<?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=spend+that+stops+counting%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>Wed, 29 Jul 2026 21:30:52 +0200</lastBuildDate>
<pubDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2026 21:30:52 +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=spend+that+stops+counting%2F" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Corporate America may be using AI to cut jobs, but small businesses are using it to keep them]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Reports of wide-scale replacement of workers by AI are overblown. Small businesses use it to help workersI recently met the owner of a company that sells windows and doors. He told me he invested about $10,000 in an AI application that is used by his salespeople in his showroom. The application l...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3695622/ai-nachrichten/corporate-america-may-be-using-ai-to-cut-jobs-but-small-businesses-are-using-it-to-keep-them/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3695622/ai-nachrichten/corporate-america-may-be-using-ai-to-cut-jobs-but-small-businesses-are-using-it-to-keep-them/</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 26 Jul 2026 14:16:51 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🔧 AI Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Reports of wide-scale replacement of workers by AI are overblown. Small businesses use it to help workers</p><p>I recently met the owner of a company that sells windows and doors. He told me he invested about $10,000 in an <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/artificialintelligenceai">AI</a> application that is used by his salespeople in his showroom. The application listens to the conversations between the salesperson and the prospective customer and then automatically creates a quote for the salesperson to review and send.</p><p>“It allows my salespeople to talk to more customers and spend less time doing paperwork,” he said. “And it cuts down on errors.”</p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/jul/26/small-businesses-ai">Continue reading...</a>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Corporate America may be using AI to cut jobs, but small businesses are using it to keep them]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Reports of wide-scale replacement of workers by AI are overblown. Small businesses use it to help workersI recently met the owner of a company that sells windows and doors. He told me he invested about $10,000 in an AI application that is used by his salespeople in his showroom. The application l...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3695619/it-nachrichten/corporate-america-may-be-using-ai-to-cut-jobs-but-small-businesses-are-using-it-to-keep-them/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3695619/it-nachrichten/corporate-america-may-be-using-ai-to-cut-jobs-but-small-businesses-are-using-it-to-keep-them/</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 26 Jul 2026 14:15:45 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Reports of wide-scale replacement of workers by AI are overblown. Small businesses use it to help workers</p><p>I recently met the owner of a company that sells windows and doors. He told me he invested about $10,000 in an <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/artificialintelligenceai">AI</a> application that is used by his salespeople in his showroom. The application listens to the conversations between the salesperson and the prospective customer and then automatically creates a quote for the salesperson to review and send.</p><p>“It allows my salespeople to talk to more customers and spend less time doing paperwork,” he said. “And it cuts down on errors.”</p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/jul/26/small-businesses-ai">Continue reading...</a>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The May 2026 Security Update Review]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[I’m currently in Berlin helping set up for Pwn2Own Berlin, but that doesn’t stop Patch Tuesday from coming, and it’s another big one. At least nothing is listed as being in the wild – for now. Take a break from your regularly scheduled activities and let’s take a look at the latest security patch...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3694568/hacking/the-may-2026-security-update-review/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3694568/hacking/the-may-2026-security-update-review/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:02:56 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🕵️ Hacking</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class="">I’m currently in Berlin helping set up for Pwn2Own Berlin, but that doesn’t stop Patch Tuesday from coming, and it’s another big one. At least nothing is listed as being in the wild – for now. Take a break from your regularly scheduled activities and let’s take a look at the latest security patches from Adobe and Microsoft. Due to technical difficulties, there will not be a video companion for this month.</p><p class=""><strong>Adobe Patches for May 2026</strong></p><p class="">For May, Adobe released 10 bulletins addressing 52 unique CVEs in Adobe Commerce, After Effects, Adobe Connect, Illustrator, Media Encoder, Premiere Pro, Substance 3D Painter, Substance 3D Sampler, Content Authenticity SDK, and the Adobe Substance 3D Designer. Here’s this month’s overview table:</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/magento/apsb26-49.html" target="_blank">APSB26-49</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Commerce</td>
    <td>15</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>8.7</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>2</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/after_effects/apsb26-48.html" target="_blank">APSB26-48</a></td>
    <td>Adobe After Effects</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/connect/apsb26-50.html" target="_blank">APSB26-50</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Connect</td>
    <td>2</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/apsb26-51.html" target="_blank">APSB26-51</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Illustrator</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/media-encoder/apsb26-47.html" target="_blank">APSB26-47</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Media Encoder</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/premiere_pro/apsb26-46.html" target="_blank">APSB26-46</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Premiere Pro</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/substance3d_painter/apsb26-55.html" target="_blank">APSB26-55</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Substance 3D Painter</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/substance3d-sampler/apsb26-54.html" target="_blank">APSB26-54</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Substance 3D Sampler</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/content-authenticity-sdk/apsb26-53.html" target="_blank">APSB26-53</a></td>
    <td>Content Authenticity SDK</td>
    <td>14</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>7.5</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/substance3d_designer/apsb26-52.html" target="_blank">APSB26-52</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Substance 3D Designer</td>
    <td>5</td>
    <td>Important</td>
    <td>6.3</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
</tbody>
<tfoot>
  <tr>
    <td>TOTAL</td>
    <td>10 bulletins</td>
    <td>52</td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
  </tr>
</tfoot>
</table>



  
  









  <p class="">The obvious priority this month is the patch for Commerce, with its 15 bugs and deployment priority of 2. The Connect fix should also rank up there since both of its CVEs are CVSS 9s. Beyond those, it’s a pretty typical month for Adobe, with most of the bugs either being cross-site scripting (XSS) or open-and-own code executions.</p><p class=""><strong>Microsoft Patches for May 2026</strong></p><p class="">This month, Microsoft released a whopping 138 new CVEs in Windows and Windows components, Office and Office Components, Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based), Azure, .NET and Visual Studio, Copilot Chat, Github Copilot, M365 Copilot, SQL Server, TCP/IP, and the Telnet Client – yes, the Telnet client. Two of these bugs were reported through the TrendAI ZDI program. 30 of these bugs are rated Critical, three are rated as Moderate, one is rated Low, and the rest are rated Important in severity.</p><p class="">This large volume of fixes follows the largest monthly release in Microsoft’s history and reflects the trend across the industry of a high number of submissions. While not all of these bugs were found by AI, it’s likely they had an AI-related component – even if it was just AI writing the submission. I should also point out the Pwn2Own Berlin occurs in just a few days, and it’s typical for vendors to patch as much as they can before the event.</p><p class="">None of the bugs patched by Microsoft this month are listed as publicly known or under active attack at the time of release, so we’ve got that going for us. Let’s take a closer look at some of the more interesting updates for this month, starting with a nasty-looking bug in DNS:</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-41096"><strong>CVE-2026-41096</strong></a><strong> - Windows DNS Client Remote Code Execution Vulnerability<br></strong>This patch fixes a heap-based buffer overflow in the DNS Client triggered by a malicious DNS response. No authentication or user interaction needed, and since the DNS Client runs on virtually every Windows machine, the attack surface is enormous. An attacker with a position to influence DNS responses (MitM, rogue server) could achieve unauthenticated RCE across your enterprise.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-41089"><strong>CVE-2026-41089</strong></a><strong> - Windows Netlogon Remote Code Execution Vulnerability<br></strong>This update covers another CVSS 9.8 bug, which is a stack-based buffer overflow that lets an unauthenticated remote attacker execute code on a domain controller by sending a specially crafted network request — no credentials, no user interaction required. Yup – that makes it wormable. This is the highest-impact bug that requires immediate patching: a compromised domain controller is a compromised domain.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42898"><strong>CVE-2026-42898</strong></a><strong> - Microsoft Dynamics 365 On-Premises Remote Code Execution Vulnerability<br></strong>This bug rates a CVSS 9.9(!) and represents a code injection in Dynamics 365. It allows any authenticated user to execute code with a scope change, meaning exploitation can break out and affect resources beyond the vulnerable component itself. Scope changes are pretty rare, so if you’re running Dynamics 365 On-Prem, definitely test and deploy this patch quickly.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40415"><strong>CVE-2026-40415</strong></a><strong> - Windows TCP/IP Remote Code Execution Vulnerability<br></strong>This bug in the TCP/IP stack results from a use-after-free (UAF) and could allow a remote, unauthenticated threat actor to execute code without user interaction. That makes this another wormable bug. However, this one is much less likely to be exploited. The target needs to be under sustained low-memory (memory pressure) conditions, which is pretty rare. Still, no need to tempt fate here. Test and deploy this one quickly.</p><p class="">Here’s the full list of CVEs released by Microsoft for May 2026:</p>





















  
  




  


  
    





<link rel="File-List" href="2026-May-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="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-35435"><span>CVE-2026-35435</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Azure AI Foundry
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.6</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-2026-35428"><span>CVE-2026-35428</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Azure Cloud Shell
  Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">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="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42826"><span>CVE-2026-42826</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Azure DevOps
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">10</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-2026-32207"><span>CVE-2026-32207</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Azure Machine Learning
  Notebook Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.8</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-2026-33109"><span>CVE-2026-33109</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Azure Managed Instance
  for Apache Cassandra Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.9</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-2026-33844"><span>CVE-2026-33844</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Azure Managed Instance
  for Apache Cassandra Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Critical</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-2026-41105"><span>CVE-2026-41105</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Azure Monitor Action
  Group Notification System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Critical</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="48">
  <td class="xl67" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33111"><span>CVE-2026-33111</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Copilot Chat
  (Microsoft Edge) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Critical</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-2026-26129"><span>CVE-2026-26129</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">M365 Copilot
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Critical</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-2026-26164"><span>CVE-2026-26164</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">M365 Copilot
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Critical</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="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33821"><span>CVE-2026-33821</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Dynamics 365
  Customer Insights Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.7</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-2026-42898"><span>CVE-2026-42898</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Dynamics 365
  On-Premises Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.9</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-2026-40379"><span>CVE-2026-40379</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Enterprise
  Security Token Service (ESTS) Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.3</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-2026-40363"><span>CVE-2026-40363</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">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-2026-40358"><span>CVE-2026-40358</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">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-2026-34327"><span>CVE-2026-34327</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Partner
  Center Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.2</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-2026-40365"><span>CVE-2026-40365</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">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="72">
  <td class="xl67" height="72"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-41103"><span>CVE-2026-41103</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft SSO Plugin
  for Jira &amp; Confluence Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.1</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-2026-33823"><span>CVE-2026-33823</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Team Events
  Portal Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.6</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-2026-40364"><span>CVE-2026-40364</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Word Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">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-2026-40366"><span>CVE-2026-40366</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Word Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">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-2026-40361"><span>CVE-2026-40361</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Word Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">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-2026-40367"><span>CVE-2026-40367</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Word Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">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-2026-42831"><span>CVE-2026-42831</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Office for Android
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">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-2026-41096"><span>CVE-2026-41096</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows DNS Client
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">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-2026-35421"><span>CVE-2026-35421</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows GDI Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">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="71">
  <td class="xl67" height="71"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40403"><span>CVE-2026-40403</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Graphics
  Component Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">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-2026-40402"><span>CVE-2026-40402</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Hyper-V
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">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="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32161"><span>CVE-2026-32161</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Native WiFi
  Miniport Driver Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">Critical</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-2026-41089"><span>CVE-2026-41089</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Netlogon
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl68">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-2026-32175"><span>CVE-2026-32175</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">.NET Core Tampering
  Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.3</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-2026-32177"><span>CVE-2026-32177</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">.NET Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-35433"><span>CVE-2026-35433</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">.NET Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2025-54518"><span>CVE-2025-54518 *</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">AMD: CVE-2025-54518
  CPU OP Cache Corruption</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69"></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-2026-42899"><span>CVE-2026-42899</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">ASP.NET Core Denial of
  Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-40381"><span>CVE-2026-40381</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Azure Connected
  Machine Agent Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-42823"><span>CVE-2026-42823 †</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Azure Logic Apps
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</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-2026-33833"><span>CVE-2026-33833</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Azure Machine Learning
  Notebook Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">8.2</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-2026-32204"><span>CVE-2026-32204</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Azure Monitor Agent
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-42830"><span>CVE-2026-42830</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Azure Monitor Agent
  Metrics Extension Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33117"><span>CVE-2026-33117</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Azure SDK for Java
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</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="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="xl73">GitHub Copilot and
  Visual Studio Code Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-35424"><span>CVE-2026-35424</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Internet Key Exchange
  (IKE) Protocol Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-41614"><span>CVE-2026-41614</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">M365 Copilot for
  Desktop Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.2</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-2026-41100"><span>CVE-2026-41100</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft 365 Copilot
  for Android Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.4</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-2026-40377"><span>CVE-2026-40377</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft
  Cryptographic Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-41094"><span>CVE-2026-41094</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Data
  Formulator Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-40417"><span>CVE-2026-40417</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Dynamics 365
  Business Central Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-42833"><span>CVE-2026-42833</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Dynamics 365
  On-Premises Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">9.1</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-2026-42838"><span>CVE-2026-42838</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.4</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-2026-40360"><span>CVE-2026-40360</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Excel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-40359"><span>CVE-2026-40359</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-40362"><span>CVE-2026-40362</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-42832"><span>CVE-2026-42832</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Excel
  Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.7</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-2026-34329"><span>CVE-2026-34329</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Message
  Queuing (MSMQ) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-40419"><span>CVE-2026-40419</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Office
  Click-To-Run Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-40418"><span>CVE-2026-40418</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Office
  Click-To-Run Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-35436"><span>CVE-2026-35436</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Office
  Click-To-Run Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-40420"><span>CVE-2026-40420</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Office
  Click-To-Run Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-42893"><span>CVE-2026-42893</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Outlook for
  iOS Tampering Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.4</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-2026-40374"><span>CVE-2026-40374</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Power
  Automate Desktop Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-41102"><span>CVE-2026-41102</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft PowerPoint
  for Android Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-35439"><span>CVE-2026-35439</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-40368"><span>CVE-2026-40368</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-33110"><span>CVE-2026-33110</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-33112"><span>CVE-2026-33112</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-40357"><span>CVE-2026-40357</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-32185"><span>CVE-2026-32185</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Teams
  Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</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-2026-41101"><span>CVE-2026-41101</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Word for
  Android Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-35440"><span>CVE-2026-35440</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Word
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-40421"><span>CVE-2026-40421</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Word
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.3</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-2026-41097"><span>CVE-2026-41097</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Secure Boot Security
  Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.7</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-2026-40370"><span>CVE-2026-40370 †</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">SQL Server Remote Code
  Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-41613"><span>CVE-2026-41613</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Visual Studio Code
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-41612"><span>CVE-2026-41612</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Visual Studio Code
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-41611"><span>CVE-2026-41611</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Visual Studio Code
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-41610"><span>CVE-2026-41610</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Visual Studio Code
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.3</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-2026-33839"><span>CVE-2026-33839</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Win32k Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-33840"><span>CVE-2026-33840</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Win32k Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-34330"><span>CVE-2026-34330</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Win32k Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-34331"><span>CVE-2026-34331</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Win32k Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-35423"><span>CVE-2026-35423</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows 11 Telnet
  Client Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.4</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-2026-35438"><span>CVE-2026-35438</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Admin Center
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-41086"><span>CVE-2026-41086</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Admin Center
  in Azure Portal Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-34344"><span>CVE-2026-34344</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Ancillary
  Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-34345"><span>CVE-2026-34345</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Ancillary
  Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-35416"><span>CVE-2026-35416</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Ancillary
  Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-41088"><span>CVE-2026-41088</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Ancillary
  Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-34343"><span>CVE-2026-34343</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Application
  Identity (AppID) Subsystem Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-35418"><span>CVE-2026-35418</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Cloud Files
  Mini Filter Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-33835"><span>CVE-2026-33835</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Cloud Files
  Mini Filter Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-34337"><span>CVE-2026-34337</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Cloud Files
  Mini Filter Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-40407"><span>CVE-2026-40407</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Common Log
  File System Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-40397"><span>CVE-2026-40397</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Common Log
  File System Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-42896"><span>CVE-2026-42896</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows DWM Core
  Library Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-35419"><span>CVE-2026-35419</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows DWM Core
  Library Information Disclosure<span> 
  </span>Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-34336"><span>CVE-2026-34336</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows DWM Core
  Library Information Disclosure<span> 
  </span>Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33834"><span>CVE-2026-33834</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Event Logging
  Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-32209"><span>CVE-2026-32209</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Filtering
  Platform (WFP) Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.4</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-2026-33841"><span>CVE-2026-33841</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-35420"><span>CVE-2026-35420</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-40369"><span>CVE-2026-40369</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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="71">
  <td class="xl67" height="71"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-34332"><span>CVE-2026-34332</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Kernel-Mode
  Driver Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-34339"><span>CVE-2026-34339</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Lightweight
  Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">5.5</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-2026-34341"><span>CVE-2026-34341</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Link-Layer
  Discovery Protocol (LLDP) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-33838"><span>CVE-2026-33838</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Message
  Queuing (MSMQ) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-34342"><span>CVE-2026-34342</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Print Spooler
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-41095"><span>CVE-2026-41095</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Projected File
  System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-34340"><span>CVE-2026-34340</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Projected File
  System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-40398"><span>CVE-2026-40398</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Remote Desktop
  Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-21530"><span>CVE-2026-21530</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Rich Text Edit
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.7</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-2026-32170"><span>CVE-2026-32170</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Rich Text Edit
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.7</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-2026-40410"><span>CVE-2026-40410</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows SMB Client
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-35415"><span>CVE-2026-35415</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Storage Spaces
  Controller Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-34350"><span>CVE-2026-34350</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Storport
  Miniport Driver Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-40405"><span>CVE-2026-40405</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows TCP/IP Denial
  of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-40414"><span>CVE-2026-40414</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows TCP/IP Denial
  of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.4</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-2026-40401"><span>CVE-2026-40401</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows TCP/IP Denial
  of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.2</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-2026-40413"><span>CVE-2026-40413</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows TCP/IP Denial
  of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">7.4</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-2026-35422"><span>CVE-2026-35422</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows TCP/IP Driver
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-34351"><span>CVE-2026-34351</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows TCP/IP
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-40399"><span>CVE-2026-40399</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows TCP/IP
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-34334"><span>CVE-2026-34334</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows TCP/IP
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-40406"><span>CVE-2026-40406</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows TCP/IP
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-33837"><span>CVE-2026-33837</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows TCP/IP Local
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-40415"><span>CVE-2026-40415</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows TCP/IP Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-42825"><span>CVE-2026-42825</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Telephony
  Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-34338"><span>CVE-2026-34338</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Telephony
  Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-40382"><span>CVE-2026-40382</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Telephony
  Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-40380"><span>CVE-2026-40380</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Volume Manager
  Extension Driver Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">Important</td>
  <td class="xl69">6.2</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-2026-40408"><span>CVE-2026-40408</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows WAN ARP Driver
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-34333"><span>CVE-2026-34333</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Win32k
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-34347"><span>CVE-2026-34347</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Win32k
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-35417"><span>CVE-2026-35417</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Windows Win32k
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70">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-2026-42891"><span>CVE-2026-42891</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) for Android 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="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-35429"><span>CVE-2026-35429</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) for Android Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl71">Moderate</td>
  <td class="xl69">4.3</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-2026-41107"><span>CVE-2026-41107</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft Edge
  (Chromium-based) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl71">Moderate</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-2026-40416"><span>CVE-2026-40416</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl73">Microsoft
  Edge (Chromium-based) for Android Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">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 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 quite a few scary-looking bugs (including a CVSS 10!), but there’s no action for the end user as Microsoft has already mitigated these bugs and is just now documenting them. There’s also this month’s crop of Office bugs where the Preview Pane is an attack vector. However, the bug in Office for Android does not have the Preview Pane vector; it’s simple open and own. The bug in the WiFi driver needs a network adjacent attacker. The SharePoint bug requires authentication, but anyone with site privileges has the authentication needed. The bug in SSO Plugin for Jira &amp; Confluence should really be called an authentication bypass, since it allows an unauthenticated attacker to gain access to a system.</p><p class="">Looking at the other code execution bugs, most are of the open and own variety as expected. The bug in Dynamic 365 (On Prem) requires high privileges. The Message Queueing bug requires an adjacent attacker. The bug in SQL Server requires authentication, but as usual, patching won’t be straightforward. Finally, there’s a bug in the kernel that leads to code execution. Most kernel bugs are privilege escalations, but this one could allow code execution if an attacker sends specially crafted NVMe over Fabrics (NVMe‑oF) response messages during the connection handshake process that contains an invalid header length value. Neat.</p><p class="">As usual, the vast majority of the Microsoft release fixes Elevation of Privilege (EoP) bugs. Also as usual, most simply lead to local attackers executing their code at SYSTEM-level privileges or administrative privileges, so there’s not much to add without further technical details about the bugs themselves. There are also a few bugs that just state the attacker could “gain ELEVATED privileges.” How obtuse. The bugs in Azure allow an attacker to access data otherwise hidden from them. The Edge bug allows threat actors to elevate to the privileges of the running application. The bug in Visual Studio allows attackers to get permissions associated with the MCP Server’s managed identity. Finally, there are a couple of sandbox escapes, too, which are always useful.</p><p class="">This month's update includes six Security Feature Bypass vulnerabilities. The most severe is in the Azure SDK for Java (CVSS 9.1). An attacker over the network can bypass the integrity protection provided by authentication tags on encrypted data, effectively manipulating encrypted input in a way that slips past integrity checks during decryption.  Close behind is the bypass affecting the GitHub Copilot integration in Visual Studio Code (CWE-74). This one requires a user interaction, but it allows an attacker to circumvent the path validation safeguards that normally control which files Copilot is permitted to modify. The other Visual Studio Code bypass involves cross-site scripting, improper link resolution, and information exposure triggered when a user opens or views a maliciously crafted notebook.  On the Windows networking side there are two bypasses. The first hits the Windows TCP/IP driver via an authentication bypass using an alternate channel. The other impacts the Windows Filtering Platform through improper access control, allowing a local, low-privileged attacker to bypass FQDN-based network security rules. Finally, there’s a Secure Boot bypass that, you guessed it, bypasses secure boot features.</p><p class="">Moving on to the Information Disclosure bugs fixed this month, we have 15 different CVEs. As usual, the majority of these simply result in info leaks consisting of unspecified memory contents or memory addresses. The bug in Power Automate could expose data marked “Sensitive” within Power Automate Desktop flows. One of the Word bugs could disclose NLTM hashes. The bug in Edge could disclose your cookies, which seems rude. The bug in Visual Studio could expose file path information. Finally, there’s a bug in Telnet for Windows 11 that leaks information being used by Telnet at the time. I didn’t even realize Windows 11 still had a telnet client.</p><p class="">The May release contains 10 spoofing bugs (plus the ones already addressed by Microsoft). The bug in Azure Machine Learning Notebooks vulnerability requires user interaction, but it could expose info through the Azure ML web interface to the attacker. There’s a cluster of fixes for Microsoft's mobile Office suite on Android. Excel, Word, and PowerPoint for Android all carry spoofing flaws rooted in improper access control. Two Copilot products are also affected by spoofing vulns. The M365 Copilot for Desktop has no details provided. The M365 Copilot for Android variant requires low privileges and producing only limited impact on confidentiality and integrity. Microsoft Teams for Android rounds out the mobile app spoofing bugs. Three Edge bugs close things out, all involving misrepresentation of information in the browser UI. </p><p class="">There are two Tampering bugs in this month’s release. The one in .NET Core allows threat actors to write files to an affected system. The other is in Outlook for iOS and manifests as a command injection bug.</p><p class="">There are eight DoS bugs in the May release, but as always, Microsoft provides little to no actionable information about the vulnerabilities. The most interesting from a practical standpoint are two TCP/IP bugs that allow a low-privilege Hyper-V guest to crash the host. Both are triggered from the adjacent network. On the broader network-exposure side, the ASP.NET Core bug is a straightforward infinite loop condition — an unauthenticated attacker sends a crafted request over the network and the server stops responding.</p><p class="">No new advisories are being released this month.</p><p class=""><strong>Looking Ahead</strong></p><p class="">Assuming I survive Pwn2Own Berlin (which is looking iffy at the moment), I’ll return on June 9th on what will hopefully be a smaller release than this one. Until then, stay safe, happy patching, and may all your reboots be smooth and clean!</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The June 2026 Security Update Review]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[I’ve made it through Pwn2Own Berlin, had a little vacation, and now I’m back for Patch Tuesday. Microsoft and Adobe didn’t disappoint. In fact, they have heralded my return with the largest Patch Tuesday release ever. Thanks? Take a break from your regularly scheduled activities and let’s take a ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3694563/hacking/the-june-2026-security-update-review/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3694563/hacking/the-june-2026-security-update-review/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:02:53 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🕵️ Hacking</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class="">I’ve made it through Pwn2Own Berlin, had a little vacation, and now I’m back for Patch Tuesday. Microsoft and Adobe didn’t disappoint. In fact, they have heralded my return with the largest Patch Tuesday release ever. Thanks? Take a break from your regularly scheduled activities and let’s take a look at the latest security patches from Adobe and Microsoft. If you’d rather watch the full video recap covering the entire release, you can check it out here:</p>





















  
  




  
















  
    
      
    
    
      
        
      
    
    
    



  






  <p class=""><strong>Adobe Patches for June 2026</strong></p><p class="">For June, Adobe released 11 bulletins addressing 123 unique CVEs in Adobe Acrobat Reader, ColdFusion, Experience Manager, Experience Manager Forms, InDesign, InCopy, Substance 3D Sampler, Content Credentials SDK, Dreamweaver, Format Plugins, and Adobe Campaign Classic. A total of 11 of these CVEs were reported through the ZDI program.</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/campaign/apsb26-66.html" target="_blank">APSB26-66</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Campaign Classic</td>
    <td>2</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>10.0</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>1</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/coldfusion/apsb26-64.html" target="_blank">APSB26-64</a></td>
    <td>Adobe ColdFusion</td>
    <td>7</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>9.6</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>1</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/acrobat/apsb26-63.html" target="_blank">APSB26-63</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Acrobat Reader</td>
    <td>20</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>7.8</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>2</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/aem-forms/apsb26-57.html" target="_blank">APSB26-57</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Experience Manager Forms</td>
    <td>3</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>9.3</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>2</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/dreamweaver/apsb26-62.html" target="_blank">APSB26-62</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Dreamweaver</td>
    <td>5</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/formatplugins/apsb26-65.html" target="_blank">APSB26-65</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Format Plugins</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/incopy/apsb26-59.html" target="_blank">APSB26-59</a></td>
    <td>Adobe InCopy</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/indesign/apsb26-58.html" target="_blank">APSB26-58</a></td>
    <td>Adobe InDesign</td>
    <td>12</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/substance3d-sampler/apsb26-60.html" target="_blank">APSB26-60</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Substance 3D Sampler</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/apsb26-61.html" target="_blank">APSB26-61</a></td>
    <td>Content Credentials SDK</td>
    <td>8</td>
    <td>Critical</td>
    <td>7.5</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/experience-manager/apsb26-56.html" target="_blank">APSB26-56</a></td>
    <td>Adobe Experience Manager</td>
    <td>57</td>
    <td>Important</td>
    <td>5.4</td>
    <td>No</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
</tbody>
<tfoot>
  <tr>
    <td>TOTAL</td>
    <td>11 bulletins</td>
    <td>123</td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
  </tr>
</tfoot>
</table>



  
  









  <p class="">Obviously, the update for Campaign Classic should be on the top of your deployment list if you’re a user. A CVSS 10 is rare; two in the same bulletin is pretty much a unicorn. Adobe says there are no active attacks, but I would expect heavy research into creating one. The update for Coldfusion is also a Priority 1, but again, no known attacks is the wild. I suspect the Reader patch will also receive a lot of attention as malicious PDFs are common in ransomware attacks. The update for Experience Manager may be large, but it’s mostly just cross-site scripting (XSS) bugs.</p><p class=""><strong>Microsoft Patches for June 2026</strong></p><p class="">This month, Microsoft released a new record 208 CVEs Windows and Windows components, Office and Office Components, Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based), Azure, .NET and Visual Studio, Github Copilot, Defender, Exchange Server, Hyper-V, Secure Boot, and BitLocker. At least, that’s my count. Microsoft’s tools seem to be having some issues, as they initially included a CVE from 2020 in this release. Regardless, the count is over 200, and I counted several times.</p><p class="">One of these bugs came through the ZDI program, but bugs submitted during Pwn2Own Berlin remain unpatched. If you include the Chromium and other third-party bugs, the total CVE count for June comes to a staggering 571 CVEs. 38 of these cases are rated Critical while the rest are rated Important in severity.</p><p class="">I’ve been counting CVEs on Patch Tuesday since 2017, and this is by far the largest monthly release in that time. The previous record was 177 set last year. It is extraordinary that Microsoft can produce so many patches in a single month, but it does raise concerns. How many of these cases were found using AI tools? How many patches were generated using AI to assist in coding or testing? What quality issues may exist in these patches? And likely most importantly, is this the new normal? The last two months were also large releases. Should sysadmins adjust their processes for prioritization and patch deployment based on this new volume of updates? Unfortunately, Microsoft is not providing those answers right now. Hopefully that changes in the future. BTW – just a note – the current number of CVEs shipped by Microsoft this year exceeds the total number of CVEs shipped in all of 2018.</p><p class="">One of the bugs patched by Microsoft this month is listed as under active exploitation and three others are listed as publicly known at the time of release. Let’s take a closer look at some of the more interesting updates for this month, starting with the bug being exploited in the wild.</p><p class="">-   <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-41091"><strong>CVE-2026-41091</strong></a><strong> - Microsoft Defender Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<br></strong>Since Microsoft doesn’t provide info on how widespread exploitation is, we must read some tea leaves. For this patch, several different people were acknowledged, which indicates multiple parties say this is in the wild, meaning exploitation is likely significant. The good news is that most people won’t need to take action as Defender updates itself. However, if you don’t have this configured or are in an isolated environment, you’ll need to update to the latest version.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45657"><strong>CVE-2026-45657</strong></a><strong> - Windows Kernel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability<br></strong>This CVSS 9.8 bug allows remote, unauthenticated attackers to execute code at SYSTEM level without user interaction. Yup – this is wormable. The problem lies in the way the kernel handles TCP/IP. This was listed as “Exploitation Less Likely” by Microsoft, but rest assured that every researcher and bug shop on the planet is reversing this patch right now trying to create an exploit. Test and deploy this patch quickly.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47291"><strong>CVE-2026-47291</strong></a><strong> - HTTP.sys Remote Code Execution Vulnerability<br></strong>Our second CVSS 9.8 bug of the month, this also allows remote, unauthenticated attackers to execute code on affected systems without user interaction. However, there is a caveat. Systems using the default MaxRequestBytes registry value used by the Windows HTTP stack are not affected by this bug. You can edit your registry settings if you need protection while you test and deploy the patch. The bulletin includes instructions and even a PowerShell script for doing this action. Microsoft lists this as “Exploitation more likely”, so I would definitely check your registry settings.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44815"><strong>CVE-2026-44815</strong></a><strong> - DHCP Client Service Remote Code Execution Vulnerability<br></strong>Here’s another CVSS 9.8 that has an odd incongruity. Although the CVSS says no permissions are required for exploitation, the write-up states it must be an “authenticated” user. I would err on the side of caution here and believe the CVSS. If that’s correct, then we have another bug where a remote, unauthenticated attacker could execute code on affected systems without user interaction. And since the DHCP client is on every OS, it’s a juicy target. This is another one to test and deploy with haste.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45585"><strong>CVE-2026-45585</strong></a><strong>/</strong><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50507"><strong>CVE-2026-50507</strong></a><strong> - Windows BitLocker Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability<br></strong>If you’ve followed the ongoing saga of Nightmare Eclipse vs. MSRC, the bugs should look familiar. One is definitely a fix for “YellowKey”, while the other appears to be a fix for “GreenPlasma”. The researcher has promised a “<a href="https://www.theregister.com/security/2026/05/28/microsoft-0-day-feud-escalates-as-researcher-threatens-another-windows-exploit-dump/5248085">bone shattering</a>” drop on June 14, so let’s hope Microsoft is able to reach some understanding with the researcher before more 0-days are released. Also, there is a script provided by Microsoft as a mitigation, but the better strategy is to test and deploy the updates.</p><p class=""> Here’s the full list of CVEs released by Microsoft for June 2026:</p>





















  
  




  


  
    





<link rel="File-List" href="new2026-Jun-cvrf2.fld/filelist.xml">













<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="1024">
 <col width="144">
 <col width="256">
 <col width="104" span="6">
 <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">XI</td>
  <td width="104" class="xl66">Type</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-41091"><span>CVE-2026-41091</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Defender
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl71">Yes</td>
  <td class="xl71">Yes</td>
  <td class="xl70">0</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49160"><span>CVE-2026-49160</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">HTTP.sys Denial of
  Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl71">Yes</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">1</td>
  <td class="xl70">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50507"><span>CVE-2026-50507</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows BitLocker
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">6.8</td>
  <td class="xl71">Yes</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">1</td>
  <td class="xl70">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45586"><span>CVE-2026-45586</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Collaborative
  Translation Framework (CTFMON) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl71">Yes</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">1</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="91">
  <td class="xl67" height="91"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2025-10263"><span>CVE-2025-10263 *</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">ARM: CVE-2025-10263
  Completion of affected memory accesses might not be guaranteed by completion
  of a TLBI [kernel]</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">9.3</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48567"><span>CVE-2026-48567</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Azure HorizonDB<span>  </span>Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">10</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">N/A</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32193"><span>CVE-2026-32193</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Azure Kubernetes
  Service (AKS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47644"><span>CVE-2026-47644</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Copilot Chat
  (Microsoft Edge) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44815"><span>CVE-2026-44815</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">DHCP Client Service
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47291"><span>CVE-2026-47291</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">HTTP.sys Remote Code
  Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">1</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42824"><span>CVE-2026-42824</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">M365 Copilot
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">N/A</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45476"><span>CVE-2026-45476</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Azure
  Network Adapter Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.2</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44810"><span>CVE-2026-44810</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft
  Cryptographic Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48579"><span>CVE-2026-48579</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Exchange
  Online Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">9.1</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">N/A</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47655"><span>CVE-2026-47655</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Graph
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">N/A</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45497"><span>CVE-2026-45497</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft M365 Copilot
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.7</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">N/A</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45460"><span>CVE-2026-45460</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Office
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">4.7</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45472"><span>CVE-2026-45472</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45474"><span>CVE-2026-45474</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45461"><span>CVE-2026-45461</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45463"><span>CVE-2026-45463</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45456"><span>CVE-2026-45456</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Outlook and
  Word Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45458"><span>CVE-2026-45458</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Outlook and
  Word Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47635"><span>CVE-2026-47635</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Outlook and
  Word Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26142"><span>CVE-2026-26142</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Nuance PowerScribe
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47289"><span>CVE-2026-47289</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Remote Desktop Client
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47654"><span>CVE-2026-47654</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Remote Desktop Client
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48563"><span>CVE-2026-48563</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Remote Desktop Client
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42992"><span>CVE-2026-42992</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Remote Desktop Client
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44799"><span>CVE-2026-44799</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Remote Desktop Client
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44801"><span>CVE-2026-44801</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Remote Desktop Client
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42985"><span>CVE-2026-42985</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Remote Desktop Client
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">1</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45648"><span>CVE-2026-45648</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Active
  Directory Domain Services Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42987"><span>CVE-2026-42987</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Deployment
  Services (WDS) Remote Code Execution</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33828"><span>CVE-2026-33828</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Device Health
  Attestation (DHA) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44803"><span>CVE-2026-44803</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Graphics
  Component Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">1</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44812"><span>CVE-2026-44812</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Graphics
  Component Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">1</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45607"><span>CVE-2026-45607</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Hyper-V Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45641"><span>CVE-2026-45641</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Hyper-V Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47652"><span>CVE-2026-47652</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Hyper-V Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.2</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47288"><span>CVE-2026-47288</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Kerberos Key
  Distribution Center (KDC) Remote Code Execution</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45657"><span>CVE-2026-45657</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Kernel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48574"><span>CVE-2026-48574</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Media Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl72">Critical</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45490"><span>CVE-2026-45490</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">.NET SDK Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45491"><span>CVE-2026-45491</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">.NET Tampering
  Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">6.2</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">Tampering</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45591"><span>CVE-2026-45591</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">ASP.NET Core Denial of
  Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47643"><span>CVE-2026-47643</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Azure Stack Edge
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-41098"><span>CVE-2026-41098</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Azure Stack Edge
  Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45642"><span>CVE-2026-45642</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Azure
  Attestation service and Device Health Attestation Service Spoofing
  Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">3.9</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45650"><span>CVE-2026-45650</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Bing Search
  Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">4.3</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45637"><span>CVE-2026-45637</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft DWM Core
  Library Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45647"><span>CVE-2026-45647</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Defender for
  Endpoint for Mac Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40371"><span>CVE-2026-40371</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Dynamics 365
  (on-premises) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44822"><span>CVE-2026-44822</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Excel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.2</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45455"><span>CVE-2026-45455</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Excel
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">3.3</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45469"><span>CVE-2026-45469</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44817"><span>CVE-2026-44817</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44818"><span>CVE-2026-44818</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44820"><span>CVE-2026-44820</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44823"><span>CVE-2026-44823</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Excel Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45459"><span>CVE-2026-45459</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Excel
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">3.3</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45504"><span>CVE-2026-45504</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Exchange
  Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45502"><span>CVE-2026-45502</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Exchange
  Server Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45503"><span>CVE-2026-45503</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Exchange
  Server Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45583"><span>CVE-2026-45583</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Exchange
  Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45500"><span>CVE-2026-45500</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Exchange
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">6.1</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45501"><span>CVE-2026-45501</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Exchange
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47631"><span>CVE-2026-47631</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Exchange
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42986"><span>CVE-2026-42986</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Graphics
  Component Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">1</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-41092"><span>CVE-2026-41092</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Kinect
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45644"><span>CVE-2026-45644</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Live Share
  Canvas SDK Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47293"><span>CVE-2026-47293</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Office
  Click-To-Run Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45485"><span>CVE-2026-45485</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Office
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">3.3</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44821"><span>CVE-2026-44821</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Office
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45483"><span>CVE-2026-45483</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Office
  Project Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">4.6</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45475"><span>CVE-2026-45475</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44819"><span>CVE-2026-44819</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44824"><span>CVE-2026-44824</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45645"><span>CVE-2026-45645</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Office
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-49161"><span>CVE-2026-49161</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft PC Manager
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42902"><span>CVE-2026-42902</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft PowerToys
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45484"><span>CVE-2026-45484</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft SharePoint
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45454"><span>CVE-2026-45454</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft SharePoint
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47298"><span>CVE-2026-47298</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45467"><span>CVE-2026-45467</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">4.6</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45468"><span>CVE-2026-45468</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">4.6</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45479"><span>CVE-2026-45479</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">4.6</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45453"><span>CVE-2026-45453</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.4</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47636"><span>CVE-2026-47636</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.4</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47637"><span>CVE-2026-47637</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">4.6</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47638"><span>CVE-2026-47638</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">4.6</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47639"><span>CVE-2026-47639</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.4</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47641"><span>CVE-2026-47641</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">4.6</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33113"><span>CVE-2026-33113</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.4</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45462"><span>CVE-2026-45462</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">4.6</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45464"><span>CVE-2026-45464</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.4</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45465"><span>CVE-2026-45465</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.4</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47634"><span>CVE-2026-47634</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.3</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">1</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47640"><span>CVE-2026-47640</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">4.6</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45481"><span>CVE-2026-45481</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.3</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">1</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48560"><span>CVE-2026-48560</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.4</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48562"><span>CVE-2026-48562</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft SharePoint
  Server Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">4.6</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42835"><span>CVE-2026-42835</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Teams for
  Android Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45606"><span>CVE-2026-45606</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft UxTheme
  Library (uxtheme.dll) Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45482"><span>CVE-2026-45482</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Visual
  Studio Code CoPilot Chat Extension Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45466"><span>CVE-2026-45466</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Word
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">3.3</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45471"><span>CVE-2026-45471</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Word Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45486"><span>CVE-2026-45486</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Word Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45643"><span>CVE-2026-45643</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Word Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45457"><span>CVE-2026-45457</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Microsoft Word Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42980"><span>CVE-2026-42980</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">NT OS Kernel Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">1</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42916"><span>CVE-2026-42916</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">NT OS Kernel Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45649"><span>CVE-2026-45649</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Office for Android
  Spoofing Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47653"><span>CVE-2026-47653</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Remote Desktop Client
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42909"><span>CVE-2026-42909</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Remote Desktop Client
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42913"><span>CVE-2026-42913</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Remote Desktop Client
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42993"><span>CVE-2026-42993</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Remote Desktop Client
  Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45588"><span>CVE-2026-45588</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Secure Boot Security
  Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.9</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48568"><span>CVE-2026-48568</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Secure Boot Security
  Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.9</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48570"><span>CVE-2026-48570</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Secure Boot Security
  Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.9</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48573"><span>CVE-2026-48573</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Secure Boot Security
  Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.9</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48575"><span>CVE-2026-48575</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Secure Boot Security
  Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.9</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48576"><span>CVE-2026-48576</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Secure Boot Security
  Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.9</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48578"><span>CVE-2026-48578</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Secure Boot Security
  Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.9</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45654"><span>CVE-2026-45654</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Secure Boot Security
  Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.9</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45656"><span>CVE-2026-45656</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">UEFI Secure Boot
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-8863"><span>CVE-2026-8863</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">UEFI Secure Boot
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40376"><span>CVE-2026-40376</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Visual Studio Code
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47281"><span>CVE-2026-47281</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Visual Studio Code
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">9.6</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47284"><span>CVE-2026-47284</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Visual Studio Code
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47292"><span>CVE-2026-47292</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Visual Studio Code
  MSSQL Extension Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48569"><span>CVE-2026-48569</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Visual Studio Code
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.1</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47287"><span>CVE-2026-47287</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Visual Studio Code
  Tampering Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Tampering</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42829"><span>CVE-2026-42829</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Administrator
  Protection Secure Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-34335"><span>CVE-2026-34335</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Ancillary
  Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45601"><span>CVE-2026-45601</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Ancillary
  Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45598"><span>CVE-2026-45598</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Ancillary
  Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45596"><span>CVE-2026-45596</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Ancillary
  Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45638"><span>CVE-2026-45638</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Ancillary
  Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45603"><span>CVE-2026-45603</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Ancillary
  Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42911"><span>CVE-2026-42911</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Ancillary
  Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45594"><span>CVE-2026-45594</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Application
  Identity (AppID) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45655"><span>CVE-2026-45655</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows BitLocker
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.3</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45658"><span>CVE-2026-45658</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows BitLocker
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">1</td>
  <td class="xl70">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45640"><span>CVE-2026-45640</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Bluetooth Port
  Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45605"><span>CVE-2026-45605</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Bluetooth
  Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47656"><span>CVE-2026-47656</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Boot Manager
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.9</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44809"><span>CVE-2026-44809</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Common Log
  File System Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45634"><span>CVE-2026-45634</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows DHCP Client
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45608"><span>CVE-2026-45608</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows DHCP Client
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">6.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-41108"><span>CVE-2026-41108</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows DNS Client
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42905"><span>CVE-2026-42905</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows DWM Core
  Library Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">1</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44811"><span>CVE-2026-44811</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows DWM Core
  Library Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44808"><span>CVE-2026-44808</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows DWM Core
  Library Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44807"><span>CVE-2026-44807</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows DWM Core
  Library Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42983"><span>CVE-2026-42983</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows DWM Core
  Library Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44802"><span>CVE-2026-44802</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows DWM Core
  Library Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44813"><span>CVE-2026-44813</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows DWM Core
  Library Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44804"><span>CVE-2026-44804</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows DWM Core
  Library Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48566"><span>CVE-2026-48566</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows DWM Core
  Library Information Disclosure<span> 
  </span>Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44814"><span>CVE-2026-44814</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows DWM Core
  Library Information Disclosure<span> 
  </span>Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45602"><span>CVE-2026-45602</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Dynamic Host
  Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Tampering Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">9.1</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Tampering</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42836"><span>CVE-2026-42836</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Function
  Discovery Service (fdwsd.dll) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42910"><span>CVE-2026-42910</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Hotpatch
  Monitoring Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42972"><span>CVE-2026-42972</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Hyper-V
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45592"><span>CVE-2026-45592</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Internet
  (wininet.dll) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42903"><span>CVE-2026-42903</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Kerberos
  Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42914"><span>CVE-2026-42914</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Kerberos
  Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.3</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48583"><span>CVE-2026-48583</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45653"><span>CVE-2026-45653</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42984"><span>CVE-2026-42984</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Kernel
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45600"><span>CVE-2026-45600</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Kernel-Mode
  Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45604"><span>CVE-2026-45604</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Managed
  Installer Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45595"><span>CVE-2026-45595</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Mark of the
  Web Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.4</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45636"><span>CVE-2026-45636</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows NTFS Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50508"><span>CVE-2026-50508</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows NTLM Spoofing
  Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">1</td>
  <td class="xl70">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-48565"><span>CVE-2026-48565</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Narrator
  Braille Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-44805"><span>CVE-2026-44805</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Network
  Controller (NC) Host Agent Denial of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42981"><span>CVE-2026-42981</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Performance
  Monitor Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42974"><span>CVE-2026-42974</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Performance
  Monitor Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45487"><span>CVE-2026-45487</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Program
  Compatibility Assistant Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42828"><span>CVE-2026-42828</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Projected File
  System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42837"><span>CVE-2026-42837</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Projected File
  System Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42969"><span>CVE-2026-42969</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Push
  Notification Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42971"><span>CVE-2026-42971</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Push
  Notification Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42970"><span>CVE-2026-42970</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Push
  Notification Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42973"><span>CVE-2026-42973</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Push
  Notification Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42978"><span>CVE-2026-42978</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Push
  Notifications Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42977"><span>CVE-2026-42977</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Push
  Notifications Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42979"><span>CVE-2026-42979</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Push
  Notifications Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42991"><span>CVE-2026-42991</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Push
  Notifications Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45639"><span>CVE-2026-45639</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Remote Desktop
  Protocol (RDP) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42908"><span>CVE-2026-42908</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Remote Desktop
  Protocol (RDP) Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45593"><span>CVE-2026-45593</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows SDK Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42906"><span>CVE-2026-42906</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Shell
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42907"><span>CVE-2026-42907</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Shell
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-47648"><span>CVE-2026-47648</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Storage
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42915"><span>CVE-2026-42915</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows TCP/IP Denial
  of Service Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.7</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42904"><span>CVE-2026-42904</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows TCP/IP
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">9.6</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42968"><span>CVE-2026-42968</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Telephony
  Server Information Disclosure Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42912"><span>CVE-2026-42912</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Telephony
  Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45597"><span>CVE-2026-45597</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows UI Automation
  Manager (uiamanager.dll) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">3</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45599"><span>CVE-2026-45599</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows UPnP Device
  Host Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-45635"><span>CVE-2026-45635</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows UPnP Device
  Host Remote Code Execution Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40409"><span>CVE-2026-40409</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Universal Disk
  Format File System Driver (UDFS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl67" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-40404"><span>CVE-2026-40404</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Windows Universal Disk
  Format File System Driver (UDFS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">2</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl67" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-42989"><span>CVE-2026-42989</span></a></td>
  <td width="256" class="xl68">Winlogon
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl69">Important</td>
  <td class="xl70">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">No</td>
  <td class="xl70">1</td>
  <td class="xl70">EoP</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>
  <td width="104"></td>
 </tr>
 &lt;![endif]&gt;
</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 release, the scariest-looking one is actually nothing to concern yourself with at all. The CVSS 10 bug in Azure HorizonDB has already been addressed by Microsoft and is just being documented now. That’s also the case for five others. Of course, there wouldn’t be a release without Office bugs that have the Preview Pane as an attack vector. There are multiple in June. There’s a handful of bugs in the Remote Desktop Client, but these rely on connecting to a malicious RDP server. There are three patches for Hyper-V that allow for guest-to-host code execution. The bug in Active Directory requires authentication, but any authenticated user can hit it. For the Windows Directory Service vulnerability, it needs to be listening for TFTP. You have blocked that everywhere, right? The bug in Azure Network Adapter is somewhat unique as you need to update your Linux kernel to be protected. The bug in Azure Kubernetes allows an attacker to break out of a container and gain control of the AKS worker node. Finally, the bug in the Kerberos Key Distribution Center (KDC) seems unlikely, but if exploited, it could allow authenticated attackers to get code execution on affected systems.</p><p class="">Moving on to the other code execution bugs, there are the ubiquitous open-an-own bugs in Office components like Excel and Word. The code injection bug in Exchange Server looks troubling, but it requires a machine-in-the-middle (MiTM), so exploitation is unlikely. The bugs in SharePoint require authentication, but you should note that the patch applies to both SharePoint Server 2016 and SharePoint Enterprise Server 2016. The two bugs in UPnP are interesting. Both can lead to code execution by causing an error during the handling of specially crafted data, which could lead to a Use After Free (UAF) bug. The bugs in RDP Client all require connecting to a malicious RDP server, but it’s not clear why some are rated Critical and some are rated Important. The NTFS vulnerability requires a user to mount a virtual hard drive on an affected system. The last RCE bug this month is in Azure Stack Edge and requires the attacker to send a specially crafted file upload request that includes a manipulated file name or path, leading to code execution.</p><p class="">There are more than 60 Elevation of Privilege (EoP) bugs in this month’s release, and as usual, most simply lead to local attackers executing their code at SYSTEM-level privileges or administrative privileges, so there’s not much to add without further technical details about the bugs themselves. A notable exception is in Exchange Server, where a user on Outlook Web Access (OWA) could gain access to other mailboxes. The bug in Visual Studio Code could allow attackers to gain permissions associated with the MCP Server’s managed identity. The bugs in Windows SDK and Windows UI Automation Manager could let attacker go from low integrity up to medium integrity code execution. The bug in Bluetooth just allows “elevated” privileges without really describing what elevated might be. </p><p class="">Moving on to the more than 20 security feature bypass (SFB) bugs in the June release, there are a total of 10 that impact Secure Boot. All carry scope change (S:C) in the CVSS, meaning successful exploitation affects security boundaries beyond the vulnerable component itself — specifically the ability to load untrusted code at boot, bypass Virtual Secure Mode, and undermine boot integrity guarantees. CVE-2026-45654 explicitly calls out VSM exposure. The bulk of these are credited to Alon Leviev (STORM), which is notable given his prior BootKitty/BlackLotus-adjacent research. The bugs in the Windows Boot Manager have a similar impact as the Secure Boot bugs. The UEFI Secure Boot vulnerabilities go a layer deeper. They require either local admin or physical access but could allow for the running of untrusted code even before the OS loads. Rootkits anyone? The four bugs in BitLocker all require physical access but could yield encrypted data if exploited. The bug in Windows Administration Protection allows attackers to bypass the feature that prevents standard-user apps from performing admin-level actions. The bug in Visual Studio Copilot Chat could be the most interesting non-boot bug here as it allows authentication impersonation. Mark of the Web (MotW) and Excel vulns could bypass user warnings. Lastly, the bug in PC Manager bypasses expected user controls. </p><p class="">Turning our attention to the mass of spoofing bugs in the release, we instantly see 18 impacting SharePoint Server. Fortunately, these are simply cross-site scripting (XSS) bugs. It’s the Exchange bugs we should really watch for. One is an XSS that an attacker can exploit by convincing an Exchange administrator to open a malicious link or message, which then runs code in the admin's web session. That's a meaningful privilege escalation path. Another is listed as an SSRF-based attack, but no other details are available. The last is a lower-impact XSS with limited confidentiality/integrity loss. The bug in Bing Search (remember Bing?) is a classic search result spoofing. The bug in Azure Stack Edge is interesting as it could allow access to resources outside the vulnerable component's security boundary. The bug in Office for Android requires user interaction. The Office Project Server bug is an authenticated XSS with low impact. The final spoofing bug is in Azure Attestation but has already been addressed. You should still verify you are protected by following the instructions in the write-up from Microsoft.</p><p class="">There are 30 different information disclosure bugs in this release, and fortunately, the vast majority of these simply result in info leaks consisting of unspecified memory contents or memory addresses. The two bugs in Visual Studio require user interaction and could “disclose information over a network.” How obtuse. The bug in GitHub Copilot and Visual Studio Code could disclose discloses a sign-in access token for a user's work account. That's a meaningful credential exposure, not just random memory. That leaves the two bugs in Exchange Server. One could allow an authenticated user to gain information about which network services that the Exchange server can reach. The other sounds much like the spoofing bug in OWA as it allows attackers to see information in mailboxes they should not have access to.</p><p class="">I’ve never been a fan of the “tampering” category, as it could mean so many different things. For example, the bug in .NET simply says it could allow an unauthorized attacker to perform tampering locally. Similarly, the bug in Visual Studio says the same, expect here the tampering occurs over a network. Microsoft doesn’t even bother with a CWE for the tampering bug in the DHCP Server, so your guess is as good as mine.</p><p class="">There are seven DoS bugs in the June release, and as usual, Microsoft provides little to no actionable information about the vulnerabilities. The most interesting is the bug in HTTP.sys, which is listed as publicly known. This is an uncontrolled resource consumption, rated "Exploitation More Likely," and publicly disclosed. Since, HTTP.sys sits at the core of IIS and Windows web services, a network-accessible DoS here can take down any Windows server running HTTP-based services. Based on the Acknowledgement, it looks like this bug may have been found using AI. There are no real details for the other bugs, but based simply on the impact, I would focus on the Kerberos and TCP/IP bugs if you had to prioritize.</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 July 14 and will be the last one before Black Hat/DEFCON. It’s usually a big release, so strap in and hang on. I’ll be back then to give you my full thoughts. Until then, stay safe, happy patching, and may all your reboots be smooth and clean!</p><p class=""> </p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The February 2026 Security Update Review]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[I have survived the biggest Pwn2Own ever, but I’m back in Tokyo for the second Patch Tuesday of 2026. My location never stops Patch Tuesday from coming, so let’s take a look at the latest security patches from Adobe and Microsoft.  If you’d rather watch the full video recap covering the entire re...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3694474/it-security-nachrichten/the-february-2026-security-update-review/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3694474/it-security-nachrichten/the-february-2026-security-update-review/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:00:44 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class="">I have survived the biggest Pwn2Own ever, but I’m back in Tokyo for the second Patch Tuesday of 2026. My location never stops Patch Tuesday from coming, so let’s take a look at the latest security patches from Adobe and Microsoft.  If you’d rather watch the full video recap covering the entire release, you can check it out here:</p>





















  
  




  
















  
    
      
    
    
      
        
      
    
    
    



  






  <p class=""><strong>Adobe Patches for February 2026</strong></p><p class="">For February, Adobe released nine bulletins addressing 44 unique CVEs in Adobe Audition, After Effects, InDesign, Substance 3D Designer, Substance 3D Stager, Adobe Bridge, Substance 3D Modeler, Lightroom Classic, and the Adobe DNG Software Development Kit (SDK). The largest update here is for <a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/after_effects/apsb26-15.html">After Effects</a>, which fixes 13 Critical and two Important rated bugs. The patch for <a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/substance3d_designer/apsb26-19.html">Substance 3D Designer</a> is on the larger side with seven fixes, but only two of those are Critical. On the other hand, the fix for <a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/substance3d_stager/apsb26-20.html">Substance 3D Stager</a> corrects five Critical-rated bugs that could lead to code execution. The <a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/audition/apsb26-14.html">Audition</a> patch fixes six bugs, but only one is Critical.</p><p class="">The other patches are smaller in size. The fix for the <a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/dng-sdk/apsb26-23.html">Adobe DNG Software Development Kit (SDK)</a> corrects two Critical and two Important-rated bugs. The <a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/indesign/apsb26-17.html">InDesign</a> patch fixes three bugs, but only one is Critical. The update for <a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/bridge/apsb26-21.html">Adobe Bridge</a> fixes two Critical bug that could lead to code execution. The patch for <a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/lightroom/apsb26-06.html">Lightroom Classic</a> addresses a single Critical bug, and the release is wrapped up with a patch for <a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/substance3d-modeler/apsb26-22.html">Substance 3D Modeler</a> that fixes a single, Important-rated memory link.</p><p class="">None of the bugs fixed by Adobe this month are listed as publicly known or under active attack at the time of release, and all of the updates released by Adobe this month are listed as deployment priority 3.</p><p class=""><strong>Microsoft Patches for February 2026</strong></p><p class="">This month, Microsoft drops 58 new CVEs in Windows and Windows components, Office and Office Components, Azure, Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based), .NET and Visual Studio, GitHub Copilot, Mailslot FS, Exchange Server, Internet Explorer (!), Power BI, Hyper-V Server, and the Windows Subsystem for Linux. Counting the third-party and Chromium updates listed in the release, it brings the total number of CVEs to 62. One of the bugs in the Windows Graphics component was submitted through the ZDI program. Five of these bugs are rated Critical, two are rated Moderate, and the rest are rated Important in severity.</p><p class="">It’s typical to see this number of CVEs released in February, but the number of bugs under active attack is extraordinarily high. Microsoft lists six bugs being exploited at the time of release, with three of these listed as publicly known. Last month only had a single bug being exploited, although there were twice as many CVEs patched. We’ll see if we’re on our way to another “hot exploit summer” as we saw a few years ago or if this is just an aberration. </p><p class="">Let’s take a closer look at some of the more interesting updates for this month, starting with the bugs under active attack: </p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21510"><strong>CVE-2026-21510</strong></a><strong> - Windows Shell Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability<br></strong>This bug is listed as a security feature bypass, but it could also be classified as code execution. An attacker can bypass Windows SmartScreen and Windows Shell security prompts to execute code on a target system. This bug is also listed as publicly known, but Microsoft doesn’t say where. There is user interaction here, as the client needs to click a link or a shortcut file. Still, a one-click bug to gain code execution is a rarity. Definitely test and deploy this fix quickly.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21514"><strong>CVE-2026-21514</strong></a><strong> - Microsoft Word Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability<br></strong>This bug also requires user interaction in the form of opening a Word document, but that’s all that’s required to bypass protections to dangerous COM/OLE controls. Thankfully, the Preview Pane is <em>not</em> an attack vector here. However, users are well known to open lots of documents they receive in e-mail. This bypass could also result in code execution if the right COM/OLE control is hit. This is also listed as publicly known, so add this to the list to test and deploy quickly.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21519"><strong>CVE-2026-21519</strong></a><strong> - Desktop Window Manager Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<br></strong>This is the second month in a row that a DWM was listed as being exploited in the wild. That leads me to believe the first patch didn’t completely resolve the vulnerability. Same as last month, this bug allows attackers to run code with SYSTEM privileges. Bugs of this type are typically paired with a code execution bug to take over a system. As always, Microsoft offers no indication of how widespread these exploits may be.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21533"><strong>CVE-2026-21533</strong></a><strong> - Windows Remote Desktop Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<br></strong>Don’t let the word “Remote” in the title fool you – this is a local bug that allows attackers to run code with SYSTEM privileges. It’s interesting that Microsoft lists “Improper privilege management” as the root cause for this issue. If the system is running Remote Desktop Services, it’s probably a juicy target for attackers to move laterally after an initial breach. Add this one to the list of patches to test and deploy immediately.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21513"><strong>CVE-2026-21513</strong></a><strong> - Internet Explorer Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability<br></strong>Although long gone by many measurements, IE does still exist on Windows systems, and calling it always results in a vulnerability somehow. This bug manifests similarly to the Shell bug above, as it requires user interaction but could result in code execution. The bypass here is simply the ability to reach IE, which shouldn’t be possible. Again, test and deploy this fix quickly.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21525"><strong>CVE-2026-21525</strong></a><strong> - Windows Remote Access Connection Manager Denial of Service Vulnerability<br></strong>It’s unusual to see DoS bugs being used in active attacks, but that’s what we have here. A null pointer deref in the Windows Remote Access Connection Manager allows an unauthorized attacker to deny service locally. Most null pointer derefs cause the application or service to crash, but it’s not clear if it will automatically restart. I would exercise caution and patch quickly either way.</p><p class="">Here’s the full list of CVEs released by Microsoft for February 2026:</p>





















  
  




  


  
    





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













<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="953">
 <col width="151" class="xl69">
 <col width="263" class="xl72">
 <col width="111" class="xl71" span="4">
 <col width="95" class="xl71">
 <tr height="48">
  <td width="151" class="xl69" height="48"><span> </span>CVE<span> </span></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl72"><span> </span>Title<span> </span></td>
  <td width="111" class="xl71"><span> </span>Severity<span> </span></td>
  <td width="111" class="xl71"><span> </span>CVSS<span> </span></td>
  <td width="111" class="xl71"><span> </span>Public</td>
  <td width="111" class="xl71"><span> </span>Exploited<span> </span></td>
  <td width="95" class="xl71"><span> </span>TYPE<span> </span></td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21514"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21514<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Microsoft Word Security Feature Bypass
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl66"><span> </span>Yes<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl66"><span> </span>Yes<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21510"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21510<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows Shell Security Feature Bypass
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl66"><span> </span>Yes<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl66"><span> </span>Yes<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21513"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21513<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Internet Explorer Security Feature Bypass
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl66"><span> </span>Yes<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl66"><span> </span>Yes<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21519"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21519<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Desktop Window Manager Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl66"><span> </span>Yes<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="72">
  <td class="xl74" height="72"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21533"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21533<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows Remote Desktop Services Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl66"><span> </span>Yes<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl74" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21525"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21525<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows Remote Access Connection Manager
  Denial of Service Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl68"><span> </span>Moderate<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">6.2</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl66"><span> </span>Yes<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21511"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21511<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Microsoft Outlook Spoofing
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2023-2804"><span><span> </span>CVE-2023-2804 *</span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Red Hat, Inc. CVE-2023-2804: Heap Based
  Overflow libjpeg-turbo<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>Yes<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-24302"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-24302<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Azure Arc Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl73"><span> </span>Critical<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">8.6</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-24300"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-24300<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Azure Front Door Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl73"><span> </span>Critical<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21532"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21532<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Azure Function Information Disclosure
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl73"><span> </span>Critical<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">8.2</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl74" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21522"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21522<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Microsoft ACI Confidential Containers
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl73"><span> </span>Critical<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">6.7</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl74" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-23655"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-23655<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Microsoft ACI Confidential Containers
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl73"><span> </span>Critical<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21218"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21218<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>.NET and Visual Studio Spoofing
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21512"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21512<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Azure DevOps Server Cross-Site Scripting
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">XSS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21529"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21529 †</span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Azure HDInsight Spoofing Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">5.7</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21528"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21528<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Azure IoT Explorer Information Disclosure
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21228"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21228<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Azure Local Remote Code Execution
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21531"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21531<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Azure SDK for Python Remote Code Execution
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21251"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21251<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Cluster Client Failover (CCF) Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-20846"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-20846<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>GDI+ Denial of Service Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl74" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21523"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21523<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>GitHub Copilot and Visual Studio Code Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">8</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl74" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21518"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21518<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>GitHub Copilot and Visual Studio Code
  Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21257"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21257<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>GitHub Copilot and Visual Studio Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">8</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl74" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21256"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21256<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>GitHub Copilot and Visual Studio Remote Code
  Execution Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl74" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21516"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21516<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>GitHub Copilot for Jetbrains Remote Code
  Execution Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21253"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21253<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Mailslot File System Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl74" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21537"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21537 †</span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Linux
  Extension Remote Code Execution Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21259"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21259<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Microsoft Excel Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7.3</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21258"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21258<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Microsoft Excel Information Disclosure
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21261"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21261<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Microsoft Excel Information Disclosure
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21527"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21527<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Microsoft Exchange Server Spoofing
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21260"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21260<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Microsoft Outlook Spoofing
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21229"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21229<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Power BI Remote Code Execution
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">8</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl74" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21236"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21236<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows Ancillary Function Driver for
  WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl74" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21238"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21238<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows Ancillary Function Driver for
  WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl74" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21241"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21241<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows Ancillary Function Driver for
  WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21517"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21517<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows App for Mac Installer Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl74" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21234"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21234<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows Connected Devices Platform Service
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21235"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21235<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows Graphics Component Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7.3</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21246"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21246<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows Graphics Component Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21232"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21232<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows HTTP.sys Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21240"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21240<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows HTTP.sys Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21250"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21250<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows HTTP.sys Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21244"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21244<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows Hyper-V Remote Code Execution
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7.3</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21247"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21247<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows Hyper-V Remote Code Execution
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7.3</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21248"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21248<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows Hyper-V Remote Code Execution
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7.3</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21255"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21255<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows Hyper-V Security Feature Bypass
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21231"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21231<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21239"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21239<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21245"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21245<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21222"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21222<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows Kernel Information Disclosure
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="73">
  <td class="xl74" height="73"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21243"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21243<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows Lightweight Directory Access
  Protocol (LDAP) Denial of Service Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-20841"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-20841<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows Notepad App Remote Code Execution
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21249"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21249<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows NTLM Spoofing Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">3.3</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21508"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21508<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows Storage Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21237"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21237<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows Subsystem for Linux Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21242"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21242<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Windows Subsystem for Linux Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">7</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-1861"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-1861 *</span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Chromium: CVE-2026-1861 Heap buffer overflow
  in libvpx<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>High</td>
  <td class="xl65">N/A</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-1862"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-1862 *</span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Chromium: CVE-2026-1862 Type Confusion in
  V8<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>High</td>
  <td class="xl65">N/A</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="48">
  <td class="xl74" height="48"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-0391"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-0391<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl75"><span> </span>Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) for Android
  Spoofing Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl68"><span> </span>Moderate<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl65">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 &lt;![if supportMisalignedColumns]&gt;
 <tr height="0">
  <td width="151"></td>
  <td width="263"></td>
  <td width="111"></td>
  <td width="111"></td>
  <td width="111"></td>
  <td width="111"></td>
  <td width="95"></td>
 </tr>
 &lt;![endif]&gt;
</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="">Moving on to the Critical-rated bugs, the patch for Azure Front Door sounds frightening, but Microsoft has already fixed the bug and is just now documenting it. That’s also true for the bugs in Azure Arc and Azure Function. There are two Critical-rated bugs in the ACI Confidential Containers. The first allows a container escape while the second discloses secret tokens and keys. Either way, you’ll want to handle those quickly.</p><p class="">Taking a look at the other code execution vulnerabilities in this month’s release, we start with a frightening looking bug in Azure SDK for Python that has the highest CVSS this month of 9.8. A remote, unauthenticated attacker code gain code execution on an affected system via a maliciously crafted continuation token. It’s not clear why this isn’t rated Critical, but I would treat it as such. The three bugs in Hyper-V are actually local open-and-own bugs that require a user to open a malicious file on an affected system. That’s also true for the bug in Notepad. The bug in Power BI is confusing, because Microsoft says it requires authentication and could lead to an attacker running code as an authenticated user. There’s the poorly named “Azure Local Remote Code Execution Vulnerability”, but it requires a machine-in-the-middle (MitM) to exploit. The bug in Defender for Endpoint Linux is restricted to local subnets, but you’ll need to enable auto provisioning to get the patch. The final code execution bugs addressed this month are in GitHub Copilot. Two are command injections and the other is a Time-of-check time-of-use (toctou) race condition, but both could end up in code execution on affected systems.</p><p class="">Patches for Elevation of Privilege (EoP) bugs make up nearly 50% of this release, but most simply lead to local attackers executing their code at SYSTEM-level privileges or administrative privileges. There are only two of note. The first is a command injection bug in GitHub Copilot that leads to executing code at the level of the targeted application. The second is a bug in a kernel that leads to SYSTEM but could also be used for a sandbox escape.</p><p class="">There’s a unusually high number of spoofing bugs in this month’s release, and the ones for Outlook are the most troubling. First, the Preview Pane is an attack vector. Secondly, the bugs could be used to relay NTLM credentials via just an email, which could result in credential disclosure. And you’ll need multiple patches to fully address these bugs. At least they can be applied in any order.  There’s a UI misrepresentation bug in Exchange Server that could allow an attacker to either view some sensitive information or “make changes to disclosed information”. At what point does data become disclosed? That odd phrasing makes me think they are using AI to right some of their descriptions. The phrasing also appears in the patch for NTLM. That bug is triggered by opening a specially crafted Office doc, and while they explicitly say it could be used to relay NTLM creds, it sure seems that way. The patch for .NET and Visual Studio fixes a bug that allows attackers to bypass header validation, resulting in the service accepting a message it should reject. Finally, the bug in Azure HDInsight is really just a cross-site scripting (XSS) bug. The caveat here is that you need to restart Ambari server in both of the head nodes to have this fix updated. There is also an XSS in Azure Devops Server, but at least it is labelled as such.</p><p class="">There are a couple of additional security feature bypass bugs to discuss. The first is in Hyper-V and bypasses the Virtualization-based Security feature. The other is in GitHub Copilot and Visual Studio Code. It’s another command injection, but this one can be used to bypass authentication. Neat.</p><p class="">Looking at the remaining info disclosure bugs getting patched this month, most simply result in info leaks consisting of unspecified memory contents or memory addresses. The exception is the bug in Azure IoT Explorer. This bug could be used to view the contents of the target user’s local file system.</p><p class="">We end this month’s release with two DoS bugs: one in LDAP and one in GDI+. Neither descriptions from Microsoft provide any usable information.</p><p class="">No new advisories are being released this month.</p><p class=""><strong>Looking Ahead</strong></p><p class="">I plan on being back home for the March release but wherever I’m at, you can rest assured that March 10, I’ll be here to provide my assessment of the release. Until then, stay safe, happy patching, and may all your reboots be smooth and clean!</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The March 2026 Security Update Review]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[I am back in the friendly confines of the Mid-South headquarters of TrendAI ZDI (a.k.a. my home office), and am all set for the third patch Tuesday of 2026. Take a break from your regularly scheduled activities and let’s take a look at the latest security patches from Adobe and Microsoft.If you’d...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3694472/it-security-nachrichten/the-march-2026-security-update-review/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3694472/it-security-nachrichten/the-march-2026-security-update-review/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:00:43 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class="">I am back in the friendly confines of the Mid-South headquarters of TrendAI ZDI (a.k.a. my home office), and am all set for the third patch Tuesday of 2026. Take a break from your regularly scheduled activities and let’s take a look at the latest security patches from Adobe and Microsoft.If you’d rather watch the full video recap covering the entire release, you can check it out here:</p>





















  
  




  
















  
    
      
    
    
      
        
      
    
    
    



  






  <p class=""><strong>Adobe Patches for March 2026</strong></p><p class="">For March, Adobe released eight bulletins addressing 80 unique CVEs in Adobe Acrobat Reader, Commerce, Illustrator, Substance 3D Painter, Premier Pro, Experience Manager, Substance 3D Stager, and the Adobe DNG Software Development Kit (SDK). Two of these bugs were submitted through the TrendAI ZDI program. If you need to prioritize, the update for <a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/acrobat/apsb26-26.html">Acrobat</a> likely has the most impact, with the patch fixing two Critical-rated and one Important bugs. The fix for <a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/experience-manager/apsb26-24.html">Experience Manager</a> is the largest this month with 33 CVEs addressed. However, these are simple cross-site scripting (XSS) bugs, so it’s not too exciting. The fix for <a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/magento/apsb26-05.html">Commerce</a> is also quite large with 19 CVEs. Most of these are also XSS bugs, but there’s a few security feature bypass bugs in there, too. Adobe actually gives this patch a deployment priority of 2, but it’s not under active attack at the time of release. </p><p class="">The fix for <a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/illustrator/apsb26-18.html">Illustrator</a> corrects seven bugs, including a few Critical-rated ones. The patch for <a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/substance3d_painter/apsb26-25.html">Substance 3D Painter</a> fixes nine different CVEs, all rated Important. That’s not the case for <a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/substance3d_stager/apsb26-29.html">Substance 3D Stager</a>, which fixes six different Critical bugs that could lead to arbitrary code execution. The patch for the <a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/dng-sdk/apsb26-30.html">Adobe DNG Software Development Kit</a> (SDK) addresses one Critical and one Important bug. Finally, the update for Premiere Pro correct a single, Critical-rated bug that could lead to arbitrary code execution. </p><p class="">None of the bugs fixed by Adobe this month are listed as publicly known or under active attack at the time of release, and beyond the update for Commerce, all of the other updates released by Adobe this month are listed as deployment priority 3.</p><p class=""><strong>Microsoft Patches for March 2026</strong></p><p class="">This month, Microsoft released 84 new CVEs in Windows and Windows components, Office and Office Components, Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based), Azure, SQL Server, Hyper-V Server, and the Windows Resilient File System (ReFS). Counting the third-party and Chromium updates listed in the release, it brings to total number of CVEs to 94. Five of these bugs were reported through the TrendAI ZDI program. Eight of these bugs are rated Critical, and the rest are rated Important in severity.</p><p class="">This volume is relatively typical for a March release, and the lack of bugs under active attack is a nice change from last month. There are two vulnerabilities listed as publicly known at the time of release, but none listed as actively exploited.</p><p class="">Let’s take a closer look at some of the more interesting updates for this month, starting with a bug with an AI slant:</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26144"><strong>CVE-2026-26144</strong></a><strong> - Microsoft Excel Information Disclosure Vulnerability<br></strong>This is a fascinating bug and an attack scenario we’re likely to see more often. The vulnerability is a simple cross-site scripting (XSS) bug in Excel, but an attacker could use it to cause the Copilot Agent to exfiltrate data off the target. This essentially makes it a zero-click information disclosure. Although not stated, the disclosure is likely at the level of the logged-on user, so there isn’t a privilege escalation component. Info disclosures rarely get rated Critical, but it makes sense here.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26110"><strong>CVE-2026-26110</strong></a><strong>/</strong><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26113"><strong>CVE-2026-26113</strong></a><strong> - Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution Vulnerability <br></strong>Another month and another pair of Office bugs where the Preview Pane is an exploit vector. I’ve lost count of how many of these bugs have been patched over the last year, but it’s just a matter of time until they start appearing in active exploits. The latest versions of Outlook allow you to hide the Preview Pane, but it isn’t clear if this would mitigate these attacks. The best option is still to test and deploy the update, but considering how many of these patches exist, it’s likely further updates will be needed to fully address these issues.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-23669"><strong>CVE-2026-23669</strong></a><strong> - Windows Print Spooler Remote Code Execution Vulnerability<br></strong>Just reading the title makes me twitch with remembrances of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PrintNightmare">Print Nightmare</a> from a few years ago. This bug works in the same manner as those exploits. An authenticated attacker sends specially crafted messages to an affected system to gain arbitrary code execution. No user interaction is required. Let’s hope we don’t end up in a new nightmare of spooler exploits. Test and deploy this one quickly.</p><p class="">-    <a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-23668"><strong>CVE-2026-23668</strong></a><strong> - Windows Graphics Component Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<br></strong>This vulnerability was submitted to the ZDI program by Marcin Wiązowski as two separate bugs, and it demonstrates the need for variant investigations when creating security patches. Both cases are caused by the lack of proper locking when performing operations on an object. However, in one case, it’s in the cdd.dll driver while the other is in the win32kfull driver. Either way, an attacker could use these to elevate privileges to SYSTEM and execute arbitrary code. Since the fix for both is to add object locking to the GDI object, the cases are combined into a single CVE. That’s not a problem, but it does show how variants can occur, and fixes should be as broad as possible.</p><p class="">Here’s the full list of CVEs released by Microsoft for March 2026:</p>





















  
  




  


  
    





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













<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="953">
 <col width="151" class="xl65">
 <col width="263" class="xl66">
 <col width="111" class="xl67" span="4">
 <col width="95" class="xl67">
 <col width="645" class="xl65">
 <tr height="47">
  <td width="151" class="xl65" height="47"><span> </span>CVE<span> </span></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Title<span> </span></td>
  <td width="111" class="xl67"><span> </span>Severity<span> </span></td>
  <td width="111" class="xl67"><span> </span>CVSS<span> </span></td>
  <td width="111" class="xl67"><span> </span>Public</td>
  <td width="111" class="xl67"><span> </span>Exploited<span> </span></td>
  <td width="95" class="xl67"><span> </span>Type<span> </span></td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26127"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26127<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>.NET Denial of Service Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl68"><span> </span>Yes<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21262"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21262<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>SQL Server Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl68"><span> </span>Yes<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-23651"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-23651<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Microsoft ACI Confidential Containers
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl71"><span> </span>Critical<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">6.7</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26124"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26124<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Microsoft ACI Confidential Containers
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl71"><span> </span>Critical<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">6.7</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26122"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26122<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Microsoft ACI Confidential Containers
  Information Disclosure Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl71"><span> </span>Critical<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21536"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-21536<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Microsoft Devices Pricing Program Remote
  Code Execution Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl71"><span> </span>Critical<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">9.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26144"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26144<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Microsoft Excel Information Disclosure
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl71"><span> </span>Critical<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26110"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26110<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl71"><span> </span>Critical<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26113"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26113<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl71"><span> </span>Critical<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26125"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26125<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Payment Orchestrator Service Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl71"><span> </span>Critical<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">8.6</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26131"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26131<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>.NET Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-25177"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-25177<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Active Directory Domain Services Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26117"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26117<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Arc Enabled Servers - Azure Connected
  Machine Agent Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26130"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26130<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>ASP.NET Core Denial of Service
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-23661"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-23661<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Azure IoT Explorer Information Disclosure
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-23662"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-23662<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Azure IoT Explorer Information Disclosure
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-23664"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-23664<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Azure IoT Explorer Information Disclosure
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26121"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26121<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Azure IOT Explorer Spoofing
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26118"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26118<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Azure MCP Server Tools Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-23667"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-23667<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Broadcast DVR Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-25190"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-25190<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>GDI Remote Code Execution Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-25181"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-25181<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>GDI+ Information Disclosure
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="97">
  <td class="xl72" height="97"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26030"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26030 *</span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>GitHub: CVE-2026-26030 Microsoft Semantic
  Kernel InMemoryVectorStore filter functionality vulnerable<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">9.9</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-23654"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-23654 *</span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>GitHub: Zero Shot SCFoundation Remote Code
  Execution Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26141"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26141<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Hybrid Worker Extension (Arc-enabled Windows
  VMs) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-23665"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-23665 †</span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Linux Azure Diagnostic extension (LAD)
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-23674"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-23674<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>MapUrlToZone Security Feature Bypass
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.5</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26123"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26123<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Microsoft Authenticator Information
  Disclosure Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26148"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26148 †</span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Microsoft Azure AD SSH Login extension for
  Linux Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-25167"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-25167<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Microsoft Brokering File System Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.4</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26107"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26107<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26108"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26108<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26109"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26109<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">8.4</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26112"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26112<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26134"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26134<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Microsoft Office Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26106"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26106<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Microsoft SharePoint Server Remote Code
  Execution Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26114"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26114<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Microsoft SharePoint Server Remote Code
  Execution Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26105"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26105<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">8.1</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-24283"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-24283<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Multiple UNC Provider Kernel Driver
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-25165"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-25165<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Performance Counters for Windows Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-24282"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-24282<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Push message Routing Service Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability</td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26115"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26115<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>SQL Server Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26116"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26116<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>SQL Server Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-20967"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-20967<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>System Center Operations Manager (SCOM)
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-24285"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-24285<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Win32k Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-24291"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-24291<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Accessibility Infrastructure
  (ATBroker.exe) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-25186"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-25186<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Accessibility Infrastructure
  (ATBroker.exe) Information Disclosure Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-23660"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-23660 †</span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Admin Center in Azure Portal
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-24293"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-24293<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Ancillary Function Driver for
  WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-25176"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-25176<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Ancillary Function Driver for
  WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-25178"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-25178<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Ancillary Function Driver for
  WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-25179"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-25179<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Ancillary Function Driver for
  WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-23656"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-23656<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows App Installer Spoofing
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">5.9</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-25171"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-25171<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Authentication Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-23671"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-23671<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Bluetooth RFCOM Protocol Driver
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-24292"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-24292<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Connected Devices Platform Service
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-24295"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-24295<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Device Association Service Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-24296"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-24296<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Device Association Service Elevation
  of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-25189"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-25189<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows DWM Core Library Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-25174"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-25174<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Extensible File Allocation Table
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-25168"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-25168<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Graphics Component Denial of Service
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">6.2</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-25169"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-25169<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Graphics Component Denial of Service
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">6.2</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">DoS</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-23668"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-23668<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Graphics Component Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-25180"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-25180<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Graphics Component Information
  Disclosure Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">5.5</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">Info</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-25170"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-25170<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Hyper-V Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-24297"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-24297<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Kerberos Security Feature Bypass
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">6.5</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">SFB</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-24287"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-24287<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-24289"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-24289<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26132"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26132<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-24288"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-24288<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Mobile Broadband Driver Remote Code
  Execution Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">6.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-25175"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-25175<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows NTFS Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-23669"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-23669<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Print Spooler Remote Code Execution
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-24290"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-24290<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Projected File System Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-23673"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-23673<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Resilient File System (ReFS)
  Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-25172"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-25172<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Routing and Remote Access Service
  (RRAS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-25173"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-25173<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Routing and Remote Access Service
  (RRAS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26111"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26111<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Routing and Remote Access Service
  (RRAS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-25185"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-25185<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Shell Link Processing Spoofing
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">5.3</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">Spoofing</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-24294"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-24294<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows SMB Server Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26128"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-26128<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows SMB Server Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-25166"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-25166<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows System Image Manager Assessment and
  Deployment Kit (ADK) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-25188"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-25188<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Telephony Service Elevation of
  Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">8.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-23672"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-23672<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Windows Universal Disk Format File System
  Driver (UDFS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-25187"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-25187<span> </span></span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Winlogon Elevation of Privilege
  Vulnerability<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl70"><span> </span>Important<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">7.8</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">EoP</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-3536"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-3536 *</span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Chromium: CVE-2026-3536 Integer overflow in
  ANGLE<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl71"><span> </span>Critical<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>N/A</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-3538"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-3538 *</span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Chromium: CVE-2026-3538 Integer overflow in
  Skia<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl71"><span> </span>Critical<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>N/A</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-3539"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-3539 *</span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Chromium: CVE-2026-3539 Object lifecycle
  issue in DevTools<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl69"><span> </span>High</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>N/A</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-3540"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-3540 *</span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Chromium: CVE-2026-3540 Inappropriate
  implementation in WebAudio<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl69"><span> </span>High</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>N/A</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-3541"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-3541 *</span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Chromium: CVE-2026-3541 Inappropriate
  implementation in CSS<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl69"><span> </span>High</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>N/A</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-3542"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-3542 *</span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Chromium: CVE-2026-3542 Inappropriate
  implementation in WebAssembly<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl69"><span> </span>High</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>N/A</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-3543"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-3543 *</span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Chromium: CVE-2026-3543 Inappropriate
  implementation in V8<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl69"><span> </span>High</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>N/A</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="47">
  <td class="xl72" height="47"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-3544"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-3544 *</span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Chromium: CVE-2026-3544 Heap buffer overflow
  in WebCodecs<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl69"><span> </span>High</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>N/A</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 <tr height="69">
  <td class="xl72" height="69"><a href="https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-3545"><span><span> </span>CVE-2026-3545 *</span></a></td>
  <td width="263" class="xl66"><span> </span>Chromium: CVE-2026-3545 Insufficient data
  validation in Navigation<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl69"><span> </span>High</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>N/A</td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67"><span> </span>No<span> </span></td>
  <td class="xl67">RCE</td>
 </tr>
 &lt;![if supportMisalignedColumns]&gt;
 <tr height="0">
  <td width="151"></td>
  <td width="263"></td>
  <td width="111"></td>
  <td width="111"></td>
  <td width="111"></td>
  <td width="111"></td>
  <td width="95"></td>
 </tr>
 &lt;![endif]&gt;
</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, they are all cloud-native and require no user action. Microsoft has already remediated the vulnerabilities.</p><p class="">Moving on to the other code execution bugs, the vulnerabilities in SharePoint Server pop out first. Both require authentication, but it’s essentially the lowest level of authentication, so these would be ideal cases for lateral movement within an enterprise. There are the standard open-and-own cases within Office components. There an interesting sounding bug in the Windows Mobile Broadband Driver that requires physical access, but Microsoft doesn’t elaborate on the attack scenario beyond that fact. The bug in the System Image Manager Assessment and Deployment Kit (ADK) requires authentication. The bug in GDI requires user interaction. The remaining code execution bugs are in the RRAS protocol. We’ve seen bugs in this component in the past, but never in the wild. I wouldn’t ignore these, but I wouldn’t rush them out either.</p><p class="">Similar to last month, updates for Elevation of Privilege (EoP) bugs make up nearly half of this month’s release. And as we saw last month, but most simply lead to local attackers executing their code at SYSTEM-level privileges or administrative privileges. The bugs in SQL Server allow attackers to elevate to SQL sysadmin privileges. The bug in the Azure MCP Server is more complex. It allows attackers to obtain the permissions associated with the MCP Server’s managed identity, which lets them perform actions that the managed identity is able to reach. The bug in the Azure AD SSH Login extension for Linux leads to root access, and it won’t be easy to patch. You’ll need to run the update instructions from the command line on each affected system. That’s the same case for the bug in the Linux Azure Diagnostic extension (LAD). There’s an odd bug in the Hybrid Worker Extension (Arc‑enabled Windows VMs) that leads to “ELEVATED” privileges, which is something I’ve never seen before. The bug in the Broadcast DVR component allows an attacker to go from low integrity level up to medium. There’s a bug listed as an EoP in the Push message Routing Service, but reading the description, Microsoft notes it could lead to an information disclosure. It’s likely this is an error and should be an Information Disclosure bug. The final EoP is in the Azure Portal Windows Admin Center and leads to SYSTEM. However, there’s no patch to remediate this bug. Instead, you need to install the latest version of the Windows Admin Center extension through the Azure Portal by hand. </p><p class="">There are two security feature bypass patches in the March release. The first is a bypass of the MapURLToZone method, which (as expected) allows attackers to bypass MapURLToZone protections. The third bypass is in Kerberos and could allow an attacker to either view some sensitive information or make changes to “disclosed” information. This is a race condition that occurs while the group policy is being reapplied, so the window to exploit this would be extremely small.</p><p class="">Looking at the remaining info disclosure bugs getting patched this month, only two result in info leaks consisting of unspecified memory contents or memory addresses. Ther others provide more interesting results. There are three bugs in the Azure IoT Explorer have some wide-ranging implications. According to Microsoft, exploitation could result in, “device connection information, authentication tokens, request data, file paths, and other information transmitted between the application and the IoT Hub.” The bug in Authenticator almost reads like a security feature bypass, as exploit results in the disclosure of a one‑time sign‑in code or authentication deep link. The attacker would receive the sign‑in information and could potentially use it to authenticate as the user, allowing access to information or services available to that account. The last info disclosure bug is in the Accessibility Infrastructure and allows an attacker to gain secrets or privileged information belonging to the user of the affected application.</p><p class="">There are only four spoofing bugs in the March release. The first is in SharePoint server and manifests as an XSS. The second bug is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) in the Azure IoT Explorer. The remaining two are a bit more cryptic. The bug in Windows Shell Link Processing results from the “exposure of sensitive information to an unauthorized actor,” and could lead to spoofing. That sounds like credential exposure, but it’s not explicitly called out. The final spoofing bug results from the insufficient verification of data authenticity in Windows App Installer. Again, this sounds vaguely like credential reflection, but without further information, we can only speculate. </p><p class="">Finally, there are four denial-of-service (DoS) bugs in the release, including one that’s listed as publicly known in the .NET Framework. As usual, Microsoft provides no actionable information about these bugs.</p><p class="">No new advisories are being released this month.</p><p class=""><strong>Looking Ahead</strong></p><p class="">I plan on being at RSA for the first time in my career, so if you’re around, please stop by and say hello. I like it when people say hello. Otherwise, I’ll be back on April 14 with my assessment of that patch Tuesday release. Until then, stay safe, happy patching, and may all your reboots be smooth and clean!</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[AI success requires a full-stack CIO]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Every CIO I speak with today is wrestling with some version of the same question: How do we move faster with AI and deliver on our commitments?



It’s an understandable concern. Boards and CEOs are asking about AI. Business leaders are experimenting with use cases. Employees are discovering tool...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3694399/it-security-nachrichten/ai-success-requires-a-full-stack-cio/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3694399/it-security-nachrichten/ai-success-requires-a-full-stack-cio/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 18:57:42 +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">Every CIO I speak with today is wrestling with some version of the same question: How do we move faster with AI and deliver on our commitments?</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It’s an understandable concern. <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4171959/ceos-top-priorities-for-it-leaders-today-2.html">Boards and CEOs are asking about AI</a>. Business leaders are experimenting with use cases. Employees are discovering tools daily, while technology vendors promise unprecedented gains in productivity, innovation, and competitive advantage.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">After hundreds of conversations with technology executives over the past year, I’ve become convinced that speed isn’t the real issue. The organizations pulling away from the pack aren’t necessarily adopting AI faster than everyone else. They’re executing more effectively — a subtle distinction that represents one of the defining leadership challenges of the AI era.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Technology has never been the hardest part of transformation. People, priorities, culture, and operating models are the biggest challenges. The ability to translate bold boardroom aspirations into thousands of thoughtful decisions made every day by architects, engineers, product managers, analysts, and business leaders is where competitive advantage is created. AI may be accelerating the pace of change, but it hasn’t changed that fundamental truth.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I’ve met plenty of executives who are exceptional in the boardroom. They know how to frame a vision, <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/272180/relationship-building-networking-how-to-wow-your-board-of-directors.html">influence a board</a>, and build confidence among investors and business leaders. I’ve also met remarkable technologists who instinctively understand the architectural decisions, engineering tradeoffs, and implementation details that determine how great ideas become reality. Modern CIOs, however, must move comfortably between both worlds. Afshean Talasaz is one who stands out among this rare breed.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Long before becoming CIO of Colonial Pipeline, Talasaz built his career from the ground up as a business professional, data scientist, and technologist. He has designed enterprise platforms, built AI capabilities, led technology organizations, and partnered closely with executive leadership teams on business transformation. Today, as an executive in residence with our Practitioners for Practitioners (P4P) community, he helps CIOs and business leaders navigate one of the most significant technology shifts of our generation.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">While Talasaz brings deep knowledge of data and AI to the table, his greatest strength is his ability to create strategy and connect it with execution. He can spend the morning discussing enterprise reinvention with the board and the afternoon debating architectural principles with the teams responsible for bringing that vision to life.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That versatility gives Talasaz a unique lens on how CIOs <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4178006/state-of-the-cio-2026-cios-set-the-course-for-ai-roi.html">can deliver value with AI</a>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Software companies have a term for engineers who understand every layer of the technology stack: full-stack developers. Listen to Talasaz and it becomes evident that the AI era requires something similar from technology leaders: a full-stack CIO.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The full-stack CIO: Leading with clarity</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A full-stack CIO understands how every layer of the enterprise influences the next. They recognize that every strategic priority becomes a portfolio investment, every investment shapes an operating model, every operating model influences architecture, every architecture choice informs product decisions, every product decision shapes engineering priorities.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The best CIOs understand both ends of that journey. The extraordinary ones understand everything in between.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">And those who execute best lead with clarity, Talasaz says.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Everyone, from executives to middle managers to the people writing code, should be able to explain what we’re trying to achieve,” he emphasizes. “Clarity isn’t that we’ve handed out the PowerPoint. It’s that people genuinely understand where we’re going and can articulate it in their own language.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">One of the unintended consequences of the AI boom is that organizations are beginning to confuse activity with alignment. They have AI councils, AI governance committees, AI innovation labs, AI centers of excellence, AI pilots, and AI roadmaps. Yet if you stop ten people in the hallway and ask a deceptively simple question, What business problem are we actually trying to solve? you’ll often hear ten different answers.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As a result, architects optimize for one objective while product teams optimize for another. Business units pursue opportunities that seem perfectly reasonable from their perspective. Engineers make thoughtful technical decisions based on the information available to them. Individually, none of those decisions are necessarily wrong. Collectively, however, they create organizational drift. AI doesn’t create that problem. It simply accelerates the consequences.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">And while AI can be a force multiplier for the positive when every decision is guided by a shared understanding of where the organization is headed, it can also be a force multiplier for the negative, resulting in an organization simply moving faster in different directions.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“When we have the fundamentals right, the tech infrastructure, the operating models, the nuances of how our business actually runs, we get the impacts of AI in a positive way,” Talasaz says. “When we don’t have those in place, AI can amplify the gaps or mute the benefits.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">At a time when so much of the conversation surrounding AI is focused on algorithms, agents, and automation, it’s an important reminder that organizations don’t execute strategy; people do.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Reducing organizational friction</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Most executives are familiar with the concept of VUCA that characterizes today’s business environment. But Talasaz stresses the importance of turning this concern inward: “If the world outside our organizations is becoming more volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous, what are we, as leaders, doing to the inside of our organizations?”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Leaders spend enormous amounts of time helping their organizations respond to external disruption but comparatively little time asking whether they are inadvertently re-creating those same conditions internally in response to those external needs. Are we reducing uncertainty or introducing more of it? Are we simplifying work or adding unnecessary complexity? Are we helping people focus on what matters most, or asking them to navigate competing priorities and shifting expectations?</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Talasaz refers to this phenomenon as double VUCA — something I’ve witnessed repeatedly while working with CIOs over the past decade. Organizations often assume they’re struggling because of technology limitations when the real constraint is organizational friction. Teams wait for decisions. Priorities shift faster than roadmaps. Governance grows heavier. New committees are formed to solve problems created by existing committees. Everyone is working harder, yet the organization somehow feels slower.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AI amplifies both outcomes. Organizations with clarity become dramatically more effective because AI accelerates good decisions. Organizations without clarity simply accelerate confusion.</p>



<h1 class="wp-block-heading">Operating model as strategy enabler</h1>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AI governance is one way to achieve greater clarity, but as Talasaz says, governance shouldn’t primarily exist inside policy manuals that few people read.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Instead, AI governance should be embedded in the daily rhythms of the organization, shaping how teams collaborate, how decisions are made, how products move from ideas into production, and how innovation happens safely without requiring constant escalation. In other words, it’s all about your operating model.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“If you had to pick one thing that isn’t technology, your operating model is the most important element for executing data and AI at scale,” he says.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The best operating models create enough clarity that capable people can make thousands of decisions independently and confidently, without having to wait for permission. By embedding good governance into the way it works, the organization becomes faster.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This advice echoes something I’ve heard repeatedly from some of the world’s most respected CIOs: High-performing organizations aren’t built on tighter control; they’re built on greater trust, supported by clear principles, shared expectations, and operating models that enable responsible decision-making at every level of the enterprise.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Talasaz points out that technology leaders tend to speak in terms of <em>transformation</em>. He suggests CIOs consider a different word: <em>reinvention.</em></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As he explains, transformation implies replacing what exists today with something new. Reinvention starts with a more clear-eyed and practical premise: Some things absolutely must change; others represent years, sometimes decades, of accumulated expertise, customer trust, operational discipline, and competitive advantage.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Reinvention is about building on those strengths while also creating new ways to deliver value. The leaders making the greatest progress in their AI journeys seem to recognize that it’s less about abandoning the past than thoughtfully preparing the organization for the future.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Closing the gap between strategy and execution</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Full-stack CIOs must be able to map out the various layers of execution and planning that need to be done at every level of the organization to be successful. To help with this, Talasaz has developed a data and AI framework that draws on his own experiences “from the keyboard to the boardroom.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As Talasaz sees it, too many organizations have been doing good work in isolation. “They’re doing a lot of the right things,” he says. “They’re just not connected.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Boards may be discussing growth while business leaders redesign customer experiences. Product teams may be prioritizing new capabilities while architects modernize platforms. Data teams may be improving quality while engineers focus on delivery. Every group makes meaningful progress within its own domain, yet somewhere between strategy and execution, the connective tissue begins to disappear. Talasaz’s framework brings those connecting points to the forefront.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Crucially, the framework doesn’t begin with technology or AI or even with data. It begins with the experiences the organization hopes to create for its customers, employees, or partners. Many AI initiatives start with the question, “What can this technology do?” And indeed, we need to be inspired by the possibilities and challenged to think differently by what the technology can do. But, Talasaz emphasizes, we also need to ask what experiences we need to deliver for our business and how the technology can make that a reality.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The framework challenges CIOs to answer that question first. Only after the experiences are clearly defined does the conversation move to the capabilities required to deliver it, the business activities that support those capabilities, the AI and data products that enable them, and finally the data foundation that makes everything possible.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This shift in perspective ensures that, rather than allowing technology investments to search for business value, the business experience defines the technology required to deliver it. For CIOs, that’s more than a planning exercise. It’s a fundamentally different way of leading.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Over the coming months, the P4P community will be convening a series of small CxO roundtables to explore these issues and work more deeply with Afshean Talasaz’s 6×6 Data and AI Framework. CIOs and other enterprise leaders interested in participating are welcome to <a href="mailto:droberts@ouellette-online.com?subject=P4P:%206x6%20Framework%20Roundtable">reach out to me directly</a>.</em></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Smaller, smarter, safer: How to build agentic AI on the right foundation]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[When it comes to building an effective AI stack, context is king and power isn’t everything it’s cracked up to be.



“Smaller, smarter, safer — this is a bet our company has taken in how we deploy AI internally,” said Ricky Thakrar, head of sales and account management at Zoho, provider of a sui...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3694397/it-security-nachrichten/smaller-smarter-safer-how-to-build-agentic-ai-on-the-right-foundation/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3694397/it-security-nachrichten/smaller-smarter-safer-how-to-build-agentic-ai-on-the-right-foundation/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 18:55:52 +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">When it comes to building an effective AI stack, context is king and power isn’t everything it’s cracked up to be.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Smaller, smarter, safer — this is a bet our company has taken in how we deploy AI internally,” said Ricky Thakrar, head of sales and account management at Zoho, provider of a suite of popular cloud-based software solutions for sales, marketing, and finance.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“I’m on the business side, and so decisions made by our CIO and IT folks affect me directly, and my teams’ workflows and processes,” he added.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Speaking to a room of tech leaders at the <a href="https://event.foundryco.com/cio-100-leadership-live-new-york/">CIO 100 Leadership Live New York event</a> last week, Thakrar explained that every company wants the speed of AI-generated work wedded to the quality of human work, even though these two are diametrically opposed. No amount of model upgrades or spend will close that gap, so the only way forward is to architect your way out. Thakrar encapsulated this idea in a simple formula:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Smaller: Stop deploying maximum firepower on every task. Many tasks don’t need it.</li>



<li>Smarter: The system around the model decides more than the model does.</li>



<li>Safer: Verify at the point a mistake gets locked in, not just downstream of it.</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">He noted that organizations that win with AI won’t be those deploying the biggest, most powerful models or the most sophisticated architecture, but the ones that figure out that the model is the easy part and the right architecture is harder. That means understanding the hardest element, and the biggest differentiator, is building a human system that learns and compounds alongside agentic systems.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">To get it right, organizations need to prioritize the context layer. The size of frontier models like the GPT series, Claude, and Gemini mostly exist to compensate for missing context, Thakrar explained. Without enough context, models need to be able to reason harder and infer more about what a user actually means because it doesn’t know the user’s account, process, or history. A rich context layer makes it possible for enterprises to run workloads on much smaller, lower-power models.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The intelligence moves from the model into the architecture around it,” he said.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">A steep learning curve</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">One of Zoho’s earliest AI agents was a churn management agent to help the account management team detect churn in customer subscriptions. So when a subscription became inactive, the agent would collect context from notes, meeting recordings, and Zoho’s data enrichment tool, then create a summary of reasons the account might have churned, and schedule a call.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“What happened was I got this churn agent a couple months later, already embedded in our CRM, and within a week my team no longer trusted that agent,” Thakrar said. “The reason is we forgot to collect one very key point.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In Zoho’s CRM, when a customer buys a bundle of products, that bundle is represented as a single line item. That means the status of any products the customer may have previously purchased individually changes to inactive as they’re moved to the bundle. That’s not churn, but it was interpreted it that way. Zoho fixed it in the second version of the agent.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Then a new problem arose. Many potential customers first purchase Zoho products as pilots or sandboxes. As those customers move from pilot to live instance, they close down the pilot versions. And again, the CRM would record that as subscriptions going inactive.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The trust deteriorates again because everyone got excited for version 2,” Thakrar said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Sometimes, a certain product might not be the best fit for a customer and Thakrar’s team will suggest the customer move to another product. That’s deliberate churn, not a churn risk.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“You may have a similar story like this where the agent sounds so good, it’s going to do something quick and add value, but it’s missing context from the account managers, and there are so many more pieces we’re still building out,” Thakrar said. “It’s been almost a year and the problem I have is my team still doesn’t trust it. They’ll see [a message from the agent] and go out and do all the research anyway to make sure it gave the correct answer.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The team is more on top of potential churn, though, but the promised productivity gains have yet to materialize because the agent has to earn back lost trust due to a lack of context.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“My goal for this year is having an AI-assisted customer journey from sales to account management where the handoff is clean, the context flows, and every piece of information we gather about a customer is weighed, identified, and coached so the sales team can close more deals,” he said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Zoho’s early experience with agents has led to the idea that constrained, context-rich, deterministic architectures consistently outperform expensive models bolted onto fragmented systems. It all comes down to three pillars: routing, harness, and specialization.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Routing</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Routing is about sending workloads to the proper model for the job, which entails providing enough context to a given task that a small, cheap model can handle it without the need for spare reasoning capacity to fill gaps.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Frontier models are expensive and companies can burn through a year’s budget worth of tokens in months. But most tasks can be handled by much smaller, more constrained models at a fraction of the cost.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“You don’t always have to pay the frontier guys for every task,” he said. “We’ve observed with some clients that we could save them 95% with a 3 billion parameter model.”</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Harness</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">An AI agent harness is the software infrastructure scaffolding around an LLM that differentiates an agent from a chatbot. It’s what enables an agent to act on tasks rather than simply respond to prompts. A model reasons through a problem and decides what to do about it. The harness connects the model to the tools, systems, memory, guardrails, and execution environments required to perform the actions determined by the model. The term is frequently used more or less interchangeably with orchestration layer.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“It’s the process around the model, which matters way more than the model itself,” Thakrar said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In benchmark tests, a superior harness on a less powerful model produces better results than an inferior harness on a much bigger model.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For the best results, Thakrar said, it’s essential to understand the deterministic and non-deterministic elements of a given workload, and build that into the architecture. Machines can read, organize, and validate, and they excel at deterministic tasks. Humans, on the other hand, are exceptional at non-deterministic tasks like judging, synthesizing, and deciding.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Those non-deterministic tasks in a process are the ideal point for AI agents to incorporate a human in the loop, what Thakrar calls human harness. He pointed to a stakeholder mapping agent Zoho built for sales as an example, which takes the context of an initial meeting and third-party enriched data like a LinkedIn profile, weighs probabilities, and makes an educated guess about the stakeholder map.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The initial goal was just to eliminate that task completely from the human workflow,” he said. “The stakeholder map is done, it’s in the folder, and you can look at it.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But the agent would struggle to capture nuance. The meanings of titles in organizations always vary, and the politics and dynamics of any given meeting can be difficult for an AI agent to discern. Rather than keep feeding the agent data to try to make it intelligent enough to make those determinations, it was simpler and more efficient for the agent to create a proposed stakeholder map and hand it over to a human who could make changes and explain why those changes were necessary.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Ultimately, Thakrar said the agent still saved human team members time because the stakeholder map was usually pretty close, and the corrections also helped the model grow smarter by adding richer context.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Specialization</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Specialization is transitioning a process from testing on a frontier model to production on a much narrower, smaller model. Once you’ve proven that an agent can do a job well, you want to stop paying master-craftsman rates to keep doing that one job well.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Specialization is all about capturing your subject matter experts’ best judgement and pattern recognition to build an open-weight, open source, trained, and fine-tuned model that can be deployed in your own data center.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The true enterprise bet is to keep that orchestration layer, which is your IP and knowledge, in house,” Thakrar said. “You don’t want to host that on someone else’s model. The goal of everyone in enterprise should be to run, train, and host their own models.”</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/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[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[5 endpoint blind spots your EDR/XDR was never built to see]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[In August 2025, 126 malicious packages landed in the npm registry. Even after the community caught the initial wave, 80 of these hidden backdoors remained actively listed.



