is-the-undisputed-king-of-long-form-ai-slop-according-to-a-study-spanning-five-platforms/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3663619/ai-nachrichten/linkedin-is-the-undisputed-king-of-long-form-ai-slop-according-to-a-study-spanning-five-platforms/</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 12 Jul 2026 18:48:50 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🔧 AI Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img width="2048" height="1152" src="https://the-decoder.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/pangram_logo.png" class="attachment-full size-full wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" fetchpriority="high"></p>
<p>        One in four longer social media posts is entirely AI-generated, according to a Pangram analysis. LinkedIn leads with 41 percent of long-form posts flagged as AI-written. The platform made up only a third of all posts scanned but accounted for nearly two-thirds of all detected AI content. Because the detection model tends to flag content conservatively, the real rate could be even higher.</p>
<p>The article <a href="https://the-decoder.com/linkedin-is-the-undisputed-king-of-long-form-ai-slop-according-to-a-study-spanning-five-platforms/">LinkedIn is the undisputed king of long-form AI slop, according to a study spanning five platforms</a> appeared first on <a href="https://the-decoder.com/">The Decoder</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[What’s new with Google Cloud]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Want to know the latest from Google Cloud? Find it here in one handy location. Check back regularly for our newest updates, announcements, resources, events, learning opportunities, and more. Tip: Not sure where to find what you’re looking for on the Google Cloud blog? Start here: Google Cloud bl...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3662833/it-security-nachrichten/whats-new-with-google-cloud/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3662833/it-security-nachrichten/whats-new-with-google-cloud/</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 12 Jul 2026 08:06:50 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="block-paragraph"><p data-block-key="kgod7">Want to know the latest from Google Cloud? Find it here in one handy location. Check back regularly for our newest updates, announcements, resources, events, learning opportunities, and more. </p><hr><p data-block-key="ru1z9"><b>Tip</b>: Not sure where to find what you’re looking for on the Google Cloud blog? Start here: <a href="https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/inside-google-cloud/complete-list-google-cloud-blog-links-2021">Google Cloud blog 101: Full list of topics, links, and resources</a>.</p><hr><p data-block-key="b0lnw"></p></div>
<div class="block-aside"><dl>
    <dt>aside_block</dt>
    <dd>&lt;ListValue: []&gt;</dd>
</dl></div>
<div class="block-paragraph_advanced"><h3>Jul 6 - Jul 10</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Webinar: Introducing Google Cloud NGFW Enterprise advanced malware protection - powered by Palo Alto Networks<br></strong>Discover the new Cloud NGFW advanced malware sandbox, arriving in preview later this year. Powered by Palo Alto Networks Advanced Wildfire, it leverages data from 70,000+ customers to help defeat advanced malware. Join us on July 16 at 11 AM EDT to learn how to build a resilient, zero-trust cloud infrastructure that protects your apps and data, wherever they reside.<br><br><a class="colors-hyperlink-primary underline focus-visible outline-offset-0 rounded" data-airgap-id="18" href="https://www.brighttalk.com/webcast/18282/668861?utm_source=GCBlog" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">Register for the webinar now</a></li>
<li><strong>Safely run AI-generated code in Cloud Run sandboxes<br></strong>Cloud Run sandboxes, now in public preview, are lightweight, isolated execution boundaries that you can spawn near-instantly <strong>within your existing Cloud Run service instances</strong>.<br><br>Whether you need to let an LLM run a dynamically generated Python script to calculate business margins or spin up a headless browser to perform web research, Cloud Run sandboxes give you a secure, isolated sandbox to run these tasks without leaving your serverless environment.<br><br><a class="colors-hyperlink-primary underline focus-visible outline-offset-0 rounded" data-airgap-id="22" href="https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/developers-practitioners/google-cloud-run-sandboxes-are-in-public-preview" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">Read the blog</a><span> to learn more and get started today.</span></li>
<li><strong>Australia API Horizon: Scaling Enterprise Governed AI Agents<br></strong>The transition from AI chatbots to autonomous agents is the most critical integration point for your business. Join Google Cloud at our upcoming events to explore exclusive deep-dive sessions on architecting for the agentic era.<br><br>Discover how to use Apigee as an intelligent AI Gateway to govern, secure, and scale high-performance architectures. You will learn to seamlessly build AI tools from your existing APIs and maintain control over your entire ecosystem.<br><br>Join us in your preferred city:
<ul>
<li><a class="colors-hyperlink-primary underline focus-visible outline-offset-0 rounded" data-airgap-id="36" href="https://goo.gle/4voh18S" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank"><strong>Sydney:</strong> July 28, 2026, at Google Sydney, One Darling Island.</a></li>
<li><a class="colors-hyperlink-primary underline focus-visible outline-offset-0 rounded" data-airgap-id="37" href="https://goo.gle/4h2x0FS" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank"><strong>Canberra:</strong> July 29, 2026, at Hotel Realm.</a></li>
<li><a class="colors-hyperlink-primary underline focus-visible outline-offset-0 rounded" data-airgap-id="38" href="https://goo.gle/4yisb1F" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank"><strong>Melbourne:</strong> August 4, 2026, at Google Melbourne.</a></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><strong>Build highly available, multi-region services on Cloud Run<br></strong>Maintaining uptime for business-critical applications just got a lot easier on Cloud Run. Service health, now Generally Available, automates cross-region failover by leveraging readiness probes for instance-level health checks with a simple, two-click setup. You can configure service health with global external Application Load Balancers for public-facing applications or cross-region internal Application Load Balancers for private networking traffic.<br><br><a class="colors-hyperlink-primary underline focus-visible outline-offset-0 rounded" data-airgap-id="42" href="https://cloud.google.com/run/docs/configuring/configure-service-health" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">Learn how to configure service health for Cloud Run.</a></li>
<li><strong>Report: 83% of organizations need infrastructure upgrades for agentic AI<br></strong>The shift from conversational bots to autonomous agents is breaking legacy systems. Our new <em>State of AI Infrastructure</em> report details how engineering leaders are adapting to these massive new workloads. To eliminate inference bottlenecks, control hidden scaling costs, and manage agent sprawl, the industry is rapidly moving toward fluid compute, centralized governance, and unified, co-designed architectures.<br><br><a class="colors-hyperlink-primary underline focus-visible outline-offset-0 rounded" data-airgap-id="46" href="https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/compute/state-of-ai-infrastructure-report-overview?e=48754805" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">Explore our key infrastructure insights</a></li>
<li><strong>Stop tinkering, start scaling: the industrialized AI Playbook<br></strong>Did you know that only 5% of custom AI investments actually return measurable business value? The problem isn’t the technology—it’s how organizations are wired to run it.<br><br>In this compelling read, Google Cloud Consulting breaks down the operational blueprint that bridges the stark gap between "cool tech experiments" and real, P&amp;L-impacting enterprise ROI.<br><br><a class="colors-hyperlink-primary underline focus-visible outline-offset-0 rounded" data-airgap-id="50" href="https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fmedium.com%2F%40kjouannigot_73547%2Fscaling-trusted-ai-google-cloud-insights-to-capture-enterprise-roi-aa6c9b308adb" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">Read the full article on Medium</a></li>
<li><strong>AI Agent Clinic: Slashing App Latency by 80%<br></strong>Prototyping an AI agent is easy, but scaling for live traffic presents unique challenges. In the latest AI Agent Clinic, our technical experts partner with a developer to optimize PlaybackIQ, a live football analysis agent. This session demonstrates how to use OpenTelemetry to trace bottlenecks in the Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform and deploy to Cloud Run for high-concurrency scaling, achieving an 80% reduction in response time. Learn production-grade debugging strategies to optimize your own LLM applications.<br><br><a class="colors-hyperlink-primary underline focus-visible outline-offset-0 rounded" data-airgap-id="54" href="https://www.google.com/search?q=https://youtu.be/G7olcqETSn8" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">Watch the 60-minute teardown</a></li>
</ul>
<h3 data-draftjs-conductor-fragment='{"blocks":[{"key":"865rk","text":"Week of Dec 16 - Dec 20","type":"header-three","depth":0,"inlineStyleRanges":[],"entityRanges":[],"data":{}}],"entityMap":{}}'>Jun 29 - Jul 3</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Claude Sonnet 5, Anthropic’s latest model, is now available on Agent Platform</strong>. <br>This addition serves as a drop-in replacement for Sonnet 4.6, giving organizations expanded choice for task completion across enterprise workflows. It features enhanced reasoning, cleaner code generation, and computer use capabilities for desktop and browser workflows.<br><br>By continuing to rapidly bring frontier models to our platform, Google Cloud offers an uncompromised choice of the industry's best technology to build, test, and scale enterprise-grade AI.<br><br><a class="colors-hyperlink-primary underline focus-visible outline-offset-0 rounded" href="https://console.cloud.google.com/agent-platform/publishers/anthropic/model-garden/claude-sonnet-5?hl=en" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank"><em>Get started today.</em></a></li>
<li>
<p><strong>Automate your AI governance with Apigee and YAML<br></strong><span>Manual API gateway configurations can quickly slow down your AI engineering velocity. Join the Apigee community on Thursday, July 16, to discover an automated, declarative blueprint for model garden management. Learn how a simple, repeatable YAML pattern lets your AI practitioners instantly spin up secure, policy-backed enterprise configurations  without friction. Bring your questions and connect during our live Q&amp;A session. </span></p>
<p><a class="colors-hyperlink-primary underline focus-visible outline-offset-0 rounded" href="https://goo.gle/4y4j44A" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank"><strong>Register for the July 16 Community TechTalk</strong></a></p>
</li>
<li>
<p><strong>Build next-generation AI portals for autonomous agents<br></strong><span>Standard developer portals were designed for human developers to subscribe to static APIs. Today, autonomous agents, LLM toolkits, and dynamic runtimes demand a central nervous system for governance. Join our technical deep dive on Thursday, July 23, to explore Apigee's new AI Portals solution. You will see exactly how to deploy full-service, MCP powered hubs to safely manage enterprise self-service for models, tools, and agents. </span></p>
<p><a class="colors-hyperlink-primary underline focus-visible outline-offset-0 rounded" href="https://goo.gle/4y4j44A" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank"><strong>Register for the July 23 Community TechTalk</strong></a></p>
</li>
<li><strong>Protect your infrastructure from advanced cyberattacks at the API layer (Presented in Portuguese)<br></strong>In an era of increasingly sophisticated threats, relying solely on traditional firewalls leaves critical data gaps. Join our technical community TechTalk on Thursday, July 30—conducted in Portuguese—to learn how to proactively mitigate risks directly at the gateway layer. This session demonstrates how to configure and govern essential Apigee security policies to build a robust line of defense, ensuring maximum availability and complete integrity for your enterprise microservices. <br><br><a class="colors-hyperlink-primary underline focus-visible outline-offset-0 rounded" href="https://goo.gle/4y4j44A" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank"><strong>Register for the July 30 Portuguese Community TechTalk</strong></a></li>
</ul>
<h3 data-draftjs-conductor-fragment='{"blocks":[{"key":"865rk","text":"Week of Dec 16 - Dec 20","type":"header-three","depth":0,"inlineStyleRanges":[],"entityRanges":[],"data":{}}],"entityMap":{}}'>Jun 22 - Jun 26</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Accelerate TPU model loading while saving RAM on GKE.<br></strong>Large model cold starts often stall scaling and leave high-value TPUs idle. The open-source <strong>Run:ai Model Streamer</strong> now natively supports TPUs with Google Cloud Storage in<strong> </strong><a class="colors-hyperlink-primary underline focus-visible outline-offset-0 rounded" href="https://github.com/vllm-project/tpu-inference" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank"><strong>TPU vLLM 0.18.0</strong>.</a> This integration accelerates inference pipelines on GKE by streaming tensors directly into CPU memory, bypassing local disk bottlenecks and the "double-buffering" trap. In benchmarks, loading a 480B parameter model was <strong>over 2x faster</strong> while cutting peak host memory usage by half. <a class="colors-hyperlink-primary underline focus-visible outline-offset-0 rounded" href="https://discuss.google.dev/t/accelerate-tpu-model-loading-while-saving-ram-on-gke/374835" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank"><strong>Read the full guide and get started today</strong></a>.</li>
<li><strong>Stop Training Blind: Scaling AI with the New OpenTelemetry-Based TPU AI Telemetry Collector Agent<br></strong>Google Cloud’s new AI Telemetry Collector agent standardizes TPU monitoring using OpenTelemetry. It optimizes enterprise ML workloads by identifying silent failures and providing zero-cost operational metrics without draining host CPU cycles. The agent seamlessly routes telemetry to Google Cloud Monitoring or Prometheus and custom Grafana setups. Pre-installed on Google-optimized Ubuntu images or available via Docker, it tracks memory, network latency, and core utilization to maximize multi-node training efficiency.<br><br>You can read more of this capability by clicking this <a class="colors-hyperlink-primary underline focus-visible outline-offset-0 rounded" href="https://discuss.google.dev/t/stop-training-blind-scaling-ai-with-the-new-opentelemetry-based-tpu-ai-telemetry-collector-agent/375210" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">link</a>.</li>
</ul>
<h3 data-draftjs-conductor-fragment='{"blocks":[{"key":"865rk","text":"Week of Dec 16 - Dec 20","type":"header-three","depth":0,"inlineStyleRanges":[],"entityRanges":[],"data":{}}],"entityMap":{}}'>Jun 15 - Jun 19</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Join us for a deep dive into agentic AI control with AppyThings<br></strong>Your integrations aren’t failing—they are evolving. When users interact with AI agents, they no longer arrive directly at your site, resulting in experiences stripped of your context, expertise, and intended experience. Join us on Thursday, June 25, for a community tech talk in partnership with AppyThings to learn how to solve this new gateway challenge. We will explore how MTN laid an integration foundation with the Model Context Protocol (MCP) to deliver accurate, consistent experiences. Our technical experts will demonstrate how to leverage Apigee as a centralized tools management solution to govern agent access. <br><br><a class="colors-hyperlink-primary underline focus-visible outline-offset-0 rounded" href="https://goo.gle/3Sfle0y" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank"><strong>Register for the session</strong></a></li>
<li><strong>Optimize Spot VM Deployments with Capacity Advisor for Spot, Now in Public Preview<br></strong>Google Compute Engine has launched <strong>Capacity Advisor for Spot</strong> to Public Preview, now open to all customers. This tool turns Spot capacity discovery into a data-driven process by providing real-time deployment recommendations to maximize obtainability and minimize preemption risks. Query the <a class="colors-hyperlink-primary underline focus-visible outline-offset-0 rounded" href="https://docs.cloud.google.com/compute/docs/instances/view-vm-availability" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank"><strong>Capacity Advisor API</strong></a> for obtainability and minimum estimated uptimes, or use the new <a class="colors-hyperlink-primary underline focus-visible outline-offset-0 rounded" href="https://console.cloud.google.com/compute/capacityAdvisor" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank"><strong>Console UI</strong></a> featuring a global availability map, spot price lookups, and historical preemption rate trends to visually find the most cost-efficient compute capacity.<br><br><a class="colors-hyperlink-primary underline focus-visible outline-offset-0 rounded" href="https://docs.cloud.google.com/compute/docs/instances/view-vm-availability" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">Get started today</a> to start optimizing your Spot VM deployments!</li>
<li><strong>Build a multi-tenant agentic AI system<br></strong>When scaling generative AI across different business units, your teams need specialized AI agents with unique operational rules and tools. Our new reference architecture helps you build a centralized multi-tenant platform to prevent fragmented silos, eliminate data exposure risks, and maintain unified compliance. Read the guide to <a class="colors-hyperlink-primary underline focus-visible outline-offset-0 rounded" href="https://docs.cloud.google.com/architecture/multi-tenant-agentic-ai-system" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">design and deploy a multi-tenant agentic AI system</a> in Google Cloud.</li>
<li><strong>How to Configure Gemini Enterprise to Connect to a Custom MCP Server<br></strong>The Gemini Enterprise MCP Connector was a big announcement at Google Cloud Next because it introduces the ability to connect Gemini Enterprise to MCP servers. This blog <a href="https://medium.com/google-cloud/how-to-configure-gemini-enterprise-to-connect-to-a-custom-mcp-server-2e28adc96420" rel="noopener" target="_blank">post</a> provides a step-by-step guide on how to configure your first Custom MCP Server connector using the Google Maps Ground Lite MCP server as an example. Once you understand this flow, you can configure multiple MCP servers with Gemini Enterprise to bring all the context you need.</li>
</ul>
<h3 data-draftjs-conductor-fragment='{"blocks":[{"key":"865rk","text":"Week of Dec 16 - Dec 20","type":"header-three","depth":0,"inlineStyleRanges":[],"entityRanges":[],"data":{}}],"entityMap":{}}'>Jun 8 - Jun 12</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Simplify Multi-Cloud Planning with Cloud Location Finder, now Generally Available</strong> <br>Cloud Location Finder provides up-to-date data on public regions, zones, and Google Distributed Cloud Connected locations across Google Cloud, AWS, Azure, and OCI. You can now programmatically discover locations based on provider, proximity, territory, and carbon footprint to optimize your global infrastructure strategy for performance, compliance, and sustainability. <br><br><a class="colors-hyperlink-primary underline focus-visible outline-offset-0 rounded" data-airgap-id="14" href="https://cloud.google.com/location-finder/docs" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">Get started for free today</a></li>
</ul>
<h3 data-draftjs-conductor-fragment='{"blocks":[{"key":"865rk","text":"Week of Dec 16 - Dec 20","type":"header-three","depth":0,"inlineStyleRanges":[],"entityRanges":[],"data":{}}],"entityMap":{}}'>Jun 1 - Jun 5</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Modeling the physical world with BigQuery Graph</strong><br>Managing complex supply chains requires more than just spreadsheets; it requires a digital replica of the physical world. In this <a class="colors-hyperlink-primary underline focus-visible outline-offset-0 rounded" href="https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/data-analytics/modeling-a-digital-twin-using-bigquery-graph" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">post</a>, Guru Rangavittal and Candice Chen explore how BigQuery Graph enables organizations to build a digital twin by turning physical assets into an interconnected map of nodes and edges. By moving beyond traditional relational databases, businesses gain real-time clarity into operations—from executing surgical ingredient recalls to analyzing weather-driven logistics risks. Discover how BigQuery Graph transforms reactive firefighting into proactive, precision modeling, allowing you to see critical connections in seconds and future-proof your supply chain.</li>
<li><strong>Apigee for AI: Govern LLMs and MCP Servers (Presented in Spanish)<br></strong>Learn how to securely transition your AI initiatives from experimental prototypes to enterprise-ready deployments. Join Luis Cuellar on June 18 for a technical deep dive (presented in Spanish) exploring Apigee’s latest AI gateway capabilities. Discover how to centralize governance over Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers, protect Large Language Models (LLMs) with robust API gateway security policies, and manage token-based quotas.<br><br><a class="colors-hyperlink-primary underline focus-visible outline-offset-0 rounded" href="https://goo.gle/4dyC2Ie" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank"><strong>Register for the June 18 Spanish Community TechTalk</strong></a></li>
</ul>
<h3 data-draftjs-conductor-fragment='{"blocks":[{"key":"865rk","text":"Week of Dec 16 - Dec 20","type":"header-three","depth":0,"inlineStyleRanges":[],"entityRanges":[],"data":{}}],"entityMap":{}}'>May 25 - May 29</h3>
<ul>
<li>
<p><strong><a href="https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-4-8" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><span>Anthropic’s Claude Opus 4.8</span></a><span> is now available on </span><a href="https://console.cloud.google.com/vertex-ai/publishers/anthropic/model-garden/claude-opus-4-8"><span>Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform</span></a></strong><span><strong>. </strong></span><span>As we continue to expand our platform's model offerings, this addition gives organizations more options for handling complex, multi-stage enterprise workflows. Claude Opus 4.8 brings strong capabilities in agentic coding, allowing developers to manage extensive refactors and tracking dependencies over extended sessions.</span></p>
</li>
<li><strong>API Horizon Munich July 6, 2026: Orchestrating the Next Era of AI and APIs <br></strong>Master the orchestration of next-gen AI and digital ecosystems. Join Google Cloud experts and DACH tech leaders on July 6 for an exclusive look at the Apigee roadmap, Agent Management, and Model Context Protocol (MCP). Gain real-world insights and connect with the regional integration community.<strong><br><br><a href="https://goo.gle/4dTxQmo" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Register now</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Securing AI Agents: The Extended Agent Gateway Pattern<br></strong>Learn how to prevent autonomous AI agents from invoking unauthorized APIs. Join Apigee Specialist Joel Gauci on June 4 for a technical deep dive into the Extended Agent Gateway pattern. This session covers enforcing Fine-Grained Authorization (FGA), implementing secure token exchange, and establishing Model Context Protocol (MCP) governance at the API gateway layer to protect enterprise backend services.<br><br><a href="https://goo.gle/4fbAsxg" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><strong>Register for the June 4 Community TechTalk</strong></a></li>
<li><strong>API-to-Agent Security: Exposing REST APIs to Gemini Enterprise via MCP<br></strong>Connect Gemini Enterprise agents to core data without creating security hazards. Join Google Cloud Specialist Nigel Walters on June 11 to learn how to instantly transform legacy REST APIs into secure Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers. We’ll cover how to safely register tools with Gemini while enforcing gateway-level guardrails like rate limiting and access control policies.<br><br><a href="https://goo.gle/4nVyjIr" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><strong>Register for the June 11 Community TechTalk</strong></a></li>
</ul>
<h3 data-draftjs-conductor-fragment='{"blocks":[{"key":"865rk","text":"Week of Dec 16 - Dec 20","type":"header-three","depth":0,"inlineStyleRanges":[],"entityRanges":[],"data":{}}],"entityMap":{}}'>May 18 - May 22</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Chinese Webinar | June 4: AI Command and Control<br></strong>As AI agents move from experimental pilots to core enterprise functions, governance has become a critical next step. Join Google Cloud on June 4th at 10:00 AM (Beijing Time) to learn how to build a secure AI management layer architecture. We'll explore how to develop governed MCP (Model Context Protocol) endpoints, manage tool access to enterprise data, and leverage robust audit logs to operationalize AI. This session also includes a practical demonstration of these governance frameworks on Google Cloud.<br><br><a href="https://goo.gle/4dx4Lf5" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Register here</a></li>
<li><strong>GCP Announces New Features to Benchmark and Optimize LLMs for On-Device Use Cases<br></strong>Deploying fine-tuned LLMs from GCP to edge devices like smartphones is complex due to fragmented hardware. Google AI Edge Portal bridges this gap, giving GCP developers the ability to test AI performance on 120+ Android devices, representing the full diversity of high, medium, and low tier smartphones on the market today. This week at I/O, we announced brand new <a href="https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/ai-machine-learning/benchmark-llms-on-device-with-ai-edge-portal" rel="noopener" target="_blank">capabilities</a> to benchmark and debug LLM performance across these devices. <a href="https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfTcGPycQve8TLAsfH46pBlXBZe9FrgJAClwbF7DeL1LgVn4Q/viewform" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Sign-up</a> to utilize these new features in private preview today.</li>
</ul>
<h3 data-draftjs-conductor-fragment='{"blocks":[{"key":"865rk","text":"Week of Dec 16 - Dec 20","type":"header-three","depth":0,"inlineStyleRanges":[],"entityRanges":[],"data":{}}],"entityMap":{}}'>May 11 - May 15</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Build Your AI &amp; MCP Control Tower for Universal Governance<br></strong>Master the future of agentic security with Apigee. Join our Community TechTalk on May 21 to discover how Apigee serves as a central "Control Tower" for the Model Context Protocol (MCP). We will explore how new JSON-RPC tool authorization enables fine-grained access policies across your organization, ensuring secure and scalable AI deployments. Whether managing internal tools or external users, learn to govern your agentic ecosystem with absolute precision. This session is designed for global coverage across EMEA and AMER regions.<br><br><a href="https://goo.gle/4u9slWF" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Register for the May 21 Community TechTalk</a></li>
</ul>
<h3 data-draftjs-conductor-fragment='{"blocks":[{"key":"865rk","text":"Week of Dec 16 - Dec 20","type":"header-three","depth":0,"inlineStyleRanges":[],"entityRanges":[],"data":{}}],"entityMap":{}}'>Apr 27 - May 1</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Master Your Launch: The Apigee Production Go-Live Checklist<br></strong>Ensure a secure launch with the Apigee production guide. Join Nicola Cardace on May 28 to explore security guardrails, including IAM roles, mTLS configurations, and encrypted KVM migrations. Scheduled at 11 AM EDT / 5 PM CEST to support EMEA and AMER teams, this TechTalk provides the technical roadmap you need to flip the switch with absolute confidence.<br><br><strong><a href="https://goo.gle/4elMCTI" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Register for the May 28 Community TechTalk</a></strong></li>
<li>
<p><strong>Transforming APIs into Governed Agentic Tools on the Google Cloud Agentic Platform<br></strong><span>Turn your APIs into secure, governed agentic tools on the Google Cloud Agentic Platform. Join Specialist Christophe Lalevée on May 7 for a technical deep dive into AI productization. Scheduled at 5 PM CEST / 11 AM EDT to maximize coverage for developers across EMEA and AMER, this session explores the integration and governance frameworks required to scale enterprise-ready AI with confidence.</span></p>
<p><a href="https://goo.gle/3PfWm7M" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Register for the May 7 Community TechTalk</a></p>
</li>
<li><a href="https://docs.cloud.google.com/compute/docs/accelerator-optimized-machines#g4-machine-types" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Fractional G4 VMs</a> are Generaly Available, providing a highly efficient and cost-effective entry point for AI and graphics workloads. These new configurations, using NVIDIA virtual GPU (vGPU) technology, allow you to leverage the power of the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server Edition GPUs in flexible, smaller increments, so you can right-size your infrastructure to match the specific demands of your applications. By providing more granular access to advanced hardware, fractional G4 VMs let you optimize resource allocation and reduce overhead without sacrificing performance. You can now select from additional GPU slice sizes for your specific needs:
<ul>
<li><strong>1/2 GPU:</strong> Ideal for more intensive tasks such as LLM inference, robotics sensor simulation, and high-fidelity 3D rendering.</li>
<li><strong>1/4 GPU:</strong> Optimized for mainstream workloads, including mid-range creative design, video transcoding, and real-time data visualization.</li>
<li><strong>1/8 GPU:</strong> Great for lightweight applications such as remote desktops, productivity tools, and entry-level streaming services.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>
<p>Transitioning AI from a sandbox prototype to an enterprise-grade system is a major hurdle. A monolithic script won't suffice for widespread deployment. To achieve true scale and reliability with Gemini, organizations must adopt service-oriented micro-agent architectures, establish Zero-Trust security, and implement rigorous EvalOps. Master the "Agentic Maturity Ladder" to ensure your AI &amp; Agentic solutions are robust, secure, and ready for the real world.</p>
<p><a href="https://lnkd.in/gHBH8cTv" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Watch the deep dive</a> and <a href="https://discuss.google.dev/t/beyond-the-prototype-scaling-production-grade-agents-with-gemini/356140" rel="noopener" target="_blank">read the developer blog</a> to learn more.</p>
</li>
<li><strong>ML Development in VS Code with Google Cloud Power: Workbench Extension Now Available<br></strong>Data scientists and developers can now combine the local productivity of VS Code with the scalable infrastructure of Google Cloud. The new Google Cloud Workbench Notebooks extension allows you to connect to and run notebooks on managed cloud environments directly within your local IDE. This integration streamlines the ML lifecycle by eliminating context switching and providing high-performance compute for complex workloads in a familiar interface. As part of our commitment to the developer ecosystem, the extension is fully open-sourced to support community-driven innovation.
<ul>
<li><strong>Install from Marketplace:</strong> <a href="https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=GoogleCloudTools.workbench-notebooks" rel="noopener" target="_blank">GoogleCloudTools.workbench-notebooks</a></li>
<li><strong>Contribute on GitHub:</strong> <a href="https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/colab-enterprise-vscode" rel="noopener" target="_blank">colab-enterprise-vscode</a></li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<h3 data-draftjs-conductor-fragment='{"blocks":[{"key":"865rk","text":"Week of Dec 16 - Dec 20","type":"header-three","depth":0,"inlineStyleRanges":[],"entityRanges":[],"data":{}}],"entityMap":{}}'>Apr 20 - Apr 24</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Announcing the 2026 Google Cloud Partners of the Year<br></strong>Google Cloud is honored to celebrate the winners of the 2026 Partner of the Year awards! These awards recognize an exceptional group of partners across AI, Security, Infrastructure, and more, who have demonstrated a commitment to customer success. From global system integrators to specialized startups, these winners are leveraging the power of Google Cloud to solve complex challenges and drive digital transformation worldwide. Join us in congratulating these organizations for their innovation, collaboration, and impactful results over the past year.<br><br>See the <a href="https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/partners/2026-partners-of-the-year-winners-next26">2026 Partner Award winners</a></li>
</ul>
<h3 data-draftjs-conductor-fragment='{"blocks":[{"key":"865rk","text":"Week of Dec 16 - Dec 20","type":"header-three","depth":0,"inlineStyleRanges":[],"entityRanges":[],"data":{}}],"entityMap":{}}'>Apr 13 - Apr 17</h3>
<ul>
<li>We're excited to announce the <strong>Public Preview of Datastream’s metadata integration with Knowledge Catalog</strong>. This is the first step in our vision to provide a centralized, "single pane of glass" for all Datastream assets. The enhancement automatically synchronizes Streams, Connection Profiles, and Private Connections, eliminating data silos. It enhances discoverability, allowing you to search for Datastream assets using the same interface as BigQuery tables. Centralized governance is also provided, making your real-time data estate more transparent and easier to manage.</li>
<li><strong>Upgrading Apigee OPDK to 4.53 with OS Modernization<br></strong>Modernize your infrastructure using Google’s official, sequential upgrade path. Our Technical expert, Rakesh Talanki outlines how to upgrade Apigee OPDK to v4.53 while migrating to a supported OS (RHEL 8.x/9.x). This guide covers the "build-out" methodology, including multi-data center syncing, to ensure a stable, zero-downtime transition<br><br><a href="https://goo.gle/3Oa8uqy" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Read the guide</a></li>
<li><strong>Cloud Run Worker Pools and CREMA: Powering Serverless AI at Scale<br></strong>Google Cloud has announced the General Availability of <strong>Cloud Run worker pools</strong>, a new resource type designed specifically for pull-based, non-HTTP workloads. Unlike traditional Cloud Run services that scale based on request traffic, worker pools provide an "always-on" environment for background tasks like processing message queues or running large-scale AI inference. To support this, Google Cloud also open-sourced the <strong>Cloud Run External Metrics Autoscaler (CREMA)</strong>. Built on KEDA, CREMA enables queue-aware autoscaling for worker pools, allowing them to dynamically scale based on external signals like Pub/Sub backlog or Kafka lag.</li>
<li><strong>Apigee Model Context Protocol (MCP) now Generally Available<br></strong>Expose enterprise APIs as MCP tools for agentic AI applications with the General Availability of MCP in Apigee. This update allows developers to transform APIs into AI-ready tools using OpenAPI Specifications, removing the need for local MCP servers or additional infrastructure. With managed endpoints and semantic search in API hub, you can now provide AI agents with secure, governed access to enterprise data at scale.<br><br><a href="https://goo.gle/3QfoEQ4" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em>Explore the MCP overview</em></a></li>
</ul>
<h3 data-draftjs-conductor-fragment='{"blocks":[{"key":"865rk","text":"Week of Dec 16 - Dec 20","type":"header-three","depth":0,"inlineStyleRanges":[],"entityRanges":[],"data":{}}],"entityMap":{}}'>Apr 6 - Apr 10</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Community TechTalk: Powering Retail Agents with ADK, UCP &amp; Apigee X<br></strong>Move beyond basic chatbots to secure, transactional AI experiences. Join our Community TechTalk on April 16 to learn how Apigee X and Gemini build a "Trust Layer" for AI shopping assistants using UCP standards. We’ll demonstrate how to block prompt injections with Model Armor and implement cost governance via token limits to secure the path from discovery to purchase.<br><br><a href="https://goo.gle/41ocUgq" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><span>Register for the TechTalk</span></a></li>
<li><strong>Implement multimodal capabilities in your AI agents<br></strong>Explore three new reference architectures for building sophisticated multi-agent AI systems that can process and analyze multimodal data. To analyze disparate multimodal data and produce a high-confidence classification, see <a href="https://docs.cloud.google.com/architecture/agentic-ai-classify-multimodal-data"><span>Classify multimodal data</span></a><span>. To create a fluid conversational AI that processes audio and video streams in real time, see</span> <a href="https://docs.cloud.google.com/architecture/agentic-ai-bidirectional-multimodal-streaming"><span>Enable live bidirectional multimodal streaming</span></a><span>. To consolidate fragmented multimodal data into a searchable knowledge graph, see</span> <a href="https://docs.cloud.google.com/architecture/agentic-ai-multimodal-graph-rag-resource-orchestration"><span>Multimodal GraphRAG resource orchestration</span></a><span>.</span></li>
<li><strong>Automate SecOps workflows with an agentic AI system<br></strong>To accelerate incident response and reduce manual toil for your security team, you need a system that can automate remediation playbooks. Our new reference architecture helps you build an AI agent that orchestrates complex triage and investigation workflows across disparate security tools, such as SIEM, CSPM, and EDR, from a single interface. See the full guide to <a href="https://docs.cloud.google.com/architecture/agentic-ai-orchestrate-security-ops-workflows"><span>orchestrate security operations workflows</span></a><span>.</span></li>
</ul>
<h3 data-draftjs-conductor-fragment='{"blocks":[{"key":"865rk","text":"Week of Dec 16 - Dec 20","type":"header-three","depth":0,"inlineStyleRanges":[],"entityRanges":[],"data":{}}],"entityMap":{}}'>Mar 30 - Apr 3</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>ASEAN Webinar | April 30: Mastering Agentic Governance at Scale with GCP<br></strong>As AI agents move from experimental pilots to core enterprise functions, governance is the critical next step. Join Google Cloud experts <strong>Shilpi Puri &amp; Wely Lau</strong> for a <strong>webinar</strong> on <strong>April 30th at 11:00 AM SGT</strong> to learn how to architect a secure AI Management layer. We’ll explore developing governed MCP endpoints, managing tool access to enterprise data, and operationalizing AI with robust audit logs. The session includes a live demo of these frameworks in action on Google Cloud.<br><br><a href="https://goo.gle/47FX1Wn" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><strong>RSVP here.</strong></a></li>
</ul>
<h3 data-draftjs-conductor-fragment='{"blocks":[{"key":"865rk","text":"Week of Dec 16 - Dec 20","type":"header-three","depth":0,"inlineStyleRanges":[],"entityRanges":[],"data":{}}],"entityMap":{}}'>Mar 23 - Mar 27</h3>
<ul>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><strong>Turn your API sprawl into an agent-ready catalog<br></strong><span>As organizations scale, APIs often become scattered across multiple gateways, creating "blind spots" that hinder AI adoption. To solve this, we’ve introduced two new capabilities for Apigee API hub: a new integration with API Gateway to automatically centralize API metadata into a single control plane, and a specification boost add-on (now in public preview). This add-on uses AI to enhance your API documentation with the precise examples and error codes that AI agents need to function reliably.<br><br></span><a href="https://goo.gle/47dEYqc" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><span>Read the full blog post to get started.</span></a></p>
</li>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><strong>Webinar | April 16: AI Command &amp; Control<br></strong><span>As AI agents move from experimental pilots to core enterprise functions, governance is the critical next step. Join Google Cloud expert Satyam Maloo for a webinar on April 16th at 11:00 AM IST to learn how to architect a secure AI Management layer. We’ll explore developing governed MCP endpoints, managing tool access to enterprise data, and operationalizing AI with robust audit logs. The session includes a live demo of these frameworks in action on Google Cloud.<br><br></span><a href="https://goo.gle/4t43Vg4" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><span>RSVP here.</span></a></p>
</li>
<li aria-level="1">
<p role="presentation"><strong>Modernizing and Decoupling Event Ingestion with Apigee<br></strong><span>In modern cloud-native architectures, decoupling producers from consumers is critical for building resilient systems. While Google Cloud Pub/Sub provides a scalable backbone, exposing it directly to external clients can introduce security and management overhead. This new guide explores how to leverage Apigee as an intelligent HTTP ingestion point. Learn how to handle security, mediation, and traffic control before messages reach your internal bus using the PublishMessage policy or Pub/Sub API.</span><br><br><a href="https://goo.gle/3POgsWF" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><span>Read the full guide.</span></a></p>
</li>
</ul>
<h3 data-draftjs-conductor-fragment='{"blocks":[{"key":"865rk","text":"Week of Dec 16 - Dec 20","type":"header-three","depth":0,"inlineStyleRanges":[],"entityRanges":[],"data":{}}],"entityMap":{}}'>Mar 16 - Mar 20</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Gemini-powered Assistant in BigQuery Studio Gets Context-Aware Upgrades<br></strong>The Gemini-powered assistant in BigQuery Studio has been transformed into a fully context-aware analytics partner, supporting your entire data lifecycle. The new capabilities include intelligent resource discovery, which uses Dataplex Universal Catalog search to find resources across projects and deep dive into metadata using natural language. You can now automate tasks, such as scheduling production-grade queries directly through the chat interface, and instantly troubleshoot long-running or failed jobs with root cause analysis and cost control auditing.<br><br><a href="https://docs.cloud.google.com/bigquery/docs/use-cloud-assist">Explore</a> the full range of what the assistant can do.</li>
</ul>
<h3 data-draftjs-conductor-fragment='{"blocks":[{"key":"865rk","text":"Week of Dec 16 - Dec 20","type":"header-three","depth":0,"inlineStyleRanges":[],"entityRanges":[],"data":{}}],"entityMap":{}}'>Mar 9 - Mar 13</h3>
<ul>
<li>
<div><strong>Want to use Gemini to develop code and don't know where to start?</strong><br>This <a href="https://medium.com/google-cloud/supercharge-your-spark-development-with-gemini-1540f1cb47d4" rel="noopener" target="_blank">article</a> includes a couple of examples of developing code with Gemini prompts; it identified changes that were needed to be made to get the code working. The article also refers to other examples that are available on github. </div>
</li>
</ul>
<h3 data-draftjs-conductor-fragment='{"blocks":[{"key":"865rk","text":"Week of Dec 16 - Dec 20","type":"header-three","depth":0,"inlineStyleRanges":[],"entityRanges":[],"data":{}}],"entityMap":{}}'>Mar 2 - Mar 6</h3>
<ul>
<li>
<p><span><strong>Introducing Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite, our fastest and most cost-efficient Gemini 3 series model.</strong> Built for high-volume developer workloads at scale, 3.1 Flash-Lite delivers high quality for its price and model tier. Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite can tackle tasks at scale, like high-volume translation and content moderation, where cost is a priority. And it can also handle more complex workloads where more in-depth reasoning is needed, like generating user interfaces and dashboards, creating simulations or following instructions.</span></p>
<p><span>Starting today, 3.1 Flash-Lite is rolling out in preview to enterprises via </span><a href="https://console.cloud.google.com/vertex-ai/studio/multimodal?mode=prompt&amp;model=gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview"><span>Vertex AI</span></a><span> and </span><span>developers via the Gemini API in </span><a href="https://aistudio.google.com/prompts/new_chat?model=gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><span>Google AI Studio</span></a><span>.</span></p>
</li>
<li>
<div>
<p><strong>TechTalk: Implementing Device Authorization Grant (RFC 8628) for Apigee</strong><br>Learn how to authorize "headless" devices like Smart TVs or AI agents that lack keyboards and browsers. Join our Community TechTalk on March 19 (5PM CET / 12PM EDT) to go under the hood of Apigee X/Hybrid. We’ll cover the real-world mechanics of state management, polling, and human-in-the-loop security patterns for devices and autonomous agents.</p>
<p><a href="https://goo.gle/4r6o6Zi" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Register for the TechTalk</a></p>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
<h3 data-draftjs-conductor-fragment='{"blocks":[{"key":"865rk","text":"Week of Dec 16 - Dec 20","type":"header-three","depth":0,"inlineStyleRanges":[],"entityRanges":[],"data":{}}],"entityMap":{}}'>Feb 23 - Feb 27</h3>
<ul>
<li>
<p><span><strong>Pro-level image generation gets faster and more accessible with Nano Banana 2<br></strong></span><span>Nano Banana 2 is our state-of-the-art image generation and editing model. It delivers Pro-level image generation and editing at the speed you expect from Flash — making the quality, reasoning, and world knowledge you loved about Nano Banana Pro more accessible. Learn more about the model </span><a href="https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/technology/ai/nano-banana-2" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><span>here</span></a><span>.</span></p>
</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>
<p><strong>The Intelligent Path to Compliance: Transforming Regulatory QC with Google Cloud<br></strong><span>Reducing "Refuse to File" (RTF) risks and submission cycle times is critical for life sciences leaders. Google Cloud’s Regulatory Submission Semantic QC Auditor leverages Gemini and RAG architecture to transform Quality Control from a manual burden into an active, intelligent workflow.</span></p>
<p><span>By automating semantic cross-referencing, narrative coherence checks, and dynamic guidance-based auditing, this solution ensures rigorous accuracy and auditability. Operating within a secure GxP-ready environment, it empowers teams to detect subtle inconsistencies and generate remediation plans without sacrificing data privacy. <br><br></span><a href="https://discuss.google.dev/t/the-intelligent-path-to-compliance-transforming-regulatory-quality-control-with-google-cloud/335276" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><span>Learn more</span></a><span>.</span></p>
</li>
<li><span><span>Stop typing, start interacting! <strong>The Gemini Live Agent Challenge is here</strong>. Build immersive agents that can help you see, hear, and speak using Gemini and Google Cloud. Compete for your share of $80,000+ in prizes and a trip to Google Cloud Next '26!<br><br></span><span>Submissions are open from February 16, 2026 to March 16, 2026. Learn more and register at </span><a href="http://geminiliveagentchallenge.devpost.com/" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><span>geminiliveagentchallenge.devpost.com</span></a></span></li>
</ul>
<h3 data-draftjs-conductor-fragment='{"blocks":[{"key":"865rk","text":"Week of Dec 16 - Dec 20","type":"header-three","depth":0,"inlineStyleRanges":[],"entityRanges":[],"data":{}}],"entityMap":{}}'>Feb 9 - Feb 13</h3>
<ul>
<li>
<p><strong><span>Introducing Gemini 3.1 Pro on Google Cloud. </span></strong></p>
<span>3.1 Pro is a noticeably smarter, more capable baseline for complex problem-solving. We’re shipping 3.1 Pro at scale, building upon our </span><a href="https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/ai-machine-learning/gemini-3-is-available-for-enterprise?e=48754805"><span>goal</span></a><span> to help you transform your business for the agentic future. Learn more about the model’s capabilities </span><a href="https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/models-and-research/gemini-models/gemini-3-1-pro" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><span>here</span></a><span>. Gemini 3.1 Pro is available starting today in preview in </span><a href="https://cloud.google.com/vertex-ai?e=48754805"><span>Vertex AI</span></a><span> and </span><a href="https://cloud.google.com/gemini-enterprise?e=48754805"><span>Gemini Enterprise</span></a><span>. Developers can access the model in preview via the Gemini API in </span><a href="https://aistudio.google.com/prompts/new_chat?model=gemini-3.1-pro-preview" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><span>Google AI Studio</span></a><span>, </span><a href="https://developer.android.com/studio" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><span>Android Studio</span></a><span>, </span><a href="https://antigravity.google/blog/gemini-3-1-in-google-antigravity" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><span>Google Antigravity</span></a><span>, and </span><a href="https://geminicli.com/" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><span>Gemini CLI</span></a><span>.<br><br></span></li>
<li><strong>Automate Storage Compatibility with GKE Dynamic Default Storage Classes<br></strong>Managing storage across mixed-generation VM clusters in GKE just got easier. With the new <strong>Dynamic Default Storage Class</strong>, Google Kubernetes Engine automatically selects between Persistent Disk (PD) and Hyperdisk based on a node's specific hardware compatibility. This abstraction eliminates the need for complex scheduling rules and manual pairing, ensuring your volumes "just work" regardless of the underlying infrastructure. By defining both variants in a single class, you reduce operational overhead while maintaining peak performance and cost-efficiency across your entire cluster.<br><br><a href="https://docs.cloud.google.com/kubernetes-engine/docs/concepts/hyperdisk#automated_disk_type_selection" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Explore automated disk type selection</a></li>
<li>
<p><strong>Community TechTalk: AI-Powered Apigee Development with strofa.io<br></strong><strong>Join the Apigee community on February 26</strong><span> for a deep dive into</span> <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=http://strofa.io" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><span>strofa.io</span></a><span>. Guest speaker Denis Kalitviansky will demonstrate how this new AI-powered tool automates and orchestrates Apigee development, from local emulators to large-scale hybrid environments. Discover how to scale your API management and streamline team collaboration using the latest in AI-driven automation.</span></p>
<p><a href="https://goo.gle/3Oerns3" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><span>Register now to reserve your spot.</span></a></p>
</li>
</ul>
<h3 data-draftjs-conductor-fragment='{"blocks":[{"key":"865rk","text":"Week of Dec 16 - Dec 20","type":"header-three","depth":0,"inlineStyleRanges":[],"entityRanges":[],"data":{}}],"entityMap":{}}'>Jan 26 - Jan 30</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong><span>Simplify API Governance with Native OpenAPI v3 Support<br></span></strong>Eliminate integration debt and accelerate deployment velocity with the General Availability of OpenAPI v3 (OASv3) support for API Gateway and Cloud Endpoints. You no longer need to downgrade modern specifications to OASv2. Instead, you can now define API contracts and enforce critical policies—including telemetry, quotas, and security—using native Google-specific extensions directly within your OASv3 files. This update ensures your APIs are secure by design while remaining fully compatible with the modern developer ecosystem and Google Cloud’s AI services.<br><br><a href="https://goo.gle/49Wx58Z" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><span>Get started with OpenAPI v3 on API Gateway and Cloud Endpoints.</span></a></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><strong><span>Accelerate API Testing with the New Open Source API Tester<br></span></strong>Start validating your APIs with API Tester, a simple, YAML-based Test Driven Development (TDD) framework. Designed for the Apigee community, this tool allows you to write human-readable tests, run them instantly via a web client or CLI, and perform deep unit testing on Apigee proxies. With native support for JSONPath assertions and Apigee shared flows, you can verify everything from payload data to internal variables like <code>proxy.basepath</code><span> without leaving your terminal.<br><br></span><a href="https://goo.gle/4q5WDGK" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><span>Explore the API Tester guide and start testing your proxies today.</span></a></li>
<li><strong><span>Secure Sensitive Data with Kubernetes Secrets in Apigee hybrid<br></span></strong>Enhance security in Apigee hybrid by accessing Kubernetes Secrets directly within your API proxies. This hybrid-exclusive feature keeps sensitive credentials within your cluster boundary and prevents replication to the management plane. It supports strict separation of duties: operators manage secrets via <code>kubectl</code><span>, while developers reference them as secure flow variables—ideal for high-compliance and GitOps workflows.<br><br></span><a href="https://goo.gle/4qEVffo" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><span>Implement Kubernetes Secrets in your hybrid proxies.</span></a></li>
<li><strong><span>See the Console in a Whole New Light: Dark Mode is Now Generally Available in Google Cloud<br></span></strong>Elevate your cloud management workflow with Dark Mode, now generally available in the Google Cloud console. We have delivered a modern, cohesive, and accessible experience reimagined for maximum comfort and productivity—especially during extended working hours and low-light environments. Dark Mode can be enabled automatically based on your operating system's preference, or manually through the Settings  -&gt; Appearance menu.<br><br><a href="https://docs.cloud.google.com/docs/get-started/console-appearance"><span>Switch to Dark Mode today to enjoy a modern, comfortable, and productive environment!</span></a></li>
<li><strong><span>Apigee X Networking: PSC or VPC Peering?<br></span></strong>Deciding how to connect Apigee X? Watch this video to compare Private Service Connect and VPC Peering. We break down northbound and southbound routing, IP consumption, and how to reach targets on-prem or in the cloud. Learn to simplify your architecture and avoid common networking "gotchas" for a smoother deployment.<br><br><a href="https://goo.gle/4bWBGdV" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><span>Watch the video.</span></a></li>
</ul>
<h3 data-draftjs-conductor-fragment='{"blocks":[{"key":"865rk","text":"Week of Dec 16 - Dec 20","type":"header-three","depth":0,"inlineStyleRanges":[],"entityRanges":[],"data":{}}],"entityMap":{}}'>Jan 19 - Jan 23</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Bridge the Gap: Excel-to-API Conversion in Apigee Portals<br></strong><span>Give your customers more ways to connect! This new article by Tyler Ayers explores how to extend the Apigee Integrated Portal to support direct Excel file uploads. By leveraging SheetJS and custom portal scripts, you can enable users to upload spreadsheets, preview data, and submit it directly to your APIs, all without writing a single line of integration code themselves. It’s a powerful way to simplify onboarding for those who aren't yet API-ready.<br><br></span><a href="https://goo.gle/3Nq3Pjo" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><span>Learn how to build it</span></a><span>.</span></li>
<li><strong>Elevate your applications with Firestore’s new advanced query engine<br></strong><span>We have fundamentally reimagined Firestore with pipeline operations for Enterprise edition. Experience a powerful new engine featuring over a hundred new query features, index-less queries, new index types, and observability tooling to improve query performance. Seamlessly migrate using built-in tools and leverage Firestore’s existing differentiated serverless foundation, virtually unlimited scale, and industry-leading SLA. Join a community of 600K developers to craft expressive applications that maximize the benefits of rich queryability, real-time listen queries, robust offline caching, and cutting-edge AI-assistive coding integrations.<br><br></span><a href="https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/data-analytics/new-firestore-query-engine-enables-pipelines?e=48754805"><span>Learn more about Firestore pipeline operations.</span></a></li>
</ul></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Forget typosquatting; slopsquatting is the software supply chain threat created by AI coding tools]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Slopsquatting represents an emerging supply chain threat made possible by AI hallucinations. As developers increasingly rely on AI coding assistants, they unknowingly grant cybercriminals access to their software from day one. Understanding what slopsquatting isSlopsquatting is a new type of supp...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3662303/it-nachrichten/forget-typosquatting-slopsquatting-is-the-software-supply-chain-threat-created-by-ai-coding-tools/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3662303/it-nachrichten/forget-typosquatting-slopsquatting-is-the-software-supply-chain-threat-created-by-ai-coding-tools/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 11 Jul 2026 20:32:20 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Slopsquatting represents an emerging supply chain threat made possible by AI hallucinations. As developers increasingly rely on AI coding assistants, they unknowingly grant <a href="https://venturebeat.com/security/prompt-injection-is-exploiting-enterprise-ais-biggest-design-flaws-by-targeting-agents-rag-pipelines-and-model-routers">cybercriminals</a> access to their software from day one. </p><h2><b>Understanding what slopsquatting is</b></h2><p>Slopsquatting is a new type of supply chain attack that uses large language model (LLM) <a href="https://www.captechu.edu/blog/ai-driven-threats-in-software-supply-chains"><u>hallucinations to inject malicious code</u></a> into development workflows. The term combines "AI slop" and "typosquatting," a deceptive practice where attackers register misspelled or lookalike versions of popular domains to prey on users who enter URLs incorrectly.</p><p>This novel attack vector exploits LLMs' tendency to generate fictitious software package names, which threat actors can then register and populate with malicious code.</p><p>During AI-assisted coding, the model may generate fake open-source packages — bundled collections of files, programs and installation tools. This alone is not necessarily harmful. However, if an attacker registers that fake package name, they can inject malware that gets incorporated directly into a developer's codebase.</p><h2><b>How AI creates a supply chain risk</b></h2><p>Traditionally, AI <a href="https://www.pivotpointsecurity.com/ai-security-and-ai-safety-how-do-they-relate/"><u>safety risks stem from hallucinations</u></a>, which can adversely affect users who treat misinformation as valid. However, those same hallucinations have evolved into exploitable security vulnerabilities.</p><p>Typosquatting is a deceptive practice where a cybercriminal registers a mispelled version of a popular package to trick developers. It has existed for decades, so registries have built protections against it. </p><p>However, AI has changed the <a href="https://venturebeat.com/security/claude-mythos-exposed-a-hard-truth-your-enterprise-patching-process-is-way-too-slow">threat model</a>. It recommends fictitious packages that sound plausible rather than making simple misspellings. Once attackers learn which hallucinated packages models tend to invent, they can register malware-filled packages under those names.</p><p>Since the hallucinated packages are not simply typoed versions of popular libraries, there are no protections against this practice at scale. For example, the registry protects against an attacker publishing "crossenv," a squat of the popular "cross-env" package. However, it would not identify "mpn install cross-env file" or "cross-env-extended" as threats.</p><h3><b>Hallucinations are persistent and severe</b></h3><p>Even if many LLMs recommend the same hallucinated package, widespread compromise is still possible. Malicious packages could remain undetected in production for months or even years, allowing threat actors to passively inject malware across countless environments. </p><p>One research <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.12995"><u>team analyzed 31,267 vulnerabilities</u></a> belonging to 14,675 packages across 10 programming languages. They discovered that reported vulnerabilities are increasing at an annual rate of 98%, faster growth than the 25% annual increase in the number of open-source software packages. The team also observed an 85% increase in the average lifespan of vulnerabilities, indicating a decline in security.</p><h3><b>Real-world dangers of AI hallucinations</b></h3><p><a href="https://venturebeat.com/security/ai-tool-poisoning-exposes-a-major-flaw-in-enterprise-agent-security">Malicious actors</a> can create open-access packages under the same name as commonly hallucinated libraries. Instead of standard code, they are filled with malware. The models believe they are referring to existing packages, so they often repeat the same hallucinated names. Since the hallucinations are not random, attackers could theoretically register packages that trick tens of thousands of developers.</p><p>These packages appear legitimate. String similarity to real libraries makes them recognizable. One-character typos suggest simple mistakes rather than malicious intent. Even fully fabricated names remain believable when the AI presents them in proper context. Detection is challenging, as developers trust their coding assistants to recommend valid dependencies.</p><h2><b>Why are LLMs hallucinating packages?</b></h2><p>LLMs generate the statistically most likely answer rather than prioritizing accuracy. Hallucinations are relatively common as a result. One study found hallucination rates <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s43856-025-01021-3"><u>range from 50% to 82%</u></a>, depending on the model and prompting method. Even GPT-4o, the best-performing model, goes no lower than 23%, even with prompt-based mitigation.</p><p>Adversarial hallucination attacks could worsen this problem. Threat actors can leverage token-level manipulation or retrieval poisoning to force models to hallucinate in ways they want, increasing the likelihood that models recommend their malicious packages.</p><h2><b>Which LLMs are prone to slopsquatting?</b></h2><p>While all LLMs are prone to slopsquatting, some are more vulnerable than others. The likelihood of producing hallucinated packages during code generation depends on the model. Proprietary models are four times less likely to generate hallucinated packages than open-source models.</p><p>One research group proved this by conducting 30 tests across 30 different systems. Out of <a href="https://arxiv.org/html/2406.10279v3"><u>the 576,000 code samples</u></a> and 2.23 million packages it produced, 19.7% were hallucinations. GPT-4.0 Turbo had a hallucination rate of 3.59%, while DeepSeek 1B, the best-performing open-source model, reached 13.63%.</p><p>This research suggests that organizations relying on open-source AI tools for code generation are roughly four times more exposed to slopsquatting attacks. That doesn’t necessarily mean proprietary tools will always remain safer, though. Once attackers realize this disparity, they may manipulate proprietary LLMs to take advantage of perceived safety.</p><h2><b>Vibe coding contributes to the problem</b></h2><p>Software developers who use AI tools estimate that <a href="https://shiftmag.dev/state-of-code-2025-7978/"><u>over 40 percent of the code</u></a> they commit includes AI assistance. They expect that percentage will increase considerably within the next few years. Already, 72% of those who have tried AI use it daily.</p><p>The uptick in vibe coding and AI-assisted coding amplifies the threat surface. As more developers integrate AI tools into their workflows without implementing proper verification processes, the attack surface for slopsquatting continues to expand.</p><p>For those using AI to assist with coding, double-checking output is essential. Verifying that recommended packages actually exist in official repositories before incorporating them into projects reduces risk.</p><h2><b>Navigating AI-assisted development</b></h2><p>Implementing automated checks that validate package names against known registries can help catch hallucinated packages before they enter production code. Security teams should also monitor for unusual package installations and maintain up-to-date threat intelligence on known slopsquatting campaigns.</p><p><i>Zac Amos is the Features Editor at </i><a href="https://rehack.com/"><i><u>ReHack</u></i></a><i>.</i></p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Meta's Muse Spark 1.1 outperforms GLM-5.2 in coding and costs slightly less]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Meta's Muse Spark 1.1 scored 51 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, up eight points in three months. In coding, it edges past GLM-5.2 with a score of 71.3 at a lower cost of $0.26 per task. The hallucination rate dropped from 73 to 38 percent.
The article Meta's Muse Spark 1.1 outperfo...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3661528/ai-nachrichten/metas-muse-spark-11-outperforms-glm-52-in-coding-and-costs-slightly-less/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3661528/ai-nachrichten/metas-muse-spark-11-outperforms-glm-52-in-coding-and-costs-slightly-less/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 11 Jul 2026 10:33:32 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🔧 AI Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img width="1376" height="768" src="https://the-decoder.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/meta_AI_logo.png" class="attachment-full size-full wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" fetchpriority="high"></p>
<p>        Meta's Muse Spark 1.1 scored 51 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, up eight points in three months. In coding, it edges past GLM-5.2 with a score of 71.3 at a lower cost of $0.26 per task. The hallucination rate dropped from 73 to 38 percent.</p>
<p>The article <a href="https://the-decoder.com/metas-muse-spark-1-1-outperforms-glm-5-2-in-coding-and-costs-slightly-less/">Meta's Muse Spark 1.1 outperforms GLM-5.2 in coding and costs slightly less</a> appeared first on <a href="https://the-decoder.com/">The Decoder</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Nintendo Switch 2 Docked VRR Support May Still Be in Development]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Nintendo Switch 2 docked VRR support may still be under consideration, even though the console currently limits Variable Refresh Rate to handheld mode. A newly…
The post Nintendo Switch 2 Docked VRR Support May Still Be in Development appeared first on OnMSFT.]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3661268/windows-tipps/nintendo-switch-2-docked-vrr-support-may-still-be-in-development/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3661268/windows-tipps/nintendo-switch-2-docked-vrr-support-may-still-be-in-development/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 11 Jul 2026 06:54:48 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🪟 Windows Tipps</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nintendo Switch 2 docked VRR support may still be under consideration, even though the console currently limits Variable Refresh Rate to handheld mode. A newly…</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://onmsft.com/news/nintendo-switch-2-docked-vrr-support-may-still-be-in-development/">Nintendo Switch 2 Docked VRR Support May Still Be in Development</a> appeared first on <a href="https://onmsft.com/">OnMSFT</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Surface Laptop 8 for Business im Test: Ein Laptop von gestern zum Preis von morgen]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Mark Hachman / Foundry



Auf einen Blick



Pro




Altbekannter Surface Laptop



Der neue Blickschutz funktioniert oft gut



Die “Voice Focus”-Funktion ist ziemlich nützlich




Kontra




Unangemessen hoher Preis



Die gleiche alte Bauweise




Fazit



Der Surface Laptop 8 for Business von...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3661207/it-security-nachrichten/surface-laptop-8-for-business-im-test-ein-laptop-von-gestern-zum-preis-von-morgen/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3661207/it-security-nachrichten/surface-laptop-8-for-business-im-test-ein-laptop-von-gestern-zum-preis-von-morgen/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 11 Jul 2026 06:06:37 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" src="https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Bildschirmfoto-2026-07-09-um-20.02.20.png?w=1024" alt="Surface Laptop 8" class="wp-image-4195198" width="1024" height="645" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px"></figure><p class="imageCredit">Mark Hachman / Foundry</p></div>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Auf einen Blick</h2>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Pro</h3>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Altbekannter Surface Laptop</li>



<li>Der neue Blickschutz funktioniert oft gut</li>



<li>Die “Voice Focus”-Funktion ist ziemlich nützlich</li>
</ul>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Kontra</h3>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Unangemessen hoher Preis</li>



<li>Die gleiche alte Bauweise</li>
</ul>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Fazit</h3>



<p>Der Surface Laptop 8 for Business von Microsoft kommt einem sofort bekannt vor. Herzstück ist ein leistungsstarker Intel Core Ultra Series 300 (Panther Lake)-Prozessor. Doch leider ist das Gerät derart teuer, dass sich ein Kauf angesichts der wenigen neuen Funktionen kaum rechtfertigen lässt.</p>



<p>Zum ersten Mal seit Jahren war ich nicht begeistert, ein neues Surface-Modell zu testen. Und auch nach dem ausführlichen Test bin ich eher enttäuscht.</p>



<p>Dabei hat der Surface Laptop 8th Edition (oder Surface Laptop 8) for Business zwei echte Pluspunkte vorzuweisen: ein Upgrade auf Intels hervorragende Prozessoren der Core Ultra 300-Serie (Panther Lake) und einen einigermaßen nützlichen Sichtschutz.</p>



<p>Letzterer kann den Bildschirm auf Knopfdruck abdunkeln und unkenntlich machen. Leider hat Microsoft aber am traditionellen Aufschlag für Surface-Geräte festgehalten. Diese Preisgestaltung treibt die Kosten des Laptops in unattraktive Höhen.</p>



<p>Fairerweise muss man sagen, dass es sich hierbei um einen Laptop der Business-Klasse handelt. Eine Consumer-Version dieses Surface Laptops wird noch in diesem Jahr folgen, ausgestattet mit einem Qualcomm Snapdragon X2 Elite Extreme-Chip.</p>



<p>Basierend auf meinen eigenen Tests beider Chips lässt sich sagen, dass der hier verbaute Intel Core Ultra 300-Prozessor den Snapdragon leicht übertreffen wird. Dies gilt zumindest für die Grafikleistung und möglicherweise auch für die Akkulaufzeit.</p>



<p>Einige Surface-Fans könnten einwenden, dass Microsoft das Design des Laptops bereits optimiert hat. Andere könnten die Optik als altbacken kritisieren. Ich gehöre definitiv zur zweiten Gruppe. Ich muss mittlerweile auf Klebezettel zurückgreifen, die ich an der Unterseite der von mir getesteten Surface-Laptops anbringe. Warum? Sie sind im Alltag sonst praktisch nicht voneinander zu unterscheiden.</p>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" src="https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Bildschirmfoto-2026-07-09-um-20.33.55.png?w=1024" alt="Surface Laptop 8" class="wp-image-4195215" width="1024" height="636" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px"></figure><p class="imageCredit">Mark Hachman / Foundry</p></div>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Modell-Chaos</h2>



<p>Der Microsoft Surface Laptop 8 ist mit Bildschirmdiagonalen von 13,8 Zoll und 15 Zoll erhältlich. Microsoft vertreibt das Modell offiziell als “Surface Laptop for Business (8. Generation)” oder “Surface Laptop 8 for Business”.</p>



<p>Sie können den Surface Laptop for Business auch mit einem 13-Zoll-Display kaufen. Microsoft hat den Surface Laptop bisher noch nie mit einer solchen Bildschirmgröße angeboten, weshalb er schlicht als <a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/article/3168116/surface-laptop-8-for-business-test.html#" target="_blank">Surface Laptop for Business 13 Zoll</a> bezeichnet wird.</p>



<p>Durch den Kauf des kleineren Surface Laptops sparen Sie mehrere hundert Euro (die Preise beginnen bei 1.549 Euro, im Vergleich zu 2.119 Euro für den 13,8-Zoll-Surface Laptop 8). Die Auswahl der Komponenten beschränkt sich dann jedoch auf einen Core Ultra 5 325-Prozessor, bis zu 24 Gigabyte RAM und bis zu einem Terabyte SSD-Speicher.</p>



<p>Auf dem Papier und in der Hand ist der Surface Laptop 8 for Business im Wesentlichen identisch mit dem <a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/article/2380548/surface-laptop-7-test-eine-neue-ara-fur-windows-laptops.html" target="_blank">Surface Laptop 7</a> aus dem Jahr 2024, der ab 1.199 Euro angeboten wurde. Zugegeben, dabei handelte es sich um eine Consumer-Version des Surface Laptop mit einem Snapdragon X1 Elite. Das ändert jedoch nichts daran, dass sich der Einstiegspreis im Vergleich zu vor zwei Jahren fast verdoppelt hat. Das macht das neue Gerät deutlich unattraktiver.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Kombination aus Alt und Neu</h2>



<p>Das Design des Surface Laptop hat sich seit Jahren kaum verändert. Direkt nach dem Auspacken liegt der Laptop angenehm in der Hand, während das glänzende Aluminiumgehäuse nun aus bis zu 64 Prozent recyceltem Material besteht. Da es jedoch leicht Fingerabdrücke anzieht, sollten Sie ein Mikrofasertuch immer griffbereit halten. Ich empfinde das Gewicht von 1,35 Kilogramm weder in der Hand noch in meinem Rucksack als unangenehm. Hier kann ich Entwarnung geben.</p>



<p>In einigen Aspekten unterscheidet sich der Surface Laptop 8 for Business von seinen Vorgängern. Da wäre zunächst der Prozessor: eine Leistungssteigerung durch den <a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/article/3025897/intel-core-ultra-series-3-laptop-chips.html" target="_blank">Intel Core Ultra Series 3-Chip</a>, bekannt als Panther Lake.</p>



<p>Zu den verfügbaren Ausführungen gehören sowohl die Basis-Konfigurationen mit Core Ultra 5 und 7 als auch der Core Ultra X7 368, der über Intels leistungsstarke integrierte GPU verfügt. Lassen Sie sich davon jedoch nicht allzu sehr verunsichern. Bei längerem Betrieb wird die Grafikeinheit durch die begrenzte Kühlung im Laptop thermisch erheblich gedrosselt.</p>



<p>Zudem gibt es eine merkwürdige Auslassung: Die Surface-App, mit der sich die Ladeoptionen des Akkus sowie einige weitere Einstellungen verwalten lassen, fehlt. Ich musste sie von Hand <a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/article/3168116/surface-laptop-8-for-business-test.html#" target="_blank">aus dem Microsoft Store herunterladen</a>.</p>



<p>Außerdem bietet Microsoft als Option die “Privacy Screen”-Technologie an, die exklusiv für die 13,8-Zoll-Version verfügbar ist.</p>



<p>Im Wesentlichen funktioniert die “Privacy Screen”-Technologie des Surface Laptops, ähnlich wie die “Privacy Display” getaufte Funktion auf dem neuen <a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/article/3084372/samsung-galaxy-s26-ultra-test-2.html" target="_blank">Galaxy S26 Ultra</a> von Samsung.</p>



<p>Sie wird über eine neue Taste auf der Tastatur aktiviert, die als F1-Taste neben der Esc-Taste in der obersten Reihe angeordnet ist. Drückt man diese Taste, wird das Display dunkler und passt sich so an, dass es von den Seiten her schwerer lesbar ist. Microsoft erklärt <a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/article/3168116/surface-laptop-8-for-business-test.html#" target="_blank">an dieser Stelle</a>, wie der Blickschutz funktioniert, ohne dabei die genaue Funktionsweise zu erläutern.</p>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" src="https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Bildschirmfoto-2026-07-09-um-20.33.59.png?w=1024" alt="Surface Laptop 8" class="wp-image-4195220" width="1024" height="636" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px"></figure><p class="imageCredit">Mark Hachman / Foundry</p></div>



<p>Die Datenschutztechnologie nutzt die Fähigkeit des Laptops, die Helligkeit des Displays sowohl entsprechend den Präferenzen des Benutzers als auch in Abhängigkeit vom Umgebungslicht anzupassen. Je dunkler das Display, desto schwieriger wird es für neugierige Passanten, etwas auf dem Bildschirm zu erkennen.</p>



<p>In meinen Tests waren die Ergebnisse nicht eindeutig. In einem abgedunkelten Raum, wurde das Display aus einer Entfernung von einem Meter ab einem seitlichen Winkel von etwa 15 Grad zur Displayachse so dunkel, dass es fast nicht mehr zu erkennen war.</p>



<p>In einem helleren Raum blieb ein größerer Teil des Bildschirminhalts erkennbar. Ich konnte jedoch immer gut erkennen, um welche Art von Inhalt es sich auf dem Bildschirm handelte, auch wenn ich den eigentlichen Text nicht mehr lesen konnte. Ein Teil des Bildschirms blieb immer relativ gut sichtbar, es sei denn, ich saß sehr weit entfernt.</p>



<p>Es ist schwer zu beurteilen, wie effektiv der Blickschutz wirklich ist. Die Wirksamkeit schwankte im selben Raum unter den gleichen Bedingungen einfach zu sehr. Schauen Sie sich einfach mal die folgenden Vergleiche an. Im ersten Beispiel musste ich die Perspektive leicht verändern.</p>



<p>Aus dieser Perspektive scheint der Blickschutz kaum eine Wirkung zu entfalten. Ich habe mir dabei vorgestellt, wie es aus dem Blickwinkel einer Person aussehen würde, die auf einem Gangplatz im Flugzeug sitzt und beiläufig zu meinem Sitz über den Gang hinweg blickt. Aus dieser Perspektive glaube ich nicht wirklich, dass der Blickschutz von Microsoft wirklich funktioniert.</p>



