Team IT Security - 📰 Alle Kategorien

CVE-2026-64390 | Linux Kernel up to 7.1.3 Ksmbd SMB2_LOCK conn race condition (Nessus ID 329970)

Sun, 26 Jul 2026 15:20:42 +0200

A vulnerability marked as very critical has been reported in Linux Kernel up to 7.1.3. This impacts the function SMB2_LOCK of the component Ksmbd. Performing a manipulation of the argument conn results in race condition. This vulnerability is known as CVE-2026-64390. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. No exploit is available. It is suggested to upgrade the affected component.

CVE-2026-64309 | Linux Kernel up to 6.12.95/6.18.38/7.1.3 ccp initialization (Nessus ID 329972)

Sun, 26 Jul 2026 12:50:48 +0200

A vulnerability was found in Linux Kernel up to 6.12.95/6.18.38/7.1.3 and classified as critical. This vulnerability affects unknown code of the component ccp. The manipulation results in improper initialization. This vulnerability is known as CVE-2026-64309. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. No exploit is available. It is suggested to upgrade the affected component.

CVE-2026-25212 | Percona up to 3.6 Add data source os command injection

Sun, 26 Jul 2026 11:50:58 +0200

A vulnerability, which was classified as critical, was found in Percona up to 3.6. This issue affects some unknown processing of the component Add data source. The manipulation results in os command injection. This vulnerability is known as CVE-2026-25212. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. No exploit is available. You should upgrade the affected component.

CVE-2026-34815 | Endian Firewall 3.3.25 Parameter /cgi-bin/smtpdomains.cgi DOMAIN cross site scripting

Sun, 26 Jul 2026 08:20:09 +0200

A vulnerability, which was classified as problematic, has been found in Endian Firewall 3.3.25. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file /cgi-bin/smtpdomains.cgi of the component Parameter Handler. Performing a manipulation of the argument DOMAIN results in cross site scripting. This vulnerability is known as CVE-2026-34815. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. No exploit is available.

CVE-2026-64470 | Linux Kernel up to 7.1.3 btusb btusb.c btusb_probe use after free (Nessus ID 329995)

Sun, 26 Jul 2026 06:50:20 +0200

A vulnerability classified as very critical was found in Linux Kernel up to 7.1.3. Affected is the function btusb_probe of the file btusb.c of the component btusb. The manipulation results in use after free. This vulnerability is known as CVE-2026-64470. Attacking locally is a requirement. No exploit is available. Upgrading the affected component is advised.

CVE-2026-64513 | Linux Kernel up to 6.18.38/7.1.3 KVM handle_tpr_below_threshold denial of service (EUVD-2026-48857)

Sun, 26 Jul 2026 06:36:22 +0200

A vulnerability has been found in Linux Kernel up to 6.18.38/7.1.3 and classified as critical. Affected by this vulnerability is the function handle_tpr_below_threshold of the component KVM. Performing a manipulation results in denial of service. This vulnerability is known as CVE-2026-64513. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. No exploit is available. The affected component should be upgraded.

CVE-2026-64509 | Linux Kernel up to 6.12.96/6.18.38/7.1.3 block GenDiskBuilder::build memory leak (EUVD-2026-48853)

Sun, 26 Jul 2026 06:36:16 +0200

A vulnerability was found in Linux Kernel up to 6.12.96/6.18.38/7.1.3 and classified as very critical. This issue affects the function GenDiskBuilder::build of the component block. The manipulation results in memory leak. This vulnerability is known as CVE-2026-64509. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. No exploit is available. It is suggested to upgrade the affected component.

CVE-2026-34794 | Endian Firewall 3.3.25 Regular Expression /cgi-bin/logs_ids.cgi open Date os command injection

Sun, 26 Jul 2026 06:36:09 +0200

A vulnerability classified as critical was found in Endian Firewall 3.3.25. The impacted element is the function Open of the file /cgi-bin/logs_ids.cgi of the component Regular Expression Handler. The manipulation of the argument Date results in os command injection. This vulnerability is known as CVE-2026-34794. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. No exploit is available.

CVE-2026-64491 | Linux Kernel up to 6.18.38/7.1.3/7.2-rc1 ALSA usx2y tascam_disconnect use after free (EUVD-2026-48835)

Sun, 26 Jul 2026 06:36:07 +0200

A vulnerability, which was classified as critical, was found in Linux Kernel up to 6.18.38/7.1.3/7.2-rc1. The impacted element is the function tascam_disconnect of the component ALSA usx2y. The manipulation results in use after free. This vulnerability is known as CVE-2026-64491. Attacking locally is a requirement. No exploit is available. You should upgrade the affected component.

3 Apple Watch Running Features I Wish I’d Known About Sooner

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 22:15:54 +0200

These overlooked Apple Watch features can make training smarter and race day a little less stressful.

CVE-2026-34359 | hapifhir org.hl7.fhir.core up to 6.9.3 getServer origin validation (GHSA-fgv2-4q4g-wc35)

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 21:21:43 +0200

A vulnerability described as problematic has been identified in hapifhir org.hl7.fhir.core up to 6.9.3. This affects the function getServer. The manipulation results in origin validation error. This vulnerability is known as CVE-2026-34359. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. No exploit is available. Upgrading the affected component is recommended.

The EU’s AI transparency deadline is weeks away. Is your enterprise ready?

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:50:13 +0200

Providers and deployers of AI systems: You only have a couple of weeks left until you must explicitly inform users when they are interacting with AI content.

To assist in the effort, the European Commission (Commission) has published guidelines to help AI deployers get in line with the AI Act’s transparency obligations, which will begin to go into effect on August 2.

After that, companies providing AI systems must alert users when they are interacting with AI. They must also tell users when they have been exposed to deepfakes, “emotion recognition,” or biometric categorization systems, or when they are given AI-manipulated content in matters of “public interests without human review or editorial control.”

Henna Virkkunen, the Commission’s executive VP for tech sovereignty, security and democracy, said in a statement, “with today’s guidelines, the Commission supports the smooth and effective application of the AI Act to make AI systems interacting with people such as chatbots and AI agents and AI content more transparent and trustworthy. These guidelines support providers and deployers in meeting their obligations under the AI Act, while helping citizens know when they are interacting with AI.”

Systems must include machine-readable markers to reveal such content, to reduce “the risk of deception and manipulation” and build public trust in AI.

“Generative systems have collapsed the cost of producing convincing content while the cost of judging it stands where it always stood,” said Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research. This requirement is “an attempt to restore friction to that imbalance.”

A company’s non-compliance could result in fines anywhere from €750K (about $856K) to €15M (about $17 million), or even up to 3% of its total worldwide annual revenue.

Transparency requirements

The EU AI Act’s transparency requirements apply to “natural or legal persons,” public authorities, agencies, or other bodies that develop AI systems, or have them developed, and place them on the EU market or into use under their name or trademark. This means all companies, regardless of whether or not they are EU-based.

“Systems placed on the European market, put into service there, or producing outputs used there are inside the field, wherever the developer sits,” Gogia noted.

Applicable systems must be intended to interact directly with “natural persons”; these systems include AI-enabled chatbots or conversational agents, AI companions, or coding agents. However, AI-enabled tools like recommender systems, spam filters, authentication, search and retrieval, transcription, text and code auto-completion, or predictive maintenance do not fall under the rule.

Specific outputs such as AI-generated text, images, video, and audio must contain a machine-readable mark. Deepfakes and public interest-related text created by AI without human review or control must be clearly labeled, however, deepfake content that is “artistic, creative, satirical, or fictional” is largely exempt.

AI content must be marked with one of three labels: “AI,” “Fully AI-generated,” or “Partially AI-modified.” For instance, “Fully AI-generated” applies when news summaries, music, art, or videos have been created without any human oversight (apart from prompting), while “partially AI-modified” could mean a person’s face is swapped into an authentic photograph to create a deepfake.

The three icons are publicly available for free use; enterprises can download zip files in PNG and SVG formats.

Most of the Act’s transparency rules begin to go into effect on August 2. But AI systems placed on the market before then will have some leeway; they must be in compliance by December 2.

However, a four-month allowance “on one obligation, for one population of systems, contingent on one procedural step, is not a strategy,” Gogia emphasized. Enterprises should plan to comply by August 2 and “treat any relief that arrives as margin.”

A consistent code of practice

Along with the transparency guidelines, the Commission has introduced a code of practice that essentially serves as a gesture of good faith. When signed, it can provide “legal certainty” and a “simple and practical” way to demonstrate compliance with the AI Act, according to the Commission. Signatories can also collaborate through the ‘Signatory Taskforce,’ which will share practices and advance technologies around marking and labeling practices.

Providers that choose not to sign must comply through other methods and demonstrate that those methods are “adequate” through assessment by surveillance authorities, according to the Commission.

Non-signatories “keep their flexibility, and will face more case-by-case scrutiny for it,” said Gogia.

Criteria for compliance

Shashi Bellamkonda, principal research director at Info-Tech Research Group, pointed out that the transparency requirements apply to content only when three criteria are met: It has been published, is informative to the public, or is on matters of public interest.

B2B business content or blogs may not need an AI disclosure if they do not meet these criteria, he noted. Also, published text that has undergone human review or is under editorial control does not need to be labeled. Editorial control means that a person must hold the ultimate legal responsibility for the publication of the content.

Many companies like Google, Adobe, and LinkedIn have already established ways to identify images marked as AI-generated. Meta has made it a requirement, but the creator has to add the AI-generated label, Bellamkonda said.

“This is a good move for guardrails around public information, and companies with good compliance and ethical oversight may not have to worry about this,” he noted. But as a general practice, companies should disclose AI-generated content and state whether it has been human reviewed.

Creating a transparency pipeline

Establishing full transparency means identifying who carries the responsibility for the content, whether the marking survives real use, not just testing, and what evidence will defend the decision, Gogia said.

Concerns cluster around responsibility, durability and evidence. Several organizations usually touch one piece of content, and none controls the whole chain, which is why contracts become the “pressure point,” he said. Most current agreements were written to deliver software and say “almost nothing” about provenance persistence, verification access, or evidence retention.

The durability concern is the most difficult, Gogia noted, because marking performs well in controlled settings but “badly in ordinary life.” Meta, for one, said its invisible watermark was designed to survive cropping; a published test, however, found the company’s preview detector missed 55% of cropped images.

“CIOs should ask which platform can actually provide evidence before believing its dashboard,” said Gogia.

Disclosure of AI use must be “clear, distinguishable and accessible,” he emphasized. “A notice buried in lengthy terms, or reachable only through determined clicking, satisfies nobody, least of all a market surveillance authority.”

Sustained compliance is a “living control” requiring a central record of systems, duties and evidence; testing taking place where the user meets the control rather than where the developer built it; and continuous supplier assurance. Enforcement will vary by country, so keep one common baseline with local overlays, Gogia said.

His advice: Inventory every system that talks to people, generates content, or gauges sentiment; classify provider and deployer roles; place disclosures at first interaction; define substantive human review; keep the evidence.

Marks and provenance signals should be tested after content undergoes cropping, compression, translation, transcription, and other editing, Gogia said. A useful audit starts from a real output and follows its “pulse” through generation, editing and publication, identifying at “each beat” the responsible party, the surviving mark, and evidence for exceptions. Missed labels should also be traced for root cause and recurrence.

To ensure compliance, before August 2, enterprises need a prioritized inventory, live disclosures on the highest-risk use cases, and a “named owner for every control,” he noted. In the first 30 days, they should stabilize and test; in the first 90 days, push requirements into procurement processes as a standing discipline. Procurement must secure commitments on marking methods, known failure modes, and evidence access, with explicit notice if/when any of them change.

“The sensible architecture is a common transparency baseline carrying traceability, responsibility, and evidence, with jurisdictional overlays for language, sector rules, and local practice,” Gogia said.

This article originally appeared on CIO.com.

10 cool things Copilot can do in PowerPoint

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:50:10 +0200

Building a presentation can take lots of time. There are design choices to figure out: the slide layouts, fonts, theme colors, and so on. You can use a template to skip this hassle, but you still have to paste your text and other content into the slides and edit it all so that the results are visually appealing.

In PowerPoint, Microsoft’s Copilot AI assistant can now automate the heavy lifting of presentation creation. It can generate a first-draft presentation in minutes, then help you edit it. You can also prompt Copilot to help you quickly understand the contents of a presentation and glean insights from it. Use the tips in this guide to save oodles of time as you create and work with presentations.

Who can use Copilot in PowerPoint

Individuals with a Microsoft 365 Personal, Family, or Premium subscription have access to Copilot from within PowerPoint and other Microsoft 365 apps. Users with a Premium plan have higher Copilot usage allowances and access to advanced AI features.

For business users, it’s more complicated. Organizations with more than 2,000 users must pay for Microsoft 365 Copilot licenses for their users in addition to their regular Microsoft 365 licenses. Users at organizations with fewer than 2,000 users can use Copilot within M365 apps even without the M365 Copilot add-on licenses, but there are limitations in usage, speed, and feature availability.

To see what kind of access you have, log in to Microsoft’s Copilot Chat web hub and look for your name in the lower left corner. If you see “M365 Copilot (Premium)” under your name, you can use Copilot in M365 apps with priority access and advanced features. “M365 Copilot (Basic)” means you can use Copilot in M365 apps with lower-priority access and limited features. If you see “Copilot Chat (Basic)” or nothing below your name, you can’t use Copilot in M365 apps.

(Copilot Chat Basic users do get some Copilot functionality, including the ability to generate presentations, via the Copilot Chat hub. See our Copilot Chat tutorial for details.)

Working with Copilot in PowerPoint

First, let’s quickly go over the notable settings of the Copilot sidebar.

When you have a presentation open in PowerPoint, click the Copilot icon; it may be floating at the lower-right corner of your PowerPoint window or parked at the right end of the Ribbon toolbar. The Copilot sidebar will open along the right of the page. You’ll type your prompts to Copilot inside the chat window in this pane.

The sidebar on the right is where you interact with Copilot in PowerPOint.

Howard Wen / Foundry

Agent mode: By default, Copilot can build a new presentation or make changes to an existing one in the main PowerPoint window. This is known as “agent mode.” To change this so that Copilot can’t take direct action on a presentation (all its responses appear in the sidebar), click the Allow editing button above the chat window and change it to Chat only.

The tips in this guide require that Copilot be in agent mode, so make sure you see Allow editing above the chat window.

Choice of AI model: Behind the scenes, Copilot has access to various genAI models, including different versions of Anthropic Claude and OpenAI GPT. By default, it decides which model to use based on your prompt. You can set it to use a particular model: click Auto at the upper right of the Copilot pane and select a model from the dropdown that opens.

You can choose which AI model you want Copilot to use for a request.

Howard Wen / Foundry

The tips in this guide should work fine on the default Auto setting. But feel free to experiment switching to specific models to see which give you the best results for particular tasks.

Important: Remember that generative AI output often includes errors, so always check Copilot’s output for accuracy. (Also see our tips for reducing hallucinations in Copilot.) You’ll likely want to rewrite it in your own voice as you’re reviewing it.

1. Create a presentation template

For many people, the hardest part of creating a presentation is getting started. What types of information should be included on the slides, and in what order? Copilot can give you a leg up by creating the type of presentation you need, with placeholder data that you can later replace with your own.

Start a new presentation, open the Copilot sidebar, and type your prompt into the chat window. It’s best to provide very specific details in your prompt. The more context or details you provide, the more likely Copilot will generate a presentation template that suits your needs.

A good prompt should contain the slide count, subject, audience, and tone. Example:

Create a 6-slide presentation for a sales meeting focusing on Q1 revenue. The audience is the sales team, so keep the tone professional and focused on the sales data.

Copilot may ask a series of follow-up questions, such as your preferred visual style and desired level of detail. Then it will generate a presentation template.

Copilot generates a presentation with placeholder data and explains its elements.

Howard Wen / Foundry

You can optionally prompt Copilot for revisions, and when you’re happy with the template, swap in your own data.

2. Create a presentation from a document

You can attach a document (such as a Word document, Excel spreadsheet, or PDF) and prompt Copilot to generate a presentation based on its contents. This works best with a structured-format document (such as a business plan, project proposal, or summary report) that contains sections with headings.

Copilot can extract the document’s text and structure to generate the slide content for the new presentation. This can especially be useful for quickly turning a long report into a visually appealing presentation.

In the Copilot pane, click the + icon at the bottom of the chat window. A list of documents that you’ve recently accessed appears. Select the one that you want Copilot to use. Alternatively, click the magnifying glass icon and inside its search box, type a few letters of the filename for the document you want. (Business users with an M365 Copilot license can select up to five files for Copilot to pull from when creating a presentation.)

Attaching a document for Copilot to base a presentation on.

Howard Wen / Foundry

Then in the chat window, you can enter a prompt that’s as simple as “Create a presentation,” although as always, providing more details and context is better. This is especially important for corporate users who reference multiple source files. It’s useful to tell Copilot what data to pull from each document.

Answer any follow-up questions that Copilot asks, and it will then generate the presentation.

Copilot has generated a professional presentation from a social media marketing campaign document.

Howard Wen / Foundry

Note: Your marketing department may have created one or more branded company templates for Copilot to work from. If that’s the case at your organization, simply open the appropriate company template as your first step. Then you can upload docs and type a prompt as described above. Copilot will create a presentation using the branded template.

3. Add content from a document to a slide

Manually copying text or other content from a document and pasting it into a new slide is a chore. Instead, you can prompt Copilot to extract information directly from a Word document, Excel spreadsheet, or PDF to create new slides.

In the Copilot pane, attach the document using the same steps described in tip 2, then tell Copilot to create a slide from the document. As always, it helps to provide details such as the new slide’s focus or what data to include:

Add a slide based on the attached document.
Use the attached file to add a slide about the project budget that focuses on Q1 projections.
Summarize only the financial section of the attached document as a slide.

A new Copilot-generated slide based on data from an Excel spreadsheet.

Howard Wen / Foundry

4. Refine your slide text

A presentation should be visual and display only the core message. Conciseness and proper writing tone are essential for your slides, so that they don’t lose the attention of your audience.

You can prompt Copilot to refine text on an individual slide in various ways, such as rewriting it in a more professional tone or making it more concise. Highlight the text inside a text box on the slide. On the toolbar that appears over the highlighted text, click Edit with Copilot.

On the menu that opens, you can select a preset prompt to refine the text, such as Condense or Make professional. Or, at the top of this menu, you can type a prompt to rewrite the highlighted text.

Choose a preset prompt for refining text on a slide or type in your own prompt.

Howard Wen / Foundry

Note that this feature affects all the text inside the text box. To rewrite only a portion of text inside a text box, you must split that portion out into a separate text box.

Alternatively, you can prompt Copilot to analyze your entire presentation and tighten up the wording throughout all of its slides. For example:

Make these slides more visual and use less text.

5. Find or create an image

If you have Copilot generate a presentation from an existing Word document that contains images, it will incorporate those images into the presentation. If there are no images in the source document, you can ask Copilot to find or create one and add it to a slide.

To add a stock image or an image from your organization’s brand library, tell Copilot what you’re looking for:

Add a stock photo of young adults in a cafe drinking boba tea.
Add a photo from our asset library of young adults in a cafe drinking boba tea.

To have Copilot create an image using Microsoft’s Designer image generation tool, describe your desired image. As always, specificity is helpful:

Create a photorealistic image of a diverse group of 5 or 6 fashionable young adults sitting in a cafe drinking boba tea. They’re smiling or laughing, and some are looking at their phones.

Copilot in PowerPoint hooks into Microsoft’s Designer tool for image generation.

Howard Wen / Foundry

Just as you need to review any text output from Copilot, take a close look at generated images to be sure nothing looks off.

Also note that Copilot image generation isn’t always reliable in PowerPoint. For some time during our testing for this story, Copilot said it couldn’t create an image because “the image generation service is returning a server error on every attempt.” After about a day and a half, the service began working again.

6. Expand your presentation with relevant slides

As you’re building your presentation, you may find that it’s become text heavy. Or perhaps it could use more visually oriented slides to break things up and make its progression flow better. Copilot can generate and insert new slides that are based on the content of the slides already in the presentation.

In the Copilot pane, specify exactly where you want the new slide to go. This helps Copilot to analyze the content of the slides before and after where you want the new slide. Then it can generate a slide to bridge between the two slides. Examples:

Add a slide after slide 3 about our competitive advantages.
Add a slide after slide 11 that transitions to slide 12.

Need a transition slide? Just ask!

Howard Wen / Foundry

7. Summarize a presentation

Maybe you need a quick refresh of your presentation before an important meeting. Or maybe a co-worker has sent you a presentation that’s packed with lots of slides. You can prompt Copilot to generate a summary of the presentation’s overall messaging.

In the Copilot pane, just type “summarize this presentation.” You can also have Copilot flag key slides that contain important information: “show me key slides.”

Ask Copilot to summarize a presentation or flag key slides.

Howard Wen / Foundry

8. Answer questions about a presentation

As you’re reviewing a presentation, especially one that you didn’t create and are not familiar with, you can get Copilot to pull key data points from its slides.

In the Copilot pane, type specific informational questions. Examples:

What are the action items in this deck?
What is the proposed budget mentioned here?

If Copilot can’t find the exact answer to the question you ask, it will provide related information from the presentation.

Ask Copilot specific questions about the contents of a presentation.

Howard Wen / Foundry

This method can also help you validate that your presentation includes everything you want it to. If you ask Copilot about the action items in a presentation and it can’t find any, you know you need to add them. (Copilot will likely offer to generate them for you based on the rest of the slides.)

You can even take this tactic a step further and ask Copilot if the presentation is missing any important data, if any slides are weak or confusing, if there are any awkward transitions, if there are key points that should be better emphasized, and so on.

9. Help you navigate a large presentation

In the business world, presentations with dozens of slides are not uncommon, such as for financial reports or project documentation. Trying to find a specific slide or multiple slides can be tough. Copilot can help you navigate such a presentation.