That was enough. Over 86,000 downloads. Malicious code in PhantomRaven, packages running in the production systems of Fort...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3694387/it-security-nachrichten/5-endpoint-blind-spots-your-edrxdr-was-never-built-to-see/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3694387/it-security-nachrichten/5-endpoint-blind-spots-your-edrxdr-was-never-built-to-see/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 18:55:47 +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 August 2025, 126 malicious packages landed in the npm registry. Even after the community caught the initial wave, 80 of these hidden backdoors remained actively listed.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That was enough. Over 86,000 downloads. Malicious code in <a href="https://www.koi.ai/blog/phantomraven-npm-malware-hidden-in-invisible-dependencies" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">PhantomRaven</a>, packages running in the production systems of Fortune 500 companies worldwide. And throughout the entire window, not a single EDR/XDR alert.</p>



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



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>#1. Gain real-time visibility into shadow AI &amp; extensions</strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Your existing asset management tracks binaries and installers, but it cannot see local VS Code extensions, MCP servers, or ad-hoc Python scripts running on developer endpoints. This visibility gap was recently exposed by the <a href="https://www.koi.ai/blog/maliciouscorgi-the-cute-looking-ai-extensions-leaking-code-from-1-5-million-developers" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">MaliciousCorgi campaign</a>, where two marketplace extensions with 1.5 million combined installs silently harvested every file a developer opened. Neither triggered any detection because they were not binaries, not executables, not anything your inventory was built to flag. To counter this, Koi closes the gap by analyzing what extensions actually do after installation, exposing hidden data-harvesting channels running inside your active workspace.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>#2. Distinguish between human and autonomous agent behavior </strong></p>



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>#3. Establish guardrails for automated package updates on endpoints</strong></p>



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>#4. Enforce principle of least privilege for AI agents</strong></p>



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>#5. Maintain continuous endpoint posture management</strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Signature-based scanning only stops known threats. Sophisticated repository attacks often arrive as functional, high-rated software that carries no known bad signature. Koi’s research into the <a href="https://www.koi.ai/blog/darkspectre-unmasking-the-threat-actor-behind-7-8-million-infected-browsers" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">DarkSpectre campaign</a> found eight browser extensions, all carrying “featured” badges from Google and Microsoft, installed by over 8 million users, silently harvesting every conversation from ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini in the background. Koi addresses this by operating upstream: scanning marketplace listings every hour, using LLM-driven code analysis to compare what software promises against what its code does, sandboxing it, and scoring the risk before it ever reaches the endpoint.</p>



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



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Ready to secure the future of your software stack? See how <a href="https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/cortex/agentic-endpoint-security" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Koi Agentic Endpoint Security</a> delivers complete visibility, risk scoring, and real-time prevention across every endpoint in your enterprise.</p>



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Synth historian Oli Freke will spend big on a good bicycle]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Oli Freke is a musician and journalist whose works have appeared in Sound on Sound, The Quietus, and Mixmag. This has included using math to explore the melodic potential of the Western 12-tone scale and deep dives on effects plug-ins. He's even written a book tracing the evolution of the synthes...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3694103/it-nachrichten/synth-historian-oli-freke-will-spend-big-on-a-good-bicycle/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3694103/it-nachrichten/synth-historian-oli-freke-will-spend-big-on-a-good-bicycle/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 17:31:27 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Oli Freke is a musician and journalist whose works have appeared in Sound on Sound, The Quietus, and Mixmag. This has included using math to explore the melodic potential of the Western 12-tone scale and deep dives on effects plug-ins. He's even written a book tracing the evolution of the synthesizer from 1963 through 1995, […]]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Trump administration says 15 agencies will get $5bn in ‘AI for science’ effort]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Administration will also overhaul how US government funds federal research by supporting individual scientists and AI over universitiesThe US will spend $5bn to tackle longstanding scientific problems across multiple fields using AI, ⁠the Trump administration said in a statement on Wednesday. The...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3693747/it-nachrichten/trump-administration-says-15-agencies-will-get-5bn-in-ai-for-science-effort/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3693747/it-nachrichten/trump-administration-says-15-agencies-will-get-5bn-in-ai-for-science-effort/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 11:40:31 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Administration will also overhaul how US government funds federal research by supporting individual scientists and AI over universities</p><p>The US will spend $5bn to tackle longstanding scientific problems across multiple fields using <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/artificialintelligenceai">AI</a>, ⁠the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/trump-administration">Trump administration</a> said in a statement on Wednesday. The agencies will use the funding to identify the root causes ⁠of chronic diseases, accelerate drug ⁠discovery and ​develop longer-lasting building materials, among other tasks, according to the statement.</p><p>Scientists will have access to the Department of Energy’s supercomputers, AI and specialized ⁠datasets, along with other components needed to run experiments using algorithms, said Michael Kratsios, the chief technology adviser to Donald Trump, in an ⁠interview with Reuters.</p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/22/trump-science-funding-overhaul-ai">Continue reading...</a>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Building a Mixed-Reality Tour Guide with Android XR, the Geospatial API, and Gemini]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Posted by Coco Fatus, UX Designer, Alon Hetzroni, UX Engineer, Azin Mehrnoosh, Product Manager Android XRAt this year's Google I/O, we announced an update for spatial experiences: the Geospatial API is now available as a preview in ARCore for Jetpack XR. By bringing Google's Visual Positioning Sy...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3693504/android-tipps/building-a-mixed-reality-tour-guide-with-android-xr-the-geospatial-api-and-gemini/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3693504/android-tipps/building-a-mixed-reality-tour-guide-with-android-xr-the-geospatial-api-and-gemini/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 10:15:35 +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/AVvXsEjKrortZT9X64_5gun79eaNo1niWelmj6Mixfrw4eBLKkec02_w-el6vVXR8IuyPA40B4lB22yEdCK5KNVOZ3DwG3sja7MJArx60irN7gP9P7rnzMjx8sejJeE6puifztBfMv_mExAuAjKkE3rjW1PRulfU0wTfIVLtmb9lEUW4L9hhFme1ArGmV09GuXM/s320/MM%20Android%20XR%20Geospatial%20V02_Meta%20(1).png"><div><i>Posted by Coco Fatus, UX Designer, Alon Hetzroni, UX Engineer, Azin Mehrnoosh, Product Manager Android XR</i></div><div><i><br></i></div><div class="separator"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTa2M7znb9EjsONU5iM1tvB_KPswY-yT7pqYZ2gZmJGk9Z6WONXgDOsTj9vvTPD8a38-XvPm7HafuF1-nChC7dix2CQfnTpH6T-YdPhaL85A7rRugnlwwtPtwH-Z5WWSFVNYXCclOOL5DtNbNqRLX-ZJVAIrRDxYs8pgfWS0O0O2P_e-W6TjYH_RjnCuM/s8000/MM%20Android%20XR%20Geospatial%20V02_Blog.png"><img border="0" data-original-height="2442" data-original-width="8000" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTa2M7znb9EjsONU5iM1tvB_KPswY-yT7pqYZ2gZmJGk9Z6WONXgDOsTj9vvTPD8a38-XvPm7HafuF1-nChC7dix2CQfnTpH6T-YdPhaL85A7rRugnlwwtPtwH-Z5WWSFVNYXCclOOL5DtNbNqRLX-ZJVAIrRDxYs8pgfWS0O0O2P_e-W6TjYH_RjnCuM/s16000/MM%20Android%20XR%20Geospatial%20V02_Blog.png"></a></div><br><div><br><br><i><br></i><div><i><br></i><p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KOO2lqsdaA">At this year's Google I/O</a>, we announced an update for spatial experiences: the <a href="https://developer.android.com/reference/kotlin/androidx/xr/arcore/Geospatial">Geospatial API</a> is now available as a preview in <a href="https://developer.android.com/develop/xr/jetpack-xr-sdk/arcore">ARCore for Jetpack XR</a>. By bringing Google's Visual Positioning System (VPS) to Android XR, Android XR enables anchoring digital content to the physical world with sub-meter accuracy and precise orientation in supported areas.* To explore what the Geospatial API could unlock, our team built a demo: the XR Geospatial Tour.</p>

<p>Imagine walking into a new city, putting on a pair of wired XR glasses (like the upcoming XREAL Project Aura), and instantly having a knowledgeable, local guide showing you around. You don't need to stare down at a 2D map—instead, 3D models gently guide your path, and an intelligent voice tells you about the historical landmarks right in front of you. We combined the <a href="https://developer.android.com/reference/kotlin/androidx/xr/arcore/Geospatial">Geospatial APIs</a>, <a href="https://firebase.google.com/docs/ai-logic">Gemini API using Firebase AI Logic</a>, <a href="https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/maps-grounding">Google Maps Grounding</a>, and <a href="https://developer.android.com/develop/xr/jetpack-xr-sdk">Jetpack XR SDK</a> to create a hands-free, immersive walking tour experience.</p>

<div class="separator">
  
<p>*Disclaimer: Video and Tour Guide application are for demonstration purposes only. Some sequences have been shortened. Any hardware depicted may be under development; final product details may differ.</p>

<p>Let’s walk through the implementation details and show how we tied these APIs together to build a world-scale spatial experience.</p>

<h3>1. Pinpointing the User with ARCore Geospatial API (VPS)</h3>
<p>Enhance your navigation experience on XR by combining the power of GPS with the precision of VPS. The accuracy and precise orientation that comes with VPS allows 3D waypoints to align with the physical world.</p>

<p>This is why the Geospatial API on Android XR can help you build custom experiences. By using advanced computer vision, VPS tries to provide a <a href="https://developer.android.com/reference/kotlin/androidx/xr/runtime/math/GeospatialPose">GeospatialPose</a> (including latitude, longitude, and heading) that is more accurate than GPS.</p>

<p>Here's how we retrieve the user's Geospatial pose by mapping the device's orientation to a Geospatial coordinate:</p>
<pre><div>// Retrieve the current geospatial pose from the ARCore session</div><code><div>val result = geospatial.createGeospatialPoseFromPose(arDevice.state.value.devicePose)</div><div>if (result is CreateGeospatialPoseFromPoseSuccess) {</div><div>    val pose = result.pose</div><div>    Log.d("VPS", "Accurate Location: ${pose.latitude}, ${pose.longitude}")</div><div>}</div></code></pre>

<p>Because the entire experience relies on this accuracy, we monitor the horizontalAccuracy and orientationYawAccuracy until they meet our thresholds. If the user is indoors or in an unrecognized area, we prompt them to "walk to an outdoor public space and look around".</p>

<h3>2. Crafting the Itinerary with Gemini API &amp; Google Maps Grounding</h3>
<p>Once we have a location, we use the <a href="https://firebase.google.com/docs/ai-logic">Gemini API using Firebase AI Logic</a> to prompt the Gemini model to act as a local tour guide. We pass the user's coordinates to the model and ask it to output a structured JSON response containing nearby walking tours:</p>

<pre><div>   val configForTools = ToolConfig(</div><code><div>      functionCallingConfig = null,</div><div>      retrievalConfig = retrievalConfig {</div><div>        latLng = FirebaseLatLng(pose.latitude, pose.longitude)</div><div>        languageCode = "en"</div><div>      }</div><div>    )</div><div></div><div>    val responseJsonSchema = Schema.obj(</div><div>      mapOf(</div><div>        "locationIntro" to Schema.string(),</div><div>        "tours" to Schema.array(</div><div>          Schema.obj(</div><div>            mapOf(</div><div>              "title" to Schema.string(),</div><div>              "description" to Schema.string(),</div><div>              "stops" to Schema.array(</div><div>                Schema.obj(</div><div>                  mapOf(</div><div>                    "name" to Schema.string(),</div><div>                    "detailedName" to Schema.string(),</div><div>                    "description" to Schema.string()</div><div>                  )</div><div>                )</div><div>              )</div><div>            )</div><div>          )</div><div>        )</div><div>      )</div><div>    )</div><div></div><div>    val model = Firebase.ai(backend = GenerativeBackend.googleAI()).generativeModel(</div><div>      modelName = "gemini-3.5-flash",</div><div>      tools = listOf(Tool.googleMaps()),</div><div>      generationConfig = generationConfig {</div><div>        responseMimeType = "application/json"</div><div>        responseSchema = responseJsonSchema</div><div>      }</div><div>    )</div><div></div><div>   val result = model.generateContent("The user is at latitude ${pose.latitude} and longitude ${pose.longitude}. Generate exactly 3 diverse tours near this location (e.g., historical, food, nature). All tour ideas should be walking distance only.")</div></code></pre>

<p>Large Language Models are great at generating rich descriptions, but they can sometimes hallucinate exact latitude/longitude coordinates. To solve this, we used <a href="https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/maps-grounding">Google Maps Grounding</a> to ground the AI.</p>

<h3>3. A Voice to Guide You: Gemini 2.5 TTS</h3>
<p>To make the tour guide feel truly present, we implemented dynamic voiceovers.</p>

<p>Using the gemini-2.5-flash-tts model, we can configure our model generation config to natively return audio data instead of just text! Here’s how you can request the ResponseModality.AUDIO:</p>

<pre><div>val ttsModel = Firebase.ai(backend = GenerativeBackend.googleAI())</div><code><div>    .generativeModel(</div><div>        modelName = "gemini-2.5-flash-tts",</div><div>        generationConfig = generationConfig {</div><div>            // Instruct the model to return Audio</div><div>            responseModalities = listOf(ResponseModality.AUDIO)</div><div>        }</div><div>    )</div><div></div><div>val response = ttsModel.generateContent("Say in a neutral but positive voice:\n$prompt")</div><div></div><div>// Extract the raw audio bytes from the response</div><div>val audioBytes = response.candidates.firstOrNull()?.content?.parts</div><div>    ?.filterIsInstance&lt;InlineDataPart&gt;()</div><div>    ?.firstOrNull { it.mimeType.contains("audio") }?.inlineData</div></code></pre>

<h3>4. Bringing it to Life in 3D with Jetpack XR</h3>
<p>The final piece of the puzzle is rendering this data in the user's field of view. The Jetpack XR SDK makes it intuitive to transition from  a 2D Android UI to spatial computing.</p>

<p>We used Jetpack Compose for XR to build spatial components. To represent points of interest along the tour, we built a Composable called InfoSphere, which contains a GltfModel of a 3D orb that floats in space and can be interacted with to reveal information.</p>

<p>Using Jetpack XR SDK, we can place 3D models alongside the Compose UI using <a href="https://developer.android.com/reference/kotlin/androidx/xr/compose/subspace/SpatialBox.composable">SpatialBox</a> and <a href="https://developer.android.com/reference/kotlin/androidx/xr/compose/subspace/SceneCoreEntity.composable">SceneCoreEntity</a>. We also used <a href="https://developer.android.com/reference/androidx/xr/scenecore/InteractableComponent">InteractableComponent</a> to respond to user taps.</p>
<pre><div>@Composable</div><code><div>fun InfoSphere(</div><div>    content: InfoBubbleContent,</div><div>    session: Session,</div><div>    sphereModel: GltfModel,</div><div>    isSelected: Boolean,</div><div>    onClick: () -&gt; Unit</div><div>) {</div><div>    // SpatialBox lets us arrange 3D components and SpatialPanels together</div><div>    SpatialBox(</div><div>        SubspaceModifier</div><div>            .offset(x = 2.dp, y = 1.dp, z = (-3).dp) // Positioned in 3D space</div><div>    ) {</div><div>        // Smoothly animate the visibility of our 2D Compose UI Panel</div><div>        AnimatedSpatialVisibility(visible = isSelected) {</div><div>            SpatialPanel {</div><div>                InfoBubble(content) // Regular 2D Compose UI</div><div>            }</div><div>        }</div><div>        // Render our interactive 3D sphere</div><div>        SceneCoreEntity(</div><div>            factory = {</div><div>                GltfModelEntity.create(session, sphereModel).also { entity -&gt;</div><div>                    // Make the 3D model respond to user taps</div><div>                    entity.addComponent(InteractableComponent.create(session) { inputEvent -&gt;</div><div>                        if (inputEvent.action == InputEvent.Action.UP) {</div><div>                            onClick()</div><div>                        }</div><div>                    })</div><div>                }</div><div>            }</div><div>        )</div><div>    }</div><div>}</div></code></pre>

<p>By combining <a href="https://developer.android.com/reference/kotlin/androidx/xr/compose/subspace/animation/AnimatedSpatialVisibility.composable">AnimatedSpatialVisibility</a> for traditional Compose UI surfaces with SceneCoreEntity 3D elements, we're able to seamlessly blend data into the physical world.</p>

<h3>Explore what’s possible with Android XR today</h3>
<p>Building the XR Geospatial Tour app showed us that the barrier to entry for world-scale spatial experiences is lower than ever for Android developers. With the Geospatial API now available in preview on Android XR, your apps can seamlessly understand the physical world around them. By combining <a href="https://developer.android.com/develop/xr/jetpack-xr-sdk/ui-compose">Compose for XR</a>’s APIs with the high-precision location data of VPS and the generative capabilities of Gemini, we can create experiences that understand both where the user is and what they are looking at.</p>

<p>To help you get hands-on with Android XR, we are thrilled to open applications for the <a href="https://developer.android.com/develop/xr/catalyst">Android XR Developer Catalyst Program</a>, which includes XREAL Project Aura. Starting today, you can apply to get access to an XREAL Project Aura devkit or our display glasses devkit over the coming months! </p>

<footer>
  <p>*Disclaimer: Available on select devices. Internet connection required. Works on compatible apps and surfaces. Results may vary.</p>
  <p><br></p>
</footer></div></div></div>]]></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[Iranian-Affiliated Cyber Actors Exploit Programmable Logic Controllers Across US Critical Infrastructure]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Advisory at a Glance



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


Original Publication
April 7, 2026


Last Update 
July 22, 2026


Executive Summary
The authoring agencies urgently warn U.S. organizations of ongoing Iranian-a...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3693379/sicherheitsluecken/iranian-affiliated-cyber-actors-exploit-programmable-logic-controllers-across-us-critical-infrastructure/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3693379/sicherheitsluecken/iranian-affiliated-cyber-actors-exploit-programmable-logic-controllers-across-us-critical-infrastructure/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 09:12:34 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🕵️ Sicherheitslücken</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<h2><strong>Advisory at a Glance</strong></h2>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<th>Title</th>
<td>Iranian-Affiliated Cyber Actors Exploit Programmable Logic Controllers Across US Critical Infrastructure</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Original Publication</th>
<td><strong>April 7, 2026</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Last Update </th>
<td><strong>July 22, 2026</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Executive Summary</th>
<td>The authoring agencies urgently warn U.S. organizations of ongoing Iranian-affiliated cyber targeting of internet-connected operational technology (OT) devices, including programmable logic controllers (PLCs). These actions disrupted PLCs across several U.S. critical infrastructure sectors through malicious project file interactions and manipulation of data on human machine interface (HMI) and supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) displays, resulting in operational disruption and financial loss.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Last Update Description</th>
<td>This update adds new guidance on detecting malicious changes in reusable code modules exploited within Rockwell Automation PLC programs. It also expands scope to include observed targeting of Schneider Electric, Siemens, and potentially other branded/manufactured PLCs, emphasizing the importance of restricting direct internet access and providing best practices for secure deployment.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Affected Products</th>
<td>Potentially all internet exposed PLCs, including Rockwell Automation/Allen-Bradley, Schneider Electric, Siemens, and other branded/manufactured PLCs.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Key Actions</th>
<td>
<ul type="square">
<li>Install PLCs consistent with manufacturers' guidelines and security best practices.</li>
<li>Remove PLCs from direct internet exposure via secure gateway and firewall; work with IT/OT team members and/or integrators to perform this action.</li>
<li>Query available logs for the provided indicators of compromise (IOCs) and check available logs for suspicious traffic on the ports associated with OT devices, including <code>44818</code>, <code>2222</code>, <code>102</code>, and <code>502</code>, especially traffic originating from foreign hosting providers.</li>
<li>For Rockwell Automation devices, place the physical mode switch on the controller into run position. If you suspect your organization was targeted, including against other branded PLC devices, contact the authoring agencies and PLC manufacturer for guidance.</li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Indicators of Compromise</th>
<td>
<p>For a downloadable copy of July 22, 2026<strong> </strong>IOCs, see:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/2026-07/AA26-097A.stix_.xml">AA26-097A STIX XML</a> (July 2026) (29 KB)</li>
<li><a href="https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/2026-07/AA26-097A.stix_.json">AA26-097A STIX JSON</a> (July 2026) (30 KB)</li>
</ul>
<p>For a downloadable copy of historical April 7, 2026 IOCs, see:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/2026-04/AA26-097A.stix_.xml" title="AA26-097A STIX XML">AA26-097A STIX XML</a> (36 KB)</li>
<li><a href="https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/2026-04/AA26-097A.stix_.json" title="AA26-097A STIX JSON">AA26-097A STIX JSON</a> (12 KB)<br> </li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Intended Audience</th>
<td>
<p><strong>Organizations:</strong> Critical Infrastructure</p>
<p><strong>Sectors: </strong><a href="https://www.cisa.gov/topics/critical-infrastructure-security-and-resilience/critical-infrastructure-sectors/government-services-facilities-sector" title="Government Services and Facilities">Government Services and Facilities</a>, <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> (WWS), and <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/topics/critical-infrastructure-security-and-resilience/critical-infrastructure-sectors/energy-sector" title="Energy">Energy</a> </p>
<p><strong>Roles: </strong>Integrators, asset owners, <a href="https://niccs.cisa.gov/tools/nice-framework/work-role/defensive-cybersecurity" title="Defensive cybersecurity analysts">defensive cybersecurity analysts</a>, <a href="https://niccs.cisa.gov/tools/nice-framework/work-role/operational-technology-ot-cybersecurity-engineering" title="OT cybersecurity engineers">OT cybersecurity engineers</a>, <a href="https://niccs.cisa.gov/tools/nice-framework/work-role/cybersecurity-architecture" title="cybersecurity architects">cybersecurity architects</a>, <a href="https://niccs.cisa.gov/tools/nice-framework/work-role/secure-systems-development" title="secure systems developer">secure systems developer</a></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h2><strong>Introduction</strong></h2>
<p><strong>Note:</strong><em> This advisory was originally published on April 7, 2026, to provide tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) and indicators of compromise (IOCs) related to ongoing cyber exploitation of internet-connected operational technology (OT) devices by</em> <em>Iranian-affiliated advanced persistent threat (APT) actors. The authoring agencies updated this advisory on July 22, 2026, to add new guidance on detecting malicious changes in reusable code modules leveraged within Rockwell Automation PLC programs. It also expands the manufacturer scope to include observed targeting of Schneider Electric, Siemens, and potentially other branded/manufactured PLCs, emphasizing the importance of restricting direct internet access and providing best practice resources for secure deployment.</em></p>
<p>The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), National Security Agency (NSA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Energy (DOE), United States Cyber Command – Cyber National Mission Force (CNMF), and Department of the Treasury (Treasury) (hereafter referred to as the “authoring agencies”) are urgently warning U.S. organizations of ongoing cyber exploitation of internet-connected OT devices—including PLCs manufactured by Rockwell Automation/Allen-Bradley, Schneider Electric, Siemens, and potentially other manufactured PLCs—across multiple U.S. critical infrastructure sectors. As a result of this activity, organizations from multiple U.S. critical infrastructure sectors experienced disruptions through malicious interactions with PLC project files<a href="https://www.cisa.gov/#Note1"><sup>1</sup></a> and the manipulation of data displayed on human machine interface (HMI) and supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) displays. In a few cases, this activity caused operational disruption and financial loss.</p>
<p>The authoring agencies assess a group of Iranian-affiliated APT actors is conducting this activity to cause disruptive effects within the United States. The group targeted devices spanning multiple U.S. critical infrastructure sectors, including <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/topics/critical-infrastructure-security-and-resilience/critical-infrastructure-sectors/government-services-facilities-sector" title="Government Services and Facilities">Government Services and Facilities</a> (to include local municipalities), <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> (WWS), and <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/topics/critical-infrastructure-security-and-resilience/critical-infrastructure-sectors/energy-sector" title="Energy">Energy</a> Sectors. The authoring agencies previously reported on similar activity targeting PLCs by <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa23-335a" title="CyberAv3ngers">CyberAv3ngers</a> (aka Shahid Kaveh Group)—a cyber threat actor affiliated with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Cyber Electronic Command (CEC).</p>
<p>Due to the widespread use of these PLCs, and the potential for additional targeting of other branded OT devices across critical infrastructure, the authoring agencies recommend U.S. organizations urgently review the TTPs and IOCs in this advisory for indications of current or historical activity on their networks, and apply the recommendations listed in the <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/#Mitigations"><strong>Mitigations</strong></a> section of this advisory to reduce the risk of compromise.</p>
<p>If owners and operators discover an affected internet-accessible device in their environment, additional technical measures may be necessary to evaluate the risk of compromise. Please engage your cyber incident response plans and contact the authoring agencies and applicable vendors through existing support channels available to customers and integrators (see <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/#Contact"><strong>Contact Information</strong></a>) to receive support, mitigation, and investigation assistance.</p>
<p>For more information on Iranian malicious cyber activity, see CISA’s <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/topics/cyber-threats-and-advisories/advanced-persistent-threats/iran" title="Iran Cyber Threat Overview and Advisories">Iran Threat Overview and Advisories</a> webpage and the FBI’s <a href="https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/counterintelligence/the-iran-threat" target="_blank" title="Iran Threat">Iran Threat</a> and Iran <a href="https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/cyber/cyber-threat-overview-iran" target="_blank" title="Iran Cyber Threat">Cyber Threat Overview</a> webpages.</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/2026-07/aa26-097a-iranian-affiliated-cyber-actors-exploit-programmable-logic-controllers-across-us-critical-infrastructure_508c.pdf" class="c-file__link" target="_blank">Iranian-Affiliated Cyber Actors Exploit Programmable Logic Controllers Across US Critical Infrastructure</a>
    <span class="c-file__size">(PDF,       1.09 MB
  )</span>
  </div>
</div>
<p><em><strong>(New, July 22, 2026)</strong></em> For a downloadable copy of July 22, 2026<strong> </strong>IOCs, see:</p>
<ul type="square">
<li><a href="https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/2026-07/AA26-097A.stix_.xml">AA26-097A STIX XML</a> (XML, 29 KB)</li>
<li><a href="https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/2026-07/AA26-097A.stix_.json">AA26-097A STIX JSON</a> (JSON, 30 KB)</li>
</ul>
<p>For a downloadable copy of historical April 7, 2026 IOCs, see:</p>





<div class="c-file">
    <div class="c-file__download">
    <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/2026-04/AA26-097A.stix_.xml" class="c-file__link" target="_blank">AA26-097A.stix_.xml</a>
    <span class="c-file__size">(XML,       35.97 KB
  )</span>
  </div>
</div>





<div class="c-file">
    <div class="c-file__download">
    <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/2026-04/AA26-097A.stix_.json" class="c-file__link" target="_blank">AA26-097A.stix_.json</a>
    <span class="c-file__size">(JSON,       11.87 KB
  )</span>
  </div>
</div>
<h2><strong>Background Information</strong></h2>
<h3><strong>Similar Historical Activity Targeting Programmable Logic Controllers</strong></h3>
<p>During a similar campaign beginning in November 2023, the IRGC CEC-affiliated cyber threat actors known as "CyberAv3ngers” targeted U.S.-based PLCs and HMIs, causing disruptive effects. Private industry and open sources also refer to this group as Hydro Kitten, Storm-0784, APT Iran, Bauxite, Mr. Soul, Soldiers of Solomon, UNC5691, and the Shahid Kaveh Group. These attacks compromised at least 75 devices, targeting U.S.-based Unitronics PLC devices with an HMI used across multiple critical infrastructure sectors, including the WWS. APT actors developed and deployed custom ladder logic code to these devices, replacing the valid ladder logic with malicious code that continues to be observed to date.</p>
<p>For more information on this group’s activity, see the joint Cybersecurity Advisory <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa23-335a" title="IRGC-Affiliated Cyber Actors Exploit PLCs in Multiple Sectors, Including US Water and Wastewater Systems Facilities">IRGC-Affiliated Cyber Actors Exploit PLCs in Multiple Sectors, Including US Water and Wastewater Systems Facilities</a>.</p>
<h3><strong>Ongoing Threat Actor Activity Against U.S.-Based Programmable Logic Controllers</strong></h3>
<p>The FBI observed Iranian-affiliated APT actors targeting internet-exposed PLCs with the intent to cause disruptions—including maliciously interacting with project files, and manipulating data displayed on HMI and SCADA displays—to U.S. critical infrastructure organizations. Iranian-affiliated APT targeting campaigns against U.S. critical infrastructure have recently escalated, likely in response to hostilities between Iran, and the United States and Israel.</p>
<p><em><strong>(New, July 22, 2026) </strong></em>At one U.S. victim, the FBI observed the APT actors download a malicious project file to a targeted PLC using configuration software. Analysis indicated the project file retained ladder logic for downstream function but added logic that overrode specific instruction sets responsible for maintaining safe operating parameters in the victim’s environment.</p>
<p>Since at least March 2026, the authoring agencies identified (through engagements with victim organizations) an Iranian-affiliated APT group disrupted the function of PLCs. Organizations across several U.S. critical infrastructure sectors (including <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/topics/critical-infrastructure-security-and-resilience/critical-infrastructure-sectors/government-services-facilities-sector" title="Government Services and Facilities">Government Services and Facilities</a>, <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/topics/critical-infrastructure-security-and-resilience/critical-infrastructure-sectors/water-and-wastewater-sector" title="Water and Wastewater Systems">WWS</a>, and <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/topics/critical-infrastructure-security-and-resilience/critical-infrastructure-sectors/energy-sector" title="Energy">Energy</a> Sectors) deployed these PLCs within a wide variety of industrial automation processes. Some of the victims experienced operational disruption and financial loss.</p>
<h2><strong>Technical Details</strong></h2>
<p><strong>Note:</strong> This advisory uses the <a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v19/matrices/enterprise/" target="_blank" title="MITRE ATTACK Matrix for Enterprise">MITRE ATT&amp;CK<sup>®</sup> Matrix for Enterprise</a> framework, version 19. See the <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/#MITRE"><strong>MITRE ATT&amp;CK Tactics and Techniques</strong></a> section of this advisory for tables of the threat actors’ activity mapped to MITRE ATT&amp;CK tactics and techniques.</p>
<h3><strong>Initial Access</strong></h3>
<p><em><strong>(Updated, July 22, 2026)</strong></em> The authoring agencies observed Iranian-affiliated APT actors using several foreign-based IP addresses to access internet-facing PLCs manufactured by Rockwell Automation/Allen-Bradley, Schneider Electric, Siemens, and potentially other manufactured PLCs [<a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v19/techniques/T0883/" target="_blank" title="T0883">T0883</a>]. The actors used leased, third-party hosted infrastructure and manufacturers’ PLC programming software to connect to misconfigured victim PLCs. Inbound malicious traffic has been observed targeting PLC devices on the following ports: <code>44818</code>, <code>2222</code>, <code>102</code>, and <code>502</code>, as well as targeting modems on port <code>22</code>. Targeted devices include:</p>
<ul type="square">
<li><strong>Rockwell Automation:</strong> CompactLogix and Micro850 PLCs</li>
<li><strong>Schneider Electric:</strong> BMX P34/Modicon M340 PLCs</li>
<li><strong>Siemens:</strong> S7-1200 series PLCs</li>
</ul>
<h3><strong>Command and Control</strong></h3>
<p><em><strong>(Updated, July 22, 2026)</strong></em> The targeting of ports [<a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v19/techniques/T0885/" target="_blank" title="T0885">T0885</a>] associated with other OT vendors’ protocols suggests these actors are opportunistically targeting devices manufactured by companies other than Rockwell Automation/Allen-Bradley, including Schneider Electric and Siemens. In one reported instance, the actors utilized Dropbear Secure Shell (SSH) software on victim modems to enable them to gain remote access through port <code>22</code> [<a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v19/techniques/T1219/" target="_blank" title="T1219">T1219</a>].</p>
<h3><strong>Exfiltration</strong></h3>
<p><em><strong>(New, July 22, 2026) </strong></em>The authoring agencies observed Iranian-affiliated APT actors using configuration software—such as Rockwell Automation’s Studio 5000 Logix Designer, Schneider Electric’s EcoStruxure Control Expert, and Siemens’ Totally Integrated Automation (TIA) Portal—on leased, third-party hosted infrastructure to exfiltrate device project files from PLC devices to threat-actor-controlled infrastructure [<a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v19/techniques/T1041/" target="_blank" title="T1041">T1041</a>].</p>
<h3><strong>Impact</strong></h3>
<p><em><strong>(Updated, July 22, 2026)</strong></em> After the actors extracted device project files, the FBI and CISA identified the modification and deletion of project file logic, to include Add-On Instructions (AOIs) and data manipulation on HMI and SCADA displays [<a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v19/techniques/T1565/" target="_blank" title="T1565">T1565</a>]. Additionally, the changes disabled critical shutdown and alarm logic, allowing systems to enter unsafe conditions without notifying operators of the anomalies.</p>
<p><strong>Note:</strong> An AOI is analogous to a “Function Block” or “User Defined Function Block” used in other PLC vendor programs.</p>
<h2><strong>Indicators of Compromise</strong></h2>
<p>See <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/#Table1"><strong>Table 1</strong></a><strong> </strong>and <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/#Table2"><strong>Table 2</strong></a> for recent IP addresses used by the Iranian-affiliated APT actors to communicate with PLCs manufactured by Rockwell Automation/Allen-Bradley, Schneider Electric, and Siemens in the United States.</p>
<p><strong>Disclaimer:</strong> The FBI observed the threat actors using the IP addresses listed below in the specified time frames. This data is being provided for customers to query against logs for indications of historical targeting by the Iranian-affiliated APT actors. The authoring agencies recommend organizations investigate or vet these IP addresses prior to taking action, such as blocking.</p>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<caption><a class="ck-anchor"></a>Table 1. Indicators of Compromise <em><strong>(New, July 22, 2026)</strong></em></caption>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">Indicator</th>
<th role="columnheader">Beginning of Actor Association</th>
<th role="columnheader">End of Actor Association</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>185.82.73[.]175</td>
<td>September 2025</td>
<td>February 2026</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>141.11.164[.]153</td>
<td>January 2026</td>
<td>June 2026</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>175.110.121[.]42</td>
<td>February 2026</td>
<td>March 2026</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>175.110.121[.]39</td>
<td>February 2026</td>
<td>March 2026</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>175.110.121[.]41</td>
<td>February 2026</td>
<td>March 2026</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>175.110.121[.]107</td>
<td>February 2026</td>
<td>February 2026</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>192.142.54[.]79</td>
<td>May 2026</td>
<td>June 2026</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>84.200.205[.]165</td>
<td>May 2026</td>
<td>June 2026</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>185.225.17[.]225</td>
<td>June 2026</td>
<td>July 2026</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>79.133.46[.]209</td>
<td>July 2026</td>
<td>July 2026</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>88.80.150[.]199</td>
<td>July 2026</td>
<td>July 2026</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>88.80.150[.]200</td>
<td>July 2026</td>
<td>July 2026</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>88.80.150[.]202</td>
<td>July 2026</td>
<td>July 2026</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<caption><a class="ck-anchor"></a>Table 2. Indicators of Compromise </caption>
<thead>
<tr>
<th role="columnheader" data-tablesaw-priority="persist">Indicator</th>
<th role="columnheader">Beginning of Actor Association</th>
<th role="columnheader">End of Actor Association</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>185.82.73[.]162</td>
<td>January 2025</td>
<td>March 2026</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>185.82.73[.]164</td>
<td>January 2025</td>
<td>March 2026</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>185.82.73[.]165</td>
<td>January 2025</td>
<td>March 2026</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>185.82.73[.]167</td>
<td>January 2025</td>
<td>March 2026</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>185.82.73[.]168</td>
<td>January 2025</td>
<td>March 2026</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>185.82.73[.]170</td>
<td>January 2025</td>
<td>March 2026</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>185.82.73[.]171</td>
<td>January 2025</td>
<td>March 2026</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>135.136.1[.]133</td>
<td>March 2026</td>
<td>March 2026</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h2><a class="ck-anchor"></a><a class="ck-anchor"><strong>MITRE ATT&amp;CK Tactics and Techniques</strong></a></h2>
<p>See <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/#Table3"><strong>Table 3</strong></a> to <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/#Table6"><strong>Table 6</strong></a><strong> </strong>for all referenced threat actor tactics and techniques in this advisory. The authoring agencies recommend organizations review historical TTPs for similar Iranian-affiliated cyber actor activity in <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa23-335a" title="IRGC-Affiliated Cyber Actors Exploit PLCs in Multiple Sectors, Including US Water and Wastewater Systems Facilities">IRGC-Affiliated Cyber Actors Exploit PLCs in Multiple Sectors, Including US Water and Wastewater Systems Facilities</a>. 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>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<caption><a class="ck-anchor"></a>Table 3. Initial Access</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>Internet Accessible Device</td>
<td><a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v19/techniques/T0883/" target="_blank" title="T0833">T0883</a></td>
<td>The actors accessed and interacted with publicly exposed, internet-accessible PLCs that lacked sufficient network and/or hardening security controls.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p> </p>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<caption>Table 4. Command and Control</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>Commonly Used Port</td>
<td><a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v19/techniques/T0885/" target="_blank" title="T0885">T0885</a></td>
<td>The actors leveraged commonly used OT ports to communicate with PLCs.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Remote Access Tools </td>
<td><a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v19/techniques/T1219/" target="_blank" title="T1219">T1219</a></td>
<td>The actors deployed Dropbear SSH software on victim modems to enable them to gain remote access through port <code>22</code>.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<caption>Table 5. Exfiltration <em><strong>(New, July 22, 2026)</strong></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>Exfiltration Over C2 Channel</td>
<td><a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v19/techniques/T1041/" target="_blank" title="T1041">T1041</a></td>
<td>The actors used remote, third-party hosted infrastructure as a C2 channel to transfer device project files out of victim environments.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table class="tablesaw tablesaw-stack" data-tablesaw-mode="stack" data-tablesaw-minimap>
<caption><a class="ck-anchor"></a>Table 6. Impact</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>Data Manipulation</td>
<td><a href="https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v19/techniques/T1565/" target="_blank" title="T1565">T1565</a></td>
<td>The actors maliciously interacted with project files, including modifying and deleting project file logic, and altered data displayed on HMI and SCADA displays.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h2><a class="ck-anchor"><strong>Mitigations</strong></a></h2>
<p>The authoring agencies recommend organizations implement the mitigations below to improve your organization’s cybersecurity posture on the basis of the threat actors’ activity. These mitigations align with the <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/cpg" title="Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPGs)">Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPGs)</a> developed by CISA and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The CPGs provide a minimum set of practices and protections that CISA and NIST recommend all organizations implement. CISA and NIST based the CPGs on existing cybersecurity frameworks and guidance to protect against the most common and impactful threats and TTPs. Visit CISA’s <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/cpg" title="CPGs webpage">CPGs webpage</a> for more information on the CPGs, including additional recommended baseline protections.</p>
<h3><strong>Network Defenders</strong></h3>
<p>The cyber threat actors accessed PLCs manufactured by Rockwell Automation/Allen-Bradley, Schneider Electric, Siemens, and potentially other branded/manufactured PLCs to cause disruptions to victim systems. To safeguard against this threat and threats to other types of PLCs, the authoring agencies urge organizations to consider the following mitigations.</p>
<p><em><strong>(Updated, July 22, 2026)</strong></em> In addition to contacting the authoring agencies, organizations and integrators operating PLCs from the manufacturers mentioned in this advisory should review the previously issued guidance to strengthen the security of their OT deployments:</p>
<ul type="square">
<li><strong>Rockwell Automation:</strong> Contact the Rockwell Automation Product Security Incident Response Team (PSIRT) at <a href="mailto:PSIRT@rockwellautomation.com">PSIRT@rockwellautomation.com</a> for questions regarding this guidance, or to report cyber incidents related to Rockwell Automation products.<br>
<ul type="circle">
<li>Refer to Rockwell Automation Security Advisory <a href="https://www.rockwellautomation.com/en-us/trust-center/security-advisories/advisory.SD1771.html" target="_blank" title="SD1771">SD1771</a> for recommended PLC hardening measures and configuration guidance.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><strong>Schneider Electric:</strong> Contact the Schneider Electric Corporate Product Cyber Emergency Response Team (CPCERT) at <a href="mailto:cpcert@se.com">cpcert@se.com</a> for questions regarding this guidance, or to report cyber incidents related to Schneider Electric products.<br>
<ul type="circle">
<li>Refer to Schneider Electric’s <a href="https://download.se.com/files?p_File_Name=Cybersecurity_Best+Practices_EN.pdf&amp;p_Doc_Ref=7EN52-0390&amp;p_enDocType=White+Paper" target="_blank" title="Recommended Cybersecurity Best Practices">Recommended Cybersecurity Best Practices</a> and <a href="https://download.se.com/files?p_Doc_Ref=EIO0000001999&amp;p_enDocType=User+guide&amp;p_File_Name=EIO0000001999-13_Modicon_Controller_Platform_Cybersecurity_Guide_EN.pdf" target="_blank" title="Cybersecurity User Guide for Modicon Controller Platform">Cybersecurity User Guide for Modicon Controller Platform</a> for guidance on securing and configuring PLCs.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><strong>Siemens:</strong> Contact Siemens ProductCERT at <a href="mailto:productcert@siemens.com">productcert@siemens.com</a> for questions regarding this guidance, or to report cyber incidents and vulnerabilities related to Siemens products.<br>
<ul type="circle">
<li>Refer to <a href="https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/html/ssb-104599.html" target="_blank" title="Siemens Security Bulletin 104599">Siemens Security Bulletin 104599</a> for a list of security measures to harden PLCs and in-depth configuration guides.</li>
<li>Siemens users should review the <a href="https://cert-portal.siemens.com/operational-guidelines-industrial-security.pdf" target="_blank" title="Cybersecurity for Industry Operational Guidelines">Cybersecurity for Industry Operational Guidelines</a> and implement defense-in-depth controls within their automation systems.</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Immediate steps to prevent the attack:</strong></p>
<ul type="square">
<li><strong>Disconnect the PLC from the public-facing internet</strong> [<a href="https://www.cisa.gov/cybersecurity-performance-goals-2-0-cpg-2-0#SecureInternetFacingDevices3S" title="CPG 3.S">CPG 3.S</a>]. Follow the joint guidance <a href="https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/collection/operational-technology/secure-connectivity" target="_blank" title="Secure Connectivity Principles for OT">Secure connectivity principles for OT</a> to safely allow remote access. Specifically, “remove inbound port exposure,” so the OT system is never directly exposed to the internet or external networks, and to ensure all access is mediated, monitored, and controlled. Do this through a secure gateway (jump host) that brokers the connection.<br>
<ul type="circle">
<li>Ensure cellular modems, used for remote field connectivity and access, are secured with strong authentication and updated.</li>
<li>Enable logs for connected modems and regularly review for suspicious activity to detect intrusions and improve incident response speed.</li>
<li><em><strong>(New, July 22, 2026) </strong></em>To mitigate unauthorized access to OT via cellular modems, organizations should consider implementing isolated architectures, such as private Access Point Name (APN), 5G Public Network Integrated Non-Public Network (PNI-NPN), cellular Software-Defined Wide Area Network (SD-WAN), Zero Trust Network Access (ZTNA), or a site-to-site virtual private network (VPN).</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><em><strong>(New, July 22, 2026) </strong></em><strong>Strictly control network access to PLC devices.</strong><br>
<ul type="circle">
<li>Configure firewall rules or access control list (ACL) security features on PLCs or programmable controllers to allow only authorized communications between expected control system devices. Block access from unauthorized or threat actor-controlled IP addresses, such as those associated with hosting providers.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><strong>For controllers with a physical mode switch, place the physical mode switch into run position to prevent remote modification. </strong>Devices should only be in the program or remote position when updating or downloading software online and immediately switched back to the run position when complete. (See Rockwell Automation’s<a href="https://www.cisa.gov/#Note2"><sup>2</sup></a><sup> </sup><a href="https://literature.rockwellautomation.com/idc/groups/literature/documents/rm/secure-rm001_-en-p.pdf" target="_blank" title="System Security Design Guidelines">System Security Design Guidelines</a> for manufacturer’s instructions.)<br>
<ul type="circle">
<li><em><strong>(New, July 22, 2026)</strong> </em>Prior to switching the device to run mode, review and validate project files, as changing modes will lock in the current project file downloaded to the device.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><strong>For devices that allow software key switching, </strong>enable programming protection in PLC configuration software (S7 TIA Portal) to limit who can modify PLCs remotely. (See Siemens’ <a href="https://assets.new.siemens.com/siemens/assets/api/uuid:c9a2de6e-6bd0-4c32-bba0-f64cac44fcc9/industrial-security-operational-guidelines-en.pdf" target="_blank" title="Cybersecurity for Industry Operational Guidelines">Cybersecurity for Industry Operational Guidelines</a> for the manufacturer’s instructions.)</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Follow-up steps to strengthen security posture:</strong></p>
<ul type="square">
<li><em><strong>(New, July 22, 2026)</strong> </em><strong>Review project files running on PLCs for unauthorized changes.</strong> Use vendor-provided integrity checking tools and visually compare the running program to known good logic. Ensure reusable logic and input/output configurations are valid. For Rockwell Automation PLCs listed in the <a href="https://www.rockwellautomation.com/en-us/trust-center/security-advisories/advisory.SD1771.html" target="_blank" title="Customer Guidance to Disconnect Devices from the Internet">Customer Guidance to Disconnect Devices from the Internet</a>, check the AOIs for any anomalous modifications.<br>
<ul type="circle">
<li>If restoring from backups, verify the backup does not contain malicious logic before deployment.</li>
<li>Review logs and configurations on all connected devices, including modems, HMIs, and workstations, to assess potential lateral movement by threat actors. If it appears the actors connected to additional devices, reimage these devices to remove any potential malicious changes or access tools.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><em><strong>(New, July 22, 2026)</strong> </em><strong>Ensure device passwords are changed from their default </strong>and are configured to use complex, unique combinations of letters, numbers, and symbols that are not easily guessable. Implementing robust password practices remains a critical security measure that can help prevent unauthorized access and strengthen the overall security posture of OT devices.</li>
<li><em><strong>(New, July 22, 2026)</strong> </em><strong>Take defensive measures to minimize the risk of exploitation. </strong>Conduct comprehensive impact analysis and risk assessments prior to deploying defensive measures.</li>
<li><strong>Create and test strong backups of the logic and configurations of PLCs</strong>. Store backup files offline and secure the physical removal media to enable fast recovery.</li>
<li><strong>Implement multifactor authentication</strong> <strong>(MFA)</strong> [<a href="https://www.cisa.gov/cybersecurity-performance-goals-2-0-cpg-2-0#ImplementMultifactorAuthentication3F" title="CPG 3.F">CPG 3.F</a>] for access to the OT network from an external network.</li>
<li>If remote access is required, <strong>implement a network proxy, gateway, firewall, and/or VPN in front of the PLC to control network access</strong>.<br>
<ul type="circle">
<li>A VPN or gateway device can enable MFA for remote access even if the PLC does not support MFA. Implement security rules on these higher-level network security mechanisms to prevent the type of repeated and sustained login attempts seen during a brute force attack. When possible, implement a device control list for workstations sending messages or connecting to OT components.</li>
<li>Use the device control list to monitor for logon activity for unexpected or unusual access to devices from the internet.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><strong>Keep PLC devices updated with the latest software patches issued by the manufacturer.</strong> Use established downtime windows to install patches. <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog" title="Known Exploited Vulnerabilities">Known Exploited Vulnerabilities</a> may need to be prioritized outside a downtime window.</li>
<li><strong>Configure external and internal firewalls to block traffic using common ports </strong>associated with network protocols that are unnecessary for the particular network segment.</li>
<li><strong>Disable any unused authentication methods, logic, or features, </strong>such as default authentication keys and passwords, as well as unused or needed services such as Teletype Network (Telnet), File Transfer Protocol (FTP), Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP), Virtual Network Computing (VNC), and web services.</li>
<li><strong>Monitor asset management systems for device configuration changes</strong>, which can be used to understand expected parameter settings.</li>
<li><strong>Monitor the content of network traffic</strong> for the following:<br>
<ul type="circle">
<li>Unusual logins to internet-connected devices or unexpected protocols to/from the internet. </li>
<li>Functions of industrial control systems management protocols that change an asset’s operating mode or modify programs.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><em><strong>(New, July 22, 2026)</strong> </em><strong>Ensure service providers are informed of active threats targeting internet-connected PLC devices. </strong>Owners and operators should communicate directly with service providers to address risks, especially when remote monitoring or maintenance is involved. Some service providers may rely on internet connectivity essential to monitor and maintain OT/ICS operations but may not be fully aware of active threats.</li>
</ul>
<p>In addition, the authoring agencies recommend network defenders apply the following mitigations to limit potential adversarial use of common system and network discovery techniques, as well as reduce the impact and risk of compromise by cyber threat actors:</p>
<ul type="square">
<li><strong>Reduce risk exposure</strong>. CISA offers a range of services at no cost, including scanning and testing, to help organizations reduce exposure to threats via mitigating attack vectors. CISA’s <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/cyber-hygiene-services" title="Cyber Hygiene Services">Cyber Hygiene Services</a> can help provide additional review of organizations’ internet-accessible assets. </li>
</ul>
<h3><strong>Device Manufacturers</strong></h3>
<p><strong>Note:</strong> The following guidance is general in nature and not specific to any OT vendor. Some of the features, settings, and practices may already be offered by certain vendors. The inclusion of this guidance should not be interpreted as an assertion that vendors referenced do not offer such security features. Also, this advisory is not highlighting a new vulnerability in the identified products, but instead discusses opportunistic targeting. Device manufacturers can make opportunistic attacks more difficult at scale by encouraging more secure behavior by default and in operations, as discussed below. </p>
<p>Although critical infrastructure organizations using PLC devices can take steps to mitigate the risks, it is ultimately the responsibility of the device manufacturer to build products secured by design and default. The authoring agencies urge device manufacturers to take ownership of their customers’ security outcomes by following the principles in the joint guide <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 OT Owners and Operators when Selecting Digital Products</a>, primarily:</p>
<ul>
<li>Change the manufacturers’ default settings to prevent exposing administrative interfaces to the internet.</li>
<li>Do not charge additional fees for basic security features needed to operate the product securely.</li>
<li>Support MFA, including via phishing-resistant methods.</li>
</ul>
<p>By using secure by design tactics, software manufacturers can make product lines secure “out of the box” without requiring customers to spend additional resources making configuration changes, purchasing tiered security software and logs, monitoring, and making routine updates.</p>
<p>For more information on common misconfigurations and guidance on reducing their prevalence, see joint advisory <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa23-278a" title="NSA and CISA Red and Blue Teams Share Top Ten Cybersecurity Misconfigurations">NSA and CISA Red and Blue Teams Share Top Ten Cybersecurity Misconfigurations</a>. 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 and joint guide.</p>
<h2><strong>Validate Security Controls</strong></h2>
<p>In addition to applying mitigations, the authoring agencies recommend exercising, testing, and validating your organization's security program against the threat behaviors mapped to the MITRE ATT&amp;CK for Enterprise framework in this advisory. The authoring agencies recommend testing your existing security controls inventory to assess how they perform against the ATT&amp;CK techniques described in this advisory.</p>
<p>To get started:</p>
<ol>
<li>Select an ATT&amp;CK technique described in this advisory (see<strong> </strong><a href="https://www.cisa.gov/#Table3"><strong>Table 3</strong></a> to <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/#Table6"><strong>Table 6</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 agencies recommend continually testing your security program, at scale, in a production environment to ensure optimal performance against the ATT&amp;CK techniques identified in this advisory.</p>
<h2><strong>Resources</strong></h2>
<ul type="square">
<li>Authoring Agencies: <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa23-335a" title="IRGC-Affiliated Cyber Actors Exploit PLCs in Multiple Sectors, Including US Water and Wastewater Systems Facilities">IRGC-Affiliated Cyber Actors Exploit PLCs in Multiple Sectors, Including US Water and Wastewater Systems Facilities</a></li>
<li>CISA: <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/resources-tools/resources/bulletproof-defense-mitigating-risks-bulletproof-hosting-providers" title="Bulletproof Defense: Mitigating Risks From Bulletproof Hosting Providers">Bulletproof Defense: Mitigating Risks From Bulletproof Hosting Providers</a></li>
<li>EPA: <a href="https://www.epa.gov/cyberwater/epa-cybersecurity-water-sector" target="_blank" title="Cybersecurity for the Water Sector">Cybersecurity for the Water Sector</a></li>
<li>CISA: <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/water" title="Water and Wastewater Cybersecurity">Water and Wastewater Cybersecurity</a></li>
<li>CISA: <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/alerts/2023/11/28/exploitation-unitronics-plcs-used-water-and-wastewater-systems" title="Exploitation of Unitronics PLCs used in Water and Wastewater Systems">Exploitation of Unitronics PLCs used in Water and Wastewater Systems</a></li>
<li>CISA: <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/topics/cyber-threats-and-advisories/advanced-persistent-threats/iran" title="Iran Cyber Threat Overview and Advisories">Iran Threat Overview and Advisories</a></li>
<li>FBI: <a href="https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/counterintelligence/the-iran-threat" target="_blank" title="The Iran Threat">The Iran Threat</a> and <a href="https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/cyber/cyber-threat-overview-iran" target="_blank" title="Cyber Threat Overview: Iran">Cyber Threat Overview: Iran</a></li>
<li>CISA, MITRE: <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></li>
<li>CISA: <a href="https://github.com/cisagov/Decider/" title="Decider Tool">Decider Tool</a></li>
<li>CISA: <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/cybersecurity-performance-goals-2-0-cpg-2-0" title="Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals 2.0">Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals 2.0</a></li>
<li>CISA: <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/topics/cyber-threats-and-advisories/cyber-hygiene-services" title="No-Cost Cybersecurity Services and Tools">No-Cost Cybersecurity Services and Tools</a></li>
<li>CISA: <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 OT Owners and Operators when Selecting Digital Products</a></li>
<li>NSA, CISA: <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa23-278a" title="NSA and CISA Red and Blue Teams Share Top Ten Cybersecurity Misconfigurations">NSA and CISA Red and Blue Teams Share Top Ten Cybersecurity Misconfigurations</a></li>
<li>CISA: <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/securebydesign" title="Secure by Design">Secure by Design</a></li>
<li>FBI, CISA: <a href="https://www.ic3.gov/CSA/2025/250506.pdf" target="_blank" title="Primary Mitigations to Reduce Cyber Threats to Operational Technology">Primary Mitigations to Reduce Cyber Threats to Operational Technology</a></li>
<li>United Kingdom National Cyber Security Centre: <a href="https://www.ic3.gov/CSA/2026/260114.pdf" target="_blank" title="Secure Connectivity Principles for Operational Technology (OT)">Secure connectivity principles for operational technology</a></li>
</ul>
<h2><a class="ck-anchor"><strong>Contact Information</strong></a></h2>
<p>U.S. organizations are encouraged to report suspicious or criminal activity related to information in this advisory to CISA, the FBI, and/or NSA:</p>
<ul type="square">
<li>Contact CISA via CISA’s 24/7 Operations Center at <a href="mailto:contact@cisa.dhs.gov">contact@cisa.dhs.gov</a> or 1-844-Say-CISA (1-844-729-2472). File a claim with FBI’s <a href="https://ic3.gov/" target="_blank" title="Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3)">Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3)</a> or contact your local <a href="https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices" target="_blank" title="FBI field office">FBI field office</a>. When available, please include the following information regarding the incident: 
<ul>
<li>Date, time, and location of the incident;</li>
<li>Type of activity;</li>
<li>Number of people affected;</li>
<li>Type of equipment used for the activity; and</li>
<li>Name of the submitting company or organization, and a designated point of contact.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>For NSA cybersecurity guidance inquiries, contact <a href="mailto:CybersecurityReports@nsa.gov" title="CybersecurityReports@nsa.gov">CybersecurityReports@nsa.gov</a>.</li>
<li>Entities required to report incidents to DOE should follow established reporting requirements, as appropriate. For other energy sector inquiries, contact <a href="mailto:EnergySRMA@hq.doe.gov" title="EnergySRMA@hq.doe.gov">EnergySRMA@hq.doe.gov</a>.</li>
<li>Contact the Rockwell Automation PSIRT for questions regarding their guidance or for reporting cyber incidents related to Rockwell Automation products at <a href="mailto:PSIRT@rockwellautomation.com" title="PSIRT@rockwellautomation.com">PSIRT@rockwellautomation.com</a>.</li>
<li>Contact the Schneider Electric CPCERT at <a href="mailto:cpcert@se.com">cpcert@se.com</a> for questions regarding this guidance, or to report cyber incidents related to Schneider Electric products.</li>
<li>Contact Siemens ProductCERT for up-to-date information about the security of Siemens products or to report cybersecurity vulnerabilities at <a href="mailto:productcert@siemens.com">productcert@siemens.com</a>. For support with increasing the security of installed Siemens PLCs, contact Siemens Industrial Cybersecurity Services at <a href="mailto:services.automation@siemens.com">services.automation@siemens.com</a>. See <a href="https://www.siemens.com/en-us/content/cert-services/" target="_blank" title="Siemens ProductCERT and Siemens CERT">Siemens ProductCERT and Siemens CERT</a> for more information.</li>
</ul>
<h2><strong>Disclaimer</strong></h2>
<p>The information in this report is being provided “as is” for informational purposes only. CISA and the authoring agencies do not endorse any commercial entity, product, company, or service, including any entities, products, or services linked within this document. Any reference to specific commercial entities, products, processes, or services by service mark, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not constitute or imply endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by CISA and the authoring agencies.</p>
<h2><strong>Version History</strong></h2>
<p><strong>April 7, 2026</strong>: Initial version.</p>
<p><strong>July 22, 2026</strong>: Update includes new guidance on detecting malicious activity, expanded scope of observed targeting, and best practices for secure PLCs deployment.</p>
<h2><strong>Notes</strong></h2>
<p><a class="ck-anchor"></a><sup>1</sup>Project file refers to the software file that contains ladder logic and configuration settings. On Rockwell Automation devices, it is referred to as an .ACD file.</p>
<p><a class="ck-anchor"></a><sup>2 </sup>See <a href="https://literature.rockwellautomation.com/idc/groups/literature/documents/um/1769-um021_-en-p.pdf" target="_blank" title="CompactLogix 5370 Controllers">CompactLogix 5370 Controllers</a> (Chapter 5: “Select the Operating Mode of the Controller”) for more information on functions available for the switch.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Firefox Nightly: Giving You More Control – These Weeks in Firefox: Issue 204]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Highlights

Maxx Crawford added a pref to hide the New Tab logo so users can opt out of branding without altering page layout or resorting to CSS overrides.
Harshit enabled video overlay detection in Nightly 153, allowing you to use the context menu to control videos on more pages! We plan on let...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3693293/tools/firefox-nightly-giving-you-more-control-these-weeks-in-firefox-issue-204/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3693293/tools/firefox-nightly-giving-you-more-control-these-weeks-in-firefox-issue-204/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 08:37:31 +0200</pubDate>
<category>💾  Tools</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<h3>Highlights</h3>
<ul>
<li>Maxx Crawford <a href="https://bugzil.la/2041708">added a pref to hide the New Tab logo </a>so users can opt out of branding without altering page layout or resorting to CSS overrides.</li>
<li>Harshit <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2041819">enabled video overlay detection</a> in Nightly 153, allowing you to use the context menu to control videos on more pages! We plan on letting this ride out in Firefox 153.
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/DXH8Rd6EcWo/">You can try it out on this Instagram reel</a> in Nightly</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<p><img alt="Firefox context menu video controls like Pause, Unmute, Speed and Loop." class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-2081" height="431" src="https://blog.nightly.mozilla.org/files/2026/06/image2-2.png" width="480"></p>
<ul>
<li>A note to WebExtension authors – as part of a <a href="https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2026/04/23/webextensions-api-changes-firefox-149-152/">planned deprecation announced last month</a>, executeScript and insertCSS are now restricted from moz-extension pages starting in Firefox 152 –<a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2015559"> Bug 2015559</a></li>
<li><a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/user_profile?user_id=557153">Nicolas Chevobbe [:nchevobbe]</a> added support and debugging for modern attr()(which is <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2038939">enabled on Nightly</a>) (<a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2014751">#2014751</a>)</li>
</ul>
<p><img alt="Tooltip in Firefox DevTools for mismatched syntax with attr()" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-2082" height="164" src="https://blog.nightly.mozilla.org/files/2026/06/image1-2.png" width="872"></p>
<h3>Friends of the Firefox team</h3>
<h4><a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?title=Resolved%20bugs%20(excluding%20employees)&amp;quicksearch=1717176%2C2031328%2C2038948%2C2011485%2C1455294%2C2035084%2C2039455%2C2036767%2C2039878%2C2013176%2C2022414%2C2036237%2C2036578%2C2041612%2C1262773&amp;list_id=17986996">Resolved bugs (excluding employees)</a></h4>
<p><a href="https://github.com/niklasbaumgardner/NewContributorScraper">Script to find new contributors from bug list</a></p>
<h4>Volunteers that fixed more than one bug</h4>
<ul>
<li>Sam Johnson</li>
<li>Sebastian Zartner [:sebo]</li>
</ul>
<h4>New contributors (🌟 = first patch)</h4>
<ul>
<li>Immaculate Atim: <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2022414">Switch to using an array instead of an object string for browser.backup.enabled_on.profiles</a></li>
<li>liz: <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2011485">Screenshots overlay visible on both splitview browsers</a></li>
<li>🌟 Rahman Mahmutović [:r_m]: <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1717176">Can’t change content in box model in inspector for box-sizing:border-box elements</a></li>
<li>Takeru Mitsumori: <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2038948">Fix typo in ID name about-translations-swap-langauges-icon in about-translations.html</a></li>
<li>🌟 Freya Arbjerg [:freyacodes]: <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2036767">Blackboxed columns are ignored</a></li>
<li> tom.passarelli: <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2031328">tab-preview-panel emits unpaired popupshown/popuphidden events, breaking sidebar autohide</a></li>
</ul>
<h3>Project Updates</h3>
<h4>Add-ons / Web Extensions</h4>
<h5>Addon Manager &amp; about:addons</h5>
<ul>
<li>As part of the work for the Project Nova about:addons page restyling, the about:addons sidebar has been migrated to the moz-page-nav and moz-page-nav-button reusable components, improving accessibility and visual consistency with the Firefox Desktop about:settings page –<a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1881767"> Bug 1881767</a></li>
</ul>
<h5>WebExtensions Framework</h5>
<ul>
<li>Implemented WebExtensions negative permissions infrastructure, providing the foundations for enterprise policy “blocked host permissions” features –<a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1745823"> Bug 1745823</a></li>
<li>Restricted host permission changes for MV3 extensions force-installed via enterprise policy (matching similar behaviors provided by Chrome enterprise policy behaviors) –<a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1904054"> Bug 1904054</a>
<ul>
<li>Thanks to Mike Kaply for the implementation of this enterprise policy enforcement feature.</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<h5>WebExtension APIs</h5>
<ul>
<li>Fixed handling of &lt;all_urls&gt; as an API permission in Manifest V3, ensuring the permission is correctly initialized on extension install –<a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1758306"> Bug 1758306</a></li>
</ul>
<h4>DevTools</h4>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/user_profile?user_id=789324">Rahman Mahmutović [:r_m]</a> made it possible to edit width/height in the box model section of the Layout panel (<a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1717176">#1717176</a>)</li>
<li><a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/user_profile?user_id=446518">Sebastian Zartner [:sebo]</a> improved toggling tools driving in-page highlighters (e.g. the Measuring) (<a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1262773">#1262773</a>)</li>
<li><a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/user_profile?user_id=446518">Sebastian Zartner [:sebo]</a> added a setting to control visibility of HTML comments in the markup view (<a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1455294">#1455294</a>)</li>
<li><a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/user_profile?user_id=789044">Freya Arbjerg [:freyacodes]</a> fixed an issue in script blackboxing (<a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2036767">#2036767</a>)</li>
<li><a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/user_profile?user_id=283262">Alexandre Poirot [:ochameau]</a> replaced custom preference to log RDP messages with MOZ_LOG (<a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1622857">#1622857</a>)</li>
<li><a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/user_profile?user_id=283262">Alexandre Poirot [:ochameau]</a> fixed retrieval of garbage collected script text content (<a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1758454">#1758454</a>)</li>
</ul>
<h4>WebDriver</h4>
<ul>
<li>Sameem updated the “Take Element Screenshot” command from WebDriver Classic to <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2013176">crop screenshots of elements which exceed the viewport</a>. This aligns with the specification and avoids errors when attempting to capture huge elements.</li>
<li>Alexandra Borovova updated the events for new top-level browsing contexts: <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1930594">we will not send anymore “browsingContext.domContentLoaded” and “browsingContext.load” events for them, instead the “browsingContext.contextCreated” event will be sent when a tab is ready to be used</a>. This is required to align with the expected per-spec behavior.</li>
<li>Henrik Skupin landed a patch <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1430064">allowing geckodriver to gracefully shut down Firefox</a> when geckodriver itself is terminated.</li>
<li>Hiroyuki Ikezoe <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2040252">disabled Firefox’s “scroll axis lock” feature</a> so WebDriver actions for wheel input devices can scroll in arbitrary directions when using pan gestures.</li>
</ul>
<h4>Lint, Docs and Workflow</h4>
<ul>
<li>Added a rule to <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1790711">prevent new uses of Preferences.sys.mjs</a>.</li>
<li>The browser environment globals within ESLint have <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1793814">now been updated</a>. These include Sanitizer, VideoFrame and a few other new ones.</li>
<li>Temporal, and some other definitions have been <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1999036">added to TypeScript</a>.</li>
</ul>
<h4>New Tab Page</h4>
<ul>
<li>Much has happened in the last 2 weeks! <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=RESOLVED%2CVERIFIED%2CCLOSED&amp;resolution=FIXED&amp;chfieldfrom=2026-05-12T14%3A40%3A16.019Z&amp;chfieldto=Now&amp;bug_id=2015530%2C2024720%2C2028377%2C2028534%2C2033592%2C2035176%2C2036902%2C2037143%2C2037301%2C2037541%2C2037646%2C2037947%2C2038048%2C2038392%2C2038790%2C2038823%2C2038881%2C2038981%2C2038984%2C2039103%2C2039107%2C2039333%2C2039346%2C2039358%2C2039477%2C2039587%2C2039752%2C2039765%2C2039770%2C2039775%2C2039956%2C2039963%2C2040027%2C2040033%2C2040254%2C2040269%2C2040370%2C2040376%2C2040480%2C2040481%2C2040503%2C2040552%2C2040645%2C2040674%2C2040677%2C2041033%2C2041163%2C2041196%2C2041204%2C2041205%2C2041207%2C2041244%2C2041532%2C2041651%2C2041682%2C2041708%2C2041711%2C2041730%2C2041757%2C2041765%2C2041814%2C2042054&amp;product=Firefox&amp;component=New+Tab+Page">Here’s a full bug list</a>, and here are some highlights.</li>
<li>Dre fixed the List widget that was creating a new list too eagerly on the New Tab Page (<a href="https://bugzil.la/2033592">2033592</a>) — prevents accidental list creation and improves the Lists UI reliability.</li>
<li>Maxx Crawford<a href="https://bugzil.la/2035176"> fixed Weather widget small card layout issues with opt-in location options and an error message displayed</a>, resolving card overflow and removing the spurious opt-in error so users see a compact Weather card and correct location prompts on New Tab.</li>
<li>Reem Hamoui<a href="https://bugzil.la/2037301"> added key dates state to the Sports widget</a>, enabling the Sports card to surface event deadlines/key-date highlights on New Tab so sports users see timely date info.</li>
<li>Scott Downe<a href="https://bugzil.la/2037541"> added a manage widgets option to the New Tab nova widgets context menu</a>, giving users a direct context-menu entry to open the widget management flow from any widget with Nova enabled.</li>
<li>Scott Downe added a reusable Newtab widget base component to centralize lifecycle, focus/keyboard handling, DOM templates, and telemetry hooks, reducing duplication and making widget behavior more consistent; see<a href="https://bugzil.la/2037947"> Newtab widget base component</a>.</li>
<li>Dre converted per-widget expansion handling to a shared widget expansion handler to unify expand/collapse state management and prevent widgets from incorrectly retaining or losing expanded state; see<a href="https://bugzil.la/2038048"> Convert widget expansion handling to shared widget expansion</a>.</li>
<li>Nina Pypchenko [:nina-py]<a href="https://bugzil.la/2038881"> updated the Sports widget to populate the “follow teams” state from the /teams endpoint</a>, so follow/unfollow toggles now reflect server-side subscriptions and reduce incorrect follow states.</li>
<li>Scott Downe<a href="https://bugzil.la/2038981"> moved widget menu items</a> within New Tab widgets to standardize menu ordering and action grouping, so users find Add/Remove/Configure entries in expected positions across platforms.</li>
<li>Dre<a href="https://bugzil.la/2039346"> fixed a World Clock city search bug </a>for the word clocks widget, restoring expected search filtering/matching so city lookups return correct results.</li>
<li>Scott Downe fixed an issue where the New Tab small weather widget size change didn’t always apply by correcting the widget size update path (JS/CSS layout interactions), improving consistent rendering for small-tile weather across responsive breakpoints and platforms; see<a href="https://bugzil.la/2040033"> Newtab small weather widget size change doesn’t always work</a>.</li>
<li>Nina Pypchenko [:nina-py]<a href="https://bugzil.la/2040269"> added a group stage section to match highlights</a> in the sports widget on New Tab so users now see stage-aware grouping and stage labels on match highlight cards, making tournament context (group vs knockout) visible while browsing highlights.</li>
<li>Dre<a href="https://bugzil.la/2040376"> fixed the small world clock widget not expanding to large while editing clocks</a> so users can enter edit mode and expand the widget as expected; the change wires the edit-mode resize handler to update widget size/class during edits.</li>
<li>Maxx Crawford<a href="https://bugzil.la/2040480"> added WCW OMC message strings</a> so World Cup widget messaging flows on New Tab now display the correct copy (localized where available) instead of falling back to missing-text behavior.</li>
<li>Reem Hamoui<a href="https://bugzil.la/2040552"> added a “View all” button and a list view for the results tab at medium widget size</a> so Sports widget users on medium New Tab tiles can expand results and scroll full lists without resizing the widget.</li>
<li>Maxx Crawford<a href="https://bugzil.la/2040674"> added WCW “Watch Live” stream strings to the Sports widget strings bundle</a> so the widget can surface a localized “Watch Live” CTA for applicable events.</li>
<li>Dre<a href="https://bugzil.la/2040677"> restored VoiceOver reachability for Edit/Remove in World Clock on macOS</a> so macOS VoiceOver users can now focus and activate clock Edit/Remove controls thanks to accessibility role/label and focus-order fixes.</li>
<li>Maxx Crawford removed the persistent browser logo when all new-tab features (Top Sites, widgets, content feed) are disabled by adding a conditional render guard in the New Tab component, preventing an orphaned logo (<a href="https://bugzil.la/2041033">2041033</a>).</li>
<li>Mike Conley added New Tab jest tests to the node tests Tier 1 CI job<a href="https://bugzil.la/2041757"> Run newtab jest tests as part of node tests Tier 1 job</a> to catch regressions earlier in CI</li>
<li>Irene Ni shipped multiple visual fixes for the Sports widget<a href="https://bugzil.la/2041765"> Sports widget – various visual fixes</a> (spacing, truncation, icon alignment, clipping) to improve readability and layout on constrained viewports.</li>
</ul>
<h4>Picture-in-Picture</h4>
<ul>
<li>kpatenio <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2041113">adjusted our YouTube site specific wrapper so that the URL bar toggle appears more reliably</a>, especially when selecting videos from the YouTube search page.</li>
<li>Thanks to Sylvestre for patching <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2037420">some</a> <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2042141">bugs</a> to prevent some spurious console errors!</li>
<li>Niklas <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2013735">fixed captions on autopip videos failing to sync with the origin videos</a>.</li>
</ul>
<h4>Performance Tools (aka <a href="https://profiler.firefox.com/">Firefox Profiler</a>)</h4>
<ul>
<li>Firefox Profiler now has a CLI! We also added a profiler-analysis skill to the Firefox codebase. Once you capture a performance profile, you can ask Claude or an AI to analyze it by providing a link or local path. You can use it to analyze a performance regression or debug an issue if you have a profile at hand.
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.npmjs.com/package/@firefox-devtools/profiler-cli">https://www.npmjs.com/package/@firefox-devtools/profiler-cli</a></li>
<li>You can install it with npm install -g @firefox-devtools/profiler-cli@latest</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<h4>Search and Urlbar</h4>
<h6>Nova UI refresh</h6>
<ul>
<li>Drew and Daisuke continued working on reorganizing styles and updating the urlbar for Nova.</li>
<li><a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2019154">2019154</a>, <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2019152">2019152</a>, <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2041501">2041501</a>, <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2040532">2040532</a></li>
</ul>
<h6>Suggest</h6>
<ul>
<li>Drew landed several Suggest improvements: realtime suggestions colors, sports suggestions received World Cup tweaks, and online Suggest via OHTTP was enabled for eligible users in Firefox 153.</li>
<li><a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2040561">2040561</a>, <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2039753">2039753</a>, <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2035614">2035614</a>, <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2038843">2038843</a></li>
</ul>
<h6>Adaptive autofill</h6>
<ul>
<li>James fixed soft-block counting to track autofill dismisses, rather than consecutive backspaces on the same autofill, and added telemetry to measure URLs reintegration after blocking.</li>
<li><a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2040819">2040819</a>, <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2037177">2037177</a></li>
</ul>
<h6>Quick actions</h6>
<ul>
<li>Dharma created a new Firefox Labs quick action, fixed the Update action button, and re-enabled ScotchBonnet in some tests that were not updated yet.</li>
<li>Caleb added Calculator support for certain unicode operators.</li>
<li><a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2023169">2023169</a>, <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1928635">1928635</a>, <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1923383">1923383</a>, <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2033861">2033861</a></li>
</ul>
<h6>Multi Context Address Bar</h6>
<ul>
<li>Moritz continued refactoring the urlbar code: converted some of the js modules to not be system modules, fixed dynamic results templates, incorrect reuse of result rows, and keyboard shortcuts on the unified search button panel.</li>
<li><a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2039297">2039297</a>, <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2036095">2036095</a>, <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2039844">2039844</a>, <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2037933">2037933</a>, <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2030050">2030050</a></li>
</ul>
<h6><i>Other</i></h6>
<ul>
<li>Marco, Drew and Daisuke fixed several intermittent test failures.</li>
<li><a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2038510">2038510</a>, <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2023908">2023908</a>, <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2011584">2011584</a>, <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1938142">1938142</a>, <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1971091">1971091</a></li>
</ul>
<h5>Search</h5>
<ul>
<li>Mark removed old WebExtension-based search engines from the source tree, removed loading of search add-ons from <i>resource://search-extensions/</i>.</li>
<li>Caleb fixed multiple documentation issues and added a test covering searches from a private window.</li>
<li><a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1904613">1904613</a>, <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2035878">2035878</a>, <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2037942">2037942</a>, <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2033545">2033545</a>, <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2005724">2005724</a></li>
</ul>
<h5>Places</h5>
<ul>
<li>Marco removed some unnecessary database transactions, fixed the bookmarks panel folder dropdown on Windows, and resolved several intermittent test failures.</li>
<li>Thanks to Sam Johnson who fixed the bookmark edit panel showing “mobile” instead of “Mobile Bookmarks”.</li>
<li><a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2039534">2039534</a>, <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1505800">1505800</a>, <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2008829">2008829</a>, <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2029541">2029541</a>, <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2035084">2035084</a></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>
</ul>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The Rust Programming Language Blog: The many journeys of learning Rust]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[This is another post in our series covering what we learned through the Vision Doc process. We previously described the overall approach and what we learned about doing user research, we explored what people love about Rust, dug into what it takes to ship safety-crticial Rust, and described some ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3693289/tools/the-rust-programming-language-blog-the-many-journeys-of-learning-rust/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3693289/tools/the-rust-programming-language-blog-the-many-journeys-of-learning-rust/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 08:37:24 +0200</pubDate>
<category>💾  Tools</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>This is another post in our series covering what we learned through the Vision Doc process. We previously <a href="https://blog.rust-lang.org/2025/12/03/lessons-learned-from-the-rust-vision-doc-process/" rel="external">described the overall approach and what we learned about doing user research</a>, we <a href="https://blog.rust-lang.org/2025/12/19/what-do-people-love-about-rust/" rel="external">explored what people love about Rust</a>, <a href="https://blog.rust-lang.org/2026/01/14/what-does-it-take-to-ship-rust-in-safety-critical/" rel="external">dug into what it takes to ship safety-crticial Rust</a>, and <a href="https://blog.rust-lang.org/2026/03/20/rust-challenges/" rel="external">described some of the major challenges that people face when using Rust</a>.</em></p>
<p>In this post we walk through what folks have found on their journey to learn the Rust programming language with ups and downs covered.</p>
<p>As a disclaimer, LLMs (Large Language Models) come up in this post because our interviewees brought them up. We're scoping discussion to their use as a learning tool, covering research and example generation, not broader questions about AI (Artificial Intelligence) in software development.</p>
<h3><a class="anchor" href="https://blog.rust-lang.org/2026/06/25/vision-doc-journeys-to-learning-rust/#many-paths-to-needing-rust"></a>
Many paths to needing Rust</h3>
<p>The interviews surfaced several different paths into Rust: curiosity, embedded work, job-market pressure, organizational adoption, and reassignment after a team or company chose Rust. That last path matters because many learners are not evaluating Rust from a blank slate; they are trying to become productive after Rust has already arrived in their work.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"Funny enough, I've advocated for more niche languages than Rust in the past. Rust has pretty much stopped being as much of a niche language as it was, but it's not Java." -- Fractional CTO</p>
</blockquote>
<h3><a class="anchor" href="https://blog.rust-lang.org/2026/06/25/vision-doc-journeys-to-learning-rust/#rust-learning-resources"></a>
Rust learning resources</h3>
<p>Likely as expected, the folks that we talked to reach for a range of resources to learn Rust. Some reach for official documentation, such as <a href="https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/" rel="external">The Rust Programming Language Book</a> and find that sufficient to build on what the compiler was already showing them.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"I started with the official Rust documentation because there are a lot of great examples of how features like the borrow checker work." -- Software engineer at an Automotive supplier</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Others needed more passes and more formats, sometimes reaching for resources the community maintains, such as <a href="https://rustlings.rust-lang.org/" rel="external">Rustlings</a>, <a href="https://danielkeep.github.io/tlborm/book/index.html" rel="external">The Little Book of Rust Macros</a>, and <a href="https://rust-unofficial.github.io/too-many-lists/" rel="external">Learn Rust With Entirely Too Many Linked Lists</a>.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"The first time I went through the chapter in [The Rust Programming Language] on borrow checking, I was like, what is this? I read it again, then I watched a YouTube video of someone explaining the chapter." -- Rust freelance consultant</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>"Rust book, Rustlings, Zero to Production in Rust, Jon Gjengset tutorials. A bunch of books. It's not a one-pass reading. Can't say how many times I've gone through it." -- Software engineer working on video streaming and storage</p>
</blockquote>
<p>These resources have brought up an entire generation of Rust programmers. But, to some, there is a perception that these resources have trouble keeping pace with the language.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"We'd like to use [The Rust Programming Language/'the book'], but we've found that it's out of date, unfortunately. We've looked at the GitHub repo and found it's got a lot of unresolved issues and unmerged PRs" -- Principal Software Engineering work on Rust adoption in a regulated industry</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Whether or not this is factually true, Rust's growth has nonetheless put more scrutiny on these materials. Companies evaluating adoption and engineers getting reassigned to Rust teams are looking at them with fresh eyes and finding the gaps that affect their own evaluation.</p>
<h3><a class="anchor" href="https://blog.rust-lang.org/2026/06/25/vision-doc-journeys-to-learning-rust/#beginner-stumblings-and-unlearning-habits"></a>
Beginner stumblings and unlearning habits</h3>
<p>It's pretty typical for Rust to be the 2nd, 3rd or Nth programming language that someone picks up. They'd end up writing their most familiar language in Rust, whether C++ patterns, Java patterns, or whatever they knew, for months or even years. Eventually they got comfortable enough to start writing idiomatic Rust.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"There's a bit of a drop in productivity compared to C if you're already familiar with it just because you're learning new rules, new syntax."  -- Principal Firmware Engineer (mobile robotics)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>"In the beginning it was more poking around the code and adding and removing some ampersands and asterisks to try to make sense of <code>mut</code> and not <code>mut</code> and whatever." -- Senior engineer with 20 years of Java experience in cloud and IoT</p>
</blockquote>
<p>We also spoke with someone who found that not having much of a programming background seemed to benefit people picking up Rust. Not having worn-in grooves from other languages may play a role here, and it's worth investigating further.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"I had someone who had never programmed much before start working on the internals of [our Rust project]. She was just fine with getting into Rust. It's more of the senior people that struggle as they need to unlearn practices which may work in other languages, but it's not the 'Rust' way." -- Researcher, Automotive OEM R&amp;D Lab</p>
</blockquote>
<h3><a class="anchor" href="https://blog.rust-lang.org/2026/06/25/vision-doc-journeys-to-learning-rust/#learning-to-work-with-the-borrow-checker"></a>
Learning to work with the borrow checker</h3>
<p>We heard a lot about learning to work with the borrow checker instead of against it. People get there through different paths, but a few patterns came up repeatedly.</p>
<h4><a class="anchor" href="https://blog.rust-lang.org/2026/06/25/vision-doc-journeys-to-learning-rust/#the-compiler-as-teacher"></a>
The compiler as teacher</h4>
<p>Rust's diagnostics did the teaching on their own, especially around lifetimes.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"If you mess up the lifetimes in a piece of code that you've written by hand, I usually find that Rust's diagnostics are very helpful" -- Researcher working on static analysis of Rust programs</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>"Whatever's missing, the compiler usually fills in: it tells me 'you need to declare the lifetime of this reference', so I know and can figure it out. That all generally works pretty well." -- Senior Software Engineer</p>
</blockquote>
<h4><a class="anchor" href="https://blog.rust-lang.org/2026/06/25/vision-doc-journeys-to-learning-rust/#learning-by-doing"></a>
Learning by doing</h4>
<p>Others felt like they only really internalized the borrow checker after writing a lot of Rust. It took projects, coding challenges, prototyping and so on until at some point it clicked.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"I actually did not understand the borrow checker until I spent a lot of time writing Rust" -- Founder of a startup built on Rust</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>"Besides the prototyping work, I also did coding-challenge-type stuff to get familiar with Rust for Advent of Code. [..] It eventually clicked to the point where I wasn't fighting with Rust, it was working for me. I had that experience other people describe: when I managed to get my program to fit with Rust, it worked. I didn't spend time debugging." -- Principal Software Engineer, large SaaS provider</p>
</blockquote>
<h4><a class="anchor" href="https://blog.rust-lang.org/2026/06/25/vision-doc-journeys-to-learning-rust/#letting-go-of-clone-guilt"></a>
Letting go of "clone guilt"</h4>
<p>Some learners arrive with the assumption that good Rust means zero clones, zero copies, lifetimes threaded through everything. They set the bar at optimal before they've learned how to write idiomatic Rust, and it makes the borrow checker feel harder than it needs to be at the outset.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"On one of my first projects, I was like, 'I don't ever want to copy or clone anything,' so I carefully wove through all the lifetimes and got myself into a bit of a bind. Then I saw someone else just cloning the struct I was working with, and it was super cheap. Sometimes you can just clone and it's going to be okay." -- Researcher at a university</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The experienced Rust developers we spoke with consistently said the same thing: clone freely while you're learning, then optimize when you understand the problem. Rust's reputation for performance and correctness feeds this. Newcomers assume anything less than optimal is wrong before they've written a first working program, and clone guilt is how that shows up.</p>
<p>We think it could be an interesting area of future study to check into the patterns Rust programmers employ at different levels of experience and under which circumstances. One member of the Rust Vision doc team that's very experienced with Rust noted that there's kind of an "expected shape" they understand as passing the compiler. This knowledge influences how they approach writing code which wouldn't take that shape and they naturally find themselves understanding when to use so-called workarounds, such as passing around indices into arrays or <code>Vec</code>s.</p>
<h3><a class="anchor" href="https://blog.rust-lang.org/2026/06/25/vision-doc-journeys-to-learning-rust/#multi-paradigm-but-not-the-oop-some-are-used-to"></a>
Multi-paradigm, but not the OOP some are used to</h3>
<p>The Rust programming language is multi-paradigm, and how that lands depends on what you're coming from. We heard some that came from a functional background were delighted with digging into learning how much Rust inherits from that lineage. Some others noted that they and others on their teams struggled to unlearn the object-oriented style they'd come to use heavily in other languages like C++ and Java.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"Developers coming from C++ tend to think object-oriented. I think that's a difference between C++ and Rust." -- Architect at Automotive OEM</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>"I had exactly that thing, where I would apply all my years of Java and JS thinking, where I could just create some object, not care about it, return it, have it sloshing around between various functions. Found myself reaching for these patterns and then being told 'no, you cannot do that'." -- Principal Engineer at a SaaS company</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Developers coming from functional programming had less to unlearn: strong typing, pattern matching, and an expression-oriented style were already familiar.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"My background has been more functional programming, strong typing. That originated for me as a Lisper: once a Lisper, always a Lisper." -- Principal Software Engineer working on Rust tooling for safety-regulated industries</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>"The languages I primarily used before Rust were things like OCaml. Way back, I came from C and C++, the classic languages, and then I spent quite a long time doing primarily pure functional stuff. These days I've ended up back in what I like to think of as a pragmatic center ground [with Rust]." -- Fractional CTO</p>
</blockquote>
<h3><a class="anchor" href="https://blog.rust-lang.org/2026/06/25/vision-doc-journeys-to-learning-rust/#teaching-rust-in-academia"></a>
Teaching Rust in academia</h3>
<p>We spoke with a university professor that's been teaching Rust generally. In the academic environment, they were able to use proxies for some things such as "traits are like interfaces in Java" because the students had already gone through a set of courses in their first and second years that taught them Java. They introduced concepts slowly throughout the course, choosing to deal with some more complex topics like generics later. The outcome generally was that students had no problem picking up Rust in this setting.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"I couldn't see any big difference on the embedded side. We also teach an embedded class, and we did an experiment. Half of the students' feedback was worse on the Rust class, mostly because they needed to build the project themselves. The C students just got one from [an LLM], absolutely no problem." -- University Professor, on teaching Rust</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The C cohort leaned on LLMs for the project in ways the Rust cohort couldn't. We don't yet have a clear answer for why.</p>
<p>What did come through clearly was the Rust cohort's experience with the community. Some students needed to figure out which drivers to use for the embedded project and how to use them. Their professor encouraged them to open issues and ask questions directly on GitHub, and the maintainers responded. Students who had never contributed to open source before were getting answers from the people who wrote the code.</p>
<h3><a class="anchor" href="https://blog.rust-lang.org/2026/06/25/vision-doc-journeys-to-learning-rust/#learning-using-llms"></a>
Learning using LLMs</h3>
<p>Some experienced folks shared that they saw LLMs as a tool that can help someone come up to speed quickly, either as a research tool or for generating example Rust code to understand concepts.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"I'm optimistic that there's a way to work [LLMs] in that will cut down that learning curve. One of the big things these tools bring is reducing the learning curve in general; these are very good tools to help you navigate a space that you don't know yet." -- Maintainer of large open source Rust crate</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>"I try [LLMs] out once a month, usually for generating an example or something like this. Just like with Stack Overflow: when you read an example, you should read it carefully and try to understand it. Not copy and paste it, but type it in your own words in code and then check it, because that's where the teeny tiny little mistakes are." -- Founder of startup built on Rust</p>
</blockquote>
<p>For some learners, an LLM is just another way to find answers, no different than a search engine.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"So for the most part, picking up Rust - how do I learn? I'll [use web search for] things, I'll ask [an LLM], I'll just poke around and read the code." -- Senior Software Engineer working in a regulated space</p>
</blockquote>
<p>One founder went further and claimed that LLMs change who can become a Rust developer. One consulting company founder described hiring high school graduates with no systems programming background and training them as Rust developers, with LLMs filling in the learning gaps that would previously have required years of experience.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"At the beginning, I was worried, but now that we have [LLMs] supporting development, the difficulty of the language doesn't matter. I'm seeing a huge opportunity behind strong runtime languages like Rust. [..] In [Developing Country] we hire 20-25 high school graduates, train them to be Rust programmers, then they enhance our workforce worldwide." -- Founder of a consulting company</p>
</blockquote>
<p>We heard this from one organization. This is a claim that the combination of Rust's compiler and LLM tooling can dramatically shorten the path from beginner to working developer. Whether it generalizes depends on questions we can't answer from a single interview: how long these developers stay, what kind of code they can maintain independently, and whether this training/learning model works outside this company's particular structure. If it holds up, the pool of people who can become Rust developers is much larger than the usual hiring profile suggests.</p>
<h3><a class="anchor" href="https://blog.rust-lang.org/2026/06/25/vision-doc-journeys-to-learning-rust/#organizational-considerations-for-rust-learners"></a>
Organizational considerations for Rust learners</h3>
<p>We spoke with a number of folks on teams that are using Rust in larger organizations. Teams wanted to know that everyone would end up at roughly the same level of competence, which led a good number to invest in training courses to get there. Some leaders found that staff was able to ramp well enough by reading The Rust Programming Language, going through Rustlings, and then picking up lower risk and priority tickets to work on. Having a sense of community was also important within companies; it helps people know they are not alone when they are asked to work on Rust after, say, a reorganization happens.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"[..] the idea with the class as opposed to 'just read the Rust book on your own' was that this gives everyone kind of the same baseline going in."  -- Principal Firmware Engineer (mobile robotics)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>"So typically we're going to have people work through Rustlings, work through The Rust Programming Language. We have them then start to pick up lower risk tickets to work on." -- Principal Engineer at a large SaaS provider</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>"We've got an internal Slack channel for Rust learning where people can drop questions and others will come in and answer them. That helps build up understanding and community." -- Software Engineer at a large corporation</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Some organizations found that while the person they'd hire would need to learn Rust, it was still preferable to the alternative of hiring someone for a critical piece of software written in another language.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"They needed to grow and maintain this C++ codebase. They had a C++ wizard, and they tried for about two years to find someone with the same level of expertise. They ended up hiring people that didn't know Rust and ramping them up, creating FFI bindings from the C++ side so they could work in Rust. And you can feel it: the borrow checker is teaching these people the right way to handle their systems." -- Principal Engineer at an Automotive OEM</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The community and helping each other aspect seems to grow bonds as organizations mature.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"Our team is [all about] mentorship. I've mentored people coming up to speed on Rust, and people help each other hugely." -- Principal Software Engineer at a large SaaS company</p>
</blockquote>
<h3><a class="anchor" href="https://blog.rust-lang.org/2026/06/25/vision-doc-journeys-to-learning-rust/#silent-attrition"></a>
Silent attrition</h3>
<p>We identified some cases where people have approached Rust and bounced off of it, for one reason or another. In the below case, someone with a background in a language with fewer guardrails found themselves frustrated enough with Rust to walk away.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"All of that means that that embedded ecosystem is very frustrating to somebody who comes from C and is like, why can't I just get a pointer to this peripheral and then write into the registers. What are you doing to me? [..] My friend never got over that. He looked at it and said, I'm not going to deal with this and walked away." -– A second University Professor</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There may be language features that for a particular domain are not seen as comfortable or usable yet, such as async Rust usage in a safety domain. We'd like to map which language features feel off-limits in which domains; async in safety-critical work probably isn't the only case.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"We're not fully sure how async [Rust] will work out in the long run in our domain. [..] People don't feel comfortable yet since C++14 doesn't provide such concepts. [..] It's the chicken-and-egg problem again: we probably need to gain some experience to see whether we can actually benefit from these new concepts in the automotive and safety domains." -- Team Lead at Automotive Supplier (ASIL D target)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>We heard in at least one case, that while the language was challenging and there was a near bounce, the tooling helped keep them coming back and trying.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"Well, I think my early impressions of Rust - one is I find C++ so intimidating, and I think a big part of why I was able to succeed at [..] learning Rust is the tooling. I mean, all this makes sense [..] but it's like, for me, getting started with Rust, the language was challenging, but the tooling was incredibly easy." -- Founder of another startup built on Rust</p>
</blockquote>
<p>While it might be considered more of a community concern, if there are interactions online and in spaces that point to learners having
so-called "skill issues" this feeds into the narrative that Rust must be hard to learn. We may be unintentionally turning away Rust Project contributors and maintainers due to the vibes being put out when new learners show up in certain spaces.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"People are very helpful, but generally the attitude is: if your program is very complicated, it's mostly a skill issue. There's not that much empathy when people get stuck learning, and a lot of people are just pushed away by it. There's probably a huge number of people who silently stop wanting to write Rust, because at some point it gets complicated and the feedback they get is 'you just need to be a better programmer, obviously'." -- Software Engineer at a SaaS Provider</p>
</blockquote>
<h4><a class="anchor" href="https://blog.rust-lang.org/2026/06/25/vision-doc-journeys-to-learning-rust/#feedback-on-near-bounces-from-survey"></a>
Feedback on near-bounces from survey</h4>
<p>We found a few interesting perspectives collected in the Rust Vision doc survey which we administered with examples of bouncing and coming back:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"I started before 1.0, got stuck very soon when trying to translate patterns from C++ to Rust (due to borrow checking). I tried again after 1.0 and it stuck. [..]" -- Survey Respondent A</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Survey Respondent A went on to share in a more detailed response about a perceived weakness in Rust learning materials related to lifetimes and the borrow checker are explained. There was an observation that it's fairly easy to run into more complex situations with lifetimes and the borrow checker. They felt that the current state of this sort of material and tutorials is fairly superficial and can leave learners stuck when they run into those more complex situations.</p>
<p>One respondent that bounced once and came back shared challenges around usage of async. In concert with Rust's memory-safety and the borrow checker, they found some of the nitty-gritty details of async were difficult to learn. While we're aware of the Rust Project's continuous efforts to improve Rust's async story, this is another data point of a user that faced challenges.</p>
<p>Another survey respondent shared how they had multiple times bounced in trying to learn Rust. They returned after a year or so and found Rustlings to be highly motivating. We note that having multiple pathways for folks to learn Rust opens up more possibilities for those that nearly bounced, just like this person.</p>
<h4><a class="anchor" href="https://blog.rust-lang.org/2026/06/25/vision-doc-journeys-to-learning-rust/#need-more-focused-work-on-silent-attritrion"></a>
Need more focused work on silent attritrion</h4>
<p>The thing that stood out most to us was the lack of real, first-hand knowledge of having bounced when learning Rust. While this is an obvious effect of soliciting answers to our survey and opportunities to interview through Rust channels and our networks, this cohort is good future candidate where interviews could start.</p>
<h3><a class="anchor" href="https://blog.rust-lang.org/2026/06/25/vision-doc-journeys-to-learning-rust/#conclusions"></a>
Conclusions</h3>
<p>Across these conversations, the experience of learning Rust depended heavily on context. Why someone was learning and what support they had mattered as much as the borrow checker. The same kinds of examples kept coming up: a training course that got a team to a shared baseline, a maintainer answering a student's first GitHub issue, and a colleague whose code showed that cloning was okay.</p>
<p>That context is largely something the community has a hand in. With that in mind, here is what we take away from what we heard, and what we still don't know.</p>
<h4><a class="anchor" href="https://blog.rust-lang.org/2026/06/25/vision-doc-journeys-to-learning-rust/#what-seems-worth-trying"></a>
What seems worth trying</h4>
<p><strong>Learning materials aimed at unlearning.</strong> Syntax barely came up when people described their struggles. People struggled with unlearning habits from previous languages, whether OOP structuring from C++ and Java or the instinct to grab a raw pointer to a peripheral. Most of our learning materials teach Rust from first principles, and that works. What we didn't come across is much written for, say, the engineer with ten years of Java who lands on a Rust team after a reorg: material that names the patterns they'll reach for that won't transfer, and shows what to do instead. The professor we spoke with did a version of this in the classroom, leaning on "traits are like interfaces in Java" and saving generics for later in the course, and the students did fine. Something similar could work outside the classroom too.</p>
<p><strong>Put the "clone freely while you're learning" advice somewhere official.</strong> Every experienced developer we spoke with gave the same advice, but learners seem to mostly pick it up by accident, like the researcher who happened to see someone else cloning the struct they had been carefully threading lifetimes through. Saying it early in official materials would take some of the steepness out of the curve. The broader version belongs there too: idiomatic Rust doesn't have to mean optimal Rust, especially on a first project.</p>
<p><strong>Diagnostics are already a primary learning resource: several people told us the compiler taught them lifetimes before any documentation did.</strong> Diagnostics reach learners right at the moment they're stuck. When writing new ones, it seems worth keeping the confused newcomer in mind alongside the expert, because for a lot of people this is where the learning happens.</p>
<p><strong>Is "the book" actually out of date?</strong> Whether or not The Rust Programming Language or other materials are actually behind, a team evaluating Rust looked at its repository, saw unresolved issues and unmerged PRs, and moved on. As more companies evaluate adoption, more people will look at these materials with the same fresh eyes. Visible issue triage and some communication about what's current and what's planned would address the perception, separately from whatever content work may or may not be needed.</p>
<p><strong>How stuck learners get treated is shaping who stays.</strong> We heard about students getting answers on GitHub from the maintainers who wrote the code, and we heard about learners being told their struggles were a skill issue. The first group came away with a lasting good impression of Rust. Some of the second group walked away entirely, and because they leave quietly, it's easy to underestimate how many of them there are. The welcoming side of the community came up unprompted as a reason people stayed, so we know it makes a difference when we get this right.</p>
<p><strong>Every organization we spoke with described essentially the same ramp-up for bringing a team to Rust.</strong> Teams that brought groups of developers to Rust described roughly the same approach: get everyone to a shared baseline with a training course or with The Rust Programming Language and Rustlings, start people on lower-risk tickets, and give them somewhere internal to ask questions. Several organizations also found that hiring developers without Rust experience and ramping them up worked out better than continuing to search for rare expertise in another language. None of this is complicated, and teams weighing adoption don't need to invent a training program from scratch.</p>
<h4><a class="anchor" href="https://blog.rust-lang.org/2026/06/25/vision-doc-journeys-to-learning-rust/#what-we-still-don-t-know"></a>
What we still don't know</h4>
<p>The biggest gap is the people we didn't reach. Nearly everyone we spoke with stuck with Rust long enough to be reachable through Rust channels, so the stories of bouncing off came to us second-hand: a friend who walked away from embedded Rust, colleagues who quietly stopped after the responses they got. As we wrote in <a href="https://blog.rust-lang.org/2025/12/03/lessons-learned-from-the-rust-vision-doc-process/" rel="external">our first post</a>, finding people who decided against Rust takes targeted outreach. If the proposed User Research team comes together, talking with learners who bounced would make a good early project, and learning is probably the area where that research would teach us the most.</p>
<p>We also don't know what to make of LLMs as a learning tool yet. They came up as a search engine, as an example generator, and in one organization's case as something that makes training high school graduates into working Rust developers possible. We saw a classroom where the C cohort leaned on LLMs in ways the Rust cohort couldn't, and we don't have an explanation for it. All of this comes from a handful of conversations, so we treat it as a set of leads to follow up on. Given how quickly the tools are changing, it seems better to study this deliberately than to wait and see what folklore develops.</p>
<p>The folks we spoke with showed that people do get there: with enough passes through the materials and enough code written, it eventually clicks. The opportunities above are mostly about making it work for the people who didn't pick Rust on purpose, and for the ones who would have stuck around if their early experience had gone a little differently.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[3 cybersecurity issues that should keep every CEO awake at night]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[For years, I have been saying that cybersecurity is no longer a technology problem. It has become a business leadership challenge.



Yet, despite record levels of spending, ever-growing security teams, increasingly sophisticated technologies and a constant stream of new regulations, organization...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3693088/it-nachrichten/3-cybersecurity-issues-that-should-keep-every-ceo-awake-at-night/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3693088/it-nachrichten/3-cybersecurity-issues-that-should-keep-every-ceo-awake-at-night/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 06:16:50 +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">For years, I have been saying that cybersecurity is no longer a technology problem. It has become a business leadership challenge.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yet, despite record levels of spending, ever-growing security teams, increasingly sophisticated technologies and a constant stream of new regulations, organizations continue to suffer major cyber incidents with alarming regularity. Every week seems to bring news of another ransomware attack, supply chain compromise or data breach affecting organizations that many would have assumed were well protected.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The obvious conclusion is that we are asking the wrong questions.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Too many executive teams remain preoccupied with the latest threat actor, the newest security product the CISO wants to buy or the latest vulnerability making headlines. Those issues matter, but they are not what should be keeping CEOs awake at night.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In my view, there are three far more fundamental issues that deserve the attention of every chief executive.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">1. Corporate complexity, and the widening gap between business leadership and cybersecurity reality</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Perhaps the biggest cybersecurity risk facing large organizations today is not technical at all.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It is the growing disconnect between executive perception and operational reality.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Many boards genuinely believe their organizations are reasonably well protected. They receive regular dashboards showing improving maturity scores, increasing compliance levels, falling vulnerability counts and reassuring traffic-light reports.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Unfortunately, cyber attackers do not read dashboards.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Behind those executive reports often lies an increasingly complex technology landscape, thousands of unmanaged digital assets, ageing infrastructure, rampant shadow IT, fragmented ownership, inconsistent governance and security teams struggling to keep pace with relentless business change.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The problem is rarely a lack of effort.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It is that corporate complexity has reached a level where traditional governance mechanisms are no longer capable of providing an accurate picture of organizational resilience.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Executives believe they understand the level of cyber risk they face because they receive regular reports. Those reports often measure activity rather than resilience.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Governance committees end up debating around another percentage point of phishing awareness or vulnerability remediation, while fundamental issues remain unaddressed in the background.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">2. Organizational inertia, and the need for executive structure to evolve faster</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Cyber criminals continue to evolve rapidly. Large organizations generally do not.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is the second issue that should concern every CEO.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Throughout my career, I have observed organizations repeatedly responding to new cyber threats by adding another technology platform, another monitoring capability, another compliance framework or another governance committee.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Very rarely do they stop to redesign how cybersecurity operates.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The result is what I described several years ago as the “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Cybersecurity-Spiral-Failure-How-Break/dp/1637353057/">Cybersecurity Spiral of Failure</a>”.</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>As complexity and regulation increase, organizations invest in more security products.</li>



<li>More products create more complexity.</li>



<li>More products and greater complexity generate more alerts.</li>



<li>More alerts require more analysts.</li>



<li>More analysts produce more reports.</li>



<li>More reports continue to build up executive confidence.</li>



<li>Meanwhile, the underlying structural weaknesses remain largely unchanged, technical debt piles up and costs escalate.</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">And when the inevitable breach eventually happens, reality reveals itself, but distrust also sets in between senior executives and security teams.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is not a funding problem. Nor is it a skills problem. It is fundamentally an operating model problem.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Many organizations continue trying to solve twenty-first century challenges using governance, accountability, organizational and reporting structures designed twenty-five years ago.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The cybersecurity function itself has evolved dramatically. Many executive structures have not.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This organizational inertia extends beyond technology: It affects budgeting cycles, <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4193990/reallocating-cybersecurity-capital-in-the-mythos-era.html">investment priorities</a>, procurement processes, accountability models and decision-making speed.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Cyber attackers innovate every day. Organizational change often takes years.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That imbalance should worry every CEO.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">3. Accelerating technological disruption, and how it challenges organizations in areas where they are intrinsically weak</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The third issue is potentially the most significant over the coming decade.</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Artificial intelligence, autonomous agents and machine identities</li>



<li>Software supply chain complexity.</li>



<li>Quantum computing, and post-quantum cryptography</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Each of these developments represents far more than another technical trend.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Together, they fundamentally change the dynamics of cybersecurity.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Artificial intelligence is transforming countless business processes. At the same time, it is also increasing both the speed and sophistication of cyber-attacks while simultaneously transforming defensive capabilities.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Organizations have become increasingly dependent on software ecosystems that extend far beyond their own direct control. Engaging with the supply chain in ways that lead to a genuine appreciation of the risks involved has become a key challenge for most cybersecurity practices.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Quantum computing may eventually invalidate much of today’s cryptographic algorithms, forcing organizations into one of the largest technology efforts since Y2K — but without the benefit of a fixed deadline and faced by a problem that is considerably more complex and hyperconnected IT estates that have little to do with those of the late 90s.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">None of these challenges can be solved overnight: They require clear governance, sustained investment over a few years and cross-functional organizational coordination.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Most large organizations are weak on those three fronts: This is precisely why CEOs should be focusing on them now.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Waiting until some of those risks become obvious will almost certainly be too late.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Businesses naturally prioritise immediate commercial pressures. Cybersecurity often involves preparing for risks whose timing remains uncertain.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But one of the greatest leadership failures I keep seeing remains the inability of organizations to act decisively on known unknowns.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That tension explains why many organizations delay action until external events force them to respond. Unfortunately, cybersecurity rarely rewards late action.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Leadership will determine who succeeds</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Cybersecurity discussions still frequently focus on technology. I believe they should focus far more on leadership.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Technology will continue evolving. Threat actors will continue adapting. Regulations will continue expanding. Those developments are inevitable.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">What remains within the control of every CEO is how their organization responds.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Does cybersecurity remain an IT issue? Or is it recognised as an integral part of business resilience?</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">How is cybersecurity accountability assigned at executive level? Or does it still rest largely with a CISO hidden in the organization?</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Does the board spend sufficient time discussing resilience? Or does cybersecurity appear only when approving budgets or reviewing incidents?</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">These questions will increasingly determine organizational success.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The companies that navigate the next decade successfully will not necessarily be those spending the most on cybersecurity. Nor will they be those deploying the latest security technologies first.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">They will be the organizations whose leadership recognises that cybersecurity has become a permanent business capability — embedded into governance, strategy, operational decision-making and organizational culture.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That transformation cannot be delegated. It begins with the CEO.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">And perhaps that is the single biggest issue that should keep every chief executive awake at night: Not when the next cyber-attack will happen, but whether their organization is evolving quickly enough on those matters to meet a threat landscape that is changing much faster than the business itself.</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[What is a business analyst? A key role for business-IT efficiency]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[What is a business analyst?



Business analysts (BAs) are responsible for bridging the gap between IT and the business using data analytics to assess processes, determine requirements, and deliver data-driven recommendations and reports to executives and stakeholders.



BAs engage with business...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3693087/it-nachrichten/what-is-a-business-analyst-a-key-role-for-business-it-efficiency/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3693087/it-nachrichten/what-is-a-business-analyst-a-key-role-for-business-it-efficiency/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 06:16:45 +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>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What is a business analyst?</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Business analysts (BAs) are responsible for bridging the gap between IT and the business using <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/191313/what-is-data-analytics-analyzing-and-managing-data-for-decisions.html">data analytics</a> to assess processes, determine requirements, and deliver data-driven recommendations and reports to executives and stakeholders.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">BAs engage with business leaders and users to understand how data-driven changes to process, products, services, software, and hardware can improve efficiencies and add value. They must articulate those ideas but also balance them against what’s technologically feasible and financially and functionally reasonable. Depending on the role, a business analyst might work with data sets to improve products, hardware, tools, software, services, or process.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The International Institute of Business Analysis (IIBA), a nonprofit professional association, considers the business analyst an agent of change, and says that <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/191157/what-is-business-analytics-using-data-to-predict-business-outcomes.html">business analysis</a> is a disciplined approach to introduce and manage change to organizations, whether they’re for-profit businesses, governments, or nonprofits.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Impact of AI on business analyst role</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As AI becomes commonplace in the tech industry, business analysts are embracing it as a tool to automate repetitive work in the role. AI tools can be used for workflow and diagramming, process mapping, data analysis, and to automate meeting minutes and transcribe meetings where requirements are established, all designed to speed up the process of analyzing data, creating visuals, and transcribing and writing user stories and acceptance criteria.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AI tools can also help identify patterns, insights, and unique data points that might go unnoticed by humans, and allow a faster time to generate insights for organizations.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Of course, as with all AI tools, they still require humans to oversee prompts, scripting, and evaluate AI outputs to ensure they’re accurate and valid. While they can’t replace the work of BAs, AI can help them spend more time on thoughtful analysis and decision making, rather than mundane tasks such as gathering and summarizing data, and querying.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Business analyst job description</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">BAs are responsible for creating new models that support business decisions by working closely with finance and IT teams to establish initiatives and strategies aimed at improving revenue and optimizing costs. They need a strong understanding of regulatory and reporting requirements, and have plenty of experience in forecasting, budgeting, and financial analysis combined with knowing KPIs, according to Robert Half Technology.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">According to Robert Half, a BA’s job description typically includes budgeting and forecasting, planning and monitoring, variance analysis, pricing, reporting, and creating a detailed business analysis in an effort to outline problems, opportunities, and solutions for a business. It also says BAs should be able to define business requirements and report them back to stakeholders.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Since BAs are tasked with prioritizing technical and functional requirements, identifying what clients want, and determining what’s feasible to deliver, the role requires a deep understanding of systems, how they function, who’ll need to be involved, and the necessary steps to get everyone on board.  </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The role is constantly evolving, especially as companies rely more on data to advise business operations. Every company has different issues that a business analyst can address, whether it’s dealing with outdated legacy systems, changing technologies, broken processes, poor client or customer satisfaction, or large, siloed organizations.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Business analyst skills</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The BA position requires both hard and soft skills, as they need to know how to pull, analyze, and report data trends, share that information with others, and apply it to business goals and needs.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Not all BAs need a background in IT if they have a general understanding of how systems, products, and tools work. Alternatively, some have strong IT backgrounds and less experience in business, but are interested in shifting away from IT into this hybrid role, which often acts as a communicator between the business and IT sides of the organization. So having extensive experience in either area can be beneficial for BAs.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.iiba.org/career-resources/new-to-business-analysis/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">According to the IIBA</a>, some of the most important skills and experience for a business analyst are:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Oral and written communication skills</li>



<li>Interpersonal, organizational, facilitation, and consultative skills</li>



<li>Analytical thinking and problem solving</li>



<li>Being detail-oriented and able to deliver a high level of accuracy</li>



<li>Knowledge of business structure</li>



<li>Stakeholder and cost-benefit analysis</li>



<li>Processes modeling</li>



<li>Understanding networks, databases, and other technologies</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For a more in-depth look at what it takes to succeed as a business analyst, click <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/189108/essential-traits-of-elite-business-analysts.html">here</a>.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Business analyst salary</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The average annual salary for an IT business analyst is $80,692, according to <a href="https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Business_Analyst%2C_IT/Salary" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">data from PayScale</a>. The highest paid BAs are in New York, where the average salary is 14% higher than the national average. Dallas, Texas, is second, with reported salaries 6.4% higher than the national average, closely followed by Washington, D.C., where salaries are 6.3% higher than the national average.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Some skills are in higher demand than others, with the potential to boost salary. According to Payscale, these are associated with higher BA salaries. These skills, and the amount they can boost your salary, include:</p>



<figure class="wp-block-table"><div class="overflow-table-wrapper"><table class="has-fixed-layout"><tbody><tr><td>Skills</td><td>Salary Boost</td></tr><tr><td>ScrumMaster</td><td>44%</td></tr><tr><td>Microsoft Azure</td><td>30%</td></tr><tr><td>Supply Chain</td><td>27%</td></tr><tr><td>Oracle eBusiness Suite</td><td>25%</td></tr><tr><td>Master Data Management (SAP MDM)</td><td>24%</td></tr><tr><td>SAP Sales and Distribution (SAP SD)</td><td>24%</td></tr><tr><td>Product Support</td><td>18%</td></tr><tr><td>Microsoft Dynamics GP</td><td>18%</td></tr><tr><td>SAP Quality Management (SAP QM)</td><td>18%</td></tr><tr><td>Workday Software</td><td>15%</td></tr></tbody></table> </div></figure>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For tips on boosting your salary, click <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/189510/7-steps-business-analysts-can-take-to-earn-more.html">here</a>.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Business analyst certifications</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Although business analysis is a relatively new discipline in IT, a handful of organizations already offer certifications to help boost your résumé and prove your merit as an analyst. Organizations such as the IIBA, IQBBA, IREB, and PMI each offer their own tailored certifications for business analysis. These include:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>IIBA <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/189169/ecba-certification-an-entry-level-credential-for-business-analysts.html">Entry Certificate in Business Analysis (ECBA)</a></li>



<li>IIBA Certification of Competency in Business Analysis (CCBA)</li>



<li>IIBA Certified Business Analysis Professional (CBAP)</li>



<li>IIBA Agile Analysis Certification (AAC)</li>



<li>IQBBA Certified Foundation Level Business Analyst (CFLBA)</li>



<li>IREB Certified Professional for Requirements Engineering (CPRE)</li>



<li>PMI Professional in Business Analysis (PBA)</li>



<li>Certified Analytics Professional (CAP)</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For more information about how to earn one of these certifications — and how much they cost — click <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/228834/6-business-analyst-certifications-to-advance-your-analytics-career.html">here</a>.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Business analytics tools and software</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">BAs typically rely on software such as Microsoft’s Excel, PowerPoint, and Access, as well as SQL, Google Analytics, and Tableau. These tools help BAs collect and sort data, create graphs, write documents, and design visualizations to explain findings. You won’t necessarily need programming or database skills for a BA position, but if you already have these skills, they won’t hurt. The type of software and tools you’ll need to use, however, will depend on your job title and what the organization requires.</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[CIOs beware: DNS KSK rollover could kick off wave of mysterious outages]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Predicting an outage is tricky business, but CIOs might want to circle Oct. 11, 2026, through Jan. 11, 2027, for likely trouble of a potentially widespread and puzzling nature.



That’s because a relatively trivial update to DNSSEC on Oct. 11, one that will take full effect by Jan. 11, is likely...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3693085/it-nachrichten/cios-beware-dns-ksk-rollover-could-kick-off-wave-of-mysterious-outages/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3693085/it-nachrichten/cios-beware-dns-ksk-rollover-could-kick-off-wave-of-mysterious-outages/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 06:16:22 +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">Predicting an outage is tricky business, but CIOs might want to circle Oct. 11, 2026, through Jan. 11, 2027, for likely trouble of a potentially widespread and puzzling nature.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That’s because a relatively trivial update to DNSSEC on Oct. 11, one that will take full effect by Jan. 11, is likely to deliver a series of seemingly unrelated system outages. This will come from oceans of dependencies from third-party, shadow, agentic, gen AI, SaaS, homegrown, and legacy apps — among many other quiet executable hiding spots, including virtual environments and containers.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/joshithak/">Sai Joshitha Kathari</a>, senior site reliability engineer at payment card giant Visa, says most enterprises have far more DNS-related exposure than they realize because of these many dependencies.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“This has the potential to create real downstream destruction when unresolved failures sit underneath important business functions,” Kathari says. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The danger is that so many of these issues are either unknown to IT or handled by a third-party vendor and no one in IT has had reason to ask those vendors about DNS updates. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The risky areas are usually not the obvious managed DNS services. They are the older internal applications, hardcoded resolvers, containerized workloads, sidecar configurations, custom scripts, partner integrations, VM images, stale base images, and service-to-service dependencies that nobody has touched in a long time,” Kathari explains. “These systems can keep working quietly for years, then fail during a DNS or certificate-related change because they bypassed the normal platform standards.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Independent technology analyst <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/carmi/">Carmi Levy</a> says that CIOs need to take this event very seriously. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The two-pronged deadline — October 11, 2026, when the new Key Signing Key (KSK) begins signing the root zone, and January 11, 2027, when the old key is retired — should be marked in red on everyone’s calendar, just as December 31, 1999, once was,” Levy says. “Failure to comply could result in websites, critical business applications, and related resources dropping off the face of the Earth once the transition is complete.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Levy adds: “Custom-built code that lives outside conventional support mechanisms may or may not function when the DNS changes go into effect.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/press-material/release-2026-05-20-en">DNSSEC update itself</a> is straightforward, but it is also the first significant DNSSEC change — specifically a change in the trust anchor — since 2018. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The rollout statement noted that “the trust anchor is formally known as the Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) root zone Key Signing Key (KSK). The KSK is the cryptographic key at the core of the DNSSEC trust anchor and is used to verify that DNS responses are legitimate and have not been modified in transit.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Expect nearly every enterprise to be impacted</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/kimdavies/">Kim Davies</a>, vice president of IANA Services and president of public technical identifiers at ICANN, says the extent of the impact on enterprises is unknowable, given the nature of shadow IT and other edge cases. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But based on the massive number of dependencies both known and unknown in the typical global enterprise, Davies guesses that just about every enterprise will be impacted, to varying degrees. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“In highly complex organizations, it is very likely there will be some impact in the corners, in the margins, of the organization,” Davies tells CIO. “DNS is such a core technology that underpins everything.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As the updates propagate, hiccups will materialize, Davies notes. “When the system cannot validate the [DNS] information, it will treat it as suspect and DNS lookups will fail.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Visa’s Kathari says, “Enterprises should expect some secondary DNS-related glitches when major DNSSEC-related changes happen, not necessarily because the core infrastructure teams will ignore the update, but because large environments have many hidden dependency paths.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Making this problem far worse, Kathari notes, is that the glitches will likely initially look like anything other thana DNS glitch. That will force IT staff to waste a vast number of hours chasing causes that ultimately prove to be unrelated to the incidents. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The impact for CIOs is that DNS failures rarely announce themselves as DNS failures. They look like application timeouts, broken logins, failed API calls, queue lag, payment failures, partner connectivity issues, or random regional instability,” Kathari explains. “That makes troubleshooting slower because teams may spend hours looking at the application, database, network, or cloud provider before realizing name resolution is part of the failure path.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://greyhoundresearch.com/svg/">Sanchit Vir Gogia</a>, chief analyst at Greyhound Research, agrees that IT will likely spin its wheels chasing the wrong ghosts.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“A validation failure rarely stays in its lane. It surfaces as an application error, an API timeout, or a reachability problem, which turns a resolver fault into a coordination failure,” Gogia says. “The application team blames the network, the network team blames the cloud, and the user simply watches work stop.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Images and templates are the frontier most teams miss,” Gogia adds. “A resolver fixed in summer can be broken again in October the instant a stale golden image is redeployed, because automation no longer lets configuration drift slowly. It restores yesterday’s assumptions at machine speed.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It is widely expected that enterprises will not have any problems executing the change or, more likely, relying on their hyperscalers to properly handle the change. That is the concern. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“CIOs are being distracted so much with AI and this is such a deep in the weeds infrastructure issue that this can and willcatch people off-guard,” <a href="https://acceligence.com/talent/profiles/justin-greis/">Justin Greis</a>, CEO of consulting firm Acceligence, tells CIO. “I think we’ll see a meaningful number of enterprise disruptions associated with the DNSSEC trust anchor rollover. Not because the update itself is especially difficult, but because it will expose weaknesses that already exist inside many organizations.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Most enterprise IT operations have had no reason to compile a comprehensive list of all DNS dependencies, but many will be instantly discovered in January. </p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Potentially widespread fallout</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A major retailer, for example, might suddenly be unable to connect with FedEx to arrange for deliveries or a hospital may find that test results are no longer being shared with patient portals. It might manifest as an assembly line that halts because an IIoT component can no longer share files with its vendor system or a truck fleet that stops being tracked. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“There will almost certainly be systems that fall through the cracks. Some will be legacy applications that rely on outdated DNS configurations that have not been updated in years,” Greis says. “Others will be business-unit-developed tools, contractor-built solutions, embedded systems, manufacturing and industrial systems, or highly customized workloads that operate outside normal IT oversight. These are the types of systems that often surface during infrastructure events like this.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Greis adds that many enterprises will discover in January problems created by their own automation.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Over time, enterprises build layers of processes, templates, and deployment mechanisms that are reused across teams and environments,” Greis notes. “Even after DNS infrastructure is updated correctly, older settings can inadvertently be reintroduced through routine updates and system changes, creating intermittent and difficult-to-diagnose failures.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The good news from this situation is that enterprises are not going to likely lose all DNS access if any of these glitches occur. But that may be of no comfort because even if the disruptions are only with small edge cases, that can still cause massive operational disruptions.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/cricketliu/">Cricket Liu</a>, EVP and chief evangelist at Infoblox, gives the example of a DNS server that responds to factory-floor system queries.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Or let’s say this disrupts [an enterprise’s key] SaaS application. All name resolution may stop and it will show a server failure. It will not deliver a response whenever I look anything up. That’s not subtle at all,” Liu says. “It’s highly likely that companies are going to see some effects.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Back in 2017, the switchover was relatively uneventful, giving some CIOs hope that January 2027 will also be a non-event. But given the technology advancements in the last 10 years and the resulting tidal wave of new enterprise tech dependencies, few are realistically expecting no problems this go around. </p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Impossible to predict what will happen</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">One of the top network experts on DNS effects in enterprises is <a href="https://blog.apnic.net/author/geoff-huston/">Geoff Huston</a>, chief scientist at the Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC), the regional Internet Registry administering IP addresses for the Asia Pacific region.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Huston says it is difficult to project what will happen in January until it happens.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Just like the last time, we are flying blind with this key roll. Because nothing really terrible happened last time, there is some confidence that nothing terrible will happen this time, but we just can’t tell in advance as there are no good measurement approaches that allow us to peek inside the trust state of recursive resolvers,” he says.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As for potential edge-case glitches, Huston says it is possible, but if third-party vendors do not properly handle the update, there will be other issues as well, as the KSK cryptographic key used within DNSSEC signs and validates the keys that protect DNS records. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“If it is not standards-compliant, then you have more problems than just the KSK roll,” Huston says, “as it raises the obvious question of ‘What else is not correctly implemented in the DNS resolver that I’m running?’”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As a silver lining, Acceligence’s Greis says any hiccups that result from the DNS KSK update may be a gift in disguise for CIOs. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The irony is that some of the most business-critical components in the technology stack are often the least visible because they work in the background,” Greis says. January “may reveal how much modern business resilience depends on infrastructure that many organizations rarely examine until something breaks. For CIOs, that’s the real lesson. This is not fundamentally a story about a DNS update. It is a story about operational visibility, resilience, and governance. Organizations that treat the rollover as a routine infrastructure task will likely complete the update and move on. Organizations that use it as an opportunity to understand and strengthen the foundations of their technology environment may gain far more value than simply avoiding an outage.”</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[5 endpoint blind spots your EDR/XDR was never built to see]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[In August 2025, 126 malicious packages landed in the npm registry. Even after the community caught the initial wave, 80 of these hidden backdoors remained actively listed.



That was enough. Over 86,000 downloads. Malicious code in PhantomRaven, packages running in the production systems of Fort...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3692679/it-nachrichten/5-endpoint-blind-spots-your-edrxdr-was-never-built-to-see/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3692679/it-nachrichten/5-endpoint-blind-spots-your-edrxdr-was-never-built-to-see/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 00:18:11 +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 August 2025, 126 malicious packages landed in the npm registry. Even after the community caught the initial wave, 80 of these hidden backdoors remained actively listed.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That was enough. Over 86,000 downloads. Malicious code in <a href="https://www.koi.ai/blog/phantomraven-npm-malware-hidden-in-invisible-dependencies" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">PhantomRaven</a>, packages running in the production systems of Fortune 500 companies worldwide. And throughout the entire window, not a single EDR/XDR alert.</p>



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



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>#1. Gain real-time visibility into shadow AI &amp; extensions</strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Your existing asset management tracks binaries and installers, but it cannot see local VS Code extensions, MCP servers, or ad-hoc Python scripts running on developer endpoints. This visibility gap was recently exposed by the <a href="https://www.koi.ai/blog/maliciouscorgi-the-cute-looking-ai-extensions-leaking-code-from-1-5-million-developers" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">MaliciousCorgi campaign</a>, where two marketplace extensions with 1.5 million combined installs silently harvested every file a developer opened. Neither triggered any detection because they were not binaries, not executables, not anything your inventory was built to flag. To counter this, Koi closes the gap by analyzing what extensions actually do after installation, exposing hidden data-harvesting channels running inside your active workspace.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>#2. Distinguish between human and autonomous agent behavior </strong></p>



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>#3. Establish guardrails for automated package updates on endpoints</strong></p>



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>#4. Enforce principle of least privilege for AI agents</strong></p>



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>#5. Maintain continuous endpoint posture management</strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Signature-based scanning only stops known threats. Sophisticated repository attacks often arrive as functional, high-rated software that carries no known bad signature. Koi’s research into the <a href="https://www.koi.ai/blog/darkspectre-unmasking-the-threat-actor-behind-7-8-million-infected-browsers" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">DarkSpectre campaign</a> found eight browser extensions, all carrying “featured” badges from Google and Microsoft, installed by over 8 million users, silently harvesting every conversation from ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini in the background. Koi addresses this by operating upstream: scanning marketplace listings every hour, using LLM-driven code analysis to compare what software promises against what its code does, sandboxing it, and scoring the risk before it ever reaches the endpoint.</p>



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



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Ready to secure the future of your software stack? See how <a href="https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/cortex/agentic-endpoint-security" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Koi Agentic Endpoint Security</a> delivers complete visibility, risk scoring, and real-time prevention across every endpoint in your enterprise.</p>



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[‘Sugar’ Season 2, Episode 6 Recap: John Sugar Faces His Darkest Choice Yet]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Sugar Season 2, Episode 6 pushes John Sugar deeper into a dangerous conspiracy as Vega closes in on Ji Moon and refuses to leave any witnesses behind.




Episode title: “Cautionary Tale”



Release date: July 24, 2026



Genre: Crime drama, mystery, neo-noir and science fiction



Season length:...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3692419/ios-mac-os/sugar-season-2-episode-6-recap-john-sugar-faces-his-darkest-choice-yet/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3692419/ios-mac-os/sugar-season-2-episode-6-recap-john-sugar-faces-his-darkest-choice-yet/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 21:47:51 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🍏 iOS / Mac OS</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Sugar Season 2, Episode 6 pushes John Sugar deeper into a dangerous conspiracy as Vega closes in on Ji Moon and refuses to leave any witnesses behind.




Episode title: “Cautionary Tale”



Release date: July 24, 2026



Genre: Crime drama, mystery, neo-noir and science fiction



Season length: Eight episodes



Season finale: August 7, 2026




Spoiler warning



The following section contains major spoilers from Sugar Season 2, Episode 6.



Sugar learns the truth about Operation Fire Sale



After hiding Ji Moon in a rehabilitation facility and arranging a fake death certificate, Sugar continues investigating the operation connected to Vega. He discovers that the conspiracy, known as Operation Fire Sale, extends far beyond the local drug trade.



The people behind the scheme plan to flood selected neighborhoods with cheap fentanyl. Once overdose deaths increase, someone inside the city alters the official records, allowing the victims to disappear from government systems. The group can then exploit housing grants and properties connected to those missing residents.



Sugar finally has evidence linking Vega to the operation. However, possessing the evidence does not immediately solve his problem because Vega remains determined to find Ji and silence him permanently.



Who is Peg Rosenthal?



The episode opens with a flashback from 11 years earlier, revealing the identity of the woman who has appeared in Sugar’s visions throughout the season.



Her name was Peg Rosenthal, another member of Sugar’s species who became deeply attached to human life. She enjoyed human food, relationships and money before becoming involved in financial crimes.



Sugar was ordered to collect Peg and send her home. During their journey, she warned him that becoming human was a slippery slope. Peg believed her actions had changed her so much that her people would never accept her again.



When Sugar briefly leaves to buy tissues, Peg covers herself and the vehicle in gasoline before taking her own life. Her death explains Sugar’s fear that his growing connection to humanity will eventually destroy him as well.



Sugar cannot bring himself to kill Vega



Sugar enters Vega’s apartment with a gun and appears ready to end the threat. However, he stops himself before pulling the trigger.



His hesitation becomes even more dangerous when Vega meets him later at the hotel bar. Sugar explains that Ji will remain silent, but Vega refuses to take the risk. He makes it clear that Ji cannot stay alive.



Sugar tells Vega that he had an opportunity to kill him earlier. Vega responds that Sugar should have taken it, leaving the two men heading toward an unavoidable confrontation.



Meanwhile, Sugar and Charlotte become closer, showing how quickly he continues to embrace human emotions and desires. With Ji still in hiding and Vega preparing his next move, Sugar has placed himself in too deep with nowhere safe left to go.



What do you think Sugar will do when Vega finally finds Ji? Let us know in the comments.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Cape Fear Season 1 Episode 9 Ending Explained: Every Twist Before the Finale]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[The Cape Fear finale looks set to bring the Bowdens and the Cady family together for one final, violent confrontation. Episode 9 revealed several important family secrets while leaving Zack missing and Anna trapped near Cape Fear.



Spoiler warning: This article contains major spoilers for Cape ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3692313/ios-mac-os/cape-fear-season-1-episode-9-ending-explained-every-twist-before-the-finale/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3692313/ios-mac-os/cape-fear-season-1-episode-9-ending-explained-every-twist-before-the-finale/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 20:48:40 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🍏 iOS / Mac OS</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[The Cape Fear finale looks set to bring the Bowdens and the Cady family together for one final, violent confrontation. Episode 9 revealed several important family secrets while leaving Zack missing and Anna trapped near Cape Fear.



Spoiler warning: This article contains major spoilers for Cape Fear Episode 9, “The Scar.”




Finale release date: July 31, 2026



Episode title: “The Executioners”



Season length: 10 episodes



Genre: Psychological thriller and drama



Streaming platform: Apple TV



Main cast: Amy Adams, Javier Bardem, Patrick Wilson, Lily Collias, Joe Anders, CCH Pounder, Malia Pyles and Juliette Lewis




Where the Story Is Heading



Anna travelled to Cape Fear hoping to prove that Max Cady did not murder his wife, Melissa. She eventually discovered that Crystal killed Melissa out of jealousy and allowed Max to spend 17 years in prison for the crime.



Anna also learned that Luke, the scarred young man living with Crystal, is the child Crystal had with Max. After Crystal stabbed Anna, she escaped by jumping into the Cape Fear River. Meanwhile, Zack disappeared from the psychiatric facility, suggesting that Max has taken him as part of his final plan.



Max Cady



Max will probably take Zack to Cape Fear and use him to force Anna and Tom into a final confrontation. Although Max was wrongly imprisoned for Melissa’s murder, the finale is unlikely to excuse the violence and manipulation he has committed since his release.



Our prediction is that Max will die near the river, following the basic direction of earlier Cape Fear stories. Anna may kill him while protecting Zack or Natalie, completing the reversal from frightened victim to active survivor.



Anna Bowden



Anna now possesses the truth about Crystal, Luke and Melissa’s death. She will likely survive her injuries, return to Savannah and lead the effort to rescue Zack.



She may also expose Crystal as the real murderer, clearing Max’s name after his death. However, Anna could still face legal consequences for planting drugs in Max’s home and hiding parts of her relationship with him.



Tom Bowden



Tom remains in custody for Ray’s death, but Max’s involvement should eventually become clear. Tom will probably escape or receive temporary release before joining Anna at Cape Fear.



His marriage may survive the immediate crisis, although Anna’s history with Max and the question of Natalie’s biological father will leave lasting damage.



Natalie Bowden



Natalie has finally recognised how Max and Nevaeh manipulated her. She took Nevaeh’s hidden phone before Noa secured her release, giving the family valuable evidence about Max’s plans.



Natalie will likely help Noa trace Max and rescue Zack. She may also reject Max completely, regardless of whether his claim about being her biological father proves true.



Zack Bowden



Zack is in the greatest danger heading into the finale. Max has spent the season manipulating his mental health, religious beliefs and anger toward Tom.



Zack may initially follow Max willingly before realising that he has been used. We expect him to survive, although the finale could leave him responsible for seriously injuring or killing someone during the rescue.



Nevaeh Valentine



Nevaeh failed to kill Natalie and lost the secret phone she used to communicate with Max. She will probably turn against Max after recognising that he views her as another disposable part of his revenge plan.



She may confess, help investigators locate Zack or die while attempting to regain Max’s approval.



Noa Toussaint



Noa has become the Bowdens’ most reliable ally. She will likely use the phone Natalie stole to trace Max’s movements and lead the police toward Cape Fear.



Her arrival could stop Anna from killing Max in cold blood, although Max may force Anna to act before help reaches them.



Crystal and Luke



Crystal will probably follow Anna after escaping the boat, bringing Luke into the final conflict. Max may kill Crystal after learning that she murdered Melissa and allowed him to remain imprisoned.



Luke could attack Max or Crystal after discovering the full truth about his parents. He may survive as the final reminder of the abuse and secrecy running through the Cady family.