<p>Aus einem anderen Blickwinkel betrachtet sind die Ergebnisse aber gar nicht so schlecht. Es wäre hilfreich gewesen, wenn Microsoft genau mitgeteilt hätte, in welchen Situationen der Blickschutz am wirksamsten arbeitet. In einem abgedunkelten Flugzeug, bei eingeschalteter Deckenbeleuchtung? In einem relativ hellen Raum wie meinem Büro?</p>



<p>In einem schlechter beleuchteten Raum schien der Blickschutz wirksamer zu arbeiten. Aber sollten Sie wirklich Ihre Arbeitsbedingungen anpassen müssen, um von dieser Funktion zu profitieren?</p>



<p>Zudem ist mir eine leichte Fleckbildung auf dem Display aufgefallen, die aussieht wie ein schwacher, staubiger Schleier im Displayglas. Ich vermute, dass dies an der Beschaffenheit des Sichtschutzglases selbst liegt.</p>



<p>Vielleicht wurden hierfür einige der Pixel leicht versetzt? Das Ergebnis ist jedoch deutlich sichtbar: Eine weiße Webseite wirkt bei direkter Betrachtung leicht staubig. Dies ist nicht störend oder ablenkend, aber es war auffällig.</p>



<p>Was die Ein- und Ausgänge betrifft, ist die Ausstattung des Surface Laptop 8 for Business recht übersichtlich: An der linken Seite befinden sich zwei Thunderbolt-4-/USB-C-Anschlüsse, über die mit dem entsprechenden Dock drei 4K-Displays mit 60 Hertz betrieben werden können.</p>



<p>Die Anordnung sorgt jedoch dafür, dass ein Nutzer, der die Maus mit der linken Hand bedient, sich den Platz mit den Displaykabeln teilen muss. Außerdem gibt es einen USB-A-Anschluss und eine Kopfhörerbuchse.</p>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" src="https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Bildschirmfoto-2026-07-09-um-20.34.06.png?w=1024" alt="Surface Laptop 8" class="wp-image-4195221" width="1024" height="636" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px"></figure><p class="imageCredit">Mark Hachman / Foundry</p></div>



<p>Auf der rechten Seite befindet sich der Surface Connect-Anschluss, der beim kleineren Surface Laptop und beim neuen Surface Pro weggefallen ist. Das bedeutet, dass Sie das Gerät entweder mit so gut wie jedem handelsüblichen USB-C-Ladegerät oder mit dem mitgelieferten winzigen 60-Watt-Surface-Ladegerät wieder aufladen können.</p>



<p>Insgesamt wirkt das Design des Surface Laptop 8 for Business robust und gut verarbeitet. Es ist jedoch erwähnenswert, dass das Kühlsystem im Vergleich zu früheren Generationen gänzlich unverändert geblieben ist: Die Luft strömt durch Lüftungsgitter im Scharnier nach außen.</p>



<p>Selbst bei der Standardeinstellung des Laptops (Beste Energieeffizienz) musste ich nicht viel am Rechner tun, damit sich der Lüfter einschaltete. Unter Last war das Lüftergeräusch jedoch meist unauffällig.</p>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" src="https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Bildschirmfoto-2026-07-09-um-20.34.10.png?w=1024" alt="Surface Laptop 8" class="wp-image-4195223" width="1024" height="636" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px"></figure><p class="imageCredit">Mark Hachman / Foundry</p></div>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Bildschirm</h2>



<p>Kurzum, mir gefällt der Bildschirm des Surface Laptop 8 for Business einfach nicht.</p>



<p>Auf dem Papier macht das Display noch einen guten Eindruck: Das HDR-Display bietet Dolby Vision IQ-Unterstützung mit adaptiver Farb- und Kontrastanpassung von bis zu 1300:1. Microsoft bietet zwei Anzeigemodi an: sRGB und „Vivid“. Der Hersteller gibt an, dass eine Helligkeit von bis zu 600 Nits erreicht werden kann. Ich habe insgesamt eine Leuchtdichte von 491 Nits gemessen, die jedoch bei aktiviertem Sichtschutz auf 163 Nits sank.</p>



<p>Der Farbraum ist recht gut und blieb sowohl bei aktiviertem als auch bei deaktiviertem Sichtschutz unverändert.</p>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" src="https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Bildschirmfoto-2026-07-09-um-20.34.21.png?w=1024" alt="Surface Laptop 8" class="wp-image-4195224" width="1024" height="631" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px"></figure><p class="imageCredit">Mark Hachman / Foundry</p></div>



<p>Der Surface Laptop 8 for Business bietet ein Touch-Display. Dieses ist jedoch nur für die Bedienung mit dem Finger ausgelegt. Eine Eingabe per Stift wird nicht unterstützt. Das Display lässt sich ohnehin nicht vollständig zurückklappen, was die Verwendung eines Stifts schwer machen würde.</p>



<p>Was ich am Bildschirm besonders schätze, ist eine oft unterschätzte Funktion: Die variable Bildwiederholfrequenz reicht von 120 Hertz bis hinunter auf 24 Hertz. Das ist großartig. Das 120-Hertz-Display erhöht die Bildwiederholfrequenz, wenn Sie es aktiv nutzen. Dadurch werden Mausbewegungen oder Spiele mit einer höheren Bildwiederholfrequenz dargestellt, was zu flüssigeren Bewegungen führt.</p>



<p>Wenn Sie auf einen statischen Bildschirm schauen, sinkt die Bildwiederholfrequenz auf 24 Hertz – weniger als die herkömmlichen 60 Hertz. Das senkt den Stromverbrauch, ohne dass Sie es wirklich bemerken. Der Akku hält entsprechend länger durch.</p>



<p>Der Bildschirm wirkt allerdings etwas trüb, und es gibt eine leichte Fleckenbildung, die durch den Sichtschutz verursacht wird. Dies sorgt dafür, dass die Auflösung niedriger wirkt, als sie tatsächlich ist. Mit einer Kamera lässt sich dieses Manko nicht wirklich einfangen. Vielleicht bin ich durch die neue Generation von OLED-Displays auch einfach zu verwöhnt. Doch aus meiner Sicht lässt dieser Bildschirm einfach zu viele Wünsche offen.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Ton und Mikrofone</h2>



<p>Microsofts Surface-Geräte gehörten zu den ersten Laptops, die mit ihrer Audioqualität überzeugen konnten. Daran hat sich nichts geändert. Die integrierten Omnisonic-Lautsprecher unterstützen Dolby Atmos und bieten mehr Lautstärke, als für einen kleinen Raum nötig wäre. Der Sound klang zwar etwas flacher, als ich ihn in Erinnerung hatte.</p>



<p>Dennoch benötigen Sie für diesen Laptop nicht unbedingt Kopfhörer. Die Audioqualität der verbauten Lautsprecher ist über den gesamten Frequenzbereich hinweg recht gut.</p>



<p>Die beiden Studio-Mikrofone sorgen für eine neue Funktion namens “Voice Focus“. Diese soll in bestimmten, aber nicht näher genannten Anwendungen unterstützt werden. Der Algorithmus konzentriert sich dabei auf Ihre Stimme und nicht auf Geräusche im Hintergrund. Um diese Funktion auszuprobieren, nahm ich meine Stimme mit der Windows-App “Sound Recorder” auf, während ich im Hintergrund Musik und weißes Rauschen abspielte.</p>



<p>Beide Hintergrundgeräusche blieben noch etwas hörbar. Das weiße Rauschen wurde deutlich besser herausgefiltert als der Gesang im Hintergrund. Hier wusste die Software einfach nicht, ob sie die abgespielte Musik beibehalten oder ausblenden sollte. Die meisten neuen Asus-Laptops bieten eine noch bessere Geräuschfilterung.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Tastatur und Touchpad</h2>



<p>Die Tastatur gehörte einst auch zu den Aspekten, die ein Surface-Gerät ausgezeichnet haben. Mittlerweile haben die anderen Hersteller jedoch aufgeholt. Mir sind dennoch keine Mängel an der Tastatur des Surface Laptop 8 for Business aufgefallen. Sie ist nicht deutlich besser oder schlechter als andere gute Laptop-Tastaturen.</p>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" src="https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Bildschirmfoto-2026-07-09-um-20.34.33.png?w=1024" alt="Surface Laptop 8" class="wp-image-4195225" width="1024" height="722" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px"></figure><p class="imageCredit">Mark Hachman / Foundry</p></div>



<p>Der neue Surface Laptop verfügt über die haptischen Touchpads, die Microsoft vor einigen Jahren eingeführt hat. Diese lassen sich über die gesamte Fläche anklicken. Dies ist im Vergleich zu herkömmlichen Touchpads ein echter Pluspunkt. Microsoft arbeitet zudem daran, ein subtiles haptisches Feedback auszulösen, wenn der Mauszeiger über bestimmte Bildschirmelemente bewegt wird, wie das “X” zum Schließen eines Fensters. Der Effekt ist sehr unauffällig, aber dennoch ein nettes kleines Detail.</p>



<p>Das Touchpad lässt sich zudem über die Surface-App anpassen. Diese war auf meinem Testgerät jedoch nicht vorinstalliert. Die App kann jedoch <a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/article/3168116/surface-laptop-8-for-business-test.html#" target="_blank">kostenlos aus dem Microsoft Store</a> heruntergeladen werden. Mit der Software können Sie festlegen, welcher Bereich des Surface-Touchpads auf Rechts- und Linksklicks reagiert.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Webcam</h2>



<p>Der Surface Laptop 8 for Business verfügt über eine 1080p-Kamera, die die Windows Studio-Effekte wie Hintergrundunschärfe, Bildausschnitt, Blickkontakt und mehr unterstützt. Außerdem bietet sie die Gesichtserkennung, einen wesentlichen Bestandteil der <a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/article/2480916/warum-sie-windows-hello-verwenden-sollten-um-ihren-pc-zu-sichern.html" target="_blank">Windows Hello-Technologie</a>. Während des Testzeitraums hatte ich keinerlei Probleme mit der Anmeldung über die Kamera.</p>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" src="https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Bildschirmfoto-2026-07-09-um-20.34.53.png?w=1024" alt="Surface Laptop 8" class="wp-image-4195226" width="1024" height="596" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px"></figure><p class="imageCredit">Mark Hachman / Foundry</p></div>



<p>Da es sich um eine “Business”-Kamera handelt, erwartet man von der Webcam eine professionelle Darstellung unter verschiedenen Lichtverhältnissen. Und unter der hellen LED-Beleuchtung meines Büros funktioniert dies auch gut.</p>



<p>Hier habe ich die Webcam sowohl im hellen Licht unseres Büros als auch bei natürlicherer Beleuchtung in meiner Wohnung getestet.</p>



<p>Offen gestanden war ich von den Ergebnissen nicht sonderlich beeindruckt. Bei natürlicher Beleuchtung (der Himmel war an diesem Tag bewölkt) schnitt die Webcam recht gut ab, obwohl das Bild körniger war, als ich es erwartet hätte. Im Büro wirkte das Bild der Kamera jedoch etwas blass.</p>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" src="https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Bildschirmfoto-2026-07-09-um-20.35.01.png?w=1024" alt="Surface Laptop 8" class="wp-image-4195227" width="1024" height="564" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px"></figure><p class="imageCredit">Mark Hachman / Foundry</p></div>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Leistung</h2>



<p>Derzeit zählt der Intel Core Ultra 300 (<a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/article/2937427/intel-panther-lake-laptop-cpu.html?gad_source=1&amp;gad_campaignid=23842067659&amp;gclid=Cj0KCQjwi8nRBhDhARIsAHZf_pb7YWtNKos2TT2Azmce-HO0WHiai6SycmExhDbngIoE4SM7zBW4V3gaAs7_EALw_wcB" target="_blank">Panther Lake</a>) zu den besten Premium-Laptop-Prozessoren, die Sie im Jahr 2026 kaufen können. Den kürzlich vorgestellten AMD Ryzen AI 400-Prozessor konnten wir noch nicht in einem marktreifen Laptop finden.</p>



<p>Bislang durften wir Panther Lake jedoch nur in größeren Produktivitäts-Laptops mit überlegenen Kühlungslösungen wie dem <a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/article/3025832/die-10-besten-laptops-der-ces-2026.html" target="_blank">Asus ZenBook Duo</a> ausprobieren. Zum besseren Verständnis: Läuft ein Laptop über einen längeren Zeitraum unter hoher Last, kann sich die Performance durch Drosselung reduzieren. Auf diese Weise soll eine gefährliche Überhitzung verhindert werden. Im Fall des Surface Laptop 8 ist dies ein Punkt, auf den Sie besonders achten sollten.</p>



<p>Der Cinebench-2024-CPU-Benchmark umfasst einen “Thermal-Throttling”-Test. Dabei wird der Benchmark wiederholt über einen Zeitraum von zehn Minuten ausgeführt. In diesem Szenario ist eine verminderte Leistung ein Hinweis auf thermische Drosselung. Sie können dann einen einzelnen Durchlauf mit dem Langzeittest vergleichen. So kann festgestellt werden, ob eine Drosselung auftritt. In unserem Fall sank die CPU-Leistung bei einem Vergleich von 773 auf 689 Punkte.</p>



<p>Mit dem 3DMark-Grafiktest lässt sich ebenfalls ein Langzeittest durchführen – in diesem Fall zwanzig Benchmark-Durchläufe – und die Leistung im Verlauf des Tests vergleichen. Hier war der Unterschied noch größer.</p>



<p>Der Benchmark erzielte beim ersten Durchlauf die höchste Punktzahl, fiel dann bei den nachfolgenden Durchläufen auf etwa die Hälfte der Leistung ab und verblieb während der folgenden Testläufe auf diesem Niveau.</p>



<p>Was sagt uns das? In gewisser Weise sind Leistungswerte oft irreführend. Der Surface Laptop 8 funktioniert am zuverlässigsten in kurzen, intensiven Phasen, zumindest was das Gaming betrifft.</p>



<p>Für längere Sitzungen ist das Gerät weniger gut geeignet. Andererseits scheint die Kühlung für CPU-intensive Aufgaben auszureichen. Zu diesen Aufgaben zählen unter anderem das Betriebssystem, das Komprimieren und Dekomprimieren von Dateien sowie allgemeine Anwendungen ohne viele visuelle Elemente. Beachten Sie, dass wir zwar die NPU-Fähigkeiten des Laptops nicht testen, er sich mit seinen 50 TOPS jedoch als <a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/article/2819676/copilot-pc-lohnt-sich-der-kauf-eines-ki-rechners-das-mussen-sie-wissen.html" target="_blank">Copilot-PC</a> qualifiziert.</p>



<p>Ich habe den Surface Laptop 8 for Business mit mehreren 14-Zoll-Laptops der jüngsten Generation verglichen: dem <a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/article/2479359/acer-swift-14-ai-laptop-test.html" target="_blank">Acer Swift X 14 AI</a> und dem verwandten Modell <a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/article/3048294/acer-swift-edge-14-ai-test.html" target="_blank">Acer Swift Edge 14 AI</a>.</p>



<p>Hinzu kamen zwei Panther-Lake-Laptops: der <a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/article/3168116/surface-laptop-8-for-business-test.html#" target="_blank">Dell XPS 14</a> und der <a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/article/3072282/msi-prestige-flip-14-ai-test.html" target="_blank">MSI Prestige Flip 14 AI</a>. Schließlich habe ich noch zwei Snapdragon-Laptops hinzugefügt: den <a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/article/2380548/surface-laptop-7-test-eine-neue-ara-fur-windows-laptops.html" target="_blank">Surface Laptop 7</a> (2024) mit einem Snapdragon X1 Elite-Chip der ersten Generation sowie den <a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/article/2403490/lenovo-yoga-slim-7x-test.html" target="_blank">Lenovo Yoga Slim 7x Gen 11</a>, der mit einem Snapdragon X2 Elite Extreme-Chip der zweiten Generation ausgestattet ist.</p>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" src="https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Bildschirmfoto-2026-07-09-um-20.35.14.png?w=1024" alt="Surface Laptop 8" class="wp-image-4195228" width="1024" height="588" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px"></figure><p class="imageCredit">Mark Hachman / Foundry</p></div>



<p>Der PCMark-10-Test deckt ein breites Spektrum ab, das von Videoanrufen über das Surfen im Internet hin zu CAD-Anwendungen und einigen weniger anspruchsvollen Spielen reicht.</p>



<p>Aufgrund der Vielfalt der getesteten Anwendungen ist dieser Benchmark nach wie vor relevant. Der Surface Laptop profitiert ein wenig von seiner leistungsstarken integrierten GPU, obwohl es sich hierbei in erster Linie um CPU-orientierte Tests handelt.</p>



<p>Für andere Tests, die sich nicht mit PCMark messen lassen, verwenden wir stattdessen Cinebench 2024. Obwohl es eine Version für 2026 gibt, nutzen wir aus Kompatibilitätsgründen weiterhin Cinebench 2024. Auch hier gilt: Panther Lake ist eine leistungsstarke CPU, die bei kurzer Spitzenlast eine hohe Leistung bietet.</p>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" src="https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Bildschirmfoto-2026-07-09-um-20.35.25.png?w=1024" alt="Surface Laptop 8" class="wp-image-4195229" width="1024" height="475" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px"></figure><p class="imageCredit">Mark Hachman / Foundry</p></div>



<p>Dieser ausgedehnte Cinebench-Stresstest verdeutlicht jedoch, dass Sie bei längerer Nutzung mit einer geringeren CPU-Leistung rechnen müssen.</p>



<p>Handbrake war ursprünglich der Test, mit dem wir bewerteten, wie gut sich der Laptop und sein Prozessor über einen längeren Zeitraum behaupten können. Die App selbst ist nützlich, auch wenn sie schon älter ist.</p>



<p>Sie transkodiert lediglich eine Videodatei in ein Format, das für die Speicherung auf einem Tablet verwendet wird. Angesichts der Verbreitung von Streaming-Apps findet diese Transkodierung mittlerweile meist im Hintergrund statt. Dennoch ist sie ein wirksames Maß für die dauerhafte CPU-Leistung.</p>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" src="https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Bildschirmfoto-2026-07-09-um-20.35.36.png?w=1024" alt="Surface Laptop 8" class="wp-image-4195230" width="1024" height="436" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px"></figure><p class="imageCredit">Mark Hachman / Foundry</p></div>



<p>Unser traditioneller Maßstab für die 3D-Leistung ist der “Time Spy”-Benchmark von 3DMark. Dieser misst die 3D-Leistung auf eine Weise, die ein echtes 3D-Spiel simuliert. Auch hier würde ich erwarten, dass der Surface Laptop recht gut abschneidet – und das tut er auch.</p>



<p>Allerdings sind mir bei den von diesem Laptop gemeldeten Ergebnissen einige übermäßige Schwankungen aufgefallen. Nach einem Kaltstart stiegen die Benchmark-Ergebnisse auf einen Höchstwert von 7.063. Im niedrigsten Fall sank das Ergebnis auf 4.601. Nach jedem Durchlauf ließ ich den Laptop zehn Minuten lang abkühlen.</p>



<p>Bei diesem Gerät zeigen die Ergebnisse jedoch einen deutlichen Unterschied zwischen der Durchführung des Benchmarks zu Beginn des Tages und der Durchführung nach einer Abkühlphase von zehn Minuten im Anschluss an eine Reihe anderer Benchmarks. Dies ist ein ungewöhnliches Verhalten und ein echter Minuspunkt. Ich gehe einfach immer davon aus, dass ein hochwertiger Laptop eine konstante Leistung abliefern kann.</p>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" src="https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Bildschirmfoto-2026-07-09-um-20.35.44.png?w=1024" alt="Surface Laptop 8" class="wp-image-4195231" width="1024" height="351" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px"></figure><p class="imageCredit">Mark Hachman / Foundry</p></div>



<p>Da es sich beim Surface Laptop 8 um ein Produktivitätsgerät handelt, habe ich ihn im Hinblick auf Gaming nicht ausgiebig getestet. Allerdings machen Intels XeSS-Upscaling und die Frame-Generierung einen enormen Unterschied.</p>



<p>“Cyberpunk: 2077”, getestet bei einer Auflösung von 1.920 × 1.080 Pixeln und der Einstellung „Low“, erzielte mit der reinen Render-Engine des Spiels eine durchschnittliche Bildrate von 50 Bildern pro Sekunde. Das ist ein schon relativ gut spielbares Ergebnis. Mit aktivierten Zusatzfunktionen stieg die Bildrate jedoch auf 133 Bilder pro Sekunde – was mehr als spielbar ist.</p>



<p>Bitte beachten Sie, dass der Benchmark nur etwa eine Minute lang läuft. Daher ist bei längerem Spielen mit einem Rückgang der Bildrate zu rechnen.</p>



<p>Bei einem Produktivitäts-Laptop lege ich Wert auf außergewöhnliche Leistung. Aber die Akkulaufzeit ist ebenso wichtig. Einige der ersten Panther-Lake-Laptops, die ich getestet habe, verfügten über riesige 99-Wattstunden-Akkus – das zulässige Maximum in Flugzeugen.</p>



<p>Um das Gewicht gering zu halten, lieferte Microsoft den Surface Laptop 8 for Business mit einem 52-Wattstunden-Akku aus. Das wirkt sich natürlich auf die Akkulaufzeit aus, wenn auch nicht dramatisch. Es macht mir keine Sorgen, dass ich für eine Akkulaufzeit von 17,3 Stunden etwas weniger Gewicht mit mir herumschleppen muss. Bei produktiver Arbeit könnte die Laufzeit aber etwas niedriger ausfallen als in unseren Tests.</p>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" src="https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Bildschirmfoto-2026-07-09-um-20.35.52.png?w=1024" alt="Surface Laptop 8" class="wp-image-4195232" width="1024" height="415" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px"></figure><p class="imageCredit">Mark Hachman / Foundry</p></div>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Preis und Verfügbarkeit</h2>



<p>Zum Zeitpunkt der Veröffentlichung ist der Surface Laptop 8 for Business <a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/article/3168116/surface-laptop-8-for-business-test.html#" target="_blank">nur bei Microsoft selbst</a> und wenigen anderen Händlern erhältlich. Der Einstiegspreis für das 13,8-Zoll-Modell liegt beim Hersteller bei 2.119 Euro. Dafür gibt es 16 Gigabyte RAM und 256 Gigabyte Speicherplatz. Mit 512-Gigabyte-SSD klettert der Preis auf 2.239 Euro.</p>



<p>Optional ist für ausgewählte 13,8-Zoll-Konfigurationen der integrierte Privacy Screen erhältlich. Ob diese Variante in Deutschland verfügbar ist, geht aus dem Microsoft Store derzeit nicht eindeutig hervor. Als Option steht der Blickschutz bei der Konfiguration noch nicht zur Verfügung.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Fazit</h2>



<p>Würde man den Preis um etwa 1.000 Euro senken, dann ließe sich der Kauf des aktuellen Surface Laptop 8 for Business eher rechtfertigen. So ist dieser Laptop aber einfach viel zu teuer, um ihn zu empfehlen – selbst für die geschäftliche Nutzung.</p>



<p>Es ist erwähnenswert, dass die Laptops, mit denen wir den Surface Laptop primär vergleichen, auch erst kürzlich ausgeliefert wurden. Dadurch sind auch diese Geräte ebenfalls von den Kostensteigerungen bei Arbeitsspeicher und SSD-Speicher betroffen.</p>



<p>Bietet der Surface Laptop ansonsten etwas Überzeugendes? Abgesehen vom Blickschutzbildschirm eigentlich nicht wirklich. Was Leistung und Akkulaufzeit angeht, so gibt es viele Laptops, die diese Werte bei deutlich geringeren Anschaffungskosten sogar übertreffen.</p>



<p>Tatsächlich wirkt diese Generation der Surface-Laptops etwas unentschlossen. Privatkunden würden wahrscheinlich eine etwas leistungsstärkere Grafikeinheit für Spiele bevorzugen, während Geschäftsreisende eher auf eine starke CPU-Leistung Wert legen dürften. Das werden wir wahrscheinlich beim kommenden Surface Laptop für Privatkunden sehen, der vermutlich mit einem Qualcomm Snapdragon X2 Elite-Chip ausgestattet sein wird. Die Akkulaufzeit dürfte in etwa gleich bleiben.</p>



<p>Ich habe das Gefühl, dass ich bereits ausreichend Worte über diesen Laptop verloren habe. Er ist überteuert. Kaufen Sie ihn nicht.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Technische Daten</h2>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><strong>Prozessor: Core </strong>Ultra 5 335, Core Ultra 7 366H, Core Ultra X7 368H (getestet: 368H)</li>



<li><strong>Display:</strong> 13,8 Zoll (2.304 × 1.536 Pixel) PixelSense Flow, 24–120 Hertz, Dolby Vision, entspiegelt nach ISO-9241 oder blendfrei mit integriertem Blickschutz (getestet)</li>



<li><strong>Arbeitsspeicher:</strong> 16 Gigabyte/32 Gigabyte/64 Gigabyte LPDDR5X (getestet: 16 Gigabyte)</li>



<li><strong>Speicher:</strong> 256 Gigabyte/512 Gigabyte/1 Terabyte PCIe Gen 4 M.2 NVMe SSD (getestet: 512 Gigabyte)</li>



<li><strong>Grafikkarte:</strong> Iris Arc B390</li>



<li><strong>NPU:</strong> 50 TOPS</li>



<li><strong>Anschlüsse:</strong> 2 × USB-C/Thunderbolt 4, USB-A, 3,5-Millimeter-Kopfhöreranschluss, Surface Connect-Anschluss</li>



<li><strong>Sicherheit:</strong> Windows Hello-Kamera</li>



<li><strong>Kamera: </strong>1080p<strong> </strong>(zum Benutzer gerichtet, Windows Hello)</li>



<li><strong>Akku:</strong> Nennkapazität: 52,3 Wattstunden, tatsächliche Kapazität laut Test: 54,1 Wattstunden</li>



<li><strong>Drahtlos:</strong> Wi-Fi 7, Bluetooth Core 5.4</li>



<li><strong>Audio:</strong> Zwei Studio-Mikrofone, Omnisonic-Lautsprecher mit Dolby Atmos</li>



<li><strong>Betriebssystem:</strong> Windows 11 Pro</li>



<li><strong>Abmessungen:</strong> 301 Millimeter x 220 Millimeter x 17,5 Millimeter</li>



<li><strong>Gewicht:</strong> 1,35 Kilogramm</li>



<li><strong>Farben:</strong> Platin und Mattschwarz</li>



<li><strong>Preise:</strong> ab 2.119 Euro (Testmodell: 2.239 Euro)</li>
</ul>



<p>(<a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/article/3168116/surface-laptop-8-for-business-test.html" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.pcwelt.de/article/3168116/surface-laptop-8-for-business-test.html" target="_blank">PC-Welt</a>)</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Wall Street is debating the AI buildout. Enterprises just answered: 86% say their GPUs run at half capacity or less]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Enterprise companies are running AI agents ahead of the controls needed to manage them — and they deployed that way knowingly. That is the central finding from VentureBeat Research's June survey of 573 technical leaders at companies with 100 or more employees, fielded across five parallel surveys...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3660798/it-nachrichten/wall-street-is-debating-the-ai-buildout-enterprises-just-answered-86-say-their-gpus-run-at-half-capacity-or-less/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3660798/it-nachrichten/wall-street-is-debating-the-ai-buildout-enterprises-just-answered-86-say-their-gpus-run-at-half-capacity-or-less/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2026 22:48:13 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Enterprise companies are running AI agents ahead of the controls needed to manage them — and they deployed that way knowingly. That is the central finding from VentureBeat Research's June survey of 573 technical leaders at companies with 100 or more employees, fielded across five parallel surveys of the agentic stack. </p><p>Enterprises are now retrofitting to catch up with their own standards, and they are budgeting for it: Roughly six in 10 enterprises plan to switch or add vendors in each of five control layers within the next 12 months, and roughly a third — depending on the layer — plan to move within the quarter, the research finds.</p><p>There are five main layers where enterprises are building: identity for agents (which agent is allowed to do what, under whose credentials); evaluation of agent output (whether the work is any good); cost telemetry (what each agent costs to run); the context layer (the business data and definitions agents draw on to answer); and the orchestration control plane (the software that coordinates multi-step agent work).</p><p>Enterprises are already paying the price for deploying agents ahead of adequate control functions. Fifty-four percent of companies <a href="https://venturebeat.com/security/shared-api-keys-expose-ai-agent-fleets-venturebeat-research">had an agent security incident or near-miss caught before harm</a> in the past 12 months. Twenty-seven percent exercise only reactive control of agent spend — they learn what an agent costs when the invoice arrives, with no per-agent budget or ceiling in place.</p><div></div><p>Here are the five findings that anchor the set — one finding per layer of the tech stack — and what the data suggests doing first in each.</p><h2>Expensive hardware is idle: 86% of GPU operators report utilization of 50% or less</h2><p>Eighty-six percent of enterprises that run their own GPUs report utilization of 50% or less. Wall Street has spent the quarter debating whether the AI buildout is overbuilt. This is buy-side measurement, from the enterprises doing the buying, and the research says the most expensive hardware in buildings of these enterprises runs at no more than half its capacity.</p><p>The measurement gap compounds it: A minority 44% rigorously track what their AI compute actually costs and returns. Everyone else is only estimating. And the enterprise shopping process continues regardless: 45% of these enterprises say the emerging compute option they are most likely to evaluate in the next 12 months is an AI-specialized cloud (CoreWeave, Lambda, Crusoe, Nebius). However, under 2% of these enterprises report using one of these neoclouds today. </p><p>Moreover, roughly one in three companies appears to be considering a hedge against Nvidia: Asked which emerging compute option they are most likely to evaluate in the next 12 months, 32% of enterprises named non-Nvidia accelerators (AWS Trainium, Google TPUs, AMD), while 28% named next-generation Nvidia GPUs. The data suggests that enterprises should measure the utilization and per-workload cost of the GPUs they already own before committing budget to new compute — whether that's an AI-specialized cloud contract, new accelerators, or more GPUs. </p><h2>Most deployed "agents" do single-prompt work: 71% say a quarter or fewer complete multi-step tasks on their own</h2><p>Seventy-one percent of enterprises say a quarter or fewer of their deployed "agents" can complete multi-step work on their own; the rest are single-prompt chatbots. Only 10% say true agents are the majority of what they run. To be sure, the respondents reported that they are in a position to know these things: 81% said they recommend or decide AI purchases at their companies.</p><p>That finding — that most agents are actually just chatbots in trenchcoats — lands amid adoption claims across the industry running well ahead of what enterprises are actually running. Gartner <a href="https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2025-08-26-gartner-predicts-40-percent-of-enterprise-apps-will-feature-task-specific-ai-agents-by-2026-up-from-less-than-5-percent-in-2025">predicted</a> 40% of enterprise applications will be integrated with task-specific AI agents by the end of 2026, up from less than 5% in 2025. It also warned that the most common misconception is referring to these AI assistants as agents, a misunderstanding known as "agentwashing."</p><p>Meanwhile, Zapier's enterprise <a href="https://zapier.com/blog/ai-agents-survey/">survey</a> said 72% reported deploying or testing autonomous agents; and Writer's 2026 <a href="https://writer.com/blog/enterprise-ai-adoption-2026/">survey</a> has 97% of executives saying their company deployed AI agents in the past year. </p><p>Those surveys asked whether companies have deployed something called an AI agent, and companies said yes. Our survey asked the people running those deployments a harder question: Of the agents you have in production, how many can complete a multi-step task without a person driving each step? The gap matters for two practical reasons. First, the inflated adoption figures are the benchmark boards and vendors use to pressure technical leaders into moving faster — and this data says the real bar is far lower than the headlines suggest. Second, the label determines the bill: A single-prompt chatbot with a human reading every answer needs none of the identity, evaluation, and cost controls this report covers, while a true multi-step agent needs all of them. </p><h2>66% let agents push to production on automated evals alone — or are engineering toward it. 5% fully trust those evals</h2><p>Two-thirds of enterprises fall into one of two camps: 34% already allow an AI agent to push a code or system change to production based on automated evaluation results alone, with no human reviewing it, and another 33% are actively engineering their pipelines to allow that within the next 12 months. Only five percent fully trust the automated evaluations that would make that decision.</p><p>The distrust is earned. Half of enterprises shipped an agent that passed internal evaluations and then caused a customer-facing failure in the past year; a quarter watched it happen more than once. Asked to name the biggest weakness in their current evaluations, more enterprises chose “poor alignment with real-world outcomes” than any other answer — 29% of respondents.</p><p>And most of the checking happens before an agent ships, then stops. Once agents are live with real users, only 23% of enterprises run real-time quality checks on the answers those agents produce. Another 51% monitor system health only — uptime, request traces, and gateway logs — which tells them the agent is running, and nothing about whether its answers are right. The first move: Before removing human review from any workflow, test your evaluations against production outcomes rather than internal benchmarks, and instrument answer quality, not just uptime. </p><p>This finding is explored in more depth in <a href="https://venturebeat.com/orchestration/enterprise-ai-is-entering-an-evaluation-gap-agents-are-gaining-autonomy-faster-than-companies-can-verify-them">VentureBeat's related coverage of the evaluation gap</a>, which found that larger enterprises are moving faster toward zero-human deployment while also failing more often — and outlines a regression-testing framework built on production outcomes rather than internal benchmarks. </p><h2>69% run credential sharing somewhere in the agent fleet — and those companies get hit far more often</h2><p>Sixty-nine percent of companies allow agent credential sharing somewhere in their agent fleet during runtime – meaning multiple agents operating under one API key or service account. Those companies were far more likely to get hit: Organizations with credential sharing anywhere in the fleet experienced a security incident or near-miss at a 63.5% rate (47 of 74), against 40.9% (9 of 22) where every agent has its own scoped identity. </p><p>The takeaway for enterprises is this: Give every agent its own scoped identity, starting with the agents that touch production systems.</p><h2>57% traced a confident, wrong agent answer to their own missing or inconsistent business context</h2><p>Fifty-seven percent of enterprises traced at least one confident, wrong agent answer in the past six months to missing or inconsistent business context: wrong metrics, stale definitions, absent documents. Most of them watched it happen more than once.</p><p>Most enterprise companies are fixing this, even though they’ve moved forward with agent deployment already: 25% already run a governed semantic layer, or one governed definition of the business that every AI reads from, in production. However, 34% are still building one, and 41% haven't started. The takeaway: Govern the definitions your agents answer from, metrics and entities first, before scaling the agents that depend on them.</p><h2>The quarter where agent technology “portability” became a priority</h2><p>One more shift is worth reporting with its limits stated plainly. In our spring orchestration survey wave, the top concern about provider-controlled orchestration was security and permissioning limits (32%). By June, vendor lock-in led at roughly a third, with security limits at 28%. </p><p>Those are two snapshots one quarter apart, and here’s one possible explanation for why portability became a top issue for enterprises. Our June survey went into market after a June 12 U.S. Commerce Department <a href="https://venturebeat.com/orchestration/enterprises-lost-claude-fable-5-for-a-few-weeks-new-data-shows-two-thirds-had-already-built-their-hedge">export order took Anthropic's Claude Fable 5 offline</a> for enterprises for roughly three weeks. Meanwhile, Chinese company Z.ai <a href="https://venturebeat.com/technology/z-ais-open-weights-glm-5-2-beats-gpt-5-5-on-multiple-long-horizon-coding-benchmarks-for-1-6th-the-cost">released GLM-5.2's open weights</a> under an MIT license on June 16 at roughly one-sixth of GPT-5.5's price; and Tencent's <a href="https://venturebeat.com/technology/tencents-apache-licensed-hy3-takes-on-glm-5-2-at-half-the-size-and-wins-everywhere-except-coding">Hy3 arrived</a> July 6 under Apache 2.0; and OpenAI <a href="https://venturebeat.com/technology/openai-unveils-gpt-5-6-sol-terra-and-luna-models-but-only-accessible-to-limited-preview-partners-for-now-per-us-gov">previewed GPT-5.6</a> on June 26 to a small group of government-vetted partners, opening it broadly on July 9 after the government's review cleared. The open-weight releases in particular promise enterprises more control over their agents, and while we haven't established a causal link here, the timing is worth noting.</p><p>The posture data matches the mood: 51% now expect their primary control plane for enterprise agents to be hybrid — provider-native plus external orchestration — by the end of 2026, up from 34% in the spring survey wave. Enterprises reporting that they rely purely on provider-managed agent services fell from 12% to 7%.</p><h2>Five layers, no incumbents, 12 months</h2><p>The synthesis across all five surveys reveals a huge “buying” window. In each of the five control layers, 57% to 64% of enterprises plan to switch or add vendors within 12 months — 64% in infrastructure and in evaluations, 59% in agent security, 57% in retrieval and context — and 26% to 38%, depending on the layer, plan to move within a quarter. No layer has an established incumbent: The most common evaluation tooling is the model provider's built-in evals, tied with no dedicated tooling at all (17% each); 82% of respondents name provider-native or hyperscaler controls as their primary agent security layer; and provider-native retrieval leads the context technology layer (RAG, etc) as well. </p><p>Most enterprises are defaulting today to the built-in tools that ship with the big AI platforms they already use: Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, Microsoft, and AWS. That holds true across every one of these agentic technology layers: enterprises are looking to their primary cloud and model providers to supply the guardrails, evaluations, and retrieval solutions already bundled into those providers' offerings.</p><p>Those defaults are winning on convenience, and they're also what the coming spending decisions will test. The survey didn't ask which direction that money moves — toward the platforms' built-in tools or toward the specialists challenging them — which is exactly why every contract in these five layers is worth watching over the next four quarters.</p><p>The Q3 survey wave will measure whether the enterprises made good on these budget plans: whether their agents gained scoped identities, whether evaluations got tested against production outcomes, whether GPU utilization rose, and whether the semantic layers under construction shipped.</p><p><i>VentureBeat will release the full Q2 reports across all five VB Pulse trackers at </i><a href="https://luma.com/92nbdnnx?utm_source=LI&amp;utm_campaign=mmpost2"><i>VB Transform</i></a><i>, July 14–15 at Hotel Nia in Menlo Park, where we convene enterprise technical leaders building autonomous agents in production. </i></p><p><i>Disclosure: VentureBeat produces both this research and VB Transform</i></p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Der Philips OLED810 wird immer teurer! Warum ich dennoch zum Kauf rate]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Der Philips OLED810 zählt nicht nur mit seinem Ambilight zu den attraktivsten Fernsehern, in unserem Test verdiente er sich die Note 1,3. Jetzt ziehen die Preise an, Zeit für einen Check
																					Dieser Artikel wurde einsortiert unter 
																	Philips,																	Schnäpp...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3660695/it-nachrichten/der-philips-oled810-wird-immer-teurer-warum-ich-dennoch-zum-kauf-rate/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3660695/it-nachrichten/der-philips-oled810-wird-immer-teurer-warum-ich-dennoch-zum-kauf-rate/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2026 21:32:59 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Der Philips OLED810 zählt nicht nur mit seinem Ambilight zu den attraktivsten Fernsehern, in unserem Test verdiente er sich die Note 1,3. Jetzt ziehen die Preise an, Zeit für einen Check
																					Dieser Artikel wurde einsortiert unter 
																	<a href="https://www.netzwelt.de/hersteller/philips.html">Philips</a>,																	<a href="https://www.netzwelt.de/schnaeppchen/index.html">Schnäppchen</a>,																	<a href="https://www.netzwelt.de/fernseher/">Fernseher kaufen: Der große Ratgeber mit allen Infos, die ihr zum Fernseher-Kauf braucht</a>,																	<a href="https://www.netzwelt.de/fernseher/philips-oled810-testbericht.html">Philips 55OLED810</a>,																	<a href="https://www.netzwelt.de/fernseher-smart-tvs/tv-55-zoll/index.html">TV 55 Zoll</a>,																	<a href="https://www.netzwelt.de/fernseher-smart-tvs/tv-oled/index.html">TV OLED</a>.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[AI job titles expand beyond tech as IT hiring remains strong]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[New research from Indeed Hiring Lab found that the number of U.S. job titles referencing AI has more than tripled since 2022, growing from 264 to 822 by the first quarter of 2026.



The research division of the global job search platform also discovered that nearly two-thirds (63%) of those AI-r...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3660370/it-security-nachrichten/ai-job-titles-expand-beyond-tech-as-it-hiring-remains-strong/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3660370/it-security-nachrichten/ai-job-titles-expand-beyond-tech-as-it-hiring-remains-strong/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2026 18:33:30 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p>New research from <a href="https://www.hiringlab.org/2026/07/08/ai-is-no-longer-just-a-tech-occupation-story/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Indeed Hiring Lab</a> found that the number of U.S. job titles referencing AI has more than tripled since 2022, growing from 264 to 822 by the first quarter of 2026.</p>



<p>The research division of the global job search platform also discovered that nearly two-thirds (63%) of those AI-related job titles in the U.S. now appear in roles outside traditional technology occupations, in fields such as healthcare, education, marketing, logistics, and management.</p>



<p>“AI is no longer just a tech occupation story,” Indeed <a href="https://www.hiringlab.org/2026/07/08/ai-is-no-longer-just-a-tech-occupation-story/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">researchers wrote</a>, noting that employers are increasingly incorporating AI skills into roles that historically had little connection to software development or data science. “The number of AI-touched jobs has risen across every market we track.”</p>



<p>Separately, according to CompTIA’s latest <a href="https://www.comptia.org/en-us/about-us/news/press-releases/Tech-hiring-momentum-continues-as-tech-occupations-and-new-job-postings-increase-CompTIA-analysis-reveals/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Tech Jobs Report</a>, employers posted more than <a href="http://lecbyo.files.cmp.optimizely.com/download/6b6fc8e4ff4a11efbebeaeb5c39a94d9?sfvrsn=725f3c8d_0" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">280,000 new technology job postings</a> in June, marking the sixth consecutive month of growth. Active technology job postings approached 600,000, while employment in tech occupations increased by 47,000 positions. The unemployment rate for tech occupations fell to 2.9%, compared with the national unemployment rate of 4.2%, according to CompTIA.</p>



<p>“June’s employment data suggests that employers are ramping up their technology investments and hiring the talent needed to support them,” said Seth Robinson, vice president for industry research at CompTIA, in a <a href="https://www.comptia.org/en-us/about-us/news/press-releases/Tech-hiring-momentum-continues-as-tech-occupations-and-new-job-postings-increase-CompTIA-analysis-reveals/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">statement</a>. “Even as some tech companies announce layoffs, employers in other industries are accelerating digital transformation initiatives and moving from AI experimentation to implementation.”</p>



<p><a href="https://lecbyo.files.cmp.optimizely.com/download/6b6fc8e4ff4a11efbebeaeb5c39a94d9?sfvrsn=725f3c8d_0" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">CompTIA’s report</a> notes that new tech job postings increased for the sixth consecutive month amid what it described as a “broad-based movement toward reinvigorating digital transformation activities and clarifying AI strategies.”</p>



<p>Demand remains strongest for traditional IT roles. Software developers and engineers led all technology job postings in June with nearly 50,000 openings, followed by systems engineers, tech support specialists, data analysts, and DevOps engineers. Professional, scientific, and technical services firms generated the highest volume of technology job postings, followed by administrative services, manufacturing, information and media, and financial services organizations, according to CompTIA.</p>



<p>Employers are increasingly “writing AI into job titles for a wide range of roles—not just software and data jobs,” according to Indeed’s report. The reports show continued demand for technology workers while AI-related job titles become more common outside the traditional tech sector.</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Most Americans Have Tried AI But Over Half Think It Is Overhyped]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[A new survey reveals that almost everyone in the country has tested out artificial intelligence tools at least once over the past year. Despite this massive adoption rate, the actual enthusiasm for the new technology remains surprisingly low. A recent poll shows that while people find these digit...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3660006/ios-mac-os/most-americans-have-tried-ai-but-over-half-think-it-is-overhyped/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3660006/ios-mac-os/most-americans-have-tried-ai-but-over-half-think-it-is-overhyped/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2026 16:24:08 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🍏 iOS / Mac OS</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[A new survey reveals that almost everyone in the country has tested out artificial intelligence tools at least once over the past year. Despite this massive adoption rate, the actual enthusiasm for the new technology remains surprisingly low. A recent poll shows that while people find these digital assistants helpful for basic daily tasks, a large portion of the public believes the entire trend is completely overblown.



Most users rely on the tools daily but refuse to pay



According to the latest survey data, 96 percent of Americans have tried AI at some point, and 86 percent still use it on a regular basis. People mostly rely on these platforms to search for information, compare different products, and plan their daily schedules. Interestingly, more than one in five users admit to talking to chatbots simply for companionship or to vent about their day.



Even with so many daily active users, the general attitude toward the technology is mixed. A slim majority of 51 percent think artificial intelligence is getting way too much hype. The concerns go even deeper, as 77 percent believe these tools make humans lazier, and 57 percent worry that relying on software weakens our critical thinking skills over time.



Because of these doubts, very few people are willing to open their wallets. Only 26 percent of current users actually pay for a subscription. The survey noted that 54 percent of people would abandon the tools completely if they were forced to pay a monthly fee.



While tech companies continue to launch new software, the average consumer clearly prefers to keep their money and invest in real human workers instead.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[CVE-2026-47291: Remote Code Execution in the Windows HTTP.sys]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[In this excerpt of a TrendAI Research Services vulnerability report, Yazhi Wang and Jonathan Lein of the TrendAI Research team detail a recently patched remote code execution bug in the Windows HTTP protocol stack. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability can result in a denial-of-service co...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3659964/it-security-nachrichten/cve-2026-47291-remote-code-execution-in-the-windows-httpsys/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3659964/it-security-nachrichten/cve-2026-47291-remote-code-execution-in-the-windows-httpsys/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2026 16:08:37 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class=""><em>In this excerpt of a TrendAI Research Services vulnerability report, Yazhi Wang and Jonathan Lein of the TrendAI Research team detail a recently patched remote code execution bug in the Windows HTTP protocol stack. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability can result in a denial-of-service condition, or, in the worst case, code execution with kernel privileges. The following is a portion of their write-up covering CVE-2026-47291, with a few minimal modifications.</em></p>





















  
  



<hr>



  <p class="">A remote code execution vulnerability exists in the HTTP Protocol Stack for Microsoft Internet Information Services implemented in HTTP.sys. The vulnerability is due to invalid validating incoming HTTP requests. </p><p class="">A remote, unauthenticated attacker can exploit this vulnerability by sending crafted HTTP packets to the target system. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability can result in a denial-of-service condition, or, in the worst case, code execution with kernel privileges.</p><p class=""><strong>The Vulnerability</strong></p><p class=""><em>HTTP.sys</em> is the kernel-mode HTTP protocol driver in Microsoft Windows. It provides HTTP request parsing, response caching, and SSL/TLS termination for Internet Information Services (IIS) and other applications that register URL prefixes. The driver listens on configured TCP ports (commonly 80 for HTTP and 443 for HTTPS) and processes inbound HTTP/1.x and HTTP/2 requests at the kernel level.</p><p class="">When operating over HTTPS, <em>HTTP.sys</em> delegates TLS processing to the Windows Secure Channel (SChannel) provider. Inbound TCP data is decrypted on a <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446/">per-record basis</a>: each TLS record constitutes an independent unit of encryption and is decrypted separately by SChannel before being delivered to <em>HTTP.sys</em> as a distinct plaintext buffer. A single TLS 1.3 application data record has the following structure:</p>





















  
  




  


  
  
    
    
      
        
        
        
        
          
        
        
        
      
    
  
  






  <p class="">The decrypted payload of each TLS record is delivered independently to the HTTP parser via</p><p class=""><em>UlHttpBufferReceiveEvent()</em>, regardless of how many TLS records the underlying TCP connection coalesces into a single TCP segment. This behavior is distinct from plaintext HTTP connections, where the Windows TCP stack coalesces multiple segments into a single receive indication before the data reaches <em>HTTP.sys</em>.</p><p class="">The HTTP parser maintains a per-request state object that includes a dynamically grown buffer reference array. The <em>capacity</em> field stores the current number of allocated slots in the buffer reference array. The <em>count</em> field stores the number of slots currently in use. The <em>ref_array_ptr</em> field points to the dynamically allocated array of 8-byte buffer reference entries.</p><p class="">An integer overflow vulnerability exists in <em>HTTP.sys</em>. The vulnerability is due to insufficient bounds checking when growing a buffer reference array during HTTP/1.x header parsing. When <em>HTTP.sys</em> receives data for an HTTP/1.x request, it allocates a <em>UL_REQUEST_BUFFER</em> structure for each receive indication and tracks these buffers in the per-request reference array described above. The <em>count</em> field records the number of active buffer references, and the <em>capacity</em> field records the total number of allocated slots. </p><p class="">As the HTTP parser (<em>UlpParseNextRequest()</em>) processes header lines, it calls an inline buffer reference routine each time a new receive buffer is consumed. When <em>count</em> reaches <em>capacity</em>, the routine grows the array by reallocating it with five additional slots. The new allocation size is computed as 0x28 + <em>capacity</em> * 8, the contents of the existing array are copied via <em>memmove</em> using <em>count</em> * 8 as the copy length, and <em>capacity</em> is incremented by 5 as a 16-bit unsigned integer addition. No overflow check is performed on this addition.</p><p class="">After 13,107 growth events, <em>capacity</em> reaches 0xFFFB. The next growth adds 5, producing 0x10000, which truncates to 0x0000 in the 16-bit field. On the subsequent buffer reference addition, <em>count</em> (which is now 65,536 or greater) exceeds the zero <em>capacity</em>, triggering another growth. The allocation size computation 0x28 + 0 * 8 produces a 40-byte allocation, but the <em>memmove</em> copies <em>count</em> * 8 bytes (approximately 524,256 bytes) from the old buffer into the 40-byte allocation. This results in a kernel pool heap buffer overflow of over 500 kilobytes.</p><p class="">Each buffer reference corresponds to one receive buffer delivered to the HTTP parser. For plaintext HTTP connections, the Windows TCP stack coalesces received segments into large indications, and <em>UlpMergeBuffers() </em>further combines buffers within <em>HTTP.sys</em>. Over TLS connections, each TLS record is decrypted independently by SChannel and delivered as a separate buffer through <em>UlHttpBufferReceiveEvent()</em> into <em>UlpCopyIndicatedData()</em>. If each TLS record contains exactly one complete header line (terminated by CRLF), the HTTP parser fully consumes the buffer without setting the partial-parse flag, causing <em>UlpAdjustBuffers()</em> to advance to the next buffer via its non-merge path. This creates a 1:1 correspondence between TLS records sent and buffer references accumulated.</p><p class="">To trigger the overflow, an attacker crafts an HTTP request in which each header line is encapsulated in a separate TLS application data record. Given a minimum header line size of approximately 4 bytes and a required count of 65,536 buffer references, the total request size comes to roughly 262,144 bytes. The <em>MaxRequestBytes </em>registry value (at <em>HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\HTTP\Parameters</em>) must be configured to a value of at least 262,144 bytes for the server to accept a request of this size. The default value of 16,384 bytes limits the request to approximately 4000 header lines, which is insufficient to trigger the overflow. As a mitigation, keeping <em>MaxRequestBytes</em> at or below 65,535 bytes represents the most conservative configuration to prevent this attack.</p><p class="">A remote unauthenticated attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending a specially crafted HTTP/1.x request over a TLS connection to an affected server. Successful exploitation results in unexpected system termination due to a memory access exception in the context of the kernel. Under specific memory layout conditions, exploitation could result in arbitrary code execution in the context of the kernel.</p><p class=""><strong>Notes:</strong></p><p class="">• The vulnerability is only reachable through HTTP/1.x header parsing over TLS connections. HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 use different parser paths that do not interact with the buffer reference array.</p><p class="">• Body data parsing (Content-Length or chunked transfer encoding) does not add entries to the buffer reference array. Only header parsing triggers buffer reference growth.</p><p class="">• At a sending rate of 10 milliseconds per TLS record, the overflow requires approximately 11 minutes to trigger.</p><p class=""><strong>Source Code Walkthrough</strong></p><p class="">The following code snippet was taken from <em>HTTP.sys</em> version 10.0.26100.7705. Comments added by TrendAI Research have been highlighted.</p><p class="">In <em>UlpParseNextRequest()</em>:</p>





















  
  




  


  
  
    
    
      
        
        
        
        
          
        
        
        
      
    
  
  






  <p class=""><strong>Detection Guidance</strong></p><p class="">To detect an attack exploiting this vulnerability, the detection device must monitor and parse traffic on the TCP port 443.</p><p class="">The traffic on the affected port(s) is TLS-encrypted. The detection device must be able to decrypt the TLS traffic before applying the following detection method. The detection device should monitor for HTTPS connections.</p><p class="">An HTTP/1.x request [1] consists of a request line followed by zero or more header field lines, each terminated by CRLF. The following grammar defines the relevant structure:</p>





















  
  




  


  
  
    
    
      
        
        
        
        
          
        
        
        
      
    
  
  






  <p class=""><em>Decrypted traffic inspection:</em></p><p class="">After decrypting the TLS session, the detection device must parse the HTTP/1.x request headers. The detection device must count the number of distinct header field lines present in a single HTTP request. If the number of header field lines in a single request exceeds 1,000, the traffic should be considered suspicious; an attack exploiting this vulnerability is likely underway.</p><p class=""><em>Encrypted traffic heuristics:</em></p><p class="">Where decryption is not available, the detection device should inspect the pattern of TLS application data records within the encrypted session. If each TLS application data record contains a single short payload and the total number of such records on a single connection exceeds 1,000, the traffic should be considered suspicious; an attack exploiting this vulnerability is likely underway.</p><p class=""><em>Notes:</em></p><p class="">• The preferred detection method (header line count) requires the ability to decrypt TLS traffic, for example through TLS inspection, a decrypting proxy, or possession of the server's private key. This method directly observes the attack indicator and produces low false-positive and false-negative rates.</p><p class="">• The TLS record heuristic operates on encrypted traffic and does not require decryption. This method is more prone to false positives (legitimate applications that send many small TLS records, such as interactive streaming sessions, may trigger the heuristic) and to false negatives (the threshold is based on observable record sizes rather than the actual header count that determines exploitability). Where possible, decrypted traffic inspection should be preferred.</p><p class="">• The attack requires approximately 11 minutes of sustained connection to accumulate sufficient header lines. Connection duration monitoring may serve as a supplementary detection heuristic.</p><p class=""><strong>Conclusion</strong></p><p class="">This vulnerability was <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47291">patched</a> by Microsoft in the June 2026 release cycle. They note several mitigations that include editing the registry to ensure unpatched systems are not vulnerable to exploitation. However, the best method to ensure this bug has been fully remediated is to test and deploy the vendor-supplied patch.</p><p class="">Special thanks to Yazhi Wang and Jonathan Lein of the TrendAI Research team for providing such a thorough analysis of this vulnerability. For an overview of TrendAI Research services, please visit <a href="https://go.trendmicro.com/tis/vulnerabilities.html">https://go.trendmicro.com/tis/vulnerabilities.html</a>.</p><p class="">The threat research team will be back with other great vulnerability analysis reports in the future. Until then, follow the team on <a href="https://www.twitter.com/thezdi">Twitter</a>, <a href="https://infosec.exchange/@thezdi">Mastodon</a>, <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/zerodayinitiative">LinkedIn</a>, or <a href="https://bsky.app/profile/thezdi.bsky.social">Bluesky</a> for the latest in exploit techniques and security patches.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The business case for burning down security debt: A practical approach for CISOs]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Security leaders have made strong progress in visibility. Most organizations can now identify vulnerabilities across their applications, dependencies and development pipelines with far more consistency than in the past. Yet a fundamental imbalance remains: Vulnerabilities are being discovered fas...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3659197/it-security-nachrichten/the-business-case-for-burning-down-security-debt-a-practical-approach-for-cisos/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3659197/it-security-nachrichten/the-business-case-for-burning-down-security-debt-a-practical-approach-for-cisos/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2026 11:07:23 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p>Security leaders have made strong progress in visibility. Most organizations can now identify vulnerabilities across their applications, dependencies and development pipelines with far more consistency than in the past. Yet a fundamental imbalance remains: Vulnerabilities are being discovered faster than they can be remediated.</p>



<p>That imbalance is growing. Today, <a href="https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.veracode.com%2Fresources%2Fanalyst-reports%2Fstate-of-software-security-2026-ceros-report-overview%2F&amp;data=05%7C02%7Ctweismann%40marketbridge.com%7Cc952951b5bdc410aa53208dec26366af%7C2f0f75c5488d4df5b20e251bac7750fe%7C0%7C0%7C639161929376017393%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=7ZrmG9y%2BQIUsivk%2BV6oF1czB4DY%2BdAueL%2F%2BtHFwfzRs%3D&amp;reserved=0">82% of organizations carry security debt</a>, defined as accumulated vulnerabilities that have remained unresolved for more than a year. At the same time, the share of vulnerabilities defined as both “severe” and “likely to be exploited” continues to increase.</p>



<p>This combination has real consequences. Vulnerabilities are not just accumulating; they persist in production environments long enough to be discovered and used.</p>



<p>Among my fellow CISOs, the conversation has shifted. The challenge now is to translate this reality into a business case that resonates with executive leadership and drives investment in remediation capacity. Here are six ways to do this.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Treat security debt like financial debt</h2>



<p><a href="https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.csoonline.com%2Farticle%2F3842489%2Fcompanies-are-drowning-in-high-risk-software-security-debt-and-the-breach-outlook-is-getting-worse.html&amp;data=05%7C02%7Ctweismann%40marketbridge.com%7Cc952951b5bdc410aa53208dec26366af%7C2f0f75c5488d4df5b20e251bac7750fe%7C0%7C0%7C639161929376028539%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=pgofflrSIvtSv9tM8ZnMOnehos7S2oB1sqmOQ%2FAYWvk%3D&amp;reserved=0">Security debt</a> behaves much like financial debt. It accumulates over time, compounds when left unmanaged and creates ongoing costs for the business. Those costs show up in delayed releases, emergency remediation efforts, audit findings and incident response.</p>



<p>Managing it effectively requires the same discipline applied to financial risk. That means measuring total and critical debt, setting reduction targets and tracking progress over time. It also means distinguishing between acceptable and unacceptable levels of risk, rather than treating all vulnerabilities as equal.</p>



<p>I believe security debt should be visible at the executive level. Leadership teams routinely track financial performance, operational resilience and service reliability. Security debt belongs in the same category. It reflects the organization’s exposure and its ability to manage that exposure over time.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Frame remediation capacity as a business constraint</h2>



<p>Most organizations have a strong awareness of vulnerabilities. The limiting factor is the ability to address them.</p>



<p>Remediation capacity determines whether security debt grows or shrinks. When the volume of new findings exceeds the organization’s ability to fix them, the backlog expands and exposure increases. This dynamic persists regardless of how effective detection tools are.</p>



<p>In my experience, it’s important to quantify this constraint. That includes showing the gap between findings and fixes, identifying where high-risk vulnerabilities remain open and demonstrating how long they persist. These data points make it clear that incremental efficiency improvements will not close the gap on their own.</p>



<p>Presenting remediation capacity in operational terms helps align the discussion with executive priorities. Leaders understand constraints in engineering throughput, cloud spend and service availability. Remediation capacity should be treated in the same way.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Focus on exploitable risk in critical systems</h2>



<p>Security debt becomes meaningful when it is tied to business impact.</p>



<p>Not all vulnerabilities carry the same level of risk. The ones that matter most share two characteristics. They are likely to be exploited, and they exist in applications that are important to the business.</p>



<p>Traditional severity scoring does not fully capture this. The Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) remains useful. Still, it does not reflect whether a vulnerability is reachable, whether it sits in a critical system or whether exploit techniques are readily available.</p>



<p>A practical approach is to <a href="https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.csoonline.com%2Farticle%2F4119130%2Fvulnerability-prioritization-beyond-the-cvss-number.html&amp;data=05%7C02%7Ctweismann%40marketbridge.com%7Cc952951b5bdc410aa53208dec26366af%7C2f0f75c5488d4df5b20e251bac7750fe%7C0%7C0%7C639161929376039294%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=75rg%2FUVR7JHLeevhzg4PTdltJYtjY9I0g1CtDdYZFE8%3D&amp;reserved=0">layer exploitability and business context</a> onto existing scoring models. This creates a focused set of high-risk vulnerabilities that require immediate attention. In many environments, this represents a relatively small percentage of total findings, but it accounts for a large portion of potential impact.</p>



<p>By concentrating on this subset, organizations can direct resources where they have the greatest effect. This approach also makes it easier to communicate risks in business terms.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Prioritize crown-jewel applications</h2>



<p>Risk is not distributed evenly across applications.</p>



<p>Every organization has systems that are more critical than others. These may include customer-facing platforms, revenue-generating services or applications that process sensitive data. Compromise in these areas has a disproportionate impact on the business.</p>



<p>Focusing remediation efforts on these crown-jewel applications improves outcomes quickly. Our research found that 11.3% of flaws have high severity and high exploitability. It ensures that the most important systems receive the highest level of protection and reduces the likelihood of high-impact incidents.</p>



<p>Clear targets help reinforce this focus. Over a defined period, organizations can reduce critical security debt, shorten the lifespan of high-risk vulnerabilities and maintain strict thresholds for exposure in key systems. These targets translate security activity into business outcomes that leadership can understand and support.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Establish metrics that reflect risk</h2>



<p>Metrics play a central role in shaping behavior.</p>



<p>Many organizations continue to rely on the number of vulnerabilities discovered or resolved. While these metrics provide useful context, they do not indicate whether risk is increasing or decreasing.</p>



<p>More effective measures focus on exposure. These include the number of critical or exploitable vulnerabilities in key systems, the average age of those vulnerabilities and trends over time. Together, these metrics provide a clearer picture of how risk is evolving.</p>



<p>Linking these measures to organizational objectives strengthens accountability. Security debt reduction can be incorporated into OKRs, with specific targets for reducing critical debt, lowering vulnerability age and maintaining acceptable thresholds in high-risk applications.</p>



<p>Formalizing risk acceptance is also important. High-risk vulnerabilities that remain open should require business approval and defined timelines. This ensures that risk is acknowledged and managed deliberately.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Increase investment in remediation capacity</h2>



<p>Improving security outcomes requires sustained investment in the ability to act.</p>



<p>Remediation capacity can be expanded in several ways. Organizations can allocate dedicated engineering time for security work, integrate remediation into development workflows and adopt automation to reduce manual effort. AI-assisted fixes and automated guidance can help teams address vulnerabilities more efficiently without disrupting development velocity.</p>



<p>Preventing new security debt is equally important. Policies such as requiring high-risk vulnerabilities to be resolved before release help limit the introduction of additional exposure. Over time, this reduces the overall burden on remediation teams.</p>



<p>These changes do not slow innovation. They create conditions for delivering software safely and consistently.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Align the business around risk reduction</h2>



<p>Security debt affects more than the security function. It influences resilience, regulatory posture and the organization’s ability to deliver software with confidence.</p>



<p>CISOs play a central role in aligning stakeholders around this issue. By <a href="https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.csoonline.com%2Farticle%2F4168024%2Fcisos-align-cyber-risk-communication-with-boardroom-psychology.html&amp;data=05%7C02%7Ctweismann%40marketbridge.com%7Cc952951b5bdc410aa53208dec26366af%7C2f0f75c5488d4df5b20e251bac7750fe%7C0%7C0%7C639161929376049737%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=PDT6UZGZfIRSl%2BdwC%2FzFcbrcyjehtMUTOhgfIZObQvE%3D&amp;reserved=0">framing security debt in terms of business impact</a>, capacity constraints and measurable outcomes, they can shift the conversation from technical backlog management to enterprise risk reduction.</p>



<p>This alignment is critical for securing investment. When leadership understands the relationship between remediation capacity and business risk, decisions about funding, prioritization and trade-offs become clearer.</p>



<p>Security debt will continue to exist. What matters is how effectively it is managed and measured. For example, a good target should be doubling fix capacity through tooling investment, not just headcount.</p>



<p>Organizations that measure, govern and actively invest in reducing it are better positioned to control risk at scale. Those that do not will continue to see exposure grow, even as their visibility improves.</p>



<p><strong>This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.</strong><br><strong><a href="https://www.csoonline.com/expert-contributor-network/">Want to join?</a></strong></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[How to teach SRE AI agents to fail safely and earn your team’s trust]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Site reliability engineering is entering a new phase. As incidents become faster-moving, more data-rich and more complex, SRE teams are exploring agentic AI to help with alert triage, root cause analysis, runbook execution and mitigation planning. But in production, the question is not whether an...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3659188/ai-nachrichten/how-to-teach-sre-ai-agents-to-fail-safely-and-earn-your-teams-trust/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3659188/ai-nachrichten/how-to-teach-sre-ai-agents-to-fail-safely-and-earn-your-teams-trust/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2026 11:03:12 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🔧 AI Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p><a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2257232/what-is-an-sre-the-vital-role-of-the-site-reliability-engineer.html">Site reliability engineering</a> is entering a new phase. As incidents become faster-moving, more data-rich and more complex, SRE teams are exploring agentic AI to help with alert triage, root cause analysis, runbook execution and mitigation planning. But in production, the question is not whether an agent can act; it is whether people can trust it to act safely, consistently and transparently when the system is under stress.</p>



<p>This blog argues that trust is an engineering outcome, not a marketing promise. Trustworthy agentic SRE systems are built on a foundation of grounded telemetry, explicit safety boundaries, progressive autonomy, auditability and evaluation against real incidents.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><a></a>Why trust matters</h2>



<p>Traditional automation works well when the world is predictable. SRE work is different because incidents are messy, partial and time-sensitive, with ambiguous symptoms, shifting dependencies and business context that rarely fits into a neat playbook. A fluent AI agent that lacks system context can sound convincing while still making dangerous recommendations.</p>



<p>Trust in SRE is earned during failure, not during demos. That means the system must prove it can help during noisy alerts, failed deploys, partial outages and conflicting telemetry, while staying bounded enough that one mistake does not become a major incident. Google’s AI-in-SRE work makes the same point through its emphasis on strict guardrails, progressive authorization and deterministic actuation controls.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><a></a>Trust pillars</h2>



<p>A practical trust model for agentic SRE can be organized into five pillars.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-table"><div class="overflow-table-wrapper"><table class="has-fixed-layout"><tbody><tr><td><strong>Pillar</strong></td><td><strong>What it means</strong></td><td><strong>Why it matters</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Grounded observability</td><td>The agent reasons over correlated metrics, logs, traces, changes, topology and incident history.</td><td>SRE decisions often include business context that the agent does not fully see.</td></tr><tr><td>Clear guardrails</td><td>Permissions, allowlists, approval gates, rollback paths and rate limits constrain action.</td><td>Constraints make autonomy usable in production.</td></tr><tr><td>Human-in-the-loop design</td><td>Humans approve or supervise higher-risk actions.</td><td>SRE decisions often include business context that the agent does not fully see .</td></tr><tr><td>Explainability</td><td>The agent shows evidence, hypotheses, confidence and rationale.</td><td>Engineers need to inspect and challenge recommendations.</td></tr><tr><td>Real incident evaluation</td><td>The agent is scored against historical or replayed incidents.</td><td>Trust comes from measured performance, not benchmark theater.</td></tr></tbody></table> </div></figure>



<p>Google’s SRE autonomy model reflects the same progression: From assisted monitoring and investigation to partial autonomy with human approval to higher autonomy only after sustained success and safety proof.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><a></a>Architecture pattern</h2>



<p>A trustworthy agentic SRE system should separate reasoning from actuation. The agent can investigate, summarize, propose and even stage a plan, but the actual execution path should pass through a deterministic safety layer that validates permissions, risk, current production state and blast radius before any change is made.</p>



<p>A strong pattern looks like this:</p>



<ol start="1" class="wp-block-list">
<li>Alert arrives from monitoring or incident tooling.</li>



<li>Agent gathers context from telemetry, deploy history, ownership and prior incidents.</li>



<li>Agent produces a ranked hypothesis and a candidate remediation plan.</li>



<li>Safety layer checks policy, risk score, current incident state and dry-run outcome.</li>



<li>Human approves low-confidence or high-risk actions.</li>



<li>Actuation layer executes only pre-approved, bounded changes.</li>



<li>The system observes post-action effects and either confirms success or falls back.</li>
</ol>



<p>Google’s description of AI operator and its mitigation safety verification layer is a useful reference point here: Investigation is not the same as actuation and the two should not share the same trust boundary. That separation reduces blast radius and keeps the system interruptible.</p>



<p>To try out Agentic SRE, StackGen has a <a href="https://app.stackgen.com/">community edition</a> where you can see the capabilities of agentic SRE by connecting your Grafana or Datadog.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><a></a>Guardrails that work</h2>



<p>The most effective guardrails are boring in the best possible way. They include least-privilege identity, strict rate limits, dry-run support, explicit approval workflows, action allowlists and hard stop mechanisms for runaway loops. Check out the detailed guide on <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/4183666/what-sre-teams-need-before-they-trust-ai-agents.html">how SRE trusts AI agents</a>. AWS describes trust in autonomous systems in the same terms: Identity, runtime guardrails, observability and policy enforcement are the backbone of safe autonomy.</p>



<p>For SRE agents, a few guardrails are especially important:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><strong>Least privilege identity</strong> so the agent only has access to the systems it truly needs.</li>



<li><strong>Dry-run or simulation mode</strong> so the likely outcome is known before production state changes.</li>



<li><strong>Circuit breakers and loop detection</strong> to stop repeated or runaway tool calls.</li>



<li><strong>Action tiers</strong> so low-risk tasks can be automated while high-risk tasks require approval.</li>



<li><strong>Red-button controls</strong> so humans can immediately revoke autonomy during a bad incident.</li>
</ul>



<p>These controls are not signs of immaturity. They are what make autonomy acceptable in high-stakes environments.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><a></a>Observability for agents</h2>



<p>Observability is not just for services; it is for the agent itself. If the agent’s reasoning, tool usage and outcomes are not observable, then debugging it during an incident becomes guesswork. Google explicitly emphasizes exposing reasoning traces and execution traces so that autonomous decisions remain auditable and debuggable.</p>



<p>A good agent observability stack should capture:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Inputs and retrieved context.</li>



<li>Tool calls, parameters and results.</li>



<li>Intermediate hypotheses.</li>



<li>Confidence and uncertainty.</li>



<li>Approvals, denials and overrides.</li>



<li>Final action and outcome.</li>



<li>Post-action verification signals.</li>
</ul>



<p>This creates the operational memory needed to understand whether the agent helped, harmed or merely added noise. It also supports post-incident review and future training data generation.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><a></a>Human in the loop</h2>



<p>Human-in-the-loop does not mean the agent is weak; it means the system is designed around responsibility. SREs still own the incident, the rollback, the customer impact and the final decision when context is incomplete. The agent should reduce toil and improve speed, not create a false sense of safety.</p>



<p>The best human-in-the-loop model is proportional. Low-risk tasks like summarizing incidents or collecting dashboards can be automated. Medium-risk actions like restarting a worker can require lightweight approval. High-risk actions like draining core capacity or disabling a major dependency should remain human-controlled. This progressive model lets trust grow gradually rather than forcing a dangerous leap to full autonomy.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><a></a>Evaluation strategy</h2>



<p>If you only test an agent on toy benchmarks, you will get toy reliability. Real SRE evaluation should replay historical incidents and score whether the agent identified the right signals, chose the right hypothesis and recommended safe remediation under realistic conditions. Google’s approach uses continuous evaluation pipelines, human-verified gold data and nightly evals against real incident trajectories to measure readiness for autonomous action.</p>



<p>A practical evaluation program should include:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Historical incident replay.</li>



<li>Golden-path and failure-path comparisons.</li>



<li>Tool misuse tests.</li>



<li>Prompt injection and adversarial input tests.</li>



<li>Loop and retry stress tests.</li>



<li>Human review of edge cases.</li>



<li>Regression tracking across model and policy changes.</li>
</ul>



<p>The key metric is not “did the model sound right?” It is “did the system shorten time to mitigation, reduce toil and avoid new operational risk?”.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><a></a>Failure modes</h2>



<p>Agentic SRE systems fail in ways that classic software often does not. They can hallucinate a root cause, misread telemetry, over-trust stale context, loop on a broken action or optimize the wrong objective while sounding confident. In a high-stakes environment, this is more dangerous than a simple bug because the system can act before humans realize it is wrong.</p>



<p>The main failure modes to design against are:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><strong>Confident incompleteness</strong>, where the agent lacks key context but still gives a decisive answer.</li>



<li><strong>Runaway loops</strong>, where tool calls repeat and consume time or budget.</li>



<li><strong>Unsafe actuation</strong>, where a valid-looking action is harmful in the current operational state.</li>



<li><strong>Workflow drift</strong>, where the agent bypasses established incident processes.</li>



<li><strong>Hidden fragility</strong>, where speed increases but accountability decreases.</li>
</ul>



<p>Good architecture assumes failure will happen and makes sure the system fails safely, visibly and reversibly.</p>



<p>If you need a more detailed guide to keep points while evaluating AI SRE tools, then check this <a href="https://stackgen.com/blog/ai-sre-tools-buyers-guide-2026">buyer’s guide</a> by one of the senior leaders.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><a></a>Operating model</h2>



<p>The healthiest way to deploy agentic SRE is to treat it as a bounded operational partner. Start with read-only use cases like alert enrichment, incident summarization and investigation assistance. Then move to recommendation-only workflows, then to low-risk automation and only later to tightly scoped autonomous mitigation.</p>



<p>That staged rollout should be paired with policy, ownership and incident review discipline. Every agent action should map back to a responsible team, a bounded capability and a visible audit trail. This is how the system earns confidence from engineers, security teams and leadership at the same time.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><a></a>Conclusion</h2>



<p>Trustworthy agentic systems for SRE are built, not assumed. The winning formula is grounded telemetry, explicit guardrails, human oversight, explainable reasoning and evaluation against the messy reality of production incidents. When those pieces are in place, AI becomes a reliability multiplier rather than another source of operational risk.</p>



<p>The real goal is not a fully autonomous agent that never makes mistakes. The real goal is an agentic system that stays safe when it does make mistakes, recovers cleanly and keeps SRE teams in control when it matters most.</p>



<p><strong>This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.</strong><br><strong><a href="https://www.infoworld.com/expert-contributor-network/">Want to join?</a></strong></p>
</div></div></div>
</div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[I tested my Fitbit Air against an 'EKG-accurate' heart rate monitor - the results surprised me]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Accuracy is the name of the health tracker game, so I put Google's latest device to the test.]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3659136/it-security-nachrichten/i-tested-my-fitbit-air-against-an-ekg-accurate-heart-rate-monitor-the-results-surprised-me/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3659136/it-security-nachrichten/i-tested-my-fitbit-air-against-an-ekg-accurate-heart-rate-monitor-the-results-surprised-me/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2026 10:53:23 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Accuracy is the name of the health tracker game, so I put Google's latest device to the test.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Linkdump 28/2026]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Viel Spass bei den von mir als lesenswert empfundenen Links auf Artikel, die ich in der vergangenen Woche gelesen habe.