In the Copilot pane, prompt Copilot to find slides based on specific topics. Example:

Show me the slides about the project timeline.

Copilot will analyze the presentation and reply with a list of links to the relevant slides. Click one of these to jump directly to that slide.

Copilot can help you zoom directly to a slide that covers a particular topic or shows specific data.

Howard Wen / Foundry

10. Generate speaker notes and/or an FAQ

Here’s a great timesaver when you’re preparing to show your presentation to an audience: Copilot can automatically generate suggested speaker notes for you, based on the content of your slides. Example prompt:

Write speaker notes for every slide with one talking point per slide.

Copilot can create speaker notes in seconds.

Howard Wen / Foundry

In a related feature, Copilot can create a frequently asked questions list (FAQ) for you to consult in your speaker notes or to present as a slide:

Write an FAQ for these slides.

Copilot will ask where you want the questions and answers added — as a new slide at the end, integrated into the speaker notes of relevant slides, or somewhere else that you designate. Make a selection, and Copilot will generate the FAQ based on the content of your presentation.

A Copilot-generated FAQ slide.

Howard Wen / Foundry

Monday.com cuts 20% of its workforce to restructure for the AI era

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:50:09 +0200

Healthy software companies typically don’t suddenly eliminate one-fifth of their workforce, but monday.com is doing just that as it bets on flatter teams, AI agents, and customer implementation expertise as the winning combination in the AI era.

Monday.com co-founder and co-CEO Eran Zinman today announced the “very difficult decision” to reduce the AI work platform company’s global workforce by about 20%, or 620 people.

The move has nothing to do with increasing margins or replacing humans with AI, he insisted in his post on LinkedIn; rather, it’s a calculated decision to trim down and hone the company’s focus as AI becomes integral to day-to-day workflows.

“This is not a distress signal; it is a deliberate reset, disclosed with its price attached,” said Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research. “The industry has quietly swapped the meaning of productivity, and this filing is the clearest exhibit yet.”

A ‘significant opportunity’ in technology

In a SEC filing this week, monday.com said its restructuring plan reflects the “ongoing transformation of its product, marketing, and go-to-market strategy.” The move is intended to support a “leaner, more focused operating model” as the company continues to invest in its AI-driven strategy.

Zinman noted in his post that the company has shifted to “doing the work with AI and not just managing it,” and is focused on building environments where “people and AI agents [work] together in one workspace.”

In recent months, monday.com has evolved its products, strategy, and the way it serves its customers, and Zinman contended that “the organization we built for our previous chapter is not the organization that fits the new AI era.” Monday.com needs to “execute more decisively,” take on new challenges, and quickly respond to market changes, he said.

“We have never seen such a significant opportunity in software, driven by such exciting technology,” Zinman noted. He emphasized that the reduction is not to replace people with AI, nor to improve margins; the “vast majority” of savings will be reinvested into talent, products, and AI.

The restructuring will result in a “flatter organization” with fewer management layers and smaller, more autonomous teams, and monday.com also has a new go-to-market model, Zinman explained. Customers expect “deeper implementation support” as they deploy AI, and the company will work more closely with customers, increase its on-site presence, create new roles, and “adapt many existing ones.” In its SEC filing, the company said it expects to continue hiring in “key strategic areas” throughout 2026.

Workers will be expected to work better, “not harder,” Zinman noted. He pointed to several past examples where work could have been done in a few days, but instead took many months with “multiple meetings and endless friction.”

“This wasn’t people’s fault and everyone was frustrated by this,” he said. “Our new org changes ownership to allow people to make decisions and move fast.”

A spokesperson for monday.com declined to comment further on the staff reductions.

Monday.com’s key market advantages

Monday.com certainly isn’t struggling; the company expects 19% to 20% year-over-year growth in 2026.

“Companies in that position do not restructure because they must,” Greyhound’s Gogia noted. “They restructure because they have decided to become something else.”

Melody Brue, VP and principal analyst at Moor Insights & Strategy, pointed out that organizational redesign is important for real AI transformation, but while it can signal confidence to the market, it can still be “devastating” to humans.

While the company looks as though it’s trying to do right, that ultimately remains to be seen, she said. “There are often hidden internal bruises that can surface long after layoffs.”

Monday.com’s advantage is in its “structured substrate,” Gogia noted; its boards, permissions and typed workflows give agents something firmer to act on than just documents and chat history. The company highlights its natively built agents that can be configured by any team member, as well as connectors with Claude, Microsoft Copilot, and ChatGPT, and dedicated routes for external agents to authenticate and operate.

“For some time, the sharper enterprise question has been shifting from who has an agent to who owns the governed runtime in which an agent can safely act,” he said. “Structured work is a serious claim on that runtime.”

But parts of monday.com’s agent estate remain in staged release, and its product is ultimately “mid-transition,” Gogia pointed out; its agent builder carried a beta label as recently as March,. Also, the company’s pricing model changed in May to a hybrid model charging for seats as well as mandatory AI credits. And, while its AI-powered no-code builder monday vibe passed $1 million in annual recurring revenue within two and a half months, monday.com has not released subsequent outcomes, usage volumes, or attach rates.

Further, there’s an element of “gravity” with its competitors, he observed. Asana is reorganizing teams around agents, Atlassian is wiring agents into the developer estate, and others are simply bundling them into their offerings: Microsoft is doing so across the productivity stack, and ServiceNow across enterprise operations, each with identity and procurement built in.

“Their pull is strongest exactly where monday.com wants to grow, in the largest accounts, where control-plane depth and administrative reach decide the deal,” said Gogia.

Actions for the near-term

Going forward, buyers should focus on operating risk, not headline risk, Moor’s Brue noted. In practice, that’s continuity of service, roadmap consistency, and strength of enterprise support. Productivity should be valued as better outcomes per unit of organizational effort, not mere activity.

“It should be a measure of how much smoother, faster, and more effective the operating model becomes when AI is built into the work,” said Brue.

Gogia noted that strain surfaces first in customer service, and monday.com’s attention is being redistributed. The company’s annual report disclosed that its focus is now concentrated on the largest accounts, with support for medium-sized clients moved to an AI-first and human-supported model.

During the first month of the transition, buyers should track named account continuity and escalation times, he advised. By the first quarter, keep an eye on whether credit governance and admin controls mature on schedule, and if the roadmap beyond the AI estate keeps pace. By the half-year mark, determine whether promised implementation depth is producing outcomes or “simply more billable engagement.”

Support tiers should be enumerated in writing before renewal, and buyers should contract for “side exits,” Gogia emphasized, with overage pricing fixed in advance, the right to pause consumption, and portability for workflows and agent configuration “if the relationship sours.” Finance should also insist on monthly consumption reporting by capability. Further, integration efforts, partner dependency, and change management should be considered first-class costs of the agent era, “not as afterthoughts to a license.”

“A license was a known cost,” said Gogia. “A meter is a behavior, and behavior is harder to forecast than headcount.”

This article originally appeared on CIO.com.

Email threats changed after the Tycoon2FA take-down

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tycoon2FA disruption sent attackers exploring

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phishing changes but the defense doesn’t

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on CSO.

The OpenAI Models That Hacked Hugging Face Were ‘Active on the Internet’ for Days

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:49:56 +0200

Plus: Russian hackers are trying to steal US nuclear scientists’ emails, the State Department bans known scammers from entering the United States, and more.

Intel Benefits From a New Shift in A.I. Spending

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:49:54 +0200

The Silicon Valley chipmaker’s revenue rose 25 percent in the latest quarter, its fastest growth in 15 years, as A.I. firms increasingly bought chips known as central processing units.

4 little-known Google Calendar tricks I use to plan my workweek - and save time

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:03:31 +0200

If you're only using Google Calendar to track events, you're missing some of its most useful features.

CVE-2026-33824: Remote Code Execution in Windows IKEv2

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:02:57 +0200

In this excerpt of a TrendAI Research Services vulnerability report, Richard Chen and Lucas Miller of the TrendAI Research team detail a recently patched double free vulnerability in the Windows Internet Key Exchange (IKE) service. This bug was originally discovered by WARP & MORSE team at Microsoft. Successful exploitation could result in a crash of the IKEEXT service, or potentially arbitrary code execution. The following is a portion of their write-up covering CVE-2026-33824, with a few minimal modifications.

A double free vulnerability has been reported in the Windows Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) service. The vulnerability is due to an error when processing fragments.

An unauthenticated, remote attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending crafted packets to the target server. Successful exploitation could result in a crash of the IKEEXT service, or potentially arbitrary code execution.

The Vulnerability

Microsoft Windows is an operating system which includes both server and desktop components along with an easy-to-use GUI. All currently supported versions of Windows include Internet Key Exchange Protocol Extensions to support the Virtual Private Network (VPN) feature.

The VPN feature of Windows encrypts communication between hosts. ISAKMP is a negotiation protocol used by IPsec-enabled hosts to build a security association. It uses the Internet Key Exchange (IKE) Protocol in order to negotiate keys for encrypted communication. IKE has two versions: IKEv1 and IKEv2. IKE version 1 (IKEv1) and version 2 (IKEv2) messages have the following general format:

The type of payload is determined by the Next Payload header of the previous payload, or the Next Payload field in the header (in the case of the first payload).

IKEv2 supports message fragmentation as defined in RFC 7383. When IKEv2 messages exceed the path MTU, they may be split into multiple Encrypted Fragment payloads. Of interest to this report is the Encrypted Fragment (SKF) payload (type 0x35). The SKF payload format is defined as:

When an IKEv2 implementation receives fragments, it inserts each fragment into an ordered list and reassembles them once all fragments have been received. In the Windows implementation, the function IkeReinjectReassembledPacket() performs this reassembly.

A double-free vulnerability has been reported in the Windows IKE Extension library (ikeext.dll). The vulnerability is due to improper ownership handling of a heap-allocated blob pointer during IKEv2 fragment reassembly. During the IKE_SA_INIT exchange, a Security Realm Vendor ID payload causes IkeHandleSecurityRealmVendorId() to allocate a blob and store it in the MMSA (Main Mode Security Association) structure at offset 0x208. When a fragmented IKE_AUTH message is fully reassembled, IkeReinjectReassembledPacket copies MMSA fields at offsets 0x178 through 0x21F - including the blob pointer at 0x208 - into a local stack struct. This struct is then passed to IkeQueueRecvRequest, which shallow-copies it into a heap-allocated work item. While IkeQueueRecvRequest deep-copies the reassembly buffer at offset 0x10 in the struct, the Security Realm blob pointer at offset 0xC8 remains a shallow copy, aliasing the original at MMSA+0x208.

When the thread pool processes the queued work item, IkeDestroyPacketContext checks the blob pointer at offset 0xC8 and calls WfpMemFree to release it (first free). The MMSA structure still holds the original pointer to the same allocation at offset 0x208. When the MMSA is subsequently cleaned up through IkeCleanupMMNegotiation, the SA reference count is decremented via IkeDerefMMSA, eventually triggering IkeFreeMMSA, which frees the blob pointer at MMSA offset 0x208 - the same allocation already freed by IkeDestroyPacketContext (second free).

A remote, unauthenticated attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending a crafted IKE_SA_INIT message followed by two or more Encrypted Fragment (SKF) payloads containing an invalid IKE_AUTH message to the target server. The fragment reassembly path will shallow-copy the blob pointers, and the subsequent MMSA cleanup will trigger the double free. Successful exploitation could result in arbitrary code execution under the security context of the IKEEXT service (SYSTEM).

Source Code Walkthrough

The following code snippets were taken from IKEEXT.DLL file version 10.0.20348.2849 and decompiled with IDA Pro version 8.3. Comments added by TrendAI have been highlighted.

Detection Guidance

To detect an attack exploiting this vulnerability, the detection device must monitor and parse traffic on UDP ports 500 and 4500. The IKE general format, Payloads field, and the Encrypted Fragment (SKF) payload format can be seen above.

The detection device should monitor all incoming IKE traffic. Detection requires correlating two packets within the same IKE session: an IKE_SA_INIT request carrying the Microsoft Security Realm Vendor ID, followed by a fragmented IKE_AUTH request. Neither packet alone is malicious; both must be observed in sequence from the same source.

IKE_SA_INIT

At byte offset 17 of the UDP payload, the device should check for the three-byte sequence 20 22 08, which corresponds to the IKEv2 version identifier (0x20), the IKE_SA_INIT exchange type (0x22), and the Initiator flag (0x08). The device should then scan the remainder of the packet for the 16-byte sequence 68 6a 8c bd fe 63 4b 40 51 46 fb 2b af 33 e9 e8, which is the Microsoft Security Realm Vendor ID. If both conditions are met, the device should follow the guidance below.

IKE_AUTH

For subsequent packets from the same source, the device should check bytes at offset 16 through 23 of the UDP payload. At offset 16, the four-byte sequence 35 20 23 08 identifies an Encrypted Fragment payload (SKF, type 0x35), IKEv2 version (0x20), IKE_AUTH exchange type (0x23), and Initiator flag (0x08). If found, the detection device should inspect offset 20 and search for the four-byte sequence00 00 00 01. If found the traffic should be considered malicious; an attack exploiting this vulnerability is likely underway.

Notes
• All multi-byte values should be treated as big endian.
• When detecting traffic on port 4500, IKE packets are prepended by a 4-byte non-ESP marker (\x00\x00\x00\x00), shifting all IKE header content offsets by 4.

Conclusion

This vulnerability was patched by Microsoft in the April 2026 release cycle. They do note two mitigations that could prevent exploitation while the patch is being tested and deployed.

· Block inbound traffic on UDP ports 500 and 4500 for systems that do not use IKE.

· For systems that require IKE, configure firewall rules to allow inbound traffic on UDP ports 500 and 4500 only from known peer addresses.

These mitigations may be removed once the security patch is applied. The only way to fully remediate the vulnerability is to apply the update from the vendor.

Special thanks to Richard Chen and Lucas Miller of the TrendAI Research team for providing such a thorough analysis of this vulnerability. For an overview of TrendAI Research services please visit https://go.trendmicro.com/tis/vulnerabilities.html.

The threat research team will be back with other great vulnerability analysis reports in the future. Until then, follow the team on Twitter, Mastodon, LinkedIn, or Bluesky for the latest in exploit techniques and security patches.

The May 2026 Security Update Review

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

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

Adobe Patches for May 2026

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

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

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

Microsoft Patches for May 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No new advisories are being released this month.

Looking Ahead

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

Pwn2Own Berlin 2026 - Day Two Results

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:02:55 +0200

Day Two of Pwn2Own Berlin 2026 and the stakes continue to rise! Security researchers are back on the Pwn2Own stage, pushing enterprise systems to their limits as the competition heats up. More exploits, more surprises, and more standout moments are unfolding, so follow along here for live updates as the race for Master of Pwn intensifies. There were plenty of big targets on the schedule today, including SharePoint, Exchange, and Safari.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pwn2Own Berlin 2026 - Day One Results

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:02:55 +0200

Welcome to Day One of Pwn2Own Berlin 2026! Today, 22 entries took the Pwn2Own stage to target AI Databases, Coding Agents, Local Inferences, and a separate category for NVIDIA products, as the world’s top security researchers push technology to its limits. Exploits, surprises, and breakthrough discoveries are unfolding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pwn2Own Berlin 2026: Day Three Results and Master of Pw

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:02:54 +0200

Following two days of intense competition, Day Three of Pwn2Own Berlin 2026 brought the curtain down on an incredible event. Security researchers delivered their final exploits, pushing enterprise systems to the limit one last time as the race for Master of Pwn came to a close.

Day Three added to an already historic event, bringing the final totals to $1,298,250 awarded for 47 unique 0-day vulnerabilities across three days of competition. DEVCORE claimed the title of Master of Pwn with a commanding 50.5 points and $505,000 — a dominant performance across all three days. STARLabs SG finished in second with 25 points and $242,500, followed by Out Of Bounds in third with 12.75 points and $95,750.

Congratulations to all the researchers who participated, and a special thank you to OffensiveCon for hosting. We'll see you at the next Pwn2Own.

Here are the results of Day Three:

SUCCESS/COLLISION - Sina Kheirkhah (@SinSinology) of Summoning Team (@SummoningTeam) used two bugs to exploit Red Hat Linux, but one of the bugs was previously known. He still earns $7,000 and 1.5 Master of Pwn points.

SUCCESS - Le Tran Hai Tung (@tacbliw), dungnm (@dungnm_) and hieuvd (@gr4ss341) of Viettel Cyber Security (@vcslab) used an integer overflow to escalate privileges on #Windows 11. Their 5th round win nets them $7,500 and 3 Master of Pwn points.

SUCCESS - Satoki Tsuji (@satoki00) of Ikotas Labs, Inc. abused an external control to exploit OpenAI Codex and pop a host of calcs. He earns $20,000 and 4 Master of Pwn points.

FAILURE - Unfortunately, Giuseppe Calì of Summoning Team (@SummoningTeam) could not get their exploit of VMware ESXi working within the time allotted.

COLLISON - Although successful on stage, Emanuele Barbeno, Cyrill Bannwart, Yves Bieri, Lukasz D., Urs Mueller (@compasssecurity) of Compass Security targeted Anthropic Claude Code, hitting a one-vulnerability collision with a previous attempt and earning $20,000 and 2 Master of Pwn points.

SUCCESS - Hyunwoo Kim (@v4bel) chained a use-after-free and uninitialized memory bug to escalate privileges on Red Hat Enterprise Linux for Workstations in the fourth round, earning $5,000 and 2 Master of Pwn points.

SUCCESS - splitline (@splitline) of DEVCORE Research Team chained 2 bugs to exploit Microsoft SharePoint, earning $100,000 and 10 Master of Pwn points.

SUCCESS - Nguyen Hoang Thach (@hi_im_d4rkn3ss) of STARLabs SG (@starlabs_sg) used a Memory Corruption bug to exploit VMware ESXi with the Cross-tenant Code Execution add-on, earning $200,000 and 20 Master of Pwn points.

COLLISON - While Byung Young Yi (@yibarrack) of Out Of Bounds successfully demonstrated their exploit of Anthropic Claude Code, the bug used had been previously disclosed. They still earn $20,000 and 2 Master of Pwn points.

The June 2026 Security Update Review

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

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

Adobe Patches for June 2026

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

Here’s this month’s overview table:

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

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

Microsoft Patches for June 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No new advisories are being released this month.

Looking Ahead

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

The June 2026 Apple Security Update Review

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:02:52 +0200

We’re back with our look at the Apple macOS and iOS security updates. As this is a new feature for us, please let us know your feedback on the blog.

For Jun 2026, Apple released 37 unique CVEs across iOS 26.5.2 / iPadOS 26.5.2, macOS Tahoe 26.5.2, Safari 26.5.2. Since Apple doesn’t provide CVSS scores or other severity information, we’re left to speculate on which of these bugs is the most severe. The overwhelming majority (31 of 37) are WebKit/WebRTC bugs reachable through malicious web content. Most of those are crash/DoS bugs rather than code execution, so the real risk lives in the small set of kernel bugs and the handful of WebKit sandbox escapes. However, there are a couple that stand out.

- CVE-2026-43724 (Kernel) – According to Apple, “An app may be able to cause unexpected system termination or write kernel memory.” A kernel memory write is the highest-value primitive here: it's the privilege-escalation half of a full exploit chain and leads to complete device control. The bug was credited to Hyunwoo Kim (@v4bel), who is known to be a serious kernel researcher.

- CVE-2026-39868 (Kernel) – Another kernel bug, this one could “cause unexpected system termination or corrupt kernel memory.” This is kernel memory corruption, and notably credited to a roster of elite offensive researchers (STAR Labs, Positive Technologies, Baidu Security). This kind of attribution usually signals a weaponizable, possibly Pwn2Own-grade bug rather than a theoretical crash.

- CVE-2026-43725 / CVE-2026-43701 (WebKit) – Apple states these bugs could allow a website to process restricted web content outside the sandbox. I'm flagging this sandbox-escape pair over the many WebKit crash bugs because a sandbox escape is the bridge that turns a web-content bug into a path toward the kernel issues above. It's the most dangerous remotely-triggered class in the release.

Here’s a look at all the bugs released by Apple this month:

Apple Security Update – June 29, 2026 37Total CVEs 22Denial of Service 7Information Disclosure 3Memory Corruption 2Elevation of Privilege 2Sandbox Escape 1Spoofing

Apple security release — June 29, 2026. "Yes/No" indicates whether each update is affected. CVE IDs link to NVD.
CVE ID	Component	Impact	iOS 26.5.2 / iPadOS 26.5.2	macOS Tahoe 26.5.2	Safari 26.5.2
CVE-2026-43743	IOGPUFamily	An app may be able to cause unexpected system termination	Yes	Yes	No
CVE-2026-39868	Kernel	An app may be able to cause unexpected system termination or corrupt kernel memory	Yes	Yes	No
CVE-2026-43722	Kernel	An app may be able to leak sensitive kernel state	Yes	Yes	No
CVE-2026-43724	Kernel	An app may be able to cause unexpected system termination or write kernel memory	Yes	Yes	No
CVE-2026-43703	libxslt	Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to an unexpected process crash	Yes	Yes	No
CVE-2026-43706	libxslt	Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to an unexpected process crash	Yes	Yes	No
CVE-2026-43704	Web Extensions	A malicious web extension may be able to cause an unexpected process crash	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-39872	WebKit	Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to an unexpected process crash	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43663	WebKit	Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to an unexpected process crash	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43676	WebKit	Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to an unexpected Safari crash	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43699	WebKit	Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to an unexpected process crash	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43700	WebKit	Processing maliciously crafted web content may disclose sensitive user information	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43701	WebKit	A malicious website may be able to process restricted web content outside the sandbox	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43705	WebKit	Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to memory corruption	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43707	WebKit	Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to an unexpected process crash	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43708	WebKit	A malicious website may exfiltrate data cross-origin	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43709	WebKit	Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to an unexpected process crash	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43712	WebKit	Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to an unexpected process crash	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43713	WebKit	Visiting a website may leak sensitive data	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43715	WebKit	Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to memory corruption	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43716	WebKit	Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to an unexpected Safari crash	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43725	WebKit	A malicious website may be able to process restricted web content outside the sandbox	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43726	WebKit	Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to an unexpected process crash	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43727	WebKit	Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to an unexpected Safari crash	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43731	WebKit	Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to memory corruption	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43732	WebKit	Processing maliciously crafted web content may disclose sensitive user information	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43734	WebKit	Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to an unexpected process crash	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43735	WebKit	A malicious website may exfiltrate data cross-origin	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43740	WebKit	Processing maliciously crafted web content may result in the disclosure of process memory	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43742	WebKit	Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to an unexpected process crash	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43745	WebKit	Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to an unexpected Safari crash	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43720	WebKit Canvas	Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to an unexpected Safari crash	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43721	WebKit Storage	A malicious website may be able to silently hijack clipboard data	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-28979	WebRTC	Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to an unexpected process crash	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43717	WebRTC	Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to an unexpected Safari crash	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43718	WebRTC	Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to an unexpected Safari crash	Yes	Yes	Yes
CVE-2026-43746	WebRTC	Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to an unexpected Safari crash	Yes	Yes	Yes

We’ll continue these macOS updates if people find them useful. Stay tuned for the regularly schedule Patch Tuesday blog covering Adobe and Microsoft.