The Cape Fear finale has several mysteries left to answer, including Zack’s location, Natalie’s paternity and Max’s ultimate fate. What do you think will happen when the Bowdens and Cadys meet for the final time? Let us know in the comments.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[(g+) Opinion: Japan automakers bought time with hybrids, now must spend it on software]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Competition between intelligent vehicles and merely electrified ones has just begun Von Hans Greimel (Wirtschaft, Elektroauto)]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3691983/it-nachrichten/g-opinion-japan-automakers-bought-time-with-hybrids-now-must-spend-it-on-software/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3691983/it-nachrichten/g-opinion-japan-automakers-bought-time-with-hybrids-now-must-spend-it-on-software/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 18:06:40 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Competition between intelligent vehicles and merely electrified ones has just begun Von Hans Greimel (<a href="https://www.golem.de/specials/wirtschaft/">Wirtschaft</a>, <a href="https://www.golem.de/specials/elektroauto/">Elektroauto</a>) <img src="https://cpx.golem.de/cpx.php?class=17&amp;aid=211273&amp;page=1&amp;ts=1784908801" alt="" width="1" height="1">]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Counting the Votes in the Supreme Court’s Birthright Citizenship Decision]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[A close analysis of the Supreme Court Justices' opinions in Trump v. Barbara.
The post Counting the Votes in the Supreme Court’s Birthright Citizenship Decision appeared first on Just Security.]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3691839/it-security-nachrichten/counting-the-votes-in-the-supreme-courts-birthright-citizenship-decision/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3691839/it-security-nachrichten/counting-the-votes-in-the-supreme-courts-birthright-citizenship-decision/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 16:52:56 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A close analysis of the Supreme Court Justices' opinions in <i>Trump v. Barbara</i>.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/148991/counting-votes-supreme-court-birthright-citizenship-decision/">Counting the Votes in the Supreme Court’s Birthright Citizenship Decision</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/">Just Security</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Fujitsu joins £14.9B UK framework despite public sector bid freeze]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Supplier says the Horizon-era pause only stops it chasing work from new government customers]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3691465/it-nachrichten/fujitsu-joins-149b-uk-framework-despite-public-sector-bid-freeze/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3691465/it-nachrichten/fujitsu-joins-149b-uk-framework-despite-public-sector-bid-freeze/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 14:05:19 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Supplier says the Horizon-era pause only stops it chasing work from new government customers]]></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[What is a business analyst? A key role for business-IT efficiency]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[What is a business analyst?



Business analysts (BAs) are responsible for bridging the gap between IT and the business using data analytics to assess processes, determine requirements, and deliver data-driven recommendations and reports to executives and stakeholders.



BAs engage with business...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3691228/it-security-nachrichten/what-is-a-business-analyst-a-key-role-for-business-it-efficiency/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3691228/it-security-nachrichten/what-is-a-business-analyst-a-key-role-for-business-it-efficiency/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 12:09:04 +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>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What is a business analyst?</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Business analysts (BAs) are responsible for bridging the gap between IT and the business using <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/191313/what-is-data-analytics-analyzing-and-managing-data-for-decisions.html">data analytics</a> to assess processes, determine requirements, and deliver data-driven recommendations and reports to executives and stakeholders.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">BAs engage with business leaders and users to understand how data-driven changes to process, products, services, software, and hardware can improve efficiencies and add value. They must articulate those ideas but also balance them against what’s technologically feasible and financially and functionally reasonable. Depending on the role, a business analyst might work with data sets to improve products, hardware, tools, software, services, or process.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The International Institute of Business Analysis (IIBA), a nonprofit professional association, considers the business analyst an agent of change, and says that <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/191157/what-is-business-analytics-using-data-to-predict-business-outcomes.html">business analysis</a> is a disciplined approach to introduce and manage change to organizations, whether they’re for-profit businesses, governments, or nonprofits.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Impact of AI on business analyst role</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As AI becomes commonplace in the tech industry, business analysts are embracing it as a tool to automate repetitive work in the role. AI tools can be used for workflow and diagramming, process mapping, data analysis, and to automate meeting minutes and transcribe meetings where requirements are established, all designed to speed up the process of analyzing data, creating visuals, and transcribing and writing user stories and acceptance criteria.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AI tools can also help identify patterns, insights, and unique data points that might go unnoticed by humans, and allow a faster time to generate insights for organizations.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Of course, as with all AI tools, they still require humans to oversee prompts, scripting, and evaluate AI outputs to ensure they’re accurate and valid. While they can’t replace the work of BAs, AI can help them spend more time on thoughtful analysis and decision making, rather than mundane tasks such as gathering and summarizing data, and querying.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Business analyst job description</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">BAs are responsible for creating new models that support business decisions by working closely with finance and IT teams to establish initiatives and strategies aimed at improving revenue and optimizing costs. They need a strong understanding of regulatory and reporting requirements, and have plenty of experience in forecasting, budgeting, and financial analysis combined with knowing KPIs, according to Robert Half Technology.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">According to Robert Half, a BA’s job description typically includes budgeting and forecasting, planning and monitoring, variance analysis, pricing, reporting, and creating a detailed business analysis in an effort to outline problems, opportunities, and solutions for a business. It also says BAs should be able to define business requirements and report them back to stakeholders.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Since BAs are tasked with prioritizing technical and functional requirements, identifying what clients want, and determining what’s feasible to deliver, the role requires a deep understanding of systems, how they function, who’ll need to be involved, and the necessary steps to get everyone on board.  </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The role is constantly evolving, especially as companies rely more on data to advise business operations. Every company has different issues that a business analyst can address, whether it’s dealing with outdated legacy systems, changing technologies, broken processes, poor client or customer satisfaction, or large, siloed organizations.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Business analyst skills</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The BA position requires both hard and soft skills, as they need to know how to pull, analyze, and report data trends, share that information with others, and apply it to business goals and needs.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Not all BAs need a background in IT if they have a general understanding of how systems, products, and tools work. Alternatively, some have strong IT backgrounds and less experience in business, but are interested in shifting away from IT into this hybrid role, which often acts as a communicator between the business and IT sides of the organization. So having extensive experience in either area can be beneficial for BAs.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.iiba.org/career-resources/new-to-business-analysis/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">According to the IIBA</a>, some of the most important skills and experience for a business analyst are:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Oral and written communication skills</li>



<li>Interpersonal, organizational, facilitation, and consultative skills</li>



<li>Analytical thinking and problem solving</li>



<li>Being detail-oriented and able to deliver a high level of accuracy</li>



<li>Knowledge of business structure</li>



<li>Stakeholder and cost-benefit analysis</li>



<li>Processes modeling</li>



<li>Understanding networks, databases, and other technologies</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For a more in-depth look at what it takes to succeed as a business analyst, click <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/189108/essential-traits-of-elite-business-analysts.html">here</a>.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Business analyst salary</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The average annual salary for an IT business analyst is $80,692, according to <a href="https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Business_Analyst%2C_IT/Salary" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">data from PayScale</a>. The highest paid BAs are in New York, where the average salary is 14% higher than the national average. Dallas, Texas, is second, with reported salaries 6.4% higher than the national average, closely followed by Washington, D.C., where salaries are 6.3% higher than the national average.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Some skills are in higher demand than others, with the potential to boost salary. According to Payscale, these are associated with higher BA salaries. These skills, and the amount they can boost your salary, include:</p>



<figure class="wp-block-table"><div class="overflow-table-wrapper"><table class="has-fixed-layout"><tbody><tr><td>Skills</td><td>Salary Boost</td></tr><tr><td>ScrumMaster</td><td>44%</td></tr><tr><td>Microsoft Azure</td><td>30%</td></tr><tr><td>Supply Chain</td><td>27%</td></tr><tr><td>Oracle eBusiness Suite</td><td>25%</td></tr><tr><td>Master Data Management (SAP MDM)</td><td>24%</td></tr><tr><td>SAP Sales and Distribution (SAP SD)</td><td>24%</td></tr><tr><td>Product Support</td><td>18%</td></tr><tr><td>Microsoft Dynamics GP</td><td>18%</td></tr><tr><td>SAP Quality Management (SAP QM)</td><td>18%</td></tr><tr><td>Workday Software</td><td>15%</td></tr></tbody></table> </div></figure>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For tips on boosting your salary, click <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/189510/7-steps-business-analysts-can-take-to-earn-more.html">here</a>.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Business analyst certifications</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Although business analysis is a relatively new discipline in IT, a handful of organizations already offer certifications to help boost your résumé and prove your merit as an analyst. Organizations such as the IIBA, IQBBA, IREB, and PMI each offer their own tailored certifications for business analysis. These include:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>IIBA <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/189169/ecba-certification-an-entry-level-credential-for-business-analysts.html">Entry Certificate in Business Analysis (ECBA)</a></li>



<li>IIBA Certification of Competency in Business Analysis (CCBA)</li>



<li>IIBA Certified Business Analysis Professional (CBAP)</li>



<li>IIBA Agile Analysis Certification (AAC)</li>



<li>IQBBA Certified Foundation Level Business Analyst (CFLBA)</li>



<li>IREB Certified Professional for Requirements Engineering (CPRE)</li>



<li>PMI Professional in Business Analysis (PBA)</li>



<li>Certified Analytics Professional (CAP)</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For more information about how to earn one of these certifications — and how much they cost — click <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/228834/6-business-analyst-certifications-to-advance-your-analytics-career.html">here</a>.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Business analytics tools and software</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">BAs typically rely on software such as Microsoft’s Excel, PowerPoint, and Access, as well as SQL, Google Analytics, and Tableau. These tools help BAs collect and sort data, create graphs, write documents, and design visualizations to explain findings. You won’t necessarily need programming or database skills for a BA position, but if you already have these skills, they won’t hurt. The type of software and tools you’ll need to use, however, will depend on your job title and what the organization requires.</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[3 cybersecurity issues that should keep every CEO awake at night]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[For years, I have been saying that cybersecurity is no longer a technology problem. It has become a business leadership challenge.



Yet, despite record levels of spending, ever-growing security teams, increasingly sophisticated technologies and a constant stream of new regulations, organization...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3691226/it-security-nachrichten/3-cybersecurity-issues-that-should-keep-every-ceo-awake-at-night/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3691226/it-security-nachrichten/3-cybersecurity-issues-that-should-keep-every-ceo-awake-at-night/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 12:09:02 +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">For years, I have been saying that cybersecurity is no longer a technology problem. It has become a business leadership challenge.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yet, despite record levels of spending, ever-growing security teams, increasingly sophisticated technologies and a constant stream of new regulations, organizations continue to suffer major cyber incidents with alarming regularity. Every week seems to bring news of another ransomware attack, supply chain compromise or data breach affecting organizations that many would have assumed were well protected.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The obvious conclusion is that we are asking the wrong questions.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Too many executive teams remain preoccupied with the latest threat actor, the newest security product the CISO wants to buy or the latest vulnerability making headlines. Those issues matter, but they are not what should be keeping CEOs awake at night.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In my view, there are three far more fundamental issues that deserve the attention of every chief executive.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">1. Corporate complexity, and the widening gap between business leadership and cybersecurity reality</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Perhaps the biggest cybersecurity risk facing large organizations today is not technical at all.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It is the growing disconnect between executive perception and operational reality.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Many boards genuinely believe their organizations are reasonably well protected. They receive regular dashboards showing improving maturity scores, increasing compliance levels, falling vulnerability counts and reassuring traffic-light reports.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Unfortunately, cyber attackers do not read dashboards.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Behind those executive reports often lies an increasingly complex technology landscape, thousands of unmanaged digital assets, ageing infrastructure, rampant shadow IT, fragmented ownership, inconsistent governance and security teams struggling to keep pace with relentless business change.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The problem is rarely a lack of effort.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It is that corporate complexity has reached a level where traditional governance mechanisms are no longer capable of providing an accurate picture of organizational resilience.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Executives believe they understand the level of cyber risk they face because they receive regular reports. Those reports often measure activity rather than resilience.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Governance committees end up debating around another percentage point of phishing awareness or vulnerability remediation, while fundamental issues remain unaddressed in the background.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">2. Organizational inertia, and the need for executive structure to evolve faster</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Cyber criminals continue to evolve rapidly. Large organizations generally do not.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is the second issue that should concern every CEO.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Throughout my career, I have observed organizations repeatedly responding to new cyber threats by adding another technology platform, another monitoring capability, another compliance framework or another governance committee.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Very rarely do they stop to redesign how cybersecurity operates.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The result is what I described several years ago as the “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Cybersecurity-Spiral-Failure-How-Break/dp/1637353057/">Cybersecurity Spiral of Failure</a>”.</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>As complexity and regulation increase, organizations invest in more security products.</li>



<li>More products create more complexity.</li>



<li>More products and greater complexity generate more alerts.</li>



<li>More alerts require more analysts.</li>



<li>More analysts produce more reports.</li>



<li>More reports continue to build up executive confidence.</li>



<li>Meanwhile, the underlying structural weaknesses remain largely unchanged, technical debt piles up and costs escalate.</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">And when the inevitable breach eventually happens, reality reveals itself, but distrust also sets in between senior executives and security teams.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is not a funding problem. Nor is it a skills problem. It is fundamentally an operating model problem.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Many organizations continue trying to solve twenty-first century challenges using governance, accountability, organizational and reporting structures designed twenty-five years ago.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The cybersecurity function itself has evolved dramatically. Many executive structures have not.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This organizational inertia extends beyond technology: It affects budgeting cycles, <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4193990/reallocating-cybersecurity-capital-in-the-mythos-era.html">investment priorities</a>, procurement processes, accountability models and decision-making speed.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Cyber attackers innovate every day. Organizational change often takes years.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That imbalance should worry every CEO.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">3. Accelerating technological disruption, and how it challenges organizations in areas where they are intrinsically weak</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The third issue is potentially the most significant over the coming decade.</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Artificial intelligence, autonomous agents and machine identities</li>



<li>Software supply chain complexity.</li>



<li>Quantum computing, and post-quantum cryptography</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Each of these developments represents far more than another technical trend.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Together, they fundamentally change the dynamics of cybersecurity.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Artificial intelligence is transforming countless business processes. At the same time, it is also increasing both the speed and sophistication of cyber-attacks while simultaneously transforming defensive capabilities.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Organizations have become increasingly dependent on software ecosystems that extend far beyond their own direct control. Engaging with the supply chain in ways that lead to a genuine appreciation of the risks involved has become a key challenge for most cybersecurity practices.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Quantum computing may eventually invalidate much of today’s cryptographic algorithms, forcing organizations into one of the largest technology efforts since Y2K — but without the benefit of a fixed deadline and faced by a problem that is considerably more complex and hyperconnected IT estates that have little to do with those of the late 90s.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">None of these challenges can be solved overnight: They require clear governance, sustained investment over a few years and cross-functional organizational coordination.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Most large organizations are weak on those three fronts: This is precisely why CEOs should be focusing on them now.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Waiting until some of those risks become obvious will almost certainly be too late.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Businesses naturally prioritise immediate commercial pressures. Cybersecurity often involves preparing for risks whose timing remains uncertain.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But one of the greatest leadership failures I keep seeing remains the inability of organizations to act decisively on known unknowns.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That tension explains why many organizations delay action until external events force them to respond. Unfortunately, cybersecurity rarely rewards late action.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Leadership will determine who succeeds</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Cybersecurity discussions still frequently focus on technology. I believe they should focus far more on leadership.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Technology will continue evolving. Threat actors will continue adapting. Regulations will continue expanding. Those developments are inevitable.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">What remains within the control of every CEO is how their organization responds.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Does cybersecurity remain an IT issue? Or is it recognised as an integral part of business resilience?</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">How is cybersecurity accountability assigned at executive level? Or does it still rest largely with a CISO hidden in the organization?</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Does the board spend sufficient time discussing resilience? Or does cybersecurity appear only when approving budgets or reviewing incidents?</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">These questions will increasingly determine organizational success.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The companies that navigate the next decade successfully will not necessarily be those spending the most on cybersecurity. Nor will they be those deploying the latest security technologies first.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">They will be the organizations whose leadership recognises that cybersecurity has become a permanent business capability — embedded into governance, strategy, operational decision-making and organizational culture.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That transformation cannot be delegated. It begins with the CEO.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">And perhaps that is the single biggest issue that should keep every chief executive awake at night: Not when the next cyber-attack will happen, but whether their organization is evolving quickly enough on those matters to meet a threat landscape that is changing much faster than the business itself.</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[CIOs beware: DNS KSK rollover could kick off wave of mysterious outages]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Predicting an outage is tricky business, but CIOs might want to circle Oct. 11, 2026, through Jan. 11, 2027, for likely trouble of a potentially widespread and puzzling nature.



That’s because a relatively trivial update to DNSSEC on Oct. 11, one that will take full effect by Jan. 11, is likely...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3691225/it-security-nachrichten/cios-beware-dns-ksk-rollover-could-kick-off-wave-of-mysterious-outages/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3691225/it-security-nachrichten/cios-beware-dns-ksk-rollover-could-kick-off-wave-of-mysterious-outages/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 12:09:00 +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">Predicting an outage is tricky business, but CIOs might want to circle Oct. 11, 2026, through Jan. 11, 2027, for likely trouble of a potentially widespread and puzzling nature.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That’s because a relatively trivial update to DNSSEC on Oct. 11, one that will take full effect by Jan. 11, is likely to deliver a series of seemingly unrelated system outages. This will come from oceans of dependencies from third-party, shadow, agentic, gen AI, SaaS, homegrown, and legacy apps — among many other quiet executable hiding spots, including virtual environments and containers.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/joshithak/">Sai Joshitha Kathari</a>, senior site reliability engineer at payment card giant Visa, says most enterprises have far more DNS-related exposure than they realize because of these many dependencies.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“This has the potential to create real downstream destruction when unresolved failures sit underneath important business functions,” Kathari says. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The danger is that so many of these issues are either unknown to IT or handled by a third-party vendor and no one in IT has had reason to ask those vendors about DNS updates. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The risky areas are usually not the obvious managed DNS services. They are the older internal applications, hardcoded resolvers, containerized workloads, sidecar configurations, custom scripts, partner integrations, VM images, stale base images, and service-to-service dependencies that nobody has touched in a long time,” Kathari explains. “These systems can keep working quietly for years, then fail during a DNS or certificate-related change because they bypassed the normal platform standards.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Independent technology analyst <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/carmi/">Carmi Levy</a> says that CIOs need to take this event very seriously. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The two-pronged deadline — October 11, 2026, when the new Key Signing Key (KSK) begins signing the root zone, and January 11, 2027, when the old key is retired — should be marked in red on everyone’s calendar, just as December 31, 1999, once was,” Levy says. “Failure to comply could result in websites, critical business applications, and related resources dropping off the face of the Earth once the transition is complete.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Levy adds: “Custom-built code that lives outside conventional support mechanisms may or may not function when the DNS changes go into effect.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/press-material/release-2026-05-20-en">DNSSEC update itself</a> is straightforward, but it is also the first significant DNSSEC change — specifically a change in the trust anchor — since 2018. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The rollout statement noted that “the trust anchor is formally known as the Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) root zone Key Signing Key (KSK). The KSK is the cryptographic key at the core of the DNSSEC trust anchor and is used to verify that DNS responses are legitimate and have not been modified in transit.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Expect nearly every enterprise to be impacted</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/kimdavies/">Kim Davies</a>, vice president of IANA Services and president of public technical identifiers at ICANN, says the extent of the impact on enterprises is unknowable, given the nature of shadow IT and other edge cases. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But based on the massive number of dependencies both known and unknown in the typical global enterprise, Davies guesses that just about every enterprise will be impacted, to varying degrees. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“In highly complex organizations, it is very likely there will be some impact in the corners, in the margins, of the organization,” Davies tells CIO. “DNS is such a core technology that underpins everything.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As the updates propagate, hiccups will materialize, Davies notes. “When the system cannot validate the [DNS] information, it will treat it as suspect and DNS lookups will fail.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Visa’s Kathari says, “Enterprises should expect some secondary DNS-related glitches when major DNSSEC-related changes happen, not necessarily because the core infrastructure teams will ignore the update, but because large environments have many hidden dependency paths.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Making this problem far worse, Kathari notes, is that the glitches will likely initially look like anything other thana DNS glitch. That will force IT staff to waste a vast number of hours chasing causes that ultimately prove to be unrelated to the incidents. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The impact for CIOs is that DNS failures rarely announce themselves as DNS failures. They look like application timeouts, broken logins, failed API calls, queue lag, payment failures, partner connectivity issues, or random regional instability,” Kathari explains. “That makes troubleshooting slower because teams may spend hours looking at the application, database, network, or cloud provider before realizing name resolution is part of the failure path.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://greyhoundresearch.com/svg/">Sanchit Vir Gogia</a>, chief analyst at Greyhound Research, agrees that IT will likely spin its wheels chasing the wrong ghosts.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“A validation failure rarely stays in its lane. It surfaces as an application error, an API timeout, or a reachability problem, which turns a resolver fault into a coordination failure,” Gogia says. “The application team blames the network, the network team blames the cloud, and the user simply watches work stop.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Images and templates are the frontier most teams miss,” Gogia adds. “A resolver fixed in summer can be broken again in October the instant a stale golden image is redeployed, because automation no longer lets configuration drift slowly. It restores yesterday’s assumptions at machine speed.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It is widely expected that enterprises will not have any problems executing the change or, more likely, relying on their hyperscalers to properly handle the change. That is the concern. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“CIOs are being distracted so much with AI and this is such a deep in the weeds infrastructure issue that this can and willcatch people off-guard,” <a href="https://acceligence.com/talent/profiles/justin-greis/">Justin Greis</a>, CEO of consulting firm Acceligence, tells CIO. “I think we’ll see a meaningful number of enterprise disruptions associated with the DNSSEC trust anchor rollover. Not because the update itself is especially difficult, but because it will expose weaknesses that already exist inside many organizations.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Most enterprise IT operations have had no reason to compile a comprehensive list of all DNS dependencies, but many will be instantly discovered in January. </p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Potentially widespread fallout</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A major retailer, for example, might suddenly be unable to connect with FedEx to arrange for deliveries or a hospital may find that test results are no longer being shared with patient portals. It might manifest as an assembly line that halts because an IIoT component can no longer share files with its vendor system or a truck fleet that stops being tracked. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“There will almost certainly be systems that fall through the cracks. Some will be legacy applications that rely on outdated DNS configurations that have not been updated in years,” Greis says. “Others will be business-unit-developed tools, contractor-built solutions, embedded systems, manufacturing and industrial systems, or highly customized workloads that operate outside normal IT oversight. These are the types of systems that often surface during infrastructure events like this.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Greis adds that many enterprises will discover in January problems created by their own automation.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Over time, enterprises build layers of processes, templates, and deployment mechanisms that are reused across teams and environments,” Greis notes. “Even after DNS infrastructure is updated correctly, older settings can inadvertently be reintroduced through routine updates and system changes, creating intermittent and difficult-to-diagnose failures.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The good news from this situation is that enterprises are not going to likely lose all DNS access if any of these glitches occur. But that may be of no comfort because even if the disruptions are only with small edge cases, that can still cause massive operational disruptions.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/cricketliu/">Cricket Liu</a>, EVP and chief evangelist at Infoblox, gives the example of a DNS server that responds to factory-floor system queries.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Or let’s say this disrupts [an enterprise’s key] SaaS application. All name resolution may stop and it will show a server failure. It will not deliver a response whenever I look anything up. That’s not subtle at all,” Liu says. “It’s highly likely that companies are going to see some effects.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Back in 2017, the switchover was relatively uneventful, giving some CIOs hope that January 2027 will also be a non-event. But given the technology advancements in the last 10 years and the resulting tidal wave of new enterprise tech dependencies, few are realistically expecting no problems this go around. </p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Impossible to predict what will happen</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">One of the top network experts on DNS effects in enterprises is <a href="https://blog.apnic.net/author/geoff-huston/">Geoff Huston</a>, chief scientist at the Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC), the regional Internet Registry administering IP addresses for the Asia Pacific region.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Huston says it is difficult to project what will happen in January until it happens.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Just like the last time, we are flying blind with this key roll. Because nothing really terrible happened last time, there is some confidence that nothing terrible will happen this time, but we just can’t tell in advance as there are no good measurement approaches that allow us to peek inside the trust state of recursive resolvers,” he says.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As for potential edge-case glitches, Huston says it is possible, but if third-party vendors do not properly handle the update, there will be other issues as well, as the KSK cryptographic key used within DNSSEC signs and validates the keys that protect DNS records. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“If it is not standards-compliant, then you have more problems than just the KSK roll,” Huston says, “as it raises the obvious question of ‘What else is not correctly implemented in the DNS resolver that I’m running?’”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As a silver lining, Acceligence’s Greis says any hiccups that result from the DNS KSK update may be a gift in disguise for CIOs. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The irony is that some of the most business-critical components in the technology stack are often the least visible because they work in the background,” Greis says. January “may reveal how much modern business resilience depends on infrastructure that many organizations rarely examine until something breaks. For CIOs, that’s the real lesson. This is not fundamentally a story about a DNS update. It is a story about operational visibility, resilience, and governance. Organizations that treat the rollover as a routine infrastructure task will likely complete the update and move on. Organizations that use it as an opportunity to understand and strengthen the foundations of their technology environment may gain far more value than simply avoiding an outage.”</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The Microsoft agent framework wars are over. The real architecture decision starts now]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Over the past year, I had the same conversation with almost every team starting an AI initiative. Should we build on Semantic Kernel, AutoGen or Foundry?



At first it felt like the most important architectural decision we’d make. Each framework had its own philosophy, each promised to be the fo...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3691079/ai-nachrichten/the-microsoft-agent-framework-wars-are-over-the-real-architecture-decision-starts-now/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3691079/ai-nachrichten/the-microsoft-agent-framework-wars-are-over-the-real-architecture-decision-starts-now/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 11:04:58 +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">Over the past year, I had the same conversation with almost every team starting an AI initiative. Should we build on Semantic Kernel, AutoGen or Foundry?</p>



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Looking back, I think we were asking the wrong question. I certainly was.</p>



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Then Microsoft settled it for us. It <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/agent-framework/overview/">introduced the unified Agent Framework</a>, quietly moved Semantic Kernel and AutoGen into <a href="https://devblogs.microsoft.com/agent-framework/migrate-your-semantic-kernel-and-autogen-projects-to-microsoft-agent-framework-release-candidate/">maintenance mode</a>, and the debate I’d spent months refereeing was suddenly over. Turns out the answer to “which of the three” was “none of the three, here’s a fourth.” The framework hit version 1.0 and general availability in April 2026, stable across .NET and Python.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">What surprised me wasn’t the decision. It was how fast a debate that had eaten so much of our attention stopped mattering. Microsoft changed the menu.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It didn’t change the meal.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The framework was never the hard part</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Framework selection dominated almost every early conversation I had about enterprise agents. Which SDK do we standardize on? Which orchestration model gives us the most flexibility? Which one is Microsoft actually betting on?</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Fair questions. But after a year of watching these projects play out, I’ve slowly come around to a different view. Those weren’t the questions that decided anything.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The first question I ask now is much smaller. Does this thing actually need an agent?</p>



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



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



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What building production agents actually taught me</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Once I stopped fixating on frameworks, the same three problems kept showing up. None of them had anything to do with the SDK.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Context beats model choice</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Early on I spent a lot of time comparing models, the way you’d agonize over a restaurant menu and then order what you always order. Now I spend most of it thinking about context, which is far less fun and far more useful.</p>



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The best agent systems I’ve worked on weren’t the ones with the biggest context windows. They were the ones careful about what reached the model, and when. That’s not something the framework hands you.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Failure is where the real work is</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Most agent demos look great because they’re built around the happy path. Production doesn’t extend that courtesy.</p>



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



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



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Identity is the real security boundary</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This one surprised me most. The moment an agent stops being a chatbot and starts touching real business systems, identity matters more than orchestration.</p>



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



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">The surprises weren’t technical</h3>



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



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Build for change, not for today’s winner</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I don’t think the teams that struggled last year picked the wrong framework. Semantic Kernel was reasonable. AutoGen was reasonable. Foundry made sense for plenty of cases. I’d have signed off on any of them.</p>



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



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I don’t regret the framework debates, honestly. They were reasonable at the time. What changed wasn’t Microsoft’s roadmap.</p>



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So, Microsoft made one decision easier by turning three frameworks into one. Good. Five years from now we’ll be on different tools, and we’ll still be asking the same handful of questions.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Does this actually need an agent? Does it have the right context? Can it recover when something breaks, because something will? Is it acting as the right person?</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Those questions outlast every rewrite. That’s where I’ve learned to put my effort.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Frameworks come and go. Good architecture has to survive all of them.</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.infoworld.com/expert-contributor-network/"><strong>Want to join?</strong></a></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[4 ways AI-driven defense is rewriting the cybersecurity playbook]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[The cybersecurity landscape has evolved beyond human scale. Today’s adversaries have replaced predictable, manual playbooks with machine-generated attack chains that can breach traditional controls in seconds. To bridge the gap, organizations must move past legacy, reactive controls and embrace a...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3690085/it-security-nachrichten/4-ways-ai-driven-defense-is-rewriting-the-cybersecurity-playbook/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3690085/it-security-nachrichten/4-ways-ai-driven-defense-is-rewriting-the-cybersecurity-playbook/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 21:34:50 +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">The cybersecurity landscape has evolved beyond human scale. Today’s adversaries have replaced predictable, manual playbooks with machine-generated attack chains that can breach traditional controls in seconds. To bridge the gap, organizations must move past legacy, reactive controls and embrace a fundamentally different, AI-driven architecture: Agentic Endpoint Security (AES). </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AES represents a paradigm shift, moving security from a passive monitor to an active participant in the defense lifecycle. It provides the visibility and automated guardrails necessary to govern autonomous AI agents and agentic tools, ensuring that as your workforce scales with AI, your security posture remains unbreakable. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">With autonomous AI agents now capable of planning and executing multi-stage attacks at machine speed, the pressure on traditional security operations (SOC) has reached a breaking point. To survive this shift, the strategy is clear: we must fight AI with AI. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Here is how AI-driven defense, pioneered by <a href="https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/cortex/cortex-xdr?utm_source=foundry-jg-amer-cortex-socf-ends&amp;utm_medium=display&amp;utm_campaign=foundry-cortex-edpxdr-amer-multi-discovery-en-foundry_cso_article_link_1_xdr&amp;utm_content=7014u000001AZlHAAW&amp;cq_plac=%7Bplacement%7D&amp;cq_net=%7Bnetwork%7D?dclid=CPXs7KK66ZUDFU6Q7gEdcAAphg&amp;gad_source=7&amp;gad_campaignid=24059812534" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Cortex XDR</a> and the era of <a href="https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/cortex/agentic-endpoint-security?utm_source=foundry-jg-amer-cortex-socf-ends&amp;utm_medium=display&amp;utm_campaign=foundry-cortex-edpxdr-amer-multi-discovery-en-foundry_cso_article_link_2_koi&amp;utm_content=701Ki000000h8oXIAQ&amp;cq_plac=%7Bplacement%7D&amp;cq_net=%7Bnetwork%7D?dclid=CPSG_NS66ZUDFbrKuAgd4vAYrw&amp;gad_source=7&amp;gad_campaignid=24059814223" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Agentic Endpoint Security</a>, is fundamentally rewriting the cybersecurity playbook.</p>



<ol class="wp-block-list">
<li><strong>From reactive patching to proactive prevention </strong></li>
</ol>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For decades, the industry lived in a “wait-and-see” mode waiting for a vulnerability to surface, waiting for a signature, and then rushing to patch the hole. But reactive methods just don’t hold up against modern “frontier” AI attacks that are constantly morphing. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AI-driven defense changes the game by shifting to a prevention-first architecture. Rather than relying on historical signatures, modern platforms deploy localized, ML-driven analysis to evaluate the intent and behavior of an active process, stopping threats pre-execution. Cortex XDR leads with a strict prevention-first approach by using AI-driven local analysis and behavioral threat protection; the XDR agent stops sophisticated threats pre-impact and pre-execution. This proactive stance reduces the overall risk profile by blocking malicious chains of events in real time across network, process, file, and registry activity. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">2. <strong>Eliminating the “agentic blind spot” </strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As we all rush to adopt generative AI and automated workflows, a new gap has appeared: the “agentic blind spot.” Adversaries are now targeting AI assistants and automated scripts to bypass defenses. Since these digital agents often have deep access to enterprise data, a compromise here lets attackers move completely under the radar. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The new playbook requires securing this entire ecosystem. By combining the distinct capabilities of Cortex XDR and Koi Security, organizations can effectively close this gap. Koi Agentic Endpoint Security tracks everything from shell commands to prompts in real time, while Cortex XDR adds a layer of defense that identifies and neutralizes behavioral anomalies unique to these automated threats. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">3. <strong>Machine-speed detection and “attack storylines” </strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When an attacker can move through your network in seconds, human-led teams can’t keep up. To make matters worse, most systems just flood analysts with low-quality, isolated alerts, leading to major burnout. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AI-driven defense fixes the investigation process by automatically stitching separate data points into a single, high-fidelity “attack storyline.” Cortex XDR uses thousands of machine learning detectors across endpoint, network, and cloud sources to group related signals into one cohesive case. This reveals the full story of an attack, letting your analysts focus on fast remediation instead of digging through piles of data, reducing alert noise by up to 98%. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">4. <strong>Surgical and autonomous response </strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The final piece of the puzzle is moving from manual remediation to autonomous action. AI-driven response lets your SOC handle threats in minutes, not hours. The platform can automatically revoke compromised tokens or isolate endpoints at machine speed. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Cortex XDR delivers built-in enterprise-grade automation at no additional cost, providing over 120 out-of-the-box playbooks and 18 quick actions to handle up to 99% of incidents without manual intervention. Crucially, this level of automation requires an unbreakable foundation of agent resilience. To ensure the defense cannot be disabled by an adversary, Cortex XDR is certified in both the AVC EDR Detection and Anti-Tampering tests, successfully blocking all attempts to disable or modify the agent. </p>



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The threat landscape is changing faster than ever, driven by AI-powered attackers who exploit even the smallest gaps. But you don’t have to stay on the defensive. By shifting to a proactive, AI-driven architecture like the one built into Cortex XDR, you can stop threats before they happen, secure your agentic workflows, and automate away the noise that leads to analyst burnout. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The journey to a more resilient, AI-powered SOC doesn’t have to be daunting. With the right foundation in place, you’re not just keeping pace with the new threat landscape; you’re staying one step ahead. It’s time to move beyond the old manual playbook and embrace the future of security operations. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">To learn more about Palto Alto Networks, visit <a href="https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">https://www.paloaltonetworks.com</a>.</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></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 evaluation gap: Enterprise AI organizations have a reality-alignment problem, not a coverage problem — and most are shipping to production anyway]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Across 157 enterprises, organizations are granting AI agents more autonomy while trusting the evaluations meant to gate that autonomy less. Half have already shipped an agent that passed their internal evaluations and then failed a customer in production; only one in twenty fully trusts automated...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3689829/it-nachrichten/the-agent-evaluation-gap-enterprise-ai-organizations-have-a-reality-alignment-problem-not-a-coverage-problem-and-most-are-shipping-to-production-anyway/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3689829/it-nachrichten/the-agent-evaluation-gap-enterprise-ai-organizations-have-a-reality-alignment-problem-not-a-coverage-problem-and-most-are-shipping-to-production-anyway/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 19:19:44 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Across 157 enterprises, organizations are granting AI agents more autonomy while trusting the evaluations meant to gate that autonomy less. Half have already shipped an agent that passed their internal evaluations and then failed a customer in production; only one in twenty fully trusts automated evaluation today; and the most-cited weakness is that evaluations do not align with real-world outcomes. Yet two-thirds already allow, or are actively engineering toward, deploying agent changes to production on automated evaluation alone — with no human in the loop. The result is an evaluation gap — the distance between how much autonomy enterprises are handing their agents and how far they trust the tests that are supposed to catch the failures.</p><p>This wave of VentureBeat Pulse Research examines how technical leaders measure agent performance: which reliability and evaluation platforms they use, how they select and trust them, what breaks in production, and how far they are willing to let agents run without a human in the loop.</p><p>The central finding is an evaluation gap — the distance between the autonomy enterprises are granting their agents and the trust they place in the evaluations meant to govern it. Half of organizations (50%) have, in the past year, deployed an agent or LLM feature that passed their internal evaluations and then caused a customer-facing failure, and a quarter have seen it happen more than once. Trust in the tests themselves is thin: only 5% say they fully trust automated evaluation today, and the single most-cited limitation is that evaluations align poorly with real-world outcomes (29%). Enterprises are discovering that a passing eval is not the same as a working agent.</p><p>What makes the gap consequential is the direction of travel. Two-thirds of organizations (66%) already permit fully automated, zero-human-in-the-loop deployment for low-risk agents (34%) or are actively engineering their pipelines to allow it within twelve months (33%). At the same time, the evaluation stack that would have to earn that trust is fragmented and immature: the most common primary tools are the model providers’ native evals, tied with having no dedicated tooling at all (17% each); and only about a quarter of enterprises run real-time quality checks on live production traffic. The autonomy is arriving faster than the assurance.</p><h2>Methodology</h2><p>VentureBeat fielded this survey as part of its ongoing Pulse Research series, this survey — the Agentic Reliability &amp; Evals tracker — focused on how technical leaders evaluate agent performance and reliability. Responses are filtered to organizations with 100 or more employees (n=157), drawn from a single survey in June 2026; because this is one wave rather than a pooled multi-month sample, the report reads cross-sectionally and does not infer month-over-month trends. Where questions were multiple-select, those shares can sum to more than 100%.</p><p>By role the sample is senior and buyer-credible: 38% are final decision-makers for AI purchases and another 34% recommenders or influencers. Product and program managers (15%), consultants and advisors (10%), directors of engineering/IT (8%), and CIOs/CTOs/CISOs (8%) lead the named titles, alongside a large “Other” function (37%). By organization size the sample is mid-market-weighted: 100–499 (37%) and 500–2,499 (27%) employees lead, with 2,500–9,999 (20%), 10,000–49,999 (10%), and 50,000+ (6%) above them. Technology/Software is the largest industry at 23%, followed by Retail/Consumer (15%), Healthcare/Life Sciences (12%), and Manufacturing (10%).</p><p>At 157 respondents the sample is large enough to read directionally but should be treated as a directional signal rather than a precise measurement; it is self-selected and is not a probability sample. It skews toward the mid-market, so it is best read as the view from organizations actively standing up agent evaluation practices rather than from the largest operators.</p><p><i>Note: This survey was rebuilt for the June wave from the earlier “LLM observability and evaluations” survey; because the questions and sample differ, no comparisons are made to the April–May data.</i></p><h1>Finding 1: A passing eval is not a working agent</h1><p><b>Half have shipped an agent that passed evals, then failed a customer</b></p><p>We asked whether, in the past 12 months, organizations had deployed an agent or LLM feature that passed their internal evaluations but then caused a customer-facing failure. Half of those that run evaluations had.</p><div></div><p>This is the report’s defining number. Half of organizations (50%) have shipped an AI feature that cleared their internal evaluations and then failed in front of a customer — an incorrect output, a broken workflow, or a quality incident — and a quarter have seen it happen more than once. Only 36% report no such failure, and the remainder either run no pre-deployment evaluations (8%) or don’t track the root cause closely enough to know (6%). The failure is precise and expensive: the evaluation said the agent was ready, and it was not. Everything that follows — how enterprises trust their evals, what they monitor, and how much autonomy they grant — is shaped by this experience.</p><h2>Finding 2: Almost no one fully trusts automated evaluation</h2><p><b>The top complaint: Evals don't match real-world outcomes</b></p><p>We asked which limitation most reduces trust in automated agent evaluations today. Only a sliver of enterprises had no complaint at all.</p><div></div><p>Trust in automated evaluation is scarce, and specific. Only 5% of organizations say they fully trust automated evaluation as it stands — meaning 95% name a limitation that holds them back. The most common, at 29%, is the one that most directly explains Finding 1: evaluations align poorly with real-world outcomes, passing agents that later fail. Bias or inconsistency (21%) and a lack of explainability (18%) follow — enterprises cannot always tell why an evaluation reached its verdict — and 17% cite data-leakage or privacy concerns in the evaluation process itself. The tests meant to certify agents are not yet trusted to certify them, which is precisely why the autonomy trajectory in Finding 3 is so striking.</p><h2>Finding 3: The autonomy ceiling is rising anyway</h2><p><b>Two-thirds already allow, or are building toward, zero-human deployment</b></p><p>We asked whether organizations would let an autonomous agent deploy a code or system change to production on automated evaluation results alone, with no human-in-the-loop validation. The trajectory runs straight through the trust gap.</p><div></div><p>Here is the paradox at the heart of the report. Even though almost no one fully trusts automated evaluation (Finding 2), two-thirds of organizations (66%) either already allow zero-human-in-the-loop deployment for low-risk agents (34%) or are actively engineering their pipelines to permit it within a year (33%). Only 22% rule it out for the foreseeable future. The direction is unambiguous: enterprises are moving to let evaluations gate production autonomously — removing the human check — at the same moment they say those evaluations don’t reliably match reality. The autonomy ceiling is rising faster than the assurance beneath it, which is the mechanism by which the false-confidence failures of Finding 1 will scale rather than shrink.</p><p>Notably, the autonomy bet is not just a small company phenomenon. Splitting the sample by company size, larger enterprises are slightly further down the path toward zero human review than smaller companies (70% versus 64%) and slightly more likely to have shipped an evaluation-passing agent that then failed a customer (54% versus 48%). The assumption that large, regulated organizations are holding the human in the loop longest is, in this sample, backwards.  To be sure, these are directional figures, since the survey was not a huge sample — 57 respondents from companies with 2,500+ employees and 100 from companies smaller than that. </p><h2>Finding 4: The evaluation stack is fragmented and provider-led</h2><p><b>Provider-native evals lead — tied with no dedicated tool at all</b></p><p>We asked which agent reliability or evaluation platform enterprises primarily use today. The market has no clear leader — and a large share has nothing dedicated.</p><div></div><p>The evaluation layer is early and unconsolidated. Provider-native tooling leads — OpenAI’s native evals and traces (17%) and Anthropic’s Claude Console evals (13%) together outweigh any independent platform — but it is tied at the top by a striking answer: 17% of enterprises use no dedicated agent-evaluation tooling at all, a notable gap for organizations shipping agents to customers. The specialist evaluation vendors — DeepEval (12%), Braintrust (8%), LangSmith, Weave, Promptfoo, Langfuse, Arize — are scattered across single to low double digits, and 11% have built their own. No independent platform has yet become the category standard, which leaves most enterprises evaluating agents with provider-native tools, home-grown scripts, or nothing.</p><h2>Finding 5: Production monitoring rarely watches output quality</h2><p><b>Only a quarter run real-time quality checks on live traffic</b></p><p>Production monitoring for an AI agent can watch two very different things. It can watch whether the system is <b>functioning</b> — is the agent up and responding, did each request complete, how fast, at what cost, with any errors. Or it can watch whether the agent's output is <b>correct</b> — automated checks that evaluate the content of each answer as it goes out: did the agent give the right answer, take the right action, stay within policy. The distinction matters because a confidently wrong answer is invisible to the first kind of monitoring: the request completes, the response is fast, no error is thrown, and every functioning-metric reads healthy. We asked organizations which kind their live production monitoring is built for today.</p><div></div><p>Grouped by what is actually being watched, the split is stark: 51% of organizations monitor only whether the agent is functioning, while 23% monitor whether its answers are right. Counting the ad-hoc reviewers and the don't-knows, roughly three-quarters of organizations run no automated, real-time evaluation of output correctness in production — they can see that the system is up and what it costs, and they are taking the correctness of its answers on faith. That blind spot is the runtime counterpart to the pre-deployment gap in Finding 1: the same organizations engineering the human out of the deployment decision mostly cannot see, in real time, when the deployed agent starts getting things wrong.</p><h2>Finding 6: Bought on cost, measured on consistency</h2><p><b>Price and integration drive selection; evaluation consistency is the goal</b></p><p>We asked what most influenced enterprises’ choice of an evaluation vendor, and what they treat as their primary measure of success. Both answers are pragmatic.</p><div></div><p>Enterprises buy evaluation tooling on economics and trust it on repeatability. Cost of evaluations (28%) narrowly leads selection, just ahead of ease of integration (27%) and evaluation accuracy (24%) — breadth of observability (13%) and vendor roadmap (4%) matter far less. On what success looks like, more than a third (36%) name evaluation consistency — getting the same verdict on the same behavior every time — well ahead of speed of experimentation (19%), reduction in failures (18%), production visibility (13%), and compliance (11%). The emphasis on consistency is telling: before enterprises can trust an evaluation’s verdict, they need it to be stable — the very property whose absence (bias and inconsistency) ranked among the top trust limitations in Finding 2. Satisfaction with current tooling is only moderate, averaging 3.8 on a five-point scale across overall satisfaction, ease of implementation, and value for money.</p><h2>Finding 7: The next dollar goes to humans and observability</h2><p><b>Investment is flowing to oversight, not just automation</b></p><p>We asked which reliability and evaluation investment will grow most over the next year. The money is going toward watching agents more closely — including with people.</p><div></div><p>The second-largest planned investment — behind only production observability — is human review workflows, at 26%. Read against Finding 1, that is the report's quietest contradiction: at the same moment two-thirds of enterprises are engineering the human out of the deployment decision, more of them plan to grow spending on human reviewers (26%) than on the automated evaluation pipelines (16%) that would replace them. The zero-human trajectory and the human-review budget are rising in the same companies at the same time. Indeed, only 8% report that their budget is not increasing. </p><p>Taken together, enterprises are hedging: building toward autonomy while spending to watch agents more closely and keep humans available for the calls that automated evaluation cannot yet be trusted to make.</p><h2>Finding 8: A tooling reshuffle is coming</h2><p><b>Nearly two-thirds plan to adopt or switch platforms within a year</b></p><p>We asked whether enterprises plan to adopt a new, additional, or replacement evaluation platform, and which they are considering. Few intend to stand pat.</p><div></div><p>The evaluation market is wide open. While 36% have no plans to change, a clear majority (64%) intend to adopt a new, additional, or replacement platform within twelve months, and 31% within the next quarter. The consideration set points where current usage is thinnest: Confident AI’s DeepEval leads what enterprises are evaluating (20%), ahead of OpenAI’s native evals (13%) and Braintrust (9%) — the open-source specialists drawing more interest than their present footprint. </p><p>Given that so many enterprises today rely on provider-native tools or nothing at all (Finding 4), this is less a defection than a first real wave of tooling adoption — the moment the evaluation layer starts to consolidate. Which platforms earn that trust, in a market where almost no one trusts automated evaluation yet, is the open question this series will keep tracking.</p><h2>The bottom line: An evaluation gap that autonomy will widen, not close</h2><p>Organizations with 100 or more employees are granting AI agents more independence than they trust their evaluations to support. Half have already shipped an agent that passed its evals and then failed a customer; almost none fully trust automated evaluation, chiefly because it doesn’t match real-world outcomes; and most watch production for uptime and cost rather than for whether the agent’s answers are right. Yet two-thirds already allow, or are actively building toward, deploying to production on automated evaluation alone.</p><p>The vendor market is early and unsettled: the most common primary evaluation tools are provider-native evals, tied with no dedicated tooling at all, and a clear majority plan to adopt or switch platforms within the year. Encouragingly, the next dollar is going to observability and — pointedly — human review, suggesting enterprises sense the gap even as they engineer past it. At 157 respondents in a single wave this is a directional read, skewed toward the mid-market — but the direction is clear: autonomy is being granted on the strength of evaluations that the people granting it do not yet trust. The evaluation gap is not a coverage problem that more tests alone will close; it is a problem of evaluations that reflect reality and can be trusted to gate it. The open question for later waves is whether assurance catches up to autonomy — or whether the false-confidence failures move from customer incidents into changes that deploy themselves.</p><hr><p><i>Based on survey responses from 157 qualified enterprise respondents (100+ employees), drawn from a single June 2026 wave. This is a directional read rather than a precise measurement — the sample is self-selected, not a probability sample, and skews toward the mid-market. Respondents include product and program managers, consultants and advisors, directors of engineering/IT, and CIOs/CTOs/CISOs, among other functions, across technology/software, retail/consumer, healthcare/life sciences, manufacturing, and other industries.</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[Apple TV Announces Esther Perel’s New Dating Series ‘The Last Person on Earth’]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Apple TV is entering the dating genre with The Last Person on Earth, a new documentary series led by relationship expert and bestselling author Esther Perel. The show will test whether two people who seem completely incompatible can develop a meaningful romantic connection.




Episodes: 8



Gen...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3689733/ios-mac-os/apple-tv-announces-esther-perels-new-dating-series-the-last-person-on-earth/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3689733/ios-mac-os/apple-tv-announces-esther-perels-new-dating-series-the-last-person-on-earth/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 18:46:52 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🍏 iOS / Mac OS</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Apple TV is entering the dating genre with The Last Person on Earth, a new documentary series led by relationship expert and bestselling author Esther Perel. The show will test whether two people who seem completely incompatible can develop a meaningful romantic connection.




Episodes: 8



Genre: Dating documentary and relationship series



Release date: Apple TV has not announced a premiere date




Apple announced the eight-episode series on July 23, 2026, but did not share when filming or streaming will begin.



What is The Last Person on Earth about?



The Last Person on Earth will follow five couples brought together by Perel and a team of matchmakers and therapists. Each pairing will include people who initially appear to be opposites and who would probably reject each other based on their usual dating preferences.



The couples will then travel to romantic and remote destinations, where they will spend time together away from their normal routines. The experiment will encourage them to reconsider their ideas about compatibility, attraction, and the qualities they look for in a partner.



The series will examine whether an unexpected match can grow into a lasting relationship. It will also show how personal assumptions, familiar dating patterns, and rigid checklists affect the way people choose potential partners.



FAQs



When will The Last Person on Earth premiere on Apple TV?



Apple TV has not announced an official premiere date. Since the project has only recently been revealed, viewers will need to wait for a trailer and complete release schedule.



How many episodes will The Last Person on Earth have?



The first season will contain eight episodes. Apple has not confirmed whether multiple episodes will arrive together or follow a weekly release schedule.



Is The Last Person on Earth a reality dating show?



Apple describes it as a dating documentary series. However, its format includes matchmaking, romantic trips, relationship experiments, and real participants, placing it close to the reality dating genre.



Who is Esther Perel?



Esther Perel is a psychotherapist, relationship expert, bestselling author, and podcast host known for her work on modern relationships, intimacy, and long-term attraction.



How many couples will appear in the series?



The show will follow five couples who have been matched because they appear to have different personalities, preferences, or expectations.



Where will the couples travel?



Apple has not revealed the exact filming locations. The couples will visit remote destinations described as some of the world’s most romantic settings.



Will there be a trailer?



Apple TV has not released a trailer yet. The first footage will probably arrive closer to the confirmed premiere date.



Apple TV costs $12.99 per month in the United States and includes a seven-day free trial for new subscribers. The service is available through the Apple TV app on Apple devices, smart TVs, streaming players, gaming consoles, and web browsers.



Do you plan to watch The Last Person on Earth when it arrives on Apple TV? Let us know in the comments.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Startup Founders Urge Trump Not to Shut Off Chinese Open Weight AI]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Nearly 200 Silicon Valley companies, including Proton and Y Combinator, are urging the Trump administration not to block U.S. access to Chinese open-weight AI models or risk crippling the next generation of U.S. startups. Politico reports: On Wednesday, the newly-formed Little Tech Association se...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3689670/it-security-nachrichten/startup-founders-urge-trump-not-to-shut-off-chinese-open-weight-ai/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3689670/it-security-nachrichten/startup-founders-urge-trump-not-to-shut-off-chinese-open-weight-ai/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 18:18:19 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Nearly 200 Silicon Valley companies, including Proton and Y Combinator, are urging the Trump administration not to block U.S. access to Chinese open-weight AI models or risk crippling the next generation of U.S. startups. Politico reports: On Wednesday, the newly-formed Little Tech Association sent letters to President Donald Trump, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and others in the administration with its appeal, marking the first coordinated effort by Silicon Valley's wider influential startup community to weigh in on one of the Trump administration's most closely watched AI debates. At issue: whether Washington should restrict access to increasingly powerful open-weight -- meaning, AI models whose weights are publicly available -- AI models released by Chinese companies such as Moonshot AI and Alibaba.
 
"American leadership requires two things: world-leading American open-weight models and continued access for U.S. builders to open models already available worldwide," the startup founders wrote in the letter (PDF) obtained by POLITICO, also sent to Office of Science and Technology Policy Director Michael Kratsios. Instead of broad prohibitions, they argue the government should adopt targeted safeguards.
 
And they warn that banning Americans from downloading Chinese open-weight models wouldn't stop their proliferation -- but would weaken U.S. startups. "There'll be hundreds of companies that instantly die," said Suhail Doshi, founder of AI infrastructure startup Particle and a member of the association, which POLITICO first wrote about exclusively, in an interview. "It's great for Anthropic. We're all going to have to spend money on Anthropic." Last week, the Beijing-based AI company "Moonshot" released a massive new model that reset the AI race overnight, immediately vaulting into the top tier of global AI, beating Anthropic's Fable 5 and OpenAI's GPT-5.6 Sol in front-end coding tests. 
China's Xi Jinping also used his first appearance at China's World AI Conference to promote a vision of low-cost, broadly accessible AI and call for international cooperation rather than technological rivalry.<p></p><div class="share_submission">
<a class="slashpop" href="http://twitter.com/home?status=Startup+Founders+Urge+Trump+Not+to+Shut+Off+Chinese+Open+Weight+AI%3A+https%3A%2F%2Fslashdot.org%2Fstory%2F26%2F07%2F23%2F0623233%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%2Fslashdot.org%2Fstory%2F26%2F07%2F23%2F0623233%2Fstartup-founders-urge-trump-not-to-shut-off-chinese-open-weight-ai%3Futm_source%3Dslashdot%26utm_medium%3Dfacebook"><img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/facebook_icon_large.png"></a>



</div><p><a href="https://slashdot.org/story/26/07/23/0623233/startup-founders-urge-trump-not-to-shut-off-chinese-open-weight-ai?utm_source=rss1.0moreanon&amp;utm_medium=feed">Read more of this story</a> at Slashdot.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Mozilla Addons Blog: Firefox 153 WebExtensions API updates]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[We had a bumper release of WebExtensions API updates in Firefox 153. To start, there is a permissions change that affects how your extensions access local files. We then have two contributions from the community members: userScripts.execute() and the new publicSuffix API. We’re covering those con...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3689274/tools/mozilla-addons-blog-firefox-153-webextensions-api-updates/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3689274/tools/mozilla-addons-blog-firefox-153-webextensions-api-updates/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 16:06:24 +0200</pubDate>
<category>💾  Tools</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We had a bumper release of <a href="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Firefox/Releases/153#changes_for_add-on_developers">WebExtensions API updates in Firefox 153</a>. To start, there is a permissions change that affects how your extensions access local files. We then have two contributions from the community members: <span>userScripts.execute()</span> and the new <span>publicSuffix</span> API. We’re covering those contributions in more depth, including the people behind them, in a separate post. And there is more, read on…</p>
<h3><b>File access now requires a dedicated permission</b></h3>
<p>Extensions that need to read <span>file://</span> URLs used to get that access as part of the “Access your data for all websites” host permission. Starting in Firefox 153, file access is a separate, explicit permission, “Access local files on your computer”, shown in the extension’s permissions settings. It’s off by default for every extension, including ones already installed.</p>
<p>This change has a few concrete effects on code:</p>
<ul>
<li><b>Before:</b> an extension with <span>&lt;all_urls&gt;</span> or a matching host permission could read <span>file://</span> pages without any additional grant, and <span>extension.isAllowedFileSchemeAccess()</span> always returned <span>false</span> regardless of the permission setting.</li>
<li><b>After:</b> the extension must have the new file-access permission granted, and <span>extension.isAllowedFileSchemeAccess()</span> correctly reflects whether the user has granted it.</li>
</ul>
<pre>async function checkFileSchemeAccess() {
  const isAllowed = await browser.extension.isAllowedFileSchemeAccess();

  if (!isAllowed) {
    await browser.notifications.create("file-scheme-access-needed", {
      type: "basic",
      iconUrl: browser.runtime.getURL("icons/icon-48.png"),
      title: "Local file access required",
      message:
        'This extension needs "Allow access to file URLs" enabled to work ' +
        "with local files. Go to about:addons → select this extension → " +
        "turn on that setting, then reload the page.",
    });
    return false;
  }

  return true;
}</pre>
<p><span>devtools.inspectedWindow.eval()</span> calls targeting <span>file://</span> URLs are affected the same way; they now require this permission to succeed.</p>
<p>If your extension depends on <span>file://</span> access, expect existing users to see that access stops after upgrading (until they enable the permission), and consider adding a prompt or fallback path, for example by specifying an embedded options page (<span>options_ui</span>) and calling <span>browser.runtime.openOptionsPage()</span> to open <span>about:addons</span> and including instructions to toggle the setting in the “Permissions and data” tab.</p>
<h3><b>userScripts.execute() and publicSuffix: covered in our next post</b></h3>
<p>Firefox 153 adds two community-contributed APIs:</p>
<ul>
<li><span>userScripts.execute()</span>, which provides for one-off injection of one or more user script sources into a tab or frame, in a defined order, as a complement to the persistent, URL-pattern-based <span>userScripts.register()</span>.</li>
<li><span>publicSuffix</span>, which enables synchronous lookups against the browser’s built-in <a href="https://publicsuffix.org/">Public Suffix List</a> using <span>publicSuffix.isKnownSuffix()</span>, <span>publicSuffix.getKnownSuffix()</span>, and <span>publicSuffix.getDomain()</span>. This API means that extensions no longer need to bundle or maintain a suffix list to determine a hostname’s registrable domain (eTLD+1).</li>
</ul>
<p>Both APIs were built by contributors motivated by real needs in their extensions. We take an in-depth look at these contributions, their developers, impact, and history in a forthcoming post.</p>
<h3><b>documentId support across more APIs</b></h3>
<p>Firefox 153 introduces <span>documentId</span>, a stable identifier for a document instance, including a new <span>runtime.getDocumentId()</span> method, several <span>webNavigation</span> events and methods, <span>webRequest</span> events, scripting injection targets, and the extension messaging APIs.</p>
<p>Many WebExtension APIs use <span>tabId</span> and <span>frameId</span> to identify where to perform an operation. However, because <span>frameId</span> identifies the frame rather than its content, the loaded document can change and the extension’s subsequent operation ends up targeting the new (intended) document. <span>documentId</span> addresses this problem by providing a unique ID for the document. Now, if an extension uses the ID and the frame’s document has changed, the operation fails rather than silently targeting the wrong document.</p>
<p>See <a href="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/Work_with_documentId">Work with documentId</a> for the full list of supported events and methods, along with guidance on using it.</p>
<h3><b>Content scripts can read and modify adopted stylesheets</b></h3>
<p>Content scripts can now access <span>document.adoptedStyleSheets</span> and <span>ShadowRoot.adoptedStyleSheets</span> directly.</p>
<pre>const sheet = new CSSStyleSheet();
sheet.replaceSync("* { background: pink; }");
document.adoptedStyleSheets = [sheet];</pre>
<p>This enables extensions to inspect or modify constructed stylesheets from a content script, without using <span>.wrappedJSObject</span>, a workaround that risks interference from the web page.</p>
<h3><b>Theme manifest key: gradients in additional backgrounds</b></h3>
<p>The <span>theme</span> manifest key’s <span>images.additional_backgrounds</span> property now accepts CSS gradients alongside image URLs. A new <span>properties.additional_backgrounds_size</span> property controls the size of each additional background item.</p>
<h3><b>Contextual identities (containers)</b></h3>
<p>If your extension supports contextual identities, you now have access to two new methods: <span>contextualIdentities.getSupportedColors()</span> and <span>contextualIdentities.getSupportedIcons()</span>. These methods return the supported colors and icons, so your extension doesn’t need to hardcode either list.</p>
<p>Also, the colors have been updated to align with the new UI theme: <span>“turquoise”</span> is now <span>“cyan”</span>, <span>“toolbar”</span> is now <span>“gray”</span>, and <span>“violet”</span> has been added. The old names still work for backward compatibility, but your extension should switch to using <span>getSupportedColors()</span> rather than hardcoding either the old or new names.</p>
<h3><b>Add a build-for-amo script</b></h3>
<p>While this isn’t about new APIs, I wanted to mention a change that’s part of our work to make source code review faster and more reliable. When you submit an extension version, AMO now attempts to build your extensions from the submitted source code and compares the result to the package you uploaded. When the two match, reviewers don’t have to verify the build manually. This means submission can move through its review faster.</p>
<p>For now, this applies only if you submit source code that includes a <span>package.json</span> file to build your extension. If your extension has no build step, or you use a different build system, nothing changes. The AMO builder keeps its zero-config approach.</p>
<p>So, if your extension’s source code uses a <span>package.json</span> file, add an <a href="https://docs.npmjs.com/cli/v11/using-npm/scripts">npm script</a> named <span>build-for-amo</span> that runs the commands needed to build your extension for Firefox:</p>
<pre>{
  "scripts": {
    "fx-build": "some commands to build your add-on for Firefox",
    "build-for-amo": "npm run fx-build"
  }
}</pre>
<p>If you’ve a Firefox-specific build command, just point <span>build-for-amo</span> at it. When present, the builder invokes this script instead of guessing how to build your extension. And while you are at it, make sure all your dev dependencies are listed in the <span>package.json</span> file.</p>
<hr>
<p>For more information, including documentation and Bugzilla links, see the <a href="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Firefox/Releases/153#changes_for_add-on_developers">Changes for add-on developers</a> section of the Firefox 153 for developers release notes on MDN.</p>
<p>As always, file extension-related issues on <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/">Bugzilla</a> under the WebExtensions product, cross-browser API proposals are discussed in the <a href="https://github.com/w3c/webextensions">W3C WebExtensions Community Group</a>, and questions are welcome on the <a href="https://discourse.mozilla.org/c/add-ons/35">Add-ons Discourse</a>.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The post <a href="https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2026/07/23/firefox-153-webextensions-api-updates/">Firefox 153 WebExtensions API updates</a> appeared first on <a href="https://blog.mozilla.org/addons">Mozilla Add-ons Community Blog</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA['We have a kill switch that stops AI agents that go rogue': ServiceNow CEO Bill McDermott says his company can help firms go "from AI chaos to AI discipline"]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[ServiceNow CEO Bill McDermott says conquering the AI chaos can be easier than you think.]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3689037/it-nachrichten/we-have-a-kill-switch-that-stops-ai-agents-that-go-rogue-servicenow-ceo-bill-mcdermott-says-his-company-can-help-firms-go-from-ai-chaos-to-ai-discipline/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3689037/it-nachrichten/we-have-a-kill-switch-that-stops-ai-agents-that-go-rogue-servicenow-ceo-bill-mcdermott-says-his-company-can-help-firms-go-from-ai-chaos-to-ai-discipline/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 14:34:13 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[ServiceNow CEO Bill McDermott says conquering the AI chaos can be easier than you think.]]></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[Smaller, smarter, safer: How to build agentic AI on the right foundation]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[When it comes to building an effective AI stack, context is king and power isn’t everything it’s cracked up to be.



“Smaller, smarter, safer — this is a bet our company has taken in how we deploy AI internally,” said Ricky Thakrar, head of sales and account management at Zoho, provider of a sui...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3688632/it-nachrichten/smaller-smarter-safer-how-to-build-agentic-ai-on-the-right-foundation/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3688632/it-nachrichten/smaller-smarter-safer-how-to-build-agentic-ai-on-the-right-foundation/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 12:04:43 +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">When it comes to building an effective AI stack, context is king and power isn’t everything it’s cracked up to be.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Smaller, smarter, safer — this is a bet our company has taken in how we deploy AI internally,” said Ricky Thakrar, head of sales and account management at Zoho, provider of a suite of popular cloud-based software solutions for sales, marketing, and finance.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“I’m on the business side, and so decisions made by our CIO and IT folks affect me directly, and my teams’ workflows and processes,” he added.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Speaking to a room of tech leaders at the <a href="https://event.foundryco.com/cio-100-leadership-live-new-york/">CIO 100 Leadership Live New York event</a> last week, Thakrar explained that every company wants the speed of AI-generated work wedded to the quality of human work, even though these two are diametrically opposed. No amount of model upgrades or spend will close that gap, so the only way forward is to architect your way out. Thakrar encapsulated this idea in a simple formula:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Smaller: Stop deploying maximum firepower on every task. Many tasks don’t need it.</li>



<li>Smarter: The system around the model decides more than the model does.</li>



<li>Safer: Verify at the point a mistake gets locked in, not just downstream of it.</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">He noted that organizations that win with AI won’t be those deploying the biggest, most powerful models or the most sophisticated architecture, but the ones that figure out that the model is the easy part and the right architecture is harder. That means understanding the hardest element, and the biggest differentiator, is building a human system that learns and compounds alongside agentic systems.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">To get it right, organizations need to prioritize the context layer. The size of frontier models like the GPT series, Claude, and Gemini mostly exist to compensate for missing context, Thakrar explained. Without enough context, models need to be able to reason harder and infer more about what a user actually means because it doesn’t know the user’s account, process, or history. A rich context layer makes it possible for enterprises to run workloads on much smaller, lower-power models.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The intelligence moves from the model into the architecture around it,” he said.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">A steep learning curve</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">One of Zoho’s earliest AI agents was a churn management agent to help the account management team detect churn in customer subscriptions. So when a subscription became inactive, the agent would collect context from notes, meeting recordings, and Zoho’s data enrichment tool, then create a summary of reasons the account might have churned, and schedule a call.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“What happened was I got this churn agent a couple months later, already embedded in our CRM, and within a week my team no longer trusted that agent,” Thakrar said. “The reason is we forgot to collect one very key point.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In Zoho’s CRM, when a customer buys a bundle of products, that bundle is represented as a single line item. That means the status of any products the customer may have previously purchased individually changes to inactive as they’re moved to the bundle. That’s not churn, but it was interpreted it that way. Zoho fixed it in the second version of the agent.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Then a new problem arose. Many potential customers first purchase Zoho products as pilots or sandboxes. As those customers move from pilot to live instance, they close down the pilot versions. And again, the CRM would record that as subscriptions going inactive.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The trust deteriorates again because everyone got excited for version 2,” Thakrar said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Sometimes, a certain product might not be the best fit for a customer and Thakrar’s team will suggest the customer move to another product. That’s deliberate churn, not a churn risk.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“You may have a similar story like this where the agent sounds so good, it’s going to do something quick and add value, but it’s missing context from the account managers, and there are so many more pieces we’re still building out,” Thakrar said. “It’s been almost a year and the problem I have is my team still doesn’t trust it. They’ll see [a message from the agent] and go out and do all the research anyway to make sure it gave the correct answer.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The team is more on top of potential churn, though, but the promised productivity gains have yet to materialize because the agent has to earn back lost trust due to a lack of context.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“My goal for this year is having an AI-assisted customer journey from sales to account management where the handoff is clean, the context flows, and every piece of information we gather about a customer is weighed, identified, and coached so the sales team can close more deals,” he said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Zoho’s early experience with agents has led to the idea that constrained, context-rich, deterministic architectures consistently outperform expensive models bolted onto fragmented systems. It all comes down to three pillars: routing, harness, and specialization.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Routing</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Routing is about sending workloads to the proper model for the job, which entails providing enough context to a given task that a small, cheap model can handle it without the need for spare reasoning capacity to fill gaps.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Frontier models are expensive and companies can burn through a year’s budget worth of tokens in months. But most tasks can be handled by much smaller, more constrained models at a fraction of the cost.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“You don’t always have to pay the frontier guys for every task,” he said. “We’ve observed with some clients that we could save them 95% with a 3 billion parameter model.”</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Harness</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">An AI agent harness is the software infrastructure scaffolding around an LLM that differentiates an agent from a chatbot. It’s what enables an agent to act on tasks rather than simply respond to prompts. A model reasons through a problem and decides what to do about it. The harness connects the model to the tools, systems, memory, guardrails, and execution environments required to perform the actions determined by the model. The term is frequently used more or less interchangeably with orchestration layer.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“It’s the process around the model, which matters way more than the model itself,” Thakrar said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In benchmark tests, a superior harness on a less powerful model produces better results than an inferior harness on a much bigger model.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For the best results, Thakrar said, it’s essential to understand the deterministic and non-deterministic elements of a given workload, and build that into the architecture. Machines can read, organize, and validate, and they excel at deterministic tasks. Humans, on the other hand, are exceptional at non-deterministic tasks like judging, synthesizing, and deciding.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Those non-deterministic tasks in a process are the ideal point for AI agents to incorporate a human in the loop, what Thakrar calls human harness. He pointed to a stakeholder mapping agent Zoho built for sales as an example, which takes the context of an initial meeting and third-party enriched data like a LinkedIn profile, weighs probabilities, and makes an educated guess about the stakeholder map.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The initial goal was just to eliminate that task completely from the human workflow,” he said. “The stakeholder map is done, it’s in the folder, and you can look at it.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But the agent would struggle to capture nuance. The meanings of titles in organizations always vary, and the politics and dynamics of any given meeting can be difficult for an AI agent to discern. Rather than keep feeding the agent data to try to make it intelligent enough to make those determinations, it was simpler and more efficient for the agent to create a proposed stakeholder map and hand it over to a human who could make changes and explain why those changes were necessary.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Ultimately, Thakrar said the agent still saved human team members time because the stakeholder map was usually pretty close, and the corrections also helped the model grow smarter by adding richer context.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Specialization</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Specialization is transitioning a process from testing on a frontier model to production on a much narrower, smaller model. Once you’ve proven that an agent can do a job well, you want to stop paying master-craftsman rates to keep doing that one job well.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Specialization is all about capturing your subject matter experts’ best judgement and pattern recognition to build an open-weight, open source, trained, and fine-tuned model that can be deployed in your own data center.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The true enterprise bet is to keep that orchestration layer, which is your IP and knowledge, in house,” Thakrar said. “You don’t want to host that on someone else’s model. The goal of everyone in enterprise should be to run, train, and host their own models.”</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[AI success requires a full-stack CIO]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Every CIO I speak with today is wrestling with some version of the same question: How do we move faster with AI and deliver on our commitments?



It’s an understandable concern. Boards and CEOs are asking about AI. Business leaders are experimenting with use cases. Employees are discovering tool...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3688546/it-nachrichten/ai-success-requires-a-full-stack-cio/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3688546/it-nachrichten/ai-success-requires-a-full-stack-cio/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 11:43:10 +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">Every CIO I speak with today is wrestling with some version of the same question: How do we move faster with AI and deliver on our commitments?</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It’s an understandable concern. <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4171959/ceos-top-priorities-for-it-leaders-today-2.html">Boards and CEOs are asking about AI</a>. Business leaders are experimenting with use cases. Employees are discovering tools daily, while technology vendors promise unprecedented gains in productivity, innovation, and competitive advantage.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">After hundreds of conversations with technology executives over the past year, I’ve become convinced that speed isn’t the real issue. The organizations pulling away from the pack aren’t necessarily adopting AI faster than everyone else. They’re executing more effectively — a subtle distinction that represents one of the defining leadership challenges of the AI era.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Technology has never been the hardest part of transformation. People, priorities, culture, and operating models are the biggest challenges. The ability to translate bold boardroom aspirations into thousands of thoughtful decisions made every day by architects, engineers, product managers, analysts, and business leaders is where competitive advantage is created. AI may be accelerating the pace of change, but it hasn’t changed that fundamental truth.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I’ve met plenty of executives who are exceptional in the boardroom. They know how to frame a vision, <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/272180/relationship-building-networking-how-to-wow-your-board-of-directors.html">influence a board</a>, and build confidence among investors and business leaders. I’ve also met remarkable technologists who instinctively understand the architectural decisions, engineering tradeoffs, and implementation details that determine how great ideas become reality. Modern CIOs, however, must move comfortably between both worlds. Afshean Talasaz is one who stands out among this rare breed.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Long before becoming CIO of Colonial Pipeline, Talasaz built his career from the ground up as a business professional, data scientist, and technologist. He has designed enterprise platforms, built AI capabilities, led technology organizations, and partnered closely with executive leadership teams on business transformation. Today, as an executive in residence with our Practitioners for Practitioners (P4P) community, he helps CIOs and business leaders navigate one of the most significant technology shifts of our generation.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">While Talasaz brings deep knowledge of data and AI to the table, his greatest strength is his ability to create strategy and connect it with execution. He can spend the morning discussing enterprise reinvention with the board and the afternoon debating architectural principles with the teams responsible for bringing that vision to life.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That versatility gives Talasaz a unique lens on how CIOs <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4178006/state-of-the-cio-2026-cios-set-the-course-for-ai-roi.html">can deliver value with AI</a>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Software companies have a term for engineers who understand every layer of the technology stack: full-stack developers. Listen to Talasaz and it becomes evident that the AI era requires something similar from technology leaders: a full-stack CIO.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The full-stack CIO: Leading with clarity</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A full-stack CIO understands how every layer of the enterprise influences the next. They recognize that every strategic priority becomes a portfolio investment, every investment shapes an operating model, every operating model influences architecture, every architecture choice informs product decisions, every product decision shapes engineering priorities.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The best CIOs understand both ends of that journey. The extraordinary ones understand everything in between.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">And those who execute best lead with clarity, Talasaz says.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Everyone, from executives to middle managers to the people writing code, should be able to explain what we’re trying to achieve,” he emphasizes. “Clarity isn’t that we’ve handed out the PowerPoint. It’s that people genuinely understand where we’re going and can articulate it in their own language.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">One of the unintended consequences of the AI boom is that organizations are beginning to confuse activity with alignment. They have AI councils, AI governance committees, AI innovation labs, AI centers of excellence, AI pilots, and AI roadmaps. Yet if you stop ten people in the hallway and ask a deceptively simple question, What business problem are we actually trying to solve? you’ll often hear ten different answers.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As a result, architects optimize for one objective while product teams optimize for another. Business units pursue opportunities that seem perfectly reasonable from their perspective. Engineers make thoughtful technical decisions based on the information available to them. Individually, none of those decisions are necessarily wrong. Collectively, however, they create organizational drift. AI doesn’t create that problem. It simply accelerates the consequences.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">And while AI can be a force multiplier for the positive when every decision is guided by a shared understanding of where the organization is headed, it can also be a force multiplier for the negative, resulting in an organization simply moving faster in different directions.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“When we have the fundamentals right, the tech infrastructure, the operating models, the nuances of how our business actually runs, we get the impacts of AI in a positive way,” Talasaz says. “When we don’t have those in place, AI can amplify the gaps or mute the benefits.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">At a time when so much of the conversation surrounding AI is focused on algorithms, agents, and automation, it’s an important reminder that organizations don’t execute strategy; people do.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Reducing organizational friction</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Most executives are familiar with the concept of VUCA that characterizes today’s business environment. But Talasaz stresses the importance of turning this concern inward: “If the world outside our organizations is becoming more volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous, what are we, as leaders, doing to the inside of our organizations?”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Leaders spend enormous amounts of time helping their organizations respond to external disruption but comparatively little time asking whether they are inadvertently re-creating those same conditions internally in response to those external needs. Are we reducing uncertainty or introducing more of it? Are we simplifying work or adding unnecessary complexity? Are we helping people focus on what matters most, or asking them to navigate competing priorities and shifting expectations?</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Talasaz refers to this phenomenon as double VUCA — something I’ve witnessed repeatedly while working with CIOs over the past decade. Organizations often assume they’re struggling because of technology limitations when the real constraint is organizational friction. Teams wait for decisions. Priorities shift faster than roadmaps. Governance grows heavier. New committees are formed to solve problems created by existing committees. Everyone is working harder, yet the organization somehow feels slower.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AI amplifies both outcomes. Organizations with clarity become dramatically more effective because AI accelerates good decisions. Organizations without clarity simply accelerate confusion.</p>



<h1 class="wp-block-heading">Operating model as strategy enabler</h1>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AI governance is one way to achieve greater clarity, but as Talasaz says, governance shouldn’t primarily exist inside policy manuals that few people read.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Instead, AI governance should be embedded in the daily rhythms of the organization, shaping how teams collaborate, how decisions are made, how products move from ideas into production, and how innovation happens safely without requiring constant escalation. In other words, it’s all about your operating model.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“If you had to pick one thing that isn’t technology, your operating model is the most important element for executing data and AI at scale,” he says.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The best operating models create enough clarity that capable people can make thousands of decisions independently and confidently, without having to wait for permission. By embedding good governance into the way it works, the organization becomes faster.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This advice echoes something I’ve heard repeatedly from some of the world’s most respected CIOs: High-performing organizations aren’t built on tighter control; they’re built on greater trust, supported by clear principles, shared expectations, and operating models that enable responsible decision-making at every level of the enterprise.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Talasaz points out that technology leaders tend to speak in terms of <em>transformation</em>. He suggests CIOs consider a different word: <em>reinvention.</em></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As he explains, transformation implies replacing what exists today with something new. Reinvention starts with a more clear-eyed and practical premise: Some things absolutely must change; others represent years, sometimes decades, of accumulated expertise, customer trust, operational discipline, and competitive advantage.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Reinvention is about building on those strengths while also creating new ways to deliver value. The leaders making the greatest progress in their AI journeys seem to recognize that it’s less about abandoning the past than thoughtfully preparing the organization for the future.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Closing the gap between strategy and execution</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Full-stack CIOs must be able to map out the various layers of execution and planning that need to be done at every level of the organization to be successful. To help with this, Talasaz has developed a data and AI framework that draws on his own experiences “from the keyboard to the boardroom.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As Talasaz sees it, too many organizations have been doing good work in isolation. “They’re doing a lot of the right things,” he says. “They’re just not connected.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Boards may be discussing growth while business leaders redesign customer experiences. Product teams may be prioritizing new capabilities while architects modernize platforms. Data teams may be improving quality while engineers focus on delivery. Every group makes meaningful progress within its own domain, yet somewhere between strategy and execution, the connective tissue begins to disappear. Talasaz’s framework brings those connecting points to the forefront.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Crucially, the framework doesn’t begin with technology or AI or even with data. It begins with the experiences the organization hopes to create for its customers, employees, or partners. Many AI initiatives start with the question, “What can this technology do?” And indeed, we need to be inspired by the possibilities and challenged to think differently by what the technology can do. But, Talasaz emphasizes, we also need to ask what experiences we need to deliver for our business and how the technology can make that a reality.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The framework challenges CIOs to answer that question first. Only after the experiences are clearly defined does the conversation move to the capabilities required to deliver it, the business activities that support those capabilities, the AI and data products that enable them, and finally the data foundation that makes everything possible.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This shift in perspective ensures that, rather than allowing technology investments to search for business value, the business experience defines the technology required to deliver it. For CIOs, that’s more than a planning exercise. It’s a fundamentally different way of leading.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Over the coming months, the P4P community will be convening a series of small CxO roundtables to explore these issues and work more deeply with Afshean Talasaz’s 6×6 Data and AI Framework. CIOs and other enterprise leaders interested in participating are welcome to <a href="mailto:droberts@ouellette-online.com?subject=P4P:%206x6%20Framework%20Roundtable">reach out to me directly</a>.</em></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Determining the ROI of AI requires data that most companies lack]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Leadership wants to scale AI. Budgets are tripling. Adoption is up.



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



Most organizations cannot answer that question, not because they lack visibility into cost, but because the cost data t...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3688477/ai-nachrichten/determining-the-roi-of-ai-requires-data-that-most-companies-lack/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3688477/ai-nachrichten/determining-the-roi-of-ai-requires-data-that-most-companies-lack/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 11:07:22 +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">Leadership wants to scale AI. Budgets are tripling. Adoption is up.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Then the CFO asks the question every board now asks: which of these initiatives is actually profitable?</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Most organizations cannot answer that question, not because they lack visibility into cost, but because the cost data they have was never designed to produce that answer.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Applying lessons learned from <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4147766/cloud-at-20-cost-complexity-and-control.html" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4147766/cloud-at-20-cost-complexity-and-control.html">managing cloud spend</a> won’t be a fix for the AI and ROI quandary. True, cloud taught a generation of CFOs that billing without business context is noise. So to get <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4061122/cloud-computing-has-an-roi-problem.html" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4061122/cloud-computing-has-an-roi-problem.html">cloud ROI</a>, they stitched two data sources together: cost data plus business data. AWS reveals which account, which region, which tag, which resource. Merge in customer and product mappings on top and the ROI of the cloud spend comes into focus.</p>



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



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">AI providers won’t fix this problem</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The situation is not likely to change anytime soon because AI providers are not in the business of attributing an enterprise’s costs to that enterprise’s customers. Instead, AI providers are in the business of selling tokens. The granularity they expose is the granularity their billing systems require, not the granularity a CFO requires.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Not convinced? Compare what AWS gives you to what an AI provider gives you.</p>



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



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">If an enterprise wants to know what AI cost drove which customer or feature, it has to capture that data itself, inside an application, before the call leaves it. </p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Three required sources</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Building AI ROI measurement requires three data sources, stitched together in a single model.</p>



<ol class="wp-block-list">
<li><strong>Cost data, normalized across providers.</strong> Every AI provider delivers cost differently. OpenAI invoices in one taxonomy, Anthropic in another, fine-tuning vendors and inference platforms each in their own. Cloud GPU costs sit in AWS or Azure billing. Vector database costs land in Pinecone or Snowflake invoices. None interoperate by default. Normalization is necessary but not sufficient. It will put all your AI costs in one schema. It does not tell you what they produced.</li>



<li><strong>Application-layer telemetry. </strong>This is the source most organizations are missing, and the one that makes AI ROI structurally different from cloud ROI. It requires instrumenting AI calls inside your application across six categories: request-level tracing tied to a customer or session ID; feature attribution tied to the product surface that triggered the call; agent-step capture for multi-step workflows; retry and fallback identification so recovery costs don’t get attributed to primary calls; model selection logging that records which model was chosen and why; and outcome capture that ties each call to whether it produced business value. None of this data exists in the provider’s billing. All of it has to be captured at the moment the call is made and stored in a system that can be stitched to the cost data.</li>



<li><strong>Business data. </strong>Revenue, customer segments, product hierarchies, and feature usage. The same business data already feeding your CRM and analytics stack, mapped to the customers and features the telemetry layer attributes calls to.</li>
</ol>



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



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Why agentic AI makes this urgent</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Single-call inference is the easy case. One request, one cost, one customer, one outcome.</p>



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



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When agents make the calls, the volume of cost-generating events without business context attached grows by an order of magnitude. The window for instrumenting this before it becomes unmanageable is closing.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What changes when the three sources come together</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Once the three sources are stitched together, the AI investment conversation changes.</p>



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Within seconds, everyone can see which AI features are profitable, which should scale, and which should be killed. This is the insight everyone is looking for and companies that achieve it will optimize the benefits of AI.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The build trap</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AI costs are compounding now. The board is not waiting 18 months for an internal project to reach production.</p>



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It is a trap. Three reasons.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Volume is the first. A production AI footprint generates millions of telemetry events per hour, and that volume scales with agentic adoption. Real-time ingestion, correlation, and attribution at that scale is not the same problem as <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4078884/what-is-vibe-coding-ai-writes-the-code-so-developers-can-think-big.html" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4078884/what-is-vibe-coding-ai-writes-the-code-so-developers-can-think-big.html">vibe coding</a> a prototype in an afternoon. It is a permanent operational system that has to be right every minute of every day.</p>



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



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



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The capability is reproducible in weeks. The choice is whether to spend the next 18 months building it, or the next 18 months acting on it.</p>



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.infoworld.com/blogs/new-tech-forum"><strong><em>New Tech Forum</em></strong></a><em><strong> provides a venue for technology leaders—including vendors and other outside contributors—to explore and discuss emerging enterprise technology in unprecedented depth and breadth. The selection is subjective, based on our pick of the technologies we believe to be important and of greatest interest to InfoWorld readers. InfoWorld does not accept marketing collateral for publication and reserves the right to edit all contributed content. Send all </strong></em><em><strong>inquiries to </strong></em><a href="mailto:doug_dineley@foundryco.com"><strong><em>doug_dineley@foundryco.com</em></strong></a><em><strong>.</strong></em></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Private Mission Launches To Extend Life of Out-of-Gas Communication Satellites]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Northrop Grumman has launched a private satellite-servicing mission to attach life-extending "jetpacks" to aging communications satellites in geosynchronous orbit. "It's the second satellite-saving mission to launch this month, all part of a growing, money-saving effort to keep spacecraft running...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3688235/it-security-nachrichten/private-mission-launches-to-extend-life-of-out-of-gas-communication-satellites/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3688235/it-security-nachrichten/private-mission-launches-to-extend-life-of-out-of-gas-communication-satellites/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 09:10:48 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Northrop Grumman has launched a private satellite-servicing mission to attach life-extending "jetpacks" to aging communications satellites in geosynchronous orbit. "It's the second satellite-saving mission to launch this month, all part of a growing, money-saving effort to keep spacecraft running as long as possible," reports Phys.org. From the report: Launched by SpaceX, Northrop Grumman's mission robotic vehicle -- dubbed MRV -- and its jetpacks will spend the next year angling into the proper orbit 22,300 miles (36,000 kilometers) above Earth. Hundreds of satellites orbit at this so-called geosynchronous orbit, where they match the speed of Earth's rotation and keep to the same part of the sky for continuous coverage. Once in place by mid-2027, the minivan-sized spacecraft will use its 10-foot (9-meter) arms to attach a jetpack to an aging communication satellite. Then it will zip off to two more satellites in need.
 
For its debut flight, the spacecraft was accompanied by three electric-propelled jetpacks that peeled away separately following liftoff. Like the MRV, the jetpacks will use their own xenon gas thrusters to get to the desired orbit. Once in place, the jetpacks will wait for the robot to grab them, one at a time, and plug them into their designated satellites. Each jetpack -- the size of a washing machine -- will provide the necessary oomph for an out-of-gas satellite to keep operating for several more years instead of retiring. If it works, it will be a boon for satellite operators SES of Luxembourg and Optus of Australia, saving them millions of dollars in replacement costs.<p></p><div class="share_submission">
<a class="slashpop" href="http://twitter.com/home?status=Private+Mission+Launches+To+Extend+Life+of+Out-of-Gas+Communication+Satellites%3A+https%3A%2F%2Ftech.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F26%2F07%2F23%2F0534215%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%2Ftech.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F26%2F07%2F23%2F0534215%2Fprivate-mission-launches-to-extend-life-of-out-of-gas-communication-satellites%3Futm_source%3Dslashdot%26utm_medium%3Dfacebook"><img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/facebook_icon_large.png"></a>



</div><p><a href="https://tech.slashdot.org/story/26/07/23/0534215/private-mission-launches-to-extend-life-of-out-of-gas-communication-satellites?utm_source=rss1.0moreanon&amp;utm_medium=feed">Read more of this story</a> at Slashdot.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[iOS 27 CarPlay: Every New Feature Coming This Fall]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Apple is bringing several useful upgrades to CarPlay with iOS 27, making the in-car experience smarter, more interactive, and easier to use. While this is not the biggest CarPlay update ever released, it introduces meaningful improvements across Siri, media playback, video apps, and the overall i...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3688187/ios-mac-os/ios-27-carplay-every-new-feature-coming-this-fall/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3688187/ios-mac-os/ios-27-carplay-every-new-feature-coming-this-fall/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 08:57:19 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🍏 iOS / Mac OS</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Apple is bringing several useful upgrades to CarPlay with iOS 27, making the in-car experience smarter, more interactive, and easier to use. While this is not the biggest CarPlay update ever released, it introduces meaningful improvements across Siri, media playback, video apps, and the overall interface.



The biggest highlight is Siri AI, which finally gives CarPlay a more capable voice assistant. Alongside that, Apple has expanded video support, refreshed the design, and added quality-of-life improvements for media controls. Most of these features will arrive when iOS 27 launches publicly this fall, although some will depend on whether automakers enable support in their vehicles.



FeatureWhat's NewAvailabilitySiri AISmarter conversations, context memory, synced historyAll supported CarPlay usersVideo AppsNative video browsing and playback appsSupported vehicles onlyNew WallpapersFresh wallpapers matching iOS 27 designAll usersLiquid Glass IconsUpdated app icons across CarPlayAll usersMiniPlayerAlbum artwork and playback controlsSupported media appsAudio ScrubbingDrag through songs and podcastsSupported media apps



Siri AI Makes CarPlay Much Smarter







The biggest improvement in iOS 27 is the arrival of Siri AI inside CarPlay. Apple has redesigned Siri with a cleaner interface that appears as a glowing orb at the bottom of the screen. The design is simpler than previous Apple Intelligence versions while remaining easy to recognize during driving.



More importantly, Siri now understands natural conversations much better. Instead of responding to one question at a time, it remembers the context of your conversation, allowing follow-up questions without repeating the original request. This makes navigation, messaging, and general information requests feel much more natural.



Siri AI also answers broader knowledge questions in a way that feels similar to modern AI assistants. Whether you ask about travel plans, nearby places, or general information, the responses are more detailed and conversational than before.



Siri Conversation History Sync



Apple has also introduced conversation syncing between CarPlay and the new Siri app on iPhone.



After using Siri in your car, you can open the Siri app on your iPhone and review previous conversations. Requests made through CarPlay are clearly marked with a small car icon, making it easy to continue a conversation after leaving your vehicle.



Native Video Apps Come to CarPlay







Apple first introduced video playback in cars through AirPlay, but iOS 27 expands the experience much further.



Developers can now build dedicated CarPlay video apps that allow users to browse their content directly from the vehicle's display instead of relying entirely on the iPhone interface.



This means supported streaming services can provide a complete CarPlay experience while the vehicle is parked.



Important limitations




Videos only play while the vehicle is stationary.



Playback stops when driving begins and switches to audio if supported.



Vehicle manufacturers must enable this feature.



Older vehicles may never receive support. citeturn0search1turn0search4




Refreshed CarPlay Design



Apple has updated the visual appearance of CarPlay to match the rest of iOS 27.



Users receive a new collection of wallpapers inspired by the latest system design. The updated backgrounds closely match the look found across iOS 27 and macOS Golden Gate.



CarPlay app icons also adopt Apple's latest Liquid Glass styling, creating a more modern appearance while keeping familiar layouts intact.



Better Media Playback Controls



Media playback receives several practical improvements that users have requested for years.



New MiniPlayer



Media applications now display a MiniPlayer in the upper-right corner of the interface.



Instead of showing a simple waveform icon, the MiniPlayer includes:




Album artwork



Play and pause controls



Quick access to currently playing content




This allows users to keep playback controls visible while browsing music or podcasts.



Audio Scrubbing Finally Arrives



One of the most welcome additions is audio scrubbing.



Users can now drag the playback progress bar directly from the Now Playing screen to move forward or backward through songs, podcasts, and supported audio content. Apple has also enlarged the progress indicator, making it easier to use on a vehicle's touchscreen.



This small feature significantly improves everyday usability, especially for podcasts and long playlists.



Compatibility



The new CarPlay features require:



RequirementStatusiPhone running iOS 27RequiredCompatible CarPlay vehicleRequiredNative video appsRequires automaker supportSiri AIAvailable on supported iPhones with iOS 27



Wrap Up



CarPlay in iOS 27 focuses on practical improvements instead of introducing an entirely new interface. Siri AI is the standout addition thanks to its stronger conversational abilities and conversation history syncing, while native video apps open new possibilities for entertainment when parked.



Meanwhile, smaller upgrades such as the MiniPlayer, audio scrubbing, refreshed wallpapers, and updated icons make the overall experience feel more polished. Although some features depend on automaker support, iOS 27 delivers one of the most useful CarPlay updates Apple has released in recent years.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[macOS 27 Public Beta 2 Released: Here’s How to Install It]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Apple has released macOS 27 Golden Gate public beta 2 for compatible Mac models. The latest test update arrives shortly after developer beta 4 and focuses on improving stability before the full release later this year.



Since this is pre-release software, some apps and features may not work cor...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3688141/ios-mac-os/macos-27-public-beta-2-released-heres-how-to-install-it/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3688141/ios-mac-os/macos-27-public-beta-2-released-heres-how-to-install-it/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 08:17:18 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🍏 iOS / Mac OS</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Apple has released macOS 27 Golden Gate public beta 2 for compatible Mac models. The latest test update arrives shortly after developer beta 4 and focuses on improving stability before the full release later this year.



Since this is pre-release software, some apps and features may not work correctly. Back up your Mac before installing the update, especially if you plan to use it on your main computer.



How to install



Follow these steps to download the update:




Visit the Apple Beta Software Program website and sign in with your Apple Account.



Enroll your Mac in the public beta program if you have not already done so.



Open System Settings on your Mac.



Select General and click Software Update.



Click the information button next to Beta Updates.



Choose macOS 27 Golden Gate Public Beta from the menu.



Click Done and return to the Software Update page.



Select Update Now or Upgrade Now when macOS 27 public beta 2 appears.




Keep your Mac connected to power during the installation. The download size and installation time will depend on your Mac model and internet connection.



All changes in macOS 27 public beta 2



Apple has not shared a detailed list of user-facing changes for this public beta. The update appears to focus mainly on bug fixes, performance improvements, and stability changes introduced with the corresponding developer beta.




Improved system stability: The release includes additional fixes intended to reduce crashes and unexpected behaviour during daily use.



Performance refinements: Apple continues to improve responsiveness across macOS, including animations, app launches, and general navigation.



Liquid Glass adjustments: The update contains further interface refinements as Apple improves the appearance and readability of its Liquid Glass design.



Siri AI testing: Apple continues testing its updated Siri experience, including more natural conversations, richer answers, and deeper Apple Intelligence features.



App compatibility fixes: Public beta 2 should address some issues affecting third-party apps, although users may still encounter software that has not been updated for macOS 27.




More changes may appear as users spend time with the update. Apple will continue releasing additional beta versions before macOS 27 Golden Gate becomes available to everyone later this year.



If you’ve already installed the update, let us know your experience in the comments.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Apple TV to Adapt Rebecca Yarros’ Peculiar Stars Into a New Romance Series]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Apple TV has secured the adaptation rights to Peculiar Stars, an upcoming romance novel from Rebecca Yarros, the bestselling author behind the popular Fourth Wing series.




https://twitter.com/appletv/status/2079953025704042536




Peculiar Stars Is Planned as a TV Series



Apple Studios plans...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3688088/ios-mac-os/apple-tv-to-adapt-rebecca-yarros-peculiar-stars-into-a-new-romance-series/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3688088/ios-mac-os/apple-tv-to-adapt-rebecca-yarros-peculiar-stars-into-a-new-romance-series/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 07:26:51 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🍏 iOS / Mac OS</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Apple TV has secured the adaptation rights to Peculiar Stars, an upcoming romance novel from Rebecca Yarros, the bestselling author behind the popular Fourth Wing series.




https://twitter.com/appletv/status/2079953025704042536




Peculiar Stars Is Planned as a TV Series



Apple Studios plans to develop Peculiar Stars as a television series. Yarros will serve as an executive producer through her Full Measures Productions company, giving the author a direct role in bringing the story to the screen.



The project remains in the early stages of development. Apple has not announced a writer, director, cast, production schedule, or release date.



The novel follows Callista Moran, a young woman whose life changes when a cyclone leaves her stranded on a deserted island. Her only companion is Dominic, the former Army medic cousin of her fiancé.



Callista and Dominic spend 543 days trying to survive, and their relationship grows stronger during their time together. However, returning home creates new problems as they face public attention, family expectations, privilege, secrets, and the emotional consequences of their experience.



Rebecca Yarros Expands Her TV Projects



Yarros is widely known for the Empyrean fantasy series, which includes Fourth Wing, Iron Flame, and Onyx Storm. A separate television adaptation of Fourth Wing is already in development for Prime Video.



Peculiar Stars gives Apple TV a major new romance project and adds another anticipated book adaptation to its growing lineup.



The standalone novel will be published by Montlake on November 17, 2026. It is currently available to preorder in print, digital, and audiobook formats.



Apple has not confirmed when filming will begin, so viewers will likely have to wait for further casting and production announcements before a possible release window becomes clear.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[v2.1.218]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[What's changed

Changed /code-review to run as a background subagent, so review work no longer fills your conversation and keeps stacked slash commands as its review target
Added screen-reader announcements of deleted text for word and line deletions (Option+Delete, Ctrl+W, Cmd+Backspace, Ctrl+U,...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3687638/downloads/v21218/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3687638/downloads/v21218/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 23:32:59 +0200</pubDate>
<category>💾 Downloads</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<h2>What's changed</h2>
<ul>
<li>Changed <code>/code-review</code> to run as a background subagent, so review work no longer fills your conversation and keeps stacked slash commands as its review target</li>
<li>Added screen-reader announcements of deleted text for word and line deletions (<code>Option+Delete</code>, <code>Ctrl+W</code>, <code>Cmd+Backspace</code>, <code>Ctrl+U</code>, <code>Ctrl+K</code>) in <code>--ax-screen-reader</code> mode</li>
<li>Fixed Windows paths with <code>\u</code>-prefixed segments (like <code>C:\Users\unicorn</code>) being corrupted into CJK characters in tool inputs, which made those files inaccessible</li>
<li>Fixed the left arrow key discarding the conversation with no undo: presses right after editing now ask to confirm, and Esc in the agent view returns to the conversation it backgrounded</li>
<li>Added HTTP status and error text to <code>claude mcp list</code> and <code>/mcp</code> when a server fails to connect, and a warning for MCP config values with hidden leading or trailing whitespace</li>
<li>Fixed multi-line paste collapsing into one line with <code>j</code> in place of newlines in terminals that encode pasted newlines as Ctrl+J</li>
<li>Fixed <code>/context</code> reporting stale pre-compact token usage after compacting from the message picker</li>
<li>Fixed <code>/ultrareview</code> failing on descriptive arguments like "review my auth changes" — they now run a review of your current branch with the text applied as a note to the findings</li>
<li>Fixed <code>/code-review ultra</code> silently running a local review in non-interactive sessions — it now launches the cloud review</li>
<li>Fixed gateway spend metering to price Bedrock application-inference-profile ARNs and other config-mapped upstream model IDs at the configured model's rates</li>
<li>Fixed mojibake when a long IDE selection was truncated mid-emoji, and a case where a tool executor error could be silently dropped</li>
<li>Fixed an engine teardown race that could start and abandon a phantom turn, and made input pushed after close consistently rejected</li>
<li>Fixed spurious "[Request interrupted by user]" messages after interrupted tool calls, and an unpaired <code>tool_use</code> block left in the transcript when a tool aborted mid-response</li>
<li>Fixed VoiceOver reading "new line" instead of echoing the typed space at the end of the input in <code>--ax-screen-reader</code> mode</li>
<li>Fixed plugin and settings panels not moving the terminal cursor to the focused row, so screen readers and magnifiers can follow arrow-key navigation</li>
<li>Fixed crashes (maximum call stack exceeded) when a deeply nested watched directory tree was deleted or moved, and when rendering deeply nested UI trees</li>
<li>Fixed pull request events occasionally being lost when a session exited immediately after creating or linking a PR</li>
<li>Fixed the Bedrock setup wizard failing profile verification for assume-role profiles in partitioned AWS regions and on proxy-only networks</li>
<li>Fixed rare negative or incorrect turn duration measurements after a system clock adjustment by timing turns with a monotonic clock</li>
<li>Fixed the "N MCP servers need authentication" startup notice over-counting claude.ai connectors that aren't connected in claude.ai</li>
<li>Fixed prompt history entries being dropped or duplicated when history writes raced or failed</li>
<li>Fixed a retry loop that re-sent identical doomed requests after a context-overflow error with a large thinking budget; <code>Ctrl+B</code> backgrounding now applies the same background-shell caps as other paths</li>
<li>Fixed agent frontmatter hooks running from untrusted folders: hooks now require the agent file's own folder to have accepted workspace trust</li>
<li>Fixed fork-session lineage being lost after compaction in headless and SDK sessions</li>
<li>Fixed a resumed session failing every turn, or crashing on resume, when its history held a malformed delta attachment</li>
<li>Improved <code>/ultrareview</code> error feedback so Claude can correct an invalid argument instead of retrying it unchanged</li>
<li>Improved auto mode: the dangerous-rm, background-<code>&amp;</code>, and suspicious-Windows-path checks no longer open permission dialogs; the auto-mode classifier adjudicates them instead</li>
<li>Improved sandbox command restrictions for IDE interactions</li>
<li>Improved trust dialogs to name the repository root the grant covers</li>
<li>Changed <code>/deep-research</code> to start only when invoked manually; Claude no longer launches it on its own</li>
<li>Changed plan mode with auto to no longer prompt for Bash commands the static analyzer can't prove read-only; the auto-mode classifier judges them instead</li>
<li>Added an announcement when fast mode changes as a result of switching models via <code>/config model=&lt;x&gt;</code> or Remote Control</li>
<li>Changed server-managed settings so benign feature and cost toggles no longer trigger the settings-approval prompt</li>
<li>Changed agent markdown files to reject agent names containing <code>:</code>, which is reserved for plugin namespacing</li>
<li>Changed skills with <code>context: fork</code> to run in the background by default; opt out per skill with <code>background: false</code></li>
<li>Added <code>yes</code>/<code>no</code>/<code>on</code>/<code>off</code>/<code>1</code>/<code>0</code> (case-insensitive) as accepted values for skill and plugin frontmatter booleans, alongside <code>true</code>/<code>false</code></li>
<li>Fixed remote sessions continuing to send heartbeats after their worker was replaced, which left long-lived desktop and IDE processes retrying a rejected request every few seconds forever</li>
</ul>]]></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[Microsoft Bets Billions on Mistral’s European AI Infrastructure]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Microsoft to spend billions on Mistral’s European AI infrastructure and bring the startup’s latest models to Foundry, Copilot Studio, and Azure Local.]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3687470/it-nachrichten/microsoft-bets-billions-on-mistrals-european-ai-infrastructure/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3687470/it-nachrichten/microsoft-bets-billions-on-mistrals-european-ai-infrastructure/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 21:49:29 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Microsoft to spend billions on Mistral’s European AI infrastructure and bring the startup’s latest models to Foundry, Copilot Studio, and Azure Local.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Two Ways To Mess Up Your JWT Safety Net In Your Own Lab.]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[In the lab we’re going to build today, we’ll talk about JWTs and how they can affect the security of your website. This is a lab that’s been requested, and I could not be happier that the community is actually suggesting things for me to build. It’s a privilege to do this.JWT As Security MeasureJ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3687361/hacking/two-ways-to-mess-up-your-jwt-safety-net-in-your-own-lab/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3687361/hacking/two-ways-to-mess-up-your-jwt-safety-net-in-your-own-lab/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 20:59:45 +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*FyQaXz8HeN3WWQ1vBcOBPA.png"></figure><p>In the lab we’re going to build today, we’ll talk about JWTs and how they can affect the security of your website. This is a lab that’s been requested, and I could not be happier that the community is actually suggesting things for me to build. It’s a privilege to do this.</p><h3>JWT As Security Measure</h3><p>JSON Web Tokens are used a lot by developers. They provide a way to send ‘data’ with them (e.g., a role from a user), to check for authorization. A JWT consists of 3 parts, separated by a ..</p><p>Let’s take this JWT as an example.</p><pre>eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzdWIiOiIxMjM0NTY3ODkwIiwibmFtZSI6IkpvaG4gRG9lIiwiYWRtaW4iOnRydWUsImlhdCI6MTUxNjIzOTAyMn0.KMUFsIDTnFmyG3nMiGM6H9FNFUROf3wh7SmqJp-QV30</pre><p>The first part eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9 is called 'the header'. It holds information on the type of the JWT. The second part eyJzdWIiOiIxMjM0NTY3ODkwIiwibmFtZSI6IkpvaG4gRG9lIiwiYWRtaW4iOnRydWUsImlhdCI6MTUxNjIzOTAyMn0 is the payload, which holds the claims. This is where that 'data' lives. If you decode this with Base64url you'll learn that this token belongs to John Doe and that he is an administrator. The last part is the important part. This is the signature. Each JWT should be signed with a <strong>strong</strong> password. Ideally that password is saved in a .env file on the server and not in the code.</p><p>So now you might wonder, well if it’s signed, nothing can go wrong right? Well, if that were true, I wouldn’t spend my evenings writing these kinds of blog posts now would I 😅.</p><h3>Let’s Build The Lab Already</h3><p>You’re right to think this by now. Enough theory, let’s do some hands on keyboard. As always in this series, I’ll provide you with the lab structure and some code to get us started.</p><h3>Lab Tree</h3><pre>/mediumLabs<br>└── /JWT<br>    ├── server.js<br>    ├── login.html<br>    ├── index.html<br>    ├── admin.html<br>    ├── /node_modules<br>    ├── /package-lock.json<br>    └── /package.json</pre><h3>Code</h3><p><strong>server.js</strong></p><pre>const express = require('express');<br>const jwt = require('jsonwebtoken');<br>const path = require('path');<br>const Database = require('better-sqlite3');<br>const app = express();<br>const JWT_SECRET = 'secret';<br>const db = new Database(':memory:');<br>db.exec(`<br>  CREATE TABLE users (<br>    id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY,<br>    username TEXT,<br>    password TEXT,<br>    role TEXT<br>  )<br>`);<br>db.prepare("INSERT INTO users (username, password, role) VALUES ('user', 'password', 'user')").run();<br>app.use(express.urlencoded({ extended: false }));<br><br>app.get('/', (req, res) =&gt; res.sendFile(path.join(__dirname, 'login.html')));<br>function getToken(req) {<br>  const match = (req.headers.cookie || '').match(/token=([^;]+)/);<br>  return match ? match[1] : null;<br>}<br>app.post('/login', (req, res) =&gt; {<br>  const { username, password } = req.body;<br>  const user = db.prepare('SELECT * FROM users WHERE username = ? AND password = ?').get(username, password);<br>  if (!user) return res.redirect('/?error=Invalid+credentials');<br>  const token = jwt.sign({ username: user.username, role: user.role }, JWT_SECRET);<br>  res.setHeader('Set-Cookie', `token=${token}; Path=/`);<br>  res.redirect('/index.html');<br>});<br>app.get('/index.html', (req, res) =&gt; {<br>  try {<br>    res.sendFile(path.join(__dirname, 'index.html'));<br>  } catch {<br>    res.redirect('/');<br>  }<br>});<br>app.get('/admin', (req, res) =&gt; {<br>});<br><br>app.listen(3000, () =&gt; console.log('Listening on http://localhost:3000'));</pre><p><strong>login.html</strong></p><pre>&lt;!DOCTYPE html&gt;<br>&lt;html lang="en"&gt;<br>&lt;head&gt;<br>    &lt;meta charset="UTF-8"&gt;<br>    &lt;meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"&gt;<br>    &lt;title&gt;Login&lt;/title&gt;<br>&lt;/head&gt;<br>&lt;body&gt;<br>    &lt;h1&gt;Login&lt;/h1&gt;<br>    &lt;form method="POST" action="/login"&gt;<br>        &lt;div&gt;<br>            &lt;label&gt;Username: &lt;input type="text" name="username" required&gt;&lt;/label&gt;<br>        &lt;/div&gt;<br>        &lt;div&gt;<br>            &lt;label&gt;Password: &lt;input type="password" name="password" required&gt;&lt;/label&gt;<br>        &lt;/div&gt;<br>        &lt;button type="submit"&gt;Login&lt;/button&gt;<br>    &lt;/form&gt;<br>&lt;/body&gt;<br>&lt;/html&gt;</pre><p><strong>index.html</strong></p><pre>&lt;!DOCTYPE html&gt;<br>&lt;html lang="en"&gt;<br>&lt;head&gt;<br>    &lt;meta charset="UTF-8"&gt;<br>    &lt;meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"&gt;<br>    &lt;title&gt;Home&lt;/title&gt;<br>&lt;/head&gt;<br>&lt;body&gt;<br>    &lt;h1&gt;Welcome!&lt;/h1&gt;<br>    &lt;p&gt;You are logged in as &lt;strong id="username"&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;<br>    &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="/admin"&gt;Go to Admin Panel&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;<br>    &lt;br&gt;<br>&lt;script&gt;<br>        function getCookie(name) {<br>            return document.cookie.split('; ').find(r =&gt; r.startsWith(name + '='))?.split('=')[1];<br>        }<br>        function decodeJWT(token) {<br>            return JSON.parse(atob(token.split('.')[1]));<br>        }<br>        const token = getCookie('token');<br>        const payload = decodeJWT(token);<br>        document.getElementById('username').textContent = payload.username + ' (role: ' + payload.role + ')';<br>    &lt;/script&gt;<br>&lt;/body&gt;<br>&lt;/html&gt;</pre><p><strong>admin.html</strong></p><pre>&lt;!DOCTYPE html&gt;<br>&lt;html lang="en"&gt;<br>&lt;head&gt;<br>    &lt;meta charset="UTF-8"&gt;<br>    &lt;meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"&gt;<br>    &lt;title&gt;Admin Panel&lt;/title&gt;<br>&lt;/head&gt;<br>&lt;body id="page"&gt;<br>&lt;h1&gt;Admin Panel&lt;/h1&gt;<br>    &lt;p&gt;Welcome, admin. Here is the secret flag:&lt;/p&gt;<br>    &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;FLAG{JWT}&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;<br>    &lt;br&gt;<br>    &lt;a href="/index.html"&gt;Back to Home&lt;/a&gt;<br>&lt;/body&gt;<br>    &lt;script&gt;<br>        function getCookie(name) {<br>            return document.cookie.split('; ').find(r =&gt; r.startsWith(name + '='))?.split('=')[1];<br>        }<br>        function decodeJWT(token) {<br>            return JSON.parse(atob(token.split('.')[1]));<br>        }<br>        const token = getCookie('token');<br>        const payload = decodeJWT(token);<br>        if (payload.role !== 'admin') {<br>            alert('Access denied. You need to be an admin to view this page.');<br>        }<br>    &lt;/script&gt;<br>&lt;/html&gt;</pre><h3>Let’s Add Some Vulnerabilities</h3><p>Ok, so now we have our base code, and we need to implement the functionality that will make sure only people with the role admin can navigate to /admin. First off, run npm run dev to see your code actually start.</p><p>In a <em>very, very wrong</em> way we already tried implementing security in admin.html. When you look inside the &lt;script&gt; tags, you'll see that if the role is not admin, an alert will pop up. I added this because this was a real-life finding of mine. Some developer did not realise that even if your role isn't admin, you will be able to navigate to the page. The only 'annoying' thing is that you'll have to click OK on an alert box.</p><blockquote><em>It’s important to realise that these mistakes happen more often than you think. Developers with a lot on their plate, little sleep and not enough coffee can truly believe this is ‘secure’.</em></blockquote><p>So let’s now add some real security to the backend! Frontend ‘security’ is ridiculous to start with, so let’s do our very best.</p><p><strong>server.js</strong></p><pre>app.get('/admin', (req, res) =&gt; {<br>  const token = getToken(req);<br>  if (!token) return res.redirect('/');<br>  const payload = jwt.decode(token);<br>  if (!payload || payload.role !== 'admin') return res.status(403).send('Forbidden');<br>  res.sendFile(path.join(__dirname, 'admin.html'));<br>});</pre><p>Alright, let’s walk through this piece of code. First we look for the token — if there isn’t one, we redirect to /, which is a good strategy. Then we decode the JWT and check if the role is admin. If there's no token, or the role isn't admin, we get a 403.</p><p>Sounds solid, right? If everything checks out, the backend trusts you, because the token says you’re an admin.</p><p>So what’s the problem? The code does check if the role is admin, which is good. But it never checks whether that role actually belongs to you. That check should happen by verifying the JWT’s signature. This code doesn’t, because jwt.decode() only reads the payload, it doesn't verify anything. When the server originally signed this token, it signed it with role: user. If you change the payload to role: admin without re-signing it, the signature no longer matches what's in the token, but since nothing here checks the signature, that mismatch goes completely unnoticed.</p><p>That’s the bug: because that check never happens, we can just change the payload in Burp Suite and see the admin page.</p><figure><img alt="" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1024/1*5_iPpy8etHFbeUZMEijxQg.png"></figure><p>There is a very easy way to solve this though. Instead of using jwt.decode(token) a developer should always use jwt.verify(token, JWT_SECRET). This code makes sure that function will create a signature and check that signature with the signature that has been sent. If there was any tampering with the JWT, this signature won't check out and your access to the restricted endpoint is denied.</p><p>So let’s update our code.</p><p><strong>server.js</strong></p><pre>app.get('/admin', (req, res) =&gt; {<br>  try {<br>    const payload = jwt.verify(getToken(req), JWT_SECRET);<br>    if (payload.role !== 'admin') return res.status(403).send('Forbidden');<br>    res.sendFile(path.join(__dirname, 'admin.html'));<br>  } catch {<br>    res.redirect('/');<br>  }<br>});</pre><p>If you now try the same thing, you’ll end up in the catch block, which will redirect you to / (our login page) because the signature will not check out.</p><figure><img alt="" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1004/1*HdBUaxOXrt3RO4yj1jdwdw.png"></figure><p>So all safe now, right? Well let’s try something else… If you ever want to crack a secret, I can recommend hashcat. It's available on all platforms and easily installable.</p><p>For this attack we’ll need mode 16500 (this is just a way to tell hashcat what we want to do). We'll also need the flag -a 0, which will tell hashcat to use a wordlist we're gonna provide. Lastly, you'll see -d 1 — that's because I'm on a Mac with an M-chip.</p><p>The complete command looks like this: hashcat -m 16500 -a 0 &lt;JWT&gt; rockyou.txt -d1.</p><blockquote><em>Don’t forget to use the untampered token for this!</em></blockquote><pre>➜  wordlists hashcat -m 16500 -a 0 eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJ1c2VybmFtZSI6InVzZXIiLCJyb2xlIjoidXNlciIsImlhdCI6MTc4MzEwNDc0OX0.myFrub4u8yG3IeItDYKO-2Vci6sMfLaJ1OrlQDeuQfc rockyou.txt -d1<br>hashcat (v7.1.2) starting<br>&lt;skip&gt;<br>Dictionary cache hit:<br>* Filename..: rockyou.txt<br>* Passwords.: 14344384<br>* Bytes.....: 139921497<br>* Keyspace..: 14344384<br>eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJ1c2VybmFtZSI6InVzZXIiLCJyb2xlIjoidXNlciIsImlhdCI6MTc4MzEwNDc0OX0.myFrub4u8yG3IeItDYKO-2Vci6sMfLaJ1OrlQDeuQfc:secret<br>                                                          <br>Session..........: hashcat<br>Status...........: Cracked<br>Hash.Mode........: 16500 (JWT (JSON Web Token))<br>Hash.Target......: eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJ1c2VybmFtZS...DeuQfc</pre><p>As you can see, at the end of our JWT there is a colon with our JWT_SECRET written behind it.</p><p>Now let’s abuse this knowledge we have gained. In Burp Suite we’ll use functionality that will sign our tampered JWT so that the code will verify it, and the signature will check out.</p><p>In Burp Suite, click on the JWT editor on the top right corner, and choose the option ‘New Symmetric Key’. Once you have that, click specify secret and fill in the cracked JWT_SECRET in there. Give it an ID and click OK.</p><figure><img alt="" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1024/1*Jjzbxce5FoutFU5V4XJZqQ.png"></figure><p>Once you have that, go back to Repeater, change the role back to ‘admin’, click sign and select the ID you just made.</p><figure><img alt="" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1024/1*F-CceFWjnUVgb4tpiq6xGw.png"></figure><p>And now, we have successfully evaded the security that was in place.</p><figure><img alt="" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1024/1*YHQgmBNWdmUDecjOmX92Rg.png"></figure><h3>Lessons We Should Learn About This</h3><p>As you saw, correctly implementing a JWT is only the first step of coding securely. Having a strong password policy, even when it’s not really enforceable, is very important. Don’t use ‘secret’ as your JWT_SECRET</p><p>One thing I already mentioned, but what I want to stress again is NEVER EVER store your JWT secret as a hardcoded variable, like we did with JWT_SECRET = 'secret'. Your code will probably live on GitHub where all kinds of stupid things can happen. A secret belongs in a .env file that is in your .gitignore and lives only on your dev machine and on the server, NOT in your code.</p><blockquote>I break web apps for fun, make vulnerable labs to learn, and write about it so you can too.</blockquote><img src="https://medium.com/_/stat?event=post.clientViewed&amp;referrerSource=full_rss&amp;postId=6d94a963b07d" width="1" height="1" alt=""><hr><p><a href="https://infosecwriteups.com/two-ways-to-mess-up-your-jwt-safety-net-in-your-own-lab-6d94a963b07d">Two Ways To Mess Up Your JWT Safety Net In Your Own Lab.</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[OnionHop 3.7.2]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Makes bridge-transport failures diagnosable and stops the scanner trusting dead webtunnel bridges.
Fixed

Bridge scanner verifies webtunnel for real. The scanner now confirms a webtunnel bridge with an actual handshake (a WebSocket upgrade to the bridge's own endpoint, which must return 101) inst...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3687273/it-security-tools/onionhop-372/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3687273/it-security-tools/onionhop-372/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 20:29:10 +0200</pubDate>
<category>💾 IT Security Tools</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Makes bridge-transport failures diagnosable and stops the scanner trusting dead webtunnel bridges.</p>
<h3>Fixed</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Bridge scanner verifies webtunnel for real.</strong> The scanner now confirms a webtunnel bridge with an actual handshake (a WebSocket upgrade to the bridge's own endpoint, which must return 101) instead of only checking that its CDN front answered on 443. A dead webtunnel bridge whose front is still up is now correctly shown as unreachable, so a scanned webtunnel list no longer marks bridges as working when Tor cannot connect through them (<a class="issue-link js-issue-link" data-error-text="Failed to load title" data-id="4860810567" data-permission-text="Title is private" data-url="https://github.com/center2055/OnionHop/issues/74" data-hovercard-type="issue" data-hovercard-url="/center2055/OnionHop/issues/74/hovercard" href="https://github.com/center2055/OnionHop/issues/74">#74</a>).</li>
<li><strong>Transport start failures now say why.</strong> When a pluggable transport could not run, Tor only reported an opaque "Managed proxy ... terminated with status code 2", which hid the real cause (this is what made obfs4 and snowflake "connect then immediately fail" for some users). The app now preflights each transport binary and logs the actual reason, a crash, a wrong-architecture binary, a missing execute bit, and so on, so the problem is diagnosable instead of opaque (<a class="issue-link js-issue-link" data-error-text="Failed to load title" data-id="4860810567" data-permission-text="Title is private" data-url="https://github.com/center2055/OnionHop/issues/74" data-hovercard-type="issue" data-hovercard-url="/center2055/OnionHop/issues/74/hovercard" href="https://github.com/center2055/OnionHop/issues/74">#74</a>).</li>
</ul>
<h3>Downloads</h3>
<table>
<thead>
<tr>
<th align="left">Platform</th>
<th align="left">File</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td align="left">Windows installer</td>
<td align="left"><code>OnionHop-Setup-v3.exe</code></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left">Windows portable</td>
<td align="left"><code>OnionHopV3-Portable-3.7.2-win-x64.zip</code></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left">Windows CLI</td>
<td align="left"><code>OnionHop-CLI-Setup-3.7.2.exe</code> / <code>OnionHopCLI-Portable-3.7.2-win-x64.zip</code></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left">Linux</td>
<td align="left"><code>OnionHop-x86_64.AppImage</code></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left">Linux CLI</td>
<td align="left"><code>OnionHopCLI-3.7.2-linux-x64.tar.gz</code></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left">macOS (Apple Silicon)</td>
<td align="left"><code>OnionHop-3.7.2-macOS-arm64.dmg</code></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left">macOS (Intel)</td>
<td align="left"><code>OnionHop-3.7.2-macOS-x64.dmg</code></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left">macOS CLI (Apple Silicon)</td>
<td align="left"><code>OnionHopCLI-3.7.2-macos-arm64.tar.gz</code></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left">macOS CLI (Intel)</td>
<td align="left"><code>OnionHopCLI-3.7.2-macos-x64.tar.gz</code></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The engineering bottleneck has changed. Is your org prepared?]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[AI agents can turn a clear description into working software, the engineer’s judgement is what makes the difference: deciding what to build, catching the tradeoff the agent didn’t know to weigh, and owning the call on whether the result is right.