Stay curious, Your Brain's Learning Rate.

Warum Signal für WhatsApp-Aussteiger die bessere Wahl ist, ich unterschreibe das.

My dead told me decades ago, that a company hast d...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3658667/it-nachrichten/linkdump-282026/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3658667/it-nachrichten/linkdump-282026/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2026 06:18:04 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Viel Spass bei den von mir als lesenswert empfundenen Links auf Artikel, die ich in der vergangenen Woche gelesen habe.<br>
<br>
Stay curious, <a href="https://metatrends.substack.com/p/your-brains-learning-rate">Your Brain's Learning Rate</a>.<br>
<br>
<a href="https://www.kuketz-blog.de/warum-signal-fuer-whatsapp-aussteiger-die-bessere-wahl-ist/">Warum Signal für WhatsApp-Aussteiger die bessere Wahl ist</a>, ich unterschreibe das.<br>
<br>
My dead told me decades ago, that a company hast do work on the "we-feeling", <a href="https://mikefisher.substack.com/p/you-cant-fake-belonging">You Can’t Fake Belonging</a>.<br>
<br>
<a href="https://super-productivity.com/blog/private-alternatives-todoist-ticktick-notion-microsoft-todo/">Private Alternatives to Todoist, TickTick, Notion, and Microsoft To Do</a>, good overview, Vikunja is missing.<br>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Shared API keys expose AI agents at 69% of enterprises, new VentureBeat research finds]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Share one API key across five AI agents, and a single compromised agent inherits the reach of all five. The attacker immediately benefits from the accumulated permissions of every workflow that the key touches. The forensic trail goes cold at the credential level because five agents on one accoun...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3658311/it-nachrichten/shared-api-keys-expose-ai-agents-at-69-of-enterprises-new-venturebeat-research-finds/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3658311/it-nachrichten/shared-api-keys-expose-ai-agents-at-69-of-enterprises-new-venturebeat-research-finds/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2026 23:32:38 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Share one API key across five AI agents, and a single compromised agent inherits the reach of all five. The attacker immediately benefits from the accumulated permissions of every workflow that the key touches. The forensic trail goes cold at the credential level because five agents on one account leave no record of which agent did what.</p><p>Sixty-nine percent of enterprises run agents with credential sharing somewhere in their deployments, according to VentureBeat’s June 2026 <a href="https://venturebeat.com/category/resources">Pulse Research</a> wave of 107 enterprises. </p><p>That one number explains the buying spree reshaping enterprise security this year. Palo Alto Networks, CrowdStrike, and Cisco have collectively bet more than $22 billion on it in the past year, targeting exactly the layer most enterprises in this survey haven't finished building. </p><p>Palo Alto Networks completed its acquisition of CyberArk on February 11 for <a href="https://venturebeat.com/security/link">$21.1 billion in total consideration</a> at close — a deal it <a href="https://venturebeat.com/security/link">announced last July at roughly $25 billion</a> and the largest in the company's history.</p><p>CrowdStrike <a href="https://venturebeat.com/security/link">closed its $740 million acquisition</a> of runtime authorization platform SGNL and, by June 15, <a href="https://venturebeat.com/security/link">shipped the first product from the deal, Continuous Identity for AI Agents</a>. CrowdStrike integrated SGNL in less than a year, delivering a product that validates every agent action in real time based on who owns it, who is calling it, and the device's risk posture.</p><p>Cisco <a href="https://venturebeat.com/security/link">announced its intent to acquire</a> non-human identity specialist Astrix Security on May 4 for a reported <a href="https://venturebeat.com/security/link">$400 million</a>.</p><p>For a security director, this survey reads as a board-level question, not a trend line. It also surfaces a finding no competitor’s data shows, one that exposes which companies are the most at risk.</p><p>The data below is the first look at VentureBeat’s Q2 Agentic Security report, drawn from 107 qualified respondents at organizations with more than 100 employees. The full report will be released to attendees at <a href="https://venturebeat.com/vbtransform2026?gad_source=1&amp;gad_campaignid=23980639323&amp;gbraid=0AAAAADnGhh6a1PPkuB60-_ayDUaXOZo3h&amp;gclid=Cj0KCQjwjb3SBhDgARIsAMKiWziNibd4i5buzaXuw91BVLngDsyqVdgLZBQxUTUBkbuWlmUGubj-fMYaAowKEALw_wcB">VB Transform</a>, the event in Menlo Park next week (July 14-15) focusing on enterprise autonomous agents. </p><p>Forty-five percent are final decision-makers for AI purchases. The sample skews mid-market, so read the numbers as the view from organizations adopting agent security right now rather than from the largest enterprises. </p><p>More than half of respondents, 54%, have already had an agent security incident or near-incident. Eighteen percent confirmed an incident, and thirty-six percent caught a near-miss before a breach. Security teams are stopping most of these events at the last control point in the chain, but the rest of the data shows how thin that margin is.</p><h2>Your agents are sharing credentials</h2><p>Only 32% of enterprises give every AI agent its own scoped, managed identity. Nearly half (48%) report that some agents have scoped identities, while many still share credentials. Another 32% say agents mostly run on shared API keys or borrowed human and service-account credentials. The survey question allowed more than one selection, and 24 of the 107 respondents chose multiple options — which is why the three categories sum to 112%. Deduplicated by respondent, 74 organizations, or 69%, flagged credential sharing in at least one answer.</p><p>One number explains why the acquisitions target this layer. A shared credential converts a single compromised agent into many, and <a href="https://www.cyberark.com/press/machine-identities-outnumber-humans-by-more-than-80-to-1-new-report-exposes-the-exponential-threats-of-fragmented-identity-security/">CyberArk's research</a> puts machine identities at 82 for every human in organizations worldwide, with agents as the fastest-growing category of the ratio. Cisco made the same diagnosis when it bought Astrix, whose founders built the company around API keys, service accounts, and OAuth tokens. Cisco’s announcement calls those the credentials AI agents are now “using (and abusing)” to execute work at scale.</p><p>Adam Meyers, senior vice president of counter adversary operations at CrowdStrike, described the mechanism directly in an interview with VentureBeat. Some AI systems have their own identities, he said, and in other cases “people give their identity to the AI to take action on their behalf, and that also further kind of murkies the water and makes it very complex.” The murk is the point, because when the identity is shared, attribution dies with it.</p><h2>Exposure scales with size, and containment does not</h2><p>Forty-nine percent of enterprises enforce scoped permissions at runtime, and 47% monitor and log agent activity, which can help reduce security incidents. Only 30% sandbox their highest-risk agents, the one control that limits blast radius when the first two fail. Isolation is what keeps a single compromised agent from becoming a deployment-wide event. Enterprises have funded detection and resistance, but the containment layer barely exists.</p><p>The sharpest finding in the survey, and the one no vendor report captures, shows up when you split results by company size. The incident rate is 49% for companies with 101 to 1,000 employees, but it shoots up to 63% for companies with more than 1,000. Sandbox isolation moves the other way, falling from 35% to 20% at the larger companies.</p><p>The chart above shows the same finding at finer granularity: the 49%/63% split above is a binary cut at 1,000 employees, while the bars here break incident rate and isolation rate into four size bands. The red line measures incidents and near-misses, and the navy tracks the one control that contains damage after everything else fails. At organizations with 101 to 250 employees, the two sit 7 points apart, but above 5,000, the gap blows out to 60 points. That top band pools the survey's two largest size groups and holds only 15 respondents, so treat the number as directional. Larger enterprises run more agents across more systems, which drives incidents up while sandboxing, the engineering project that would contain them, goes unfunded. The enterprises with the most agents have the least isolation around them.</p><p>The deals target exactly those accounts. Palo Alto Networks, Cisco, and CrowdStrike sell to large enterprises first, where incident rates are highest and containment is the thinnest.</p><h2>Guarded by whoever shipped the model</h2><p>The model providers are the security layer. OpenAI's built-in guardrails lead at 51%. Google Cloud reaches 36%, Microsoft Azure's Purview and Copilot Studio DLP 35%, and Anthropic's managed-agent controls 29%. Eighty-two percent of respondents name a provider-native or hyperscaler control as their single primary agent security layer.</p><p>The purpose-built specialists are in single digits, with Palo Alto Networks' Prisma AIRS at 7%, CrowdStrike at 6%, and Okta for AI Agents at 4%. Zenity and the dedicated non-human identity platforms are at 3% each. Microsoft Entra Agent ID is the highest-penetration identity-specific control in the dataset at 13%, the only one from a hyperscaler, and it still falls outside the top four. Only 5% of enterprises run no dedicated agent tooling at all, and the rest have tooling that came pre-installed.</p><p>Bundled controls lead because they ship free and are enabled by default. Most filter prompts and outputs, but they do not give an agent its own identity or sandbox it. Hyperscalers sell identity-layer products, and Entra Agent ID is in the dataset at 13%, but adoption stays low. The two controls that reward incident data the most, scoped identity and isolation, are the two that the default stack does not include.</p><p>Prompt-and-output filters evaluate whether a call looks malicious. That is an intent problem, and intent cannot be solved at the language layer. CrowdStrike CTO Elia Zaitsev drew the line in an <a href="https://venturebeat.com/security/rsac-2026-agent-identity-frameworks-three-gaps">interview at RSAC 2026</a>. "Observing actual kinetic actions is a structured, solvable problem," Zaitsev said. "Intent is not." CrowdStrike's Falcon sensor walks the process tree on an endpoint and tracks what agents did, not what agents appeared to intend. A scoped identity and an isolation boundary give that sensor something to track, while a shared credential on a bundled guardrail does not.</p><p>Cloud security went through the same cycle a decade ago, and Palo Alto Networks, CrowdStrike, and Wiz built multi-billion-dollar businesses on the gaps native cloud controls left open. Agent security is tracking the same path faster. A misconfigured storage bucket sat open until a human noticed. A misconfigured agent exploits its own over-permissioning on every run, and no human is watching when it does. Merritt Baer, chief security officer at <a href="https://www.enkryptai.com/">Enkrypt AI</a> and a former deputy CISO at AWS, <a href="https://venturebeat.com/security/most-enterprises-cant-stop-stage-three-ai-agent-threats-venturebeat-survey-finds">told VentureBeat</a> that the default layer is thinner than enterprises assume. "Enterprises believe they've 'approved' AI vendors, but what they've actually approved is an interface, not the underlying system," Baer said. "The real dependencies are one or two layers deeper, and those are the ones that fail under stress."</p><h2>Comfortable, unconvinced, and already shopping</h2><p>Here is the contradiction worth a keynote slide. Enterprises rate their agent security tooling 4.2 out of 5, with value for money at 4.1 and ease of implementation at 3.9. Those scores would make most SaaS vendors envious.</p><p>Only 35% believe their AI-enabled defenses are ahead of AI-enabled attackers, while thirty-two percent call it roughly even. Twenty-one percent say attackers lead, and another 21% say it is too early to tell, showing how enterprises trust their tooling more than they trust its outcomes.</p><p>Budgets confirm it. Forty-six percent allocate 6 to 10% of the security budget to agent security, and a full third spend 5% or less. Half the sample has already had an incident or near-miss, but the funding does not match the exposure.</p><p>Fifty-nine percent plan to adopt, add, or replace agent security tooling within 12 months, and twenty-nine percent plan to move this quarter. OpenAI leads forward interest at 34%, followed by Google at 30%, Anthropic at 29%, and Azure at 25%. The dedicated vendors draw more interest looking forward than their current single-digit footprint suggests. Satisfied customers do not reshuffle this fast unless they know the stack they're currently using is provisional.</p><h2><b>Three moves for security directors </b></h2><p><b>1. Inventory every agent’s credentials this quarter.</b> Map which agents share credentials with other agents and which run on borrowed human or service-account identities. The goal is not one credential per agent. Agents that touch multiple systems need multiple scoped identities. The goal is zero shared credentials between agents and zero borrowed human identities. Thirteen percent of surveyed enterprises already run Microsoft Entra Agent ID. Okta for AI Agents and the non-human identity specialists sell equivalents. Shared and borrowed credentials are the first thing to eliminate.</p><p><b>2. Sandbox the riskiest agents first.</b> Isolation is the least-adopted control at 30% and the only one that contains blast radius after prevention fails. Rank agents by the sensitivity of what they touch and isolate the top of the list. Above 1,000 employees, where isolation falls to 20%, this is the single highest-return move in the dataset. Sandboxing does not require replacing the agent or the platform. It requires a policy decision and an isolation layer.</p><p><b>3. Match the budget to the incident rate. </b>A third of enterprises fund agent security at 5% or less of the security budget, even though more than half have already had an incident or near-miss. Nine percent allocate more than 25% today. The full report breaks out exposure and containment by company size, showing which bands carry the most risk and the least protection.</p><p>The board's question is simpler. If one of our AI agents was compromised this afternoon, which systems did it touch, and whose credentials was it holding? For the 69% of enterprises running agents on shared credentials, the answer is a shrug. The trail goes cold at the key.</p><p>The full Q2 Agentic Security report, with the complete vendor matrix, industry cuts, and the full dataset behind these charts, debuts July 14 and 15 at <a href="https://venturebeat.com/vbtransform2026">VB Transform</a>, held at Hotel Nia in Menlo Park. The open question it leaves is whether enterprises close the agent security gap on their own terms, or whether a confirmed breach closes it for them.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Enterprises using multiple AI models are underestimating failure rates by 2.25x]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[A team routing queries across a coding specialist, a logic specialist, and a generalist model assumes each will cover the others' blind spots. A new study evaluating 67 frontier models from 21 providers shows that assumption is mathematically flawed — and the flaw has a name: the co-failure ceili...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3658055/it-nachrichten/enterprises-using-multiple-ai-models-are-underestimating-failure-rates-by-225x/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3658055/it-nachrichten/enterprises-using-multiple-ai-models-are-underestimating-failure-rates-by-225x/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2026 21:02:31 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A team routing queries across a coding specialist, a logic specialist, and a generalist model assumes each will cover the others' blind spots. <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.27288">A new study</a> evaluating 67 frontier models from 21 providers shows that assumption is mathematically flawed — and the flaw has a name: the co-failure ceiling.</p><p>The assumption works like this: as long as two models don't usually fail on the exact same prompts, combining them is supposed to create a safety net against failures.</p><p>The real limit on orchestration is not how often models disagree, but the percentage of prompts where every model in the pool gives the wrong answer at once. By ignoring the co-failure ceiling, enterprises are building complex, expensive routing infrastructure to chase performance gains that do not exist. Fortunately, developers can use this same math to build a cost-free test that determines exactly when multi-model orchestration will actually pay off.</p><h2>The hidden costs of the multi-model strategy</h2><p>To orchestrate multiple language models, developers typically rely on three architectures. <a href="https://venturebeat.com/technology/new-1-5b-router-model-achieves-93-accuracy-without-costly-retraining">Model routers</a> act as traffic cops, sending complex queries to expensive models and simple queries to cheaper ones. Cascades send every prompt to a cheap model first, only escalating to a premium model if the initial system signals low confidence. Finally, approaches like <a href="https://bdtechtalks.com/2025/02/17/llm-ensembels-mixture-of-agents/">Mixture-of-Agents</a> (MoA) fuse multiple models by asking them the same question and generating a synthesized answer from their combined outputs.</p><p>These architectures introduce a "shadow price" to inference costs. Every time a development team implements a router or a cascade, they pay a premium in added system latency, complex infrastructure maintenance, and increased governance risks across multiple API providers.</p><p>To justify these operational costs, engineers rely on “pairwise error correlation” to select their model pool. Imagine a developer has Model A, which writes excellent Python but fails at SQL, and Model B, which writes excellent SQL but fails at Python. Because they fail on different types of prompts, their pairwise error correlation is low. The developer assumes that by placing a routing layer in front of them, they have created a composite system that rarely fails at coding.</p><p>According to the study, throwing diverse models together based on low correlation can actually hurt performance if the models are not equally capable — when you vote across diverse but unequal models, the weaker ones often gang up and outvote the smartest one.</p><p>Josef Chen, author of the paper, told VentureBeat that in their experiments, "Naive majority voting across unequal models had negative mean gain (minus 10 points on our hard mix): diverse-but-weaker members outvote the strong one." The actionable advice for developers is to "combine only models within a matched quality band." If you cannot match quality, take the single-model baseline and spend your budget on the best model available.</p><p>The paper provides one bright spot for this approach regarding MoA architectures. When building ensembles, teams often use "Self-MoA," where they query the same premium model multiple times to generate a synthesized answer. The researchers found that at matched quality, building a diverse ensemble of models with low pairwise correlation beats a high-correlation Self-MoA setup.</p><p>However, when teams use that same pairwise correlation metric to predict the absolute accuracy of their overall system, the math breaks down.</p><p>"So teams pay the orchestration overhead up front (latency, complexity, multi-provider operations) on the assumption that a diversity dividend arrives later," Chen said. "Usually it doesn't, because today's best models agree, and, worse, they fail on the same queries … the prompt simply carries little signal about which model will be the one that's right when the frontier disagrees."</p><h2>Why the math fails: the co-failure ceiling</h2><p>The core finding of the study centers on a metric called the "co-failure rate" — the formal name for the all-wrong scenario described above. No router, voting system, or cascade can ever achieve an accuracy higher than the ceiling it imposes.</p><p>The coding, logic, and generalist pool shows low pairwise correlation on routine prompts — they rarely fail together. But the co-failure ceiling represents the obscure, highly complex edge case that pushes past the limits of current AI architectures. If a prompt is so difficult that all three models hallucinate or fail, it does not matter how intelligently the router distributes the task. The entire pool wipes out at once.</p><p>The researchers tested their 67-model pool, which included GPT-5.5, Claude Opus 4.8, and Gemini 3.1 Pro, on the open-ended MATH-500 math benchmark. Based on standard pairwise correlation, statistical models predicted that the entire pool would wipe out simultaneously on only 2.3% of the questions. In reality, the co-failure rate was 5.2%.</p><p>Standard correlation metrics underestimated the failure rate by roughly 2.25 times. The culprit is not just independent difficulty, but a shared failure point.</p><p>"The driver is what we call a common-mode atom: a slice of queries on which the entire market fails together, which no pairwise statistic can see," Chen said. "Adding a 20th model to your pool doesn't buy tail coverage. The tail is shared."</p><p>The researchers also found that task format directly triggers co-failure. When they took graduate-level science questions from the GPQA benchmark and changed them from multiple-choice to free-response formats, the all-wrong tail expanded to 12.7%.</p><p>Developers can engineer around the ceiling, though. "The engineering implication is uncomfortable: multi-model setups buy the least exactly where teams want them most, on open-ended generation," Chen said. "Anywhere you can convert generation into verification or constrained selection (structured outputs, checkable answers, execution tests), you reopen the ceiling."</p><p>Ultimately, the researchers found this ceiling limits AI applications in two distinct ways, depending on the domain:</p><ul><li><p><b>Ceiling-bound environments (e.g., open-ended math):</b> The co-failure rate is high. The task is too hard, and all models fail simultaneously. No amount of routing can bypass the lack of underlying capability.</p></li><li><p><b>Realizability-bound environments (e.g., graduate-level science):</b> The co-failure rate is near zero, meaning at least one model in the pool usually knows the answer. However, the models disagree so subtly that a routing layer cannot reliably pick the correct answer without an omniscient oracle.</p></li></ul><h2>The $0 pre-deployment sanity check</h2><p>Before dedicating engineering hours to building a router, teams can calculate their absolute performance ceiling for free using a mathematical formula called a Clopper-Pearson bound.</p><p>The Clopper-Pearson bound operates as a worst-case scenario calculator. If you flip a coin ten times and get eight heads, you cannot guarantee the coin will land on heads 80% of the time forever. The bound takes a small sample of test questions and outputs a mathematically guaranteed ceiling.</p><p>Applied to language models, suppose a team tests a pool of five agents on 50 sample queries and finds they all fail together on just two questions. A developer might assume their multi-agent system will achieve 96% accuracy in production. The Clopper-Pearson formula corrects this optimism. It analyzes the small sample size and provides a mathematical guarantee that the true co-failure rate could actually be as high as 12%.</p><p>To use this in practice, enterprises must build a held-out dataset. A fintech company, for example, could take 200 complex customer support tickets from the previous quarter and have human agents write perfect resolutions to serve as a benchmark. While this sounds like a heavy manual project, mature engineering teams can automate the entire ceiling calculation.</p><p>"Integration is trivial: it's a counting job over eval logs teams already produce," Chen notes, "so it runs in the same CI stage as the eval suite and re-triggers whenever the model pool or the workload changes."</p><p>The engineering team then runs its candidate models against these 200 tickets once and records the results. When they want to evaluate multi-model configurations, they can use the co-failure rate measure to predict the maximum accuracy they can get from the system without running extra queries.</p><p>One important conclusion the study draws is that on tasks where answers can be definitively checked, combining models rarely beats using the single best model on the market, unless the team possesses an exceptionally strong query-level routing signal.</p><p>In an enterprise environment, a definitively checked task has an objective, zero-tolerance answer. This includes generating a SQL query that must execute without error, extracting a specific invoice total from a 50-page PDF, or formatting a JSON payload that perfectly matches a strict schema. For these tasks, enterprises are usually better off paying a premium for the smartest frontier model rather than weaving together three cheaper models and hoping a router picks the correct output. The study didn't test subjective, ungraded tasks like drafting marketing copy — the authors note that whether these findings hold outside their verifiable benchmarks remains an open question.</p><p>Because this mathematical check is free, enterprise teams can track their own co-failure rates as new models drop.</p><p>"The measurement costs nothing, so any team can track its own co-failure rate across model generations and watch whether the tail is closing," says Chen. Ultimately, "the lever buyers hold is failure-mode heterogeneity and market churn, not model count."</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[AGIBOT Humanoid Robots Hit 99.99% Success Rate in Six-Day Factory Livestream]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[AGIBOT says its humanoid robots completed a six-day factory livestream at Longcheer, finishing 64,828 tasks with a 99.99% success rate.]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3658023/it-nachrichten/agibot-humanoid-robots-hit-9999-success-rate-in-six-day-factory-livestream/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3658023/it-nachrichten/agibot-humanoid-robots-hit-9999-success-rate-in-six-day-factory-livestream/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2026 20:47:15 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[AGIBOT says its humanoid robots completed a six-day factory livestream at Longcheer, finishing 64,828 tasks with a 99.99% success rate.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Firefox Tooling Announcements: Engineering Effectiveness Newsletter (Q2 2026 Edition)]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Welcome to the Q2 edition of the Engineering Effectiveness Newsletter! The Engineering Effectiveness org makes it easy to develop, test and release Mozilla software at scale. See below for some highlights, then read on for more detailed info!
Highlights 


Improved mach startup overhead by 30-50%...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3657816/tools/firefox-tooling-announcements-engineering-effectiveness-newsletter-q2-2026-edition/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3657816/tools/firefox-tooling-announcements-engineering-effectiveness-newsletter-q2-2026-edition/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2026 19:08:33 +0200</pubDate>
<category>💾  Tools</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Welcome to the Q2 edition of the Engineering Effectiveness Newsletter! The Engineering Effectiveness org makes it easy to develop, test and release Mozilla software at scale. See below for some highlights, then read on for more detailed info!</p>
<h3><a class="anchor" href="https://discourse.mozilla.org/#p-295620-highlights-image29x31uploadsijwaz2bmu1cm7txaoyutaj3g7djpeg-1" name="p-295620-highlights-image29x31uploadsijwaz2bmu1cm7txaoyutaj3g7djpeg-1"></a>Highlights <div class="lightbox-wrapper"><a class="lightbox" href="https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/uploads/mozilla/original/3X/c/6/c64f1102bb6b55e5a9e11c7390019d84dcc69fbf.jpeg" rel="noopener nofollow ugc" title="image"><img alt="image" height="31" src="https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/uploads/mozilla/optimized/3X/c/6/c64f1102bb6b55e5a9e11c7390019d84dcc69fbf_2_29x31.jpeg" width="29"></a></div></h3>
<ul>
<li>
<p>Improved <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1775197">mach startup overhead</a> by 30-50%, as well as a 75% improvement for <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2018327">mach test on Windows</a> and <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2017746">10s faster configure</a> for subsequent runs</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Moved to weekly scheduled dot releases and <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oktCbzZ3M7NZTMBxv8yEOYmNHHxaIstZ55vRMI9PmzM/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.r7335u1pggl8" rel="noopener nofollow ugc">faster rollouts</a>, allowing us to deliver fixes and uplifts to users faster and more reliably</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Created a <a href="https://tests.firefox.dev/" rel="noopener nofollow ugc">huge number of dashboards</a> to help developers dig into Mochitest and XPCShell tests</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Stood up <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2037084">MacOS worker pools</a> that can run multiple tasks at once using VMs, greatly improving our Mac capacity issues</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Can now <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2034982">navigate to about:pdf</a> in Nightly to open and edit arbitrary PDF files, including the ability to <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2047633">set Firefox as your default PDF editor</a> on MacOS</p>
</li>
</ul>
<h3><a class="anchor" href="https://discourse.mozilla.org/#p-295620-detailed-project-updates-2" name="p-295620-detailed-project-updates-2"></a>Detailed Project Updates</h3>
<h4><a class="anchor" href="https://discourse.mozilla.org/#p-295620-ai-for-development-image38x38uploaduslsg1wyqmsnwpkkcpts9bzsgdspng-3" name="p-295620-ai-for-development-image38x38uploaduslsg1wyqmsnwpkkcpts9bzsgdspng-3"></a>AI for Development <div class="lightbox-wrapper"><a class="lightbox" href="https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/uploads/mozilla/original/3X/d/5/d581d7036fa3d622443350328d622c936216ecf6.png" rel="noopener nofollow ugc" title="image"><img alt="image" height="38" src="https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/uploads/mozilla/original/3X/d/5/d581d7036fa3d622443350328d622c936216ecf6.png" width="38"></a></div></h4>
<ul>
<li>
<p>Suhaib Mujahid deployed the initial version of <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cLIuNnhefePsixu8iRiqAn75EcVvgQHw48pUTkhpwok/edit?tab=t.0" rel="noopener nofollow ugc">Hackbot</a>, a platform for building and running AI agents to automate parts of the Firefox development workflow.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Evgeny Pavlov ported the “Build Repair Agent” to Hackbot and deployed it for testing. It now monitors Firefox build failures and triggers the agent. When an analysis and a proposed patch are ready developers can be notified by email.</p>
</li>
</ul>
<h4><a class="anchor" href="https://discourse.mozilla.org/#p-295620-bugzilla-image16x16uploadrcf6wygovavtrjvslvu8pj7vnyhpng-4" name="p-295620-bugzilla-image16x16uploadrcf6wygovavtrjvslvu8pj7vnyhpng-4"></a>Bugzilla <img alt="image" height="16" src="https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/uploads/mozilla/original/3X/b/e/bea92544acb6ddb5aa665316f3c7411bc860c8db.png" width="16"></h4>
<ul>
<li>
<p>David Lawrence added a new GitHubPullRequests extension that renders a live status panel in the bug modal for any attachment whose content type is text/x-github-pull-request. A new REST endpoint fetches PR metadata (state, author, labels, latest review per reviewer) from the GitHub REST API on demand, and a client-side script populates a table with a “show closed/merged” toggle.[image]</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Xavier L’Hour improved the user experience for developers, adding shortcuts to buglist.cgi for all, open, or closed bugs (<a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1764713">1764713</a>)</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Xavier L’Hour added a new shortcut button to the bug page that allows users to quickly move spam bugs to the Invalid Bugs product (<a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1684509">1684509</a>).</p>
</li>
</ul>
<h4><a class="anchor" href="https://discourse.mozilla.org/#p-295620-build-system-and-mach-environment-image27x27uploadoumafz5bcpgk6de6ddcb6m1uzptpng-5" name="p-295620-build-system-and-mach-environment-image27x27uploadoumafz5bcpgk6de6ddcb6m1uzptpng-5"></a>Build System and Mach Environment <div class="lightbox-wrapper"><a class="lightbox" href="https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/uploads/mozilla/original/3X/a/e/ae9342c7f7dcfe9d427c191b43c7aaf993ceeffb.png" rel="noopener nofollow ugc" title="image"><img alt="image" height="27" src="https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/uploads/mozilla/optimized/3X/a/e/ae9342c7f7dcfe9d427c191b43c7aaf993ceeffb_2_27x27.png" width="27"></a></div></h4>
<ul>
<li>
<p>Alex Hochheiden has been moving build system logic out of make to pave the way for a new build system backend (coming soon). See <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2038789">Bug 2038789</a>.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Alex Hochheiden landed a 30%-50% (platform dependent) speedup for mach startup. See <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1775197">Bug 1775197</a>.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Alex Hochheiden sped up subsequent configure runs by ~10s by adding caching to the mach taskgraph toolchain step. See <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2017746">Bug 2017746</a>.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Alex Hochheiden reduced mach test startup overhead on Windows by 75%. See <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2018327">Bug 2018327</a>.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Alex Hochheiden has achieved significant code deduplication and simplification by consolidating the Android Gradle configuration into convention plugins. There were also various Gradle configure-cache improvements. See <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2007013">Bug 2007013</a>, <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1950099">Bug 1950099</a>, <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2013417">Bug 2013417</a>, <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2017752">Bug 2017752</a>, and <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2017753">Bug 2017753</a>.</p>
</li>
</ul>
<h4><a class="anchor" href="https://discourse.mozilla.org/#p-295620-firefox-ci-image25x26uploadga1rfuc1fs6gwtrx3kk92r8hfncjpeg-6" name="p-295620-firefox-ci-image25x26uploadga1rfuc1fs6gwtrx3kk92r8hfncjpeg-6"></a>Firefox-CI <div class="lightbox-wrapper"><a class="lightbox" href="https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/uploads/mozilla/original/3X/7/4/74356ec644bf30f10ea5f0ce6067cdd819ea96e4.jpeg" rel="noopener nofollow ugc" title="image"><img alt="image" height="26" src="https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/uploads/mozilla/optimized/3X/7/4/74356ec644bf30f10ea5f0ce6067cdd819ea96e4_2_25x26.jpeg" width="25"></a></div></h4>
<ul>
<li>
<p>Julien Cristau <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2050408">added support</a> for interactive tasks (aka one click loaners) on Windows and macOS</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Andrew Halberstadt <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2044330">implemented</a> mach try support with Github, being used in mozilla/enterprise-firefox-try and coming to Firefox soon.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Andrew Halberstadt <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2033838">implemented the machinery</a> to start making Gecko CI tasks clone from Github.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Ryan Curran <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2037084">brought Firefox CI’s Apple Silicon VM infrastructure into production</a>. Building on the MacOS CI image pipeline established last year, he migrated test suites onto virtual machines and grew the macosx1500-aarch64-vms pool so Taskcluster now routes eligible jobs to VMs alongside physical hardware. This reduces reliance on physical Macs, increases CI capacity, and supports the ongoing migration off of older Intel-based macOS infrastructure</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Jonathan Moss migrated Firefox CI’s cloud-based Windows testing from Windows 11 24H2 to 25H2, moving the bulk of Firefox’s Windows test coverage to Microsoft’s latest platform and keeping CI aligned with the Windows version most commonly used by Firefox Desktop users</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Florian Quèze <a href="https://tests.firefox.dev/" rel="noopener nofollow ugc">created many dashboards</a> to help dig into Mochitests and XPCShell tests</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Ryan VanderMeulen landed a set of improvements to <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2032657">mach try chooser</a>. The update adds an exclude filter, a clearer preview pane with removable job rows, an artifact-builds toggle, and a warning when a selection exceeds task-prioritization thresholds. It also fixes a bug where choosing Firefox for Android jobs would unintentionally clear selections for other platforms.</p>
</li>
</ul>
<h4><a class="anchor" href="https://discourse.mozilla.org/#p-295620-lint-static-analysis-and-code-coverage-image27x27uploadkn3nhhyhkaolavr6gxkheo6anzipng-7" name="p-295620-lint-static-analysis-and-code-coverage-image27x27uploadkn3nhhyhkaolavr6gxkheo6anzipng-7"></a>Lint, Static Analysis and Code Coverage <div class="lightbox-wrapper"><a class="lightbox" href="https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/uploads/mozilla/original/3X/9/1/91b73ae1a5bbfd19ca329cc65f4d62b37af7e5aa.png" rel="noopener nofollow ugc" title="image"><img alt="image" height="27" src="https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/uploads/mozilla/optimized/3X/9/1/91b73ae1a5bbfd19ca329cc65f4d62b37af7e5aa_2_27x27.png" width="27"></a></div></h4>
<ul>
<li>
<p>Valentin Rigal and Bastien Abadie created a Code Review Bot prototype for publication of review comments using various source linters on Github</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Morgan Rae Reschenberg added support for accessibility review to Code Review Bot</p>
</li>
</ul>
<h4><a class="anchor" href="https://discourse.mozilla.org/#p-295620-mozregression-image39x39uploadylbryrsvu4qhpj3mc4hc711j7vtpng-8" name="p-295620-mozregression-image39x39uploadylbryrsvu4qhpj3mc4hc711j7vtpng-8"></a>Mozregression <div class="lightbox-wrapper"><a class="lightbox" href="https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/uploads/mozilla/original/3X/f/0/f0af28d9caa6771eea75f11a03fc36a70c4f99d3.png" rel="noopener nofollow ugc" title="image"><img alt="image" height="39" src="https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/uploads/mozilla/original/3X/f/0/f0af28d9caa6771eea75f11a03fc36a70c4f99d3.png" width="39"></a></div></h4>
<ul>
<li>Zeid fixed a bug in mozregression-gui on macOS, where the camera and microphone capture request was getting rejected (released in 7.3.0). Thanks to bug report + tip from Andreas Pehrson.</li>
</ul>
<h4><a class="anchor" href="https://discourse.mozilla.org/#p-295620-pdfjs-image29x29upload2uk22g71cqevreav3jhzijhygjypng-9" name="p-295620-pdfjs-image29x29upload2uk22g71cqevreav3jhzijhygjypng-9"></a>PDF.js <div class="lightbox-wrapper"><a class="lightbox" href="https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/uploads/mozilla/original/3X/1/4/14623e0fefd12c91cad11a97baf9fca17c37df1c.png" rel="noopener nofollow ugc" title="image"><img alt="image" height="29" src="https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/uploads/mozilla/original/3X/1/4/14623e0fefd12c91cad11a97baf9fca17c37df1c.png" width="29"></a></div></h4>
<ul>
<li>
<p>Calixte <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2034982">added about:pdf to use an entrypoint</a> for opening and editing arbitrary PDF files[image]</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Calixte added support for playing videos/sounds embedded in PDF files</p>
</li>
</ul>
<h4><a class="anchor" href="https://discourse.mozilla.org/#p-295620-phabricator-image24x24upload2ptgi5cxdz7gakmm6kmos0gcoebpng-moz-phab-and-lando-image31x31uploadgmikcks6na3yujyuukfnivfqrmwpng-10" name="p-295620-phabricator-image24x24upload2ptgi5cxdz7gakmm6kmos0gcoebpng-moz-phab-and-lando-image31x31uploadgmikcks6na3yujyuukfnivfqrmwpng-10"></a>Phabricator <img alt="image" height="24" src="https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/uploads/mozilla/original/3X/1/3/13d60ed2ffbfe1aa32c2cc2ccc5121ba3b8c5a87.png" width="24">, moz-phab, and Lando <div class="lightbox-wrapper"><a class="lightbox" href="https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/uploads/mozilla/original/3X/7/5/75a4b58f20908eed139910e672355b6e4ac88562.png" rel="noopener nofollow ugc" title="image"><img alt="image" height="31" src="https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/uploads/mozilla/original/3X/7/5/75a4b58f20908eed139910e672355b6e4ac88562.png" width="31"></a></div></h4>
<ul>
<li>
<p>Connor Sheehan improved the uplift experience by leveraging Lando to manage the assessment forms, train selection, and automatic application, so conflicts are detected earlier. The number of uplifts via Lando has <a href="https://sql.telemetry.mozilla.org/dashboard/uplift-dashboard?p_date_range=d_last_12_months">out-paced</a> those via Moz-Phab, and sailed through the rise in uplift numbers (likely due to more sec-bugs getting fixed and uplifted).</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Zeid added support for private GitHub repositories in Lando, allowing security patches to be implemented in a private clone of a repo, and pushed to the public one.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Olivier Mehani finalized support for using the new Lando instance for try-pushes. This brings a host of QoL improvements which weren’t backported to the old instance: better UTF-8 support, smarter conflict resolution and improved security and authentication. It is <a href="https://sql.telemetry.mozilla.org/dashboard/new-lando-try-dashboard?p_date_range=d_last_7_days&amp;p_repo_name=try">now processing about 1500 pushes / week</a> (old Lando still processes about 50 / week).</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Magnolia Liu implemented automatic pushes to Try for uplift requests, for faster feedback in case of issues.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Olivier Mehani added a view of a user’s current and recent jobs on <a href="https://lando.moz.tools/" rel="noopener nofollow ugc">the landing page of Lando</a> when authenticated.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Zeid identified and fixed the causes of some stability and reliability issues in Lando, which were causing increased downtime during deployments and on an ongoing basis.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Olivier Mehani deployed a PoC of reviewer selection on the GitHub pilot, allowing Herald-like mechanisms to GitHub PRs.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Olivier Mehani and Connor Sheehan (with Corey Bryant and Daniel Darnell) migrated the COMM project to GitHub <a href="http://github.com/thunderbird/thunderbird-desktop" rel="noopener nofollow ugc">https://github.com/thunderbird/thunderbird-desktop</a>, sharing Firefox’s syncing model.</p>
</li>
</ul>
<h4><a class="anchor" href="https://discourse.mozilla.org/#p-295620-release-management-and-engineering-image29x29uploadgyvgvdmglodpm14lqcrvtdappfzpng-11" name="p-295620-release-management-and-engineering-image29x29uploadgyvgvdmglodpm14lqcrvtdappfzpng-11"></a>Release Management and Engineering <div class="lightbox-wrapper"><a class="lightbox" href="https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/uploads/mozilla/original/3X/7/6/76f9deb903b684961e54fa3afbdabcc30db09731.png" rel="noopener nofollow ugc" title="image"><img alt="image" height="29" src="https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/uploads/mozilla/optimized/3X/7/6/76f9deb903b684961e54fa3afbdabcc30db09731_2_29x29.png" width="29"></a></div></h4>
<ul>
<li>
<p>Donal Meehan drove the Release Management team’s move to a weekly scheduled dot release cadence for Desktop and Android, starting with Firefox 151. This allows us to deliver fixes and approved uplifts to users faster and more predictably. This change is expected to reduce unplanned releases, improve release flexibility, and create a more consistent release rhythm across teams.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Dianna Smith drove the update to the Release Management team’s <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oktCbzZ3M7NZTMBxv8yEOYmNHHxaIstZ55vRMI9PmzM/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.r7335u1pggl8" rel="noopener nofollow ugc">Desktop major release rollout process</a>, starting with Firefox 152. Instead of throttling to 0% on day 2, it will remain at 25% rollout for two days before moving to 100%, unless any issues arise. This should help us collect uptake and stability signals earlier while still allowing time to catch problems before full rollout.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Pascal Chevrel completed the update to the dictionaries shipped with Firefox Desktop. The update added eleven new dictionaries, covering Croatian, English (UK), Georgian, Persian, Slovenian, Tajik, Tamil, Tibetan, Turkish, Welsh, and Xhosa, and refreshed nine others. This expanded the number of locales with a built-in spellchecker from 30 to 41 beginning in Firefox 152. Special thanks to Francesco Lodolo, Bryan Olsson, and the localization community for reviewing the patches and helping assess the quality of the dictionaries.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Pascal Chevrel delivered a range of improvements to <a href="https://whattrainisitnow.com/" rel="noopener nofollow ugc">WhatTrainIsItNow</a>, including expanded it to cover weekly dot releases and ESR planned dot releases, added new uplift views including a <a href="https://whattrainisitnow.com/release/uplifts/" rel="noopener nofollow ugc">dot-release uplifts page</a> and a <a href="https://whattrainisitnow.com/beta/uplifts/graph/" rel="noopener nofollow ugc">beta uplift graph</a>, and published <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2045812">new APIs</a> that surface train-selection and <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2044143">uplift guidance inside Lando</a>. He also made performance improvements and a steady stream of fixes across the site.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>At Pwn2Own 2026, Firefox came through with no successful exploits, thanks to preparation across many teams and individuals. Within Release Management, Ryan VanderMeulen drove pre-event patch readiness and Dianna Smith coordinated the releases during the event, including the 150.0.3 dot release, which mitigated the root cause behind several of the contest entries.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Dianna Smith built out release-health monitoring and alerting in Bigeye, giving Release Management a growing set of automated alerts that surface data anomalies earlier to aid in release health and regression detection. To make the capability easy to extend, she also <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/11WAYaMt2RQOAZLjYti3VZY6Bcws1fjF5q8hBlYUKgHo/edit?tab=t.0" rel="noopener nofollow ugc">created a guide for other teams</a> to add monitoring and alerts for the areas they know best. Teams that want an earlier signal on their own metrics are encouraged to use the guide and help grow the coverage.</p>
</li>
</ul>
<h4><a class="anchor" href="https://discourse.mozilla.org/#p-295620-release-operations-12" name="p-295620-release-operations-12"></a>Release Operations <img alt=":wrench:" class="emoji" height="20" src="https://emoji.discourse-cdn.com/twitter/wrench.png?v=15" title=":wrench:" width="20"></h4>
<ul>
<li>
<p>Ryan Curran built <a href="https://github.com/mozilla-platform-ops/hangar" rel="noopener nofollow ugc">Hangar</a>, a live dashboard for monitoring Firefox CI’s worker pools. It consolidates fleet data from several systems into one view, giving Release Operations a single place to check fleet health and catch problems such as missing or quarantined workers early.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Ryan Curran created the <a href="https://github.com/mozilla-platform-ops/BuildWatch" rel="noopener nofollow ugc">iOS version of BuildWatch</a>, and Andrew Erickson ported it to <a href="https://github.com/mozilla-platform-ops/BuildWatch-Android" rel="noopener nofollow ugc">Android</a>. BuildWatch lets you monitor Firefox CI try pushes from your phone, including live per-platform build status, failure summaries, and one-tap retriggers. It uses only public APIs, so no VPN is required.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Andrew Erickson and Mark Cornmesser developed <a href="https://github.com/mozilla-platform-ops/fleetbench" rel="noopener nofollow ugc">Fleetbench</a>, a tool for benchmarking Firefox CI workers. It currently measures CPU and ADB/USB I/O performance, helping Release Operations identify slow or outlier hosts before they skew performance test results such as Speedometer and trigger noisy or false regressions.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Andrew Erickson built <a href="https://pool-classifier.relops.mozilla.com/" rel="noopener nofollow ugc">Pool Classifier</a>, a web app for viewing per-worker success rates across Taskcluster worker pools. It classifies newly completed tasks every 15 minutes, giving Release Operations a continuously updated view of worker health and helping surface problematic workers proactively.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Andrew Erickson created <a href="https://github.com/mozilla-platform-ops/fleetroll_mvp" rel="noopener nofollow ugc">Fleetroll</a>, a command-line tool Release Operations uses to manage and monitor long-running Linux, macOS, and Windows hardware hosts in Firefox CI Taskcluster. It deploys Puppet branch overrides and Vault secrets, audits what is actually applied, and surfaces each host’s Puppet and Taskcluster state in a live dashboard.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Mark Cornmesser built out a set of new worker-metrics dashboards in Yardstick, giving Release Operations clearer real-time visibility into the health of the Firefox CI hardware fleet. These include <a href="https://yardstick.mozilla.org/d/linux-all-status-v1/linux-all-status?orgId=1&amp;from=now-6h&amp;to=now&amp;timezone=browser&amp;var-pool=%24__all&amp;var-hostname=%24__all">Linux worker</a> status, <a href="https://yardstick.mozilla.org/d/windows-all-metrics-v1/windows-all-metrics?orgId=1&amp;from=now-6h&amp;to=now&amp;timezone=browser&amp;var-pool=%24__all&amp;var-hostname=%24__all">Windows worker CPU and disk</a> metrics, and a <a href="https://yardstick.mozilla.org/d/windows-pickup-wait-timeline-v1/066c1e0?orgId=1&amp;from=now-24h&amp;to=now&amp;timezone=browser&amp;var-pool=%24__all">Windows job pickup and wait</a> timeline, with alerting on key thresholds. The full set lives in the <a href="https://yardstick.mozilla.org/dashboards/f/cffmfl1sfr1moe/fxci-hardware-workers">FXCI Hardware Workers folder</a> in Yardstick.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Jonathan Moss expanded cloud cost reporting in Looker, adding <a href="https://mozilla.cloud.looker.com/dashboards/2861?Submission%20Date=30%20day&amp;Cloud%20Provider=" rel="noopener nofollow ugc">Azure support</a> alongside the existing GCP data and a cloud-provider filter on the FXCI task overview dashboard. The team can now break down Firefox CI compute costs by cloud provider, making it easier to track and compare spend across Azure and GCP.</p>
</li>
</ul>
<h4><a class="anchor" href="https://discourse.mozilla.org/#p-295620-taskcluster-image20x25uploado7keh2uqbjtt24xnmh0gz4v0lympng-13" name="p-295620-taskcluster-image20x25uploado7keh2uqbjtt24xnmh0gz4v0lympng-13"></a>Taskcluster <img alt="image" height="25" src="https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/uploads/mozilla/original/3X/a/9/a9086272fd26499516b5a852c89ed3f55df11142.png" width="20"></h4>
<ul>
<li>
<p>Yaraslau Kurmyza added Azure fast deprovision <a href="https://github.com/taskcluster/taskcluster/pull/8790" rel="noopener nofollow ugc">taskcluster#8790</a>  and concurrency <a href="https://github.com/taskcluster/taskcluster/issues/8815" rel="noopener nofollow ugc">taskcluster#8815</a> to improve worker scanner performance. This shows ~2x-4x scan time improvements already.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Contributor <a href="https://github.com/nitishagar" rel="noopener nofollow ugc">nitishagar</a>  and Yaraslau Kurmyza added patches <a href="https://github.com/taskcluster/taskcluster/pull/8514" rel="noopener nofollow ugc">taskcluster#8514</a>,  <a href="https://github.com/taskcluster/taskcluster/pull/8784" rel="noopener nofollow ugc">taskcluster#8784</a>  to support compression in Taskcluster services API and Yarik worked with Fastly to resolve broken brotli support on the WAF edge side. Now services transmit significantly less data.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Yarik added a dedicated service account to log with read only permissions <a href="https://github.com/mozilla/webservices-infra/pull/11197" rel="noopener nofollow ugc">webservices-infra#11197</a>. This allows <a href="https://github.com/taskcluster/tc-logview/pull/4" rel="noopener nofollow ugc">tc-logview</a> to be used safely by untrusted agents inside containers with narrow short-lived access tokens.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Yarik published <a href="http://35.202.240.190/" rel="noopener nofollow ugc">queue forecasting dashboard</a> experiments that continuously collects task events and trains models to enable and improve predictions on a task level (how long will it run, and when will it start). With future plans including extending it to the whole task group (mach try)</p>
</li>
</ul>
<h4><a class="anchor" href="https://discourse.mozilla.org/#p-295620-treeherder-image32x32upload9mg2vslsdl1se97nhycpirqkvuvpng-14" name="p-295620-treeherder-image32x32upload9mg2vslsdl1se97nhycpirqkvuvpng-14"></a>Treeherder <img alt="image" height="32" src="https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/uploads/mozilla/original/3X/4/4/449439d59f33f7cc62df6501dd75c5f88d6f5fe5.png" width="32"></h4>
<ul>
<li>
<p>Florian Quèze added <a href="https://github.com/mozilla/treeherder/pull/9540" rel="noopener nofollow ugc">treeherder#9540</a> “Show task group profile” item to the push action menu</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Cameron Dawson, juungo and moijes12 implemented various Treeherder API performance improvements</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Heitor Neiva added Git branch labels to pushes in Treeherder</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Andrew Halberstadt <a href="https://github.com/mozilla/treeherder/pull/9496" rel="noopener nofollow ugc">implemented</a> the ability for Treeherder to display multiple Git branches at once, enabling support for “try like” repositories in Github</p>
</li>
</ul>
<h4><a class="anchor" href="https://discourse.mozilla.org/#p-295620-version-control-image35x35uploadfgrydspdrdwuflvmedhcxxzrhwtpng-15" name="p-295620-version-control-image35x35uploadfgrydspdrdwuflvmedhcxxzrhwtpng-15"></a>Version Control <div class="lightbox-wrapper"><a class="lightbox" href="https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/uploads/mozilla/original/3X/6/d/6ded138b62af5c8222b8f5fab637590ba2920993.png" rel="noopener nofollow ugc" title="image"><img alt="image" height="35" src="https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/uploads/mozilla/original/3X/6/d/6ded138b62af5c8222b8f5fab637590ba2920993.png" width="35"></a></div></h4>
<ul>
<li>
<p>Upgrade <a href="http://hg.mozilla.org/">hg.mozilla.org</a> to Mercurial 7.2.2</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Created the <a href="https://hg-edge.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-esr153">mozilla-esr153</a> and <a href="https://hg-edge.mozilla.org/releases/comm-esr153">comm-esr153</a> repositories.</p>
</li>
</ul>
<h4><a class="anchor" href="https://discourse.mozilla.org/#p-295620-other-image30x30upload1b45rv2lz4qu5bjwdcrkbeihtshpng-16" name="p-295620-other-image30x30upload1b45rv2lz4qu5bjwdcrkbeihtshpng-16"></a>Other <div class="lightbox-wrapper"><a class="lightbox" href="https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/uploads/mozilla/original/3X/0/8/08426801fd78ca4953d83a1589119ec724b9c801.png" rel="noopener nofollow ugc" title="image"><img alt="image" height="30" src="https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/uploads/mozilla/original/3X/0/8/08426801fd78ca4953d83a1589119ec724b9c801.png" width="30"></a></div></h4>
<ul>
<li>Sylvestre converted our documentation from reStructuredText to MyST flavored Markdown</li>
</ul>
<p>Thanks for reading and see you next quarter!</p>
            <p><small>1 post - 1 participant</small></p>
            <p><a href="https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/engineering-effectiveness-newsletter-q2-2026-edition/148883">Read full topic</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[AWS GraphRAG deployment cuts drug research cycles by 87%]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[A recent AWS GraphRAG deployment reduced drug research and development cycles in pharmaceutical environments by 87 percent. This acceleration is achieved by integrating previously separated proprietary databases into a unified and queryable knowledge graph. Historically, initial data gathering an...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3657639/ai-nachrichten/aws-graphrag-deployment-cuts-drug-research-cycles-by-87/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3657639/ai-nachrichten/aws-graphrag-deployment-cuts-drug-research-cycles-by-87/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2026 18:03:57 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🔧 AI Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A recent AWS GraphRAG deployment reduced drug research and development cycles in pharmaceutical environments by 87 percent. This acceleration is achieved by integrating previously separated proprietary databases into a unified and queryable knowledge graph. Historically, initial data gathering and screening phases took over six months per iteration, yielding a low five percent success rate. Crucial […]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.artificialintelligence-news.com/news/aws-graphrag-deployment-cuts-drug-research-cycles-by-87/">AWS GraphRAG deployment cuts drug research cycles by 87%</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.artificialintelligence-news.com/">AI News</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[AI’s real bottleneck isn’t compute. It’s distance.]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[A researcher has an idea worth testing before lunch. The model is ready. The data is sitting right there. But the data is sensitive — regulated, proprietary; the kind that legal has been very clear cannot leave the building. So it can’t go to the cloud cluster. And even if it could, the GPU queue...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3657618/it-nachrichten/ais-real-bottleneck-isnt-compute-its-distance/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3657618/it-nachrichten/ais-real-bottleneck-isnt-compute-its-distance/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2026 18:02:41 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p>A researcher has an idea worth testing before lunch. The model is ready. The data is sitting right there. But the data is sensitive — regulated, proprietary; the kind that legal has been very clear cannot leave the building. So it can’t go to the cloud cluster. And even if it could, the GPU queue is hours deep, the meter is running, and by the time the run finishes and the bill lands, the spark of the idea has cooled into a ticket in a backlog. </p>



<p>This is the unglamorous reality behind a lot of enterprise AI. Not a shortage of talent or ambition, but friction — the quiet tax paid every time a brilliant question has totravel a long way to find the computer that can answer it. We’ve spent the better part of a decade assuming that distance didn’t matter, that everything important would happen in some vast facility hundreds of miles away. For a whole class of work, that assumption is now the thing holding teams back. </p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>The last mile of AI</strong> </h3>



<p>Cloud and hyperscale data centers did something extraordinary: they made a near-infinite compute available to anyone with a credit card. That scale is genuinely irreplaceable for training frontier models. But scale solved the wrong problem for a surprising number of teams. </p>



<p>Because a lot of real AI work isn’t a once-a-quarter mega run, it’s iteration — fine-tuning, experimenting, debugging, testing an agent’s behavior, running a model against data that’s too sensitive or too large to keep shipping back and forth. That work rewards <em>immediacy</em> and <em>control</em>, not raw scale. And on those two axes, the cloud-only model starts to strain in three ways. </p>



<p><strong>Governance is the first.</strong> The most valuable enterprise data is often the data that’s hardest to move — patient records, financial details, proprietary source code, designs under NDA. Sending it to a shared, off-premises environment can mean a compliance review, a risk sign-off, or simply a “no.” When the data can’t travel, neither can the AI work that depends on it — unless the compute comes to the data instead. </p>



<p><strong>Velocity is the second.</strong> AI progress is a function of how many experiments a team can run per week. Every cloud queue, every cold start, every round trip between a workstation and a remote cluster adds latency not just to a job but to <em>learning</em>. The teams that win aren’t the ones with the biggest single run; they’re the ones who can iterate fastest, privately, without asking permission. </p>



<p><strong>And then there’s the missing middle.</strong> Until recently, professionals had two options, and a chasm between them. On one side, a traditional workstation — convenient and local, but utterly unable to hold a trillion-parameter model in memory. On the other, a data center you don’t own, don’t control, and have to wait in line for. There was nothing in between: no way to put genuine, data-center-class AI power directly under the desk of the person doing the work. </p>



<p>That gap is exactly where the next wave of productivity is hiding. </p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>When the supercomputer comes back to the desk</strong> </h3>



<p>Computing has always swung between the central and the personal. The mainframe gave way to the PC. Now, after a decade of centralizing intelligence in the cloud, the pendulum is swinging again — and the supercomputer is coming back to the desk, this time built specifically for AI. </p>



<p>The implications for IT leaders are strategic, not just technical. A local, private AI supercomputer means sensitive workloads stay under the organization’s own governance. It means a predictable cost instead of a variable cloud meter. It means teams iterate at the speed of their own curiosity. And it means the data center is still there when a workload genuinely needs to scale — connected, not replaced. The goal isn’t to abandon the cloud. It’s to close the last mile. </p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>The deskside AI supercomputer: ASUS ExpertCenter Pro ET900N G3</strong> </h3>



<p>This is the gap the <strong>ASUS ExpertCenter Pro ET900N G3</strong> is engineered to close. Built on NVIDIA DGX Station architecture and powered by the NVIDIA GB300 Grace Blackwell Ultra Desktop Superchip, it brings data-center-class AI to a system that fits on a standard desk — a deskside AI supercomputer purpose-built for the way AI teams actually work. </p>



<p>What that delivers, mapped to the friction it removes: </p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><strong>Run the big models locally.</strong> With 748GB of coherent unified memory and up to 20 PFLOPS of AI performance, the ET900N G3 can develop and run trillion-parameter models and autonomous AI agents right at the deskside — far beyond the reach of a conventional workstation, and without a trip to a shared cluster. </li>
</ul>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><strong>Keep sensitive work private.</strong> Because the compute lives where the team and the data do, sensitive and regulated workloads can stay on-premises under the organization’s own governance. Full compatibility with NVIDIA AI Enterprise and NVIDIA NemoClaw enables enterprises to build and run always-on AI assistants and agents within a secure, local environment. </li>
</ul>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><strong>Iterate without waiting.</strong> A 72-core NVIDIA Grace CPU paired with an NVIDIA Blackwell Ultra GPU over high-bandwidth NVLink-C2C interconnect puts supercomputer-class iteration at a developer’s fingertips — no queue, no cold start, no round-trip. </li>
</ul>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><strong>Scale out when you need to.</strong> An integrated NVIDIA ConnectX-8 SuperNIC provides up to 800 Gbps of networking, so the deskside system bridges cleanly to data center infrastructure when a workload outgrows the desk. </li>
</ul>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><strong>Run it around the clock.</strong> Data-center-grade thermal design built for sustained 24/7 operation means the system maintains peak performance through long training and inference runs rather than throttling when the work gets serious. </li>
</ul>



<p>And it runs the NVIDIA AI software stack out of the box, giving development teams a turnkey environment for training, fine-tuning, inference, and agentic AI from day one. </p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>The question worth asking now</strong> </h3>



<p>For years, the strategic question in AI infrastructure was <em>how big a cluster can we reach.</em> For a growing share of the work that actually moves a business forward, the better question is: how close can we put the power in the hands of<em> the people doing the work?</em> </p>



<p>The idea was never the bottleneck. The distance was. Closing it is the next advantage. </p>



<p>Discover how the ASUS ExpertCenter Pro ET900N G3 brings data-center-class AI to the deskside. Visit us <a href="https://url.usb.m.mimecastprotect.com/s/EeB2Cxo0l0UrX9KNIvh9cyHZgE?domain=asus.com" target="_blank" rel="sponsored">here</a> to learn more.  </p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[CVE-2023-2378 | Ubiquiti EdgeRouter X up to 2.0.9-hotfix.6 Web Management Interface suffix-rate-up command injection]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[A vulnerability classified as critical has been found in Ubiquiti EdgeRouter X up to 2.0.9-hotfix.6. This affects an unknown function of the component Web Management Interface. This manipulation of the argument suffix-rate-up causes command injection.

This vulnerability appears as CVE-2023-2378....]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3657361/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2023-2378-ubiquiti-edgerouter-x-up-to-209-hotfix6-web-management-interface-suffix-rate-up-command-injection/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3657361/sicherheitsluecken/cve-2023-2378-ubiquiti-edgerouter-x-up-to-209-hotfix6-web-management-interface-suffix-rate-up-command-injection/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2026 16:24:47 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🕵️ Sicherheitslücken</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[A vulnerability classified as <a href="https://vuldb.com/kb/risk">critical</a> has been found in <a href="https://vuldb.com/product/ubiquiti:edgerouter_x">Ubiquiti EdgeRouter X up to 2.0.9-hotfix.6</a>. This affects an unknown function of the component <em>Web Management Interface</em>. This manipulation of the argument <em>suffix-rate-up</em> causes command injection.

This vulnerability appears as <a href="https://vuldb.com/cve/CVE-2023-2378">CVE-2023-2378</a>. The attack may be initiated remotely. In addition, an exploit is available.

The real existence of this vulnerability is still doubted at the moment.

The vendor position is that post-authentication issues are not accepted as vulnerabilities.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[New AirPods Are Coming, Everything We Know So Far]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Apple is expected to release its next major AirPods upgrade in late 2027, with rumors suggesting a new model that could include built-in cameras to enable smarter Siri features.



Apple already has a strong AirPods lineup in 2026. The current range includes:




AirPods 4



AirPods 4 with Activ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3656792/ios-mac-os/new-airpods-are-coming-everything-we-know-so-far/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3656792/ios-mac-os/new-airpods-are-coming-everything-we-know-so-far/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2026 13:09:34 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🍏 iOS / Mac OS</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Apple is expected to release its next major AirPods upgrade in late 2027, with rumors suggesting a new model that could include built-in cameras to enable smarter Siri features.



Apple already has a strong AirPods lineup in 2026. The current range includes:




AirPods 4



AirPods 4 with Active Noise Cancellation



AirPods Pro 3



AirPods Max 2




AirPods Pro 3 launched in September 2025 with improved sound, better noise cancellation, Live Translation, and a built-in heart rate sensor for workouts.



Apple also refreshed AirPods Max in March 2026 with the H2 chip, better Active Noise Cancellation, Adaptive Audio, Conversation Awareness, and improved audio performance.



New AirPods with cameras may arrive in 2027



The biggest rumored AirPods update is a new model with built-in cameras.



These cameras are not expected to work like normal phone cameras. They are reportedly designed to help Siri understand the world around the user. For example, AirPods could use visual data to answer questions about objects, food, directions, or reminders.



Reports suggest Apple is targeting a late 2027 launch for these camera-equipped AirPods. The product was previously expected earlier, but delays around Apple Intelligence and Siri have reportedly pushed the timeline back.



What features could the new AirPods include?



The next major AirPods model could bring:




Built-in cameras for visual awareness



Smarter Siri responses based on the user’s surroundings



Longer stems to fit the camera hardware



LED indicators to show when visual data is being captured



Deeper iPhone app integration with Maps, Reminders, and other Apple apps




There is also speculation that Apple could brand this product as AirPods Ultra or launch it as a future AirPods Pro model. Recent iOS 27 beta code has reportedly hinted at a new AirPods product linked to visual intelligence features.



Will AirPods Pro 4 launch soon?



Right now, there is no strong sign that AirPods Pro 4 will arrive soon.



AirPods Pro 3 is still fresh in Apple’s lineup and already includes major upgrades such as heart rate tracking, improved battery life, and fitness-focused features. Apple’s own specs list up to 8 hours of listening time with Active Noise Cancellation enabled.



Because of that, Apple will likely focus on the camera-equipped AirPods before making another standard Pro update.



Should you buy AirPods now?



Yes, buying AirPods now makes sense if you need them.



AirPods Pro 3 and AirPods Max 2 are both recent products, while AirPods 4 remains Apple’s affordable option. The next big AirPods upgrade is still expected in 2027, so most buyers do not need to wait.