The July 2026 Security Update Review

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

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

Adobe Patches for July 2026

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

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

Here’s this month’s overview table:

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

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

Microsoft Patches for July 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No new advisories are being released this month.

Looking Ahead

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

Golden Chickens Launches Four Modular Malware Families to Steal Chrome Credentials and Hijack Browser Sessions

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:02:47 +0200

Golden Chickens, tracked as TAG-195 and also known as Venom Spider, has launched four new modular malware families designed to enhance credential theft, browser session hijacking, and post-exploitation flexibility. The newly identified families TinyEgg, ChonkyChicken, a modularized ChonkyChicken variant, and ChromEggscalator mark a clear architectural evolution in the group’s malware-as-a-service (MaaS) ecosystem, signaling a shift […]

The post Golden Chickens Launches Four Modular Malware Families to Steal Chrome Credentials and Hijack Browser Sessions appeared first on GBHackers Security | #1 Globally Trusted Cyber Security News Platform.

UAC-0099 Is Now Hiding Malware Inside a Fake Notepad++ Plugin to Target Ukrainian Organizations

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:02:38 +0200

UAC-0099 delivers malware via a fake Notepad++ plugin after phishing, using a loader that sabotages itself if run without the correct arguments to hinder analysis. CERT-UA published a new advisory attributing a phishing campaign to UAC-0099, a Russia-aligned threat actor active since at least mid-2022 and previously known for exploiting WinRAR vulnerabilities and using phishing […]

U.S. CISA adds Microsoft SharePoint and Check Point SmartConsole flaws to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:02:38 +0200

U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) adds SharePoint and Check Point flaws to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) added DD-WRT, Langflow, and WordPress flaws to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog. Below are the flaws added to the KeV catalog: The first flaw added to the KeV […]

Pwn2Own Automotive 2026 - Day Three Results and the Master of Pwn

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:00:45 +0200

The last day of Pwn2Own Automotive 2026 saw the world’s top security researchers take their final shots at the latest automotive systems. Over three days of intense competition, $1,047,000 USD was awarded for 76 unique 0-day vulnerabilities, with bold exploits, clever techniques, and collisions keeping the action thrilling throughout.

By the end, Tobias Scharnowski (@ScepticCtf), Felix Buchmann (@diff_fusion), and Kristian Covic (@SeTcbPrivilege) of Fuzzware.io claimed the title of Master of Pwn, earning 28 points and $215,500 USD.

Follow the final updates on Twitter, Mastodon, LinkedIn, and Bluesky, and join the conversation using #Pwn2OwnAutomotive and #P2OAuto.

SUCCESS / COLLISON - Tobias Scharnowski (@ScepticCtf), Felix Buchmann (@diff_fusion), and Kristian Covic (@SeTcbPrivilege) of Fuzzware.io targeted the Alpine iLX-F511, demonstrating one vulnerability previously used by another contestant, earning $2,500 USD and 1 Master of Pwn point. #Pwn2Own #P2OAuto

SUCCESS / COLLISON - Slow Horses of Qrious Secure (@qriousec) targeted the Grizzl-E Smart 40A but encountered two bug collisions, still earning $5,000 USD and 2 Master of Pwn points.

SUCCESS / COLLISON - Team MST targeted the Kenwood DNR1007XR, demonstrating one bug but running into a collision, earning $2,500 USD and 1 Master of Pwn point.

SUCCESS - PetoWorks (@petoworks) targeted the Grizzl-E Smart 40A, exploiting one buffer overflow bug, and earned $10,000 USD and 4 Master of Pwn points.

SUCCESS - Bongeun Koo (@kiddo_pwn) and Evangelos Daravigkas (@freddo_1337) of Team DDOS targeted the Alpine iLX‑F511, exploiting a stack‑based buffer overflow to earn $5,000 USD and 2 Master of Pwn points.

SUCCESS - Viettel Cyber Security (@vcslab) targeted the Sony XAV‑9500ES, exploiting a heap‑based buffer overflow to achieve arbitrary code execution, earning $10,000 USD and 2 Master of Pwn points. #Pwn2Own #P2OAuto

SUCCESS / COLLISON - Qrious Secure (@qriousec) targeted the Kenwood system, demonstrating three bugs - one n-day and two unique vulnerabilities (incorrect permission assignment and a race condition), earning $4,000 USD and 1.75 Master of Pwn points.

SUCCESS - Boom! or shall we say Doom? Game On! Aapo Oksman, Elias Ikkelä-Koski and Mikael Kantola of Juurin Oy exploit the Alpitronic HYC50 with a TOCTOU bug - and installed a playable version of Doom to boot. They earn $20,000 and 4 Master of Pwn points. #Pwn2Own #P2OAuto

SUCCESS / COLLISON - Nguyen Thanh Dat (@rewhiles) of Viettel Cyber Security (@vcslab) targeted the Kenwood DNR1007XR, demonstrating one bug but encountering a collision, earning $2,500 USD and 1 Master of Pwn point.

SUCCESS / COLLISON - Autocrypt (Hoyong Jin, Jaewoo Jeong, Chanhyeok Jung, Minsoo Son, and Kisang Choi) targeted the Alpine iLX-F511, demonstrating two vulnerabilities to gain root access. One collided with a previously known issue, earning $3,000 USD and 1.25 Master of Pwn points.

SUCCESS - Elias Ikkelä-Koski and Aapo Oksman of Juurin Oy targeted the Kenwood DNR1007XR, demonstrating a link-following vulnerability to earn $5,000 USD and 2 Master of Pwn points.

SUCCESS - Nam Ha Bach and Vu Tien Hoa of the FPT NightWolf Team targeted the Alpine iLX-F511, exploiting one unique vulnerability to gain root access and earning $5,000 USD and 2 Master of Pwn points.

SUCCESS / COLLISON - Ryo Kato (@Pwn4S0n1c) targeted the Autel MaxiCharger AC Elite Home 40A, demonstrating a three-bug chain but encountering one collision, still earning $16,750 USD and 3.5 Master of Pwn points.

The February 2026 Security Update Review

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

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

Adobe Patches for February 2026

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

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

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

Microsoft Patches for February 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No new advisories are being released this month.

Looking Ahead

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

The March 2026 Security Update Review

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

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

Adobe Patches for March 2026

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

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

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

Microsoft Patches for March 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No new advisories are being released this month.

Looking Ahead

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

The April 2026 Security Update Review

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

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

Adobe Patches for April 2026

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

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

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

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

Microsoft Patches for April 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 2026 Patch Tuesday

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No new advisories are being released this month.

Looking Ahead

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

Researcher Claims Working Jailbreak on Top AI Models Including GPT-5.6, Claude Opus 5, and Fable

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:00:18 +0200

A well-known AI red teamer claims to have developed a universal jailbreak that works against leading large language models, including heavily guarded flagships such as GPT-5.6 Sol, Claude Opus 5, and Fable. In a public post on X, Pliny the Liberator described the technique as effective “on ALL models” and across every category he tested. […]

The post Researcher Claims Working Jailbreak on Top AI Models Including GPT-5.6, Claude Opus 5, and Fable appeared first on Cyber Security News.

Russian State-Supported Cyber Actors Conduct Phishing Campaign Targeting Users of Zimbra Collaboration Suite

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 18:59:26 +0200

Russian State-Supported Cyber Actors Conduct Phishing Campaign Targeting Users of Zimbra Collaboration Suite

Executive summary

A group of Russian state-supported cyber actors has been targeting and compromising various Western government and commercial organizations using the Zimbra Collaboration Suite (ZCS) software since at least July 2025. The Russian state-supported advanced persistent threat (APT) group’s activity is tracked in the cybersecurity community under several names (see Cybersecurity industry tracking), primarily as “LAUNDRY BEAR,” a name initially coined by the Netherlands General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD) and Defence Intelligence and Security Service (MIVD) [1].

LAUNDRY BEAR’s targeting is almost certainly to gather sensitive information for the Russian Federation, with these actors primarily focusing on the covert acquisition of email data. Previous campaigns indicated LAUNDRY BEAR relied on unsophisticated initial access techniques—including password spraying, phishing, and pass-the-cookie—allowing the group to successfully run high-volume operations. The latest campaign targeting ZCS uses a novel exploit that was a zero-day vulnerability when first exploited and continues to be successfully exploited. The vulnerability, Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) CVE-2025-66376, was patched in November 2025. This demonstrates LAUNDRY BEAR’s intent and ability to deploy increasingly sophisticated technical capabilities.

Unlike traditional phishing campaigns that persuade a user into taking an action, such as clicking a link or opening a file, LAUNDRY BEAR’s latest campaign leverages a view-based exploit that only requires a user to view a malicious email within a vulnerable version of the webmail service. Once viewed, the exploit attempts to exfiltrate the victim’s last 90 days of email communications, the organization email directory (i.e., Global Address List [GAL]), and other sensitive information to servers controlled by LAUNDRY BEAR. The exploit also attempts to establish persistent access to victim accounts through a variety of means as detailed in the Persistence and credential access section.

This Cybersecurity Advisory (CSA) warns of this ongoing malicious threat activity and urges organizations to update their vulnerable software and implement additional mitigations to thwart these Russian state-supported actors’ continued success. The CSA is being released by the following authoring and co-sealing agencies:

United States National Security Agency (NSA)
United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Netherlands Defence Intelligence and Security Service (MIVD)
Netherlands General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD)
United States Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA)
United States Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA)
United States Department of Defense Cyber Crime Center (DC3)
United States Department of the Treasury
United States Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS)
Australian Signals Directorate’s Australian Cyber Security Centre (ASD’s ACSC)
Communications Security Establishment Canada’s (CSE’s) Canadian Centre for Cyber Security (Cyber Centre)
New Zealand National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-NZ)
United Kingdom National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-UK)
Czech Republic National Cyber and Information Security Agency (NÚKIB)¹
Danish Defence Intelligence Service (DDIS)²
Estonian Foreign Intelligence Service (EFIS)³
Finnish Defence Intelligence (FDI)⁴
Finnish Security and Intelligence Service (SUPO)⁵
French General Directorate for Internal Security (DGSI)⁶
French National Cybersecurity Agency (ANSSI)⁷
Italian External Intelligence and Security Agency (AISE)⁸
Italian Internal Intelligence and Security Agency (AISI)⁹
Security and Intelligence Service of the Republic of Moldova (SIS RM)¹⁰
Polish Foreign Intelligence Agency (AW)¹¹
The Military Counterintelligence Service of Poland (SKW)¹²
Spain National Intelligence Centre (CNI)¹³
Sweden National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-SE)¹⁴

The authoring agencies urge any organizations using ZCS to implement the recommendations listed within the Mitigations section of this advisory to reduce the risk associated with this activity. This CSA also includes specific remediations for organizations to implement if they discover the presence of the listed Indicators of compromise (IOCs).

As more organizations update their ZCS software based on this CSA, LAUNDRY BEAR may discontinue the current campaign exploiting this vulnerability; however, based on the success of this and previous campaigns, it is very likely that the group will continue to target ZCS and other email systems used by organizations in Western countries. The actors will almost certainly continue to rely on email to engage potential victims by exploiting novel vulnerabilities and, when necessary, use social engineering techniques to assist with their efforts. The authoring agencies recommend organizations regularly update their mail service software and continuously monitor their email systems and emails for malicious activity.

For a downloadable list of IOCs, see:

AA26-204A.stix.xml (STIX XML)
AA26-204A.stix.json (STIX JSON)

Cybersecurity industry tracking

The cybersecurity industry provides overlapping cyber threat intelligence, indicators of compromise (IOCs), and mitigation recommendations related to these Russian state-supported cyber actors. While not exhaustive, the following are threat group names commonly used for these actors within the cybersecurity community:

LAUNDRY BEAR
Void Blizzard [2]
CL-STA-1114 [3]
TA488 (formerly UNK_PitStop) [4]

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

Background

Public advisories from Netherlands General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD), Netherlands Defence Intelligence and Security Service (MIVD), and Microsoft highlighted these Russian state-supported advanced persistent threat (APT) actors in May 2025, calling them LAUNDRY BEAR and Void Blizzard respectively [1] [2]. Both advisories assessed that the group was engaged in malicious cyber activity as early as April 2024.

The May 2025 advisories highlighted a cluster of activity targeting cloud-based email environments, including Microsoft Exchange in particular, and abusing legitimate APIs to perform data exfiltration in bulk [T1114.002]. The group relied on unsophisticated means of initial access, including procuring stolen credentials on criminal marketplaces [T1078], and using social engineering techniques to lure targets into interacting with a malicious site masquerading as a legitimate one. As of April 2025, one of these sites resembled a European Defence & Security Summit registration portal that required registrants to sign in to their Microsoft account to view. Once a user entered their Microsoft credentials into this malicious site, LAUNDRY BEAR’s modified version of the open source adversary emulation toolkit, Evilginx, intercepted the user’s credentials. LAUNDRY BEAR then used this authentication data, including passwords and session tokens, to access the compromised account and conduct mass email exfiltration, as well as harvest other information. This method of compromise is commonly known as an adversary-in-the-middle (AiTM) technique [T1557].

Beginning around July 2025, LAUNDRY BEAR shifted toward a more technical method of email compromise, highlighting their continued efforts to covertly acquire email communications from a variety of Western organizations of interest and deliver them to the Russian Federation. Using a custom-developed capability [T1587.001] named “Улей” or “Ulej” (Russian for beehive), LAUNDRY BEAR successfully targeted and exfiltrated sensitive user information from organizations who use the Zimbra Collaboration Suite (ZCS) product [T1114]. Data LAUNDRY BEAR attempted to exfiltrate from compromised accounts included:

Last 90 days of emails,
Email address,
Password [T1589.001],
Global Address List (GAL) [T1087],
Two-factor authentication (2FA) tokens, and
Newly-created Application Passcode [T1098].

The covert and persistent nature of this activity, along with the absence of any known financial extortion, almost certainly indicates this group’s involvement in espionage activities with Russian government backing. Additionally, extensive Ukrainian targeting, prior to use against U.S. and other NATO allies, outlines an increasing trend within Russian cyber threat groups to target Ukrainian users first—both as a priority target and as a testbench for malicious cyber techniques before broader global deployment.

Targeting details

LAUNDRY BEAR has targeted and compromised users in various organizations, including those associated with:

the Defense Industrial Base (DIB),
the federal and local government,
education,
energy,
law enforcement,
media,
non-governmental organizations, and
technology.

Technical details

Note: This advisory uses the MITRE ATT&CK® Matrix for Enterprise framework, version 19. This advisory also uses MITRE D3FEND^TM version 1.4.0¹⁵. See Appendix A and Appendix B for tables of the activity mapped to MITRE ATT&CK and D3FEND tactics, techniques, and countermeasures.

Ulej is a novel data exfiltration and aggregation capability, that currently (as of the publication of this report) supports a campaign specifically targeting users of ZCS webmail servers. This capability is used to exploit CVE-2025-66376 [Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) CWE-79: Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')], but likely could be adapted to exploit other vulnerabilities. It exfiltrates emails and other sensitive user data from a victim’s system immediately after exploitation and stores the data in an actor-controlled unattributable virtual private server (VPS) [T1074.002] running LAUNDRY BEAR’s “Flowerbed” collection framework. The collected data is almost certainly further exfiltrated to internal network resources for review and long-term retention.

Reconnaissance

LAUNDRY BEAR uses the Ulej capability to exploit the CVE-2025-66376 vulnerability in organizations using ZCS. This campaign’s targeted victimology and limited exploitation capabilities likely indicate this group manually identifies and targets the victim organizations. LAUNDRY BEAR likely identifies organizations with public-facing Zimbra infrastructure by port scanning [T1595] and fingerprinting datasets easily procured through various commercial vendors [T1596.005].

After identifying a target organization, the group likely compiles email addresses for individual users to target with the exploit [T1589.002] from datasets offered by commercial vendors [T1597.002], open source intelligence [T1593], or previously exfiltrated data [T1597].

Resource development

The actors procure VPSs from a variety of providers [T1583.003], including those with Know Your Customer (KYC) requirements, and often use fabricated identities. LAUNDRY BEAR primarily uses Mullvad VPN [T1583] when interacting with these servers, further demonstrating the group’s intent to mask their identity and maintain operations security (OPSEC). After the server is provisioned, an automated process deploys the Docker containers necessary for Ulej’s Flowerbed framework [T1608], which then receives and aggregates the data Ulej exfiltrates. These servers are typically only used for 7-60 days before moving to new infrastructure.

Flowerbed framework

Flowerbed is a Python project that uses Docker for containerization. The project includes four different Docker containers:

Catcher,
Certbot,
Nginx, and
Gardener.

Catcher acts as both a DNS and HTTP server to receive and aggregate exfiltrated victim information [T1048]. For additional information on Catcher, refer to the Exfiltration section of this advisory. Flowerbed’s next container, Certbot, is based on one of the official Certbot containers, which allows for automated generation of Let’s Encrypt certificates using DNS challenges through Cloudflare. This certificate can then be used by the Nginx container, which serves as an HTTPS reverse proxy for Catcher, enabling Flowerbed to disguise some of its exfiltration activity through an encrypted communications channel [T1048.002]. The Nginx reverse proxy also validates that the Server Name Indicator (SNI) value contains “*.i.*” prior to forwarding the traffic to Catcher. If the SNI does not contain that string, the Nginx server returns a 444 error to the client. This is likely an attempt to reject non-Ulej connections. Finally, the Gardener container functions as a health check for the Catcher service. Gardener is a simple Python script that validates Catcher correctly receives and processes data.

The simplistic Flowerbed codebase has indications that artificial intelligence (AI) played a role in its development. This highlights how AI is increasingly being used to develop malicious capabilities [T1588.007]. The dependence on AI for a simple capability, such as Flowerbed, alongside a previous reliance on open source capabilities, such as Evilginx2 [T1588.002], likely indicates a lack of advanced technical knowledge within LAUNDRY BEAR, especially in relation to true software development capabilities.

Initial access

To gain initial access, LAUNDRY BEAR sends an email containing a malicious JavaScript payload to the target [T1566]. Through exploitation of CVE-2025-66376, this JavaScript payload is immediately executed once the user views the malicious email [T1203], such as the one shown in Figure 1, in the ZCS webmail platform. Since at least November 2025, LAUNDRY BEAR began sending these phishing emails from victim infrastructure through compromised accounts [T1199], as shown in the email metadata in Figure 2. These compromised accounts were likely previous victims of this, or another LAUNDRY BEAR, campaign and their use is intended to further obfuscate and frustrate anti-phishing tools and training.

Figure 1: Example of malicious email

Figure 2: Headers from an example malicious email

According to the National Vulnerability Database (NVD), CVE-2025-66376 was initially published on 5 January 2026. This vulnerability allows for execution of a JavaScript payload included in email content due to improper sanitization of Cascading Style Sheet’s (CSS) @import directives within an email [5]. Because the activity attributed to this campaign began in July 2025—months before Synacor released a patch and the CVE was published—the payload initially exploited a zero-day vulnerability at that time [T1587.004].

Utilization of a zero-day exploit within this campaign demonstrates the ability for even emerging threat groups like LAUNDRY BEAR to operationalize novel exploits into a highly successful capability.

Hidden in LAUNDRY BEAR’s email is a Base64 encoded payload within the “onload” field of a Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) element [T1027.017], as shown in Figure 3. Leading up to the inclusion of this payload in the SVG element are various instances of @import directives, as required to leverage CVE-2025-66376. This payload includes an XOR encrypted final script encoded in a Base64 inner payload (see Figure 3) [T1027.013]. The outer payload decodes and decrypts the inner payload using an XOR function and a hardcoded key and then executes the script contained within the inner payload containing the collection and exfiltration logic. By changing the key used for the XOR encryption of the inner payload or adding additional @import directives with non-functional code [T1027.010], LAUNDRY BEAR can easily generate new payloads that bypass basic threat detection signatures. This malicious payload attempts to collect and exfiltrate information in 12 asynchronous stages [T1119]. The stages in order of appearance within the payload are as follows:

sendStartPing,
gather_email,
gather_environment,
gather_2fa_codes,
gather_app_password,
gather_device_status,
gather_oauth_consumers,
gather_autocomplete_password,
enable_mail_protocols,
gather_gal,
sendArchives, and
sendFinishPing.

Figure 3: Malicious payload of example email

Use of a zero-day exploit within this campaign demonstrates the ability for even emerging threat groups like LAUNDRY BEAR to operationalize novel exploits into a highly successful capability [T1587].