That judgement has always been the hard part of...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3687009/it-security-nachrichten/the-engineering-bottleneck-has-changed-is-your-org-prepared/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3687009/it-security-nachrichten/the-engineering-bottleneck-has-changed-is-your-org-prepared/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 18:28:04 +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">AI agents can turn a clear description into working software, the engineer’s judgement is what makes the difference: deciding what to build, catching the tradeoff the agent didn’t know to weigh, and owning the call on whether the result is right.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That judgement has always been the hard part of engineering. It just used to be bundled into the act of writing code, where a skilled engineer did it while typing. As agents take on more of the typing, that judgement separates out and becomes the clear center of the role. Leaders who adapt early will get their metrics, their talent pipelines, and their delivery models working with this shift rather than against it.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Judgement is defining, constraining, and deciding</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Judgement is all about defining the problem precisely enough that an agent builds the right thing. It’s setting the constraints the agent won’t infer on its own. It’s spotting the tradeoff buried three layers down that only shows up if you understand the system. And it’s looking at a finished implementation and knowing whether it’s genuinely good enough to ship.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is the harder part of the job and the real driver of quality. It was easy to underrate when it lived inside day-to-day coding. Now it’s what separates a strong team from an average one.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">The shift changes where time, growth, and metrics go</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">If the high-value activity is intent, review, and judgement rather than raw output, a few assumptions are worth revisiting.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Where engineers spend their time.</strong> Less of the day goes to producing boilerplate and mechanical implementation, and more goes to the reasoning that used to get squeezed to the edges: framing the problem and owning the judgement calls that determine quality.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>How teams grow their people.</strong> Defining problems well, spotting risk, and critically evaluating work you didn’t write yourself have always been senior skills. When agents handle more of the mechanical work, those skills become learnable earlier. That puts the emphasis on leaders to teach the reasoning: why a choice gets made and how to weigh the tradeoffs that come with it.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>What you measure.</strong> Lines shipped, tickets closed, and velocity charts all measured throughput of the old scarce resource. They say very little about the new one. The teams that adapt will start measuring the quality of intent going in and the reliability of judgement coming out, because that’s where the results now live.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Reinvest the time you get back</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The tempting response is to treat the freed-up capacity as pure speed: same work, same tooling, just faster. That captures the easy win and misses the real one. If engineers spend their reclaimed time reviewing a rising volume of agent output with no better context than before, review quietly becomes the new constraint, and you’ve moved the problem rather than solved it.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The organizations that get ahead will invest the reclaimed capacity into the judgement layer: creating stronger specs and acceptance criteria before work starts, building review practices that test agent output against intent, and capturing the reasoning behind decisions where the next person can find it, so it doesn’t have to be reconstructed every time. That’s how the shift becomes an advantage for your team.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">The through-line for leaders</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The engineering job is moving up a level, from executing the work to directing and validating it. That’s a more strategic role, and it rewards clarity of thought over speed of output. Leaders who see the shift early can help their engineers grow into the work that’s now most valuable.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">See how leading engineering organizations are operationalizing this shift at <a href="https://www.atlassian.com/software/jira/dev?utm_source=foundry&amp;utm_medium=paid-social&amp;utm_campaign=P:jira%7CO:ppm%7CV:foundry%7CG:us%7CL:en%7CF:aware%7CT:prospecting%7CI:imc-jira-ai-sdlc%7CA:display%7CD:alld&amp;utm_content=P:jira%7CO:ppm%7CV:foundry%7CG:us%7CL:en%7CF:aware%7CT:prospecting%7CI:imc-jira-ai-sdlc%7CA:display%7CD:alld%7CU:cio-2" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">jira.dev.</a></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[OpenAI’s AI spending spree has ballooned to $750B]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[OpenAI will spend the equivalent of Sweden's GDP on infrastructure through 2030.]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3686976/it-nachrichten/openais-ai-spending-spree-has-ballooned-to-750b/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3686976/it-nachrichten/openais-ai-spending-spree-has-ballooned-to-750b/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 18:17:44 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[OpenAI will spend the equivalent of Sweden's GDP on infrastructure through 2030.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Scammers want your launch day money: this tool stops you falling foul of fake Samsung Galaxy Unpacked pre-orders]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Go shopping with IPVanish's Secure Browser and steer clear of phishing and fakes]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3686926/it-nachrichten/scammers-want-your-launch-day-money-this-tool-stops-you-falling-foul-of-fake-samsung-galaxy-unpacked-pre-orders/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3686926/it-nachrichten/scammers-want-your-launch-day-money-this-tool-stops-you-falling-foul-of-fake-samsung-galaxy-unpacked-pre-orders/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 17:49:54 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Go shopping with IPVanish's Secure Browser and steer clear of phishing and fakes]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[What’s New in Rapid7 Products and Services: Q2 2026 in Review]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[If Q1 set the pace for Rapid7's tools, Q2 accelerated it. This quarter brought a steady stream of product enhancements, platform investments, and customer-driven innovation across Rapid7’s portfolio. Each release was designed with a clear goal in mind: helping security teams reduce complexity whi...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3686659/it-security-nachrichten/whats-new-in-rapid7-products-and-services-q2-2026-in-review/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3686659/it-security-nachrichten/whats-new-in-rapid7-products-and-services-q2-2026-in-review/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 16:30:13 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span>If Q1 set the pace for Rapid7's tools, Q2 accelerated it. This quarter brought a steady stream of product enhancements, platform investments, and customer-driven innovation across Rapid7’s portfolio. Each release was designed with a clear goal in mind: helping security teams reduce complexity while increasing speed, context, and confidence in their day-to-day operations. Here’s a closer look at what launched in Q2.</span></p><h2>Detection and response</h2><h3><span>Streamline investigations with bidirectional and enriched Microsoft Defender alerts</span></h3><p><span>Bidirectional synchronization and enriched alert context for Microsoft Defender is now generally available for SIEM and </span><a href="https://www.rapid7.com/services/managed-detection-and-response-mdr/" target="_self"><span>MDR</span></a><span> customers, enabling security teams to automatically synchronize alert status between Rapid7's </span><a href="https://www.rapid7.com/products/siem" target="_self"><span>SIEM</span></a><span> and the Microsoft Defender console. With added process tree and user identity context, analysts can investigate threats more efficiently while reducing manual effort.</span></p><h3><span>Confidently scale detection engineering with Detection as Code</span></h3><p><a href="https://www.rapid7.com/blog/post/dr-scaling-engineering-detection-as-code" target="_self"><span>Detection as Code</span></a><span> enables security teams to build, test, version, and deploy detections using Terraform and modern engineering workflows. Built-in validation, guardrails, and version control help teams deliver higher-quality alerts, maintain more consistent coverage, and scale detection engineering more effectively.</span></p><p></p><figure><div><img src="https://images.contentstack.io/v3/assets/blte4f029e766e6b253/blt5b87b1b66cb42fb0/6a60c7d908c174e1555adb14/image2.png" alt="rapid7-detection-as-code-methodology.png" caption="Figure 1: Rapid7's Detection as Code methodology." height="713" class="embedded-asset" content-type-uid="sys_assets" type="asset" asset-alt="rapid7-detection-as-code-methodology.png" width="1553" max-width="1553" max-height="713" data-sys-asset-filelink="https://images.contentstack.io/v3/assets/blte4f029e766e6b253/blt5b87b1b66cb42fb0/6a60c7d908c174e1555adb14/image2.png" data-sys-asset-uid="blt5b87b1b66cb42fb0" data-sys-asset-filename="image2.png" data-sys-asset-contenttype="image/png" data-sys-asset-caption="Figure 1: Rapid7's Detection as Code methodology." data-sys-asset-alt="rapid7-detection-as-code-methodology.png" data-sys-asset-position="none" sys-style-type="display"><figcaption>Figure 1: Rapid7's Detection as Code methodology.</figcaption></div></figure><p></p><h3><span>Strengthen ransomware resilience with Ransomware Prevention for Incident Command</span></h3><p><span>Ransomware Prevention for </span><a href="https://www.rapid7.com/products/siem" target="_self"><span>Incident Command</span></a><span> adds an intent-based layer of protection designed to stop ransomware encryption and endpoint damage before they disrupt operations. Built into the Insight Agent, this capability strengthens ransomware resilience while working alongside existing endpoint security investments, without adding operational complexity.</span></p><h2>Compliance</h2><h3>New solutions webpages</h3><p><span>Across the globe, cybersecurity regulation is shifting away from static compliance checklists and toward ongoing risk management that blends proactive defense with effective detection and response. Rapid7’s </span><a href="https://www.rapid7.com/platform" target="_self"><span>platform</span></a><span>, which brings exposure management and CTEM together with detection, response, and MDR, is well positioned to help organizations operationalize compliance across mandates such as NIS2, NIST CSF 2.0, DORA, HIPAA, HITRUST, and GovRAMP. To support that effort, Rapid7 has launched an updated library of dedicated compliance solution pages that map platform capabilities to the requirements that matter most across industries and regions. The first set of pages is live now, with more to follow in the coming weeks.</span></p><ul><li><p><a href="https://www.rapid7.com/solutions/compliance/nist-csf-2" target="_self"><span>NIST CSF 2.0</span></a></p></li><li><p><a href="https://www.rapid7.com/solutions/compliance/hipaa" target="_self"><span>HIPAA</span></a></p></li><li><p><a href="https://www.rapid7.com/solutions/compliance/hitrust" target="_self"><span>HITRUST</span></a></p></li><li><p><a href="https://www.rapid7.com/solutions/compliance/nis2" target="_self"><span>NIS2</span></a></p></li><li><p><a href="https://www.rapid7.com/blog/post/www.rapid7.com/solutions/compliance/govramp" target="_self"><span>GovRAMP</span></a></p></li></ul><p></p><figure><div><img src="https://images.contentstack.io/v3/assets/blte4f029e766e6b253/blta8db9b364598a181/6a60c98604258068dc0bf302/rapid7-govramp-compliance.png" alt="rapid7-govramp-compliance.png" caption="Figure 2: Rapid7's new GovRAMP compliance solutions page." class="embedded-asset" content-type-uid="sys_assets" type="asset" asset-alt="rapid7-govramp-compliance.png" data-sys-asset-filelink="https://images.contentstack.io/v3/assets/blte4f029e766e6b253/blta8db9b364598a181/6a60c98604258068dc0bf302/rapid7-govramp-compliance.png" data-sys-asset-uid="blta8db9b364598a181" data-sys-asset-filename="rapid7-govramp-compliance.png" data-sys-asset-contenttype="image/png" data-sys-asset-caption="Figure 2: Rapid7's new GovRAMP compliance solutions page." data-sys-asset-alt="rapid7-govramp-compliance.png" data-sys-asset-position="none" sys-style-type="display"><figcaption>Figure 2: Rapid7's new GovRAMP compliance solutions page.</figcaption></div></figure><h2>Exposure management</h2><h3><span>Turn prioritized exposures into remediation progress</span></h3><p><span>We improved Remediation Hub to help teams turn prioritized exposures into more actionable remediation progress. Updates to the Top Remediations Report add asset-level context, including operating system, IP address, cloud provider, tags, endpoint protection, and patch management details, so teams can better understand what needs to be fixed and who needs to act.</span></p><p><span>With clearer patch and endpoint coverage signals, reboot status, customizable filters, exportable reports, and scheduled email delivery, teams can spend less time assembling manual updates and more time tracking the remediation work that reduces risk. Read the full </span><a href="https://www.rapid7.com/blog/post/em-path-from-prioritized-exposures-to-remediation-progress" target="_self"><span>blog</span></a><span> to learn more about how Exposure Command helps teams move from prioritized exposures to remediation progress.</span></p><h3><span>AI pre-triage for AppSec findings</span></h3><p><span>Rapid7 is also making application security testing faster and more focused with AI vulnerability pre-triaging for InsightAppSec. Available now for </span><a href="https://www.rapid7.com/products/insightappsec" target="_self"><span>AppSec</span></a><span> customers in supported regions, the capability uses AI to automatically remove false positives during the scan process, helping teams spend less time manually reviewing findings and more time remediating actual risk.</span></p><p><span>Initial coverage started with BlindSQL, and the latest engine release adds AI validation for BlindNoSQL findings, including content-based and timing-based detections. The result is a cleaner, more confident view of application risk, so security teams can focus on high-impact vulnerabilities and accelerate remediation with less manual effort.</span></p><h2>Attack surface management</h2><h3><span>Open-source MCP Server and Agent Skill</span></h3><p><span>We are delighted to announce the introduction of a free, open-source MCP Server and Agent Skill for Bulk Export. Bulk export is a highly efficient way to access all your Rapid7 vulnerability and exposure data to AI assistants and custom AI workflows. Built as an open-source bridge, it helps customers bring their Rapid7 data into the tools and experiences that work best for their teams. Check out our </span><a href="https://www.rapid7.com/blog/post/em-bulk-export-ai-ready-security-workflows-open-source-mcp-server-agent-skill" target="_self"><span>blog</span></a><span> for more detail.</span></p><p></p><figure><div><img src="https://images.contentstack.io/v3/assets/blte4f029e766e6b253/blt83035d9c7fcbfdf4/6a60ca130133d41740e07649/rapid7-ai-agent-skill.png" alt="rapid7-ai-agent-skill.png" caption="Figure 3: Agent Skill for Bulk Export." class="embedded-asset" content-type-uid="sys_assets" type="asset" asset-alt="rapid7-ai-agent-skill.png" data-sys-asset-filelink="https://images.contentstack.io/v3/assets/blte4f029e766e6b253/blt83035d9c7fcbfdf4/6a60ca130133d41740e07649/rapid7-ai-agent-skill.png" data-sys-asset-uid="blt83035d9c7fcbfdf4" data-sys-asset-filename="rapid7-ai-agent-skill.png" data-sys-asset-contenttype="image/png" data-sys-asset-caption="Figure 3: Agent Skill for Bulk Export." data-sys-asset-alt="rapid7-ai-agent-skill.png" data-sys-asset-position="none" sys-style-type="display"><figcaption>Figure 3: Agent Skill for Bulk Export.</figcaption></div></figure><h3><span>Turn exposure filters into live dashboards</span></h3><p><a href="https://www.rapid7.com/products/command/attack-surface-management-asm/" target="_self"><span>Surface Command</span></a><span> also made exposure reporting easier with filter-based dashboard widgets. Teams can now turn saved asset and identity filters into live dashboards without writing Cypher queries, making it faster to track high-risk internet-facing assets, identity-driven exposure hotspots, unmanaged cloud infrastructure, and business-unit risk.</span></p><p><span>For continuous threat exposure management programs, this helps teams move from one-off reporting to repeatable, always-on views of exposure risk and remediation progress. Read this </span><a href="https://www.rapid7.com/blog/post/em-operationalizing-ctem-building-surface-command-dashboards" target="_self"><span>blog</span></a><span> to learn more. </span></p><h2>Platform and Labs</h2><h3><span>Rapid7 Command Platform</span></h3><h4><span>Cyber GRC</span></h4><p><span>Rapid7 introduced </span><a href="https://www.rapid7.com/about/press-releases/rapid7-launches-cyber-governance-risk-and-compliance-grc-early-access-program-to-unify-security-data-risk-context-and-compliance-workflows" target="_self"><span>Cyber GRC</span></a><span> to select customers in Q2, giving teams an early look at a new way to connect security, risk, compliance, and third-party risk management in one program. Available to both Exposure Management and Detection and Response customers, Cyber GRC brings governance and compliance workflows closer to the security data teams already use every day.</span></p><p><span>Cyber GRC will be broadly available in late July. It helps organizations move toward continuous compliance by mapping controls to real environment telemetry, automating evidence collection, and prioritizing risk with live attack surface context. That means teams can spend less time chasing audit artifacts, screenshots, and vendor risk details, and more time understanding which controls, assets, third parties, and risks need attention now.</span></p><h3><span>Rapid7 Labs</span></h3><h4><span>Rapid7 Quarterly Threat Landscape Report</span></h4><p><span>The Rapid7 Quarterly Threat Landscape Report examines the key trends shaping today's threat landscape, drawing on MDR incident response, vulnerability intelligence, ransomware monitoring, and dark web telemetry. Q1 2026 data highlights the growing dominance of vulnerability exploitation as an initial access vector, the rise of zero-click vulnerabilities, evolving ransomware operations, and the accelerating pace at which attackers operationalize newly disclosed vulnerabilities. Read the </span><a href="https://www.rapid7.com/research/report/threat-landscape-report-2026-q1" target="_self"><span>report</span></a><span> to explore all key findings and takeaways.</span></p><p></p><figure><div><img src="https://images.contentstack.io/v3/assets/blte4f029e766e6b253/blt9eaa551742740d0a/6a60ca8f4dd0a37fcaca1cc5/rapid7-quarterly-threat-report.png" alt="rapid7-quarterly-threat-report.png" caption="Figure 4: Rapid7's quarterly threat report." class="embedded-asset" content-type-uid="sys_assets" type="asset" asset-alt="rapid7-quarterly-threat-report.png" data-sys-asset-filelink="https://images.contentstack.io/v3/assets/blte4f029e766e6b253/blt9eaa551742740d0a/6a60ca8f4dd0a37fcaca1cc5/rapid7-quarterly-threat-report.png" data-sys-asset-uid="blt9eaa551742740d0a" data-sys-asset-filename="rapid7-quarterly-threat-report.png" data-sys-asset-contenttype="image/png" data-sys-asset-caption="Figure 4: Rapid7's quarterly threat report." data-sys-asset-alt="rapid7-quarterly-threat-report.png" data-sys-asset-position="none" sys-style-type="display"><figcaption>Figure 4: Rapid7's quarterly threat report.</figcaption></div></figure><h3><span>The latest threat research</span></h3><p><span>Rapid7 researchers explored emerging trends shaping the threat landscape, including the growing commercialization of </span><a href="https://www.rapid7.com/blog/post/tr-criminal-ai-underground-market-operationalizing-cybercrime-2026" target="_self"><span>criminal AI-as-a-Service</span></a><span> and the evolving tradecraft of advanced threat actors. From the underground adoption of AI tools for fraud and social engineering to an </span><a href="https://www.rapid7.com/blog/post/tr-malware-tracking-dropping-elephant-tradecraft-china-themed-loader-chain" target="_self"><span>in-depth analysis of the Dropping Elephant malware campaign</span></a><span>, these reports provide actionable intelligence on how attackers are adapting their techniques and what defenders can do to stay ahead.</span></p><h4><span>Emergent Threat Response</span></h4><p><span>This quarter's Emergent Threat Response (ETR) coverage highlights a sustained wave of high-impact vulnerabilities affecting widely deployed enterprise technologies, including </span><a href="https://www.rapid7.com/blog/post/etr-active-exploitation-of-oracle-peoplesoft-zero-day-cve-2026-35273" target="_self"><span>Oracle PeopleSoft</span></a><span>, </span><a href="https://www.rapid7.com/blog/post/etr-cve-2026-0265-authentication-bypass-in-palo-alto-networks-pan-os" target="_self"><span>Palo Alto Networks PAN-OS</span></a><span>, </span><a href="https://www.rapid7.com/blog/post/etr-critical-check-point-vpn-zero-day-exploited-in-the-wild-cve-2026-50751" target="_self"><span>Check Point VPN</span></a><span>, </span><a href="https://www.rapid7.com/blog/post/etr-cve-2026-10520-cve-2026-10523-multiple-critical-vulnerabilities-affecting-ivanti-sentry" target="_self"><span>Ivanti Sentry</span></a><span>, </span><a href="https://www.rapid7.com/blog/post/etr-cve-2026-41940-cpanel-whm-authentication-bypass" target="_self"><span>cPanel/WHM</span></a><span>, and </span><a href="https://www.rapid7.com/blog/post/etr-cve-2026-33032-nginx-ui-missing-mcp-authentication" target="_self"><span>Nginx UI</span></a><span>. For each of these CVEs, Rapid7 tracked active exploitation and rapidly evolving attacker activity to provide timely guidance to help defenders assess risk and respond quickly. See all the details, and our latest ETR coverage, </span><a href="https://www.rapid7.com/blog/tag/emergent-threat-response" target="_self"><span>here</span></a><span>.</span></p><p><span>From strengthening detection and response to advancing exposure management, expanding governance capabilities, and delivering actionable threat intelligence, Q2 demonstrated Rapid7’s continued focus on helping security teams do more with less complexity. Every enhancement this quarter was designed to reduce manual effort, surface the context that matters, and help organizations make faster, more confident security decisions. We’re carrying that momentum into the rest of the year, so stay tuned to our blog and releases as we continue building the security operations platform that helps defenders stay ahead of what’s next.</span></p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Why Samsung Gave Its Next Folding Phone a New Shape]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[People spend hours watching videos on their smartphones. The wider, shorter, and lighter Galaxy Z Fold8 caters to exactly that.]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3686385/it-nachrichten/why-samsung-gave-its-next-folding-phone-a-new-shape/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3686385/it-nachrichten/why-samsung-gave-its-next-folding-phone-a-new-shape/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 15:05:43 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[People spend hours watching videos on their smartphones. The wider, shorter, and lighter Galaxy Z Fold8 caters to exactly that.]]></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[Trump administration says 15 agencies will get $5bn in ‘AI for science’ effort]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Administration will also overhaul how US government funds federal research by supporting individual scientists and AI over universitiesThe US will spend $5bn to tackle longstanding scientific problems across multiple fields using AI, ⁠the Trump administration said in a statement on Wednesday. The...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3686189/ai-nachrichten/trump-administration-says-15-agencies-will-get-5bn-in-ai-for-science-effort/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3686189/ai-nachrichten/trump-administration-says-15-agencies-will-get-5bn-in-ai-for-science-effort/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 13:53:11 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🔧 AI Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Administration will also overhaul how US government funds federal research by supporting individual scientists and AI over universities</p><p>The US will spend $5bn to tackle longstanding scientific problems across multiple fields using AI, ⁠the Trump administration said in a statement on Wednesday. The agencies will use the funding to identify the root causes ⁠of chronic diseases, accelerate drug ⁠discovery and ​develop longer-lasting building materials, among other tasks, according to the statement.</p><p>Scientists will have access to the Department of Energy’s supercomputers, AI and specialized ⁠datasets, along with other components needed to run experiments using algorithms, said Michael Kratsios, chief technology adviser to Donald Trump, in an ⁠interview with Reuters.</p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/22/trump-science-funding-overhaul-ai">Continue reading...</a>]]></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[Unsloth vs Axolotl vs TRL vs LLaMA-Factory: A Fine-Tuning Framework Comparison on Speed, VRAM, and Multi-GPU]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Four open source projects dominate LLM fine-tuning today. Unsloth, Axolotl, TRL, and LLaMA-Factory all wrap the same underlying PyTorch and Hugging Face stack. They diverge on where they spend engineering effort. Unsloth rewrites kernels. Axolotl composes parallelism strategies. TRL defines the t...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3685789/ai-nachrichten/unsloth-vs-axolotl-vs-trl-vs-llama-factory-a-fine-tuning-framework-comparison-on-speed-vram-and-multi-gpu/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3685789/ai-nachrichten/unsloth-vs-axolotl-vs-trl-vs-llama-factory-a-fine-tuning-framework-comparison-on-speed-vram-and-multi-gpu/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 11:22:13 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🔧 AI Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Four open source projects dominate LLM fine-tuning today. Unsloth, Axolotl, TRL, and LLaMA-Factory all wrap the same underlying PyTorch and Hugging Face stack. They diverge on where they spend engineering effort. Unsloth rewrites kernels. Axolotl composes parallelism strategies. TRL defines the trainer APIs the others build on. LLaMA-Factory optimizes for breadth of model coverage and […]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.marktechpost.com/2026/07/22/unsloth-vs-axolotl-vs-trl-vs-llama-factory-a-fine-tuning-framework-comparison-on-speed-vram-and-multi-gpu/">Unsloth vs Axolotl vs TRL vs LLaMA-Factory: A Fine-Tuning Framework Comparison on Speed, VRAM, and Multi-GPU</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.marktechpost.com/">MarkTechPost</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Making Media Evidence Searchable: Media Forensics With Belkasoft X]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Turn thousands of photos, recordings, and videos into searchable evidence with Belkasoft X and offline AI-powered BelkaGPT, helping investigators spend less time on manual review and more time on what matters.]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3685760/it-security-nachrichten/making-media-evidence-searchable-media-forensics-with-belkasoft-x/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3685760/it-security-nachrichten/making-media-evidence-searchable-media-forensics-with-belkasoft-x/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 11:11:55 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Turn thousands of photos, recordings, and videos into searchable evidence with Belkasoft X and offline AI-powered BelkaGPT, helping investigators spend less time on manual review and more time on what matters.]]></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[AI, security operations and the new race against time]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[When Anthropic unveiled Project Glasswing and the Mythos model, much of the discussion focused on the capabilities themselves.



Security leaders debated what these systems could mean for vulnerability discovery, exploit development and the pace of offensive innovation. Researchers examined tech...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3685757/it-security-nachrichten/ai-security-operations-and-the-new-race-against-time/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3685757/it-security-nachrichten/ai-security-operations-and-the-new-race-against-time/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 11:11:50 +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">When Anthropic unveiled Project Glasswing and the Mythos model, much of the discussion focused on the capabilities themselves.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/4158117/anthropics-mythos-signals-a-structural-cybersecurity-shift.html?utm=hybrid_search">Security leaders debated</a> what these systems could mean for vulnerability discovery, exploit development and the pace of offensive innovation. Researchers examined technical benchmarks. Industry observers questioned how quickly these capabilities might fall into attackers’ hands.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Those conversations are important. They also point to a larger question that predominates my discussions with CISOs: How much time do we have?</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Over the past year, conversations about AI in cybersecurity have changed noticeably. Twelve months ago, security leaders wanted to understand whether AI could meaningfully improve security operations. They wanted to know whether it could accurately investigate alerts, reduce analyst workload and operate reliably in production environments.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Today, security leaders are asking about timelines, implementation, how quickly AI is changing the threat landscape and what that means for <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/4158008/the-ai-inflection-point-what-security-leaders-must-do-now.html">how security teams operate</a>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Anthropic’s Mythos and Glasswing, OpenAI’s Daybreak and advances in DeepSeek accelerate those conversations. Each development provides another glimpse into the pace at which AI capabilities are advancing.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AI now reasons through security problems that historically required highly specialized expertise. The implications span vulnerability discovery, attack-path analysis, reconnaissance, social engineering and security operations.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The shift reflects a broader reality: cybersecurity is entering a period where the pace of adaptation may matter as much as the quality of defenses themselves. AI is accelerating both offense and defense simultaneously. Organizations are quickly redesigning security operations around that reality.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">One consequence is becoming increasingly visible. For years, cybersecurity teams invested enormous effort in discovering threats, identifying vulnerabilities, gathering telemetry and collecting intelligence. AI is accelerating many of those activities simultaneously. Visibility is improving. Discovery is accelerating. Investigations are becoming faster and more comprehensive.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The bottleneck is beginning to move. The challenge increasingly centers on how quickly organizations can act on what they know. The organizations that gain an advantage may not be the ones with the most information. They will be the ones who can operationalize that information the fastest.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The timeline is compressing</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Cybersecurity has experienced many major technology transitions. Cloud computing changed infrastructure. Mobile devices expanded the attack surface. Digital transformation connected systems that were previously isolated.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AI introduces a different dynamic.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Most technology transitions unfolded over years. Organizations had time to evaluate, pilot, deploy and gradually adapt operating models.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The current AI cycle moves at a different pace.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Capabilities improve continuously. New models arrive every few months. New research emerges every few weeks. Security teams absorb developments at the same time attackers do.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/4155342/what-anthropic-glasswing-reveals-about-the-future-of-vulnerability-discovery.html">Vulnerability discovery</a> provides a useful example. Security teams have long operated around a familiar cycle of discovery, validation, remediation and protection. AI systems accelerate every stage of that process. Similar patterns exist in phishing, reconnaissance, social engineering and attack planning.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A vulnerability that once moved through that cycle over weeks increasingly now moves through those stages in days or, in some cases, hours.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Attackers are already operating at the speed of AI. Defenders are now focused on reaching the same level of operational speed.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This shift is changing the questions CISOs ask.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Early discussions focused on capability. Could AI investigate alerts accurately? Could it operate reliably in production environments? Could it be trusted with meaningful security work?</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As organizations gained experience with AI, the discussion shifted toward implementation. Security teams began evaluating where AI could create operational leverage and how quickly they could deploy it into existing workflows.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Today, many CISOs are focused on timing.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The pace of advancement is influencing planning horizons, budget decisions and operating-model discussions. Security leaders are evaluating how quickly they can introduce AI into investigations, threat hunting, detection engineering and response workflows. Boards are asking questions. Executive teams are paying attention.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Security programs that once viewed AI as a future initiative increasingly view it as a current operational priority.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The industry is moving from evaluating AI as a technology to incorporating AI as a security capability.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The timeline compression creates pressure on the traditional security operations model. Investigation speed, response speed and defensive coverage increasingly determine whether organizations can keep pace with adversaries operating with AI assistance.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Security operations are entering a new phase</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The impact of AI is becoming particularly visible inside the SOC.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Many security operations centers were built around a straightforward assumption: alerts flow to human analysts who conduct investigations. Operational capacity scales primarily through hiring.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The volume of security data, the number of alerts and the complexity of modern environments have steadily increased. Security teams have responded by building processes, adding tools and creating specialized analyst roles.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AI introduces a new source of operational capacity.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Investigations that require analysts to examine dozens or hundreds of artifacts across endpoint, identity, cloud, network and email systems can now be performed in minutes. Analysts gain access to investigative depth and consistency that would be difficult to achieve manually at scale.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Many security leaders now view this capability through the lens of operating model design. They are examining how investigations are performed, how work is distributed and where human expertise creates the greatest value.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The evolution of the analyst role</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">One of the most important developments emerging from early production deployments is the <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/4163299/the-manager-of-agents-how-ai-evolves-the-soc-analyst-role.html">evolution of analyst responsibilities</a>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Security analysts remain central to security operations. Their expertise becomes even more valuable as AI systems take on larger portions of investigative work.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Threat hunting, detection engineering, response strategy, governance and oversight are receiving increased attention. Analysts spend more time shaping how investigations are conducted, evaluating outcomes and improving overall security operations.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Many organizations are already beginning this shift.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Teams are investing more heavily in proactive security activities. Detection engineering programs are expanding. Threat hunting is becoming more accessible. Analysts are spending more time improving systems and less time repeating investigative tasks.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">These changes create what I think of as an analyst-amplified SOC: an environment where AI expands the reach of security professionals and enables deeper security work across the organization.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Trust is critical and it doesn’t have to compromise speed</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Faced with a compressing timeline, the instinct is to treat speed and trust as a trade-off, i.e., move faster, verify less. That trade-off feels inevitable. It isn’t.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">You don’t trust AI in the abstract. You trust that a system understands your tools, your telemetry and the edge cases that only exist in your network. The problem was never speed. It’s speed without context. The faster a context-blind system runs, the more decisions you’re left unable to verify.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The tension eases when the system is quick to deploy and tunes to your environment once it’s there, rather than treating every network the same. Speed stops being the thing you trade against trust. The more it learns about your environment, the sharper and more trustworthy it becomes, so the two compound rather than compete. Trust still develops through operational evidence such as measurable outcomes, visibility into decisions and consistent performance. But where that evidence accrues matters.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The organizations making the fastest real progress understand this. They don’t compromise quality and trust for speed. They invest in AI that earns trust inside their own environment, so they don’t have to choose.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Leadership during a period of rapid change</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The conversations surrounding Mythos and Glasswing reflect a broader reality facing security leaders.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AI is becoming part of both offense and defense. Security teams are incorporating it into investigations, detection engineering, response workflows and threat hunting. Attackers are incorporating it into their own operations.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Security leaders have an opportunity to modernize operating models, expand defensive capacity and build organizational experience while these capabilities continue to evolve.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The organizations making progress today are investing in readiness. They are building experience, adapting workflows and preparing teams for a new model of security operations.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The next phase of cybersecurity will be defined by how effectively organizations combine human judgment with machine-scale execution.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The question facing security leaders is increasingly clear: How quickly can their organizations adapt to a continuously changing threat environment?</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[Reselling unused cloud instances is no longer easy]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[A client called me last week with a problem I have been hearing about more often lately. They had made significant reserved instance commitments with a major cloud provider, overbuying for what they thought would be heavy AI training workloads. Now they were sitting on thousands of dollars in idl...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3685747/ai-nachrichten/reselling-unused-cloud-instances-is-no-longer-easy/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3685747/ai-nachrichten/reselling-unused-cloud-instances-is-no-longer-easy/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 11:04:51 +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">A client called me last week with a problem I have been hearing about more often lately. They had made significant reserved instance commitments with a major cloud provider, overbuying for what they thought would be heavy AI training workloads. Now they were sitting on thousands of dollars in idle capacity every month. Their plan was simple: resell it to someone else. Except they couldn’t.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I have been doing cloud consulting for a long time, and this situation once had a straightforward solution. You went to the marketplace, listed your unused reservations, and found a buyer. The process was a bit clunky, but it worked. These days, the answer is far more complicated, and my client learned this the hard way.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AI has made this problem increasingly common. Companies initially committed to compute capacity based on ambitious training plans. Prototype projects were expected to scale, and inference workloads were projected to grow substantially. Then reality hit. Some projects did not materialize. Some <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2335213/large-language-models-the-foundations-of-generative-ai.html">models</a> trained faster than expected. Some inference patterns were lighter than anticipated.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Many organizations now hold reserved capacity they can’t use, discard, or share without a complex, increasingly restricted process. This reality is something every company with significant cloud spend needs to clearly understand.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The history of cloud resale</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There was once a functioning resale market for cloud reserved instances. AWS, for example, maintained a <a href="https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing/reserved-instances/marketplace/" data-type="link" data-id="https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing/reserved-instances/marketplace/">Reserved Instances Marketplace</a> where companies that had purchased reserved capacity could sell those reservations to other AWS customers. This was a legitimate, AWS-sanctioned process. Companies would register as sellers, list their unused reservations with pricing and terms, and if a buyer appeared, the marketplace would facilitate the transaction.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The resale market was useful for companies that had overestimated their needs or whose business changes reduced their cloud consumption. Instead of simply absorbing the cost of unused commitments, they could recoup some of that investment by selling to other organizations with unmet demand. It created a secondary market that added liquidity to what was otherwise a rigid financial arrangement.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">My client had some experience with this resale market a few years ago and assumed they could use it again. They were unpleasantly surprised to learn that the rules had changed.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"> AWS changes the rules</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In January 2024, AWS implemented a significant policy change that effectively shut down the resale of EC2 Reserved Instances on its platform. AWS stopped allowing companies to resell their unused reserved capacity through the Reserved Instance Marketplace or any other official channel. If you have a reserved instance commitment with AWS, you are essentially stuck with it unless you can use it yourself or modify your reservation.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This change had a real impact on companies that had relied on resale as part of their cloud financial management strategy. It reduced flexibility and increased the risk of long-term reserved commitments. When I explained this AWS policy change to my client’s representatives, I could hear the frustration in their voices. They had made their commitment in good faith, carefully modeled their expected AI workloads, and now faced the reality that there was no easy exit.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The reasoning behind this change is not entirely clear, but AWS likely viewed capacity resales as something that complicated their billing and commitment models without providing enough benefit to the overall ecosystem. Regardless of the company’s reasons, the primary resale path for the largest cloud provider has been effectively closed.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What options still exist?</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">What can companies do now when they find themselves with reserved capacity they no longer need? The first possibility is to work directly with the cloud provider to modify or exchange the reservation if it is convertible. Some reservation types allow modifications, such as changing the instance type, region, or tenancy. This will not eliminate the commitment, but it may help companies better align their reservations with actual workload needs.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The second option is to use third-party brokers and marketplaces that operate independently of the cloud providers. Although AWS has shut down its official resale channel, brokers and marketplaces still facilitate resale arrangements for other cloud providers and for some AWS scenarios. These arrangements can be more complex and carry more risk, but they remain a possibility for companies determined to move unused capacity.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The third alternative is to optimize usage. Companies can invest in better <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2257609/how-aiops-improves-application-monitoring.html">utilization monitoring</a>, workload placement, and automation to ensure that reserved capacity is used as efficiently as possible. This does not recover the money already spent, but it reduces future waste.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">My client explored all three alternatives and found that each had significant limitations. Modifications were possible, but only within a narrow range. Third-party brokers were interested, but the process was opaque and uncertain. Optimization helped, but it could not eliminate the fundamental overcommitment they had already made.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The broader implications</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Cloud commitments are more rigid than many enterprises initially realize because they lack a liquid market and because providers control modifications, transfers, or cancellations. Right now, I see this pattern most often in the AI space. Companies commit to massive amounts of compute for training and inference based on projections that rarely reflect the actual workloads. Then they are surprised to find themselves locked into payments. The AI boom has led to significant overcommitment because enterprises remain unaware that the resale mechanisms that once existed have been largely shut down.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is why <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2338592/6-finops-best-practices-to-reduce-cloud-costs.html">cloud financial management</a> has become such an important discipline. Companies need to be far more thoughtful about how they commit to cloud resources, how they model their future consumption, and how they build flexibility into their cloud strategies. The days of assuming you can always resell your way out of an overcommitment are effectively over, at least with AWS.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For Azure and Google Cloud, the resale landscape is slightly different, but the same general principles apply. These providers have their own capacity transfer policies and, like AWS, those policies can change at any time. Companies should understand their options before making large, committed purchases and build contingency plans in case their actual usage diverges from their projections—or if resale policies change.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The bottom line is that reselling unused reserved cloud instances is far more complicated than it sounds. The market is not as open as it once was, the options are limited, and the providers themselves hold most of the cards. My client got burned, and I doubt they will be the only one. Companies that want to optimize their cloud spending should focus on accurate forecasting, thoughtful commitment sizing, and ongoing optimization rather than relying on resale as a safety valve. That approach worked at one point, but those days are largely gone.</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Seven sins of the modern software developer]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[If you ask us in an official setting, our official position is that software engineering norms still apply. Rigorous CI/CD pipelines, elegant architectural patterns, and an unyielding commitment to maintainable code remain the standard. We will use weighty words like “determinism,” “scalability,”...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3685746/ai-nachrichten/seven-sins-of-the-modern-software-developer/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3685746/ai-nachrichten/seven-sins-of-the-modern-software-developer/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 11:04:50 +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 class="wp-block-paragraph">If you ask us in an official setting, our official position is that software engineering norms still apply. Rigorous CI/CD pipelines, elegant architectural patterns, and an unyielding commitment to maintainable code remain the standard. We will use weighty words like “determinism,” “scalability,” “idempotency,” and “domain-driven design.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But behind closed doors, late at night, bathed in the glow of a dark-mode IDE, a different and more sordid reality is exposed. Hunched over the console with a manic gleam in the eye, the programmer has become power-drunk on <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2335213/large-language-models-the-foundations-of-generative-ai.html" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2335213/large-language-models-the-foundations-of-generative-ai.html">LLMs</a>. Like mad wizards casting spells, we summon the awesome powers of models and agents to satisfy our every programming whim—and commit acts of software engineering that would make <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Brooks">Fred Brooks</a> blush.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Let’s just be honest about what is actually happening.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Esoteric knowledge is superfluous</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Forget <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2335255/what-is-object-oriented-programming-the-everyday-programming-style.html">OOP</a> and <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2263963/what-is-functional-programming-a-practical-guide.html">FP</a>. Forget the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAP_theorem">CAP theorem</a>, the holy crusade of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_repeat_yourself">DRY</a>, and the design patterns. Honestly, you can even forget what frameworks, runtimes, and deployment platforms you are using. The AI will figure out what is best to use and understand what is already in place. We have more mental bandwidth for working on our side project (a novel about AI taking over the world). </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Of course, I exaggerate. A little.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The docs are dead to us</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We still say RTFM, but the truth is, we haven’t really read a page of vendor documentation since 2023. <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/3993482/ai-didnt-kill-stack-overflow.html">Stack Overflow</a>, once our Internet Mecca, is a husk. When a package throws a weird exception, we don’t trace the execution path or read the release notes. We highlight the red text, copy the entire 200-line stack trace, dump it into the chat, and wait for the machine to spoon-feed us the solution.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Better yet, we just have the agentic IDE spot the error, divine a solution, and ask us if it’s OK. We might glance at the problem-solution description, if we have gone around the circle on the problem for a few cycles. Maybe. If we don’t have the agent set up for auto-confirm.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We used to buy heavy tomes like “Rust In Action” that were more like masonry blocks than literature. Now? We just ask an AI to transliterate our JavaScript logic into Rust. We are no longer engineers methodically learning a system. We are glorified copy-paste orchestrators hoping that the stochastic parrot behind the prompt guesses the syntax correctly.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">We ignore how the back end is wired</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We act like we meticulously designed the data flows, carefully crafted the relational constraints, and mindfully mapped the API relationships. The reality is rather more disturbing: We asked the AI to scaffold a modern deployment, hooked it up to a back-end database, and just sort of… ran it.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It created security rules we don’t fully understand. They do seem to work, however, which is nice. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It generated a schema that we skimmed for about four seconds. It looks reasonable.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It wrote <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2259359/what-is-infrastructure-as-code-automating-your-infrastructure-builds.html" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2259359/what-is-infrastructure-as-code-automating-your-infrastructure-builds.html">infrastructure-as-code</a> scripts that provisioned cloud resources we are hoping don’t blow a hole in the budget. Presumably, whoever is in charge of that will manage it by stuffing the metrics into another chatbot.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We nodded, committed the code, and went to lunch. If management asked us to manually deploy the stack from scratch, configure the environment variables, and wire the API routes without our chat window, we would give them a vacant stare.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We understand that management is also using AI to manage the project.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Our tests are uncomfortably incestuous</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Test-driven development (TDD) used to be a beautiful dream, ever just beyond reach. It made us feel glorious and despondent at turns. It would burden us with sprawling dependencies if implemented too religiously. (See <a href="https://grugbrain.dev/#grug-on-testing">The Grug Brained Developer</a> in this regard.)</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But now we can attain 95% test coverage almost effortlessly. Why not just add them in while we are auto-generating everything else?</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We can now wax at length to anyone who will listen about our astounding test coverage and our automated quality assurance. Unit tests, integration tests, smoke tests, you name it. What we conveniently leave out is that the AI wrote the complex application logic, and then we asked <em>the exact same AI</em> to write the test suite to validate the code it just dreamed up.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It is a hermetically sealed loop of algorithmic self-congratulation. The mocks, the edge case, and the assertions are an echo chamber of the model’s original assumptions. The machine is grading its own homework, giving itself an A+.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">And we are happy to accept this because, beautifully, when the code has to change, the AI will effortlessly hallucinate new tests to adapt to the churn.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">We pass off the AI’s architecture as strategy</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AI can produce astonishing design documents. Truly breathtaking. They are cogent, they’re beautifully formatted, and they seamlessly bridge the gap between high-level business goals and granular technical specs. They even include those auto-generated sequence diagrams that wow management.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When we present these spotless architectural proposals in the Tuesday sprint planning meeting, we lean back, take a long sip of coffee, and humbly wave away the team’s praise.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">What we don’t mention is that we spent exactly four seconds generating it.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Are these AI-generated documents just as liable as human ones to hide severe, mortal flaws in scope and alignment? Absolutely. They might contain a foundational logic bomb that will eventually doom the entire project. But the markdown is so crisp, and the bullet points are so persuasive, that the eye just glides right over it. We will never truly know the depth of the disaster until it is far too late. But hey, we’ll burn that bridge when production catches fire. Until then, we are strategic visionaries.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">We’re addicted to vibe coding (but only in secret)</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We loudly mock the term on social media. We roll our eyes in Slack channels when the kids on TikTok talk about <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4078884/what-is-vibe-coding-ai-writes-the-code-so-developers-can-think-big.html" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4078884/what-is-vibe-coding-ai-writes-the-code-so-developers-can-think-big.html">vibe coding</a> their new startups. We fiercely cling to our identities as hardened, serious developers who understand memory management, garbage collection, and bitwise operators. We are professionals, damn it.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But late at night, when the managers are asleep and no one is looking? We absolutely love it. We love just throwing a chaotic, half-baked thought at the canvas, pouring a drink, and watching the AI magically build a functioning user interface based entirely on our long-deferred whims. I may finally build that working <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultima_V%3A_Warriors_of_Destiny" data-type="link" data-id="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultima_V%3A_Warriors_of_Destiny">Ultima V</a> clone. The thrill of typing “Create an app that tracks my cryptocurrency portfolio but makes it look like the interface from Neuromancer” and having it appear 30 seconds later is heady stuff.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The more deeply rooted in the hard, old-school realities of programming, the more profound is the joy the developer finds in the possibility of AI coding. </p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">We beat the problem into submission with prompts</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Like Adam Sandler in “Uncut Gems,” we are convinced the next round will fix everything. This is us with prompts. When things are going really off the rails, instead of putting our boots on and wading into the brambles of complexity, we resort to tonal adjustments. These range from the condescending: </p>



<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This problem is not fixed. Look at it closely. The error is right here.</p>
</blockquote>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">To the desperate: </p>



<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We have been working on this same problem for hours now!</p>
</blockquote>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">To the pathetic: </p>



<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Can’t you find a different approach to try?!</p>
</blockquote>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The astonishing part? It often works.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But there is no poetry left at the bottom of the rabbit hole; it is verbal warfare. When the context window collapses, when the regressions start cascading, and when the AI stubbornly refuses to follow the most basic rules of temporal logic, the mask of professionalism drops away and something far more atavistic makes its appearance. We stop asking nicely, stop trying to understand the why, delete the pleasantries, and capslock our intent.</p>



<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">What we have here is a failure to communicate! </p>
</blockquote>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We feed the same failing stack trace back into the prompt over and over and over again, aggressively hammering the constraints, explicitly forbidding certain libraries, and pasting in release notes just to confirm that the AI lacks the latest APIs. We force the model down a narrower and narrower path until the code finally stops throwing errors. We don’t actually debug anymore, trace variables, or step through functions. We just apply relentless, iterative pressure until the machine surrenders. We beat it into submission. And then, we push to production.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In fact, there is a real skill here—a sheer “will to completion” that remains in the act of building software. We invest just as much time, energy, and heart wrestling the bot as we ever did emitting syntax.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">A blacker box</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The only profession more given over to using AI like a cursed Level 13 artifact than programming is writing. Writing of course is far more open to public scrutiny than code.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">And while my tongue has been firmly in my cheek here, my faith in coders as good guys makes me more curious to see what we create than troubled by the dangers. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It was once the case that only other programmers could understand what programmers were doing, what they were producing. Now not even that is true. Only the machine knows what the machine is doing. We just keep it tethered to our aims. Hopefully.</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[How to use commands in Minecraft]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Minecraft as a game is simple to play if you’re not looking to build impressive structures. There’s plenty in it to explore and if you’re starting off, you may spend some time learning basic recipes but it’s not hard.  Outside the gameplay, there are a few tools and features in Minecraft that are...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3684578/betriebssysteme/how-to-use-commands-in-minecraft/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3684578/betriebssysteme/how-to-use-commands-in-minecraft/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 20:03:27 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🖥️  Betriebssysteme</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Minecraft as a game is simple to play if you’re not looking to build impressive structures. There’s plenty in it to explore and if you’re starting off, you may spend some time learning basic recipes but it’s not hard.  Outside the gameplay, there are a few tools and features in Minecraft that are worth learning […]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.addictivetips.com/gaming/commands-minecraft/">How to use commands in Minecraft</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.addictivetips.com/">AddictiveTips</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[HireQuotient Extends AI Recruiting Capabilities to Paylocity Customers in Frontline Industries]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[HireQuotient, an AI-native recruiting platform, today announced its integration with Paylocity (Nasdaq: PCTY), bringing AI-powered candidate sourcing and screening capabilities to Paylocity customers in manufacturing, building services, construction, healthcare and insurance, which are industries...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3684468/it-nachrichten/hirequotient-extends-ai-recruiting-capabilities-to-paylocity-customers-in-frontline-industries/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3684468/it-nachrichten/hirequotient-extends-ai-recruiting-capabilities-to-paylocity-customers-in-frontline-industries/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 19:34:25 +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">HireQuotient, an AI-native recruiting platform, today announced its integration with Paylocity (Nasdaq: PCTY), bringing AI-powered candidate sourcing and screening capabilities to Paylocity customers in manufacturing, building services, construction, healthcare and insurance, which are industries where deskless and frontline hiring has historically been underserved by AI recruiting tools.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Employers in these sectors who already use HireQuotient are seeing the impact firsthand.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“By simply putting in vetting criteria, I was able to get a very specific talent pool within a day,” said Niki Simoneaux, COO of Arc Health. “With EasySource, we can reach a huge database or filter for specific licenses and areas.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“With technology and the ability to work remotely, we’re able to recruit nationwide outside of our footprint. This expands the pool of prospective candidates and gives us access to candidates who might not have ever applied for a position on our website’s career page,” said Jeff McGee, vice president at W3 Insurance.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“HireQuotient’s AI-native product helped my team at Alliance Building Services to cut down time to close position by more than 60%, and their team works very closely with the client to ensure adoption at scale,” said Willow Marcon, senior vice president at Alliance Building Services.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Recruiters in manufacturing, building services, construction, healthcare and insurance often spend more than two-thirds of their time on manual work and using over 10 platforms to just close a hire: sourcing a wide range of profiles, skimming resumes, finding contact information, reaching out and doing hundreds of calls and constant follow-ups. That fragmented process leads to recruiter burnout and leaves gaps in candidate data. Because most HR platforms don’t offer built-in AI native agents that work in tandem to do all it takes to close the hire, employers in these industries have faced hiring delays and platform churn.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The partnership addresses this gap by integrating HireQuotient’s EasySource platform directly into the Paylocity ecosystem. Instead of relying on rigid keyword searches, EasySource identifies strong talent pools, screens for role-specific credentials and licenses and personalizes outreach by phone and email. For mid-market companies with 500 to 1,000 employees, that translates to a 70% faster time-to-hire and an estimated $100,000 in annual savings.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The integration also closes the feedback loop for employers. By feeding post-hire data back into the recruiting system, EasySource learns from successful hires to build smarter talent pools over time, while keeping recruiters engaged longer by freeing them to focus on the human side of hiring.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Gokul Rajaram, board member at Coinbase and former board member of The Trade Desk (Nasdaq: TTD), and also known as the godfather of Google AdSense, said, “Smarthveer is one of those rare founders who picks an unglamorous, deeply underserved market and refuses to leave until it’s fixed. Frontline hiring is exactly that market. Being named to Paylocity’s elite partner network is a testament to his relentlessness and to the team he’s built. Excited for what’s ahead.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Paylocity maintains an elite partner network, so being named one of them is a testament to the strength of our product,” said Smarthveer Sidana, founder and CEO of HireQuotient. “By keeping that recruiting activity inside the Paylocity ecosystem, we’re helping them close a critical gap for their employers, capture revenue that previously sat outside their platform, and prevent the client churn that comes with a fragmented hiring process.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Jim Moffatt, former global CEO of Deloitte Consulting and board partner at Greycroft VC, said, </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“This is a big milestone for Smarthveer and his team. I congratulate them on this big win. Paylocity’s large client base acts as a strong distribution, and HireQuotient’s EasySource acts as a strong product to cater to the needs of Paylocity’s clients. Paylocity is known for its highly selective approach, and I’m glad to see that after months of evaluation and extensive due diligence, they’re going live with HireQuotient’s EasySource. I feel confident in the value this partnership will create for frontline industries. I remember when Smarthveer spoke to me about it in December, and it felt very ambitious. I’m glad to see it turn to reality.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For employers with a traditionally deskless workforce in industries where AI adoption has lagged, the integration bridges a major capability gap by allowing them to source, screen, onboard and manage payroll all in one place.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For more information, visit <a href="http://www.hirequotient.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">www.hirequotient.com</a>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A media kit with additional partner quotes, executive headshots and logos can be found <a href="https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1XZQE4etoLPgzNO94Y8I1-YX7ODyj8AnA?usp=sharing" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">here</a>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>About HireQuotient</strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">HireQuotient is an AI-native recruiting platform that automates candidate sourcing and screening for employers in manufacturing, building services, construction, healthcare, insurance and other frontline-heavy industries. Its flagship platform, EasySource, is one of a select number of recruiting technologies integrated with Paylocity’s HR and payroll ecosystem. Founded by Smarthveer Sidana, HireQuotient is headquartered in San Francisco. For more information, visit <a href="https://www.hirequotient.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">https://www.hirequotient.com/</a>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Media Contact</strong></p>



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Uproar by Moburst for HireQuotient</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">bethany@moburst.com</p>



<h5 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Contact</strong></h5>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Bethany Rhodes</strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>bethany@moburst.com</strong></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[AWS standardizes more AI billing data to simplify cost analysis]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[AWS has updated AWS Data Exports, its service for generating and managing cost and usage Reports (CURs), to include standardized Amazon Bedrock product metadata, making it easier for enterprise engineering teams to analyze AI usage and spending as they scale AI deployments spanning multiple found...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3683996/it-nachrichten/aws-standardizes-more-ai-billing-data-to-simplify-cost-analysis/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3683996/it-nachrichten/aws-standardizes-more-ai-billing-data-to-simplify-cost-analysis/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 16:18:50 +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">AWS has updated AWS Data Exports, its service for generating and managing cost and usage Reports (CURs), to include standardized Amazon Bedrock product metadata, making it easier for enterprise engineering teams to analyze AI usage and spending as they scale AI deployments spanning multiple foundation models.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The update extends billing exports with normalized fields for model provider, model name, inference type, inference mode, billing unit and <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2336139/amazon-bedrock-a-solid-generative-ai-foundation.html">Bedrock</a> product family, and will enable enterprises to identify which models generated costs and compare spending across providers without relying on custom parsing or normalization of billing records, AWS wrote in a <a href="https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2026/07/aws-data-exports-amazon-bedrock-product-metadata/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">blog post</a>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That reduced reliance on custom parsing will reduce the engineering effort required to analyze billing data, analysts said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Before the update, a data engineer would typically need to maintain a model ID registry, write regex against usage type strings, or join AWS CloudTrail with CUR to figure out which provider generated which cost,” 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">The new standardized fields “can be the difference between a billing pipeline that needs constant babysitting and one that doesn’t,” Chopra added.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That’s because custom parsing logic is more prone to break down or require maintenance when AWS adds new models or updates pricing in Bedrock, said <a href="https://pareekh.com/about/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Pareekh Jain</a>, principal analyst at Pareekh Consulting.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Richer billing data to boost enterprise AI cost governance</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Beyond reducing engineering overhead, the update could also help enterprises improve AI cost governance.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Before this update FinOps teams struggled to identify which model Bedrock related to because usage type fields were inconsistent, and there was no unified product family name that captured all Bedrock costs in one place, Chopra said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Now those attributes — model provider, model name, inference type, inference mode, pricing unit — are standardized and available by default. That’s the plumbing work no one talks about, but it’s what makes downstream reporting actually reliable,” Chopra added.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This, said Jain, makes it easier to build dashboards showing cost by model, provider, token type or inference mode while also identifying expensive workloads, unusual token growth and opportunities to move to cheaper models or batch processing.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It’s a timely update, especially in light of last week’s <a href="https://health.aws.amazon.com/health/status?eventID=arn:aws:health:global::event/BILLING/AWS_BILLING_OPERATIONAL_ISSUE/AWS_BILLING_OPERATIONAL_ISSUE_47B68_BACBD91434F" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">AWS billing issue</a> that caused some customers to see incorrect cost estimates of services consumed in the AWS Management Console, said <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/muskan-bandta2004" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Muskan Bandta</a>, cloud associate at FinOps services providing firm ZopDev.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Anything that gives customers clearer, more granular and more trustworthy billing data is welcome when confidence in the numbers has just been shaken. It does not fix what went wrong, but better visibility into where spend is going is exactly what teams want more of after an episode like that,” Bandta added.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>This article first appeared on <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4199470/aws-standardizes-more-ai-billing-data-to-simplify-cost-analysis.html">InfoWorld</a>.</em></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[AWS standardizes more AI billing data to simplify cost analysis]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[AWS has updated AWS Data Exports, its service for generating and managing cost and usage Reports (CURs), to include standardized Amazon Bedrock product metadata, making it easier for enterprise engineering teams to analyze AI usage and spending as they scale AI deployments spanning multiple found...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3683957/ai-nachrichten/aws-standardizes-more-ai-billing-data-to-simplify-cost-analysis/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3683957/ai-nachrichten/aws-standardizes-more-ai-billing-data-to-simplify-cost-analysis/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 16:05:12 +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 class="wp-block-paragraph">AWS has updated AWS Data Exports, its service for generating and managing cost and usage Reports (CURs), to include standardized Amazon Bedrock product metadata, making it easier for enterprise engineering teams to analyze AI usage and spending as they scale AI deployments spanning multiple foundation models.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The update extends billing exports with normalized fields for model provider, model name, inference type, inference mode, billing unit and <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2336139/amazon-bedrock-a-solid-generative-ai-foundation.html">Bedrock</a> product family, and will enable enterprises to identify which models generated costs and compare spending across providers without relying on custom parsing or normalization of billing records, AWS wrote in a <a href="https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2026/07/aws-data-exports-amazon-bedrock-product-metadata/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">blog post</a>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That reduced reliance on custom parsing will reduce the engineering effort required to analyze billing data, analysts said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Before the update, a data engineer would typically need to maintain a model ID registry, write regex against usage type strings, or join AWS CloudTrail with CUR to figure out which provider generated which cost,” 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">The new standardized fields “can be the difference between a billing pipeline that needs constant babysitting and one that doesn’t,” Chopra added.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That’s because custom parsing logic is more prone to break down or require maintenance when AWS adds new models or updates pricing in Bedrock, said <a href="https://pareekh.com/about/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Pareekh Jain</a>, principal analyst at Pareekh Consulting.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Richer billing data to boost enterprise AI cost governance</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Beyond reducing engineering overhead, the update could also help enterprises improve AI cost governance.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Before this update FinOps teams struggled to identify which model Bedrock related to because usage type fields were inconsistent, and there was no unified product family name that captured all Bedrock costs in one place, Chopra said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Now those attributes — model provider, model name, inference type, inference mode, pricing unit — are standardized and available by default. That’s the plumbing work no one talks about, but it’s what makes downstream reporting actually reliable,” Chopra added.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This, said Jain, makes it easier to build dashboards showing cost by model, provider, token type or inference mode while also identifying expensive workloads, unusual token growth and opportunities to move to cheaper models or batch processing.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It’s a timely update, especially in light of last week’s <a href="https://health.aws.amazon.com/health/status?eventID=arn:aws:health:global::event/BILLING/AWS_BILLING_OPERATIONAL_ISSUE/AWS_BILLING_OPERATIONAL_ISSUE_47B68_BACBD91434F" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">AWS billing issue</a> that caused some customers to see incorrect cost estimates of services consumed in the AWS Management Console, said <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/muskan-bandta2004" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Muskan Bandta</a>, cloud associate at FinOps services providing firm ZopDev.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Anything that gives customers clearer, more granular and more trustworthy billing data is welcome when confidence in the numbers has just been shaken. It does not fix what went wrong, but better visibility into where spend is going is exactly what teams want more of after an episode like that,” Bandta added.</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></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[Samsung Galaxy Unpacked Live: Z Fold 8, Z Flip 8 Expected]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Samsung’s summer Unpacked event kicks off Wednesday at 9 a.m. ET (6 a.m. PT, 2 p.m. BST). We’re counting down the final rumors as we wait for Samsung’s next foldable phones and watches.]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3683784/it-nachrichten/samsung-galaxy-unpacked-live-z-fold-8-z-flip-8-expected/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3683784/it-nachrichten/samsung-galaxy-unpacked-live-z-fold-8-z-flip-8-expected/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 15:18:26 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Samsung’s summer Unpacked event kicks off Wednesday at 9 a.m. ET (6 a.m. PT, 2 p.m. BST). We’re counting down the final rumors as we wait for Samsung’s next foldable phones and watches.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The token debate: What CIOs can learn from the laws of thermodynamics]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[What if the next breakthrough in Enterprise AI doesn’t come from computer science alone?



What if it comes from applying principles that physicists have understood for more than a century?



According to Gartner, rising token-driven AI spend is straining budgets and challenging cost justificat...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3683604/it-nachrichten/the-token-debate-what-cios-can-learn-from-the-laws-of-thermodynamics/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3683604/it-nachrichten/the-token-debate-what-cios-can-learn-from-the-laws-of-thermodynamics/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 14:03:52 +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">What if the next breakthrough in Enterprise AI doesn’t come from computer science alone?</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">What if it comes from applying principles that physicists have understood for more than a century?</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">According to <a href="https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2026-06-24-gartner-predicts-ai-coding-costs-will-surpass-average-developer-salary-by-2028-as-token-consumption-surges">Gartner</a>, rising token-driven AI spend is straining budgets and challenging cost justification. As organizations race to deploy generative AI and agentic systems, token consumption dominates nearly every executive discussion: How many tokens did we use? How much did inference cost? Can we reduce our AI bill?</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">These are important operational questions. But they are not the strategic questions.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I believe the economics of enterprise AI can be viewed through the lens of three well-established principles from thermodynamics: the conservation of energy, entropy, and exergy.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">While these principles describe physical systems — not AI —they offer a useful way to think about how organizations should measure AI success.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Principle 1: Value is created through transformation</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics#First_law">The 1<sup>st</sup> Law of Thermodynamics</a> tells us that energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can only be transformed.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Enterprise AI presents a similar management lesson: Tokens are not valuable because they are consumed; they become valuable only when they are transformed into business outcomes: A faster loan application decision. A better customer experience. Faster and more accurate software. Reduced fraud. Higher employee productivity. A new product. A strategic insight.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The executive question therefore is not, “How many tokens did we consume?” It is: “How much business value did those tokens create?”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This leads to a new executive metric: return on tokens (ROT).</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Just as organizations measure return on investment, they should begin measuring the business value generated for every million AI tokens consumed.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The organizations that win will not necessarily consume fewer tokens. They will generate more value from every token they use.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Principle 2: Every transformation creates waste</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics#Second_law">The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics</a> teaches us that every energy transformation introduces inefficiencies.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Some energy inevitably becomes less useful for doing work.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The same pattern appears in enterprise AI: Not every token contributes equally to business outcomes.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Some are spent on:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Repeated prompts</li>



<li>Oversized context windows</li>



<li>Redundant reasoning</li>



<li>Hallucinations requiring correction</li>



<li>Multiple agents performing the same work</li>



<li>Expensive models solving simple problems</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Those tokens are not “lost.” They simply produce very little business value.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I think of this as token entropy. Every enterprise deploying AI will experience it. The goal is not to eliminate token entropy completely — that would be unrealistic. The goal is to continuously identify it, measure it and reduce it. Because every unnecessary token represents an opportunity to improve both cost and business performance.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Principle 3: Useful work matters more than energy consumed</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Thermodynamics introduces another important idea: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exergy">Exergy</a>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Unlike energy, exergy measures how much energy can actually be converted into useful work. Two systems may consume the same amount of energy while producing dramatically different results.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The same is true for enterprise AI.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Imagine two companies each consuming one billion tokens. One produces meeting summaries. The other transforms claims operations, accelerates software delivery, detects fraud, improves customer retention, and creates new revenue opportunities. Both consumed the same number of tokens. Only one extracted significantly more business value.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Borrowing this concept as a management analogy, I call this token exergy.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Token exergy represents an organization’s ability to convert AI intelligence into meaningful business outcomes:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>High token exergy means AI is solving important business problems.</li>



<li>Low token exergy means AI is generating activity without creating proportional enterprise value.</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The distinction matters, because activity is not the same as impact.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">A new responsibility for CIOs</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For years, CIOs have monitored infrastructure: Cloud costs, storage, network utilization, GPU consumption.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">These metrics remain important, but they tell only part of the story.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4184596/tokenomics-in-enterprise-ai.html?utm=hybrid_search">Token usage needs to be measured, planned, optimized and governed with the same discipline as any other cloud resource.</a> This means that the next generation of CIO dashboards should answer different questions:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>What is our return on tokens?</li>



<li>Where is token entropy reducing our effectiveness?</li>



<li>How much token exergy are we generating?</li>



<li>Which AI initiatives produce the greatest business value?</li>



<li>Which use cases create the strongest competitive advantage?</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">These are no longer technology metrics. They are business metrics.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The next generation of CIOs will not simply deploy AI. They will manage an economy of intelligence.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Their role will resemble that of a portfolio manager — allocating AI capacity where it creates the greatest enterprise value, reducing waste and continuously improving the productivity of every autonomous workflow.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That responsibility cannot be fulfilled by dashboards alone.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It requires an intelligent layer capable of observing, learning and optimizing the entire AI  ecosystem. <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4157977/micro-and-macro-agents-the-emerging-architecture-of-the-agentic-enterprise.html?utm=hybrid_search">Three-layer enterprise agentic architecture</a> Will enable this.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The next competitive advantage</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Every major technology revolution eventually shifts from measuring inputs to measuring outcomes:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Factories stopped measuring coal consumption and began measuring productivity.</li>



<li>Cloud computing evolved beyond server utilization to business agility.</li>



<li>Digital businesses measured customer acquisition costs and lifetime value.</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Enterprise AI is approaching the same inflection point. Organizations that focus only on token costs will optimize for efficiency. Organizations that measure return on tokens, minimize token entropy and maximize token exergy will optimize for business transformation.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That is a fundamentally different objective. And I believe it will separate AI leaders from AI followers.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Because in the end, the future of enterprise AI will not be determined by how many tokens an organization consumes. It will be determined by how effectively those tokens are transformed into lasting business value. <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4183263/the-ai-adoption-spree-is-over-time-to-focus-on-value.html?utm=hybrid_search">The AI adoption spending spree is over. Time to focus on value.</a></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[Small models, sovereign advantage: Why Australia should build its own AI edge]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[For the past three years, the AI conversation has been dominated by scale. Bigger models, bigger compute clusters, bigger headlines. But the next wave of competitive advantage won’t come from who can rent the biggest model; it will come from who can build the smallest one that knows their busines...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3683294/it-nachrichten/small-models-sovereign-advantage-why-australia-should-build-its-own-ai-edge/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3683294/it-nachrichten/small-models-sovereign-advantage-why-australia-should-build-its-own-ai-edge/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 12:03:22 +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">For the past three years, the AI conversation has been dominated by scale. Bigger models, bigger compute clusters, bigger headlines. But the next wave of competitive advantage won’t come from who can rent the biggest model; it will come from who can build the smallest one that knows their business.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That model is the <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4119259/small-language-models-why-specialized-ai-agents-boost-resilience-and-protect-privacy.html">small language model (SLM)</a>: Compact, purpose-built, trained on an organization’s own data and run under that organization’s own governance. And it is about to become one of the most consequential strategic assets available to both the private and public sector.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The problem with renting intelligence</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Right now, most organizations consume AI the way they once consumed electricity from a single utility by plugging into a handful of frontier models built by a small number of global vendors. These models are extraordinary generalists. They are also, by design, generic. They are tuned to be safe, broad and useful to everyone, which means they are optimised for no one in particular.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That’s a problem for any organization trying to build genuine differentiation. If every competitor in your sector is calling the same foundation model with the same prompts, the model itself is not your edge. Your edge is what only you know, your proprietary data, your institutional judgement, your operating history. A generic model can’t see any of that unless you keep feeding it to them, turn after turn, at cost, with no lasting memory and no guarantee of where that data ends up.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">An SLM flips that equation. Trained on an organization’s own document libraries, case histories, policy archives, transaction data and operational know-how, it becomes a model that thinks the way your organization thinks, because it was built from your organization’s accumulated judgement. It doesn’t need to be the smartest model in the world. It needs to be the most useful one for you.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I’ve seen this play out directly. At one of Australia’s largest integrated tourism and cruise businesses, simultaneously a B2C retailer, a B2B distributor to thousands of agency and wholesale clients globally, an aggregator marketplace for more than 1,800 independent tourism operators, and a cruise operator with offshore shared services spanning finance, customer contact and content management. The constraint wasn’t a lack of access to large general-purpose models. It was that none of them understood the business: 1,800 different operator catalogues, each with its own pricing logic, inventory quirks and content conventions; years of customer contact history with its own vocabulary and escalation patterns; a marketplace search experience that needed to reason over the business’s own product taxonomy, not the open web’s.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Models trained and tuned on that proprietary data, operator listings, historical tickets, booking and pricing data delivered results a generic model never could. Domain-tuned content drafting cut operator listing time by 70% and eliminated a 23-day onboarding backlog outright, taking new-operator time-to-live from 23 days to three. A semantic search model trained on the marketplace’s own product catalogue lifted booking conversion by 24%. AI-driven triage trained on the business’s own contact history cut Tier 1 escalations by 34%. None of this came from a smarter foundation model. It came from a smaller, more specific one that knew the business.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Why “small” is the strategic choice, not the compromise</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There’s a temptation to treat SLMs as the budget option, what you build when you can’t afford a frontier model. That’s the wrong frame. The evidence is already compelling: <a href="https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/empowering-innovation-the-next-generation-of-the-phi-family/">Microsoft’s Phi-4 family of small models</a>, released in early 2025, demonstrated that a 14-billion-parameter model can match or exceed the performance of models many times its size on complex reasoning and domain-specific tasks while running at a fraction of the compute cost and on-premise, entirely within an organization’s own infrastructure. Smaller, domain-trained models are increasingly outperforming general-purpose giants on narrow, high-value tasks, with far tighter control over data residency, security and explainability.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For a CIO or CTO, that combination of lower cost, tighter governance, higher task-specific accuracy is rare enough to demand attention on its own. But the deeper value sits one layer up, at the operating model. An SLM trained on your service history can sit inside claims processing, citizen services, clinical triage, asset maintenance scheduling or M&amp;A due diligence quietly compounding institutional knowledge into a reusable asset rather than letting it walk out the door every time someone retires or resigns.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That is the real shift: AI capability stops being a subscription and starts being a balance-sheet asset. It can be valued, protected, audited and improved because it belongs to you.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The public sector’s hidden advantage</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Nowhere is this more obvious than in government. The public sector sits on some of the richest, least-exploited data and institutional knowledge in the country: Decades of policy outcomes, service delivery history, regulatory precedent, infrastructure records and frontline expertise. Most of it has never been put to systematic use because no commercially available model was ever trusted to touch it, and rightly so.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A small, sovereign, purpose-built model changes that calculus. Trained, hosted and governed entirely within government infrastructure, an SLM doesn’t require sensitive citizen or policy data to leave a secure perimeter. The Australian Government has already recognised this direction: <a href="https://www.finance.gov.au/about-us/news/2025/introducing-aps-ai-plan">The APS AI Plan, released in November 2025</a>, commits to expanding the GovAI platform to provide all public servants with secure, sovereign AI tools operating entirely within Australian Government infrastructure. SLMs tuned to individual agency mandates are the logical next step and a more powerful one than any generic government-wide tool can deliver.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Rather than each agency independently negotiating with the same handful of overseas vendors, a coordinated approach of common standards for model governance, shared security architecture, common evaluation frameworks and pooled infrastructure investment would let agencies build and reuse SLM capability horizontally, the way shared services and common ICT platforms have been built before. Each agency gets a model genuinely tuned to its mandate, but the security model, audit trail and assurance framework are consistent, government-backed and independently verifiable.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Done well, this isn’t just an efficiency play. It’s a sovereignty play. As <a href="https://www.govtechreview.com.au/content/gov-datacentre/article/why-sovereign-ai-is-becoming-a-strategic-priority-in-australia-81646916">GovTech Review has noted</a>, large language models hosted offshore create data flows that extend beyond Australia’s borders in ways that are rarely transparent, a risk that is simply untenable for government. Sovereign, purpose-built models keep Australian public data, public knowledge and the resulting capability uplift inside Australian hands, rather than exporting both the data and the long-term value to offshore platforms.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Why this belongs in the innovation budget, not the IT budget</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The instinct in many organizations is to treat AI spend as an IT line item, something to be minimised, benchmarked and squeezed for cost efficiency. SLMs deserve a different treatment. They are closer to R&amp;D than infrastructure: An investment in converting accumulated institutional knowledge into a durable, defensible capability.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That argument holds in the private sector too. A PE-backed portfolio company, a regulated financial services firm, a healthcare provider — each has years of proprietary operating data sitting idle in case files, transaction logs and service records. An SLM built on that data is a way of turning a sunk cost, decades of operational history, into a forward-looking asset that compounds with every additional case it processes.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Boards and executive committees that are still asking “what is our AI strategy?” as a single, undifferentiated question are asking the wrong thing. The better question is: Which parts of our operation are rich enough in proprietary data and judgement to justify owning the model outright, rather than renting someone else’s?</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The opportunity in front of us</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The first wave of enterprise AI adoption was about access: Getting a capable model into people’s hands quickly. The next wave will be about ownership: Who controls the model, who controls the data it was built on, and who captures the long-term value of the institutional knowledge it encodes.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Australia, with a public sector rich in data and a private sector with deep vertical expertise in financial services, resources, healthcare and logistics, is well placed to lead on this if it treats small, sovereign models as a genuine national capability question, not a procurement footnote. The organizations, and the country, that move early will not just save money. They will own something their competitors can’t easily replicate: An AI that knows them.</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[The next AI bottleneck is not the model. It’s the infrastructure behind it]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Every enterprise AI conversation seems to begin with the same question: Which model should we use?



I understand why. Models are visible. They have names, benchmarks, release notes, pricing pages and impressive demos. They are easy to compare in a leadership meeting. One model promises better r...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3683109/it-nachrichten/the-next-ai-bottleneck-is-not-the-model-its-the-infrastructure-behind-it/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3683109/it-nachrichten/the-next-ai-bottleneck-is-not-the-model-its-the-infrastructure-behind-it/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 11:03:50 +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">Every enterprise AI conversation seems to begin with the same question: Which model should we use?</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I understand why. Models are visible. They have names, benchmarks, release notes, pricing pages and impressive demos. They are easy to compare in a leadership meeting. One model promises better reasoning. Another offers a larger context window. Another appears faster, cheaper or more specialized.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But after years of working around enterprise platforms, integration layers, cloud migration, middleware, production operations and mission-critical systems, I see the AI conversation differently.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The model matters. But it is not where most enterprises will struggle next.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The next AI bottleneck is the infrastructure behind the model.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I do not mean only GPUs, cloud capacity or data storage. I mean the full enterprise operating layer that allows AI to work safely in the real world: data pipelines, identity, APIs, messaging, observability, security controls, deployment automation, cost governance, auditability, support ownership and recovery design.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That layer is what determines whether AI remains an exciting experiment or becomes a trusted business capability.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Pilots hide the hard part</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Most organizations can build an <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4159287/most-companies-are-stuck-on-ai-chat.html">impressive AI pilot</a>. A small team can connect a model to a dataset, create a workflow and show a use case that works well in a controlled setting.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The harder part starts when that pilot moves into a <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4161509/ai-hype-to-ai-value-escaping-the-activity-trap.html">real production process</a>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That is when practical questions show up. Who owns the data quality? What systems can the AI access? How do we trace which prompt, policy or retrieval flow produced a specific answer? What happens when an API slows down, a queue backs up or a downstream system is unavailable?</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">To me, these are not model problems. They are infrastructure problems.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is where many enterprises are now headed. The first phase of AI was experimentation. The next phase is operationalization, and that is where the real gap becomes clear.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/quantumblack/our-insights/seizing-the-agentic-ai-advantage">McKinsey</a> has made a similar point in its work on agentic AI, noting that the next phase of value depends less on isolated tools and more on redesigning workflows, operating models and enterprise execution around agents.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AI pilots can survive on enthusiasm. Production AI requires architecture.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">AI is becoming an integration problem</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The more I look at enterprise AI, the more it feels like an integration challenge.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In large organizations, I have seen how messaging platforms, integration gateways, deployment pipelines, monitoring tools and cloud infrastructure can decide whether a digital capability succeeds or fails. AI will be no different. Even the strongest model will struggle if the data, middleware, identity layer and operational controls around it are weak.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AI does not work in isolation. It needs context from systems of record, clean data from different business areas, secure access to APIs, event streams, workflows, knowledge repositories, monitoring tools and legacy systems.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That is why the CIO question is changing.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It is no longer just, “Which AI tool should we buy?”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It is becoming, “Can we safely operationalize intelligence across the business?”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is where agentic AI matters. Autonomous AI only creates real value when the architecture around it can make its actions safe, traceable and useful.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A model can generate an answer. Infrastructure determines whether that answer is secure, timely, explainable, governed and connected to the right workflow.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For example, an AI assistant that summarizes customer or order information may look like a model use case. But underneath, it depends on access control, fresh data, reliable APIs, logging, encryption, monitoring and policy enforcement.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">If the answer is wrong, people may blame the model. But the real failure may have started with stale data, weak integration, poor access design, missing observability or an unreliable downstream system.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That is why CIOs should not judge AI only by model capability. The enterprise system around the model matters just as much.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Latency will become a trust issue</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In traditional technology operations, latency is often treated as a performance metric. In AI-enabled workflows, latency becomes a trust issue.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When an employee asks an AI assistant for help and the response takes too long, the employee stops using it. When a customer-facing workflow becomes slow, the customer abandons it. When an AI agent waits on multiple backend calls, the entire business process feels unreliable.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This becomes even more important as organizations move from simple chat interfaces to agentic workflows. A single AI-driven action may include identity checks, context retrieval, policy validation, model reasoning, API calls, business-rule execution, logging and human approval.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Each step adds latency. Each dependency adds a possible failure point.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A model may be fast in a benchmark but slow inside an enterprise process. That difference matters.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is where platform engineering becomes essential. Enterprises need reusable patterns for AI workloads: approved connectors, secure retrieval methods, queue-based decoupling, caching strategies, deployment pipelines, monitoring dashboards and standard rollback procedures.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Without those patterns, every AI initiative becomes a custom build. Custom builds may work for pilots, but they do not scale across a large enterprise.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Observability has to expand</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Traditional monitoring tells us whether infrastructure is healthy. Is the server up? Is CPU high? Is memory exhausted? Is the application returning errors?</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AI needs that, but it also needs more.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We need to know what data was retrieved, which model was used, which prompt version was active, which user initiated the request, which policy was applied, how long each step took and whether the output passed validation.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We also need to detect new forms of risk: unusual usage patterns, repeated failed tool calls, unexpected cost spikes, sensitive data exposure, weak retrieval results or an AI workflow attempting actions outside its intended boundary.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In production AI, observability is not only about uptime. It is about confidence.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">If a business leader, auditor, regulator or security team asks why an AI system made a recommendation, the answer cannot be, “The model said so.” The enterprise needs traceability. It needs evidence. It needs operational context that engineers, risk teams and business owners can understand.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is one of the biggest gaps I see in AI strategy. Many organizations are investing in models and use cases, but not enough in the control plane required to manage them.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Data readiness is still underestimated</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AI has exposed an uncomfortable truth: many enterprises are not as data ready as they think.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Data is often duplicated across platforms, described differently by each team, governed inconsistently and refreshed on different schedules. Access rules may be clear in one system but unclear in another. Even basic business definitions can change from department to department.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AI does not fix that automatically. In many cases, it makes the problem more visible.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A bad report may be questioned. A bad AI answer may sound confident enough to be trusted.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That is a real risk.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Being data-ready for AI is not just about connecting a vector database or indexing documents. It requires clear ownership, lineage, classification, quality checks, retention rules, access boundaries and a shared understanding of which data should be used for which purpose.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The same principle applies to resilient cloud-native design. In my IEEE TechRxiv paper, “<a href="https://www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.175433366.65304469/v1">Enabling Fault-Tolerant Multicast in Cloud-Native Architectures</a>” I explored how reliability, observability and fault tolerance become foundational requirements when critical workloads stretch across hybrid and multi-cloud environments.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">CIOs already understand this because they have lived through enterprise resource planning programs, cloud migration, integration modernization, cybersecurity transformation and analytics initiatives. The lesson is familiar: technology cannot outrun data discipline forever.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Security cannot be added later</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As AI moves from answering questions to acting, security becomes much more important.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">An assistant that summarizes information carries one level of risk. An agent that can open a ticket, update a record, trigger a workflow, approve a request or contact a customer carries a very different one.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The more AI can do, the more identity, authorization, least privilege, separation of duties and human approval matter.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Enterprises should be careful not to grant AI broad access just to speed up a pilot. That may seem harmless in development, but it can become dangerous at scale.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AI access should be treated like any other privileged enterprise capability: limited, logged, reviewed and easy to revoke.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The <a href="https://www.nist.gov/itl/ai-risk-management-framework">NIST</a> AI Risk Management Framework is a useful reference point here because it frames AI risk as something organizations must govern, map, measure and manage continuously rather than something handled only at the end of deployment.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Security teams should be involved early, not at the end. The goal is not to slow innovation. The goal is to build a platform where safe innovation becomes repeatable.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The CIO has to define the operating model</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AI is creating pressure from every direction. Boards want productivity. Business teams want automation. Employees want better tools. Vendors are pushing new features. Security teams are watching risk. Finance teams are watching cost. Customers expect faster, smarter experiences.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The CIO sits in the middle of all of it.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That is why the CIO’s role cannot stop at choosing tools or approving pilots. The CIO has to define how AI will actually operate across the enterprise.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That means answering practical questions. Which architecture is approved? Which data sources can be trusted? How are AI workflows deployed, monitored, supported and governed? How are costs controlled? How do teams reuse common patterns instead of rebuilding the same foundation each time?</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This work may not be as exciting as a model demo, but it is what separates sustainable AI from short-term experimentation.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The winning organizations will not be the ones with the most pilots. They will be the ones with the strongest AI operating layer.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">They will build reusable platform patterns, strengthen data governance, design access properly, monitor AI behavior end to end and measure success by business improvement, not only model performance.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The model still matters. But the enterprise behind the model matters more.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A powerful model on weak infrastructure will eventually disappoint the business. A capable model on strong infrastructure can deliver real value because it can be trusted, secured, scaled and improved.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That is the shift CIOs need to lead.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The next AI bottleneck is not the model. It is whether the enterprise behind the model is ready.</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[177: National Public Data]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[This is the story of the hacker known as "USDoD". When he was young he had a vengeance on the US, and this lead him down a road of continual data breaches, until he hacked into National Public Data, which is when his spree went one step too far.SponsorsSupport for this show comes from ThreatLocke...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3682878/podcasts/177-national-public-data/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3682878/podcasts/177-national-public-data/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 09:03:54 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🎥 Podcasts</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is the story of the hacker known as "USDoD". When he was young he had a vengeance on the US, and this lead him down a road of continual data breaches, until he hacked into National Public Data, which is when his spree went one step too far.</p><h3>Sponsors</h3><p>Support for this show comes from <a href="https://www.threatlocker.com/"><strong>ThreatLocker®</strong></a>. ThreatLocker® is a Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform that strengthens your infrastructure from the ground up. With ThreatLocker® Allowlisting and Ringfencing™, you gain a more secure approach to blocking exploits of known and unknown vulnerabilities. ThreatLocker® provides Zero Trust control at the kernel level that enables you to allow everything you need and block everything else, including ransomware! Learn more at <a href="https://www.threatlocker.com/"><strong>www.threatlocker.com</strong></a>.</p><p>This show is sponsored by <a href="http://mazehq.com/darknet"><strong>Maze</strong></a>. Maze uses AI agents to triage and remediate cloud vulnerabilities by figuring out what’s actually exploitable, not just what’s theoretically risky. They remove the noise, prioritize vulns that matter, and manage remediation, so your team stops wasting time on meaningless vulns. Visit <a href="http://mazehq.com/darknet"><strong>MazeHQ.com/darknet</strong></a> for more information.</p><p>This show is sponsored by <a href="https://sentry.io/"><strong>Sentry.IO</strong></a>. Sentry wants to help you monitor your environment for problems. They do error tracking, stack tracing, debugging, all so that your developers can diagnose, fix, and optimize the performance of their code. This makes it so developers ship more reliable code faster. Learn more at <a href="https://sentry.io/"><strong>sentry.io</strong></a>.</p><p><a href="https://darknetdiaries.com/sponsors/"><strong>View all active sponsors.</strong></a></p><h3>Sources</h3><p>Full list of sources on the show page: <a href="https://darknetdiaries.com/episode/177/"><strong>https://darknetdiaries.com/episode/177/</strong></a></p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Apple Releases iPadOS 27 Beta 4: What’s New and How to Install]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Apple has released iPadOS 27 beta 4 for registered developers, continuing its testing ahead of the public launch expected later this year. The update carries build number 24A5390f and arrives around two weeks after the previous developer beta.



The latest beta mainly focuses on fixing bugs, imp...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3682865/ios-mac-os/apple-releases-ipados-27-beta-4-whats-new-and-how-to-install/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3682865/ios-mac-os/apple-releases-ipados-27-beta-4-whats-new-and-how-to-install/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 08:55:26 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🍏 iOS / Mac OS</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Apple has released iPadOS 27 beta 4 for registered developers, continuing its testing ahead of the public launch expected later this year. The update carries build number 24A5390f and arrives around two weeks after the previous developer beta.



The latest beta mainly focuses on fixing bugs, improving system stability, and refining features introduced in earlier iPadOS 27 builds. Apple has not announced any major iPad-specific additions in beta 4 so far.



Since this remains pre-release software, users should expect occasional app crashes, battery drain, performance problems, or other unexpected issues. Back up your iPad before installing the update.



How to Update to iPadOS 27 Beta 4



Follow these steps if your Apple Account is registered for developer beta updates:




Open the Settings app on your iPad.



Tap General.



Select Software Update.



Tap Beta Updates.



Choose iPadOS 27 Developer Beta.



Return to the Software Update page.



Tap Update Now when iPadOS 27 beta 4 appears.



Enter your passcode and accept the terms when requested.




Keep your iPad connected to Wi-Fi and make sure it has enough battery power. Connecting it to a charger during installation is recommended.



Users who are already running an earlier iPadOS 27 developer beta can install beta 4 directly from the Software Update section.



Everything New in iPadOS 27 Beta 4



No major iPad-only features have been discovered in iPadOS 27 beta 4 at the time of writing. Most changes appear to be shared system improvements and fixes also included with iOS 27 beta 4.




Improved system stability: The update includes additional fixes designed to reduce freezing, unexpected restarts, and crashes while the device is sitting idle.



Siri improvements: Apple continues to fix problems affecting Siri and its newer artificial intelligence features introduced with iPadOS 27.



Messages fixes: Beta 4 includes changes intended to improve reliability inside the Messages app.



Photos improvements: Apple has addressed problems affecting Photos, although no major new editing tools or interface changes have appeared in this beta.



Safari fixes: The update includes further stability improvements for Safari and its newer browsing features.



AirPods controls: Updated AirPods controls have started appearing in Control Center, along with additional options for Adaptive Audio on supported models.



Connectivity settings: The update introduces more control over connectivity assistance for individual Wi-Fi networks on supported devices.



General performance improvements: Users can expect smaller interface refinements, smoother animations, and fixes for problems reported during earlier beta testing.




Some changes can depend on the iPad model, region, language, and Apple Intelligence support. More features may also appear after testers spend additional time using the update.



Should You Install iPadOS 27 Beta 4?



iPadOS 27 beta 4 is suitable for developers and experienced users who want to test upcoming features before the official release. However, installing it on your main iPad can affect important apps, battery life, accessories, and daily performance.



Users who want a more stable experience should stay on the public beta or wait for the finished iPadOS 27 update later this year.



If you’ve already installed the update, let us know your experience in the comments.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[CIO 100 Leadership Live New York: CIOs push past AI pilots for measurable returns]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Technology executives from across the New York metropolitan area gathered July 16 at Convene, One Liberty Plaza, for CIO 100 Leadership Live New York, a full day of roundtables and panel discussions on enterprise AI investment, governance, and organizational change.



Several key areas of consen...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3682348/it-security-nachrichten/cio-100-leadership-live-new-york-cios-push-past-ai-pilots-for-measurable-returns/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3682348/it-security-nachrichten/cio-100-leadership-live-new-york-cios-push-past-ai-pilots-for-measurable-returns/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 01:07:24 +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">Technology executives from across the New York metropolitan area gathered July 16 at Convene, One Liberty Plaza, for <a href="https://event.foundryco.com/cio-100-leadership-live-new-york/">CIO 100 Leadership Live New York</a>, a full day of roundtables and panel discussions on enterprise AI investment, governance, and organizational change.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Several key areas of consensus emerged throughout this highly interactive event. Infrastructure fragmentation continues to block the path to securing returns on AI investments prompting leaders to understand rising cloud spend attributed to large language model utilization. This has caused a growing number of organizations to refocus on on-premises and hybrid options in C-suite and board-level capital planning conversations. Speakers, along with comments from the audience, described a shift from project thinking to product thinking, with smaller multidisciplinary teams moving faster than legacy structures.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Several participants repeatedly warned that automating broken processes just amplifies dysfunction. Governance and measurement remain unresolved, with usage metrics still getting mistaken for business value. One of the panels explored how CIOs may benefit from applying venture capital-style scrutiny to enterprise bets, weighing team execution as heavily as the technology itself. The throughline was a redefinition of the CIO role, from technology executor to business strategist fluent in revenue, board engagement, and transformation ownership.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Morning roundtable tackles AI infrastructure</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The day opened with an invitation-only executive breakfast roundtable, “Beyond the Pilot, Building the Infrastructure for Real AI Returns,” co-hosted by Unisys and Dell Technologies. Over a dozen executives representing major public and private sector organizations across the New York metropolitan area joined Steve Hollander, senior director of Americas global alliances at Dell Technologies, and Matt Marshall, CIO at Unisys for a workshop-style discussion.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The session explored the strategic, operational, financial, and technological issues that must be mastered to optimize infrastructure decisions and separate organizations that are experimenting with AI from those competing on it. Discussion questions probed how CIOs measure whether AI investment is translating into business results, how they can break the cycle of fragmented and siloed AI deployments, how boards are beginning to scrutinize seven-figure token spend and whether on-premises or hybrid infrastructure can rein in costs.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The take-home point: the organizations pulling ahead are the ones that stopped treating AI as four separate problems, strategic, operational, financial, technological, owned by four separate functions, and started running it as one coordinated decision. Fragmentation is the actual cost center here, not the token spend itself. A CIO who solves the infrastructure question in isolation from the governance question, or the cost question in isolation from the talent question, ends up optimizing one silo while the other three keep bleeding value. Competing on AI, instead of just experimenting with it, means the finance, operations, technology and business sides are reasoning from the same picture of what’s being built and why, so the tradeoffs get made once, together, instead of getting re-litigated at every handoff.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Forum sessions open with a mandate for growth</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Following breakfast, the main forum program began with “The New CIO Mandate, Delivering Growth, Not Just Technology.” In a moderated conversation, Laksh Nathan, chief information officer at Paramount Skydance, drew on his experience with mergers, enterprise transformation and AI-enabled development to describe a shift from project and application management toward a product-centric operating model. Nathan addressed how smaller, multidisciplinary teams are changing expectations on both the business and technology sides of the enterprise, and what mindset changes CIOs must lead to turn AI into an engine of growth rather than a cost center.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">PwC followed with a session on “Designing the Intelligent Enterprise, From AI Investment to Evolving Operations.” Darren O’Meara, principal and chief technology officer for managed services, and Meghna Shah, principal for engineering and AI, examined why fragmented outcomes persist even after heavy investment in technology and transformation.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The intelligent enterprise, they posited, is less about working toward achieving specific technology outcomes and more about creating operating models that integrate strategy, technology, operations, and governance into one system. This, they explained, requires linking AI, data, and decisions across the business and will leave an indelible mark on how decision rights are redesigned, funding models are developed, and accountability is enforced to accommodate the speed of the agentic economy.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Talent, tradeoffs, and the cost of getting it wrong</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The session “Return on Transformation: Time, Talent, and Tradeoffs” — with Prashant Hinge, chief information and transformation officer at MSIG USA; Joseph Gimigliano, chief technology officer at Northwell Health; and Eduard de Vries Sands, AI executive advisor at PatientPoint — examined why transformation initiatives so often lose their way.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The main culprit, even today in 2026, continues to revolve around a persistent instinct for technology implementations to become the objective rather than the means to a measurable business outcome. The panelists made the case for doing the incredibly difficult work of re-engineering (if not entirely re-imagining) existing processes before automating them and then placing smaller bets inside that bigger vision.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Ricky Thakrar, head of sales and account management at Zoho, took the stage to present “Smaller, Smarter, Safer, The Enterprise AI Architecture Most Leaders Get Backwards,” arguing that constrained, context-rich architectures consistently outperform expensive models bolted onto fragmented systems.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A round of Hot Topic Discussion Groups and a networking lunch followed, including the Next CIO Luncheon featuring Robert Half Regional Director Jason Deneu.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Afternoon sessions turn to security, scale, and investment signals</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">CSO and CIO Contributor Joan Goodchild moderated “Securing Trust in the Agentic Economy,” a discussion with Marlowe Cochran, CISO at the New York State Education Department, and Gee Rittenhouse, vice president of security services at AWS, on how organizations are balancing speed, innovation and security as AI agents move from experimentation into productization at scale.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Rittenhouse framed agentic risk as closer to human risk than traditional software risk, describing how an independent agent acting in a non-deterministic way really does look like a potential insider threat, pushing CISOs toward behavioral monitoring over static workload protection. He tied this to a structural shift in defense, noting it’s hard to do agentic security if you’re not observing it, putting observability at the center of agentic risk management.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Cochran concurred, adding that many of the key tools that are needed to move into the agentic economy already exist, but must be implemented more aggressively, comprehensively and even more creatively. CISOs don’t need to invent an entirely new security discipline for the agentic era so much as extend identity management, access control and monitoring frameworks they already run to cover a new class of non-human actor — agents.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A session on “AI, From Experimentation to Enterprise Impact” brought together Meagan Gentry, national AI practice manager and distinguished technologist at Insight and Yuri Gubin, chief technology officer at DataArt, for a candid look at why pilots stall before reaching scaled production and what operating capabilities, governance, cost visibility, continuous education, must be in place to sustain AI once a proof of concept works.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">During the session’s Q&amp;A segment, a discussion emerged around how proof-of-concept success can result in a false signal, raising questions about whether pilots should be considered successful before the intended outcomes have had time to materialize, and drawing a distinction between measuring usage and adoption versus measuring business value.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The panelists explored how CIOs can identify the small number of transformational AI opportunities worth pursuing rather than managing hundreds of incremental use cases, and even challenged whether prioritization is the CIO’s job at all. The discussion closed on a sequencing question with real strategic weight, whether AI-first strategies are putting the technology ahead of the business problem CIOs are trying to solve, and what role CIOs should play with boards in defining the outcomes AI is expected to support.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">A shift in perspectives</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The “Think Like a VC, Investment Shifts Towards Focused AI Applications” session featured three venture investors, Aaron Darr, partner at Lead Edge; Isabelle Phelps, partner at Lerer Hippeau; and Marshall Porter, general partner at AlleyCorp. The panel explored how investors evaluate risk and talent in a market where products and competitive positions can shift within months, and what separates a focused AI application with durable enterprise value from an AI wrapper built to chase a trend.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The panel challenged the enterprise instinct to seek certainty in a market moving this fast, questioning whether CIOs should stop looking for technologies that will future-proof the enterprise and instead grow more comfortable continuously reassessing their bets. Investors framed this as a deliberate departure from the traditional low-tolerance-for-failure posture that has long governed enterprise technology purchasing, arguing that the search for certainty has itself become a risk in a market where products and business models can shift within months. The discussion pressed CIOs to weigh how they can adopt a more dynamic investment mindset without compromising the enterprise security, governance and accountability their organizations still depend on.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A Lightning Insights followed, featuring five-minute briefings from Insight, Platform9 and Console, followed by Keystone Senior Principal Ellora Sarkar’s talk on why most enterprise AI investment fails to produce measurable value and what separates the small share of firms capturing real return on investment from the majority still stuck in pilots.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Closing the day</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The forum closed with “What’s Next for the CIO, Preparing for the Next 12 to 24 Months,” a fireside conversation with Leif Maiorini, CIO for corporate services at Omnicom. Maiorini discussed why business processes need to be redesigned for agentic speed rather than automated around existing human workflows, how organizational structures may shift as autonomous agents reshape visibility and decision support, and where sustainable differentiation will come from once AI capability itself becomes widely accessible.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Maiorini encouraged the industry to clearly distinguish between nondifferentiated services that should be made as efficient as possible and the differentiated capabilities that actually influence why customers choose to do business with an organization, once the major efficiency gains from optimization and AI have been captured.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">He was candid about the governance gap agentic systems open up, noting that agents lack the professional reputation, personal accountability and inherent constraints that shape human behavior, which creates new risk when autonomous decisions occur at machine speed. That combination, reinvesting efficiency gains into genuine differentiation while building governance models suited to non-human decision-makers, framed his closing case for why human creativity and judgment remain the enterprise’s most durable asset even as the underlying technology becomes commoditized.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong><em>Join the CIO 100 Awards &amp; Conference Aug 17–19, 2026 at Omni PGA Frisco Resort &amp; Spa, Frisco, TX — where top IT leaders celebrate innovation and connect.  <a href="https://event.foundryco.com/cio100-symposium-and-awards/?utm_medium=editorial&amp;utm_source=cio100_foundry_research&amp;utm_campaign=cio_100_research_foundry&amp;utm_term=4/8/2026-8/19//2026&amp;utm_content=editorial">Learn more to attend or partner</a>.</em></strong></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[v2.1.216]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[What's changed

Added sandbox.filesystem.disabled setting to skip filesystem isolation while keeping network egress control
Fixed a slowdown in long sessions where message normalization cost grew quadratically with the number of turns, causing multi-second stalls and slow resumes
Fixed auto mode ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3682279/downloads/v21216/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3682279/downloads/v21216/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 00:16:52 +0200</pubDate>
<category>💾 Downloads</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<h2>What's changed</h2>
<ul>
<li>Added <code>sandbox.filesystem.disabled</code> setting to skip filesystem isolation while keeping network egress control</li>
<li>Fixed a slowdown in long sessions where message normalization cost grew quadratically with the number of turns, causing multi-second stalls and slow resumes</li>
<li>Fixed auto mode denying commands with "HTTP 401" classifier errors after the OAuth token expired or rotated mid-session</li>
<li>Fixed AskUserQuestion telling Claude to continue even when your answer asked it to wait or explain first — free-text answers now get neutral wording</li>
<li>Fixed Claude Code on the web re-asking the same question and dropping your answer after the session sat idle for a few minutes</li>
<li>Fixed @-mentions silently attaching nothing after file-modifying hooks, vim dot-repeat of <code>c</code>-operators and paste, statusline running twice on resume, and resume-picker hangs on failure</li>
<li>Fixed resumed background agent sessions reverting to the default agent: the agent's prompt and tool restrictions are now restored</li>
<li>Fixed worktree-isolated subagents redirecting git into the shared checkout via <code>git -C</code>, <code>--git-dir</code>, or <code>GIT_DIR</code>/<code>GIT_WORK_TREE</code></li>
<li>Fixed worktree sessions landing in another project's leftover worktree when the working directory did not match the selected project</li>
<li>Fixed background sessions whose worktree has no git repository being undeletable</li>
<li>Fixed <code>claude daemon stop --any</code> potentially terminating an unrelated process via a stale legacy daemon lockfile</li>
<li>Fixed Esc-Esc at an idle prompt not opening the rewind picker in long-running sessions with background tasks</li>
<li>Fixed Bash command permission checking for compound statements with redirects inside <code>&amp;&amp;</code> lists or negations</li>
<li>Fixed pressing Ctrl+X twice in the agent list failing to delete a session, and deleted sessions reappearing when their background worker had died</li>
<li>Fixed background subagents getting cancelled when a high-priority message arrives during their startup window</li>
<li>Fixed mouse and focus garbage in the terminal while a GUI editor from <code>/memory</code>, <code>/plan</code>, <code>/keybindings</code>, or Ctrl+G is open; <code>/memory</code> no longer waits for the editor to close</li>
<li>Fixed Claude-in-Chrome 403-looping on reconnect when the session's OAuth token lacks a required scope</li>
<li>Fixed workflow saves and scheduled-task writes following a symlink at <code>.claude</code>, which could redirect writes outside the project</li>
<li>Fixed MCP re-authenticate revoking working credentials before the new sign-in succeeds, and the reconnect needs-auth message in background sessions pointing at an unusable command</li>
<li>Fixed read-only commands on Windows accessing network paths without a permission prompt</li>
<li>Fixed Bash command parsing of non-ASCII characters to match real shell word boundaries</li>
<li>Fixed PowerShell tool permission validation of commands containing invisible Unicode characters</li>
<li>Fixed dialogs in fullscreen mode stretching past the right-hand edge of their panel</li>
<li>Fixed the <code>/config</code> settings list in fullscreen mode clipping its keyboard-hint footer</li>
<li>Fixed the transcript-mode (Ctrl+O) footer hint wrapping on terminals narrower than 104 columns</li>
<li>Fixed the Prometheus metrics endpoint (<code>OTEL_METRICS_EXPORTER=prometheus</code>) emitting invalid <code># UNIT</code> lines</li>
<li>Fixed skills and commands changed during a session not appearing in the slash menu until restart</li>
<li>Fixed plugin skills with a <code>name</code> frontmatter field losing their plugin prefix in slash-command autocomplete</li>
<li>Fixed telemetry misreporting permission denials: failed permission-prompt requests no longer count as user rejections, and user interrupts are now reported as user aborts instead of rejections</li>
<li>Improved the <code>/fork</code> confirmation to one line with the new session's name, <code>claude attach</code> id, and a note when the copy shares your checkout</li>
<li>Improved validation of <code>git</code> and <code>gh</code> command arguments in the PowerShell tool</li>
<li>Improved the <code>/ultrareview</code> diff-too-large error to show configured limits, measured diff size, and largest contributing files</li>
<li>Improved <code>/code-review ultra</code> empty-diff message to name the exact base ref and suggest passing an explicit base</li>
<li>Improved the spend limit adjustment prompt to show the server's reason when a spend limit change is rejected</li>
<li><code>/context</code> now shows an explicit warning when the conversation exceeds the context window, and a failed <code>/compact</code> displays as an error</li>
<li><code>/rewind</code> no longer restores or deletes files through symlinks or hard links at tracked paths and reports how many paths it skipped</li>
<li>Background sessions: <code>/mcp</code> and <code>/install-github-app</code> now park a "needs input" request in the agent view when no client is attached</li>
<li>Updated the bundled dataviz skill: reordered the default chart palette and fixed guidance that suggested direct labels for four-series charts</li>
<li>[VSCode] Fixed right-to-left text (Arabic, Hebrew, Persian) rendering in the wrong order when mixed with English or code</li>
<li>Fixed cloud sessions dropping the in-flight message when the session's container restarts mid-turn — the interrupted turn now re-runs on resume instead of leaving the session unresponsive</li>
</ul>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Writer's AI harness cuts token spend nearly 40% — without sacrificing accuracy]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Enterprise AI is facing an ROI paradox. While throwing more compute at the strongest foundation model works well in product experiments, the costs become unbearable when the product is deployed in production.A new paper from researchers at Writer provides a solution that is accessible to engineer...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3682237/it-nachrichten/writers-ai-harness-cuts-token-spend-nearly-40-without-sacrificing-accuracy/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3682237/it-nachrichten/writers-ai-harness-cuts-token-spend-nearly-40-without-sacrificing-accuracy/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 23:48:13 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Enterprise AI is facing an ROI paradox. While throwing more compute at the strongest foundation model works well in product experiments, the costs become unbearable when the product is deployed in production.</p><p>A <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.06906">new paper</a> from researchers at Writer provides a solution that is accessible to engineering teams. The study takes a systematic look at optimizing the different components of the orchestration layer that wraps around the foundation model, aka the AI harness. </p><p>By optimizing the harness, the researchers show dramatic reductions in tokens per task, a drop in cost-per-successful-task by up to 61%, and quality that holds steady, all without changing the underlying foundation model.</p><p>Because the harness is fully under the developer's control and requires no model fine-tuning, engineering teams can apply these findings to build highly cost-efficient AI applications.</p><h2>The ROI crisis of tokenmaxxing</h2><p>The current state of AI engineering is plagued by "<a href="https://blog.pragmaticengineer.com/the-pulse-tokenmaxxing-as-a-weird-new-trend/">tokenmaxxing</a>," an industry trend where developers rely on massive context windows and brute-force token consumption as a substitute for good system design. </p><p>Rather than engineering elegant workflows, developers have imported a reflex from traditional software development: generate, run, fail, stuff the error and more context back into the window, and retry. </p><p>"Teams tokenmaxx because it's the cheapest fix in the moment, and because it's literally how most engineers work today," Waseem AlShikh, CTO and co-founder of Writer, told VentureBeat. Because this approach succeeds often enough on coding tasks, it has become the default reflex for every other agentic workload. The danger is that per-token price drops mask the underlying inefficiency. </p><p>"Your invoice is tokens-per-task times price-per-token, and most teams only watch the second number," AlShikh said. "In agentic workloads, tokens-per-task compounds — every loop iteration re-transmits the growing context — and it compounds faster than prices fall. The price cut becomes an anesthetic. It masks the fact that the loop itself is bleeding."</p><p>Tokenmaxxing leads to several enterprise failure modes. Teams route simple tasks to premium frontier models by default. They use the LLM as a lazy search index, stuffing the context window with raw documents instead of retrieving exact answers. Most destructively, they build unconstrained agentic loops that spiral out of control when the model encounters an error. Because output tokens cost significantly more than input tokens across all major model providers, inefficient task execution acts as a silent budget killer.</p><p>The industry has introduced several efficiency techniques to curb these costs, but they largely fall short because they treat the model in isolation: </p><ul><li><p><b></b><a href="https://venturebeat.com/data/context-compression-finally-works-in-production-new-research-cuts-llm-input-16x-without-the-accuracy-hit"><b>Prompt compression</b></a> condenses input text to save space, but ignores how the system sequences those inputs across complex workflows. </p></li><li><p><b>Budgeted reasoning</b> caps the computational steps a model can take, which often degrades output quality if the workflow isn't intelligently routed. </p></li><li><p><b>Terse coding</b> forces models to output minimal code to save output tokens, but does nothing to solve inefficient tool calling. </p></li><li><p><a href="https://venturebeat.com/data/together-ais-atlas-adaptive-speculator-delivers-400-inference-speedup-by"><b>Speculative decoding</b></a> uses a smaller draft model to speed up a larger model's text generation, optimizing inference speed while failing to address bloated agent architectures.</p></li></ul><p>These efforts fail because they optimize the engine while ignoring the transmission. They do not look at the orchestration layer, leaving underlying architectural inefficiencies unresolved.</p><h2>Unpacking the harness: the levers of efficiency</h2><p>The harness is the orchestration layer that routes, formats, and turns the underlying LLM into a working system.</p><p>The core levers of harness optimization include system prompt caching, interaction history compaction, tool management, retrieval strategies, and error management. These are the most accessible intervention points for engineering teams looking to improve AI performance. </p><p>As the Writer researchers note in the study: “If the harness is the layer that composes model calls into work, it is also the layer that sets the price of work.”</p><p>Historically, developers have treated the harness as disposable glue code designed simply to connect an API to a user interface. The study signals that the harness must now be treated as a first-class object: a primary software artifact that requires its own testing, versioning, and rigorous design. </p><p>For enterprises, this reframes the "own-versus-rent" decision. </p><p>"Enterprises spend months on model evaluations and then rent their orchestration off the shelf — which means they're optimizing the smaller lever and outsourcing the bigger one," AlShikh said. "Whoever owns the harness owns your unit economics, and an open framework tuned for demos is not tuned for your invoice." </p><h2>Inside the experiments</h2><p>To isolate the impact of the orchestration layer, the researchers ran experiments on six foundation models spanning multiple vendors and weight classes: Claude Sonnet 4.6, Gemini 3.1, Gemini Flash 3.5, Qwen 3.6, GLM 5.1, and Writer’s own model, Palmyra X6. </p><p>Their experiments compared a frozen, conventional production agent loop against the finished Writer Agent Harness on the same 22 locked enterprise tasks, spanning capabilities like grounding and retrieval, multi-step workflows, tool use, and content generation. By holding the models and tasks constant, they could isolate the effects of the orchestration layer itself.</p><p>The optimized harness drove a significant drop in costs, cutting the blended cost per task by 41%, from 21 cents to 12 cents. This was largely achieved by slashing token consumption, with the number of tokens per task falling 38%, from 14.2k to 8.8k.</p><p>The harness is designed to delegate tasks like search to specialized sub-agents. A sub-agent receives only the tool and the specific query it needs, retrieves the exact data, and returns a capped, clean summary to the main agent — keeping the primary context window from filling up with raw search results.</p><p>Task success rates held steady even as token use fell — moving from 78% to 81%, a gain the researchers describe as directional rather than statistically significant at their sample size, meaning quality didn't suffer even as costs dropped.</p><p>End-to-end task latency also dropped significantly, reducing the median wall-clock time by 44%, from 48 seconds to 27 seconds, due to prompt caching and the elimination of dead-end reasoning loops.</p><p>However, the researchers also found limits to multi-agent orchestration. Smaller models like Gemini Flash 3.5 and Qwen 3.6 scored well below a usable reliability threshold on sub-agent delegation tasks (0.45 and 0.42, respectively) — the capability simply isn't dependable yet on lighter-weight models.</p><p>Sub-agent orchestration only crossed a usable reliability threshold on the two strongest models tested: Writer's own Palmyra X6 (0.86) and Claude Sonnet 4.6 (0.85).</p><h2>The developer’s playbook: actionable takeaways and tradeoffs</h2><p>The findings from the study translate into a playbook for enterprise developers building agentic workflows at scale. The first step is to implement what AlShikh calls the "Two-Zone Prompt" and "Context Offloading."</p><p><b>Structure for system prompt caching (The Two-Zone Prompt):</b> Modern LLM APIs offer prompt caching, but developers must structure their payloads correctly to trigger it. Developers must separate the "stable zone" from the "volatile zone." Place static, unchanging elements (e.g., core rules, large tool schemas, and standard operating procedures) at the top of the prompt. Dynamic elements, such as the specific user query or recent conversational task state, must be appended at the bottom. This ordering allows the harness to reuse the cached prefix across hundreds of calls. "That single separation makes prompt caching actually work and stops you from re-paying for the same instructions on every one of an agent's thirty steps," AlShikh said.</p><p><b>Manage context with Context Offloading:</b> Avoid context stuffing, where every turn of a loop is appended into a monolithic prompt until the window maxes out. Instead, move history and intermediate artifacts out of the window into retrievable storage, and pull back only what the current step needs. If possible, delegate tasks to single-purpose sub-agents to avoid context bloat. As AlShikh points out, "the biggest line item in agent spend isn't reasoning — it's re-sending things the model has already seen."</p><p><b>Build resilient loops and redefine KPIs:</b> Unmanaged agent loops drain API budgets rapidly. Teams must begin tracking Completions Per Million tokens (CPM) to understand their true task costs, but the harness itself must contain physical guardrails. "The core principle is that you never ask the model to police its own spending," AlShikh said. "The fence has to live below the model, in code, on your side of the API." This requires three hard checks:</p><ul><li><p><b>Hard per-task token budgets:</b> The run terminates when the budget is spent, no exceptions.</p></li><li><p><b>Generation fencing:</b> Caps on steps, tool calls, and recursion depth to stop non-converging agents. </p></li><li><p><b>Failure-spend governance:</b> Cap what a run can spend after its first failed validation so a failing task doesn't become your most expensive task.</p></li></ul><p><b>Avoid unnecessary complexity:</b> Optimizing the orchestration layer comes with engineering overhead. If you're in the prototyping and exploration stage, that overhead isn't justified — iterate fast with a strong model and a light harness. Once you're scaling to millions of requests a day, the savings from harness optimization become substantial.</p><p>However, teams must be aware of "harness leverage." Adding structural scaffolding requires the model to hold and obey that context. If a model is too small, it will spend its limited capacity parsing the scaffolding instead of doing the task, causing accuracy to drop and tokens to rise. The rule for adding complex orchestration features is strictly mathematical: "If a feature adds more coordination tokens than it removes task tokens for that specific model, cut it," AlShikh said. "Nothing in the harness is free."</p><h2>The future of the enterprise harness</h2><p>The era of tokenmaxxing and treating context windows like bottomless buckets is coming to an end. Throwing more compute at poorly designed systems is not a viable strategy for companies that need to demonstrate a return on their AI investments. </p><p>As foundation models evolve to absorb planning, tool selection, and multi-step reasoning natively into their weights, the role of the harness will shift from compensating for model weakness to enforcing enterprise policy.</p><p>"What never moves into the model is the 'allowed': budgets, permissions, data boundaries, audit trails, deterministic kill-switches," AlShikh said. "Five years from now, the harness will be thinner but more important. There will be less scaffolding and more governance. However capable the model gets, someone external to it still has to define what it may spend, see, and touch. That layer belongs to the enterprise, and it should never be rented."</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Apple Releases iOS 27 Beta 4: What’s New and How to Install]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Apple has released iOS 27 developer beta 4 for compatible iPhones, continuing its testing ahead of the public launch later this year. The update carries build number 24A5390f and replaces beta 3, which arrived earlier this month.



The latest beta is currently available to registered developers....]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3682234/ios-mac-os/apple-releases-ios-27-beta-4-whats-new-and-how-to-install/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3682234/ios-mac-os/apple-releases-ios-27-beta-4-whats-new-and-how-to-install/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 23:47:15 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🍏 iOS / Mac OS</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Apple has released iOS 27 developer beta 4 for compatible iPhones, continuing its testing ahead of the public launch later this year. The update carries build number 24A5390f and replaces beta 3, which arrived earlier this month.



The latest beta is currently available to registered developers. Apple will likely release a matching public beta update after completing additional testing.



How to Update to iOS 27 Beta 4



Before installing the update, back up your iPhone to iCloud or a computer. Beta software can contain bugs that affect battery life, apps, connectivity, and everyday performance.




Open the Settings app on your iPhone.



Go to General.



Tap Software Update.



Select Beta Updates.



Choose iOS 27 Developer Beta.



Return to the previous screen.



Tap Update Now when iOS 27 Beta 4 appears.



Enter your passcode and wait for the installation to finish.




Keep your iPhone connected to Wi-Fi and ensure it has enough battery power before starting the update.



What’s New in iOS 27 Beta 4?



Apple has not announced any major user-facing features for iOS 27 Beta 4 so far. The update appears to focus mainly on fixing bugs, improving stability, and preparing existing iOS 27 features for wider testing.



Early users should look for changes in the following areas:




Performance improvements: Beta 4 should improve general system responsiveness and reduce some of the slowdowns reported in previous builds.



Bug fixes: Apple continues to address crashes, interface problems, broken animations, and other issues found during developer and public testing.



Battery and thermal performance: The update may improve excessive battery drain and device heating, although results can differ between iPhone models.



App compatibility: Developers can use the new build to test their apps against the latest iOS 27 software and API changes.



Siri AI and Apple Intelligence: Apple may continue making server-side and system-level improvements to the new AI features, even when visible changes are limited.




More changes may appear after users spend additional time testing the update. Since this remains an early beta, some features may still fail to work correctly.



If you’ve already installed the update, let us know your experience in the comments.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Spend Less on Streaming With the Best Subscription Deals Available]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[From live sports to binge-worthy shows, these offers help lower your monthly bill without giving up services.]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3682211/it-nachrichten/spend-less-on-streaming-with-the-best-subscription-deals-available/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3682211/it-nachrichten/spend-less-on-streaming-with-the-best-subscription-deals-available/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 23:35:50 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[From live sports to binge-worthy shows, these offers help lower your monthly bill without giving up services.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Android Device Backups See Major Changes]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[A couple of major changes are coming to the way your Android phone processes/stores backups. Within the next 45 days or so, Google is going to start counting your Android device backups toward your Google Account storage limit, but they are also giving you more controls over what’s backed up. Goo...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3682129/it-nachrichten/android-device-backups-see-major-changes/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3682129/it-nachrichten/android-device-backups-see-major-changes/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 22:47:56 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A couple of major changes are coming to the way your Android phone processes/stores backups. Within the next 45 days or so, Google is going to start counting your Android device backups toward your Google Account storage limit, but they are also giving you more controls over what’s backed up. Google made the announcement over...</p>
<p>Read the original post: <a href="https://www.droid-life.com/2026/07/20/android-device-backups-see-major-changes/">Android Device Backups See Major Changes</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[More AI Bugs, Less Security?]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Author: Security Weekly - A CRA Resource - Bewertung: 0x - Views:6 AI is exceptionally good at identifying code patterns that lead to crashes and other common programming mistakes. That capability can dramatically increase the number of reported bugs.