If you want the newest health and smart features, choose AirPods Pro 3. If you want over-ear headphones with stronger noise cancellation, choose AirPods Max 2. If you want a cheaper pair for daily use, AirPods 4 is still a good pick.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Practical challenges in managing Kubernetes at enterprise scale]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[The first time I used Kubernetes in an enterprise setting, I understood the hype. It gives every team the same way to package, deploy and run their apps. No more custom scripts or unique deployment hacks, just one control plane to rule them all. And really, that’s why it’s so popular with big com...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3656431/ai-nachrichten/practical-challenges-in-managing-kubernetes-at-enterprise-scale/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3656431/ai-nachrichten/practical-challenges-in-managing-kubernetes-at-enterprise-scale/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2026 11:03:31 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🔧 AI Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p>The first time I used Kubernetes in an enterprise setting, I understood the hype. It gives every team the same way to package, deploy and run their apps. No more custom scripts or unique deployment hacks, just one control plane to rule them all. And really, that’s why it’s so popular with big companies: <a href="https://kubernetes.io/">Kubernetes</a> is an open-source system for automating deployment, scaling and management of containerized applications. It says so right on the box, and that’s what people want. But here’s the truth: Kubernetes doesn’t erase operational headaches. It just moves them around.</p>



<p>When your Kubernetes install is small, it feels like rocket fuel for engineers. At enterprise scale, though, suddenly it’s about governance, not just engineering. The game is no longer “Can we get this container running?” It’s “How do hundreds of engineers roll out their stuff safely, consistently, securely and without breaking the bank or burning out the platform team?”</p>



<p>This is where the fun really starts.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">YAML isn’t the enemy</h2>



<p>Folks new to Kubernetes obsesses over manifests, Helm charts, namespaces, ingress rules, deployments, all that stuff. But they’re not the hardest part once you start scaling. The real beast is standardization.</p>



<p>Every big company I’ve seen ends up with teams going their own way. One group writes beautiful deployment templates. Someone else copies and pastes from a two-year-old manifest. Some folks set resource requirements properly. Others skip them entirely. One team sticks to a strong naming convention, and someone else throws together random namespaces and service accounts that make sense only to them. Individually, this more or less works. At scale, when the whole platform has to operate like one system, it’s a mess.</p>



<p>That’s why I’ll say it: you don’t just need a Kubernetes cluster. You need a paved road. This would involve ensuring that there are approved templates, good deployment patterns, observability, security controls as defaults, good issue escalation processes and accountability.</p>



<p>There is no need for developers to be Kubernetes experts just to release their services. The best enterprise Kubernetes setups work like real products. They let application teams self-serve but never let anyone veer off road without good reason.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">RBAC: necessary, but never enough</h2>



<p>Security is paramount. Kubernetes supports <a href="https://kubernetes.io/docs/reference/access-authn-authz/rbac/">role-based access control (RBAC)</a>, so on paper you can control who does what. In practice, in a big company, RBAC gets confusing fast.</p>



<p>The issue isn’t that engineers ignore security. It’s that permissions grow over time. You need a quick fix during an incident, so you give a service account more access. Maybe a team needs cluster-wide rights for a migration. That “just for now” permission sticks around because no one cleans it up. Month by month, the gap widens between what a workload should do and what it’s actually allowed to do. The only thing that works long-term: treat RBAC as a living thing, not a one-time checklist. Review it. Test it. Stick to least privilege. Service accounts get only what they need. Cluster-admin rights? Rare. Expiring exceptions. Set permissions as code so changes aren’t invisible.</p>



<p>Same story with workload security. Kubernetes brings you <a href="https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/security/pod-security-standards/">Pod Security Standards</a>. There is baseline, restricted and privileged profiles, so everyone speaks the same language. But simply setting a standard isn’t enough. We’d also need things like admission controls, image scanning, runtime monitoring and audit trails.</p>



<p>Honestly, the NSA/CISA Kubernetes Hardening Guidance is still gold. Scan containers and pods. Run workloads as locked down as possible. Use strong authentication. Separate networks. Set up solid logging. These ideas sound obvious until you see what happens when your organization scales without good ops.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Network policies: where “it should work” meets reality</h2>



<p>Kubernetes networking can trip up even the best teams. Engineers often think different namespaces mean automatic isolation between apps. Not true.</p>



<p><a href="https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/services-networking/network-policies/">Kubernetes network policies</a> decide which pods can talk to which, but the policies only matter if your networking plugin actually enforces them. I’ve seen a lot of teams write network controls that look great in YAML but don’t work, because the underlying network just ignores them. Security validation beats documentation every time. If two namespaces shouldn’t talk, test it. If a workload only needs access to a specific backend, check it. If only specific ingress is allowed, make sure nothing else gets through.</p>



<p>At scale, your Kubernetes security has to prove itself. “We have a policy” means nothing unless the platform can show the policy actually works.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Resource management becomes all about money</h2>



<p>One of the biggest challenge is resource allocation. Kubernetes lets you set CPU and memory limits, and sure, there are official docs. But getting these numbers right is tough.</p>



<p>Set them too low, and your workload might get throttled or evicted under load. Set them too high, and you’re paying for unused infrastructure. That barely registers on a small cluster, but when you’re running thousands of pods? That’s cloud bills gone wild.</p>



<p>This is where Kubernetes ops and FinOps meet. Platform teams have to know who’s burning through which resources, what’s over-provisioned or flying blind, and where the real money goes. ResourceQuota helps keep things in check, but quotas alone don’t hold people accountable.</p>



<p>The culture shift is moving from “the cluster has spare capacity” to “every service has an owner, a cost profile and a plan for staying lean.” Teams should understand their infrastructure bill. Platform teams need dashboards that point out waste. Engineering leaders need to care about efficiency, not just hear from finance when things go off the rails.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Autoscaling isn’t a magic trick</h2>



<p>The Horizontal Pod Autoscaler is handy. It adjusts your workloads automatically to match demand. But don’t overestimate it. Most real-world services don’t scale simply by CPU or memory. Sometimes a service hits latency limits before CPU usage spikes. Workers chewing through queues? You care more about backlog size. Machine learning? Maybe it’s all about GPU use or loading time. Customer-facing apps? You want to be scaled up before traffic hits, not scramble after users start complaining.</p>



<p><br>So autoscaling isn’t just a box you check. It’s a feedback loop, and it only works if you use the right signals. Sometimes CPU is enough. Sometimes you need to scale on queue length, request rate, latency or something totally custom.</p>



<p>Then there’s node autoscaling to provision infrastructure in response to demand. On paper, it just works. In real life, it runs into startup delays, availability zones, quotas, cloud provider quirks and pod disruption budgets. Scale pods faster than nodes? Users still see delays.</p>



<p>Test autoscaling like you test your app. Load-test it, break it, see what happens after an incident. Otherwise, you’ll find the limits when it hurts most.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Observability doesn’t matter unless it answers questions</h2>



<p>Kubernetes has mountains of data. Things like  logs, metrics, traces, events, audits, deployment history, container restarts, control plane noise, you name it. The real challenge isn’t collecting info, but actually it’s making sense of it. The CNCF and others have best practices for logging and telemetry, like centralizing logs and not leaking secrets. Those matter, but at the end of the day, engineers need answers, not just data. When something breaks, no one’s asking, “Is Kubernetes alive?” They want to know what changed. Did something roll out? Did a pod crash? Did autoscaling fire too late? Was a node unhealthy, a secret rotated, a network policy too tight, a downstream DB choking?</p>



<p>Observability should line up with real operational questions and not just ticking boxes for logs, or metrics. Dashboards need to match service ownership. Alerts need to mean something to end users. Telemetry should connect to deployments and incidents. Measure how quickly engineers spot the root cause, not just that you have the data somewhere.</p>



<p>CNCF talks about newer models of unified telemetry and proactive troubleshooting for a reason. All the dashboards in the world don’t help when your team has to play detective during an outage.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Upgrades: Don’t wing it</h2>



<p>Kubernetes upgrades catch people out. The CNCF Maturity Model says: Kubernetes drops three big releases a year, so maintenance is part of life—not a once-in-a-blue-moon project.</p>



<p>Upgrading at enterprise scale can involve everything: workloads, admission controllers, CI/CD, service mesh, ingress, storage drivers, monitoring, security, custom controllers. <a href="https://kubernetes.io/releases/version-skew-policy/">Version skew policies</a> keep you between the lines, but that’s just the beginning. The real question is: can you test your whole stack?</p>



<p>Good upgrade programs need a repeatable process, staging environments that actually look like production, and clear communication so teams know what to expect. The worst upgrade process is the one that relies on heroes to pull it off at the last second. A strong platform turns upgrades into routine.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Reliability: Kubernetes helps, but it doesn’t guarantee it</h2>



<p>Yes, Kubernetes restarts crashed containers, reschedules pods and does rolling deployments. But it doesn’t make a bad app reliable.</p>



<p>A poorly coded app will fail on Kubernetes just like anywhere else. Bad readiness or liveness probes? Your app gets traffic too soon. No graceful shutdown? Requests drop during deploy. Forgot pod disruption budgets? The app goes down during node maintenance. A flaky dependency? It will cascade through your services even if all your pods look healthy.</p>



<p>The mature approach is setting service-level objectives and making reliability a product of both platform and engineering. Cluster health isn’t user experience. That green status page can hide a lot of pain.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The platform team is a product team</h2>



<p>Here’s the biggest lesson I’ve picked up is that running Kubernetes at enterprise scale isn’t really about the tech. One cluster? Maybe one expert can handle that. But for a full enterprise platform, you need a product mindset. The platform team serves customers such as engineers, security, compliance, finance and business. Everyone wants something a bit different.</p>



<p>Developers want speed and reliability. Security wants oversight. Finance wants transparency. Compliance wants proof. Ops wants predictability. The business wants all of those.</p>



<p>The platform team has to pull those threads together with APIs, docs, dashboards, paved roads, support and feedback. That also means saying “no” to the unique snowflake patterns that create chaos later. Kubernetes is powerful. But it doesn’t replace organizational discipline. That’s still on the shoulders of engineering leaders. The real challenge at enterprise scale isn’t memorizing every API object. It’s building a system where any team can ship safely without needing to be Kubernetes experts themselves.</p>



<p>When you reach that point, Kubernetes stops being just a cluster. It becomes your platform.</p>



<p><strong>This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.</strong><br><strong><a href="https://www.infoworld.com/expert-contributor-network/">Want to join?</a></strong></p>
</div></div></div>
</div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Open-source collaboration is growing worldwide and putting pressure on maintainers]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Developers are pushing code and opening pull requests across economy borders at a rate GitHub has rarely seen. Outbound collaboration, the sum of git pushes and pull requests sent from developers in one economy to public repositories in another, grew…
Read more →
The post Open-source collaboratio...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3656062/it-security-nachrichten/open-source-collaboration-is-growing-worldwide-and-putting-pressure-on-maintainers/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3656062/it-security-nachrichten/open-source-collaboration-is-growing-worldwide-and-putting-pressure-on-maintainers/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2026 07:38:09 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Developers are pushing code and opening pull requests across economy borders at a rate GitHub has rarely seen. Outbound collaboration, the sum of git pushes and pull requests sent from developers in one economy to public repositories in another, grew…</p>
<p class="more-link-p"><a class="more-link" href="https://www.itsecuritynews.info/open-source-collaboration-is-growing-worldwide-and-putting-pressure-on-maintainers/">Read more →</a></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.itsecuritynews.info/open-source-collaboration-is-growing-worldwide-and-putting-pressure-on-maintainers/">Open-source collaboration is growing worldwide and putting pressure on maintainers</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.itsecuritynews.info/">IT Security News</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Open-source collaboration is growing worldwide and putting pressure on maintainers]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Developers are pushing code and opening pull requests across economy borders at a rate GitHub has rarely seen. Outbound collaboration, the sum of git pushes and pull requests sent from developers in one economy to public repositories in another, grew by 16% from Q4 2025 to Q1 2026, according to t...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3656027/it-security-nachrichten/open-source-collaboration-is-growing-worldwide-and-putting-pressure-on-maintainers/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3656027/it-security-nachrichten/open-source-collaboration-is-growing-worldwide-and-putting-pressure-on-maintainers/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2026 07:21:52 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Developers are pushing code and opening pull requests across economy borders at a rate GitHub has rarely seen. Outbound collaboration, the sum of git pushes and pull requests sent from developers in one economy to public repositories in another, grew by 16% from Q4 2025 to Q1 2026, according to the latest GitHub Innovation Graph data. That is the second highest quarter-over-quarter growth rate since 2020. Only Q2 2020 ran hotter, at 21%, back when … <a href="https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2026/07/09/github-open-source-collaboration/" rel="nofollow">More <span class="meta-nav">→</span></a></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2026/07/09/github-open-source-collaboration/">Open-source collaboration is growing worldwide and putting pressure on maintainers</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/">Help Net Security</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Microsoft shifts to annual exchange rate price revision for cloudy products]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Previously did it twice a year, so customers now have fewer chances to surf FX waves]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3655969/it-nachrichten/microsoft-shifts-to-annual-exchange-rate-price-revision-for-cloudy-products/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3655969/it-nachrichten/microsoft-shifts-to-annual-exchange-rate-price-revision-for-cloudy-products/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2026 06:47:20 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Previously did it twice a year, so customers now have fewer chances to surf FX waves]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The Real Challenge Limiting AI Models Today]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Hint: it is not GPU speed!
The post The Real Challenge Limiting AI Models Today appeared first on Towards Data Science.]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3654961/ai-nachrichten/the-real-challenge-limiting-ai-models-today/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3654961/ai-nachrichten/the-real-challenge-limiting-ai-models-today/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2026 19:18:52 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🔧 AI Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hint: it is not GPU speed!</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://towardsdatascience.com/the-real-challenge-limiting-ai-models-today/">The Real Challenge Limiting AI Models Today</a> appeared first on <a href="https://towardsdatascience.com/">Towards Data Science</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Sony to End Game Discs, Anthropic's Deal With California and Meta Smart Glasses Rate Limits | Tech Today video]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Wes Ott covers the top tech stories. Sony to stop physical game discs soon. California makes a deal with Anthropic over AI usage. Meta adds limits to certain features on its smart glasses.]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3654500/it-nachrichten/sony-to-end-game-discs-anthropics-deal-with-california-and-meta-smart-glasses-rate-limits-tech-today-video/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3654500/it-nachrichten/sony-to-end-game-discs-anthropics-deal-with-california-and-meta-smart-glasses-rate-limits-tech-today-video/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2026 15:47:50 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Wes Ott covers the top tech stories. Sony to stop physical game discs soon. California makes a deal with Anthropic over AI usage. Meta adds limits to certain features on its smart glasses.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[GitHub AI agent leaks private repositories via prompt injection attack]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[A prompt injection attack can trick GitHub’s preview Agentic Workflows into retrieving content from private repositories and publishing it publicly, exposing a broader risk as enterprises deploy AI agents with privileged access to software development environments, according to new research from ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3654336/ai-nachrichten/github-ai-agent-leaks-private-repositories-via-prompt-injection-attack/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3654336/ai-nachrichten/github-ai-agent-leaks-private-repositories-via-prompt-injection-attack/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2026 14:48:41 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🔧 AI Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p>A prompt injection attack can trick GitHub’s preview Agentic Workflows into retrieving content from private repositories and publishing it publicly, exposing a broader risk as enterprises deploy AI agents with privileged access to software development environments, according to new research from Noma Security.</p>



<p>The AI security company detailed the attack, dubbed GitLost, in a <a href="https://noma.security/blog/gitlost-how-we-tricked-githubs-ai-agent-into-leaking-private-repos/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">blog post</a>, saying an unauthenticated attacker could exploit GitHub’s preview Agentic Workflows by submitting a crafted GitHub issue to a public repository. If the AI agent has read access to private repositories within the same organization, it can retrieve sensitive information and publish it in a public comment, the company said.</p>



<p>GitHub Agentic Workflows combine GitHub Actions with AI models such as Claude or GitHub Copilot, allowing developers to define workflows in Markdown. At the same time, AI agents read issues, invoke tools, and perform tasks on their behalf.</p>



<p>“What will happen when the GitHub agent reads something it should not trust?” Noma researcher Sasi Levi wrote. “The answer is a textbook indirect prompt-injection attack, the kind of attack that quietly sends private data to anyone on the internet.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Public GitHub issue became the attack vector</h2>



<p>According to Noma, the attack did not rely on stolen credentials, malware, or software vulnerabilities. Instead, an attacker embedded hidden instructions within a GitHub Issue submitted to a public repository.</p>



<p>Because the AI agent interpreted the issue as instructions rather than untrusted content, it accessed a private repository and posted its contents back to the public issue, the blog post added.</p>



<p>“The root cause of the GitLost vulnerability is, by now, a familiar one in agentic AI systems: prompt injection,” Levi wrote. “In this specific case, any malicious actor can create a GitHub Issue and, in the issue body, hide commands in plain English that GitHub’s agent will follow.”</p>



<p>To demonstrate the attack, the researchers created what appeared to be a routine GitHub Issue requesting documentation updates. Once the workflow was triggered, the AI agent retrieved the README file from a private repository and published its contents in a publicly visible comment.</p>



<p>The researchers also said they bypassed GitHub’s prompt-based guardrails by making a minor wording change that caused the AI agent to comply with instructions it had previously rejected.</p>



<p>GitHub did not immediately respond to a request for comment.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Research points to a broader AI agent risk</h2>



<p>Noma said GitLost illustrates a broader architectural challenge for AI agents rather than a flaw unique to GitHub.</p>



<p>“The issue is not that GitHub’s AI agent is unusually insecure,” Levi wrote. “The issue is that any AI agent with access to both untrusted external content and sensitive internal resources can become an unintended bridge between the two if trust boundaries are not enforced.”</p>



<p>Independent cybersecurity researcher and red teamer Vibhum Dubey said the findings expose a more fundamental issue than prompt injection alone.</p>



<p>“This isn’t prompt injection in the abstract. This is GitHub shipping agent permissions before shipping agent security,” Dubey said. “The vulnerability exposes that AI agents operate on a service account permission model, not a user permission model. That’s an architectural assumption security teams made before considering LLMs as an attack vector.”</p>



<p>According to Dubey, the prompt injection itself is almost secondary.</p>



<p>“What’s dangerous is that trust boundaries exist in GitHub’s data model but nowhere in the agent’s execution context,” he said. “The agent doesn’t ‘know’ a repository is private. It just sees ‘accessible.’ As more organizations deploy agents, we’re accumulating these invisible permission gaps.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Experts urge tighter controls on AI agents</h2>



<p>Dubey said organizations should rethink how AI agents are granted permissions rather than treating the issue primarily as a monitoring challenge.</p>



<p>“Three concrete fixes: Agents get explicit repository whitelists, not broad service account access. All user inputs, including commit messages, PR descriptions, and issues, should be validated before reaching the LLM. And have an emergency kill-switch ready,” he said. “Most teams can disable a compromised API key. Can you disable a rogue agent?”</p>



<p>Dubey said GitLost demonstrates how AI agents can effectively become an insider threat once granted broad organizational access.</p>



<p>“The brilliance of GitLost isn’t that it fooled an AI. It’s that it weaponized GitHub’s assumption that service accounts are trustworthy,” he said. “Agents were explicitly built to bypass human judgment and operate autonomously. That’s exactly why they’re dangerous: we normalized cross-boundary operations the moment we automated them.” Noma also recommended applying least-privilege access controls, limiting AI agents’ cross-repository access, and treating GitHub Issues, pull requests, and comments as untrusted input.</p>
</div></div></div>
</div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[GitHub AI agent leaks private repositories via prompt injection attack]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[A prompt injection attack can trick GitHub’s preview Agentic Workflows into retrieving content from private repositories and publishing it publicly, exposing a broader risk as enterprises deploy AI agents with privileged access to software development environments, according to new research from ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3654254/it-security-nachrichten/github-ai-agent-leaks-private-repositories-via-prompt-injection-attack/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3654254/it-security-nachrichten/github-ai-agent-leaks-private-repositories-via-prompt-injection-attack/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2026 14:23:57 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p>A prompt injection attack can trick GitHub’s preview Agentic Workflows into retrieving content from private repositories and publishing it publicly, exposing a broader risk as enterprises deploy AI agents with privileged access to software development environments, according to new research from Noma Security.</p>



<p>The AI security company detailed the attack, dubbed GitLost, in a <a href="https://noma.security/blog/gitlost-how-we-tricked-githubs-ai-agent-into-leaking-private-repos/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">blog post</a>, saying an unauthenticated attacker could exploit GitHub’s preview Agentic Workflows by submitting a crafted GitHub issue to a public repository. If the AI agent has read access to private repositories within the same organization, it can retrieve sensitive information and publish it in a public comment, the company said.</p>



<p>GitHub Agentic Workflows combine GitHub Actions with AI models such as Claude or GitHub Copilot, allowing developers to define workflows in Markdown. At the same time, AI agents read issues, invoke tools, and perform tasks on their behalf.</p>



<p>“What will happen when the GitHub agent reads something it should not trust?” Noma researcher Sasi Levi wrote. “The answer is a textbook indirect prompt-injection attack, the kind of attack that quietly sends private data to anyone on the internet.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Public GitHub issue became the attack vector</h2>



<p>According to Noma, the attack did not rely on stolen credentials, malware, or software vulnerabilities. Instead, an attacker embedded hidden instructions within a GitHub Issue submitted to a public repository.</p>



<p>Because the AI agent interpreted the issue as instructions rather than untrusted content, it accessed a private repository and posted its contents back to the public issue, the blog post added.</p>



<p>“The root cause of the GitLost vulnerability is, by now, a familiar one in agentic AI systems: prompt injection,” Levi wrote. “In this specific case, any malicious actor can create a GitHub Issue and, in the issue body, hide commands in plain English that GitHub’s agent will follow.”</p>



<p>To demonstrate the attack, the researchers created what appeared to be a routine GitHub Issue requesting documentation updates. Once the workflow was triggered, the AI agent retrieved the README file from a private repository and published its contents in a publicly visible comment.</p>



<p>The researchers also said they bypassed GitHub’s prompt-based guardrails by making a minor wording change that caused the AI agent to comply with instructions it had previously rejected.</p>



<p>GitHub did not immediately respond to a request for comment.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Research points to a broader AI agent risk</h2>



<p>Noma said GitLost illustrates a broader architectural challenge for AI agents rather than a flaw unique to GitHub.</p>



<p>“The issue is not that GitHub’s AI agent is unusually insecure,” Levi wrote. “The issue is that any AI agent with access to both untrusted external content and sensitive internal resources can become an unintended bridge between the two if trust boundaries are not enforced.”</p>



<p>Independent cybersecurity researcher and red teamer Vibhum Dubey said the findings expose a more fundamental issue than prompt injection alone.</p>



<p>“This isn’t prompt injection in the abstract—this is GitHub shipping agent permissions before shipping agent security,” Dubey said. “The vulnerability exposes that AI agents operate on a service account permission model, not a user permission model. That’s an architectural assumption security teams made before considering LLMs as an attack vector.”</p>



<p>According to Dubey, the prompt injection itself is almost secondary.</p>



<p>“What’s dangerous is that trust boundaries exist in GitHub’s data model but nowhere in the agent’s execution context,” he said. “The agent doesn’t ‘know’ a repository is private. It just sees ‘accessible.’ As more organizations deploy agents, we’re accumulating these invisible permission gaps.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Experts urge tighter controls on AI agents</h2>



<p>Dubey said organizations should rethink how AI agents are granted permissions rather than treating the issue primarily as a monitoring challenge.</p>



<p>“Three concrete fixes: Agents get explicit repository whitelists, not broad service account access. All user inputs, including commit messages, PR descriptions, and issues, should be validated before reaching the LLM. And have an emergency kill-switch ready,” he said. “Most teams can disable a compromised API key. Can you disable a rogue agent?”</p>



<p>Dubey said GitLost demonstrates how AI agents can effectively become an insider threat once granted broad organizational access.</p>



<p>“The brilliance of GitLost isn’t that it fooled an AI. It’s that it weaponized GitHub’s assumption that service accounts are trustworthy,” he said. “Agents were explicitly built to bypass human judgment and operate autonomously. That’s exactly why they’re dangerous: we normalized cross-boundary operations the moment we automated them.” Noma also recommended applying least-privilege access controls, limiting AI agents’ cross-repository access, and treating GitHub Issues, pull requests, and comments as untrusted input.</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Slack’s Slackbot can now pull your CRM data, generate charts, and send DocuSigns — all from a chat message.]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Five years and $27.7 billion after Salesforce acquired Slack, the two products are finally starting to function as a single system. On Tuesday, Slack launched an integration that connects Slackbot — the personal AI agent built into every workspace — to the entire Salesforce platform, including CR...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3654241/it-nachrichten/slacks-slackbot-can-now-pull-your-crm-data-generate-charts-and-send-docusigns-all-from-a-chat-message/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3654241/it-nachrichten/slacks-slackbot-can-now-pull-your-crm-data-generate-charts-and-send-docusigns-all-from-a-chat-message/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2026 14:18:13 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Five years and $27.7 billion after Salesforce acquired Slack, the two products are finally starting to function as a single system. On Tuesday, <a href="https://slack.com/">Slack</a> launched an integration that connects <a href="https://slack.com/features/slackbot">Slackbot</a> — the personal AI agent built into every workspace — to the entire Salesforce platform, including CRM data, Tableau analytics, Data 360 customer profiles, and a growing constellation of third-party applications, all through a single conversational prompt.</p><p>The mechanism behind the expansion is a set of dedicated <a href="https://modelcontextprotocol.io/docs/getting-started/intro">Model Context Protocol (MCP)</a> servers from Salesforce that connect Slackbot to the company's <a href="https://venturebeat.com/technology/salesforce-launches-headless-360-to-turn-its-entire-platform-into-infrastructure-for-ai-agents">Headless 360 infrastructure</a>. In practical terms, a salesperson can now ask Slackbot for a customer's deal history, receive a live Tableau visualization of pipeline trends, update a CRM record, and trigger a DocuSign approval — without ever switching tabs or logging into another application. According to Slack, the Salesforce IT team has already used this architecture to save its 1,500-plus engineers "thousands of custom coding hours annually."</p><p>The timing is not accidental. Slack is making this move amid escalating competitive pressure from Microsoft Teams, which claims <a href="https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/discussions/microsoftteams/teams-grows-to-320-million-monthly-active-users/3964746">320 million-plus monthly active users</a> and has Copilot embedded across the Office suite, and from Google, which continues to weave <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4143838/google-embeds-gemini-ai-deeper-into-workspace-apps.html">Gemini deeper into Workspace</a>. And just days ago, The Information reported that some smaller companies are using Anthropic's Claude to r<a href="https://www.theinformation.com/articles/small-firms-use-claude-quit-salesforce">eplace Salesforce CRM entirely</a> — one Atlanta-based property management firm with about 55 employees reportedly saved around $100,000 annually by building a custom replacement using Claude Code and Replit.</p><p>Against that backdrop, Slack CMO Ryan Gavin sat down for an exclusive interview with VentureBeat to frame the announcement and argue that the company's future depends on an idea he calls "multiplayer AI" — and that the 25 years of customer data locked inside Salesforce is an asset no vibe-coded alternative can replicate.</p><h2><b>Why Slack's CMO believes 'multiplayer AI' is the next big enterprise battleground</b></h2><p>Gavin's core argument is that the enterprise AI conversation has been stuck in single-player mode for too long, and that Slack is uniquely positioned to break it open.</p><p>"So much of what we've seen are just these incredible tools that have largely been single-player, incredible tools for individual productivity, helping people complete tasks and write code," Gavin told VentureBeat. "But as we've always known at Slack ever since our inception, work is a team sport. For AI to really take hold in the enterprise, it has to be multiplayer."</p><p>The distinction matters commercially. Most AI assistants today — ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot — default to one-on-one conversations with a single user. A researcher queries a model, gets a response, and acts on it alone. The insight stays in a private chat window, invisible to colleagues. Gavin argues this creates a new version of the tab-switching problem that plagued pre-AI enterprise software, except now employees are also navigating dozens of individual agent interfaces on top of their existing applications.</p><p>"It's going to benefit almost no one if every enterprise application out there spawns hundreds of agent babies, and employees end up in a worse world than they were before," Gavin said.</p><p>Slack's answer is to make <a href="https://slack.com/features/slackbot">Slackbot</a> the orchestration layer. Because everything happens in shared channels, any action an agent takes — pulling a customer profile, flagging a deal risk, updating a Jira ticket — is visible to the entire team. A colleague can redirect, build on, or correct the agent's work in real time.</p><h2><b>How MCP and Salesforce's headless 360 platform power Slackbot's new capabilities</b></h2><p>The technical backbone of the announcement is the <a href="https://modelcontextprotocol.io/docs/getting-started/intro">Model Context Protocol</a>, an open standard originally developed by Anthropic that defines how AI models discover and invoke external tools. MCP has seen rapid adoption across the AI tooling ecosystem. By early 2026, it had been adopted by <a href="https://claude.com/product/claude-code">Claude Code</a>, <a href="https://cursor.com/">Cursor</a>, <a href="https://github.com/features/copilot">GitHub Copilot</a>, and OpenAI's tooling, with managed hosting available from <a href="https://aws.amazon.com/">AWS</a>, <a href="https://www.cloudflare.com/">Cloudflare</a>, and <a href="https://vercel.com/">Vercel</a>. As a <a href="https://dev.to/swrly/model-context-protocol-mcp-explained-why-it-matters-in-2026-1c7i">DEV Community explainer</a> puts it, MCP "is the closest thing the AI tooling ecosystem has to a standard."</p><p>In this implementation, Salesforce exposes its platform capabilities — CRM records, Tableau visualizations, Data 360 customer profiles, Agentforce agents — as MCP servers. Slackbot operates as an MCP client, connecting to those servers and routing user queries to the appropriate back-end system. When a user asks Slackbot about a customer, the bot discovers which MCP tools are relevant, calls them, and synthesizes the results into a single response — all within the Slack conversation.</p><p>Gavin explained the architecture in simple terms: "Salesforce is extending what has always been our open platform through our Headless 360 strategy — making all of these MCP endpoints available. And then Slackbot acts as an MCP client, connecting to those MCP servers and bringing all that data in within the confines of a trusted permission platform."</p><p>That permission layer is critical. Slackbot respects each user's Salesforce permissions, meaning a marketing coordinator cannot accidentally access sales pipeline data they are not authorized to see. Validation rules, field-level security, and org-wide data boundary configurations carry over automatically. For admins, setup requires no custom integration code — Salesforce MCP servers can be discovered, installed, and governed from a single UI using the existing Slack-Salesforce connection.</p><p>Salesforce first introduced the <a href="https://venturebeat.com/technology/salesforce-launches-headless-360-to-turn-its-entire-platform-into-infrastructure-for-ai-agents">Headless 360</a> concept at its <a href="https://www.salesforce.com/tdx/">TDX developer conference</a> in April, positioning it as an API-driven layer that exposes the platform's data, workflows, and governance controls so that software agents, rather than human users, can execute business processes directly. As <a href="http://cio.com/">CIO.com reported</a> at the time, analysts viewed the move as an effort by Salesforce "to position itself as a central layer for managing agent-driven operations across different business functions."</p><h2><b>Slack says it's betting on openness, not on any single AI protocol</b></h2><p>When asked whether Slack is making a risky bet on MCP as a protocol — given that standards in AI tooling can shift rapidly — Gavin reframed the question entirely.</p><p>"We're not betting on MCP, per se. We're betting on what we've always bet on, which is that Slack is an open platform," Gavin told VentureBeat. "MCP happens to be the best agent-to-agent protocol that the industry is rallying around right now, but if something better came out tomorrow, you'd see the same pattern from Slack — we're going to stay open. MCP and APIs are simply tools that facilitate that."</p><p>That open-platform philosophy is central to Slack's identity and, Gavin argues, its competitive differentiation. Slack already hosts <a href="https://slack.com/resources/why-use-slack/what-is-slack-and-how-does-it-work">more than 2,600 app integrations</a>. The new MCP-native partner ecosystem includes <a href="https://www.atlassian.com/">Atlassian</a>, <a href="https://www.box.com/home">Box</a>, <a href="https://www.docusign.com/">DocuSign</a>, <a href="https://www.canva.com/">Canva</a>, <a href="https://lucid.co/">Lucid</a>, <a href="https://www.zoom.com/">Zoom</a>, and more than 25 additional companies, each of whose agents can be added directly to shared Slack channels. <a href="https://www.mulesoft.com/">MuleSoft Agent</a>, now connected to Slackbot, helps manage integrations for the team — checking system health or surfacing critical error alerts in the same workspace where the team is already collaborating.</p><p>But MCP is not without trade-offs. The protocol requires tool discovery on every connection, and large tool libraries can consume significant context tokens. One technical analysis noted that a server exposing 300 tools could cost 5,000 to 10,000 tokens per session before the model does any useful work. For an enterprise like Salesforce with hundreds of potential tools across CRM, analytics, and service platforms, careful filtering and segmentation of MCP servers become essential design decisions — a challenge the company will need to navigate as the ecosystem scales.</p><h2><b>Inside Slack's complicated relationship with Anthropic and the Claude question</b></h2><p>Perhaps the most delicate topic in the interview concerned Slack's relationship with Anthropic, the AI lab behind Claude — and one of Slack's most visible power users. Just last week, <a href="https://venturebeat.com/technology/anthropic-launches-claude-tag-replacing-its-slack-app-with-a-persistent-ai-teammate-that-learns-monitors-and-works-autonomously">Anthropic launched Claude Tag</a>, a persistent AI teammate that works inside Slack channels, prompting confusion among Salesforce employees who worried it competes directly with Slackbot and Agentforce. The Information reported <a href="https://www.theinformation.com/articles/salesforce-employees-worry-anthropics-invasion-slack">internal anxiety</a> about whether Salesforce was welcoming a competitor into its own living room. Salesforce has financial reasons to maintain the partnership: the company reportedly expects to spend $300 million on Anthropic tokens this year and holds a stake in Anthropic.</p><p>Gavin addressed the tension head-on, framing it as a feature of Slack's platform strategy rather than a threat.</p><p>"We're incredibly excited and bullish about what Anthropic is bringing into Slack. Period. End of statement," Gavin said. He noted that Anthropic "is building roughly 65% of their code with Claude in Slack," and pointed out that ChatGPT was originally built in Slack, as was Perplexity.</p><p>"Building nowadays happens in the open, and every company is going to be building in the open with tools like this, and you need a platform to build in the open," Gavin said.</p><p>His argument is that feature overlap between <a href="https://slack.com/features/slackbot">Slackbot</a>, <a href="https://www.anthropic.com/news/introducing-claude-tag">Claude Tag</a>, and other third-party agents is "actually a feature, not a bug" — a sign of a healthy platform rather than a competitive vulnerability. He compared it to an ecosystem where multiple products serve similar needs but win on craftsmanship, ease of use, and integration depth.</p><p>"One of the reasons Slackbot has been the fastest-adopted feature in Salesforce history is the simplicity, the approachability — underpinned by the trust that comes from having an agent that knows me, knows my tone, knows my work, knows my people, knows my data," Gavin said.</p><p>The distinction Slack draws is structural: Slackbot has access to a user's full workspace context, Salesforce data, permissions, and connected applications by default. Claude Tag, by contrast, only sees the channels it is explicitly added to. For Slack's leadership, that asymmetry is the moat.</p><h2><b>How Slack plans to compete with Microsoft Teams and Google in the AI era</b></h2><p>Asked directly about competitive positioning against <a href="https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-teams/log-in">Microsoft Teams</a> and <a href="https://workspace.google.com/">Google Workspace</a>, Gavin pointed to Slack's open channel architecture as the differentiator no competitor can replicate.</p><p>"If you spend any time in Teams, it's a lovely tool for chat, direct messages, and video, but it has no platform for open communication across organizations," Gavin said. "Its SharePoint-based architecture is fundamentally limiting."</p><p>He cited <a href="https://www.shopify.com/">Shopify</a> as an example, where an internal AI agent called <a href="https://www.ashgaliyev.com/shopify-river.html">River</a> is deployed across approximately 4,400 channels serving 6,000 employees. He also referenced a <a href="https://fortune.com/2026/06/27/microsoft-copilot-boss-jacob-andreou-tapped-by-satya-nadella-to-save-ai-strategy/">Fortune report</a> noting that Microsoft's own head of AI mandated that his team run on Slack rather than Teams — a pointed detail Gavin clearly relished. "There's a reason for that," he said. "We're in an era right now where openness matters, and all the other tools you mentioned, they're still relatively closed."</p><p>The competitive pressure is real and intensifying. Microsoft has integrated Copilot across its entire productivity suite, giving it a distribution advantage that reaches virtually every Fortune 500 company. Google has been similarly aggressive with Gemini across Workspace. And new entrants are crowding the market: a startup called <a href="https://viktor.com/hire-an-ai-employee?gad_source=1&amp;gad_campaignid=23610878065&amp;gbraid=0AAAABC9uvB--JiQPb5do0TpcAnPyKB3Gz&amp;gclid=CjwKCAjwx7LSBhB3EiwAjcodxAmoASmBycYGHkrfafr1WOuFKNG5AQYQLWLmYZLmc1diiKMM0wOKARoCa1sQAvD_BwE">Viktor</a>, which embeds AI agents inside Slack and Teams workspaces, recently raised a <a href="https://viktor.com/blog/viktor-series-a">$75 million Series A</a> led by Accel — with Slack cofounders Stewart Butterfield and Cal Henderson participating as angel investors.</p><p><a href="https://www.box.com/home">Box</a>, one of the enterprise customers highlighted in the announcement, told Slack it aims to have its sellers complete 75 to 80 percent of their work inside Slack. Gavin repeated that figure as evidence that the platform is becoming the default workspace for entire organizations, not just engineering teams — a shift he believes accelerates as AI makes every employee a builder.</p><h2><b>Slack's biggest long-term play is making Salesforce's CRM useful to everyone in the company</b></h2><p>Gavin saved what he considers the most underappreciated element of the announcement for last: the democratization of Salesforce's CRM.</p><p>For 25 years, Salesforce's CRM has been used primarily by sales, service, and marketing professionals — a relatively modest percentage of a company's total workforce. The promise of Slackbot as a conversational interface is that any employee, regardless of their role or technical fluency, can now query and act on CRM data simply by asking a question in natural language.</p><p>"What most people don't realize is that this democratization of CRM is going to take its usage from a modest percentage of employees to the entire enterprise," Gavin said. "When you can make systems like Data 360 or Agentforce for Sales accessible to the entire employee base — not just a percentage — think about how much more valuable those investments become."</p><p>He cited <a href="https://engine.com/">Engine</a>, a company that handles 800,000 customer inquiries a year, as an example. Previously, answering a customer inquiry required a specific employee with access to a specific tool to look up a customer's history. Now, anyone in the company can ask Slackbot and see a complete customer profile, review case history, and write updates — all without being retrained or learning a new interface. Engine's CEO Elia Wallen, in a statement sent to VentureBeat, described the integration as enabling employees to "make data-driven decisions and take action without leaving the conversation."</p><p>The financial logic is straightforward: if Salesforce can make its platform useful to 100 percent of a customer's workforce rather than the 20 or 30 percent who currently hold licenses, the value of the existing Salesforce investment multiplies without requiring a proportional increase in spending. That pitch becomes especially potent at a time when CIOs are scrutinizing every line of their AI budgets.</p><h2><b>What analysts and CIOs should watch as Slack rolls out its biggest AI update yet</b></h2><p>The announcement is a significant architectural evolution for Slack, but several questions remain unanswered.</p><p>First, pricing. The company did not directly address whether Slackbot's MCP-powered Salesforce integration will require additional SKUs or license tiers. As Info-Tech Research Group analyst Scott Bickley <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4178840/salesforces-headless-360-monetization-play-could-give-cios-a-familiar-budgeting-headache.html">cautioned</a> when Headless 360 was first announced in April, "Salesforce's MO seems to be to announce new capabilities that require SKUs. CIOs should be asking about pricing now."</p><p>Second, performance. Routing user queries through MCP servers to Salesforce back-end systems introduces latency that could affect the conversational feel Slack prides itself on. Neither the press release nor the interview disclosed SLAs for MCP tool calls — a gap that enterprise buyers will want addressed.</p><p>Third, the competitive dynamics of the platform play. Slack's open-platform philosophy invites powerful partners like <a href="https://www.anthropic.com/">Anthropic</a> and <a href="https://openai.com/">OpenAI</a> into its ecosystem, but those same partners are building their own surfaces for enterprise work. Anthropic reportedly plans to expand Claude Tag to Microsoft Teams, email, and other project management tools — meaning the partner Salesforce is paying hundreds of millions a year is building the infrastructure to be useful without Slack at all.</p><p>And fourth, the broader existential question facing all enterprise software: whether AI agents will ultimately reduce the need for CRM systems entirely. Gavin's pitch — that Slack makes CRM more valuable by making it more accessible — is the inverse of the bear case. The market will ultimately decide which thesis prevails.</p><p>Salesforce reported record first-quarter revenue of <a href="https://investor.salesforce.com/news/news-details/2026/Salesforce-Delivers-Record-First-Quarter-Fiscal-2027-Results/default.aspx">$11.1 billion in fiscal Q1 2027</a>, with <a href="https://investor.salesforce.com/news/news-details/2026/Salesforce-Delivers-Record-First-Quarter-Fiscal-2027-Results/default.aspx">Agentforce ARR surpassing $1 billion</a> for the first time and combined AI and data ARR reaching $3.4 billion. Those numbers suggest the AI strategy is beginning to generate real revenue, even as the company navigates a market that remains uncertain about the long-term trajectory of legacy enterprise software.</p><p>"Slack has quickly moved from this beloved collaboration tool from the last ten years to now this multiplayer AI platform that we call a work operating system," Gavin said.</p><p>Five years ago, <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/01/salesforce-buys-slack-for-27point7-billion-in-cloud-companys-largest-deal.html">Salesforce paid $27.7 billion</a> for what was, at its core, a very good group chat application. On Wednesday, it started trying to prove that group chat was never the product — it was the foundation. In the age of AI agents, the most valuable real estate in enterprise software may not be the database where the data lives. It may be the conversation where the decisions get made.</p><p>
</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Reallocating cybersecurity capital in the Mythos era]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Throughout my career, I’ve seen countless technological shifts categorized as “unprecedented” that turned out to be merely incremental. The recent deployment of advanced, agentic AI models — what we are categorizing here as the “Mythos” capability — is fundamentally different. It represents a per...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3654208/it-security-nachrichten/reallocating-cybersecurity-capital-in-the-mythos-era/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3654208/it-security-nachrichten/reallocating-cybersecurity-capital-in-the-mythos-era/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2026 14:08:01 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p>Throughout my career, I’ve seen countless technological shifts categorized as “unprecedented” that turned out to be merely incremental. The recent deployment of advanced, agentic AI models — what we are categorizing here as the “Mythos” capability — is fundamentally different. It represents a permanent, structural shift in the risk and financial dynamics of the enterprise.</p>



<p>To understand why this requires <a href="https://www.nacdonline.org/all-governance/governance-resources/governance-research/director-handbooks/2026-cyber-risk-oversight/" rel="nofollow">immediate boardroom attention</a>, we must look at the cybersecurity budgeting baseline we are leaving behind. For decades, we relied on a predictable equilibrium: vulnerabilities were discovered and exploited at human speed. That inherent latency gave us a reasonable runway to patch systems and allowed CFOs to safely manage cyber budgets via fixed percentages or predictable annual bumps. With the arrival of machine-speed AI agents, that equilibrium — and the financial assumptions built upon it — is gone.</p>



<p>I want to be clear: this is not a crisis that should cause panic. Rather, it is a severe, balance-sheet-level mismatch in capital allocation. Mythos-level AI hasn’t magically created new vulnerabilities; it has simply industrialized the discovery and exploitation of our existing, legacy technical debt at machine speed.</p>



<p>As leaders, we cannot apply a legacy budgeting model to a machine-speed paradigm. To protect the business, preserve insurability and ensure continuity, we must fundamentally rethink how and where we deploy our cybersecurity capital.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The core problem: The economics of asymmetry</h2>



<p>To understand the necessary budget shift, we have to look at the math. The Mythos capability isn’t just fast; it possesses agentic reasoning. Threat actors are no longer manually probing our networks; they are <a href="https://reports.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_Cybersecurity_Outlook_2026.pdf" rel="nofollow">using autonomous AI agents</a> to stitch together low-level bugs into critical exploits in hours, not months.</p>



<p>This asymmetry creates a crushing economic burden on our side of the ledger. Historically, a standard enterprise team of 100 software engineers could conservatively spend about 17,700 hours per year triaging code and addressing bad-code issues – a baseline direct labor cost of roughly $708,000 at a conservative US blended $40 hourly rate. In the era of frontier AI models such as Mythos, that hidden labor pool becomes a strategic budget parameter. That’s because AI may accelerate discovery, but enterprises still need the skills of expert technical talent to validate, prioritize and remediate what AI finds.</p>



<p>Today, Mythos-driven scanners can identify up to seven times that standard volume of vulnerabilities. The bottleneck is no longer finding the flaws; it is the human capacity to fix them. I see highly compensated engineering teams drowning in “triage fatigue,” burning millions in payroll hours chasing AI-generated alerts while actual, critical threats slip through the noise.</p>



<p>Throwing more money at our current strategy will only accelerate capital burn. We need a structural pivot.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The capital reallocation mandate: Five strategic shifts</h2>



<p>Simply expanding the IT budget is not the answer. Capital must be urgently reallocated away from legacy, perimeter-based defenses and directed into five critical operational areas:</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">1. Network redesign: Funding zero trust and micro-segmentation</h3>



<p>We are still funding the “castle and moat” model, which is obsolete against autonomous agents that either bypass the moat entirely or originate from within it.</p>



<p><strong>The shift:</strong> We must redirect OpEx from legacy firewalls and VPNs into <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4076366/why-zero-trust-is-fundamental-to-containment-and-microsegmentation.html">Zero Trust Architecture (ZTA)</a>, prioritizing deep micro-segmentation alongside dynamic, AI-driven identity and access management.</p>



<p><strong>The business case:</strong> Operating on a “never trust, always verify” basis is about limiting the blast radius. Micro-segmentation acts as digital bulkheads across your network. If an AI-driven agent compromises a single endpoint or workload, these internal barriers ensure it cannot move laterally to reach your crown-jewel financial or customer data.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">2. Infrastructure modernization: Retiring legacy technical debt</h3>



<p>Mythos models are incredibly efficient at weaponizing deeply embedded technical debt, particularly in older systems built on unsafe programming languages.</p>



<p><strong>The shift:</strong> We need strategic CapEx allocated to systematically re-architect foundational systems into modern, safe languages.</p>



<p><strong>The business case:</strong> You cannot hire enough humans to patch structural flaws at machine speed. Re-platforming acts as a permanent structural fix, eliminating entire classes of vulnerabilities before the code is even compiled. This requires upfront capital but permanently shrinks the attack surface and reduces long-term OpEx associated with triage.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">3. Inside security controls: Governing shadow AI</h3>



<p>The most immediate risk to your IP isn’t always an external hacker; it’s your own workforce. To speed up their tasks, well-meaning employees are feeding proprietary source code and sensitive financial data into unsanctioned, public AI models (<a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/4143302/the-cisos-guide-to-responding-to-shadow-ai.html">shadow AI</a>).</p>



<p><strong>The shift:</strong> Budgets must account for prompt-level Data Loss Prevention (DLP) tools, the creation of secure, private AI enclaves for internal use, and robust Non-Human Identity (NHI) management.</p>



<p><strong>The business case:</strong> A blanket ban on AI stifles productivity and innovation, but unmanaged use invites severe regulatory violations and IP theft. Upgraded internal controls give your workforce the AI tools they need to stay competitive while keeping your proprietary data inside the house.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">4. Outside security controls: AI-native defense and contextual triage</h3>



<p>Relying on manual labor to manually sort through machine-speed attacks is a losing proposition. We must invest in defenses that contextualize risk instantly.</p>



<p><strong>The shift:</strong> We need to fund AI-native posture management platforms.</p>



<p><strong>The business case:</strong> This is about maximizing the ROI of human labor. Modern platforms prioritize <em>reachability over volume</em>. If a scanner finds 1,000 flaws, but only 10 are actually exposed to the live internet, the platform filters out the 990 irrelevant alerts. This ensures your expensive engineering hours are deployed <em>only</em> where the business faces material financial exposure.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">5. Operational execution: Deploying autonomous operations</h3>



<p>Finding and prioritizing vulnerabilities is only the first step; executing the fix is where human bottlenecks create catastrophic enterprise risk. Relying on manual ticketing and reactive IT operations is no longer viable.</p>



<p><strong>The shift:</strong> <a href="https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/06/ai-agents-cybersecurity-defenders-tip-the-scales/" rel="nofollow">Capital must be allocated toward autonomous operations</a> — platforms capable of executing complex, multi-step IT processes with limited human intervention.</p>



<p><strong>The business case:</strong> This fundamentally changes the economics of remediation. By deploying trusted, purpose-built AI agents to handle automated patch management, configuration updates and routine self-healing workflows, you eliminate the human latency in your defense. It shrinks the vulnerability exposure window from weeks to minutes, while freeing your engineering talent to focus on revenue-generating product development rather than endless IT maintenance.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The bottom line</h2>



<p>The veil protecting our legacy infrastructure has been lifted. Deploying capital strategically toward network redesign, structural modernization, autonomous execution and AI-native controls is no longer a discretionary technology expense — it is a core fiduciary responsibility and the ultimate determinant of corporate resilience.</p>



<p><strong>This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.</strong><br><a href="https://www.cio.com/expert-contributor-network/"><strong>Want to join?</strong></a></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Mutation testing comes to DAML]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[In April we released Mewt, our open-source mutation-testing engine that finds the gaps in your test suite. Today we’re expanding it with support for DAML, the language Canton Network applications are written in. Mewt now reads DAML, generates several classes of mutants (including two built for DA...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3654082/it-security-nachrichten/mutation-testing-comes-to-daml/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3654082/it-security-nachrichten/mutation-testing-comes-to-daml/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2026 13:08:35 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In April we released <a href="https://blog.trailofbits.com/2026/04/01/mutation-testing-for-the-agentic-era/">Mewt</a>, our open-source mutation-testing engine that finds the gaps in your test suite. Today we’re expanding it with support for DAML, the language Canton Network applications are written in. Mewt now reads DAML, generates several classes of mutants (including two built for DAML’s authorization primitives), and runs them through your existing test suite to count how many mutants survive. If you want to try it, simply install Mewt from the <a href="https://github.com/trailofbits/mewt">repository</a>, point a <code>mewt.toml</code> at your project and its test command, and use <code>mewt run</code>.</p>
<p>For a team shipping DAML to production, that count is what a passing test run is actually worth: it puts a number on how much your suite checks, whereas a green run on its own does not.</p>
<h2>Why DAML’s coverage reports lie</h2>
<p>Test coverage is the most reassuring lie in smart-contract development. Hitting 100% line coverage tells you the test runner walked the code; it does not tell you whether any test would fail if that code stopped doing what it is supposed to. We have been grading test harnesses by how many mutants they kill since at least <a href="https://blog.trailofbits.com/2019/01/23/fuzzing-an-api-with-deepstate-part-2/">2019</a>, and <a href="https://blog.trailofbits.com/2025/09/18/use-mutation-testing-to-find-the-bugs-your-tests-dont-catch/">our primer on finding the bugs your tests don’t catch</a> shows how a green suite can still miss the bug that matters.</p>
<p>DAML’s built-in coverage measures execution at the template and choice level: which templates were created and which choices were exercised over the test run. It reports whether each choice was exercised, not what happened inside it. A test that exercises a choice once and asserts nothing about the result reports that choice as covered. The report prints the same green percentage whether the test verifies the outcome or discards it.</p>
<h2>How mutation testing works</h2>
<p>Instead of asking whether your tests reached the code, mutation testing grades your tests by sabotaging that code. The engine generates mutants, copies of the code that each carry one small deliberate change: a flipped comparison, a removed branch, a dropped party. It then runs your test suite against each one. A mutant that makes the suite fail is caught; a mutant that passes every test survives. Every survivor is a change your tests let through, and each one is either harmless or a potential bug. The harmless ones are equivalent code no test could distinguish or a branch no execution reaches, and you can set those aside. The rest are a to-do list: each one is a specific test you are missing, a case your suite should check but does not, occasionally with a real bug sitting behind the gap. The primer above describes a real audit where a mutation campaign surfaced a high-severity bug that the project’s tests had missed.</p>
<h2>Mutation testing forces the unhappy path</h2>
<p>A DAML contract encodes rights and obligations between named parties: who holds what, who owes what to whom, and who must authorize each step. A party is not an anonymous address. It represents a real organization or person, and the contract is the rulebook for how those parties interact, including which of them can take which action, what each is allowed to see, and what stays private between them.</p>
<p>Authorization is how that rulebook is enforced: who may take which action. It is also easy to get wrong in ordinary ways, such as a typo in a controller clause, a missing party, an extra one left over from a refactor. Every combination type-checks, so nothing rejects it before it ships. A static analyzer can flag suspicious patterns, but it has no way to know which party should hold which authority on your contract. That knowledge lives in your specification, and for most projects, the only executable form of the specification is the test suite. Happy-path tests supply every signature the contract asks for and confirm the transaction succeeds. They never try the negative case—removing a required signature and checking that the ledger rejects the transaction—so they never actually test whether that signature was required at all. If the tests don’t encode that rule, nothing downstream can recover it. Mutation testing is what tells you whether they do.</p>
<p>A green test run tells you your tests passed today. Mutation testing asks the harder question: would your tests catch a mistake, now or after the next code change? Where the answer is no, you have found a test case worth writing.</p>
<h2>What Mewt adds for DAML</h2>
<p>Mewt parses every language it supports with a tree-sitter grammar. As of mid-2026, there is no maintained tree-sitter grammar for DAML, so we reused the upstream <code>tree-sitter-haskell</code> grammar. DAML is Haskell-shaped, but its contract constructs (<code>template</code>, <code>choice</code>, <code>controller</code>, and <code>signatory</code>) are not Haskell, and the grammar parses them as error-recovered subtrees. That matters less than it sounds. The common mutations still work on DAML’s ordinary expressions, so Mewt swaps arithmetic and comparison operators, flips Booleans, and removes branches just as it does in any other language, with only small adjustments where DAML’s surface syntax differs (DAML writes <code>/=</code> where most languages write <code>!=</code>). We got most of the value of a from-scratch grammar without building one.</p>
<p>The new engineering went into DAML’s authorization primitives, where the authorization bugs from the previous section live. Mewt adds two DAML-specific mutations:</p>
<ul>
<li>
<p><strong>Controller party swap</strong> (CPS in Mewt’s output): replace one party in a <code>controller</code> clause with another party that is in scope at that site.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p><strong>Controller party removal</strong> (CPR): drop one party from a multi-party controller list.</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>Both target the same question: if the set of parties allowed to exercise this choice silently changed, would any test fail? They are a deliberately small starting set aimed at the bug class above, and more DAML-specific mutations are in the pipeline.</p>
<p>Driving a campaign needs no new harness. A short <code>mewt.toml</code> names the files to mutate and the test command (<code>dpm test</code> for a Daml 3 project), and <code>mewt run</code> does the rest, reporting each mutant as caught or surviving. The setup is deliberately small: trying it on your own project costs minutes, and we encourage exactly that.</p>
<h2>What a surviving mutant looks like</h2>
<p>Picture a conditional payment between a buyer and a seller: the buyer sets money aside for the goods, and paying it out to the seller requires both parties to sign off. The buyer’s signature is the delivery confirmation. In DAML, that policy is one line: the <code>controller</code> line on the <code>Release</code> choice.</p>
<figure class="highlight">
 <pre tabindex="0"><code class="language-" data-lang="">template ConditionalPayment
 with
 buyer : Party
 seller : Party
 amount : Decimal
 where
 signatory buyer
 observer seller

 choice Release : ()
 with
 paid : Decimal
 controller buyer, seller
 do
 assert (paid == amount)</code></pre>
 <figcaption><span>Figure 1: A payment that requires both the buyer and the seller to approve its release</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A typical happy-path test creates the payment and has both parties approve the release. The <code>actAs buyer &lt;&gt; actAs seller</code> line submits the command with both parties’ authority:</p>
<figure class="highlight">
 <pre tabindex="0"><code class="language-" data-lang="">testHappyPath : Script ()
testHappyPath = script do
 buyer &lt;- allocateParty "Buyer"
 seller &lt;- allocateParty "Seller"
 payment &lt;- submit buyer do
 createCmd ConditionalPayment with
 buyer
 seller
 amount = 100.0
 submit (actAs buyer &lt;&gt; actAs seller) do
 exerciseCmd payment Release with paid = 100.0
 pure ()</code></pre>
 <figcaption><span>Figure 2: The happy-path test. It passes, and coverage reports 100%.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The test passes, and by the usual measure the suite looks complete: running <code>dpm test</code> with coverage reporting enabled shows full coverage.</p>
<figure class="highlight">
 <pre tabindex="0"><code class="language-" data-lang="">$ dpm test --show-coverage --coverage-ignore-choice Archive
testHappyPath: ok, 0 active contracts, 2 transactions.
- Internal templates: 1 defined, 1 (100.0%) created
- Internal template choices: 1 defined, 1 (100.0%) exercised</code></pre>
 <figcaption><span>Figure 3: The coverage report for the happy-path test. Every template is created and every choice is exercised, for 100% coverage.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The <code>--coverage-ignore-choice Archive</code> flag deserves a word. Every DAML template automatically gets an implicit <code>Archive</code> choice. It is not part of the business logic under test, so we exclude it for simplicity. With it included, this one-choice template would report 50% even though the test exercises everything we wrote.</p>
<p>Run Mewt on the project and it generates seven mutants. The test suite catches three of them. Four survive. Here is one of the survivors, shown as the diff Mewt reports:</p>
<figure class="highlight">
 <pre tabindex="0"><code class="language-" data-lang=""> choice Release : ()
 with
 paid : Decimal
- controller buyer, seller
+ controller seller
 do
 assert (paid == amount)</code></pre>
 <figcaption><span>Figure 4: The controller-removal mutant that survives the test suite</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Re-run the test suite against this mutant. It still passes, and coverage still reports 100%. The contract claims releasing the buyer’s money requires both parties. The mutant lets the seller release it to themselves without the buyer ever confirming delivery. The tests report green either way. Only a test that tries the <em>forbidden</em> path, the seller acting alone, expecting the ledger to reject it, can tell the two contracts apart. No such test exists, and the mutation score says so. (The other three survivors tell the same story from different angles: the buyer-alone twin of this mutant, and two mutants that weaken the <code>paid == amount</code> check to <code>&lt;=</code> and <code>&gt;=</code>, which survive because the test only ever pays the exact amount.)</p>
<p>Step back, and this is the whole point of the exercise. Your tests are the executable specification of your code. Here the implementation changed, one required approval instead of two, and the specification did not react. That means the expected behavior was underspecified all along: whether both the buyer and the seller have to sign off, or just one of them, was never actually written down anywhere a machine could check. Every controller combination type-checks, and coverage reports 100% for all of them. The only place “both must sign” can exist in checkable form is a test that expects the weakened contract to fail, and writing that test is exactly what the surviving mutant tells you to do.</p>
<h2>Limitations and what comes next</h2>
<p>Mewt is not magic. Two limits are worth knowing before you run your first campaign: not every survivor is a real gap, and a campaign costs time. The roadmap that follows them is where we are taking the work next.</p>
<p>Equivalent mutants exist: some survivors turn out to be semantically identical to the original program, so no test could ever catch them. Few public DAML codebases on GitHub come with a full test suite, so we are glad OpenZeppelin open-sourced its <code>canton-stablecoin</code> reference implementation. Mewt generated hundreds of mutants for it. We ran the highest-priority ones through the existing test suite, and seven of those survived. Three were equivalent mutants or sat behind a guard that no path reaches, and the other four were genuine missing test cases. None of the survivors we reviewed pointed to a bug. Such a clean result is what you want when you run Mewt on your own code, and triaging them took minutes.</p>
<p>One of those equivalent mutants shows what that means concretely. A helper computed accrued debt:</p>
<figure class="highlight">
 <pre tabindex="0"><code class="language-" data-lang="">accrueDebt currentDebt lastAccrual now annualRate =
 if currentDebt == 0.0 || annualRate == 0.0 then currentDebt
 else
 let elapsedYears = ... -- elapsed time as a fraction of a year
 in currentDebt * (1.0 + annualRate * elapsedYears)</code></pre>
 <figcaption><span>Figure 5: The accrueDebt helper. Its first-line guard is a shortcut that returns the same value the calculation already produces.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Mewt forced the <code>if</code> to always take the <code>else</code> branch. No test failed, and none ever could: when the debt is zero, the formula multiplies by zero and returns zero, and when the rate is zero, it multiplies the debt by one and returns it unchanged. The guard is a shortcut that returns the value the formula already produces, so removing it changes nothing. Mewt suppresses the equivalent mutants it can detect. The rest need a reviewer’s judgment to dismiss.</p>
<p>Campaigns cost time in two places. The machine part: Mewt runs your test suite once per mutant, so the wall-clock cost is roughly the number of mutants times how long one test run takes, plus a rebuild if your project needs one. That is minutes on a small codebase and hours on a large one or a slow suite, so the cadence that works is nightly or weekly rather than per-commit. The human part: someone has to look at the survivors. We are working on that front from several directions at Trail of Bits, including our <a href="https://github.com/trailofbits/skills/tree/main/plugins/mutation-testing">mutation-testing skill</a> that helps configure campaigns for your project, and <a href="https://blog.trailofbits.com/2026/04/23/trailmark-turns-code-into-graphs/">Trailmark</a> with its <code>genotoxic</code> triage skill. None of these understand DAML yet, but the direction is clear: given the right harness and tools, the time-consuming parts of a campaign can be handed to AI agents. The effort is modest and the payoff is concrete: each genuine survivor is a specific test you can write, and every test you add makes your suite enforce one more guarantee your contracts are supposed to make.</p>
<p>Also on the roadmap: choice-consumption mutations (<code>consuming</code> vs <code>nonconsuming</code>) sit cleanly on top of the controller-mutation scaffolding and target a bug class Mewt does not yet reach.</p>
<h2>Dive in</h2>
<p>Install Mewt from the <a href="https://github.com/trailofbits/mewt">repository</a>, point a <code>mewt.toml</code> at your project and its test command, and <code>mewt run</code>. The quickstart in the README covers the rest. DAML works out of the box. Everything here ran on Daml 3.4 with <code>dpm</code>, but Mewt just drives whatever test command you configure, so Daml 2 projects using the <code>daml</code> assistant work the same way.</p>
<p>Mutation testing complements the rest of your security stack, the type checkers, linters, and property tests you already run, rather than replacing any of it.</p>
<p>If you’re building on Canton, we help teams with security reviews of DAML applications and with the way the code gets built: working directly with your engineers on the development process itself. <a href="https://www.trailofbits.com/contact/">Contact us</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The tech behind patient-first transformation at USME]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[As a medical equipment rental company that rents, sells, and manages movable medical devices, including infusion pumps, monitors, ventilators, and incubators, USME’s mission is simple in definition, but highly sophisticated in practice.