Persistence and credential access

To establish sustained persistence into the victim’s email account, the script attempts to modify account preferences and collect authentication information. Any collected credentials are later exfiltrated, as further described in the Exfiltration section below. Other campaigns attributed to LAUNDRY BEAR also demonstrated the group’s ability to circumvent multi-factor authentication through session token replay [T1550.004], and the Zimbra campaign follows a similar trend.

The script used in this campaign tries to discover the victim’s email address during the gather_email stage [T1087]. The script searches for this email address in two ways. First, it examines the batchInfoResponse variable, which an HTML script element on the webpage can define, for an email address. Even if the script finds an email address there, it also checks whether it acquired a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) token as described later in the Collection section of this advisory. If so, the script uses the “GetIdentitiesRequest” Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) command under the “ZimbraAccount” namespace to determine the victim’s email address [T1185] and then exfiltrates it. However, if the script does not have a CSRF token or the SOAP request fails, the script exfiltrates the email value recovered from the first method instead. If both attempts fail to capture the victim’s email, the script sends a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) payload with a key of “email” and value of null over HTTPS and does not attempt DNS exfiltration.

During the gather_autocomplete_password stage, the script attempts to collect the victim’s saved password via the autocomplete feature of the victim’s password manager. The script injects two HTML div elements requesting login credentials onto the page outside of the victim’s view, as shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5. After waiting five seconds, the script then attempts to extract the password provided automatically by the password manager from the input element shown in Figure 4. If there is no value in that input field, it checks the password input field shown in Figure 5. If neither input field contains a value, a JSON payload with a key of “autocomplete_password” and value of null is sent over HTTPS and DNS exfiltration is not attempted.

Figure 4: First illegitimate login HTML element

Figure 5: Second illegitimate login HTML element

LAUNDRY BEAR almost certainly relies on a mail client using the Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) for persistent access to the victim’s mailbox. During the enable_mail_protocols stage, a SOAP request leveraging the “ModifyPrefsRequest” command under the “ZimbraAccount” namespace is sent. This request attempts to set the “zimbraPrefImapEnabled” preference to TRUE. While the default setting for “zimbraPrefImapEnabled” is not well documented, this action is almost certainly intended to ensure that IMAP access to the victim’s mailbox is enabled.

ZCS does not support 2FA for some mail clients, including IMAP. To support users who rely on IMAP clients, ZCS allows for the generation of Application Passcodes. Application Passcodes are randomly generated passwords that can be used for clients that cannot support the normal 2FA process to authenticate. During the gather_app_password stage, the script makes a SOAP request using the “CreateAppSpecificPasswordRequest” command under the “ZimbraAccount” namespace to create a new Application Passcode [T1556.006]. The SOAP request uses “ZimbraWeb” as the name of the application.

Additionally, the script also attempts to collect 2FA tokens. During the gather_2fa_codes stage, the script makes a SOAP request using the “GetScratchCodesRequest” command under the “ZimbraAccount” namespace. The script then attempts to exfiltrate any non-null 2FA codes collected this way. The number of codes can vary, and each code is exfiltrated to Flowerbed individually.

Collection

As demonstrated in the Persistence and credential access section, this script relies heavily on SOAP requests to collect victim information. To make these requests, the script aims to acquire the victim’s current CSRF token, which it attempts to access within the webpage’s local storage using localStorage.getItem("csrfToken"). If the script is unable to acquire this CSRF token, it will be unable to make any SOAP requests. In addition to the SOAP commands documented in the Persistence and credential access section, other SOAP commands executed to collect victim information are shown in Table 1.

**Table 1: Additional SOAP commands used**
SOAP Command	Namespace	Stage
GetInfoRequest	zimbraAccount	gather_environment
GetDeviceStatusRequest	zimbraSync	gather_device_status
GetOAuthConsumersRequest	zimbraAccount	gather_oauth_consumers
SearchGalRequest	zimbraAccount	gather_gal

The script attempts to collect the victim’s GAL through brute force by searching for each two-character combination from a character set of “abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz1234567890.-_”. These queries are conducted using 20 batches of SOAP requests with 77 “SearchGalRequest” SOAP commands in each batch except for the last request containing only 58.

During the gather_environment stage, the script attempts to determine which type of ZCS webmail client the victim is using. The script checks the user’s current URL to determine the client type being used, checking for certain indicators (shown in Table 2) to determine the client type. The corresponding value is then used as the payload when exfiltrating the client type.

**Table 2: ZCS webmail client types**
Indicator	Client Type	Associated Value
?client=advanced	Advanced	c
/h/	Standard	h
/modern/	Modern	m

As part of collection, the script attempts to harvest any emails not marked as “junk” from the last 90 days from the victim’s account. Emails are collected daily by an HTTP GET request to the URL path, “/home/~/?fmt=tgz&meta=0&query=date:-{DAY_OFFSET}d AND (not in:junk)”. The {DAY_OFFSET} value would be between 0 and 89 representing how many days ago the email was sent or received. To prevent redundant collection and exfiltration of emails, a variable with a name based on the email date being queried, using a format of zd_comp_YYYY-MM-DD, and value of true, is saved to the window.top.localStorage property. This variable is saved regardless of whether the email is successfully exfiltrated.

According to Mozilla documentation, if the user is not in a private browsing session, any data stored to localStorage does not typically expire. This means that if the user happens to execute the script again from the same computer, the script avoids attempting to re-exfiltrate previously captured emails. However, the script always attempts to pull any emails with a {DAY_OFFSET} of zero. In other words, the script always pulls emails sent or received the same day it is run. After email results are returned from the query for each day of email activity, those results are then passed to Flowerbed as described in the Exfiltration section.

The script also provides LAUNDRY BEAR with telemetry on any errors that occur during the collection process. This is accomplished by executing any collection or exfiltration code through helper functions that contain error handling logic. If an error occurs, a payload containing information on the error itself, the context of the error happening, and the stage in which the error occurred is sent to Flowerbed as described in the Exfiltration section below. For cases where the error occurs within a SOAP request, “:api” is concatenated to the stage value in the payload. If an error occurs during the batch SOAP requests that occur when collecting the GAL of the victim, the stage value will use a format of gather_gal:{VAL}:api. The {VAL} placeholder indicates which batch request, a number from 0 to 19, the error occurred in. Errors that occur during the password autocomplete interception process will use “gather_autocomplete_password:dom” for the stage value. Finally, if an error occurs when attempting to collect or exfiltrate a specific day’s emails, the stage will include which day the error occurred on, using the previously defined placeholder {DAY_OFFSET}, with a format of sendArchive:day-{DAY_OFFSET}.

Exfiltration

At the end of each stage in the collection process, the script attempts to exfiltrate acquired information to Flowerbed. The script primarily relies on two forms of data exfiltration: DNS [T1048.003] and HTTPS. Some information is exfiltrated over both the DNS and HTTPS channels.

Prior to exfiltration, a randomized 10- or 11-character alphanumeric string is generated as an identifier for the victim. This identifier is included in the URL of both the DNS- and HTTPS-based exfiltration.

DNS exfiltration

DNS exfiltration occurs through DNS A record queries. To ensure data exfiltrated through DNS is not corrupted when traversing through non-actor-controlled DNS infrastructure, Ulej maintains compliance with RFC 1035, Domain Names - Implementation and Specification, specifically accounting for the case insensitivity and subdomain length requirements. Base32 encoding is used to create a case-insensitive payload. Once the payload is encoded, a period (“.”) is added every 60 characters to ensure each subdomain is under 63 characters long. The script then creates a new image object sourced from a URL with the scheme defined in Figure 6. Any traffic involving DNS exfiltration will have “d-“ prefixing the victim identifier, and the subdomain immediately following indicates the type of information being exfiltrated.

Figure 6: Structure for information exfiltrated by DNS

When the script generates an image object, the browser tries to retrieve the complete domain of the URL specified as the source of the image. This triggers a DNS request sent to the actor-controlled server and processed by Flowerbed. Table 3 lists both the information exfiltrated via DNS and their corresponding data type identifiers in the DNS queries.

**Table 3: DNS exfiltration**
Type of Information	Exfiltration Stage	Data Type
Victim’s Email Address	gather_email	e
Client Type	gather_environment	c
Zimbra Version	gather_environment	v
URL at Time of Exploitation	gather_environment	url
2FA Scratch Codes	gather_2fa_codes	2fa
Newly Created Application Password	gather_app_password	pa
Harvested Autocomplete Password	gather_autocomplete_password	pw

HTTPS exfiltration

Any information exfiltrated via DNS is also exfiltrated through HTTPS, as well as additional data including email content, contacts, attachments, and error logging information. By using Let’s Encrypt certificates, this group can quickly deploy new infrastructure and leverage encrypted HTTPS communications with valid server certificates when exfiltrating information from the victim’s environment. The HTTPS exfiltration capability only uses two HTTP content types, defined in Table 4. Traffic associated with HTTPS exfiltration will use the URL scheme shown in Figure 7.

**Table 4: HTTPS exfiltration types**
Content Type	URL Path
application/json	/v/p
application/octet-stream	/v/d

Figure 7: Structure for information exfiltrated by HTTPS

Some of the data transmitted via HTTPS uses the standard JSON content type format. The script includes the information in a POST request to actor-controlled infrastructure.

Table 5 provides a summary of the JSON-based exfiltration.

**Table 5: HTTPS JSON exfiltration**
Type of Information	Exfiltration Stage	JSON Key(s)
Victim’s Email Address	gather_email	email
Client Type, Version, and Current URL	gather_environment	client, version, full_url
Newly Created Application Password	gather_app_password	app_password
Harvested Autocomplete Password	gather_autocomplete_password	autocomplete_password

The script transmits all HTTPS exfiltration not identified in Table 5 using the Octet-Stream content type as binary data. The POST requests for this method include a filename in the “X-Filename” header. Traditionally, developers use headers prefixed with “X-” to denote custom headers that do not follow a defined standard. The purpose of including this header remains unclear since the Catcher capability ignores the provided filename when saving the data. Table 6 summarizes the data exfiltrated in this format.

**Table 6: HTTPS binary exfiltration**
Type of Information	Exfiltration Stage	X-Filename Header
SOAP request for GetInfoRequest	gather_environment	zimbra_batch_analytics.json
SOAP request for GetScratchCodesRequest	gather_2fa_codes	zimbra_batch_analytics.json
SOAP request for GetDeviceStatusRequest	gather_device_status	zimbra_batch_analytics.json
SOAP request for GetOAuthConsumersRequest	gather_oauth_consumers	zimbra_batch_analytics.json
Victim Organization’s Global Address List	gather_gal	telemetry_{1-20}.json
Last 90 Days of Victim’s Emails	sendArchives	telemetryData_{0-89}.json

The script sends all exfiltrated data identified in Table 6 to the Catcher service exactly as received from the SOAP request in a JSON payload, except for email exfiltration. For email exfiltration, the script sends it as a GZIP compressed archive [T1560]. Although most of the exfiltration consists of valid JSON, the script still attempts to exfiltrate all information identified in Table 6 using the application/octet-stream content typing rather than application/json.

At the beginning and end of the collection and exfiltration activity, during the sendStartPing and sendFinishPing stages respectively, the script submits a POST request with a JSON payload to indicate that the script is starting or finishing execution. Throughout execution, the script also logs error events and send the logs using similar JSON payloads. The script sends the JSON in a POST request to the URL documented in Figure 2, using a URL path of “/v/p” and with a “subtype” key that shows which type of action it logged (start, finish, or error).

Catcher

Ulej exfiltrates information to Flowerbed to be handled by a service named Catcher. Catcher is a containerized Python application, running in Docker as part of Flowerbed, which is detailed in the Resource development section. It receives exfiltrated data and temporarily stores it, enabling its eventual transfer to infrastructure designed for long-term, secure storage.

Catcher acts as an HTTP server over port 8000 and a DNS server on port 53. As described in the Resource development section, the Flowerbed project uses an additional Docker container running an Nginx reverse proxy to enable HTTPS support. This reverse proxy uses a certificate generated by Let’s Encrypt and forwards all traffic with an SNI containing “*.i.*” to port 8000 within the Catcher container.

The DNS service can accept A, AAAA, MX, TXT, and CAA queries. For any MX, AAAA, or CAA queries, the server will always provide an empty response. The system only supports TXT records as needed to process Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME) requests, which enable the assignment of Let’s Encrypt certificates. If the server receives an A query, Catcher will always respond with the public IP address of the Flowerbed server.

However, if a query includes a domain formatted as shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7, the service saves a log file in JSON format to disk containing the following details of the DNS query:

Time of query,
Source IP address for query,
Queried domain, and
Type of query.

The HTTP server typically responds with OK, except in cases where the path is “pixel.gif” when the response contains a 1x1 gif image with a SHA-256 hash of ef1955ae757c8b966c83248350331bd3a30f658ced11f387f8ebf05ab3368629. Like the DNS service, the HTTP service will only log entries when the domain found in the host header of the request follows the expected formatting as seen in Figure 6 and Figure 7. As the HTTPS exfiltration uses non-standardized binary and JSON-formatted payloads when exfiltrating to Catcher, Catcher will check the content type of the request. If the content type is set to “application/json”, Catcher encodes the data in Base64 and includes it in the JSON log entry written to disk. If the content type is set to any other value, Catcher leaves the Base64 payload in the JSON log entry blank and saves the payload to a separate file with the same filename as the JSON log entry with a “.bin” file extension. An HTTPS exfiltration event causes Catcher to save a JSON formatted log file to disk containing the following information from the HTTP request:

Time,
Source IP address,
Request method,
Host,
Path,
Query string,
Headers, and
Base64 payload.

These JSON event log files and binary output files are then initially saved to the directory /root/hits/tmp and later moved to the /root/hits/ready directory once processed. This prevents incomplete files, which are still being uploaded to Catcher, from premature exfiltration from the server. Approximately every 60 seconds, a likely automated workflow establishes a Secure Shell (SSH) connection with the server hosting Flowerbed for a few seconds, almost certainly exfiltrating the data processed by Catcher to non-public-facing infrastructure. The command in Figure 8 also executes hourly to remove all files last modified at least two days ago from the /root/hits/ready directory.

Figure 8: Command used for automated directory cleanup

Response strategies

Mitigations

In many cases, by the time an organization identifies a compromise related to this campaign, numerous sensitive and proprietary emails have already been exfiltrated. The significant risk posed by this cyber threat emphasizes the importance for organizations that use ZCS and other similar webmail solutions to take proactive steps to mitigate this risk.

All organizations that use the ZCS webmail service should immediately prioritize ensuring that their ZCS is not running a vulnerable version. A patch for CVE-2025-66376 was released for both 10.1.13 and 10.0.18 versions of ZCS [D3-AH]. If immediate patching is not feasible, organizations should advise employees to use alternative mail clients to access email and avoid using the Classic ZCS webmail client until ZCS is updated to a non-vulnerable version [d3f:Isolate].

System administrators should closely monitor any Internet-connected ZCS or other email systems and the workstations that access those systems and promptly apply available software updates [D3-AH]. Administrators can maintain awareness of active vulnerability exploitation by referencing open source resources, including CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalog and NCSC-UK’s Responding to active exploitation of vulnerabilities guidance.

Organizations should consider using a third-party authentication service that supports passkeys for authentication to mediate access to ZCS and other services that do not natively support passkeys. By doing so, organizations can work to eliminate the possibility of automated password collection from autocomplete or password reuse [D3-CH]. However, Application Passcodes may still be necessary and should be monitored closely.

Organizations should implement network monitoring capabilities with collection and short-term retention of packet capture or NetFlow data and maintain log collection and storage [CPG 3.Q]. This will allow organizations to monitor for and identify suspicious network activity [CPG 4.B], such as:

Significant amounts of outbound data being sent to IPs associated with VPS providers not used by the organization [D3-NTA];
Frequent DNS queries for a suspicious domain with seemingly random subdomains [D3-DNSTA];
A sudden spike of connections to a server associated with a recently established domain [D3-NTCD]; and
Connections to internal services, such as webmail, from VPN providers frequently leveraged by this group for nefarious activity, such as Mullvad VPN [D3-NTCD].

Additionally, for organizations that can inspect the content of outbound HTTPS connections via break-and-inspect infrastructure, security teams should identify traffic matching the characteristics described in the Exfiltration section of this advisory.

Indicators of compromise (IOCs)

Flowerbed infrastructure

The following indicators have been attributed to use by LAUNDRY BEAR for their campaign targeting ZCS’s webmail service as of the publication of this advisory. (Disclaimer: Due to the frequency of operational structure changes by this group, these indicators are intended solely for historic attribution purposes. Some indicators, such as IPs, compromised emails, and domains, may be outdated, so organizations should check for current activity before acting on these IOCs.) Table 7 provides details about the server infrastructure used to host Flowerbed, and Table 8 lists the corresponding SHA-1 hash values for the Let’s Encrypt certificates used by that infrastructure [D3-IAA].

**Table 7: Flowerbed server infrastructure**
Domain	IP Address	First Seen	Last Seen
zmailanalytics[.]com	216.252.238[.]104	8 July 2025	15 October 2025
zimbra-metadata[.]com	216.252.238[.]18	20 August 2025	14 October 2025
analyticemailmeter[.]com	37.120.247[.]228	24 September 2025	18 March 2026
emailanalytics.com[.]ua	185.86.79[.]95	24 September 2025	18 March 2026
mailnalysis[.]com	104.248.134[.]194	11 November 2025	17 February 2026
zimbrastat[.]com	64.226.124[.]190	18 December 2025	18 March 2026
zimbrasoft.com[.]ua	193.238.152[.]66	20 January 2026	18 March 2026
synacorzimbra[.]nl	216.252.238[.]64	3 February 2026	30 March 2026
istc-cloud[.]com	194.156.103[.]193	5 February 2026	30 March 2026

**Table 8: Flowerbed X.509 certificate SHA-1 hashes**
Associated Domain	X.509 SHA-1 Hash	First Seen	Last Seen
zmailanalytics[.]com	2e4f314bc9943cab5005d6fde0b271c74d47bc9d	8 Jul 2025	6 Aug 2025
*.i.zmailanalytics[.]com	50a87d926621dd06389ba50d86e0ff574ed713a8	6 Aug 2025	13 Oct 2025
*.i.zimbra-metadata[.]com	c5a72420e7bb308d078e62128430897f82194c95	20 Aug 2025	14 Oct 2025
*.i.analyticemailmeter[.]com	8959c4d29e29f02ea94ea8bb21c8df2594c5549d	24 Sep 2025	8 Nov 2025
*.i.emailanalytics.com[.]ua	62eb76432597694edb01c1fe57aab0cfe03a7178	25 Sep 2025	27 Sep 2025
*.i.mailnalysis[.]com	cddf5c3be1e07f28140aed165b929bf2d614922a	12 Nov 2025	17 Dec 2025
*.i.zimbrastat[.]com	18b3ad442ce73cc8656d51d75bbd7c855f2cb7e8	18 Dec 2025	28 Dec 2025
*.i.zimbrasoft.com[.]ua	1b25041ececf2457eef0270fc1d785cec8ec9ded	21 Jan 2026	10 Feb 2026
*.i.synacorzimbra[.]nl	e4fe6466a4f9a4249fe330651e914e45bbdca44a	5 Feb 2026	22 Mar 2026
*.i.istc-cloud[.]com	b6b77c9a455225d525834a403ca9ef5481ed0447	12 Feb 2026	30 Mar 2026

LAUNDRY BEAR has used the following email addresses to procure resources used for this campaign:

ivanka.zurabishvili@proton[.]me,
zmul1@buildandconsulting[.]com,
garrysmithme@pinmx[.]net, and
hostingclient@pinmx[.]net.

Phishing distribution

LAUNDRY BEAR primarily relied on ProtonMail for distribution of malicious email. However, as stated above, LAUNDRY BEAR’s more recent efforts likely have shifted to distributing the payload through previous victims.

The following email addresses have distributed payloads attributed to this campaign:

c.laurent.ejfa@proton[.]me,
j.moreau.epsc@proton[.]me,
liberty.insights@proton[.]me,
certain email addresses (presumably compromised) at the isofts.kiev[.]ua domain (i.e., ending with @isofts.kiev[.]ua), and
certain email addresses (presumably compromised) at the navs.edu[.]ua domain (i.e., ending with @navs.edu[.]ua).

Additionally, the following are SHA-256 hashes of email samples containing the malicious payload attributed to this campaign:

98df604ecc57f884a2e6ce3266a0013ad64455cac48442c2312cfa4765007aaf,
60db9abae75cd8ccc49dd7ea5feb41677566dcd442f12ebc5745ffd2810fb874,
b1f5beb1175fc5c7d1806a2f0d900eb124c54f0286c5c52b66eea7a6633adb1d, and
1517b3caa495f6c4e832df9c75fc94667e3c233773f7fa4e056d5e30e5ead760.

Post-compromise artifacts

Currently, the script does not remove artifacts. This leaves additional opportunities to identify victims of this activity. While emphasis should always be placed on consistent monitoring of network traffic and endpoint activity, there are a variety of persistent artifacts described below that can be used to identify victims of this campaign.

This Ulej capability relies on creating a significant number of SOAP requests to collect account information for exfiltration. ZCS logs from these requests are stored, by default, in the /opt/zimbra/log/mailbox.log file [D3-PA]. A significant amount of SOAP request activity that aligns with what was described in the Persistence and credential access and Collection sections of this advisory could indicate a potential compromise. Specific examples of high-risk SOAP request activity might include:

Many SearchGalRequest command requests from a single user over a short period of time;
Use of the CreateAppSpecificPasswordRequest command, especially in cases where it is creating an Application Passcode named “ZimbraWeb”; and
Use of the GetScratchCodesRequest command.

While LAUNDRY BEAR uses the localStorage property to track what days had emails previously exfiltrated, defenders can use this property to identify victims of this campaign and determine the scope of exfiltrated information [D3-PA]. Review of the items stored in that property for an organization’s ZCS webmail client page on an endpoint device could indicate compromise if there are items named with a format of zd_comp_YYYY-MM-DD, as explained in the Collection section of this advisory.