Finding more bugs doesn't necessarily reduce...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3682032/it-security-video/more-ai-bugs-less-security/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3682032/it-security-video/more-ai-bugs-less-security/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 21:18:10 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🎥 IT Security Video</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Author: Security Weekly - A CRA Resource - Bewertung: 0x - Views:6 <br/></p><p><iframe id="ytplayer" loading="lazy" type="text/html" width="100%" height="auto" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/FYxSIYsD_DY?autoplay=1&origin=http://tsecurity.de" frameborder="0"></iframe></p><p>AI is exceptionally good at identifying code patterns that lead to crashes and other common programming mistakes. That capability can dramatically increase the number of reported bugs.<br />
<br />
Finding more bugs doesn't necessarily reduce real-world cyber risk. If the proportion of high-impact, exploitable vulnerabilities stays the same, security teams may spend increasing amounts of time triaging and fixing low-value findings simply because they now exist in the backlog. More detection can create more work without delivering proportional security gains.<br />
<br />
Should AI-powered security tools be judged by how many bugs they find—or by how many meaningful attacks they actually help prevent?<br />
<br />
Subscribe to our podcasts: https://securityweekly.com/subscribe<br />
<br />
#AppSec #SecurityWeekly #Cybersecurity #InformationSecurity #AI #InfoSec<br/></p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Cash App’s New Kids Debit Card: What Parents Need to Know]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Cash App Managed Accounts, for kids ages 6 to 12, let you stay in control while teaching your kids to budget, save and spend wisely in a digital world.]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3682029/it-nachrichten/cash-apps-new-kids-debit-card-what-parents-need-to-know/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3682029/it-nachrichten/cash-apps-new-kids-debit-card-what-parents-need-to-know/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 21:17:38 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Cash App Managed Accounts, for kids ages 6 to 12, let you stay in control while teaching your kids to budget, save and spend wisely in a digital world.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Hugging Face Stops AI-Driven Cyberattack]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[The long-forecasted era of the autonomous ai-driven “agentic hacker” has officially shifted from theory to reality. In a…
The post Hugging Face Stops AI-Driven Cyberattack appeared first on Hackers Online Club.]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3681915/it-security-nachrichten/hugging-face-stops-ai-driven-cyberattack/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3681915/it-security-nachrichten/hugging-face-stops-ai-driven-cyberattack/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 20:08:20 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The long-forecasted era of the autonomous ai-driven “agentic hacker” has officially shifted from theory to reality. In a…</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://hackersonlineclub.com/hugging-face-stops-ai-driven-cyberattack/">Hugging Face Stops AI-Driven Cyberattack</a> appeared first on <a href="https://hackersonlineclub.com/">Hackers Online Club</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Hugging Face Stops AI-Driven Cyberattack]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[The long-forecasted era of the autonomous ai-driven “agentic hacker” has officially shifted from theory to reality. In a… The post Hugging Face Stops AI-Driven Cyberattack appeared first on Hackers Online Club. This article has been indexed from Hackers Online Club…
Read more →
The post Hugging F...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3681913/it-security-nachrichten/hugging-face-stops-ai-driven-cyberattack/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3681913/it-security-nachrichten/hugging-face-stops-ai-driven-cyberattack/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 20:08:18 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The long-forecasted era of the autonomous ai-driven “agentic hacker” has officially shifted from theory to reality. In a… The post Hugging Face Stops AI-Driven Cyberattack appeared first on Hackers Online Club. This article has been indexed from Hackers Online Club…</p>
<p class="more-link-p"><a class="more-link" href="https://www.itsecuritynews.info/hugging-face-stops-ai-driven-cyberattack/">Read more →</a></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.itsecuritynews.info/hugging-face-stops-ai-driven-cyberattack/">Hugging Face Stops AI-Driven Cyberattack</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.itsecuritynews.info/">IT Security News</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[I tested a 4TB quantum-resistant USB drive - but you don't have to spend $3000 for this security]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Apricorn's new 4TB Aegis Secure Key is the biggest-capacity hardware-encrypted flash drive on the market right now.]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3681873/it-nachrichten/i-tested-a-4tb-quantum-resistant-usb-drive-but-you-dont-have-to-spend-3000-for-this-security/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3681873/it-nachrichten/i-tested-a-4tb-quantum-resistant-usb-drive-but-you-dont-have-to-spend-3000-for-this-security/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 19:47:31 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Apricorn's new 4TB Aegis Secure Key is the biggest-capacity hardware-encrypted flash drive on the market right now.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[At VB Transform 2026, Zillow's engineering chief said AI ROI numbers only hold up if you measure before you build]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Zillow, the real estate technology company, doesn't get one conversation with its customers. They move from a phone screen to a loan officer to a real estate agent, sometimes over months or years, and expect the context to follow them. A single chatbot could never carry that thread.At VB Transfor...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3681824/it-nachrichten/at-vb-transform-2026-zillows-engineering-chief-said-ai-roi-numbers-only-hold-up-if-you-measure-before-you-build/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3681824/it-nachrichten/at-vb-transform-2026-zillows-engineering-chief-said-ai-roi-numbers-only-hold-up-if-you-measure-before-you-build/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 19:18:54 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Zillow, the real estate technology company, doesn't get one conversation with its customers. They move from a phone screen to a loan officer to a real estate agent, sometimes over months or years, and expect the context to follow them. A single chatbot could never carry that thread.</p><p>At<a href="https://venturebeat.com/vbtransform2026"> VB Transform 2026</a>, Zillow SVP of Engineering Toby Roberts and Glean co-founder and CEO Arvind Jain described how they built AI architecture meant to carry context across that entire journey — and why context, not raw data, turned out to be the harder problem to solve. Zillow's products touch roughly 80% of U.S. real estate transactions each year, and the company has been using AI long before ChatGPT existed.</p><p>"We pretty quickly identified that we were going to need a persistent context layer that was going to meet our customers and the professionals wherever they were," Roberts said.</p><h2>Data was never the hard part</h2><p>Roberts said Zillow's AI effort started where most enterprise AI efforts start, with the data itself.</p><p>"We started with a large push around making sure our data did have the right foundation," Roberts said. That meant a data mesh approach, clear data lineage and a governance structure with permissions and identity attached to the data itself.</p><p>None of that turned out to be the hard problem. The hard problem was building something that remembered where a customer was in their journey and carried that forward, no matter which surface they showed up on next.</p><p>"This context layer has to live to be able to support you where you are at any given point in your journey," Roberts said. Zillow chose to own that layer itself rather than depend on a single external chat interface, a decision Roberts said the team reached quickly once it looked at the shape of a real transaction rather than a single conversation.</p><h2>Why Zillow built its own architecture, and where Glean fits into it</h2><p>Zillow built its own harness rather than route customers through a single model API. The team drew on 20 years of machine learning history behind products like Zestimate, leaning into smaller, task-specific fine-tuned models instead of one general-purpose model.</p><p>Internally, that harness runs alongside Glean. Roberts said Zillow now has thousands of Glean agents in production, handling repetitive tasks with tens of thousands of executions across the company. Glean's pitch, per Jain, is centralizing that integration work once, through the Glean MCP gateway, rather than letting finance, legal and marketing each rebuild their own connections to the same systems.</p><p>That centralization is also a cost lever. Jain pointed to two mechanisms: model routing, which sends most tasks to smaller, cheaper models instead of defaulting to frontier models, and precomputed context, which avoids an agent burning tokens assembling its own context from scratch.</p><p>"Claude is also very slow because the first part of assembling that context actually takes forever," Jain said. Routing that request through Glean instead, he said, can cut token consumption by as much as half.</p><h2>What Zillow and Glean's approach means for enterprises</h2><p>Across data, cost and permissions, the session offered a few practical takeaways for enterprises building agentic AI on their own systems.</p><p><b>Build the measurement baseline before the AI push, not after. </b>Roberts said Zillow's ability to credibly attribute a 40% increase in shipped code to AI adoption rests on a DORA metrics baseline the team put in place years earlier, not on the AI rollout itself.</p><p><b>Centralize context once instead of letting every team rebuild it.</b> Jain's core argument for Glean's platform is that duplicated integration work across finance, legal and marketing teams is a hidden cost most enterprises haven't accounted for.</p><p><b>Don't assume permission inheritance is enough for regulated data.</b> Even with a permissions-aware context platform in place, Zillow layered hard rules and a standing compliance check on top for its most sensitive categories, rather than trusting the architecture to handle it automatically.</p><p><b>Treat context as a cost lever, not just a capability.</b> Model routing and precomputed context were the two mechanisms Jain pointed to for cutting AI spend, both aimed at reducing wasted token consumption rather than adding new capability.</p><p>"Models by themselves are not enough to bring automation with AI inside your enterprise," Jain said. "You do have to connect it with your enterprise context."</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Welcome to the age of extreme job anxiety | Zoe Williams]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Young, old, midlife – whatever your age, gender or sector, the unemployment crisis is hitting us all. The only way through it is togetherThe personal experience of long-term unemployment is one people rarely share, for completely understandable reasons. There’s a bit of superstition that saying i...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3681663/ai-nachrichten/welcome-to-the-age-of-extreme-job-anxiety-zoe-williams/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3681663/ai-nachrichten/welcome-to-the-age-of-extreme-job-anxiety-zoe-williams/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 18:53:47 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🔧 AI Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Young, old, midlife – whatever your age, gender or sector, the unemployment crisis is hitting us all. The only way through it is together</p><p>The personal experience of long-term unemployment is one people rarely share, for completely understandable reasons. There’s a bit of superstition that saying it out loud will bed it in, and there’s always one person in 100 who will choose to explain away the misfortune as your own personal failing.</p><p>Even if they’re clearly in the grip of superstitions of their own – trying to ward off your fate for themselves – it’s hard not to take criticism personally in such a personal situation. The conventions of human interaction are that you shouldn’t really mention a cloud unless you have a silver lining handy. For instance: after the financial crash in 2008, I remember hearing a couple interviewed on the radio who had both been made redundant when the private school they worked for closed down. After describing months of fruitless job applications, the wife ended saying they’d been able to spend much more time in their allotment, and she reckoned their rocket yield alone had saved them a small fortune. That, I thought, is a remarkable and yet probably universal commitment to looking on the bright side.</p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jul/20/welcome-to-the-age-of-extreme-job-anxiety">Continue reading...</a>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[AI confidence just dropped 17 points in six months. That’s actually great news.]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Presented by JumpCloudThe organizations losing confidence in AI are the ones most likely to get it right.Six months ago, 40% of IT leaders described their organizations as mature in AI deployment. Today that number is 23%. Before you read that as a setback, consider what it actually reflects.We r...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3681607/it-nachrichten/ai-confidence-just-dropped-17-points-in-six-months-thats-actually-great-news/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3681607/it-nachrichten/ai-confidence-just-dropped-17-points-in-six-months-thats-actually-great-news/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 18:03:50 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Presented by JumpCloud</i></p><hr><p><b><i>The organizations losing confidence in AI are the ones most likely to get it right.</i></b></p><p>Six months ago, 40% of IT leaders described their organizations as mature in AI deployment. <a href="https://jumpcloud.com/resources/q3-2026-it-trends-report?utm_source=VentureBeat&amp;utm_medium=Contributed&amp;utm_campaign=FY26Q1_MorningBrew_AD&amp;utm_content=JulyArticle"><u>Today that number is 23%</u></a>. Before you read that as a setback, consider what it actually reflects.</p><p>We recently surveyed 800 IT leaders across the U.S. and U.K. for our Q3 2026 trends report, and the data tells a consistent story: the organizations revising their self-assessment downward are overwhelmingly the ones that have moved AI agents from pilots into production. They’re not losing faith in AI. They’re running into the problems that only show up when agents are doing real work in real systems, and they’re being honest about what they found.</p><p>That kind of honesty is harder to come by than it sounds, and it matters more than the confidence number itself.</p><h2>Deployment was the easy part</h2><p>84% of organizations plan to expand AI use in IT operations over the next 6 to 24 months, so the drop in confidence isn’t a retreat. What it reflects is a more accurate picture of what production actually requires.</p><p>In a pilot, an AI agent does one thing in a controlled setting. In production, it accesses real systems, makes decisions that affect real workflows, and operates continuously, often without a human in the loop. The governance infrastructure that entails is materially different from what it took to get the pilot working. Most organizations built enough to ship. Fewer built enough to scale.</p><p>The IT leaders revising their self-assessment are confronting questions they didn’t have to ask at the pilot stage: Can we see every agent running in our environment? Do we know what each one can access? If an agent behaved unexpectedly last week, how long would it take to find out? For most organizations, at least one of those answers is uncomfortable.</p><h2>The gap between perception and reality is where risk accumulates</h2><p>The graphic above captures the structural problem. Across confidence, governance, and autonomy, the same pattern holds: deployment is moving faster than the controls built around it.</p><p>The organizations that have closed this gap share specific characteristics. They’ve consolidated their IT environments rather than adding tools to solve each new problem, because every additional platform creates another place where agent identity, access, and accountability can go unmanaged. They treat AI agents as governed identities rather than tolerated shadow processes. And they measure what AI actually produces, not just what it deploys.</p><p>The payoff is tangible. Organizations in the top tier of our maturity model are five times more likely to report no barriers to expanding their AI agents than the average organization. They are not more cautious about AI. They are more confident in it, because they built the foundation that makes confidence earned rather than assumed.</p><h2>The governance gap has a specific shape</h2><p>The hardest problem in enterprise AI right now is not capability. It is accountability, and the data makes the specific failure point clear: non-human identity governance is the least adopted AI security practice we measured, in place at just 21% of organizations.</p><p>Non-human identities now outnumber human users in 83% of organizations, and that population is growing fast. Yet most of those identities exist without the governance structures that every human employee has as a matter of course: no formal record, no named owner, no defined scope of access, no offboarding process when their purpose expires. They keep running. They keep accessing systems. They keep accumulating permissions. We call these Zombie Agents, and they are the service account problem of the AI era, operating at machine speed and in every department.</p><p>The accountability gap is where real risk lives. When a human employee takes an action, there is an implicit accountability chain. When an autonomous agent takes an action, that chain breaks unless it has been deliberately engineered. Most organizations have not yet engineered it, and the gap between the autonomy agents are being granted and the oversight structures in place to manage them is widening every month.</p><h2>What the confidence drop is actually telling us</h2><p>When AI maturity confidence was uniformly high across the market, that was worth worrying about. It meant most organizations hadn’t yet run into the hard parts. A selective drop, concentrated among organizations actively running agents in production, means the market is developing a more accurate picture of what AI operations genuinely require.</p><p>The organizations recalibrating are doing the work that makes long-term AI adoption possible: building identity infrastructure that covers agents alongside humans and devices, unifying the environments where governance needs to apply, and measuring outcomes rather than just counting deployments. They haven’t lowered their ambitions for AI. They have raised their standards for what it means to run it responsibly.</p><p>84% of organizations plan to expand AI use over the next two years. The ones that will do it well are honest enough, right now, to admit what they haven’t yet built.</p><p><i>JumpCloud’s Q3 2026 AI Readiness Research report (n=800 IT leaders, U.S. + U.K.) is available </i><a href="https://jumpcloud.com/resources/q3-2026-it-trends-report?utm_source=VentureBeat&amp;utm_medium=Contributed&amp;utm_campaign=FY26Q1_MorningBrew_AD&amp;utm_content=JulyArticle"><i><u>here</u></i></a><i>. The report covers AI agent deployment stages, identity governance gaps, IT unification benchmarks, and budget realism across mid-market and enterprise organizations.</i></p><p><i>Rajat Bhargava is CEO and Co-founder at JumpCloud.</i></p><hr><p><i>Sponsored articles are content produced by a company that is either paying for the post or has a business relationship with VentureBeat, and they’re always clearly marked. For more information, contact </i><a href="mailto:sales@venturebeat.com"><i><u>sales@venturebeat.com</u></i></a><i>.</i></p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The technology behind every live sports moment]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[When a goal goes in during a tournament quarter-final and a hundred million people watch it at the same time, what they feel is the goal. The roar, the replay, the disbelief.



They do not feel the contribution feeds traversing private media networks across continents, or the edge nodes absorbin...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3681409/it-nachrichten/the-technology-behind-every-live-sports-moment/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3681409/it-nachrichten/the-technology-behind-every-live-sports-moment/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 16:48:21 +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">When a goal goes in during a tournament quarter-final and a hundred million people watch it at the same time, what they feel is the goal. The roar, the replay, the disbelief.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">They do not feel the contribution feeds traversing private media networks across continents, or the edge nodes absorbing a traffic spike that appeared without warning.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">They just feel the moment.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">And that’s exactly how it’s supposed to work.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">And as live sports viewership pushes into territory that makes previous records look modest (driven by a generation that expects to watch anything, on any device, anywhere, without waiting), the gap between getting that delivery right and getting it wrong has never been more consequential, or more public.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>As audiences moved to digital platforms, the margin for error disappeared.</strong><strong></strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There is a version of this conversation that is easy to have: audiences expect more, technology has to keep up. True, but incomplete.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Audiences have always expected live sport to work. What changed is what “working” means, and how quickly they find out when it doesn’t.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Viewers no longer sit in front of a single screen. During a FIFA World Cup match, a household might have the main feed on the living room television, while someone else streams the highlights on a second TV in the bedroom, all while phones flash with live stats and tablets run separate commentary. From the infrastructure’s perspective, that isn’t just one household watching a game; it’s a chaotic web of concurrent demands triggered by the exact same split-second on the pitch.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Multiply that across tens of millions of viewers, and the scale of the challenge becomes clear. Social media raises the stakes further. When a platform fails during a World Cup knockout match, audiences report it in real-time on the same platforms they use to discuss the game. The complaint travels faster than the fix.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Broadcasters no longer have the luxury of resolving an incident before people notice. The incident becomes the story, and in many cases, travels further than the match itself.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>What these viewership numbers actually mean for infrastructure</strong></h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The shift in how people watch live sport has moved well beyond trend territory.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">EMARKETER forecasts that digital live sports audiences in the US will grow to <a href="https://www.emarketer.com/content/100-million-watch-live-sports-digital">114.1 million viewers</a>, while traditional pay TV audiences decline to 82.0 million, highlighting the continued shift toward streaming.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The concurrency numbers generated by major sporting events now sit in a territory that would have seemed implausible a decade ago.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">During the 2026 FIFA World Cup, for instance, streaming platforms shattered every historical ceiling, highlighted by Brazil’s <a href="https://streamscharts.com/news/fifa-world-cup-2026-group-stage-livestreaming">CazéTV</a> repeatedly breaking global YouTube records for concurrent viewership during the group stage. Meanwhile, in the United States, Peacock and <a href="https://www.nbcuniversal.com/article/fifa-world-cup-2026-propels-telemundo-and-peacock-record-viewership">Telemundo’s</a> digital platforms logged an unprecedented 13 million concurrent viewers for a single knockout window. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When tens of millions of people tune into the same live stream at the same moment, it’s a challenge unlike regular web traffic.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Historically, massive global audiences were insulated by geography. The load was spread across distinct regional networks: antenna signals, satellite downlinks, and physical cable architectures. The physical infrastructure of traditional television inherently absorbed the impact. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Digital streaming removes that buffer. Traffic spikes all at once, often at the most critical moment. The tighter the match, the deeper the stoppage time, the sharper the spike. Network infrastructure is forced to handle its heaviest, most volatile traffic exactly when it has zero margin for error.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Social media compounds the pressure operationally. The second a crucial goal is scored, a wave of real-time reactions floods the internet, instantly dragging a secondary “curiosity audience” into the app. These are people who weren’t even watching the match, but saw the hype and decided to tune in, meaning the network has to absorb a massive new rush of users precisely while the primary stream is already maxing out its capacity.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">To survive these surges while satisfying a modern audience, the underlying broadcast playbook has undergone a massive structural shift. It’s no longer just about handling traffic; it’s also about using modern technology like AI to manage it intelligently.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">According to an <a href="https://www.haivision.com/blog/all/2025-broadcast-transformation-report-key-takeaways/">industry survey</a>, 25% of broadcasters integrated AI into live production workflows in 2025, a massive leap from just 9% the previous year, with 64% identifying AI as the single largest impact driver over the next five years. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The network is no longer just delivering content. AI is now generating highlights and short clips in real time, producing millions of videos that keep fans engaged long after the live moment has passed.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Ultimately, the technical demand is driven by a shift in what viewers expect. An <a href="https://newsroom.ibm.com/2025-08-18-ibm-study-sports-fans-demand-more-dynamic-digital-content,-powered-by-ai">IBM sports study</a> revealed that 56% of fans now want AI-driven insights layered directly onto their content, while 33% point to real-time, automated translation as the feature that most impacts their experience.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Whether it’s one screen or several, viewers don’t notice the edge infrastructure or AI powering the experience. They just expect the game to play without interruption.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>The planning mistake most organisations make</strong></h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Capacity planning is where most organisations spend their time when preparing to stream a major event. Can the system handle a million concurrent streams? Can it scale on demand if the numbers exceed projections? These are real questions. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The lesson is not unique to sports streaming. Every digital business now experiences moments where demand, visibility, and customer expectations collide. Peak traffic events such as flash sales, ticket releases, and viral campaigns can drive website traffic <a href="https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/apn/how-to-manage-peak-traffic-on-aws-using-queue-its-virtual-waiting-room/">2 to 25 times above normal levels within seconds</a>. The infrastructure may be different, but the pressure is remarkably similar.<br></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Large-scale system failures occur when multiple components, each functioning as expected on its own, are overwhelmed by a surge in demand, rising latency, or regional blind spots at the same time.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The problem isn’t the individual systems. It’s how they work together.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Latency is the factor most consistently underestimated. A few seconds of delay is not a minor inconvenience in live sport. It is a fundamentally broken experience. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A viewer whose stream is running four seconds behind will see a notification before the decisive moment appears on screen. Someone watching a service from the privacy of their room may hear a celebration from another room before seeing it on their screen.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Geography is another planning gap. Streaming growth is increasingly being driven by emerging markets. In Southeast Asia alone, premium video streaming subscriptions grew <a href="https://avia.org/southeast-asia-premium-vod-accelerates-in-2025-as-subscriber-growth-rebounds-ctv-scales-and-local-content-breaks-through/?utm_source=chatgpt.com">19%</a> in 2025, led by Indonesia, while viewing hours continued to climb across the region. Yet much of the world’s media infrastructure was originally designed around North American and Western European demand. An architecture that looks robust on paper can deliver very different experiences depending on where the viewer is.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The reason is simple: physical distance still matters. Every extra hop between the viewer and the content adds latency, making it harder to deliver a consistent experience at global scale.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Then there is the timing question. The decisions that determine whether a platform holds during the most-watched minutes of the year are not made on event day. They are made months earlier through choices around architecture, redundancy, testing, and operational readiness.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Once an event is underway, it’s too late to redesign the architecture behind it. If your system isn’t designed to handle the pressure before the crowd arrives, it’s already too late.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>The hidden chain behind every live event</strong></h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When a streaming disruption becomes public, people naturally look for a single point of failure: the app, the platform, or the provider.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A live event depends on dozens of systems working together, and any one of them can become a problem.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">And the experience is only as good as the weakest handoff between them.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It all starts with the live camera feed moving from the venue to the production studio. This is a real-time stream, not a file download. If you drop even a single packet at the wrong moment, everything down the line breaks, no matter how perfect the rest of your setup is.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Remote and cloud-based production workflows have redefined how live sports are produced, enabling broadcasters to operate with greater agility and scale. As production becomes more distributed, success increasingly depends on ensuring every stage of the delivery chain works together seamlessly.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Each transition is a potential failure point. Managing them requires visibility that extends across providers, platforms, and networks simultaneously.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Behind every live stream, technologies like encoding, transcoding, packaging, rights management, and ad insertion are constantly at work. If any one of them fails, the stream can go down altogether.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Global distribution introduces another layer of complexity. Viewers in Asia, Africa, and South America may all be watching the same match, but each stream travels across different networks and infrastructure. That means performance can vary by region, and issues may affect one audience without impacting another. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AI is increasingly helping operators detect anomalies in real time, pinpoint affected regions and trigger corrective actions before disruptions become widespread. Combined with point-to-point monitoring, it provides the visibility needed to keep live events running smoothly at global scale.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Edge delivery is where the difference between preparation and improvisation becomes most apparent. Bringing content closer to users reduces latency, absorbs local traffic surges, and improves performance in markets with variable connectivity. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The value of technology investments such as AI and Edge becomes clearest during the moments when demand is highest.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Monitoring is what turns visibility into action. With AI helping analyze telemetry and detect anomalies in real time, operations teams can identify issues sooner and respond before they affect viewers. By the time customers start reporting a problem, the opportunity to prevent it has already passed.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>What reliability is actually worth</strong></h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For most of early broadcast history, audience tolerance provided some buffer. Disruptions happened. People accepted them. There was nowhere else to go, and the story rarely escaped the room.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Neither of those things is true now.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A streaming failure during a major match becomes public within seconds. Viewers don’t distinguish between a network issue, a processing failure, or a distribution problem; they simply see a service that failed. That single experience can shape the broadcaster’s reputation, credibility and customer loyalty, influencing whether viewers come back for the next event or recommend the service to others.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The commercial implications are significant. Global tournaments such as the FIFA World Cup illustrate just how valuable live sports rights have become. Their return depends on reliably reaching the audience that was promised.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Advertisers invest in live sport for one reason: to reach a large, engaged audience at the exact moment it matters most. If the stream fails during that window, the opportunity is lost. Those viewers, impressions, and advertising value cannot be recovered once the moment has passed.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The same principle increasingly applies outside media. Customers rarely know nor care whether an outage originated in the application, the cloud environment, the network or a third-party dependency. They experience a failure of the brand. In a digital-first economy, reliability has become part of the customer experience itself.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For broadcasters and streamers, reliability is no longer just an operational KPI. It directly influences audience trust, advertising revenue, and the long-term value of premium sports rights.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>The demands ahead are bigger</strong></h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AI-assisted production is already changing how live events are created. Broadcasters are using AI to automate highlight generation, camera selection and real-time clip packaging for social media, with new AI-assisted workflows producing sports highlights up to <a href="https://www.statsperform.com/insights/opta-pulse-launch/">80% faster</a> than traditional methods. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">All of this processing happens within the live delivery chain, where every additional task must be completed without adding latency or compromising the viewing experience.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Personalisation at scale is the next significant challenge. Not personalisation in a vague sense, but the specific technical reality of delivering multi-language commentary tracks, different languages, different statistical overlays, and different camera angles to different viewers watching the same event simultaneously. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Instead of one stream per event, the infrastructure has to manage a matrix of concurrent variants, each with its own encoding, storage, and delivery requirements. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Interactive experiences add bidirectional data flows: real-time polls, integrated second-screen data, live wagering. These move data from the viewer back through infrastructure that was primarily built to push content outward. Managing that at scale is a different engineering problem from managing delivery.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Higher-resolution formats (4K now becoming a standard expectation in premium markets, 8K moving into early deployment) are bandwidth-intensive at exactly the scale where bandwidth is already under pressure. Consumer devices are ready. Infrastructure in many high-growth markets is not uniformly there yet.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Many of these capabilities are already being deployed for major global sporting events. The organisations investing seriously in technology, innovation, and infrastructure now are building toward a standard that will be the baseline requirement within a few years. Those that are not will be closing the gap under the worst possible conditions.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>The technology you never think about</strong></h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The broadcasters that succeed don’t leave reliability to chance. They plan for it from the outset, designing their infrastructure to handle peak demand long before the audience arrives.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This reality hits hardest during massive global events. When a stream glitches, millions of people feel it simultaneously in a matter of seconds. Keeping those streams alive doesn’t happen by accident; it takes massive scale, intense discipline, and deep experience controlling everything from the stadium camera to the viewer’s screen.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The lesson extends well beyond live sports. Every enterprise is becoming a real-time digital business, whether it’s delivering AI-powered applications, launching digital products, processing financial transactions, or handling a sudden surge in customer demand. Different industries may face different triggers, but the expectation is the same: the experience has to work, even when demand is at its highest.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Delivering that level of reliability is why many of the world’s largest sports brands rely on <a href="https://www.tatacommunications.com/media-entertainment">Tata Communications</a>. Supporting the broadcast, production, and management of 80% of the world’s sporting events, and reaching more than two billion viewers across 190+ countries, Tata Communications operates in the invisible layers that make every live moment possible. We call this the “Virtual Stadium of the World”, the technology and infrastructure that connects fans, broadcasters, rights-holders, and sporting moments at a truly global scale.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">By managing the critical handoffs across contribution networks, edge processing, and global media infrastructure, we engineer the resilience required to keep 120,000 live events running flawlessly every year.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Live sport may be the most visible test of digital infrastructure, but it won’t be the last. As AI, personalisation and real-time experiences become the norm across industries, the ability to deliver reliably at scale will define far more than match day.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">To learn more, visit us <a href="https://www.tatacommunications.com/sports?utm_source=blog&amp;utm_medium=cio&amp;utm_campaign=mes%20fifa%20campaign">here</a>.</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[OpenAI’s Codex context reduction for GPT 5.6 sparks dissatisfaction among developers]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[OpenAI’s recent update to its Codex coding agent has developers worrying over the impact of the change on large code repositories and long-running AI-assisted sessions.



The update to the Codex CLI reduces the default configured input context window for GPT-5.6 to 272,000 tokens from 372,000 to...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3681246/ai-nachrichten/openais-codex-context-reduction-for-gpt-56-sparks-dissatisfaction-among-developers/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3681246/ai-nachrichten/openais-codex-context-reduction-for-gpt-56-sparks-dissatisfaction-among-developers/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 15:19:06 +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’s recent update to its Codex coding agent has developers worrying over the impact of the change on large code repositories and long-running AI-assisted sessions.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The <a href="https://github.com/openai/codex/pull/34009" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">update to the Codex CLI</a> reduces the default configured input context window for GPT-5.6 to 272,000 tokens from 372,000 tokens.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In practice, the update means the coding agent will retain a smaller amount of code, conversation history, and other session information before compacting older context to make room for new information, a change that has prompted criticism from some developers on <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/codex/comments/1v02y73/gpt56_context_reduced_to_272k/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Reddit</a> and <a href="https://x.com/Codex_Changelog/status/2079018788876411322" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">X</a> over the reduced token window.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">While OpenAI has not publicly explained the rationale behind the update, several developers took to social media to question why OpenAI reduced the default context configuration, with some arguing that the change could make Codex less effective on long-running coding sessions by triggering context compaction sooner.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Others expressed concern that the smaller window could require more frequent context management or session resets, although some noted that the practical impact would depend on project size and how developers structure their workflows.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Smaller context, bigger workflow implications</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The context window reduction could affect developer productivity and the adoption of autonomous agents in enterprise workflows, analysts say.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“While the context reduction in Codex is unlikely to affect routine coding tasks such as bug fixes or changes involving a few files, it could impact large codebases, repository-wide refactoring, and long-running sessions,” said <a href="https://pareekh.com/about/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Pareekh Jain</a>, principal analyst at Pareekh Consulting.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Less memory per session means the AI agent forgets earlier parts of a long coding session sooner. The agent may need to summarize or reload context more often, increasing repeated searches, occasional loss of earlier decisions and the need for developers to re-establish context,” Jain added.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That need for manual context management, according to <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/muskan-bandta2004/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Muskan Bandta</a>, cloud associate at FinOps services providing firm ZopDev, goes completely against the “whole appeal” of Codex-like tools that promised improved productivity out-of-the-box: “A lot of developers are saying their sessions now spend more time on compacting than actually working.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“While context reduction may not further inflate bills, it shows up as more retries, more compaction, and your engineers spending more time babysitting the thing. The spend just moves from the invoice onto your team’s time.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/znamit/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Amit Jena</a>, AI development manager at IT consulting firm Kanerika, said that the context reduction will force development teams to choose between two options: either accept that the agent is reasoning with an incomplete picture of the required context or learn to manage a new design constraint around context compaction.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Development teams, Jena said, will need to design workflows that proactively manage context: by breaking work into smaller tasks, relying more on retrieval mechanisms, and monitoring context consumption.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That forced design constraint on engineering, echoed Bandta, will slow the enterprise adoption of agent-driven workflows: “Context is the agent’s working memory, so cutting it by a third changes what you can trust it to do at all.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Build for changing AI platforms, not fixed limits?</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">More broadly, analysts pointed out that the episode is a reminder that enterprises should avoid tightly coupling software development workflows to the current operational characteristics of managed AI coding platforms, as context limits, pricing, runtime behavior, and model availability are all likely to evolve with little or no advance notice.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Enterprises should avoid depending on any single context window, continuously benchmark AI coding tools on real workloads, and build workflows around retrieval, modular design, and agent orchestration so they remain resilient as models evolve,” Jain said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Kanerika’s Jena echoed that view: “The right approach is to build AI-assisted development pipelines that degrade gracefully when operational parameters shift: instrument your context consumption, don’t hard-code context budgets, and treat the vendor’s current specifications as a starting point, not a contract.” Similarly, Bandta advised enterprises to treat managed AI coding platforms like any other critical software dependency: “Don’t build anything that only works right at the edge of a limit, and keep enough flexibility that you’re not stuck if one vendor changes the deal.”</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[AI’s problems aren’t what you think]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[The biggest and loudest prediction about AI is that it will eliminate millions of jobs. It is dramatic and easy to repeat. But from what I’ve seen, inside most enterprises the more immediate problem has turned out to be something else entirely: a growing mass of tools, agents, models and usage co...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3681198/it-security-nachrichten/ais-problems-arent-what-you-think/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3681198/it-security-nachrichten/ais-problems-arent-what-you-think/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 15:08:44 +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 biggest and loudest prediction about AI is that it will <a href="https://www.axios.com/2025/05/28/ai-jobs-white-collar-unemployment-anthropic">eliminate</a> millions of jobs. It is dramatic and easy to repeat. But from what I’ve seen, inside most enterprises the more immediate problem has turned out to be something else entirely: a growing mass of tools, agents, models and usage costs spreading faster than most organizations can govern or connect to real business value, also known as <a href="https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/ai-agent-sprawl">AI sprawl.</a></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">None of that invalidates the initial fear. Indeed, AI can clear backlogs, speed up analysis, draft usable content and reduce time spent on repetitive work. In my opinion, what goes wrong is the assumption that those gains will scale seamlessly, and that more AI will automatically produce more value.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">What really matters is not only how much AI a company can deploy, but whether its use fits inside a growth strategy, an operating model and an organization that can use it well.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The early results of AI use made the logical progression feel obvious, even a foregone conclusion. If it could already improve output in narrow use cases, then broader deployment should produce broader gains. Simple! Better models were expected to deliver better results. More agents were expected to drive more automation. For many companies, this logic held for long enough to encourage overexpansion.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But this logic has started to break down as usage continues to scale. I’ve seen returns diminish much quicker than expected. To illustrate, one <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-tokenmaxxing-fails-as-productivity-strategy-jellyfish-2026-5?utm">industry analysis</a> found that developers who used AI most heavily produced about twice the output of moderate users, but consumed roughly ten times the compute.  </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">At a certain point, more AI does not create proportionally more value – it simply becomes more expensive. But where, exactly?</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">From experimentation to sprawl</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Experimentation played a key role in this downturn, but it’s not the culprit. As AI continues to sprawl, the problem continues that AI is spreading faster than most companies can coordinate. Teams often solve the same problem in parallel, paying for overlapping capabilities and layering new tools atop existing ones without any clear inventory of what ‘s already in place. What can appear as momentum is really turning into redundancy.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I’ve seen versions of this play out repeatedly. At one financial firm, several business units were pursuing AI projects aimed at automating research and reporting. Each team moved independently; selecting their own tools, building their own workflows and creating separate data pipelines, with little to no coordination between teams. In some cases, different groups were developing nearly identical capabilities without realizing it, solving the same problems twice without any shared visibility into each other’s work.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Individually, the projects showed real promise. Collectively, the projects created duplication, fragmented data and inconsistent standards business and enterprise wide.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">By the time leadership stepped back to assess, the company found itself paying for overlapping capabilities, maintaining multiple versions of the same underlying data, and struggling to determine which solutions were actually delivering value versus which were simply consuming budget and eating at engineering time.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Perhaps most troubling: nobody at the enterprise level had a complete view of what was being built, by whom or why. What began as healthy, well-intentioned experimentation had, without anyone deciding it should, evolved into full-blown AI sprawl, creating a patchwork of disconnected initiatives that was difficult to govern, harder to secure and far more expensive than a coordinated approach could and should be.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Early wins encourage a still wider rollout, but many organizations expand usage before they put real controls in place. Experimentation becomes sprawl. Budgets grow quickly, and few leaders have a reliable view of who is using what or why.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">AI strategy cannot sit beside growth strategy</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is where I see many companies still get the issue wrong. They treat AI and growth strategy as two separate efforts, then wonder how adoption gets so messy. A business cannot drop AI into its operations and expect momentum to take over. The technology has to support a clear path to growth, whether that means improving margin, speed, service, capacity or decision-making. At the same time, growth plans cannot assume AI changes nothing about delivery, design or operating leverage. The real challenge is in ensuring the two work together.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Personally, I’ve seen better results when AI initiatives are tied to a specific business objective from the beginning, rather than launched as broad, abstract or transformative effort. One mattress retailer I’ve worked with took this approach, starting with a single, focused and well-defined use case rather than trying to transform or overhaul the entire organization at once. The company introduced an AI-powered training platform for store associates, giving employees a low-pressure way to practice sales conversations and product recommendations before applying them to external situations with customers on the floor.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Because employees experienced immediate and tangible value from the tool, adoption spread quickly across locations, with minimal need for top-down mandates. Early, visible success helped to build internal credibility and generate momentum, which leadership then leveraged to expand into more complex AI initiatives across areas such as inventory management, demand forecasting and replenishment planning.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Ultimately, the technology succeeded not because it was innovative for its own sake, but because it was connected to a larger growth strategy: improving sales effectiveness on the floor, driving operational efficiency behind the scenes and strengthening workforce capability at entry level. A major lesson we walked away with here was that starting small and specific, with a clear throughline to business value creates a strong foundation for sustainable and scalable AI use.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What implementation actually takes</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">All this takes more than a few easy guardrails. It takes strategy. Leaders need a real inventory of the tools, agents and assistants already in use across the business, who owns them, what data they can access and everything that they support.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">They also need financial controls that match the economics of token-based usage, including role-based access, thresholds and review processes that make spend visible before it becomes a surprise. Similarly, they need metrics that go beyond mere activity. More prompts do not mean more value. If a deployment cannot be tied to throughput, margin, quality, cycle time or another tangible result, it is still unfinished.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is also why blunt shutdowns rarely work. If leaders clamp down too hard, employees often move to unsanctioned tools and create a larger <a href="https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/cyberpedia/what-is-shadow-ai">shadow AI</a> problem, or the unauthorized use of artificial intelligence tools, models or chatbots by employees, without the knowledge or approval of IT and security teams, with even less visibility and more risk. The better answer is disciplined adoption: clear ownership, rules, metrics and enough flexibility for teams to use AI where it works.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That matters for the people as much as it does for the budget. Those that modernize well end up with <em>better</em> work – not just less of it.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The story of the moment isn’t about AI replacing people – or even AI in general. It’s about whether companies know their own businesses well enough to keep incorporating powerful new tools without mistaking activity for progress. As technological capabilities continue to appear, the winners will be the organizations that understand where it belongs, what it can improve and how to turn each new wave into something permanent.</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[Report: EMEA businesses not reaping benefits from their AI spend]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Report indicates an 18-point gap between AI strategy and execution in EMEA.
Read more: Report: EMEA businesses not reaping benefits from their AI spend]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3681100/it-nachrichten/report-emea-businesses-not-reaping-benefits-from-their-ai-spend/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3681100/it-nachrichten/report-emea-businesses-not-reaping-benefits-from-their-ai-spend/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 14:32:50 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Report indicates an 18-point gap between AI strategy and execution in EMEA.</p>
<p>Read more: <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.siliconrepublic.com/enterprise/emea-businesses-servicenow-ai-enterprise-spending">Report: EMEA businesses not reaping benefits from their AI spend</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The Tokens You Can’t Wait For]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Somewhere in a Singapore data center, a bank is paying for eight H100s that spend most of the night waiting. The cluster was bought for good reasons (discomfort with customer documents leaving the building, a strategy team’s aversion to lock-in), so the bank secured its own sovereign compute. Now...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3680935/ai-nachrichten/the-tokens-you-cant-wait-for/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3680935/ai-nachrichten/the-tokens-you-cant-wait-for/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 13:04:03 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🔧 AI Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Somewhere in a Singapore data center, a bank is paying for eight H100s that spend most of the night waiting. The cluster was bought for good reasons (discomfort with customer documents leaving the building, a strategy team’s aversion to lock-in), so the bank secured its own sovereign compute. Now the finance team is asking why […]]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Flexible PCBs for you and for me: lessons learned from DIY-ing flexible electronics with artists, makers, hackers and engineers (emf2026)]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Flexible circuit boards (flexible PCBs) are pretty cool: they are lightweight, can fold into small spaces, are bendable, and can be designed to stretch. You might have seen one inside a digital camera, a wearable, or connecting a screen to another board in a laptop or smartphone. Or you might hav...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3680934/it-security-video/flexible-pcbs-for-you-and-for-me-lessons-learned-from-diy-ing-flexible-electronics-with-artists-makers-hackers-and-engineers-emf2026/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3680934/it-security-video/flexible-pcbs-for-you-and-for-me-lessons-learned-from-diy-ing-flexible-electronics-with-artists-makers-hackers-and-engineers-emf2026/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 13:03:37 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🎥 IT Security Video</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Flexible circuit boards (flexible PCBs) are pretty cool: they are lightweight, can fold into small spaces, are bendable, and can be designed to stretch. You might have seen one inside a digital camera, a wearable, or connecting a screen to another board in a laptop or smartphone. Or you might have had one made for an electronics project. But have you ever made one yourself? Unlike conventional, rigid PCBs, chances are you haven’t, for a number of reasons. But it doesn’t have to be this way: this talk will tell you how (and how not to) DIY your own flexible PCBs for your next electronics project.

This talk is part of an ongoing project on breaking flexible electronics fabrication out of research labs and specialised manufacturing facilities, and into the hands of makers, hackers, artists, and others. You will learn about materials and techniques for making flexible electronics, weird and wonderful uses for flexible PCBs, and hear about the results of DIY flexible PCB workshops in four different countries and counting.

Licensed to the public under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
about this event: https://www.emfcamp.org/schedule/2026/235-flexible-pcbs-for-you-and-for-me]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Flexible PCBs for you and for me: lessons learned from DIY-ing flexible electronics with artists, makers, hackers and engineers (emf2026)]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Flexible circuit boards (flexible PCBs) are pretty cool: they are lightweight, can fold into small spaces, are bendable, and can be designed to stretch. You might have seen one inside a digital camera, a wearable, or connecting a screen to another board in a laptop or smartphone. Or you might hav...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3680897/it-security-video/flexible-pcbs-for-you-and-for-me-lessons-learned-from-diy-ing-flexible-electronics-with-artists-makers-hackers-and-engineers-emf2026/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3680897/it-security-video/flexible-pcbs-for-you-and-for-me-lessons-learned-from-diy-ing-flexible-electronics-with-artists-makers-hackers-and-engineers-emf2026/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 12:48:55 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🎥 IT Security Video</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Flexible circuit boards (flexible PCBs) are pretty cool: they are lightweight, can fold into small spaces, are bendable, and can be designed to stretch. You might have seen one inside a digital camera, a wearable, or connecting a screen to another board in a laptop or smartphone. Or you might have had one made for an electronics project. But have you ever made one yourself? Unlike conventional, rigid PCBs, chances are you haven’t, for a number of reasons. But it doesn’t have to be this way: this talk will tell you how (and how not to) DIY your own flexible PCBs for your next electronics project.

This talk is part of an ongoing project on breaking flexible electronics fabrication out of research labs and specialised manufacturing facilities, and into the hands of makers, hackers, artists, and others. You will learn about materials and techniques for making flexible electronics, weird and wonderful uses for flexible PCBs, and hear about the results of DIY flexible PCB workshops in four different countries and counting.

Licensed to the public under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
about this event: https://www.emfcamp.org/schedule/2026/235-flexible-pcbs-for-you-and-for-me]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Finding the right balance between autonomy and scale]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[For diversified enterprises, few operating model questions are as persistent or polarizing as centralization versus decentralization. Decentralization promises speed, ownership, and local responsiveness. Centralization promises efficiency, standardization, and leverage. Both can be right. Both ca...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3680711/it-security-nachrichten/finding-the-right-balance-between-autonomy-and-scale/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3680711/it-security-nachrichten/finding-the-right-balance-between-autonomy-and-scale/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 11:36:55 +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">For diversified enterprises, few operating model questions are as persistent or polarizing as centralization versus decentralization. Decentralization promises speed, ownership, and local responsiveness. <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4166851/coherence-where-leadership-and-ai-success-intersect.html?utm=hybrid_search">Centralization</a> promises efficiency, standardization, and leverage. Both can be right. Both can be wrong. The challenge is that many organizations end up with both models operating at once, without enough clarity about why.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The result of fragmented systems, duplicated capabilities, inconsistent data, rising IT spend, and a complexity tax that compounds over time is familiar to many CIOs. What starts as autonomy can become architectural sprawl. What starts as enterprise leverage can become bureaucracy. And as companies modernize core platforms, integrate data, and scale capabilities like AI, the tension becomes harder to ignore.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Paul Krebs has lived that tension from multiple vantage points. Most recently as CIO and chief transformation officer at Koch Industries, and previously a technology and transformation leader at The Coca-Cola Company, he’s worked in environments where business units value autonomy, enterprise scale matters, and the wrong <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4074675/the-clear-advantage-of-an-80-20-ai-operating-model.html">operating model</a> can slow progress just as easily as the wrong technology architecture.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">His conclusion isn’t that CIOs should pick a side, but they need a more intentional form of centralization, one that starts with business architecture, clarifies decision rights, and continually revisits where capabilities should sit as the organization matures.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><a></a>Centralization: a design choice, not a doctrine</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In diversified organizations, <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/649879/how-huber-spurs-innovation-in-a-historically-decentralized-business.html?utm=hybrid_search">decentralization</a> often starts as the default because it aligns with how the business creates value. Local businesses understand their customers, markets, regulatory environments, and operating realities, and giving them decision rights can increase speed and accountability.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In Krebs’ experience, the default model often leaned toward decentralization, he says, with the belief that optimizing for customers and markets would allow different businesses to be as responsive as possible to the specific customers and markets they served. But that logic isn’t complete. Leaders also need to ask whether there’s a compelling case where a more centralized approach can generate additional value, accelerate progress, or optimize investments.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4021841/lighting-the-first-flame-how-to-spark-a-transformation-that-sticks.html">Digital transformation</a> created one of those moments. Krebs recalls around 2016 when Koch challenged its businesses to build multi-year digital transformation roadmaps. The ambition was there, but the capabilities to execute at the necessary pace weren’t evenly distributed. In response, the organization invested more aggressively from the center, building shared services and centers of expertise in areas such as business transformation, enterprise applications, and data and analytics.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The purpose was acceleration, not control. Centralizing those capabilities helped accelerate learnings, capability building, and their ability to deploy new solutions at scale. But the move wasn’t treated as permanent. “There was always a belief that the centralization push should be re-looked at on a regular basis, not thought of as a forever decision,” he says.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><a></a>Know what belongs at the center</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Over time, Krebs learned that  the capabilities most likely to remain centralized were those where scale, consistency, and risk management mattered more than local differentiation. Infrastructure, <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4065346/how-cross-functional-teams-rewrite-the-rules-of-it-collaboration.html?utm=hybrid_search">collaboration platforms</a>, cybersecurity, cloud management, FinOps, and the help desk were natural candidates to remain shared services.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Other areas were more nuanced. Some application capabilities moved back into the businesses as local maturity increased. Many data and insights capabilities also moved closer to the business once teams had built enough muscle to own them. Meanwhile, certain emerging capabilities such as spatial technologies like AR/VR remained centralized because it didn’t yet make sense for each business to build them independently. Many companies have lived this journey as well, for example, with gen AI, which often started with a <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4027422/the-missing-backbone-behind-your-stalled-ai-strategy.html">center of excellence</a>, and then evolved into a more decentralized approach, enabling teams across the business to innovate quickly.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That distinction avoids the trap of treating the enterprise as one uniform operating model. “Both models can be successful, and both have advantages,” he says. “That’s what makes the balance so difficult.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Centralization provides a clearer path to execution at scale and cleaner decision rights, but it requires <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4082282/preparing-your-workforce-for-ai-agents-a-change-management-guide.html?utm=hybrid_search">change management</a> and careful attention to bureaucracy. Decentralization provides ownership and speed, but it can also over index toward preference versus real differentiation, he adds, while making architecture harder to scale later.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><a></a>Don’t confuse standardization with centralization</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">One of the most important distinctions Krebs makes is between centralization and standardization. Many organizations treat them as interchangeable, but they’re not.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“You can have a centralized team that can manage the nuances of different requirements,” Krebs says. “You can also have a centralized standard platform that can be used in a decentralized manner.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That distinction opens up more operating model choices. A company may centralize a platform but decentralize how business teams configure or use it. It may standardize process patterns while keeping execution close to the region or business unit. It may also centralize architectural governance while allowing local teams to move quickly within defined guardrails.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is especially important in global organizations, where regional needs are real but not always unique. Krebs advises leaders to examine whether local requirements can be made more generic and reusable. The risk is solving each local requirement as a one-off, so the better path is to understand the underlying requirement, build it in a way that can scale, and still allow local teams to execute within the standard model.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><a></a>Let business architecture lead technology architecture</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Few topics expose the centralization tension more clearly than ERP consolidation. Many diversified companies, particularly those shaped by acquisition, end up with dozens or hundreds of ERP instances. Some leaders push for massive consolidation. Others prefer to build integration layers on top of the existing environment.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Krebs’s starting point is neither technology nor cost. It’s business architecture. “The easiest and most effective path is when the IT or systems architecture follows and aligns to the business architecture,” he says.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">If the business is truly going to operate processes separately, separate systems may be appropriate. But if the organization has numerous teams, processes, and tools, leaders need to ask whether there’s enough differentiation and value to justify that complexity.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The same logic applies to <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/3973877/treat-your-transformation-like-a-merger.html">M&amp;A</a>. Companies can get into trouble when integration synergies are held hostage by ERP migration timelines. Instead, Krebs advises starting with the business integration strategy. Understand where the synergies are, how the business architecture should come together, and then decide whether the IT architecture needs to be fully integrated, or whether a data layer, reporting platform, or other integration approach can deliver value faster.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><a></a>Make the cost of complexity visible</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">CIOs in decentralized companies often face a frustrating dynamic. The business wants autonomy and speed, but the same leadership team still questions why IT spend is high relative to benchmarks. Krebs says the answer starts with cost alignment and visibility.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In environments with a mix of centralized and decentralized services, Krebs saw centralized capabilities like infrastructure, help desk, and security perform well on benchmarks. More decentralized areas, such as BI, reporting, and commercial applications, often had more redundancy and higher cost.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The point isn’t to blame the business but make the <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/3985680/products-not-permission-slips-a-new-way-to-pay-for-digital-value.html">economics</a> of complexity visible. CIOs need to show how flexibility in one area may require multiple systems, data stores, or teams elsewhere. “I understand we want flexibility here,” Krebs says. “But leaders must see when that flexibility may cost the company money, and be clear on whether the value justifies it.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That shifts the conversation from IT cost to business service economics. A single aggregate IT spend number is rarely useful in a decentralized environment. More helpful is a capability-based view that shows which areas are scaled efficiently, which are fragmented, and where the business architecture is driving the technology cost structure.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><a></a>Revisit the model as maturity changes</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For a new CIO entering a decentralized environment, Krebs cautions against immediately declaring that too many things need to be centralized. The better starting point is curiosity. “I would begin with just trying to understand why they’ve made the decisions they have,” he says.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">From there, CIOs can engage leaders in a conversation about the <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/3966240/from-banquet-to-bistro-how-the-product-model-is-transforming-the-business-of-technology.html">target operating model</a>, connecting business architecture to technology, data, and organizational capabilities. Once the direction is clear, he advises CIOs to work with the willing. Find the parts of the organization that already see the need for change, prove the model there, and scale from demonstrated success.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Regardless of execution, though, the right model changes over time. A low-maturity capability may benefit from centralization because the organization needs to build talent, avoid reinventing the wheel, and accelerate learning. As maturity grows, decentralization may make more sense because business teams need flexibility to adapt quickly. Once maturity is high and patterns stabilize, the organization may be ready to centralize again to <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4158552/scaling-ai-at-union-pacific-starts-with-people.html?utm=hybrid_search">leverage scale</a>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Once I’ve decided I’m going to start with centralized or decentralized, you don’t necessarily need to stay in that model,” Krebs says. “You need to be continually revisiting the operating model as your organization matures and evolves.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That may be the heart of smart centralization. It rejects the false permanence of operating model decisions, and recognizes that autonomy and scale are both valuable, but in different places, at different times, for different reasons.</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The 6 kinds of AI agent architectures]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Somewhere in the last eighteen months, “AI agent” stopped being a useful term. CIOs may even be afraid to ask what “agent” truly means, as it now seems to describe everything from a chatbot that answers HR questions to an autonomous research system that plans its own week of work. When a single p...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3680680/it-security-nachrichten/the-6-kinds-of-ai-agent-architectures/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3680680/it-security-nachrichten/the-6-kinds-of-ai-agent-architectures/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 11:09:07 +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">Somewhere in the last eighteen months, “AI agent” stopped being a useful term. CIOs may even be afraid to ask what “agent” truly means, as it now seems to describe everything from a chatbot that answers HR questions to an autonomous research system that plans its own week of work. When a single phrase carries that much weight, well, it stops carrying any.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I’ve spent the last three years inside hundreds of enterprise AI deployments, and the factor that separates the programs scaling elegantly from the ones still shuffling is often the CIO’s architectural fluency: The ability to look at business problems across the organization and recognize, on sight, what kind of AI architecture is the right fit. In my experience there are six archetypes, each with their own nuances, that CIOs should internalize to make well-informed decisions going forward.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">1. The conversational assistant</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The first, and the one most enterprises meet first, is the conversational assistant: The chat-based partner that an employee or customer opens when they want to think out loud. <a href="https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/what-we-do/capabilities/applied-artificial-intelligence/content/state-of-ai-in-the-enterprise.html?id=us:2ps:3gl:aisgm26:awa:CONS:em:K0218784:012626:kwd-430833501819:195648817121:794247818306::&amp;gclsrc=aw.ds&amp;gad_source=1&amp;gad_campaignid=23269751971&amp;gbraid=0AAAAADenGPCB8F-Mx6GhUt0V1PWpgLqtw&amp;gclid=Cj0KCQjwi8nRBhDhARIsAHZf_pYktgKgYgYBAR6AcMikwdYOF7q6S3WaLiLYg2hwhvdCjRiqajxnqtkaAsdYEALw_wcB">Deloitte found that 38%</a> of organizations report AI is already strengthening their client or customer relationships. This is the architecture people fall in love with: A well-designed assistant with constantly updated information, persistent user-level memory, tools that can act on behalf of users, and citations on every factual claim becomes a useful problem-solver that’s available at any hour of the day.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A global law firm I work with deployed an internal assistant that gives every attorney instant access to the firm’s accumulated precedent, memos and prior matter work. Associates who used to spend the first hour of a research task hunting through document management systems now start with a grounded, citation-backed answer and refine from there. This helped the firm’s institutional knowledge, previously locked in the heads of senior partners, become queryable by anyone with a deadline at 11 p.m., or later.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A second example: A mid-market wealth management firm built a client-facing assistant that handles portfolio questions, statement explanations and routine servicing requests. The assistant draws from each client’s actual holdings, recent activity and the firm’s published market commentary, with citations linking back to source documents. Advisors stopped being interrupted for the questions that didn’t require an advisor, and clients got answers on a Sunday.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">2. The triggered workflow</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Another pattern producing the value across the enterprises I work with is something that runs silently: An email arrives, a ticket is created, a file lands in a folder and the agent executes a process utilizing both reasoning and determinism. These agents don’t even require user adoption, because they’re invisible to the end user. They produce measurable outcomes, but fit cleanly into the audit and change-control processes IT teams have run for decades.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A commercial insurer I advise built a triggered workflow for inbound submissions. Every broker email that arrives at the underwriting inbox is classified by line of business, the attachments are parsed, key risk fields are extracted into the policy administration system, and a draft acknowledgment is queued for the underwriter’s review. Seemingly overnight, the inbox began arriving pre-sorted, and submission throughput rose meaningfully without any change to headcount.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Another example, this time from a private equity firm: Every inbound confidential information memorandum (CIM) that hits the deal team’s shared inbox triggers a workflow that extracts the financial summary, screens it against the firm’s investment criteria, drafts a preliminary memo and posts the result into the deal-tracking system. Associates still make the call on what to pursue, but the first three hours of manual work on each opportunity now happen before anyone even opens the file.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">3. The autonomous agent — with sub-agents</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Here we have the architecture that gets the most conference attention: The autonomous agent, given a task and left to plan its own steps by utilizing its own sub-agents. Autonomous agents are not one-size-fits-all, but they do meet a specific need: Multi-source research, complex cross-system lookups, deep-dive investigations. All of these are processes where the path isn’t usually specified in advance, but the tools are. With the right design discipline, an autonomous agent feels like having a self-sufficient teammate who can call in the right resources and specialists if needed.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A global consulting firm I work with uses an autonomous research agent for early-stage engagement scoping. Given a target company and a strategic question, the agent decides for itself which sub-agents to consult (choosing from internal proprietary databases, prior engagement archives, licensed market data, public filings) and produces a structured briefing with its reasoning chain attached.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Another large technology company I know of deployed an autonomous agent for cross-system incident investigation. When a production alert fires, the agent forms a hypothesis, queries the necessary sub-agents with relevant monitoring tools, log stores and deployment systems, and follows the trail until it reaches a defensible root-cause summary to surface to an engineer.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">4. The multi-agent team</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The fourth pattern is where the next wave of enterprise quality gains is going to come from. <a href="https://www.databricks.com/resources/ebook/state-of-ai-agents">According to Databricks</a>, usage of multi-agent systems grew 327% in just four months as enterprises moved beyond single chatbots. Several specialized agents, each with its own role and toolset, coordinate through a shared protocol: A researcher and a writer, a planner and a set of executors, a proposer and a critic. The proposer-critic feedback loop is one of the smartest techniques in agent design today. One model produces an answer; a second, with a different prompt and often a different provider, evaluates it against explicit criteria. For compliance review, contract analysis, high-stakes classification and any output that will be audited, this second pass is extremely helpful and mirrors how human teams work.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A global bank I work with uses a multi-agent system for marketing and communications review. One agent drafts client-facing copy, a second checks it against the firm’s regulatory and brand guidelines and a third checks it against jurisdiction-specific disclosure rules. Disagreements among the agents are surfaced to a human reviewer with the specific clauses flagged. The compliance team stopped being the bottleneck on every routine piece of copy and started focusing on the high-judgment cases instead.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The next example: A pharmaceutical company built a multi-agent workflow for medical literature summarization. A retriever agent gathers candidate studies, a reader agent extracts study design and findings, a critic agent challenges the reader’s claims against the source text, and a synthesizer agent composes the final brief. The proposer-critic loop in the middle is the reason the medical affairs team trusts the output enough to act on it.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">5. The human-in-the-loop (HITL) agent</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The fifth pattern is the one I think we’ll see increasingly more of in the future. While many see “full automation” as the goal, the right target is actually to let the agent handle the 80% of a task that is mechanical, while preserving human judgment at the most critical moments. This is achievable via human-in-the-loop (HITL) agents. <a href="https://www.moodys.com/web/en/us/insights/ai/human-in-the-loop-why-human-oversight-still-matters-in-ai-driven-risk-and-compliance.html">According to Moody’s, 42%</a> of compliance professionals believe that human oversight is mandatory, and I agree: AI should run <em>right</em>, by getting approval and review before any sensitive business action is taken. HITL is the architecture that can help turn a skeptical team into an enthusiastic one.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A regional health system I worked with uses a HITL agent for prior-authorization letters. The agent assembles the clinical evidence, drafts the letter against the relevant payer’s criteria, and routes it to a nurse case manager for review inside the existing workflow tool. The nurse approves, edits or rejects in seconds rather than minutes, and every edit helps make the next draft better.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A property management company uses a HITL agent to run its maintenance work orders. When a tenant emails about a problem (an HVAC unit that died overnight, say), the agent pulls the structured details (tenant, unit, issue type, urgency), matches the job to the right vendor from the directory, and drafts the work order. A team member approves it in Slack before anything goes out. From there the agent emails the vendor with the full order, confirms with the tenant that someone is on the way and updates Airtable, closing the loop completely.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">6. The scheduled agent</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">On a set schedule or against a batch of inputs, this agent runs the same defined task: Produce a report, refresh a dataset, monitor a set of sources or summarize a period of activity. Under this archetype, unsexy work gets done consistently, integrated into existing operational rhythms like the Monday morning meeting, the daily standup and the monthly board deck, without asking anyone to change their behavior. This is the architecture that shifts AI from feeling like even more work, to a seamless teammate that just works.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A private equity firm I work with runs a scheduled agent every Monday at 6 a.m. that monitors news, filings and earnings activity across every portfolio company and produces a single PDF that lands in the deal partners’ inboxes before the weekly investment meeting. No one logs into a dashboard. The agent shows up, on time, with the same format every week, and the meeting now starts from a shared baseline rather than from whatever each partner happened to read over the weekend.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A second example: A global manufacturer runs a nightly batch agent that ingests the day’s quality-control reports across plants, summarizes anomalies against a rolling baseline, and produces an end-of-shift handoff document for each site lead’s morning. The agent doesn’t flag emergencies, but it ensures that the slow-moving patterns no human would catch reading one shift’s data in isolation get surfaced.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Bringing it together</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">None of these six archetypes is more advanced than the others or inherently better. But CIOs can have an edge by choosing the one that the operational problem actually calls for.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Before you scope a single deployment, you should be able to look at a business problem and name its shape: Is this a question someone needs answered in the moment, or a process that should run the instant a trigger fires? Does the path need to be discovered, or is it known in advance and just waiting to be executed? Where, exactly, does human judgment have to stay in the loop, and where is it just friction?</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Going forward, CIOs should start treating the architecture decision as the first design choice. Everything downstream — adoption, governance, trust — only gets easier if the architecture is the right fit.</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[SOCs face a human challenge as AI speeds alerts and threats]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Security operations centers (SOCs) have spent years struggling under the weight of growing alert volumes, expanding attack surfaces, and chronic staffing shortages. Now artificial intelligence is adding a new complication: not just more information, but more machine-generated information that mus...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3680465/it-security-nachrichten/socs-face-a-human-challenge-as-ai-speeds-alerts-and-threats/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3680465/it-security-nachrichten/socs-face-a-human-challenge-as-ai-speeds-alerts-and-threats/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 09:08:51 +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"><a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/3840447/security-operations-centers-are-fundamental-to-cybersecurity-heres-how-to-build-one.html">Security operations centers (SOCs)</a> have spent years struggling under the weight of growing alert volumes, expanding attack surfaces, and chronic staffing shortages. Now artificial intelligence is adding a new complication: not just more information, but more machine-generated information that must itself be evaluated.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“There is an asymmetry here because you now have to parse through a lot of AI slop to get to, ‘Okay, is this real or not?’” <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/fsmontenegro/">Fernando Montenegro</a>, vice president and practice lead at The Futurum Group, tells CSO.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">His observation captures a growing concern among security leaders. AI is helping attackers and defenders move faster, but it is also creating <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4077448/ai-workslop-the-new-productivity-killer-only-training-can-stop.html">new forms of cognitive burden</a> for the humans tasked with separating signal from noise.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/4155342/what-anthropic-glasswing-reveals-about-the-future-of-vulnerability-discovery.html">AI accelerates vulnerability discovery</a> and enables more automated reconnaissance and exploitation, defenders are increasingly responsible for overseeing systems whose outputs can be difficult to interpret or verify. The challenge is not simply more work. It is that the volume, speed, and complexity of that work are increasing simultaneously.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yet experts who study and advise SOCs reject the idea that collapse is inevitable. Instead, they describe an industry entering a difficult transition that could reshape how security teams operate and how humans and machines share responsibility for defense.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The vulnerability surge is exposing years of security debt</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">One of the most immediate concerns is the possibility that <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/4158117/anthropics-mythos-signals-a-structural-cybersecurity-shift.html">AI dramatically increases the number of vulnerabilities</a> organizations must identify and remediate.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/christopher-crowley-1200339/">Chris Crowley</a>, a longtime cybersecurity instructor and SOC expert, argues that organizations are facing the <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/570851/7-ways-technical-debt-increases-security-risk.html">consequences of years of accumulated technology debt</a>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“A lot of what we’re going to have to account for in the next couple of years is a technology debt of vulnerable software that has been deployed because it’s good enough to solve the problem, but then there are all these latent cyber issues, flaws, vulnerabilities that weren’t discovered prior to deployment,” he tells CSO.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AI-assisted vulnerability discovery has the potential to expose those weaknesses at a pace defenders have never experienced before.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The compression of work that is being dropped on us is unprecedented,” Crowley says. “We’ve just been ignoring it for decades.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">He does not believe AI will necessarily create entirely new classes of vulnerabilities. Instead, he expects defenders to confront much larger volumes of familiar problems.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“We’re going to have 100 of these simultaneously,” he says, referring to the kinds of high-priority vulnerabilities security teams traditionally handle one at a time.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The AI challenge for many SOCs may be less a novelty problem than a volume problem. Security teams already know how to patch systems, prioritize remediation, and respond to critical exposures. What changes is the scale and speed at which those demands arrive.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Organizations with mature patching, prioritization, escalation, and response processes may struggle but adapt. Organizations that have treated security operations as a bare-minimum compliance function may find themselves overwhelmed.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For CISOs, Crowley says, that means treating “patch now” less as an occasional emergency state and <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/4196435/flaw-surge-fuels-need-for-cisos-to-rethink-vulnerability-management.html">more as a permanent operating posture</a>. As AI accelerates vulnerability discovery, the distinction between routine maintenance and crisis response may continue to blur.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">He compares the situation to disaster recovery planning. Organizations that wait until a crisis arrives to establish staffing plans, escalation paths, and remediation processes may discover there is not enough help available.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Cognitive overload may become the defining challenge</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">While vulnerability discovery receives much of the attention, Montenegro believes security leaders need a broader framework for understanding AI’s impact.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Organizations should think about AI through three lenses, he says: security for AI, AI for security, and security from AI. The first involves protecting AI systems. The second involves using AI to improve defensive operations. The third asks what happens when adversaries use AI against the organization.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For SOCs, all three categories are beginning to overlap.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As AI makes it easier to create reports, assessments, vulnerability submissions, and other operational artifacts, humans remain responsible for determining whether that information is accurate and useful.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“It becomes much easier to generate content,” Montenegro says, “but if you’re going to review that content as a human, the onus on you now is that much larger.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The result is a new form of cognitive overload. Security professionals may spend increasing amounts of time evaluating machine-generated information instead of conducting higher-value security work.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Organizations can increasingly use AI to summarize reports, evaluate alerts, and assist with investigations, but humans remain responsible for validating the results.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“We’re not at the stage yet where people are comfortable” handing off critical decisions entirely to AI, he says.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That leaves defenders caught between two competing realities: AI is creating more information to process, but AI is also becoming one of the few viable tools for managing that growing workload.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For Montenegro, the principle should be to automate tasks, not roles. AI can absorb repetitive investigative steps, but organizations should be cautious about removing humans from the process entirely.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The risk, he says, is that if organizations hide too much complexity behind automated outputs, analysts may lose opportunities to develop the domain knowledge needed to advance.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“How is that professional who is reacting to those alerts growing as a professional?” he says.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The gap between mature and struggling SOCs may widen</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Not every organization will experience the impact of AI in the same way.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/johnlhubbard/">John Hubbard</a>, senior cybersecurity consultant and SANS instructor, believes the industry’s response will largely depend on how well organizations have prepared for operational stress before AI arrives at scale.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“I would roughly break security operations teams into two camps,” Hubbard tells CSO. “There are the ones that are definitely struggling, are already overwhelmed. And then some are doing really well.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The struggling organizations tend to be understaffed, underfunded, undertrained, or dependent on ad hoc processes. Every incident feels different, forcing teams to improvise under pressure.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Getting hit with something like this can certainly be an accelerant for burnout if they weren’t already experiencing it,” Hubbard says.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">By contrast, mature security teams have already invested in processes, training, exercises, and automation. “The teams that are doing a really solid job now are probably not super overwhelmed because they’ve developed the processes and procedures to be ready for this kind of thing,” Hubbard says.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">He compares successful SOCs to fire departments. Firefighters cannot predict exactly where the next emergency will occur, but they know how to respond because they have rehearsed those responses repeatedly.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The teams that kind of can react like a fire department are the ones that are getting it right,” he says.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Those organizations <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/570871/tabletop-exercises-explained-definition-examples-and-objectives.html">conduct tabletop exercises</a>, adversary emulation exercises, <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/571891/red-vs-blue-vs-purple-teams-how-to-run-an-effective-exercise.html">red-team assessments</a>, and <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/3829684/how-to-create-an-effective-incident-response-plan.html">incident response</a> drills. As a result, they can absorb additional workload without descending into panic.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Burnout remains the industry’s most difficult problem</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Despite widespread concern about AI-enabled attacks, none of the experts view AI solely as a threat. Several argue that AI will become essential for helping defenders cope with the challenges it creates.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/jose-marie-griffiths-9106b7b/">Jose-Marie Griffiths</a>, president emerita and former CIO of Dakota State University, believes AI can help security teams sift through overwhelming volumes of information and identify the signals that matter most.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“People who work in SOCs are now seeing overwhelming volumes of data, and they’re getting fatigued,” Griffiths tells CSO.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AI can help automate portions of analysis, validate alerts, and improve visibility into complex environments. But Griffiths cautions that some AI-assisted vulnerability discovery tools are also producing large numbers of false positives.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That matters because false positives do not eliminate work. They create it. As organizations confront escalating volumes of findings, distinguishing genuine risk from erroneous results may become as important as discovering vulnerabilities in the first place.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The experts agree that technology alone will not determine outcomes. People will.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Crowley argues that cybersecurity professionals must recognize that uncertainty is intrinsic to the profession. “We are the group that deals with uncertainty,” he says. “That’s really and truly what cybersecurity is.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That reality places responsibility on both individuals and organizations. Analysts need mechanisms for managing stress. Teams need to recognize when colleagues are approaching their limits. Managers need to <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/3631614/cybersecurity-is-tough-4-steps-leaders-can-take-now-to-reduce-team-burnout.html">establish healthy escalation practices and realistic expectations</a>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Hubbard rejects the notion that burnout is inevitable.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“It is not a foregone conclusion that security operations jobs have to be a painful grind that everyone hates,” he says.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">He has seen organizations where employees remain engaged for years because leaders actively manage workload, create supportive cultures, and encourage open communication.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That includes making it safe for analysts to admit when they have reached their limits. “If people are unwilling to say, ‘I’m maxed out right now, and I’m going crazy,’ that’s going to be the thing that breaks a lot of teams,” Hubbard says.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Pay alone may not solve the problem. Crowley pointed to SANS/SOC <a href="https://www.sans.org/white-papers/2026-sans-soc-survey-insights-decade-evolution-cyber-defense">survey findings</a> showing that compensation ranked fourth among retention factors, behind meaningful work, training, and professional development.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The future SOC may look very different</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Griffiths believes organizations will need to respond not only with better technology but with structural changes. Traditional tiered SOC models may need to evolve into more collaborative teams with diverse expertise working together in real-time.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“I think we’re going to have to eliminate the hierarchies a little bit and have teams of people with different expertise working together,” she says.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">She also argues that organizations should invest in human expertise rather than simply increasing AI consumption. “Buy engineers, not tokens,” she says.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Professional networks and peer support will matter as much as any tool, Griffiths says, because defenders need trusted communities where they can compare notes, share practices, and avoid facing sustained pressure in isolation.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">If there is a consensus emerging among experts, it is that AI is exposing weaknesses that already existed.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The staffing shortages, alert fatigue, burnout, and process failures affecting SOCs did not begin with generative AI. AI is simply amplifying them.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">At the same time, AI is providing new tools that may help organizations manage those very challenges.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The future SOC may spend less time manually triaging alerts and more time validating automated findings, conducting threat hunting, and making strategic decisions. Human expertise may increasingly be paired with AI systems that act as operational partners.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The transition will not be painless. Some teams will struggle. Some practitioners may leave the field. Others will adapt and thrive.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“In a way,” Griffiths says, “we’re turning the whole SOC inside out.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Montenegro sees the transition as a cybersecurity version of the Red Queen effect: defenders and attackers must keep running simply to stay in place.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Borrowing from science-fiction author William Gibson, Montenegro offered perhaps the simplest description of the industry’s current moment: “The future is already here. It’s just unevenly distributed.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For security leaders, that future is arriving in the form of AI-generated vulnerabilities, AI-assisted investigations, and AI-enabled adversaries. The question is no longer whether security operations centers will change. It is whether organizations can adapt quickly enough to keep pace.</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Former Richard Stallman Colleague Now Argues for Open AI Models Too]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Long-time Slashdot reader theodp writes:


Recalling his initial resistance to free and open software, billionaire computer scientist David Siegel argues vigorously in FORTUNE that the stakes are too high to let AI become increasingly closed. "In the 1980s, I had the chance to spend several years...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3679626/it-security-nachrichten/former-richard-stallman-colleague-now-argues-for-open-ai-models-too/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3679626/it-security-nachrichten/former-richard-stallman-colleague-now-argues-for-open-ai-models-too/</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 19 Jul 2026 16:52:33 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Long-time Slashdot reader theodp writes:


Recalling his initial resistance to free and open software, billionaire computer scientist David Siegel argues vigorously in FORTUNE that the stakes are too high to let AI become increasingly closed. "In the 1980s, I had the chance to spend several years arguing about free and open software, what we now call open source, with the founder of the movement, Richard Stallman. My office at the MIT AI Lab was next door to his. Stallman's position was that the source code to software should be free for everyone to use, learn from, and improve. Software encapsulates knowledge, he argued, and no one should lock something so fundamental away. To hide software inside a company was to hide knowledge itself... What I missed was that software was not just a commercial asset; it was a body of knowledge, and bodies of knowledge grow stronger when they are shared. After about two years of on-and-off debate, Stallman convinced me I was wrong." 

 "Now the AI fight is the same — only bigger," advises Siegel. "AI is software, and AI is increasingly closed. The frontier models — the most advanced, cutting-edge AI systems — are closed completely and the trend is accelerating. Viable open alternatives are few and far between." So, what to do...? "Yes, frontier models keep getting bigger and more expensive — that arms race may well stay with the giants. But open source AI does not have to match their scale to be useful. Much of what the world needs probably does not require the absolute frontier. And where keeping a credible open option does demand serious compute, that is precisely the kind of public good worth paying for. 

"What's missing is not a path but will. The government, the private sector, and nonprofits should invest heavily in free and open source AI — the way they once invested in open software: public compute grants for open research, corporate and philanthropic support for universities and nonprofits doing the work, and a simple rule that AI built with public money is open by default. 

"We have run this experiment before. We know how it turns out. Let's not unlearn it."<p></p><div class="share_submission">
<a class="slashpop" href="http://twitter.com/home?status=Former+Richard+Stallman+Colleague+Now+Argues+for+Open+AI+Models+Too%3A+https%3A%2F%2Fnews.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F26%2F07%2F19%2F0631207%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%2F0631207%2Fformer-richard-stallman-colleague-now-argues-for-open-ai-models-too%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/26/07/19/0631207/former-richard-stallman-colleague-now-argues-for-open-ai-models-too?utm_source=rss1.0moreanon&amp;utm_medium=feed">Read more of this story</a> at Slashdot.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA['People are choosing to be a walking Flock camera': the smart glasses backlash hits new heights as celebrities blast 'creep goggles' — and activists install fake Meta Glasses ads at London bus stops]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[It's been a week of strong reaction against cameras in smart glasses, and tech companies are facing a lot of negativity.]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3679357/it-nachrichten/people-are-choosing-to-be-a-walking-flock-camera-the-smart-glasses-backlash-hits-new-heights-as-celebrities-blast-creep-goggles-and-activists-install-fake-meta-glasses-ads-at-london-bus-stops/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3679357/it-nachrichten/people-are-choosing-to-be-a-walking-flock-camera-the-smart-glasses-backlash-hits-new-heights-as-celebrities-blast-creep-goggles-and-activists-install-fake-meta-glasses-ads-at-london-bus-stops/</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 19 Jul 2026 13:02:58 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[It's been a week of strong reaction against cameras in smart glasses, and tech companies are facing a lot of negativity.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The 5 laptop features worth paying extra for, plus 3 you can ignore]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[From RAM and hardware, here's where you should spend your laptop budget -- and where you can save money.]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3679178/it-nachrichten/the-5-laptop-features-worth-paying-extra-for-plus-3-you-can-ignore/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3679178/it-nachrichten/the-5-laptop-features-worth-paying-extra-for-plus-3-you-can-ignore/</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 19 Jul 2026 10:47:41 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[From RAM and hardware, here's where you should spend your laptop budget -- and where you can save money.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[💚 Our Family's Electrotech Journey 🌞🏡🔌⛽️🚘️ (emf2026)]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[The story of how we went all electric, ditched fossil fuels, disconnected our gas supply and stopped burning stuff, and how you can too.

Our experience of converting a ~100 year old semi-detached house to modern clean living, and electrifying other parts of our lifestyle, such as travelling with...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3678185/it-security-video/our-familys-electrotech-journey-emf2026/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3678185/it-security-video/our-familys-electrotech-journey-emf2026/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 18 Jul 2026 17:18:20 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🎥 IT Security Video</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[The story of how we went all electric, ditched fossil fuels, disconnected our gas supply and stopped burning stuff, and how you can too.

Our experience of converting a ~100 year old semi-detached house to modern clean living, and electrifying other parts of our lifestyle, such as travelling without flying.

Advice on switching to (and charging) electric vehicles, solar panels and home batteries, insulation, induction hobs and heat pumps. Mistakes made, lessons learned, what we'd do differently next time and how much it saves us.

How to monitor, control and automate your low carbon tech with open energy monitor and home assistant. Tips for making things work together well and play nicely with each other. The perils of cloud integrations and vendors shutting down systems.

Also covering self-built (and bought) air quality monitors for citizen science and environmental monitoring of the changes in air pollution. How to make projects such as Sensor Community and pull the data into your local home management system.

Discover how to be greener, healthier, safer, more resilient/secure, spend less money and have fun geeking out on it along the way.

Learn from our real-world experience in this electrifying talk.

Licensed to the public under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
about this event: https://www.emfcamp.org/schedule/2026/82-our-familys-electrotech-journey]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Tree Grafting in the Personality Disorder Wing (emf2026)]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[What happens when you put a therapeutic tree nursery inside a high-security prison? This talk covers the practicalities and surprises of setting up and running horticultural programmes in custodial settings, from negotiating with security to working alongside people with complex and often severe ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3677773/it-security-video/tree-grafting-in-the-personality-disorder-wing-emf2026/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3677773/it-security-video/tree-grafting-in-the-personality-disorder-wing-emf2026/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 18 Jul 2026 11:33:49 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🎥 IT Security Video</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[What happens when you put a therapeutic tree nursery inside a high-security prison? This talk covers the practicalities and surprises of setting up and running horticultural programmes in custodial settings, from negotiating with security to working alongside people with complex and often severe mental health conditions. We'll look at why plants and growing things seem to reach people that other interventions don't, what the evidence says about horticulture and behaviour change in the criminal justice system, and what it's actually like to spend your days doing something that feels faintly absurd and occasionally profound. No horticultural or clinical background required.

Licensed to the public under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
about this event: https://www.emfcamp.org/schedule/2026/92-tree-grafting-in-the-personality-disorder-wing]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[I Funded a Stranger’s Bank Card With My Own Money; and That’s Exactly the Problem]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[A hands-on walkthrough of Broken Object Level Authorization (BOLA) on VulnBankVulnBankThere’s a moment in every appsec learner’s journey where a vulnerability stops being a bullet point on the OWASP API Top 10 and starts being something you actually did. For me, that moment was watching one user’...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3677763/hacking/i-funded-a-strangers-bank-card-with-my-own-money-and-thats-exactly-the-problem/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3677763/hacking/i-funded-a-strangers-bank-card-with-my-own-money-and-thats-exactly-the-problem/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 18 Jul 2026 11:21:50 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🕵️ Hacking</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<h3>A hands-on walkthrough of Broken Object Level Authorization (BOLA) on VulnBank</h3><figure><img alt="" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1024/1*mTehjKwtISkTLR8KwRRrRw.png"><figcaption>VulnBank</figcaption></figure><p>There’s a moment in every appsec learner’s journey where a vulnerability stops being a bullet point on the OWASP API Top 10 and starts being something you actually <em>did</em>. For me, that moment was watching one user’s card get funded by another user’s session — no exploit chain, no payload, just a number in a URL that should never have worked.</p><p>This is the walkthrough of how I found (and rigorously confirmed) a Broken Object Level Authorization vulnerability in <strong>VulnBank</strong>, an intentionally vulnerable banking application built for security training.</p><h3>What Is BOLA, Actually?</h3><p>Broken Object Level Authorization sits at <strong>#1 </strong>on the <strong>OWASP API Security Top 10 </strong>(API 1: 2023), and for good reason — it’s common, trivial to exploit, and quietly devastating.</p><p>The core idea in one sentence: <strong>the server correctly checks who you are, but never checks what you’re allowed to touch.</strong></p><p>Any API endpoint that takes an object identifier — a <strong>card_id</strong>, <strong>account_number</strong>, <strong>order_id </strong>— needs to answer two separate questions:</p><ol><li><strong>Authentication: </strong>is this a valid, logged-in user?</li><li><strong>Authorization: </strong>should <em>this </em><strong><em>specific user</em> </strong>be allowed to access <em>this specific object</em>?</li></ol><p>BOLA is what happens when an API nails question one and skips question two entirely. Usually it’s one missing clause in a query.</p><p>The vulnerable version:</p><pre>SELECT * FROM cards WHERE id = :card_id</pre><p>The fixed version:</p><pre>SELECT * FROM cards WHERE id = :card_id AND user_id = :authenticated_user_id</pre><p>That’s genuinely the whole difference and because it never breaks anything during normal use (your own IDs always belong to you), it hides in plain sight until someone deliberately tries an ID that isn’t theirs.</p><p>So that’s exactly what I did — with two accounts, on purpose, so I could prove it beyond doubt rather than just suspect it.</p><h3>Setting the Stage: Two Users, Two Cards</h3><p>Testing BOLA against yourself proves nothing — you always have legitimate access to your own resources. So I set up two separate accounts to simulate a real attacker/victim scenario.</p><h3><strong>User 1 — Jhonny</strong></h3><ul><li>I created a virtual card with a <strong>$2,500 </strong>limit.</li></ul><figure><img alt="" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/671/1*IzNdvQ1HNkbGSk9AEz70FQ.png"><figcaption>Jhonny’s Virtual Card</figcaption></figure><ul><li>I then funded it with <strong>$80 </strong>from the main balance.</li></ul><figure><img alt="" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/444/1*yyZLbn89enTTeEBs4gSKow.png"><figcaption>Funding the card</figcaption></figure><p>With the funding request captured in <strong>Burp Suite</strong>, I sent it to Repeater for closer inspection, this is the request whose <strong>card_id </strong>parameter would become the centerpiece of the whole test.</p><figure><img alt="" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1024/1*EKOsjOROq-GWkyoTOSyHNw.png"><figcaption>Jhonny Card Request in Burp</figcaption></figure><h3><strong>User 2 — Alex</strong></h3><p>Same setup:</p><ul><li>A fresh virtual card of <strong>$2,500 </strong>limit.</li></ul><figure><img alt="" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/411/1*A-bryCWIEKgcBWvJSyHgGQ.png"><figcaption>Alex’s Virtual Card</figcaption></figure><ul><li>Funded with $100.</li></ul><figure><img alt="" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/697/1*H-zuUIktIse3J_FkKY4iRg.png"><figcaption>Funding Alex’s card</figcaption></figure><ul><li>And the same treatment — captured the request and sent it to Repeater.</li></ul><figure><img alt="" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1024/1*MhtrbarCUBXaggWB7u-YBw.png"><figcaption>Alex’s Card Request in Burp</figcaption></figure><p>Two accounts, two cards, two independent funding requests sitting side by side. Now the real test could begin.</p><h3>Step One: Does the App Even Check Who You Are?</h3><p>Before hunting for authorization flaws, I checked the basics. I stripped the session cookie and Authorization header from a funding request entirely and sent it.</p><figure><img alt="" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1024/1*SkZ3P_vd-a31Bxve6I1kMw.png"><figcaption>Token error (Authentication enabled)</figcaption></figure><p><strong>401 Unauthorized: "Token is missing."</strong></p><p>Good! The server clearly enforces authentication. That ruled out the simplest failure mode and pointed straight at the real question: does it check <strong><em>which</em> </strong>authenticated user is making the request, or just <strong><em>that</em> </strong>one is?</p><h3>Step Two: The Swap</h3><p>This is the actual test, and it’s almost anticlimactic in how simple it is.</p><p>I took <strong>Jhonny’s</strong> valid token and used it to fund <strong>Alex’s</strong> card:</p><figure><img alt="" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1024/1*pM9M7X-q1bMfJng1TcsNqA.png"><figcaption>Funding Alex’s card with Jhonny’s Token</figcaption></figure><p><strong>200 OK.</strong> The card funded successfully with Jhonny's session authorizing a change to Alex's card.</p><p>Then I reversed it, <strong>Alex’s</strong> token, aimed at <strong>Jhonny’s</strong> card:</p><figure><img alt="" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1024/1*-5Qqk7A4XKvrvCkqyXgRFQ.png"><figcaption>Funding Jhonny’s card with Alex’s Token</figcaption></figure><p><strong>200 OK</strong> again. Same result, opposite direction.</p><p>Neither request was rejected. The server verified that a valid token was present but never verified that the token holder actually owned the card they were funding. It simply processed whatever <strong>card_id </strong>showed up in the URL, against whichever authenticated user happened to be making the call.</p><h3>Why This Isn’t “Just a Feature”</h3><p>The first pushback any BOLA finding gets is: <strong><em>“Couldn’t this just be an intentional transfer feature?”</em></strong></p><p>It’s a fair question, and worth addressing directly.</p><p>The answer is <strong>NO</strong>, for a few concrete reasons:</p><ul><li>There was no recipient search, no username/email lookup, no way to intentionally select another user through the interface.</li><li>Neither Jhonny nor Alex received any notification or gave any consent.</li><li>The card IDs used were never exposed to either user by the application itself, they were reached only by directly editing a request in Burp, not by anything the UI ever presented as selectable.</li><li>Both requests used each user’s <em>own</em> main balance and <em>own</em> token throughout, nothing about the flow resembled a designed transfer mechanism.</li></ul><p>A designed feature has guardrails: consent steps, recipient verification, fraud checks. This had none of that, because it was never meant to be reachable in the first place.</p><h3>The Fix</h3><p>The remediation here is almost anticlimactic given the impact. This isn’t a hard problem to solve, just an easy one to forget:</p><ul><li>Every object-level query needs an explicit ownership check tied to the authenticated session: <strong>WHERE card_id = ? AND user_id = ?</strong></li><li>Better yet, enforce this centrally, an authorization layer or middleware that every object-fetching endpoint routes through, rather than relying on each developer to remember it per-endpoint</li><li>Make cross-account testing a standard part of QA and code review: test with <strong>two different authenticated accounts</strong> against each other’s objects, not just each account against its own.</li></ul><h3>The Takeaway</h3><p>BOLA doesn’t require exotic tooling or deep exploit development. It requires one thing: noticing that an ID in a URL is just a number, and asking whether the server actually checked if you were allowed to use it.</p><p>In this case, it hadn’t. Two independent accounts, each fully authenticated, could reach into each other’s resources without so much as a warning.</p><p>Authentication tells a server <em>who</em> is asking. Authorization is the separate and often forgotten question of <strong><em>what they’re allowed to ask for?</em></strong>. Every API needs both, and it’s worth checking, endpoint by endpoint, that yours actually has them.</p><p><em>This testing was performed against VulnBank, an intentionally vulnerable application built for security education and training purposes.</em></p><img src="https://medium.com/_/stat?event=post.clientViewed&amp;referrerSource=full_rss&amp;postId=a3bfc069a8b9" width="1" height="1" alt=""><hr><p><a href="https://infosecwriteups.com/i-funded-a-strangers-bank-card-with-my-own-money-and-that-s-exactly-the-problem-a3bfc069a8b9">I Funded a Stranger’s Bank Card With My Own Money; and That’s Exactly the Problem</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[Tree Grafting in the Personality Disorder Wing (emf2026)]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[What happens when you put a therapeutic tree nursery inside a high-security prison? This talk covers the practicalities and surprises of setting up and running horticultural programmes in custodial settings, from negotiating with security to working alongside people with complex and often severe ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3677760/it-security-video/tree-grafting-in-the-personality-disorder-wing-emf2026/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3677760/it-security-video/tree-grafting-in-the-personality-disorder-wing-emf2026/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 18 Jul 2026 11:17:48 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🎥 IT Security Video</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[What happens when you put a therapeutic tree nursery inside a high-security prison? This talk covers the practicalities and surprises of setting up and running horticultural programmes in custodial settings, from negotiating with security to working alongside people with complex and often severe mental health conditions. We'll look at why plants and growing things seem to reach people that other interventions don't, what the evidence says about horticulture and behaviour change in the criminal justice system, and what it's actually like to spend your days doing something that feels faintly absurd and occasionally profound. No horticultural or clinical background required.

Licensed to the public under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
about this event: https://www.emfcamp.org/schedule/2026/92-tree-grafting-in-the-personality-disorder-wing]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[A mosquito-hunting killer drone is available for preorder – and I have questions]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Y Combinator-backed startup Tornyol has built a tiny autonomous drone that tracks mosquitoes by sonar and kills them mid-flight, with preorders open now. We look at the tech, the pricing, and the questions it raises about where the targeting stops.]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3677603/it-nachrichten/a-mosquito-hunting-killer-drone-is-available-for-preorder-and-i-have-questions/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3677603/it-nachrichten/a-mosquito-hunting-killer-drone-is-available-for-preorder-and-i-have-questions/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 18 Jul 2026 09:18:29 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Y Combinator-backed startup Tornyol has built a tiny autonomous drone that tracks mosquitoes by sonar and kills them mid-flight, with preorders open now. We look at the tech, the pricing, and the questions it raises about where the targeting stops.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[v2.1.214]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[What's changed

Fixed single-segment dir/** allow rules like Edit(src/**) auto-approving writes to nested dir/ directories anywhere in the tree instead of only /dir
Fixed a permission-check bypass affecting commands run in Windows PowerShell 5.1 sessions
Fixed Bash permission checks to fail close...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3677323/downloads/v21214/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3677323/downloads/v21214/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 18 Jul 2026 03:46:25 +0200</pubDate>
<category>💾 Downloads</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<h2>What's changed</h2>
<ul>
<li>Fixed single-segment <code>dir/**</code> allow rules like <code>Edit(src/**)</code> auto-approving writes to nested <code>dir/</code> directories anywhere in the tree instead of only <code>&lt;cwd&gt;/dir</code></li>
<li>Fixed a permission-check bypass affecting commands run in Windows PowerShell 5.1 sessions</li>
<li>Fixed Bash permission checks to fail closed on file-descriptor redirect forms that bash parses differently than the permission analyzer</li>
<li>Fixed Bash permission checks misjudging very long commands — commands over 10,000 characters now always prompt instead of running automatically</li>
<li>Fixed Bash permission checks treating zsh variable subscripts and modifiers in <code>[[ ]]</code> comparisons as inert text — these commands now prompt for approval</li>
<li>Fixed Bash permission checks to no longer auto-approve certain <code>help</code> and <code>man</code> commands that could run unsafe options, command substitutions, or backslash paths</li>
<li>Fixed permission prompts on remote sessions that could proceed before the local confirmation dialog</li>
<li>Added the EndConversation tool: Claude can end sessions with highly abusive users or jailbreak attempts, as on claude.ai since 2025 — see <a href="https://www.anthropic.com/research/end-subset-conversations" rel="nofollow">https://www.anthropic.com/research/end-subset-conversations</a></li>
<li>Added a periodic progress heartbeat for long-running tool calls that previously went silent</li>
<li>Added an ISO <code>modified</code> timestamp to memory file frontmatter</li>
<li>Added <code>message.uuid</code>, <code>client_request_id</code>, and <code>tool_source</code> attributes to OpenTelemetry log events for message-level correlation and tool provenance</li>
<li>Added <code>CLAUDE_CODE_OTEL_CONTENT_MAX_LENGTH</code> to configure the 60 KB truncation limit on OpenTelemetry content attributes</li>
<li>Added reasoning effort to the <code>subagentStatusLine</code> payload, so custom agent rows can render model and effort</li>
<li>Added permission prompts for <code>docker</code> commands (including the Podman <code>docker</code> shim) carrying daemon-redirect flags (<code>--url</code>, <code>--connection</code>, <code>--identity</code>, and Podman's remote mode) that previously ran without one</li>
<li>Fixed a crash when a GrowthBook feature evaluates to null, and a bug where a malformed flag payload could wipe the cached feature flags</li>
<li>Fixed Bash tool killing the Claude session when a <code>pkill -f</code> pattern accidentally matched the CLI's own process (Linux)</li>
<li>Fixed unbounded memory growth when <code>--settings</code> points at a device file or multi-GB file; oversized (&gt;2 MiB) settings files now fail at startup with a clear error</li>
<li>Fixed streaming turns failing with "Socket is closed" behind corporate proxies on Windows</li>
<li>Fixed stream-json output truncation at exit for slow-reading SDK/pipeline consumers; the exit drain now scales with queued bytes instead of a flat 2s cap</li>
<li>Fixed scheduled tasks refusing their own configured prompt as untrusted input — the fired prompt is now delivered as the session's assigned task</li>
<li>Fixed PowerShell tool commands hanging until timeout when a child process waited on standard input (Windows)</li>
<li>Fixed Python scripts under the PowerShell tool crashing with UnicodeDecodeError when reading non-UTF-8 data from standard input (Windows)</li>
<li>Fixed Python scripts run via the PowerShell tool crashing with UnicodeEncodeError on non-ASCII output, and PowerShell 7 error messages containing raw ANSI escape sequences (Windows)</li>
<li>Fixed the PowerShell tool reporting <code>where.exe</code>, <code>fc.exe</code>, and <code>diff.exe</code> as errors when they return a valid negative answer (Windows)</li>
<li>Fixed <code>&gt;</code> and <code>&gt;&gt;</code> under the PowerShell tool on Windows PowerShell 5.1 writing UTF-16LE files that other tools couldn't read as UTF-8</li>
<li>Fixed a displaced background daemon deleting its successor's control socket on shutdown, which made the next client kill the healthy replacement daemon</li>
<li>Fixed background sessions parked with <code>←</code> or <code>/background</code> and left idle keeping the background daemon and a worker process alive indefinitely</li>
<li>Fixed completed background sessions being impossible to remove via <code>claude rm</code> or the agent view once the background service had gone idle</li>
<li>Fixed background sessions dispatched from a non-git folder being impossible to delete from the agents view</li>
<li>Fixed reopening a stopped background session failing to restore its saved conversation when an unreadable folder exists in the session store</li>
<li>Fixed the Remote Control "session ready" push notification firing for sessions where Remote Control was not explicitly enabled</li>
<li>Fixed <code>/install-github-app</code> and the <code>/mcp</code> settings menu being blocked in agent-view sessions — they're now refused only in background sessions with no terminal attached</li>
<li>Fixed plugins enabled via the <code>--settings</code> CLI flag not loading (regression since v2.1.181)</li>
<li>Fixed feature flags going stale in long-running sessions after the OAuth token rotates</li>
<li>Fixed <code>/ultrareview</code> refusing to run in repos with no merge base — it now offers to review all tracked files</li>
<li>Fixed <code>claude update</code> and <code>claude doctor</code> hanging silently, and the <code>/status</code> System diagnostics section going blank, when a shell-config path is a directory</li>
<li>Fixed memory frontmatter values being silently truncated at an inline <code>#</code> when memory files are saved</li>
<li>Fixed session cost and token telemetry double-counting on streams that emit multiple cumulative <code>message_delta</code> frames</li>
<li>Fixed a spurious "check your network" warning that appeared while the advisor was thinking</li>
<li>Fixed hooks with exit code 2 not blocking as documented when the hook's stdout JSON fails schema validation</li>
<li>Fixed OTel log events emitted outside the turn's async context missing the interaction span's trace context</li>
<li>Fixed MCP transient errors during prompts/resources refresh clearing the server's slash commands and resources</li>
<li>Improved the <code>claude rc</code> workspace-trust error in the home directory to say trust there is never saved and to suggest running from a project directory</li>
<li>Changed single-segment <code>dir/**</code> hook <code>if:</code> conditions to match only <code>&lt;cwd&gt;/dir</code>; write <code>**/dir/**</code> for any-depth matching. <code>deny</code>/<code>ask</code> permission rules keep their any-depth match.</li>
<li>Changed <code>file</code> commands using <code>-m</code>/<code>--magic-file</code> or <code>-f</code>/<code>--files-from</code> to require permission instead of being auto-allowed as read-only</li>
<li>Changed keep-alive connection pooling to disable after a stale-connection error, so retries open a fresh socket</li>
<li>Changed SessionStart hooks to report source <code>"fork"</code> when a session begins as a fork instead of <code>"resume"</code></li>
</ul>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Shark’s versatile ChillPill cooling system is back to its best price]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Portable fans are one of the easiest ways to stay cool during the summer, and you don’t have to spend much to find a decent one. If you’re looking for something more versatile, though, Shark’s ChillPill Personal Fan and Cooling System combines a rechargeable fan with a dry-touch evaporative miste...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3676999/it-nachrichten/sharks-versatile-chillpill-cooling-system-is-back-to-its-best-price/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3676999/it-nachrichten/sharks-versatile-chillpill-cooling-system-is-back-to-its-best-price/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2026 22:31:23 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Portable fans are one of the easiest ways to stay cool during the summer, and you don’t have to spend much to find a decent one. If you’re looking for something more versatile, though, Shark’s ChillPill Personal Fan and Cooling System combines a rechargeable fan with a dry-touch evaporative mister in a design that can […]]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Agent Kim Reactivated Episode 7 Ending Explained: Kim Loses Control Again]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Agent Kim Reactivated Episode 7 turns Kim Do-hyeon’s long-awaited reunion with Min-ji into another dangerous fight for survival. Kim finally reaches his daughter, but getting her home safely proves far more difficult than finding her.



Spoiler warning: This article contains major spoilers for A...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3676792/ios-mac-os/agent-kim-reactivated-episode-7-ending-explained-kim-loses-control-again/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3676792/ios-mac-os/agent-kim-reactivated-episode-7-ending-explained-kim-loses-control-again/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2026 20:10:22 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🍏 iOS / Mac OS</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Agent Kim Reactivated Episode 7 turns Kim Do-hyeon’s long-awaited reunion with Min-ji into another dangerous fight for survival. Kim finally reaches his daughter, but getting her home safely proves far more difficult than finding her.



Spoiler warning: This article contains major spoilers for Agent Kim Reactivated Episode 7 and earlier episodes.




Release date: July 17, 2026



Streaming platform: Netflix



Korean network: SBS



Airtime: Fridays and Saturdays at 9:50 p.m. KST



Genre: Action, crime, thriller and comedy




The Korean action drama premiered on June 26 and will continue until July 25. Episode 7 brings the story into its final stretch, with only three episodes remaining after this chapter.



Kim’s rescue mission falls apart



Episode 6 ended with Kim finding Min-ji after tracking down the people involved in her disappearance. His quiet promise that they would finally go home gave the pair a brief emotional reunion, but the danger surrounding them had not disappeared.



In Episode 7, Kim attempts to move Min-ji away from the area while Seong Han-su and Park Jin-cheol help protect them. Their escape quickly comes under attack, forcing the three fathers to fight through another group of armed men.



Min-ji also shows that she is more resourceful than her captors expect. Instead of waiting helplessly for someone to save her, she watches her surroundings, looks for an opening and tries to escape. Her actions reflect the courage and survival instincts she inherited from her father.



However, Kim’s rescue mission takes a darker turn when the attack separates him from Min-ji again. The brief reunion leaves him even more determined to destroy everyone involved in placing her life at risk.



Kim confronts Joo Kang-chan



Joo Kang-chan remains at the centre of the conflict. His influence helped turn Min-ji’s school dispute into a violent kidnapping case, while his connections allowed those responsible to avoid immediate consequences.



Kim now understands that simply rescuing Min-ji will not end the threat. As long as Kang-chan and his organisation remain active, his daughter will never be safe.



The confrontation pushes Kim closer to the ruthless operative once known as Code 66. He stops reacting like an ordinary father trapped in a dangerous situation and begins approaching the conflict as a former special agent completing a mission.



Kim’s decision to eliminate the threat also raises a difficult question. Even if he saves Min-ji, she has now seen the violent identity he spent years hiding from her.



Kim’s past becomes the next major threat



Earlier episodes revealed that Kim left his dangerous career behind to raise Min-ji and live as an ordinary bank employee. Her disappearance forced him to use the combat skills, contacts and instincts that he had tried to bury.



Episode 7 makes it clear that his past will continue following him. The next chapter appears ready to explore Code 66 more deeply as another figure from Kim’s former life enters the conflict. The Episode 8 preview directly calls him by his old codename, suggesting that rescuing Min-ji has opened the door to an even larger operation.



With the final episodes approaching, Kim must protect his daughter while facing the consequences of becoming Code 66 again. What do you think will happen when Min-ji learns the full truth about her father? Let us know in the comments.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Meta In Talks To Lease Computing Power To Anthropic In Potential $10 Billion Deal]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Anthropic is reportedly in very early talks to lease computing power from Meta in a potential deal worth around $10 billion. The discussions follow Anthropic's recent compute deal with SpaceX and come as Meta explores selling excess AI capacity as part of a broader push to turn its massive infras...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3676749/it-security-nachrichten/meta-in-talks-to-lease-computing-power-to-anthropic-in-potential-10-billion-deal/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3676749/it-security-nachrichten/meta-in-talks-to-lease-computing-power-to-anthropic-in-potential-10-billion-deal/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2026 19:51:00 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Anthropic is reportedly in very early talks to lease computing power from Meta in a potential deal worth around $10 billion. The discussions follow Anthropic's recent compute deal with SpaceX and come as Meta explores selling excess AI capacity as part of a broader push to turn its massive infrastructure spending into a cloud business. CNBC reports: Access to enough AI chips remains a challenge for firms like Anthropic, which places usage limits on its most advanced models like Fable. [...] Meta could spend as much as $145 billion on capital expenditures, including for AI infrastructure, in 2026. Last October, Zuckerberg said that companies are regularly "asking if we have compute that they could buy from us at some premium to what we've bought it at."<p></p><div class="share_submission">
<a class="slashpop" href="http://twitter.com/home?status=Meta+In+Talks+To+Lease+Computing+Power+To+Anthropic+In+Potential+%2410+Billion+Deal%3A+https%3A%2F%2Fhardware.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F26%2F07%2F17%2F1732212%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%2Fhardware.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F26%2F07%2F17%2F1732212%2Fmeta-in-talks-to-lease-computing-power-to-anthropic-in-potential-10-billion-deal%3Futm_source%3Dslashdot%26utm_medium%3Dfacebook"><img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/facebook_icon_large.png"></a>



</div><p><a href="https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/26/07/17/1732212/meta-in-talks-to-lease-computing-power-to-anthropic-in-potential-10-billion-deal?utm_source=rss1.0moreanon&amp;utm_medium=feed">Read more of this story</a> at Slashdot.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[AI workloads shake up observability market]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Observability platforms are evolving beyond traditional monitoring as vendors add AI capabilities and cost-management features aimed at helping enterprise organizations better manage increasingly complex IT environments.



Vendors are investing heavily in AI observability, autonomous investigati...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3676598/it-security-nachrichten/ai-workloads-shake-up-observability-market/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3676598/it-security-nachrichten/ai-workloads-shake-up-observability-market/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2026 18:28:45 +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"><a href="https://www.networkworld.com/article/972187/how-to-shop-for-network-observability-tools.html" target="_blank">Observability platforms</a> are evolving beyond traditional monitoring as vendors add AI capabilities and cost-management features aimed at helping enterprise organizations better manage increasingly complex IT environments.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Vendors are investing heavily in AI observability, autonomous investigations, cost optimization, and operational intelligence as they try to evolve their platforms into systems that help IT teams understand problems, identify root causes, and determine the best course of action, according to Gartner, which just published its latest <a href="https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/8114397" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Magic Quadrant for Observability Platforms</a>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Gartner defines the observability category as technologies that help organizations understand and optimize the health, performance, and behavior of applications, infrastructure, services, AI agents, and user experiences by collecting and analyzing telemetry data, such as logs, metrics, events, and traces.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There are 19 vendors that made the cut for Gartner’s new report. Its Leaders quadrant includes (alphabetically) Chronosphere, Coralogix, Datadog, Dynatrace, Elastic, Grafana Labs, IBM, and New Relic. The Challengers are Alibaba Cloud, Amazon Web Services, LogicMonitor, Microsoft, and Splunk. The two Visionaries are BMC Helix and Honeycomb. Those dubbed Niche Players are Apica, HPE, ScienceLogic, and SolarWinds. (For specific vendor strengths and cautions, check out the full Gartner report. Some vendors offer free versions of the report with registration.)</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Looking beyond quadrant placement, Gartner advises organizations to evaluate vendors based on their ability to deliver full-stack observability and their “roadmap credibility” in key areas such as AI observability, OpenTelemetry interoperability, and the ability to observe and govern AI agents.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">AI observability emerges as a key differentiator</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Organizations are increasingly looking for visibility into AI workloads, including token consumption, model latency, response quality, hallucination rates, and other AI-specific performance metrics, according to the report. Gartner identifies <a href="https://www.networkworld.com/article/4047640/ai-networking-success-requires-deep-real-time-observability.html" target="_blank">AI observability</a> as an emerging requirement, driven by growing enterprise interest in large language models (LLMs), genAI applications, and agentic AI systems.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The report recognizes a growing number of vendors introducing AI-focused monitoring, autonomous investigations, AI agents, and specialized observability capabilities designed to help organizations monitor and govern AI-powered applications and workflows. At the same time, Gartner clarifies that many claims surrounding autonomous operations remain ahead of reality. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The transition from generative AI assistants to autonomous agents is more complex than vendor marketing suggests,” the report states.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Cost management becomes a top priority</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">While AI may dominate vendor messaging, Gartner states that telemetry cost management remains one of the top concerns for enterprise buyers.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As organizations collect larger amounts of logs, traces, metrics, and events, observability spending is increasingly attracting attention from finance and procurement teams. Gartner notes that 5% of its clients now spend more than $10 million annually with a single observability provider.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Gartner describes pipeline management as a strategic layer that is becoming central to observability deployments. Vendors that fail to address these cost concerns risk losing customers to vendor-agnostic alternatives focused on telemetry optimization. Organizations increasingly want platforms that can provide cost attribution, utilization insights, and financial metrics that help justify observability investments, according to Gartner.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Gartner projects the observability market will reach $14.3 billion by 2028, driven increasingly by organizations’ need to manage growing telemetry volumes.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">OpenTelemetry is table stakes as consolidation continues</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The growing impact of open standards is a major shift for observability, Gartner notes.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The widespread adoption of <a href="https://www.networkworld.com/article/3621642/5-reasons-why-2025-will-be-the-year-of-opentelemetry.html" target="_blank">OpenTelemetry</a> and eBPF-based instrumentation has lowered barriers to switching observability providers and made telemetry collection increasingly commoditized, the research firm explains. Gartner says many enterprise buyers now consider OpenTelemetry support a baseline requirement rather than a differentiator.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As a result, vendors are now trying to differentiate themselves through analytics, automation, AI capabilities, and user experience rather than proprietary data collection approaches. That shift is forcing vendors to demonstrate value beyond monitoring and visibility, as buyers seek platforms capable of accelerating troubleshooting, automating investigations, and improving operational outcomes, according to Gartner.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Gartner says market consolidation continues to favor platform-oriented vendors that combine full-stack observability with integrated AI capabilities. Organizations are increasingly looking for unified platforms that can monitor applications, infrastructure, digital experiences, and AI workloads from a single environment.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The rise of operational intelligence</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As enterprises modernize applications and expand AI initiatives, organizations want platforms that can not only identify problems but also explain causes, prioritize actions, and potentially automate remediation. Vendors are expanding observability platforms with AI-driven analytics, automation, and governance capabilities that span applications, infrastructure, cloud services, and AI workloads.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For enterprise buyers, the next phase of observability may be defined less by telemetry collection and more by how effectively vendors can transform data into intelligence, automation, and measurable business outcomes.</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Patreon stops asking AI bots not to scrape — and starts blocking them]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Patreon is strengthening its defenses against AI scraping by working with Cloudflare to block bots that train AI models on creators’ content without permission. The move marks a shift away from relying on websites using robots.txt alone to actively block unauthorized AI training.]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3676491/it-nachrichten/patreon-stops-asking-ai-bots-not-to-scrape-and-starts-blocking-them/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3676491/it-nachrichten/patreon-stops-asking-ai-bots-not-to-scrape-and-starts-blocking-them/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2026 17:33:41 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Patreon is strengthening its defenses against AI scraping by working with Cloudflare to block bots that train AI models on creators’ content without permission. The move marks a shift away from relying on websites using robots.txt alone to actively block unauthorized AI training.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The State of Hybrid SASE: Built-In vs. Bolted-On]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Hybrid SASE is not a label – it is an architectural commitment. Many enterprises pay twice for SASE: once for the platform, and again for the overhead of integrating and managing components never designed to work as one architecture. Check Point’s Hybrid SASE takes a different path: a single oper...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3676246/it-security-nachrichten/the-state-of-hybrid-sase-built-in-vs-bolted-on/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3676246/it-security-nachrichten/the-state-of-hybrid-sase-built-in-vs-bolted-on/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2026 15:53:55 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<img width="2000" height="700" src="https://blog.checkpoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/featured-image-default-c.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual default-featured-img" alt="" link_thumbnail="" decoding="async" srcset="https://blog.checkpoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/featured-image-default-c.jpg 2000w, https://blog.checkpoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/featured-image-default-c-300x105.jpg 300w, https://blog.checkpoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/featured-image-default-c-1024x358.jpg 1024w, https://blog.checkpoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/featured-image-default-c-768x269.jpg 768w, https://blog.checkpoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/featured-image-default-c-1536x538.jpg 1536w, https://blog.checkpoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/featured-image-default-c-400x140.jpg 400w, https://blog.checkpoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/featured-image-default-c-1320x462.jpg 1320w" sizes="(max-width: 2000px) 100vw, 2000px"><p>Hybrid SASE is not a label – it is an architectural commitment. Many enterprises pay twice for SASE: once for the platform, and again for the overhead of integrating and managing components never designed to work as one architecture. Check Point’s Hybrid SASE takes a different path: a single operating model that unifies access and policy. That distinction decides whether traffic is secured and routed predictably – or whether teams spend years working around architectural seams. Take a typical workday. A remote employee connects from a managed laptop, a branch office user accesses a private application, and a contractor opens […]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://blog.checkpoint.com/hybrid-mesh/the-state-of-hybrid-sase-built-in-vs-bolted-on/">The State of Hybrid SASE: Built-In vs. Bolted-On</a> appeared first on <a href="https://blog.checkpoint.com/">Check Point Blog</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The last human relationship in cybersecurity]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[We are inundated with promises that artificial intelligence will save us and that the next governance framework will protect us. Buy this platform, adopt that model and the hard part finally gets easier. After 15 years in this field, I have wanted that shortcut as much as anyone.



But both prom...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3675960/it-nachrichten/the-last-human-relationship-in-cybersecurity/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3675960/it-nachrichten/the-last-human-relationship-in-cybersecurity/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2026 14:03:27 +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">We are inundated with promises that artificial intelligence will save us and that the next governance framework will protect us. Buy this platform, adopt that model and the hard part finally gets easier. After 15 years in this field, I have wanted that shortcut as much as anyone.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But both promises are downstream of something neither one can produce. You cannot automate trust between two people. You cannot govern your way to a relationship. As AI moves into the core of how organizations operate, and accountability stops mapping cleanly to the org chart, what holds when the stakes are highest is not the platform or the policy. It is two human leaders who know each other well enough to carry the weight together.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I think about this often now, a year after publishing a book about the pressures bearing down on security leaders, “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0F6DDK8CD">The CISO On The Razor’s Edge: Leading Cybersecurity When The System Is Designed To Break</a>.” The partnership between the CIO and the CISO is the last human relationship in cybersecurity. AI raises the stakes. Governance sets the floor. The relationship is what holds.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I saw it work once, up close. When I worked in Washington State, the CIO, <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/william-kehoe-a37a0714b/">Bill Kehoe</a>, talked to his CISO, <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/ralfjnsn/">Ralph Johnson</a>, every day. Weekends included. Not because a policy required it, but because the mission did. That partnership is a large part of why the role stayed sustainable for them when it broke so many others.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The promise we keep believing</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Walk any conference floor and you will hear the same pitch in a hundred variations. The next AI layer will close the gap. The next framework will lock down the risk. The technology is usually ready. The organization is not. I have watched too many well-funded programs stall to still believe the tool is the answer, and almost every time, the breakdown traced back to leaders who were not aligned before the work began. A framework run by misaligned leaders inherits the misalignment. You can buy the best controls on the market and still watch them fail when two leaders work from different assumptions about who owns what.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Bill and Ralph understood this. Security decisions were not handed to Ralph after the fact to bless or block. They were made with him, inside the technology decisions, because the two had already agreed on what mattered. That is not governance. That is leadership creating the conditions in which governance can work.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It is the real lesson I came to in the book. Technical knowledge matters, but it is not enough. As I wrote then, “Influence, trust and internal relationships are non-negotiable.” Without influence, CISOs cannot lead. Without technical substance, they cannot prioritize what matters. And without partnership, especially with their CIO, “they’re operating without a safety net.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AI does not change that truth. It raises the cost of ignoring it.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">When decisions move at machine speed</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The ground under both roles is shifting. Work no longer flows through people alone. It moves across people, platforms, partners and agents at the same time, and it moves fast. Decisions that once waited for a meeting now form in seconds. The org chart, built for an era when humans did the work and reporting lines explained accountability, struggles to keep up.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is where the partnership stops being a nicety and becomes infrastructure. When decisions form at machine speed, the human escalation path has to be instant. There is no time to negotiate a relationship in the middle of an incident. Either the trust is already there, built in the quiet stretches before anything goes wrong, or it is not there when it counts.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I asked Bill what he would lose if his daily calls with Ralph dropped to once a week. His answer cut straight to it.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Cyber does not rest,” he told me. “It is active and dynamic and requires 24/7/365 attention.” Drop to a weekly check-in, he explained, and “I am treating the CISO like any other executive position.” For Bill, AI only raises the stakes on that daily contact. “Relationships and partnerships between the CIO and CISO will never die due to AI,” he said. “I can’t even imagine a scenario where I don’t talk to my CISO on a daily basis including weekends to discuss the latest risks and vulnerabilities or news on potential AI attacks.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That is the point most of the market misses. A platform can flag the anomaly. It cannot decide what the organization is willing to risk, who carries that decision or how two leaders stand behind it together. The faster the machines move, the more the partnership has to already be in place.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The loneliest seat in the building</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There is a reason some now call the CISO job the least desirable role in business. The seat carries enormous accountability and rarely the authority to match. As one security leader put it, <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/4016334/has-ciso-become-the-least-desirable-role-in-business.html">the pressure has never been higher and the control has never felt lower</a>. People are burning out and walking away from a role that has never mattered more.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Here is the hard part. There is no log file for burnout. No alert fires when the weight finally exceeds the leader. That drain is invisible right up until it is not, and it raises organizational risk as surely as any unpatched system. The structural fixes the industry debates are all real and all slow.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The fastest source of relief available to a CISO is not a framework. It is a CIO who treats the relationship as a daily partnership rather than a line on a chart. An isolated CISO is a vulnerability. A partnered one is an asset.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">You see what that partnership is worth in the worst moment. I asked Bill what it looks like when an incident hits and public trust is on the line. He did not reach for a tool.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“I am accountable as CIO to everything that occurs in the state from a technology lens including cyber,” he said. When a severe incident hits, the call comes to him from agency leadership or the Governor’s Office. Then he follows the plan, but never alone: “I will be in constant contact with the CISO on the details of the incident.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That is the safety net made real. The CISO is not carrying the mission alone at the moment it matters most. On the razor’s edge, leadership keeps you upright. Partnership keeps you in the fight.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The work no tool will do for you</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In my advisory work, I sit with C-suite leaders who share values and still cannot find alignment. The barrier is rarely disagreement. It is that they are not communicating clearly or often enough to build the trust that alignment requires. I have watched negotiations that could only happen by proxy, over email, because two capable leaders had stopped talking directly.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I recently sat in an hour-long discussion where alignment and shared values were present the whole time. It did not become clear until the final fifteen minutes. That is what real alignment costs: patience, persistence and a stubborn commitment to clarity. If leaders cannot do that work themselves, no AI model or governance tool will do it for them.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is why I stand up an AI review board for the organizations I work with and host the leadership conversations that decide whether a company’s AI ambitions thrive or stall. The board itself matters less than what it provides: neutral ground, a regular cadence and an agenda that forces the hard issues into the open before a crisis forces them. If your organization has no venue like that, that absence is its own form of dysfunction. The cadence is what makes communication effective. Not easy. Effective.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Build the bond on purpose</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">You cannot framework your way to trust. But you can build it deliberately, and that is a leadership act, not a governance one. The partnership and stakeholdering skills that once looked like soft extras are now the core executive work. A few moves matter most:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Set a standing contact rhythm with your counterpart before you need one, daily or near-daily, not quarterly</li>



<li>Make decision rights and accountability explicit while it is calm, so no one improvises them mid-incident</li>



<li>Translate security into business outcomes together, so the board hears one aligned voice</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Build the relationship as deliberately as you would build any critical control, because that is what it is. If you cannot connect the partnership to outcomes the business actually feels, you have a friendship, not a performance lever.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A year after writing “The CISO On the Razor’s Edge,” I am even more convinced that strong leadership precedes effective governance and partnership precedes them both. This is the good news, not the hard news. The CIO and CISO who build real trust do not just reduce risk. They move faster than their competitors, because they spend no energy fighting each other. They earn the board’s confidence, because the board hears one clear voice. And they unlock the AI strategy everyone else is still struggling to govern, because they have already done the human work that makes governance hold.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That is the upside waiting on the other side of this relationship. AI will keep advancing. Governance will keep maturing. But the organizations that win the next decade will be the ones where two leaders decided the partnership was worth building before they needed it. Bill and Ralph knew it every day, weekends included. The edge is there for anyone willing to do the same.</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[Panasonic Japanese Microwave Review (2026): True 1-Button Cooking]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[The Japanese Microwave measures food temperature directly, and stops cooking when food’s hot. It’s kinda terrific.]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3675790/it-nachrichten/panasonic-japanese-microwave-review-2026-true-1-button-cooking/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3675790/it-nachrichten/panasonic-japanese-microwave-review-2026-true-1-button-cooking/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2026 12:47:39 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[The Japanese Microwave measures food temperature directly, and stops cooking when food’s hot. It’s kinda terrific.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Europe's chip ambitions won't break dependence on US cloud and software, says Forrester]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Brussels may spend billions on semiconductor fabs, but tech sovereignty remains firmly in American and Chinese hands]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3675784/it-nachrichten/europes-chip-ambitions-wont-break-dependence-on-us-cloud-and-software-says-forrester/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3675784/it-nachrichten/europes-chip-ambitions-wont-break-dependence-on-us-cloud-and-software-says-forrester/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2026 12:47:31 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Brussels may spend billions on semiconductor fabs, but tech sovereignty remains firmly in American and Chinese hands]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[How to add XLAs to your outsourcing contract]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Organizations usually face the same questions concerning XLAs: What should we measure, who owns the data, how should incentives work, and how will this change provider behavior after signature.