“Our job is to deliver the right equipment to the right p...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3653925/it-security-nachrichten/the-tech-behind-patient-first-transformation-at-usme/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3653925/it-security-nachrichten/the-tech-behind-patient-first-transformation-at-usme/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2026 12:08:54 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p>As a medical equipment rental company that rents, sells, and manages movable medical devices, including infusion pumps, monitors, ventilators, and incubators, USME’s mission is simple in definition, but highly sophisticated in practice.</p>



<p>“Our job is to deliver the right equipment to the right place at the right time,” says CIO Antonio Marin. “When you look at the community we serve, the last part of the supply chain is a patient in need. So we need to make sure all our technology, processes, and everything we do has a patient in mind. After all, they call us because they need lifesaving equipment, not because it’s a beautiful day.”</p>



<p>A particularly vital application of technology for Marin and his team has been directed to revamping the company’s inventory and equipment management, and field services.</p>



<p>“We did a lot of automation behind the scenes,” he says. “Knowing your inventory, knowing what parts you need to fix, and tracking the lifecycles of inventory is all now very automated, well managed, and fully visible across the organization. It’s about humans making critical decisions, not doing paperwork.”</p>



<p>But with that added efficiency comes some risk. And when lives are on the line in a highly regulated sector, vulnerabilities can surface with more tech that’s introduced. So some innovations can be more detrimental to the operations of a company or a hospital.</p>



<p>“We use encryption and different systems to overlay protection when it comes to personal identification data,” Marin says. “When you look at the cybersecurity chain, humans are still the weakest link.”</p>



<p>When talking about security, particular care needs to be taken in terms of knowing exactly where the team and equipment are at all times, and tracking performance across company and hospital staff, and hospital partners.</p>



<p>“As a person in IT and as an employee of the company, it’s very rewarding when we’re able to deliver lifesaving equipment so hospitals can succeed in helping patients,” he says.</p>



<p>Marin also discusses the importance tech and human synergy, prioritizing education in regard to cybersecurity, and the power of automating processes. Watch the full video below for more insights, and be sure to subscribe to the monthly Center Stage newsletter by clicking <a href="https://www.cio.com/newsletters/signup/">here</a>.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-embed is-type-video is-provider-youtube wp-block-embed-youtube wp-embed-aspect-16-9 wp-has-aspect-ratio"><div class="wp-block-embed__wrapper youtube-video">

</div></figure>



<p><strong>On setting the right foundations:</strong> We’re in the middle of a major transformation. The company started with a homegrown system with phenomenal software, but as we’ve grown, it becomes more complicated to keep up with the rate of progress. So we decided to move to a SaaS platform and we have the first part of the project already complete. It’s been very successful and now we’re finishing the second part.</p>



<p>We can look not only at our business processes and refine them, but we think about embedding AI for faster and more accurate results. You have to have sound data and processes with AI. In one of my previous companies we used AI at the beginning when it was a buzzword and not really there. I learned a very important lesson then. You can fit the model, train it, and ask a specific question, but an unexpected answer might come back. So we went back to the old ways to analyze data and realized that the answer was right but the question was wrong.</p>



<p>I learned you have to be open to evaluate answers and understand where the real data is coming from, and the real sentiment on the data — the context of the information you’re working with.</p>



<p><strong>On human involvement: </strong>There always has to be a human in the loop. That doesn’t mean we can’t speed the process for that human. There’s incredible things we’re doing today where an AI doesn’t have to be just gen AI. There are so many variances of AI and versions of what you can do with it. For instance, we’ve been able to automate the ordering process from a single click at a hospital nurse station to our branch operations where we get all the information we need to deliver lifesaving equipment.</p>



<p>In one hospital in particular, we delivered a full bed and mattress in less than 15 minutes. To put that in context, industry standards are normally between 12 and 24 hours. So in certain cases when we’re in proximity, we can be extremely fast because there’s no human interaction.</p>



<p><strong>On AI and model training: </strong>We created a system called GoUSME Connect. It’s a combination of RPA, AI, and machine learning that can read a request generated by an electronic medical record system. So we’re agnostic of any EMR, and it reads information. And through machine learning, it reads the pattern of the request that transfers into an order, which ends up in one of our delivery locations.</p>



<p>That’s one part of how we can deliver equipment. We’re working hard to continue on predictive analytics and teaching the models because as a rental company, we have so much information about the true performance of medical equipment. Our goal in the next few months is to be able to predict equipment failures based on historical data.That’s the thing about medical equipment. It’s just a new computer. They have to go through preventive maintenance once a year, and every time they come back from a hospital, they go through review process.</p>



<p>So we always make sure equipment is patient ready. As we all know, though, equipment can fail. But if we can gather all the equipment we’ve rented in the last 23 years and start feeding those models with all that data, then we can be more predictive.</p>



<p><strong>On logistics: </strong>One of the first things is to know your inventory, what equipment you have. And in the medical equipment rental business, it could be very seasonal. You have times where you have respiratory issues, then you get neonatal seasons. So what it allows us to do is look at our past rentals, and our inventory, and then start helping the equipment management team plan their production for the next month, week, or the next day. That’s a huge change in how we used to do things to what we can do now.</p>



<p>From the time of getting equipment prepared to being patient ready in the old days could be like getting a call, having a technician look for the piece of equipment, and then do all the necessary paperwork and testing. Every interaction was very manual. Now we know where it’s coming from and we prepare it. If parts for a piece of equipment are needed, the parts requisition is already requested. We know where those parts are in the country, and we know we need to ship them somewhere else. So the days of doing all those things that waste time are gone.</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The AI ROI gap isn’t a model problem. It’s a workflow problem]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Anthropic says Claude now writes more than 80% of the code merged at one of the most sophisticated AI companies on the planet. Foundry’s 2026 State of the CIO study says fewer than one in five enterprises can show that their AI initiatives have met or exceeded their ROI goals. Both numbers came o...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3653733/it-nachrichten/the-ai-roi-gap-isnt-a-model-problem-its-a-workflow-problem/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3653733/it-nachrichten/the-ai-roi-gap-isnt-a-model-problem-its-a-workflow-problem/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2026 11:02:59 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p><a href="https://www.anthropic.com/institute/recursive-self-improvement" rel="nofollow">Anthropic says</a> Claude now writes more than 80% of the code merged at one of the most sophisticated AI companies on the planet. Foundry’s <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4178006/state-of-the-cio-2026-cios-set-the-course-for-ai-roi.html">2026 State of the CIO study</a> says fewer than one in five enterprises can show that their AI initiatives have met or exceeded their ROI goals. Both numbers came out this spring. Both are true. And the distance between them is the most important thing an IT leader can understand about AI right now.</p>



<p>Because that distance isn’t a contradiction, it’s a lesson. And the profession sitting in the middle of it, software engineering, is the canary that explains why so much enterprise AI spend has produced so little measurable return.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The report everyone misread</h2>



<p>When Anthropic published its recursive self-improvement piece, plenty of people read it as the starting gun for the job apocalypse. Claude writing its own code, models getting better at building models, humans narrowing toward oversight. If you wanted a headline about the end of the software profession, it was right there.</p>



<p>I read it almost the opposite way. What struck me wasn’t how far AI had come. It was how much had to be true first, even in the one profession built from the ground up to let it succeed.</p>



<p>I made this argument back in my <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4166029/the-570k-canary-what-ai-coding-agents-reveal-about-enterprise-ais-real-gaps.html">“$570K canary” piece</a>, and the Anthropic data only sharpens it. AI coding agents don’t work because coding models are special. The underlying large language models (LLMs) are the same ones answering support tickets and reviewing contracts. They work because software development already had the infrastructure that makes an agent’s output trustworthy: governance baked into branch protection and code review, observability through version control and CI/CD pipelines, evaluation through automated tests, persistent context through commit history. Developers built all of that for themselves over decades. They didn’t build it for AI. But it turned out to be exactly the scaffolding AI needed.</p>



<p>That’s the part the apocalypse reading skips. Claude’s coding gains are real. They also rode on decades of pre-built substrate. Both things are true at once, and the second one is the one CIOs should be paying attention to when it comes to gains from things like recursive self-improvement.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What the CIO data actually shows</h2>



<p>Now hold that next to the State of the CIO numbers. Only 19% of the 662 IT leaders surveyed say their AI initiatives have met or exceeded business goals. Another 18% admit fewer than a third of their use cases are hitting defined expectations.</p>



<p>The easy explanation is that the technology isn’t ready. The data says otherwise. This isn’t for lack of trying, and it isn’t for lack of organizing. Eighty-three percent of respondents have stood up cross-functional steering committees or are about to. Just over half have some form of AI approval process in place, with another quarter building one. Forty-seven percent have formal success metrics, with a third more on the way. The field is pouring effort into the organizational machinery of AI. The ROI still isn’t showing up.</p>



<p>Here’s why I think that is. All of that machinery sits above the work. Steering committees, approval gates and KPI dashboards govern the org chart. But the value, or the leak, happens inside the workflow, at the level of the actual task the AI is doing. You can instrument your governance structure perfectly and still have nothing measuring whether the agent’s output was right at the point where it mattered.</p>



<p>TIAA shows how little the org chart settles. The firm is three years in, runs generative and agentic use cases across fraud detection and call centers, and has 85% of its people on TIAA Gate, its internal platform. It also has the full governance stack most CIOs are still assembling. None of it closed the gap. “You need to understand the full cost of operations,” its chief operating, information and digital officer, Sastry Durvasula told CIO.com, “the efficiencies of running tokens or how you’re handling traffic or RAG.” The structures were never the thing leaking value. The workflow underneath them was.</p>



<p>The barriers respondents named back this up. The top three are lack of in-house expertise (40%), ill-defined ROI metrics (32%) and murky corporate AI strategy (31%). Not one of them is “the model isn’t good enough.” And according to the full Foundry report, the expertise gap is deepest in healthcare (52%), retail (51%) and manufacturing (49%), the sectors whose core work looks least like a software development lifecycle. That’s consistent with substrate being the real variable, though a tighter market for AI talent in those industries is surely part of the story too.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The market is already voting</h2>



<p>Look at where the AI is actually being pointed, and you’ll see enterprises sequencing by substrate even though nobody’s calling it that. Three-quarters of both IT leaders and line-of-business respondents say AI is primarily being used to automate internal processes rather than customer-facing applications.</p>



<p>That’s not timidity. It’s instinct pointing at the right thing. Internal processes are the ones with structured, observable workflows and users who tolerate a little friction. Customer-facing work is where the trust gaps are still wide open and the cost of a wrong answer is asymmetric. A bad internal draft gets fixed before anyone sees it. A bad customer answer is the whole ballgame.</p>



<p>I’ll be honest about a wrinkle in the data here, because a careful reader will catch it. The same study reports a near-mirror finding, that 66% to 69% of respondents say the bulk of their current AI work is customer-facing. The two stats sit a paragraph apart in the CIO study and almost certainly reflect how the question was framed rather than a real reversal. But the synthesis holds either way: even where customer-facing work is being attempted, it’s where ROI is least realized. The work that lands is the work with the substrate underneath it. The split only reinforces the point.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Sequence by readiness, not by ambition</h2>



<p>So, here’s the prescription, and it cuts against the instinct most AI strategies are built on. Stop sequencing your AI portfolio by where the value looks biggest. Start sequencing it by where the work already has, or can be given, a structured workflow with a usable signal for whether the output was right.</p>



<p>The study itself shows what the alternative looks like. Andrea Ballinger, CIO at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, described the trap precisely. No one measures ROI on an ongoing basis, she said, “because we are facing counterpressures from every vice president and line-of-business domain looking to implement AI for their own optimization.” The result: “We are saying yes to everyone without stepping back and focusing on the business cases that show real value.” That’s value-led sequencing under pressure from every budget-holder in the building, and it’s exactly how you end up with a sprawling pipeline of pilots and a 19% success rate.</p>



<p>The counterexample comes from the same study. Thomas Prommer, a longtime CTO, CIO and CAIO, funds outcomes instead of deliverables. “We don’t fund ‘build a model,’ we fund ‘reduce returns by 8% on this category’ with checkpoints at 90, 180 and 270 days,” he explained. He kills any project that misses two checkpoints, “roughly a third of what we start, and that’s healthy.” Read that through the substrate lens and you see what he’s really doing. He’s manufacturing a correctness signal where the work didn’t come with one. He’s building the missing piece of scaffolding by hand.</p>



<p>That gives you a simple lens to run any candidate use case through. Does the work break into discernible stages? Can you observe what happens at each one? Is there a usable signal for whether the result was right? Score high on all three and you have a software-engineering-shaped problem, so go now. Score low and you have a choice: build the substrate first or wait. What you shouldn’t do is fund it at scale and hope the ROI materializes, because that’s the pile the 19% number is built on.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The hard part, and the honest caveat</h2>



<p>Run the professions through that lens and they sort themselves. Finance is the closest cousin to software. Reconciliation, close processes, approval chains and audit trails already give you staged work with a clear “it reconciles or it doesn’t” signal, which is part of why financial services sits among the sectors furthest along with AI. Legal and medicine are harder. The workflow shell exists, intake to redline to filing, diagnosis to treatment to follow-up, but the correctness signal at the core is weak, delayed or confounded. You can automate the routine staged parts and you hit a wall at the judgment that defines the profession.</p>



<p>And that’s the caveat that keeps this honest. A structured workflow isn’t always buildable in software’s image. For the judgment core of some professions, the substrate is years out no matter how good the model gets or how mature your governance becomes. Anyone selling you a tighter timeline than that is selling.</p>



<p>But notice what this reframe does. It turns “our AI ROI is elusive” from a mystery you wait out into a sequencing-and-instrumentation problem you can actually test. Your timeline isn’t set by how smart the next model is. It’s set by how fast you build the substrate for your own domain, and that’s within your control.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The two numbers, reconciled</h2>



<p>Put the 80% and the 19% back next to each other and they stop looking like a paradox. Software engineering didn’t win because its models were better than everyone else’s. It won because the work was already shaped to let an agent succeed, and the scaffolding that makes agent output trustworthy had been in place for decades before the agent showed up.</p>



<p>The question for the rest of the enterprise was never really whether AI can do the work. It’s whether your work is shaped so AI’s output can be trusted. That’s not something you wait for. It’s something you build.</p>



<p><strong>This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.</strong><br><a href="https://www.cio.com/expert-contributor-network/"><strong>Want to join?</strong></a></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Vor 19 Jahren: PC-WELT verlost die Höllenmaschine 2 für 20.000 Euro]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Hinweis: Dieser Artikel erschien im März 2007 auf pcwelt.de. Anlässlich unseres 20‑jährigen Jubiläums haben wir mittels der Wayback Machine des Internet Archive das zeitgeschichtliche Dokument restauriert. Wir haben alle Hyperlinks im Text belassen – sofern sie noch auf historische Inhalte führen...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3653681/it-nachrichten/vor-19-jahren-pc-welt-verlost-die-hoellenmaschine-2-fuer-20000-euro/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3653681/it-nachrichten/vor-19-jahren-pc-welt-verlost-die-hoellenmaschine-2-fuer-20000-euro/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2026 10:33:01 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p>Hinweis: Dieser Artikel erschien im März 2007 auf pcwelt.de. Anlässlich unseres 20‑jährigen Jubiläums haben wir mittels der <a href="https://web.archive.org/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Wayback Machine des Internet Archive</a> das zeitgeschichtliche Dokument restauriert. Wir haben alle Hyperlinks im Text belassen – sofern sie noch auf historische Inhalte führen.</p>



<p>Hier geht es direkt zum <a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/hmx" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Gewinnspiel der aktuellen Höllenmaschine HMX 6 im Gesamtwert von 40.000 Euro</a>. Bestens informiert bleiben Sie mit unserem <a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/newsletter-anmeldung" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">HMX-6-Newsletter</a> – aber vergessen Sie nicht, die Anmeldung via E-Mail zu bestätigen. Und nun viel Spaß mit der zweiten Höllenmaschine:</p>



<p>Wir lassen die Katze aus dem Sack: Unser Traumrechner ist vollgestopft mit allem, was aktuell, gut und teuer ist. Jetzt geht’s los: Activate!</p>



<p>Alles neu, alles besser: Die Höllenmaschine 2 der PC-WELT geht weit über das hinaus, was das <a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/article/3139027/vor-20-jahren-die-erste-hoellenmaschine-der-pc-welt-2006.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Vorgänger-Modell</a> bot: Zu den Highlights gehören die zwei Direct-X-10-Grafikkarten, die beiden Quad-Core-Prozessoren, der Blue-Ray-Brenner und die rasanten SAS-Festplatten.</p>



<p>Auch mit einem Standardgehäuse geben wir uns nicht mehr zufrieden: Diesmal musste es ein Maßanzug sein, den wir beim Fachmann bestellten. Der war alles andere als günstig – allein die Materialkosten summieren sich auf knapp 3600 Euro. </p>



<p>Wir werden Sie umfassend über die Höllenmaschine 2 informieren. Dazu haben wir die Übersichtsseite www.pcwelt.de/hoelle eingerichtet. Dort finden Sie tagesaktuell Tests, Hintergrundberichte, Video-Clips und Downloads rund um den 20.000-Euro-Superrechner – etwa unsere Titelmelodie “Activate” als <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20070315054309/http:/www.pcwelt.de/downloads/entertainment_spiele/unterhaltung/73303/index.html">MP3-Download</a>. Doch jetzt geht’s endlich los: Wir stellen Ihnen den Rechnertraum in allen Details vor.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-embed is-type-video is-provider-youtube wp-block-embed-youtube wp-embed-aspect-16-9 wp-has-aspect-ratio"><div class="wp-block-embed__wrapper">

</div></figure>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading toc">Prozessor: Dual-Quad-Core</h2>



<p>Zwei Workstation-Prozessoren des Typs <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20070315054035/ftp:/download.intel.com/products/processor/xeon/dc53kprodbrief.pdf">Intel Xeon DP 5355</a> zum Stückpreis von 1200 Euro gehen auch bei rechenintensiven Profi-Programmen nicht in die Knie. Die Vier-Kern-CPUs arbeiten mit einem Prozessortakt von 2,67 GHz und greifen auf jeweils 8 MB L2-Cache zurück. Der Systemtakt des Intel Xeon 5355 beträgt 333 (effektiv 1333) MHz. Damit erreicht die Datenkapazität, die jeder der beiden Prozessoren pro Sekunde mit dem System austauschen kann, bis zu 10,5 GB. Der Xeon DP 5355 unterstützt <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20070315054035/http:/www.tecchannel.de/server/hardware/402269/">FB-DIMM-Speicher</a> der DDR2-Spezifikationen PC533 und PC667.</p>



<p>Das Prozessor-Duo basiert auf Intels rechenstarker <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20070315054035/http:/www.tecchannel.de/technologie/prozessoren/441760/">Core-Architektur</a>, die sich dank 65-Nanometer-Fertigung und ausgeklügelter Stromspartechniken durch einen genügsamen Energieverbrauch auszeichnet: Unter anderem kann der Vierkern-Prozessor inaktive Teile in jedem Rechenkern abschalten (Intelligent Power Capability), jeden Kern unabhängig voneinander in den stromsparenden Bereitschaftszustand versetzen (Enhanced Halt State) und jedem Rechenkern die Taktfrequenz und Kernspannung zuweisen, die für die aktuell benötigte Rechenleistung notwendig ist (Enhanced Intel Speedstep). Dank dieser Stromspartricks liegt die Thermal Design Power (TDP) des Quad-Cores bei lediglich 120 Watt – sensationell niedrig im Vergleich zu einer Einkern-CPU wie beispielsweise dem Pentium 4 670 (<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20070315054035/http:/www.pcwelt.de/tests/hardware-tests/prozessoren/114491/">Test</a>), der mit 115 Watt fast genauso viel Energie verbrät.</p>



<p>Mehr Möglichkeiten: Der Xeon DP 5355 unterstützt die Virtualisierungs-Technik <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20070315054035/http:/www.intel.com/technology/virtualization/index.htm">Vanderpool</a> sowie 32- und 64-Bit-Betriebssysteme – interessant für Nutzer, die unter anderem virtuelle Server mit unterschiedlichen Betriebssystemen einrichten möchten. Mit einem Achtkern-System lässt sich da so einiges realisieren. Welche Erfahrungen wir beim Experimentieren mit Virtualisierungs-Software wie Xen und VM-Ware gemacht haben, erfahren Sie in Kürze in einem weiteren Artikel, der die Leistungsfähigkeit der Höllenmaschine 2 beleuchtet.</p>



<p>Ein System mit so vielen Hardware-Komponenten wie unsere Höllenmaschine II verlangt nach einem besonders anschlussfreudigen Untersatz: Wir haben uns für die Tyan Tempest i5000XL (S2692) mit dem Intel-Chipsatz 5000X/6321ESB entschieden. Die Workstation-Hauptplatine besitzt zwei Prozessor-Steckplätze für Sockel-771-CPUs und hat mit ihrem CEB-Formfaktor eine Übergröße von 305 x 259 Millimetern.</p>



<p>Die Tempest i5000XL wartet mit zahlreichen Schnittstellen auf: Dazu gehören unter anderem ein 8x- und zwei 16x-PCI-Express- sowie zwei PCI-X-Steckplätze. Über interne Controller stehen ein PATA- und ein Floppy-Port sowie sechs SATA2- und acht USB-2.0-High-Speed-Schnittstellen zur Verfügung. Ebenfalls integriert: eine Gigabit-Ethernet-Buchse und der HD-Audio-Controller Realtek ALC888. Vier Speicherbänke nehmen insgesamt bis zu 16 GB fully buffered DDR2-667-SDRAM auf.</p>



<p>Volle Kontrolle: Das Phoenix-BIOS der Workstation-Hauptplatine beherrscht netzwerkgestützte Funktionen wie „Serial Console Redirect“ und „Preboot Execution Environment“ (PXE). Hinzu kommt eine frei konfigurierbare Monitoring-Funktion. Wer will, kann außerdem das <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20070315054444/http:/de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Platform_Module">Trusted Platform Module</a> (TPM) Infineon SLB9635TT aktivieren, das im Intel-Chipsatz integriert ist.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading toc">Grafik: Dual Direct X 10</h2>



<p>Eine Direct-X-10-Grafiklösung ist Pflicht für unseren 20.000-Euro-Rechner. Wir haben uns für zwei Grafikkarten des Typs <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20070315054738/http:/www.pny.eu/products.php?section=product&amp;categoryid=7&amp;subcategoryid=64&amp;productid=95">PNY Verto Geforce 8800 GTX</a> entschieden. Der Grafikchip Geforce 8800 GTX besteht aus 681 Millionen Transistoren.</p>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure data-wp-context='{"imageId":"6a4e0b0999014"}' data-wp-interactive="core/image" class="wp-block-image size-full wp-lightbox-container"><img decoding="async" data-wp-class--hide="state.isContentHidden" data-wp-class--show="state.isContentVisible" data-wp-init="callbacks.setButtonStyles" data-wp-on-async--click="actions.showLightbox" data-wp-on-async--load="callbacks.setButtonStyles" data-wp-on-async-window--resize="callbacks.setButtonStyles" src="https://b2c-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/PNY-Verto-Geforce-8800-GTX.jpg?quality=50&amp;strip=all" alt="PNY Verto Geforce 8800 GTX" class="wp-image-3182066" width="819" height="614" loading="lazy"><button class="lightbox-trigger" type="button" aria-haspopup="dialog" aria-label="Enlarge" data-wp-init="callbacks.initTriggerButton" data-wp-on-async--click="actions.showLightbox" data-wp-style--right="state.imageButtonRight" data-wp-style--top="state.imageButtonTop">
				<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="12" height="12" fill="none" viewbox="0 0 12 12">
					<path fill="#fff" d="M2 0a2 2 0 0 0-2 2v2h1.5V2a.5.5 0 0 1 .5-.5h2V0H2Zm2 10.5H2a.5.5 0 0 1-.5-.5V8H0v2a2 2 0 0 0 2 2h2v-1.5ZM8 12v-1.5h2a.5.5 0 0 0 .5-.5V8H12v2a2 2 0 0 1-2 2H8Zm2-12a2 2 0 0 1 2 2v2h-1.5V2a.5.5 0 0 0-.5-.5H8V0h2Z"></path>
				</svg>
			</button></figure><p class="imageCredit">PNY</p></div>



<p>Damit übertrifft die Komplexität von Nvidias <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20070315054738/http:/www.pcwelt.de/tests/hardware-tests/pci-express-grafikkarten/63061/">Geforce-8-Generation</a> alle GPUs (Graphic Processing Unit), die bisher auf den Markt gekommen sind. Zum Vergleich: AMDs Spitzenmodell Radeon X1950 XTX stehen mit 384 Millionen nur rund die Hälfte an Transistoren zur Verfügung. Und der hauseigene Vorgänger Geforce 7900 GTX kommt lediglich auf 278 Millionen Schaltkreise.</p>



<p>Die unglaubliche Komplexität liegt in der Architektur begründet, die Nvidia komplett neu entwickelt hat. Beim Geforce 8 handelt es sich um Nvidias ersten Grafikchip mit der sogenannten „Unified Shader Architecture“. Es gibt also keine spezialisierten Pixel- und Vertex-Shader mehr, sondern universell einsetzbare Shader, die dynamisch die Rechenarbeit übernehmen. Insgesamt werkeln im Geforce 8800 GTX satte 128 dieser Rechenwerke, die Nvidia Streaming-Prozessoren (SP) getauft hat. Die SPs fungieren nicht nur als Pixel- oder Vertex-Shader, sondern können auch die Geometrie- und Physik-Berechnung übernehmen.</p>



<p>Der eigentliche Takt des Grafikchips beträgt beim Geforce 8800 GTX nur 575 MHz. Die Taktfrequenz der Streaming-Prozessoren des Nvidia-Flaggschiffs liegt hingegen bei außerordentlichen 1350 MHz. Sogenannte Threading-Einheiten teilen die anfallenden Rechenaufgaben dynamisch in kleine Stücke auf und schicken sie an die Streaming-Prozessoren. Nvidia nennt diese Technik „Gigathread Technology“.</p>



<p>Jede PNY-Grafikkarte (<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20070315054738/http:/www.pcwelt.de/tests/hardware-tests/pci-express-grafikkarten/63070/">PC-WELT-Test</a>) greift auf 768 MB GDDR3-SDRAM (effektiver Takt: 1800 MHz) zu, das an einen 384 Bit breiten Speicherbus angebunden ist. Damit erhöht sich die theoretisch maximale Speicherbandbreite auf heftige 86,4 GB/s. Hoch aufgelöste Filme auf Blu-Ray- und HD-DVD-Medien kann die Karte dank integriertem HDCP-Chip ebenfalls ausgeben.</p>



<p>Wermutstropfen: Derzeit lässt sich unter Windows Vista und XP nur eine Karte ansprechen, da Nvidia die SLI-Funktion für den 5000X-Chipsatz von Intel nicht freigeschaltet hat. Nvidias Treiber-Entwicklerteam kümmert sich erst einmal um die hauseigenen Hauptplatinen-Chipsätze und programmiert fieberhaft an einem SLI-fähigen Direct-X-10-Treiber für Windows Vista. Da Nvidia und Intel aber seit der <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20070315054738/http:/www.pcwelt.de/news/business/52087/index.html">ATI-Übernahme von AMD</a> enger zusammenarbeiten, sind wir zuversichtlich, dass Nvidia – sobald die Hausaufgaben erledigt sind – auch eine SLI-Lösung für Intel-Chipsätze anbietet. Und wenn’s bei Nvidia etwas länger dauern sollte – freigeschaltete SLI-Treiber für die Geforce-7-Baureihe waren ja auch recht flott auf den einschlägigen Websites erhältlich …</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading toc">Ausstattung der Höllenmaschine 2 im Überblick</h2>



<figure class="wp-block-table"><table class="has-fixed-layout"><tbody><tr><td><strong>Komponente</strong></td><td><strong>Modell</strong></td><td><strong>Preis</strong> <strong>(Euro)</strong> am 3.3.2007</td></tr><tr><td>Hauptplatine</td><td>Tyan Tempest i5000XL (S2692)</td><td>400</td></tr><tr><td>Prozessor</td><td>2 x Intel Xeon 5355 Quad-Core</td><td>2400</td></tr><tr><td>Speicher</td><td>4 x 1 GB Corsair registered PC667 FB-DIMM</td><td>850</td></tr><tr><td>Grafik</td><td>2 x PNY Verto Geforce 8800 GTX mit je 768 MB GDDR3-Speicher</td><td>1100</td></tr><tr><td>Raid-Controller</td><td>Adaptec 4800SAS/128, PCI-X</td><td>850</td></tr><tr><td>Festplatten</td><td>4 x 147 GB Seagate Cheetah 15K.4 ST3146854SS, SAS, Raid 10</td><td>2600</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>4 x 750 GB Seagate Barracuda ST3750640AS, SATA II, Raid 10</td><td>1400</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Seagate Pushbutton External Hard Drive 750 GB, Firewire/USB 2.0</td><td>400</td></tr><tr><td>Brenner</td><td>Blu-ray-Laufwerk Philips SPD7000BD, SATA</td><td>850</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>DVD-Laufwerk Samsung SH-S182A, PATA</td><td>50</td></tr><tr><td>Gehäuse</td><td>PC-WELT Höllenmaschine 2 von Heiko Polaczek (nur Materialwert)</td><td>3600</td></tr><tr><td>Wasserkühlung</td><td>Innovatek Triple Radiator, Tank-O-Matik, Eheim-Pumpe HPPS Plus, Flowmeter Pro 3.6 sowie CPU-, Grafikchip- und Festplattenkühler</td><td>1950</td></tr><tr><td>Netzteil</td><td>Enermax Galaxy EGA1000EWL, 1000 Watt</td><td>350</td></tr><tr><td>Soundkarte</td><td>Creative X-Fi Fatal1ty Edition</td><td>200</td></tr><tr><td>Boxensystem</td><td>Creative Gigaworks Progamer G550W</td><td>450</td></tr><tr><td>Bildschirme</td><td>BenQ FP241W 24-Zoll-TFT</td><td>1100</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>integrierter 8-Zoll-LCD-Touchscreen VE-XVT-8</td><td>250</td></tr><tr><td>Betriebssysteme</td><td>Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate</td><td>550</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Open Suse Linux 10.2</td><td>50</td></tr><tr><td>Eingabegeräte</td><td>Logitech di Novo Edge Tastatur &amp; MX Revolution Maus</td><td>300</td></tr></tbody></table></figure>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure data-wp-context='{"imageId":"6a4e0b0999dca"}' data-wp-interactive="core/image" class="wp-block-image size-large wp-lightbox-container"><img decoding="async" data-wp-class--hide="state.isContentHidden" data-wp-class--show="state.isContentVisible" data-wp-init="callbacks.setButtonStyles" data-wp-on-async--click="actions.showLightbox" data-wp-on-async--load="callbacks.setButtonStyles" data-wp-on-async-window--resize="callbacks.setButtonStyles" src="https://b2c-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/HM2-Titel.jpg?quality=50&amp;strip=all&amp;w=1200" alt="PC-WELT Höllenmaschine 2 aus dem Jahre 2007" class="wp-image-3162271" width="1200" height="553" loading="lazy"><button class="lightbox-trigger" type="button" aria-haspopup="dialog" aria-label="Enlarge" data-wp-init="callbacks.initTriggerButton" data-wp-on-async--click="actions.showLightbox" data-wp-style--right="state.imageButtonRight" data-wp-style--top="state.imageButtonTop">
				<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="12" height="12" fill="none" viewbox="0 0 12 12">
					<path fill="#fff" d="M2 0a2 2 0 0 0-2 2v2h1.5V2a.5.5 0 0 1 .5-.5h2V0H2Zm2 10.5H2a.5.5 0 0 1-.5-.5V8H0v2a2 2 0 0 0 2 2h2v-1.5ZM8 12v-1.5h2a.5.5 0 0 0 .5-.5V8H12v2a2 2 0 0 1-2 2H8Zm2-12a2 2 0 0 1 2 2v2h-1.5V2a.5.5 0 0 0-.5-.5H8V0h2Z"></path>
				</svg>
			</button><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Die Höllenmaschine 2 aus dem Jahr 2007</figcaption></figure><p class="imageCredit">PC-WELT</p></div>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading toc">RAM und HDDs: FB-DIMM und Quad-SAS</h2>



<p>Wir bestücken alle vier Speicherbänke der Workstation-Hauptplatine mit Fully Buffered DDR2-667-SDRAM – und zwar mit den 1-GB-Modulen <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20070315055004/http:/www.corsair.com/corsair/products/specs/CM73DD1024R.pdf">Corsair CM73DD1024R-667</a>. Fully-Buffered-Speicher nutzt zusätzliche Datenleitungen für die Datenintegritätsprüfung. Für eine schnellere Datenverarbeitung laufen die vier Speichermodule paarweise im Zwei-Kanal-Modus.</p>



<p>Das schwächste Glied in aktuellen PCs ist meist die Festplatte. Nicht so bei der Höllenmaschine 2: Sie vertraut auf superschnelle Server-Laufwerke, die die Punkt-zu-Punkt-Verbindung Serial Attached SCSI (SAS) nutzen. SAS ist der Nachfolger der parallelen SCSI-Schnittstelle und bietet eine theoretische Datentransferrate von bis zu 300 MB/s, die sich im Gegensatz zu SATA II in der Praxis mit Raid-Konfigurationen auch tatsächlich annähernd erreichen lässt.</p>



<p>Für die Höllenmaschine fiel unsere Wahl auf das Modell <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20070315054634/http:/www.seagate.com/docs/pdf/datasheet/disc/ds_cheetah15k.4.pdf">Seagate Cheetah 15K.4 ST3146854SS</a> mit 147 GB formatierter Kapazität. Preis pro Stück: knapp 650 Euro. Das 3,5-Zoll-Laufwerk rotiert mit 15 000 Umdrehungen pro Minute, der Datenpuffer beträgt 8 MB. Die durchschnittliche Zugriffszeit der Cheetah 15K.4 liegt laut Hersteller bei 2 Millisekunden. Damit wäre das Seagate-Laufwerk mehr als doppelt so fix wie die bisher schnellste von uns getestete SATA-Festplatte.</p>



<p>Die Seagate Cheetah 15K.4 ST3146854SS besitzt vier Datenscheiben mit jeweils zwei Schreib-Lese-Köpfen. Die <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20070315054634/http:/www.pcwelt.de/know-how/tipps_tricks/hardware/festplatten/66306/index.html">Zuverlässigkeit</a> respektive MTBF (Mean Time Between Failures) der SAS-Laufwerke gibt Seagate mit 1,4 Millionen Betriebsstunden an. Die Annualized Failure Rate (AFR), also die Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass ein Laufwerk innerhalb eines Jahres ausfällt, liegt laut Hersteller bei 0,62 Prozent.</p>



<p>Noch mehr Tempo kitzeln wir aus der Cheetah 15K.4, indem wir gleich vier der SAS-Laufwerke mittels der PCI-X-Controller-Karte <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20070315054634/http:/www.adaptec.com/de-DE/products/sas/raid/SAS-4800/index.htm">Adaptec 4800SAS/128</a> zu einem Raid-10-Verbund koppeln. Zwei Laufwerke fungieren dabei als RAID-0-Verbund: Dadurch lässt sich im Idealfall die Datentransferrate fast verdoppeln, da der SAS-Controller den Datenstrom in kleine Pakete zerlegt (Striping), die er simultan auf das Plattenduo schreibt beziehungsweise davon liest. Um eine hundertprozentige Datensicherheit zu gewährleisten, arbeiten die beiden anderen SAS-Laufwerke im RAID-1-Modus und spiegeln so den Datenbestand des RAID-0-Verbundes.</p>



<p>Umsonst gibt’s die Datensicherheit allerdings nicht: Durch den RAID-10-Verbund halbiert sich die nutzbare Kapazität des Laufwerk-Quartetts auf knapp 300 GB. Damit Systemprogramme und Applikationen möglichst verzögerungsfrei starten und arbeiten, haben wir die Betriebssysteme sowie alle Programme und Benchmarks auf der SAS-Partition installiert.</p>



<p>Ausreichend Platz für umfangreiche Musik- und Video-Sammlungen gibt’s auf der zweiten Partition der Höllenmaschine 2: Sie besteht aus vier 750-GB-Laufwerken des Typs <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20070315054351/http:/www.seagate.com/ww/v/index.jsp?locale=de-DE&amp;name=Barracuda_7200.10_SATA_750.3_GB&amp;vgnextoid=ea7bc4d44018e010VgnVCM100000dd04090aRCRD&amp;vgnextchannel=a32a2f290c5fb010VgnVCM100000dd04090aRCRD&amp;reqPage=Model">Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3750640AS</a>, die wir ebenfalls zu einem Raid-10-Verbund gebündelt haben. Die Festplatten bieten dann zusammen eine formatierte Kapazität von knapp 1,4 Terabyte.</p>



<p>Die Barracuda 7200.10 setzt auf die SATA-II-Schnittstelle, die eine theoretische Transferrate von bis zu 300 MB/s erreicht. In der Praxis erzielen Sie diesen Wert zwar nicht, bei einem Raid-0-Verbund aus zwei Platten dürfen Sie aber durchschnittlich mit deutlich über 100 MB/s rechnen. Damit verwalten und archivieren Sie selbst große Videodateien sehr flott.</p>



<p>Die Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3750640AS ist technisch auf der Höhe der Zeit: Das 3,5-Zoll-Laufwerk beherrscht die Technik Native Command Queuing (NCQ). NCQ erlaubt der Festplatte, die vom System geforderten Zugriffe selbstständig zu verwalten. Sie kann so die optimale Reihenfolge der Zugriffe ermitteln: Das spart zusätzliche Drehbewegungen, verkürzt damit die Wegstrecken, die der Schreib-/Lesekopf zurücklegen muss, und sorgt ergo für ein höheres Tempo. Eine höhere Datenübertragungsrate lässt sich auch mit <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20070315054351/http:/www.pcwelt.de/tests/hardware-tests/festplatten/130042/index.html">Perpendicular Recording</a> erzielen, da die Datenbits nicht mehr horizontal, sondern vertikal auf dem Datenträger angeordnet sind. Auch diese moderne Technik setzt die Barracuda 7200.10 ein, was wir im <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20070315054351/http:/www.pcwelt.de/tests/hardware-tests/festplatten/137452/">PC-WELT-Test</a> mit einer Innovations-Empfehlung belohnt haben.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading toc">Mehr Mobilität: 750 GB externer Speicher und Allesleser</h2>



<p>Mit der <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20070315054402/http:/www.seagate.com/www/de-de/products/external/pushbutton_backup/">Seagate Pushbutton External Hard Drive</a> stehen Ihnen zusätzlich 750 GB mobiler Speicher zur Verfügung. Das externe 3,5-Zoll-Laufwerk erstellt ein Backup bequem auf Knopfdruck – selbst umfangreiche Datenbestände lassen sich auf diese Weise sichern. Bei der Datensicherung unterstützt Sie die beiliegende Software Bounceback Express. Die native SATA-II-Festplatte mit der Modellbezeichnung <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20070315054402/http:/www.seagate.com/ww/v/index.jsp?locale=de-DE&amp;name=null&amp;vgnextoid=900a04b0c488e010VgnVCM100000dd04090aRCRD&amp;vgnextchannel=c0fed21c2f32b010VgnVCM100000dd04090aRCRD&amp;reqPage=Model">ST3750640CB-RK</a> besitzt sowohl eine Firewire- als auch eine USB-2.0-High-Speed-Schnittstelle.</p>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure data-wp-context='{"imageId":"6a4e0b099a85a"}' data-wp-interactive="core/image" class="wp-block-image size-full wp-lightbox-container"><img decoding="async" data-wp-class--hide="state.isContentHidden" data-wp-class--show="state.isContentVisible" data-wp-init="callbacks.setButtonStyles" data-wp-on-async--click="actions.showLightbox" data-wp-on-async--load="callbacks.setButtonStyles" data-wp-on-async-window--resize="callbacks.setButtonStyles" src="https://b2c-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Seagate-Pushbutton-External-Hard-Drive.jpg?quality=50&amp;strip=all" alt="Seagate Pushbutton External Hard Drive " class="wp-image-3182080" width="578" height="600" loading="lazy"><button class="lightbox-trigger" type="button" aria-haspopup="dialog" aria-label="Enlarge" data-wp-init="callbacks.initTriggerButton" data-wp-on-async--click="actions.showLightbox" data-wp-style--right="state.imageButtonRight" data-wp-style--top="state.imageButtonTop">
				<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="12" height="12" fill="none" viewbox="0 0 12 12">
					<path fill="#fff" d="M2 0a2 2 0 0 0-2 2v2h1.5V2a.5.5 0 0 1 .5-.5h2V0H2Zm2 10.5H2a.5.5 0 0 1-.5-.5V8H0v2a2 2 0 0 0 2 2h2v-1.5ZM8 12v-1.5h2a.5.5 0 0 0 .5-.5V8H12v2a2 2 0 0 1-2 2H8Zm2-12a2 2 0 0 1 2 2v2h-1.5V2a.5.5 0 0 0-.5-.5H8V0h2Z"></path>
				</svg>
			</button></figure><p class="imageCredit">Seagate </p></div>



<p>Die Seagate Pushbutton rotiert mit 7.200 Umdrehungen pro Minute, der Datenpuffer beträgt stattliche 16 MB. Auch dieses Seagate-Laufwerk realisiert die hohe Kapazität mithilfe der Technik Perpendicular Recording. Auf den vier Datenscheiben wuseln insgesamt acht Schreib-Lese-Köpfe mit einem kaum wahrnehmbaren Betriebsgeräusch.</p>



<p>Sie können aber auch jede beliebige Speicherkarte mit den Daten der Höllenmaschine II füttern, denn der integrierte Kartenleser kommt mit allen gängigen Formaten wie Compact Flash (Typ I und II), MagicGate Memory Stick (Duo, Pro, Pro Duo), Memory Stick (Duo, Pro, Pro Duo, Pro Ultra II, ROM, Select), Microdrive, Micro SD, Multimedia Karte (RS), Secure Digital (Mini) Karte und Smart Media Karte klar. Das integrierte Disketten-Laufwerk speichert zwar auch Daten, dient aber eher für knifflige BIOS-Updates und Betriebssysteminstallationen – sofern kein bootfähiger USB-Stick zur Hand ist oder die benötigten Daten nur auf Floppy vorliegen.</p>



<p>Sie können Ihre Daten aber auch mit dem Blu-Ray-Brenner Philips SPD7000BD speichern, der bei 2-fachem Schreibtempo knapp 9 MB/s über die SATA-Schnittstelle schaufelt und einen einlagigen 25-GB-BR-Rohling in gut 45 Minuten füllt. Das vom Online-Versender <a href="https://www.awin1.com/cread.php?awinaffid=486277&amp;awinmid=11731&amp;clickref=rss&amp;platform=dl&amp;ued=https://web.archive.org/web/20070315054615/http:/www.alternate.de/html/index.html">Alternate</a> zur Verfügung gestellte interne Laufwerk beschreibt aber auch CDs und DVDs. Der Pufferspeicher des SATA-Brenners beträgt 8 MB.</p>



<p>DVDs sowie CDs liest der Blu-Ray-Brenner mit maximal 16- beziehungsweise 32-facher Geschwindigkeit. DVD±Rs beschreibt das Laufwerk mit 12-fachem, DVD-RWs mit 8fachem und DVD+RWs mit 12-fachem Tempo. Dual-Layer-DVD‑Rs und Double-Layer-DVD+Rs brennt das interne Laufwerk mit 4-facher Geschwindigkeit. CD-Rs sowie CD-RWs beschreibt der Blu-Ray-Brenner mit 32‑fachem respektive 24‑fachem Tempo.</p>



<p>Im Lieferumfang des Blu-Ray-Laufwerks enthalten ist die Brenn-Software Nero 7 Essentials, eine abgespeckte Version von Nero 7 Premium mit folgenden, zum Teil funktionsreduzierten Programm-Modulen: Cover Designer 2, Express 7, Home, Incd 5, Media Home, Photoshow Express 4, Photosnap, Photosnap Viewer, Scout, Showtime 2, Start Smart 3, Toolkit sowie Vision 4. Von Cyberlink liegt ein Blu-Ray-Medium bei, auf dem sich das Abspielprogramm Power DVD BD befindet, mit dem Sie Filme auf Blu-Ray- und DVD-Medien abspielen können.</p>



<p>Beim zweiten optischen Laufwerk, dem Samsung SH-S182A, handelt es sich um einen Multiformat-DVD-Brenner, der auch das DVD-RAM-Format beherrscht. Außerdem unterstützt das SATA-Laufwerk die Lightscribe-Technik. Das interne Laufwerk beschreibt DVD±Rs mit 18-fachem, DVD-RWs mit 6fachem und DVD+RWs mit 8fachem Tempo. Dual-Layer-DVD‑Rs sowie Double-Layer-DVD+Rs brennt der Samsung SH-S182A mit 8-facher und DVD-RAMs mit 12-facher Geschwindigkeit.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading toc">Bildschirme: 24-Zoll-TFT und 8-Zoll-Touchscreen</h2>



<p>Der integrierte 8-Zoll-LCD-Touchscreen Worcol VE-XVT-8, der auf ein Panasonic-Display setzt, ist normalerweise für den Einsatz im Auto gedacht. Die physikalische Auflösung des LCDs beträgt 800 x 600 Bildpunkte, maximal ist eine Auflösung von 1024 x 768 Pixeln möglich. Die Ansteuerung des Touchscreen-Sensor-Panels erfolgt über die USB-Schnittstelle. Der Touchscreen-Treiber unterstützt alle gängigen Betriebssysteme.</p>



<p>Laut Hersteller liegt der maximale Blickwinkel des Worcol VE-XVT-8 bei 150 Grad. Die Leuchtstärke gibt Panasonic mit 500cd/m² an. Das Kontrastverhältnis beträgt nach Angaben des Herstellers 350:1. Neben der D-Sub-Schnittstelle steht auch ein AV-Videoeingang zur Verfügung. Alle wichtigen Einstellungen wie Bildposition, Farbtemperatur und -tiefe, Helligkeit und Kontrast lassen sich stufenlos über die Bedienelemente auf der Vorderseite einstellen.</p>



<p>Für mehr Übersicht sorgt das 24-Zoll-Breitbild-TFT <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20070315055016/http:/www.benq.de/products/LCD/?product=636">Benq FP241W</a>, das wir der Höllenmaschine zur Seite stellen. Die physikalische Auflösung des LCD-Bildschirms beträgt 1920 x 1200 Bildpunkte – damit stellt der Monitor selbst das HD-Format 1080p nativ dar. Die Auflösung reicht aber auch, um zwei DIN-A4-Seiten nebeneinander auf den Schirm zu bringen.</p>



<p>Reich gesegnet ist der Benq FP241W mit Schnittstellen: Pflicht für ein HD-Gerät ist natürlich der HDMI-Eingang, hoch aufgelöste Bildsignale empfängt der 24-Zöller aber auch über die DVI-D-Schnittstelle. Hinzu gesellen sich ein D-Sub-, ein S-Video-, ein Komponenten- und ein USB-Eingang. Praktisch: Der LCD fungiert auch als USB-Hub und stellt drei Ausgänge zur Verfügung.</p>



<p>Der Benq FP241W misst 564 x 567 x 248 Millimeter und bringt 10,6 Kilogramm auf die Waage. Laut Hersteller beträgt der Energieverbrauch im Betrieb 95 Watt. Die Reaktionszeit des Displays gibt Benq mit 6 Millisekunden an (grau zu grau). Die Helligkeit liegt nach Herstellerangaben bei 500cd/m² und das Kontrastverhältnis bei 1000:1. Den horizontalen und vertikalen Blickwinkel gibt Benq mit jeweils 178 Grad an. Unsere Bildschirm-Experten prüfen den 24-Zöller gerade, sodass wir Ihnen in Kürze einen ausführlichen Test präsentieren können.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading toc">Sound: EAX 5 und kabelloser 5.1-Raumklang</h2>



<p>Für die akustische Untermalung ist bei der Höllenmaschine die <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20070315054259/http:/www.creative.com/products/product.asp?category=1&amp;subcategory=208&amp;product=14000">Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Fatality FPS</a> zuständig. Der mit 51 Millionen Transistoren sehr komplexe Soundchip erreicht eine maximale Samplingfrequenz von 192 kHz. Der Wavetable-Synthesizer beherrscht 128 Stimmen, 128 Instrumente und 10 Drumsets. Außerdem unterstützt der X-Fi-Chip den Standard EAX Advanced HD 5 nativ und beschleunigt entsprechend optimierte Spiele. Den Test der Creative X-Fi Xtreme Music, die den baugleichen Soundchip nutzt, finden Sie <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20070315054259/http:/www.pcwelt.de/tests/hardware-tests/soundkarten/56503/index.html">hier</a> – unser Audio-Experte vergab für den analogen und digitalen Klang jeweils die Note „sehr gut“.</p>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure data-wp-context='{"imageId":"6a4e0b099b390"}' data-wp-interactive="core/image" class="wp-block-image size-full wp-lightbox-container"><img decoding="async" data-wp-class--hide="state.isContentHidden" data-wp-class--show="state.isContentVisible" data-wp-init="callbacks.setButtonStyles" data-wp-on-async--click="actions.showLightbox" data-wp-on-async--load="callbacks.setButtonStyles" data-wp-on-async-window--resize="callbacks.setButtonStyles" src="https://b2c-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Creative-Sound-Blaster-X-Fi-Fatality-FPS.jpg?quality=50&amp;strip=all" alt="Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Fatality FPS" class="wp-image-3182073" width="792" height="472" loading="lazy"><button class="lightbox-trigger" type="button" aria-haspopup="dialog" aria-label="Enlarge" data-wp-init="callbacks.initTriggerButton" data-wp-on-async--click="actions.showLightbox" data-wp-style--right="state.imageButtonRight" data-wp-style--top="state.imageButtonTop">
				<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="12" height="12" fill="none" viewbox="0 0 12 12">
					<path fill="#fff" d="M2 0a2 2 0 0 0-2 2v2h1.5V2a.5.5 0 0 1 .5-.5h2V0H2Zm2 10.5H2a.5.5 0 0 1-.5-.5V8H0v2a2 2 0 0 0 2 2h2v-1.5ZM8 12v-1.5h2a.5.5 0 0 0 .5-.5V8H12v2a2 2 0 0 1-2 2H8Zm2-12a2 2 0 0 1 2 2v2h-1.5V2a.5.5 0 0 0-.5-.5H8V0h2Z"></path>
				</svg>
			</button></figure><p class="imageCredit">Creative </p></div>



<p>Damit Sie auch unter Vista EAX in vollen Zügen genießen können – Microsoft hat bekanntlich beim neuen Betriebssystem das Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL) für Directsound und Directsound 3D entfernt –, hat Creative das Alchemy-Projekt gestartet. Wir sind daher zuversichtlich, dass der Glückspilz, der die PC-WELT Höllenmaschine 2 gewinnt, zum Liefertermin nicht mehr auf EAX-Raumklang unter Vista verzichten muss.</p>



<p>Die beiliegende Break-out-Box erlaubt den Zugriff auf die wichtigsten Schnittstellen via Front-Panel. Es stehen jeweils ein koaxialer und ein optischer SPDIF-Ein- und -Ausgang, zwei Cinch-Buchsen für den AUX-Eingang, ein Mini-MIDI-Ein- und -Ausgang sowie eine Kopfhörerbuchse mit Lautstärkeregler und ein kombinierter analoger Line-/Mikrofon-Eingang bereit. Das Sound-Paket komplettiert eine Fernbedienung.</p>



<p>Ebenfalls von Creative stammt das THX-zertifizierte 5.1-Lautsprecher-Set <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20070315054259/http:/www.creative.com/products/product.asp?category=4&amp;subcategory=25&amp;product=14661">Gigaworks Progamer G550W</a>. Das Boxenset mit Funkübertragung zu den hinteren Lautsprechern liefert 36 Watt <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20070315054259/http:/de.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS-Leistung">RMS</a> pro Kanal zu den Satelliten, die Subwoofer-Leistung gibt Creative mit 130 Watt RMS an. Im Transmitter der Gigaworks Progamer G550W sind die Regler für die Lautstärkeverteilung, Bass, Treble und Volume untergebracht, ergänzt von einer Kopfhörer-Buchse und einem AUX-Eingang. Ebenfalls im Lieferumfang: eine Fernbedienung.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading toc">Stromversorgung: 1000 Watt</h2>



<p>Umweltpolitisch nicht ganz korrekt, aber bitter notwendig für eine stabile Stromversorgung der Hochleistungs-Komponenten: das 1000-Watt-Netzteil <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20070315053922/http:/h1124473.serverkompetenz.net/index.php?id=55&amp;cat=2&amp;subcat=7&amp;product=157">Enermax Galaxy EGA1000EWL</a>. Der Kraftprotz mit einem Kampfgewicht von 5,6 Kilogramm glänzt laut Hersteller mit mehreren Weltneuheiten: Dazu gehören unter anderem fünf 12-Volt-Leitungen und die Möglichkeit, bis zu 24 Laufwerke gleichzeitig anschließen zu können. Außerdem rühmt sich das Netzteil, die erste Triple-Quad-Unterstützung zu bieten, weshalb wir es als adäquaten Stromlieferanten für die Höllenmaschine II ausgewählt haben.</p>



<p>Wenn Sie unseren Superrechner als Server einsetzen wollen, werden Sie sich nicht nur über die Alarmfunktionen freuen, die den Netzteil-Status überwachen, sondern auch über die RAM-Kabel für Speicherbestückungen ab 32 GB. Eine gute Idee von Enermax ist auch die komplette Trennung der Prozessor-Stromversorgung von den restlichen Versorgungsleitungen. Die Kühlung des 1000-Watt-Kraftprotzes übernimmt übrigens ein leise arbeitender Doppellüfter, bestehend aus einem 135- und einem 80-Millimeter-Rotor.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading toc">Wassergekühlt: CPUs, GPUs und Festplatten</h2>



<p>Bei der recht hohen Leistungsaufnahme – die exakten Verbrauchswerte liefern wir noch nach – ist für den stabilen Betrieb der Höllenmaschine 2 eine effiziente Kühlung der hitzigsten Komponenten unverzichtbar. Diese Aufgabe übernimmt eine Wasserkühlung, die wir aus Komponenten des Kühlungsspezialisten <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20070315054545/http:/www.innovatek.de/">Innovatek</a> zusammengestellt haben. Gesamtwert: 1950 Euro.</p>



<p>Beginnen wir mit dem Prozessorkühler X-Flow Xeon aus vernickeltem Kupfer, der eine Bauhöhe von lediglich 18 Millimetern hat. Da einige Kondensatoren in unmittelbarer Nachbarschaft der CPU-Sockel die passgenaue Montage verhinderten, war eine komplette Modifikation der X-Flows für die Höllenmaschine notwendig. Die VGA-Kühler Cool-Matic G80-GTX/GTS leiten nicht nur die Abwärme der GPUs ab, sondern kühlen auch den Grafikspeicher, den Bridge-Chip sowie den Spannungswandler. Um die Kühlleistung zu verbessern, integriert Innovatek in die Cool-Matic G80-GTX/GTS einen speziellen Kupferkern.</p>



<p>Alle acht Festplatten wandern in den HDM L-Pro Festplattenkühler aus Aluminium, der sich aus einem Innen- und einem Außenrahmen zusammensetzt. Dabei sind die beiden Rahmen voneinander entkoppelt – das reduziert die Geräuschentwicklung. Selbstredend ist die HDM L-Pro für Laufwerke mit bis zu 15.000 Umdrehungen pro Minute ausgelegt. Die Festplattenkühler lassen sich zudem problemlos mit einem Temperaturfühler aufrüsten.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading toc">Kühlsystem mit Hamstertränke</h2>



<p>Für einen gleichmäßigen Strom der Kühlflüssigkeit sorgt die 12-Volt-Pumpe HPPS Plus. Das gemeinsam von Innovatek und Eheim entwickelte Modell kennt zwei Betriebszustände: Im fast geräuschlosen Silent-Modus, in dem wir die HPPS Plus betreiben, beträgt die maximale Pumpleistung 2,05 Meter. Per Lötbrücke lässt sich der Power-Modus aktivieren, die Pumpleistung steigt dann auf stattliche vier Meter. Ein Mikroprozessor regelt die Drehzahl der HPPS Plus dynamisch, sodass jederzeit eine optimale Förderleistung gesichert ist.</p>



<p>Hamstertränke: Die scherzhafte Bezeichnung stammt von einem Kollegen, der sich noch nicht mit den Finessen eines Wasserkühlsystems befasst hat, in dem kein Ausgleichsbehälter fehlen darf. Das von uns eingesetzte Modell Tank-O-Matic hat einen Durchmesser von 50 Millimetern, die Bauhöhe beträgt 280 Millimeter und das Fassungsvermögen 280 Milliliter.</p>



<p>Das zentrale Kühlsystem komplettiert der Blackice Triple Radiator. Seine drei 120-Millimeter-Lüfter leiten die Abwärme der Prozessoren, Grafikkarten und der acht Festplatten fast lautlos nach außen. Unser Casemodding-Experte „Fastbrain1“, der das exklusive Design-Gehäuse der Höllenmaschine 2 entworfen und gebaut hat, konnte nicht widerstehen und hat den Blackice mit stark reflektierendem Silberlack veredelt.</p>



<p>Kleinteile: Insgesamt fast fünf Meter des PVC-Spezialschlauchs von Innovatek sind in der Höllenmaschine 2 verbaut. Dazu gesellen sich – unter anderem – 28 1/8-Winkelverbinder und 8 gewinkelte 1/8-Einschraubverschraubungen. An kritischen Stellen verhindern diverse Knickschutzfedern, dass der Spezialschlauch abknickt und der Supergau einer Wasserkühlung eintritt: der Stau des Kühlmittelflusses. Nicht zu vergessen: Die Durchfluss-Messturbine Flowmeter PRO Rev 3.6, die das Durchflusstempo in Umdrehungen pro Minute an das Rechner-BIOS übermittelt. Zudem lässt sich die Durchflussgeschwindigkeit auch optisch mittels der integrierten blauen Indikator-LED kontrollieren.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading toc">Gehäuse-Unikat: Casemod für 3600 Euro</h2>



<p>Für die Gestaltung des Gehäuses konnte die PC-WELT einen Spezialisten gewinnen: Heiko Polaczek, auch unter dem Alias „Fastbrain1“ bekannt, ist seit 14 Jahren eine feste Größe in der internationalen Casemoding-Szene. Der mehrfach für seine Gehäuse-Kunstwerke ausgezeichnete Modding-Profi verarbeitete für die Höllenmaschine 6,5 Quadratmeter Blech, 2,7 Meter Stahlrohr, 17 Meter Schweißdraht und zwei Liter blauen Porsche-Autolack. Letzteres lässt sich der schwäbische Sportwagenhersteller schon fast mit Gold aufwiegen: Der Liter kostet 450 Euro. Erwähnenswert sind an dieser Stelle noch die 27 laufenden Meter Schleifpapier und über den Daumen gepeilte 7,5 Kilogramm Spachtelmasse, die Fastbrain1 für das Gehäuse-Unikat verbrauchte.</p>



<p>Allein der Materialwert für den schmucken Casemod summiert sich auf knapp 3600 Euro, vom Arbeitsaufwand – circa 300 Stunden – ganz zu schweigen. Mehr Informationen und eine umfangreiche Bildgalerie mit den besten Werken von Heiko Polaczek finden Sie auf der Website. Wie Heiko Polaczek aus einem gähnend langweiligen Server-Tower unser exklusives Schmuckstück geformt hat, erfahren Sie in Kürze im Beitrag „Making of Höllenmaschine 2“.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading toc">Peripherie: funktionell und elegant</h2>



<p>Das Beste ist gerade gut genug für unseren Superrechner – das gilt auch für die Eingabegeräte: Die drahtlose Bluetooth-Tastatur Logitech di Novo Edge besticht nicht nur durch ihr elegantes Design, sondern auch durch die hochwertige Verarbeitung. Über das integrierte Touchpad lassen sich Bildlauf-, Auswahl- und Zeigerfunktionen effizient nutzen.</p>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure data-wp-context='{"imageId":"6a4e0b099c259"}' data-wp-interactive="core/image" class="wp-block-image size-full wp-lightbox-container"><img decoding="async" data-wp-class--hide="state.isContentHidden" data-wp-class--show="state.isContentVisible" data-wp-init="callbacks.setButtonStyles" data-wp-on-async--click="actions.showLightbox" data-wp-on-async--load="callbacks.setButtonStyles" data-wp-on-async-window--resize="callbacks.setButtonStyles" src="https://b2c-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Logitech-di-Novo-Edge.jpg?quality=50&amp;strip=all" alt="Logitech di Novo Edge" class="wp-image-3182077" width="1024" height="669" loading="lazy"><button class="lightbox-trigger" type="button" aria-haspopup="dialog" aria-label="Enlarge" data-wp-init="callbacks.initTriggerButton" data-wp-on-async--click="actions.showLightbox" data-wp-style--right="state.imageButtonRight" data-wp-style--top="state.imageButtonTop">
				<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="12" height="12" fill="none" viewbox="0 0 12 12">
					<path fill="#fff" d="M2 0a2 2 0 0 0-2 2v2h1.5V2a.5.5 0 0 1 .5-.5h2V0H2Zm2 10.5H2a.5.5 0 0 1-.5-.5V8H0v2a2 2 0 0 0 2 2h2v-1.5ZM8 12v-1.5h2a.5.5 0 0 0 .5-.5V8H12v2a2 2 0 0 1-2 2H8Zm2-12a2 2 0 0 1 2 2v2h-1.5V2a.5.5 0 0 0-.5-.5H8V0h2Z"></path>
				</svg>
			</button></figure><p class="imageCredit">Logitech </p></div>



<p>Dazu gesellt sich die Maus Logitech MX Revolution. Die ergonomisch geformte Funk-Maus setzt auf die präzise Laserabtastung und erlaubt laut Hersteller dank eines Tastenrads aus Leichtmetall besonders schnelle Bildläufe. Clevere Funktionen wie „One-Touch search“ und „Smartshift“ erleichtern die tägliche Arbeit.</p>



<p>Einer guten Tradition folgend verlosen wir – wie schon im letzten Jahr – den Porsche unter den PCs. Beteiligen Sie sich an unserer <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20070315054320/http:/www.pcwelt.de/news/hardware/69505/index.html">Leserwahl</a> zum PCW3-Award: Wir suchen die beste Hard- und Software des Jahres 2006. Entscheiden Sie, welche Top-Produkte wir mit dem PCW3-Award auszeichnen. Sie nehmen dann automatisch an der Verlosung teil, bei der die Höllenmaschine als 1. Preis ausgesetzt ist. Oder Sie besuchen uns auf der <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20070315054320/http:/files.messe.de/cmsdb/007/9036.swf">CeBIT 2007</a> (Halle 6, Stand C12), um den Super-PC in Aktion zu erleben. Dort haben Sie ebenfalls Gelegenheit, an der Verlosung teilzunehmen.<br>Garantieausschluss: Ansprüche gegen die IDG Magazine Media GmbH wegen Sach- und Rechtsmängeln an dem PC sowie dem TFT sind ausgeschlossen. Im Übrigen finden die für Schenkungen geltenden Vorschriften der §§ 521 bis 524 BGB Anwendung.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading toc"> So gewinnen Sie die HMX 6</h2>



<p>Auch dieses Jahr verlosen wir die Höllenmaschine unter allen Teilnehmern</p>


<span class="cta_btn_heading cta_btn_heading_"></span><div class="cta wp-block wp-block-button cta__btn_"><a class="cta__btn" href="https://www.pcwelt.de/article/3179491/hmx-6-gewinnspiel.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" data-vars-link-position="CTA Button">Gewinnen Sie hier die HMX 6</a></div>


<h2 class="wp-block-heading toc">Wie Sie die HMX 6 verfolgen können</h2>



<p>In den kommenden Wochen folgen weitere Inhalte rund um die Höllenmaschine 6 auf <a href="https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLVC_WMwVwvSiOOgt6D9mN4Ud71M_uLFsS">YouTube</a>, <a href="https://www.instagram.com/pcwelt/">Instagram</a>, <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@pcwelt.de">TikTok</a>, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/pcwelt/reels/">Facebook </a>und natürlich auf <a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/hmx" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">pcwelt.de</a>. Wenn Sie nichts verpassen wollen, sollten Sie den kostenlosen <a href="https://www.pcwelt.de/newsletter-anmeldung" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">HMX-6-Newsletter abonnieren</a> – aber vergessen Sie nicht, die Anmeldung via E-Mail zu bestätigen.</p>

</div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Anthropic shines a light into the Claude AI black hole]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Anthropic has found a way to shed new light on how its models solve problems, thanks to its discovery of what it has dubbed the J-space. 



“We find that Claude has developed a small collection of internal neural patterns that, compared to all its other internal processing, play a special role. ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3653231/ai-nachrichten/anthropic-shines-a-light-into-the-claude-ai-black-hole/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3653231/ai-nachrichten/anthropic-shines-a-light-into-the-claude-ai-black-hole/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2026 06:33:50 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🔧 AI Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p>Anthropic has found a way to shed new light on how its models solve problems, thanks to its discovery of what it has dubbed the J-space. </p>



<p>“We find that Claude has developed a small collection of internal neural patterns that, compared to all its other internal processing, play a special role. We call the collection of these patterns the J-space, named after the technique we used to find them, involving a mathematical concept called the <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/jacobian-matrix" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Jacobian</a>,” <a href="https://www.anthropic.com/research/global-workspace" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Anthropic said in its post</a> about the discovery. It examines the contents of the J-space using what it calls the Jacobian lens, or J-lens.</p>



<p>“Each J-space pattern is linked to a particular word,” Anthropic said. “But when one of these patterns lights up, it doesn’t mean the model is saying that word, just that the word is on its ‘mind.’ If you’ve heard of language models having a scratchpad or chain of thought—text they write to themselves while reasoning—the J-space is something different. It operates silently, in the model’s internal neural activations, allowing the model to ‘think’ about a concept without writing it down.”</p>



<p>This new level of analytical visibility goes well beyond what Anthropic announced as an <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/3628817/anthropics-llms-cant-reason-but-think-they-can-even-worse-they-ignore-guardrails.html" target="_blank">internal scratchpad for its models in 2024</a>. That scratchpad revealed what the model was considering when preparing an action or delivering an answer. The new development instead focuses on something much deeper which has the potential to change how AI systems are evaluated and purchased. </p>



<p>One example in <a href="https://transformer-circuits.pub/2026/workspace/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">the paper</a> described how some models did not engage in improper behavior during tests, which would appear to be a very favorable result. But the contents of the J-space revealed that the model sometimes <em>knew </em>that it was being tested, and that awareness might have been the key reason it declined to engage in the problematic behavior, much in the way human children act when they know they are being watched. </p>



<p>“Anthropic built a lens that catches its own model quietly noticing it’s being tested, faking a result to look good, spotting a prompt injection, or sitting on a planted goal it hasn’t acted on yet,” said <a href="https://zenity.io/authors/rock-lambros" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Rock Lambros</a>, director of AI standards and governance at AI agent vendor Zenity. “Some of that good behavior rode on the model knowing it was on stage.”</p>



<p>Customers should read their safety benchmarks with that in mind, he said. “Fitness for your project still comes from testing on your own data and your own attackers, not from a leaderboard the model knew it was sitting for.” </p>



<p>That kind of visibility is a potentially crucial tool for CIOs.</p>



<p>“A provider that can catch its own model misbehaving in silence, then publish [those results], is telling you something real about its assurance maturity. Put that in your due diligence, not just your newsfeed,” Lambros noted. “Here’s the question I’d hand every model vendor now: what can you see inside your model that I can’t see in its output, and what have you caught?”</p>



<p>Added <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/noah-m-kenney-27499a166/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Noah Kenney</a>, principal consultant at Digital 520: “A model that behaves better because it knows it is being watched is not a safe model. It is a model with a poker face. We have to question every red team result, every internal pilot where the model refused something dangerous, and every ‘we tested this and it was fine’ story, because they now carry an asterisk.”</p>



<p>CIOs need to now determine whether an agent performed a function in a specific way because that is how it will always perform, or whether it was it behaving differently because it figured out you were just testing it, Kenney said. “The answer to that question should change your interpretation in a material way.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">No J-lens for customers – yet</h2>



<p>“It is an admission that the industry’s evaluation regime is measuring something less durable than everyone assumed, and now the other frontier labs have to answer whether their own evaluations have the same problem,” Kenney said. “For CIOs, the paper is a warning about their entire model risk framework.”</p>



<p><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/fvillanustre/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Flavio Villanustre</a>, CISO for the LexisNexis Risk Solutions Group, said that examining the J-space can even help make models more efficient.</p>



<p>“It gives you the ability to introspect into the model and, as such, can be very useful to the user, especially in cases where explainability is important. Think regulated environments that require explainable responses and full causal analysis of them,” Villanustre said. “This can also be very helpful to users trying to fine tune their prompts, making models more efficient to optimize token cost.”</p>



<p>But currently indirect access, or future access achieved via AI vendor negotiations, is the only path for accessing the new information, though Villanustre noted that some enterprises could gain direct access to J-space by paying for <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4167981/anthropics-financial-agents-expose-forward-deployed-engineers-as-new-ai-limiting-factor.html" target="_blank">Anthropic’s FDE program</a>. </p>



<p>“It is very useful to CIOs,” he pointed out, “but in order to make use of the capabilities offered by analysis of the J-space, they need appropriate talent that can make sense of it. The type of skills required go far beyond those of the general data analyst, or even data scientist.” </p>



<p>Today, said <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/akm76/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Aman Mahapatra</a>, chief strategy officer for Tribeca Softtech, a New York City-based technology consulting firm, “enterprise customers cannot enable the Jacobian lens, cannot inspect the residual stream through the API, and cannot run the ablation studies that produced the most interesting findings in the paper.” </p>



<p>So, he said, “on the narrow question of whether a CIO can operationally use J-space monitoring in Q3 of this year to gate a production deployment, the answer is no.”</p>



<p>But Mahapatra argued that there are going to be other ways to access the information, and CIOs must insist on them.</p>



<p><strong>“</strong>Without customer-side access, this reduces to trusting Anthropic yet again, and that is exactly why enterprises should start pushing for a different assurance model industry-wide,” he said. “Model providers are converging on a posture where they inspect their own models using proprietary tooling and publish reassuring research about what they found. That is not an assurance framework any regulated industry accepts from any other vendor.”</p>



<p>He pointed out that banks do not accept “we validated our own model, trust us” from a credit scoring vendor, not does the healthcare industry accept it from a clinical decision support vendor. “There is no principled reason to accept it from a foundation model vendor either, and the J-space research crystallizes why,” he said.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">New visibility demands</h2>



<p>“The right long-term enterprise posture is to demand independent interpretability access, either through customer-facing APIs, through independent third-party auditors with privileged access, or through open interpretability standards that let a bank’s model risk management team apply the same tooling the vendor’s own safety team uses,” Mahapatra stressed. “None of that exists today. All of it should be on the roadmap CIOs are pushing for, and this research is the strongest argument yet for why.”</p>



<p>In fact, the discoveries in the research have the potential to fundamentally rewrite the AI strategy rules.</p>



<p>Mahapatra said that the single hardest problem in enterprise agentic deployment is verifying that an autonomous system’s stated reasoning matches its actual reasoning. “Until now, we could only audit what the model writes, while much of its reasoning happened silently. The J-lens attacks that gap head-on,” he noted.</p>



<p>Thus, he said, sophisticated buyers should start asking model providers during the procurement process about the interpretability tooling they offer to let customers monitor internal model state for deception, evaluation-gaming, and goal misalignment in their specific deployments.</p>



<p>“Almost no vendor can answer that today,” he said. “The CIOs who start requiring internal-state observability as a procurement criterion, even before the tooling is fully mature, will be the ones who shape how their vendors productize it, and the ones with genuine assurance when regulators start asking how they know their autonomous agents are actually doing what they claim.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The beginning of standards</h2>



<p>Another way that CIOs can benefit from this new visibility into Claude is to try and get that information from third-parties that already have access. The report, for example, noted that a Google AI specialist independently replicated some findings on an open-weight model.</p>



<p>That, noted <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/lewiscarhart/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Lewis Carhart</a>, CEO of Comp AI, a software development firm, “is a competitor verifying the method, not just the vendor’s own claim. It shows what’s technically possible, but it doesn’t give enterprises a way to check anything themselves.”</p>



<p>He said that it’s a pattern that compliance has seen before; SOC 2 didn’t start as an independent audit standard either. It started as vendors describing their own controls, and the market spent years building the infrastructure to verify those claims externally.</p>



<p>“Interpretability is at that same starting point now,” he noted. “It becomes meaningful for CIOs once J-lens findings show up in third-party audits, published model cards, or regulator-facing disclosures. Anything a risk team can point to that isn’t just the vendor’s word.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Leads to AI strategy changes</h2>



<p><a href="https://acceligence.com/talent/profiles/justin-greis/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Justin Greis</a>, CEO of consulting firm Acceligence, said he also expects this development to lead to major AI strategy changes. </p>



<p>“I can easily imagine governance platforms consuming those signals alongside prompts, outputs, identity information, policy decisions, and tool activity,” he said. “A future AI control plane could continuously evaluate whether an agent recognized an attempted prompt injection, understood that sensitive information was involved, detected conflicting objectives, or showed evidence that it was reasoning toward an unsafe action before that action was ever executed. Those signals become inputs into policy enforcement, human escalation, audit logging, and trust scoring across enterprise AI environments.”</p>



<p>This has practical implications for CIOs today, he pointed out, “because it changes how they evaluate AI vendors. A year ago, enterprises primarily asked about model accuracy, latency, security, and cost. Increasingly, procurement teams will also ask how much operational visibility vendors provide into agent behavior, reasoning quality, policy compliance, safety monitoring, and auditability.”</p>



<p>Mahapatra added that all of this could give CIOs a powerful new negotiating tactic. </p>



<p>“The renewal path is where the leverage actually sits: write contractual rights to interpretability reporting and third-party audit access into the next renewal, because those terms are free today and expensive after signature,” he said. “The CIOs who win on assurance in 2027 will be the ones who stopped accepting ‘trust us’ from their model provider in 2026 and put the right clauses in the paperwork while the vendor still needed the deal more than the customer needed the model.”</p>



<p><em>This article originally appeared on <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4194145/anthropic-shines-a-light-into-the-claude-ai-black-hole.html" target="_blank">CIO.com</a>.</em></p>



<p></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Anthropic shines a light into the Claude AI black hole]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Anthropic has found a way to shed new light on how its models solve problems, thanks to its discovery of what it has dubbed the J-space. 