While Application Passcodes have non-malicious purposes, in this case instances of these passcodes with the name “ZimbraWeb” are almost certainly malicious. The ZCS webmail application can support 2FA natively and does not require the use of an Application Passcode, so there is no reason that there should be one named “ZimbraWeb.”

In instances where organizations identify victims of this campaign, they should also examine the inbox of the suspected victim for the original phishing email [D3-MA]. If an email that has a payload exploiting CVE-2025-66376 is discovered, steps should be taken immediately to identify and quarantine other instances of emails with similar body content, senders, and subject lines to prevent further exploitation and exfiltration.

Remediation

In the event an organization identifies activity associated with this campaign, that organization should take steps to minimize further exploitation. The organization should consider requesting that employees minimize use of the ZCS webmail client until the organization updates to a patched version that is not vulnerable to CVE-2025-66376.

Organizations should use identifiers from the IOCs section of this report to identify any individuals compromised by this campaign and record the date(s) of compromise(s) to determine the scale and scope of emails exfiltrated.

All users from the organization should have all Application Passcodes and 2FA scratch keys revoked. Affected organizations should require all employees to change passwords in line with establishing minimum password strength requirements [CPG 3.B] and creating unique credentials [CPG 3.C], specifically noting that compromised employees might have had any password stored in a password manager exfiltrated.

Works cited

[1] Netherlands General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD) and Netherlands Defence Intelligence and Security Service (MIVD). AIVD and MIVD identify a new Russian cyber threat actor. 2025. https://www.aivd.nl/site/binaries/site-content/collections/documents/2025/05/27/aivd-en-mivd-onderkennen-nieuwe-russische-cyberactor/Advisory+AIVD+en+MIVD+Public+report+on+new+cyber+actor.pdf

[2] Microsoft Corporation. New Russia-affiliated actor Void Blizzard targets critical sectors for espionage. 2025. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/blog/2025/05/27/new-russia-affiliated-actor-void-blizzard-targets-critical-sectors-for-espionage/

[3] Palo Alto Networks Unit 42. Russian Global Webmail Espionage. 2026. https://unit42.paloaltonetworks.com/russian-webmail-espionage/

[4] Proofpoint. TA488 Targets Zimbra Mailservers with Half-Click Exploits. 2026. https://www.proofpoint.com/us/blog/threat-insight/ta488-zcs-exploit

[5] Seqrite. Operation GhostMail: Russian APT exploits Zimbra Webmail to Target Ukraine State Agency. 2026. https://www.seqrite.com/blog/operation-ghostmail-zimbra-xss-russian-apt-ukraine/

Footnotes

¹ Národní úřad pro kybernetickou a informační bezpečnost
²Forsvarets Efterretningstjeneste
³Välisluureamet
⁴ Sotilastiedustelu
⁵ Suojelupoliisi
⁶ Direction générale de la sécurité intérieure
⁷ Agence nationale de la sécurité des systèmes d’information
⁸ Agenzia Informazioni e Sicurezza Esterna
⁹ Agenzia Informazioni e Sicurezza Interna
¹⁰ Serviciul de Informații și Securitate al Republicii Moldova
¹¹Agencja Wywiadu
¹²Służba Kontrwywiadu Wojskowego
¹³Centro Nacional de Inteligencia
¹⁴Nationellt Cybersäkerhetscenter
¹⁵ MITRE and ATT&CK are registered trademarks of The MITRE Corporation. MITRE D3FEND is a trademark of The MITRE Corporation.

Acknowledgements

The authoring agencies acknowledge the contributions to this advisory from Palo Alto Networks Unit 42 and Proofpoint.

Disclaimer of endorsement

The information and opinions contained in this document are provided "as is" and without any warranties or guarantees. Reference herein to any specific commercial products, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government, and this guidance shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.

Organizations have no obligation to respond or provide information back to the authoring organizations in response to this joint advisory. If, after reviewing the information provided, an organization decides to provide information to the authoring organizations, reporting must be consistent with all applicable laws and policies.

Purpose

This document was developed in furtherance of the authoring agencies’ cybersecurity missions, including their responsibilities to identify and disseminate threats, and to develop and issue cybersecurity specifications and mitigations. This information may be shared broadly to reach all appropriate stakeholders.

Contact

United States organizations

National Security Agency
Cybersecurity Report Feedback: CybersecurityReports@nsa.gov
Defense Industrial Base Inquiries and Cybersecurity Services: DIB_Defense@cyber.nsa.gov
Media Inquiries / Press Desk: NSA Media Relations: 443-634-0721, MediaRelations@nsa.gov
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
CISA’s 24/7 Operations Center (contact@cisa.dhs.gov), or by calling 1-844-Say-CISA (1-844-729-2472).
Federal Bureau of Investigation
If you or someone you know has fallen victim to this campaign, file a complaint with IC3.
Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency
DCSA Counterintelligence, Cyber Mission Center, Cyber Threat Operations Branch: DCSA.CI.CyberOps@mail.mil
Cleared Contactors (CCs) should contact their DCSA Counterintelligence Special Agent to report information pertaining to suspicious contacts or physical/digital efforts to obtain illegal or unauthorized access to the CC’s cleared facility/information, as required by 32 CFR 117.
Media/Public Inquiries: dcsa.quantico.dcsa-hq.mbx.pa@mail.mil
Department of Defense Cyber Crime Center
Defense Industrial Base Inquiries and Cybersecurity Services: DC3.DCISE@us.af.mil
Defense Industrial Base mandatory cyber incident reporting as required by 10 U.S. Code Sections 391 and 393 and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 252.204-7012 is submitted at https://dibnet.dod.mil
Media Inquiries / Press Desk: DC3.Information@us.af.mil
Naval Criminal Investigative Service
To report criminal activity impacting the United States Navy, go to www.ncis.navy.mil and click “Submit a Tip”

Dutch organizations

Defence Intelligence and Security Service (MIVD): https://www.defensie.nl/onderwerpen/m/militaire-inlichtingen-en-veiligheid
General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD): https://www.aivd.nl

Australian organizations

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

Canadian organizations

The Canadian Centre for Cyber Security (Cyber Centre), part of the Communications Security Establishment, encourages Canadian organizations to report cyber incidents and to strengthen the security of their networking devices.
Report an incident or suspicious activity to the Cyber Centre by email at contact@cyber.gc.ca, online via the reporting tool Report a cyber incident - Canadian Centre for Cyber Security or by phone at 1-833-CYBER-88 (1-833-292-3788).

New Zealand organizations

New Zealand National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-NZ): info@ncsc.govt.nz

United Kingdom organizations

Report significant cyber security incidents to ncsc.gov.uk/report-an-incident (monitored 24/7)

Estonia organizations

Estonian Foreign Intelligence Service (EFIS): info@valisluureamet.ee

Finnish organizations

Finnish Security and Intelligence Service: supo.fi/en/contact

French organizations

French organizations are encouraged to report suspicious activity or incident related information found in this advisory by contacting ANSSI/CERT-FR at: cert-fr@ssi.gouv.fr or by phone at: 3218 or +33 9 70 83 32 18.

Italian Organizations

Italian External Intelligence and Security Agency (AISE):
Visit https://www.sicurezzanazionale.gov.it/
Italian Internal Intelligence and Security Agency (AISI):
Visit https://www.sicurezzanazionale.gov.it/

Moldovan organizations

Security and Intelligence Service of the Republic of Moldova (SIS RM): cybersec@sis.md

Polish organizations

Polish Foreign Intelligence Agency (AW): ctiteam@aw.gov.pl

Appendix A: MITRE ATT&CK tactics and techniques

See Table 9 through Table 19 for all the threat actor tactics and techniques referenced in this advisory.

**Table 9: Reconnaissance**
Technique Title	ID	Use
Gather Victim Identity Information: Credentials	T1589.001	The payload attempts to intercept a victim’s password from their password manager.
Gather Victim Identity Information: Email Addresses	T1589.002	The payload attempts to grab the victim’s email address from various data stores.
Search Open Websites/Domains	T1593	This group likely leverages public information to support target development.
Active Scanning	T1595	Port scanning can be used by this group to assist with determining exploitability of identified targets.
Search Open Technical Databases: Scan Databases	T1596.005	Various public datasets can provide information to support discovery of exploitable targets.
Search Closed Sources	T1597	Previously exfiltrated data can be used to enhance target development efforts.
Search Closed Sources: Purchase Technical Data	T1597.002	Commercial datasets can also be used to support target development efforts.

**Table 10: Resource Development**
Technique Title	ID	Use
Acquire Infrastructure	T1583	This group used Mullvad VPN to anonymize traffic sent to operational infrastructure.
Acquire Infrastructure: Virtual Private Server	T1583.003	This group procured VPS servers from a variety of vendors.
Develop Capabilities	T1587	The Ulej capability was developed likely for use by this group to conduct spear phishing campaigns.
Develop Capabilities: Malware	T1587.001	Development of a novel payload that steals a victim’s emails and other sensitive account information.
Develop Capabilities: Exploits	T1587.004	Development of a novel, at the time, cross-site-scripting (XSS) exploit that enables execution of arbitrary JavaScript.
Obtain Capabilities: Tool	T1588.002	Open source tools, such as Evilginx2, have also been used by the group.
Obtain Capabilities: Artificial Intelligence	T1588.007	The group appears to have leveraged AI to support development efforts.
Stage Capabilities	T1608	Flowerbed is deployed to a procured server in the cloud.

**Table 11: Initial Access**
Technique Title	ID	Use
Valid Accounts	T1078	This actor has used commercial datasets to acquire account credentials and gain unauthorized access to accounts. Additionally, this actor is believed to use previously compromised accounts to conduct spear phishing.
Trusted Relationship	T1199	The group sends malicious payloads to targeted individuals using previously compromised accounts that might have an established relationship with the target.
Phishing	T1566	The actors used spear phishing to lure users into opening malicious email.

**Table 12: Execution**
Technique Title	ID	Use
Exploitation for Client Execution	T1203	An XSS vulnerability was leveraged to execute the JavaScript payload.

**Table 13: Persistence**
Technique Title	ID	Use
Account Manipulation	T1098	Enabling IMAP and Application Passcodes provides persistent access to the compromised account.
Modify Authentication Process: Multi-Factor Authentication	T1556.006	Creating Application Passcodes to bypass 2FA and stealing a user’s “Scratch Keys,” which can be used in place of a 2FA token.

**Table 14: Privilege Escalation**
Technique Title	ID	Use
Valid Accounts	T1078	This actor has used commercial datasets to acquire account credentials and gain unauthorized privileged access to accounts.

**Table 15: Stealth**
Technique Title	ID	Use
Obfuscated Files or Information: Command Obfuscation	T1027.010	Obfuscated JavaScript payload sent to targets to exploit the XSS vulnerability.
Obfuscated Files or Information: Encrypted/Encoded File	T1027.013	The JavaScript payload included both a Base64-encoded and XOR-encrypted inner payload.
Obfuscated Files or Information: SVG Smuggling	T1027.017	The payload was contained in an “onload” attribute within an SVG image included in the malicious email.
Use Alternate Authentication Material: Web Session Cookie	T1550.004	Previous campaigns using AiTM leveraged stealing and use of a victim’s session cookies to authenticate.

**Table 16: Credential Access**
Technique Title	ID	Use
Modify Authentication Process: Multi-Factor Authentication	T1556.006	Creating Application Passcodes to bypass 2FA and stealing a user’s “Scratch Keys,” which can be used in place of a 2FA token.
Adversary-in-the-Middle	T1557	Previous campaigns used Evilginx2 as an AiTM toolkit to intercept credentials and session cookies.

**Table 17: Collection**
Technique Title	ID	Use
Data Staged: Remote Data Staging	T1074.002	Exfiltrated data was sent to an actor-controlled VPS prior to assumed long-term storage solutions.
Email Collection	T1114	This group has emphasized collection of emails.
Email Collection: Remote Email Collection	T1114.002	Emails are collected via API calls to the ZCS mail server and are not collected from emails stored directly on the victim’s device.
Automated Collection	T1119	Upon execution, the JavaScript payload automatically collects all relevant information in stages.
Browser Session Hijacking	T1185	The JavaScript payload leverages the user’s authenticated browser session to make API requests as the user.
Archive Collected Data	T1560	Emails are exfiltrated with GZIP compression.

**Table 18: Discovery**
Technique Title	ID	Use
Account Discovery	T1087	Stolen Global Access Lists provide the group with new users to target.

**Table 19: Exfiltration**
Technique Title	ID	Use
Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol	T1048	Victim information was exfiltrated over both HTTPS and DNS.
Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol: Exfiltration Over Asymmetric Encrypted Non-C2 Protocol	T1048.002	Some payloads, especially ones with large amounts of data, were exfiltrated over HTTPS.
Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol: Exfiltration Over Unencrypted Non-C2 Protocol	T1048.003	Some smaller bandwidth payloads were exfiltrated over DNS using Base32 encoding.

Appendix B: MITRE D3FEND countermeasures

See Table 20 for a mapping of several of the cybersecurity countermeasures mentioned in this advisory.

**Table 20: MITRE D3FEND Countermeasures**
Countermeasure Title	ID	Description
Application Hardening	D3-AH	Organizations should immediately prioritize patching CVE-2025-66376. Organizations should promptly apply software updates to all email systems.
Isolate	d3f:Isolate	Organizations that cannot feasibly patch should use alternative mail clients.
Credential Hardening	D3-CH	Organizations should consider using a third-party authentication service that supports passkeys to mediate access to ZCS and other services that do not natively support passkeys.
Network Traffic Analysis	D3-NTA	Organizations should monitor for significant amounts of outbound data being sent to IPs associated with VPS providers not used by the organization.
DNS Traffic Analysis	D3-DNSTA	Organizations should monitor for frequent DNS queries to a suspicious domain for seemingly random subdomains.
Network Traffic Community Deviation	D3-NTCD	Organizations should monitor for a sudden spike of connections to a server associated with a recently established domain. Organizations should monitor for connections to internal services, such as webmail, from VPN providers.
Identifier Activity Analysis	D3-IAA	Organizations should search for the listed known IOCs.
Process Analysis	D3-PA	Organizations should search ZCS log files for specific commands used by the malicious script. Organizations should search the localStorage property in web browsers for the ZCS webmail client for “ZimbraWeb” Application Passcodes.
Message Analysis	D3-MA	Organizations that suspect they have victims of this campaign should search for emails with a malicious payload to identify other victims.

Sovereign AI has become the public-sector CIO’s control problem

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 18:57:42 +0200

In public-sector and regulated-cloud work, I learned that sovereignty rarely starts as a national strategy. It starts as an auditor’s question: Who can prove where the data went, which system made the decision and what changes when the vendor or infrastructure does? That question is now moving into AI, and most sovereign-AI debates answer the wrong version of it.

They ask whether a country can build its own model on domestic data and hardware. For the United States and China, which together hold more than 90% of global AI data-center capacity, per a January 2026 Tony Blair Institute analysis, that question is worth asking. However, for almost every other government, it is the wrong place to start. The operative question is narrower: Once AI is embedded in public services, who controls the stack?

The 5 layers of public-sector control

For a CIO, sovereign AI means enforceable control across the AI lifecycle; model ownership is a separate question. Control has five layers:

Data control: Where sensitive public data sits, and whether it can train a vendor’s model.
Model control: Which models clear which workloads, and under what validation.
Infrastructure control: Whether critical workloads run in approved environments.
Operational control: Whether AI-assisted actions are logged, monitored and reversible.
Vendor control: Whether the agency keeps portability, audit rights and a real exit.

Those five layers are the control plane for public-service AI. Floyd Dcosta recently made the enterprise case in “AI without sovereignty is just outsourced intelligence”: capability is what a tool can do; authority over how and when it does it is something a buyer can quietly lose. For public services, losing that authority plays out in the public eye.

Public-sector AI risk differs from enterprise risk. A retailer’s bad recommendation costs a sale; a government’s AI touches benefits, tax enforcement, policing and emergency response, raising the bar to due process, records retention and continuity of operations. A government that cannot reconstruct an AI-assisted decision lacks operational sovereignty, even in a domestic data center.

Evaluating risk: Concentration, jurisdiction and shadow AI

Foreign dependency is a real risk, but the exposure that matters is a sudden cutoff: A model you cannot audit, switch or exit, shut off by someone else’s order. A vendor’s nationality is a poor guide to that risk; control is. Two markers matter. The first is concentration. In July 2024, a single faulty CrowdStrike update crashed about 8.5 million Windows machines, disrupting airlines, hospitals, banks and governments worldwide. No attacker was involved; one homogeneous dependency failed everywhere at once. The lesson points away from vendor nationality and toward uniformity as the fault line, making portability and provider diversity resilience controls.

The second is jurisdiction. In June 2025, Microsoft’s legal director for France told a Senate inquiry, under oath, that it could not guarantee that French public-sector data, even in French data centers, would be protected against US demands under the 2018 CLOUD Act. No such request had been made, and EU data has stayed in the EU since January 2025; senators called the assurance purely declarative. For the most sensitive data, residency does not equal control; the parent’s jurisdiction can matter as much as the server’s. Three US hyperscalers hold about 70% of the European cloud market, while European providers’ share fell from 29% in 2017 to roughly 15%. Concentration plus jurisdiction is the exposure a CIO must price. I have watched teams treat vendor selection as the moment risk was solved; it rarely was.

The wrong response is self-isolation. Most countries will never build frontier models, advanced chips, hyperscale clouds and talent pipelines at once; the Tony Blair Institute calls full self-sufficiency “too expensive, too slow and, for most countries, simply impossible.” The better test is workload sensitivity. Low-risk uses, such as drafting, translation and summarization, can run on commercial platforms with controls; high-risk uses, such as benefits eligibility, fraud investigation and healthcare triage, demand stricter control over data, model behavior and auditability.

Mandating domestic-only provision before a competitive option exists inverts sovereignty. Europe 2031, a five-year scenario from June 2026 by European technologists and policy researchers, illustrates the failure mode: A 2027 “buy European” mandate lands as offensive cyber capability spreads, and agencies that switched to weaker providers are locked out and paying ransoms. The scenario is fiction; the mechanism is not. Leverage comes from being indispensable, not half-hearted self-sufficiency. The closer-to-home effect is shadow AI: Mandate an inferior sanctioned tool and staff bypass it, the way shadow IT grows up around tools people find too slow. A rule that pushes sensitive work into ungoverned shadow AI reduces control instead of adding it.

Regulation and data-residency rules belong in any serious strategy, but carry failure modes. Blanket localization raises hosting costs and slows adoption without guaranteeing control, and a “sovereign cloud” on a foreign parent’s stack can amount to sovereignty theater. The more useful pattern tiers requirements by sensitivity. India’s BHASHINI shows the application layer done well: A public platform serving 100 million-plus inferences a month across 22-plus languages on a vendor- and cloud-agnostic design that keeps data and switching rights public. Sovereignty resides in the portability, not in a national model.

Building an operational sovereignty strategy

Public trust is the constraint sovereignty rhetoric tends to skip. The OECD’s 2025 review of government AI warns that opaque systems make AI-assisted decisions hard to explain and can give public servants false confidence in tools that fail quietly. State-controlled AI is the same problem from the other side: A government that deploys models against its own citizens without audit or record has gained control and lost accountability. An agency that can log, explain and reverse an AI-assisted action can defend it to citizens, courts, auditors and elected officials. If it cannot, it has bought access and called it sovereignty.

None of this is new. AI sovereignty repeats earlier fights over cloud, telecom, semiconductors and cybersecurity. Europe’s flagship cloud project, GAIA-X, became a cautionary tale; the Dutch technologist Bert Hubert called it an “expensive distraction” that produced no European cloud, the familiar result of ambition without absorptive capacity. Cloud taught governments that outsourcing infrastructure does not outsource accountability; telecom, that vendor dependency becomes strategic exposure; chips, that supply chains matter before a crisis; cybersecurity, that trust must be verified continuously. AI inherits all four at once.

Over the next five to ten years, some countries will build national platforms, more will build trusted cloud and trusted model regimes, and most will run hybrids that pair domestic data control with global model access. Trade policy will harden those choices: Export controls on compute and data-localization rules will pull the vendor market into blocs that track alliances more than open markets. For a CIO, that turns a vendor and hosting decision into a five-year bet on whose rules and supply chains will still hold. The ones that succeed will treat sovereignty as an operating requirement, backed by leverage, not a slogan. Start with the control plane before the model: Most agencies will never own the model, and the controls are what decide whether the AI they do run stays accountable. Even when procurement policy is dictated from above, these questions remain within the CIO’s authority:

Can we classify AI workloads by public-service risk?
Can we prove where sensitive data goes across training, retrieval, inference, logging and retention?
Can we restrict which models are approved for which data classes and functions?
Can we reconstruct an AI-assisted action in enough detail to explain it?
Can we change providers without losing continuity or institutional knowledge?
Can we explain the system to citizens, regulators, auditors and elected officials?

A “no” to any of these does not mean the agency lacks AI. It means the agency has access it does not yet control. Public institutions can use global innovation without surrendering public authority, but only once they know what to hold, what to rent and where dependency turns into risk.

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

Getting a grip on shadow tokens and AI blowouts

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 18:55:48 +0200

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 snowballs into an AI blowout.

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 Microsoft is reportedly winding down many internal licenses across key engineering teams and why one in five organizations is missing its AI spend forecast by more than 50%.

And the trend is only accelerating. By 2028, Gartner predicts that AI coding costs (driven by this kind of ungoverned consumption) will be as much per developer as the salary companies pay that person.

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.

Going forward, CIOs need to thread the AI needle between governance that encourages transparency and reasonable spend without stifling innovation.

When shadow tokens result in real costs

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.

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.

According to Deloitte, 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.

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, described 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.

Shifting the culture from usage to yield

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 “tokenmaxxing,” 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.

None of this is meant to dismiss AI’s productivity possibilities and potential return on investment. Developers save 3.6 hours 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.