There are no easy answers either, but after advising clients in MSP relationships with major provide...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3675704/it-nachrichten/how-to-add-xlas-to-your-outsourcing-contract/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3675704/it-nachrichten/how-to-add-xlas-to-your-outsourcing-contract/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2026 12:17:06 +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">Organizations usually face the same questions concerning XLAs: What should we measure, who owns the data, how should incentives work, and how will this change provider behavior after signature.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There are no easy answers either, but after advising clients in MSP relationships with major providers, I’ve seen what works and what doesn’t. Successful XLA programs rarely start with massive transformation, nor rely on perfection before adding experience accountability to the contract.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Start with the right metrics</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The first concern I hear is what to measure. MSPs often steer that discussion toward metrics already in their reporting stack. That’s a trap.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Unlike SLAs, which measure operational outputs, XLAs should focus on employee experience and <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4166168/cios-rethink-its-operating-model-to-deliver-better-business-outcomes.html?utm=hybrid_search">business outcomes</a>. The strongest programs start with three to five high-signal metrics tied to the employee journeys creating the most friction. More than that and the program loses focus before it gains traction.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I typically recommend starting with employee satisfaction scores, perceived lost productivity time, repeat incident rates, task completion success, and ease of getting support. Then focus early measurement on common employee experiences like service desk interactions, employee onboarding, application reliability, and device performance.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Trying to measure everything is understandable, but it’s also one of the fastest ways to stall an XLA program.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Precisely define roles and responsibilities</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is the part of XLA contract design where I spend the most time with clients, and it’s the part that major MSPs are most likely to leave vague if you let them. Accenture and TCS both have mature commercial teams skilled at agreeing to things in principle while avoiding specific accountability in writing. Don’t let that happen here.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Employee experience isn’t solely the vendor’s responsibility. It’s genuinely shared, which is a more productive framing than pure vendor accountability, but only if the split is clearly spelled out. This is what I’ve found works in practice.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Customer responsibilities</strong></p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Selecting tools and platforms</li>



<li>Managing data infrastructure</li>



<li>Sharing experience data openly with the provider</li>



<li>Supporting internal improvement initiatives that the provider flags</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Vendor responsibilities</strong></p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Running the measurement cadence</li>



<li>Delivering monthly experience reporting</li>



<li>Identifying and surfacing improvement opportunities from the data</li>



<li>Executing operational improvements within agreed timelines</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Without this level of specificity, XLA programs almost always become reporting exercises. The data gets collected, the scorecard gets presented, and nothing actually changes.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Build flexible targets</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">One of the biggest mistakes in <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4178678/your-outsourcing-contract-needs-xlas-not-just-slas.html?utm=hybrid_search">XLA design</a> is treating experience targets like traditional SLAs,  setting once at contract signing and left unchanged for years. Employee expectations, workforce patterns, and technology environments, after all, evolve constantly. A target that feels ambitious in year one may become meaningless by year three.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The strongest XLA contracts include formal reviews every three to six months to recalibrate targets, align with business priorities, and raise expectations as experience improves. This prevents providers from locking in easy wins and coasting. When providers resist review cycles, it’s often a sign they believe the targets can be met on autopilot, a red flag in any XLA program.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Use the right scoring method</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">One overlooked XLA best practice is how experience scores are calculated. Point-in-time scores can be distorted by outages, isolated incidents, or low survey participation, and providers sometimes exploit that volatility.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I advise clients to calculate official XLA scores using rolling two-month averages instead of snapshots. It creates a more stable and accurate view of experience trends, and makes operational timing games much harder. Most importantly, define the scoring methodology explicitly in the contract. Don’t leave it to be worked out operationally after signing.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Structure incentives carefully</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Relying on penalty-only incentives is one of the most expensive XLA mistakes. On paper, the model is simple: miss the target, pay the penalty. In practice, it drives the wrong behavior. Providers focus on protecting themselves instead of improving employee experience, optimizing survey timing, and managing averages rather than solving problems collaboratively.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I’ve seen this repeatedly in Infosys, HCL, and TCS relationships. The strongest XLA structures combine risk and reward where providers earn meaningful upside for exceeding targets, innovating, and improving outcomes. Penalties still matter, especially in mature programs, but they can’t be the only lever otherwise the contract becomes another SLA model with better branding.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Define escalation processes</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When experience scores fall below threshold, the contract needs to specify what happens next. This sounds obvious, but I’ve reviewed many service delivery measurement frameworks in clients’ incumbent MPS contracts that specify financial consequences without defining any collaborative process to address the underlying problem.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The escalation language I push clients to include specifies:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>a joint review process triggered when scores fall below threshold.</li>



<li>root cause analysis expectations and timelines.</li>



<li>remediation planning requirements with named owners on both sides.</li>



<li>timelines for corrective action and progress reporting.</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The framing matters as much as the mechanics. Escalation should be positioned as collaborative problem-solving, not blame assignment. Contracts that turn every missed score into a commercial dispute damage the relationship when provider engagement matters most. The best MSPs treat escalation as a shared diagnostic exercise, not a contractual confrontation.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Establish an operating rhythm</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Signing the contract is the beginning, not the end. In my experience, the organizations that get the most out of XLA programs are those that build a disciplined operating cadence and stick to it. The ones that treat XLAs as a reporting exercise almost never see meaningful improvement.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is the cadence I recommend:</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Daily</strong>: Both parties maintain live dashboards showing experience trends, application performance, regional issues, and persona-specific insights to catch emerging issues.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Weekly</strong>: Customer and vendor teams hold focused working sessions to determine what improved experience this week, what hurt it, which remediation actions were completed, and what’s the priority for next week.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Monthly</strong>: Formal governance meetings to review experience scores, improvement actions, root cause discussions, and cross-functional issues that need escalation.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Biannually</strong>: Leadership steering meetings to assess overall experience performance, recalibrate targets, and align the XLA program with evolving business priorities to honestly evaluate whether or not the program is driving the outcomes the organization actually cares about.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Common mistakes organizations make</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">After working through XLA design and implementation with clients across their MSP relationships, the failure modes are predictable. Here’s what to watch for.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Setting targets before establishing a baseline<br></strong>Rushing into targets before understanding your current state is one of the fastest ways to create disputes. Spend the first three to six months gathering baseline data, then negotiate targets based on evidence rather than guesswork.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Measuring too much<br></strong>More metrics don’t create more insight. Frameworks with 20 data points rarely survive operational reality. Start focused and expand gradually.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Hiding the data<br></strong>Transparency is foundational to XLAs. Providers who obscure poor scores, especially when controlling the measurement platform, undermine the entire model. Clients who weaponize the data create the same problem. Build mutual transparency obligations into the contract.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Over-relying on penalties<br></strong>Penalty-only structures recreate legacy SLA behaviors. Balanced incentives drive better long-term outcomes.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Treating XLAs as static<br></strong>Employee expectations, technology, and business priorities evolve constantly. Without formal review cycles, XLA programs quickly become irrelevant<strong>.</strong></p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Start smaller than you think you need to</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The organizations that get XLAs right are rarely the ones with the most sophisticated tooling. They’re the ones that stopped waiting for a perfect program and introduced real accountability into the contract with what they had.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The most effective starting points are often simple: agree on a focused set of experience metrics, establish a six-month review cycle, commit to shared visibility and data transparency, and create joint accountability for continuous improvement.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">From there, maturity develops over time. Governance builds trust, data becomes more actionable, and targets evolve alongside business priorities. The relationship shifts from compliance management to outcome-driven partnership.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In my experience, the organizations that succeed are the ones that stopped accepting green scorecards at face value and demanded something more meaningful.</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Can Meta really compete in the cloud business?]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Meta is reportedly planning a cloud business that would sell access to AI computing power and models, extending its internal infrastructure into a commercial service for outside developers and enterprises. Reuters, citing Bloomberg’s reporting, noted that the planned offering would allow customer...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3675548/ai-nachrichten/can-meta-really-compete-in-the-cloud-business/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3675548/ai-nachrichten/can-meta-really-compete-in-the-cloud-business/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2026 11:04:14 +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"><a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-07-01/meta-is-building-a-cloud-business-to-sell-excess-ai-compute">Meta is reportedly planning a cloud business</a> that would sell access to AI computing power and models, extending its internal infrastructure into a commercial service for outside developers and enterprises. Reuters, citing Bloomberg’s reporting, noted that the planned offering would allow customers to access AI models hosted on Meta’s infrastructure and pay based on usage, effectively positioning the company in the <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2255598/what-is-iaas-your-data-center-in-the-cloud.html">infrastructure-as-a-service</a> and AI platform markets. On the surface, this seems like a logical next step. If you are already spending enormous amounts of money to build AI infrastructure, there is a natural temptation to ask whether some of that investment can be monetized beyond your own internal use.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I have seen this pattern before. A company builds sophisticated internal systems, recognizes their value, and then begins to imagine that becoming a cloud provider is simply a matter of exposing those capabilities to external customers. It sounds straightforward, especially given the excitement around AI and the demand for high-performance infrastructure. But cloud computing is not just another distribution model. It is not simply a matter of offering on-demand multitenant services and charging a fee. It is a deeply operational, trust-based business in a market that punishes companies that do not fully understand what enterprise customers require.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">A crowded neocloud market</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The first problem Meta faces is that this is not an open opportunity. The <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4140865/neoclouds-run-ai-cheaper-and-better.html">neocloud</a> space, meaning purpose-built AI infrastructure delivered as a service, is already crowded and increasingly difficult to enter. Amazon, Microsoft, and Google dominate the conversation for obvious reasons. They have years of cloud operating experience, broad service portfolios, global reach, mature ecosystems, and deeply established enterprise relationships. Oracle remains a serious player as well, especially in enterprise applications, data platforms, and performance-sensitive workloads. IBM still matters in <a href="https://www.networkworld.com/article/964498/what-is-hybrid-cloud-computing.html">hybrid cloud</a>, operations, and industries where governance and regulatory rigor remain central.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That list alone should give Meta pause. These companies are not just infrastructure vendors. They are experienced cloud operators. They have spent years building not only the underlying platforms, but also the native capabilities enterprises now expect by default. Those capabilities include security, governance, identity management, observability, support, compliance, billing controls, resilience planning, and integration with the broader enterprise technology estate. These are not secondary features. They are part of the core value proposition.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is why late entry into the cloud market is so hard. A new provider is not just competing on price or capacity. It is competing against accumulated trust. Enterprises are not casual buyers. They are selecting long-term operating environments for applications, data, AI models, and business-critical processes. They want confidence that the provider understands how these services will be consumed, governed, and supported over time. Meta is entering a market where the incumbents already have a major head start on all of those fronts.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Harder than it looks</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Over the years, I have had many technology companies come to me and say they wanted to reposition their technology in the cloud space, either as <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2256637/what-is-saas-software-as-a-service-defined.html">software as a service</a> or infrastructure as a service. In the beginning, enthusiasm is always high. The technology is impressive. The market size looks attractive. The revenue models appear compelling. Investors love the story. Then we begin to walk through what it really means to operate as a cloud provider, and the optimism usually fades fast.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The questions become very practical and very uncomfortable. How will tenants be isolated? How will <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/518296/what-is-iam-identity-and-access-management-explained.html">identity and access controls</a> work across different kinds of customers? What governance models will be built in natively? How will workloads be monitored, optimized, and secured? What does support look like 24 hours a day, across regions, across industries, across compliance boundaries? How will outages be handled, communicated, and remediated? How will the platform integrate with existing customer tools for operations, policy management, and security response? How much investment will it take just to become credible before you even begin to differentiate?</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Once companies fully understand the complexities, market dynamics, and the capital and execution required to compete even with secondary players, many of them back off. They realize that cloud technology is not a packaging exercise. It is a transformation in how a company designs, operates, supports, sells, and evolves technology. That is why I remain skeptical when any company assumes it can translate internal infrastructure excellence into external cloud success without a very long, disciplined commitment.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Meta’s market readiness</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Of course, Meta is not lacking in financial resources. If any company can afford to spend aggressively in this space, it is Meta. The company has the capital to build infrastructure, absorb losses, hire experienced talent, and stay in the market long enough to make a serious attempt. I would never argue that Meta is too small or too poor to try. Quite the opposite. If there is any non-traditional entrant with the financial scale to force itself into the conversation, Meta would be high on the list.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But money does not erase complexity. It only gives you the chance to confront it. The real question is not whether Meta can afford to become a cloud provider. The question is whether Meta has what it takes to become an <em>excellent </em>cloud provider. Those are two very different things. Enterprises are not going to move meaningful workloads to a new platform simply because the company behind it is wealthy or technically famous. They are going to ask whether the provider understands enterprise consumption patterns, enterprise risk, enterprise governance, and enterprise operations.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That is where the challenge becomes much more serious. Meta has extensive experience running infrastructure for itself. That is valuable, but internal operating excellence is not the same thing as external service maturity. Running systems for your own workloads allows a high degree of control over architecture, standards, priorities, and operating assumptions. Running systems for paying customers requires flexibility, consistency, transparency, and support across a wide range of use cases that you do not control. Those are very different disciplines, and companies often underestimate the gap between them.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What exactly is Meta?</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Another concern here is strategic clarity. Meta already has a complicated market identity. It is a social media company, an advertising platform company, a hardware company, an AI company, and still, in the minds of many, the company that spent billions pursuing the metaverse. If it now wants to be viewed as a serious cloud infrastructure provider, it will need to explain not only what it is offering, but why customers should believe this is a durable long-term commitment and not just another adjacent experiment.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That uncertainty can be damaging. Customers want stable providers with clear strategic intent. They do not want to architect important systems around a platform if they suspect the provider may lose interest, shift direction, or reframe the business after a few years of uneven results. Cloud computing requires patience, consistency, and deep customer orientation. It is not a market where strategic ambiguity helps.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This could become confusing for Meta internally as well. Building a true cloud business demands focus. It demands years of investment in areas that may not be glamorous but are absolutely necessary, such as governance, operations, controls, support frameworks, partner programs, and enterprise sales alignment. If the company is not willing to make those sacrifices fully and for the long term, the initiative will struggle.</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Confused Deputy: Google IdP Universal Account Takeover via Device Code Flow Hijacking]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[TL;DRThis one started from setting up the YouTube app on my PS5. The device authorization grant (RFC 8628) it uses, the flow TVs, consoles, and CLIs rely on when they don’t have a browser of their own, turned out to hide two stacked bugs in Google’s implementation.Two bugs stack together. First, ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3675347/hacking/confused-deputy-google-idp-universal-account-takeover-via-device-code-flow-hijacking/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3675347/hacking/confused-deputy-google-idp-universal-account-takeover-via-device-code-flow-hijacking/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2026 09:23:37 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🕵️ Hacking</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<h3>TL;DR</h3><p>This one started from setting up the YouTube app on my PS5. The device authorization grant (RFC 8628) it uses, the flow TVs, consoles, and CLIs rely on when they don’t have a browser of their own, turned out to hide two stacked bugs in Google’s implementation.</p><p>Two bugs stack together. First, the session that anchors a device-code sign-in is fully transferable: copy the sign-in URL from one browser to another and the second browser’s login satisfies the first device’s poll. Second, the authorization server never binds client_id and scope to the device_code server-side, so both can be swapped in the URL after the fact. Chain the two together with the prompt=none parameter and any link, opened by a victim who has ever used "Sign in with Google" anywhere, silently hands over an access token for an arbitrary Google-registered client, no click, no consent screen, no 2FA prompt, almost no trace in the victim's account activity.</p><p>Reported to Google’s VRP on Feb 25, 2026, initially closed twice as “won’t fix”: social engineering, reopened after a one-click PoC, fixed by Mar 28, 2026, and rewarded $13,337. Details on that back-and-forth are in the <a href="https://weirdmachine64.github.io/research/google-oauth-device-code-hijacking.html#9-disclosure-timeline">disclosure timeline</a> below.</p><h3>1. Intro</h3><p>Most of the well-known attacks on OAuth go after the client or the resource server: a malicious app, an open redirect, a signing-algorithm mix-up. They leave the authorization server itself alone, because it’s the one party in the protocol that’s supposed to be unshakeable, the thing every other trust decision is anchored to. This is a story about going after that assumption directly, in the one corner of OAuth that’s explicitly designed to let the login happen on a completely different screen: the device authorization grant.</p><p>It started as a mundane afternoon setting up a TV app on a game console, and it ended with a way to silently take over accounts on virtually any site that offers “Sign in with Google.” Getting from one to the other took two separate findings stacked on top of each other, a rejected report, and a fix to the fix. What follows is that story, roughly in the order it actually happened, blockers included.</p><h3>2. The Device Authorization Grant</h3><p>Most OAuth flows assume the device asking for access has a browser sitting right there to redirect through. RFC 8628 exists for the case where it doesn’t: a smart TV, a games console, a headless CLI. The shape is different from the usual redirect dance:</p><ol><li>The device calls the authorization server directly (POST /device/code) and gets back a device_code (secret, stays on the device) and a user_code (short, shown on screen).</li><li>The device displays the user_code and tells the user to go to a URL, google.com/device in Google's case, on <em>any other</em> browser.</li><li>The user opens that URL on their phone or laptop, types the code, signs in, and consents.</li><li>Meanwhile the device has been polling POST /token with its device_code. Once the user finishes step 3, the next poll returns an access token.</li></ol><p>The whole point of the design is that the device and the browser doing the authenticating can be, and usually are, two completely different pieces of hardware. That’s also exactly what makes this flow interesting to attack: the protocol <em>already</em> expects the login to happen somewhere else. The only thing holding the model together is that the “somewhere else” has to be a browser <em>the legitimate device owner</em> is sitting at.</p><p>That’s the assumption. The rest of this write-up is what happened when I went looking for the place where Google’s implementation stops enforcing it.</p><h3>3. Setting Up YouTube TV on a PS5</h3><p>I was setting up the YouTube app on my PS5, ordinary first-run setup. The console has no keyboard and no way to type a password comfortably with a controller, so it does the sensible thing: it shows a short user_code on screen and tells you to go sign in on your phone instead. I typed the code into google.com/device, signed into Google, approved the consent screen, and a few seconds later the PS5 was logged in.</p><figure><img alt="" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1024/0*qmQssZXzIn_0kJeh.png"><figcaption><em>The YouTube TV “Add your Google Account” screen: a QR code and a short user_code, with instructions to finish sign-in on a phone.</em></figcaption></figure><p>Nothing about that felt unusual as a user, but the flow itself was intriguing: a screen with no keyboard asking me to authenticate on a completely separate device, and coming back logged in seconds later. That disconnect between where I typed my password and where the session actually landed is what made me want to look at it more closely. Behind the scenes, that’s:</p><ul><li>POST https://oauth2.googleapis.com/device/code → device_code + user_code.</li><li>The PS5 polling POST https://oauth2.googleapis.com/token with that device_code.</li><li>My phone’s browser walking through https://accounts.google.com/o/oauth2/v2/auth?… to finalize consent once I typed the code and signed in.</li><li>The PS5’s next poll returning an access token.</li></ul><p>Standard, boring, RFC-compliant. The interesting part is what that accounts.google.com/o/oauth2/v2/auth URL is actually carrying, and what happens if you don't treat it as disposable. That question is exactly what kicked off everything that follows.</p><h3>4. The Transferable Session</h3><p>The obvious question with any flow where “the state lives in a URL” is: what happens if you just move the URL? If the entire sign-in step for a device_code can be handed to someone else, then whoever finishes that sign-in step ends up logged into <em>my</em> device, not theirs.</p><p>RFC 8628 §5.4 anticipates exactly this and tells implementers not to let it happen: the whole security model of the flow depends on the user completing verification on a device they’re <em>not</em> about to lose control of.</p><p>I started a fresh device flow on the PS5, walked through google.com/device on a laptop, and at the consent screen copied the resulting URL into a second browser. That failed outright: no session for the second browser to pick up.</p><p>But the device-code page asks for an email address <em>before</em> showing consent. Entering one forwards the browser to a different endpoint entirely: a <em>challenge</em> page at accounts.google.com/v3/signin/challenge/…, carrying a new parameter, TL=APouJz6T…. Sending <em>that</em> URL to a second browser worked. The second browser prompted a completely normal Google sign-in. Seconds after logging in, that account showed up on the PS5.</p><p>TL is an encrypted blob carrying the session state, practically certain to be the device_code, or something that resolves to it, given that it's the only thing left in the URL that could anchor the poll back to a specific device.</p><p><strong>Vulnerability #1: the device-code sign-in session is transferable via URL.</strong> RFC 8628 explicitly says it shouldn’t be. Send the link, get the account.</p><p>That’s a real account takeover, but a narrow one. YouTube TV’s scopes are capped by design, and that cap is the wall I hit next.</p><h3>5. Breaking the Scope Fence</h3><p>A YouTube TV account takeover is real, but Google fences the device flow to a short, deliberately low-risk scope allowlist. Per <a href="https://developers.google.com/identity/protocols/oauth2/limited-input-device">Google’s own docs</a>: <em>“This OAuth 2.0 flow supports a limited set of scopes.”</em> The complete list:</p><ul><li>openid, email, profile</li><li>youtube, youtube.readonly</li><li>drive.appdata, drive.file (app-scoped Drive only, not full Drive)</li></ul><p>No Gmail, no full Drive, no cloud-platform, no compute. The access token I got only worked against a YouTube TV–internal API: enough to like a video or subscribe to a channel. Not exactly a headline bug.</p><p>So I looked again at the transferable challenge URL:</p><pre>accounts.google.com/v3/signin/challenge/…<br>  ?TL=APouJz6T…              &lt;- encrypted session state<br>  &amp;response_type=none<br>  &amp;client_id=861556708454-…   &lt;- YouTube TV<br>  &amp;scope=…                    &lt;- YouTube scopes</pre><p>Two things stand out. response_type=none means this isn't a normal code/token redirect: there's nothing coming back to a callback at all. And there is <strong>no </strong><strong>redirect_uri anywhere in the URL</strong>. The entire boundary that OAuth normally relies on to pin where a grant goes is simply absent from this endpoint, because the grant never gets delivered through the browser; it gets delivered out-of-band, over the device's /token poll.</p><p>The only thing anchoring the session is TL. client_id and scope are just along for the ride in the query string. So: keep TL, swap client_id for a different application, and see which client the authorization server ends up authenticating.</p><p>I scripted the device-code issuance, took the resulting URL, and changed client_id from YouTube TV to Google's own <strong>Cloud SDK</strong> client, with scope changed to cloud-platform, compute, appengine.admin. The consent screen that came back said <strong>Google Cloud SDK</strong>, listing the elevated scopes. Approving it, my polling script, still polling with the <em>original</em> YouTube TV device_code, got back a token on its next call. Inspecting it: cloud-platform, compute, appengine.admin. Not YouTube.</p><p><strong>Vulnerability #2: the server never validates that the </strong><strong>client_id and </strong><strong>scope in the authorization URL match what the </strong><strong>device_code was actually issued for.</strong></p><p>Combined with vulnerability #1, the authorization server ends up issuing tokens under one client’s identity (Google Cloud SDK, or any other Google-registered client, first- or third-party) for a session that started under a completely different one (YouTube TV). redirect_uri isn't just weakly validated here: it's not present at all, because the grant never travels through a redirect in this flow to begin with.</p><figure><img alt="" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/700/1*4UwF2sE4BZuwRTMM9aJo9w.gif"><figcaption><em>PoC: device-code hijack escalated from YouTube TV to Google Cloud SDK scopes</em></figcaption></figure><p>The escalation chain worked end to end, at least on paper. Only one step was left: telling Google about it, and finding out whether they’d agree it was a bug at all.</p><h3>6. From Consent Screen to One Click</h3><p>I filed this as a report. It came back rejected the next day, citing user interaction: the victim “consented.” Fair, in a narrow sense: the consent screen is genuinely rendered by Google, the click is a genuine click. But the <em>thing being consented to</em> was shaped entirely by parameter substitution in a link I built, and from the victim’s side there is nothing to notice that’s different from any other Google sign-in. Still, “user interaction” was the stated bar, so the next step was removing it.</p><p>OAuth has a prompt parameter for exactly the case of skipping the consent screen: set to none, it tells the authorization server not to show any UI if the user has already granted the requested scopes to that client before. It's meant to be narrow, restricted to low-risk scopes like openid, email, profile, and gated on prior consent.</p><p>In practice it isn’t narrow at all. “Sign in with Google” is everywhere, and most people have already granted openid email profile to dozens, sometimes hundreds, of apps over the years without ever thinking about it again.</p><p>Take the weaponized device-code URL, drop in Facebook’s client_id (any site using "Sign in with Google" works the same way), set scope=openid email profile, add prompt=none. The victim opens the link, and that's the only action required: no consent screen, no button to press. The browser silently completes the flow in the background, the polling script receives an id_token for that third-party application, and that token replays cleanly against the app's own "Sign in with Google" endpoint.</p><p><strong>One link. Opening it is the only interaction required. Account takeover on virtually any application that uses Sign in with Google.</strong></p><figure><img alt="" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/700/1*hHiWXmNkC5aWkKKDsmLD9w.gif"><figcaption><em>PoC: prompt=none one-click bypass against a third-party client</em></figcaption></figure><p>The technical bypass was solid. What I didn’t know yet was whether any of it would actually be visible, to the victim or to Google’s own monitoring, if it were used for real.</p><h3>7. Why the Victim Never Notices</h3><p>The natural follow-up: surely <em>something</em> surfaces to the victim: a login alert, a new entry under connected apps, a 2FA prompt? It doesn’t, and that’s not incidental. Every signal that would normally catch this gets routed around by the shape of the device-code flow itself.</p><p><strong>Audit trail pollution.</strong> myaccount.google.com/connections shows the <em>original</em> client bound to the device_code, YouTube TV, never the substituted application. To find any trace of the attack, a victim would have to open the connections page, scroll to find "YouTube TV" among however many connected apps they have, click into it, click "see details" to expand the granted scopes, and then recognize that YouTube TV requesting cloud-platform / compute / appengine.admin is not normal. Five deliberate steps and a piece of domain knowledge very few people have.</p><figure><img alt="" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1024/0*Nq78jsm8FNLJ6QFG.png"><figcaption><em>The “YouTube on TV” connections entry, expanded: Gmail read/compose/send/delete, Cloud SQL, App Engine, and Compute Engine, all under a client that’s supposed to only need YouTube scopes</em></figcaption></figure><p><strong>Implicit 2FA bypass.</strong> The victim goes through a completely ordinary Google sign-in, which already satisfies any 2FA they have configured. The token handoff to the attacker happens afterward, over the device poll, with no further prompt of any kind. The actual high-risk action, an OAuth grant under an arbitrary client’s identity, never trips a high-risk challenge, because as far as the authentication layer is concerned, nothing risky happened; a user just logged in normally.</p><p>Stealth, solved. The remaining question was reach: how far the same substitution trick could be pushed past YouTube TV’s own scopes.</p><h3>8. Extending the Primitive</h3><p>Stealth is one axis; reach is the other. The same client_id/scope substitution keeps paying out against different corners of the Google ecosystem.</p><p><strong>Persistent access via </strong><strong>accounts.reauth.</strong> Add that scope to the substitution and the resulting grant can refresh indefinitely, with no further victim interaction required: a shoot-and-forget backdoor rather than a one-time token.</p><p><strong>A Gmail backdoor via IMAP, not the REST API.</strong> Substituting a client_id that's allowed to request https://mail.google.com (Apple's iOS Mail client, for instance) gets a token scoped to full Gmail access. Hitting the Gmail REST API with it fails: <em>"Gmail API has not been used in project 861556708454 before or it is disabled."</em> That project ID belongs to YouTube TV, and the original device-code client never had the Gmail API enabled. That's a project-level gate, not a token-level one, so it's worth checking whether there's another door into the same mailbox. Gmail's IMAP server supports OAuth via the <strong>XOAUTH2</strong> SASL mechanism, using the exact same https://mail.google.com/ scope but going through imap.gmail.com:993 instead of the REST API's project-gated surface. It accepts the token without issue. Full inbox access, with the same token the REST API had just rejected.</p><figure><img alt="" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1024/0*k7pQv3pDxP21l5DQ.png"><figcaption><em>Successful IMAP XOAUTH2 authentication over the substituted token, listing real Gmail folders and recent inbox messages</em></figcaption></figure><p>End to end: a transferable session, plus unvalidated client_id/scope binding, plus prompt=none, equals a link that's invisible to the person who opens it and ends in a fully compromised account, Gmail included.</p><p>Chain complete: transferable session, unbound client_id/scope, prompt=none, silent to the victim, and a Gmail backdoor at the end of it. Time to see what Google's VRP panel made of all that.</p><h3>9. Disclosure Timeline</h3><p><strong>Feb 25, 2026</strong> Report filed with Google VRP<br><strong>Mar 2, 2026</strong> Closed: Won’t Fix (Intended Behavior), citing “social engineering”<br><strong>Mar 2, 2026</strong> Pushed back same day<br><strong>Mar 3, 2026</strong> Reopened, then closed again: Won’t Fix (Infeasible)<br><strong>Mar 3, 2026</strong> Countered with a prompt=none one-click PoC against Facebook’s client_id<br><strong>Mar 4, 2026</strong> Reopened a second time and accepted; bug filed with the product team<br><strong>Mar 28, 2026</strong> Marked fixed<br><strong>Apr 2, 2026</strong> Rewarded $13,337</p><p>The two rejections both leaned on the same argument: that tricking a user into approving an OAuth prompt is a social-engineering problem, not a vulnerability in Google’s implementation. That didn’t hold up on either pass. The first rejection ignored that this is the exact sign-in flow every Google user already knows, on accounts.google.com, arriving at an app that has no business holding cloud-platform or appengine.admin scopes doing exactly that. The second treated it as equivalent to installing a malicious OAuth app, which the prompt=none PoC against Facebook's client_id directly disproved: there was no prompt to approve, and no app to install; the victim only had to open a link.</p><h3>10. Mitigations</h3><p>For a flow that’s explicitly designed to hand sign-in off to a second device, the fix has to happen server-side, since there’s nothing meaningful a client application can check on its own:</p><ol><li>Keep user_code, device_code, and any session reference that resolves to them out of URLs entirely. If a session can't be copied into a different browser, it can't be handed to a victim.</li><li>Bind client_id and scope to the device_code at issuance time, server-side. At the consent step, look those values up from that binding instead of trusting whatever the URL says; reject any mismatch.</li><li>On the consent screen, show device information (name, model) and require the user to actively confirm that device is the one in front of them.</li></ol><h3>11. Conclusion</h3><p>The device authorization grant is a narrow, deliberately low-trust flow, right up until the authorization server treats “who is asking” and “what are they asking for” as details that only need to be true at the <em>start</em> of the flow, not checked again by the time consent is granted. Once the session itself turned out to be transferable across browsers, the missing binding between device_code and client_id/scope stopped being a narrow YouTube TV bug and became a way to mint tokens for any Google-registered client, first-party or third-party, capped only by which scopes that client happens to be allowed to request.</p><p>Thanks for reading.</p><p>Originally published on <a href="https://weirdmachine64.github.io/research/google-oauth-device-code-hijacking.html">https://weirdmachine64.github.io/research/google-oauth-device-code-hijacking.html</a></p><img src="https://medium.com/_/stat?event=post.clientViewed&amp;referrerSource=full_rss&amp;postId=dc6ec2db35a9" width="1" height="1" alt=""><hr><p><a href="https://infosecwriteups.com/confused-deputy-google-idp-universal-account-takeover-via-device-code-flow-hijacking-dc6ec2db35a9">Confused Deputy: Google IdP Universal Account Takeover via Device Code Flow Hijacking</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[SDK v0.0.63]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[The session runtime now emits task.mistake_limit_reached telemetry when the consecutive-mistake limit is hit, so every host (CLI, VS Code extension, hub daemon) captures it — including auto-stops when no host prompt is configured

Full Changelog: sdk/sdk/v0.0.62...sdk/sdk/v0.0.63]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3674856/downloads/sdk-v0063/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3674856/downloads/sdk-v0063/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2026 02:31:33 +0200</pubDate>
<category>💾 Downloads</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<ul>
<li>The session runtime now emits <code>task.mistake_limit_reached</code> telemetry when the consecutive-mistake limit is hit, so every host (CLI, VS Code extension, hub daemon) captures it — including auto-stops when no host prompt is configured</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Full Changelog</strong>: <a class="commit-link" href="https://github.com/cline/cline/compare/sdk/sdk/v0.0.62...sdk/sdk/v0.0.63"><tt>sdk/sdk/v0.0.62...sdk/sdk/v0.0.63</tt></a></p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Activist group takes over London bus stops with fake Meta Glasses ads]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[One features an optical illusion spoof of 'They Live.']]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3674788/it-nachrichten/activist-group-takes-over-london-bus-stops-with-fake-meta-glasses-ads/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3674788/it-nachrichten/activist-group-takes-over-london-bus-stops-with-fake-meta-glasses-ads/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2026 01:02:39 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[One features an optical illusion spoof of 'They Live.']]></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[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[Niko Matsakis: Battery packs: Let's talk about crates, baby]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[This blog post describes an idea I’ve been kicking around called battery packs. Battery packs are a curated set of crates arranged around a common theme. For example, there’s a CLI battery pack that has everything you need to build a great CLI, an opinionated pack for creating a backend web servi...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3674266/tools/niko-matsakis-battery-packs-lets-talk-about-crates-baby/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3674266/tools/niko-matsakis-battery-packs-lets-talk-about-crates-baby/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 19:24:07 +0200</pubDate>
<category>💾  Tools</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<img alt="Battery pack logo" class="float-right" src="https://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/%20/assets/2026-07-15-battery-packs.png">
<p>This blog post describes an idea I’ve been kicking around called <strong>battery packs</strong>. Battery packs are a curated set of crates arranged around a common theme. For example, there’s a CLI battery pack that has <a href="https://crates.io/crates/cli-battery-pack">everything you need to build a great CLI</a>, an opinionated pack for <a href="https://crates.io/crates/backend-service-battery-pack">creating a backend web service</a>, and <a href="https://crates.io/crates/embedded-battery-pack">one for embedded development</a> (based on the Embedded Working Group’s <a href="https://github.com/rust-embedded/awesome-embedded-rust">Awesome Rust repository</a>). We’ve also got some smaller ones, such as the <a href="https://crates.io/crates/error-battery-pack">error-handling battery pack</a> that shows how to handle errors in Rust. But this is just the beginning – a key part of the battery pack design is that anybody can create one.</p>
<p>Battery packs are meant to address one of the most common things I hear from new Rust adopters. Everyone loves the wealth of high-quality crates available on crates.io. And everyone hates having to spend a bunch of time researching and comparing alternatives. Battery packs can serve as a good set of default choices. And they don’t lock you in. At heart, they’re basically just a list of recommended crates, so you can always swap something out if you find an alternative.</p>

<p>We’ve got a prototype of the battery pack tool working today, so you can try it out if you’re curious. Just run <code>cargo install cargo-bp</code> and then try a few commands! For example,</p>
<div class="highlight"><pre class="chroma" tabindex="0"><code class="language-bash"><span class="line"><span class="cl">&gt; cargo bp list
</span></span></code></pre></div><p>will show you the set of available battery packs, based on a crates.io search (as I’ll explain below, a battery pack is itself packaged and distributed as a crate, but not one that you take a direct dependency on). And <code>cargo bp add</code> will add batteries from a battery pack into your crate, so e.g.</p>
<div class="highlight"><pre class="chroma" tabindex="0"><code class="language-bash"><span class="line"><span class="cl">&gt; cargo bp add cli
</span></span></code></pre></div><p>would let you select and add common CLI libraries. If you want to see a more involved demo, try out <code>cargo bp add embedded</code>, which is derived from the <a href="https://github.com/rust-embedded/awesome-embedded-rust">Awesome Embedded Rust</a> repository.</p>
<h3>Let’s talk about you and me</h3>
<p>One of the key ideas from battery packs is that <strong>anybody can publish one</strong>. They are just a crate named <code>X-battery-pack</code>; the dependencies of that crate are your recommendations. Features are designations of common sets of crates frequently used together. The examples are your templates. And so forth.</p>
<p>Letting anybody create a battery pack is in contrast to the previous ideas for an “extended standard library for Rust”<sup><a class="footnote-ref" href="https://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/atom.xml#fn:1">1</a></sup>, and it is intended to address some of Rust’s unique challenges. For one thing, it lets people publish battery packs that are tailored to specific requirements. For example, the <a href="https://crates.io/crates/cli-battery-pack">CLI</a> and <a href="https://crates.io/crates/backend-service-battery-pack">backend service</a> battery packs are targeting a “typical computer”. But I could imagine the <a href="https://rust-embedded.org/">Rust embedded working group</a> publishing a battery pack with libraries focused on no-std and binary size optimization.</p>
<p>Being open-ended also addresses the <em>“who decides?”</em> question. To my mind, the best people to recommend what libraries you ought to use are <strong>other people building systems like yours</strong>. This is why I mentioned the Embedded Working Group publishing an Embedded battery pack, for example, as I think they are clearly a set of people who know their space well. But even within the embedded space there are yet smaller groups, and I imagine that sometimes it’ll make sense to get narrower. For example, perhaps a battery pack targeted <a href="https://embassy.dev/">embassy</a> and its associated ecosystem? Unclear.</p>
<h4>Creating a battery pack</h4>
<p>If you wanted to create a battery pack, how do you do it? One answer is that you just create a new crate. But a better approach is to use the “battery-pack battery pack”<sup><a class="footnote-ref" href="https://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/atom.xml#fn:2">2</a></sup>, which bundles a template:</p>
<div class="highlight"><pre class="chroma" tabindex="0"><code class="language-bash"><span class="line"><span class="cl">cargo bp new battery-pack
</span></span></code></pre></div><p>This will prompt you for the name of the battery pack you want to create and a few other things and make your crate. Then you can just use <code>cargo add</code> dependencies to represent the libraries you want to recommend and publish.</p>
<h4>“Batteries” are more than dependencies</h4>
<p>The “batteries” that you can add to your project aren’t always dependencies. They can also be “recipes” or templates. For example, the CI battery pack<sup><a class="footnote-ref" href="https://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/atom.xml#fn:3">3</a></sup> can configure your project with the kind of “super neat-o” github actions you’ve always wanted but never wanted to bother configuring. To use it, select one or more of the templates to install:</p>
<div class="highlight"><pre class="chroma" tabindex="0"><code class="language-bash"><span class="line"><span class="cl">cargo bp add ci
</span></span></code></pre></div><p>I expect this kind of “actions to improve your crate” to become a rich source of things. Right now we’re using a relatively lightweight template system built on <a href="https://github.com/mitsuhiko/minijinja">minijinja</a>, but I think we’re going to want to expand on this.</p>
<h4>Giving it some structure</h4>
<p>Battery Packs also support more than just a flat listing of dependencies/features/templates. You can group dependencies and features into <em>categories</em> and then, for each category, distinguish between “pick at most one” or “pick any number”. For a fun example, try <code>cargo bp add embedded</code>, which is derived from the <a href="https://github.com/rust-embedded/awesome-embedded-rust">Awesome Embedded Rust</a> repository. If you run it, you’ll see something like this, which groups the choices thematically and, in some areas like “concurrency framework”, makes it clear that you want to pick one:</p>
<pre tabindex="0"><code>──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
 ▼ Concurrency Framework (pick at most one)
 &gt; ○ ✦ embassy [embassy-executor, embassy-sync, embassy-time]
   ○ ✦ rtic [cortex-m, rtic]    RTIC — interrupt-driven real-time

 ▼ Display &amp; Graphics (pick any number)
   [ ] ✦ display-ssd1306 [embedded-graphics, ssd1306]    SSD1306
   [ ] ✦ display-st7789 [embedded-graphics, st7789]    ST7789 col

 ▼ Popular Drivers (pick any number)
   [ ] ✦ display-ssd1306 [embedded-graphics, ssd1306]    SSD1306
   [ ] ✦ display-st7789 [embedded-graphics, st7789]    ST7789 col
   [ ] ✦ sensor-bme280 [bme280]    BME280 temperature/humidity/pr
   [ ] ✦ sensor-lis3dh [lis3dh]    LIS3DH 3-axis accelerometer (I
   [ ] ✦ usb-device [usb-device, usbd-serial]    USB device stack

 ▼ Hardware Abstraction Layer (pick at most one)
   ○ ✦ atsamd [atsamd-hal, cortex-m-rt, critical-section-impl, co
   ○ ✦ esp32 [embedded-hal, esp-hal]    ESP32 (Xtensa, WiFi + BT,
   ○ ✦ esp32c3 [embedded-hal, esp-hal]    ESP32-C3 (RISC-V, WiFi
   ○ ✦ esp32s3 [embedded-hal, esp-hal]    ESP32-S3 (Xtensa, WiFi
   ○ ✦ nrf52832 [cortex-m-rt, critical-section-impl, cortex-m, em
   ○ ✦ nrf52840 [cortex-m-rt, critical-section-impl, cortex-m, em
   ○ ✦ nrf9160 [cortex-m-rt, critical-section-impl, cortex-m, emb
   ○ ✦ rp2040 [cortex-m-rt, critical-section-impl, cortex-m, embe
   ○ ✦ stm32f0 [cortex-m-rt, critical-section-impl, cortex-m, emb
 embedded-battery-pack v0.1.0  ↑↓/jk Navigate | Space Toggle | ←/→
</code></pre><h3>Let’s talk about all the good things…</h3>
<p>So why am I so keen on battery packs? It’s largely because I’ve heard so many would-be or recent Rust adopters talk about picking crates as a challenge. But I feel they would help with some other problems as well.</p>
<p>What I really want to see is working groups in the <a href="https://rustfoundation.org/rust-commercial-network/">Rust Commercial Network</a> banding together to publish battery packs and recommendations. These would cover the dependencies that they’re actually using.</p>
<h4>Supporting maintainers</h4>
<p>One of the reasons I want to have RCN-recognized battery packs is that they are a natural focal point to then prompt RCN members to fund the maintenance of those crates. I am imagining that for each sponsored battery pack vended within the RCN, there is an associated “ecosystem fund”. Companies or individuals could sponsor this fund to get access to early patches, security disclosures, etc or other perks. The money would be used to support the maintainers of those crates, to implement missing features, and so forth.</p>
<h4>Fostering interoperability</h4>
<p>Another value-add from battery packs is the ability to drive interop efforts. I think that as soon as we start talking about standardizing, we’re also going to recognize that there are some places where standardization is hard. For example, early conversations within the <a href="https://rust-commercial-network.github.io/rcn/network-services-wg.html">network service working group</a> (unsurprisingly) immediately identified that while most people are using <a href="https://tokio.rs/">tokio</a>, some major companies are using their own runtimes internally. It’s not like the need for “async runtime interop” is <a href="https://rust-lang.github.io/wg-async/vision/submitted_stories/status_quo/barbara_wishes_for_easy_runtime_switch.html">news</a>. But right now, every crate winds up effectively implementing their own set of little traits to make it work. Sponsored battery packs offer the possibility of a neutral home for that sort of thing.</p>
<h3>…and the bad things that could be</h3>
<p>There are some risks to people using battery packs. The most obvious is that the fact that anybody can publish a battery pack may mean that you just get a ton of battery packs, which doesn’t really help anybody! I’m not so worried about this because I think that there will be a few obvious places that most people go first, and then I think once people are oriented, they’ll get excited to explore what crates.io has to offer and start discovering more niche battery packs.</p>
<h4>Avoiding stagnation</h4>
<p>Battery packs are designed to evolve. I’ve seen it happen a number of times that there is a dominant crate for something, often taking a “traditional approach”, but then somebody else comes along and presents an interesting alternative that gradually takes off. I love that and I don’t want to put it at risk.</p>
<p>One example of evolution around CLI argument parsing. For a time, <a href="https://crates.io/crates/docopt">docopt</a> was a popular way to parse command-line options. Then <a href="https://crates.io/crates/clap">clap</a> came along and presented a more structured alternative; that was nice, but then structopt came along and connected clap to an auto-derive, so you could just write your data structure and be done. And <em>that</em> was awesome. (That is now the standard in clap.) I want to be sure that, even if there is a CLI battery pack, there’s room for the next clap to come along.</p>
<p>There are a few things about battery pack that I think will help us deal with this. First, they are a “thin abstraction”. You don’t “depend on” a battery pack, you depend on the crates within it. So if a new version comes out that uses clap instead of docopt, that doesn’t impact you at all. Your code keeps working same as it ever did. And of course it helps that <em>anybody</em> can publish a battery pack. You can now have variations on battery packs that are focused around a new approach to help it get started.</p>
<p>Done right, I think that standardized battery packs can also <em>help</em> the ecosystem evolve and pivot. As it is now, knowledge of new crates has to spread by word-of-mouth. But if everybody is aligned around a new approach, adopting that new approach within a battery packs sends a clear signal that your group is aligned that something is the new hotness.</p>
<h3>…Let’s talk about crates<sup><a class="footnote-ref" href="https://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/atom.xml#fn:4">4</a></sup></h3>
<h4>“Always bet on the ecosystem”</h4>
<p>I see <strong>always bet on the ecosystem</strong> as a key Rust design axiom. It’s the reason we chose a small standard library and a package manager in the first place. It’s also why battery packs are designed to be published by anyone.</p>
<p>But just like plants sometimes need a trellis to grow taller, any successful ecosystem reaches a point where it needs another layer of structure to help it keep growing. Without that, you have this “layer of tacic knowledge” (in <a href="https://blog.rust-lang.org/2025/12/19/what-do-people-love-about-rust/#example-the-wealth-of-crates-on-crates-io-are-a-key-enabler-but-can-be-an-obstacle">the words of a Rust Vision Doc interviewee</a>) that becomes an obstacle for folks. And I think we’ve reached that point with <code>crates.io</code>.</p>
<p>I am hopeful that battery packs can provide that next layer of structure. But at the end of the day, if there’s a better approach, that’s fine too, so long as we find a way to help people find (<em>and fund!</em>) the crates they need. So let’s talk about it!</p>
<div class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
<li>
<p>My first recollection of it was the <a href="https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/proposal-the-rust-platform/3745">Rust Platform</a> idea we floated in 2016! <a class="footnote-backref" href="https://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/atom.xml#fnref:1">↩︎</a></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Yo dawg… <a class="footnote-backref" href="https://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/atom.xml#fnref:2">↩︎</a></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Hat tip to Jess Izen, who proposed and developed the CI battery pack. Neat idea. <a class="footnote-backref" href="https://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/atom.xml#fnref:3">↩︎</a></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Oh, and: my apologies to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let's_Talk_About_Sex">Salt-N-Peppa</a>. <a class="footnote-backref" href="https://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/atom.xml#fnref:4">↩︎</a></p>
</li>
</ol>
</div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The agent evaluation gap: Enterprise AI organizations have a reality-alignment problem, not a coverage problem — and most are shipping to production anyway]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Across 157 enterprises, organizations are granting AI agents more autonomy while trusting the evaluations meant to gate that autonomy less. Half have already shipped an agent that passed their internal evaluations and then failed a customer in production; only one in twenty fully trusts automated...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3674237/it-nachrichten/the-agent-evaluation-gap-enterprise-ai-organizations-have-a-reality-alignment-problem-not-a-coverage-problem-and-most-are-shipping-to-production-anyway/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3674237/it-nachrichten/the-agent-evaluation-gap-enterprise-ai-organizations-have-a-reality-alignment-problem-not-a-coverage-problem-and-most-are-shipping-to-production-anyway/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 19:03:24 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Across 157 enterprises, organizations are granting AI agents more autonomy while trusting the evaluations meant to gate that autonomy less. Half have already shipped an agent that passed their internal evaluations and then failed a customer in production; only one in twenty fully trusts automated evaluation today; and the most-cited weakness is that evaluations do not align with real-world outcomes. Yet two-thirds already allow, or are actively engineering toward, deploying agent changes to production on automated evaluation alone — with no human in the loop. The result is an evaluation gap — the distance between how much autonomy enterprises are handing their agents and how far they trust the tests that are supposed to catch the failures.</p><p>This wave of VentureBeat Pulse Research examines how technical leaders measure agent performance: which reliability and evaluation platforms they use, how they select and trust them, what breaks in production, and how far they are willing to let agents run without a human in the loop.</p><p>The central finding is an evaluation gap — the distance between the autonomy enterprises are granting their agents and the trust they place in the evaluations meant to govern it. Half of organizations (50%) have, in the past year, deployed an agent or LLM feature that passed their internal evaluations and then caused a customer-facing failure, and a quarter have seen it happen more than once. Trust in the tests themselves is thin: only 5% say they fully trust automated evaluation today, and the single most-cited limitation is that evaluations align poorly with real-world outcomes (29%). Enterprises are discovering that a passing eval is not the same as a working agent.</p><p>What makes the gap consequential is the direction of travel. Two-thirds of organizations (66%) already permit fully automated, zero-human-in-the-loop deployment for low-risk agents (34%) or are actively engineering their pipelines to allow it within twelve months (33%). At the same time, the evaluation stack that would have to earn that trust is fragmented and immature: the most common primary tools are the model providers’ native evals, tied with having no dedicated tooling at all (17% each); and only about a quarter of enterprises run real-time quality checks on live production traffic. The autonomy is arriving faster than the assurance.</p><h2>Methodology</h2><p>VentureBeat fielded this survey as part of its ongoing Pulse Research series, this survey — the Agentic Reliability &amp; Evals tracker — focused on how technical leaders evaluate agent performance and reliability. Responses are filtered to organizations with 100 or more employees (n=157), drawn from a single survey in June 2026; because this is one wave rather than a pooled multi-month sample, the report reads cross-sectionally and does not infer month-over-month trends. Where questions were multiple-select, those shares can sum to more than 100%.</p><p>By role the sample is senior and buyer-credible: 38% are final decision-makers for AI purchases and another 34% recommenders or influencers. Product and program managers (15%), consultants and advisors (10%), directors of engineering/IT (8%), and CIOs/CTOs/CISOs (8%) lead the named titles, alongside a large “Other” function (37%). By organization size the sample is mid-market-weighted: 100–499 (37%) and 500–2,499 (27%) employees lead, with 2,500–9,999 (20%), 10,000–49,999 (10%), and 50,000+ (6%) above them. Technology/Software is the largest industry at 23%, followed by Retail/Consumer (15%), Healthcare/Life Sciences (12%), and Manufacturing (10%).</p><p>At 157 respondents the sample is large enough to read directionally but should be treated as a directional signal rather than a precise measurement; it is self-selected and is not a probability sample. It skews toward the mid-market, so it is best read as the view from organizations actively standing up agent evaluation practices rather than from the largest operators.</p><p><i>Note: This survey was rebuilt for the June wave from the earlier “LLM observability and evaluations” survey; because the questions and sample differ, no comparisons are made to the April–May data.</i></p><h1>Finding 1: A passing eval is not a working agent</h1><p><b>Half have shipped an agent that passed evals, then failed a customer</b></p><p>We asked whether, in the past 12 months, organizations had deployed an agent or LLM feature that passed their internal evaluations but then caused a customer-facing failure. Half of those that run evaluations had.</p><div></div><p>This is the report’s defining number. Half of organizations (50%) have shipped an AI feature that cleared their internal evaluations and then failed in front of a customer — an incorrect output, a broken workflow, or a quality incident — and a quarter have seen it happen more than once. Only 36% report no such failure, and the remainder either run no pre-deployment evaluations (8%) or don’t track the root cause closely enough to know (6%). The failure is precise and expensive: the evaluation said the agent was ready, and it was not. Everything that follows — how enterprises trust their evals, what they monitor, and how much autonomy they grant — is shaped by this experience.</p><h2>Finding 2: Almost no one fully trusts automated evaluation</h2><p><b>The top complaint: Evals don't match real-world outcomes</b></p><p>We asked which limitation most reduces trust in automated agent evaluations today. Only a sliver of enterprises had no complaint at all.</p><div></div><p>Trust in automated evaluation is scarce, and specific. Only 5% of organizations say they fully trust automated evaluation as it stands — meaning 95% name a limitation that holds them back. The most common, at 29%, is the one that most directly explains Finding 1: evaluations align poorly with real-world outcomes, passing agents that later fail. Bias or inconsistency (21%) and a lack of explainability (18%) follow — enterprises cannot always tell why an evaluation reached its verdict — and 17% cite data-leakage or privacy concerns in the evaluation process itself. The tests meant to certify agents are not yet trusted to certify them, which is precisely why the autonomy trajectory in Finding 3 is so striking.</p><h2>Finding 3: The autonomy ceiling is rising anyway</h2><p><b>Two-thirds already allow, or are building toward, zero-human deployment</b></p><p>We asked whether organizations would let an autonomous agent deploy a code or system change to production on automated evaluation results alone, with no human-in-the-loop validation. The trajectory runs straight through the trust gap.</p><div></div><p>Here is the paradox at the heart of the report. Even though almost no one fully trusts automated evaluation (Finding 2), two-thirds of organizations (66%) either already allow zero-human-in-the-loop deployment for low-risk agents (34%) or are actively engineering their pipelines to permit it within a year (33%). Only 22% rule it out for the foreseeable future. The direction is unambiguous: enterprises are moving to let evaluations gate production autonomously — removing the human check — at the same moment they say those evaluations don’t reliably match reality. The autonomy ceiling is rising faster than the assurance beneath it, which is the mechanism by which the false-confidence failures of Finding 1 will scale rather than shrink.</p><p>Notably, the autonomy bet is not just a small company phenomenon. Splitting the sample by company size, larger enterprises are slightly further down the path toward zero human review than smaller companies (70% versus 64%) and slightly more likely to have shipped an evaluation-passing agent that then failed a customer (54% versus 48%). The assumption that large, regulated organizations are holding the human in the loop longest is, in this sample, backwards.  To be sure, these are directional figures, since the survey was not a huge sample — 57 respondents from companies with 2,500+ employees and 100 from companies smaller than that. </p><h2>Finding 4: The evaluation stack is fragmented and provider-led</h2><p><b>Provider-native evals lead — tied with no dedicated tool at all</b></p><p>We asked which agent reliability or evaluation platform enterprises primarily use today. The market has no clear leader — and a large share has nothing dedicated.</p><div></div><p>The evaluation layer is early and unconsolidated. Provider-native tooling leads — OpenAI’s native evals and traces (17%) and Anthropic’s Claude Console evals (13%) together outweigh any independent platform — but it is tied at the top by a striking answer: 17% of enterprises use no dedicated agent-evaluation tooling at all, a notable gap for organizations shipping agents to customers. The specialist evaluation vendors — DeepEval (12%), Braintrust (8%), LangSmith, Weave, Promptfoo, Langfuse, Arize — are scattered across single to low double digits, and 11% have built their own. No independent platform has yet become the category standard, which leaves most enterprises evaluating agents with provider-native tools, home-grown scripts, or nothing.</p><h2>Finding 5: Production monitoring rarely watches output quality</h2><p><b>Only a quarter run real-time quality checks on live traffic</b></p><p>Production monitoring for an AI agent can watch two very different things. It can watch whether the system is <b>functioning</b> — is the agent up and responding, did each request complete, how fast, at what cost, with any errors. Or it can watch whether the agent's output is <b>correct</b> — automated checks that evaluate the content of each answer as it goes out: did the agent give the right answer, take the right action, stay within policy. The distinction matters because a confidently wrong answer is invisible to the first kind of monitoring: the request completes, the response is fast, no error is thrown, and every functioning-metric reads healthy. We asked organizations which kind their live production monitoring is built for today.</p><div></div><p>Grouped by what is actually being watched, the split is stark: 51% of organizations monitor only whether the agent is functioning, while 23% monitor whether its answers are right. Counting the ad-hoc reviewers and the don't-knows, roughly three-quarters of organizations run no automated, real-time evaluation of output correctness in production — they can see that the system is up and what it costs, and they are taking the correctness of its answers on faith. That blind spot is the runtime counterpart to the pre-deployment gap in Finding 1: the same organizations engineering the human out of the deployment decision mostly cannot see, in real time, when the deployed agent starts getting things wrong.</p><h2>Finding 6: Bought on cost, measured on consistency</h2><p><b>Price and integration drive selection; evaluation consistency is the goal</b></p><p>We asked what most influenced enterprises’ choice of an evaluation vendor, and what they treat as their primary measure of success. Both answers are pragmatic.</p><div></div><p>Enterprises buy evaluation tooling on economics and trust it on repeatability. Cost of evaluations (28%) narrowly leads selection, just ahead of ease of integration (27%) and evaluation accuracy (24%) — breadth of observability (13%) and vendor roadmap (4%) matter far less. On what success looks like, more than a third (36%) name evaluation consistency — getting the same verdict on the same behavior every time — well ahead of speed of experimentation (19%), reduction in failures (18%), production visibility (13%), and compliance (11%). The emphasis on consistency is telling: before enterprises can trust an evaluation’s verdict, they need it to be stable — the very property whose absence (bias and inconsistency) ranked among the top trust limitations in Finding 2. Satisfaction with current tooling is only moderate, averaging 3.8 on a five-point scale across overall satisfaction, ease of implementation, and value for money.</p><h2>Finding 7: The next dollar goes to humans and observability</h2><p><b>Investment is flowing to oversight, not just automation</b></p><p>We asked which reliability and evaluation investment will grow most over the next year. The money is going toward watching agents more closely — including with people.</p><div></div><p>The second-largest planned investment — behind only production observability — is human review workflows, at 26%. Read against Finding 1, that is the report's quietest contradiction: at the same moment two-thirds of enterprises are engineering the human out of the deployment decision, more of them plan to grow spending on human reviewers (26%) than on the automated evaluation pipelines (16%) that would replace them. The zero-human trajectory and the human-review budget are rising in the same companies at the same time. Indeed, only 8% report that their budget is not increasing. </p><p>Taken together, enterprises are hedging: building toward autonomy while spending to watch agents more closely and keep humans available for the calls that automated evaluation cannot yet be trusted to make.</p><h2>Finding 8: A tooling reshuffle is coming</h2><p><b>Nearly two-thirds plan to adopt or switch platforms within a year</b></p><p>We asked whether enterprises plan to adopt a new, additional, or replacement evaluation platform, and which they are considering. Few intend to stand pat.</p><div></div><p>The evaluation market is wide open. While 36% have no plans to change, a clear majority (64%) intend to adopt a new, additional, or replacement platform within twelve months, and 31% within the next quarter. The consideration set points where current usage is thinnest: Confident AI’s DeepEval leads what enterprises are evaluating (20%), ahead of OpenAI’s native evals (13%) and Braintrust (9%) — the open-source specialists drawing more interest than their present footprint. </p><p>Given that so many enterprises today rely on provider-native tools or nothing at all (Finding 4), this is less a defection than a first real wave of tooling adoption — the moment the evaluation layer starts to consolidate. Which platforms earn that trust, in a market where almost no one trusts automated evaluation yet, is the open question this series will keep tracking.</p><h2>The bottom line: An evaluation gap that autonomy will widen, not close</h2><p>Organizations with 100 or more employees are granting AI agents more independence than they trust their evaluations to support. Half have already shipped an agent that passed its evals and then failed a customer; almost none fully trust automated evaluation, chiefly because it doesn’t match real-world outcomes; and most watch production for uptime and cost rather than for whether the agent’s answers are right. Yet two-thirds already allow, or are actively building toward, deploying to production on automated evaluation alone.</p><p>The vendor market is early and unsettled: the most common primary evaluation tools are provider-native evals, tied with no dedicated tooling at all, and a clear majority plan to adopt or switch platforms within the year. Encouragingly, the next dollar is going to observability and — pointedly — human review, suggesting enterprises sense the gap even as they engineer past it. At 157 respondents in a single wave this is a directional read, skewed toward the mid-market — but the direction is clear: autonomy is being granted on the strength of evaluations that the people granting it do not yet trust. The evaluation gap is not a coverage problem that more tests alone will close; it is a problem of evaluations that reflect reality and can be trusted to gate it. The open question for later waves is whether assurance catches up to autonomy — or whether the false-confidence failures move from customer incidents into changes that deploy themselves.</p><hr><p><i>Based on survey responses from 157 qualified enterprise respondents (100+ employees), drawn from a single June 2026 wave. This is a directional read rather than a precise measurement — the sample is self-selected, not a probability sample, and skews toward the mid-market. Respondents include product and program managers, consultants and advisors, directors of engineering/IT, and CIOs/CTOs/CISOs, among other functions, across technology/software, retail/consumer, healthcare/life sciences, manufacturing, and other industries.</i></p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Apple Increases Vapor Chamber Orders for Upcoming Foldable iPhone]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[There is a lot of heat inside a modern smartphone. Apple knows this, and it is reportedly taking steps to cool things down for its future devices. Recent reports from the supply chain show the company is ordering a lot more vapor chambers. These cooling parts are essential for keeping high-end de...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3674169/ios-mac-os/apple-increases-vapor-chamber-orders-for-upcoming-foldable-iphone/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3674169/ios-mac-os/apple-increases-vapor-chamber-orders-for-upcoming-foldable-iphone/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 18:43:36 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🍏 iOS / Mac OS</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[There is a lot of heat inside a modern smartphone. Apple knows this, and it is reportedly taking steps to cool things down for its future devices. Recent reports from the supply chain show the company is ordering a lot more vapor chambers. These cooling parts are essential for keeping high-end devices from overheating, and this sudden increase hints at major hardware changes coming to the iPhone lineup very soon.



New cooling components point directly toward a foldable design



A vapor chamber is a flat piece of metal that spreads out heat so a phone does not get too hot. This tech is already common in Android devices, but Apple has been slower to adopt it across its entire lineup. Now, suppliers are seeing a big bump in requests. Industry experts believe this is tied to the long-rumored foldable model.



Foldable phones have very little space inside, and they pack screens that generate a ton of heat. Getting the temperature under control is a big hurdle. Adding more vapor chambers is a clear sign that the company is finalizing the internal layout for a device that folds. While we might not see it until the release of the iPhone 18 Pro or iPhone 18 Pro Max, the supply chain moves years in advance.



Upcoming premium models might also get better heat management



The foldable is not the only device that needs better cooling. Rumors also suggest that the upcoming iPhone 17 Pro could use this technology to handle faster processors. When a phone runs high-end games or captures big video files, the chip works overtime. A good vapor chamber keeps the battery safe and stops the screen from dimming.



There is also talk about a super-thin iPhone Ultra model down the road. Thinner phones have a harder time getting rid of heat because everything is packed so tightly together. By securing a massive supply of vapor chambers now, Apple is making sure its next generation of premium devices can run complex tasks without burning your hands.



Apple never confirms its hardware plans until it steps on stage. However, following the money in the supply chain often paints a very accurate picture. A massive order for cooling parts means thinner bodies and more demanding screens are definitely on the way.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[AI Appreciation Day: Let’s Be Honest About What We’re Appreciating]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Today is AI Appreciation Day, and honestly, we mean it. AI has changed how we write code, analyze threats, and get work done faster than anyone thought possible a few years ago. It deserves a moment of gratitude. But at Check Point, we spend most of our year studying the other side of that coin a...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3673844/it-security-nachrichten/ai-appreciation-day-lets-be-honest-about-what-were-appreciating/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3673844/it-security-nachrichten/ai-appreciation-day-lets-be-honest-about-what-were-appreciating/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 16:52:02 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<img width="1600" height="800" src="https://blog.checkpoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/blog-banner-ai-frontier-model-800x400-1.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" link_thumbnail="" decoding="async" fetchpriority="high" srcset="https://blog.checkpoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/blog-banner-ai-frontier-model-800x400-1.png 1600w, https://blog.checkpoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/blog-banner-ai-frontier-model-800x400-1-300x150.png 300w, https://blog.checkpoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/blog-banner-ai-frontier-model-800x400-1-1024x512.png 1024w, https://blog.checkpoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/blog-banner-ai-frontier-model-800x400-1-768x384.png 768w, https://blog.checkpoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/blog-banner-ai-frontier-model-800x400-1-1536x768.png 1536w, https://blog.checkpoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/blog-banner-ai-frontier-model-800x400-1-400x200.png 400w, https://blog.checkpoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/blog-banner-ai-frontier-model-800x400-1-600x300.png 600w, https://blog.checkpoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/blog-banner-ai-frontier-model-800x400-1-800x400.png 800w, https://blog.checkpoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/blog-banner-ai-frontier-model-800x400-1-1200x600.png 1200w, https://blog.checkpoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/blog-banner-ai-frontier-model-800x400-1-1320x660.png 1320w" sizes="(max-width: 1600px) 100vw, 1600px"><p>Today is AI Appreciation Day, and honestly, we mean it. AI has changed how we write code, analyze threats, and get work done faster than anyone thought possible a few years ago. It deserves a moment of gratitude. But at Check Point, we spend most of our year studying the other side of that coin and our newly released AI Security Report 2026 makes one thing very clear: the same qualities we’re celebrating today are exactly what’s made AI such a powerful tool for attackers too. So in the spirit of appreciating AI honestly, not just enthusiastically, here’s what a […]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://blog.checkpoint.com/ai-security/ai-appreciation-day-lets-be-honest-about-what-were-appreciating/">AI Appreciation Day: Let’s Be Honest About What We’re Appreciating</a> appeared first on <a href="https://blog.checkpoint.com/">Check Point Blog</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Apple Now Carrier-Locks Financed T-Mobile and Verizon iPhones]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Apple recently changed how it handles device financing, closing a popular loophole for buyers. If you buy a new Apple device directly from the company store and finance it through T-Mobile or Verizon, it will now be locked to that specific carrier. In the past, shoppers could use this method to g...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3673738/ios-mac-os/apple-now-carrier-locks-financed-t-mobile-and-verizon-iphones/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3673738/ios-mac-os/apple-now-carrier-locks-financed-t-mobile-and-verizon-iphones/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 16:10:12 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🍏 iOS / Mac OS</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Apple recently changed how it handles device financing, closing a popular loophole for buyers. If you buy a new Apple device directly from the company store and finance it through T-Mobile or Verizon, it will now be locked to that specific carrier. In the past, shoppers could use this method to get a fully unlocked smartphone while still taking advantage of a carrier payment plan and promotional discounts. That era is now officially over.



Financed phones stay locked until you pay the full balance



This policy update brings T-Mobile and Verizon in line with AT&amp;T. AT&amp;T already required its financed phones to remain locked. Apple updated its website FAQ to clarify this change. The text now clearly states that choosing the T-Mobile Equipment Installment Plan or the Verizon Device Payment Program means your new iPhone is tied to that specific network. You cannot use it with another carrier until you pay off the entire balance.



This change impacts people who like to travel internationally. A locked phone blocks you from adding a second eSIM for a local network overseas. It also stops anyone from buying a phone with a carrier deal and immediately taking it to a cheaper service provider.



There is still a way to get an unlocked device right out of the box. You can buy the phone outright by paying the full retail price upfront. You can also use the Apple Card to set up monthly installments. Because that financing comes through the credit card and not the phone carrier, the device remains completely unlocked from day one.



If you upgrade your device every year using carrier deals, this new rule simply means you are tied down until the contract ends. You will need to weigh the upfront savings against the freedom of having an unlocked phone. The days of double-dipping on carrier promotions and unlocked flexibility are officially behind us.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Ramp vs Brex 2026: Best Spend Management Platforms Compared]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Ramp and Brex are leading spend tools. Compare features, rewards, and tools to see which platform is better suited for your business needs.
The post Ramp vs Brex 2026: Best Spend Management Platforms Compared appeared first on TechRepublic.]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3673714/it-nachrichten/ramp-vs-brex-2026-best-spend-management-platforms-compared/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3673714/it-nachrichten/ramp-vs-brex-2026-best-spend-management-platforms-compared/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 16:02:55 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ramp and Brex are leading spend tools. Compare features, rewards, and tools to see which platform is better suited for your business needs.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.techrepublic.com/article/ramp-vs-brex/">Ramp vs Brex 2026: Best Spend Management Platforms Compared</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.techrepublic.com/">TechRepublic</a>.</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[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[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[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[Why your ERP training program is failing your employees]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[I have sat in a lot of ERP training sessions over the years. Some were excellent. Most were not. And the ones that failed share a pattern I have come to recognize almost immediately: a vendor trainer at the front of the room, working through the same slide deck they use for every client, at the s...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3673041/it-security-nachrichten/why-your-erp-training-program-is-failing-your-employees/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3673041/it-security-nachrichten/why-your-erp-training-program-is-failing-your-employees/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 12:09:40 +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 sat in a lot of ERP training sessions over the years. Some were excellent. Most were not. And the ones that failed share a pattern I have come to recognize almost immediately: a vendor trainer at the front of the room, working through the same slide deck they use for every client, at the same pace, with the same examples, regardless of who is sitting in the chairs.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In one room, you might have a warehouse supervisor who has never used enterprise software, a finance manager with 20 years of system experience and a department coordinator somewhere in between. The vendor trainer covers the same material with all of them. Everyone gets a certificate at the end. Almost nobody is prepared to do their job in the new system when go-live arrives.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I want to be clear about something before I go further. In my previous CIO article, I wrote about why organizations should <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4181808/stop-blaming-your-erp-vendor.html">stop blaming their ERP vendor when implementations fail</a>. That argument still stands. But the training problem is a choice the organization makes. <a href="https://ecosire.com/blog/erp-user-training-best-practices-guide">Most organizations spend less than 5% of their total ERP project budget on training</a> and then hand that underfunded responsibility to the vendor. The vendor delivers what they were contracted to deliver. The gap between what got delivered and what the organization actually needed is not the vendor’s fault. It is a decision the organization made, often without fully understanding its consequences.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">After 25 years of leading enterprise software implementations and based on the doctoral research I conducted studying ERP implementations in small businesses, I am convinced that the organizations that get training right share one thing in common: they build the expertise internally rather than importing it.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Why vendor training falls short</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Vendor trainers know the software. That is not in question. What they do not know is your business: your processes, your workflows, your data, your terminology, your culture and the specific ways your organization will use the system once it is live.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That gap matters more than most organizations realize. <a href="https://www.prosci.com/blog/why-do-erp-implementations-fail">Research consistently shows that inadequate training is one of the primary drivers of ERP implementation failure</a>, not because training did not happen, but because the training that happened did not connect the system to the work. Employees left those sessions knowing what buttons to click without understanding why those buttons mattered to their specific job.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Generic training has a structural problem: it is optimized for coverage, not relevance. The goal is to ensure every employee has seen every feature. The result is that employees spend significant time learning functionality that does not apply to their role, while the functionality that does apply gets the same shallow treatment as everything else.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A finance manager sitting through a session on shop floor production tracking is not learning anything she will use. A warehouse supervisor learning about financial journal entries is in the same position. Both leave the session technically trained. Neither leaves prepared.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There is also a timing problem. Vendor training typically happens in a compressed window before go-live, delivered as a series of sessions rather than a progression. Research on learning retention suggests that training delivered weeks before it is needed, without reinforcement or practice, is largely forgotten by the time employees need to apply it. The result is a go-live day where everyone attended training and almost nobody feels ready.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What internal expertise looks like in practice</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In my doctoral research, I interviewed six IT managers from small businesses who had each led successful ERP implementations. Five of the six identified role-based, department-specific training as essential to their outcome. What distinguished their approach was not that they spent more on training. It was that they built the training capability inside the organization rather than contracting it out.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The approach that worked most consistently was identifying one person from each affected department early in the implementation, before configuration even began. That person became the departmental expert: involved in design decisions, consulted on how their team’s processes mapped to the new system and ultimately responsible for either delivering training to their colleagues or co-leading it alongside a formal trainer.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is sometimes called a super user model, and the research supports its effectiveness. But what I observed in the implementations that worked goes beyond the mechanics of the model. The departmental expert brought something a vendor trainer cannot: credibility. When the warehouse supervisor learns the receiving process from someone who has worked in that warehouse, who understands the exceptions and the edge cases and the way things truly flow on a busy day, the training resonates in a way that a generic session never can.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There is also an ownership dimension that is easy to underestimate. <a href="https://www.workday.com/en-us/perspectives/hr/erp-training-tips-best-practices.html">Peer-based training led by internal super users helps employees connect system steps to their daily responsibilities</a> in ways that outsider-led training rarely achieves. The departmental expert has skin in the game. They are going to use this system too. That shared stake changes the dynamic in the training room and sustains the support relationship long after the formal training is over.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I have seen this play out in both directions. In implementations where the organization invested in building internal expertise early, go-live day was hard but manageable. Questions went to the departmental expert, who could answer them in the language of the department. Issues surfaced quickly because someone in each area was watching for them. Adoption stabilized faster because the support was embedded in the team rather than accessible only through a help desk ticket.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In implementations where training was handed entirely to the vendor, the pattern was different. Go-live revealed gaps that training had not covered. The vendor’s support engagement was winding down. The organization had no internal expertise to draw on. Employees reverted to workarounds. The system went live but never fully took hold.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">How to build internal training capability before go-live</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The organizations that got this right did not wait until the training phase to think about training. They started building internal expertise at the beginning of the project. Here is what that looked like in practice.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Identify departmental experts early</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Select one person from each affected department before configuration begins. Choose people who are respected by their colleagues, have a solid understanding of their department’s processes and are willing to invest extra time in the project. This is not a small ask. Make sure they and their managers understand the commitment and that the contribution is recognized.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Involve them in the implementation, not just the training</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The departmental expert should participate in process design sessions, configuration reviews and user acceptance testing. By the time training begins, they should understand the system deeply enough to explain not just how it works but why specific decisions were made. That context is what makes internal training credible.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Design training around the job, not the system</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Training content should be organized around realistic work scenarios specific to each department, not around the system’s feature set. The finance team trains on how to process their transactions in the new system. The warehouse team trains on how to manage their receipts and inventory. Connect every step to the work employees actually do.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Plan for post-go-live support, not just pre-go-live training</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The weeks immediately after go-live are when training becomes real and when the gaps in pre-go-live preparation surface. The departmental expert should have a defined support role in that period: available to their colleagues, connected to the project team and empowered to escalate issues that need resolution. This is not a minor detail. It is where the investment in internal expertise pays its most important dividends.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">None of this requires a large budget or a dedicated training function. It requires early decisions about who will own the training relationship inside each department and the organizational commitment to support those people through the implementation, rather than treating training as a final phase activity.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The vendor knows the software. That knowledge is valuable and should not be wasted. But your people know your business, your processes and the way work flows on any given day. The question is not whether to use your vendor’s expertise. It is whether you are also building the internal expertise that turns a trained workforce into a prepared one. The organization that does both will not just go live. It will thrive.</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[19 AgentOps tools for monitoring AI activity, issues, and costs]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[With AI increasingly tucked into every cranny of the enterprise, someone has had to step up and provide the tools necessary to discover, track, and monitor all the agents and LLMs and keep them humming along in their various workflows. Thankfully, the DevOps world answered the call, building the ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3673038/it-security-nachrichten/19-agentops-tools-for-monitoring-ai-activity-issues-and-costs/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3673038/it-security-nachrichten/19-agentops-tools-for-monitoring-ai-activity-issues-and-costs/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 12:09:36 +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 class="wp-block-paragraph">With AI increasingly tucked into every cranny of the enterprise, someone has had to step up and provide the tools necessary to discover, track, and monitor all the agents and LLMs and keep them humming along in their various workflows. Thankfully, the DevOps world answered the call, building the tools to support our new overlords in an emerging subdiscipline interchangeably called “<a href="https://www.cio.com/article/196239/what-is-aiops-injecting-intelligence-into-it-operations.html">AIOps</a>,” “AgentOps,” and sometimes “agent observability.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Many of the challenges involved in AgentOps are similar to those tackled by traditional DevOps tools and processes. After all, at their foundation, LLMs are just software running on hardware somewhere. Typical issues involving RAM and disk space are just as important in the agent world, maybe more so because AI operations are even more greedy about consuming storage than regular software is.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Many of the companies supporting agent observability are big names in DevOps circles, having adapted their stacks to address the idiosyncrasies of modern LLMs. IT teams maintaining enterprise agents can treat the LLMs as just one node in a big graph filled with services that are constantly swapping packets and triggering software jobs. Latency and resource constraints must be managed because end-users don’t care whether it’s an LLM, a database, or a plain-old Python script that’s failing, bringing their work to a grinding halt.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But new AI-specific challenges are opening the door to newcomers that are building tools with the peculiarities of LLMs in mind — for example, keeping deeper logs filled with records of prompts. LLMs are also often very non-deterministic by design, making it trickier to pinpoint failure modes. And then there’s the fact that an agent will give a perfectly intelligent answer one minute and hallucinate the next.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Relying on many of the same approaches that DevOps tools do, AgentOps tools watch for misbehavior and flag anything out of the ordinary for deeper analysis. This may be as simple as fixing slow responses, but it can also include AI hallucinations and other issues born of LLMs’ non-determanism.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Teams trying to choose which agent observability tools is best for their use case should look at the size and nature of their agentic systems and projects. Are they adding AI agent features to an existing product or application, or are they building agentic systems from scratch? Are they more focused on maintaining a stable LLM operation or iterating on new approaches? Is AI the center of attention or just an add-on that’s meant to improve an existing stack?<br><br>The AgentOps and agent observability options listed below share many of the same features but differ in their focus and their attention to the challenges organizations will encounter when incorporating agents into their stacks. Each tool offers a worthwhile place to start understanding how to care for the growing presence of AI in the production world.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">AgentOps.ai</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When teams of agents work together, tracking the conversations are essential for understanding and debugging what’s happening. The SDK from <a href="http://agentops.ai/">AgentOps.ai records</a> events so that the creators can replay past behavior to track details such as token counts, spending, latency, and more. Available as a service and on-premises.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Pricing:</em> <a href="https://www.agentops.ai/#pricing">Starts at $40 per month </a>plus usage costs at $0.20 per 1M tokens</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Standout feature:</em> Replay analytics with “time-travel debugging”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Best suited for:</em> Complex agent debugging</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Arize Phoenix</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Debugging prompts and LLM responses requires a nuanced understanding of just what’s happening, in part because of the non-determinism that often enters the process. <a href="https://arize.com/phoenix/">Phoenix</a> from Arize supports this process with robust tracing and the ability to score the results for more precise iteration. Their system can track the results and tool calls from a variety of major platforms (Anthropic, AWS, OpenAI, etc.) that are initiated by the major frameworks (LangChain, LlamaIndex, DSPy, etc.). The result is insight into what data is triggering what chain of responses.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Pricing:</em> Small free tier; <a href="https://arize.com/pricing/">Pro plan</a> starts at $50 per month plus costs tied to events</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Standout feature:</em> LLM-as-a-Judge metrics for tracking quality</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Best suited for:</em> Teams focusing on iterating for accuracy and quality</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">BigPanda</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.bigpanda.io/">BigPanda</a> has always offered solutions for tracking performance of complex systems. Now the company is drilling deeper into the challenge of detecting and ending the problems that come from models that go awry. BigPanda’s main system relies on historical data and machine learning algorithms to flag issues. Its own agent layer connects the problematic nodes and errant models while dispatching alerts to the right team members.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Pricing:</em> “Value-based” table on <a href="https://www.bigpanda.io/pricing/">request</a></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Standout feature:</em> Automated triage for faster response</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Best suited for:</em> Large teams seeking to reduce alert fatigue from large customer base</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Braintrust</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Setting up an effective improvement cycle for an AI agent requires a strong feedback loop from production data to the agent’s next generation. <a href="https://www.braintrust.dev/">Braintrust</a> watches the production workload and creates test vectors that expose how an agent may be drifting, regressing, or departing from its path. The tool automates much of the testing and scoring feedback loop so problematic patterns can be discovered and addressed. A core part of the offering is a specialized data store that can track large and sometimes deeply nested collections of tests and their results. Their approach may be summarized by one of their tag lines: “trace everything.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Pricing:</em> Free starter tier; <a href="https://www.braintrust.dev/pricing">Pro plan</a> starts at $249 with some usage-based costs covered</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Standout feature:</em> Highly scalable trace ingestion</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Best for:</em> Teams developing strong guardrails through continuous testing</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Chronicle Labs</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When it’s time to release a new version of an agent into the wild, the <a href="https://chronicle-labs.com/">platform from Chronicle Labs </a>specializes in staging it and testing it with a collection of use tests and regression cases. The tools are also helpful during development cycles. “Backtest your agent against reality,” their sales material promises, with a set of tools that mines the production telemetry for solid test vectors that stress every part of the agent with prompts and challenges that the agent will encounter after leaving the safety of the lab.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Pricing:</em> On <a href="https://chronicle-labs.com/book-call">request</a></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Standout feature:</em> Back-testing options for complex testing regimes</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Best for:</em> Teams chasing strong models with good fidelity to reality</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Comet Opik</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Building a dashboard for tracking every in-flow and out-flow to agents is one way to be ready to watch for and solve problems. <a href="https://www.comet.com/site/products/opik/">Opik from Comet </a>is just such a tool. The DevOps teams can track each call and add its own automated routines to examine the results, score them based on 30-plus metrics, and if desired, send it off to another LLM to evaluate the results. Agents that are constantly failing stand out. DevOps teams can also ask questions like, “Who is using this model and racking up all of the bills?” The same goes for MCP skills and other cogs in the machine.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Pricing:</em> Free tiers for open source and small projects; <a href="https://www.comet.com/site/pricing/">Pro plan</a> starts at $19 per month with usage limits</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Standout feature:</em> Auto-scoring with 30-plus metrics for evaluating traces</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Best for:</em> Teams focusing on RAG and agentic workflows</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Datadog</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">DevOps teams that rely on <a href="https://www.datadoghq.com/">Datadog</a> to track logs across collections of services can also use it to track LLM operations, which are, of course, just another source and sink for data. It will track performance such as time to first token and offer insight into what might be causing an issue, such as lack of memory. Results then get plugged into the same cost-tracking mechanism so the bean counters can predict when the budget will run out. After all, the CFO likely doesn’t care whether the bill comes from an LLM or an old-school S3 storage bucket. Datadog integrates AI into their tools by treating these models as just another source of data.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Pricing:</em> Small free tier with <a href="https://www.datadoghq.com/pricing/">multiple paid tiers</a> for various levels of enterprise monitoring</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Standout feature:</em> Large installed base with broad focus on more than LLMs</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Best for:</em> Large enterprise teams working with established infrastructure</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Dynatrace</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For more than 20 years, <a href="https://www.dynatrace.com/">Dynatrace</a> has been delivering tools that track dataflows across the full stack. Now that AIs are finding roles in many of the nodes in this complex graph, they’re expanding to track how various AI agents can interact. They want to build one platform that helps track the root cause and, often now, deploy solutions autonomously. They want to focus on being ready to support complex networks of agents that detect problems in either performance or security and then work within defined guardrails to fix them. Determining the right role for their own AI-powered agents is a key part of the product.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Pricing:</em> <a href="https://www.dynatrace.com/pricing/">Plans</a> start at $7 per month with larger plans designed for full enterprise monitoring</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Standout feature:</em> High level of autonomous monitoring designed for large installations</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Best for: </em>Complex, hybrid environments mixing LLMs with traditional services</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Galileo</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Placing some AI systems into production is often a harrowing experience because the actual performance is impossible to predict, even with the most rigorous tests. <a href="https://galileo.ai/">Galileo</a> offers guardrails that track performance and watch for any behavior that deviates from the ground truth. Their “LLM-as-judge” systems are distilled into compact models that can be run locally for lower costs and faster performance.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Pricing:</em> Small free tier; Pro plans start at $50 per month with usage-based limits and costs</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Standout feature: </em>Real-time guardrails for deployed agents</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Best for:</em> Security-conscious installations that need to defend against hallucination and data leakage</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Grafana Labs</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Long the go-to source for<a href="https://grafana.com/oss/"> open source </a>telemetry, <a href="https://grafana.com/products/cloud/ai-assistant/?pg=hp&amp;plcmt=txt-img-alternating">Grafana Labs</a> now tracks performance of AI models in constellations of services. Grafana tracks the evolution of answers across the agentic network to recognize how small changes or hallucinations can spin out of control. It bills its system as “actually useful AI” and has even trademarked it. Its cloud assistant can configure and reconfigure the Grafana dash to offer the right level of observability. Its system includes AI-level analysis that can flag models that are responding quickly but offering bad answers because of problems such as model drift or context degradation.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Pricing:</em> Basic free tier; <a href="https://grafana.com/pricing/">Pro plan</a> begins at $19 per month, includes better retention and some usage-based fees </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Standout feature: </em>Full-stack tool with fully integrated LLM tools</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Best for:</em> Large, enterprise-scale system adding AI</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Helicone</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Sometimes shoehorning in another tool into the chain can be tricky. <a href="https://www.helicone.ai/">Helicone</a> is designed as a smart network proxy that will route all model requests while keeping solid debugging records from the data as it goes by. The data it captures can be turned into nice charts that make it easy to spot latency issues or model failures. Naturally, tracking AI spend is also a feature in much demand as bills continue to climb.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Pricing:</em> Small free tier; <a href="https://www.helicone.ai/pricing">Pro plan</a> starts at $79 per month, includes features such as team collaboration and improved querying</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Standout feature:</em> Proxy-based integration</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Best for:</em> Development teams who want to add better monitoring features quickly</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Laminar</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Tracking agents in development and production means building strong storehouses of data enumerating what happened. <a href="https://laminar.sh/">Laminar</a> works closely with OpenTelemetry to follow agents operating in production so that flaws and failure modes can be understood from log files stored efficiently with their own compression scheme. Developers can search through traces with an SQL-ish language and Laminar’s transcript view illuminates what happened. When necessary, the traces can enable developers to scroll back in time and replay the same inputs for debugging. The goal is to offer deep insights with high-level visibility of how well the agents are meeting business objectives.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Pricing:</em> Small free tier; “Hobby” tier that adds more features at $30; <a href="https://laminar.sh/pricing">Pro level</a> starts at $150 per month</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Standout feature:</em> Open-source license makes self-hosting a viable option</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Best for:</em> Teams fully able to leverage open-source responsibilities</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">LangChain LangSmith</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Real-time data from agents is essential for managing any mutli-agent system in production. LangSmith from <a href="https://www.langchain.com/">LangChain</a> traces costs, tools, and progress toward solutions for a wide collection of agents using SDKs for Python, TypeScript, Go, and Java. The OpenTelemetry-based solution watches for anomalies, issuing warnings and alerts through dashboards and communication channels such as PagerDuty. Deeper analysis can reveal issues such as topic clustering or odd patterns of failure. Coordination with agent deployment platforms such as LangGraph and deepagents ensures greater focus on successful resolution of assignments.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Pricing:</em> Free for solo developers; <a href="https://www.langchain.com/pricing">Pro teams</a> start at $39 per person per month </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Standout feature:</em> Systematic approach to regression testing of prompts</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Best for:</em> Teams relying on LangChain and LangGraph frameworks for supporting complex agentic behavior</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Lunary</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Watching the user experience is essential for building AI applications such as chatbots and assistants. <a href="https://lunary.ai/">Lunary</a> offers a proxy that traces all interactions and then builds analytical dashboards for measuring metrics such as user satisfaction or model costs. One common usage is finding frequent topics and looking at the responses to ensure they deliver. When prompts aren’t perfect, Lunary lets teams iterate on the prompt text until the right answers are coming out. Its proxy structure and common API format enables Lunary to promise to work with “any LLM, any framework.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Pricing:</em> Free tier; <a href="https://lunary.ai/pricing">Pro plan</a> starts at $20 per month</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Standout feature:</em> Deep integration with humans for reviewing and optimizing results</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Best for:</em> Startups focused on rapid prompt innovation</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">NewRelic</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The platform that began tracking performance of some web applications is now powerful enough to track the flows of data through complex agentic ecologies. <a href="https://newrelic.com/platform/ai-observability">NewRelic’s</a> AI-driven monitoring watches for golden signals that can indicate misbehavior or worse throughout the entire lifecycle. It tracks every detail of the interactions through protocols such as MCP and then makes this available to the AI engineers responsible for performance. The dashboard provides the insights necessary to watch for toxic behavior, overt bias, drift, and overblown hallucinations. Predicting and maybe even controlling the cost is also a growing role as tokenomics becomes as important as response time.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Pricing:</em> Free tier; Pro plan fees available through website</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Standout feature: </em>Full-stack support with hundreds of integrations with other tools</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Best for:</em> Established enterprise teams mixing in AI</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Nova AI Ops</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The goal of <a href="https://novaaiops.com/">Nova AI Ops </a>is to deliver a team of agents that watch over a cloud and make it, at least partially, self-healing. Each agent uses a mixture of predictive AI and machine learning to watch cloud telemetry reports for anomalies. Then they calculate the “blast radius” and decide whether this is a problem that can be fixed automatically “while you sleep” or saved for the human supervisors. These tools are aimed not just on LLM operations but on the stack as a whole.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Pricing:</em> Small free tier; <a href="https://novaaiops.com/pricing">Standard pricing </a> begins at $40 per user per month with usage billing</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Standout feature:</em> Focus on software reliability engineering helps teams deliver stable stacks</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Best for:</em> Teams that want to integrate LLMs into incident response and stability management</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Splunk</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The platform that began delivering smart logging is now fully AI capable, offering solutions that can watch over agents with much the same way that it continues to track microservices. <a href="https://www.splunk.com/en_us/solutions/splunk-artificial-intelligence.html">Splunk</a> now includes a fairly large amount of predictive AI for learning from the information in the logs and then turning this learning into fast solutions. This AI assistant can track deployed AI models connected by protocols such as MCP and watch over behavior while delivering the ability for users to drill down and explore what’s working and what’s failing. Their AI Canvas is meant to offer a central hub where the AI scientists can track both the local behavior of the models as well as their role in a larger data ecosystem.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Pricing:</em> <a href="https://www.splunk.com/en_us/resources/splunk-pricing-options.html">Activity-based pricing</a> tracks usage of LLM backends and storage</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Standout feature:</em> Ready to scale to large enterprise stacks</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Best for:</em> Teams with legacy systems that are folding in agentic options</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">SuperPenguin</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">One of the most important parts of an AI service is the bill. <a href="https://superpenguin.ai/#features">SuperPenguin</a> is a product designed to track consumption and make predictions so that the CFO won’t be surprised. The goal is to provide solid estimates about the total cost of each product by allocating costs to customers, features, and teams. If there’s a sudden shift, a “spike detector” will raise an alarm so that dev teams can ensure that the AI spend is worth it.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Pricing:</em> Small free tier for experimentation; Growth tier for teams, starting at $30 per month; <a href="https://superpenguin.ai/#pricing">Pro tier </a>offers deeper options starting at $200 per month</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Standout feature: </em>Strong accounting with invoice reconciliation and PR-level usage tracking</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Best for:</em> Teams that need precise cost accounting</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Vellum</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Prompt engineers spend time fussing over the details of tweaking, improving, and enhancing the words that guide the LLM. <a href="https://www.vellum.ai/">Vellum</a> started as a company that would provide the pipeline so that you could manage and improve the prompts that ran again and again. Now the system is growing more powerful, offering a higher level of automation that lets you meta-manage the prompt chain. They’ve also begun marketing it as a form of personal assistant with pre-built connections to many of the major services such as Gmail. Its <a href="https://github.com/vellum-ai/llm-cost-optimizer">llm-cost-optimizer </a>can juggle multiple options while finding a cheaper way to execute a prompt, a process the company suggests can save 60% or more.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Pricing:</em> Open-source free tier; Pro plan starts at $35 per month</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Standout feature:</em> Focus on multi-model pipelines for true agentic solutions</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Best for:</em> Product teams with complex prompt engineering workflows</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[New agentic compute patterns]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[For a decade, Kubernetes was the right answer. It organized containers, scaled services horizontally and gave platform teams a shared vocabulary for running software in production. It abstracted away enough of the underlying complexity that engineers could stop thinking about servers and start th...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3672922/ai-nachrichten/new-agentic-compute-patterns/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3672922/ai-nachrichten/new-agentic-compute-patterns/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 11:19:03 +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">For a decade, Kubernetes was the right answer. It organized containers, scaled services horizontally and gave platform teams a shared vocabulary for running software in production. It abstracted away enough of the underlying complexity that engineers could stop thinking about servers and start thinking about services. Most cloud-native infrastructure today is built on top of it, directly or in spirit, and EKS made that model the default for the majority of enterprise teams running workloads on AWS.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The workload that defined that era was the stateless HTTP request, fast in, fast out, disposable. A user action triggers a request, the request hits a service, the service returns a response and the container is done. Kubernetes was optimized for that pattern down to the scheduler internals: Bin-pack containers onto nodes, autoscale on CPU and memory, evict and reschedule when something goes wrong. The whole system is tuned around the assumption that individual units of work are short, stateless and interchangeable.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That assumption no longer holds for the workloads that matter most right now.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The agent workload is structurally different</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Agents are long-running, stateful processes. They reason across time, call external tools, spawn subprocesses, write and execute code, and make decisions that depend on what happened five steps earlier in the same task. A single-agent workflow might run for minutes or hours, touching a dozen external systems and generating intermediate outputs that subsequent steps depend on. The compute layer for that kind of work needs to do things the old model was never asked to do. That is the new pattern: Execution infrastructure designed around agent semantics rather than request semantics.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The Kubernetes community itself has acknowledged this mismatch. In March 2026, Kubernetes SIG Apps published an<a href="https://url.usb.m.mimecastprotect.com/s/U22qCA8LmLh7yY0jIGfGfGdvGo?domain=kubernetes.io/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"> introduction to Agent Sandbox</a>, a new CRD-based abstraction designed specifically for singleton, stateful agent workloads. The framing is direct: The ecosystem is moving from short-lived, isolated tasks to deploying multiple, coordinated AI agents that run continuously, and mapping those workloads to traditional Kubernetes primitives requires an entirely new abstraction. The fact that the Kubernetes maintainers built a dedicated primitive for this, rather than recommending teams compose one from existing resources, is itself the clearest signal that agent execution does not fit the old model.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What agent execution actually requires</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Concretely, it requires four things. First, isolated execution environments that provision in milliseconds, not minutes, so each agent task gets its own sandbox for code execution and tool calls without blocking the reasoning loop. The difference between a two-second environment and a two-minute environment is not a performance optimization; it determines whether the architecture is viable at all. Second, durable state management across the full task lifecycle, so an agent can pause, hand off or resume without re-initializing from scratch and burning tokens to reconstruct context it already built. Third, coordination primitives for multi-agent work: The ability to spawn subagents, pass structured outputs between them and track task dependencies across a graph of concurrent processes. Production agent systems are rarely single agents; they are pipelines of specialized agents with handoffs that need to be reliable and inspectable. Fourth, credentials and secrets management that travel with the execution context, so agents can authenticate to external services securely without exposing credentials in the task definition, logs or the environment variables of a shared container.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The mismatch shows up fast in production</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Kubernetes and EKS expose the mismatch quickly in practice. Pod eviction terminates an agent mid-task with no clean recovery path. Autoscaling reads CPU utilization as the load signal, but an agent holding a long inference connection looks idle to the scheduler even when it is doing the most consequential work in the pipeline. Provisioning a new environment takes 45 seconds to two minutes on a well-tuned cluster; agent workloads need that in under two seconds or the reasoning loop stalls and the user experience degrades visibly. These are not edge cases or misconfigurations. They are the normal operating conditions for production agent workloads running on infrastructure that was not designed for them.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The utilization data makes the broader cost picture even starker. The<a href="https://url.usb.m.mimecastprotect.com/s/zk-6CB1MnMHEQoqvI6hNf2eRQz?domain=cast.ai/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"> 2026 State of Kubernetes Optimization Report</a> from CAST AI, drawn from analysis of over 23,000 production clusters across AWS, Azure and GCP, found average CPU utilization at 8 percent, down from 10 percent the year prior. Memory utilization fell from 23 to 20 percent. CPU overprovisioning jumped from 40 to 69 percent year over year. These numbers reflect clusters running traditional workloads, and the pattern is worsening, not improving, as environments scale. Agent workloads compound this problem further. An agent holding an open inference connection or waiting on a tool call registers as idle to a scheduler that reads CPU and memory as the only meaningful load signals. The infrastructure responds to the wrong metric, overprovisioning capacity for demand it cannot measure, while the actual bottleneck, environment provisioning latency and state continuity, goes unaddressed.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Security is not the same problem it was before</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Agent workloads change the threat model at the infrastructure level. A compromised stateless service exposes a narrow surface defined by its API contracts. A compromised agent exposes every system it can reach, every credential it holds and every action it is authorized to take on behalf of the user. Agents generate and execute their own code, make non-deterministic tool-call decisions and accumulate context across long-running sessions. Standard container namespacing does not contain that kind of risk. Kernel-level isolation, default-deny network egress, scoped credentials per session and agent-aware observability are not optional hardening steps. They are baseline requirements for running agents in production.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What teams that ship agents have already figured out</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Some of the clearest evidence for this shift comes not from infrastructure vendors but from product engineering teams running agents at scale on their own code. In late 2025, Ramp’s engineering team published a<a href="https://url.usb.m.mimecastprotect.com/s/Co8bCDwO0Ohg2PpXhAiRfjbcM8?domain=engineering.ramp.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"> detailed account of building Inspect</a>, their internal background coding agent. Each Inspect session runs in a sandboxed VM with a full-stack development environment and deep integrations across their observability, CI, and deployment tooling. The architecture requirements map almost exactly to the four primitives above. Filesystem snapshots keep sessions starting in seconds rather than minutes. Sessions are isolated and stateful. The agent can run tests, review telemetry, query feature flags and visually verify frontend changes in a real browser. And the whole system supports unlimited concurrency, so engineers can spin up ten parallel sessions exploring different approaches to the same problem without contention.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The results speak for themselves. Within months of launch, roughly 30 percent of all pull requests merged to Ramp’s frontend and backend repositories were written by Inspect. That level of adoption was not mandated. It happened because the execution environment was fast enough, capable enough and well-integrated enough that the agent was strictly better than a local workflow for a meaningful share of tasks. The key insight from the Ramp case is not about the model. It is about the execution layer. As their team put it, session speed should only be limited by model-provider time-to-first-token; everything else, like cloning and installing, needs to be done before the session starts. That is a statement about infrastructure, not intelligence.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The ecosystem is catching up, but defaults are sticky</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">None of that is a criticism of the tools. Kubernetes solved exactly the problem it was designed for, and it solved it well. The issue is that infrastructure defaults are sticky. Teams inherit them, build on top of them and optimize within their constraints long after the underlying workload has changed. The Kubernetes community’s own response, the<a href="https://url.usb.m.mimecastprotect.com/s/U22qCA8LmLh7yY0jIGfGfGdvGo?domain=kubernetes.io/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"> Agent Sandbox project under SIG Apps</a>, validates the thesis that a new abstraction is necessary. The new primitives the community is building include warm pools for near-zero cold starts, lifecycle management for suspending and resuming idle agents without losing state, and pluggable kernel isolation for secure execution of untrusted code. These are not incremental improvements to existing resources. They are net-new abstractions that acknowledge the old model does not stretch to fit.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But adoption of purpose-built agent infrastructure remains early. Enterprises building agent pipelines today are largely running a request-oriented orchestration model against an execution-oriented workload, and the mismatch shows up in task failure rates, runaway costs and debugging cycles that have no good tooling because the observability layer was also designed for stateless services.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The structural advantage is available now</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The infrastructure to close that gap exists now. The prerequisite is recognizing that agent execution is a first-class compute pattern with its own primitives and its own requirements, not a variant of the stateless service model that defined the last decade. Teams that make that shift early will have a meaningful structural advantage. The ones that do not will spend the next two years wondering why their agent systems are unreliable at a scale that should be tractable.</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[What the World Cup reveals about the operating models CIOs need next]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Every major sporting and pop culture event creates a familiar conversation among employers: How much productivity will be lost?



This year’s FIFA World Cup was no exception. Before the tournament began, UKG research found that 37% of employees globally planned to adjust their work schedules dur...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3672915/it-nachrichten/what-the-world-cup-reveals-about-the-operating-models-cios-need-next/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3672915/it-nachrichten/what-the-world-cup-reveals-about-the-operating-models-cios-need-next/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 11:18:11 +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">Every major sporting and pop culture event creates a familiar conversation among employers: How much productivity will be lost?</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This year’s FIFA World Cup was no exception. Before the tournament began, <a href="https://www.ukg.com/company/newsroom/world-cup-could-cost-employers-17-billion-lost-productivity-ukg-says">UKG research</a><a></a><a></a> found that 37% of employees globally planned to adjust their work schedules during the tournament. Some intended to take time off. Others expected to arrive late, leave early, or otherwise alter their work patterns. The estimated global productivity loss from presentism and absenteeism ranged from $17 billion (UKG) to an astonishing $30.2B (<a href="https://www.challengergray.com/blog/fifa-world-cup-2026-productivity-impact-analysis/">Challenger, Gray &amp; Christmas</a>).</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As tournament play began, viewership surged across broadcast and streaming platforms: FOX Sports <a href="https://www.foxsports.com/stories/presspass/fox-sports-opens-fifa-world-cup-2026-record-viewership">reported record audiences</a>, while Peacock and Telemundo viewership increased <a href="https://www.nbcsports.com/pressbox/press-releases/telemundo-and-peacock-kick-off-fifa-world-cup-with-record-breaking-viewership-across-opening-weekend?">more than 230% compared to the 2022 tournament through the first 12 matches</a>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Those numbers are interesting, but, as a CIO, I think they point to a more important question: Why do events like this still disrupt organizations in the first place?</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The World Cup is unique because it is one of the few workforce disruptions we can see coming years in advance, and the tournament game schedule is a blend of predictable (pool play) and unpredictable (knockout stage). We know employees will modify schedules. We know customer-demand patterns will shift. We know some industries will experience staffing challenges while others see increased activity.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">None of this is a surprise.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That is what makes the UKG survey results so interesting. They reveal a broader truth: Even when change is predictable, many organizations still struggle to prepare for it effectively.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The issue is rarely a lack of data. Most organizations have access to workforce, operational, financial and customer information. The challenge is that those signals often live in disconnected systems, making it difficult to translate information into action before problems emerge.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In my experience, this is where many operating models begin to break down.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Organizations need to optimize operations for adaptability</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For years, organizations optimized for efficiency, standardization and predictability. Those priorities helped businesses scale, but they also created processes that can struggle when conditions change. Increasingly, the ability to adapt is becoming just as important as the ability to execute efficiently.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Adaptability is often discussed in the context of unexpected events, but many operational challenges are highly predictable. Major sporting events, seasonal demand fluctuations, weather patterns, holiday periods and workforce trends all generate signals organizations can anticipate.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The question is not whether the information exists. The question is whether organizations can connect workforce, operational, financial and customer data in a way that allows leaders to act on those signals before they become problems.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is where technology leaders have an important role to play.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Access to real-time insights leads to agile decision making</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As CIOs, we are increasingly responsible for creating the conditions that allow organizations to sense changes, make decisions and respond quickly. That requires more than modern technology. It requires connected data, simplified processes and operating models designed to support faster decision making across the business.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When workforce planning, scheduling, labor costs, customer demand and operational performance exist in separate systems, organizations spend their time reconciling information. When those signals are connected, they can spend their time making decisions.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is also where AI has the potential to create significant value. Much of today’s conversation focuses on productivity gains, but I believe the larger opportunity is responsiveness.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Organizations generate millions of operational signals every day. AI can help process those signals, identify patterns, surface risks and recommend actions faster than traditional approaches. The value is not simply producing more insights. The value is helping organizations shorten the distance between awareness and action.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When AI is combined with connected data and embedded into operational workflows, it can help leaders respond to changing conditions with greater speed and confidence. That is ultimately what organizations need: not perfect predictions, but the ability to make better decisions faster.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Three questions to ask right now to test operational effectiveness</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For CIOs, the World Cup offers an interesting stress test. It creates a visible, measurable change in workforce behavior, but the lessons extend far beyond a sporting event. I think there are three questions every technology leader should consider:</p>



<ol class="wp-block-list">
<li>Can we identify operational changes as they happen, or only after they appear in reports?</li>



<li>Can our teams make decisions quickly when conditions change?</li>



<li>Are our systems helping employees adapt, or creating additional complexity when flexibility is required?</li>
</ol>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The answers often reveal more about organizational readiness than any technology roadmap.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Operational excellence means moving from information to action</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Eventually, the tournament will end. The broader challenge it exposes will remain. Workforce expectations will continue to evolve. Economic conditions will continue to change. New technologies will continue to reshape how organizations operate.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Organizations cannot predict every disruption. But they should be able to prepare for the ones they can see coming.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The World Cup is a reminder that operational excellence is not just about responding to change. It is about recognizing signals early, connecting information across the business, and acting before predictable challenges become operational problems.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In my experience, the companies that do this well are not necessarily the ones with the most detailed plans. They are the ones with the clearest visibility, the simplest operating models and the ability to turn information into action quickly. Increasingly, that is what modern operational excellence looks like.</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[Cyberattack threatens utterly critical infrastructure in Japan: KFC]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[The Colonel stops taking online orders and may close stores after logistics partner’s systems go down This article has been indexed from www.theregister.com – Articles Read the original article: Cyberattack threatens utterly critical infrastructure in Japan: KFC
Read more →
The post Cyberattack t...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3672197/it-security-nachrichten/cyberattack-threatens-utterly-critical-infrastructure-in-japan-kfc/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3672197/it-security-nachrichten/cyberattack-threatens-utterly-critical-infrastructure-in-japan-kfc/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 04:22:43 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Colonel stops taking online orders and may close stores after logistics partner’s systems go down This article has been indexed from www.theregister.com – Articles Read the original article: Cyberattack threatens utterly critical infrastructure in Japan: KFC</p>
<p class="more-link-p"><a class="more-link" href="https://www.itsecuritynews.info/cyberattack-threatens-utterly-critical-infrastructure-in-japan-kfc/">Read more →</a></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.itsecuritynews.info/cyberattack-threatens-utterly-critical-infrastructure-in-japan-kfc/">Cyberattack threatens utterly critical infrastructure in Japan: KFC</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.itsecuritynews.info/">IT Security News</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Cyberattack threatens utterly critical infrastructure in Japan: KFC]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[The Colonel stops taking online orders and may close stores after logistics partner’s systems go down]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3672188/it-security-nachrichten/cyberattack-threatens-utterly-critical-infrastructure-in-japan-kfc/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3672188/it-security-nachrichten/cyberattack-threatens-utterly-critical-infrastructure-in-japan-kfc/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 04:07:12 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[The Colonel stops taking online orders and may close stores after logistics partner’s systems go down]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Did AI decide who lost their jobs? Meta is heading to court over that question]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Enterprises that use AI in hiring and firing decisions continue to be under scrutiny, and this time it’s Meta under the microscope.



A legal complaint filed on July 13 in a US District Court in California alleges that Meta used AI systems that unfairly and illegally selected workers for termina...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3672187/ai-nachrichten/did-ai-decide-who-lost-their-jobs-meta-is-heading-to-court-over-that-question/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3672187/ai-nachrichten/did-ai-decide-who-lost-their-jobs-meta-is-heading-to-court-over-that-question/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 04:02:55 +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">Enterprises that use AI in hiring and firing decisions continue to be under scrutiny, and this time it’s Meta under the microscope.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.1.0.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">legal complaint</a> filed on July 13 in a US District Court in California alleges that Meta used AI systems that unfairly and illegally selected workers for termination while they were out on protected leave.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">More than two dozen anonymous plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary injunction that would prevent the company from finalizing their separations or altering their compensation, benefits, or protected leave status.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Meta has countered that the claims lack merit and that its workforce decisions were, and continue to be, made by people, not AI.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">An important lesson</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">These allegations should serve as an important lesson to other businesses using AI in their HR decision-making, analysts note.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Enterprises must begin by rejecting the convenient assumption that AI improves workforce decisions simply by touching them,” said <a href="https://greyhoundresearch.com/svg/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Sanchit Vir Gogia</a>, chief analyst at Greyhound Research.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There is “scant independent proof” that AI makes layoff choices more accurate or more lawful, he said. “It makes them faster, and faster has never been shown to be fairer.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The claims against Meta</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The complaint states that, on May 20, 2026, Meta began notifying roughly 10% of its workforce (around 8,000 employees) that they had been selected for termination. The company also announced that several thousand more would be reassigned to new AI initiatives. But this came even as Meta reported record revenues in <a href="https://s21.q4cdn.com/399680738/files/doc_financials/2026/q1/Meta-03-31-2026-Exhibit-99-1_final.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Q1 2026</a> ($56.31 billion, a 33% year-over-year increase), and pledged to spend <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4191940/what-meta-oracle-moves-say-about-data-center-economics.html" target="_blank">upwards of $100 billion</a> on AI this year.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In addition to questioning the need for staff cuts, the filing alleges that Meta used a “constellation” of internal AI systems to score, rank, and select employees for termination. These tools included Meta’s internal AI coworker, “Metamate,” employee-trained “second-brain” agents that replicated their output, algorithms tracking keystrokes and other digital activity, and <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4195756/from-story-points-to-tokenmaxxing-why-engineering-keeps-measuring-the-wrong-things.html" target="_blank">AI token usage</a> dashboards.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Meta did not assemble the termination list through the considered judgment of managers who knew the work,” the complaint claims.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The 26 plaintiffs, all current or former employees, requested, took, or were approved for “statutorily protected” leave within 24 months of the workforce reduction, and claim they were “disproportionately selected” for layoff based on scoring that essentially penalized them for exercising their legal right to take leave.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">These practices are prohibited by federal and state law; The US Family and Medical Leave Act, for one, prohibits the use of protected leave as a “negative factor” in employment decisions. Further, the plaintiffs allege that Meta violated the <a href="https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/layoffs/warn" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">US Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act</a> that requires employers with 100 or more employees to provide written notice 60 calendar days in advance of mass layoffs.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This notice gives employees reasonable time to seek alternate employment; however, the complaint argues, an employee undergoing “significant medical treatment” or providing “around the clock care” for a “weeks old newborn” or other loved ones “cannot also be told that during this exact same time period they must look for new work.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In one scenario, according to the filing, a scientist was identified for termination just two days before she gave birth while on pregnancy leave. In another, an engineer’s manager tied his performance rating to “broken time” when an injury prevented him from working. In a third, a researcher was called out after requesting time off following a medical diagnosis.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary injunction pending an independent audit of the “algorithmically assisted selection process” and “resolution of the merits of their claims” in arbitration.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Once terminations are finalized, the harm to plaintiffs “cannot be undone by money damages alone,” the complaint states. For employees out on leave, “every day that goes by constitutes additional harm, in that Meta is taking away the entire purpose of a protected leave.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Considerations for enterprises</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Any system that materially influences who keeps a job is not an HR tool, Gogia noted. “It is high-risk enterprise infrastructure.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">An “AI-determined” process delegates the outcome to the system, while an “AI-assisted” one gives the system the ability to rank, recommend, and summarize, with a human formally making the final decision. Exposure arises in either model, Gogia pointed out, because the output has often been compressed and eliminates detail by the time of executive approval.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There must be one non-negotiable role in the process, Gogia said: A single executive with the authority to halt the process, suspend the model, and delay decisions when evidence does not hold. This person should be “a meaningful reviewer [who] understands the model’s limits, knows the actual work, and holds the authority to challenge the recommendation, with every override visible and reviewable,” he said. At the same time, the objective is to “govern the machine and the manager together,” since human judgement brings its own “risks, favoritism, and proximity” bias.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Gogia advised enterprises to retain fixed memory for auditing, determine who chose the auditor, what was excluded, and whether the result can be reproduced. They should also inventory every source feeding the model and its origins, and run adverse-impact analysis before making any firing decisions.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Leave details must never be identified as inactivity or weak adoption; a protected absence is not ordinary missing data, and the system has to be informed of this. Rather, these circumstances belong in an “independent review lane,” where human reviewers get enough context to “neutralize” the period without receiving specific leave details, Gogia said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">He pointed to another important question: What should the “second brain” AI agent that ingested the employee’s communications and documents to replicate the employee’s output be allowed to do when humans are away, and who owns that output?</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Ultimately, said Gogia, “the safest position is not to ban AI from workforce planning. Used with discipline, it can expose duplicated work and inconsistent assessment, and it can challenge human bias rather than automate it.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">How employees can protect their rights</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Employees, for their part, need a genuine window in which to challenge inaccurate data before separation becomes “irreversible,” and they should “fight the record, not the algorithm,” Gogia advised.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That means that, while the model cannot explain itself, documented evidence can. Employees should lawfully retain their own reviews, leave approvals, and severance documents, and build a chronology of events: When leave was requested, when performance language changed, when new metrics appeared, Gogia said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Impacted workers should ask in writing which criteria were used in the decision, whether automated systems materially influenced it, how protected leave was treated, and what information about them influenced the result and how that information was verified.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Further, it’s important to take note of deadlines; the federal discrimination window is typically six months, although that is extended to 10 in many places, and internal processes are “not obliged to respect it,” said Gogia.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">His ultimate advice for workers: “Preserve the lawful record, and protect the deadline.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>This article originally appeared on <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4197528/did-ai-decide-who-lost-their-jobs-meta-is-heading-to-court-over-that-question.html" target="_blank">CIO.com</a>.</em></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Did AI decide who lost their jobs? Meta is heading to court over that question]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Enterprises that use AI in hiring and firing decisions continue to be under scrutiny, and this time it’s Meta under the microscope.



A legal complaint filed on July 13 in a US District Court in California alleges that Meta used AI systems that unfairly and illegally selected workers for termina...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3672179/it-nachrichten/did-ai-decide-who-lost-their-jobs-meta-is-heading-to-court-over-that-question/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3672179/it-nachrichten/did-ai-decide-who-lost-their-jobs-meta-is-heading-to-court-over-that-question/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 03:47:14 +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">Enterprises that use AI in hiring and firing decisions continue to be under scrutiny, and this time it’s Meta under the microscope.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.1.0.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">legal complaint</a> filed on July 13 in a US District Court in California alleges that Meta used AI systems that unfairly and illegally selected workers for termination while they were out on protected leave.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">More than two dozen anonymous plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary injunction that would prevent the company from finalizing their separations or altering their compensation, benefits, or protected leave status.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Meta has countered that the claims lack merit and that its workforce decisions were, and continue to be, made by people, not AI.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">An important lesson</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">These allegations should serve as an important lesson to other businesses using AI in their HR decision-making, analysts note.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Enterprises must begin by rejecting the convenient assumption that AI improves workforce decisions simply by touching them,” said <a href="https://greyhoundresearch.com/svg/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Sanchit Vir Gogia</a>, chief analyst at Greyhound Research.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There is “scant independent proof” that AI makes layoff choices more accurate or more lawful, he said. “It makes them faster, and faster has never been shown to be fairer.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The claims against Meta</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The complaint states that, on May 20, 2026, Meta began notifying roughly 10% of its workforce (around 8,000 employees) that they had been selected for termination. The company also announced that several thousand more would be reassigned to new AI initiatives. But this came even as Meta reported record revenues in <a href="https://s21.q4cdn.com/399680738/files/doc_financials/2026/q1/Meta-03-31-2026-Exhibit-99-1_final.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Q1 2026</a> ($56.31 billion, a 33% year-over-year increase), and pledged to spend <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4191940/what-meta-oracle-moves-say-about-data-center-economics.html" target="_blank">upwards of $100 billion</a> on AI this year.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In addition to questioning the need for staff cuts, the filing alleges that Meta used a “constellation” of internal AI systems to score, rank, and select employees for termination. These tools included Meta’s internal AI coworker, “Metamate,” employee-trained “second-brain” agents that replicated their output, algorithms tracking keystrokes and other digital activity, and <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4195756/from-story-points-to-tokenmaxxing-why-engineering-keeps-measuring-the-wrong-things.html" target="_blank">AI token usage</a> dashboards.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Meta did not assemble the termination list through the considered judgment of managers who knew the work,” the complaint claims.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The 26 plaintiffs, all current or former employees, requested, took, or were approved for “statutorily protected” leave within 24 months of the workforce reduction, and claim they were “disproportionately selected” for layoff based on scoring that essentially penalized them for exercising their legal right to take leave.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">These practices are prohibited by federal and state law; The US Family and Medical Leave Act, for one, prohibits the use of protected leave as a “negative factor” in employment decisions. Further, the plaintiffs allege that Meta violated the <a href="https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/layoffs/warn" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">US Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act</a> that requires employers with 100 or more employees to provide written notice 60 calendar days in advance of mass layoffs.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This notice gives employees reasonable time to seek alternate employment; however, the complaint argues, an employee undergoing “significant medical treatment” or providing “around the clock care” for a “weeks old newborn” or other loved ones “cannot also be told that during this exact same time period they must look for new work.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In one scenario, according to the filing, a scientist was identified for termination just two days before she gave birth while on pregnancy leave. In another, an engineer’s manager tied his performance rating to “broken time” when an injury prevented him from working. In a third, a researcher was called out after requesting time off following a medical diagnosis.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary injunction pending an independent audit of the “algorithmically assisted selection process” and “resolution of the merits of their claims” in arbitration.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Once terminations are finalized, the harm to plaintiffs “cannot be undone by money damages alone,” the complaint states. For employees out on leave, “every day that goes by constitutes additional harm, in that Meta is taking away the entire purpose of a protected leave.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Considerations for enterprises</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Any system that materially influences who keeps a job is not an HR tool, Gogia noted. “It is high-risk enterprise infrastructure.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">An “AI-determined” process delegates the outcome to the system, while an “AI-assisted” one gives the system the ability to rank, recommend, and summarize, with a human formally making the final decision. Exposure arises in either model, Gogia pointed out, because the output has often been compressed and eliminates detail by the time of executive approval.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There must be one non-negotiable role in the process, Gogia said: A single executive with the authority to halt the process, suspend the model, and delay decisions when evidence does not hold. This person should be “a meaningful reviewer [who] understands the model’s limits, knows the actual work, and holds the authority to challenge the recommendation, with every override visible and reviewable,” he said. At the same time, the objective is to “govern the machine and the manager together,” since human judgement brings its own “risks, favoritism, and proximity” bias.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Gogia advised enterprises to retain fixed memory for auditing, determine who chose the auditor, what was excluded, and whether the result can be reproduced. They should also inventory every source feeding the model and its origins, and run adverse-impact analysis before making any firing decisions.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Leave details must never be identified as inactivity or weak adoption; a protected absence is not ordinary missing data, and the system has to be informed of this. Rather, these circumstances belong in an “independent review lane,” where human reviewers get enough context to “neutralize” the period without receiving specific leave details, Gogia said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">He pointed to another important question: What should the “second brain” AI agent that ingested the employee’s communications and documents to replicate the employee’s output be allowed to do when humans are away, and who owns that output?</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Ultimately, said Gogia, “the safest position is not to ban AI from workforce planning. Used with discipline, it can expose duplicated work and inconsistent assessment, and it can challenge human bias rather than automate it.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">How employees can protect their rights</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Employees, for their part, need a genuine window in which to challenge inaccurate data before separation becomes “irreversible,” and they should “fight the record, not the algorithm,” Gogia advised.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That means that, while the model cannot explain itself, documented evidence can. Employees should lawfully retain their own reviews, leave approvals, and severance documents, and build a chronology of events: When leave was requested, when performance language changed, when new metrics appeared, Gogia said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Impacted workers should ask in writing which criteria were used in the decision, whether automated systems materially influenced it, how protected leave was treated, and what information about them influenced the result and how that information was verified.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Further, it’s important to take note of deadlines; the federal discrimination window is typically six months, although that is extended to 10 in many places, and internal processes are “not obliged to respect it,” said Gogia.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">His ultimate advice for workers: “Preserve the lawful record, and protect the deadline.”</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></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[‘My Life With the Walter Boys’ Season 3 Trailer, Poster and First Look Reveal]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Netflix has released a new poster, official trailer, and fresh first-look images for My Life With the Walter Boys Season 3 ahead of its August 2026 premiere.