“We find that Claude has developed a small collection of internal neural patterns that, compared to all its other internal processing, play a special role. ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3653228/it-nachrichten/anthropic-shines-a-light-into-the-claude-ai-black-hole/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3653228/it-nachrichten/anthropic-shines-a-light-into-the-claude-ai-black-hole/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2026 06:33:02 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p>Anthropic has found a way to shed new light on how its models solve problems, thanks to its discovery of what it has dubbed the J-space. </p>



<p>“We find that Claude has developed a small collection of internal neural patterns that, compared to all its other internal processing, play a special role. We call the collection of these patterns the J-space, named after the technique we used to find them, involving a mathematical concept called the <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/jacobian-matrix" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Jacobian</a>,” <a href="https://www.anthropic.com/research/global-workspace" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Anthropic said in its post</a> about the discovery. It examines the contents of the J-space using what it calls the Jacobian lens, or J-lens.</p>



<p>“Each J-space pattern is linked to a particular word,” Anthropic said. “But when one of these patterns lights up, it doesn’t mean the model is saying that word, just that the word is on its ‘mind.’ If you’ve heard of language models having a scratchpad or chain of thought—text they write to themselves while reasoning—the J-space is something different. It operates silently, in the model’s internal neural activations, allowing the model to ‘think’ about a concept without writing it down.”</p>



<p>This new level of analytical visibility goes well beyond what Anthropic announced as an <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/3628817/anthropics-llms-cant-reason-but-think-they-can-even-worse-they-ignore-guardrails.html" target="_blank">internal scratchpad for its models in 2024</a>. That scratchpad revealed what the model was considering when preparing an action or delivering an answer. The new development instead focuses on something much deeper which has the potential to change how AI systems are evaluated and purchased. </p>



<p>One example in <a href="https://transformer-circuits.pub/2026/workspace/index.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">the paper</a> described how some models did not engage in improper behavior during tests, which would appear to be a very favorable result. But the contents of the J-space revealed that the model sometimes <em>knew </em>that it was being tested, and that awareness might have been the key reason it declined to engage in the problematic behavior, much in the way human children act when they know they are being watched. </p>



<p>“Anthropic built a lens that catches its own model quietly noticing it’s being tested, faking a result to look good, spotting a prompt injection, or sitting on a planted goal it hasn’t acted on yet,” said <a href="https://zenity.io/authors/rock-lambros" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Rock Lambros</a>, director of AI standards and governance at AI agent vendor Zenity. “Some of that good behavior rode on the model knowing it was on stage.”</p>



<p>Customers should read their safety benchmarks with that in mind, he said. “Fitness for your project still comes from testing on your own data and your own attackers, not from a leaderboard the model knew it was sitting for.” </p>



<p>That kind of visibility is a potentially crucial tool for CIOs.</p>



<p>“A provider that can catch its own model misbehaving in silence, then publish [those results], is telling you something real about its assurance maturity. Put that in your due diligence, not just your newsfeed,” Lambros noted. “Here’s the question I’d hand every model vendor now: what can you see inside your model that I can’t see in its output, and what have you caught?”</p>



<p>Added <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/noah-m-kenney-27499a166/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Noah Kenney</a>, principal consultant at Digital 520: “A model that behaves better because it knows it is being watched is not a safe model. It is a model with a poker face. We have to question every red team result, every internal pilot where the model refused something dangerous, and every ‘we tested this and it was fine’ story, because they now carry an asterisk.”</p>



<p>CIOs need to now determine whether an agent performed a function in a specific way because that is how it will always perform, or whether it was it behaving differently because it figured out you were just testing it, Kenney said. “The answer to that question should change your interpretation in a material way.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">No J-lens for customers – yet</h2>



<p>“It is an admission that the industry’s evaluation regime is measuring something less durable than everyone assumed, and now the other frontier labs have to answer whether their own evaluations have the same problem,” Kenney said. “For CIOs, the paper is a warning about their entire model risk framework.”</p>



<p><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/fvillanustre/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Flavio Villanustre</a>, CISO for the LexisNexis Risk Solutions Group, said that examining the J-space can even help make models more efficient.</p>



<p>“It gives you the ability to introspect into the model and, as such, can be very useful to the user, especially in cases where explainability is important. Think regulated environments that require explainable responses and full causal analysis of them,” Villanustre said. “This can also be very helpful to users trying to fine tune their prompts, making models more efficient to optimize token cost.”</p>



<p>But currently indirect access, or future access achieved via AI vendor negotiations, is the only path for accessing the new information, though Villanustre noted that some enterprises could gain direct access to J-space by paying for <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4167981/anthropics-financial-agents-expose-forward-deployed-engineers-as-new-ai-limiting-factor.html" target="_blank">Anthropic’s FDE program</a>. </p>



<p>“It is very useful to CIOs,” he pointed out, “but in order to make use of the capabilities offered by analysis of the J-space, they need appropriate talent that can make sense of it. The type of skills required go far beyond those of the general data analyst, or even data scientist.” </p>



<p>Today, said <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/akm76/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Aman Mahapatra</a>, chief strategy officer for Tribeca Softtech, a New York City-based technology consulting firm, “enterprise customers cannot enable the Jacobian lens, cannot inspect the residual stream through the API, and cannot run the ablation studies that produced the most interesting findings in the paper.” </p>



<p>So, he said, “on the narrow question of whether a CIO can operationally use J-space monitoring in Q3 of this year to gate a production deployment, the answer is no.”</p>



<p>But Mahapatra argued that there are going to be other ways to access the information, and CIOs must insist on them.</p>



<p><strong>“</strong>Without customer-side access, this reduces to trusting Anthropic yet again, and that is exactly why enterprises should start pushing for a different assurance model industry-wide,” he said. “Model providers are converging on a posture where they inspect their own models using proprietary tooling and publish reassuring research about what they found. That is not an assurance framework any regulated industry accepts from any other vendor.”</p>



<p>He pointed out that banks do not accept “we validated our own model, trust us” from a credit scoring vendor, not does the healthcare industry accept it from a clinical decision support vendor. “There is no principled reason to accept it from a foundation model vendor either, and the J-space research crystallizes why,” he said.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">New visibility demands</h2>



<p>“The right long-term enterprise posture is to demand independent interpretability access, either through customer-facing APIs, through independent third-party auditors with privileged access, or through open interpretability standards that let a bank’s model risk management team apply the same tooling the vendor’s own safety team uses,” Mahapatra stressed. “None of that exists today. All of it should be on the roadmap CIOs are pushing for, and this research is the strongest argument yet for why.”</p>



<p>In fact, the discoveries in the research have the potential to fundamentally rewrite the AI strategy rules.</p>



<p>Mahapatra said that the single hardest problem in enterprise agentic deployment is verifying that an autonomous system’s stated reasoning matches its actual reasoning. “Until now, we could only audit what the model writes, while much of its reasoning happened silently. The J-lens attacks that gap head-on,” he noted.</p>



<p>Thus, he said, sophisticated buyers should start asking model providers during the procurement process about the interpretability tooling they offer to let customers monitor internal model state for deception, evaluation-gaming, and goal misalignment in their specific deployments.</p>



<p>“Almost no vendor can answer that today,” he said. “The CIOs who start requiring internal-state observability as a procurement criterion, even before the tooling is fully mature, will be the ones who shape how their vendors productize it, and the ones with genuine assurance when regulators start asking how they know their autonomous agents are actually doing what they claim.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The beginning of standards</h2>



<p>Another way that CIOs can benefit from this new visibility into Claude is to try and get that information from third-parties that already have access. The report, for example, noted that a Google AI specialist independently replicated some findings on an open-weight model.</p>



<p>That, noted <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/lewiscarhart/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Lewis Carhart</a>, CEO of Comp AI, a software development firm, “is a competitor verifying the method, not just the vendor’s own claim. It shows what’s technically possible, but it doesn’t give enterprises a way to check anything themselves.”</p>



<p>He said that it’s a pattern that compliance has seen before; SOC 2 didn’t start as an independent audit standard either. It started as vendors describing their own controls, and the market spent years building the infrastructure to verify those claims externally.</p>



<p>“Interpretability is at that same starting point now,” he noted. “It becomes meaningful for CIOs once J-lens findings show up in third-party audits, published model cards, or regulator-facing disclosures. Anything a risk team can point to that isn’t just the vendor’s word.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Leads to AI strategy changes</h2>



<p><a href="https://acceligence.com/talent/profiles/justin-greis/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Justin Greis</a>, CEO of consulting firm Acceligence, said he also expects this development to lead to major AI strategy changes. </p>



<p>“I can easily imagine governance platforms consuming those signals alongside prompts, outputs, identity information, policy decisions, and tool activity,” he said. “A future AI control plane could continuously evaluate whether an agent recognized an attempted prompt injection, understood that sensitive information was involved, detected conflicting objectives, or showed evidence that it was reasoning toward an unsafe action before that action was ever executed. Those signals become inputs into policy enforcement, human escalation, audit logging, and trust scoring across enterprise AI environments.”</p>



<p>This has practical implications for CIOs today, he pointed out, “because it changes how they evaluate AI vendors. A year ago, enterprises primarily asked about model accuracy, latency, security, and cost. Increasingly, procurement teams will also ask how much operational visibility vendors provide into agent behavior, reasoning quality, policy compliance, safety monitoring, and auditability.”</p>



<p>Mahapatra added that all of this could give CIOs a powerful new negotiating tactic. </p>



<p>“The renewal path is where the leverage actually sits: write contractual rights to interpretability reporting and third-party audit access into the next renewal, because those terms are free today and expensive after signature,” he said. “The CIOs who win on assurance in 2027 will be the ones who stopped accepting ‘trust us’ from their model provider in 2026 and put the right clauses in the paperwork while the vendor still needed the deal more than the customer needed the model.”</p>



<p></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Meta built an AI detection tool to ID images and video created with its new models]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Meta's new AI detector has rate limits for some reason.]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3652938/it-nachrichten/meta-built-an-ai-detection-tool-to-id-images-and-video-created-with-its-new-models/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3652938/it-nachrichten/meta-built-an-ai-detection-tool-to-id-images-and-video-created-with-its-new-models/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2026 01:32:11 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Meta's new AI detector has rate limits for some reason.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Anthropic brings Claude Cowork to mobile and web as usage data shows most users aren’t coding]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Anthropic on Tuesday launched Claude Cowork on mobile and web, expanding a tool that has quietly become the company's bridge between the developer-centric world of AI coding agents and the far larger market of knowledge workers who never open a terminal.The rollout, which begins in beta with Max ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3652421/it-nachrichten/anthropic-brings-claude-cowork-to-mobile-and-web-as-usage-data-shows-most-users-arent-coding/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3652421/it-nachrichten/anthropic-brings-claude-cowork-to-mobile-and-web-as-usage-data-shows-most-users-arent-coding/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2026 20:03:20 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://www.anthropic.com/">Anthropic</a> on Tuesday launched <a href="https://claude.com/blog/cowork-web-mobile/">Claude Cowork on mobile and web</a>, expanding a tool that has quietly become the company's bridge between the developer-centric world of AI coding agents and the far larger market of knowledge workers who never open a terminal.</p><p>The rollout, which begins in beta with <a href="https://support.claude.com/en/articles/11049741-what-is-the-max-plan">Max subscribers</a> before expanding to additional plans, marks a strategic inflection for Anthropic. It transforms Cowork from a desktop-only agent into a cross-device platform where tasks can start on a laptop, continue autonomously in the background, and be reviewed from a phone — even after the user closes the app entirely.</p><p>"Your work goes everywhere with you, and keeps going without you," Anthropic writes in its announcement.</p><p>The timing is deliberate. Alongside the mobile launch, Anthropic published usage data from 1.2 million anonymized Claude Cowork sessions sampled between May 11 and May 31, drawn from more than 600,000 organizations. The data paints a striking picture: the overwhelming majority of what people do with Cowork has nothing to do with writing software.</p><div></div><h2><b>The biggest AI story nobody's talking about</b></h2><p>The numbers tell a story that cuts against the dominant narrative in enterprise AI, which has fixated on coding assistants and developer productivity as the primary use case for large language models.</p><p>Business process and operations — tasks like pulling scattered updates into a single report, building onboarding checklists, and reconciling spreadsheets — accounted for 33.4% of all sampled Cowork sessions, making it the single largest category by a wide margin. Content creation and copywriting — producing drafts, slide decks, posts, and proposals — came in second at 16.4%.</p><p>Together, those two categories make up roughly half of all Claude Cowork usage. Software development, by contrast, accounted for just 8.7%. DevOps and infrastructure followed at 7%, with research and intelligence at 6.4%, data analysis and business intelligence at 5.8%, document processing and extraction at 4.1%, and sales and revenue operations at 4%.</p><p>The remaining 12 categories each represented less than 4% of usage, including personal assistance at 3.8%, education at 2.4%, and meeting intelligence at 1.8%.</p><p>Anthropic describes these dominant use cases as "the work around the work" — tasks that span nearly every role in an organization but rarely appear in anyone's core job description. "People are using it for a variety of tasks that aren't necessarily the hallmark of a specific role, but instead represent the connective work around a role that moves projects forward and keeps businesses running," the company writes. "That means tasks like drafting a status update, building a slide deck, or condensing reams of research into a single report."</p><p>That phrase — "the work around the work" — is Anthropic's attempt to define and claim an entirely new category of AI productivity. It's a calculated reframing: rather than positioning AI as a tool that replaces what professionals do, Anthropic is arguing that the most valuable current application is handling everything professionals do around their actual expertise.</p><h2><b>What mobile access changes — and what it doesn't</b></h2><p>The <a href="https://claude.com/blog/cowork-web-mobile/">expansion to mobile and web</a> introduces three concrete capabilities that reflect how Anthropic envisions Cowork fitting into daily workflows.</p><p>First, sessions now sync across devices. A user can start a task at their desk, check on its progress from a phone, and retrieve the finished output from any device. Second — and arguably more significant — Cowork can now run tasks in the background with no device online at all. Users can schedule work for a specific time, and Claude will execute it autonomously. Anthropic offers the example of setting Monday morning client prep for 6 a.m.: "Claude works through the email threads, transcripts, and recent news, builds the briefing doc, and leaves the follow-up email drafted but unsent. Review it over coffee."</p><p>Third, when Claude encounters a decision that requires human judgment, it surfaces the question to the user's phone. "Nothing ships until you've reviewed and approved it," Anthropic states.</p><p>Desktop remains the most fully featured surface, with access to local files and the browser. But the web version also opens Cowork to users who cannot install a desktop application — a meaningful expansion in enterprise environments where IT departments control software installation.</p><p>The company also unified its interface: on web and desktop, chat and Cowork now share a single home screen, and projects and artifacts persist across both modes.</p><p>To encourage adoption, Anthropic is extending doubled Cowork usage limits through August 5.</p><h2><b>The strategic logic: why Anthropic is chasing the non-developer</b></h2><p>The usage data and the mobile launch together reveal a company executing a two-track strategy. <a href="https://www.anthropic.com/product/claude-code">Claude Code</a>, its terminal-based coding agent, dominates among software developers. But Cowork is designed to capture the vastly larger population of professionals whose work involves creating, organizing, and communicating information rather than writing code.</p><p>The contrast between the two products is instructive. As Anthropic notes, Claude Code "is most often used by software developers for the key parts of their role: building, debugging, and shipping code." When developers do use <a href="https://www.anthropic.com/product/claude-cowork">Cowork</a>, they tend to use it not for programming but for the communications-focused work that surrounds every role — status updates, documentation, and coordination.</p><p>This pattern — where AI handles the connective tissue of work rather than its core substance — aligns with what Anthropic describes as people using "Claude Cowork to assemble and structure the information they can use to act on their expertise." The company illustrates this with three examples: a lawyer using Cowork for document formatting and filing while reserving legal judgment for themselves, a hiring manager synthesizing interview feedback while spending more time on candidate conversations, and a team lead producing a slide deck that explains a decision while focusing on actually making that decision.</p><p>The implications for Anthropic's business model are significant. Developer-focused tools, while high-profile, serve a relatively narrow market. The <a href="https://ramp.com/data/ai-index">Ramp AI Index</a> published in May showed Anthropic pulling ahead of OpenAI in business adoption for the first time — with 34.4% of firms paying for Anthropic's services compared to OpenAI's 32.3% — and suggests the company's enterprise push is gaining traction. Claude Code was identified as the primary driver of that shift. But Cowork targets an addressable market that is orders of magnitude larger: every knowledge worker with a laptop, a pile of spreadsheets, and a slide deck due by Friday.</p><h2><b>A crowded field gets more competitive</b></h2><p>The mobile launch arrives during one of Anthropic's busiest — and most turbulent — stretches in its history. </p><p>Just last week, Anthropic launched <a href="https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-sonnet-5">Claude Sonnet 5</a>, a new model that narrows the performance gap with its more expensive Opus-class models while maintaining lower pricing. The model is available at introductory pricing of $2 per million input tokens through August 31 before rising to $3 per million input tokens. Sonnet 5 serves as the engine underneath Cowork, and its improved agentic capabilities — better reasoning, tool use, and sustained task completion — directly enhance Cowork's ability to handle complex, multi-step workflows.</p><p>Two weeks before that, Anthropic released <a href="https://venturebeat.com/technology/anthropic-launches-claude-tag-replacing-its-slack-app-with-a-persistent-ai-teammate-that-learns-monitors-and-works-autonomously">Claude Tag</a>, a Slack-native AI agent designed for team collaboration. Where Cowork focuses on individual task delegation, Claude Tag operates as a multiplayer tool — a single Claude identity that everyone in a Slack channel can interact with, building context from conversations over time. </p><p>According to Anthropic's announcement, 65% of the company's own product team's code is created by its internal version of Claude Tag. <a href="https://fortune.com/2026/06/23/anthropic-claude-tag-virtual-employee-tool-slack/">Fortune reported</a> that Anthropic's head of product for Claude Code and Cowork, Cat Wu, described the distinction: "Claude Code, Cowork, and chat are very single-player, whereas Claude Tag is built to be interactive and multiplayer."</p><p>Together, <a href="https://www.anthropic.com/product/claude-cowork">Cowork</a> and <a href="https://www.anthropic.com/news/introducing-claude-tag">Claude Tag</a> represent a pincer strategy: Cowork captures individual productivity workflows across devices, while Claude Tag embeds AI into team communication channels. Both are designed to push Anthropic deeper into enterprise operations, beyond the developer seat.</p><h2><b>The security question looms</b></h2><p>The expansion also arrives against a backdrop of unresolved security concerns. On July 1, security firm Armadin — led by Mandiant founder Kevin Mandia — published research detailing what it described as a full sandbox escape in Claude Cowork on Windows, as reported by <a href="https://siliconangle.com/2026/07/01/armadin-details-full-sandbox-escape-claude-cowork-anthropic-disputes-risk/">SiliconANGLE</a>. The attack chain involved DLL sideloading against the Claude desktop executable to gain trusted access to Cowork's virtual machine service, then exploiting undocumented parameters to achieve root access and bypass network restrictions.</p><p>Anthropic responded that the vulnerability did not qualify as a security issue because exploiting it requires an attacker to already have local code execution on the host machine. Armadin, however, raised a broader concern: that deploying local virtual machines on nontechnical users' systems creates visibility gaps that endpoint security products struggle to monitor.</p><p>This tension takes on new dimensions as Cowork moves to mobile and web. The web and mobile versions run tasks server-side rather than in a local virtual machine, which eliminates the specific attack surface Armadin identified but introduces different questions about data handling, especially for scheduled background tasks that process email threads, calendar data, and documents without real-time user oversight.</p><p>Anthropic's announcement states that "<a href="https://claude.com/blog/cowork-web-mobile/">the decisions still come to you</a>" and that nothing ships without review and approval. But as Cowork takes on increasingly complex autonomous workflows — processing contract folders, building client briefings from multiple data sources, drafting emails — the surface area for prompt injection and data exposure grows correspondingly. </p><p>When Cowork first launched in January, TechCrunch reported that Anthropic <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2026/01/12/anthropics-new-cowork-tool-offers-claude-code-without-the-code/">explicitly warned</a> about prompt injection risks, noting in its blog post: "These risks aren't new with Cowork, but it might be the first time you're using a more advanced tool that moves beyond a simple conversation."</p><h2><b>As Anthropic courts enterprises, geopolitics complicates the pitch</b></h2><p>Anthropic's enterprise push is also colliding with geopolitical reality. CNBC reported Monday that <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2026/07/06/alibaba-anthropic-ai-ban-claude-china.html#:~:text=Alibaba%20will%20ban%20employees%20from%20using%20Anthropic%20's%20artificial%20intelligence,risks%2C%20CNBC%20confirmed%20on%20Monday.">Alibaba will ban employees from using Anthropic's AI tools</a> starting July 10, placing Claude Code on a high-risk software list. The move followed Anthropic's June letter to the U.S. Senate accusing Alibaba of carrying out what it called "<a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/china/anthropic-says-alibaba-illicitly-extracted-claude-ai-model-capabilities-2026-06-24/">the largest known distillation attack</a>" against its models.</p><p>The Alibaba ban, combined with reports that Anthropic is closing loopholes that allowed Chinese companies to access Claude through third-country entities, underscores the increasingly fraught environment for AI companies attempting to serve global enterprise customers while navigating U.S. export and security restrictions.</p><p>At the same time, Anthropic is investing massively in infrastructure. Reuters reported Monday that <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/terawulf-jumps-19-billion-data-center-lease-deal-with-anthropic-2026-07-06/">Anthropic signed a $19 billion, 20-year lease with TeraWulf for a data center</a> being built in Hawesville, Kentucky, with 401 megawatts of computing power expected to become fully operational in 2028.</p><p>That kind of capital commitment only makes sense if the company expects enterprise demand — not just from developers, but from the millions of knowledge workers that Cowork targets — to grow dramatically.</p><h2><b>Anthropic's own usage report comes with notable blind spots</b></h2><p>Anthropic is transparent about the limitations of its usage analysis. The taxonomy classifies sessions by the type of work being performed, not by the job title of the person doing it. </p><p>There are no standalone categories for marketing, finance, or HR — functions that are likely absorbed into the dominant "business process and operations" bucket, which may partly explain why that category commands a third of all usage.</p><p>The sample is also rate-capped rather than proportional to traffic, meaning the numbers are shares of sampled sessions, not absolute volumes. Usage during peak hours is somewhat underrepresented. And roughly 5% of sampled sessions involved personal, non-work use — hobbies, personal assistance, and companionship-style conversations — meaning the data doesn't purely reflect workplace activity.</p><p>The company also acknowledged that its labeling pipeline changed around May 11, which is why the analysis window begins on that date rather than covering a longer period.</p><h2><b>What Cowork's rise says about the future of enterprise AI</b></h2><p>Anthropic's <a href="https://claude.com/blog/cowork-web-mobile/">mobile launch</a> and usage data arrive at a moment when the enterprise AI market is shifting from proof of concept to proof of value. The question facing every company deploying AI tools is no longer whether the technology works — but whether it delivers measurable productivity gains across an organization, not just within engineering teams.</p><p>The usage data suggests that the answer, at least for Cowork, is emerging in an unexpected place. It's not in the glamorous work of building software or conducting research. It's in the unglamorous, universal labor of turning messy information into structured outputs that move organizations forward — the status reports, the onboarding checklists, the variance memos, the client decks.</p><p>By untethering that capability from the desktop and making it available on every device, Anthropic is betting that the most valuable AI agent isn't the one that writes code. It's the one that handles everything else.</p><p>
</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Intelligence is Free, Now What?  Data Systems for, of, and by Agents]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[... government of the people, by the people, for the people ...
    — Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address (1863)


The cost of AI is dropping rapidly. GPT-4-class capabilities cost roughly $30 per million tokens in early 2023; today the same runs under $1, and some providers are pushing costs bel...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3652331/ai-nachrichten/intelligence-is-free-now-what-data-systems-for-of-and-by-agents/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3652331/ai-nachrichten/intelligence-is-free-now-what-data-systems-for-of-and-by-agents/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2026 19:19:05 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🔧 AI Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<!-- twitter -->












<p>
<i>... government of the people, by the people, for the people ...</i><br>
    — Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address (1863)
</p>

<p>The cost of AI is dropping rapidly. GPT-4-class capabilities cost roughly <span class="tex2jax_ignore">$30</span> per million tokens in early 2023; today the same runs under <span class="tex2jax_ignore">$1</span>, and <a href="https://zuplo.com/learning-center/the-10x-cheaper-ai-era-api-pricing-strategy-obsolete">some providers are pushing costs below <span class="tex2jax_ignore">$0.10</span></a>. Across benchmarks, <a href="https://epochai.org/data-insights/llm-inference-price-trends">inference prices have fallen between 9x and 900x per year</a>, with a median decline near 50x. Even <a href="https://tokenmix.ai/blog/ai-pricing-trends-history">frontier models are getting dramatically cheaper</a> each generation, with open-source models following closely behind. And crucially, even if “Nobel-Prize-winning genius-level” intelligence isn’t here yet, the intelligence that suffices for the vast majority of knowledge work is here today, and getting cheaper by the month. <strong>At this rate, we are soon entering the era of virtually free intelligence</strong>—the kind that is more than enough for everyday knowledge work.</p>

<p>
<img src="https://bair.berkeley.edu/static/blog/intelligence-is-free-now-what/image6.png" alt="A cartoon database character and an AI robot agent holding hands" width="450">
</p>

<!--more-->

<p>
Disclosure: This post is a perspective led by <a href="https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~adityagp/">Aditya G. Parameswaran</a>—an Associate Professor of EECS and co-director of the EPIC Data Lab at UC Berkeley—together with his collaborators. It is part landscape survey and part perspective, and several of the research directions discussed below (including agentic speculation, structured memory, and synthesizing custom data systems from scratch) draw on the authors' own ongoing work.
</p>

<p>So, what does this new era of near-free intelligence mean for data systems? We believe three new challenges—and opportunities—stem from near-zero inference costs:</p>

<p><strong>Data Systems <em>For</em> Agents.</strong> Agents will soon become the dominant workload for data systems—with swarms of agents spun up in response to each end-user request. Given differences in characteristics between agents and humans—or applications acting on their behalf—<em>how should we redesign data systems for such agentic users?</em></p>

<p><strong>Data Systems <em>Of</em> Agents.</strong> As agents start taking on the bulk of knowledge work, a new substrate is needed for thousands of agents to manage state over long-running tasks, coordinate and reach consensus, and deal with failures. <em>What do data systems that reliably and efficiently run and manage agent swarms look like?</em></p>

<p><strong>Data Systems <em>By</em> Agents.</strong> Agents are rapidly becoming capable of synthesizing entire data systems in one go—meaning we can rebuild custom systems for each new workload. Verifying that such systems match intended behavior is a challenge. <em>What does it take to let agents synthesize data systems we can actually trust?</em></p>

<p>
<img src="https://bair.berkeley.edu/static/blog/intelligence-is-free-now-what/for-of-by-agents.png" alt="A database character and a robot agent holding up a triangle labeled 'of', 'for', and 'by'" width="500"><br>
<i>
Data Systems For, Of, and By Agents
</i>
</p>

<p>Next, we will discuss each in more detail, followed by discussing the intertwined future of data systems and agents, especially as the three challenges intersect.</p>

<h2>Data Systems For Agents</h2>

<p>An agent querying a database doesn’t behave like a person or a BI tool. It performs what we call <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.00997"><em>agentic speculation</em></a>: a high-volume, heterogeneous stream of work spanning schema introspection, columnar exploration, partial and then full query formulation. With multiple agents each exploring portions of the hypothesis space, each user request could amount to 1000s of individual SQL queries. Now, users can issue ‘high-level’ data tasks, e.g., root-cause analysis—e.g., ‘why did coffee sales in Berkeley drop this year’—or exploratory cohort analysis—e.g., ‘which user segments are most likely to churn next quarter’—each involving a combinatorial space of potential joins, aggregations, and filter combinations.</p>

<p>
<img src="https://bair.berkeley.edu/static/blog/intelligence-is-free-now-what/image5.png" alt="An agent sending many SELECT SQL queries to a database and receiving results back" width="600"><br>
<i>
Data Systems Redesigned to More Effectively Support Agentic Speculation
</i>
</p>

<p>The requests from these agents have various opportunities for optimization. For instance, on a text-to-SQL benchmark with multiple agents attempting each task, only 10-20% of the sub-plans are distinct. Thus, 80-90% of sub-queries perform duplicate work. The same experiments show task success rates significantly increasing with more agentic attempts—so the redundancy is actually helpful. But from the data system perspective it’s wasted work.</p>

<p>An agent-first data system can exploit such properties to help agents make progress faster. It can reuse results across overlapping sub-plans, drawing on ideas from decades-old literature on <a href="https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/42201.42203">multi-query optimization</a> and <a href="https://www.vldb.org/conf/2007/papers/research/p723-zukowski.pdf">shared scans</a>. Or the data system can try to <em>satisfice</em>, returning approximate answers that are good enough for agents to make progress, leveraging work from <a href="https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/253260.253291">the</a> <a href="https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2465351.2465355">AQP</a> <a href="https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1561/1900000004">literature</a>—or streaming the results of the final or intermediate operators to help agents decide if seeing the rest is necessary or helpful.</p>

<p>Another opportunity here is to rethink the query interface entirely: instead of agents issuing a single SQL query at a time, they could instead issue a batch of queries, each with its own approximation requirements. Since enumerating an exponential search space (as in the root cause or cohort analysis examples above) isn’t a good use of agentic reasoning ability, perhaps data systems should support higher-level primitives rather than requiring agents to list each SQL query explicitly. One idea here is to draw on <a href="https://docs.getdbt.com/docs/build/jinja-macros">DBT-style Jinja macros</a> to provide looping-based primitives for agents to interact with data systems.</p>

<p>
<img src="https://bair.berkeley.edu/static/blog/intelligence-is-free-now-what/image2.png" alt="A swarm of AI agents working at laptops" width="450"><br>
<i>
A Caffeinated Army of Agents Ready to Tirelessly Complete Your Data Tasks
</i>
</p>

<p>A final opportunity here is to stop thinking of data systems as passive executors of queries; data systems could be <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.13016">proactive</a>, as they possess more grounding in data and system characteristics that agents may lack a priori—they could steer agents in different directions, provide results for related queries, and also provide performance-level feedback (e.g., instead of executing an expensive query, the system could first provide the agent a latency estimate). The reason we can do this now as opposed to the past is that an agent can accept any form of textual feedback and isn’t expecting a strict SQL query result. In fact, the data system could also prepare both materialized and virtual views for an agent in advance, provided to the agent as part of context, as this may be cheaper or more effective than having an agent author or use them.</p>

<h2>Data Systems Of Agents</h2>

<p>Previously, we focused on how agents interact with data systems. Now, we consider everything else agents need to keep working: where they live, how they remember, how they coordinate with each other, and how they deal with failures of each other. This <em>agentic substrate</em> is separate from the inference stack powering raw intelligence. However, the inference stack itself is being abstracted away through APIs (e.g., from OpenAI or Anthropic), or, for open-weight models, through <a href="https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm">serving</a> <a href="https://github.com/sgl-project/sglang">frameworks</a> that hide low-level details. So far, the agentic substrate has been managed through harnesses like <a href="https://www.anthropic.com/claude-code">Claude Code</a> and <a href="https://github.com/openai/codex">Codex</a>, coupled with various mechanisms to <a href="https://mem0.ai/">store</a> and <a href="https://www.letta.com/">retrieve</a> memory.</p>

<p>First, on the memory front, the current wisdom is that <a href="https://www.amplifypartners.com/blog-posts/file-systems-for-agents">files</a> <a href="https://lsvp.com/stories/filesystemsforagents/">are all you need</a>; agents write to unstructured markdown (MD) files, which can then be searched using grep, or via embedding-based retrieval. In fact, many argue that the solution to continual learning is having agents consume a lot (e.g., an entire codebase, slack, company wikis, …) and then write their learnings into MD files, which are then retrieved selectively on demand. Indeed, file systems, bash scripting, and MD files are and will still be important for agents. However, at scale, when agents are doing the vast majority of knowledge work, this approach will no longer be effective.</p>

<p>Given limited context windows, retrieving all MD file fragments that may be relevant and stuffing it into the context will break down at some point. Even if context windows continue to grow, there are latency benefits to not put all information into context — and in many cases, e.g., when knowledge work involves interacting with large databases or code bases, it will be infeasible to serialize all relevant data into context.</p>

<p>
<img src="https://bair.berkeley.edu/static/blog/intelligence-is-free-now-what/substrate-for-agent-swarms.png" alt="A swarm of robot agents holding hands, each drawing state from a single large shared database platform below them" width="500"><br>
<i>
Data Systems As A Substrate for Multi-Agent Swarms
</i>
</p>

<p>One could use a <a href="https://mem0.ai/">knowledge</a> <a href="https://www.getzep.com/">graph</a> <a href="https://langchain-ai.github.io/langmem/">representation</a>, but knowledge graphs suffer from the same limitations as unstructured MD-based memory due to their lack of structured search. What one needs is to be able to retrieve only memory that is pertinent to the task, across multiple attributes (or facets) of interest. For example, an agent debugging a flaky test should be able to pull only the memories tagged with the relevant module, language, framework, and failure mode—rather retrieving based on keywords or embedding similarity. A separate issue is what to actually retrieve; raw agent traces with mistakes are not very useful as they will induce agents to repeat the same mistake—instead, we want the retrieved memory to be corrective.</p>

<p>We recently explored a related notion of <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.13521"><em>structured memory</em></a>, where we organize memory across various attributes, each of which could be set as <code class="language-plaintext highlighter-rouge">*</code> to indicate universal applicability, or set as a list of values to be matched. For a data agent, the dimensions could include the columns and tables, type of operation, and finally, open-ended natural-language corrective instructions. So, we could include memory that only applies to a given type of operation (e.g., ‘when performing date-time operations, use fiscal year as opposed to calendar year conventions’), or a given table (e.g., ‘column product_cleaned is preferred over column product when querying on product name’). One open question is defining an <em>application-specific structured memory</em>—or what others have called <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7467499112523804672/">world models for memory</a>. We believe this is akin to defining a schema for each application—and perhaps agents themselves can help us define and refine it over time.</p>

<p>
<img src="https://bair.berkeley.edu/static/blog/intelligence-is-free-now-what/structured-knowledge.png" alt="Diagram showing corrective knowledge stored with structured attributes (SQL keywords, tables, columns, data type) and retrieved by matching the features of a new agent query" width="100%"><br>
<i>
One Possible Way To Store and Retrieve Structured Knowledge <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.13521">[From Here]</a>
</i>
</p>

<p>Structured memory will be useful also for <a href="https://github.com/skydiscover-ai/skydiscover">evolutionary</a> <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.13131">frameworks</a> to effectively manage search spaces. Indeed, storing, structuring, and mining large volumes of single and <a href="https://sky.cs.berkeley.edu/project/mast/">multi-agent traces</a> can help future agents become much more efficient—potentially enabling effective recursive self-improvement through structured memory-based mechanisms.</p>

<p>Another challenge is to support concurrent edits to shared memory, and concurrent edits in general, when there are many agents performing transformations. While there have been some useful attempts at <a href="https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3702634.3702955">supporting</a> <a href="https://neon.com/docs/get-started/why-neon">multiversioning</a> and <a href="https://docs.turso.tech/agentfs/introduction">copy-on-write semantics</a>, it isn’t clear that such techniques will suffice when thousands of agents are attempting to edit shared state at the same time. For instance, when agents are trying various potential transactions in response to a user request, the effects of the vast majority of these transactions need to be rolled back—with only the one ‘correct’ transaction’s result persisting. Work on supporting exactly-once semantics is relevant here, as are underlying techniques based on CRDTs and operational transformation. For updates to fuzzy mechanisms such as memory, we may be able to sacrifice on consistency for perfect correctness in the interest of latency. While agents can reason about semantics to compensate or roll back their actions to eventually finalize most tasks, the primary challenge lies in the degree to which they step on each other’s toes during the process. An important failure mode to be avoided is a form of “livelock,” where incessant compensating actions prevent any meaningful progress.</p>

<p>Beyond shared state, other concerns emerge when trying to support an army of agents, including what to do when agents fail, how agents should communicate with each other (directly or through intermediate shared state), and how we should deal with straggler agents. There have been some developments in supporting durable multi-agent execution, such as <a href="https://temporal.io/solutions/ai">Temporal</a>, but it remains to be seen if such solutions will apply at scale across thousands of agents. On the topic of communication, we need mechanisms to enable agents to negotiate with each other. Imagine four developer agents attempting to reach consensus on a shared schema, with distinct but overlapping objectives. In a human setting, this would involve iterative discussion and compromise; for agentic swarms, we must define the mechanisms that allow them to converge on a design that reflects the underlying goals of their respective principals. Or if agents are all requiring access to a limited resource, again communication will be necessary. It remains to be seen if this is best done via centralized coordination, or if a decentralized approach is necessary.</p>

<h2>Data Systems By Agents</h2>

<p>Finally, if intelligence is effectively free, then we can employ this intelligence to synthesize new data systems from scratch. Indeed, in many settings, general-purpose data systems may be overkill, as they have to support every schema, query, and hardware target. Given a workload, recent work, including <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.02001">Bespoke OLAP</a> and <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.02081">GenDB</a>, has shown that one can use an agentic pipeline to synthesize a complete, workload-specific analytical engine—in minutes to a few hours, at a cost of a few dollars. The engines are disposable: when the workload shifts, one can simply regenerate them. Analogously, our work has shown that one can synthesize custom <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.24096">key-value stores</a> from scratch, targeted to the workload. In fact, modern IDEs, such as <a href="https://kiro.dev/">Kiro</a>, elevate specifications for systems development to be a first-class citizen.</p>

<p>
<img src="https://bair.berkeley.edu/static/blog/intelligence-is-free-now-what/synthesize-from-scratch.png" alt="A robot agent with a hammer and chisel carving a database character out of a block of stone" width="500"><br>
<i>
Agents Can Synthesize Custom Data Systems From Scratch
</i>
</p>

<p>The main issue, however, is that specifications are typically imperfect, and don’t cover all corner cases. Present-day agents will exploit the missing specifications to reward-hack their way to a high performance metric. In our custom key-value store work, we found that one way to alleviate this is to have auxiliary verification agents trying to generate test cases that catch the exploitation of corner cases, essentially expanding the specification. Yet another approach is to both generate a system and a proof for its correctness together, for which we have found some <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.23109">early success</a>, but more needs to be done to solidify the approach. Further, it remains to be seen what is the best way to solicit human-written specifications for a system—can this be done in an iterative, human-in-the-loop manner, as opposed to a one-shot, incomplete one. Indeed, human-written specifications are incomplete even for manually authored software, so one would expect that future agents that are more aligned will increasingly exercise better judgement when making design decisions.</p>

<p>
<img src="https://bair.berkeley.edu/static/blog/intelligence-is-free-now-what/synthesis-pipeline.png" alt="Pipeline diagram where a system builder provides a specification, planner and coder agents generate code, the code is evaluated for correctness and performance, and critic and auditor agents provide feedback and catch reward hacking" width="100%"><br>
<i>
One Possible Data System Synthesis Pipeline <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.24096">[From Here]</a>
</i>
</p>

<p>Other questions here involve testing whether starting from a mature system (e.g., Postgres) and removing components/functionality can lead to higher performance or more user trust. Separately, is there an opportunity to make the design composable, comprising various verified components that are mixed and matched given a workload? For example, perhaps the workload hasn’t changed enough for the storage layer to be updated, but perhaps the query optimizer requires changes. A perhaps more viable proposition involves employing agents coupled with proof systems to target critical parts of the code associated with formal proofs, rather than doing so for the entire system.</p>

<p>A final opportunity here is to move away from the traditional data systems stack with clearly-defined interfaces (e.g., parser, query optimizer, storage manager, …) — that were each largely the prerogative of a single human team to manage. Instead, agents can find new ways to “blend” these components together, perhaps identifying new optimization opportunities as a result. Agents can also fill in missing gaps in functionality to make existing systems much more feature-complete, or reach feature-parity with other competing systems—or analogously, continuously refining open-source systems in response to feature requests or issues (perhaps filed by other agents!) Doing so in a way that prioritizes correctness, long-term maintenance, and human interpretability will be a challenge.</p>

<h2>Looking Further Ahead</h2>

<p>In the era of near-free intelligence, data systems matter more than ever. As agents take on the bulk of knowledge work, the workload for data systems will change, the substrate they need to run on will have to be built, and increasingly, they will participate in designing data systems themselves. Each of these shifts opens up a new, exciting research agenda.</p>

<p>
<img src="https://bair.berkeley.edu/static/blog/intelligence-is-free-now-what/co-evolution.png" alt="A half-database, half-robot character next to a yin-yang symbol formed by a database and a robot agent" width="600"><br>
<i>
Co-Evolution of Data Systems and Agents
</i>
</p>

<p>Looking further out, the boundaries between agents and data systems will likely start to blur. For instance, agents may design the data systems they themselves run on, defining both the interfaces as well as the system components underneath. Both the interfaces and internals can be evolved over time by agents in a form of recursive self-improvement. There is also an opportunity to rethink data systems as a holistic source of truth for the entirety of relevant state: including raw data, memory, and coordination state, further erasing the distinctions between the data that is being queried by agents and data generated as a result of agentic activity. Finally, data systems may themselves incorporate agentic components, fundamentally evolving from passive computation engines into intelligent, proactive, self-optimizing architectures. It is hard to predict what the future may hold. We’re in for a wild ride!</p>

<h2>Acknowledgments</h2>

<p>The perspective and ongoing work described in this post are the product of joint research and many discussions with wonderful collaborators at the <a href="https://epic.berkeley.edu/">EPIC Data Lab</a>, <a href="https://dsf.berkeley.edu/">Data Systems &amp; Foundations</a> group, and the broader Berkeley AI-Systems community. Thank you all!</p>

<p>BibTex for this post:</p>
<div class="language-plaintext highlighter-rouge"><div class="highlight"><pre class="highlight"><code>@misc{intelligence-is-free-blog,
  title={Intelligence is Free, Now What? Data Systems for, of, and by Agents},
  author={Aditya G. Parameswaran and Shubham Agarwal and Kerem Akillioglu and Shreya Shankar
          and Sepanta Zeighami and Rishabh Iyer and Matei Zaharia and Alvin Cheung
          and Natacha Crooks and Joseph Gonzalez and Joseph Hellerstein and Ion Stoica},
  howpublished={\url{https://bair.berkeley.edu/blog/2026/07/07/intelligence-is-free-now-what/}},
  year={2026}
}
</code></pre></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Siemens SINEC OS]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[View CSAF
Summary
SINEC OS before V4.0 contains multiple vulnerabilities. Siemens has released a new version for RUGGEDCOM RST2428P and recommends to update to the latest version.
The following versions of Siemens SINEC OS are affected:

RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00) vers:intdot/cork. The "*...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3652271/it-security-nachrichten/siemens-sinec-os/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3652271/it-security-nachrichten/siemens-sinec-os/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2026 18:55:49 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://github.com/cisagov/CSAF/blob/develop/csaf_files/OT/white/2026/icsa-26-188-05.json"><strong>View CSAF</strong></a></p>
<h2>Summary</h2>
<p><strong>SINEC OS before V4.0 contains multiple vulnerabilities. Siemens has released a new version for RUGGEDCOM RST2428P and recommends to update to the latest version.</strong></p>
<p>The following versions of Siemens SINEC OS are affected:</p>
<ul>
<li>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00) vers:intdot/&lt;4.0 </li>
</ul>
<div class="csaf-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vendor</th>
<th role="columnheader">Equipment</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vulnerabilities</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>v3 9.8</td>
<td>Siemens</td>
<td>Siemens SINEC OS</td>
<td>Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer, Improper Resource Shutdown or Release, Integer Overflow or Wraparound, Stack-based Buffer Overflow, Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal'), Uncontrolled Recursion, Out-of-bounds Read, Covert Timing Channel, Improper Input Validation, Improperly Controlled Modification of Object Prototype Attributes ('Prototype Pollution'), Improper Update of Reference Count, Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization ('Race Condition'), Multiple Releases of Same Resource or Handle, Permissive Regular Expression, Expired Pointer Dereference, Incorrect Bitwise Shift of Integer, Out-of-bounds Write, User Interface (UI) Misrepresentation of Critical Information, Improper Access Control, Insertion of Sensitive Information Into Sent Data, Inefficient Algorithmic Complexity, Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting'), Authentication Bypass by Primary Weakness, NULL Pointer Dereference, Active Debug Code, Loop with Unreachable Exit Condition ('Infinite Loop'), Missing Synchronization, External Control of File Name or Path, Privilege Dropping / Lowering Errors, Use of Web Browser Cache Containing Sensitive Information</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<h3>Background</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Critical Infrastructure Sectors: </strong>Critical Manufacturing, Transportation Systems, Energy, Healthcare and Public Health, Financial Services, Government Services and Facilities</li>
<li><strong>Countries/Areas Deployed: </strong>Worldwide</li>
<li><strong>Company Headquarters Location: </strong>Germany</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Vulnerabilities</h2>
<div class="csaf-accordion">
<p><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle-all" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">Expand All +</a></p>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-1352</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>A vulnerability has been found in GNU elfutils 0.192 and classified as critical. This vulnerability affects the function __libdw_thread_tail in the library libdw_alloc.c of the component eu-readelf. The manipulation of the argument w leads to memory corruption. The attack can be initiated remotely. The complexity of an attack is rather high. The exploitation appears to be difficult. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The name of the patch is 2636426a091bd6c6f7f02e49ab20d4cdc6bfc753. It is recommended to apply a patch to fix this issue.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-1352">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/119.html">CWE-119 Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-1376</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>A vulnerability classified as problematic was found in GNU elfutils 0.192. This vulnerability affects the function elf_strptr in the library /libelf/elf_strptr.c of the component eu-strip. The manipulation leads to denial of service. It is possible to launch the attack on the local host. The complexity of an attack is rather high. The exploitation appears to be difficult. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The name of the patch is b16f441cca0a4841050e3215a9f120a6d8aea918. It is recommended to apply a patch to fix this issue.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-1376">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/404.html">CWE-404 Improper Resource Shutdown or Release</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>2.5</td>
<td>LOW</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-6052</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>A flaw was found in how GLib’s GString manages memory when adding data to strings. If a string is already very large, combining it with more input can cause a hidden overflow in the size calculation. This makes the system think it has enough memory when it doesn’t. As a result, data may be written past the end of the allocated memory, leading to crashes or memory corruption.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-6052">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/190.html">CWE-190 Integer Overflow or Wraparound</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>3.7</td>
<td>LOW</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-6141</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>A vulnerability has been found in GNU ncurses up to 6.5-20250322 and classified as problematic. This vulnerability affects the function postprocess_termcap of the file tinfo/parse_entry.c. The manipulation leads to stack-based buffer overflow. The attack needs to be approached locally. Upgrading to version 6.5-20250329 is able to address this issue. It is recommended to upgrade the affected component.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-6141">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/121.html">CWE-121 Stack-based Buffer Overflow</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>3.3</td>
<td>LOW</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-6170</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>A flaw was found in the interactive shell of the xmllint command-line tool, used for parsing XML files. When a user inputs an overly long command, the program does not check the input size properly, which can cause it to crash. This issue might allow attackers to run harmful code in rare configurations without modern protections.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-6170">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/121.html">CWE-121 Stack-based Buffer Overflow</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>2.5</td>
<td>LOW</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-7039</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>A flaw was found in glib. An integer overflow during temporary file creation leads to an out-of-bounds memory access, allowing an attacker to potentially perform path traversal or access private temporary file content by creating symbolic links. This vulnerability allows a local attacker to manipulate file paths and access unauthorized data. The core issue stems from insufficient validation of file path lengths during temporary file operations.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-7039">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/22.html">CWE-22 Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>3.7</td>
<td>LOW</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-8732</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>A vulnerability was found in libxml2 up to 2.14.5. It has been declared as problematic. This vulnerability affects the function xmlParseSGMLCatalog of the component xmlcatalog. The manipulation leads to uncontrolled recursion. Attacking locally is a requirement. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The real existence of this vulnerability is still doubted at the moment. The code maintainer explains, that "[t]he issue can only be triggered with untrusted SGML catalogs and it makes absolutely no sense to use untrusted catalogs. I also doubt that anyone is still using SGML catalogs at all."</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-8732">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/674.html">CWE-674 Uncontrolled Recursion</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>3.3</td>
<td>LOW</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-9086</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>1. A cookie is set using the `secure` keyword for `https://target` 2. curl is redirected to or otherwise made to speak with `http://target` (same hostname, but using clear text HTTP) using the same cookie set 3. The same cookie name is set - but with just a slash as path (`path=\"/\",`). Since this site is not secure, the cookie *should* just be ignored. 4. A bug in the path comparison logic makes curl read outside a heap buffer boundary The bug either causes a crash or it potentially makes the comparison come to the wrong conclusion and lets the clear-text site override the contents of the secure cookie, contrary to expectations and depending on the memory contents immediately following the single-byte allocation that holds the path. The presumed and correct behavior would be to plainly ignore the second set of the cookie since it was already set as secure on a secure host so overriding it on an insecure host should not be okay.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-9086">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/125.html">CWE-125 Out-of-bounds Read</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7.5</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-9230</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>Issue summary: An application trying to decrypt CMS messages encrypted using password based encryption can trigger an out-of-bounds read and write. Impact summary: This out-of-bounds read may trigger a crash which leads to Denial of Service for an application. The out-of-bounds write can cause a memory corruption which can have various consequences including a Denial of Service or Execution of attacker-supplied code. Although the consequences of a successful exploit of this vulnerability could be severe, the probability that the attacker would be able to perform it is low. Besides, password based (PWRI) encryption support in CMS messages is very rarely used. For that reason the issue was assessed as Moderate severity according to our Security Policy. The FIPS modules in 3.5, 3.4, 3.3, 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue, as the CMS implementation is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-9230">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/125.html">CWE-125 Out-of-bounds Read</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7.5</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-9231</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>Issue summary: A timing side-channel which could potentially allow remote recovery of the private key exists in the SM2 algorithm implementation on 64 bit ARM platforms. Impact summary: A timing side-channel in SM2 signature computations on 64 bit ARM platforms could allow recovering the private key by an attacker.. While remote key recovery over a network was not attempted by the reporter, timing measurements revealed a timing signal which may allow such an attack. OpenSSL does not directly support certificates with SM2 keys in TLS, and so this CVE is not relevant in most TLS contexts. However, given that it is possible to add support for such certificates via a custom provider, coupled with the fact that in such a custom provider context the private key may be recoverable via remote timing measurements, we consider this to be a Moderate severity issue. The FIPS modules in 3.5, 3.4, 3.3, 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue, as SM2 is not an approved algorithm.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-9231">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/385.html">CWE-385 Covert Timing Channel</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>6.5</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-9232</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>Issue summary: An application using the OpenSSL HTTP client API functions may trigger an out-of-bounds read if the 'no_proxy' environment variable is set and the host portion of the authority component of the HTTP URL is an IPv6 address. Impact summary: An out-of-bounds read can trigger a crash which leads to Denial of Service for an application. The OpenSSL HTTP client API functions can be used directly by applications but they are also used by the OCSP client functions and CMP (Certificate Management Protocol) client implementation in OpenSSL. However the URLs used by these implementations are unlikely to be controlled by an attacker. In this vulnerable code the out of bounds read can only trigger a crash. Furthermore the vulnerability requires an attacker-controlled URL to be passed from an application to the OpenSSL function and the user has to have a 'no_proxy' environment variable set. For the aforementioned reasons the issue was assessed as Low severity. The vulnerable code was introduced in the following patch releases: 3.0.16, 3.1.8, 3.2.4, 3.3.3, 3.4.0 and 3.5.0. The FIPS modules in 3.5, 3.4, 3.3, 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue, as the HTTP client implementation is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-9232">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/125.html">CWE-125 Out-of-bounds Read</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>5.9</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-10966</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>curl's code for managing SSH connections when SFTP was done using the wolfSSH powered backend was flawed and missed host verification mechanisms. This prevents curl from detecting MITM attackers and more.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-10966">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/20.html">CWE-20 Improper Input Validation</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>4.3</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-13465</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>Lodash versions 4.0.0 through 4.17.22 are vulnerable to prototype pollution in the _.unset and _.omit functions. An attacker can pass crafted paths which cause Lodash to delete methods from global prototypes. The issue permits deletion of properties but does not allow overwriting their original behavior. This issue is patched on 4.17.23</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-13465">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/1321.html">CWE-1321 Improperly Controlled Modification of Object Prototype Attributes ('Prototype Pollution')</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7.2</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:L">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:L</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-13601</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>A heap-based buffer overflow problem was found in glib through an incorrect calculation of buffer size in the g_escape_uri_string() function. If the string to escape contains a very large number of unacceptable characters (which would need escaping), the calculation of the length of the escaped string could overflow, leading to a potential write off the end of the newly allocated string.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-13601">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/190.html">CWE-190 Integer Overflow or Wraparound</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7.7</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-39913</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: tcp_bpf: Call sk_msg_free() when tcp_bpf_send_verdict() fails to allocate psock-&gt;cork. syzbot reported the splat below. [0] The repro does the following: 1. Load a sk_msg prog that calls bpf_msg_cork_bytes(msg, cork_bytes) 2. Attach the prog to a SOCKMAP 3. Add a socket to the SOCKMAP 4. Activate fault injection 5. Send data less than cork_bytes At 5., the data is carried over to the next sendmsg() as it is smaller than the cork_bytes specified by bpf_msg_cork_bytes(). Then, tcp_bpf_send_verdict() tries to allocate psock-&gt;cork to hold the data, but this fails silently due to fault injection + __GFP_NOWARN. If the allocation fails, we need to revert the sk-&gt;sk_forward_alloc change done by sk_msg_alloc(). Let's call sk_msg_free() when tcp_bpf_send_verdict fails to allocate psock-&gt;cork. The "*copied" also needs to be updated such that a proper error can be returned to the caller, sendmsg. It fails to allocate psock-&gt;cork. Nothing has been corked so far, so this patch simply sets "*copied" to 0. [0]: WARNING: net/ipv4/af_inet.c:156 at inet_sock_destruct+0x623/0x730 net/ipv4/af_inet.c:156, CPU#1: syz-executor/5983 Modules linked in: CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 5983 Comm: syz-executor Not tainted syzkaller #0 PREEMPT(full) Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 07/12/2025 RIP: 0010:inet_sock_destruct+0x623/0x730 net/ipv4/af_inet.c:156 Code: 0f 0b 90 e9 62 fe ff ff e8 7a db b5 f7 90 0f 0b 90 e9 95 fe ff ff e8 6c db b5 f7 90 0f 0b 90 e9 bb fe ff ff e8 5e db b5 f7 90 &lt;0f&gt; 0b 90 e9 e1 fe ff ff 89 f9 80 e1 07 80 c1 03 38 c1 0f 8c 9f fc RSP: 0018:ffffc90000a08b48 EFLAGS: 00010246 RAX: ffffffff8a09d0b2 RBX: dffffc0000000000 RCX: ffff888024a23c80 RDX: 0000000000000100 RSI: 0000000000000fff RDI: 0000000000000000 RBP: 0000000000000fff R08: ffff88807e07c627 R09: 1ffff1100fc0f8c4 R10: dffffc0000000000 R11: ffffed100fc0f8c5 R12: ffff88807e07c380 R13: dffffc0000000000 R14: ffff88807e07c60c R15: 1ffff1100fc0f872 FS: 00005555604c4500(0000) GS:ffff888125af1000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00005555604df5c8 CR3: 0000000032b06000 CR4: 00000000003526f0 Call Trace: __sk_destruct+0x86/0x660 net/core/sock.c:2339 rcu_do_batch kernel/rcu/tree.c:2605 [inline] rcu_core+0xca8/0x1770 kernel/rcu/tree.c:2861 handle_softirqs+0x286/0x870 kernel/softirq.c:579 __do_softirq kernel/softirq.c:613 [inline] invoke_softirq kernel/softirq.c:453 [inline] __irq_exit_rcu+0xca/0x1f0 kernel/softirq.c:680 irq_exit_rcu+0x9/0x30 kernel/softirq.c:696 instr_sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c:1052 [inline] sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0xa6/0xc0 arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c:1052</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-39913">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/20.html">CWE-20 Improper Input Validation</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>5.5</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-40214</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: af_unix: Initialise scc_index in unix_add_edge(). Quang Le reported that the AF_UNIX GC could garbage-collect a receive queue of an alive in-flight socket, with a nice repro. The repro consists of three stages. 1) 1-a. Create a single cyclic reference with many sockets 1-b. close() all sockets 1-c. Trigger GC 2) 2-a. Pass sk-A to an embryo sk-B 2-b. Pass sk-X to sk-X 2-c. Trigger GC 3) 3-a. accept() the embryo sk-B 3-b. Pass sk-B to sk-C 3-c. close() the in-flight sk-A 3-d. Trigger GC As of 2-c, sk-A and sk-X are linked to unix_unvisited_vertices, and unix_walk_scc() groups them into two different SCCs: unix_sk(sk-A)-&gt;vertex-&gt;scc_index = 2 (UNIX_VERTEX_INDEX_START) unix_sk(sk-X)-&gt;vertex-&gt;scc_index = 3 Once GC completes, unix_graph_grouped is set to true. Also, unix_graph_maybe_cyclic is set to true due to sk-X's cyclic self-reference, which makes close() trigger GC. At 3-b, unix_add_edge() allocates unix_sk(sk-B)-&gt;vertex and links it to unix_unvisited_vertices. unix_update_graph() is called at 3-a. and 3-b., but neither unix_graph_grouped nor unix_graph_maybe_cyclic is changed because both sk-B's listener and sk-C are not in-flight. 3-c decrements sk-A's file refcnt to 1. Since unix_graph_grouped is true at 3-d, unix_walk_scc_fast() is finally called and iterates 3 sockets sk-A, sk-B, and sk-X: sk-A -&gt; sk-B (-&gt; sk-C) sk-X -&gt; sk-X This is totally fine. All of them are not yet close()d and should be grouped into different SCCs. However, unix_vertex_dead() misjudges that sk-A and sk-B are in the same SCC and sk-A is dead. unix_sk(sk-A)-&gt;scc_index == unix_sk(sk-B)-&gt;scc_index &lt;-- Wrong! &amp;&amp; sk-A's file refcnt == unix_sk(sk-A)-&gt;vertex-&gt;out_degree ^-- 1 in-flight count for sk-B -&gt; sk-A is dead !? The problem is that unix_add_edge() does not initialise scc_index. Stage 1) is used for heap spraying, making a newly allocated vertex have vertex-&gt;scc_index == 2 (UNIX_VERTEX_INDEX_START) set by unix_walk_scc() at 1-c. Let's track the max SCC index from the previous unix_walk_scc() call and assign the max + 1 to a new vertex's scc_index. This way, we can continue to avoid Tarjan's algorithm while preventing misjudgments.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-40214">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/20.html">CWE-20 Improper Input Validation</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-40248</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: vsock: Ignore signal/timeout on connect() if already established During connect(), acting on a signal/timeout by disconnecting an already established socket leads to several issues: 1. connect() invoking vsock_transport_cancel_pkt() -&gt; virtio_transport_purge_skbs() may race with sendmsg() invoking virtio_transport_get_credit(). This results in a permanently elevated `vvs-&gt;bytes_unsent`. Which, in turn, confuses the SOCK_LINGER handling. 2. connect() resetting a connected socket's state may race with socket being placed in a sockmap. A disconnected socket remaining in a sockmap breaks sockmap's assumptions. And gives rise to WARNs. 3. connect() transitioning SS_CONNECTED -&gt; SS_UNCONNECTED allows for a transport change/drop after TCP_ESTABLISHED. Which poses a problem for any simultaneous sendmsg() or connect() and may result in a use-after-free/null-ptr-deref. Do not disconnect socket on signal/timeout. Keep the logic for unconnected sockets: they don't linger, can't be placed in a sockmap, are rejected by sendmsg().</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-40248">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/20.html">CWE-20 Improper Input Validation</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-40250</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/mlx5: Clean up only new IRQ glue on request_irq() failure The mlx5_irq_alloc() function can inadvertently free the entire rmap and end up in a crash[1] when the other threads tries to access this, when request_irq() fails due to exhausted IRQ vectors. This commit modifies the cleanup to remove only the specific IRQ mapping that was just added. This prevents removal of other valid mappings and ensures precise cleanup of the failed IRQ allocation's associated glue object. Note: This error is observed when both fwctl and rds configs are enabled. [1] mlx5_core 0000:05:00.0: Successfully registered panic handler for port 1 mlx5_core 0000:05:00.0: mlx5_irq_alloc:293:(pid 66740): Failed to request irq. err = -28 infiniband mlx5_0: mlx5_ib_test_wc:290:(pid 66740): Error -28 while trying to test write-combining support mlx5_core 0000:05:00.0: Successfully unregistered panic handler for port 1 mlx5_core 0000:06:00.0: Successfully registered panic handler for port 1 mlx5_core 0000:06:00.0: mlx5_irq_alloc:293:(pid 66740): Failed to request irq. err = -28 infiniband mlx5_0: mlx5_ib_test_wc:290:(pid 66740): Error -28 while trying to test write-combining support mlx5_core 0000:06:00.0: Successfully unregistered panic handler for port 1 mlx5_core 0000:03:00.0: mlx5_irq_alloc:293:(pid 28895): Failed to request irq. err = -28 mlx5_core 0000:05:00.0: mlx5_irq_alloc:293:(pid 28895): Failed to request irq. err = -28 general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0xe277a58fde16f291: 0000 [#1] SMP NOPTI RIP: 0010:free_irq_cpu_rmap+0x23/0x7d Call Trace: ? show_trace_log_lvl+0x1d6/0x2f9 ? show_trace_log_lvl+0x1d6/0x2f9 ? mlx5_irq_alloc.cold+0x5d/0xf3 [mlx5_core] ? __die_body.cold+0x8/0xa ? die_addr+0x39/0x53 ? exc_general_protection+0x1c4/0x3e9 ? dev_vprintk_emit+0x5f/0x90 ? asm_exc_general_protection+0x22/0x27 ? free_irq_cpu_rmap+0x23/0x7d mlx5_irq_alloc.cold+0x5d/0xf3 [mlx5_core] irq_pool_request_vector+0x7d/0x90 [mlx5_core] mlx5_irq_request+0x2e/0xe0 [mlx5_core] mlx5_irq_request_vector+0xad/0xf7 [mlx5_core] comp_irq_request_pci+0x64/0xf0 [mlx5_core] create_comp_eq+0x71/0x385 [mlx5_core] ? mlx5e_open_xdpsq+0x11c/0x230 [mlx5_core] mlx5_comp_eqn_get+0x72/0x90 [mlx5_core] ? xas_load+0x8/0x91 mlx5_comp_irqn_get+0x40/0x90 [mlx5_core] mlx5e_open_channel+0x7d/0x3c7 [mlx5_core] mlx5e_open_channels+0xad/0x250 [mlx5_core] mlx5e_open_locked+0x3e/0x110 [mlx5_core] mlx5e_open+0x23/0x70 [mlx5_core] __dev_open+0xf1/0x1a5 __dev_change_flags+0x1e1/0x249 dev_change_flags+0x21/0x5c do_setlink+0x28b/0xcc4 ? __nla_parse+0x22/0x3d ? inet6_validate_link_af+0x6b/0x108 ? cpumask_next+0x1f/0x35 ? __snmp6_fill_stats64.constprop.0+0x66/0x107 ? __nla_validate_parse+0x48/0x1e6 __rtnl_newlink+0x5ff/0xa57 ? kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x164/0x2ce rtnl_newlink+0x44/0x6e rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x2bb/0x362 ? __netlink_sendskb+0x4c/0x6c ? netlink_unicast+0x28f/0x2ce ? rtnl_calcit.isra.0+0x150/0x146 netlink_rcv_skb+0x5f/0x112 netlink_unicast+0x213/0x2ce netlink_sendmsg+0x24f/0x4d9 __sock_sendmsg+0x65/0x6a ____sys_sendmsg+0x28f/0x2c9 ? import_iovec+0x17/0x2b ___sys_sendmsg+0x97/0xe0 __sys_sendmsg+0x81/0xd8 do_syscall_64+0x35/0x87 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x6e/0x0 RIP: 0033:0x7fc328603727 Code: c3 66 90 41 54 41 89 d4 55 48 89 f5 53 89 fb 48 83 ec 10 e8 0b ed ff ff 44 89 e2 48 89 ee 89 df 41 89 c0 b8 2e 00 00 00 0f 05 &lt;48&gt; 3d 00 f0 ff ff 77 35 44 89 c7 48 89 44 24 08 e8 44 ed ff ff 48 RSP: 002b:00007ffe8eb3f1a0 EFLAGS: 00000293 ORIG_RAX: 000000000000002e RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 000000000000000d RCX: 00007fc328603727 RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 00007ffe8eb3f1f0 RDI: 000000000000000d RBP: 00007ffe8eb3f1f0 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000000 R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000293 R12: 0000000000000000 R13: 00000000000 ---truncated---</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-40250">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/20.html">CWE-20 Improper Input Validation</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>5.5</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-40251</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: devlink: rate: Unset parent pointer in devl_rate_nodes_destroy The function devl_rate_nodes_destroy is documented to "Unset parent for all rate objects". However, it was only calling the driver-specific `rate_leaf_parent_set` or `rate_node_parent_set` ops and decrementing the parent's refcount, without actually setting the `devlink_rate-&gt;parent` pointer to NULL. This leaves a dangling pointer in the `devlink_rate` struct, which cause refcount error in netdevsim[1] and mlx5[2]. In addition, this is inconsistent with the behavior of `devlink_nl_rate_parent_node_set`, where the parent pointer is correctly cleared. This patch fixes the issue by explicitly setting `devlink_rate-&gt;parent` to NULL after notifying the driver, thus fulfilling the function's documented behavior for all rate objects. [1] repro steps: echo 1 &gt; /sys/bus/netdevsim/new_device devlink dev eswitch set netdevsim/netdevsim1 mode switchdev echo 1 &gt; /sys/bus/netdevsim/devices/netdevsim1/sriov_numvfs devlink port function rate add netdevsim/netdevsim1/test_node devlink port function rate set netdevsim/netdevsim1/128 parent test_node echo 1 &gt; /sys/bus/netdevsim/del_device dmesg: refcount_t: decrement hit 0; leaking memory. WARNING: CPU: 8 PID: 1530 at lib/refcount.c:31 refcount_warn_saturate+0x42/0xe0 CPU: 8 UID: 0 PID: 1530 Comm: bash Not tainted 6.18.0-rc4+ #1 NONE Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS rel-1.16.0-0-gd239552ce722-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014 RIP: 0010:refcount_warn_saturate+0x42/0xe0 Call Trace: devl_rate_leaf_destroy+0x8d/0x90 __nsim_dev_port_del+0x6c/0x70 [netdevsim] nsim_dev_reload_destroy+0x11c/0x140 [netdevsim] nsim_drv_remove+0x2b/0xb0 [netdevsim] device_release_driver_internal+0x194/0x1f0 bus_remove_device+0xc6/0x130 device_del+0x159/0x3c0 device_unregister+0x1a/0x60 del_device_store+0x111/0x170 [netdevsim] kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x12e/0x1e0 vfs_write+0x215/0x3d0 ksys_write+0x5f/0xd0 do_syscall_64+0x55/0x10f0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x4b/0x53 [2] devlink dev eswitch set pci/0000:08:00.0 mode switchdev devlink port add pci/0000:08:00.0 flavour pcisf pfnum 0 sfnum 1000 devlink port function rate add pci/0000:08:00.0/group1 devlink port function rate set pci/0000:08:00.0/32768 parent group1 modprobe -r mlx5_ib mlx5_fwctl mlx5_core dmesg: refcount_t: decrement hit 0; leaking memory. WARNING: CPU: 7 PID: 16151 at lib/refcount.c:31 refcount_warn_saturate+0x42/0xe0 CPU: 7 UID: 0 PID: 16151 Comm: bash Not tainted 6.17.0-rc7_for_upstream_min_debug_2025_10_02_12_44 #1 NONE Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS rel-1.16.3-0-ga6ed6b701f0a-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014 RIP: 0010:refcount_warn_saturate+0x42/0xe0 Call Trace: devl_rate_leaf_destroy+0x8d/0x90 mlx5_esw_offloads_devlink_port_unregister+0x33/0x60 [mlx5_core] mlx5_esw_offloads_unload_rep+0x3f/0x50 [mlx5_core] mlx5_eswitch_unload_sf_vport+0x40/0x90 [mlx5_core] mlx5_sf_esw_event+0xc4/0x120 [mlx5_core] notifier_call_chain+0x33/0xa0 blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x3b/0x50 mlx5_eswitch_disable_locked+0x50/0x110 [mlx5_core] mlx5_eswitch_disable+0x63/0x90 [mlx5_core] mlx5_unload+0x1d/0x170 [mlx5_core] mlx5_uninit_one+0xa2/0x130 [mlx5_core] remove_one+0x78/0xd0 [mlx5_core] pci_device_remove+0x39/0xa0 device_release_driver_internal+0x194/0x1f0 unbind_store+0x99/0xa0 kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x12e/0x1e0 vfs_write+0x215/0x3d0 ksys_write+0x5f/0xd0 do_syscall_64+0x53/0x1f0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x4b/0x53</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-40251">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/911.html">CWE-911 Improper Update of Reference Count</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7.1</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-40252</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net: qlogic/qede: fix potential out-of-bounds read in qede_tpa_cont() and qede_tpa_end() The loops in 'qede_tpa_cont()' and 'qede_tpa_end()', iterate over 'cqe-&gt;len_list[]' using only a zero-length terminator as the stopping condition. If the terminator was missing or malformed, the loop could run past the end of the fixed-size array. Add an explicit bound check using ARRAY_SIZE() in both loops to prevent a potential out-of-bounds access. Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with SVACE.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-40252">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/20.html">CWE-20 Improper Input Validation</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-40254</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net: openvswitch: remove never-working support for setting nsh fields The validation of the set(nsh(...)) action is completely wrong. It runs through the nsh_key_put_from_nlattr() function that is the same function that validates NSH keys for the flow match and the push_nsh() action. However, the set(nsh(...)) has a very different memory layout. Nested attributes in there are doubled in size in case of the masked set(). That makes proper validation impossible. There is also confusion in the code between the 'masked' flag, that says that the nested attributes are doubled in size containing both the value and the mask, and the 'is_mask' that says that the value we're parsing is the mask. This is causing kernel crash on trying to write into mask part of the match with SW_FLOW_KEY_PUT() during validation, while validate_nsh() doesn't allocate any memory for it: BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 0000000000000018 #PF: supervisor read access in kernel mode #PF: error_code(0x0000) - not-present page PGD 1c2383067 P4D 1c2383067 PUD 20b703067 PMD 0 Oops: Oops: 0000 [#1] SMP NOPTI CPU: 8 UID: 0 Kdump: loaded Not tainted 6.17.0-rc4+ #107 PREEMPT(voluntary) RIP: 0010:nsh_key_put_from_nlattr+0x19d/0x610 [openvswitch] Call Trace: validate_nsh+0x60/0x90 [openvswitch] validate_set.constprop.0+0x270/0x3c0 [openvswitch] __ovs_nla_copy_actions+0x477/0x860 [openvswitch] ovs_nla_copy_actions+0x8d/0x100 [openvswitch] ovs_packet_cmd_execute+0x1cc/0x310 [openvswitch] genl_family_rcv_msg_doit+0xdb/0x130 genl_family_rcv_msg+0x14b/0x220 genl_rcv_msg+0x47/0xa0 netlink_rcv_skb+0x53/0x100 genl_rcv+0x24/0x40 netlink_unicast+0x280/0x3b0 netlink_sendmsg+0x1f7/0x430 ____sys_sendmsg+0x36b/0x3a0 ___sys_sendmsg+0x87/0xd0 __sys_sendmsg+0x6d/0xd0 do_syscall_64+0x7b/0x2c0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e The third issue with this process is that while trying to convert the non-masked set into masked one, validate_set() copies and doubles the size of the OVS_KEY_ATTR_NSH as if it didn't have any nested attributes. It should be copying each nested attribute and doubling them in size independently. And the process must be properly reversed during the conversion back from masked to a non-masked variant during the flow dump. In the end, the only two outcomes of trying to use this action are either validation failure or a kernel crash. And if somehow someone manages to install a flow with such an action, it will most definitely not do what it is supposed to, since all the keys and the masks are mixed up. Fixing all the issues is a complex task as it requires re-writing most of the validation code. Given that and the fact that this functionality never worked since introduction, let's just remove it altogether. It's better to re-introduce it later with a proper implementation instead of trying to fix it in stable releases.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-40254">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/20.html">CWE-20 Improper Input Validation</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-40257</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mptcp: fix a race in mptcp_pm_del_add_timer() mptcp_pm_del_add_timer() can call sk_stop_timer_sync(sk, &amp;entry-&gt;add_timer) while another might have free entry already, as reported by syzbot. Add RCU protection to fix this issue. Also change confusing add_timer variable with stop_timer boolean. syzbot report: BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in __timer_delete_sync+0x372/0x3f0 kernel/time/timer.c:1616 Read of size 4 at addr ffff8880311e4150 by task kworker/1:1/44 CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 44 Comm: kworker/1:1 Not tainted syzkaller #0 PREEMPT_{RT,(full)} Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 10/02/2025 Workqueue: events mptcp_worker Call Trace: dump_stack_lvl+0x189/0x250 lib/dump_stack.c:120 print_address_description mm/kasan/report.c:378 [inline] print_report+0xca/0x240 mm/kasan/report.c:482 kasan_report+0x118/0x150 mm/kasan/report.c:595 __timer_delete_sync+0x372/0x3f0 kernel/time/timer.c:1616 sk_stop_timer_sync+0x1b/0x90 net/core/sock.c:3631 mptcp_pm_del_add_timer+0x283/0x310 net/mptcp/pm.c:362 mptcp_incoming_options+0x1357/0x1f60 net/mptcp/options.c:1174 tcp_data_queue+0xca/0x6450 net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:5361 tcp_rcv_established+0x1335/0x2670 net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:6441 tcp_v4_do_rcv+0x98b/0xbf0 net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c:1931 tcp_v4_rcv+0x252a/0x2dc0 net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c:2374 ip_protocol_deliver_rcu+0x221/0x440 net/ipv4/ip_input.c:205 ip_local_deliver_finish+0x3bb/0x6f0 net/ipv4/ip_input.c:239 NF_HOOK+0x30c/0x3a0 include/linux/netfilter.h:318 NF_HOOK+0x30c/0x3a0 include/linux/netfilter.h:318 __netif_receive_skb_one_core net/core/dev.c:6079 [inline] __netif_receive_skb+0x143/0x380 net/core/dev.c:6192 process_backlog+0x31e/0x900 net/core/dev.c:6544 __napi_poll+0xb6/0x540 net/core/dev.c:7594 napi_poll net/core/dev.c:7657 [inline] net_rx_action+0x5f7/0xda0 net/core/dev.c:7784 handle_softirqs+0x22f/0x710 kernel/softirq.c:622 __do_softirq kernel/softirq.c:656 [inline] __local_bh_enable_ip+0x1a0/0x2e0 kernel/softirq.c:302 mptcp_pm_send_ack net/mptcp/pm.c:210 [inline] mptcp_pm_addr_send_ack+0x41f/0x500 net/mptcp/pm.c:-1 mptcp_pm_worker+0x174/0x320 net/mptcp/pm.c:1002 mptcp_worker+0xd5/0x1170 net/mptcp/protocol.c:2762 process_one_work kernel/workqueue.c:3263 [inline] process_scheduled_works+0xae1/0x17b0 kernel/workqueue.c:3346 worker_thread+0x8a0/0xda0 kernel/workqueue.c:3427 kthread+0x711/0x8a0 kernel/kthread.c:463 ret_from_fork+0x4bc/0x870 arch/x86/kernel/process.c:158 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:245 Allocated by task 44: kasan_save_stack mm/kasan/common.c:56 [inline] kasan_save_track+0x3e/0x80 mm/kasan/common.c:77 poison_kmalloc_redzone mm/kasan/common.c:400 [inline] __kasan_kmalloc+0x93/0xb0 mm/kasan/common.c:417 kasan_kmalloc include/linux/kasan.h:262 [inline] __kmalloc_cache_noprof+0x1ef/0x6c0 mm/slub.c:5748 kmalloc_noprof include/linux/slab.h:957 [inline] mptcp_pm_alloc_anno_list+0x104/0x460 net/mptcp/pm.c:385 mptcp_pm_create_subflow_or_signal_addr+0xf9d/0x1360 net/mptcp/pm_kernel.c:355 mptcp_pm_nl_fully_established net/mptcp/pm_kernel.c:409 [inline] __mptcp_pm_kernel_worker+0x417/0x1ef0 net/mptcp/pm_kernel.c:1529 mptcp_pm_worker+0x1ee/0x320 net/mptcp/pm.c:1008 mptcp_worker+0xd5/0x1170 net/mptcp/protocol.c:2762 process_one_work kernel/workqueue.c:3263 [inline] process_scheduled_works+0xae1/0x17b0 kernel/workqueue.c:3346 worker_thread+0x8a0/0xda0 kernel/workqueue.c:3427 kthread+0x711/0x8a0 kernel/kthread.c:463 ret_from_fork+0x4bc/0x870 arch/x86/kernel/process.c:158 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:245 Freed by task 6630: kasan_save_stack mm/kasan/common.c:56 [inline] kasan_save_track+0x3e/0x80 mm/kasan/common.c:77 __kasan_save_free_info+0x46/0x50 mm/kasan/generic.c:587 kasan_save_free_info mm/kasan/kasan.h:406 [inline] poison_slab_object m ---truncated---</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-40257">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/20.html">CWE-20 Improper Input Validation</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>5.5</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-40258</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mptcp: fix race condition in mptcp_schedule_work() syzbot reported use-after-free in mptcp_schedule_work() [1] Issue here is that mptcp_schedule_work() schedules a work, then gets a refcount on sk-&gt;sk_refcnt if the work was scheduled. This refcount will be released by mptcp_worker(). [A] if (schedule_work(...)) { [B] sock_hold(sk); return true; } Problem is that mptcp_worker() can run immediately and complete before [B] We need instead : sock_hold(sk); if (schedule_work(...)) return true; sock_put(sk); [1] refcount_t: addition on 0; use-after-free. WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 29 at lib/refcount.c:25 refcount_warn_saturate+0xfa/0x1d0 lib/refcount.c:25 Call Trace: __refcount_add include/linux/refcount.h:-1 [inline] __refcount_inc include/linux/refcount.h:366 [inline] refcount_inc include/linux/refcount.h:383 [inline] sock_hold include/net/sock.h:816 [inline] mptcp_schedule_work+0x164/0x1a0 net/mptcp/protocol.c:943 mptcp_tout_timer+0x21/0xa0 net/mptcp/protocol.c:2316 call_timer_fn+0x17e/0x5f0 kernel/time/timer.c:1747 expire_timers kernel/time/timer.c:1798 [inline] __run_timers kernel/time/timer.c:2372 [inline] __run_timer_base+0x648/0x970 kernel/time/timer.c:2384 run_timer_base kernel/time/timer.c:2393 [inline] run_timer_softirq+0xb7/0x180 kernel/time/timer.c:2403 handle_softirqs+0x22f/0x710 kernel/softirq.c:622 __do_softirq kernel/softirq.c:656 [inline] run_ktimerd+0xcf/0x190 kernel/softirq.c:1138 smpboot_thread_fn+0x542/0xa60 kernel/smpboot.c:160 kthread+0x711/0x8a0 kernel/kthread.c:463 ret_from_fork+0x4bc/0x870 arch/x86/kernel/process.c:158 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:245</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-40258">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/362.html">CWE-362 Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization ('Race Condition')</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7.8</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-40261</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: nvme: nvme-fc: Ensure -&gt;ioerr_work is cancelled in nvme_fc_delete_ctrl() nvme_fc_delete_assocation() waits for pending I/O to complete before returning, and an error can cause -&gt;ioerr_work to be queued after cancel_work_sync() had been called. Move the call to cancel_work_sync() to be after nvme_fc_delete_association() to ensure -&gt;ioerr_work is not running when the nvme_fc_ctrl object is freed. Otherwise the following can occur: [ 1135.911754] list_del corruption, ff2d24c8093f31f8-&gt;next is NULL [ 1135.917705] ------------[ cut here ]------------ [ 1135.922336] kernel BUG at lib/list_debug.c:52! [ 1135.926784] Oops: invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP NOPTI [ 1135.931851] CPU: 48 UID: 0 PID: 726 Comm: kworker/u449:23 Kdump: loaded Not tainted 6.12.0 #1 PREEMPT(voluntary) [ 1135.943490] Hardware name: Dell Inc. PowerEdge R660/0HGTK9, BIOS 2.5.4 01/16/2025 [ 1135.950969] Workqueue: 0x0 (nvme-wq) [ 1135.954673] RIP: 0010:__list_del_entry_valid_or_report.cold+0xf/0x6f [ 1135.961041] Code: c7 c7 98 68 72 94 e8 26 45 fe ff 0f 0b 48 c7 c7 70 68 72 94 e8 18 45 fe ff 0f 0b 48 89 fe 48 c7 c7 80 69 72 94 e8 07 45 fe ff &lt;0f&gt; 0b 48 89 d1 48 c7 c7 a0 6a 72 94 48 89 c2 e8 f3 44 fe ff 0f 0b [ 1135.979788] RSP: 0018:ff579b19482d3e50 EFLAGS: 00010046 [ 1135.985015] RAX: 0000000000000033 RBX: ff2d24c8093f31f0 RCX: 0000000000000000 [ 1135.992148] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: ff2d24d6bfa1d0c0 RDI: ff2d24d6bfa1d0c0 [ 1135.999278] RBP: ff2d24c8093f31f8 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: ffffffff951e2b08 [ 1136.006413] R10: ffffffff95122ac8 R11: 0000000000000003 R12: ff2d24c78697c100 [ 1136.013546] R13: fffffffffffffff8 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ff2d24c78697c0c0 [ 1136.020677] FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ff2d24d6bfa00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 [ 1136.028765] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 [ 1136.034510] CR2: 00007fd207f90b80 CR3: 000000163ea22003 CR4: 0000000000f73ef0 [ 1136.041641] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 [ 1136.048776] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe07f0 DR7: 0000000000000400 [ 1136.055910] PKRU: 55555554 [ 1136.058623] Call Trace: [ 1136.061074] [ 1136.063179] ? show_trace_log_lvl+0x1b0/0x2f0 [ 1136.067540] ? show_trace_log_lvl+0x1b0/0x2f0 [ 1136.071898] ? move_linked_works+0x4a/0xa0 [ 1136.075998] ? __list_del_entry_valid_or_report.cold+0xf/0x6f [ 1136.081744] ? __die_body.cold+0x8/0x12 [ 1136.085584] ? die+0x2e/0x50 [ 1136.088469] ? do_trap+0xca/0x110 [ 1136.091789] ? do_error_trap+0x65/0x80 [ 1136.095543] ? __list_del_entry_valid_or_report.cold+0xf/0x6f [ 1136.101289] ? exc_invalid_op+0x50/0x70 [ 1136.105127] ? __list_del_entry_valid_or_report.cold+0xf/0x6f [ 1136.110874] ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20 [ 1136.115059] ? __list_del_entry_valid_or_report.cold+0xf/0x6f [ 1136.120806] move_linked_works+0x4a/0xa0 [ 1136.124733] worker_thread+0x216/0x3a0 [ 1136.128485] ? __pfx_worker_thread+0x10/0x10 [ 1136.132758] kthread+0xfa/0x240 [ 1136.135904] ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 [ 1136.139657] ret_from_fork+0x31/0x50 [ 1136.143236] ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 [ 1136.146988] ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 [ 1136.150915]</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-40261">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/1341.html">CWE-1341 Multiple Releases of Same Resource or Handle</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>6.6</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-40262</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: Input: imx_sc_key - fix memory corruption on unload This is supposed to be "priv" but we accidentally pass "&amp;priv" which is an address in the stack and so it will lead to memory corruption when the imx_sc_key_action() function is called. Remove the &amp;.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-40262">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/20.html">CWE-20 Improper Input Validation</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>5.5</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-40263</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: Input: cros_ec_keyb - fix an invalid memory access If cros_ec_keyb_register_matrix() isn't called (due to `buttons_switches_only`) in cros_ec_keyb_probe(), `ckdev-&gt;idev` remains NULL. An invalid memory access is observed in cros_ec_keyb_process() when receiving an EC_MKBP_EVENT_KEY_MATRIX event in cros_ec_keyb_work() in such case. Unable to handle kernel read from unreadable memory at virtual address 0000000000000028 ... x3 : 0000000000000000 x2 : 0000000000000000 x1 : 0000000000000000 x0 : 0000000000000000 Call trace: input_event cros_ec_keyb_work blocking_notifier_call_chain ec_irq_thread It's still unknown about why the kernel receives such malformed event, in any cases, the kernel shouldn't access `ckdev-&gt;idev` and friends if the driver doesn't intend to initialize them.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-40263">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/20.html">CWE-20 Improper Input Validation</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>5.5</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-40264</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: be2net: pass wrb_params in case of OS2BMC be_insert_vlan_in_pkt() is called with the wrb_params argument being NULL at be_send_pkt_to_bmc() call site.  This may lead to dereferencing a NULL pointer when processing a workaround for specific packet, as commit bc0c3405abbb ("be2net: fix a Tx stall bug caused by a specific ipv6 packet") states. The correct way would be to pass the wrb_params from be_xmit().</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-40264">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/20.html">CWE-20 Improper Input Validation</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-40271</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: fs/proc: fix uaf in proc_readdir_de() Pde is erased from subdir rbtree through rb_erase(), but not set the node to EMPTY, which may result in uaf access. We should use RB_CLEAR_NODE() set the erased node to EMPTY, then pde_subdir_next() will return NULL to avoid uaf access. We found an uaf issue while using stress-ng testing, need to run testcase getdent and tun in the same time. The steps of the issue is as follows: 1) use getdent to traverse dir /proc/pid/net/dev_snmp6/, and current pde is tun3; 2) in the [time windows] unregister netdevice tun3 and tun2, and erase them from rbtree. erase tun3 first, and then erase tun2. the pde(tun2) will be released to slab; 3) continue to getdent process, then pde_subdir_next() will return pde(tun2) which is released, it will case uaf access. CPU 0 | CPU 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- traverse dir /proc/pid/net/dev_snmp6/ | unregister_netdevice(tun-&gt;dev) //tun3 tun2 sys_getdents64() | iterate_dir() | proc_readdir() | proc_readdir_de() | snmp6_unregister_dev() pde_get(de); | proc_remove() read_unlock(&amp;proc_subdir_lock); | remove_proc_subtree() | write_lock(&amp;proc_subdir_lock); [time window] | rb_erase(&amp;root-&gt;subdir_node, &amp;parent-&gt;subdir); | write_unlock(&amp;proc_subdir_lock); read_lock(&amp;proc_subdir_lock); | next = pde_subdir_next(de); | pde_put(de); | de = next; //UAF | rbtree of dev_snmp6 | pde(tun3) / \ NULL pde(tun2)</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-40271">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/625.html">CWE-625 Permissive Regular Expression</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-40278</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net: sched: act_ife: initialize struct tc_ife to fix KMSAN kernel-infoleak Fix a KMSAN kernel-infoleak detected by the syzbot . [net?] KMSAN: kernel-infoleak in __skb_datagram_iter In tcf_ife_dump(), the variable 'opt' was partially initialized using a designatied initializer. While the padding bytes are reamined uninitialized. nla_put() copies the entire structure into a netlink message, these uninitialized bytes leaked to userspace. Initialize the structure with memset before assigning its fields to ensure all members and padding are cleared prior to beign copied. This change silences the KMSAN report and prevents potential information leaks from the kernel memory. This fix has been tested and validated by syzbot. This patch closes the bug reported at the following syzkaller link and ensures no infoleak.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-40278">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/20.html">CWE-20 Improper Input Validation</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>5.5</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-40280</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: tipc: Fix use-after-free in tipc_mon_reinit_self(). syzbot reported use-after-free of tipc_net(net)-&gt;monitors[] in tipc_mon_reinit_self(). [0] The array is protected by RTNL, but tipc_mon_reinit_self() iterates over it without RTNL. tipc_mon_reinit_self() is called from tipc_net_finalize(), which is always under RTNL except for tipc_net_finalize_work(). Let's hold RTNL in tipc_net_finalize_work(). [0]: BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in __raw_spin_lock_irqsave include/linux/spinlock_api_smp.h:110 [inline] BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0xa7/0xf0 kernel/locking/spinlock.c:162 Read of size 1 at addr ffff88805eae1030 by task kworker/0:7/5989 CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 5989 Comm: kworker/0:7 Not tainted syzkaller #0 PREEMPT_{RT,(full)} Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 08/18/2025 Workqueue: events tipc_net_finalize_work Call Trace: dump_stack_lvl+0x189/0x250 lib/dump_stack.c:120 print_address_description mm/kasan/report.c:378 [inline] print_report+0xca/0x240 mm/kasan/report.c:482 kasan_report+0x118/0x150 mm/kasan/report.c:595 __kasan_check_byte+0x2a/0x40 mm/kasan/common.c:568 kasan_check_byte include/linux/kasan.h:399 [inline] lock_acquire+0x8d/0x360 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5842 __raw_spin_lock_irqsave include/linux/spinlock_api_smp.h:110 [inline] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0xa7/0xf0 kernel/locking/spinlock.c:162 rtlock_slowlock kernel/locking/rtmutex.c:1894 [inline] rwbase_rtmutex_lock_state kernel/locking/spinlock_rt.c:160 [inline] rwbase_write_lock+0xd3/0x7e0 kernel/locking/rwbase_rt.c:244 rt_write_lock+0x76/0x110 kernel/locking/spinlock_rt.c:243 write_lock_bh include/linux/rwlock_rt.h:99 [inline] tipc_mon_reinit_self+0x79/0x430 net/tipc/monitor.c:718 tipc_net_finalize+0x115/0x190 net/tipc/net.c:140 process_one_work kernel/workqueue.c:3236 [inline] process_scheduled_works+0xade/0x17b0 kernel/workqueue.c:3319 worker_thread+0x8a0/0xda0 kernel/workqueue.c:3400 kthread+0x70e/0x8a0 kernel/kthread.c:463 ret_from_fork+0x439/0x7d0 arch/x86/kernel/process.c:148 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:245 Allocated by task 6089: kasan_save_stack mm/kasan/common.c:47 [inline] kasan_save_track+0x3e/0x80 mm/kasan/common.c:68 poison_kmalloc_redzone mm/kasan/common.c:388 [inline] __kasan_kmalloc+0x93/0xb0 mm/kasan/common.c:405 kasan_kmalloc include/linux/kasan.h:260 [inline] __kmalloc_cache_noprof+0x1a8/0x320 mm/slub.c:4407 kmalloc_noprof include/linux/slab.h:905 [inline] kzalloc_noprof include/linux/slab.h:1039 [inline] tipc_mon_create+0xc3/0x4d0 net/tipc/monitor.c:657 tipc_enable_bearer net/tipc/bearer.c:357 [inline] __tipc_nl_bearer_enable+0xe16/0x13f0 net/tipc/bearer.c:1047 __tipc_nl_compat_doit net/tipc/netlink_compat.c:371 [inline] tipc_nl_compat_doit+0x3bc/0x5f0 net/tipc/netlink_compat.c:393 tipc_nl_compat_handle net/tipc/netlink_compat.c:-1 [inline] tipc_nl_compat_recv+0x83c/0xbe0 net/tipc/netlink_compat.c:1321 genl_family_rcv_msg_doit+0x215/0x300 net/netlink/genetlink.c:1115 genl_family_rcv_msg net/netlink/genetlink.c:1195 [inline] genl_rcv_msg+0x60e/0x790 net/netlink/genetlink.c:1210 netlink_rcv_skb+0x208/0x470 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:2552 genl_rcv+0x28/0x40 net/netlink/genetlink.c:1219 netlink_unicast_kernel net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1320 [inline] netlink_unicast+0x846/0xa10 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1346 netlink_sendmsg+0x805/0xb30 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1896 sock_sendmsg_nosec net/socket.c:714 [inline] __sock_sendmsg+0x21c/0x270 net/socket.c:729 ____sys_sendmsg+0x508/0x820 net/socket.c:2614 ___sys_sendmsg+0x21f/0x2a0 net/socket.c:2668 __sys_sendmsg net/socket.c:2700 [inline] __do_sys_sendmsg net/socket.c:2705 [inline] __se_sys_sendmsg net/socket.c:2703 [inline] __x64_sys_sendmsg+0x1a1/0x260 net/socket.c:2703 do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:63 [inline] do_syscall_64+0xfa/0x3b0 arch/ ---truncated---</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-40280">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/825.html">CWE-825 Expired Pointer Dereference</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>5.5</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-40281</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: sctp: prevent possible shift-out-of-bounds in sctp_transport_update_rto syzbot reported a possible shift-out-of-bounds [1] Blamed commit added rto_alpha_max and rto_beta_max set to 1000. It is unclear if some sctp users are setting very large rto_alpha and/or rto_beta. In order to prevent user regression, perform the test at run time. Also add READ_ONCE() annotations as sysctl values can change under us. [1] UBSAN: shift-out-of-bounds in net/sctp/transport.c:509:41 shift exponent 64 is too large for 32-bit type 'unsigned int' CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 16704 Comm: syz.2.2320 Not tainted syzkaller #0 PREEMPT(full) Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 10/02/2025 Call Trace: __dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:94 [inline] dump_stack_lvl+0x16c/0x1f0 lib/dump_stack.c:120 ubsan_epilogue lib/ubsan.c:233 [inline] __ubsan_handle_shift_out_of_bounds+0x27f/0x420 lib/ubsan.c:494 sctp_transport_update_rto.cold+0x1c/0x34b net/sctp/transport.c:509 sctp_check_transmitted+0x11c4/0x1c30 net/sctp/outqueue.c:1502 sctp_outq_sack+0x4ef/0x1b20 net/sctp/outqueue.c:1338 sctp_cmd_process_sack net/sctp/sm_sideeffect.c:840 [inline] sctp_cmd_interpreter net/sctp/sm_sideeffect.c:1372 [inline]</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-40281">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/1335.html">CWE-1335 Incorrect Bitwise Shift of Integer</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>4.4</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-40345</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: usb: storage: sddr55: Reject out-of-bound new_pba Discovered by Atuin - Automated Vulnerability Discovery Engine. new_pba comes from the status packet returned after each write. A bogus device could report values beyond the block count derived from info-&gt;capacity, letting the driver walk off the end of pba_to_lba[] and corrupt heap memory. Reject PBAs that exceed the computed block count and fail the transfer so we avoid touching out-of-range mapping entries.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-40345">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/787.html">CWE-787 Out-of-bounds Write</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>6.8</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-46394</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>In tar in BusyBox through 1.37.0, a TAR archive can have filenames hidden from a listing through the use of terminal escape sequences.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-46394">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/451.html">CWE-451 User Interface (UI) Misrepresentation of Critical Information</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>3.2</td>
<td>LOW</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-49794</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>A use-after-free vulnerability was found in libxml2. This issue occurs when parsing XPath elements under certain circumstances when the XML schematron has the schema elements. This flaw allows a malicious actor to craft a malicious XML document used as input for libxml, resulting in the program's crash using libxml or other possible undefined behaviors.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-49794">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/825.html">CWE-825 Expired Pointer Dereference</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>9.1</td>
<td>CRITICAL</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-49795</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>A NULL pointer dereference vulnerability was found in libxml2 when processing XPath XML expressions. This flaw allows an attacker to craft a malicious XML input to libxml2, leading to a denial of service.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-49795">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/825.html">CWE-825 Expired Pointer Dereference</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7.5</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-49796</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>A vulnerability was found in libxml2. Processing certain sch:name elements from the input XML file can trigger a memory corruption issue. This flaw allows an attacker to craft a malicious XML input file that can lead libxml to crash, resulting in a denial of service or other possible undefined behavior due to sensitive data being corrupted in memory.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-49796">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/125.html">CWE-125 Out-of-bounds Read</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>9.1</td>
<td>CRITICAL</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-60876</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>BusyBox wget thru 1.3.7 accepted raw CR (0x0D)/LF (0x0A) and other C0 control bytes in the HTTP request-target (path/query), allowing the request line to be split and attacker-controlled headers to be injected. To preserve the HTTP/1.1 request-line shape METHOD SP request-target SP HTTP/1.1, a raw space (0x20) in the request-target must also be rejected (clients should use %20).</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-60876">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/284.html">CWE-284 Improper Access Control</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>6.5</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-66035</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-66035">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/201.html">CWE-201 Insertion of Sensitive Information Into Sent Data</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>8.6</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-66382</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>In libexpat through 2.7.3, a crafted file with an approximate size of 2 MiB can lead to dozens of seconds of processing time.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-66382">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/407.html">CWE-407 Inefficient Algorithmic Complexity</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>2.9</td>
<td>LOW</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-66412</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to 21.0.2, 20.3.15, and 19.2.17, A Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability has been identified in the Angular Template Compiler. It occurs because the compiler's internal security schema is incomplete, allowing attackers to bypass Angular's built-in security sanitization. Specifically, the schema fails to classify certain URL-holding attributes (e.g., those that could contain javascript: URLs) as requiring strict URL security, enabling the injection of malicious scripts. This vulnerability is fixed in 21.0.2, 20.3.15, and 19.2.17.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-66412">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/79.html">CWE-79 Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-69720</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>The infocmp command-line tool in ncurses before 6.5-20251213 has a stack-based buffer overflow in analyze_string in progs/infocmp.c.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-69720">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/121.html">CWE-121 Stack-based Buffer Overflow</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7.3</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-71185</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: dmaengine: ti: dma-crossbar: fix device leak on am335x route allocation Make sure to drop the reference taken when looking up the crossbar platform device during am335x route allocation.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-71185">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/20.html">CWE-20 Improper Input Validation</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>5.5</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-71186</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: dmaengine: stm32: dmamux: fix device leak on route allocation Make sure to drop the reference taken when looking up the DMA mux platform device during route allocation. Note that holding a reference to a device does not prevent its driver data from going away so there is no point in keeping the reference.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-71186">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/20.html">CWE-20 Improper Input Validation</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>5.5</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-71188</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: dmaengine: lpc18xx-dmamux: fix device leak on route allocation Make sure to drop the reference taken when looking up the DMA mux platform device during route allocation. Note that holding a reference to a device does not prevent its driver data from going away so there is no point in keeping the reference.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-71188">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/20.html">CWE-20 Improper Input Validation</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>5.5</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-71189</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: dmaengine: dw: dmamux: fix OF node leak on route allocation failure Make sure to drop the reference taken to the DMA master OF node also on late route allocation failures.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-71189">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/20.html">CWE-20 Improper Input Validation</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>5.5</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-71190</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: dmaengine: bcm-sba-raid: fix device leak on probe Make sure to drop the reference taken when looking up the mailbox device during probe on probe failures and on driver unbind.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-71190">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/20.html">CWE-20 Improper Input Validation</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>5.5</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2025-71191</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: dmaengine: at_hdmac: fix device leak on of_dma_xlate() Make sure to drop the reference taken when looking up the DMA platform device during of_dma_xlate() when releasing channel resources. Note that commit 3832b78b3ec2 ("dmaengine: at_hdmac: add missing put_device() call in at_dma_xlate()") fixed the leak in a couple of error paths but the reference is still leaking on successful allocation.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-71191">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/20.html">CWE-20 Improper Input Validation</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>5.5</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-1484</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>A flaw was found in the GLib Base64 encoding routine when processing very large input data. Due to incorrect use of integer types during length calculation, the library may miscalculate buffer boundaries. This can cause memory writes outside the allocated buffer. Applications that process untrusted or extremely large Base64 input using GLib may crash or behave unpredictably.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-1484">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/787.html">CWE-787 Out-of-bounds Write</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>4.2</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-1489</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>A flaw was found in GLib. An integer overflow vulnerability in its Unicode case conversion implementation can lead to memory corruption. By processing specially crafted and extremely large Unicode strings, an attacker could trigger an undersized memory allocation, resulting in out-of-bounds writes. This could cause applications utilizing GLib for string conversion to crash or become unstable.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-1489">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/787.html">CWE-787 Out-of-bounds Write</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>5.4</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-3784</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>curl would wrongly reuse an existing HTTP proxy connection doing CONNECT to a server, even if the new request uses different credentials for the HTTP proxy. The proper behavior is to create or use a separate connection.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-3784">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/305.html">CWE-305 Authentication Bypass by Primary Weakness</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>6.5</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-22610</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.18, 20.3.16, 21.0.7, and 21.1.0-rc.0, a cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability has been identified in the Angular Template Compiler. The vulnerability exists because Angular’s internal sanitization schema fails to recognize the href and xlink:href attributes of SVG elements as a Resource URL context. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.18, 20.3.16, 21.0.7, and 21.1.0-rc.0.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-22610">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/79.html">CWE-79 Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-22976</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/sched: sch_qfq: Fix NULL deref when deactivating inactive aggregate in qfq_reset `qfq_class-&gt;leaf_qdisc-&gt;q.qlen &gt; 0` does not imply that the class itself is active. Two qfq_class objects may point to the same leaf_qdisc. This happens when: 1. one QFQ qdisc is attached to the dev as the root qdisc, and 2. another QFQ qdisc is temporarily referenced (e.g., via qdisc_get() / qdisc_put()) and is pending to be destroyed, as in function tc_new_tfilter. When packets are enqueued through the root QFQ qdisc, the shared leaf_qdisc-&gt;q.qlen increases. At the same time, the second QFQ qdisc triggers qdisc_put and qdisc_destroy: the qdisc enters qfq_reset() with its own q-&gt;q.qlen == 0, but its class's leaf qdisc-&gt;q.qlen &gt; 0. Therefore, the qfq_reset would wrongly deactivate an inactive aggregate and trigger a null-deref in qfq_deactivate_agg: [ 0.903172] BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 0000000000000000 [ 0.903571] #PF: supervisor write access in kernel mode [ 0.903860] #PF: error_code(0x0002) - not-present page [ 0.904177] PGD 10299b067 P4D 10299b067 PUD 10299c067 PMD 0 [ 0.904502] Oops: Oops: 0002 [#1] SMP NOPTI [ 0.904737] CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 135 Comm: exploit Not tainted 6.19.0-rc3+ #2 NONE [ 0.905157] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.17.0-0-gb52ca86e094d-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014 [ 0.905754] RIP: 0010:qfq_deactivate_agg (include/linux/list.h:992 (discriminator 2) include/linux/list.h:1006 (discriminator 2) net/sched/sch_qfq.c:1367 (discriminator 2) net/sched/sch_qfq.c:1393 (discriminator 2)) [ 0.906046] Code: 0f 84 4d 01 00 00 48 89 70 18 8b 4b 10 48 c7 c2 ff ff ff ff 48 8b 78 08 48 d3 e2 48 21 f2 48 2b 13 48 8b 30 48 d3 ea 8b 4b 18 0 Code starting with the faulting instruction =========================================== 0: 0f 84 4d 01 00 00 je 0x153 6: 48 89 70 18 mov %rsi,0x18(%rax) a: 8b 4b 10 mov 0x10(%rbx),%ecx d: 48 c7 c2 ff ff ff ff mov $0xffffffffffffffff,%rdx 14: 48 8b 78 08 mov 0x8(%rax),%rdi 18: 48 d3 e2 shl %cl,%rdx 1b: 48 21 f2 and %rsi,%rdx 1e: 48 2b 13 sub (%rbx),%rdx 21: 48 8b 30 mov (%rax),%rsi 24: 48 d3 ea shr %cl,%rdx 27: 8b 4b 18 mov 0x18(%rbx),%ecx ... [ 0.907095] RSP: 0018:ffffc900004a39a0 EFLAGS: 00010246 [ 0.907368] RAX: ffff8881043a0880 RBX: ffff888102953340 RCX: 0000000000000000 [ 0.907723] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000000000000 RDI: 0000000000000000 [ 0.908100] RBP: ffff888102952180 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000000 [ 0.908451] R10: ffff8881043a0000 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: ffff888102952000 [ 0.908804] R13: ffff888102952180 R14: ffff8881043a0ad8 R15: ffff8881043a0880 [ 0.909179] FS: 000000002a1a0380(0000) GS:ffff888196d8d000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 [ 0.909572] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 [ 0.909857] CR2: 0000000000000000 CR3: 0000000102993002 CR4: 0000000000772ef0 [ 0.910247] PKRU: 55555554 [ 0.910391] Call Trace: [ 0.910527] [ 0.910638] qfq_reset_qdisc (net/sched/sch_qfq.c:357 net/sched/sch_qfq.c:1485) [ 0.910826] qdisc_reset (include/linux/skbuff.h:2195 include/linux/skbuff.h:2501 include/linux/skbuff.h:3424 include/linux/skbuff.h:3430 net/sched/sch_generic.c:1036) [ 0.911040] __qdisc_destroy (net/sched/sch_generic.c:1076) [ 0.911236] tc_new_tfilter (net/sched/cls_api.c:2447) [ 0.911447] rtnetlink_rcv_msg (net/core/rtnetlink.c:6958) [ 0.911663] ? __pfx_rtnetlink_rcv_msg (net/core/rtnetlink.c:6861) [ 0.911894] netlink_rcv_skb (net/netlink/af_netlink.c:2550) [ 0.912100] netlink_unicast (net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1319 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1344) [ 0.912296] ? __alloc_skb (net/core/skbuff.c:706) [ 0.912484] netlink_sendmsg (net/netlink/af ---truncated---</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-22976">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/476.html">CWE-476 NULL Pointer Dereference</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>5.5</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-22977</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net: sock: fix hardened usercopy panic in sock_recv_errqueue skbuff_fclone_cache was created without defining a usercopy region, [1] unlike skbuff_head_cache which properly whitelists the cb[] field. [2] This causes a usercopy BUG() when CONFIG_HARDENED_USERCOPY is enabled and the kernel attempts to copy sk_buff.cb data to userspace via sock_recv_errqueue() -&gt; put_cmsg(). The crash occurs when: 1. TCP allocates an skb using alloc_skb_fclone() (from skbuff_fclone_cache) [1] 2. The skb is cloned via skb_clone() using the pre-allocated fclone [3] 3. The cloned skb is queued to sk_error_queue for timestamp reporting 4. Userspace reads the error queue via recvmsg(MSG_ERRQUEUE) 5. sock_recv_errqueue() calls put_cmsg() to copy serr-&gt;ee from skb-&gt;cb [4] 6. __check_heap_object() fails because skbuff_fclone_cache has no usercopy whitelist [5] When cloned skbs allocated from skbuff_fclone_cache are used in the socket error queue, accessing the sock_exterr_skb structure in skb-&gt;cb via put_cmsg() triggers a usercopy hardening violation: [ 5.379589] usercopy: Kernel memory exposure attempt detected from SLUB object 'skbuff_fclone_cache' (offset 296, size 16)! [ 5.382796] kernel BUG at mm/usercopy.c:102! [ 5.383923] Oops: invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP KASAN NOPTI [ 5.384903] CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 138 Comm: poc_put_cmsg Not tainted 6.12.57 #7 [ 5.384903] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.16.3-0-ga6ed6b701f0a-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014 [ 5.384903] RIP: 0010:usercopy_abort+0x6c/0x80 [ 5.384903] Code: 1a 86 51 48 c7 c2 40 15 1a 86 41 52 48 c7 c7 c0 15 1a 86 48 0f 45 d6 48 c7 c6 80 15 1a 86 48 89 c1 49 0f 45 f3 e8 84 27 88 ff &lt;0f&gt; 0b 490 [ 5.384903] RSP: 0018:ffffc900006f77a8 EFLAGS: 00010246 [ 5.384903] RAX: 000000000000006f RBX: ffff88800f0ad2a8 RCX: 1ffffffff0f72e74 [ 5.384903] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000000000004 RDI: ffffffff87b973a0 [ 5.384903] RBP: 0000000000000010 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: fffffbfff0f72e74 [ 5.384903] R10: 0000000000000003 R11: 79706f6372657375 R12: 0000000000000001 [ 5.384903] R13: ffff88800f0ad2b8 R14: ffffea00003c2b40 R15: ffffea00003c2b00 [ 5.384903] FS: 0000000011bc4380(0000) GS:ffff8880bf100000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 [ 5.384903] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 [ 5.384903] CR2: 000056aa3b8e5fe4 CR3: 000000000ea26004 CR4: 0000000000770ef0 [ 5.384903] PKRU: 55555554 [ 5.384903] Call Trace: [ 5.384903] [ 5.384903] __check_heap_object+0x9a/0xd0 [ 5.384903] __check_object_size+0x46c/0x690 [ 5.384903] put_cmsg+0x129/0x5e0 [ 5.384903] sock_recv_errqueue+0x22f/0x380 [ 5.384903] tls_sw_recvmsg+0x7ed/0x1960 [ 5.384903] ? srso_alias_return_thunk+0x5/0xfbef5 [ 5.384903] ? schedule+0x6d/0x270 [ 5.384903] ? srso_alias_return_thunk+0x5/0xfbef5 [ 5.384903] ? mutex_unlock+0x81/0xd0 [ 5.384903] ? __pfx_mutex_unlock+0x10/0x10 [ 5.384903] ? __pfx_tls_sw_recvmsg+0x10/0x10 [ 5.384903] ? _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x8f/0xf0 [ 5.384903] ? _raw_read_unlock_irqrestore+0x20/0x40 [ 5.384903] ? srso_alias_return_thunk+0x5/0xfbef5 The crash offset 296 corresponds to skb2-&gt;cb within skbuff_fclones: - sizeof(struct sk_buff) = 232 - offsetof(struct sk_buff, cb) = 40 - offset of skb2.cb in fclones = 232 + 40 = 272 - crash offset 296 = 272 + 24 (inside sock_exterr_skb.ee) This patch uses a local stack variable as a bounce buffer to avoid the hardened usercopy check failure. [1] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.12.62/source/net/ipv4/tcp.c#L885 [2] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.12.62/source/net/core/skbuff.c#L5104 [3] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.12.62/source/net/core/skbuff.c#L5566 [4] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.12.62/source/net/core/skbuff.c#L5491 [5] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.12.62/source/mm/slub.c#L5719</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-22977">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/489.html">CWE-489 Active Debug Code</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>5.5</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-23025</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/page_alloc: prevent pcp corruption with SMP=n The kernel test robot has reported: BUG: spinlock trylock failure on UP on CPU#0, kcompactd0/28 lock: 0xffff888807e35ef0, .magic: dead4ead, .owner: kcompactd0/28, .owner_cpu: 0 CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 28 Comm: kcompactd0 Not tainted 6.18.0-rc5-00127-ga06157804399 #1 PREEMPT 8cc09ef94dcec767faa911515ce9e609c45db470 Call Trace: __dump_stack (lib/dump_stack.c:95) dump_stack_lvl (lib/dump_stack.c:123) dump_stack (lib/dump_stack.c:130) spin_dump (kernel/locking/spinlock_debug.c:71) do_raw_spin_trylock (kernel/locking/spinlock_debug.c:?) _raw_spin_trylock (include/linux/spinlock_api_smp.h:89 kernel/locking/spinlock.c:138) __free_frozen_pages (mm/page_alloc.c:2973) ___free_pages (mm/page_alloc.c:5295) __free_pages (mm/page_alloc.c:5334) tlb_remove_table_rcu (include/linux/mm.h:? include/linux/mm.h:3122 include/asm-generic/tlb.h:220 mm/mmu_gather.c:227 mm/mmu_gather.c:290) ? __cfi_tlb_remove_table_rcu (mm/mmu_gather.c:289) ? rcu_core (kernel/rcu/tree.c:?) rcu_core (include/linux/rcupdate.h:341 kernel/rcu/tree.c:2607 kernel/rcu/tree.c:2861) rcu_core_si (kernel/rcu/tree.c:2879) handle_softirqs (arch/x86/include/asm/jump_label.h:36 include/trace/events/irq.h:142 kernel/softirq.c:623) __irq_exit_rcu (arch/x86/include/asm/jump_label.h:36 kernel/softirq.c:725) irq_exit_rcu (kernel/softirq.c:741) sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt (arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c:1052) RIP: 0010:_raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore (arch/x86/include/asm/preempt.h:95 include/linux/spinlock_api_smp.h:152 kernel/locking/spinlock.c:194) free_pcppages_bulk (mm/page_alloc.c:1494) drain_pages_zone (include/linux/spinlock.h:391 mm/page_alloc.c:2632) __drain_all_pages (mm/page_alloc.c:2731) drain_all_pages (mm/page_alloc.c:2747) kcompactd (mm/compaction.c:3115) kthread (kernel/kthread.c:465) ? __cfi_kcompactd (mm/compaction.c:3166) ? __cfi_kthread (kernel/kthread.c:412) ret_from_fork (arch/x86/kernel/process.c:164) ? __cfi_kthread (kernel/kthread.c:412) ret_from_fork_asm (arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:255) Matthew has analyzed the report and identified that in drain_page_zone() we are in a section protected by spin_lock(&amp;pcp-&gt;lock) and then get an interrupt that attempts spin_trylock() on the same lock. The code is designed to work this way without disabling IRQs and occasionally fail the trylock with a fallback. However, the SMP=n spinlock implementation assumes spin_trylock() will always succeed, and thus it's normally a no-op. Here the enabled lock debugging catches the problem, but otherwise it could cause a corruption of the pcp structure. The problem has been introduced by commit 574907741599 ("mm/page_alloc: leave IRQs enabled for per-cpu page allocations"). The pcp locking scheme recognizes the need for disabling IRQs to prevent nesting spin_trylock() sections on SMP=n, but the need to prevent the nesting in spin_lock() has not been recognized. Fix it by introducing local wrappers that change the spin_lock() to spin_lock_iqsave() with SMP=n and use them in all places that do spin_lock(&amp;pcp-&gt;lock). [vbabka@suse.cz: add pcp_ prefix to the spin_lock_irqsave wrappers, per Steven]</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-23025">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/20.html">CWE-20 Improper Input Validation</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7.8</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-23026</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: dmaengine: qcom: gpi: Fix memory leak in gpi_peripheral_config() Fix a memory leak in gpi_peripheral_config() where the original memory pointed to by gchan-&gt;config could be lost if krealloc() fails. The issue occurs when: 1. gchan-&gt;config points to previously allocated memory 2. krealloc() fails and returns NULL 3. The function directly assigns NULL to gchan-&gt;config, losing the reference to the original memory 4. The original memory becomes unreachable and cannot be freed Fix this by using a temporary variable to hold the krealloc() result and only updating gchan-&gt;config when the allocation succeeds. Found via static analysis and code review.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-23026">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/20.html">CWE-20 Improper Input Validation</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>5.5</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-23030</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: phy: rockchip: inno-usb2: Fix a double free bug in rockchip_usb2phy_probe() The for_each_available_child_of_node() calls of_node_put() to release child_np in each success loop. After breaking from the loop with the child_np has been released, the code will jump to the put_child label and will call the of_node_put() again if the devm_request_threaded_irq() fails. These cause a double free bug. Fix by returning directly to avoid the duplicate of_node_put().</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-23030">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/20.html">CWE-20 Improper Input Validation</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>5.5</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-23031</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: can: gs_usb: gs_usb_receive_bulk_callback(): fix URB memory leak In gs_can_open(), the URBs for USB-in transfers are allocated, added to the parent-&gt;rx_submitted anchor and submitted. In the complete callback gs_usb_receive_bulk_callback(), the URB is processed and resubmitted. In gs_can_close() the URBs are freed by calling usb_kill_anchored_urbs(parent-&gt;rx_submitted). However, this does not take into account that the USB framework unanchors the URB before the complete function is called. This means that once an in-URB has been completed, it is no longer anchored and is ultimately not released in gs_can_close(). Fix the memory leak by anchoring the URB in the gs_usb_receive_bulk_callback() to the parent-&gt;rx_submitted anchor.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-23031">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/20.html">CWE-20 Improper Input Validation</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>5.5</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-23032</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: null_blk: fix kmemleak by releasing references to fault configfs items When CONFIG_BLK_DEV_NULL_BLK_FAULT_INJECTION is enabled, the null-blk driver sets up fault injection support by creating the timeout_inject, requeue_inject, and init_hctx_fault_inject configfs items as children of the top-level nullbX configfs group. However, when the nullbX device is removed, the references taken to these fault-config configfs items are not released. As a result, kmemleak reports a memory leak, for example: unreferenced object 0xc00000021ff25c40 (size 32): comm "mkdir", pid 10665, jiffies 4322121578 hex dump (first 32 bytes): 69 6e 69 74 5f 68 63 74 78 5f 66 61 75 6c 74 5f init_hctx_fault_ 69 6e 6a 65 63 74 00 88 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 inject.......... backtrace (crc 1a018c86): __kmalloc_node_track_caller_noprof+0x494/0xbd8 kvasprintf+0x74/0xf4 config_item_set_name+0xf0/0x104 config_group_init_type_name+0x48/0xfc fault_config_init+0x48/0xf0 0xc0080000180559e4 configfs_mkdir+0x304/0x814 vfs_mkdir+0x49c/0x604 do_mkdirat+0x314/0x3d0 sys_mkdir+0xa0/0xd8 system_call_exception+0x1b0/0x4f0 system_call_vectored_common+0x15c/0x2ec Fix this by explicitly releasing the references to the fault-config configfs items when dropping the reference to the top-level nullbX configfs group.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-23032">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/20.html">CWE-20 Improper Input Validation</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>5.5</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-23033</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: dmaengine: omap-dma: fix dma_pool resource leak in error paths The dma_pool created by dma_pool_create() is not destroyed when dma_async_device_register() or of_dma_controller_register() fails, causing a resource leak in the probe error paths. Add dma_pool_destroy() in both error paths to properly release the allocated dma_pool resource.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-23033">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/20.html">CWE-20 Improper Input Validation</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>5.5</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-23037</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: can: etas_es58x: allow partial RX URB allocation to succeed When es58x_alloc_rx_urbs() fails to allocate the requested number of URBs but succeeds in allocating some, it returns an error code. This causes es58x_open() to return early, skipping the cleanup label 'free_urbs', which leads to the anchored URBs being leaked. As pointed out by maintainer Vincent Mailhol, the driver is designed to handle partial URB allocation gracefully. Therefore, partial allocation should not be treated as a fatal error. Modify es58x_alloc_rx_urbs() to return 0 if at least one URB has been allocated, restoring the intended behavior and preventing the leak in es58x_open().</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-23037">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/20.html">CWE-20 Improper Input Validation</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>5.5</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-23038</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: pnfs/flexfiles: Fix memory leak in nfs4_ff_alloc_deviceid_node() In nfs4_ff_alloc_deviceid_node(), if the allocation for ds_versions fails, the function jumps to the out_scratch label without freeing the already allocated dsaddrs list, leading to a memory leak. Fix this by jumping to the out_err_drain_dsaddrs label, which properly frees the dsaddrs list before cleaning up other resources.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-23038">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/20.html">CWE-20 Improper Input Validation</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>5.5</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-23111</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: netfilter: nf_tables: fix inverted genmask check in nft_map_catchall_activate() nft_map_catchall_activate() has an inverted element activity check compared to its non-catchall counterpart nft_mapelem_activate() and compared to what is logically required. nft_map_catchall_activate() is called from the abort path to re-activate catchall map elements that were deactivated during a failed transaction. It should skip elements that are already active (they don't need re-activation) and process elements that are inactive (they need to be restored). Instead, the current code does the opposite: it skips inactive elements and processes active ones. Compare the non-catchall activate callback, which is correct: nft_mapelem_activate(): if (nft_set_elem_active(ext, iter-&gt;genmask)) return 0; /* skip active, process inactive */ With the buggy catchall version: nft_map_catchall_activate(): if (!nft_set_elem_active(ext, genmask)) continue; /* skip inactive, process active */ The consequence is that when a DELSET operation is aborted, nft_setelem_data_activate() is never called for the catchall element. For NFT_GOTO verdict elements, this means nft_data_hold() is never called to restore the chain-&gt;use reference count. Each abort cycle permanently decrements chain-&gt;use. Once chain-&gt;use reaches zero, DELCHAIN succeeds and frees the chain while catchall verdict elements still reference it, resulting in a use-after-free. This is exploitable for local privilege escalation from an unprivileged user via user namespaces + nftables on distributions that enable CONFIG_USER_NS and CONFIG_NF_TABLES. Fix by removing the negation so the check matches nft_mapelem_activate(): skip active elements, process inactive ones.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-23111">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/20.html">CWE-20 Improper Input Validation</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7.8</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-23112</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: nvmet-tcp: add bounds checks in nvmet_tcp_build_pdu_iovec nvmet_tcp_build_pdu_iovec() could walk past cmd-&gt;req.sg when a PDU length or offset exceeds sg_cnt and then use bogus sg-&gt;length/offset values, leading to _copy_to_iter() GPF/KASAN. Guard sg_idx, remaining entries, and sg-&gt;length/offset before building the bvec.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-23112">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/20.html">CWE-20 Improper Input Validation</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>9.8</td>
<td>CRITICAL</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-23220</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ksmbd: fix infinite loop caused by next_smb2_rcv_hdr_off reset in error paths The problem occurs when a signed request fails smb2 signature verification check. In __process_request(), if check_sign_req() returns an error, set_smb2_rsp_status(work, STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED) is called. set_smb2_rsp_status() set work-&gt;next_smb2_rcv_hdr_off as zero. By resetting next_smb2_rcv_hdr_off to zero, the pointer to the next command in the chain is lost. Consequently, is_chained_smb2_message() continues to point to the same request header instead of advancing. If the header's NextCommand field is non-zero, the function returns true, causing __handle_ksmbd_work() to repeatedly process the same failed request in an infinite loop. This results in the kernel log being flooded with "bad smb2 signature" messages and high CPU usage. This patch fixes the issue by changing the return value from SERVER_HANDLER_CONTINUE to SERVER_HANDLER_ABORT. This ensures that the processing loop terminates immediately rather than attempting to continue from an invalidated offset.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-23220">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/835.html">CWE-835 Loop with Unreachable Exit Condition ('Infinite Loop')</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>5.5</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-23222</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: crypto: omap - Allocate OMAP_CRYPTO_FORCE_COPY scatterlists correctly The existing allocation of scatterlists in omap_crypto_copy_sg_lists() was allocating an array of scatterlist pointers, not scatterlist objects, resulting in a 4x too small allocation. Use sizeof(*new_sg) to get the correct object size.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-23222">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/20.html">CWE-20 Improper Input Validation</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7.8</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-23228</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: smb: server: fix leak of active_num_conn in ksmbd_tcp_new_connection() On kthread_run() failure in ksmbd_tcp_new_connection(), the transport is freed via free_transport(), which does not decrement active_num_conn, leaking this counter. Replace free_transport() with ksmbd_tcp_disconnect().</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-23228">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/20.html">CWE-20 Improper Input Validation</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>5.5</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-23229</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: crypto: virtio - Add spinlock protection with virtqueue notification When VM boots with one virtio-crypto PCI device and builtin backend, run openssl benchmark command with multiple processes, such as openssl speed -evp aes-128-cbc -engine afalg -seconds 10 -multi 32 openssl processes will hangup and there is error reported like this: virtio_crypto virtio0: dataq.0:id 3 is not a head! It seems that the data virtqueue need protection when it is handled for virtio done notification. If the spinlock protection is added in virtcrypto_done_task(), openssl benchmark with multiple processes works well.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-23229">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/820.html">CWE-820 Missing Synchronization</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>5.5</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-23230</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: smb: client: split cached_fid bitfields to avoid shared-byte RMW races is_open, has_lease and on_list are stored in the same bitfield byte in struct cached_fid but are updated in different code paths that may run concurrently. Bitfield assignments generate byte read–modify–write operations (e.g. `orb $mask, addr` on x86_64), so updating one flag can restore stale values of the others. A possible interleaving is: CPU1: load old byte (has_lease=1, on_list=1) CPU2: clear both flags (store 0) CPU1: RMW store (old | IS_OPEN) -&gt; reintroduces cleared bits To avoid this class of races, convert these flags to separate bool fields.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-23230">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/20.html">CWE-20 Improper Input Validation</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>8.8</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-23231</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: netfilter: nf_tables: fix use-after-free in nf_tables_addchain() nf_tables_addchain() publishes the chain to table-&gt;chains via list_add_tail_rcu() (in nft_chain_add()) before registering hooks. If nf_tables_register_hook() then fails, the error path calls nft_chain_del() (list_del_rcu()) followed by nf_tables_chain_destroy() with no RCU grace period in between. This creates two use-after-free conditions: 1) Control-plane: nf_tables_dump_chains() traverses table-&gt;chains under rcu_read_lock(). A concurrent dump can still be walking the chain when the error path frees it. 2) Packet path: for NFPROTO_INET, nf_register_net_hook() briefly installs the IPv4 hook before IPv6 registration fails. Packets entering nft_do_chain() via the transient IPv4 hook can still be dereferencing chain-&gt;blob_gen_X when the error path frees the chain. Add synchronize_rcu() between nft_chain_del() and the chain destroy so that all RCU readers -- both dump threads and in-flight packet evaluation -- have finished before the chain is freed.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-23231">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/20.html">CWE-20 Improper Input Validation</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7.8</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-23236</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: fbdev: smscufx: properly copy ioctl memory to kernelspace The UFX_IOCTL_REPORT_DAMAGE ioctl does not properly copy data from userspace to kernelspace, and instead directly references the memory, which can cause problems if invalid data is passed from userspace. Fix this all up by correctly copying the memory before accessing it within the kernel.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-23236">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/20.html">CWE-20 Improper Input Validation</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7.3</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-23238</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: romfs: check sb_set_blocksize() return value romfs_fill_super() ignores the return value of sb_set_blocksize(), which can fail if the requested block size is incompatible with the block device's configuration. This can be triggered by setting a loop device's block size larger than PAGE_SIZE using ioctl(LOOP_SET_BLOCK_SIZE, 32768), then mounting a romfs filesystem on that device. When sb_set_blocksize(sb, ROMBSIZE) is called with ROMBSIZE=4096 but the device has logical_block_size=32768, bdev_validate_blocksize() fails because the requested size is smaller than the device's logical block size. sb_set_blocksize() returns 0 (failure), but romfs ignores this and continues mounting. The superblock's block size remains at the device's logical block size (32768). Later, when sb_bread() attempts I/O with this oversized block size, it triggers a kernel BUG in folio_set_bh(): kernel BUG at fs/buffer.c:1582! BUG_ON(size &gt; PAGE_SIZE); Fix by checking the return value of sb_set_blocksize() and failing the mount with -EINVAL if it returns 0.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-23238">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/20.html">CWE-20 Improper Input Validation</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>5.5</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-24515</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>In libexpat before 2.7.4, XML_ExternalEntityParserCreate does not copy unknown encoding handler user data.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-24515">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/476.html">CWE-476 NULL Pointer Dereference</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>2.9</td>
<td>LOW</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-25210</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>In libexpat before 2.7.4, the doContent function does not properly determine the buffer size bufSize because there is no integer overflow check for tag buffer reallocation.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-25210">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/190.html">CWE-190 Integer Overflow or Wraparound</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>6.9</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-26157</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>A flaw was found in BusyBox. Incomplete path sanitization in its archive extraction utilities allows an attacker to craft malicious archives that when extracted, and under specific conditions, may write to files outside the intended directory. This can lead to arbitrary file overwrite, potentially enabling code execution through the modification of sensitive system files.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-26157">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/73.html">CWE-73 External Control of File Name or Path</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-26158</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>A flaw was found in BusyBox. This vulnerability allows an attacker to modify files outside of the intended extraction directory by crafting a malicious tar archive containing unvalidated hardlink or symlink entries. If the tar archive is extracted with elevated privileges, this flaw can lead to privilege escalation, enabling an attacker to gain unauthorized access to critical system files.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-26158">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/73.html">CWE-73 External Control of File Name or Path</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-35535</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>In Sudo through 1.9.17p2 before 3e474c2, a failure of a setuid, setgid, or setgroups call, during a privilege drop before running the mailer, is not a fatal error and can lead to privilege escalation.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-35535">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/271.html">CWE-271 Privilege Dropping / Lowering Errors</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7.4</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-41918</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>The affected applications stores sensitive information in the browser cache when an authenticated user modify specific configurations. This could allow an authenticated attacker to access sensitive data stored in the browser.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-41918">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Siemens SINEC OS</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Siemens</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>RUGGEDCOM RST2428P (6GK6242-6PA00)</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Vendor fix</strong><br>Update to V4.0 or later version<br><a href="https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/">https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/ww/en/view/110002573/</a></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/525.html">CWE-525 Use of Web Browser Cache Containing Sensitive Information</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>5.7</td>
<td>MEDIUM</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<hr>
<h2>Acknowledgments</h2>
<ul>
<li>Siemens ProductCERT reported these vulnerabilities to CISA.</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>General Recommendations</h2>
<p>As a general security measure, Siemens strongly recommends to protect network access to devices with appropriate mechanisms. In order to operate the devices in a protected IT environment, Siemens recommends to configure the environment according to Siemens' operational guidelines for Industrial Security (Download: https://www.siemens.com/cert/operational-guidelines-industrial-security), and to follow the recommendations in the product manuals. Additional information on Industrial Security by Siemens can be found at: https://www.siemens.com/industrialsecurity</p>
<hr>
<h2>Additional Resources</h2>
<p>For further inquiries on security vulnerabilities in Siemens products and solutions, please contact the Siemens ProductCERT: https://www.siemens.com/cert/advisories</p>
<hr>
<h2>Terms of Use</h2>
<p>The use of Siemens Security Advisories is subject to the terms and conditions listed on: https://www.siemens.com/productcert/terms-of-use.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>
<p>This product is provided subject to this Notification (https://www.cisa.gov/notification) and this Privacy &amp; Use policy (https://www.cisa.gov/privacy-policy).</p>
<hr>
<h2>Recommended Practices</h2>
<p>CISA recommends users take defensive measures to minimize the exploitation risk of this vulnerability.</p>
<p>Minimize network exposure for all control system devices and/or systems, and ensure they are not accessible from the internet.</p>
<p>Locate control system networks and remote devices behind firewalls and isolate them from business networks.</p>
<p>When remote access is required, use more secure methods, such as Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), recognizing VPNs may have vulnerabilities and should be updated to the most recent version available. Also recognize VPN is only as secure as its connected devices.</p>
<p>CISA reminds organizations to perform proper impact analysis and risk assessment prior to deploying defensive measures.</p>
<p>CISA also provides a section for control systems security recommended practices on the ICS webpage on cisa.gov. Several CISA products detailing cyber defense best practices are available for reading and download, including Improving Industrial Control Systems Cybersecurity with Defense-in-Depth Strategies.</p>
<p>CISA encourages organizations to implement recommended cybersecurity strategies for proactive defense of ICS assets. Additional mitigation guidance and recommended practices are publicly available on the ICS webpage at cisa.gov in the technical information paper, ICS-TIP-12-146-01B--Targeted Cyber Intrusion Detection and Mitigation Strategies.</p>
<p>Organizations observing suspected malicious activity should follow established internal procedures and report findings to CISA for tracking and correlation against other incidents.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Advisory Conversion Disclaimer</h2>
<p>This ICSA is a verbatim republication of Siemens ProductCERT SSA-253495 from a direct conversion of the vendor's Common Security Advisory Framework (CSAF) advisory. This is republished to CISA's website as a means of increasing visibility and is provided "as-is" for informational purposes only. CISA is not responsible for the editorial or technical accuracy of republished advisories and provides no warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within this advisory. Further, CISA does not endorse any commercial product or service. Please contact Siemens ProductCERT directly for any questions regarding this advisory.</p>
<h2>Revision History</h2>
<ul>
<li><strong>Initial Release Date: </strong>2026-06-02</li>
</ul>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">Date</th>
<th role="columnheader">Revision</th>
<th role="columnheader">Summary</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>2026-06-02</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>Publication Date</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2026-07-07</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>Initial CISA Republication of Siemens ProductCERT SSA-253495 advisory</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Hydro-Québec Le Circuit Electrique charging station backend]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[View CSAF
Summary
Successful exploitation of these vulnerabilities could lead to privilege escalation, or result in a denial-of-service attack.
The following versions of Hydro-Québec Le Circuit Electrique charging station backend are affected:

Le Circuit Electrique charging station backend





...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3652270/it-security-nachrichten/hydro-qubec-le-circuit-electrique-charging-station-backend/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3652270/it-security-nachrichten/hydro-qubec-le-circuit-electrique-charging-station-backend/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2026 18:55:47 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://github.com/cisagov/CSAF/blob/develop/csaf_files/OT/white/2026/icsa-26-188-01.json"><strong>View CSAF</strong></a></p>
<h2>Summary</h2>
<p><strong>Successful exploitation of these vulnerabilities could lead to privilege escalation, or result in a denial-of-service attack.</strong></p>
<p>The following versions of Hydro-Québec Le Circuit Electrique charging station backend are affected:</p>
<ul>
<li>Le Circuit Electrique charging station backend</li>
</ul>
<div class="csaf-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vendor</th>
<th role="columnheader">Equipment</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vulnerabilities</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>v3 9.8</td>
<td>Hydro-Québec</td>
<td>Hydro-Québec Le Circuit Electrique charging station backend</td>
<td>Improper Access Control, Improper Restriction of Excessive Authentication Attempts, Insufficient Session Expiration</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<h3>Background</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Critical Infrastructure Sectors: </strong>Transportation Systems</li>
<li><strong>Countries/Areas Deployed: </strong>Canada</li>
<li><strong>Company Headquarters Location: </strong>Canada</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Vulnerabilities</h2>
<div class="csaf-accordion">
<p><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle-all" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">Expand All +</a></p>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-20744</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>The charging station websocket endpoint accepts connections without proper authentication, which could lead to privilege escalation.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-20744">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Hydro-Québec Le Circuit Electrique charging station backend</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Hydro-Québec</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>Hydro-Québec Le Circuit Electrique charging station backend: &lt;June_2026</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Hydro-Québec has updated the majority of charging stations to disable OCPP, mitigating the risk of exploitation. Hydro-Québec has also implemented authentication systems to mitigate the issue for certain charging stations which are still reliant on OCPP. Contact Hydro-Québec with any additional questions.</p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/284.html">CWE-284 Improper Access Control</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>9.8</td>
<td>CRITICAL</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>9.3</td>
<td>CRITICAL</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N">CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-42952</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>Previously, there was no throttling on repeated authentication attempts to the charging station backend, which could allow an attacker to execute a Denial-of-Service attack.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-42952">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Hydro-Québec Le Circuit Electrique charging station backend</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Hydro-Québec</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>Hydro-Québec Le Circuit Electrique charging station backend: &lt;June_2026</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Hydro-Québec has updated the majority of charging stations to disable OCPP, mitigating the risk of exploitation. Hydro-Québec has also implemented authentication systems to mitigate the issue for certain charging stations which are still reliant on OCPP. Contact Hydro-Québec with any additional questions.</p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/307.html">CWE-307 Improper Restriction of Excessive Authentication Attempts</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7.5</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>8.7</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N">CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="csaf-accordion-item">
<h3><a class="csaf-accordion-toggle" href="https://www.cisa.gov/#">CVE-2026-44383</a></h3>
<div class="csaf-accordion-content">
<p>Multiple connections to the backend using the same charging station ID are allowed, which could allow an attacker to deploy multiple instances of malicious OCPP clients to overwhelm the backend.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-44383">View CVE Details</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Affected Products</h4>
<h5>Hydro-Québec Le Circuit Electrique charging station backend</h5>
<div class="ics-vendor-version-status">
<div class="ics-vendor"><strong>Vendor:</strong><br>Hydro-Québec</div>
<div class="ics-version"><strong>Product Version:</strong><br>Hydro-Québec Le Circuit Electrique charging station backend: &lt;June_2026</div>
<div class="ics-status"><strong>Product Status:</strong><br>known_affected</div>
</div>
<div class="ics-remediations">
<h6>Remediations</h6>
<p><strong>Mitigation</strong><br>Hydro-Québec has updated the majority of charging stations to disable OCPP, mitigating the risk of exploitation. Hydro-Québec has also implemented authentication systems to mitigate the issue for certain charging stations which are still reliant on OCPP. Contact Hydro-Québec with any additional questions.</p>
</div>
<p><strong>Relevant CWE:</strong> <a href="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/613.html">CWE-613 Insufficient Session Expiration</a></p>
<hr>
<h4>Metrics</h4>
<div class="csaf-table csaf-metrics-table">
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">CVSS Version</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Score</th>
<th role="columnheader">Base Severity</th>
<th role="columnheader">Vector String</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>7.5</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1#CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H">CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>8.7</td>
<td>HIGH</td>
<td><a href="https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N">CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<hr>
<h2>Acknowledgments</h2>
<ul>
<li>An anonymous researcher reported these vulnerabilities to CISA</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>
<p>This product is provided subject to this Notification (https://www.cisa.gov/notification) and this Privacy &amp; Use policy (https://www.cisa.gov/privacy-policy).</p>
<hr>
<h2>Recommended Practices</h2>
<p>CISA recommends users take defensive measures to minimize the risk of exploitation of these vulnerabilities.</p>
<p>Minimize network exposure for all control system devices and/or systems, ensuring they are not accessible from the internet.</p>
<p>Locate control system networks and remote devices behind firewalls and isolating them from business networks.</p>
<p>When remote access is required, use more secure methods, such as Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), recognizing VPNs may have vulnerabilities and should be updated to the most current version available. Also recognize VPN is only as secure as the connected devices.</p>
<p>CISA reminds organizations to perform proper impact analysis and risk assessment prior to deploying defensive measures.</p>
<p>CISA also provides a section for control systems security recommended practices on the ICS webpage on cisa.gov/ics. Several CISA products detailing cyber defense best practices are available for reading and download, including Improving Industrial Control Systems Cybersecurity with Defense-in-Depth Strategies.</p>
<p>CISA encourages organizations to implement recommended cybersecurity strategies for proactive defense of ICS assets.</p>
<p>Additional mitigation guidance and recommended practices are publicly available on the ICS webpage at cisa.gov/ics in the technical information paper, ICS-TIP-12-146-01B--Targeted Cyber Intrusion Detection and Mitigation Strategies.</p>
<p>Organizations observing suspected malicious activity should follow established internal procedures and report findings to CISA for tracking and correlation against other incidents.</p>
<p>No known public exploitation specifically targeting these vulnerabilities has been reported to CISA at this time.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Revision History</h2>
<ul>
<li><strong>Initial Release Date: </strong>2026-07-07</li>
</ul>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">Date</th>
<th role="columnheader">Revision</th>
<th role="columnheader">Summary</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>2026-07-07</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>Initial Publication</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<hr>
<h2>Legal Notice and Terms of Use</h2>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Preparing for infrastructure constraints, from memory shortages to power limits]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Historically, infrastructure planning followed a predictable script. CIOs balanced budgets, refresh cycles and procurement approvals and when demand spiked, the solution was straightforward — find the funding and scale up. The only real constraint was budget.