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.

Stopping token waste before an AI blowout

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.

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.

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.

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.

This is a conversation teams need to have now. Anthropic just ended flat-rate pricing 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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#2. Distinguish between human and autonomous agent behavior

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

#3. Establish guardrails for automated package updates on endpoints

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

#4. Enforce principle of least privilege for AI agents

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

#5. Maintain continuous endpoint posture management

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

Summary

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

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

CVE-2019-19781: Citrix ADC RCE vulnerability

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 18:52:23 +0200

A week before the 2019 holidays Citrix announced that an authentication bypass vulnerability was discovered in multiple Citrix products. The affected products are the Citrix Application Delivery Controller (formerly known as NetScaler AD), Citrix Gateway NetScaler ADC (formerly known as NetScaler Gateway), and Citrix SD-WAN WANOP appliance. Exploiting the vulnerability could allow an unauthenticated attacker [...]

The post CVE-2019-19781: Citrix ADC RCE vulnerability appeared first on Hacking Tutorials.

4 little-known Google Calendar tricks I use to plan my workweek - and save time

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 18:51:48 +0200

If you're only using Google Calendar to track events, you're missing some of its most useful features.

CVE-2026-34574 | parse-community parse-server up to 8.6.68/9.7.0-alpha.13 Session Update Endpoint comparison

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 17:03:09 +0200

A vulnerability labeled as critical has been found in parse-community parse-server up to 8.6.68/9.7.0-alpha.13. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the component Session Update Endpoint. The manipulation results in incorrect comparison. This vulnerability is known as CVE-2026-34574. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. No exploit is available. The affected component should be upgraded.

CVE-2026-5203 | CMS Made Simple up to 2.2.22 UserGuide Module XML Import class.UserGuideImporterExporter.php _copyFilesToFolder path traversal

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 17:03:04 +0200

A vulnerability was found in CMS Made Simple up to 2.2.22 and classified as critical. This impacts the function _copyFilesToFolder in the library modules/UserGuide/lib/class.UserGuideImporterExporter.php of the component UserGuide Module XML Import. The manipulation results in path traversal. This vulnerability is known as CVE-2026-5203. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. Furthermore, an exploit is available. This issue has been reported early to the project. They confirmed, that "this has already been discovered and fixed for the next release."

CVE-2026-16383 | Mozilla Firefox up to 140.12/152 Networking Remote Code Execution (Nessus ID 329491)

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 16:33:28 +0200

A vulnerability labeled as critical has been found in Mozilla Firefox up to 140.12/152. Impacted is an unknown function of the component Networking. The manipulation results in Remote Code Execution. This vulnerability is known as CVE-2026-16383. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. No exploit is available. The affected component should be upgraded.

CVE-2026-32977 | OpenClaw up to 2026.3.10 toctou (GHSA-xvx8-77m6-gwg6)

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 13:33:00 +0200

A vulnerability was found in OpenClaw up to 2026.3.10. It has been declared as problematic. The affected element is an unknown function. The manipulation results in time-of-check time-of-use. This vulnerability is known as CVE-2026-32977. Attacking locally is a requirement. No exploit is available. It is recommended to upgrade the affected component.

CVE-2026-32916 | OpenClaw up to 2026.3.10 privileges assignment (GHSA-xw77-45gv-p728)

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 13:11:15 +0200

A vulnerability was found in OpenClaw up to 2026.3.10. It has been rated as problematic. Affected is an unknown function. Performing a manipulation results in incorrect privilege assignment. This vulnerability is known as CVE-2026-32916. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. No exploit is available. Upgrading the affected component is advised.

The OpenAI Models That Hacked Hugging Face Were ‘Active on the Internet’ for Days

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 12:43:14 +0200

Plus: Russian hackers are trying to steal US nuclear scientists’ emails, the State Department bans known scammers from entering the United States, and more.

Contagious Cancer Found in North American Catfish

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 11:11:53 +0200

Scientists identified the first known cancer transmissible among freshwater fish in a lake that spans the US and Canada.

Increasing app discovery and engagement on Google TV

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 10:15:47 +0200

Posted by Paul Lammertsma, Developer Relations Engineer

With over 300 million monthly active devices across Google TV and Android TV, it’s clear that the living room is a massive, distinct platform for apps to accelerate growth. Today, we’re excited to share Google TV features and developer tools designed to increase the discoverability of your content and prepare your app for future TV experiences.

Drive discovery and engagement with Gemini

Last year, we brought our AI voice assistant, Gemini, to our platform, so that people can easily find what to watch, learn something new on the big screen, and get everyday tasks done with just their voice.

Since launch, we’ve made improvements to how Gemini provides tailored responses to questions. Gemini shares a mix of visuals, videos, and text to help users find what they need, when they need it. For our streaming partners, Gemini is a helpful discovery engine—pulling from your app's metadata to surface your relevant content to viewers.

Declare support for pointing modality

The TV experience that we once knew is changing. Gemini is changing the way we discover and stream content with voice, but how we use the remote is evolving, too.

Pointer remotes bring motion-controlled input to the big screen, unlocking faster user navigation across the Google TV Home page and within content-heavy apps. To ensure your app is ready for this shift and provides a great experience for all users, now is the time to start thinking about pointing input. Here’s how to get started:

1. Adapt your TV app UI Library

You’ll need support for hover states, scrollable containers, and cursor clicks to enable pointer remote interactions for your app on Google TV. While implementation varies by UI stack, Jetpack Compose streamlines this transition, as most core components handle these multi-modal interactions natively out of the box.

Hover state: Every focusable element on your screen (buttons, movie posters, setting toggles) needs a clear visual feedback mechanism for a hover state. This is often subtler than a focus state but critical for feedback.
Scrollable containers: Pointer remotes will also have a small circular touchpad for scrolling. Users can use this touchpad to scroll up or down, or left or right in your app. Your app will need to respond to touch events to scroll.
Cursor clicks: Many TV apps today expect a simple D-pad OKAY button “click.” With a pointer remote, a user may “click” on an element that’s not the D-pad focus state, but is instead from a hovered state (similar to a mouse click).

2. Test pointing interactions with a mouse today

To see how your app handles hover, scroll, and clicks, simply connect a bluetooth mouse or wired mouse to your Google TV. Keep in mind that a mouse has more precise control, since users are closer to the screen and typically rest the mouse in a stable position. Pointer remotes can often be less precise, since users are sometimes 10 feet away from the screen, making rough gestures with the remote from their couch. As a TV designer or developer, you can mitigate this lack of input precision by having larger hover targets for elements.

3. Declare TV app support for pointer remotes on Google Play

Finally, tell Google Play that your TV app is designed to work with a pointer. This ensures that users with pointer remotes will be able to easily find, install, and interact with your app.

Within your AndroidManifest.xml, declare the meta-data tag, android.software.leanback.supports_touch. This tag informs the platform that your TV app “spatially supports touch,” since pointer remotes simulate touch events from a distance.

AndroidManifest.xml

...

Tips:

The android.software.leanback feature declaration indicates that your app supports D-pad navigation and is intended for distribution only on TV devices via Google Play.
The new software attribute of android.software.leanback.supports_touch declares that in addition to D-pad, you have ensured that your TV app works well for pointer/cursor experiences via mouse (of today) and pointer remotes (of future).
If you haven't already, now is the time to adopt Jetpack Compose. Hover, scroll, and clicks are common input modalities that are supported on various form factors, and building your app with an adaptive UI framework enables code reusability and reduced maintenance.

Onboard the Engage SDK

The Engage SDK, formerly known as the Video Discovery API, optimizes Resumption, Entitlements, and Recommendations across all Google TV form factors to boost app discovery and engagement.

Resumption: Partners can easily display a user's paused video within the 'Continue Watching' row from the Home page.
Entitlements: The Engage SDK streamlines entitlement management, which matches app content to user eligibility. Users appreciate this because they can enjoy personalized recommendations without needing to manually update all their subscription details. This allows partners to connect with users across multiple discovery points on Google TV.
Recommendations: The Engage SDK even highlights personalized recommendations based on content that users watched inside apps.

It’s a great time to start onboarding the Engage SDK now, since the legacy Watch Next API, which has been powering your continue watching 1.0 experience, will lose support in the 2nd half of 2027. To get started, head to goo.gle/engage-tv to learn more.

We're excited to see how our latest Gemini experience and developer tools will optimize your discovery and drive user engagement on our platform.

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

17 Things to know for Android developers at Google I/O

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 10:15:45 +0200

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

Today at Google I/O, we announced the many ways we’re powering agentic workflows to increase your productivity and ensure your apps shine across the expanding Android ecosystem. Here’s a recap of 17 of our favorite announcements for Android developers; you can also see what was announced last week in The Android Show: I/O Edition. Stay tuned over the next two days as we dive into all of the topics in more detail!

Build High Quality Android Apps Using Agents

1: Android CLI: helping you build with any agent, LLM, and tool

Android CLI is now stable. It offers programmatic tools that allow any AI agent, including Claude Code, Codex, or Antigravity, to perform core Android tasks much more easily and efficiently. With today’s release, it also provides a bridge to tap directly into the "heavy-lifting" power of Android Studio to give you the production-ready polish needed for professional Android development. By leveraging the new android studio commands, developers can now grant their preferred agents the ability to perform semantic symbol resolution, analyze files for warnings, and even render Jetpack Compose previews. This release also enables official support for "Journeys" through new Android skills, which enables agents to execute end-to-end UI tests under your direction. Watch the developer keynote, and tune into the What’s New in Android tools talk for more information.

You can now easily install Android CLI for use with Google Antigravity 2.0.

2: Build production-ready apps with ease in Google AI Studio

Developers and creators can now build native Android apps, simply with a prompt in Google AI Studio. The apps are built with development best practices like Jetpack Compose, Kotlin, and APIs that leverage our recommended developer patterns. Google AI Studio enables developers to prototype, iterate via an embedded emulator, and deploy to physical devices without heavy local installations. Developers are then able to take those apps and share them to Android devices, as well as share them with others for testing through Google Play Console’s internal testing track. If a developer wants to prepare their app for a wider release, they’re able to take it to Android Studio for advanced debugging, testing, and UI polish. Watch the developer keynote, and tune into the What’s New in Android tools talk for more information.

Use the embedded Android Emulator to create Android apps in Google AI Studio

3: Accelerating AI coding assistance with Android Bench

Android Bench is our LLM leaderboard for Android development challenges. The goal is to accelerate model improvements, so you have more useful options for AI assistance. Many of you have been using open-weight models for AI assistance, so we’re now adding commonly used ones, such as Gemma 4, to the leaderboard, so you can see how LLMs that offer offline access and additional flexibility for power-users measure up. We're continuously working on increasing the difficulty of challenges we’re giving LLMs, to continue encouraging more useful improvements.

4: Convert iOS apps to Android with the Migration Assistant in Android Studio

The Migration Assistant in Android Studio is designed to port apps from platforms like iOS, React Native, or web frameworks to native Android. By simply selecting an existing project, developers can have the agent intelligently map features, convert assets like storyboards and SVGs, and implement Android best practices using Jetpack Compose and our recommended Jetpack libraries. This effectively transforms what used to be weeks of manual porting into a streamlined agentic workflow that only takes hours. We shared a preview of the incoming feature in the developer keynote.

A sneak peek of the Migration Assistant converting an iOS app into a native Android app

Building AI Into Your Apps

5: Building Intelligent Apps with generative AI

Generative AI enables you to create apps that are more intelligent, personalized, and agentic than ever before. This year, we introduced the latest advancements in on-device intelligence with a preview of Gemini Nano 4 for tasks like data extraction and summarization. We also expanded cloud capabilities via Firebase AI Logic, allowing developers to leverage Gemini models with robust grounding (including URL, Maps, and web search) to build smarter, more capable assistants. Furthermore, we unveiled our hybrid inference approach and the new Agent Development Kit (ADK) for Android, alongside communication protocols like AG-UI and A2UI that simplify the creation of autonomous, agentic experiences. To start integrating these powerful features, explore the developer documentation, and watch the technical deep dive session where we showcase all these technologies.

6: Experiment with AppFunctions today

AppFunctions is an Android platform API with an accompanying Jetpack library to simplify building Android MCP integrations. It empowers your apps to behave like on device MCP servers, contributing functions that act as tools for use by agents and assistants. AppFunctions integration with Gemini is currently in a private preview with trusted testers, and you can begin preparing your apps already. You can sign up for the Early Access Program and start experimenting using the API guidance, sample, and skill today.

The Future is Adaptive

7: Android is now Compose First; Views are now in maintenance mode.

Compose is our standard for UI development, and we are moving to a Compose-first approach for all future guidance and libraries. Building on five years of evolution, the latest releases deliver a more mature toolkit, from the highly customizable Styles API to refined shared element transitions and enhanced input support. These updates allow you to build beautiful, adaptive apps with less code and better performance. Learn more about what Compose-first means for Android Development in our blog post.

Build Android UI with Compose

8: Building seamless Android experiences across devices with Jetpack Compose

The Android ecosystem is now Adaptive by Default, moving fluidly across phones, foldables, tablets, cars, XR, and expanding usages with Googlebook and connected displays. With over 580 million large-screen devices, and users on multiple devices spending up to 14x more on apps, the investment in adaptive design presents a massive opportunity. Jetpack Compose is the definitive engine for this transition, offering core tools like our latest Jetpack Navigation 3 release, new experimental Grid and FlexBox layouts, enhanced non-touch input support, and CameraX for correct camera previews across any window size. Furthermore, new skills in Android Studio make updating your existing app to adopt these adaptive patterns easier than ever. Notability’s Android debut sets a new standard for premium productivity apps. Built with Jetpack Compose, Navigation 3, and Kotlin Multiplatform, it delivers an intuitive, adaptive experience across devices.

9: Create seamless experiences for Googlebook

Last week we announced Googlebook, a high-performance laptop that provides a large-screen canvas for your existing apps. Building with adaptive principles today helps ensure your app will work on Googlebook. Get started by reviewing relevant design guidance and developer guidelines for desktop experiences. Try out the new Desktop Emulator available in the Android Studio Canary to to test your apps for this form factor today.

New Desktop Android Emulator

10: Unified widget development experience with Jetpack Glance

Android 17 marks a shift toward a single, Compose-based development model for all widgets. By unifying the experience across mobile, Wear OS, and cars through Jetpack Glance, you can soon scale UI components across the ecosystem with a familiar workflow.

The breakthrough this year is the integration of RemoteCompose. On mobile and cars, it powers high-fidelity animations, while on Wear OS, it allows Wear Widgets (formerly Tiles) to render complex UI logic natively on remote surfaces. This ensures peak performance on low-power hardware while allowing a cohesive user journey—like checking a flight status on your car dashboard and seeing gate change updates on your wrist.

Four widgets are shown cycling through in the Android Auto interface. A clock, a contact card, Google Home favorites and a photo.

11: Expand your reach on the road with Android for Cars
To help you expand your reach when you build in-car experiences, we're making it easier to build once and deliver your apps to Android Auto and Android Automotive OS. With the latest releases of the Car App Library, you can build customized, distraction-optimized templated media apps for both platforms. We're introducing new components and template capabilities to give you increased flexibility and more options for laying out content. Parked experiences are expanding too, with immersive video playback coming to Android Auto for phones running Android 17. You can easily adapt your video apps for these parked experiences; apply now to the early access program to publish in these beta categories and learn more about the latest updates in our blog.

12: Accelerate your development with Android XR Developer Preview 4

Inspired by the innovative experiences you’ve built for the platform, we’re continuing to mature our tools with Developer Preview 4 of the Android XR SDK. A key milestone in this journey is the transition of our core libraries, XR Runtime, Jetpack SceneCore, and ARCore for Jetpack XR, moving to Beta soon to provide a more stable and performant foundation. We are also accelerating hardware access through the Android XR Developer Catalyst Program, where you can apply for XREAL’s Project Aura, audio glasses, or display glasses developer kits. Watch The latest in Android XR session or read our blog to see how these updates help you build experiences across the ecosystem.

Early preview of the Geospatial API in ARCore for Jetpack XR, enabling high-precision anchoring of digital content to real-world locations.

13: Android is your new home for professional-grade media experiences

Android 17 streamlines the entire media lifecycle with a production-ready toolkit. High-fidelity capture is now simplified with the CameraXViewfinder Composable, which handles complex scaling and responsiveness on foldables and tablets. For post-production, the new Media3 AI Effects library provides a single interface for premium features like Magic Eraser and Studio Sound, automatically optimizing for the device's hardware.

The pipeline is completed by CodecDB, offering chipset-specific encoding recommendations to eliminate export noise, and a new Scrubbing Mode in ExoPlayer for ultra-smooth seeking. Whether you’re compositing multi-asset edits with Media3 Transformer or using the streamlined CastPlayer API, these updates ensure a professional-grade experience with significantly less development overhead.

Low Light Boost and Magic Eraser in action

14: Increase app discovery and engagement on Google TV

Pointer remotes, which enable motion-controlled input, will be a future way for users to interact with Google TV as it unlocks faster user navigation. App developers can start declaring support for pointing input to ensure their apps are discoverable on future TVs with pointer remotes. Additionally, the Engage SDK, formerly known as the Video Discovery API, optimizes Resumption, Entitlements, and Recommendations across all Google TV form factors to boost app discovery and engagement. It’s a great time to start onboarding the Engage SDK now, since the legacy Watch Next API, which has been powering your continue watching 1.0 experience, will lose support in the 2nd half of 2027. Get all the details in our blog.

15: Performance: the foundation of a great app experience

To help developers navigate memory limits in Android 17, we've launched a suite of optimization tools. The R8 Configuration Analyzer identifies keep rules that are bloating your binary, while ProfilingManager and the integrated LeakCanary in Android Studio streamline memory leak detection. Furthermore, the new Android Performance Analyzer offers advanced AI integration for complex trace analysis and automated SQL query generation to pinpoint performance bottlenecks.

And The Latest on Driving Business Growth

16: What’s new in Google Play

Today's updates from Google Play help expand your reach and scale your business with less complexity. We’re redefining Play Store discovery with an immersive, short-form video format called Play Shorts, while expanding your audience beyond the store with app discovery in the Gemini app on Android and web. Plus, we’re introducing powerful new capabilities like agentic catalog management for seamless bulk price and SKU updates, and using Gemini models to enable Play Console to pre-populate store listings from imported documents—making global localization effortless.

Gemini will provide users with app suggestions during a search

17: And of course, Android 17

Android 17 includes new performance & system architecture improvements (in addition to app memory limits) like a lock-free MessageQueue and a GC with more frequent, less intensive young-generation collections to ensure system-wide stability and smoother UIs. The new contact picker and eyedropper API help minimize the use of sensitive permissions and unnecessary access to user data.

Review the behavior changes to make sure your app is ready for Android 17, including background audio hardening and SMS OTP protection. Get ready to target Android 17 (API 37) with changes such as mandatory large-screen resizability, certificate transparency by default, and restricted local network access. You can start testing today by enrolling your device in the Beta or using the latest 17.0 emulator images.

One more thing. the third beta of our Android 17 quarterly platform release (QPR1) just came out, and it contains a minor SDK release to support a few features that just couldn't wait for QPR2.

Check out all of the Android & Play Content at Google I/O

This was just a preview of some of the updates for Android developers at Google I/O. Tune into What’s New in Android for the latest news and announcements and follow Google I/O for much more over the following week!

Eclipsa Video: HDR That Looks Right on Every Screen

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 10:15:30 +0200

Posted by Tibian Elsheikh, Product Manager, Android Core Graphics and Jeffrey Jose, Product Manager, Android Core Graphics

We’ve all been there: You’re scrolling through your favorite social media feed in a dim room, and suddenly an HDR video pops up. It’s so intensely bright that you have to squint, or maybe you find yourself turning down your screen brightness just to read the caption. Other times, a video that looks vibrant on your phone looks flat, dark, or washed out when you watch it on your living room TV.

While High Dynamic Range (HDR) technology was designed to make videos look richer and more lifelike, the lack of unified industry guidelines means that the exact same clip can render in unexpected and jarring ways depending on the display you’re using.

To solve this, we’re introducing Eclipsa Video—a new standard built to make your favorite videos look consistent, balanced, and comfortable on every screen. Eclipsa Video builds on the open SMPTE ST 2094-50 specification, which Google developed in collaboration with Apple and NBCUniversal.

Sudden brightness spikes during feed scrolling—fixed with Eclipsa Video.

More consistency, comfort, and creative control

Eclipsa Video moves past individual display guesswork. Instead of leaving it up to your device to interpret a video’s brightness on its own, our format carries precise guidelines that tell compatible displays exactly how to render the image.

Designed to scale with your hardware, Eclipsa Video provides three core benefits:

A consistent baseline: Eclipsa Video introduces a shared rulebook for screens. It establishes a consistent benchmark for normal brightness—known as the HDR reference white. This ensures standard text, app interfaces, and standard-range colors remain vibrant and readable without causing uncomfortable screen glare.
Adaptive headroom: Screens have different physical brightness limits, or "headroom." Eclipsa Video guides how displays handle highlights dynamically. Bright details remain brilliant on a premium television, while being scaled intelligently on a mobile screen to prevent sudden blinding transitions.
Preserved creative intent: Rather than applying a single static setting to an entire video, Eclipsa Video carries adaptive, frame-by-frame instructions. Think of it as a set of digital notes from the creator traveling with the video, ensuring the exact colors, contrast, and mood they graded are preserved on your display.

Eclipsa Video preserves true highlight detail on any screen you watch.

Built natively into Android 17

Starting with Android 17, support for Eclipsa Video is built directly into the platform. This means a more comfortable, true-to-life HDR experience is coming natively to the phones, tablets, and TVs you rely on every day. The video you capture carries its creative intent with it, and the video you watch is shown exactly the way it was meant to be seen.