The popular teen drama returns to Silver Falls on August 6, 2026. The new season will continue Jackie Howard’s complicated relationship ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3671522/ios-mac-os/my-life-with-the-walter-boys-season-3-trailer-poster-and-first-look-reveal/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3671522/ios-mac-os/my-life-with-the-walter-boys-season-3-trailer-poster-and-first-look-reveal/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 19:40:11 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🍏 iOS / Mac OS</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Netflix has released a new poster, official trailer, and fresh first-look images for My Life With the Walter Boys Season 3 ahead of its August 2026 premiere.



The popular teen drama returns to Silver Falls on August 6, 2026. The new season will continue Jackie Howard’s complicated relationship with brothers Cole and Alex while the Walter family deals with the medical emergency that ended Season 2.




Release date: August 6, 2026



Streaming platform: Netflix



Genre: Teen drama and romance



Number of episodes: 10



Main cast: Nikki Rodriguez, Noah LaLonde, Ashby Gentry, Sarah Rafferty, Marc Blucas, Connor Stanhope, and Jaylan Evans



New cast members: Chad Rook, Naveen Paddock, and Erin Karpluk




Netflix has also renewed the show for Season 4, which is expected to arrive sometime in 2027.



The trailer returns to the Season 2 cliffhanger




https://youtu.be/_nneiDtbdbk?si=p3PcR6heHbMZRqb1




Spoilers ahead for the Season 2 finale.



Season 2 ended shortly after Jackie and Cole finally admitted that they loved each other. Alex overheard the confession, creating another painful moment between the brothers.



However, their romantic problems were interrupted when an ambulance arrived for George Walter following a serious health emergency. The Season 3 trailer confirms that George survives, although his condition will continue to affect the family during the new episodes.



The trailer shows Jackie struggling with guilt while trying to support the Walters. George encourages her to stop blaming herself and begin living her life again. Jackie must also decide what she truly wants instead of continuing to move between Alex and Cole.



Jackie, Cole, and Alex face the consequences







The new footage makes it clear that Jackie’s feelings for Cole have not disappeared. They exchange tense looks at school, spend time together at the Walter house, and continue trying to understand what their confession means.



At the same time, Alex appears to be focusing on his growing rodeo career. His success brings more attention, pressure, and confidence, which could change the balance between the three main characters. Cole also finds a new direction when he enters the world of car racing after losing the football future he once expected.



The brothers may begin repairing their damaged relationship as the family comes together around George. First-look images show Cole and Alex speaking to each other, although the situation involving Jackie remains difficult.



New characters arrive in Silver Falls



Chad Rook joins the cast as Mac, a drag racer who notices Cole’s natural ability behind the wheel. Naveen Paddock plays Eliot, Uncle Richard’s charming New York intern, whose arrival could remind Jackie of the life she left behind.



Erin Karpluk will appear as Hannah, George’s free-spirited sister and the mother of Isaac and Lee. Her unexpected return will force the family to revisit old conflicts and unanswered questions.



My Life With the Walter Boys Season 3 arrives on Netflix on August 6. Do you think Jackie will finally choose Cole or try to repair her relationship with Alex? Let us know in the comments.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[AI is paying off, but governance is lagging behind]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Enterprises are facing two simultaneous challenges with AI: The risks associated with it are evolving faster than governance frameworks, while the business benefits are often difficult to measure.



This is one of the key findings of The Value of AI, a study commissioned by SAP from Oxford Econo...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3671333/it-nachrichten/ai-is-paying-off-but-governance-is-lagging-behind/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3671333/it-nachrichten/ai-is-paying-off-but-governance-is-lagging-behind/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 18:33:43 +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">Enterprises are facing two simultaneous challenges with AI: The risks associated with it are evolving faster than governance frameworks, while the business benefits are often difficult to measure.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is one of the key findings of <a href="https://www.sap.com/documents/2026/07/92b94d7d-5a7f-0010-bca6-c68f7e60039b.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">The Value of AI</a>, a study commissioned by SAP from Oxford Economics. Now in its second year, the study surveyed 2,600 executives from 13 countries worldwide.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">High expectations, limited preparation</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">On average, the enterprises surveyed plan to spend around $28 million on AI (up from $26.7 million last year), and expect a 21% ROI (from 16% last year). Expectations for AI agents are particularly high, with ROI expected to reach 17% this year, up from 10% last year. Furthermore, 83% of respondents worldwide said agentic AI has the potential to fundamentally transform their organization. On the other hand, only 3% of respondents said their enterprises were fully prepared for the deployment of AI agents.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There are gaps, particularly when it comes to governance:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Only 12% of respondents said their skills or processes were able to govern AI effectively,</li>



<li>38% do not have human-in-the-loop processes in place for oversight of AI agents, and</li>



<li>only 63% have established permissions and access controls for agents.</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Other concerns include weaknesses in the organization of AI deployment, poor data quality, insufficient employee training, and the widespread use of shadow AI.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Governance is the bigger challenge</h2>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage right"><figure class="wp-block-image alignright size-large is-resized"> width="1024" height="576" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px"&gt;<figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Sean Kask, Chief AI Strategy Officer at SAP </figcaption></figure><p class="imageCredit">SAP</p></div>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In an interview, <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/seankask/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Sean Kask</a>, Chief AI Strategy Officer at SAP, commented on the study’s key findings.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Mr. Kask, in the study’s foreword, you write that companies are currently facing two challenges simultaneously: The risks associated with AI are evolving faster than governance, while the business benefits are often difficult to measure. Which of these poses the greater problem for companies?</em></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Sean Kask:</strong> Measuring the business value of IT investments has never been easy. The same applies to AI. That’s why I currently consider the governance issue to be the greater challenge. While traditional governance principles and best practices for secure software development remain important even in the age of large language models and agent-based AI, entirely new risks are emerging at the same time.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For example, as soon as companies roll out AI on a broad scale, they suddenly discover hundreds or even thousands of so-called shadow agents that employees are using without central oversight. Or they find that a significant portion of the workforce is copying content into private ChatGPT accounts. Such risks often only become apparent once AI is already being used productively.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>According to your study, German companies invest an average of nearly $40 million in AI, more than companies in all other countries surveyed. Why is that?</em></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Kask:</strong> I was less surprised by the amount of investment than by the fact that, overall, the level of investment and the return on investment achieved have developed very similarly across the various countries. There’s no clear answer as to why Germany invests more. In part, it’s likely simply because costs here are higher than in India, for example.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">However, we’re also seeing a high level of AI adoption among German companies. SAP has a dashboard that allows us to track how our customers are using AI features. Germany is among the countries with particularly high usage. Added to this are the strong industrial base and the political impetus from Europe, which are driving the use of AI. Accordingly, companies there are making targeted investments in building the necessary expertise.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>According to the study, 47% of German companies are satisfied with the return on investment from their AI investments. At the same time, 77% say they are still far from realizing AI’s full potential. Isn’t that a contradiction?</em></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Kask:</strong> No, we see this pattern worldwide. Companies initially invest in a few AI use cases and realize: This works; we’re creating added value. Accordingly, they’re satisfied with their investment.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But this is precisely what leads them to identify further use cases. They explore AI agents and want to utilize them as well. However, it is exactly at this point that many encounter new challenges in implementation and scaling.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The study therefore primarily highlights a learning curve: The more experience companies gain with AI, the greater their awareness of its previously untapped potential becomes.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>According to the study, only 33% of companies surveyed have KPIs at the executive board level that are directly linked to the implementation of AI. In your view, which metrics should supervisory boards and CEOs definitely be tracking?</em></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Kask:</strong> For us, a key indicator is employee enablement. How many employees have already successfully completed training or upskilling programs related to AI? Without the appropriate skills, AI adoption will fall short of its potential.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Transparency is equally important. Companies should know which AI agents are actually in use within their landscape. SAP offers the SAP AI Agent Hub for this purpose, which automatically discovers and inventories agents from SAP and third-party environments. Customers have already been able to identify thousands of agents this way, which highlights the need for centralized governance and transparency.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In addition, companies should have a complete overview of all AI use cases. A robust business case should be in place for each use case. We often see two extremes: Either the executive board is under pressure to implement AI as quickly as possible and allocates a lump-sum budget for this purpose. Or management initially takes a wait-and-see approach. This leads to independent pilot projects springing up throughout the company, with individual departments procuring their own tools and entering into their own contracts.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">At SAP, we therefore follow a clearly structured selection process. Each idea first undergoes an assessment of its expected business value. We then examine technical feasibility, data availability, and ethical and governance aspects. From management’s perspective, it is crucial to maintain transparency regarding all ongoing AI projects at all times and to consistently prioritize them based on their business value.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Agents, too, need a ‘hire-to-retire’ lifecycle</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Even with the introduction of dozens or even hundreds of AI agents, governance becomes increasingly complex. What capabilities do enterprise platforms need to manage AI agents securely and in a controlled manner at scale?</em></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Kask:</strong> We make a conscious effort not to anthropomorphize AI too much. Nevertheless, the analogy is helpful: Agents require a complete hire-to-retire lifecycle. This begins with the detection and registration of an agent. It is then integrated into the enterprise environment, granted the necessary permissions, and given access to the data sources it needs to perform its tasks.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Observability is just as important. Companies must be able to track what an agent is actually doing in the system at all times. In addition, they should track key performance indicators: Is the agent achieving the desired results? How efficiently is it working? How many tokens does it consume? How many processing steps does it require for a task?</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Ultimately, this involves several key components: a complete inventory of all agents, appropriate governance, risk, and compliance (GRC) mechanisms, transparency regarding agent behavior, and continuous monitoring. This is the only way to ensure that AI agents consistently operate within defined parameters and deliver the desired business value.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>In your estimation, which business processes will companies actually delegate entirely to AI agents over the next two to three years?</em></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Kask:</strong> Currently, such agents work particularly well in clearly defined use cases. SAP will release more than 50 (currently 34) specialized AI agents.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">One example is periodic financial reporting. In this context, journal entries must be made based on numerous rules stored in documents, emails, or previous transactions. The agent analyzes these various sources of information, derives a recommendation from them, and suggests the appropriate journal entry to the user.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Based on what we’ve heard from customer projects, employees at medium-sized companies currently spend about twelve hours per month on these tasks. With the help of an AI agent, this effort can be reduced to two to three hours.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Another area of application is production planning. If delivery dates change or new orders come in at short notice, the entire production plan must be adjusted. It is precisely these kinds of complex optimization tasks that are ideally suited for AI agents.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In principle, there are virtually no limits to the narrowly defined business processes in which agents can be deployed. However, they will not operate completely autonomously at first.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Trust in AI begins with a stable foundation</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Many companies still struggle to trust AI agents. After all, large language models operate probabilistically and can produce false information. This is particularly problematic in financial processes. How do you build trust?</em></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Kask:</strong> Trust begins with a stable foundation. ERP systems remain the reliable system of record. They operate deterministically, contain the business logic, and hold the relevant company data. AI agents build upon this foundation. They do not replace it.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Equally important is the human-in-the-loop principle. Employees must be able to understand what the agent is doing, verify its results, and intervene if necessary. That’s why employee training also plays a crucial role. They must understand how generative AI works and where its limitations lie.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Of course, language models can hallucinate. At the same time, we must not forget that humans are not infallible either. The key lies in the collaboration between humans and AI. This allows us to improve both the efficiency and the quality of many business processes.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Another important component is transparency. Our global AI ethics policy, for example, stipulates that users must always be able to recognize when AI is involved. In Joule, it’s possible to trace which data sources the agent used and which steps it went through in reaching its decision. This traceability is an essential prerequisite for trust.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>What distinguishes an SAP agent from a general AI agent that merely accesses an ERP system?</em></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Kask:</strong> The key difference is that Joule and the SAP agents are directly embedded in the ERP system. There, for example, we’ve built a knowledge graph that describes the semantic relationships between all tables, business objects, and data fields.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">To put this into perspective: The SAP S/4HANA Knowledge Graph is based on approximately 452,000 ABAP tables, 7.3 million data fields, and thousands of analytical views. The semantic relationships between these artifacts are modeled in the Knowledge Graph and made available for AI applications.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For example, if a user wants to view all open purchase orders, the agent does not first have to laboriously search for the relevant information. It immediately knows which tables and objects are relevant and also understands the relationships between a purchase order, a purchase requisition, the responsible approvers, and other business objects. As a result, the agent not only works much more precisely but also requires significantly fewer tokens because it can greatly narrow down the search space.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">If, instead, one attempts to simply overlay AI onto an existing system or extract data from a relational ERP system, many of these relationships are lost. In a sense, this destroys the semantic context that is crucial for precise answers.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That is why we view the ERP system as an enormous strategic advantage. It has been the system of record for decades and contains roughly 50 years of codified business and process knowledge. This knowledge forms the foundation for what we call the <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4170465/saps-biggest-ai-bet-yet-agents-that-execute-not-just-assist.html">autonomous enterprise</a>. The agents build upon this knowledge and continue to develop it.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In the future, SAP agents will also communicate bidirectionally with agents from other providers via standards such as Agent-to-Agent (A2A).</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>According to your study, AI currently creates the greatest added value in decision-making, customer interaction, and gaining new insights, rather than in traditional productivity gains. Will this change the way companies justify AI investments in the future?</em></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Kask:</strong> In our study, productivity was simply rated slightly lower than, for example, gaining new insights. In the long term, however, productivity remains the ultimate goal. Europe, in particular, has been suffering from comparatively weak productivity growth for years.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">At SAP, we therefore first evaluate every new AI feature based on its specific business value. For all agents and AI features that we include in our AI Feature Catalog, we first conduct a value analysis. We ask: What benefit does the feature offer the user? Does it contribute to higher revenue? Does it increase productivity? Only then is it developed further.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">At the moment, the greatest added value often still lies in consolidating information from structured and unstructured data sources and making it accessible via natural language. The next step, however, is to translate these insights directly into more efficient business processes. That is precisely where the greatest productivity gains will be realized in the future.</p>



<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-style-plain is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>If you could give CIOs just one or two pieces of advice for the transition from generative AI to AI agents, what would they be?</em></p>
</blockquote>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Kask:</strong> In my view, the biggest mistake would be to try to transform the entire company all at once or to attempt to perfectly prepare all the data right from the start.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Instead, you should consider what kind of agent can create significant added value, and then implement it. Of course, this agent needs access to consistent and context-rich enterprise data. That’s exactly what we’re working on at SAP with technologies like the knowledge graph, which maps the semantic relationships within enterprise data.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In addition, with data products and the SAP Business Data Cloud, we provide tools that make data from various sources usable for AI agents. Thanks to zero-copy and data fabric approaches, information from legacy systems, Snowflake, or ERP systems can be consolidated without first having to extensively replicate the data. For a procurement agent, this makes it possible to provide exactly the relevant data for the specific use case.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The key point is this: Companies do not have to wait until they have fully migrated to the cloud or consolidated their entire data landscape. With the technologies available today, data can already be made usable for specific AI agents, managed in a controlled manner, and used to quickly generate initial business value. On the other hand, those who wait for the perfect starting point run the risk of falling behind.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>This article is adapted from one first published by Computerwoche.</em></p>



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity">



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a></a></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[From story points to tokenmaxxing: Why engineering keeps measuring the wrong things]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[For decades, software engineering has been plagued by “productivity theater.” Every few years, the industry aligns around a new vanity metric — usually one that latches onto whatever technology happens to be in vogue at the time. For a discipline rooted in creativity and problem-solving, this is ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3671158/ai-nachrichten/from-story-points-to-tokenmaxxing-why-engineering-keeps-measuring-the-wrong-things/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3671158/ai-nachrichten/from-story-points-to-tokenmaxxing-why-engineering-keeps-measuring-the-wrong-things/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 17:19:30 +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">For decades, software engineering has been plagued by “productivity theater.” Every few years, the industry aligns around a new vanity metric — usually one that latches onto whatever technology happens to be in vogue at the time. For a discipline rooted in creativity and problem-solving, this is a poor way to demonstrate progress. Yet, we find ourselves in this position once again. The pattern is often the same: reach for something we can easily count, and in doing so, lose sight of what we are actually trying to achieve.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Quantity over quality: the wrong measurement, every time</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I recall when I was coming up as a software engineer in the 1990s, a small number of companies took up the practice of paying their engineers by each line of code. This may have been productivity theater at its worst, leading to negative incentives, inefficient processes, and just generally bad engineering. Developers were rewarded for writing far more code than the problems they were facing required — classic “quantity over quality” — and the result was bloated, brittle codebases that were all but impossible to maintain. The goal — to create reliable software that solved real user problems — got buried under the incentive to produce.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Then in the 2000s, <a href="https://www.atlassian.com/agile/project-management/estimation" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.atlassian.com/agile/project-management/estimation">the rise of Agile brought us story points</a>, an abstract way to estimate task complexity, effort, and risk relative to other work. Rather than answering “How long will this take?,” story points were meant to answer, “How big is this compared to what we’ve done before?” This approach sounds good in theory, but in practice, some development teams learned to game the system by inflating estimates, over-engineering solutions to look productive, and losing sight of whether the work they produced actually created value. Once again, the metric became the goal, and the actual goal — delivering outcomes that mattered to the business — became secondary.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Every one of these metrics failed for the same reason: they measured effort instead of value.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Quantity in the age of AI</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Today, “<a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4183060/the-tokenmaxxing-backlash-is-coming.html">tokenmaxxing</a>,” a trend in which developers and teams optimize for <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4170173/tokenmaxxing-is-super-dumb.html" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4170173/tokenmaxxing-is-super-dumb.html">consuming as many AI model tokens as possible</a>, treats raw consumption as an equivalent for output. As I see it, this is the latest flawed productivity metric to make its way into the world of software engineering. Tokenmaxxing is nothing more than another vanity metric, and is just as useless as using “lines of code” or inflated “story points” as a benchmark.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Tokenmaxxing is the result of a few different behaviors, including:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Prompt flooding: stuffing massive codebases, documentation, and context into every prompt, burning tokens on context the model doesn’t actually need.</li>



<li>Agent swarms: running multiple AI agents in parallel to maximize code output, regardless of whether the work is coordinated or coherent.</li>



<li>Background loops: keeping AI sessions or agents running continuously in the background, racking up token spend without clear ownership of what is being produced — or why.</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><br>Now, it is no secret that AI is reshaping how software is developed, and these behaviors are the result of that reshaping. Providing AI with codebases, running multiple agents at once, and even relying on coding assistants for help all have their uses. But when we lose control of the changes we are making and why we are making them, we find ourselves facing a new version of the same old problem: measuring engineering productivity with the wrong metrics.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A more useful question to ask isn’t, “How many tokens did we spend?” but rather, “What problem did we actually solve, and for whom?”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Spending resources without goals</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yes, AI is giving software engineers the ability to do more with less, to move quickly, and to experiment in ways that were previously out of reach. But leaning on AI to <em>perform</em> productivity, rather than <em>deliver</em> it, is a trap that will cost us in code quality, team capability, and business credibility.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As a CTO, I am all for experimenting with AI. I want to use it to make our programs better, stronger, and future-proof. What I don’t want is for it to drive us toward excess while leaving us with little to show for it.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The test I keep coming back to is simple: does this AI-generated output help us ship something that matters? Does it reduce friction for a user, close a gap in a workflow, or improve reliability for a customer? If the answer isn’t clear, then we are spending resources — both human and computational — without a defined goal. And that is not engineering. That is activity.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Spec-driven development: where value gets defined</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It is time to adopt newer approaches like <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4166817/vibe-coding-or-spec-driven-development-how-to-choose.html" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4166817/vibe-coding-or-spec-driven-development-how-to-choose.html">spec-driven development</a>, a method where engineers write detailed specifications first and AI generates code against them. Rather than relying on prompt flooding and agent swarms and hoping AI produces the best result, we need to shift toward defining requirements, reviewing AI-generated output, and orchestrating systems with intent.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But spec-driven development is <a href="https://www.augmentcode.com/guides/what-is-spec-driven-development" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.augmentcode.com/guides/what-is-spec-driven-development">more than a methodology</a>. It is the place where engineering intent and business value get defined together. The spec is where you answer, “Why does this matter, and what problem are we solving?” before a single token gets spent.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Software engineers have long taken pride in writing elegant code, and I would hate to see AI cheapen that pride rather than elevate it. In an AI-first world, the craft shouldn’t disappear; it should simply move upstream. The spec is where elegance lives now, and it deserves the same attention to detail we once reserved for the code itself.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">At its core, software engineering is about defining, analyzing, and resolving technical challenges. If we are willingly giving all of that up to AI, we will lose the integrity of our discipline and the ability to prove our value. Using the maximum number of tokens to produce code isn’t impressive. Using a well-crafted, intentional prompt to solve a specific problem? That’s the work worth celebrating.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Stop performing productivity and start delivering it</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We are at an inflection point. Many organizations are defaulting to activity-based metrics, measuring how much AI is being used rather than whether it is improving delivery, product quality, or business outcomes.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The question worth asking is not, “How much AI did we use this sprint?” It is “What value did we deliver for our users, our team, or our business?” Was it the ability to resolve a critical bug more quickly? Reduced cycle time on a high-value feature? A customer workflow that now takes minutes instead of hours? Those are outcomes. Those are the things worth measuring.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AI can help us deliver meaningful outcomes faster, but only if we use it with the same rigor and intent we expect from every other engineering or business decision. Don’t let it become another form of productivity theater. The most successful engineering organizations in the age of AI won’t be the ones that consumed the most tokens, they’ll be the organizations that never lost sight of why they were building in the first place.</p>



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.infoworld.com/blogs/new-tech-forum"><strong><em>New Tech Forum</em></strong></a><em><strong> provides a venue for technology leaders—including vendors and other outside contributors—to explore and discuss emerging enterprise technology in unprecedented depth and breadth. The selection is subjective, based on our pick of the technologies we believe to be important and of greatest interest to InfoWorld readers. InfoWorld does not accept marketing collateral for publication and reserves the right to edit all contributed content. Send all </strong></em><em><strong>inquiries to </strong></em><a href="mailto:doug_dineley@foundryco.com"><strong><em>doug_dineley@foundryco.com</em></strong></a><em><strong>.</strong></em></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[IETF publishes QUERY method to allow safe and idempotent HTTP requests]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[When an HTTP request is too long or complex to be encoded in its URI using GET, developers have long resorted to using the POST method as a workaround. However, this can create issues; while GET requests are defined as safe and idempotent, POST does not necessarily share those characteristics.


...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3671156/ai-nachrichten/ietf-publishes-query-method-to-allow-safe-and-idempotent-http-requests/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3671156/ai-nachrichten/ietf-publishes-query-method-to-allow-safe-and-idempotent-http-requests/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 17:19:26 +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">When an HTTP request is too long or complex to be encoded in its URI using GET, developers have long resorted to using the POST method as a workaround. However, this can create issues; while GET requests are defined as safe and idempotent, POST does not necessarily share those characteristics.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">To combat the problem, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has published a proposed standard HTTP request method, <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc10008.html">QUERY</a> (RFC 10008), which bridges the two functions, taking the best of each.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A safe method is <a href="https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110#section-9.2">defined</a> as one which is “essentially” read-only, where “the client does not request, and does not expect, any state change on the origin server as a result of applying a safe method to a target resource. Likewise, reasonable use of a safe method is not expected to cause any harm, loss of property, or unusual burden on the origin server,” the IETF standards document states. And when a request is idempotent, no matter how many times it is retried, the intended effect on the server of multiple identical requests with that method is the same as the effect for a single such request.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">POST requests do not always fulfill those criteria. But QUERY requests do. The input to the QUERY operation is, like POST, passed as the content of the request, rather than as part of the request URI as it is with GET. Unlike POST, QUERY allows functions such as caching and automatic retries to operate, precisely because it is safe and idempotent.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Read-only in disguise</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“RFC 10008 matters because it gives the web’s favorite workaround a protocol identity,” said <a href="https://greyhoundresearch.com/svg/">Sanchit Vir Gogia</a>, chief analyst at Greyhound Research. “Developers have disguised read-only questions as POST commands for two decades; QUERY carries the question in the request body while declaring it safe to retry and cache. The significance is machine-readable intent; retry engines, caches, and autonomous agents act on what a method declares, not on what documentation intends. Under automation, semantics become policy.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“GET works while a request fits comfortably in a URI, and stops working the moment a developer needs deep filters, long identifier sets or an entire query document,” Gogia explained. “URIs also attract exposure through histories, bookmarks, and access logs, and encoding every input combination into the address quietly turns each permutation into a distinct resource.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“POST solves the size problem and withholds the promise,” Gogia said. “Its generic semantics admit creation, mutation, and side effect, so no cache, retry engine, or gateway is entitled to assume that a given POST is repeatable or reusable.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But while QUERY answers the long-running POST-for-search problem, the new method comes with some gotchas. As software engineer <a href="https://www.softwarejutsu.com/about">Rickvian Aldi</a> noted in a <a href="https://www.softwarejutsu.com/articles/http-query-method-rfc-10008">blog post</a>, “The cautious version is: it answers the semantics, not all the deployment work. Front-end code still needs stable query keys. Servers still need validation and cache-control headers. Infrastructure still needs to allow the new method.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">New standards take time</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">And that will take time; standards are often slow to be adopted. And before QUERY can be widely used, other standards such as the HTML forms standard need updating. That exercise is already in progress by groups such as the <a href="https://whatwg.org/">Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group</a>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Publishing an RFC as a Proposed Standard doesn’t mean the whole ecosystem supports it the next day,” said open source developer <a href="https://www.danieleteti.it/about/">Daniele Teti</a> in <a href="https://www.danieleteti.it/post/http-query-method-en/">a blog post</a>. “It’s the first rung of the IETF standards track: the specification is stable and ready for implementation, but it takes time for browsers, servers, proxies, CDNs, and client libraries to actually adopt it.” No major browsers support QUERY as yet, although, on the server side, Node.js and Go support the method.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Gogia pointed out that the authors of RFC 10008, engineers at Cloudflare, Akamai, and greenbytes, recognize this.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The retreat route is designed into the standard itself,” Gogia said. “The Location bridge exists so that a QUERY can collapse back into a GET the moment it meets infrastructure that never learned, and the document says as much when it notes that clients can switch to GET for subsequent requests to simplify processing. Read that way, the equivalent resource is less a philosophical concession than a contingency plan, and it is the feature most likely to carry the method through its awkward years.”</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[What 80% AI-written test pipelines actually cost]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[The first time I heard someone say their AI now wrote 80% of their tests, I asked the obvious question. Eighty percent of what?



After 20 years building and leading test automation for consumer-scale platforms, my honest answer turned out to be eighty percent of the typing, not eighty percent o...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3671153/ai-nachrichten/what-80-ai-written-test-pipelines-actually-cost/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3671153/ai-nachrichten/what-80-ai-written-test-pipelines-actually-cost/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 17:19:22 +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">The first time I heard someone say their AI now wrote 80% of their tests, I asked the obvious question. Eighty percent of what?</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">After 20 years building and leading test automation for consumer-scale platforms, my honest answer turned out to be eighty percent of the <em>typing</em>, not eighty percent of the <em>engineering</em>. The remaining twenty was where the work still lived. Budgeting for two percent of leftover effort was the mistake. When the real number was closer to thirty, that gap was the difference between a pipeline that shipped and one that quietly built up a queue of half-trusted features nobody could rely on.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This piece is about that gap. As an independent research project on LLM-augmented testing methodology, I built a six-stage agentic pipeline that takes a design in Figma and produces running tests in WebDriverIO, connected end to end over the <a href="https://modelcontextprotocol.io/">Model Context Protocol</a>. It works. It has been useful. And the parts that broke surprised me, because they were not the parts the hype cycle tells you to worry about.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">How I wired a six-stage pipeline over one protocol</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The pipeline runs six stages in sequence, each owned by a different agent, with every handoff crossing MCP.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Six-stage agentic test pipeline: design capture → requirements writer → ticket opener → code generator → test-case writer → automation generator. Each stage carries an MCP handoff and a provenance stamp.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The end-to-end trace links a pull request back to a Jira ticket, a requirements section and a Figma frame. Each artifact is stamped with the agent that produced it, the model it used and the inputs it was given.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">MCP is the boring middle that makes any of this work. The cliché is that MCP is “USB-C for AI”: one open protocol, any tool. Like most analogies, it is about eighty percent right. The part that matters is the eighty: I do not have to write a custom adapter for every system the agent talks to. One MCP server per tool and every agent talks to all of them the same way.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Typed handoffs between agents are my own architecture, layered on top of MCP rather than provided by it.</strong> Each agent writes a typed artifact the next agent reads. Each handoff is logged with provenance. When something went wrong six stages in, I could replay the chain. Without that discipline, a multi-agent pipeline is a debugger’s worst day. You know the test plan is wrong. You cannot tell whether the mistake came from the Figma read, the requirements interpretation or the ticket scaffolding. With it, I could point at exactly which stage went sideways and which inputs it was looking at when it did. The pattern lives in a <a href="https://github.com/SuneetMalhotra/agent-harness">public MIT-licensed reference implementation</a> for any reader who wants to run it.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>The sixteen-minute number is the marketing number.</strong> I ran the full chain end to end in about sixteen minutes on a synthetic net-new screen, Figma in, automation suite out. That repeated across my runs; it is not a demo trick. But sixteen minutes is the part of the story most fun to tell and least useful to learn from. It is what gets quoted in the all-hands. The hours that come after, when a human reviews each handoff, are where the work actually lives.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What actually broke in production-style runs</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The failures that stalled my pipeline were rarely the ones I expected.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I expected hallucinated APIs. I got them: the agent confidently called endpoint names that sounded right but did not exist. I expected sparse-spec-in, sparse-spec-out, where a Figma frame with no annotations produced a requirements doc with vague acceptance criteria, every time. I expected locator drift, the common UI-automation failure mode where a renamed component silently breaks an entire test suite. There is solid <a href="https://martinfowler.com/articles/nonDeterminism.html">outside writing on non-determinism in tests</a> covering this whole family of failure modes, and the agent inherited every one.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">What I did not expect, and what kept the pipeline down longer than any of the above, was the plumbing.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The model backend timed out under load. It lost credentials silently and started returning empty strings, which the agent then read as confidence. A duplicate consumer on a shared long-poll API endpoint produced an HTTP 409 conflict that broke delivery without throwing anything visible. One unguarded exception inside one agent aborted a whole shared scheduler run and took the other agents in the registry down with it. The single worst incident cost me three hours to find. An environment variable had silently rotated overnight; every agent in the fleet was returning structurally valid but semantically empty requirements docs; the downstream stages were dutifully generating tests against nothing.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">None of those are model bugs. They are infrastructure. The agent literature, which is what I went looking through when I started this work, mostly does not talk about them.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The fix was not better prompts. It was <a href="https://martinfowler.com/bliki/CircuitBreaker.html">circuit-breaker-style</a> review checkpoints between stages and what I now call <strong>the four-guard discipline</strong>: four small guards I consider non-negotiable on any unattended agentic pipeline. The bulkhead pattern from microservices is the most consequential. An unhandled exception inside one agent can no longer abort the shared run; the offending agent fails fast with a structured error and the others keep going. Paired with that, a pure-data fallback ensures a model timeout produces a deterministic output explicitly marked as degraded mode, rather than an empty string the next stage will misread as confidence. A single-owner lease sits on every shared external endpoint, the cure for the duplicate-consumer incident that ate one of my Sunday afternoons. The cheapest guard was the last to arrive: a one-line synthetic canary every agent has to produce a known correct response to before any real work begins, so a credentials rotation or silent backend failure trips an alert before downstream stages have generated artifacts against garbage.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">None of these guards is novel. They are textbook stability patterns at a new boundary: the seam between the LLM agent and the rest of the system, which most of the existing agent literature still treats as a solved problem.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The 20% you don’t see, and when not to do this</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Here is the part the demo videos leave out. Even when the pipeline works, the human time per stage does not go to zero.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Human review time per ticket across five pipeline stages: code review 60-180 min, automation review and flaky-fix loop 30-90 min, ticket architecture and sequencing 30-60 min, test data and environment 15-30 min, requirements review 20-30 min. Net: the human still spends 20-30% of the original effort, almost all of it reviewing rather than creating.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Net of all that, the human still spends twenty to thirty percent of the original effort, almost all of it reviewing rather than creating.</strong> The pipeline saves seventy to eighty percent, not ninety-eight. The trap is budgeting for the two percent you do not save.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When does this kind of pipeline make sense? In my experience, when the Figma is richly annotated and acceptance criteria are clear up front; when there is review capacity to absorb the work the pipeline shifts onto humans; when the stack is well represented in the training data; and when the feature is net-new rather than a deep edit of legacy code. When does it not? When the design lives on a whiteboard. When the integration touches old code with hidden contracts. When the path is regulated or safety-critical. When there is no senior reviewer who can hold the line. When the work is exploratory and writing the spec is the actual point of the exercise.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Teams I have seen succeed with agentic pipelines budget for the rework explicitly, staff the review queue and treat the saved hours as capacity for harder problems rather than headcount they can release. Teams I have seen struggle did the opposite: declared victory at the demo and quietly accumulated a backlog of half-trusted features the next quarter had to clean up.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The right unit of measurement is not how much the pipeline generates. It is how much of what it generates a human still has to touch before you would ship it. Call it <strong>the 80/20 rework rule</strong>: measure the rework, not the generation. The teams that get the rework number right are the ones whose AI investments compound. The teams that stop counting at the headline percentage are the ones that own the cleanup six months later.</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.infoworld.com/expert-contributor-network/"><strong><u>Want to join?</u></strong></a></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The next challenge for coding agents]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[On the first day of Software Engineering 101, you learned about the SDLC — the software development life cycle. You learned that there is a whole lot more to producing quality software than writing some code and deploying it to production. We’ve studied the SDLC every which way, and we know where...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3671152/ai-nachrichten/the-next-challenge-for-coding-agents/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3671152/ai-nachrichten/the-next-challenge-for-coding-agents/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 17:19:21 +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">On the first day of Software Engineering 101, you learned about the SDLC — the software development life cycle. You learned that there is a whole lot more to producing quality software than writing some code and deploying it to production. We’ve studied the SDLC every which way, and we know where and how time is spent within it.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The coding is the most interesting part of the SDLC. It is one of a number of steps in the process, but it’s the part that takes up the biggest chunk of the SDLC schedule.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Agentic coding has changed all of that. I wrote earlier this year about the impacts upstream of coding <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/4116373/when-writing-code-is-no-longer-the-bottleneck.html">when writing code is no longer the bottleneck</a>. Here I want to think about the impacts for developers downstream — what we can expect to happen after the code gets written — when agents write the code.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Downstream from coding</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Even before agentic coding, we developers spent far more time reading and maintaining code than we spent writing it. Maintaining the code and supporting the product has always been the major lifetime cost of the project as a whole. Now that the bottleneck has moved away from the coding process, we will look for ways to apply AI agents downstream of writing code. So, just as agentic AI has made writing code trivial, we can expect it to improve the remaining 60% to 70% of our job as well. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Maintenance of code can be a real challenge. We are all familiar with how it often goes. We get a vague customer report of a problem along with a copious log, and we have to dive in and make sense of a very complex situation. The application has hundreds of settings and options, making the potential code paths practically infinite. Maybe we have a copy of the customer’s database with their precise settings, or maybe we just know they have one specific setting inside the problem feature set. Maybe we can reproduce the problem. Maybe we can’t. It’s almost always vague and confusing.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Here’s where agents can really shine. Normally, a huge log is a problem. What mere mortal can sift through the thousands of entries that our powerful logging tools can produce? No human, but Claude Code will happily gobble up all of that data and quickly zero in on the problem. And by quickly, I mean frequently in a matter of minutes or seconds. </p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The next choke point</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Or as <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/spiros/" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.linkedin.com/in/spiros/">Spiros Xanthos</a>, the CEO of Resolve AI — producer of a tool specifically designed for applying agents to production problems — says, “The real opportunity is purpose-built AI that can carry more of the cognitive load of production… If we get that right, developers spend less time manually piecing together what happened and more time building and improving the systems they own.” </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I’ll venture to say that dealing with production problems is more challenging than writing code, both for humans and agents. But agents have huge contexts and infinite patience, and we humans do not. Code is a bounded system, and agents can train on an enormous body of data illustrating a vast array of coding techniques. Production? As Xanthos put it to me, it’s effectively unbounded, enormously varying, and a living, breathing system different for every product and every company. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We should always focus on the tightest bottleneck, and then move on to the next one. We’ve solved the coding choke point, and now we need to turn our attention to the next one — fixing production issues. That’s a non-trivial part of a developer’s job, and we shouldn’t be surprised that AI agents can do it better than we can.</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Big AI acquisitions are not off the table under new CEO John Ternus]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Apple knows that it needs to get really serious about AI server chips. There are signs that the company is willing to spend big under John Ternus to buy its way out of its AI problem.Siri could get even more powerful thanks to AI-related acquisitions. We already know that Apple is looking at deal...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3671114/ios-mac-os/big-ai-acquisitions-are-not-off-the-table-under-new-ceo-john-ternus/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3671114/ios-mac-os/big-ai-acquisitions-are-not-off-the-table-under-new-ceo-john-ternus/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 17:08:52 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🍏 iOS / Mac OS</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Apple knows that it needs to get really serious about AI server chips. There are signs that the company is willing to spend big under John Ternus to buy its way out of its AI problem.<br><br><div><img src="https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/68258-143885-66534-139548-Siri-xl-xl.jpg" alt="Hand holding a modern smartphone with a colorful gradient screen, displaying a grid of app icons on a bright background, against a plain light-colored backdrop" height="738"><br><span>Siri could get even more powerful thanks to AI-related acquisitions. </span></div><br>We already know that Apple is looking at deals such as one with PrismML to improve its on-device processing and <a href="https://appleinsider.com/inside/siri" title="Siri" data-kpt="1">Siri's</a> capabilities. Apple also wants to further its server-based AI processing too.<br><br>According to an article published <a href="https://www.theinformation.com/articles/apple-hunts-ai-chip-acquisitions">on Wednesday</a> by <em>The Information</em>, Apple is showing signs it's ready to switch acquisition tactics. Instead of deals in the hundreds of millions of dollars, it's prepared to do more in the range of billions of dollars, rivaling the deals to get Beats and PA Semi.<br><br><br> <a href="https://appleinsider.com/articles/26/07/15/big-ai-acquisitions-are-not-off-the-table-under-new-ceo-john-ternus?utm_source=rss">Continue Reading on AppleInsider</a> | <a href="https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/244965?urm_source=rss">Discuss on our Forums</a>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[KAPE 101: A Kroll Artifact Parser and Extractor Cheatsheet]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Spend time performing forensic analysis on the Windows Operating System and you'll see a host of artifacts that can be used to identify adversary activity. From changes to the registry to the System Resource Utilization Monitor, Windows artifacts run deep. The challenge is locating, extracting, a...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3670892/it-security-nachrichten/kape-101-a-kroll-artifact-parser-and-extractor-cheatsheet/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3670892/it-security-nachrichten/kape-101-a-kroll-artifact-parser-and-extractor-cheatsheet/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 16:08:06 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.blackhillsinfosec.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/kape101_header-1.png" class="attachment-full size-full wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" fetchpriority="high" srcset="https://www.blackhillsinfosec.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/kape101_header-1.png 1280w, https://www.blackhillsinfosec.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/kape101_header-1-500x281.png 500w, https://www.blackhillsinfosec.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/kape101_header-1-1024x576.png 1024w, https://www.blackhillsinfosec.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/kape101_header-1-768x432.png 768w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px"></p>
<p>Spend time performing forensic analysis on the Windows Operating System and you'll see a host of artifacts that can be used to identify adversary activity. From changes to the registry to the System Resource Utilization Monitor, Windows artifacts run deep. The challenge is locating, extracting, and parsing these artifacts in an efficient manner.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.blackhillsinfosec.com/kape-cheatsheet/">KAPE 101: A Kroll Artifact Parser and Extractor Cheatsheet</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.blackhillsinfosec.com/">Black Hills Information Security, Inc.</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Ted Lasso Season 4 Release Date, Cast and Story: Everything Confirmed So Far]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Ted Lasso Season 4 officially arrives on Apple TV on August 5, 2026. Jason Sudeikis returns as Ted, who faces a completely new challenge after leaving AFC Richmond and returning home at the end of Season 3.




Release date: August 5, 2026



Streaming platform: Apple TV



Genre: Sports comedy-d...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3670810/ios-mac-os/ted-lasso-season-4-release-date-cast-and-story-everything-confirmed-so-far/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3670810/ios-mac-os/ted-lasso-season-4-release-date-cast-and-story-everything-confirmed-so-far/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 15:24:38 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🍏 iOS / Mac OS</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Ted Lasso Season 4 officially arrives on Apple TV on August 5, 2026. Jason Sudeikis returns as Ted, who faces a completely new challenge after leaving AFC Richmond and returning home at the end of Season 3.




Release date: August 5, 2026



Streaming platform: Apple TV



Genre: Sports comedy-drama



Number of episodes: 10



Release schedule: One new episode every Wednesday



Season finale date: October 7, 2026



Lead cast: Jason Sudeikis, Hannah Waddingham, Juno Temple, Brett Goldstein, Brendan Hunt and Jeremy Swift



New cast: Tanya Reynolds, Jude Mack, Faye Marsay, Rex Hayes, Aisling Sharkey, Abbie Hern and Grant Feely




The first episode will premiere on August 5, followed by weekly episodes through October 7. This means viewers will once again follow the season over several weeks instead of receiving all 10 episodes at once.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxZg4SfIURg




What is the story of Ted Lasso Season 4?



Possible spoilers for the first three seasons follow.



Season 4 brings Ted back to Richmond, where he begins coaching a second-division women’s football team. The new position becomes one of the biggest challenges of his career, as Ted must build another team while adjusting to a different side of professional football.



The storyline follows the idea introduced near the end of Season 3, when Keeley presented Rebecca with plans to create an AFC Richmond women’s team. That proposal now appears to form the main foundation of the new season.



Ted’s return also raises several personal questions. Season 3 ended with him leaving England to spend more time with his son, Henry. Season 4 will need to explain why he returns to Richmond, how his family situation has changed, and whether Henry becomes part of his life in England.



The official description says Ted and the new team will learn to take chances before knowing how everything will work out. That theme fits the show’s focus on personal growth, teamwork, and people finding confidence during uncertain moments.



Which cast members are returning?



Jason Sudeikis returns as Ted Lasso and continues to serve as an executive producer. Hannah Waddingham is back as AFC Richmond owner Rebecca Welton, while Juno Temple returns as Keeley Jones.



Brett Goldstein will also appear again as Roy Kent. Brendan Hunt returns as Coach Beard, and Jeremy Swift reprises his role as Leslie Higgins. Their confirmed involvement suggests AFC Richmond’s familiar leadership group will remain closely connected to Ted’s new team.



The season also introduces Tanya Reynolds, Jude Mack, Faye Marsay, Rex Hayes, Aisling Sharkey, Abbie Hern and Grant Feely. Details about most of their characters remain limited, although several of them are expected to be connected to the new women’s football storyline.



Will the original AFC Richmond players return?



Apple has not confirmed every member of the original men’s team for Season 4. The announced returning cast currently includes Ted, Rebecca, Keeley, Roy, Coach Beard, and Higgins.



Characters such as Jamie Tartt, Sam Obisanya, Dani Rojas and Isaac McAdoo could still appear, especially because the story remains centred around Richmond. However, their involvement should remain unconfirmed until further announcements or episodes reveal more.



Ted Lasso Season 4 begins streaming on Apple TV on August 5, 2026. What do you plan to watch when Ted returns to Richmond? Let us know in the comments.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Ted Lasso Season 4 Release Date, Cast and Story: Everything Confirmed So Far]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Ted Lasso Season 4 officially arrives on Apple TV on August 5, 2026. Jason Sudeikis returns as Ted, who faces a completely new challenge after leaving AFC Richmond and returning home at the end of Season 3.




Release date: August 5, 2026



Streaming platform: Apple TV



Genre: Sports comedy-d...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3670539/ios-mac-os/ted-lasso-season-4-release-date-cast-and-story-everything-confirmed-so-far/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3670539/ios-mac-os/ted-lasso-season-4-release-date-cast-and-story-everything-confirmed-so-far/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 13:55:32 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🍏 iOS / Mac OS</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Ted Lasso Season 4 officially arrives on Apple TV on August 5, 2026. Jason Sudeikis returns as Ted, who faces a completely new challenge after leaving AFC Richmond and returning home at the end of Season 3.




Release date: August 5, 2026



Streaming platform: Apple TV



Genre: Sports comedy-drama



Number of episodes: 10



Release schedule: One new episode every Wednesday



Season finale date: October 7, 2026



Lead cast: Jason Sudeikis, Hannah Waddingham, Juno Temple, Brett Goldstein, Brendan Hunt and Jeremy Swift



New cast: Tanya Reynolds, Jude Mack, Faye Marsay, Rex Hayes, Aisling Sharkey, Abbie Hern and Grant Feely




The first episode will premiere on August 5, followed by weekly episodes through October 7. This means viewers will once again follow the season over several weeks instead of receiving all 10 episodes at once.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxZg4SfIURg




What is the story of Ted Lasso Season 4?



Possible spoilers for the first three seasons follow.



Season 4 brings Ted back to Richmond, where he begins coaching a second-division women’s football team. The new position becomes one of the biggest challenges of his career, as Ted must build another team while adjusting to a different side of professional football.



The storyline follows the idea introduced near the end of Season 3, when Keeley presented Rebecca with plans to create an AFC Richmond women’s team. That proposal now appears to form the main foundation of the new season.



Ted’s return also raises several personal questions. Season 3 ended with him leaving England to spend more time with his son, Henry. Season 4 will need to explain why he returns to Richmond, how his family situation has changed, and whether Henry becomes part of his life in England.



The official description says Ted and the new team will learn to take chances before knowing how everything will work out. That theme fits the show’s focus on personal growth, teamwork, and people finding confidence during uncertain moments.



Which cast members are returning?



Jason Sudeikis returns as Ted Lasso and continues to serve as an executive producer. Hannah Waddingham is back as AFC Richmond owner Rebecca Welton, while Juno Temple returns as Keeley Jones.



Brett Goldstein will also appear again as Roy Kent. Brendan Hunt returns as Coach Beard, and Jeremy Swift reprises his role as Leslie Higgins. Their confirmed involvement suggests AFC Richmond’s familiar leadership group will remain closely connected to Ted’s new team.



The season also introduces Tanya Reynolds, Jude Mack, Faye Marsay, Rex Hayes, Aisling Sharkey, Abbie Hern and Grant Feely. Details about most of their characters remain limited, although several of them are expected to be connected to the new women’s football storyline.



Will the original AFC Richmond players return?



Apple has not confirmed every member of the original men’s team for Season 4. The announced returning cast currently includes Ted, Rebecca, Keeley, Roy, Coach Beard, and Higgins.



Characters such as Jamie Tartt, Sam Obisanya, Dani Rojas and Isaac McAdoo could still appear, especially because the story remains centred around Richmond. However, their involvement should remain unconfirmed until further announcements or episodes reveal more.



Ted Lasso Season 4 begins streaming on Apple TV on August 5, 2026. What do you plan to watch when Ted returns to Richmond? Let us know in the comments.]]></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[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[Context is becoming AI’s most misunderstood word]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[If you spend enough time in Silicon Valley AI circles, you’ll hear the same message over and over again: AI needs context.



The statement is broadly true. The problem is that “context” has become one of the least precise terms in the industry.



Depending on who is using it, context can mean d...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3670110/it-security-nachrichten/context-is-becoming-ais-most-misunderstood-word/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3670110/it-security-nachrichten/context-is-becoming-ais-most-misunderstood-word/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 11:08:47 +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">If you spend enough time in Silicon Valley AI circles, you’ll hear the same message over and over again: AI needs context.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The statement is broadly true. The problem is that “context” has become one of the least precise terms in the industry.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Depending on who is using it, context can mean documents, dashboards, reports, metadata, business rules, policies, transaction histories, CRM records, knowledge bases or institutional expertise. The word has become a catch-all for virtually any information that might be made available to a model.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As a result, many organizations have started treating context as a volume problem. Conversations quickly turn to larger context windows, additional data sources and broader system access, while far less attention goes toward determining whether that information actually improves the quality of the outcome.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">What we’re seeing in practice suggests a different way of thinking about the problem. The organizations making the most progress with enterprise AI are not necessarily the ones exposing the largest amount of information to their systems. They are the ones spending the most time understanding which information should influence a decision, which information should not and how to ensure that business logic is applied consistently.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That distinction matters because the industry is beginning to repeat a mistake enterprises already made once before.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><a></a>Context has become the new ‘big data’</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For much of the last two decades, organizations operated under the assumption that collecting more data would naturally produce better decisions. Massive investments were made in data warehouses, reporting platforms, analytics systems and business intelligence tools. Those investments created tremendous value, but they also exposed an important reality: Collecting information and creating clarity are not the same thing.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Today, AI is heading down a similar path.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Many enterprise AI projects measure progress by counting how much information a model can access. More documents become better than fewer documents. More systems become better than fewer systems. Larger context windows become better than smaller ones. The conversation often assumes that quantity and quality move together.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Well, they don’t.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">According to<a href="https://www.salesforce.com/resources/research-reports/state-of-data-and-analytics/?utm_source=chatgpt.com"> </a><a href="https://www.salesforce.com/resources/research-reports/state-of-data-and-analytics/?utm_source=chatgpt.com">Salesforce research</a>, only 35% of business leaders say they are completely satisfied with their organization’s ability to use data effectively despite years of investment in data infrastructure and analytics. Enterprises learned long ago that information alone does not create understanding. The same lesson applies to AI.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When a model gains access to five versions of the same metric, conflicting definitions of a business process or documentation that has not been updated in years, it does not magically resolve those inconsistencies. It consumes them. More context can just as easily increase ambiguity as reduce it.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Simply exposing more information to a model does not guarantee better outcomes. What matters is whether the information available to the system helps it make the right decision at the right time.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><a></a>Most AI failures are actually context failures</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">One of the more interesting things we’ve observed over the past year is how many AI projects are blamed for problems that have very little to do with AI.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The model answers a question incorrectly, and the immediate assumption is that the model failed. In reality, the underlying issue often sits elsewhere. The organization may have multiple definitions of the metric being requested. Customer information may exist across several systems with conflicting values. Business rules may be documented in one location, partially implemented in another and understood differently by different teams.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In many deployments, the issue is not that the AI lacks information. The issue is that it has access to several competing versions of the truth.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Anyone who has worked inside a large enterprise will recognize the pattern. Revenue means one thing to finance and something slightly different to sales. Product usage metrics evolve over time. Operational processes change while documentation remains frozen. Human employees learn how to navigate these inconsistencies through experience and institutional knowledge. AI systems inherit them immediately.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is why the conversation around context often misses the point. The challenge is not simply providing more information. The challenge is determining which information should be trusted, how conflicts should be resolved and what business logic should govern the final answer.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A single trusted source can be more valuable than a hundred loosely connected ones. A clearly defined rule can be more useful than thousands of pages of documentation. The quality of the context matters far more than the volume.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><a></a>Access does not create trust</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Many organizations can tell you exactly how their AI systems retrieve information. They can explain retrieval pipelines, vector databases, ranking systems, semantic search architectures and context windows in extraordinary detail.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Far fewer can explain how they determine whether the answers produced are consistently correct.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That gap becomes especially important in enterprise environments where the cost of an incorrect answer can be substantial. A sales leader making a forecast, a finance team evaluating performance or an operations executive making a resource allocation decision does not care how many documents were retrieved. They care whether the answer is right.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Trust has always been one of the hardest problems in enterprise data. According to<a href="https://www.accenture.com/us-en/insights/artificial-intelligence/data-trust-ai-value?utm_source=chatgpt.com"> </a><a href="https://www.accenture.com/us-en/insights/artificial-intelligence/data-trust-ai-value?utm_source=chatgpt.com">Accenture research on data trust and decision making</a>, only about a quarter of employees report high confidence in their organization’s data when making decisions. That challenge does not disappear when AI enters the picture. If anything, it becomes more visible.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Organizations frequently measure access because access is easy to quantify. Reliability is harder. Reliability requires understanding whether an answer remains consistent across users, across prompts, across time periods and across changing business conditions. It requires understanding whether the same question produces the same answer and whether that answer reflects the business logic the organization intends to enforce.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Those are fundamentally different measurements, and they point to a different definition of success.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><a></a>Context requires measurement</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">One reason this problem is becoming more pronounced is that enterprises accumulate information far faster than they eliminate it.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">New systems are added, new reports are created, processes evolve. Teams develop local definitions and specialized workflows. Documentation grows continuously, while very little of it gets removed. Over time, organizations build large collections of information that contain years of historical decisions, exceptions, workarounds and competing interpretations.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We’ve yet to encounter an enterprise that doesn’t have some version of this problem.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That reality turns context into an operational challenge rather than a technical one.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Simply connecting AI systems to enterprise information does not improve the quality of that information. In some cases, it exposes longstanding inconsistencies that were previously hidden by human interpretation and tribal knowledge. Gartner has long identified poor data quality as one of the most significant obstacles to successful analytics and AI initiatives because bad inputs inevitably produce unreliable outputs, regardless of how sophisticated the technology becomes.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As AI becomes more deeply integrated into business operations, organizations will need new ways to evaluate the context their systems rely on. They will need visibility into how information is being used, where definitions conflict, which sources are trusted and how context quality affects outcomes. Context cannot be treated as a static asset. It must be measured, monitored and improved over time, just as organizations measure the quality of the models and applications built on top of it.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><a></a>The shift from access to reliability</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The industry has spent the last several years focused on access. How do we connect models to enterprise systems? How do we expose organizational knowledge? How do we give AI visibility into the information people use every day?</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Those questions were important because they represented genuine technical barriers. Today, many of those barriers are disappearing.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Most enterprises can already connect AI systems to data warehouses, applications, dashboards, documents and knowledge repositories. The conversation is beginning to shift toward a more difficult problem: Determining whether those connections actually produce outcomes people trust.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That is where the next phase of enterprise AI will be decided.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Organizations that treat context as a quantity problem will continue adding more information and hoping accuracy improves. Organizations that treat context as a quality problem will focus on trust, consistency, governance and outcome reliability.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The difference between those approaches may sound subtle, but it has enormous implications. One produces systems that can access information. The other produces systems that people are willing to use to make decisions.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">And in the enterprise, that distinction is ultimately what matters.</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><strong></strong></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Switching help]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[I'm looking at ditching Windows 10 and moving to Linux. I'm honestly just over Windows at this point. Even something as simple as wanting more than 5 rotating wallpapers is limited, and I can't move to Windows 11 because my main rig has dual CPUs. I'm after some opinions from people who daily dri...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3669396/linux-tipps/switching-help/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3669396/linux-tipps/switching-help/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 04:08:38 +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 looking at ditching Windows 10 and moving to Linux. I'm honestly just over Windows at this point. Even something as simple as wanting more than 5 rotating wallpapers is limited, and I can't move to Windows 11 because my main rig has dual CPUs.</p> <p>I'm after some opinions from people who daily drive Linux.</p> <p>At the moment I'm leaning towards openSUSE Tumbleweed. I'm generally not a fan of forks of other distros (Manjaro, CachyOS, etc.). My servers all run Debian, so I'm very familiar with Debian-based systems, but those are all headless so desktop experience isn't really a factor.</p> <p>I don't think Debian is the right choice for my desktop. I like it for servers because it's rock solid, but for gaming and newer hardware I feel it's a bit too conservative. That's one of the reasons I'm leaning towards Tumbleweed — it seems like a good middle ground with up-to-date packages while still having a reputation as a safer bleeding-edge rolling release.</p> <p>I had a pretty bad experience with Fedora. My GTX 1070 had horrible mouse lag with the proprietary drivers, and my 3Dconnexion SpaceMouse wasn't supported properly, so that put me off Fedora.</p> <p>From what I've researched, it seems like my best options are either Arch or openSUSE Tumbleweed, but I'm not 100% sure where to go.</p> <p>Gaming isn't a huge concern. The games I play are supported through Proton, and I don't have TPM (hardware swap reasons), so kernel-level anti-cheat isn't really an issue. I haven't been gaming much recently anyway — I've gotten into Wolfenstein: The New Order and I'm having fun with that on my second playthrough.</p> <p>Specs</p> <p>- Dual Xeon E5-2689 v1</p> <p>- 128GB DDR3 ECC RAM</p> <p>- GTX 1070</p> <p>- Radeon HD 6540</p> <p>- 5×500GB HDD</p> <p>- 1×250GB HDD</p> <p>- 1×6TB HDD</p> <p>Apps I know will be fine or have alternatives</p> <p>- OrcaSlicer</p> <p>- FreeCAD</p> <p>- 3Dconnexion SpaceMouse drivers</p> <p>- Spotify</p> <p>- qBittorrent</p> <p>- KDiskMark / smartctl instead of CrystalDiskInfo</p> <p>- lm-sensors / alternatives instead of Core Temp</p> <p>- Remmina instead of MobaXterm</p> <p>- Kdenlive</p> <p>- Audacity</p> <p>- Steam</p> <p>- Minecraft</p> <p>- Hardware monitoring tools</p> <p>- Discord</p> <p>Apps I'm unsure about</p> <p>- Logitech Options+</p> <p>- SuperDisplay / Android tablet as a wireless display</p> <p>- FrostWire</p> <p>- UniFi Network Server</p> <p>- WinDirStat equivalent</p> <p>- OBS Studio</p> <p>- Camo</p> <p>- Rockstar Games Launcher</p> <p>- Epic Games Launcher</p> <p>- DS4Windows / PS5 DualSense controller support</p> <p>- FancyZones alternative (KWin tiling, Hyprland, etc.)</p> <p>- Audio drivers/software</p> <p>I'm fairly comfortable in the terminal, so that isn't an issue. I don't mind learning, but I also don't want to spend every weekend fixing my OS.</p> <p>I'm open to suggestions. If you've used openSUSE Tumbleweed, Arch, or another distro that you think would suit my use case better, I'd like to hear your thoughts. Also interested in any issues I might run into with the apps listed above or anything else I should know before making the switch.</p> </div><!-- SC_ON -->   submitted by   <a href="https://www.reddit.com/user/Equal_General1672"> /u/Equal_General1672 </a> <br> <span><a href="https://i.redd.it/9hmdtnl8jadh1.jpeg">[link]</a></span>   <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1uwqszu/switching_help/">[comments]</a></span>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Meta says it will spend an extra $40 billion on its nearly 4,000-acre data center campus in Louisiana in its quest for more compute power]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Meta mega campus covers 4,000 acres and will require 10 methane-burning gas turbine plants to power the data center, which is set to use three times more electricity than New Orleans.]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3668836/it-nachrichten/meta-says-it-will-spend-an-extra-40-billion-on-its-nearly-4000-acre-data-center-campus-in-louisiana-in-its-quest-for-more-compute-power/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3668836/it-nachrichten/meta-says-it-will-spend-an-extra-40-billion-on-its-nearly-4000-acre-data-center-campus-in-louisiana-in-its-quest-for-more-compute-power/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2026 20:11:02 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Meta mega campus covers 4,000 acres and will require 10 methane-burning gas turbine plants to power the data center, which is set to use three times more electricity than New Orleans.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Meta’s Adam Mosseri says AI token budgets could soon be capped per engineer]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Instagram head Adam Mosseri believes companies will eventually need to manage AI token spending the same way they manage payroll or other operating expenses, predicting that engineers could soon face limits on how much they spend using AI tools.]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3668642/it-nachrichten/metas-adam-mosseri-says-ai-token-budgets-could-soon-be-capped-per-engineer/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3668642/it-nachrichten/metas-adam-mosseri-says-ai-token-budgets-could-soon-be-capped-per-engineer/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2026 18:24:59 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Instagram head Adam Mosseri believes companies will eventually need to manage AI token spending the same way they manage payroll or other operating expenses, predicting that engineers could soon face limits on how much they spend using AI tools.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The End Of Manual Transcription Starts Here]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Spend less time manually reviewing audio and video evidence with S21 Transcriber v2.0 — an offline, rapid and accurate way to turn spoken material into searchable, structured intelligence.]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3668384/it-security-nachrichten/the-end-of-manual-transcription-starts-here/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3668384/it-security-nachrichten/the-end-of-manual-transcription-starts-here/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2026 16:55:51 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Spend less time manually reviewing audio and video evidence with S21 Transcriber v2.0 — an offline, rapid and accurate way to turn spoken material into searchable, structured intelligence.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[1Password moves into AI cost management, betting that token spend is the next enterprise budget crisis]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[1Password on Tuesday launched AI Spend and Consumption Management, a new capability embedded in its SaaS Manager platform that gives IT and finance teams a unified, real-time view of how their organizations consume and spend on AI services from vendors including Anthropic, Cursor, and OpenAI.The ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3668120/it-nachrichten/1password-moves-into-ai-cost-management-betting-that-token-spend-is-the-next-enterprise-budget-crisis/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3668120/it-nachrichten/1password-moves-into-ai-cost-management-betting-that-token-spend-is-the-next-enterprise-budget-crisis/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2026 15:32:53 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://1password.com/">1Password</a> on Tuesday launched <a href="https://1password.com/product/saas-manager">AI Spend and Consumption Management</a>, a new capability embedded in its SaaS Manager platform that gives IT and finance teams a unified, real-time view of how their organizations consume and spend on AI services from vendors including <a href="https://www.anthropic.com/">Anthropic</a>, <a href="https://cursor.com/">Cursor</a>, and <a href="https://openai.com/">OpenAI</a>.</p><p>The move marks the latest strategic expansion for a company that built its reputation on password management for consumers and, over the past three years, has aggressively repositioned itself as a broader identity security and SaaS governance platform for enterprise buyers. With this release, 1Password is staking a claim in one of enterprise technology's newest and most chaotic budget categories: the consumption-based cost of large language models.</p><p>"Executives want teams to build faster with AI, but that speed is creating a new kind of spending pressure," Greg Henry, 1Password's chief financial officer, said in an exclusive interview with VentureBeat. "Developers are consuming tokens at a pace that traditional budgets weren't built to manage, and IT and finance teams are being asked to forecast and justify AI investments without a clear view of what's actually driving costs."</p><p>The product, now in public preview with broad availability planned for fall 2026, connects directly to vendor admin APIs to pull token-level consumption data daily. It normalizes that data across providers into a single dashboard and allows organizations to set vendor-level spend limits, configure threshold-based alerts via Slack and email, and break down usage by team, user, vendor, and model.</p><div></div><h2><b>Why traditional software budgets can't keep up with AI token pricing</b></h2><p>The core challenge <a href="https://1password.com/">1Password</a> is targeting is structural. Traditional SaaS pricing operates on a per-seat, per-year model that is easy to budget and reconcile. AI pricing does not. Every API call to <a href="https://claude.ai/">Claude</a>, <a href="https://openai.com/index/gpt-5-6/">GPT-5.6</a>, or a <a href="https://cursor.com/docs/api">Cursor-powered coding assistant</a> consumes tokens, and the cost of those tokens varies by model, by input versus output, and by the complexity of the task. A single engineering team running agentic workflows can burn through a prepaid token budget in weeks — and the finance team may not notice until the invoice arrives.</p><p>Henry drew a sharp analogy to a problem enterprises have already lived through once. "Consumption-based pricing isn't new," he said. "We saw it arrive with cloud infrastructure, and it took years to build the tools and disciplines to manage it. AI is the next version of that shift."</p><p>That comparison resonates across the industry. When <a href="https://aws.amazon.com/">Amazon Web Services</a>, <a href="https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us">Microsoft Azure</a>, and <a href="https://cloud.google.com/">Google Cloud</a> popularized consumption-based pricing for compute and storage in the 2010s, enterprises initially lacked the tooling to monitor and optimize their cloud bills. That gap spawned an entire FinOps ecosystem — companies like CloudHealth, Spot.io, and Apptio built multi-billion-dollar businesses helping organizations understand what they were spending on cloud and why. Henry is explicitly betting that AI token spend will follow the same trajectory, and that organizations that fail to build visibility now will end up, as he put it, "paying far more than they needed to, for far longer than they should have."</p><p>The scale of the coming wave lends credibility to that bet. Goldman Sachs has estimated that token consumption from AI agents alone will grow 24 times by 2030, a projection driven by the expectation that autonomous AI systems will increasingly execute multi-step workflows — booking travel, writing and deploying code, managing customer service interactions — that generate vastly more API calls than a human sitting at a chat interface.</p><h2><b>How 1Password's new dashboard tracks every token across Anthropic, Cursor, and OpenAI</b></h2><p>The new capability extends <a href="https://1password.com/product/saas-manager">1Password SaaS Manager</a>'s existing foundation of application discovery, license management, and spend analytics. It is not a standalone product. Existing SaaS Manager customers can activate it by connecting their supported AI vendor API keys, at which point consumption data flows into a dedicated AI Consumption Management dashboard. Henry confirmed that there is no separate product or add-on fee: "AI Spend and Consumption Management is available to all 1Password SaaS Manager customers."</p><p>The system provides four core functions. First, it aggregates token usage and spend across Anthropic, Cursor, and OpenAI into a single, normalized view — eliminating the need to toggle between three separate vendor dashboards with three different reporting formats. Second, it enables budget controls: organizations can set vendor-level spend limits, configure percentage-based thresholds, and receive automated alerts when prepaid balances approach depletion. Third, it disaggregates consumption by team, user, vendor, and model, allowing finance and IT to understand not just how much is being spent, but where and by whom. Fourth, it situates AI spend within the broader SaaS portfolio, helping organizations see how token costs relate to their total software investment.</p><p>Notably, the system captures consumption regardless of whether a human or an AI agent generated it. "Token consumption is captured at the API level regardless of whether a human or an agent is generating it," Henry explained. "Organizations get the total consumption picture, including the spikes that agent loops can create, which can be some of the hardest usage to catch before it becomes a problem."</p><p>That agent-level visibility matters because autonomous AI systems can generate runaway costs in ways that human users typically cannot. An agentic coding assistant stuck in a retry loop, for example, can consume thousands of dollars in tokens in minutes — with no human in the loop to notice. For now, the product alerts but does not enforce. When asked whether 1Password will eventually give organizations the ability to automatically cut off spending when a threshold is crossed, Henry said the company is "actively evaluating" automatic enforcement but emphasized that visibility must come first: "You can't enforce what you can't see."</p><h2><b>The choice of launch partners reveals where enterprise AI budgets are under the most pressure</b></h2><p>The decision to start with <a href="https://www.anthropic.com/">Anthropic</a>, <a href="https://cursor.com/">Cursor</a>, and <a href="https://openai.com/">OpenAI</a> — rather than casting a wider net — reflects where enterprise AI adoption and budget strain are most concentrated right now. Henry said the choice was driven entirely by customer demand. "Anthropic, Cursor, and OpenAI are where we're seeing the highest adoption, and where token consumption can move fast and get ahead of the teams responsible for managing it," he said. The company plans to add additional vendors based on customer demand, API availability, and budget impact, though it has not committed to a specific timeline or vendor list.</p><p>The inclusion of Cursor alongside the two major foundation model providers is telling. <a href="https://cursor.com/">Cursor</a>, an AI-powered code editor that has rapidly gained traction among developers, represents a category of AI tool where consumption is particularly difficult to forecast. Unlike a chatbot interface where a user consciously types a prompt, Cursor integrates AI suggestions directly into the development workflow, generating token consumption continuously as developers write code. That ambient, always-on consumption pattern makes it especially prone to budget overruns.</p><p>Henry also addressed who inside an organization should actually own this problem — and acknowledged that the honest answer right now is no one. "When spend is fragmented across vendor dashboards and finance teams are reconciling it monthly, you're always behind," he said. "AI spend can't be treated as a finance-only or IT-only problem." He noted that the pricing differences between models have become significant enough that the choice of which AI model a team uses is now a meaningful financial decision, one that is pulling CFOs into conversations with IT, product, and engineering leaders "in ways they never had to before."</p><p>Steve May, director of IT at ServiceTrade, a 1Password customer that has been using the capability, said it addressed a concrete planning gap. "Forecasting tools for AI consumption and spend was one of our biggest gaps in planning because we didn't have a reliable way to track it," May said. He added that the visibility has "prevented overages that would have cost far more to fix after the fact."</p><h2><b>Where 1Password fits in the fast-consolidating SaaS management market</b></h2><p>1Password is not the only company racing to solve the AI cost management problem, but the competitive landscape is still fragmented and the category is far from mature.</p><p><a href="https://zylo.com/">Zylo</a>, a SaaS management platform that Gartner has also recognized as a leader in the space, published its <a href="https://zylo.com/news/2026-saas-management-index">2026 SaaS Management Index</a> in January showing that AI-native application spend surged 393% year over year in organizations with more than 10,000 employees and 108% overall. Zylo's data also revealed that ChatGPT has become the most expensed application in enterprise environments, highlighting how AI tools are entering organizations through employee credit cards and expense reports — outside formal procurement and governance workflows. Zylo has added its own token-level cost tracking for AI vendors including Anthropic, OpenAI, Cursor, and Perplexity.</p><p>Meanwhile, according to a comparison published by <a href="https://coommit.com/blog/saas-management-platforms-2026-zylo-vs-vendr-vs-sastrify">Coommit</a> in May, <a href="https://www.vendr.com/">Vendr</a> — which focuses more on SaaS negotiation than discovery — tracks AI tools at the contract level but does not yet offer consumption-level visibility. And the FinOps Foundation reported in its 2026 State of FinOps survey that 98% of organizations now actively manage AI costs, up from just 31% in 2024. The broader SaaS management market is also consolidating rapidly. In May, Deel acquired Sastrify, a German SaaS management vendor, and began folding it into its HR platform — a signal that SaaS management capabilities are increasingly being absorbed into adjacent enterprise platforms rather than remaining standalone products.</p><p>1Password's approach differs from pure-play SaaS management competitors in one important respect: it is building AI cost management on top of an identity security platform, not a FinOps or procurement tool. The company's SaaS Manager product grew out of its 2025 acquisition of Trelica, a UK-based SaaS access management startup whose technology enabled the discovery of unsanctioned applications — so-called shadow IT. As BetaKit reported at the time of that deal, 1Password co-CEO Jeff Shiner described Trelica as "a pioneer in modern SaaS access management" and said the acquisition would accelerate 1Password's Extended Access Management product roadmap by more than a year. CRN noted that Trelica brought more than 300 SaaS integrations to the platform. That identity-first lineage gives 1Password a natural advantage in connecting spend data to specific users and teams — a linkage that matters when the question shifts from "how much are we spending on AI?" to "who is spending it, and is it delivering value?"</p><h2><b>From password manager to platform company: 1Password's $6.8 billion bet on enterprise identity</b></h2><p>The launch raises a question that Henry addressed head-on: whether a company that started as a consumer password manager can credibly compete in enterprise AI cost management.</p><p>"It doesn't feel like a stretch to us. It feels like a natural progression," he said. "For more than 20 years, 1Password has evolved alongside how our customers work. We started by protecting passwords. Then we helped organizations manage secrets, control access, and get visibility into the applications their teams rely on."</p><p>The company's evolution has been rapid. 1Password raised a $620 million Series C in January 2022 led by ICONIQ Growth, <a href="https://news.crunchbase.com/venture/1password-620m-round-cybersecurity-investor/">reaching a $6.8 billion valuation</a> — at the time, the largest funding round ever raised by a Canadian company, according to Crunchbase. The round also attracted celebrity investors including Ryan Reynolds, Scarlett Johansson, and Robert Downey Jr. As of early 2025, BetaKit reported that 1Password had surpassed $250 million in annual recurring revenue, with B2B sales accounting for nearly three-quarters of total revenue and the company claiming to be cash-flow positive.</p><p>In May 2024, 1Password launched <a href="https://1password.com/extended-access-management">Extended Access Management</a>, a platform designed to secure sign-ins across both managed and unmanaged applications and devices. That same year, it acquired Kolide for device trust and, in early 2025, Trelica for SaaS discovery. In June 2026, Gartner named 1Password a Leader in its Magic Quadrant for SaaS Management Platforms. According to 1Password's own blog post on the recognition, its SaaS Manager now supports over 400 integrations and provides visibility into a library of more than 40,000 pre-populated application profiles. Each step has moved the company further from its consumer roots and deeper into enterprise infrastructure. The AI Spend and Consumption Management launch extends that trajectory into financial operations territory — a domain where 1Password will compete not only with SaaS management vendors but potentially with dedicated FinOps platforms and the AI vendors' own billing dashboards.</p><h2><b>Why high AI token consumption doesn't always mean wasted money</b></h2><p>Perhaps the most revealing part of Henry's commentary concerns what organizations should actually do with the consumption data once they have it. He pushed back forcefully against the assumption that high token consumption automatically signals waste.</p><p>"A team burning through tokens may be building something genuinely valuable," he said. "A lower-usage project might not be moving the business forward at all. What matters is whether that consumption is producing enough business value to justify the spend."</p><p>Henry drew a distinction between personal productivity — "having a bot summarize your meeting or draft a quick email" — and genuine business outcomes. "What organizations need to see is where consumption is actually driving revenue, efficiency, or something that moves the needle."</p><p>That framing positions AI Spend and Consumption Management not just as a cost-cutting tool but as a decision-support system for AI investment allocation. If a CFO can see that one engineering team's heavy Claude usage is powering a product feature that drives revenue, while another team's OpenAI spend is funding low-value internal automation, the organization can reallocate budget accordingly rather than imposing across-the-board cuts.</p><p>"When costs rise faster than expected, the instinct is to cut," Henry said. "But most organizations can't yet tell which teams, models, or tools are responsible for the increase, so they end up cutting across the board rather than directing investment toward the AI projects that are actually delivering business value. Blunt cuts on a technology you're counting on for competitive advantage is not a management strategy, it's a missed opportunity."</p><h2><b>The next enterprise budget crisis is already here — and it's priced per token</b></h2><p>The product's current scope — three vendor integrations, alerting but not enforcement — is clearly a starting point. Henry signaled that automatic spend limits are on the roadmap and that additional vendor integrations will follow based on customer demand.</p><p>But the broader trajectory he described suggests 1Password sees this launch as a wedge into a much larger opportunity. "As traditional SaaS products add AI capabilities, their pricing models are going to follow," he said. "Organizations that build visibility and management discipline around consumption now are going to be in a much better position when that happens across the rest of their software portfolio."</p><p>If Henry is right, the chaos currently confined to AI token budgets is not a temporary growing pain but a preview of how all enterprise software will eventually be priced. A decade ago, companies scrambled to understand their cloud bills. Today, they are scrambling to understand their AI bills. The question is whether the organizations building the dashboards this time around can get ahead of the curve — or whether, as Henry warned, they will end up where so many companies ended up with cloud, realizing too late how much they were overpaying, and for how long.</p><p>AI Spend and Consumption Management is <a href="https://1password.com/lp/saas-manager">available now in public preview</a> for 1Password SaaS Manager customers. Broad availability is planned for fall 2026.</p><p>
</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[With its latest layoffs, Microsoft goes all in on AI]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Microsoft’s big lead over AI competitors like Google and others has vanished, and the company is now playing catch up. As a result, Microsoft’s stock has tanked in the last year — down roughly 23% compared to a year ago, due mainly to its massive AI spending and an inability to monetize Copilot. ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3667762/it-nachrichten/with-its-latest-layoffs-microsoft-goes-all-in-on-ai/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3667762/it-nachrichten/with-its-latest-layoffs-microsoft-goes-all-in-on-ai/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2026 13:31:58 +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"><a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4187992/what-do-the-ipos-for-spacex-openai-and-anthropic-mean-for-microsoft.html">Microsoft’s big lead over AI competitors like Google and others has vanished</a>, and the company is now playing catch up. As a result, Microsoft’s stock has tanked in the last year — down roughly 23% compared to a year ago, due mainly to its massive AI spending and an inability to monetize Copilot. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The company clearly needs to do something. And last week it did, though not what you might expect. It <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4193532/microsoft-bets-that-enterprise-ai-needs-engineers-not-bigger-sales-teams-2.html">laid off 4,800 people</a>, a little more than 2% of its worldwide workforce, with its Xbox division hit hardest. And it’s not reducing its massive spending on AI data centers or other AI-related costs.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4192429/microsoft-plans-to-lay-off-several-thousand-employees.html">The <em>New York Times</em> explained the cuts this way:</a> “It is Microsoft’s latest employee culling as it plows tens of billions of dollars into the infrastructure for building artificial intelligence.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Was cutting back on gaming (while still going all-in on AI) the right move for Microsoft? To answer that, let’s take a look at the details of the company’s July layoffs.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>A year of layoffs</strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The recent cuts come in the wake of larger Microsoft workforce reductions over the last year or so. In May 2025, the company laid off 6,000 employees, about 3% of its workforce. Then a few months later, it laid off 9,000 more, about 4% of its workers. In both rounds of cuts, the company’s gaming division was hit — though it wasn’t the primary target.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This year, in April and May, the company rolled out its first voluntary retirement program for its US employees. Approximately 3,000 people took the money and ran.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Then came last week, when Microsoft primarily targeted gaming. When the cuts take full effect over the next year, 2,850 gaming employees will be let go. In addition, Microsoft is cutting loose several of its gaming studio brands, which will become independent companies or be sold to buyers.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The layoffs hit the two remaining gaming studios, Activision Blizzard, which makes the big-selling games <em>Call of Duty</em> and <em>Candy Crush</em>, and ZeniMax Media, which publishes series including <em>Fallout</em> and <em>The Elder Scrolls</em>. Three years ago, in 2023, Microsoft <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/1637433/uk-regulator-clears-way-for-microsofts-acquisition-of-activision.html">bought Activision Blizzard for $69 billion</a>. That followed its purchase of ZeniMax Media in 2020 for $7.5 billion. Both seemed like sizable acquisitions at the time. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Compared to Microsoft’s AI spending now, they’re chump change.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Follow the money</strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A memo sent to employees about the July layoffs by Amy Coleman, Microsoft executive vice president and chief people officer, <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-jobs-cuts-across-sales-and-xbox-read-the-memo-2026-7" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">made clear the layoffs were more about AI than they were about gaming</a>. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Of the cuts, she wrote: “The “why” is this: our business is changing because the world around it is changing. The way technology is built, deployed, and used is transforming faster than at any point in my time here. Our customers’ needs are shifting, the business models that serve them are shifting, and that means the work itself — what we do, where we focus, and how we’re organized — has to transform, too.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Our customers are navigating this same shift, and they’re counting on us to help them through it.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That last sentence is an oblique reference to the <a href="https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2026/07/02/microsoft-frontier-company-ai-engineering-that-amplifies-and-protects-your-intelligence/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">early July launch of the Microsoft Frontier Company</a>, which will embed 6,000 engineers inside customers’ businesses <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4192535/microsoft-and-amazon-devote-billions-of-dollars-to-thousands-of-fdes-2.html">to help them more effectively deploy AI</a>. The cost: $2.5 billion.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That sounds like a substantial amount of money. But it’s only a drop in the bucket of how much money the company plans to spend on AI. In April, Microsoft told investors it would spend $190 billion on data centers and other AI infrastructure this year, a 60% increase over what it spent last year. At the same time, Microsoft said it would shrink its workforce.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Its latest layoffs are clear-cut evidence of that. It’s also evidence that the company recognizes how badly Xbox has performed, and that it needed to do something about it. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In early June, Microsoft sent a memo to everyone in its Xbox division entitled <a href="https://news.xbox.com/en-us/2026/06/10/next-100-days-xbox-reset/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">“Next 100 Days: XBOX Reset.”</a> The memo laid out the problems with its ailing game business and pulled no punches. It noted that beyond the $69 billion the company spent three years ago to buy Activision, “Over the past five years, we have spent over $20 billion on ongoing investments in our content, platform, and hardware subsidy, but our annual revenue has declined nearly half a billion during that time. Going forward, this cannot continue.” </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The layoffs and spinoffs were the first steps. They won’t be the last.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There’s no doubt this is just the beginning of Microsoft’s disinvestment in gaming. The issue isn’t just that the company’s investments haven’t paid off. It’s that Microsoft’s AI ambitions are so large and expensive that it can no longer afford to seriously fund gaming.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Ultimately, it was the right thing to do, at least from a business perspective. The future is AI. It’s not in gaming.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So, for the foreseeable future at Microsoft, when it comes to AI — the sky’s the limit. But when it comes to gaming, things look much less rosy.</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[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[AI-powered breaches provide wake-up call for incident response]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Enterprises have worked for years to improve detection and response times in the face of increasingly sophisticated attacks that relied on manual hacking and living-of-the-land techniques. AI is now threatening to undo those efforts.



An increasing number of threat actors are automating all pha...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3667106/it-security-nachrichten/ai-powered-breaches-provide-wake-up-call-for-incident-response/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3667106/it-security-nachrichten/ai-powered-breaches-provide-wake-up-call-for-incident-response/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2026 09:08:49 +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">Enterprises have worked for years to improve detection and response times in the face of increasingly sophisticated attacks that relied on manual hacking and living-of-the-land techniques. AI is now threatening to undo those efforts.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">An increasing number of threat actors are automating all phases of attacks, including lateral movement by using LLM-powered agents, severely reducing the time from initial access to deep environment compromises.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The real shift is speed, scale, and orchestration: familiar cloud attack techniques were executed faster and across more surfaces than defenders could comfortably contain,” wrote researchers from security firm Sygnia last week in <a href="https://www.sygnia.co/blog/inside-an-ai-assisted-cloud-attack/">a report about an AI-assisted cloud environment compromise</a> they investigated.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Sygnia’s report came on the heels of research from Sysdig about <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/4193195/this-ai-agent-autonomously-hacked-a-network-adapted-on-the-fly-and-demanded-a-ransom.html">a cyber intrusion and extortion campaign conducted end to end by an autonomous AI agent</a>. Actions undertaken by the agent included harvesting credentials, mapping internal services, and establishing persistence.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">What both incidents show is that AI attacks have graduated beyond LLM-written malware scripts and phishing lures to handling all stages of attack chains, including parts that previously required human reasoning and hands-on command execution adapted to the environment.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Last month researchers from the University of Toronto revealed that they <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/4181924/ai-worm-prototype-shows-attackers-dont-need-mythos-to-take-over-your-network.html">managed to create an AI-powered self-replicating worm</a> capable of autonomously finding and exploiting weaknesses in dozens of simulated systems. The researchers achieved this by leveraging an open-weight AI model and building an attack harness to keep it on track.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">While it may not be surprising to security experts that this level of AI-assisted attack automation is already happening in the wild, it’s very unlikely that many companies have had time to adapt their defenses.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“What this exposes is a truth that all security personnel must come to terms with: Most breaches won’t hinge on advanced AI, but on unpatched systems, exposed services, and weak identity controls,” Gidi Cohen, CEO and co-founder of AI security startup Bonfy.ai, tells CSO. “AI just makes those gaps impossible to ignore. The organizations that will struggle aren’t the ones lacking AI defenses; they’re the ones still relying on human-speed security in a machine-speed threat environment.”</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">No need for zero-days</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As aptly demonstrated by the U of Toronto study, AI agents don’t need sophisticated zero-day vulnerabilities to break into environments, because many environments have systems and applications with known flaws and generic weaknesses.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The attack documented by Sysdig, which its researchers dubbed JadePuffer, exploited a year-old vulnerability (<a href="https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-3248">CVE-2025-3248</a>) in Langflow, ironically a tool for building AI agents. In the new attack documented by Sygnia, attackers exploited a weakness in a web application that enabled them to find a stored AWS key. From there they quickly made their way through the victim’s cloud environment with the help of AI automation.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The threat actor was not exploiting a single misconfiguration; they were chaining weaknesses across application services, AWS resources, source-control repositories, CI/CD workflows, runtime components, and data stores, while rapidly executing credential discovery, secrets harvesting, cloud enumeration, deployment-pipeline abuse, runtime modification, database access, and operational disruption,” the researchers said.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As with the JadePuffer case, the attackers documented by Sygnia were focused on extorting money from the victim. To achieve this, they compromised as many AWS instances as possible, exfiltrated data but also set up multiple persistence points in the AWS environment. The goal was to put pressure on the victim by demonstrating that despite recovery efforts they still had access to the environment.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Speed is the new game</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Once sophisticated attackers break into an environment they often spend weeks or even months slowly moving to other systems. This is in part because it takes time for a human team to gain a thorough understanding of the environment and to find where the most valuable systems are.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This activity is also often trial-and-error: The attackers perform reconnaissance to discover the network’s topology, find exploitable weaknesses in additional systems, and search them for stored credentials that could provide access to more targets, all while using existing OS tools or common system administration techniques that won’t trip malware and intrusion detection systems.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/569703/threat-hunting-explained-taking-an-active-approach-to-defense.html">Active threat hunting</a> is one way to counter such techniques that are designed to evade automated detection. When threat hunting, human analysts inspect the organization’s network and systems manually for signs of compromises that might have been missed by tools. This is a slow but effective defensive technique — but only if attackers operate with the same time constraints.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Traditional incident response often relies on the assumption that attacker progression will generate enough observable signals for defenders to investigate and contain activity before access materially expands across the environment,” Sygnia’s researchers wrote in their report. “The observed attack pattern challenged this assumption. Forensic traces showed rapid, repeated activity consistent with automated or AI-assisted workflows for credential harvesting, permission analysis, vulnerability discovery, and attack-path mapping, allowing the intrusion to progress across multiple stages in a compressed time frame.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">And it wasn’t a case of simple automated scripts going through an attack playbook either, but workstreams that showed clear signs of environment adaptation. Every new access was rapidly assessed and resulted in actions tailored for that specific system, whether an EC2 instance, S3 bucket, SQL database, or a CI/CD runner on GitHub.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Prevention is back in the spotlight</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The obvious answer to AI-assisted attacks is AI-assisted defense. But simply the presence of AI-powered features in detection and response products is not a guarantee for thwarting such fast and adaptive attacks. Organizations must ensure all these tools and workflows are well integrated into a coordinated process across their different teams.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Moreover, these attacks show the value of defense-in-depth actions such as continuous validation of configurations, fast patch deployment, frequent secrets rotation, network segmentation, IP-based access control rules, implementing the principle of least privilege for credentials, restricting administrative privileges, enabling multi-factor authentication, and isolating cloud workloads.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Sygnia also recommends building automated response playbooks that can be quickly adjusted and deployed when potential signs of compromise are detected.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The skill floor for running a ransomware operation dropped to the cost of running an agent,” Dray Agha, senior manager of tactical response at security firm Huntress, tells CSO. “Very mediocre cyber criminals can now ‘level up’ their impact from AI. That should worry defenders more than any single new technique, as it means more attackers, more often, against more of the long tail of unpatched, exposed infrastructure.”</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[EU to Review Social Media Age Limits After Child Safety Report]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[The European Commission is moving closer to introducing new measures on Child Safety Online after President Ursula von der Leyen received recommendations from a Special Panel examining the impact of social media on children. The report, released Monday, calls for stronger safeguards, greater plat...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3666978/it-security-nachrichten/eu-to-review-social-media-age-limits-after-child-safety-report/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3666978/it-security-nachrichten/eu-to-review-social-media-age-limits-after-child-safety-report/</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2026 08:10:56 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img width="1536" height="1024" src="https://thecyberexpress.com/wp-content/uploads/Child-Safety-Online.webp" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Child Safety Online" decoding="async" srcset="https://thecyberexpress.com/wp-content/uploads/Child-Safety-Online.webp 1536w, https://thecyberexpress.com/wp-content/uploads/Child-Safety-Online-300x200.webp 300w, https://thecyberexpress.com/wp-content/uploads/Child-Safety-Online-1024x683.webp 1024w, https://thecyberexpress.com/wp-content/uploads/Child-Safety-Online-768x512.webp 768w, https://thecyberexpress.com/wp-content/uploads/Child-Safety-Online-600x400.webp 600w, https://thecyberexpress.com/wp-content/uploads/Child-Safety-Online-150x100.webp 150w, https://thecyberexpress.com/wp-content/uploads/Child-Safety-Online-750x500.webp 750w, https://thecyberexpress.com/wp-content/uploads/Child-Safety-Online-1140x760.webp 1140w, https://thecyberexpress.com/wp-content/uploads/Child-Safety-Online.webp 1536w, https://thecyberexpress.com/wp-content/uploads/Child-Safety-Online-300x200.webp 300w, https://thecyberexpress.com/wp-content/uploads/Child-Safety-Online-1024x683.webp 1024w, https://thecyberexpress.com/wp-content/uploads/Child-Safety-Online-768x512.webp 768w, https://thecyberexpress.com/wp-content/uploads/Child-Safety-Online-600x400.webp 600w, https://thecyberexpress.com/wp-content/uploads/Child-Safety-Online-150x100.webp 150w, https://thecyberexpress.com/wp-content/uploads/Child-Safety-Online-750x500.webp 750w, https://thecyberexpress.com/wp-content/uploads/Child-Safety-Online-1140x760.webp 1140w" sizes="(max-width: 1536px) 100vw, 1536px" title="EU to Review Social Media Age Limits After Child Safety Report 1"></p><p data-start="371" data-end="819">The European Commission is moving closer to introducing new measures on <a href="https://thecyberexpress.com/ofcom-online-child-safety-rules/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Child Safety Online</a> after President Ursula von der Leyen received recommendations from a Special Panel examining the <a href="https://thecyberexpress.com/uk-social-media-ban-set-for-2027-rollout/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">impact of social media</a> on children. The report, released Monday, calls for stronger safeguards, greater platform accountability, and age-appropriate restrictions as the EU prepares to review the findings and present legislative proposals after the summer.</p>
<p data-start="821" data-end="1144">Speaking alongside the panel's co-chairs, von der Leyen said protecting children online has become one of the most pressing challenges facing governments. She stressed that parents, not algorithms, should shape children's development and warned that the current digital environment is exposing young users to growing <a class="wpil_keyword_link" href="https://thecyberexpress.com/what-are-risks-in-cybersecurity/" title="risks" data-wpil-keyword-link="linked" data-wpil-monitor-id="28954">risks</a>.</p>

<h3 data-section-id="h0xe6l" data-start="1146" data-end="1202"><strong><span role="text">Child Safety Online Becomes a Priority for the EU</span></strong></h3>
<p data-start="1204" data-end="1584">Von der Leyen <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/statement_26_1590" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">said</a> the Special Panel examined both the opportunities and harms created by social media algorithms and their effects on children. According to the findings highlighted in her statement, young people across Europe now spend between four and six hours each day on screens, while nearly 60% of young children have experienced emotional or psychosocial problems online.</p>
<p data-start="1586" data-end="1797">She said these challenges include loss of sleep, anxiety, depression, <a href="https://thecyberexpress.com/ai-vs-cyberbullying-protecting-the-vulnerable/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">cyberbullying</a>, exposure to harmful content, and unwanted online interactions, all occurring while children's brains are still developing.</p>
<p data-start="1799" data-end="1983">"We believe that parents bring up our kids, and not predatory algorithms," von der Leyen said, adding that social media platforms should no longer have unrestricted access to children.</p>

<h3 data-section-id="1e4yfwu" data-start="1985" data-end="2047"><strong><span role="text">Digital Services Act Places Responsibility on Platforms</span></strong></h3>
<p data-start="2049" data-end="2297">A key recommendation focuses on holding technology companies accountable for the safety of their services. Von der Leyen said platforms that build online systems should also be responsible for ensuring they do not harm users, particularly children.</p>
<p data-start="2299" data-end="2513">She pointed to the Digital Services Act (DSA) as the EU's framework for requiring providers to remove harmful features, including addictive algorithms, dark patterns, harmful content, and unwanted contacts.</p>
<p data-start="2515" data-end="2803">According to the Commission President, the EU has already taken action under the Digital Services Act against <a href="https://thecyberexpress.com/tiktok-addictive-design-breaches/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">TikTok</a> over its addictive design and recently against Meta. She said platforms have a duty of care toward users and must respond quickly when children report harmful experiences.</p>

<h3 data-section-id="1334s9i" data-start="2805" data-end="2854"><strong><span role="text">EU Considers Social Media Age Restrictions</span></strong></h3>
<p data-start="2856" data-end="3091">The report also strengthens the case for introducing <a href="https://thecyberexpress.com/eu-age-verification-app/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">social media age restrictions</a>, with von der Leyen arguing that the debate is no longer about whether children use social media but when platforms should be allowed to reach them.</p>
<p data-start="3093" data-end="3294">She said the European Union's <a href="https://thecyberexpress.com/eu-age-verification-app/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">age verification app </a>is designed to help parents by providing an easy-to-use, privacy-preserving, and open-source tool to verify age before accessing online platforms.</p>
<p data-start="3296" data-end="3466">Von der Leyen also suggested that Europe should consider establishing a "social media start date," comparing it to existing age limits for driving and purchasing alcohol.</p>

<h3 data-section-id="al4wmm" data-start="3468" data-end="3521"><strong><span role="text">Panel Calls for Age-Appropriate Digital Access</span></strong></h3>
<p data-start="3523" data-end="3769">According to the statement, children under the age of three should have no exposure to screens or digital platforms. Older children should only access social media under parental, caregiver, or teacher supervision and within limited time periods.</p>
<p data-start="3771" data-end="4010">Von der Leyen said childhood is a critical stage of brain development and argued that children need opportunities to play, build real-world friendships, and develop their identities before algorithms begin shaping their online experiences.</p>
<p data-start="4012" data-end="4225">She added that policymakers should first identify platforms with age-inappropriate and addictive features, describing the category as "social media plus," before considering phased access for different age groups.</p>

<h3 data-section-id="m1ejl3" data-start="4227" data-end="4282"><strong><span role="text">EU to Review Recommendations Before New Proposal</span></strong></h3>
<p data-start="4284" data-end="4464">The <a href="https://thecyberexpress.com/european-commission-cyberattack/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">European Commission</a> said the report comes after consultations with parents, educators, experts, young people, EU member states, and international partners, including Australia.</p>
<p data-start="4466" data-end="4599">Von der Leyen confirmed that the Commission will now review the recommendations before presenting a formal proposal after the summer.</p>
<p data-start="4601" data-end="4876">While no legislative measures have yet been announced, the report signals the EU's intent to strengthen Child Safety Online protections by expanding platform accountability, improving age verification, and evaluating new rules governing children's access to social media.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Weather grows as one of data center growth’s greatest risks]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[AI-driven hyperscale data centers are creating a new generation of risks and challenges that extend well beyond power shortages and chip supply, according to a new report from Zurich North America.



The unprecedented scale, speed and complexity of AI data center construction are exposing the in...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3666279/it-security-nachrichten/weather-grows-as-one-of-data-center-growths-greatest-risks/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3666279/it-security-nachrichten/weather-grows-as-one-of-data-center-growths-greatest-risks/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2026 21:53:18 +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">AI-driven hyperscale data centers are creating a new generation of risks and challenges that extend well beyond power shortages and chip supply, according to a new report from Zurich North America.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The unprecedented scale, speed and complexity of AI <a href="https://www.networkworld.com/article/4158559/data-centers-are-moving-inland-away-from-some-traditional-locations.html">data center construction</a> are exposing the industry to new threats previously unknown to the older generation of data centers, ranging from severe weather and energy constraints to insurance capacity, labor shortages and geopolitical disruptions, in its report, “<a href="https://www.zurichna.com/media/news-releases/2026/zurich-shares-firsthand-insights-in-data-center-risks-right-now">Data Center Risks Right Now: Six Critical Questions to Enable a Resilient Buildout.</a>”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The report states that hyperscalers are prepared to spend an estimated $710 billion in capital expenditures during 2026, and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjMlcb1U804">global investment in data centers</a> is projected to top $7 trillion by 2030. New capacity added between 2026 and 2030 is expected to total roughly 100 gigawatts, equivalent to the peak electricity demand of about nine New York Cities.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Much of that is because these <a href="https://www.networkworld.com/article/4129982/us-pushes-voluntary-pact-to-curb-ai-data-center-energy-impact.html">new data centers</a> are not like any previous generations of  data center development in that modern AI campuses can span up to 20 buildings, consume as much as 2,000 megawatts of electricity and house billions of dollars’ worth of servers and cooling equipment.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In addition, <a href="https://www.zurichna.com/knowledge/articles/2026/06/data-centers-through-the-eyes-of-risk-engineers">insurance providers</a> are struggling to keep pace with the massive growth in projected value of these data centers.  Zurich says the average value of the data centers it insured has jumped from roughly $150 million five years ago to about $3 billion today, while the largest campuses can be measured in the tens of billions of dollars.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The report cited six areas of concern, the primary of which is growing: severe weather.   Severe weather has surpassed fire as leading construction threat due to changing geography. Zurich states that 64% of U.S. data center capacity currently under construction is located outside traditional markets such as Northern Virginia, in areas are known for bad weather.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">They include West Texas, Tennessee, Wisconsin and Ohio, where tornadoes, hailstorms and high winds present new hazards. Zurich says severe weather has become the largest source of losses in its U.S. builders-risk portfolio over the past three years, surpassing fire as the industry’s dominant construction threat. Weather accounts for 32% of losses in Zurich’s data center portfolio, followed by fire and equipment damage.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The second issue is compressed construction schedules. Operators are increasingly beginning operating portions of a campus where construction is complete and while construction continues elsewhere. That means welding and other, heavy equipment plus incomplete fire protection coexist with active server halls containing sensitive computing equipment.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Beyond construction and to absolutely no surprise, Zurich identifies energy infrastructure as one of the defining challenges facing AI expansion. The report notes that U.S. data center electricity demand increased roughly 22% in a single year and is expected to nearly triple to approximately 134 gigawatts by 2030.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Likewise, water availability is becoming equally important as power as AI workloads generate more heat and require increasingly sophisticated cooling systems. The report notes that many operators are deploying closed-loop water recycling systems or shifting toward air cooling where possible in a bid to reduce water consumption.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Downtime has become more expensive because so much expensive equipment is involved, even minor operational failures can become multimillion-dollar events.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The report also warns that replacement equipment often requires months to arrive, citing industry estimates that switchgear may take up to 85 weeks to replace and generators as long as 100 weeks.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.zurichna.com/knowledge/articles/2026/06/the-human-side-of-data-centers">Workforce shortages</a> have raised operational concerns as the AI construction boom is straining the labor market, and they don’t mean The IT staff to run the place, they need people to build it. Zurich cited a report from <a href="https://www.agc.org/">Associated General Contractors of America</a> that 92% of U.S. construction firms are having difficulty finding qualified workers.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The report concludes that geopolitical tensions, regulatory scrutiny and emerging technologies will increasingly influence where and how data centers are built. Among the trends Zurich identifies are growing political concern over electricity prices and water consumption, increased reliance on nuclear energy, interest in integrating future quantum computing systems and even early proposals for orbital data centers supported by solar power.</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Ubuntu 26.04 fixes Papers bug that sent PDF links to wrong page]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Ubuntu 26.04 LTS is prepping a bug fix update to Papers, the document viewer that replaced Evince in 25.04, resolving several annoyances – including internal PDF links that jumped to the wrong page. The internal link snafu only occurred in some PDFs, not all, and typically took you to a page one ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3666195/linux-tipps/ubuntu-2604-fixes-papers-bug-that-sent-pdf-links-to-wrong-page/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3666195/linux-tipps/ubuntu-2604-fixes-papers-bug-that-sent-pdf-links-to-wrong-page/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2026 20:54:49 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🐧 Linux Tipps</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img width="406" height="232" src="https://i0.wp.com/www.omgubuntu.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/papers-document-editor.webp?resize=406%2C232&amp;ssl=1" class="attachment-post-list size-post-list wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" fetchpriority="high" srcset="https://i0.wp.com/www.omgubuntu.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/papers-document-editor.webp?resize=350%2C200&amp;ssl=1 350w, https://i0.wp.com/www.omgubuntu.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/papers-document-editor.webp?resize=406%2C232&amp;ssl=1 406w, https://i0.wp.com/www.omgubuntu.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/papers-document-editor.webp?resize=840%2C480&amp;ssl=1 840w, https://i0.wp.com/www.omgubuntu.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/papers-document-editor.webp?zoom=3&amp;resize=406%2C232&amp;ssl=1 1218w" sizes="(max-width: 406px) 100vw, 406px">Ubuntu 26.04 LTS is prepping a bug fix update to Papers, the document viewer that replaced Evince in 25.04, resolving several annoyances – including internal PDF links that jumped to the wrong page. The internal link snafu only occurred in some PDFs, not all, and typically took you to a page one off the actual target. Annoying. The fix stops two separate bits of code that both tried to set the zoom level when links jumped to fit-width or fit-page view. A knock-on quirk also saw the alt + p shortcut (which will jump back to the previous page) wouldn’t […]</p>
<p>You're reading <a href="https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2026/07/ubuntu-26-04-papers-pdf-viewer-bug-fixes">Ubuntu 26.04 fixes Papers bug that sent PDF links to wrong page</a>, a blog post from <a href="https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/">OMG! Ubuntu</a>. Do not reproduce elsewhere without permission.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[7 newer data science tools you should be using with Python]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Python’s rich ecosystem of data science tools is a big draw for users. The only downside of such a broad and deep collection is that sometimes the best tools can get overlooked.