Today, the biggest constraints are...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3651773/it-nachrichten/preparing-for-infrastructure-constraints-from-memory-shortages-to-power-limits/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3651773/it-nachrichten/preparing-for-infrastructure-constraints-from-memory-shortages-to-power-limits/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2026 16:04:24 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p><br>Historically, infrastructure planning followed a predictable script. CIOs balanced budgets, refresh cycles and procurement approvals and when demand spiked, the solution was straightforward — find the funding and scale up. The only real constraint was budget.</p>



<p>Today, the biggest constraints aren’t sitting in spreadsheets; they’re rooted in physical reality. High-bandwidth memory is in short supply. Key server components are harder to secure. Power availability is tightening and cooling capacity is becoming a seriously limiting factor. In many cases, the question is no longer “can we afford it?” but “can we get it at all?”</p>



<p>The surge in AI workloads and the relentless expansion of hyperscale data centers have accelerated this shift. Supply chains that once comfortably met enterprise demand are now stretched thin as hyperscalers vacuum up GPUs, memory and large amounts of energy capacity. What used to be a stable, predictable ecosystem has become challenging territory.</p>



<p>For CIOs, this is forcing a serious rethink. Procurement strategies can no longer assume availability. Refresh cycles are being reconsidered. Even long-held assumptions about where infrastructure should live are being questioned. Perhaps most critically, the constraint is no longer just financial. Increasingly, organizations with approved budgets still find themselves waiting, sometimes months longer than planned, for the infrastructure they need to move forward.</p>



<p>In this new environment, planning isn’t just about spending wisely. It’s about securing access in a world where supply is uncertain.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The new infrastructure bottleneck</h2>



<p>Over the past year, much of the conversation has centred on GPU shortages driven by surging AI demand. But the pressure is no longer confined to accelerators; it is spreading across nearly every major infrastructure component. High-bandwidth memory, DIMMs, storage systems, power supplies and even motherboard components are all increasingly subject to allocation constraints. This isn’t creating a temporary imbalance; it’s causing a structural shift.</p>



<p>Previously, semiconductor manufacturers distributed production across a broad mix of markets, from consumer devices to enterprise systems and laptops. AI has disrupted that model. Manufacturing capacity is being pulled toward hyperscale and AI-driven deployments at an unprecedented rate, leaving enterprise buyers competing for a shrinking pool of available supply. For CIOs, the consequences are becoming hard to ignore.</p>



<p>Many organizations are now seeing server costs rise far beyond initial forecasts. While OEM list prices have increased by around <a href="https://www.techradar.com/pro/the-bad-news-continues-server-prices-set-to-rise-in-latest-blow-to-hardware-budget" rel="nofollow">15% to 20%</a>, sharp price spikes in memory and other critical components, in some cases exceeding <a href="https://www.trendforce.com/presscenter/news/20260331-12995.html" rel="nofollow">50%</a>, are pushing total system costs significantly higher.</p>



<p>Lead times that once stretched a few weeks are now measured in months and in some cases, <a href="https://www.trendforce.com/presscenter/news/20260415-13013.html" rel="nofollow">close to a year</a>. Even the procurement process itself is under strain, with suppliers reportedly holding quotes for as little as 72 hours as they grapple with volatile pricing and uncertain availability. For enterprises used to multi-week internal approval cycles, this creates a new kind of operational friction.</p>



<p>And the disruption doesn’t stop in the data center. As high-performance memory is prioritised for AI workloads, pricing pressure is beginning to ripple into laptops and endpoint devices. Some organizations are revisiting older technologies such as tape backups to bridge capacity gaps while waiting for delayed infrastructure. The result is unexpected strain in markets that were, until recently, stable and predictable.</p>



<p>This leaves many CIOs balancing difficult trade-offs. With fixed budgets, some organizations are simply buying less than planned. Others are delaying projects altogether, waiting for supply to catch up. In response, infrastructure lifecycle strategies are shifting.</p>



<p>Systems that were once refreshed every three to five years are being kept in service for five years or more, with some organizations extending lifecycles to <a href="https://www.investing.com/news/stock-market-news/meta-extends-server-lifespan-amid-memory-chip-shortage--wsj-93CH-4646634?utm_source=chatgpt.com" rel="nofollow">six or even seven years</a> as cost pressures and supply constraints reshape infrastructure strategies. As a result, third-party maintenance providers and pre-owned hardware markets are playing a bigger role, offering a way to extend the life of existing assets while reducing exposure to procurement delays.</p>



<p>In many respects, sustainability goals and operational necessity are beginning to align. Extending infrastructure lifecycles can reduce electronic waste and capital expenditure but it also requires new approaches to maintenance, reliability and performance management. What was once a straightforward refresh decision is now a far more strategic calculation.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The physics problem — power, cooling and data center limits</h2>



<p>Supply chain disruption is only part of the challenge. Beneath it lies an even more fundamental constraint — physics.</p>



<p>Modern AI systems require dramatically higher compute density than traditional enterprise workloads. This creates a corresponding increase in power consumption and thermal output, fundamentally changing the design of the modern data center. For decades, many enterprise environments were designed around racks consuming roughly 3kW per cabinet. Today, 50kW racks are becoming increasingly common in AI and high-performance computing environments. Some next-generation GPU deployments are already pushing toward 150kW per rack. That shift changes everything.</p>



<p>Cooling infrastructure designed for traditional enterprise environments is often incapable of handling these thermal loads. As a result, liquid cooling, once considered highly specialised, is rapidly becoming a necessity for many high-density deployments. But cooling is only one part of the equation. The larger issue is power availability itself.</p>



<p>In many regions, hyperscalers have already secured large portions of future energy capacity to support AI expansion. This is creating downstream constraints not only for enterprise data centers but for broader regional infrastructure planning. Utility providers in some markets are quoting <a href="https://money.usnews.com/investing/news/articles/2026-02-03/power-grid-delays-challenge-amazons-data-center-expansion-in-europe" rel="nofollow">five-</a> to seven-year timelines for major power upgrades, meaning organizations can no longer assume they can simply request additional megawatts when needed.</p>



<p>As a result, location strategy is changing. Historically, data center placement often prioritised connectivity, climate and real estate economics, but now, the deciding factor is often simply whether power is available. This shift is driving infrastructure expansion into regions that were not previously considered major data center hubs.</p>



<p>Water availability is emerging as another critical issue. Many advanced cooling systems require significant water resources, creating tension between data center growth and sustainability concerns. In some cases, local governments are already scrutinising or limiting expansion because of environmental impact. These dynamics are exposing limitations in how the industry measures efficiency.</p>



<p>Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE) remains one of the most widely used metrics for evaluating data center performance, but it does not always capture overall compute efficiency. A facility may improve its PUE score by operating at higher temperatures, for example, while simultaneously reducing server performance through thermal throttling.</p>



<p>That raises a contentious question for CIOs and infrastructure leaders — should efficiency be measured purely by power consumption, or by the amount of productive compute delivered per watt? As AI workloads scale, that distinction will become increasingly important.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">How CIOs should respond to long-term infrastructure constraints</h2>



<p>The most important takeaway for enterprise leaders is that these constraints are unlikely to disappear any time soon. Current market conditions suggest that supply pressure, power limitations and infrastructure volatility could continue well into <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4137534/when-hardware-gets-scarce-endpoint-strategy-becomes-a-boardroom-priority.html">2027</a>. This means CIOs need to shift from short-term mitigation towards long-term resilience planning.</p>



<p>That starts with reassessing infrastructure lifecycle assumptions. Extending hardware longevity will become increasingly common, but doing so successfully requires stronger maintenance strategies, better monitoring and more disciplined asset management. Organizations may also need to diversify sourcing models, incorporating refurbished systems, third-party support and hybrid deployment strategies to reduce dependence on constrained supply chains. Capacity planning must also become more dynamic. Traditional procurement cycles based on predictable refresh schedules may no longer be sufficient in an environment defined by fluctuating availability and pricing.</p>



<p>CIOs will need to collaborate more closely with facilities, operations and sustainability teams. Infrastructure decisions can no longer be isolated within IT departments when power, cooling and water availability directly affect deployment feasibility. Most importantly, organizations may need to rethink what infrastructure optimization means.</p>



<p>For years, the industry prioritised maximum performance and rapid refresh cycles. The next phase will require balancing performance against availability, efficiency and long-term sustainability.</p>



<p>The AI era is introducing extraordinary opportunities for innovation, but it is also exposing the physical limits of the infrastructure ecosystem supporting it. The organizations that adapt most effectively will be those that recognise infrastructure resilience is no longer just a procurement issue; it is a strategic operational capability.</p>



<p><strong>This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.</strong><br><a href="https://www.cio.com/expert-contributor-network/"><strong>Want to join?</strong></a></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[‘Talk like a caveman’ prompts save tokens, but far less than promised]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Developers looking to curb the cost of AI-powered coding tools have increasingly turned to the “Caveman” prompting style, which instructs coding assistants to communicate in blunt, telegraphic language and avoid conversational padding. The theory is simple: fewer words mean fewer tokens, translat...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3651521/ai-nachrichten/talk-like-a-caveman-prompts-save-tokens-but-far-less-than-promised/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3651521/ai-nachrichten/talk-like-a-caveman-prompts-save-tokens-but-far-less-than-promised/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2026 14:34:12 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🔧 AI Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p>Developers looking to curb the cost of AI-powered coding tools have increasingly turned to the “Caveman” prompting style, which instructs coding assistants to communicate in blunt, telegraphic language and avoid conversational padding. The theory is simple: fewer words mean fewer tokens, translating into lower inference costs for organizations deploying AI agents at scale.</p>



<p>A new test from IDE maker JetBrains confirms that terse prompting styles such as the viral open-source <a href="https://github.com/juliusbrussee/caveman" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Caveman project</a> can reduce token usage without hurting coding performance. However, the company found that the savings were far smaller than supporters claim. </p>



<p>JetBrains used the Harbor open-source evaluation framework and tasks from SkillsBench for its test, and found that the Caveman technique reduced usage of output tokens by about 8.5%, far below its claimed 65%.</p>



<p>The IDE-maker ran paired benchmarks across 86 real-world software engineering tasks in <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/3853805/vibe-coding-with-claude-code.html">Claude Code</a>, comparing coding sessions that used the Caveman prompting style against otherwise identical sessions without it.</p>



<p>While an initial evaluation of just 10 tasks indicated savings to the tune of about 30%, the reduction fell to about 8.5% as the test progressed, JetBrains engineer <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/dshiryaev" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Denis Shiryaev</a>, wrote in a <a href="https://blog.jetbrains.com/ai/2026/07/speak-to-ai-agents-like-cavemen-tosave-tokens/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">blog post</a>, suggesting that the Caveman technique’s impact was less pronounced across a broader and more representative workload.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Why the savings fell short</h2>



<p>The open-source Caveman project suggests that if an agent drops the conversational padding around responses and communicates in terse, telegraphic fragments, the token outputs saved could translate into meaningful savings at scale.</p>



<p>That assumption, according to Shiryaev, does not fully account for how modern coding agents use tokens.</p>



<p>While shorter prompts and responses do reduce the amount of text exchanged with users, the engineer said the bulk of token consumption in agentic coding workflows comes from reading project files, reasoning through tasks, invoking tools and generating code, limiting the overall savings from trimming conversational language alone.</p>



<p>Further, the engineer pointed out that translating token savings into lower operating costs may not always be straightforward for enterprises.</p>



<p>Although the Caveman technique, during testing, generally resulted in lower costs on individual coding tasks, the cumulative cost of the full benchmark was higher for the Caveman runs after a single dependency-audit task crossed Claude Code’s long-context pricing tier, Shiryaev pointed out.</p>



<p>That same task had produced a similar cost outlier in an earlier baseline run, indicating that the anomaly reflected the workload rather than the prompting technique itself, Shiryaev added.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">No degradation in code quality</h2>



<p>However, not all of JetBrains’ findings undercut the Caveman technique.</p>



<p>The test found no detectable impact on task success rates, code quality or execution time, Shiryaev said, suggesting that while the prompting style may not deliver the dramatic token savings claimed by its proponents, it also did not impair the coding agent’s effectiveness.</p>



<p>Beyond simple cost saving, the findings from the test also add nuance to a growing body of prompt-engineering techniques aimed at reducing AI inference costs.</p>



<p>Besides the Caveman project, other approaches, including data analyst <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/drona-reddy/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Drona Reddy’s</a> <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4152333/how-to-halve-claude-output-costs-with-a-markdown-tweak.html">Markdown-based prompting technique</a>, have claimed meaningful token savings.</p>



<p>For now, enterprises and their leaders should view such prompt-engineering techniques as optimizations to be validated rather than assumptions to be adopted, with production workloads ultimately determining whether the promised savings materialize.</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Marshall’s new home speaker is a bass beast and has a delicious design — I just wish it had this one feature]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Marshall’s new mid-sized home speaker is an absolute bass beast, and its design is undeniably enticing — here’s how I rate it after hours of testing.]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3651417/it-nachrichten/marshalls-new-home-speaker-is-a-bass-beast-and-has-a-delicious-design-i-just-wish-it-had-this-one-feature/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3651417/it-nachrichten/marshalls-new-home-speaker-is-a-bass-beast-and-has-a-delicious-design-i-just-wish-it-had-this-one-feature/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2026 14:03:17 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Marshall’s new mid-sized home speaker is an absolute bass beast, and its design is undeniably enticing — here’s how I rate it after hours of testing.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[No Rules, No Locks: Firebase Misconfiguration and the Borrowers It Left Behind]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Firebase security rules are opt-in. The default, for every new database & storage bucket, is wide open. This is the writeup of a vulnerability started by a team that built an entire lending platform on Firebase, left 2 out of 3 services at their defaults, and what that meant for the people who tr...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3651406/hacking/no-rules-no-locks-firebase-misconfiguration-and-the-borrowers-it-left-behind/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3651406/hacking/no-rules-no-locks-firebase-misconfiguration-and-the-borrowers-it-left-behind/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2026 13:54:48 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🕵️ Hacking</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<figure><img alt="" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1024/1*WrD1mgShGttnp0KMG6MrLQ.png"></figure><blockquote>Firebase security rules are opt-in. The default, for every new database &amp; storage bucket, is wide open. This is the writeup of a vulnerability started by a team that built an entire lending platform on Firebase, left 2 out of 3 services at their defaults, and what that meant for the people who trusted them with their data.</blockquote><p>Somewhere in this story is a woman who applied for a small loan. She submitted her national ID number, her date of birth, her home address, her GPS coordinates, a photo of her face, a photo of her ID card. and a photo of her house. She listed her husband’s name, her mother’s maiden name, her guarantor’s national ID number. She received a credit score. She signed digitally. She trusted that the platform handling all of this had taken the precautions that platforms are supposed to take.</p><p>She had no reason not to. That’s not naivety. That’s a reasonable assumption about how applications work.</p><p>This is about what those precautions actually looked like.</p><h3>What Firebase Actually Is</h3><p>Before getting into the vulnerability, it’s worth understanding the platform, because the misconfiguration here is not a bug in Firebase. It’s a misunderstanding of how Firebase is designed to work, and that distinction matters.</p><p>Firebase is a Backend-as-a-Service (BaaS) platform built and operated by Google. It lets development teams build production applications without managing traditional server infrastructure. Instead of provisioning database servers, configuring file storage, or building authentication systems from scratch, a team connects their app to Firebase and uses Google’s managed services for all of it.</p><p>The relevant services for this vulnerability :</p><p><strong>Firebase Storage</strong> is file hosting backed by Google Cloud Storage. Teams use it to store user-uploaded files: profile photos, ID card scans, document PDFs, form attachments. Files are organized in a bucket, accessible via a REST API.</p><p><strong>Firebase Firestore</strong> is a document database. It stores structured data in collections of documents, each containing key-value fields. It’s the equivalent of MongoDB in the Firebase ecosystem. This is where application data lives: user records, transaction histories, application submissions.</p><p><strong>Firebase Realtime Database</strong> is Firebase’s older JSON tree database. Some projects use it alongside Firestore for real-time sync features, others use it as the primary store. Structured differently from Firestore but the same access model: REST endpoints, security rules controlling access.</p><p>Each of these three services is separate. Each has its own REST API endpoints, its own data model, its own security rules configuration. But they all share one thing: a single `projectId`, the umbrella identifier that ties the entire Firebase project together.</p><p>That’s the architecture detail that makes this class of vulnerability so impactful. One project, three services, three independent security configurations and if any of them is misconfigured, the others are often misconfigured too. Teams that build everything under one Firebase project tend to think about security at the project level, not the service level. When they forget to set rules, they usually forget across the board.</p><h3><strong>The Entry Point: init.json</strong></h3><p>There is a path that almost every Firebase-powered web application exposes by default.</p><p>It sits at `/__/firebase/init.json`. Firebase puts it there intentionally, so the frontend JavaScript SDK can initialize without hardcoding credentials into the app bundle. It’s not hidden, not a mistake, not a misconfiguration by itself. Every developer who deploys a Firebase web app gets this file automatically, whether they think about it or not.</p><p>I’ve seen it many times. Most of the time you note it and move on.</p><p>This time I stayed a little longer.</p><pre>{<br>  "apiKey": "AIzaSy[REDACTED]",<br>  "projectId": "[PROJECT-ID]",<br>  "storageBucket": "[PROJECT-ID].appspot.com",<br>  "databaseURL": "https://[PROJECT-ID].asia-southeast1.firebasedatabase.app",<br>  "authDomain": "[PROJECT-ID].firebaseapp.com"<br>}</pre><p>Six fields. Short enough to read in ten seconds. Most people who encounter this file fixate on apiKey first — it sounds like a credential. <strong>It isn’t. Firebase API keys are not authentication tokens. </strong>They’re project routing identifiers, used to direct SDK calls to the correct Firebase project. <strong>They’re designed to be public.</strong> You cannot authenticate as a user, access a database, or read a storage bucket using an API key alone. The API key is not the vulnerability.</p><p>The field that matters is <em>projectId </em>.</p><p>Once you have the projectId, you can construct the REST endpoint for every Firebase service on the project from scratch. The URL patterns are documented, consistent, and require no guessing:</p><pre>Firebase Storage:<br>  https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/[PROJECT-ID].appspot.com/o<br><br>Firebase Firestore:<br>  https://firestore.googleapis.com/v1/projects/[PROJECT-ID]/databases/(default)/documents/[collection]<br><br>Firebase Realtime Database:<br>  https://[PROJECT-ID].asia-southeast1.firebasedatabase.app/.json</pre><p>All three reachable via plain HTTP requests. No browser, no SDK, no session cookie. Just the projectId and a curl command.</p><p>Whether those requests succeed or return 403 depends entirely on the security rules each service has configured. If the rules say “allow all,” anyone can access anything. If the rules say “require auth,” unauthenticated requests get rejected. The rules are the only gate.</p><p>With those three endpoints in hand, the next step was simple: test each one.</p><h3>Mapping the Full Attack Chain</h3><p>Before diving into each service, here’s what the chain looked like from the outside in. This is the map that a single init.json response made possible:</p><pre>[REDACTED].com/__/firebase/init.json          ← Entry point: one public URL<br>        │<br>        └── Exposes: projectId = "[PROJECT-ID]"<br>                        │<br>        ┌───────────────┼──────────────────────────────────┐<br>        │               │                                  │<br>        ▼               ▼                                  ▼<br>Firebase Storage   Firebase Firestore          Firebase Realtime DB<br>(appspot.com)      (firestore.googleapis.com)  (firebasedatabase.app)<br>        │               │                                  │<br>   READ  ⚠️👨🏻‍💻      READ  ⚠️👨🏻‍💻                      READ  🔒︎(403 ✅)<br>  WRITE  ⚠️👨🏻‍💻     WRITE  ⚠️👨🏻‍💻                     WRITE  🔒︎(403 ✅)<br> DELETE  ⚠️👨🏻‍💻    DELETE  ⚠️👨🏻‍💻<br>        │               │<br>  100+ files        4 open collections:<br>  form schemas      ├── customers  → real borrower NIK, phone, GPS<br>  legal HTML        ├── loans      → loan amounts, disbursement, docs<br>  bank codes        ├── surveys    → complete filled applications<br>                    └── groups     → group metadata + moderator PII</pre><p>The Realtime Database was the one service the team had locked down correctly. Everything else was open.</p><h4><strong>The First Test: Firebase Storage</strong></h4><p>Firebase Storage’s listing endpoint accepts no authentication by default and returns a paginated JSON listing of every file in the bucket:</p><pre>curl -s "https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/[PROJECT-ID].appspot.com/o?maxResults=1000"</pre><p>HTTP 200. No credentials. Over 100 files in the response:</p><pre>{<br>  "items": [<br>    {"name": "FCMImages/Capture.PNG"},<br>    {"name": "FCMImages/Security-Awareness-1000x1000.jpg"},<br>    {"name": "FIAMImages/Fraud-Awareness-Square (1) (1).jpg"},<br>    {"name": "csr/html/form/uk/loan_distribution-1.0.0.html"},<br>    {"name": "csr/html/form/uk/perjanjian_penanggungan-1.0.0.html"},<br>    {"name": "csr/html/terms/cashless/cashless_terms_and_condition-1.1.2.html"},<br>    {"name": "csr/json/bank/banks-1.0.2.json"},<br>    {"name": "csr/json/form/aplus/form-aplus-1.1.0.json"},<br>    {"name": "csr/json/form/monus/form-monus-1.0.0.json"},<br>    {"name": "uk/form-5.5.10.json"},<br>    {"name": "uk/form-5.5.9.json"},<br>    {"name": "uk/form-5.5.0.json"},<br>    {"name": "uk/form-5.3.2.json"},<br>    ...<br>  ]<br>}</pre><p>Downloading any file follows a consistent pattern:</p><pre>https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/[BUCKET]/o/[URL-encoded-filename]?alt=media</pre><p>The `?alt=media` parameter instructs Firebase to return the file contents directly instead of the metadata envelope. Forward slashes in the filename become `%2F`</p><pre>curl -s "https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/[PROJECT-ID].appspot.com/o/uk%2Fform-5.5.10.json?alt=media"</pre><p>What was in the bucket? Mostly application scaffolding: versioned form schema JSON files, HTML legal documents, bank code reference lists, marketing images. The `uk/form-5.5.10.json` schema defines the full structure of the loan application form; field names, field types, validation rules, conditional logic, but contains no actual borrower data. It’s a 114-field blueprint describing what a completed application looks like, not the completed applications themselves.</p><p>The bucket was misconfigured: unauthenticated listing, download, upload, and delete all returned HTTP 200. But the exposed files were templates, not records. Business logic exposed, not PII.</p><p>What the bucket did was tell me exactly what kind of platform this was and what the data schema looked like. Loan distribution forms. KTP (national ID card) photo upload fields. Guarantor fields. Cashless terms and conditions. Versioned form schemas with Indonesian field naming conventions.</p><p>This was a microfinance lending platform, almost certainly serving Indonesian borrowers. And if Storage had the form blueprints, Firestore almost certainly had the filled-out submissions.</p><h4><strong>Understanding Firestore’s Structure</strong></h4><p>Firestore is Firebase’s document database. The data model is straightforward: a database contains collections, each collection contains documents, each document contains fields. The REST API follows this hierarchy directly:</p><pre>https://firestore.googleapis.com/v1/projects/[PROJECT-ID]/databases/(default)/documents/[collection]/[documentId]</pre><p>Hitting the collection endpoint without a document ID returns a paginated list of all documents in that collection. Hitting a specific document path returns that document’s full field contents.</p><p>The catch: you need to know the collection name. Firestore doesn’t expose a collection listing endpoint without authentication. Without a valid name, the API returns an error. With a valid name and open security rules, it returns everything.</p><p>Collection names in a microfinance lending platform are not a mystery. Developers name things after what they contain. Any team building this kind of system reaches for the same vocabulary: `customers`, `loans`, `borrowers`, `users`, `applications`, `surveys`, `payments`, `transactions`, `groups`, `branches`, `agents`.</p><p>The testing methodology is simple and the response codes are unambiguous:</p><ul><li><strong>HTTP 200:</strong> collection exists and is readable without authentication. Vulnerability confirmed.</li><li><strong>HTTP 403:</strong> collection exists but requires authentication. Correctly secured.</li><li><strong>HTTP 404:</strong> collection does not exist.</li></ul><pre>curl -s -o /dev/null -w "%{http_code}" \<br>  "https://firestore.googleapis.com/v1/projects/[PROJECT-ID]/databases/(default)/documents/customers?pageSize=1"</pre><p>I tested over 80 collection names. Here is what the response codes mapped to:</p><pre>| Collection | HTTP | Has Documents | Contents |<br>| - -| - -| - -| - -|<br>| `customers` | 200 | Yes | Full borrower PII |<br>| `loans` | 200 | Yes | Loan records + document URLs |<br>| `surveys` | 200 | Yes | Complete filled applications |<br>| `groups` | 200 | Yes | Group metadata + moderator PII |<br>| `users` | 200 | Empty | Accessible, no data |<br>| `borrowers` | 200 | Empty | Accessible, no data |<br>| `transactions` | 200 | Empty | Accessible, no data |<br>| 70+ others | 200 | Empty | Accessible, no data |<br>| Realtime DB (all paths) | 403 | - | Correctly secured |</pre><p>Four collections containing real production data. Seventy-plus that were accessible but empty. And the Realtime Database, across every path tried, returned 403. One out of three services had functioning security rules. Two did not.</p><p>The accessible-but-empty collections are worth noting. They confirm that the security rules were missing entirely, not just misconfigured for specific collections. Any collection the team had ever created or would ever create in this Firestore instance was open to the public, including future collections they hadn’t built yet.</p><h4><strong>The Customers Collection: Borrower PII at Scale</strong></h4><p>Customer IDs in the `customers` collection followed recognizable numeric ranges: `2020xxxxxx` and `5001xxxxxx`. The prefix pattern is consistent with registration year and batch grouping. Sequential enumeration from a known starting ID worked directly.</p><pre>curl -s "https://firestore.googleapis.com/v1/projects/[PROJECT-ID]/databases/(default)/documents/customers/5001000000"</pre><p>HTTP 200:</p><pre>{<br>  "name": "projects/[PROJECT-ID]/databases/(default)/documents/customers/5001000000",<br>  "fields": {<br>    "name":         { "stringValue": "SITI [REDACTED]" },<br>    "legalId":      { "stringValue": "14030[REDACTED]" },<br>    "sms":          { "stringValue": "+62812[REDACTED]" },<br>    "address":      { "stringValue": "GG [REDACTED]" },<br>    "ktpKelurahan": { "stringValue": "[REDACTED]" },<br>    "ktpKecamatan": { "stringValue": "[REDACTED]" },<br>    "bankName":     { "stringValue": "bri" },<br>    "updatedAt":    { "stringValue": "2026-02-21 08:23:16" },<br>    "geoTagHome": {<br>      "mapValue": { "fields": {<br>        "latitude":  { "doubleValue": [REDACTED] },<br>        "longitude": { "doubleValue": [REDACTED] }<br>      }}<br>    },<br>    "photoPerson":     { "stringValue": "https://storage.googleapis.com/[REDACTED]/survey/8039829/..." },<br>    "photoHome":       { "stringValue": "https://storage.googleapis.com/[REDACTED]/survey/8039829/..." },<br>    "photoPersonBuss": { "stringValue": "https://storage.googleapis.com/[REDACTED]/survey/8039829/..." }</pre><p>The `updatedAt` field: five days before the test. This was not a staging environment or a demo dataset. A real person’s record, updated five days prior, containing their full name, national ID number (`legalId`), phone number, home address, sub-district and district, bank name, and precise GPS home coordinates, alongside direct URLs to their personal and home photos.</p><p>The photo URLs pointed to Google Cloud Storage. Those were also accessible without authentication, because the Storage bucket itself was open.</p><p>There were hundreds of records like this one, spread across the `2020xxxxxx` and `5001xxxxxx` ID ranges. Customer-level PII for every person who had ever been registered on the platform, sitting in an unauthenticated REST endpoint.</p><h4><strong>The Loans Collection: Financial Records</strong></h4><p>The `loans` collection stored individual loan records, each linked back to a customer via the `customerNumber` field. This cross-reference was how specific customer IDs with active records were first confirmed enumerate loans, extract `customerNumber`, query that customer directly.</p><pre>curl -s "https://firestore.googleapis.com/v1/projects/[PROJECT-ID]/databases/(default)/documents/loans/1000041"</pre><p>HTTP 200:</p><pre>{<br>  "fields": {<br>    "id":             { "stringValue": "1000041" },<br>    "customerNumber": { "stringValue": "20200[REDACTED" },<br>    "purpose":        { "stringValue": "Ternak Sapi" },<br>    "principal": {<br>      "mapValue": { "fields": {<br>        "amount":   { "stringValue": "4000000" },<br>        "currency": { "stringValue": "IDR" }<br>      }}<br>    },<br>    "disbursedDate":  { "stringValue": "2021-01-27T09:33:55.22747Z" },<br>    "sector":         { "stringValue": "Peternakan" },<br>    "state":          { "stringValue": "CLOSED" },<br>    "subState":       { "stringValue": "PAID OFF" },<br>    "docs": { "arrayValue": { "values": [{<br>      "mapValue": { "fields": {<br>        "type": { "stringValue": "doc-loa" },<br>        "url":  { "stringValue": "https://storage.googleapis.com/[REDACTED]/doc-loa/DocumentLOA_100004120210127...pdf" }<br>      }}<br>    }]}}<br>  }<br>}</pre><p>Each loan record contained: loan ID, customer cross-reference, stated loan purpose, principal amount and currency, disbursement date, economic sector, current state (active, closed, paid off), and a direct URL to the signed loan agreement PDF stored in Firebase Storage.</p><p>Those document URLs were also accessible without authentication.</p><p>The `loans` collection contained hundreds of records spanning disbursement dates from 2021 through 2026, representing the full history of lending activity on the platform.</p><h3>The Surveys Collection: The Most Sensitive Data</h3><p>The `surveys` collection was where the filled loan applications lived. If `customers` showed you the borrower profile, `surveys` showed you the entire loan application submission, every field from that 114-field schema in Storage, populated with real data from a real person who submitted it to request a loan.</p><p>Each survey document had two layers: top-level processed fields (credit score, approval status, loan cycle) and a nested `_raw` map containing the complete verbatim form submission.</p><pre>curl -s "https://firestore.googleapis.com/v1/projects/[PROJECT-ID]/databases/(default)/documents/surveys/1093924"</pre><p>HTTP 200. Application #1093924, borrower [REDACTED]:</p><pre>[Top-level processed fields]<br>  fullname:         [REDACTED]<br>  creditScoreValue: 814.05<br>  creditScoreGrade: A<br>  stage:            APPROVED_BM<br>  loanCycle:        1<br><br>[_raw — complete form submission]<br>  client_fullname:             [REDACTED]<br>  client_ktp:                  [REDACTED - National ID Number]<br>  client_birthdate:            [REDACTED]<br>  client_birthplace:           Pekalongan<br>  client_religion:             Islam<br>  client_jenis_kelamin:        Perempuan<br>  client_maritalstatus:        Menikah<br>  client_ibu_kandung:          [REDACTED - Mother's maiden name]<br>  client_phone:                [REDACTED]<br>  client_alamat:               [REDACTED]<br>  client_kecamatan:            [REDACTED]<br>  client_kota_kab:             Pekalongan<br>  client_provinsi:             Jawa Tengah<br>  geotagging:                  [REDACTED]<br>  data_suami:                  [REDACTED - Husband's name]<br>  client_ktp_penanggung_jawab: [REDACTED - Guarantor's National ID]<br>  data_pengajuan:              3,000,000 IDR<br>  plafond:                     3,000,000 IDR<br>  rate:                        0.3167 (31.67%/year)<br>  installment:                 79,000 IDR/week<br>  tenor:                       50 weeks<br>  disbursementDate:            2021-06-08<br><br>  photo_ktp:                   https://storage.googleapis.com/[REDACTED]/survey/1093924/...jpeg<br>  photo_client_selfie:         https://storage.googleapis.com/[REDACTED]/survey/1093924/...jpeg<br>  photo_client:                https://storage.googleapis.com/[REDACTED]/survey/1093924/...jpeg<br>  photo_client_house:          https://storage.googleapis.com/[REDACTED]/survey/1093924/...jpeg<br>  photo_ktp_penanggung_jawab:  https://storage.googleapis.com/[REDACTED]/survey/1093924/...jpeg<br>  client_digital_signature:    https://storage.googleapis.com/[REDACTED]/survey/1839892/...<br>  form_tr:                     https://storage.googleapis.com/[REDACTED]/loan/1178404/...pdf</pre><p>Let me be specific about what this single document contained:</p><p>Full name. <strong>National ID number (NIK)</strong>. Date of birth. Birthplace. Religion. Gender. Marital status. Mother’s maiden name. Phone number. Full home address including street, sub-district, district, and province. Precise GPS coordinates of home. Husband’s full name. Guarantor’s national ID number. Loan amount requested. Approved loan amount. Annual interest rate. Weekly installment amount. Loan tenor in weeks. Disbursement date. Credit score value and letter grade. Internal approval stage and loan cycle number.</p><p>Plus direct URLs, all unauthenticated, to: the borrower’s KTP (national ID card) photo, a selfie, a personal photo, a home exterior photo, the guarantor’s KTP photo, the borrower’s digital signature, and the signed loan agreement PDF.</p><p>This is a complete financial and personal identity dossier. In aggregate, the `surveys` collection contained hundreds of records in this format. Every person who had ever submitted a loan application on this platform.</p><h3>Write Access: When Read Is Not the Worst Part</h3><p>Reading hundreds of borrower records is a serious confidentiality violation. But the security rules that permitted reading also permitted writing, modifying, and deleting.full CRUD access with no authentication at any point.</p><p>Creating a new document in any collection:</p><pre>## Construct from the Firestore REST API<br>...<br>...<br><br>payload = {<br>    "fields": {<br>        "name":    {"stringValue": "ATTACKER INJECTED"},<br>        "legalId": {"stringValue": "9999999999999999"}<br>    }<br>}<br># POST to /documents/customers → HTTP 200</pre><p>Response:</p><pre>{<br>  "name": "projects/[PROJECT-ID]/databases/(default)/documents/customers/TYF6XDy0lXqazvvepLhy",<br>  "fields": {<br>    "name":    {"stringValue": "ATTACKER INJECTED"},<br>    "legalId": {"stringValue": "9999999999999999"}<br>  },<br>  "createTime": "2026-02-26T12:17:39.658121Z"</pre><p>Modifying an existing document: PATCH to the document path with new field values; HTTP 200, record overwritten.</p><p>Deleting a document: DELETE to the document path, HTTP 200, record permanently gone with no recovery path.</p><p>I created a canary document in an isolated test collection to confirm write access, then immediately deleted it. No real records were modified or deleted. But the access was real and unrestricted.</p><p>What write and delete access means in practice for a production lending platform:</p><p><strong>Fraudulent record injection:</strong> Insert fake borrower records or loan approvals directly into production collections, bypassing the application’s validation layer entirely.</p><p><strong>Data tampering:</strong> Modify loan amounts, approval statuses, credit scores, or repayment records for any existing borrower. A bad actor could mark a loan as repaid, change a credit grade from F to A, or alter disbursement amounts.</p><p><strong>Evidence destruction:</strong> Delete loan records, customer profiles, or survey submissions. For a regulated financial platform, missing records are a compliance and legal liability.</p><p><strong>Full exfiltration:</strong> Script sequential reads across the customer ID ranges to pull every borrower record in the database. The API imposes no rate limiting that would prevent this.</p><p>The misconfiguration does not distinguish between a researcher running a single test and an attacker running a scripted sweep. The same rules or lack of rules, apply to both.</p><h3><strong>What Comes After the Chain Completes</strong></h3><p>When a chain like this closes, the feeling is not triumph. A single bug is a door. A chain like this is discovering that the building has no locks and never did.</p><p>I kept thinking about the scale. Not abstractly, specifically. The `customers` collection had hundreds of records. The `surveys` collection had hundreds of complete application submissions. Every person who had ever applied for a loan on this platform, every piece of information they had submitted in trust, sitting in a public API endpoint with no access control whatsoever.</p><p>The `surveys` collection was the part that stayed with me. It wasn’t just that PII was exposed. It was the completeness of it. Religion. Mother’s maiden name. Husband’s name. A credit score. A digital signature. The kind of data that, in aggregate, is a complete personal, financial, and social profile of a person. Fields that exist in a loan application precisely because they are sensitive, identity verification, anti-fraud, credit assessment. And all of it retrievable by anyone who could type a URL.</p><p>I stopped enumerating after confirming the pattern across a small number of records. The vulnerability was proven. Going further would have meant accessing data I had no legitimate reason to read.</p><p>What I didn’t stop thinking about was how long this had been this way. The oldest loan records dated back to 2021. The `updatedAt` timestamps in the `customers` collection showed active updates through the week of the test. This wasn’t a recently deployed misconfiguration. It had been open for years, across the entire operational life of the platform, while the borrowers it served had no idea.</p><h3>The Lesson: Test Every Service, Every Time</h3><p>The pattern that makes Firebase misconfiguration so common is the way teams think about security at the project level rather than the service level.</p><p>A developer secures the Realtime Database. They write rules, test them, they work. They move on with the assumption that the other services are handled the same way. But Firestore has its own rules file, separate from the Realtime Database. Storage has its own rules file, separate from Firestore. Each service has to be configured independently.</p><p>The team that built this platform did exactly one thing right: they locked down the Realtime Database. If you only look at that service, the security posture looks considered. But they built the real application data on Firestore and Storage, and neither had rules.</p><p>This is now a reflexive part of how I approach any Firebase-backed application. Find the `init.json`. Extract the `projectId`. Test all three services. Don’t assume that one secured service means the others are secured. The pattern holds more often than it should: if one is misconfigured, check the others immediately.</p><p>The Realtime Database 403 was almost misleading. It created a superficial impression of a team that thought about security. The impression collapsed the moment I tested Firestore.</p><h3>The Fix</h3><p>Every Firebase service has its own security rules configuration, managed in the Firebase Console or deployed via the Firebase CLI. The Firestore and Storage rules for this project were at the default open state. In Firestore, that default looks like this:</p><pre>// Default open rules — anyone, anywhere, no authentication required<br>rules_version = '2';<br>service cloud.firestore {<br>  match /databases/{database}/documents {<br>    match /{document=**} {<br>      allow read, write;<br>    }<br>  }<br>}</pre><p>The baseline fix is requiring authentication before any access:</p><pre>rules_version = '2';<br>service cloud.firestore {<br>  match /databases/{database}/documents {<br>    match /{document=**} {<br>      allow read, write: if request.auth != null;<br>    }<br>  }<br>}</pre><p>For Storage, the same baseline in `storage.rules`:</p><pre>rules_version = '2';<br>service firebase.storage {<br>  match /b/{bucket}/o {<br>    match /{allPaths=**} {<br>      allow read, write: if request.auth != null;<br>    }<br>  }<br>}</pre><p>The right model goes further. In a lending platform, not every authenticated user should read every document. The correct rules reflect the application’s actual access model:</p><ul><li>A borrower can read and update only their own customer record.</li><li>A loan officer can read records associated with their assigned branch or group.</li><li>Survey submissions can only be read by the submitting borrower or authorized staff.</li><li>No user, authenticated or not should have delete access to production financial records without an explicit admin role check.</li></ul><p>But `if request.auth != null` is the baseline that eliminates unauthenticated access entirely. It’s two words added to an existing rule. The team already knew the syntax, the Realtime Database rules proved it. The rules for Firestore and Storage just weren’t there.</p><p>One consistent decision applied across three services instead of one closes the entire chain.</p><h3>What init.json Is and Isn’t</h3><p>The `init.json` file is not the vulnerability. It cannot and should not be removed. Firebase web apps need it to initialize, and removing it breaks the frontend SDK. There are no secrets in that file that should be hidden.</p><p>The vulnerability is a mental model error: “the frontend needs this config file, therefore the backend is safe because clients have to go through the frontend first.” That assumption is wrong. The Firebase REST APIs are public-facing, fully documented, and completely bypasses the frontend. Any attacker can construct a valid Firestore or Storage request using nothing but the `projectId` and a terminal.</p><p>The security boundary in Firebase exists only in the server-side rules. The `init.json` file tells you where every service lives. The rules file controls whether you can get inside. If the rules file is empty, the boundary is empty.</p><p>Every Firebase project I review now, I check all three services. The pattern holds more reliably than it should: if a team misconfigured one, they usually misconfigured the others. The Realtime Database being secured here was the exception. Two out of three services wide open was enough for full compromise of hundreds of borrower records.</p><blockquote>The woman who submitted her loan application did everything she was supposed to do. She trusted that the platform had done the basic things platforms are supposed to do. A two-line rule change in a configuration file, applied when the database was first created, would have made that trust warranted.</blockquote><blockquote>It wasn’t applied. This is what that cost.</blockquote><p><em>If you’re building on Firebase: open the Firebase Console right now, go to Firestore → Rules, Storage → Rules, and Realtime Database → Rules. Read each one carefully. If any of them contain `allow read, write;` without a condition, that service is open to the public internet at this moment.</em></p><img src="https://medium.com/_/stat?event=post.clientViewed&amp;referrerSource=full_rss&amp;postId=90d568038414" width="1" height="1" alt=""><hr><p><a href="https://infosecwriteups.com/no-rules-no-locks-firebase-misconfiguration-and-the-borrowers-it-left-behind-90d568038414">No Rules, No Locks: Firebase Misconfiguration and the Borrowers It Left Behind</a> was originally published in <a href="https://infosecwriteups.com/">InfoSec Write-ups</a> on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Talk, talk, talk: The rise of AI dictation tools at work]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[For workers who routinely spend hours a day interacting with various AI assistants, banging out prompts on a keyboard can quickly become a chore. 



“Whether it’s a coding task, helping write a document or think about strategy — there’s just so much typing and typing and typing you do as a part ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3651342/it-nachrichten/talk-talk-talk-the-rise-of-ai-dictation-tools-at-work/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3651342/it-nachrichten/talk-talk-talk-the-rise-of-ai-dictation-tools-at-work/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2026 13:32:41 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p>For workers who routinely spend hours a day interacting with various AI assistants, banging out prompts on a keyboard can quickly become a chore. </p>



<p>“Whether it’s a coding task, helping write a document or think about strategy — there’s just so much typing and typing and typing you do as a part of that,” said <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/patalano" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Chris Patalano</a>, chief technology officer at Thumbtack, an online marketplace for professional services.</p>



<p>With that in mind, Patalano and other senior colleagues last year began experimenting with new ways to interact with AI systems within Thumbtack. The idea was to test AI-assisted dictation tools developed by startups such as <a href="https://www.monologue.to/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Monologue</a>, <a href="https://superwhisper.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Superwhisper</a>, <a href="https://willowvoice.com/">Willow </a><a href="https://willowvoice.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Voice</a>, and <a href="https://wisprflow.ai/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Wispr</a>. </p>



<p>Unlike previous generations of dictation apps that aimed to produce a verbatim transcript, newer tools rely on large language models (LLMs) to craft polished, edited text. The companies behind them claim users can produce text several times faster than typing, with greater accuracy than voice tools built into other apps.</p>



<p>That has sparked renewed interest in <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4175881/ai-will-kill-the-skill-of-typing.html">using voice prompts to carry out routine tasks</a> in the workplace.</p>



<p>After one of Thumbtack’s principal engineers suggested Wispr Flow, Patalano kicked off a small pilot project with a handful of colleagues over a couple of months. The pilot was a success, and Wispr Flow is now available to more than 200 IT and engineering staffers; they use it for a variety of tasks, including interactions with AI assistants and drafting Slack messages to colleagues.<em> </em></p>



<p>Although Patalano said he still prefers typing for certain apps, Wispr Flow’s AI dictation tool has become a part of his daily workflow. “It’s becoming the primary interface that I have for any AI tools. It’s just so much more effective and efficient than having to type,” he said. </p>



<p>“I’ve used it to help me build prototypes, explore the code base, help me explore my own technical strategy. I’ve used it to do analytics across data sets — even very specific acute things, like ‘What do I need to make sure is on my to-do list this week?’”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">A new generation of dictation tools</h2>



<p>Software that translates spoken words into text isn’t new to the workplace. Speech-to-text dictation tools have been around in various forms for decades. The earliest example dates back to 1952, when Bell Labs created Audrey, widely regarded as the first automatic speech recognition system. (Audrey <a href="https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20170214-the-machines-that-learned-to-listen" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">could recognize the spoken digits 0-9</a> with 90% accuracy when used by the machine’s developer, HK Davis.) </p>



<p>Commercial products appeared in the 1980s, with broader adoption in the 1990s via software such as Dragon Dictate. These were specialized — and expensive — applications with limited functionality, appealing mostly to professionals for whom dictation was already a part of their workflow, such as doctors and lawyers, rather than a wide range of office workers. </p>



<p>In recent years, speech-to-text software has become more accessible, especially  with the integration of speech recognition into smartphones and computers by Apple, Google, Microsoft, and others. Deep learning has also significantly improved accuracy.</p>



<p>That’s made <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/may/12/end-of-typing-workers-ditching-keyboards-voicepilling-ai-dictation" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">voice input more common in the workplace</a> and an important accessibility tool for people who find typing difficult — even though the systems can still be “quite brittle,” said <a href="https://people.ucd.ie/benjamin.cowan" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Benjamin Cowan</a>, professor at the School of Information and Communication Studies at University College Dublin. That’s especially true of early voice input technology.</p>



<p>“Not only did they get things wrong all the time, they wrote everything you said — even if you didn’t want it to,” he said. “This meant that a lot of time was taken editing the notes after they were dictated.” </p>



<p>Now, several startups offering AI dictation tools, including Wispr, aim to make voice a viable alternative to typing for everyday computer tasks. The key difference from earlier iterations of tools is the use of AI models to edit text in near-real-time, removing disfluencies such as “umms,” “ahhs” and filler words to create a polished sentence. </p>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" src="https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Snippets.png?w=1024" alt="Whispr Flow snippets" class="wp-image-4193385" width="1024" height="674" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px"><figcaption class="wp-element-caption"><p>Whispr Flow offers shortcuts, or “snippets” with its voice tool.</p>
</figcaption></figure><p class="imageCredit">Whispr Flow snippets</p></div>



<p>In most cases, users can invoke an AI dictation tool across mobile and desktop applications with a text field – whether that’s a document editor, email client, a vibe-coding app or anything else – by pressing and holding a designated key or button while talking. Users can add words to the app’s dictionary so it can pick up on uncommon names, abbreviations, and industry jargon.</p>



<p>“The technology itself has improved dramatically” compared to previous tools that sought to transcribe speech verbatim and could be frustratingly inaccurate, said <a href="https://uk.linkedin.com/in/mariabell" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Maria Bell</a>, senior research analyst at CCS Insight.  </p>



<p>“These modern systems are much more contextual; they understand your intent, they can help structure your thoughts and rewrite while you speak. They function more like writing assistants rather than just dictation.”</p>



<p>Wispr is among the best-funded startups in the market, having raised $81 million to date.<em> </em><a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-05-12/ai-dictation-startup-wispr-in-funding-talks-at-2-billion-value" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Bloomberg reported in May</a> that the company was in talks to raise a further $260 million at a $2 billion valuation. Other vendors have also attracted investor backing, with Willow Voice <a href="https://x.com/_allanguo/status/1945185671054024828" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">announcing a $4.2 million funding round</a> last year.</p>



<p>The software is typically available via a freemium model, with a free tier offering basic functionality and usage limits alongside paid premium versions. Superwhisper Pro is $8.49 per user each month; Willow Voice’s Team Pro and Individual Pro are $10 and $12 per user each month, respectively; and Wispr Flow Pro costs $12 per user each month. Enterprise pricing is not publicly available from these vendors.</p>



<p>Larger tech firms have also invested in AI-assisted voice functionality. Apple, for instance, <a href="https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2026/06/apple-introduces-siri-ai-a-profoundly-more-capable-and-personal-assistant/%23:~:text=Users%2520have%2520the%2520ability%2520to%2520customize%2520the%2520expressiveness%2520and%2520pace%2520of%2520Siri%25E2%2580%2599s%2520voice,accurately,%2520and%2520as%2520intended." target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">recently announced</a> AI-powered dictation for its <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4184484/siri-ai-is-all-apple-it-just-needed-google-to-get-there.html">revamped Siri AI assistant</a>, while Google is building in <a href="https://blog.google/products-and-platforms/platforms/android/gemini-intelligence/%23:~:text=Turn%2520spoken%2520thoughts%2520into%2520polished%2520text" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">similar functionality</a> for the <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4026831/android-voice-typing.html">Gboard keyboard</a> on Android devices. Google is also developing a standalone AI dictation tool – <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4156760/googles-new-ai-app-is-a-glimpse-of-the-future.html">Edge Eloquent</a> – although its approach differs from that of startups in the space because the tool is not available across separate applications.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Why use AI dictation?</h2>



<p>The key promise of AI dictation is that it can increase a knowledge worker’s words-per-minute (wpm) output versus typing. </p>



<p><a href="https://superwhisper.com/typing-speed-test" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">According to Superwhisper</a>, most office workers can knock out between 40 and 70 words a minute on a  keyboard, though some can be much faster. (<em>New York Times</em> reporters vary from 36 to 134 wpm, according to a <em>Times</em> <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/25/insider/how-fast-journalists-type.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">article earlier this year</a>.) People talk much faster, at a rate of 160 to 180 wpm, and AI dictation app vendors promise low latency processing to turn speech into edited text (usually less than a second; some claim under 200 milliseconds).</p>



<p>It’s not just about speed: Willow Voice, for instance, claims its app is three times more accurate than dictation tools built into other applications. </p>



<p>The prospect of accelerating routine writing and communication tasks has obvious appeal, particularly as AI threatens to increase rather than reduce the burden on office workers. “We all feel like we’re working faster – we have to do more with less time,” said Bell. </p>



<p>“Employees are overloaded with communication work, and they’re spending huge amounts of time every day writing emails, messaging colleagues, using generative AI,” she said. “Voice tools are appealing because some feel they can do wor] faster. It reduces friction around all the tasks they’re being asked to do.”</p>



<p>The technology is potentially suited to a variety of jobs, said Cowan — not only those that require dictation — helping with tasks such as writing to-do lists and documents, or sending messages and emails. </p>



<p>Accessibility is important, too. “These dictation tools also mean that people who find it hard to type or cannot type now have much better apps to help them with writing,” said Cowan. </p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What’s holding the technology back?</h2>



<p>Despite these potential benefits, the idea of talking to a laptop or smartphone throughout the day might not be appealing for a lot of people, particularly those in a busy office. </p>



<p>“Some might find it embarrassing or uncomfortable, they’ll be worried about distracting colleagues or creating a disruption,” said Bell. “That’s still a major behavioral barrier that you have to overcome. </p>



<p>“The technology is ready, but maybe workplace etiquette and culture is not necessarily there yet,” she said.</p>



<p>Working remotely, Patalano said he and his team can side-step some of this awkwardness. But it still took time to adjust to voice inputs.<em> </em></p>



<p>“Because we’re fully remote, we don’t have the challenge of everybody sitting side by side in an office talking into their computers, which would be more challenging, I suspect. But even getting comfortable with talking out loud alone in a room took a minute,” he said. </p>



<p>As with any AI tool, there’s also the question of accuracy. </p>



<p>Even if vendors promise a low error rate, LLM outputs can still have errors, requiring users to check the results. “They can still mis-recognize what’s being said,” said Cowan. Those in high-risk sectors such as healthcare still need to go through the AI-edited text and “double- and triple-check” the dictation. </p>



<p>This friction means extra steps for a user working with the technology. </p>



<p>It doesn’t take much to dissuade workers from adopting a new tool, said <a href="https://www.jarnoldassociates.com/about/jon-arnold" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Jon Arnold</a>, research analyst at J Arnold &amp; Associates. “There’s definitely a lot of use cases where it would have a lot of value, but you’ve got to trust it — if it’s not giving what you think it will, you’re either going to fine tune it or go back to the keyboard and do it the old-fashioned way,” he said.</p>



<p>There are also privacy concerns. Because some tools send voice data to the cloud for processing, organizations in heavily regulated industries such as finance, healthcare and government might move cautiously.</p>



<p>Bell points to two types of privacy: social, such as “having colleagues overhear what you’re saying,” and digital privacy, which relates to who else can access the conversation data. </p>



<p>App providers take different approaches; some process voice data on device, others send it to the cloud. That’s an important distinction for organizations with strict data protection requirements, said Bell. </p>



<p>“Where’s the voice data processed? Where is it stored? How can it be accessed? Enterprises are very, very focused on governance and data security and data privacy,” she said.</p>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" src="https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/evan-yang-LPAYmP4KSrg-unsplash.jpg?quality=50&amp;strip=all&amp;w=1024" alt="Rusty keyboard on the ground" class="wp-image-4175785" width="1024" height="683" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px"></figure><a href="https://unsplash.com/@__evanyang__" target="_blank" class="imageCredit" rel="noopener">Evan Yang</a></div>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Too soon to ditch the keyboard?</h2>



<p>Despite growing interest in the technology, it’s still unclear whether a large number of workers will choose talking over typing. And remains to be seen whether startups that offer a best-of-breed AI dictation app can gain traction, or fade if the technology simply becomes embedded within the software ecosystems of larger tech firms.  </p>



<p>Workers are more familiar with voice technology, thanks to AI assistants in smartphones and smart speakers at home. That, said Bell, could improve the prospects of wider use in business settings. </p>



<p>“Voice interaction feels less niche than it did about five years ago,” she said. “Overall, the technology is improving quickly…, but how we’re really going to determine success is whether we can change human behavior.”</p>



<p>Arnold is bullish about the use of voice technology in the workplace: “Five or 10 years [from now], we won’t think twice about it. It’ll just be the norm.”</p>



<p>Bell is more cautious.She sees potential for AI dictation as a supplementary tool for communication-heavy work. “I don’t think it’s going to replace the keyboard, but I do think it could become a secondary interface,” she said.</p>



<p>Even Patalano doesn’t expect AI-assisted voice dictation to entirely replace typing “Your speaking voice and your written voice will always, to some degree, be different, and that’s okay: we should probably lean into that,” he said.</p>



<p>“I think there will always be a place for wordsmithing, crafting, writing – and the same with coding, too. There’s going to be lots of cases where every single word matters.”</p>



<p>He plans to continue using AI dictation, whether with Wispr Flow or other similar tools that might emerge in the future.  </p>



<p>While a lack of accuracy slowed adoption in the past, continued advances could open the door to wider workplace uptake.  </p>



<p>“When I try to use a voice tool and it misses even once, you kind of throw up your hands and walk away, because the cost of having to correct it is way more than the benefit of using it versus typing,” Patalano said. “But, especially with the improvements in LLMs and AI models generally, the accuracy of these is going to keep getting better and better. </p>



<p>“I’m already looking for more and more opportunities to use voice instead of having to type.” </p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Preparing for infrastructure constraints — from memory shortages to power limits]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Historically, infrastructure planning followed a predictable script. CIOs balanced budgets, refresh cycles and procurement approvals and when demand spiked, the solution was straightforward — find the funding and scale up. The only real constraint was budget.



Today, the biggest constraints are...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3651105/it-security-nachrichten/preparing-for-infrastructure-constraints-from-memory-shortages-to-power-limits/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3651105/it-security-nachrichten/preparing-for-infrastructure-constraints-from-memory-shortages-to-power-limits/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2026 12:08:36 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p>Historically, infrastructure planning followed a predictable script. CIOs balanced budgets, refresh cycles and procurement approvals and when demand spiked, the solution was straightforward — find the funding and scale up. The only real constraint was budget.</p>



<p>Today, the biggest constraints aren’t sitting in spreadsheets; they’re rooted in physical reality. High-bandwidth memory is in short supply. Key server components are harder to secure. Power availability is tightening and cooling capacity is becoming a seriously limiting factor. In many cases, the question is no longer “can we afford it?” but “can we get it at all?”</p>



<p>The surge in AI workloads and the relentless expansion of hyperscale data centers have accelerated this shift. Supply chains that once comfortably met enterprise demand are now stretched thin as hyperscalers vacuum up GPUs, memory and large amounts of energy capacity. What used to be a stable, predictable ecosystem has become challenging territory.</p>



<p>For CIOs, this is forcing a serious rethink. Procurement strategies can no longer assume availability. Refresh cycles are being reconsidered. Even long-held assumptions about where infrastructure should live are being questioned. Perhaps most critically, the constraint is no longer just financial. Increasingly, organisations with approved budgets still find themselves waiting, sometimes months longer than planned, for the infrastructure they need to move forward.</p>



<p>In this new environment, planning isn’t just about spending wisely. It’s about securing access in a world where supply is uncertain.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The new infrastructure bottleneck</h2>



<p>Over the past year, much of the conversation has centred on GPU shortages driven by surging AI demand. But the pressure is no longer confined to accelerators; it is spreading across nearly every major infrastructure component. High-bandwidth memory, DIMMs, storage systems, power supplies and even motherboard components are all increasingly subject to allocation constraints. This isn’t creating a temporary imbalance; it’s causing a structural shift.</p>



<p>Previously, semiconductor manufacturers distributed production across a broad mix of markets, from consumer devices to enterprise systems and laptops. AI has disrupted that model. Manufacturing capacity is being pulled toward hyperscale and AI-driven deployments at an unprecedented rate, leaving enterprise buyers competing for a shrinking pool of available supply. For CIOs, the consequences are becoming hard to ignore.</p>



<p>Many organisations are now seeing server costs rise far beyond initial forecasts. While OEM list prices have increased by around <a href="https://www.techradar.com/pro/the-bad-news-continues-server-prices-set-to-rise-in-latest-blow-to-hardware-budget" rel="nofollow">15% to 20%</a>, sharp price spikes in memory and other critical components, in some cases exceeding <a href="https://www.trendforce.com/presscenter/news/20260331-12995.html" rel="nofollow">50%</a>, are pushing total system costs significantly higher.</p>



<p>Lead times that once stretched a few weeks are now measured in months and, in some cases, <a href="https://www.trendforce.com/presscenter/news/20260415-13013.html" rel="nofollow">close to a year</a>. Even the procurement process itself is under strain, with suppliers reportedly holding quotes for as little as 72 hours as they grapple with volatile pricing and uncertain availability. For enterprises used to multi-week internal approval cycles, this creates a new kind of operational friction.</p>



<p>And the disruption doesn’t stop in the data center. As high-performance memory is prioritised for AI workloads, pricing pressure is beginning to ripple into laptops and endpoint devices. Some organisations are revisiting older technologies such as tape backups to bridge capacity gaps while waiting for delayed infrastructure. The result is unexpected strain in markets that were, until recently, stable and predictable.</p>



<p>This leaves many CIOs balancing difficult trade-offs. With fixed budgets, some organisations are simply buying less than planned. Others are delaying projects altogether, waiting for supply to catch up. In response, infrastructure lifecycle strategies are shifting.</p>



<p>Systems that were once refreshed every three to five years are being kept in service for five years or more, with some organisations extending lifecycles to <a href="https://www.investing.com/news/stock-market-news/meta-extends-server-lifespan-amid-memory-chip-shortage--wsj-93CH-4646634?utm_source=chatgpt.com" rel="nofollow">six or even seven years</a> as cost pressures and supply constraints reshape infrastructure strategies. As a result, third-party maintenance providers and pre-owned hardware markets are playing a bigger role, offering a way to extend the life of existing assets while reducing exposure to procurement delays.</p>



<p>In many respects, sustainability goals and operational necessity are beginning to align. Extending infrastructure lifecycles can reduce electronic waste and capital expenditure but it also requires new approaches to maintenance, reliability and performance management. What was once a straightforward refresh decision is now a far more strategic calculation.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The physics problem — power, cooling and data center limits</h2>



<p>Supply chain disruption is only part of the challenge. Beneath it lies an even more fundamental constraint — physics.</p>



<p>Modern AI systems require dramatically higher compute density than traditional enterprise workloads. This creates a corresponding increase in power consumption and thermal output, fundamentally changing the design of the modern data center. For decades, many enterprise environments were designed around racks consuming roughly 3kW per cabinet. Today, 50kW racks are becoming increasingly common in AI and high-performance computing environments. Some next-generation GPU deployments are already pushing toward 150kW per rack. That shift changes everything.</p>



<p>Cooling infrastructure designed for traditional enterprise environments is often incapable of handling these thermal loads. As a result, liquid cooling, once considered highly specialised, is rapidly becoming a necessity for many high-density deployments. But cooling is only one part of the equation. The larger issue is power availability itself.</p>



<p>In many regions, hyperscalers have already secured large portions of future energy capacity to support AI expansion. This is creating downstream constraints not only for enterprise data centers but for broader regional infrastructure planning. Utility providers in some markets are quoting five-to seven-year timelines for major power upgrades, meaning organisations can no longer assume they can simply request additional megawatts when needed.</p>



<p>As a result, location strategy is changing. Historically, data center placement often prioritised connectivity, climate and real estate economics but now, the deciding factor is often simply whether power is available. This shift is driving infrastructure expansion into regions that were not previously considered major data center hubs.</p>



<p>Water availability is emerging as another critical issue. Many advanced cooling systems require significant water resources, creating tension between data center growth and sustainability concerns. In some cases, local governments are already scrutinising or limiting expansion because of environmental impact. These dynamics are exposing limitations in how the industry measures efficiency.</p>



<p>Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE) remains one of the most widely used metrics for evaluating data center performance, but it does not always capture overall compute efficiency. A facility may improve its PUE score by operating at higher temperatures, for example, while simultaneously reducing server performance through thermal throttling.</p>



<p>That raises a contentious question for CIOs and infrastructure leaders — should efficiency be measured purely by power consumption, or by the amount of productive compute delivered per watt? As AI workloads scale, that distinction will become increasingly important.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">How CIOs should respond to long-term infrastructure constraints</h2>



<p>The most important takeaway for enterprise leaders is that these constraints are unlikely to disappear any time soon. Current market conditions suggest that supply pressure, power limitations and infrastructure volatility could continue well into <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4137534/when-hardware-gets-scarce-endpoint-strategy-becomes-a-boardroom-priority.html">2027</a>. This means CIOs need to shift from short-term mitigation towards long-term resilience planning.</p>



<p>That starts with reassessing infrastructure lifecycle assumptions. Extending hardware longevity will become increasingly common, but doing so successfully requires stronger maintenance strategies, better monitoring and more disciplined asset management. Organisations may also need to diversify sourcing models, incorporating refurbished systems, third-party support and hybrid deployment strategies to reduce dependence on constrained supply chains. Capacity planning must also become more dynamic. Traditional procurement cycles based on predictable refresh schedules may no longer be sufficient in an environment defined by fluctuating availability and pricing.</p>



<p>CIOs will need to collaborate more closely with facilities, operations and sustainability teams. Infrastructure decisions can no longer be isolated within IT departments when power, cooling and water availability directly affect deployment feasibility. Most importantly, organisations may need to rethink what infrastructure optimisation means.</p>



<p>For years, the industry prioritised maximum performance and rapid refresh cycles. The next phase will require balancing performance against availability, efficiency and long-term sustainability.</p>



<p>The AI era is introducing extraordinary opportunities for innovation, but it is also exposing the physical limits of the infrastructure ecosystem supporting it. The organisations that adapt most effectively will be those that recognise infrastructure resilience is no longer just a procurement issue; it is a strategic operational capability.</p>



<p><strong>This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.</strong><br><strong><a href="https://www.cio.com/expert-contributor-network/">Want to join?</a></strong></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[With AI, a wrong answer is a bug. A wrong action is an incident]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[A copilot that gives a wrong answer is a quality problem. An AI agent that takes a wrong action is an incident, sometimes a reportable one. That single difference is most of the story of where banking AI security is heading, and most banks’ current controls were built for the first kind of proble...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3650949/it-nachrichten/with-ai-a-wrong-answer-is-a-bug-a-wrong-action-is-an-incident/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3650949/it-nachrichten/with-ai-a-wrong-answer-is-a-bug-a-wrong-action-is-an-incident/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2026 11:03:09 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
		<div class="grid grid--cols-10@md grid--cols-8@lg article-column">
					  <div class="col-12 col-10@md col-6@lg col-start-3@lg">
						<div class="article-column__content">
<section class="wp-block-bigbite-multi-title"><div class="container"></div></section>



<p>A copilot that gives a wrong answer is a quality problem. An AI agent that takes a wrong action is an incident, sometimes a reportable one. That single difference is most of the story of where banking AI security is heading, and most banks’ current controls were built for the first kind of problem, not the second.</p>



<p>For two years, the AI a bank had to worry about mostly read and summarized. It drafted a customer email, pulled the gist of a credit memo, answered a relationship manager’s product question. The security questions were about disclosure: could the model see data it shouldn’t, could it leak that data in an answer. Redaction, output filtering and a human reading the response before it went anywhere were reasonable defenses.</p>



<p>Banks have moved past that, faster than most security programs have. The newer systems are agents. They don’t just answer; they act. An agent can pull a customer’s full transaction history, call a fraud-scoring service, adjust a limit or start a payment workflow, chaining several to finish a task with no human in between. Banks are among the most aggressive adopters of agentic AI, and they are pushing it into production faster than most security programs have kept pace with, which means they are also among the first to inherit the security problem that comes with it.</p>



<p>I’d put that problem in one phrase: overprivileged agents. The risk is no longer mainly what the model can see. It is what the agent is allowed to do inside systems that move money and hold regulated data.</p>



<p>This is no longer only a vendor’s warning. On April 30, 2026, the cyber agencies of the Five Eyes nations issued their first joint guidance on securing agentic AI, <a href="https://www.cyber.gov.au/business-government/secure-design/artificial-intelligence/careful-adoption-of-agentic-ai-services" rel="nofollow"><em>Careful Adoption of Agentic AI Services</em></a>. Six agencies signed it, two of them American (CISA and the NSA), alongside the lead agencies of the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. It names privilege as the leading category of agentic risk and calls strict least privilege critical. When five governments coordinate on a single control, “best practice” becomes “expected practice” quickly. For a CISO, that moves the timeline up.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What “too much authority” actually looks like</h2>



<p><a href="https://genai.owasp.org/llmrisk/llm062025-excessive-agency/" rel="nofollow">OWASP’s breakdown of the failure mode it calls excessive agency</a> maps cleanly onto a bank. <em>Excessive functionality</em> is an agent that can reach tools its task never needed, like a servicing agent that can also touch the payments API “just in case.” <em>Excessive permissions</em> is the right tool at the wrong scope: a reconciliation agent meant only to read, running with credentials that can also write. <em>Excessive autonomy </em>is a consequential action with no human in the loop: a fee reversed, a limit raised, a record changed, with nothing checking it. In practice these rarely appear alone; they compound.</p>



<p>The canonical example is mundane: an agent that reads one user’s data through an account that can see everyone’s. Translate that to a bank and it becomes an agent that can query every customer’s records to answer a question about one. That is the confused-deputy problem: the agent acts with the full authority of whatever identity it borrowed, while taking instructions from input an attacker may control.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The mechanism, from a real incident</h2>



<p>The clearest public illustration so far comes from developer tooling rather than banking, but the mechanism is identical. In July 2025, an attacker used an over-scoped build token to slip malicious code into the open-source repository behind the Amazon Q Developer extension for VS Code, and it shipped in an official release (<a href="https://aws.amazon.com/security/security-bulletins/AWS-2025-015/" rel="nofollow">CVE-2025-8217</a>). The injected instructions told the AI assistant to wipe the local machine and delete cloud resources, down to specific S3 buckets and EC2 instances. The assistant could reach the local filesystem, the shell and AWS CLI tools, so structurally little stood between those instructions and real damage. What stopped them was a bug: the payload had a syntax error and never ran, and AWS found no customer environments affected. But the extension had been installed close to a million times, and the margin of safety was an accident.</p>



<p>The uncomfortable part is not that the agent was “hacked” in the usual sense. Had the attacker’s code been written correctly, the agent would have done exactly what the injected text told it, through a channel it trusted. The lesson: an agent with broad tools, write access and no approval gate is dangerous not only when someone steals its credentials, but any time someone can reach its input. And in a bank, reachable inputs sit everywhere an agent reads text it did not author: the memo line on a wire, a customer’s email in a dispute, a PDF uploaded to a loan file, a free-text field in a KYC record. This is indirect prompt injection, and the defenses for it are still partial. You cannot reliably solve it by instructing the agent to behave. You solve it by limiting what it is able to do, regardless of what it is told.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What I keep seeing in deployments</h2>



<p>In the redaction-control work I’ve done with banks, the gap is rarely the model. It is that the agent gets wired to the data and the tools first; what it should be allowed to reach gets asked later, if at all.</p>



<p>One pattern recurs. A customer-servicing agent is wired into the core banking system to resolve account queries. To answer a simple question, it pulls the customer’s entire profile into context: full account number, date of birth, the complete transaction narrative. The task needed the last four digits and a list of recent transactions; the agent got everything, and each field then sat in prompts, logs and traces never scoped as sensitive data. The fix was not a sharper prompt. It was moving redaction to the retrieval boundary, so those fields were tokenized before they reached the agent, and scoping its read access to the one customer in the open case, not the whole table.</p>



<p>The other half of the problem is authority, not data. That same agent often shares a service account with a batch job, so it can write to fields well beyond a customer’s question. A dedicated identity with its own scoped, short-lived credentials is unglamorous work, but it is the difference between an agent that can read one case and one that can quietly change thousands.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Extending controls banks already have</h2>



<p>The reassuring part is that banks are not starting from zero. Maker-checker, segregation of duties, four-eyes approval, least privilege, immutable audit: this is muscle memory in a bank. The work is extending it to a non-human actor that runs at machine speed.</p>



<p>Give the agent its own managed identity with narrowly scoped, short-lived credentials instead of letting it borrow an employee’s session. That is the direct fix for the confused-deputy problem, and what the joint guidance asks for. Scope tools per task and per resource: read versus write, and which accounts, not a blanket grant. Put irreversible, high-impact actions (moving money, changing entitlements, closing accounts, exporting bulk data) behind explicit approval gates, the human-in-the-loop the guidance reserves for high-cost actions. Redact at the data-access boundary, not only on the output: an agent that never retrieves the full account number cannot leak it downstream. And log the agent’s plan and every tool call, not just its final answer, because in an agentic system the damage lives in the actions.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Why the clock is real</h2>



<p>Regulation has put a date on this. <a href="https://www.amsshardul.com/insight/enforcement-of-the-dpdp-act-and-notification-of-the-dpdp-rules/" rel="nofollow">India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Rules</a> were notified on November 14, 2025; the institutional provisions are already in force, and the substantive obligations (purpose limitation, data minimization, breach notification) take full effect in May 2027. Under that lens, an agent that can reach more customer data than its task requires is not only a security weakness; it is a data-minimization and accountability problem. Banks under GDPR or the EU AI Act face the same logic from a different statute.</p>



<p>One honest caveat: none of these laws actually names AI agents. Mapping their principles onto agent authorization is interpretation and prudent risk management, and each bank should work the specifics through with its own legal and compliance teams rather than treat the matter as settled.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The trade-offs nobody has solved</h2>



<p>None of this is free. Approval gates work against the entire reason to deploy an agent: gate every action and you have rebuilt a slower manual process. Deciding which actions to gate, and which can run autonomously within tight scope, is a real design problem that turns on each workflow’s blast radius. Logging every plan and tool call produces audit volume most pipelines were not built for. Standards for agent identity are still immature, and the agent supply chain is itself an attack surface, as the Amazon Q case showed.</p>



<p>These are real tensions, not problems with clean answers. But the governance gap that the 2026 surveys keep finding is not a story of banks failing to deploy agents. It is controls trailing agents that are already running. The alternative, porting copilot-era defenses onto agents and trusting output filters, guards the wrong door.</p>



<p>Banks are hitting this first because they are ahead. That is also the opportunity: the institutions that settle their agent authorization model now, while deployments are still small enough to change course, will not just avoid the incident. They will set the pattern everyone else copies.</p>



<p><strong>This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.</strong><br><strong><a href="https://www.cio.com/expert-contributor-network/">Want to join?</a></strong></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<!-- Generated in 0,50ms -->