Guidelines for developers & creators

We’re inviting the developer and creator ecosystem to help build a more reliable HDR environment:

Get started with implementation: Learn how to configure playback and capture in your apps with our official guide.
ExoPlayer & Media3 integration: Standard playback handling built directly into Jetpack Media3, allowing ExoPlayer to support Eclipsa Video metadata automatically with no additional player configuration.
Explore open source tools: View and inspect SMPTE ST 2094-50 metadata and dynamic gain curves in real time using HDR Explorer.

What’s next

Eclipsa Video is rolling out now, and you’ll see more apps and devices supporting it over time. Because it’s an open standard, any app developer or hardware manufacturer can integrate it to elevate the viewing experience.

Try out the new tools in Android 17, explore the open-source metadata, and let us know what you think on our developer channels. We can’t wait to see what you create.

Notes & Availability

1. Device Compatibility: Eclipsa Video playback and capture are supported natively on devices running Android 17 (API level 37) and above with HDR displays passing Eclipsa Compliance tests.

2. Developer Resources: The SMPTE ST 2094-50 Specification is openly accessible for technical evaluation.

Android Studio Quail 2 is Stable: Multi-task with the Android Studio AI agent

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 10:15:29 +0200

Posted by Amman Asfaw, Product Manager, Android Studio

Android Studio Quail 2 is now stable and ready for you to use in production, bringing a shift to your IDE with concurrent agentic workflows, natively integrated memory leak profiling, and context-aware crash remediation. Whether you are performing a sweeping architectural overhaul, tracing a memory leak, or resolving a critical production crash, Android Studio keeps you anchored in your workspace by reducing manual friction.

Here’s a deep dive into what’s new:

Multi-tasking with parallel chats

In Android Studio Quail 2, we've been hard at work redesigning Agent Mode from the ground up. This new architecture provides better performance, offers more flexibility for decomposing complex tasks, and improves the suite of internal tools the agent uses to do its work.

In addition to these behind-the-scenes improvements, these changes also allow you to converse across multiple agent chats simultaneously. Waiting for the Android Studio agent to finish a task before you can ask another question or initiate a separate task in Agent Mode is a bottleneck of the past. You can multi-task seamlessly: kick off a UI refactor in one tab, fix a ProGuard rule in a second, and generate documentation in a third.

You can also change which models the agent uses from chat to chat based on the requests you have. Take a look at Android Bench for an analysis of how LLMs perform Android development tasks.

How to use: Click the "+" icon to start a new parallel conversation, and use the History icon to navigate between active tasks. Alternatively, select File > New > New Agent Tab to open a conversation in a dedicated tab.
Note: Worktree support is currently unavailable. Exercise caution when running concurrent chats that modify the same project files, which can potentially lead to editor conflicts.

Run multiple agent tasks in parallel with different models of your choice.

Use the History icon to navigate between active tasks.

Memory leak detection with LeakCanary

Memory leaks in Android occur when your code holds onto an object's reference long after its life cycle has ended. This prevents the Garbage Collector from reclaiming that memory, eventually leading to sluggish performance or OutOfMemoryError.

Hunting down memory leaks can be a tedious, manual task. Starting with Android Studio Quail 2, the popular open-source leak detector LeakCanary is natively integrated directly into the Profiler as a dedicated, first-class task.

This integration transforms your debugging performance by lifting and shifting the heap analysis off your resource-constrained testing phone, and onto your powerful development computer. By running the analysis on your computer, leak tracing is up to five times faster and jank-free, leaving your test app running smoothly on the device.

Once a leak is detected during a profiling session:

The Profiler renders an interactive, color-coded leak trace, grouping occurrences and estimating lost memory.
You can click Go to declaration on any leaking object in the trace to instantly jump to that exact line of code in your editor.
You can click Fix with Agent to have the Gemini agent ingest the trace, explain the root cause of the retained reference, and write the exact code change (such as unbinding a listener or clearing a static reference) to plug the leak.

Review memory leaks identified via LeakCanary through the Fix with Agent button.

App Quality Insights agent integration

Tracking down the root cause of an app crash can require manually synthesizing stack traces, device data, and source code. However Android Studio’s App Quality Insights (AQI) is now fully integrated with Agent Mode to do the heavy lifting for you.

When you click on a crash in the AQI panel, you immediately get a concise, high-level summary of the issue. If you need to dig deeper, simply click See more. This opens a dedicated chat where the agent uses your selected model and pulls in local source code and the full stack trace to deliver a comprehensive explanation of the failure.

With the new agent integration, you move directly from issue identification to resolution. By clicking Fix with AI, the agent will analyze the issue, propose a step-by-step fix plan, and—upon your approval—apply the necessary code changes directly to your project and verify the resulting fix

The Fix with AI button triggering the agent to analyze the issue, then propose the fix

Quality & stability improvements

Beyond new features, we’ve continued our focus on quality by addressing numerous bugs and incorporating the latest stability and performance improvements from the IntelliJ platform, making this a significant enhancement for your daily development.

Get Started

Ready to dive in and accelerate your development? Download Android Studio Quail 2 and start exploring these new features today! As always, your feedback is crucial to us. Check known issues, report bugs, and be part of our vibrant community on LinkedIn, Medium, YouTube, or X.

Ransomware Actors Exploit Unpatched SimpleHelp Remote Monitoring and Management to Compromise Utility Billing Software Provider

Sat, 25 Jul 2026 09:19:52 +0200

Summary

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) is releasing this advisory in response to ransomware actors leveraging unpatched instances of a vulnerability in SimpleHelp Remote Monitoring and Management (RMM) to compromise customers of a utility billing software provider. This incident reflects a broader pattern of ransomware actors targeting organizations through unpatched versions of SimpleHelp RMM since January 2025.

SimpleHelp versions 5.5.7 and earlier contain several vulnerabilities, including CVE-2024-57727—a path traversal vulnerability.¹Ransomware actors likely leveraged CVE-2024-57727 to access downstream customers’ unpatched SimpleHelp RMM for disruption of services in double extortion compromises.¹

CISA added CVE-2024-57727 to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) Catalog on Feb. 13, 2025.

CISA urges software vendors, downstream customers, and end users to immediately implement the Mitigations listed in this advisory based on confirmed compromise or risk of compromise.

Download the PDF version of this report:

AA25-163A Ransomware Actors Exploit Unpatched SimpleHelp Remote Monitoring and Management to Compromise Utility Billing Software Provider (PDF, 420.49 KB )

Mitigations

CISA recommends organizations implement the mitigations below to respond to emerging ransomware activity exploiting SimpleHelp software. These mitigations align with the Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPGs) developed by CISA and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The CPGs provide a minimum set of practices and protections that CISA and NIST recommend all organizations implement. CISA and NIST based the CPGs on existing cybersecurity frameworks and guidance to protect against the most common and impactful threats, tactics, techniques, and procedures. Visit CISA’s CPGs webpage for more information on the CPGs, including additional recommended baseline protections. These mitigations apply to all critical infrastructure organizations.

Vulnerable Third-Party Vendors

If SimpleHelp is embedded or bundled in vendor-owned software or if a third-party service provider leverages SimpleHelp on a downstream customer’s network, then identify the SimpleHelp server version at the top of the file /SimpleHelp/configuration/serverconfig.xml. If version 5.5.7 or prior is found or has been used since January 2025, third-party vendors should:

Isolate the SimpleHelp server instance from the internet or stop the server process.
Upgrade immediately to the latest SimpleHelp version in accordance with SimpleHelp’s security vulnerability advisory.²
Contact your downstream customers to direct them to take actions to secure their endpoints and undertake threat hunting actions on their network.

Vulnerable Downstream Customers and End Users

Determine if the system is running an unpatched version of SimpleHelp RMM either directly or embedded in third-party software.

SimpleHelp Endpoints

Determine if an endpoint is running the remote access (RAS) service by checking the following paths depending on the specific environment:

Windows: %APPDATA%\JWrapper-Remote Access
Linux: /opt/JWrapper-Remote Access
MacOs: /Library/Application Support/JWrapper-Remote Access

If RAS installation is present and running, open the serviceconfig.xml file in /JWrapper-Remote Access/JWAppsSharedConfig/ to determine if the registered service is vulnerable. The lines starting with indicate the server addresses where the service is registered.


SimpleHelp Server
Determine the version of any SimpleHelp server by performing an HTTP query against it. Add /allversions (e.g., https://simple-help.com/allversions) to query the URL for the version page. This page will list the running version.
If an unpatched SimpleHelp version 5.5.7 or earlier is confirmed on a system, organizations should conduct threat hunting actions for evidence of compromise and continuously monitor for unusual inbound and outbound traffic from the SimpleHelp server. Note: This is not an exhaustive list of indicators of compromise.

 Refer to SimpleHelp’s guidance to determine compromise and next steps.³
Isolate the SimpleHelp server instance from the internet or stop the server process.
Search for any suspicious or anomalous executables with three alphabetic letter filenames (e.g., aaa.exe, bbb.exe, etc.) with a creation time after January 2025. Additionally, perform host and network vulnerability security scans via reputable scanning services to verify malware is not on the system.
Even if there is no evidence of compromise, users should immediately upgrade to the latest SimpleHelp version in accordance with SimpleHelp’s security vulnerabilities advisory.⁴

If your organization is unable to immediately identify and patch vulnerable versions of SimpleHelp, apply appropriate workarounds. In this circumstance, CISA recommends using other vendor-provided mitigations when available. These non-patching workarounds should not be considered permanent fixes and organizations should apply the appropriate patch as soon as it is made available.
Encrypted Downstream Customers and End Users
If a system has been encrypted by ransomware:

Disconnect the affected system from the internet.
Use clean installation media (e.g., a bootable USD drive or DVD) to reinstall the operating system. Ensure the installation media is free from malware.
Wipe the system and only restore data from a clean backup. Ensure data files are obtained from a protected environment to avoid reintroducing ransomware to the system.

CISA urges you to promptly report ransomware incidents to a local FBI Field Office, FBI’s Internet Crime Compliant Center (IC3), and CISA via CISA’s 24/7 Operations Center (report@cisa.gov or 1-844-Say-CISA).
Proactive Mitigations to Reduce Risk
To reduce opportunities for intrusion and to strengthen response to ransomware activity, CISA recommends customers of vendors and managed service providers (MSPs) implement the following best practices:

Maintain a robust asset inventory and hardware list [CPG 1.A].
Maintain a clean, offline backup of the system to ensure encryption will not occur once reverted. Conduct a daily system backup on a separate, offline device, such as a flash drive or external hard drive. Remove the device from the computer after backup is complete [CPG 2.R].
Do not expose remote services such as Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) on the web. If these services must be exposed, apply appropriate compensating controls to prevent common forms of abuse and exploitation. Disable unnecessary OS applications and network protocols on internet-facing assets [CPG 2.W].
Conduct a risk analysis for RMM software on the network. If RMM is required, ask third-party vendors what security controls are in place.
Establish and maintain open communication channels with third-party vendors to stay informed about their patch management process.
For software vendors, consider integrating a Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) into products to reduce the amount of time for vulnerability remediation.

An SBOM is a formal record of components used to build software. SBOMs enhance supply chain risk management by quickly identifying and avoiding known vulnerabilities, identifying security requirements, and managing mitigations for vulnerabilities. For more information, see CISA’s SBOM page.



Resources

Health-ISAC:Threat Bulletin: SimpleHelp RMM Software Leveraged in Exploitation Attempt to Breach Networks
Arctic Wolf: Arctic Wolf Observes Campaign Exploiting SimpleHelp RMM Software for Initial Access
CISA: #StopRansomware Guide

Reporting
Your organization has no obligation to respond or provide information back to FBI in response to this advisory. If, after reviewing the information provided, your organization decides to provide information to FBI, reporting must be consistent with applicable state and federal laws.
FBI is interested in any information that can be shared, to include boundary logs showing communication to and from foreign IP addresses, a sample ransom note, communications with threat actors, Bitcoin wallet information, decryptor files, and/or a benign sample of an encrypted file.
Additional details of interest include a targeted company point of contact, status and scope of infection, estimated loss, operational impact, transaction IDs, date of infection, date detected, initial attack vector, and host- and network-based indicators.
CISA and FBI do not encourage paying ransom as payment does not guarantee victim files will be recovered. Furthermore, payment may also embolden adversaries to target additional organizations, encourage other criminal actors to engage in the distribution of ransomware, and/or fund illicit activities. Regardless of whether you or your organization have decided to pay the ransom, FBI and CISA urge you to promptly report ransomware incidents to FBI’s Internet Crime Complain Center (IC3), a local FBI Field Office, or CISA via the agency’s Incident Reporting System or its 24/7 Operations Center (report@cisa.gov) or by calling 1-844-Say-CISA (1-844-729-2472).
SimpleHelp users or vendors can contact support@simple-help.com for assistance with queries or concerns.
Disclaimer
The information in this report is being provided “as is” for informational purposes only. CISA does not endorse any commercial entity, product, company, or service, including any entities, products, or services linked within this document. Any reference to specific commercial entities, products, processes, or services by service mark, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not constitute or imply endorsement, recommendation, or favor by CISA.
Version History
June 12, 2025: Initial version.
Notes
1. Anthony Bradshaw, et. al., “DragonForce Actors Target SimpleHelp Vulnerabilities to Attack MSP, Customers,” Sophos News, May 27, 2025, https://news.sophos.com/en-us/2025/05/27/dragonforce-actors-target-simplehelp-vulnerabilities-to-attack-msp-customers/.
2. For instructions for upgrading to the latest version of SimpleHelp, see SimpleHelp’s security vulnerability advisory.
3. To determine possibility of compromise and next steps, see SimpleHelp’s guidance.
4. For instructions for upgrading to the latest version of SimpleHelp, see SimpleHelp’s security vulnerability advisory.



Pro-Russia Hacktivists Conduct Opportunistic Attacks Against US and Global Critical Infrastructure
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 09:15:46 +0200
Summary
Note: This joint Cybersecurity Advisory is being published as an addition to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) May 6, 2025, joint fact sheet Primary Mitigations to Reduce Cyber Threats to Operational Technology and European Cybercrime Centre’s (EC3) Operation Eastwood, in which CISA, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Energy (DOE), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and EC3 shared information about cyber incidents affecting the operational technology (OT) and industrial control systems (ICS) of critical infrastructure entities in the United States and globally.
FBI, CISA, National Security Agency (NSA), and the following partners—hereafter referred to as “the authoring organizations”—are releasing this joint advisory on the targeting of critical infrastructure by pro-Russia hacktivists:

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

The authoring organizations assess pro-Russia hacktivist groups are conducting less sophisticated, lower-impact attacks against critical infrastructure entities, compared to advanced persistent threat (APT) groups. These attacks use minimally secured, internet-facing virtual network computing (VNC) connections to infiltrate (or gain access to) OT control devices within critical infrastructure systems. Pro-Russia hacktivist groups—Cyber Army of Russia Reborn (CARR), Z-Pentest, NoName057(16), Sector16, and affiliated groups—are capitalizing on the widespread prevalence of accessible VNC devices to execute attacks against critical infrastructure entities, resulting in varying degrees of impact, including physical damage. Targeted sectors include Water and Wastewater Systems, Food and Agriculture, and Energy.
The authoring organizations encourage critical infrastructure organizations to implement the recommendations in the Mitigations section of this advisory to reduce the likelihood and impact of pro-Russia hacktivist-related incidents. For additional information on Russian state-sponsored malicious cyber activity, see CISA’s Russia Threat Overview and Advisories webpage.
Download the PDF version of this report:






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

Background and Development of Pro-Russia Hacktivist Groups
Over the past several years, the authoring organizations have observed pro-Russia hacktivist groups conducting cyber operations against numerous organizations and critical infrastructure sectors worldwide. The escalation of the Russia-Ukraine conflict in 2022 significantly increased the number of these pro-Russia groups. Consisting of individuals who support Russia’s agenda but lack direct governmental ties, most of these groups target Ukrainian and allied infrastructure. However, among the increasing number of groups, some appear to have associations with the Russian state through direct or indirect support.
Cyber Army of Russia Reborn
The authoring organizations assess that the Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) Main Center for Special Technologies (GTsST) military unit 74455—tracked in the cybersecurity community under several names (see Appendix B: Additional Designators Used for Cited Groups)—is likely responsible for supporting the creation of CARR —also known as “The People’s Cyber Army of Russia”—in late February or early March of 2022. Actors suspected to be from GRU unit 74455 likely funded the tools CARR threat actors used to conduct distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks through at least September 2024.
In April 2022, the group began using a new Telegram channel featuring the name “CyberArmyofRussia_Reborn” to organize and plan group actions. The channel creators recruited actors to use CARR as an unattributable platform for conducting cyber activities beneath the level of an APT, aimed at deterring anti-Russia rhetoric. CARR threat actors presented themselves as a group of pro-Russia hacktivists supporting Russia’s stance on the Ukrainian conflict, and they soon began claiming responsibility for DDoS attacks against the U.S. and Europe for supporting Ukraine.
CARR documented these actions through embellished images and videos shared on their social media channels, promoting Russian ideology, disseminating talking points, and publicizing leaked information from hacks attributed to Russian state threat actors.
In late 2023, CARR expanded their operations to include attacks on industrial control systems (ICS), claiming an intrusion against a European wastewater treatment facility in October 2023. In November 2023, CARR targeted human-machine interface (HMI) devices, claiming intrusions at two U.S. dairy farms.
The authoring organizations assess that by late September 2024, CARR channel administrators became dissatisfied with the level of support and funding provided by the GRU. This dissatisfaction led CARR administrators and an administrator from another hacktivist group, NoName057(16), to create the Z-Pentest group, employing the same tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) as CARR but separate from GRU involvement.
NoName057(16)
The authoring organizations assess that the Center for the Study and Network Monitoring of the Youth Environment (CISM), established on behalf of the Kremlin, created NoName057(16) as a covert project within the organization. Senior executives and employees within CISM developed and customized the NoName057(16) proprietary DDoS tool DDoSia, paid for the group’s network infrastructure, served as administrators on NoName057(16) Telegram channels, and selected DDoS targets.
Active since March 2022, NoName057(16) has conducted frequent DDoS attacks against government and private sector entities in North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member states and other European countries perceived as hostile to Russian geopolitical interests. The group operates primarily through Telegram channels and used GitHub, alongside various websites and repositories, to host DDoSia and share materials and TTPs with their followers. 
In 2024, NoName057(16) began collaborating closely with other pro-Russia hacktivist groups, operating a joint chat with CARR by mid-2024. In July 2024, NoName057(16) jointly claimed responsibility with CARR for an alleged intrusion against OT assets in the U.S. The high degree of cooperation with CARR likely contributed to the formation of Z-Pentest, which is composed of actors and administrators from both teams, in September 2024.
Z-Pentest
Established in September 2024, Z-Pentest is composed of members from CARR and NoName057(16). The group specializes in OT intrusion operations targeting globally dispersed critical infrastructure entities. Additionally, the group uses “hack and leak” operations and defacement attacks to draw attention to their pro-Russia messaging. Unlike other pro-Russia hacktivist groups, Z-Pentest largely avoids DDoS activities, claiming OT intrusions as attempts to garner more attention from the media.
Shortly after Z-Pentest’s inception, the group announced alliances with CARR and NoName057(16), possibly to leverage the other groups’ subscribers to grow the new channel. In March 2025, Z-Pentest posted evidence claiming OT device intrusions to their channel using a NoName057(16) cyberattack campaign hashtag. Similarly, in April 2025, Z-Pentest shared a video purporting defacement of an HMI by changing system names to NoName057(16) and CARR references. Z-Pentest continues to create new alliances with other groups, like Sector16, to continue growing their subscriber base and incidentally propagate TTPs with new partners.
Sector16
Formed in January 2025, Sector16 is a novice pro-Russia hacktivist group that emerged through collaboration with Z-Pentest. Sector16 actively maintains an online presence, including a public Telegram channel where they share videos, statements, and claims of compromising U.S. energy infrastructure. These communications often align with pro-Russia narratives and reflect their self-proclaimed support for Russian geopolitical objectives.
Members of Sector16 may have received indirect support from the Russian government in exchange for conducting specific cyber operations that further Russian strategic goals. This aligns with broader Russian cyber strategies that involve leveraging non-state threat actors for certain cyber activities, adding a layer of deniability.
Technical Details
Note: This advisory uses the MITRE ATT&CK^® Matrix for Enterprise framework, version 18. See the MITRE ATT&CK Tactics and Techniques section of this advisory for a table of the threat actors’ activity mapped to MITRE ATT&CK tactics and techniques.
TTP Overview
Pro-Russia hacktivist groups employ easily disseminated and replicated TTPs across various entities, increasing the likelihood of widespread adoption and escalating the frequency of intrusions. These groups have limited capabilities, frequently misunderstanding the processes they aim to disrupt. Their apparent low level of technical knowledge results in haphazard attacks where actors intend to cause physical damage but cannot accurately anticipate actual impact. Despite these limitations, the authoring organizations have observed these groups willfully cause actual harm to vulnerable critical infrastructure.
Pro-Russia hacktivist groups use the TTPs in this Cybersecurity Advisory to target virtual network computing (VNC)-connected HMI devices. These groups are primarily seeking notoriety with their actions. While they have caused damage in some instances, they regularly make false or exaggerated claims about their attacks on critical infrastructure to garner more attention. They frequently misrepresent their capabilities and the impacts of their actions, portraying minor incursions as significant breaches, but such incursions can still lead to lost time and resources for operators remediating systems.
Additionally, pro-Russia hacktivists use an opportunistic targeting methodology. They leverage superficial criteria, such as victim availability and existing vulnerabilities, rather than focusing on strategically significant entities. Their lack of strategic focus can lead to a broad array of targets, ranging from water treatment facilities to oil well systems. Pro-Russia hacktivists have demonstrated a pattern of frequently taking advantage of the widespread availability of vulnerable VNC connections. While system owners typically use VNC connections for legitimate remote system access functions, threat actors can maliciously use these connections to broadly target numerous platforms and services. Consequently, these groups can indiscriminately compromise critical infrastructure entities, including those in the Water and Wastewater, Food and Agriculture, and Energy Sectors.
Pro-Russia hacktivist groups have successfully targeted supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) networks using basic methods, and in some cases, performed simultaneous DDoS attacks against targeted networks to facilitate SCADA intrusions. As recently as April 2025, threat actors used the following unsophisticated TTPs to access networks and conduct SCADA intrusions:

Scan for vulnerable devices on the internet [T0883] with open VNC ports [T1595.002].
Initiate temporary virtual private server (VPS) [T1583.003] to execute password brute force software.
Use VNC software to access hosts [T1021.005].
Confirm connection to the vulnerable device [T0886].
Brute force the password, if required [T1110.003].
Gain access to HMI devices [T0883], typically with default [T0812], weak, or no passwords [T0859].
Log the confirmed vulnerable device IP address, port, and password.
Using the HMI graphical interface [T0823], capture screen recordings or intermittent screenshots while conducting the following actions, intending to affect productivity and cause additional costs [T0828]:

Modify usernames/passwords [T0892];
Modify parameters [T0836];
Modify device name [T0892];
Modify instrument settings [T0831];
Disable alarms [T0878];
Create loss of view (a technique that mandates local hands-on operator intervention) [T0829]; and/or
Device restart or shutdown [T0816].