Here’s a rundown of some of the best newer or less-known data science projects available for Python. Some, like Pola...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3665680/ai-nachrichten/7-newer-data-science-tools-you-should-be-using-with-python/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3665680/ai-nachrichten/7-newer-data-science-tools-you-should-be-using-with-python/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2026 17:04:47 +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">Python’s rich ecosystem of data science tools is a big draw for users. The only downside of such a broad and deep collection is that sometimes the best tools can get overlooked.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Here’s a rundown of some of the best newer or less-known data science projects available for <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2254260/how-to-get-started-with-python.html">Python</a>. Some, like Polars, are getting more attention but still deserve wider notice. Others, like ConnectorX, are hidden gems.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">ConnectorX</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Most data sits in a database somewhere, but computation typically happens outside of it. Getting data to and from the database for actual work can be a slowdown. <a href="https://github.com/sfu-db/connector-x">ConnectorX</a> loads data from databases into many common data-wrangling tools in Python, and it keeps things fast by minimizing the work required. Most of the data loading can be done in just a couple of lines of Python code and <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2255395/what-is-sql-the-lingua-franca-of-data-analysis.html">an SQL query</a>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Like Polars (which I’ll discuss shortly), ConnectorX uses a <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2258463/rust-tutorial-get-started-with-the-rust-language.html">Rust</a> library at its core. This allows for optimizations like being able to load from a data source in parallel with partitioning. Data in <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/3489168/postgresql-tutorial-get-started-with-postgresql-16.html">PostgreSQL</a>, for instance, can be loaded this way by specifying a partition column.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Aside from PostgreSQL, ConnectorX also supports reading from MySQL/MariaDB, SQLite, Amazon Redshift, Microsoft SQL Server and Azure SQL, and Oracle. The results can be funneled into a <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2264264/how-to-use-pandas-for-data-analysis-in-python.html">Pandas</a> or PyArrow DataFrame, or into Modin or Dask (via Pandas), or Polars (via PyArrow). General support for reading from ODBC is a work in progress.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">DuckDB</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Data science folks who use Python ought to be aware of <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2337363/why-you-should-use-sqlite-3.html">SQLite</a>—a small, but powerful and speedy relational database packaged with Python. Since it runs as an in-process library, rather than a separate application, SQLite is lightweight and responsive.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://duckdb.org/">DuckDB</a> is a little like someone answered the question, “<a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2336981/duckdb-the-tiny-but-powerful-analytics-database.html">What if we made SQLite for OLAP?</a>” Like other <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2334471/what-is-olap-analytical-databases.html">OLAP</a> database engines, it uses a columnar datastore and is optimized for long-running analytical query workloads. But DuckDB gives you all the things you expect from a conventional database, like ACID transactions. And there’s no separate software suite to configure; you can get it running in a Python environment with a single <code>pip install duckdb</code> command.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">DuckDB can directly ingest data in CSV, <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2255837/what-is-json-a-better-format-for-data-exchange.html">JSON</a>, or <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2336762/exploring-the-apache-ecosystem-for-data-analysis.html">Parquet</a> format, as well as <a href="https://duckdb.org/docs/stable/data/data_sources">a slew of other common data sources</a>. The resulting databases can also be partitioned into multiple physical files for efficiency, based on keys (e.g., by year and month). Querying works like any other <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2255395/what-is-sql-the-lingua-franca-of-data-analysis.html">SQL</a>-powered relational database, but with additional built-in features like the ability to take random samples of data or construct window functions.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">DuckDB also has a small but useful collection of extensions, including full-text search, <a href="https://duckdb.org/docs/stable/core_extensions/vss">accelerated vector similarity search</a>, Excel import/export, direct connections to SQLite and PostgreSQL, Parquet file export, and support for many common geospatial data formats and types.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Optimus</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">One of the least enviable jobs you can be stuck with is cleaning and preparing data for use in a DataFrame-centric project. <a href="https://github.com/hi-primus/optimus">Optimus</a> is an all-in-one tool set for loading, exploring, cleansing, and writing data back out to a variety of data sources.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Optimus can use <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2264264/how-to-use-pandas-for-data-analysis-in-python.html">Pandas</a>, Dask, CUDF (and Dask + CUDF), Vaex, or <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2259224/what-is-apache-spark-the-big-data-platform-that-crushed-hadoop.html">Spark</a> as its underlying data engine. Data can be loaded in from and saved back out to Arrow, Parquet, Excel, a variety of common database sources, or flat-file formats like CSV and JSON.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The data manipulation API resembles Pandas, but adds <code>.rows()</code> and <code>.cols()</code> accessors to make it easy to do things like sort a DataFrame, filter by column values, alter data according to criteria, or narrow the range of operations based on some criteria. Optimus also comes bundled with processors for handling common real-world data types like email addresses and URLs.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">One possible issue with Optimus is that it’s still under active development but its last official release was in 2020. This means it might not be as current as other components in your stack.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Polars</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">If you spend much time working with DataFrames and you’re frustrated by the performance limits of <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2264264/how-to-use-pandas-for-data-analysis-in-python.html">Pandas</a>, reach for <a href="https://github.com/pola-rs/polars">Polars</a>. This DataFrame library for Python offers a convenient syntax similar to Pandas.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Unlike Pandas, though, Polars uses a library written in <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2255250/what-is-rust-safe-fast-and-easy-software-development.html">Rust</a> that takes maximum advantage of your hardware out of the box. You don’t need to use special syntax to take advantage of performance-enhancing features like parallel processing or SIMD; it’s all automatic. Even simple operations like reading from a CSV file are faster. Rust developers can <a href="https://github.com/pola-rs/pyo3-polars">craft their own Polars extensions using pyo3</a>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Polars provides eager and lazy execution modes, so queries can be executed immediately or deferred until needed. It also provides a streaming API for processing queries incrementally. Streaming isn’t available yet for many functions, although Polars can always fall back to the in-memory engine for such operations if need be. You can also <a href="https://docs.pola.rs/api/python/stable/reference/lazyframe/api/polars.LazyFrame.show_graph.html">plot execution graphs for queries</a>, streaming or otherwise, if you want to get an idea of what memory or CPU consumption is like for the query (via the external Graphviz library).</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">DVC</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A major and pervasive issue with data science experiments is <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2260350/version-control-track-the-who-what-and-when-of-software-changes.html">version control</a>—not of the project’s code, but its data. <a href="https://github.com/iterative/dvc">DVC</a>, short for Data Version Control, lets you attach version descriptors to datasets, check them into Git as you would the rest of your code, and keep versions of data and code consistent together.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">DVC can track most any kind of dataset as long as they can be expressed as a file, whether kept in local storage or in a <a href="https://dvc.org/doc/user-guide/data-management/remote-storage#supported-storage-types">remote storage service</a> like an Amazon S3 bucket. You can describe how data models are managed and used by way of a “<a href="https://dvc.org/doc/user-guide/data-management/remote-storage#supported-storage-types">pipeline</a>,” which DVC’s documentation describes as being like “a Makefile system for machine learning projects.”</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The use cases for DVC are intended to be more than just allowing data to be versioned alongside code. It also works as a fast data cache for remotely hosted data, a methodology for tracking experiments conducted with data, and a registry or catalog for <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2254843/what-is-machine-learning-intelligence-derived-from-data.html">machine learning models</a> created with the data. <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2254808/get-started-with-visual-studio-code.html">Visual Studio Code</a> users can integrate DVC workflows into the editor by way of the <a href="https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=Iterative.dvc">DVC VS Code extension</a>.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Cleanlab</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Good machine learning datasets are hard to come by, because it’s expensive and time-consuming to create clean, properly labeled data. Sometimes, though, you have no choice but to use data that’s raw and inconsistent. <a href="https://github.com/cleanlab/cleanlab">Cleanlab</a> (as in, “cleans labels”) was made for this scenario.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Cleanlab uses existing, high-quality machine learning datasets to analyze lower-quality, unlabeled (or poorly labeled) datasets. You create a model based on the original dataset, use Cleanlab to figure out what needs to be improved in the original dataset, then re-train using your automatically cleaned and adjusted dataset to see the difference.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Cleanlab is data-model and data-framework agnostic, a powerful aspect of its design. It doesn’t matter if you’re running <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2335194/what-is-pytorch-python-machine-learning-on-gpus.html">PyTorch</a>, OpenAI, scikit-learn, or <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2255099/what-is-tensorflow-the-machine-learning-library-explained.html">Tensorflow</a>; Cleanlab can work with any classifier. It does, however, have specific workflows for common tasks like token classification, multi-labeling, regression, image segmentation and object detection, outlier detection, and so on. It’s worth perusing the <a href="https://github.com/cleanlab/examples">example set</a> to see for yourself how the process works and what results you can expect.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Snakemake</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Data science workflows are hard to set up, and that’s even harder to do in a consistent, predictable way. <a href="https://github.com/snakemake/snakemake">Snakemake</a> was created to automate the process, setting up data analysis workflows in ways that ensure everyone gets the same results. Many existing data science projects rely on Snakemake. The more moving parts you have in your data science workflow, the more likely you’ll benefit from automating that workflow with Snakemake.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Snakemake workflows resemble GNU Make workflows—you define the steps of the workflow with rules, which specify what they take in, what they put out, and what commands to execute to accomplish that. Workflow rules can be multithreaded (assuming that gives them any benefit), and configuration data can be piped in from <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2255837/what-is-json-a-better-format-for-data-exchange.html">JSON</a> or <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2336307/7-yaml-gotchas-to-avoidand-how-to-avoid-them.html">YAML</a> files. You can also define functions in your workflows to transform data used in rules, and write the actions taken at each step to logs.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Snakemake jobs are designed to be portable—they can be deployed on any <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2266945/what-is-kubernetes-scalable-cloud-native-applications.html">Kubernetes-managed environment</a>, or in specific cloud environments like Google Cloud Life Sciences or Tibanna on AWS. Workflows can be “frozen” to use a specific set of packages, and successfully executed workflows can have unit tests automatically generated and stored with them. And for long-term archiving, you can store the workflow as a tarball.</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[What is cloud computing? From infrastructure to autonomous, agentic-driven ecosystems]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Cloud computing continues to be the platform of choice for large applications and a driver of innovation in enterprise technology. Gartner forecasts public cloud spending alone to  the public cloud services market alone will reach $1.42 trillion in current U.S. dollars, driven by AI workloads and...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3665669/ai-nachrichten/what-is-cloud-computing-from-infrastructure-to-autonomous-agentic-driven-ecosystems/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3665669/ai-nachrichten/what-is-cloud-computing-from-infrastructure-to-autonomous-agentic-driven-ecosystems/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2026 17:04:32 +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>



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



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2337750/when-will-cloud-computing-stop-growing.html">Cloud computing</a> continues to be the <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/482179/volkswagen-drives-the-automotive-industry-cloud-forward.html">platform of choice for large applications</a> and a <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2336917/cloud-computing-is-reinventing-cars-and-trucks.html">driver of innovation</a> in enterprise technology. <a href="https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2024-05-20-gartner-forecasts-worldwide-public-cloud-end-user-spending-to-surpass-675-billion-in-2024#:~:text=Worldwide%20end-user%20spending%20on,(GenAI)%20and%20application%20modernization.">Gartner </a>forecasts public cloud spending alone to  the<a href="https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/6302015#:~:text=Summary,AI%20workloads%20and%20enterprise%20modernization."> public cloud services market alone </a>will reach $1.42 trillion in current U.S. dollars, driven by AI workloads and enterprise modernization.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Driving this growth are the rise of <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2262333/youre-doing-cloud-based-ai-and-machine-learning-wrong.html">AI and machine learning on the cloud</a>, <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2335144/what-happened-to-edge-computing.html">adoption of edge computing</a>, the maturation of <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/3406501/what-is-serverless-serverless-computing-explained.html">serverless computing</a>, the emergence of <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/3584433/are-you-ready-for-multicloud-a-checklist.html">multicloud strategies</a>, improved security and privacy, and more sustainable cloud practices.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What is cloud computing?</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">While often used broadly, the term cloud computing is defined as an abstraction of compute, storage, and network infrastructure assembled as a platform on which applications and systems are deployed quickly and scaled on the fly.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Most cloud customers consume <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/2097657/6-cloud-market-forces-impacting-it-strategies-today.html">public cloud </a>computing services over the internet, which are hosted in large, remote data centers maintained by cloud providers. The most common type of cloud computing, SaaS (software as service), delivers prebuilt applications to the browsers of customers who pay per seat or by usage, exemplified by such popular apps as Salesforce, Google Docs, or Microsoft Teams.</p>



<h3><strong> 5 top trends in cloud computing</strong></h3>

<ol>
<li><strong>Agentic cloud ecosystems: </strong> The shift from AI as a tool to AI as an autonomous operator within cloud environments.</li>
<li><strong>Sovereign and localized clouds: </strong> Meeting strict national data residency and digital sovereignty laws.</li>
<li><strong>Specialized AI hardware access: </strong> Navigating the GPU capacity crunch through reserved instances and boutique AI clouds.</li>
<li><strong>Integrated greenOps: </strong>Merging cost optimization with mandatory carbon-footprint reporting.</li>
<li><strong>Industry-specific walled gardens: </strong> The maturation of vertical clouds into highly regulated, precompliant environments for finance and healthcare.</li>
</ol>






<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Next in line is IaaS (infrastructure as a service), which offers vast, virtualized compute, storage, and network infrastructure upon which customers build their own applications, often with the aid of providers’ <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2269032/what-is-an-api-application-programming-interfaces-explained.html">API</a>-accessible services.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When people refer to the “the cloud” today, they most often mean the big IaaS providers: AWS (Amazon Web Services), Google Cloud Platform, or Microsoft Azure. All three have become ecosystems of services that go way beyond infrastructure and include developer tools, serverless computing, machine learning services and APIs, data warehouses, and thousands of other services. With both SaaS and IaaS, a key benefit is agility. Customers gain new capabilities almost instantly without the capital investment in hardware or software on-premises — and they can instantly scale the cloud resources they consume up or down as needed.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">According to <a href="https://foundryco.com/research/cloud-computing/">Foundry’s Cloud Computing Study, 2025</a>, enterprises are moving to the cloud to improve security and/or governance, increase scalability​, accelerate adoption of artificial intelligence and machine learning and other new technologies, replace on-premises legacy technology, ​improve employee productivity, and ensure disaster recovery and business continuity.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Hyperscalers now dominate cloud services</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The largest cloud service providers are often described as hyperscalers, due to their capability to provide large-scale data centers across the globe. Hyperscalers typically offer a wide range of cloud services, including IaaS, PaaS, SaaS, and more.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As mentioned above, notable hyperscalers include Amazon Web Services (AWS), Google Cloud Platform, and Microsoft Azure. They offer the following capabilities.</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><strong>Scalability</strong>: Hyperscalers can handle massive workloads and scale resources up or down quickly.</li>



<li><strong>Cost-effectiveness</strong>: Hyperscalers often offer competitive pricing and economies of scale.</li>



<li><strong>Global reach</strong>: Hyperscalers operate data centers around the world, providing low-latency access to customers in different regions.</li>



<li><strong>Innovation</strong>: Hyperscalers are at the forefront of cloud innovation, offering new services and features.</li>
</ul>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Challenges of working with hyperscalers</h3>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><strong>Vendor lock-in</strong>: Relying heavily on a single hyperscaler can create <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/648048/hyperscalers-in-crosshairs-for-anti-competitive-pricing-and-lock-in.html">vendor lock-in</a>, making it difficult to switch to another provider and charging large egress fees if you do move.</li>



<li><strong>Complexity</strong>: Hyperscalers offer a vast array of services, which can be overwhelming for some customers.</li>



<li><strong>Security concerns</strong>: Because hyperscalers handle sensitive data, security is a major concern.</li>
</ul>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>AI, Agents, and the Sovereign Cloud</strong></h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The AI-enabled enterprise has moved beyond simple chatbots. The focus has shifted to <strong>agentic workflows </strong>— autonomous systems that reside in the cloud and possess the authority to execute business processes, manage cloud spend, and self-patch security vulnerabilities without human intervention.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>The shift to agentic infrastructure</strong></h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Cloud providers are no longer just selling compute. They are selling <strong>inference-as-a-service</strong>. Modern cloud budgets are now dominated by the high cost of specialized GPU clusters (such as Nvidia’s Blackwell architecture). This has led to the rise of boutique AI clouds that compete with hyperscalers by offering bare-metal access to the latest silicon specifically for model training and fine-tuning.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Data sovereignty and private AI</strong></h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A major shift in late 2025 is the move away from public AI models for sensitive data. Organizations are increasingly using retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) within walled garden environments. This ensures that a company’s proprietary data never leaves their specific cloud instance to train a provider’s base model.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Furthermore, sovereign AI has become a requirement for global operations. Governments now demand that the AI models processing their citizens’ data be hosted on infrastructure that is owned, operated, and governed within their own borders.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>The challenges of ghost AI</strong></h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Just as shadow IT plagued the 2010s, ghost AI—unauthorized AI agents running on corporate cloud accounts — has become a primary security risk. Managing these autonomous entities requires a new layer of <strong>AI governance</strong>, where the cloud provider automatically audits the intent and permissions of every running agent to prevent runaway costs or data leaks.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Cloud computing definitions</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In 2011, <a href="https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/legacy/sp/nistspecialpublication800-145.pdf">NIST posted a PDF</a> that divided cloud computing into three “service models” — SaaS, IaaS, and PaaS (platform as a service) — the latter being a controlled environment within which customers develop and run applications. These three categories have largely stood the test of time, although most PaaS solutions now are made available as services within IaaS ecosystems rather than as dedicated PaaS clouds.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Two evolutionary trends stand out since NIST’s threefold definition. One is the long and growing list of subcategories within SaaS, IaaS, and PaaS, some of which blur the lines between categories. The other is the explosion of API-accessible services available in the cloud, particularly within IaaS ecosystems. The cloud has become a crucible of innovation where many emerging technologies appear first as services, a big attraction for business customers who understand the potential competitive advantages of early adoption.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>SaaS (software as a service) definition</strong></h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This type of cloud computing delivers applications over the internet, typically with a browser-based user interface. Today, most software companies offer their wares via <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2256637/what-is-saas-software-as-a-service-defined.html">SaaS </a>— if not exclusively, then at least as an option.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The most popular SaaS applications for business are <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/3570821/google-workspace-explained-googles-answer-to-microsoft-365.html">Google’s G Suite</a> and <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/1710782/office-2021-vs-microsoft-365-office-365-how-to-choose.html">Microsoft’s Office 365</a>. Most enterprise applications, including giant <a href="https://www.cio.com/article/272362/what-is-erp-key-features-of-top-enterprise-resource-planning-systems.html">ERP</a> suites from Oracle and SAP, come in both SaaS and on-premises versions. SaaS applications typically offer extensive configuration options as well as development environments that enable customers to code their own modifications and additions. They also enable data integration with on-prem applications.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>IaaS (infrastructure as a service) definition</strong></h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">At a basic level, <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2255598/what-is-iaas-your-data-center-in-the-cloud.html">IaaS </a>cloud providers offer virtualized compute, storage, and networking over the internet on a pay-per-use basis. Think of it as a data center maintained by someone else, remotely, but with a software layer that virtualizes all those resources and automates customers’ ability to allocate them with little trouble.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But that’s just the basics. The full array of services offered by the major public IaaS providers is staggering: <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2269279/the-era-of-the-cloud-database-has-finally-begun.html">highly scalable databases</a>, virtual private networks, <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2255434/what-is-big-data-analytics-fast-answers-from-diverse-data-sets.html">big data analytics</a>, <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2259367/buyers-guide-how-to-choose-a-cloud-machine-learning-platform.html">AI and machine learning services</a>, application platforms, developer tools, <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/3215275/what-is-devops-transforming-software-development.html">devops</a> tools, and so on. Amazon Web Services was the first IaaS provider and remains the leader, followed by <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2269424/azure-cloud-services-guide-the-right-tools-for-the-job.html">Microsoft Azure</a>, <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2263677/google-cloud-platform-services-guide-the-right-tools-for-the-job.html">Google Cloud Platform</a>, <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2256709/ibm-cloud-services-guide-the-right-tools-for-the-job.html">IBM Cloud</a>, and <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/3529339/oracle-cloudworld-2024-10-key-takeaways-from-the-big-annual-event.html">Oracle Cloud</a>.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>PaaS (platform as a service) definition</strong></h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2256066/what-is-paas-platform-as-a-service-a-simpler-way-to-build-software-applications.html">PaaS</a> provides sets of services and workflows that specifically target developers, who can use shared tools, processes, and APIs to accelerate the development, testing, and deployment of applications. Salesforce’s <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2257217/5-foolish-reasons-youre-not-using-heroku.html">Heroku</a> and Salesforce Platform (formerly Force.com) are popular public cloud PaaS offerings; <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2258957/cloud-foundry-stages-a-comeback.html">Cloud Foundry</a> and Red Hat’s <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2261552/red-hat-openshift-adds-containers-and-microservices-features-for-developers.html">OpenShift</a> can be deployed on premises or accessed through the major public clouds. For enterprises, PaaS can ensure that developers have ready access to resources, follow certain processes, and use only a specific array of services, while operators maintain the underlying infrastructure.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>FaaS (function as a service) definition</strong></h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2256402/paas-caas-or-faas-how-to-choose.html">FaaS</a>, the original and most basic version of <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2266283/serverless-in-the-cloud-aws-vs-google-cloud-vs-microsoft-azure.html">serverless computing</a>, adds another layer of abstraction to PaaS, so that developers are insulated from everything in the stack below their code. Instead of futzing with virtual servers, containers, and application runtimes, developers upload narrowly functional blocks of code, and set them to be triggered by a certain event (such as a form submission or uploaded file). All of the major clouds offer FaaS on top of IaaS: <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2265897/aws-lambda-tutorial-get-started-with-serverless-computing-2.html">AWS Lambda</a>, <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2255377/how-to-work-with-azure-functions-in-csharp.html">Azure Functions</a>, <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2243861/google-takes-aims-at-aws-lambda-with-cloud-functions.html">Google Cloud Functions</a>, and IBM Cloud Functions. A special benefit of FaaS applications is that they consume no IaaS resources until an event occurs, reducing pay-per-use fees.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Private cloud definition</strong></h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2179737/build-your-own-private-cloud-2.html">private cloud</a> downsizes the technologies used to run IaaS public clouds into software that can be deployed and operated in a customer’s data center. As with a public cloud, internal customers can provision their own virtual resources to build, test, and run applications, with metering to charge back departments for resource consumption. For administrators, the private cloud amounts to the ultimate in data center automation, minimizing manual provisioning and management.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">VMware remains a force in the private cloud software market, but the acquisition by Broadcom has created confusion and raised concerns among some customers about potential changes in pricing, licensing, and support. This could lead some organizations to explore alternative solutions.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">OpenStack continues to be a popular open-source choice for building private clouds. It offers a flexible and customizable platform that can be tailored to specific needs. However, OpenStack can be complex to deploy and manage, and it may require significant expertise to maintain.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/3268073/what-is-kubernetes-your-next-application-platform.html">Kubernetes</a>, a container orchestration platform that has gained significant traction in recent years, is often used in conjunction with other technologies like OpenStack to build <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/3281046/what-is-cloud-native-the-modern-way-to-develop-software.html">cloud-native</a> applications. Red Hat OpenShift is a comprehensive cloud platform based on Kubernetes that provides a managed experience for deploying and managing <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/3310941/why-you-should-use-docker-and-containers.html">container</a>-based, applications.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Many cloud providers offer their own cloud-native platforms and tools, such as <a href="https://www.networkworld.com/article/968169/aws-rolls-out-outposts-for-on-premises-hybrid-cloud.html">AWS Outposts</a>, <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2253985/a-cloud-in-your-datacenter-microsoft-azure-stack-arrives.html">Azure Stack</a>, and <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2257617/what-is-google-cloud-anthos-managed-kubernetes-everywhere.html">Google Cloud Anthos</a>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Common factors to consider when evaluating private cloud platforms include the following:</p>



<ol class="wp-block-list">
<li><strong>Pricing</strong>: The initial cost of deployment and ongoing maintenance costs.</li>



<li><strong>Complexity</strong>: The level of technical expertise needed to manage the platform.</li>



<li><strong>Flexibility</strong>: The ability to customize the platform to meet specific needs.</li>



<li><strong>Vendor lock-in</strong>: The degree to which the organization is tied to a particular vendor.</li>



<li><strong>Security</strong>: The security features and capabilities of the platform.</li>



<li><strong>Scalability</strong>: The capability to expand the platform to meet future needs.</li>
</ol>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Hybrid cloud definition</strong></h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2257084/hybrid-cloud-private-cloud-public-cloud-multicloud-how-to-choose.html">hybrid cloud</a> is the integration of a private cloud with a public cloud. At its most developed, the hybrid cloud involves creating parallel environments in which applications can move easily between private and public clouds. In other instances, databases may stay in the customer data center and integrate with public cloud applications — or virtualized data center workloads may be replicated to the cloud during times of peak demand. The types of integrations between private and public clouds vary widely, but they must be extensive to earn a hybrid cloud designation.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Public APIs (application programming interfaces) definition</strong></h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Just as SaaS delivers applications to users over the internet, public <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2269032/what-is-an-api-application-programming-interfaces-explained.html">APIs</a> offer developers application functionality that can be accessed programmatically. For example, in building web applications, developers often tap into the Google Maps API to provide driving directions; to integrate with social media, developers may call upon APIs maintained by Twitter, Facebook, or LinkedIn. <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2253662/get-started-with-twilios-programmable-video-api.html">Twilio</a> has built a successful business delivering telephony and messaging services via public APIs. Ultimately, any business can provision its own public APIs to enable customers to consume data or access application functionality.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>iPaaS (integration platform as a service) definition</strong></h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Data integration is a key issue for any sizeable company, but particularly for those that adopt SaaS at scale. iPaaS providers typically offer prebuilt connectors for sharing data among popular SaaS applications and on-premises enterprise applications, though providers may focus more or less on business-to-business and e-commerce integrations, cloud integrations, or traditional SOA-style integrations. iPaaS offerings in the cloud from such providers as Dell Boomi, Informatica, MuleSoft, and SnapLogic also let users implement data mapping, transformations, and workflows as part of the integration-building process.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>IDaaS (identity as a service) definition</strong></h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The most difficult security issue related to <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2268884/why-cloud-computing-is-always-a-good-question.html">cloud computing</a> is managing user identity and its associated rights and permissions across data centers and pubic cloud sites. <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/572759/idaas-explained-how-it-compares-to-iam.html">IDaaS providers</a> maintain cloud-based user profiles that authenticate users and enable access to resources or applications based on security policies, user groups, and individual privileges. The ability to integrate with various directory services (Active Directory, LDAP, etc.) and provide single sign-on across business-oriented SaaS applications is essential.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Leaders in IDaaS include Microsoft, IBM, Google, Oracle, Okta, Capgemini, Okta, Junio Corporation, OneLogin, and JumpCloud. <strong> </strong></p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Collaboration platforms</strong></h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/3595255/slack-adds-templates-to-help-users-kick-off-projects-quicker.html">Collaboration solutions such as Slack</a> and <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/3593909/microsoft-combines-teams-chat-and-channels-in-ui-refresh.html">Microsoft Teams</a> have become vital messaging platforms that enable groups to communicate and work together effectively. Basically, these solutions are relatively simple SaaS applications that support chat-style messaging along with file sharing and audio or video communication. Most offer APIs to facilitate integrations with other systems and enable third-party developers to create and share add-ins that augment functionality.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Vertical clouds</strong></h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Key providers in such industries as financial services, healthcare, retail, life sciences, and manufacturing provide PaaS clouds to enable customers to build vertical applications that tap into industry-specific, API-accessible services. Vertical clouds can dramatically reduce the time to market for vertical applications and accelerate domain-specific B2B integrations. Most vertical clouds are built with the intent of nurturing partner ecosystems.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Other cloud computing considerations</strong></h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The most widely accepted definition of cloud computing means that you run your workloads on someone else’s servers, but this is not the same as outsourcing. Virtual cloud resources and even SaaS applications must be configured and maintained by the customer. Consider these factors when planning a cloud initiative.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Cloud computing security considerations</strong></h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Objections to the public cloud generally begin with <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/555213/top-cloud-security-threats.html">cloud security</a>, although the major public clouds have proven themselves much less susceptible to attack than the average enterprise data center.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Of greater concern is the integration of security policy and identity management between customers and public cloud providers. In addition, government regulation may forbid customers from allowing sensitive data off-premises. Other concerns include the risk of outages and the long-term operational costs of public cloud services.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Multicloud management considerations</strong></h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">To enhance their operational efficiency, reduce costs, and improve security, many companies are increasingly turning to <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2335587/can-cloud-computing-be-truly-federated.html">multicloud strategies</a>. By distributing workloads across <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2336303/are-the-different-public-clouds-really-that-different.html">multiple cloud providers</a>, organizations can avoid vendor lock-in, <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2261783/3-cloud-architecture-patterns-that-optimize-scalability-and-cost.html">optimize costs</a>, and leverage the best-of-breed services offered by different providers.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This multicloud approach also improves performance and reliability by minimizing downtime and optimizing latency. Additionally, multicloud strategies strengthen security by diversifying the attack surface and facilitating compliance with industry regulations. Finally, by replicating critical workloads across multiple regions and providers, companies can establish robust disaster recovery and business continuity plans, ensuring minimal disruption in the event of catastrophic failures.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The bar to qualify as a <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2256706/what-is-multicloud-the-next-step-in-cloud-computing.html">multicloud</a> adopter is low: A customer just needs to use more than one public cloud service. However, depending on the number and variety of cloud services involved, managing multiple clouds can become complex from both a cost optimization and a technology perspective.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In some cases, customers subscribe to multiple cloud services simply to avoid dependence on a single provider. A more sophisticated approach is to select public clouds based on the unique services they offer and, in some cases, integrate them. For example, developers might want to use Google’s <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2336686/google-vertex-ai-studio-puts-the-promise-in-generative-ai.html">Vertex AI Studio</a> on Google Cloud Platform to build AI-driven applications, but prefer <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2260091/what-is-jenkins-the-ci-server-explained.html">Jenkins</a> hosted on the CloudBees platform for <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/3271126/what-is-cicd-continuous-integration-and-continuous-delivery-explained.html">continuous integration</a>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">To control costs and reduce management overhead, some customers opt for <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/3520828/how-cloud-custodian-conquered-cloud-resource-management.html">cloud management platforms</a> (CMPs) and/or cloud service brokers (CSBs), which let you manage multiple clouds as if they were one cloud. The problem is that these solutions tend to limit customers to such common-denominator services as storage and compute, ignoring the panoply of services that make each cloud unique.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Edge computing considerations</strong></h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">You often see <a href="https://www.networkworld.com/article/964305/what-is-edge-computing-and-how-it-s-changing-the-network.html">edge computing</a> incorrectly described as an alternative to cloud computing. Edge computing is about moving compute to local devices in a highly distributed system, typically as a layer around a cloud computing core. There is typically a cloud involved to orchestrate all of the devices and take in their data, then analyze it or otherwise act on it. </p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>To the cloud and back – why repatriation is real</strong></h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">While public cloud offers scalability and flexibility, some enterprises are opting to <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2336102/why-companies-are-leaving-the-cloud.html">return to on-premises infrastructure</a> due to rising costs, data security concerns, performance issues, vendor lock-in, and regulatory compliance challenges. While the public cloud offers scalability and flexibility, on-premises infrastructure provides greater control, customization, and potential cost savings in certain scenarios leading some technology decision-makers to <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2336835/do-you-need-to-repatriate-from-the-cloud.html">consider repatriation</a>. However, a hybrid cloud approach, combining public and private cloud, often offers the best balance of benefits.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">More specific reasons to repatriate including the following:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Unanticipated costs, such as data transfer fees, storage charges, and <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2336430/why-public-cloud-providers-are-cutting-egress-fees.html">egress fees</a>, can quickly escalate, especially for large-scale cloud deployments.  </li>



<li>Inaccurate resource provisioning or underutilization can lead to higher-than-expected costs.</li>



<li>Stricter <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/3545268/why-cloud-security-outranks-cost-and-scalability.html">data privacy regulations</a> require organizations to store and process data within specific geographic boundaries.  </li>



<li>For highly sensitive data, companies may prefer to maintain greater control over security measures and access permissions. </li>



<li><a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2338856/cloud-may-be-overpriced-compared-to-on-premises-systems.html">On-premises infrastructure</a> can offer lower latency, particularly for applications requiring real-time processing or high-performance computing.  </li>



<li>Overreliance on a single cloud provider can limit flexibility and increase costs. Repatriation allows organizations to diversify their infrastructure and reduce vendor dependency.  </li>



<li>Industries with stringent compliance requirements may find it easier to meet standards with on-premises infrastructure.  </li>



<li>On-premises environments offer greater control over hardware, software, and network configurations, allowing for customized solutions.  </li>
</ul>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Benefits of cloud computing</strong></h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The cloud’s main appeal is to reduce the time to market of applications that need to scale dynamically. Increasingly, however, developers are drawn to the cloud by the abundance of advanced new services that can be incorporated into applications, from machine learning to internet of things (IoT) connectivity.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Although businesses sometimes migrate legacy applications to the cloud to reduce data center resource requirements, the real benefits accrue to new applications that take advantage of cloud services and “cloud native” attributes. The latter include <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2263327/what-are-microservices-your-next-software-architecture.html">microservices architecture</a>, <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2253801/what-is-docker-the-spark-for-the-container-revolution.html">Linux containers</a> to enhance application portability, and container management solutions such as <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2266945/what-is-kubernetes-your-next-application-platform.html">Kubernetes</a> that orchestrate container-based services. <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2255318/what-is-cloud-native-the-modern-way-to-develop-software.html">Cloud-native</a> approaches and solutions can be part of either public or private clouds and help enable highly efficient <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2255028/what-is-devops-transforming-software-development.html">devops</a> workflows.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Cloud computing, be it public or private or hybrid or multicloud, has become the platform of choice for large applications, particularly customer-facing ones that need to change frequently or scale dynamically. More significantly, the major public clouds now lead the way in enterprise technology development, debuting new advances before they appear anywhere else. Workload by workload, enterprises are opting for the cloud, where an endless parade of exciting new technologies invite innovative use.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">SaaS has its roots in the ASP (application service provider) trend of the early 2000s, when providers would run applications for business customers in the provider’s data center, with dedicated instances for each customer. The ASP model was a spectacular failure because it quickly became impossible for providers to maintain so many separate instances, particularly as customers demanded customizations and updates.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Salesforce is widely considered the first company to launch a highly successful SaaS application using <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/2335534/the-evolution-of-multitenancy-for-cloud-computing.html">multitenancy</a> — a defining characteristic of the SaaS model. Rather than each Salesforce customer getting its own application instance, customers who subscribe to the company’s salesforce automation software share a single, large, dynamically scaled instance of an application (like tenants sharing an apartment building), while storing their data in separate, secure repositories on the SaaS provider’s servers. Fixes can be rolled out behind the scenes with zero downtime and customers can receive UX or functionality improvements as they become available.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"></p>
</div></div></div>
</div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Q&A: How Google plans to reinvent the spreadsheet with AI]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Nearly five decades after the launch of VisiCalc, AI is reshaping one of the world’s most familiar productivity tools — the humble spreadsheet.



While a lot of knowledge workers interact with spreadsheets on a regular basis, many lack the skills and confidence to access more advanced functions....]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3665017/ai-nachrichten/qa-how-google-plans-to-reinvent-the-spreadsheet-with-ai/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3665017/ai-nachrichten/qa-how-google-plans-to-reinvent-the-spreadsheet-with-ai/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2026 13:04:15 +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>Nearly five decades after the launch of VisiCalc, AI is reshaping one of the world’s most familiar productivity tools — the humble spreadsheet.</p>



<p>While a lot of knowledge workers <a href="https://www.acuitytraining.co.uk/news-tips/new-excel-facts-statistics/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">interact with spreadsheets on a regular basis</a>, many lack the skills and confidence to access more advanced functions.</p>



<p>“For a very long time, spreadsheets forced you to learn spreadsheet syntax and spreadsheet ways of working,” said Eric Birnbaum, director of product management for <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/1657150/how-to-use-google-sheets.html" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.computerworld.com/article/1657150/how-to-use-google-sheets.html">Google Sheets</a>. “But think about how many people need to use spreadsheets at work and don’t have the skill set to create the kinds of spreadsheets that can be really helpful for them.”</p>



<p>The addition of artificial intelligence can help handle that issue, he said, making the software more accessible to a wide range of office workers. “AI is unlocking the power of spreadsheets, taking on a lot of the difficult work that’s required to use them. That can be incredibly empowering for users,” said Birnbaum.</p>



<p>Google has steadily <a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4131504/gemini-supercharge-google-sheets-spreadsheets.html" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.computerworld.com/article/4131504/gemini-supercharge-google-sheets-spreadsheets.html">expanded generative AI (genAI) capabilities in Sheets</a> since launching Duet AI — now Gemini — for Workspace in 2023.</p>



<p>Gemini in Sheets is available at no extra cost to Google Workspace subscribers, though a paid <a href="https://knowledge.workspace.google.com/admin/generative-ai/workspace-with-gemini/ai-expanded-access" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">AI Expanded Access add-on </a>– costing $30 per user each month – is required to remove certain usage limits.</p>



<p>Features that have rolled out in recent months include the ability for a Gemini agent in Sheets to carry out <a href="https://workspaceupdates.googleblog.com/2025/10/expanded-editing-capabilities-gemini-in-google-sheets.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">multi-step actions</a> such as formatting, analysis and data entry, and, more recently, the ability to <a href="https://workspaceupdates.googleblog.com/2026/04/build-and-edit-complex-spreadsheets-with-Gemini-in-Google-Sheets.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">create entire spreadsheets</a> from a single prompt. A <a href="https://workspaceupdates.googleblog.com/2026/04/effortlessly-automate-data-entry-in-Google-Sheets-using-Fill-with-Gemini.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Fill with Gemini feature </a>builds on the<a href="https://workspaceupdates.googleblog.com/2025/06/generate-data-with-gemini-in-google-sheets.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"> existing AI function,</a> enabling users to automatically populate selected cells by detecting intent from information within a spreadsheet as well as from the web.</p>



<p>Another feature, Sheets Canvas (currently available in alpha), lets users generate interactive apps that update in real-time based on changes to spreadsheet data. This could be a kanban board for a sales pipeline, for instance, or an analytics dashboard that uses Sheets as its back-end data source. </p>



<p>Google claims users already see a range of benefits from Gemini in Sheets. According to an August 2025 survey of 200 Sheets users conducted by the company, the majority of knowledge workers (89%) said AI features in Sheets save them at least an hour a week, and 88% believe AI features have made them more confident in their data analysis skills. </p>



<p>The most popular AI use cases include creating spreadsheets and charts, analyzing data, and fixing broken formulas. How widely these features are actually used is unclear; Google declined to provide weekly usage statistics for Gemini in Sheets.</p>



<p>As the company embeds Gemini deeper into Sheets, questions remain about just how much businesses can trust AI tools to handle important business data, as well as what increased automation means for those who spend much of their day wrangling data. </p>


<div class="extendedBlock-wrapper block-coreImage undefined"><figure class="wp-block-image size-full is-resized"> width="480" height="480" sizes="auto, (max-width: 480px) 100vw, 480px"&gt;<figcaption class="wp-element-caption"><p>Eric Birnbaum, director of product management for Google Sheets.</p></figcaption></figure><p class="imageCredit">Google</p></div>



<p><em>Computerworld</em> recently talked with Birnbaum about the potential benefits and challenges of the latest evolution of spreadsheet software. This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.</p>



<p><strong>As businesses become more focused on seeing value from AI investments, what measurable benefits are customers seeing from Gemini in Sheets – for example, time saved or other forms of return on investment? </strong>“Spreadsheets remain one of the universal languages for businesses, and we don’t anticipate that’s going to change anytime soon. But by bringing AI into the product where people work, we think it can significantly reduce the technical tax of data: the time spent understanding it, sourcing it, analyzing it, visualizing it.</p>



<p>“Historically, data professionals spent — let’s estimate it at 80% of their time — on the mechanical groundwork, data cleaning, crafting formulas, formatting, troubleshooting, and maybe only 20% of their time on actual strategic decision-making.</p>



<p>“We think that by offloading the manual, time-consuming, error-prone data work to Gemini, we can flip that ratio a bit, so humans can focus on the things that really matter: the high-value questions to ask and the judgment calls and decisions that get made from them. We’re starting to see evidence of that in our own user base and customer base.</p>



<p>“The second point to make is that AI can democratize data analysis to some extent, and make it available to many more users. For so many years, the spreadsheet was a gatekeeper; if you couldn’t speak the rigid language of spreadsheet formulas, you couldn’t extract the value from data. But by introducing these natural language interfaces, AI is separating the analytical capability from the technical literacy. </p>



<p>“If you can ask the right questions, or describe what you want in plain language, Gemini and Sheets can help you achieve your goals in a spreadsheet, even if you have minimal spreadsheet skills yourself.</p>



<p>“What we’ve seen so far from users and customers is that it’s incredibly empowering for people who might have been scared off by data analysis or dreaded opening spreadsheets in the past. You don’t need to go and wait for a data analyst to help you; you can go and do this work yourself in a spreadsheet.”</p>



<p><strong>The flip side is, how confident can businesses be if more junior employees can take on higher-level analysis tasks by relying on AI? Given the propensity for AI models to hallucinate, to what degree can businesses trust that these tools won’t introduce errors into important business data? </strong>“It’s something we spent a ton of time thinking about. We’ve gone to great lengths to build these AI tools to collaborate with you, to show their work, explain what they did, and make sure that you can take over where they leave off.</p>



<p>“Our Sheets agent, for example, lays out a really explicit, transparent plan for you to review and approve before any data manipulation happens. It’s designed to do that in plain natural language in a way that the average user could understand, and then it gives you back that final summary, so you know exactly what it did and where it did it.</p>



<p>“The other thing is that the model is great at explaining things. If you inherit a spreadsheet that has some complex formula that you don’t understand, for example, the model does an amazing job of explaining how it works and what it’s doing.</p>



<p>“In many ways AI is not only making these features more accessible, but helping users feel more confident in the output. Human error is an inherent risk in manual data management, with or without AI. One misplaced comma or broken cell reference can completely corrupt an entire financial model, and it can be completely undetected. </p>



<p>“Our approach with AI in Sheets is to create this deliberate verification loop. You now have another spreadsheet expert working along with you, reducing the likelihood of these mistakes.”</p>



<p><strong>Even if humans produce errors too, does it ultimately come down to accountability when AI is involved? </strong>“Our point of view here is that AI should be partnering with the knowledge worker who’s doing the work here. And everything that we’ve built is designed to be that partner. You might be able to offload tasks to the model, but we’re citing sources, we’re providing plans and explanations. We’re ultimately relying on the user to do that final verification.</p>



<p>“We spend a humongous amount of time focused on quality. We know that for AI to be useful in spreadsheets, it has to be reliable. When we launched Sheets Gemini Agent, for example, we were really proud that we set a state-of-the-art benchmark on the full SpreadsheetBench data set, which at the time exceeded competitors and near-human expert ability. </p>



<p>“But we know quality is never ‘good enough’ or done. We’re constantly working to improve quality for our users and customers, and for the use cases where they’re relying on AI most.”</p>



<p><strong>What potential do you see for more agentic functionality in Gemini Sheets — for example, bringing in data from other sources, creating recurring reports, or taking more actions independently? “</strong>We’re listening closely to customers and users and building what they’re telling us they need. The agent is already capable of doing very complex multistep workflows, and we see users discover that the agent is extremely capable of doing end-to-end spreadsheet tasks. In terms of connectors, in an alpha we have connections available to HubSpot, Salesforce, and Mailchimp. We hope to expand that over time.</p>



<p>“There’s no path to have AI replacing analysts. I think AI is giving analysts more time back to actually do the more valuable parts of their job. Analysts that I work with are way more productive and impactful than they ever were before, because they can push that uninteresting spreadsheet grunt work off to the model, freeing up time for more interesting and impactful work.</p>



<p>“A great example: the visualizations I’m getting back from analysts nowadays are canvases instead of static charts that I can explore myself. It’s way more informative and useful than what I was accustomed to before.”</p>



<p><strong>Looking ahead, do you expect a larger share of spreadsheet work to be carried out by agents, with humans setting goals and reviewing results? What will be the biggest change in how people use spreadsheets with AI? </strong>“The tasks are likely to stay similar and the use cases for spreadsheets are likely to continue to be relevant. The biggest change will be the ability to push the uninteresting spreadsheet grunt work off to a model and free up time for the user to do things that are more impactful, more interesting, more meaningful to the business.</p>



<p>‘Spreadsheets have historically been these like static containers where data goes to rest. I think AI can turn spreadsheets into these dynamic, localized software applications. And I do actually think this sort of changes the game for how people might use spreadsheets moving forward. </p>



<p>“It’s not just a passive grid full of numbers; spreadsheets are evolving to become these live, long-lived, collaborative applications. Employees can build these on the fly, like a basic CRM or supply chain dashboard in seconds. This is an area of investment for us moving forward, and we’re really excited to see how this evolves.”</p>



<p><strong>AI assistants and agents, such as ChatGPT or Claude, might be able to analyze spreadsheet files and business data without users working inside a spreadsheet application. What do you think will keep Sheets central to the workflow, rather than simply making it one part of a wider AI-driven process?</strong>“We’re in constant touch with customers and users; it’s clear work is still happening in spreadsheets. I think spreadsheets remain incredibly popular tools. If we can bring the AI capabilities users need directly into the product where they already are, we’ll transform the way they work.  </p>



<p>“I think we can be the front-end for some of this great AI innovation and the products that users are accustomed to today. Everything we build is guided by user feedback: users are telling us right now they want AI to help them do their everyday or more complex tasks, and they’re starting in Sheets today.”</p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[AI is freeing up capital. Most companies have no plan for what comes next]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[AI tools today enable faster processes, leaner operations and lower costs, making efficiency wins the new baseline. However, for many businesses, the strategy stops at those first wins.



This has created a growing leadership blind spot: Once you achieve AI ROI, how do you make the most of it? I...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3664864/it-security-nachrichten/ai-is-freeing-up-capital-most-companies-have-no-plan-for-what-comes-next/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3664864/it-security-nachrichten/ai-is-freeing-up-capital-most-companies-have-no-plan-for-what-comes-next/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2026 12:08:25 +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>AI tools today enable faster processes, leaner operations and lower costs, making efficiency wins the new baseline. However, for many businesses, the strategy stops at those first wins.</p>



<p>This has created a growing leadership blind spot: Once you achieve AI ROI, how do you make the most of it? If there is no clear reinvestment strategy, AI gains burn out quickly and disappear into the business without meaningfully compounding their value.</p>



<p>For CIOs, the next challenge is not just proving AI can make the business more efficient but deciding how those gains can build a stronger company and sustain growth over the long term.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Start by investing in a crystal ball</h2>



<p>One of the smartest ways to reinvest AI gains is to improve how the business evaluates what is worth building in the first place.</p>



<p>Leaders who chase “cool” use cases without defining the business impact or path to ROI upfront often end up with systems that drain funds without creating compounding returns. Instead, a clear reinvestment strategy uses AI to assess the strongest use cases before scaling up.</p>



<p>AI tools today can help teams move from idea to prototype to impact analysis much faster than before. That makes it easier to identify which projects have a credible path to ROI and which ones can be filed away. Access to these quick insights allows businesses to test whether a use case has real value before committing larger engineering or model costs.</p>



<p>This is especially crucial right now as <a href="https://www.idc.com/resource-center/blog/ai-infrastructure-spending-caps-historic-year-at-90-billion-in-q4-2025-2029-spending-to-eclipse-1-trillion/">AI is becoming more costly as businesses scale it</a>. What looked inexpensive in early pilots can become far pricier once it is embedded in day-to-day work and as AI providers tokenize and meter its use. The more central AI becomes, the more intentional leaders need to be about where it is used, what it actually returns and how to reinvest those gains.</p>



<p>Not every workflow belongs in the same model. Not every task needs an agent. As AI vendors mature and monetization models evolve, the businesses that will win will be the ones that make those distinctions early, reinvest accordingly and keep building ahead of customer needs rather than reacting to them. Not every workflow belongs in the same model. Not every task needs an agent.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Cycle ROI gains back into tooling</h2>



<p>Once AI activations start to show dividends, it’s time to reinvest in stronger tooling. This should include new AI tools that continue to advance the business, as well as continued investment in what has already worked. That compounding effect is ultimately what separates businesses that sustain AI-driven growth from those that plateau after early wins.</p>



<p>I’ve seen firsthand the benefits of investing in new tools that make AI more usable, repeatable and valuable in workflows. For example, automated product management tools enable rapid prototyping and product rationalization. Decision intelligence platforms can help teams simulate scenarios. Customer behavior modeling tools can help predict churn and shift customer demand patterns. These advanced solutions can help teams move from an idea to a working concept in days instead of months.</p>



<p>Smart reinvestment is about building the right technical mix for the outcomes the business <a>needs</a>, rather than funding more AI for its own sake. To maximize impact, start with tooling for governance and upskilling.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">1. (Re)invest in governance</h3>



<p>As AI usage spreads and matures across teams, products and functions, a strategic policy framework becomes all the more vital. CIOs should work to reinforce the governance foundations already in place so they can support broader adoption, rather than rebuilding new policy from scratch each time AI usage expands. This means reinvesting in shared standards, oversight mechanisms and supporting roles that make governance more durable and practical over time.</p>



<p>Without doubling down on governance, businesses risk creating siloed, disconnected pockets of experimentation. Those pockets quickly become expensive to monitor and difficult to secure, creating further risk to consistency, compliance and trust. The consequence is often wasted spend as experiments stall or overlap, or outcomes that are too fragmented to scale.</p>



<p>When businesses keep governance investment at the center of their reinvestment strategy, it becomes a force multiplier. It reduces duplication across teams, creates more commonality across products and makes it easier to expand AI use without increasing fragmentation or risk.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">2. Empower employees to grow</h3>



<p>Smart tools only create real value when people are equipped to use them well. That is why reinvestment should go beyond technology alone.</p>



<p>As AI tools become more powerful and accurate, the skills barrier to building something useful is dropping. Employees can get much closer to a viable concept much faster with AI, but that only works if businesses create learning pathways, academies and practical enablement that help teams use these tools well.</p>



<p>Smarter tooling can help product, operations and technology teams collaborate with fewer layers between idea and execution. As employees build new skills, they can stay closer to a single initiative from start to finish. That reduces handoffs, empowers employees to learn new skills and offers a more direct path from the original idea to the final result.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Let AI ROI fund your fight against siloes</h2>



<p>Over the next few years, the businesses that pull ahead are not simply going to be the ones with the most AI pilots or the biggest efficiency gains. They will be the ones that invest AI ROI in bridging what has long been disconnected: systems, teams, workflows and ecosystems.</p>



<p>In telecom, for example, AI is already creating savings inside billing operations and other back-office work tied to the BSS layer. The smart move for telcos is not to stop at those savings, but to reinvest them in connecting their BSS and OSS, where fragmentation and siloes have long slowed telcos down.</p>



<p>Think about what that means in practice: instead of billing, service configuration and network operations functioning as separate systems with separate handoffs, AI can help orchestrate them. That makes it easier to move from order to activation to support with less internal friction, better visibility and fewer breakdowns between what was sold and what is actually delivered.</p>



<p>For the customer, that means a broadband outage, plan change or installation appointment is handled as one connected journey rather than a chain of handoffs. The outcome is a more connected operating model that makes the customer experience feel far less complex.</p>



<p>The same logic applies across industries. In banking, a customer with a mortgage, checking account and credit card at the same institution is often still treated as three separate relationships – because the underlying systems do not communicate. AI orchestration can change that, giving banks a unified view of the customer and employees the context to act on it.</p>



<p>Not using AI to do the same work faster, but using AI dividends to build a business that works better. That is what smart investment looks like.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">ROI is just the start</h2>



<p>AI can absolutely free up capital. That, however, is only the first chapter.</p>



<p>The bigger story is what leaders choose to do next: reinvest in better tooling, more consistent governance, smarter workforce enablement and operating models built to connect across silos. The payoff will be a more resilient, agile business ready for what’s next.</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[Jurassic Park, cybersecurity and the dangerous myth of control]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Jurassic Park wasn’t really about dinosaurs.



It was about arrogant people building systems they believed were controllable.



“Life finds a way” is probably the most famous line from the entire franchise. Ian Malcolm’s warning that no matter how sophisticated the technology becomes, no matter...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3664863/it-security-nachrichten/jurassic-park-cybersecurity-and-the-dangerous-myth-of-control/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3664863/it-security-nachrichten/jurassic-park-cybersecurity-and-the-dangerous-myth-of-control/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2026 12:08:23 +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>Jurassic Park wasn’t really about dinosaurs.</p>



<p>It was about arrogant people building systems they believed were controllable.</p>



<p>“Life finds a way” is probably the most famous line from the entire franchise. Ian Malcolm’s warning that no matter how sophisticated the technology becomes, no matter how expensive the fences are, and no matter how confident the operators feel, nature eventually escapes containment.</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>And in every movie, it does.</p>



<p>The dinosaurs always get out. The systems fail. Eventually, the humans lose control.</p>



<p>What makes Jurassic Park fascinating is that despite advanced monitoring, complex containment systems and sophisticated operational controls, the outcome never really changes. At its core, the story is about people mistaking visibility for control.</p>



<p>Cybersecurity has the same problem.</p>



<p>For years, security teams have operated under the assumption that with enough tooling, governance, process, maturity and spend, we can build environments that are effectively secure. Maybe not perfect, but secure enough that compromise becomes rare and manageable.</p>



<p>But attackers find a way.</p>



<p>Given enough time, skill or motivation, they eventually identify the weakness nobody considered. The overlooked privilege. The dependency nobody mapped. The misconfiguration hiding behind layers of dashboards, process, and compliance reporting.</p>



<p>We are already seeing this play out. Nation-state attacks are becoming increasingly sophisticated, while AI-driven exploit discovery is beginning to compress vulnerability research from weeks into minutes.</p>



<p>The raptors are learning faster now.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Mistaking visibility for control</h2>



<p>That does not mean prevention no longer matters. The fences in Jurassic Park still slowed the dinosaurs down. They created friction. They reduced exposure. Modern security controls do the same thing.</p>



<p>But the failure in Jurassic Park was never simply that the fences broke.</p>



<p>It was that the entire system assumed the fences represented certainty.</p>



<p>Cybersecurity often makes the same mistake.</p>



<p>The industry has become incredibly good at demonstrating preparedness in controlled environments. Dashboards. Compliance reports. Tabletop exercises. RTO metrics. Recovery attestations.</p>



<p>Jurassic Park had dashboards too.</p>



<p>The problem is that <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/4157486/cisos-tackle-the-ai-visibility-gap.html">visibility is often mistaken for survivability</a>. Organizations can prove they monitored the environment, documented the process, and ran the exercise, while still having very little confidence that the business could continue operating during a genuine systemic failure.</p>



<p>Most organizations still operate with an implicit belief that compromise is exceptional rather than inevitable. Disaster recovery plans, business continuity workshops, and annual tabletop exercises are treated as evidence of resilience. In reality, many of them are carefully controlled simulations of a world that no longer exists.</p>



<p>Traditional disaster recovery was designed for an era where infrastructure changed slowly, applications were relatively static, and dependencies were limited enough that recovery assumptions could remain valid for months or even years.</p>



<p>That world is gone. AI killed it.</p>



<p>Environments now evolve constantly. Cloud infrastructure changes daily. AI-assisted development accelerates release cycles. Applications rely on sprawling third-party ecosystems. APIs connect systems in ways many organizations do not fully understand. Entire workloads appear and disappear dynamically.</p>



<p>The environment you tested last quarter may no longer exist today.</p>



<p>And yet many resilience programs still operate as if annual or quarterly testing provides meaningful confidence.</p>



<p>Most companies do not really test resilience.</p>



<p>They test optimism.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The backup fallacy</h2>



<p>And nowhere is this overconfidence more obvious than <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/backup-recovery/">backups</a>.</p>



<p>Somewhere along the way, organizations confused “having backups” with “being resilient.” Those are not remotely the same thing.</p>



<p>A backup simply proves you stored a copy of something at a specific point in time. It does not prove you can survive.</p>



<p>Most recovery models were designed in the late 90s and early 2000s for relatively static systems and predictable infrastructure. The core philosophy has barely evolved since then, even as environments have become increasingly distributed, ephemeral, and interconnected.</p>



<p>Restoring data is not the same as restoring operations.</p>



<p>Restoring infrastructure is not the same as restoring business functionality. Modern application are complex and rely on ephemeral elements, third party components and applications as well as complex data flows not just data sets.</p>



<p>Very few organizations continuously validate whether they can recover full feature-function applications, maintain operational workflows, preserve data integrity, reconnect dependencies, restore permissions correctly, or continue operating under active attack conditions.</p>



<p>We built incredibly sophisticated telemetry for understanding how we die.</p>



<p>We built almost none for proving we can survive.</p>



<p>That gap is becoming impossible to ignore.</p>



<p>The recent rise of continuous resilience testing and recovery validation is not accidental. It reflects a growing realization that recovery assumptions themselves may no longer be trustworthy.</p>



<p>Static resilience models are struggling to survive dynamic infrastructure.</p>



<p>This is where resilience starts becoming an engineering problem rather than a compliance exercise.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">When restoration assumptions fail</h2>



<p>Because the real question is no longer, “How quickly can we restore the application?”</p>



<p>The real question is, “What happens if we cannot restore it?”</p>



<p>Jurassic Park repeatedly explored exactly this scenario. The real panic never started when the fences failed. It started when the operators realized they could not regain control quickly enough.</p>



<p>Businesses now face the same risk.</p>



<p>What happens if AWS experiences a prolonged outage? What happens if <a href="https://www.networkworld.com/article/4127142/azure-outage-disrupts-vms-and-identity-services-for-over-10-hours.html">Azure Identity Services fail</a> globally? What happens if Stripe, Salesforce, Slack, or Microsoft 365 disappear for days rather than hours?</p>



<p>Many organizations do not actually have business continuity strategies for those situations.</p>



<p>They have restoration assumptions.</p>



<p>Twenty years ago, most organizations directly owned large portions of their operational stack. Today, companies increasingly rent critical business capability from a relatively small number of providers.</p>



<p>Identity. Infrastructure. Communications. Payments. Collaboration. Customer operations.</p>



<p>The efficiency gains are enormous.</p>



<p>So is the concentration risk.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Resilience as an engineering discipline</h2>



<p>Historically, business continuity planning assumed localized disruption. A building burned down. A regional data center failed. A storm impacted an office. The internet itself was not the dependency.</p>



<p>Today, entire businesses are built on tightly interconnected SaaS and cloud ecosystems where operational survivability depends on third parties remaining continuously available.</p>



<p>We optimized organizations for efficiency, automation, integration, and scale.</p>



<p>Not necessarily survivability.</p>



<p>That is why resilience needs to evolve beyond annual tabletop exercises and static recovery plans.</p>



<p>True resilience is not a binder sitting on a shelf. It is not a workshop performed once a year. It is not a recovery document written against an environment that changed six months ago.</p>



<p>It is a continuous understanding of the environment itself.</p>



<p>It requires live telemetry, operational visibility, dependency awareness, continuous validation, and the ability to adapt under changing conditions.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Adapting to chaos</h2>



<p>The survivors in Jurassic Park only succeeded once they stopped pretending the environment was fully controllable and instead adapted to the reality in front of them.</p>



<p>Cybersecurity needs to make the same shift.</p>



<p>Attackers will keep adapting.</p>



<p>AI will accelerate faster than most governance models can handle.</p>



<p>Complexity will continue to outpace our assumptions about control.</p>



<p>The organizations that survive will not necessarily be the ones with the tallest fences. They will be the ones who understand their environments deeply enough to continue operating when control is lost.</p>



<p>The goal was never to eliminate chaos.</p>



<p>It was to survive long enough to adapt to it.</p>



<p>Because resilience is not about preventing chaos.</p>



<p>It is about operating through it.</p>



<p>Because eventually, one way or another, life finds a way.</p>



<p><strong>This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.</strong><br><a href="https://www.csoonline.com/expert-contributor-network/"><strong>Want to join?</strong></a></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[TSMC Posts 68 Percent June Revenue Jump Driven By Heavy AI Demand]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[TSMC, the biggest contract chipmaker in the world, just shared its June financial numbers, and the results easily beat market expectations. The company reported a massive 68 percent jump in revenue compared to the same month last year, reaching roughly 442 billion New Taiwan dollars.



This rapi...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3664835/ios-mac-os/tsmc-posts-68-percent-june-revenue-jump-driven-by-heavy-ai-demand/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3664835/ios-mac-os/tsmc-posts-68-percent-june-revenue-jump-driven-by-heavy-ai-demand/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2026 11:55:23 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🍏 iOS / Mac OS</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[TSMC, the biggest contract chipmaker in the world, just shared its June financial numbers, and the results easily beat market expectations. The company reported a massive 68 percent jump in revenue compared to the same month last year, reaching roughly 442 billion New Taiwan dollars.



This rapid growth highlights just how much tech companies need advanced artificial intelligence chips to power their latest software and hardware products. With major clients scaling up their operations, TSMC is seeing record demand for its manufacturing services.



Massive artificial intelligence chip demand fuels new revenue records



TSMC is clearly riding a massive wave of spending on artificial intelligence. The June revenue figure was not just a yearly increase. It also showed a 6 percent rise just from May. Over the first six months of the year, the chipmaker has pulled in about 2.4 trillion New Taiwan dollars, which is a 35 percent bump from the same period last year.



A lot of this money comes from its biggest partners. Tech giants like Nvidia, AMD, and Apple rely on TSMC to build the physical chips they design. Because everybody wants more computing power right now, the company has its hands full trying to make enough chips for all these brands.



To handle all these orders, the chipmaker is putting a lot of money into expanding its operations. It recently received the green light to spend 20 billion dollars on its factories in Arizona. This funding will go toward a new wafer plant and a packing facility in the United States. By growing its physical footprint, it hopes to catch up with the never-ending line of customers waiting for parts.



With the busy holiday season coming up and tech brands preparing to launch new smartphones and computers, the need for these small components will only grow. For now, TSMC is sitting in a very comfortable spot as the main builder of the artificial intelligence boom, turning massive hardware demand into record-breaking financial success.]]></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 AI needs contextual intelligence — not just bigger models]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[A product manager on my team recently asked me where we were seeing the most issues across the engineering team. Instead of guessing, I had an engineering lead point Claude at our Jira via an MCP connector and look at the bug patterns himself.



One team had a wildly disproportionate share of ti...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3664720/it-security-nachrichten/why-ai-needs-contextual-intelligence-not-just-bigger-models/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3664720/it-security-nachrichten/why-ai-needs-contextual-intelligence-not-just-bigger-models/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2026 11:08:42 +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>A product manager on my team recently asked me where we were seeing the most issues across the engineering team. Instead of guessing, I had an engineering lead point Claude at our Jira via an MCP connector and look at the bug patterns himself.</p>



<p>One team had a wildly disproportionate share of tickets — about 50% of their sprint time was spent on “bugs,” versus roughly 25% for everyone else. The headline number suggested a quality problem.</p>



<p>It wasn’t. When we layered in the context around those tickets, almost none of them were bugs. They were manual workarounds for a missing product capability: customers asking us, one request at a time, to restore items they had accidentally deleted. Not shipping an item restore feature was burning roughly 1.5 engineers’ worth of capacity. I went back to our product team and said, “Build this, and you reclaim a person and a half.”</p>



<p>The analysis took 45 minutes. It was only possible because our data was already organized, tagged by team, connected to contributors, accessible through MCP and protected by role-based access. None of that is “AI.” All of it is the layer underneath AI that almost nobody invests in first. That’s probably because the investment is unglamorous: updating data dictionaries, access controls, team taxonomies, system-to-system mappings. Most of the work has been the same for twenty years. AI just raised the cost of skipping it.<br></p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The intelligence underneath the models</h2>



<p>I keep coming back to the value of context data layers as a CTO in the middle of an AI rollout. I have started calling that value proposition contextual intelligence because I haven’t found a better name. Anthropic’s engineering team has been calling this kind of work “<a href="https://www.anthropic.com/engineering/effective-context-engineering-for-ai-agents" rel="nofollow">context engineering</a>” since late 2025, and <em>CIO</em><a href="https://www.cio.com/article/4080592/context-engineering-improving-ai-by-moving-beyond-the-prompt.html"> ran its own feature on the term</a> shortly after. Whether you describe it as contextual intelligence or context engineering, it’s the part of the stack where the actual programming work still lives.</p>



<p>If business logic is your company’s official org chart, then contextual intelligence is knowing who actually gets things done, how decisions are actually made and what the unwritten rules are. One is theory. The other is reality.</p>



<p>Most enterprise systems capture the theory. The systems that capture how work actually happens — what people do, how teams operate, where decisions get stuck — are rarer and harder to build. And modern LLMs, it turns out, are useless without both.</p>



<p>I learned this the hard way at a recent company hackathon. Nine engineering teams, one prompt: make our operational dataset more usable through AI. My team built persona-based chatbots (CFO, CIO, sales manager) on top of an MCP server backed by Postgres and our enrichment data. Other teams built dashboard generators, Looker conversational analytics and workflow agents.</p>



<p>The initial demos all had the same problem. Claude could talk to our data, but the answers were either generic or confidently wrong. The CFO persona would happily report a “spend trend” that quietly conflated two distinct cost categories across two different tables. The CIO persona would answer questions about team productivity, but the averages across roles should never have been aggregated. The sales manager persona returned answers that were technically correct against the schema and completely wrong against the business. The raw data was rich. The context layer around it didn’t exist yet. Chatting with raw data is not an AI product. It’s a demo.</p>



<p>One of my senior engineers spent the second day ripping out the agent’s direct database connection. He stopped trying to prompt-engineer the LLM to understand our business and instead codified that logic into the data pipeline. Working backward from the failed CFO answers, he mapped out the implicit knowledge an experienced controller relies on: Explicitly defining which legacy tables actually represent ‘spend,’ writing the rules for currency normalization and hardcoding our fiscal time windows. He built a series of semantic SQL views to enforce these rules and restricted the MCP server to exposing only this curated layer. When we pointed the same model at those same questions, it returned completely different answers. They were specific, evidence-based and grounded in our actual business reality. The model didn’t get smarter. The engineering beneath it did.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The same pattern shows up everywhere I look right now</h2>



<p><a href="https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/quantumblack/our-insights/one-year-of-agentic-ai-six-lessons-from-the-people-doing-the-work" rel="nofollow">McKinsey</a> keeps publishing that software development tops enterprise AI use cases, with companies reporting 30–50% productivity gains in pilots. The pilot numbers are real. They rarely translate to top- or bottom-line impact in production. Our own company data tells the same story: Between Q1 2025 and Q1 2026, our total AI tool usage grew by 328% (over 4x). Over that same period, PR throughput grew by just 49%.</p>



<p>That gap — adoption way up, outcomes inching along — is the context gap. Plug a generic agent into raw, uninterpreted data, and it will act inefficiently at best, harmfully at worst. An agent optimizing sales without your customer segmentation or product hierarchy will confidently recommend the wrong thing. Anthropic<a href="https://www.anthropic.com/engineering/effective-context-engineering-for-ai-agents" rel="nofollow"> </a><a href="https://www.anthropic.com/engineering/effective-context-engineering-for-ai-agents" rel="nofollow">framed the shift directly</a>: building with language models is becoming “less about finding the right words and phrases for your prompts, and more about answering the broader question of what context configuration is most likely to generate our model’s desired behavior.” That second question — what context configuration  — is the entire game. Most organizations are still answering the first one.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Where the work actually lives</h2>



<p>A growing number of CTOs I talk to are shifting their AI investments accordingly. Less attention on the model. More on the layer between the model and the data.</p>



<p>When peers ask me what that actually looks like day-to-day, I tell them I give every engineering role the same mandate: the LLM should never see raw, uncontextualized data.</p>



<p>In practice, that breaks down to three pieces of work, none of them glamorous.</p>



<p>The first is semantic middleware. We need code that transforms raw data into business-meaningful signals before it ever reaches the model. Our feature stores hold things like “employee code velocity on critical-path features,” not “X logged 50 Git commits.” The work of figuring out what “critical-path” means in our product, in our org, on this team is the work. It does not get cheaper because the model has gotten better.</p>



<p>The second is multi-agent design. Instead of one omniscient orchestrator, we run smaller agents scoped to specific domains, each with rules that catch the failure modes the main model is known for. We pair them with RAG that retrieves precomputed insights, with their rules attached, rather than raw documents. Validation checkpoints sit between steps and flag suggestions that violate known constraints, such as averaging productivity across completely different job functions. The guardrails are not there to be clever. They are there because we already watched the model make those exact mistakes.</p>



<p>The third is evaluation that takes business logic seriously. When I look at a model, general benchmark accuracy is the least interesting number. I want to know whether it respects our constraints and integrates cleanly with our existing architecture. That sometimes means fine-tuning our patterns, sometimes constitutional approaches to embed principles, sometimes hybrid systems where deterministic rules sit alongside the probabilistic ones. The throughline is the same: validate against reality, not against the benchmark.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Why this matters now</h2>



<p>The reason this matters more now than it did six months ago is that adoption is moving faster than measurement, let alone integration. Model Evaluation &amp; Threat Research’s (<a href="https://metr.org/" rel="nofollow">METR</a>) developer productivity work tells the story in a way they didn’t intend. In early 2025, they<a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2507.09089" rel="nofollow"> ran a controlled study</a> and found AI tools slowed experienced open-source developers by 19%. When they tried to<a href="https://metr.org/blog/2026-02-24-uplift-update/" rel="nofollow"> repeat the study in late 2025</a>, the experiment broke. Thirty to fifty percent of developers refused to submit tasks under the no-AI condition. They wouldn’t accept working without their tools. METR is now redesigning the study because the original methodology no longer holds up against how developers actually work. That’s how fast adoption moved. But I’d be willing to bet the organizational scaffolding required to convert that adoption into outcomes — context layers, workflow redesign, retraining around new tools — moved nowhere near as fast.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Get ahead with context </h2>



<p>The teams I’ve seen succeed with AI built the context layer first. The teams I’ve seen struggle eventually built in context anyway, just at higher cost and with more scar tissue. Raw data is the new currency. But raw data without a context layer is cash sitting in a vault. It cannot act on anything. The difference between insight and noise is a layer of code that understands what your data means.</p>



<p>That layer is the work. It is where the next decade of competitive advantage will sit. And in my experience, the organizations that build it first are the ones that will actually get the productivity gains the rest of the market keeps promising.</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[Your AI agent shouldn’t know everything – it should know who to ask]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Intro




Consumers across APJ are getting more impatient. They expect brands to resolve their issues in just 24 minutes on average.



If the brand is unsuccessful, 34% say they’ll switch channels to find a faster path to resolution, and 30% say they’ll abandon the effort altogether.



Most lea...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3664615/it-nachrichten/your-ai-agent-shouldnt-know-everything-it-should-know-who-to-ask/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3664615/it-nachrichten/your-ai-agent-shouldnt-know-everything-it-should-know-who-to-ask/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2026 10:18:31 +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>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Intro</h2>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Consumers across APJ are getting more impatient. They expect brands to resolve their issues in just 24 minutes on average.</li>



<li>If the brand is unsuccessful, 34% say they’ll switch channels to find a faster path to resolution, and 30% say they’ll abandon the effort altogether.</li>



<li>Most leaders reading this insight would respond by improving agent response times, but speed isn’t the problem. The crux is that consumers want a solution, not to wait less.</li>



<li>Unfortunately, the AI that most brands have deployed are chatbots who try to handle everything (and then fail).</li>



<li>What we’re seeing is the opposite. The most productive agents aren’t generalists, but specialists who excel at one thing and know when to hand off when they can’t handle something.</li>



<li>This intelligent orchestration is a superpower.</li>
</ul>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The cost of sending customers in circles</h2>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>90% of business leaders believe their customers are satisfied with conversational AI, but only 59% of consumers agree.</li>



<li>54% of consumers say AI agents rarely or never have context about them as a customer.</li>



<li>78% say it’s important to be able to switch from an AI agent to a human, yet only 15% report experiencing seamless handoffs.</li>



<li>Most escalations involve lost context, repeated explanations, and restarted conversations. Every misroute doesn’t just waste one interaction—it triggers a cascade. The customer calls back, a second agent asks the same questions, trust erodes, and the next interaction starts from a deficit.</li>



<li>It’s no wonder that 42% of consumers say AI makes them less patient, not more. 41% are satisfied with how brands currently use AI.</li>



<li>For customer service teams, the real challenge is routing, not tech.</li>
</ul>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><a></a>What self-service really needs</h2>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Brands need four capabilities for self-service AI agents to work.
<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><strong>1. Agency:</strong> Specialised agents that can handle defined tasks with precision and don’t attempt everything and resolve nothing.</li>



<li><strong>2. Always-on monitoring:</strong> The system must monitor interaction quality in real time and catch failures before they compound into callbacks.</li>



<li><strong>3. Real-time contextual data:</strong> Agents must have a unified view of the customer, including history, intent, and recent interactions.</li>



<li><strong>4. Intelligent routing:</strong> The system must accurately decide in the moment whether a task stays with AI, moves to a specialist, or escalates to a human with full context.</li>
</ul>
</li>



<li>Of these four, routing is the most underinvested and the one that determines whether the other three deliver value.</li>
</ul>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Routing is the intelligence layer</h2>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Think of routing not as plumbing but as decision-making.</li>



<li>A well-designed system evaluates task complexity, required skills, customer history, sentiment, and more before matching it to the right resource.</li>



<li>For example, a complex billing dispute will be routed to a senior billing specialist, not the next available generalist. A routing appointment request stays with the AI agent that can solve it in seconds.</li>



<li>When the AI encounters an edge case it can’t handle, the routing layer transfers the task, along with full context, so the next agent can pick up where the AI left off.</li>



<li>Twilio’s own research confirms this. 42% of consumers prefer starting with a human agent, even if it takes longer, while 23% are comfortable starting with AI and escalating when needed.</li>



<li>Both paths demand routing intelligence. The AI-first customer needs seamless escalation, and the human-first customer needs to reach the right human immediately. Neither can afford a misroute.</li>
</ul>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><a></a>When resolution compounds</h2>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Every issue resolved on first contact is one fewer repeat call in the queue.</li>



<li>Fewer repeat calls mean shorter wait times for everyone.</li>



<li>This compounding effect extends to agent capacity. When routing works, human agents are freed from solving issues that should have been addressed the first time. They spend their time on complex, high-value interactions instead.</li>



<li>This is what 72% of consumers are signaling when they say they’d choose AI over a human if the issue was guaranteed to be solved faster.</li>



<li>46% of consumers say quick service and resolution are their top priorities, and 51% say delays are acceptable if they lead to better customer support.</li>



<li>Patience is available but only when the brands earn it by sending customers to the right place the first time.</li>



<li>The brands that treat routing as an afterthought will keep optimising for speed and see their customers quietly leave. Those who optimise for resolution will build trust that compounds with every interaction.</li>
</ul>



<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-your-ai-agent_brandposthub" rel="sponsored">here</a>.</p>



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity">
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Why SBOMs, signing, and provenance still don’t tell you if software is safe]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[We have made real progress in software supply chain security, improving visibility into software components, authenticity and build integrity. Much of this progress traces back to Executive Order 14028, which pushed agencies, contractors and enterprises to invest in SBOMs, signing and provenance....]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3664416/it-security-nachrichten/why-sboms-signing-and-provenance-still-dont-tell-you-if-software-is-safe/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3664416/it-security-nachrichten/why-sboms-signing-and-provenance-still-dont-tell-you-if-software-is-safe/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2026 08:37:11 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We have made real progress in software supply chain security, improving visibility into software components, authenticity and build integrity. Much of this progress traces back to Executive Order 14028, which pushed agencies, contractors and enterprises to invest in SBOMs, signing and provenance. All of that matters, but it is not enough. The current software trust model still stops short of the question that determines risk at execution: What is this code capable of doing if … <a href="https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2026/07/13/sbom-zero-trust-for-code/" rel="nofollow">More <span class="meta-nav">→</span></a></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2026/07/13/sbom-zero-trust-for-code/">Why SBOMs, signing, and provenance still don’t tell you if software is safe</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/">Help Net Security</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[File Explorer freezes when mounting ISO in Windows 11]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Windows 11 allows users to mount an ISO to upgrade Windows. However, this feature is not working for some users. According to reports, when they perform this action, File Explorer stops responding. If File Explorer freezes when mounting an ISO on your Windows 11/10 computer, the solutions in this...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3664307/windows-tipps/file-explorer-freezes-when-mounting-iso-in-windows-11/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3664307/windows-tipps/file-explorer-freezes-when-mounting-iso-in-windows-11/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2026 07:39:46 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🪟 Windows Tipps</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img width="700" height="391" src="https://www.thewindowsclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/File-Explorer-freezes-when-mounting-ISO.png" class="attachment-full size-full wp-post-image" alt="File Explorer freezes when mounting ISO" decoding="async" fetchpriority="high" srcset="https://www.thewindowsclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/File-Explorer-freezes-when-mounting-ISO.png 700w, https://www.thewindowsclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/File-Explorer-freezes-when-mounting-ISO-500x279.png 500w, https://www.thewindowsclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/File-Explorer-freezes-when-mounting-ISO-300x168.png 300w" sizes="(max-width: 700px) 100vw, 700px">Windows 11 allows users to mount an ISO to upgrade Windows. However, this feature is not working for some users. According to reports, when they perform this action, File Explorer stops responding. If File Explorer freezes when mounting an ISO on your Windows 11/10 computer, the solutions in this article will help. This issue can […]</p>
<p>This article <a href="https://www.thewindowsclub.com/file-explorer-freezes-when-mounting-iso-in-windows-11">File Explorer freezes when mounting ISO in Windows 11</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.thewindowsclub.com/">TheWindowsClub.com</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Semi-Trailer Trucks Test Converting Into Plug-In Hybrids]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Long-time Slashdot reader necro81 writes: There are several companies, such as Tesla, trying to make semi trucks fully electric. The capital cost for such a truck, and the MW-scale infrastructure to recharge it, may be a hard sell for some operators. [IEEE Spectrum notes that's a charging infrast...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3664070/it-security-nachrichten/semi-trailer-trucks-test-converting-into-plug-in-hybrids/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3664070/it-security-nachrichten/semi-trailer-trucks-test-converting-into-plug-in-hybrids/</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2026 04:23:23 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Long-time Slashdot reader necro81 writes: There are several companies, such as Tesla, trying to make semi trucks fully electric. The capital cost for such a truck, and the MW-scale infrastructure to recharge it, may be a hard sell for some operators. [IEEE Spectrum notes that's a charging infrastructure "that most freight corridors do not yet reliably provide."] But some companies are instead adding batteries and an electric motor to the semi-trailers that trucks haul behind them. 

"The Nivalis Powered Trailer Kit centers on an electric axle [rated at 50 kilowatts-peak]... capable of both propulsion assistance and regenerative braking. It draws on a 60-kilowatt-hour, 400-volt lithium-ion battery pack charged from three sources: the axle itself during braking and deceleration, a full-rooftop array of photovoltaic panels generating up to 3.7 kilowatts-peak, and a 32-amp, three-phase AC grid connection available during parking stops."
 

This approach is more akin to a plug-in hybrid: the truck may still be diesel-powered, but the electric assist from the trailer allows the truck to run more efficiently. Replacing diesel with kWh can save operators money while also reducing emissions. This incremental approach may be more accessible and less capital-intensive than replacing the truck itself. 
From the article:

The driver's only window into the system is a small display readable from the cab's side mirror that shows the system status and battery charge level. Nothing about the trailer's handling or licensing requirements changes. The partners project savings of up to 7,000 liters of diesel per trailer per year, which is enough to keep about 19 tonnes of carbon dioxide out of the air... 

 Trailer Dynamics, an Aachen-based company, has conducted field tests with BMW Logistics, DB Schenker, Duvenbeck, and Volkswagen Konzernlogistik, reporting average fuel savings of around 40% for diesel tractor combinations, substantially higher than the up to 18% reduction implied by the Nivalis projection... Trailer Dynamics prices its system between €145,000 and €195,000 and targets a payback period of no more than five years. Nivalis targets five to six years at current costs.<p></p><div class="share_submission">
<a class="slashpop" href="http://twitter.com/home?status=Semi-Trailer+Trucks+Test+Converting+Into+Plug-In+Hybrids%3A+https%3A%2F%2Ftech.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F26%2F07%2F13%2F0121226%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%2Ftech.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F26%2F07%2F13%2F0121226%2Fsemi-trailer-trucks-test-converting-into-plug-in-hybrids%3Futm_source%3Dslashdot%26utm_medium%3Dfacebook"><img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/facebook_icon_large.png"></a>



</div><p><a href="https://tech.slashdot.org/story/26/07/13/0121226/semi-trailer-trucks-test-converting-into-plug-in-hybrids?utm_source=rss1.0moreanon&amp;utm_medium=feed">Read more of this story</a> at Slashdot.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Apple Pencil Models Next Year Could Get Replaceable Batteries]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[The company behind the iPhone is reportedly working on a major update for its popular drawing tools. According to recent reports, these upcoming accessories will likely launch early next year, right alongside the next generation of tablets. What makes this refresh particularly interesting is a po...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3663622/ios-mac-os/apple-pencil-models-next-year-could-get-replaceable-batteries/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3663622/ios-mac-os/apple-pencil-models-next-year-could-get-replaceable-batteries/</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 12 Jul 2026 18:54:22 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🍏 iOS / Mac OS</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[The company behind the iPhone is reportedly working on a major update for its popular drawing tools. According to recent reports, these upcoming accessories will likely launch early next year, right alongside the next generation of tablets. What makes this refresh particularly interesting is a potential shift in how the devices are built, giving users a way to finally swap out a dead battery without tossing the entire piece of hardware in the trash.



The company prepares fresh stylus models for the spring launch



Mark Gurman from Bloomberg recently noted that Apple is putting together a new lineup of accessories. This upcoming hardware drop is expected to happen in the spring of 2027. It will likely bring us a new version of the basic Apple Pencil that relies on a USB-C connection, along with an updated Apple Pencil Pro for high-end users.



These new drawing tools are set to arrive at the same time as the next wave of iPad Pro models. While Gurman did not share a full list of fresh features, he did point out that the company is developing new battery systems. This detail suggests a massive shift in how these small devices are put together on the factory floor.



Upcoming battery rules might force an end to glued designs



Right now, if your stylus stops holding a charge, you basically have to buy a new one. The current models are packed full of glue and cannot be taken apart without ruining them. However, a new law in the European Union states that every consumer electronics must have batteries that regular people can easily remove and replace by early 2027.



Because the brand wants to continue selling its hardware overseas, it needs to comply with these upcoming rules. Changing the internal design to allow for a quick battery swap would keep the devices on store shelves in those countries. It also gives buyers a much better deal since they will not have to buy a brand new stylus just because the battery gets too old to hold a charge.



We will have to wait and see exactly how the design team pulls off this change. Until the company officially reveals the new lineup, fans can look forward to a future where keeping their favorite drawing tool alive is a lot cheaper and easier.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Democratizing Zero Trust with an expanded BeyondCorp Alliance]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[The need to quickly provide secure access for a newly remote workforce during the early days of COVID-19 drove many organizations to explore new technologies and start down a path towards a Zero Trust model. As time has passed, it’s become clear that remote work will be a defining characteristic ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3662848/it-security-nachrichten/democratizing-zero-trust-with-an-expanded-beyondcorp-alliance/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3662848/it-security-nachrichten/democratizing-zero-trust-with-an-expanded-beyondcorp-alliance/</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 12 Jul 2026 08:07:13 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="block-paragraph"><p>The need to quickly provide secure access for a newly remote workforce during the early days of COVID-19 drove many organizations to explore new technologies and start down a path towards a Zero Trust model. As time has passed, it’s become clear that remote work will be a defining characteristic of the new normal, and modernizing security by fully embracing zero trust models is an imperative, not an option. We need to work to further democratize this technology, accelerate and ease its adoption to help organizations stay secure, agile, and productive.</p><p>We’ve been working on Zero Trust for more than a decade at Google, and earlier this year, we introduced <a href="https://cloud.google.com/solutions/beyondcorp-remote-access">BeyondCorp Remote Access</a>, our cloud-based solution that helps make access to internal applications easier and more secure. We offer similar <a href="https://support.google.com/a/answer/9275380?hl=en" target="_blank">context-aware access controls</a> for apps in <a href="https://workspace.google.com/" target="_blank">Google Workspace</a> and <a href="https://cloud.google.com/identity">Cloud Identity</a>. </p><p><a href="https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/identity-security/simplifying-identity-and-access-management-of-your-employees-partners-and-customers">Last year</a>, we assembled a group of partners that share our Zero Trust vision and who are committed to help our joint customers make it a reality: the BeyondCorp Alliance. These partners are key to our effort to further promote and democratize this technology. They allow customers to leverage existing controls to make adoption easier while adding key functionality and intelligence that enable customers to make better access decisions. We’re now pleased to announce that <a href="https://www.citrix.com/" target="_blank">Citrix</a>, <a href="https://www.crowdstrike.com/" target="_blank">CrowdStrike</a>, <a href="https://www.jamf.com/" target="_blank">Jamf</a>, and <a href="https://www.tanium.com/" target="_blank">Tanium</a> are joining <a href="https://www.checkpoint.com/" target="_blank">Check Point</a>, <a href="https://www.lookout.com/news-and-press/press-releases/beyondcorp" target="_blank">Lookout</a>, <a href="https://researchcenter.paloaltonetworks.com/2019/04/beyondcorp/" target="_blank">Palo Alto Networks</a>, <a href="https://www.symantec.com/blogs/feature-stories/symantec-partners-google-cloud-improve-zero-trust-cloud-access" target="_blank">Symantec</a> (a division of Broadcom), and <a href="http://blogs.vmware.com/euc/2019/04/workspace-one-google-cloud.html" target="_blank">VMware</a> as BeyondCorp Alliance members.</p></div>
<div class="block-image_full_width">






  
    <div class="article-module h-c-page">
      <div class="h-c-grid">
  

    <figure class="article-image--large
      
      
        h-c-grid__col
        h-c-grid__col--6 h-c-grid__col--offset-3
        
        
      ">

      
      
        
        <img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/gweb-cloudblog-publish/images/BeyondCorp_Alliance.max-1000x1000.jpg" alt="BeyondCorp Alliance.jpg">
        
        
      
    </figure>

  
      </div>
    </div>
  




</div>
<div class="block-paragraph"><p>As Sunil Potti, VP and GM Google Cloud Security, puts it, BeyondCorp delivers world-class security for the reimagined workplace. Partners who share our vision are an essential part of how we help our customers modernize their security approaches in-place to deliver a better, safer normal.</p><p>Our BeyondCorp Alliance Partners add capabilities in the following areas:</p><p><b>Device Management</b>: Enterprise Mobility Management (EMM) vendors can provide device context and telemetry such as whether a device is managed or corporate-owned to aid in policy evaluation.</p><p><b>Endpoint Security</b>: Endpoint Detection and Response Vendors (EDR) or Mobile Threat Defense (MTD) vendors can provide device posture information, such as whether a device is compromised to aid in policy evaluation.</p><p><b>Gateways</b>: Infrastructure vendors can provide more secure access to hosted infrastructure (e.g., virtual desktops, etc.) via BeyondCorp. </p><p>Keep reading to learn more about updates to our existing BeyondCorp Alliance partnerships and new solutions with leading security partners that we are excited to announce today: </p><p><b>Check Point</b> SandBlast Mobile is a mobile threat defense solution that detects and stops attacks on iOS and Android devices before they start. Integration with the Google Admin console can be used to selectively prevent compromised devices from accessing applications and resources, helping to keep sensitive data secure. The integration is now available to customers in preview in the Google Admin console.</p><p><b>Citrix</b> and Google Cloud are extending our deep collaboration to include BeyondCorp. Google Cloud has always been one of the best places to run <a href="https://www.citrix.com/products/citrix-workspace/" target="_blank">Citrix Workspace</a>, and the first step, bringing together Citrix Workspace and BeyondCorp, is coming soon. It will allow customer applications, whether they are deployed on-premises, on GCP, or delivered as a service (SaaS), to be exposed through Citrix Workspace with BeyondCorp’s access controls and policy enforcement. Users get a single pane of glass for all of their applications, which can now be accessed from BYOD and non-corporate devices without the need for a VPN. We’re also exploring the sharing of endpoint signals and further extending policy enforcement to virtual desktops. For more information, check out the Citrix <a href="https://www.citrix.com/blogs/2020/10/13/deliver-workspace-security-and-zero-trust-with-citrix-and-google-cloud/" target="_blank">blog</a> on our joint zero trust security solutions.</p><p><b>CrowdStrike</b> will deliver real-time endpoint posture assessments from endpoints regardless of location, network, or user so that BeyondCorp adopters can prohibit access from untrusted or compromised hosts as part of conditional access policies, reducing risk for users and the organization. This integration is coming soon. To learn more about how CrowdStrike and Google Cloud are collaborating on Zero Trust, <a href="https://na.eventscloud.com/ereg/index.php?eventid=560023&amp;utm_campaign=fal_con&amp;utm_medium=dir&amp;utm_source=blog" target="_blank">register</a> for CrowdStrike’s Cybersecurity Conference <a href="https://www.crowdstrike.com/events/falcon/?utm_campaign=fal_con&amp;utm_medium=dir&amp;utm_source=blog" target="_blank">Fal.Con 2020</a>, taking place on October 15, 2020.</p><p><b>Jamf</b> is working to extend its device compliance capabilities for organizations leveraging Google Cloud and BeyondCorp. In the past, organizations have expressed concerns about unprotected Mac devices accessing cloud and on-premises resources. Now, through a unique Jamf preview, customers can ensure that only trusted users, from managed devices, using approved apps, are accessing company data. Read Jamf’s <a href="https://www.jamf.com/blog/jamf-and-google-announce-conditional-access-partnership-preview" target="_blank">blog</a> on our collaboration and <a href="mailto:google.ca@jamf.com">contact the Jamf team</a> to learn more about this preview.</p><p><b>Lookout</b> continuously assesses a smartphone, tablet or Chromebook’s risk level and provides it to Cloud Identity and BeyondCorp from the Lookout Security Graph. Device risk levels of “high, moderate  or low” are set based on the organization’s security policies. When Lookout detects a threat on a mobile device, the risk level is changed accordingly and delivered in real-time to Cloud Identity via API. This integration enables Google Workspace to block risky or non-compliant devices from accessing applications and data. This functionality is now available in preview via the Google Admin console. Learn more by reading Lookout’s <a href="https://blog.lookout.com/lookout-google-deliver-zero-trust-beyondcorp-vision-for-mobile" target="_blank">blog</a>.</p><p><b>Symantec</b> Endpoint Protection (SEP) and Symantec Endpoint Protection Mobile (SEP Mobile) report on the security posture of an organization’s traditional and mobile endpoints, including both managed and unmanaged devices. With the upcoming integration, customers can leverage Symantec’s endpoint signals such as indications of compromise, operating system configuration risks, app risks, anomalous network behavior, and more, to create more granular and customized access policies for Google Workspace, web apps, and Google Cloud infrastructure.</p><p><b>Tanium</b> and Google Cloud recently<a href="https://www.tanium.com/press-releases/tanium-and-google-cloud-join-forces-to-deliver-security-transformation-for-the-distributed-it-era/" target="_blank"> announced</a> a strategic partnership with the goal of delivering security transformation for the distributed IT era. As part of the BeyondCorp Alliance, Tanium will be providing device identity information through <a href="https://docs.tanium.com/endpoint_identity/endpoint_identity/userguide.html" target="_blank">Tanium Endpoint Identity</a>, which is available today. Tanium monitors and evaluates the health of endpoints in real-time, providing comprehensive visibility and control from a single platform no matter where the device is located. Through the combined solution, coming soon, organizations will be able to ensure that devices connecting to network resources and applications are authorized, secured, and up-to-date. To learn more about Tanium’s partnership with Google Cloud and BeyondCorp integration,<a href="https://converge.tanium.com/" target="_blank"> register to attend</a> their upcoming virtual user conference, Converge.</p><p><b>VMware</b> is working to bring Workspace ONE and Google Cloud's BeyondCorp solution together to keep devices under control and compliant with policies that protect corporate data. Workspace ONE will continually feed device compliance status information to Google Cloud’s context-aware access engine, allowing access to be revoked at any time if a device becomes non-compliant. This integration is coming soon.</p><p>To learn more about how you can take advantage of our joint capabilities to advance your own Zero Trust strategy, visit the BeyondCorp Alliance partner links above or <a href="mailto:beyondcorp.alliance@google.com">reach out to our team</a>. </p><p>Also be sure to check out our <a href="https://cloud.google.com/solutions/beyondcorp-remote-access">BeyondCorp product home</a>, browse BeyondCorp educational resources in our <a href="https://cloud.google.com/security/best-practices#section-3">Security Best Practices Center</a>, and view BeyondCorp use case videos in our <a href="https://cloud.google.com/security/showcase">Cloud Security Showcase</a>.</p></div>
<div class="block-related_article_tout">





<div class="uni-related-article-tout h-c-page">
  <section class="h-c-grid">
    <a href="https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/identity-security/keep-your-teams-working-safely-with-beyondcorp-remote-access/" data-analytics='{
                       "event": "page interaction",
                       "category": "article lead",
                       "action": "related article - inline",
                       "label": "article: {slug}"
                     }' class="uni-related-article-tout__wrapper h-c-grid__col h-c-grid__col--8 h-c-grid__col-m--6 h-c-grid__col-l--6
        h-c-grid__col--offset-2 h-c-grid__col-m--offset-3 h-c-grid__col-l--offset-3 uni-click-tracker">
      <div class="uni-related-article-tout__inner-wrapper">
        <p class="uni-related-article-tout__eyebrow h-c-eyebrow">Related Article</p>

        <div class="uni-related-article-tout__content-wrapper">
          <div class="uni-related-article-tout__image-wrapper">
            <div class="uni-related-article-tout__image"></div>
          </div>
          <div class="uni-related-article-tout__content">
            <h4 class="uni-related-article-tout__header h-has-bottom-margin">Keep your teams working safely with BeyondCorp Remote Access</h4>
            <p class="uni-related-article-tout__body">Enabling remote access to internal apps with a simpler and more secure approach without a remote-access VPN</p>
            <div class="cta module-cta h-c-copy  uni-related-article-tout__cta muted">
              <span class="nowrap">Read Article
                <svg class="icon h-c-icon" role="presentation">
                  <use xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="#mi-arrow-forward"></use>
                </svg>
              </span>
            </div>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
    </a>
  </section>
</div>

</div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[New Dataproc optional components support Apache Flink and Docker]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Google Cloud’s Dataproc lets you run native Apache Spark and Hadoop clusters on Google Cloud in a simpler, more cost-effective way. In this blog, we will talk about our newest optional components available in Dataproc’s Component Exchange: Docker and Apache Flink.Docker container on DataprocDocke...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3662840/it-security-nachrichten/new-dataproc-optional-components-support-apache-flink-and-docker/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3662840/it-security-nachrichten/new-dataproc-optional-components-support-apache-flink-and-docker/</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 12 Jul 2026 08:07:02 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="block-paragraph"><p>Google Cloud’s Dataproc lets you run native Apache Spark and Hadoop clusters on Google Cloud in a simpler, more cost-effective way. In this blog, we will talk about our newest optional components available in Dataproc’s Component Exchange: Docker and Apache Flink.</p><h3>Docker container on Dataproc</h3><p>Docker is a widely used container technology. Since it’s now a Dataproc optional component, Docker daemons can now be installed on every node of the Dataproc cluster. This will give you the ability to install containerized applications and interact with Hadoop clusters easily on the cluster. </p><p>In addition, Docker is also critical to supporting these features:</p><ol><li><p>Running containers with YARN</p></li><li><p>Portable Apache Beam job</p></li></ol><p>Running containers on YARN allows you to manage dependencies of your YARN application separately, and also allows you to create containerized services on YARN. <a href="https://hadoop.apache.org/docs/current/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-site/DockerContainers.html" target="_blank">Get more details here.</a> Portable Apache Beam packages jobs into Docker containers and submits them the Flink cluster. Find <a href="https://beam.apache.org/roadmap/portability/" target="_blank">more detail about Beam portability</a>. </p><p>Docker optional component is also configured to use <a href="https://cloud.google.com/container-registry">Google Container Registry</a>, in addition to the default Docker registry. This lets you use container images managed by your organization.</p><p>Here is how to create a Dataproc cluster with the Docker optional component:</p><p><code>gcloud beta dataproc clusters create &lt;cluster-name&gt; \</code><br><code>  --optional-components=DOCKER \</code><br><code>  --image-version=1.5</code></p><p>When you run the Docker application, the log will be streamed to Cloud Logging, using gcplogs driver.</p><p>If your application does not depend on any Hadoop services, check out <a href="https://kubernetes.io/" target="_blank">Kubernetes</a> and <a href="https://cloud.google.com/kubernetes-engine/docs/quickstart">Google Kubernetes Engine</a> to run containers natively. For more on using Dataproc, <a href="https://cloud.google.com/dataproc/docs">check out our documentation</a>.</p><h3>Apache Flink on Dataproc</h3><p>Among streaming analytics technologies, Apache Beam and Apache Flink stand out. Apache Flink is a distributed processing engine using stateful computation. <a href="https://beam.apache.org/get-started/beam-overview/" target="_blank">Apache Beam</a> is a unified model for defining batch and steaming processing pipelines. Using <a href="https://beam.apache.org/documentation/runners/flink/" target="_blank">Apache Flink as an execution engine</a>, you can also run Apache Beam jobs on Dataproc, in addition to Google’s Cloud Dataflow service.</p><p>Flink and running Beam on Flink are suitable for large-scale, continuous jobs, and provide:</p><ul><li><p>A streaming-first runtime that supports both batch processing and data streaming programs</p></li><li><p>A runtime that supports very high throughput and low event latency at the same time</p></li><li><p>Fault-tolerance with exactly-once processing guarantees</p></li><li><p>Natural back-pressure in streaming programs</p></li><li><p>Custom memory management for efficient and robust switching between in-memory and out-of-core data processing algorithms</p></li><li><p>Integration with YARN and other components of the Apache Hadoop ecosystem</p></li></ul><p>Our Dataproc team here at Google Cloud recently announced that <a href="https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/data-analytics/open-source-processing-engines-for-kubernetes">Flink Operator on Kubernetes</a> is now available. It allows you to run Apache Flink jobs in Kubernetes, bringing the benefits of reducing platform dependency and producing better hardware efficiency. </p><p><b>Basic Flink Concepts</b></p><p>A Flink cluster consists of a Flink JobManager and a set of Flink TaskManagers. Like similar roles in other distributed systems such as YARN, JobManager has responsibilities such as accepting jobs, managing resources and supervising jobs. TaskManagers are responsible for running the actual tasks. </p><p>When running Flink on Dataproc, we use YARN as resource manager for Flink. You can run Flink jobs in 2 ways: job cluster and session cluster. For the job cluster, YARN will create JobManager and TaskManagers for the job and will destroy the cluster once the job is finished. For session clusters, YARN will create JobManager and a few TaskManagers.The cluster can serve multiple jobs until being shut down by the user.</p><p><b>How to create a cluster with Flink</b></p><p>Use this command to get started:</p><p><code>gcloud beta dataproc clusters create &lt;cluster-name&gt; \</code><br><code>  --optional-components=FLINK \</code><br><code>  --image-version=1.5</code></p><p><b>How to run a Flink job</b></p><p>After a Dataproc cluster with Flink starts, you can submit your Flink jobs to YARN directly using the Flink job cluster. After accepting the job, Flink will start a JobManager and slots for this job in YARN. The Flink job will be run in the YARN cluster until finished. The JobManager created will then be shut down. Job logs will be available in regular YARN logs. Try this command to run a word-counting example:</p></div>
<div class="block-code"><dl>
    <dt>code_block</dt>
    <dd>&lt;ListValue: [StructValue([('code', 'HADOOP_CLASSPATH=`hadoop classpath` flink run -m yarn-cluster /usr/lib/flink/examples/batch/WordCount.jar'), ('language', ''), ('caption', &lt;wagtail.rich_text.RichText object at 0x7f58aa8374c0&gt;)])]&gt;</dd>
</dl></div>
<div class="block-paragraph"><p>The Dataproc cluster will not start a <a href="https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-release-1.10/ops/deployment/yarn_setup.html#flink-yarn-session" target="_blank">Flink Session</a> cluster by default. Instead, Dataproc will create the script “/usr/bin/flink-yarn-daemon,” which will start a Flink session. </p><p>If you want to start a Flink session when Dataproc is created, use the metadata key to allow it:</p></div>
<div class="block-code"><dl>
    <dt>code_block</dt>
    <dd>&lt;ListValue: [StructValue([('code', 'gcloud dataproc clusters create &lt;cluster-name&gt; \\\r\n    --optional-components=FLINK \\ \r\n    --image-version=1.5 \\\r\n    --metadata flink-start-yarn-session=true'), ('language', ''), ('caption', &lt;wagtail.rich_text.RichText object at 0x7f58aa837580&gt;)])]&gt;</dd>
</dl></div>
<div class="block-paragraph"><p>If you want to start the Flink session after Dataproc is created, you can run the following command on master node:</p></div>
<div class="block-code"><dl>
    <dt>code_block</dt>
    <dd>&lt;ListValue: [StructValue([('code', '$ . /usr/bin/flink-yarn-daemon'), ('language', ''), ('caption', &lt;wagtail.rich_text.RichText object at 0x7f58aa8375e0&gt;)])]&gt;</dd>
</dl></div>
<div class="block-paragraph"><p>Submit jobs to that session cluster. You’ll need to get the Flink JobManager URL:</p></div>
<div class="block-code"><dl>
    <dt>code_block</dt>
    <dd>&lt;ListValue: [StructValue([('code', 'HADOOP_CLASSPATH=`hadoop classpath` flink run -m &lt;JOB_MANAGER_HOSTNAME&gt;:&lt;REST_API_PORT&gt; /usr/lib/flink/examples/batch/WordCount.jar'), ('language', ''), ('caption', &lt;wagtail.rich_text.RichText object at 0x7f58aa837640&gt;)])]&gt;</dd>
</dl></div>
<div class="block-paragraph"><p><b>How to run a Java Beam job</b></p><p>It is very easy to run an Apache Beam job written in Java. There is no extra configuration needed. As long as you package your Beam jobs into a JAR file, you do not need to configure anything to run Beam on Flink. This is the command you can use:</p></div>
<div class="block-code"><dl>
    <dt>code_block</dt>
    <dd>&lt;ListValue: [StructValue([('code', '$ mvn package -Pflink-runner\r\n$ bin/flink run -c org.apache.beam.examples.WordCount /path/to/your.jar\r\n--runner=FlinkRunner --other-parameters'), ('language', ''), ('caption', &lt;wagtail.rich_text.RichText object at 0x7f58aa8376a0&gt;)])]&gt;</dd>
</dl></div>
<div class="block-paragraph"><p><b>How to run a Python Beam job written in Python</b></p><p>Beam jobs written in Python use a different execution model. To run them in Flink on Dataproc, you will also need to enable the Docker optional component. Here’s how to create a cluster:</p></div>
<div class="block-code"><dl>
    <dt>code_block</dt>
    <dd>&lt;ListValue: [StructValue([('code', 'gcloud dataproc clusters create &lt;cluster-name&gt; \\\r\n    --optional-components=FLINK,DOCKER'), ('language', ''), ('caption', &lt;wagtail.rich_text.RichText object at 0x7f58aa837700&gt;)])]&gt;</dd>
</dl></div>
<div class="block-paragraph"><p>You will also need to install necessary Python libraries needed by Beam, such as apache_beam and apache_beam[gcp]. You can pass in a Flink master URL to let it run in a session cluster. If you leave the URL out, you need to use the job cluster mode to run this job:</p></div>
<div class="block-code"><dl>
    <dt>code_block</dt>
    <dd>&lt;ListValue: [StructValue([('code', 'import apache_beam as beam\r\nfrom apache_beam.options.pipeline_options import PipelineOptions\r\n\r\noptions = PipelineOptions([\r\n    "--runner=FlinkRunner",\r\n    "--flink_version=1.9",\r\n    "--flink_master=localhost:8081",\r\n    "--environment_type=DOCKER"\r\n])\r\nwith beam.Pipeline(options=options) as p:\r\n    ...'), ('language', ''), ('caption', &lt;wagtail.rich_text.RichText object at 0x7f58aa837760&gt;)])]&gt;</dd>
</dl></div>
<div class="block-paragraph"><p>After you’ve written your Python job, simply run it to submit:</p></div>
<div class="block-code"><dl>
    <dt>code_block</dt>
    <dd>&lt;ListValue: [StructValue([('code', '$ python wordcount.py'), ('language', ''), ('caption', &lt;wagtail.rich_text.RichText object at 0x7f58aa8377c0&gt;)])]&gt;</dd>
</dl></div>
<div class="block-paragraph"><p><a href="https://cloud.google.com/dataproc">Learn more about Dataproc.</a></p></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[People Keep Sneaking Into an Empty IBM Campus - and Then Getting Arrested]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Since February, New York state police have arrested 48 people for trespassing on a former IBM campus in Somers, New York, reports the Wall Street Journal. 30 of the arrests were teenagers.

The long-vacant site has become a magnet for so-called urban explorers, who prowl abandoned malls, hospital...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3662486/it-security-nachrichten/people-keep-sneaking-into-an-empty-ibm-campus-and-then-getting-arrested/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3662486/it-security-nachrichten/people-keep-sneaking-into-an-empty-ibm-campus-and-then-getting-arrested/</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 12 Jul 2026 00:52:23 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Security Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Since February, New York state police have arrested 48 people for trespassing on a former IBM campus in Somers, New York, reports the Wall Street Journal. 30 of the arrests were teenagers.

The long-vacant site has become a magnet for so-called urban explorers, who prowl abandoned malls, hospitals, power plants, amusement parks, factories and any other disused structure they can breach... [I]t's been turbocharged by artsy videos on Instagram and TikTok that spur others to create their own posts, luring still more curiosity seekers... In Somers, social-media images of the old IBM campus — a sprawling, pyramid-studded 1980s complex designed by the late I.M. Pei's firm — show dystopian scenes: busted windows, tossed rooms and graffitied walls. But they also give eerie glimpses of conference rooms and cubicles unchanged since IBM left a decade ago, as if employees had fled the daily grind one day and never returned... 

One man in his mid-20s faces felony charges; police allege he had a loaded 9mm gun and took a Sony camera and power strip among other souvenirs. Andrew Proto, a defense lawyer, said "a 15-second clip" isn't worth a criminal record... Proto said he has represented or advised several minors arrested on the campus. The Somers town court clerk said some defendants received a 6-month "adjournment in contemplation of dismissal," meaning charges will be dropped and their arrest sealed if they avoid trouble. Some explorers who have posted about the IBM site say they follow an observe-and-preserve ethos and reject vandalism. They say they're driven by curiosity, the thrill of roaming forbidden spaces and a zeal to document discoveries — and that they're careful and know their limits. 

"It actually gives me hope when I hear that kids are out there getting into trouble," says Bradley Garrett, a cultural geographer and author of the book "Explore Everything: Place-Hacking the City," about his own urbex adventures. He sees urban exploration as "a gateway drug in a good way, sometimes, into intellectual curiosity about history and culture." But Garrett said popular spots can be "loved to death" online — and then shut down, looted or set ablaze. 

"Trespassers were blamed for a March 30 fire, reports a local newspaper, "that damaged one of the buildings and required volunteer firefighters to spend three hours extinguishing the blaze."<p></p><div class="share_submission">
<a class="slashpop" href="http://twitter.com/home?status=People+Keep+Sneaking+Into+an+Empty+IBM+Campus+-+and+Then+Getting+Arrested%3A+https%3A%2F%2Fslashdot.org%2Fstory%2F26%2F07%2F11%2F2129203%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%2Fslashdot.org%2Fstory%2F26%2F07%2F11%2F2129203%2Fpeople-keep-sneaking-into-an-empty-ibm-campus---and-then-getting-arrested%3Futm_source%3Dslashdot%26utm_medium%3Dfacebook"><img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/facebook_icon_large.png"></a>



</div><p><a href="https://slashdot.org/story/26/07/11/2129203/people-keep-sneaking-into-an-empty-ibm-campus---and-then-getting-arrested?utm_source=rss1.0moreanon&amp;utm_medium=feed">Read more of this story</a> at Slashdot.</p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Apple Avoided Semiconductor Tariffs Last Year Thanks To Intel Chip Deal]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[A recent report explains how Apple avoided semiconductor tariffs last year thanks to an Intel chip deal. Tim Cook traveled to Washington last summer to stop a 100 percent tax on imported computer parts. A tax like that would make every device much more expensive to build.



The company secured a...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3661882/ios-mac-os/apple-avoided-semiconductor-tariffs-last-year-thanks-to-intel-chip-deal/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3661882/ios-mac-os/apple-avoided-semiconductor-tariffs-last-year-thanks-to-intel-chip-deal/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 11 Jul 2026 15:08:56 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🍏 iOS / Mac OS</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[A recent report explains how Apple avoided semiconductor tariffs last year thanks to an Intel chip deal. Tim Cook traveled to Washington last summer to stop a 100 percent tax on imported computer parts. A tax like that would make every device much more expensive to build.



The company secured a pass on these fees by agreeing to spend money inside the country. That big agreement heavily involved another major name in technology.



The government pushed the tech giant to support local manufacturing



During the talks, government officials brought up Intel. The administration made it clear that helping this American brand was the main way to secure the tax break. Because of this push, we now know that Apple avoided semiconductor tariffs last year thanks to the Intel chip deal.



The plan worked for both sides. The government recently shared on social media that Apple will start using parts made by Intel inside its popular devices. This public news sent the stock price for the chip builder to a record high.



The brand plans to use these local parts inside upcoming Mac computers and future iPhone models. Before this report came out, nobody knew that the talks about taxes were connected to this manufacturing partnership.



Building parts locally keeps the final price lower for buyers



The main goal of the tax rule was to make large businesses build things in America. By choosing to work with a local partner, the company did not have to pay extra import fees on its part. This meant it could keep the final prices normal for people buying a new phone or laptop.



Even with this good news, the company still faced some financial problems later because of a worldwide shortage of memory parts. However, solving the tax issue was a big win.



It shows how much power the government has over where technology brands choose to build things. By working together, the brand protected its profit while giving a boost to a local factory.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Apple is prepping for life after the AI gold rush]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Consumer electronics prices are shooting up. Energy prices are increasing fast. Even water bills are climbing. For a technology that promises “efficiency,” the ongoing AI gold rush seems to be taking things away, much like the proverbial gift that keeps on grabbing.



With hundreds of billions i...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3661667/it-nachrichten/apple-is-prepping-for-life-after-the-ai-gold-rush/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3661667/it-nachrichten/apple-is-prepping-for-life-after-the-ai-gold-rush/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 11 Jul 2026 12:18:00 +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>Consumer electronics prices </a><a href="https://counterpointresearch.com/en/insights/infographic-iphone-17promax-and-iphone-18promax-e-bom-cost-comparison">are </a><a href="https://counterpointresearch.com/en/insights/infographic-iphone-17promax-and-iphone-18promax-e-bom-cost-comparison" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">shooting up</a>. Energy prices are <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/energy-costs-rise-and-stocks-fall-sharply-as-us-iran-peace-is-shattered-13561710" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">increasing fast</a>. Even <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/23/millions-of-americans-cant-afford-water-bills-rise" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">water bills are climbing</a>. For a technology that promises “efficiency,” the ongoing AI gold rush seems to be <a href="https://www.applemust.com/omdia-says-the-hammer-has-fallen-on-low-cost-smartphones/">taking thing</a><a href="https://www.applemust.com/omdia-says-the-hammer-has-fallen-on-low-cost-smartphones/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">s</a><a href="https://www.applemust.com/omdia-says-the-hammer-has-fallen-on-low-cost-smartphones/"> away</a>, much like the proverbial gift that keeps on grabbing.</p>



<p>With hundreds of billions in AI investment already racked up for 2026, it’s important to remember the entire industry is currently built on a mountain of debt — and much of this borrowed money is being spent on data center capacity. That’s true, even though consumers would probably rather have a cheap Mac than spend money on an AI subscription service. </p>



<p>All this debt is being amassed because a small number of people at a very small number of firms have decided to make huge investments in the tech, which at present requires huge quantities of energy, memory and data center capacity to run. </p>



<p>But it won’t always be this way.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>A mountain of debt, but we’re short of memory</strong></h2>



<p>Look, the industry as it is now just doesn’t seem sustainable. Trillions are being spent and memory vendors are shifting capacity to make the high-value, high-bandwidth memory these server farms require — at the expense of traditional consumer electronic suppliers. </p>



<p>The rapid rollout just creates AI tech will need to be replaced, likely at greater cost, in a few years’ time. In a nutshell, the industry is spending trillions to make billions; Sequoia’s David Cahn estimates the AI revenue gap between infrastructure expenditure and the revenue to justify it has <a href="https://shattered.io/ram-prices-ai-memory-shortage-2026/" data-type="link" data-id="https://shattered.io/ram-prices-ai-memory-shortage-2026/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">already fallen $600 billion a year short</a>. </p>



<p>At some point, the VC money will run dry, after which it is inevitable deployment will slow and demand for all the components — including memory used in these large language model (LLM) data centers will fall. Some analysts think <a href="https://seekingalpha.com/article/4920983-drams-meltdown-and-cyclical-memoryoversupply-risks-discussed-initiate-hold" data-type="link" data-id="https://seekingalpha.com/article/4920983-drams-meltdown-and-cyclical-memoryoversupply-risks-discussed-initiate-hold" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">capex growth in the sector could halt by mid-2027</a>.</p>



<p>At that point, memory vendors will have expensive production facilities and extensive defaults on their order books. If the 2027 prediction is true, those vendors will feel this impact in the form of reduced forward orders by the end of 2026.</p>



<p>The problem is that the investments have become so vast that any slowdown will have consequential effects across all sections of the economy. </p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>After the gold rush</strong></h2>



<p>Almost certainly, the technology will continue to improve, and the problems we’re looking to solve today might no longer be challenges once fresh innovation strikes. So, what happens next? </p>



<p>Let’s think about memory, the biggest pain point at the moment and where we will (hopefully) find future innovation. At present, some of the largest LLMs sit inside data centers supported by vast quantities of memory. These machines are built to handle really complex tasks, but <a href="https://rethinkpriorities.org/research-area/estimating-the-usage-and-utility-of-llms-in-the-us-general-public/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">most of the time</a> are used to search the web, deliver writing assistance and summarize documents. Those frequently-transacted tasks barely stretch the capabilities of these services and Apple, and others have already figured out how to run such tasks on device.</p>



<p>That’s the first obvious space in which to innovate – to invest in 1-bit data LLM systems to miniaturize and distill models so they actually run on the device you’re using, rather than relying on all those remote servers. </p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>The Apple shopping list</strong></h2>



<p>Apple’s <a href="https://www.theinformation.com/articles/khosla-backed-startup-claims-breakthrough-largest-ever-ai-model-iphone" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">interest in 1-bit data LLM pioneer PrismML</a> speaks volumes about where the iPhone maker sees LLM development going, as did its acquisitions of Kuzu Inc., WhyLabs Inc, Pointable Inc., and Datakalab Inc. in recent years. </p>



<p>The beauty of PrismML’s tech is what it can do. It was recently used to compress Alibaba’s huge 27-billion-parameter Qwen 3.6 model from 54GB down to under 4GB, running with all 27 billion parameters active simultaneously — all without sacrificing benchmark performance. </p>



<p>The kicker? It managed to run that advanced, sophisticated AI model on <a href="https://thecorenews.substack.com/p/the-core-appletldr-july-9?r=5l3lg&amp;utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&amp;utm_medium=web&amp;triedRedirect=true">an iPhone 17 Pro</a>. My take? Just as music used to be captured on reel-to-reel tape and is now digitized and in the air, AI will move from the data center to the device, possibly faster than people expect. </p>



<p>Apple has three pillars for AI: On-device for most of what you need, on Private Cloud Compute servers for most of the rest, or via third-party server-based systems for the most demanding tasks. That’s a blueprint for how the industry will evolve as technologies represented by PrismML tend toward bringing more of that intelligence to the device. Over time, those local tasks will become more sophisticated, eroding the available market for today’s heavily-indebted AI incumbents. </p>



<p>Emerging priorities such as the need for privacy, data sovereignty, and trusted cloud will also spur the emergence of a multipolar AI future in which no one vendor dominates, further complicating their journey to profitability. It’s a model that favors the kind of service-agnostic, edgeAI approach Apple has taken.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>EdgeAI for the rest of us</strong></h2>



<p>In the end, I don’t think there will be a need for much of the AI data center capacity now being built, because Apple and others will figure out how to use data minimization to transact sophisticated AI tasks on the device. For the most part, EdgeAI will deliver the consumer AI experience, while data centers cater to more sophisticated use. One day, after this gold rush has run its course, we’ll peer outside of our basements to see which of today’s AI firms actually are the chosen ones.</p>



<p>They may not be the ones you expect.</p>



<p><em>You can follow me on social media! Join me on <a href="https://bsky.app/profile/jonnyevanssays.bsky.social">BlueSky</a>, <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/jonnyevans">LinkedIn</a>, <a href="https://social.vivaldi.net/@jonnyevans">Mastodon</a>, and subscribe to the human-curated daily Apple news briefing at <a href="https://thecorenews.substack.com/p/welcome-to-the-core?r=5l3lg">The Core</a>.</em></p>
</div></div></div></div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[iOS 27 Mail Update: Smart Inbox Filters And New AI Tools Arrive]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[The latest update to iOS 27 brings a complete redesign to the default email application. After years of remaining mostly unchanged, the inbox now features smart sorting buckets and new tools powered by Apple Intelligence. These changes aim to speed up how you read and respond to messages on your ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3661331/ios-mac-os/ios-27-mail-update-smart-inbox-filters-and-new-ai-tools-arrive/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3661331/ios-mac-os/ios-27-mail-update-smart-inbox-filters-and-new-ai-tools-arrive/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 11 Jul 2026 07:53:34 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🍏 iOS / Mac OS</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[The latest update to iOS 27 brings a complete redesign to the default email application. After years of remaining mostly unchanged, the inbox now features smart sorting buckets and new tools powered by Apple Intelligence. These changes aim to speed up how you read and respond to messages on your iPhone. It is a major shift that makes managing daily digital communication much easier.



The system sorts your inbox into four clear categories



The application automatically groups incoming messages into four distinct sections. You get a Primary tab for personal notes and urgent alerts. A Transactions tab catches order confirmations, receipts, and shipping notices. Updates holds newsletters and social notifications, while Promotions collects sales and coupons.



This change mimics what other popular clients do to keep your main view clean. You can easily teach the app to move specific senders to different tabs if a message lands in the wrong spot. If you prefer the old layout, a single settings toggle turns the categories off entirely.



New writing tools help you draft better messages faster



The update introduces native AI features right into the draft window. If you struggle to find the right words, the new writing tools can rewrite your text to sound more polite or concise. You can also use the tool to proofread your grammar and sentence structure before hitting send.



Instead of typing everything from scratch, a new smart reply function suggests quick and relevant responses based on the received message. It scans the incoming text to identify any questions and gives you a pre-written draft that you can tweak. This makes replying on a small screen much faster.



A built-in feature summarizes long threads automatically



You no longer have to tap into a long thread to understand what it is about. The system generates short summaries right in the main list view. Instead of just displaying the first two lines of text, it tells you the actual main point of the conversation.



This Apple feature also applies to urgent alerts. A new priority section sits at the top of your inbox to catch things like same-day flight details or dinner invites. It pushes time-sensitive information to the top so you never miss an important deadline.



A digest view groups old messages from one sender



When you tap into a receipt or a newsletter, the application opens a digest view. This view gathers all past messages from that exact same sender into one scrollable list. You can quickly see past orders from a store without having to use the search bar.



These features connect across the ecosystem, meaning changes you make will sync up with your macOS devices as well. The system relies heavily on local processing to keep your private data secure. Even Siri plays a role in helping pull up specific files mentioned in these grouped threads.



The default mail client is finally catching up to third-party alternatives. By letting the system handle the sorting and summarizing, you spend less time scrolling and more time getting things done. It is a solid upgrade that fundamentally changes how you interact with your inbox.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[US Eases Rules For Apple To Export AI Chips And Server Gear To UAE]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[The United States government just changed its rules to let Apple move advanced computer parts into the United Arab Emirates. Instead of filling out loads of paperwork for individual export licenses, the company can now ship advanced AI chips and server gear straight to its facilities in the Gulf ...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3661329/ios-mac-os/us-eases-rules-for-apple-to-export-ai-chips-and-server-gear-to-uae/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3661329/ios-mac-os/us-eases-rules-for-apple-to-export-ai-chips-and-server-gear-to-uae/</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 11 Jul 2026 07:53:32 +0200</pubDate>
<category>🍏 iOS / Mac OS</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[The United States government just changed its rules to let Apple move advanced computer parts into the United Arab Emirates. Instead of filling out loads of paperwork for individual export licenses, the company can now ship advanced AI chips and server gear straight to its facilities in the Gulf nation to build up its local data centers without delays.



New export rules allow tech giants to skip individual shipping licenses



The new policy comes straight from the US Department of Commerce. It aims to reduce the red tape that usually stops the movement of high-tech parts across borders. Before this update, a firm had to ask the government for permission every time it wanted to export covered computer items.



Now, the brand can freely move items that support Artificial Intelligence to its UAE sites. The rule change is not just for one hardware maker. The government opened this fast track for several other massive technology businesses, too. Amazon, Google, Meta, and Microsoft are all part of the same approved list. As long as the business serves as the end user and receives the equipment at its own local base, the transfer is legal without extra paperwork.



The policy update helps brands build larger local computer networks



Experts believe the tech brand will use this open door to improve its data center infrastructure inside the region. As the demand for smart tools grows, building local servers is the best way to keep things running fast. The UAE is spending a lot of money to become a central hub for new computer technology.



By removing these trade walls, the US is helping its own brands stay ahead in a fast-growing market. This shift reflects a strong relationship between the two nations. It is a big win for the company as it tries to match up against rivals and offer better local services.



This legal shift removes a major hurdle for American brands looking to expand in the Middle East. With easier access to crucial hardware, these firms can now focus on scaling their digital platforms rather than waiting on federal approvals.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[57% of enterprises have watched AI agents be confidently wrong. The fix is an agentic context layer, but who has one?]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[An enterprise AI agent answers with total confidence, but the number is wrong. Nobody catches it until someone traces it back to a stale metric definition or a document the retrieval system never pulled. The model did not fail. The context it was given did.In the past six months, 57% of enterpris...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3660872/it-nachrichten/57-of-enterprises-have-watched-ai-agents-be-confidently-wrong-the-fix-is-an-agentic-context-layer-but-who-has-one/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3660872/it-nachrichten/57-of-enterprises-have-watched-ai-agents-be-confidently-wrong-the-fix-is-an-agentic-context-layer-but-who-has-one/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2026 23:47:15 +0200</pubDate>
<category>📰 IT Nachrichten</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>An enterprise AI agent answers with total confidence, but the number is wrong. Nobody catches it until someone traces it back to a stale metric definition or a document the retrieval system never pulled. The model did not fail. The context it was given did.</p><p>In the past six months, 57% of enterprises traced a confident but wrong AI agent answer to missing or inconsistent business context, and 31% said it happened more than once, according to a VB Pulse June 2026 survey of 101 qualified enterprises with more than 100 employees.</p><p>The reason is not hard to find. Retrieval over documents is the default way agents get business context for 38% of enterprises, nearly double the next closest approach. The way most enterprises choose a retrieval system compounds the problem. Ease of ingestion and operational simplicity lead the selection criteria, with retrieval accuracy running behind both. The accuracy problem only shows up after the system is already live.</p><p>There is a known fix for this, a governed context layer every agent reads from instead of guessing. Vendors are racing to roll out context platforms while most enterprises are still figuring out what it is.</p><h2>75% don't have an agentic context layer yet</h2><p>The context layer is meant to be a shared model of what business data actually means, built once and referenced consistently instead of re-derived by every agent that touches it. </p><p>The VentureBeat research shows the enterprise response to that idea is broad but unfinished. Twenty-five percent of respondents run one in production. Thirty-four percent are building one right now. The remaining 41% have not started.</p><p>Among companies already building or running a governed context layer, 78% report a confident-wrong failure — an AI agent that answered with total certainty and was still wrong. Among companies with no plans to build a layer, only 20% report the same thing. Companies that already got burned are far more likely to be building the fix. Companies that haven't been burned yet see no urgency.</p><h2>What governed context looks like when someone actually builds one</h2><p>Every major data and AI platform vendor is now building some version of this layer, and they are not converging on the same architecture. </p><ul><li><p><a href="https://venturebeat.com/data/sql-query-logs-hold-the-context-ai-agents-need-to-stop-hallucinating-joins">DataHub</a> is treating catalog metadata and years of analyst query behavior as a knowledge source, then keeping it current as a living system rather than a static wiki. </p></li><li><p>Microsoft's<a href="https://venturebeat.com/data/enterprise-ai-agents-keep-operating-from-different-versions-of-reality"> Fabric IQ</a> is building a business ontology that any agent, not just Microsoft's own, can query over MCP. </p></li><li><p><a href="https://venturebeat.com/data/ai-agents-need-context-everywhere-they-run-even-where-the-cloud-cant-follow">Couchbase</a> is pushing agent memory and context retrieval down to the edge, arguing the operational database is a more natural home for it than a search or analytics layer bolted on after the fact. </p></li><li><p>Pinecone's<a href="https://venturebeat.com/data/the-rag-era-is-ending-for-agentic-ai-a-new-compilation-stage-knowledge-layer-is-what-comes-next"> Nexus</a> is compiling structural logic into the metadata layer ahead of runtime, betting that agents need pre-built structure more than they need faster search.</p></li><li><p>Snowflake runs a two-layer system,<a href="https://venturebeat.com/data/ai-agents-keep-giving-confident-wrong-answers-the-context-layer-is-enterprise-ais-next-production-problem"> Horizon Context</a> for customer-managed definitions and Cortex Sense for context the platform infers on its own. </p></li><li><p>Oracle's<a href="https://venturebeat.com/data/oracle-converges-the-ai-data-stack-to-give-enterprise-agents-a-single"> Unified Memory Core</a> takes the opposite approach, folding vector, graph and relational data into one transactional engine so there is no sync layer left to go stale. </p></li><li><p>Google's<a href="https://venturebeat.com/data/the-modern-data-stack-was-built-for-humans-asking-questions-google-just-rebuilt-its-for-agents-taking-action"> Knowledge Catalog</a> mines query logs and usage patterns to curate semantic context automatically.</p></li><li><p>AWS's<a href="https://venturebeat.com/data/aws-enters-the-context-layer-race-with-a-graph-that-learns-from-agents-not-manual-curation"> Context</a> service makes the same bet, a knowledge graph that gets smarter from how agents actually use it rather than from manual re-curation.</p></li></ul><h2>Analysts converge on one diagnosis</h2><p>The vendor approaches differ. What analysts and practitioners have told VentureBeat about the underlying problem, across a run of interviews this year, does not.</p><p>When<a href="https://venturebeat.com/data/sql-query-logs-hold-the-context-ai-agents-need-to-stop-hallucinating-joins"> DataHub's context layer push</a> landed this spring, Constellation Research VP and principal analyst Michael Ni framed the stakes in blunt terms. "Whoever controls runtime context controls the AI decision layer for enterprise data," Ni said. He was equally direct about how far any single product actually gets a buyer. "Vector memory isn't business meaning, business meaning isn't governance and governance isn't execution," Ni said.</p><p>In the same interview, BARC analyst Kevin Petrie pointed to a narrower but concrete gap. Most context platforms concentrate on structured tables, he said, which give agents trusted facts but miss the harder, messier context locked in documents and unstructured content, exactly the material a business actually runs on day to day.</p><p>Stephanie Walter, practice leader for AI Stack at HyperFRAME Research, made a related point earlier this year when VentureBeat asked her about<a href="https://venturebeat.com/data/context-architecture-is-replacing-rag-as-agentic-ai-pushes-enterprise-retrieval-to-its-limits"> enterprise context fragmentation</a>. </p><p>"The market is converging on the same conclusion," Walter said. "Agents don't just need more tokens or better models. They need governed, current, low-latency context." She made a similar case in an earlier review of<a href="https://venturebeat.com/data/the-rag-era-is-ending-for-agentic-ai-a-new-compilation-stage-knowledge-layer-is-what-comes-next"> Pinecone's Nexus launch</a>, careful not to overstate how new any of this is. Nexus, she said, "shifts knowledge work from runtime chaos to pre-compiled structure. But it's an evolution of RAG architecture, not a complete reinvention." </p><p>Gartner's Arun Chandrasekaran, reviewing the same launch, offered the more forward-looking read. Agentic AI, he said, is moving from pure information retrieval toward a reasoning architecture, one where long context works as short-term memory and a vector database functions as deep storage underneath it.</p><p>The fragmentation problem shows up hardest at the practitioner level, where separate tools for retrieval, memory and access control were never built to agree with each other. Steven Dickens, CEO and principal analyst at HyperFRAME Research, put it bluntly after <a href="https://venturebeat.com/data/oracle-converges-the-ai-data-stack-to-give-enterprise-agents-a-single">Oracle's AI database push</a> landed this spring. "Data teams are exhausted by fragmentation fatigue," Dickens said. "Managing a separate vector store, graph database and relational system just to power one agent is a DevOps nightmare." </p><p>Matt Kimball at Moor Insights and Strategy, in that same story, put the production reality more simply. Getting an agent working is not the hard part, he said. The struggle is running it in production, where the goal becomes removing the distance between data and execution rather than adding another layer on top of it.</p><h2>What this means for enterprises</h2><p>Here's what this adds up to for enterprises building on this layer.</p><p><b>Retrieval alone will not close the context gap.</b> RAG is the default source for context in most enterprises today, and it is also the layer most closely associated with the confident-wrong-answer failure. Adding more documents or a bigger index does not fix a definition that is inconsistent across systems.</p><p><b>The semantic context layer is where the budget is actually moving, even where it hasn't shipped. </b>Fifty-eight percent of enterprises are already engaged — building or in production — but only 25% have actually gotten a layer live. That gap shows where enterprises have decided to spend, not where they've arrived.</p><p><b>No single vendor owns the architecture yet, and that is likely to stay true for a while.</b> Enterprises evaluating this layer should expect to integrate rather than pick a single winner, at least for the next several quarters.</p><p><b>The buying decision is happening this year, and it is concentrated among the companies already burned by it.</b> Fifty-seven percent of enterprises plan to switch or add a retrieval or context platform within the next twelve months. That intent is not spread evenly. Enterprises that reported a repeat confident-wrong failure plan to switch or add a provider at roughly 81%, against 32% among enterprises that never hit the problem. The companies shopping for new context tooling right now are largely the ones whose agents already got it wrong. </p><p>The agents are already running. The context underneath most of them is still being built, and the vendor selling the fix is being chosen this year.</p><p><i>This data will be part of a broader conversation at </i><a href="https://venturebeat.com/vbtransform2026"><i>VB Transform 2026</i></a><i> on July 14 and 15 in Menlo Park: the context gap enterprises are racing to close, and which of the emerging approaches — governed semantic layers, hybrid retrieval, provider-native bundles — actually holds up in production.</i></p>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Google Workspace Weekly Recap - July 10, 2026]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[Join video conferences on Google Meet hardware via SIP through PexipYou can now join video conferences on Google Meet hardware via SIP through a Pexip interop gateway. This brings universal connectivity for users to join meetings hosted on any SIP-compatible platform directly from their Meet room...]]></description>
<link>https://tsecurity.de/de/3660827/web-tipps/google-workspace-weekly-recap-july-10-2026/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://tsecurity.de/de/3660827/web-tipps/google-workspace-weekly-recap-july-10-2026/</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2026 23:10:13 +0200</pubDate>
<category>Web Tipps</category>
<source url="https://tsecurity.de">tsecurity.de</source>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<h3>Join video conferences on Google Meet hardware via SIP through Pexip</h3><p>You can now join video conferences on Google Meet hardware via SIP through a Pexip interop gateway. This brings universal connectivity for users to join meetings hosted on any SIP-compatible platform directly from their Meet rooms. The functionality is available for room hardware based on both Android and ChromeOS. | <a href="https://workspaceupdates.googleblog.com/2026/07/join-video-conferences-on-google-meet-hardware-via-SIP-through-Pexip.html" target="_blank">Learn more</a>.</p><h3>Occupancy counting now available for Google Meet on Neat room hardware</h3><p>Occupancy counting is now available for Android-based Neat room hardware to help measure how meeting rooms are used. This feature brings the same occupancy counting capabilities found on ChromeOS devices to Android-based hardware. | <a href="https://workspaceupdates.googleblog.com/2026/07/occupancy-counting-now-available-for-Google-Meet-on-Neat-room-hardware.html" target="_blank">Learn more</a>.</p><h3>Fill with Gemini in Sheets now available in 11 additional languages</h3><p>We're leveraging the capabilities of the AI function in Google Sheets, Fill with Gemini eliminates the need for complex formulas, helping you easily generate text, summarize information, categorize data, or analyze sentiment at scale with generated content appearing directly in the cells you choose. | <a href="https://workspaceupdates.googleblog.com/2026/07/fill-with-gemini-in-sheets-now-available-in-11-additional-languages.html" target="_blank">Learn more</a>.</p><h3>New calendar sharing permission level and changes to recurring event visibility</h3><p>We're introducing a new calendar sharing permission level: “Make changes (see private events as free/busy)”. This allows you to grant someone edit access to your calendar while keeping the details of your private events entirely hidden. This is especially useful for leaders who assign delegates to help them manage their calendars. | <a href="https://workspaceupdates.googleblog.com/2026/07/new-calendar-sharing-permission-level-and-changes-to-recurring-event-visibility.html" target="_blank">Learn more</a>.</p><h3>Convert your Google Slides to videos in 7 additional languages</h3><p>Google Vids already lets you convert your Slides content into Vids with AI-generated scripts, voiceovers, background music, and animations for presentations and accounts in English. We’re now expanding support to French, German, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese, and Spanish. | <a href="https://workspaceupdates.googleblog.com/2026/07/convert-your-google-slides-to-videos-in-7-additional-languages.html" target="_blank">Learn more</a>.</p><h3>Streamline identity lifecycle management in Google Workspace with new inbound SCIM support</h3><p>We are excited to announce the general availability of Google Workspace inbound SCIM APIs to help IT administrators standardize identity lifecycle management. This new capability allows you to sync your Google Workspace directory in real time with any SCIM-compatible Identity Provider (IdP), HR system (HRIS), or custom application. | <a href="https://workspaceupdates.googleblog.com/2026/07/streamline-identity-lifecycle-management-in-Google-Workspace-with-new-inbound-SCIM-support.html" target="_blank">Learn more</a>.</p><p><span>The announcements above were published on the Workspace Updates blog over the last week. Please refer to the original blog posts for complete details.</span></p>]]></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>
</channel>
</rss>
<!-- Generated in 0,44ms -->