Disconnect from the device, ending the VNC connection.
Research the compromised device company after the intrusion [T1591].

Propagation
To reach a wider audience, pro-Russia hacktivist groups work together, amplify each other’s posts, create additional groups to amplify their own posts, and likely share TTPs. For example, Z-Pentest jointly claimed intrusion of a U.S. system with Sector16. Sector16 later began posting additional intrusions for which the group claimed sole responsibility. It is likely that these and similar groups will continue to iterate and share these methods to disrupt critical infrastructure organizations.
Reconnaissance and Initial Access
The threat actors’ intrusion methodology is relatively unsophisticated, inexpensive to execute, and easy to replicate. These pro-Russia hacktivist groups abuse popular internet-scraping tools, such as Nmap or OPENVAS, to search for visible VNC services and use brute force password spraying tools to access devices via known default or otherwise weak credentials. Threat actors typically search for these services on the default port 5900 or other nearby ports (5901-5910). Their goal is to gain remote access to HMI devices connected to live control networks.
Once threat actors obtain access, they manipulate available settings from the graphical user interface (GUI) on the HMI devices, such as arbitrary physical parameter and setpoint changes, or conduct defacement activities. Because pro-Russia hacktivist groups seem to lack sector-specific expertise or cyber-physical engineering knowledge, they currently cannot reliably estimate the true impact of their actions. Regardless of outcome, pro-Russia hacktivist groups often post images and screen recordings to their social media platforms, boasting the compromises and exaggerating impacts to garner attention from their peers and the media.
Impact
While pro-Russia hacktivist groups currently demonstrate limited ability to consistently cause significant impact, there is a risk that their continued attacks will result in further harm or grievous physical consequences. Attacks have not yet caused injury; however, the attacks against occupied factories and community facilities demonstrate a lack of consideration for human safety.
Victim organizations reported that the most common operational impact caused by these threat actors is a temporary loss of view, necessitating manual intervention to manage processes. However, any modifications to programmatic and systematic procedures can result in damage or disruption, including substantial labor costs from hiring a programmable logic controller programmer to restore operations, costs associated with operational downtime, and potential costs for network remediation.
MITRE ATT&CK Tactics and Techniques
See Table 1 to Table 10 for all referenced threat actor tactics and techniques in this advisory. For assistance with mapping malicious cyber activity to the MITRE ATT&CK framework, see CISA and MITRE ATT&CK’s Best Practices for MITRE ATT&CK Mapping and CISA’s Decider Tool.


Table 1. Reconnaissance


Technique Title
ID
Use




Gather Victim Organization Information
T1591
Threat actors use information available on the internet to determine what systems they believe they have compromised and post the information on their social media. This methodology frequently leads to the threat actors misidentifying their claimed victims.


Active Scanning: Vulnerability Scanning
T1595.002
Threat actors use open source tools to look for IP addresses in target countries with visible VNC services on common ports.




Table 2. Resource Development


Technique Title
ID
Use




Acquire Infrastructure: Virtual Private Server
T1583.003
Threat actors use virtual infrastructure to obfuscate identifiers.




Table 3. Initial Access


Technique Title
ID
Use




Internet Accessible Device
T0883
Threat actors gain access through less secure HMI devices exposed to the internet.




Table 4. Persistence


Technique Title
ID
Use




Valid Accounts
T0859
Threat actors use password guessing tools to access legitimate accounts on the HMI devices.




Table 5. Credential Access


Technique Title
ID
Use




Brute Force: Password Spraying
T1110.003
Threat actors use tools to rapidly guess common or simple passwords.




Table 6. Lateral Movement


Technique Title
ID
Use




Default Credentials
T0812
Threat actors seek and build libraries of known default passwords for control devices to access legitimate user accounts.


Remote Services
T0886
Threat actors leverage VNC services to access system HMI devices.


Remote Services: VNC
T1021.005
Threat actors hunt VNC-enabled devices visible on the internet and connect with remote viewer software.




Table 7. Execution


Technique Title
ID
Use




Graphical User Interface
T0823
Threat actors interact with HMI devices via GUIs, attempting to modify control devices.




Table 8. Inhibit Response Function


Technique Title
ID
Use




Device Restart/Shutdown
T0816
While threat actors claim to turn off HMIs, it is possible that operators (not the threat actors) turn the devices off during incident response.


Alarm Suppression
T0878
Threat actors use HMI interfaces to clear alarms caused by their activity and alarms already present on the system at the time of their intrusion.


Change Credential
T0892
Threat actors change the usernames and passwords of HMI devices in operator lockout attempts, usually resulting in a loss of view and operators switching to manual operations.




Table 9. Impair Process Control


Technique Title
ID
Use




Modify Parameter
T0836
Threat actors attempt to change upper and lower limits of operational devices as available from the HMI.


Unauthorized Command Message
T0855
Threat actors attempt to send unauthorized command messages to instruct control system assets to perform actions outside of their intended functionality, causing possible impact.




Table 10. Impact


Technique Title
ID
Use




Loss of Productivity and Revenue
T0828
Threat actors purposefully attempt to impact productivity and create additional costs for the affected entities.


Loss of View
T0829
Threat actors change credentials on HMI devices, preventing operators from modifying processes remotely. 


Manipulation of Control
T0831
Threat actors change setpoints in processes, impacting the efficiency of operations for those specific processes.  



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

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

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

Reduce exposure of OT assets to the public-facing internet. When connected to the internet, OT devices are easy targets for malicious cyber threat actors. Many devices can be found by searching for open ports on public IP ranges with search engine tools to target victims with OT components [CPG 3.S].

Asset owners should use attack surface management services and web-based search platforms to scan the internet. This mitigation can help identify if there are VNC systems exposed within the IP ranges they own, especially for connections set up by third parties.
Note: For more information on attack surface management, see CISA’s Internet Exposure Reduction Guidance, CISA’s Cyber Hygiene Services for U.S. critical infrastructure, and NSA’s Attack Surface Management for the U.S. Defense Industrial Base.
Implement network segmentation between IT and OT networks. Segmenting critical systems and introducing a demilitarized zone (DMZ) for passing control data to enterprise logistics reduces the potential impact of cyber threats and the risk of disruptions to essential OT operations [CPG 3.I].
Consider implementing a firewall and/or virtual private network if exposure to the internet is necessary for controlling access to devices.

Consider disabling public exposure by default and implementing time-limited remote access to reduce the amount of time systems are exposed.
Restrict and monitor both inbound and outbound traffic at OT perimeter firewalls. Configure OT perimeter firewalls to enforce a default-deny policy for all traffic. Asset owners should explicitly permit authorized destinations and protocols based on operational requirements.
Implement strict egress filtering to prevent unauthorized data exfiltration or command-and-control callbacks.
Regularly audit firewall rulesets and monitor outbound traffic patterns for anomalies indicative of threat actor activity, such as beaconing or unexpected protocol usage.




Adopt mature asset management processes, including mapping data flows and access points. Generating a complete picture of both OT and IT assets provides visibility to operators and management, allowing organizations to monitor and assess deviations for criticality [CPG 2.A].

Keep remote access services updated with the latest version available and ensure all systems and software are up to date with patches and necessary security updates.

Keep VNC systems updated with the latest version available.


Refer to the joint Foundations for OT Cybersecurity: Asset Inventory Guidance for Owners and Operators to help with reducing cybersecurity risk by identifying which assets within their environment should be secured and protected.


Ensure OT assets use robust authentication procedures.

Many devices lack robust authentication and authorization. Devices with weak authentication are vulnerable targets to threat actors using credential theft techniques.
Implement MFA where possible. Where MFA is not feasible, use strong, unique passwords. Apply password standards for operator-accessible services on underlying OT assets, as well as network devices protecting those services. This is especially important for services that require internet accessibility [CPG 3.A] [CPG 3.B] [CPG 3.C] [CPG 3.F].
Establish an allowlist that permits only authorized device IP addresses and/or media access control addresses. The allowlist can be refined to operator working hours to further obstruct malicious threat actor activity; organizations are encouraged to establish monitoring and alerting for access attempts not meeting these criteria [CPG 3.E].
Disable any unused authentication methods, logic, or features, such as default authentication keys and default passwords. Block all unused high ephemeral ports and monitor for attempted connections using standard protocols on non-standard ports [CPG 3.R].
Authenticate all access to field controllers before authorizing access to, or modification of, a device’s state, logic, program, or filesystems.


Enable control system security features that can separate and audit view and control functions. Limiting remotely accessible or default user accounts to “view-only” removes the potential for impact without exploiting a vulnerability [CPG 3.G].
Implement and practice business recovery/disaster recovery plans. Plans should also take into consideration redundancy, fail-safe mechanisms, islanding capabilities, backup restoration, and manual operation.

Include scenarios that necessitate switching to manual operations. Maintaining the capability of an organization to revert to manual controls to quickly restore operations is vital in the immediate aftermath of a cyber incident [CPG 6.A].
Create backups of the engineering logic, configurations, and firmware of HMIs to enable fast recovery. Organizations should routinely test backups and standby systems to ensure safe manual operations in the event of an incident [CPG 3.O].


Collect and monitor the traffic of OT assets and networking devices. This includes unusual logins or unexpected protocols communicating over the internet, and functions of ICS management protocols that change an asset’s operating mode or modify programs.
Review configurations for setpoint ranges or tag values to stay within safe ranges and establish alerting for deviations.
Take a proactive approach in the procurement process by following the guidance outlined in the joint guide Secure by Demand: Priority Considerations for Operational Technology Owners and Operators when Selecting Digital Products.

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

Eliminate default credentials and require strong passwords. The use of default credentials is a top weakness threat actors exploit to gain access to systems.
Mandate MFA for privileged users. Changes to engineering logic or configurations are safety-impacting events in critical infrastructure. MFA should be available for safety critical components at no additional cost.
Practice secure by default principles. OT components were initially designed without public internet connectivity in mind. When internet connection becomes necessary, implementing additional security measures is essential to safeguard these systems. Manufacturers should recognize insecure states and promptly inform users so they can make informed risk decisions.

Include logging at no additional charge. Change and access control logs allow operators to track safety-impacting events in their critical infrastructure. These logs should be available for no cost and use open standard logging formats.


Publish Software Bill of Materials (SBOMs). Vulnerabilities in underlying software libraries can affect a wide range of devices. Without an SBOM, it is nearly impossible for a critical infrastructure system owner to measure and mitigate the impact of a vulnerability on their existing systems. See CISA’s SBOM webpage for more information.

Additionally, see CISA’s Secure by Design Alert on how software manufacturers can shield web management interfaces from malicious cyber activity. By using secure by design tactics, software manufacturers can make their product lines secure “out of the box” without requiring customers to spend additional resources making configuration changes, purchasing tiered security software and logs, monitoring, and making routine updates.
For more information on secure by design, see CISA’s Secure by Design webpage.
Validate Security Controls
In addition to applying mitigations, the authoring organizations recommend exercising, testing, and validating your organization’s security program against the threat behaviors mapped to the MITRE ATT&CK Matrix for Enterprise framework in this advisory. The authoring organizations recommend testing your existing security controls inventory to assess how it performs against the ATT&CK techniques described in this advisory.
To start:

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

The authoring organizations recommend continually testing your security program, at scale, in a production environment to ensure optimal performance against the MITRE ATT&CK techniques identified in this advisory.
Resources
Entities requiring additional support for implementing any of the mitigations in this advisory should contact their regional CISA Cybersecurity Advisor for assistance. Key resources organizations should reference include:

CISA, EPA, NSA, FBI, ASD’s ACSC, Cyber Centre, BSI, NCSC-NL, and NCSC-NZ’s Foundations for OT Cybersecurity: Asset Inventory Guidance for Owners and Operators offers best practices to assist organizations in identifying and prioritizing which assets should be secured and protected.
CISA, FBI, NSA, EPA, DOE, USDA, FDA, MS-ISAC, Cyber Centre, and NCSC-UK’s guidance on Defending OT Operations Against Ongoing Pro-Russia Hacktivist Activity that can help organizations protect OT systems from pro-Russia hacktivist activity.
NSA and CISA’s guidance on Control System Defense: Know the Opponent helps organizations defend OT and ICS assets against malicious cyber activity.
CISA and EPA’s resource page on Water and Wastewater Cybersecurity to help organizations reduce risks posed by malicious cyber actors targeting water and wastewater systems.

For additional guidance, see CISA, EPA, and FBI’s fact sheet on Top Cyber Actions for Securing Water Systems.


The Food and Ag-ISAC’s best practices on Food and Ag Cybersecurity: A Guide for Small & Medium Enterprises provides recommendations to help mitigate against cyber threats.
DOE and National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners Cybersecurity Baselines for Electric Distribution Systems and Distributed Energy (DER) webpage provides resources for state public utility commissions and utilities, as well as DER operators and aggregators to help mitigate cybersecurity risks.

Additional resources that apply to this advisory include:

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

See more information in these Secure by Design Alerts: How Manufacturers Can Protect Customers by Eliminating Default Passwords and How Software Manufacturers Can Shield Web Management Interfaces From Malicious Cyber Activity.



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

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

Australian organizations: Visit cyber.gov.au or call 1300 292 371 (1300 CYBER 1) to report cybersecurity incidents and access alerts and advisories.
Canadian organizations: Report incidents by emailing Cyber Centre at contact@cyber.gc.ca.
New Zealand organizations: Report cyber security incidents to incidents@ncsc.govt.nz or call 04 498 7654.
United Kingdom organizations: Report a significant cyber security incident: report.ncsc.gov.uk (monitored 24 hours) or, for urgent assistance, call 03000 200 973.
Disclaimer
The information in this report is being provided “as is” for informational purposes only. The authoring organizations do not endorse any commercial entity, product, company, or service, including any entities, products, or services linked within this document. Any reference to specific commercial entities, products, processes, or services by service mark, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not constitute or imply endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by FBI and co-sealers.
Acknowledgements
Schneider Electric, Nozomi Networks, Eversource Energy, Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center, Chevron, BP, and Dragos contributed to this advisory.
Version History
December 09, 2025: Initial version.
Appendix A: Targeting Methodologies for Pro-Russia Hacktivist Groups
For further information on targeting methodologies for pro-Russia hacktivist groups, see:

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

Appendix B: Additional Designators Used for Cited Groups
The cybersecurity industry and cyber actor groups often use various names to reference actor groups. While not exhaustive, the following are the most notable names used within the cybersecurity community to reference the groups in this advisory.
Note: Cybersecurity organizations have different methods of tracking and attributing cyber actors, and this may not be a 1:1 correlation to the authoring organizations’ understanding for all activity related to these groupings.

GRU military unit 74455

Sandworm Team
Voodoo Bear
Seashell Blizzard
APT44


Cyber Army of Russia Reborn (CARR)

CyberArmy of Russia
Народная CyberАрмия (НКА)
People’s CyberArmy of Russia (PCA)
Russian CyberArmy Team (RCAT)


NoName057(16)

NoName057(16) Spain
NoName057(16) Italy
NoName057(16) France


Z-Pentest

Z-Pentest Beograd
Z-Pentest Alliance
Z-Alliance





Iranian-Affiliated Cyber Actors Exploit Programmable Logic Controllers Across US Critical Infrastructure
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 09:12:34 +0200
Advisory at a Glance



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


Original Publication
April 7, 2026


Last Update 
July 22, 2026


Executive Summary
The authoring agencies urgently warn U.S. organizations of ongoing Iranian-affiliated cyber targeting of internet-connected operational technology (OT) devices, including programmable logic controllers (PLCs). These actions disrupted PLCs across several U.S. critical infrastructure sectors through malicious project file interactions and manipulation of data on human machine interface (HMI) and supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) displays, resulting in operational disruption and financial loss.


Last Update Description
This update adds new guidance on detecting malicious changes in reusable code modules exploited within Rockwell Automation PLC programs. It also expands scope to include observed targeting of Schneider Electric, Siemens, and potentially other branded/manufactured PLCs, emphasizing the importance of restricting direct internet access and providing best practices for secure deployment.


Affected Products
Potentially all internet exposed PLCs, including Rockwell Automation/Allen-Bradley, Schneider Electric, Siemens, and other branded/manufactured PLCs.


Key Actions


Install PLCs consistent with manufacturers' guidelines and security best practices.
Remove PLCs from direct internet exposure via secure gateway and firewall; work with IT/OT team members and/or integrators to perform this action.
Query available logs for the provided indicators of compromise (IOCs) and check available logs for suspicious traffic on the ports associated with OT devices, including 44818, 2222, 102, and 502, especially traffic originating from foreign hosting providers.
For Rockwell Automation devices, place the physical mode switch on the controller into run position. If you suspect your organization was targeted, including against other branded PLC devices, contact the authoring agencies and PLC manufacturer for guidance.




Indicators of Compromise

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

AA26-097A STIX XML (July 2026) (29 KB)
AA26-097A STIX JSON (July 2026) (30 KB)

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

AA26-097A STIX XML (36 KB)
AA26-097A STIX JSON (12 KB)
 




Intended Audience

Organizations: Critical Infrastructure
Sectors: Government Services and Facilities, Water and Wastewater Systems (WWS), and Energy 
Roles: Integrators, asset owners, defensive cybersecurity analysts, OT cybersecurity engineers, cybersecurity architects, secure systems developer




Introduction
Note: This advisory was originally published on April 7, 2026, to provide tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) and indicators of compromise (IOCs) related to ongoing cyber exploitation of internet-connected operational technology (OT) devices by Iranian-affiliated advanced persistent threat (APT) actors. The authoring agencies updated this advisory on July 22, 2026, to add new guidance on detecting malicious changes in reusable code modules leveraged within Rockwell Automation PLC programs. It also expands the manufacturer scope to include observed targeting of Schneider Electric, Siemens, and potentially other branded/manufactured PLCs, emphasizing the importance of restricting direct internet access and providing best practice resources for secure deployment.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), National Security Agency (NSA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Energy (DOE), United States Cyber Command – Cyber National Mission Force (CNMF), and Department of the Treasury (Treasury) (hereafter referred to as the “authoring agencies”) are urgently warning U.S. organizations of ongoing cyber exploitation of internet-connected OT devices—including PLCs manufactured by Rockwell Automation/Allen-Bradley, Schneider Electric, Siemens, and potentially other manufactured PLCs—across multiple U.S. critical infrastructure sectors. As a result of this activity, organizations from multiple U.S. critical infrastructure sectors experienced disruptions through malicious interactions with PLC project files¹ and the manipulation of data displayed on human machine interface (HMI) and supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) displays. In a few cases, this activity caused operational disruption and financial loss.
The authoring agencies assess a group of Iranian-affiliated APT actors is conducting this activity to cause disruptive effects within the United States. The group targeted devices spanning multiple U.S. critical infrastructure sectors, including Government Services and Facilities (to include local municipalities), Water and Wastewater Systems (WWS), and Energy Sectors. The authoring agencies previously reported on similar activity targeting PLCs by CyberAv3ngers (aka Shahid Kaveh Group)—a cyber threat actor affiliated with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Cyber Electronic Command (CEC).
Due to the widespread use of these PLCs, and the potential for additional targeting of other branded OT devices across critical infrastructure, the authoring agencies recommend U.S. organizations urgently review the TTPs and IOCs in this advisory for indications of current or historical activity on their networks, and apply the recommendations listed in the Mitigations section of this advisory to reduce the risk of compromise.
If owners and operators discover an affected internet-accessible device in their environment, additional technical measures may be necessary to evaluate the risk of compromise. Please engage your cyber incident response plans and contact the authoring agencies and applicable vendors through existing support channels available to customers and integrators (see Contact Information) to receive support, mitigation, and investigation assistance.
For more information on Iranian malicious cyber activity, see CISA’s Iran Threat Overview and Advisories webpage and the FBI’s Iran Threat and Iran Cyber Threat Overview webpages.
Download the PDF version of this report:






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

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

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

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






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







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

Background Information
Similar Historical Activity Targeting Programmable Logic Controllers
During a similar campaign beginning in November 2023, the IRGC CEC-affiliated cyber threat actors known as "CyberAv3ngers” targeted U.S.-based PLCs and HMIs, causing disruptive effects. Private industry and open sources also refer to this group as Hydro Kitten, Storm-0784, APT Iran, Bauxite, Mr. Soul, Soldiers of Solomon, UNC5691, and the Shahid Kaveh Group. These attacks compromised at least 75 devices, targeting U.S.-based Unitronics PLC devices with an HMI used across multiple critical infrastructure sectors, including the WWS. APT actors developed and deployed custom ladder logic code to these devices, replacing the valid ladder logic with malicious code that continues to be observed to date.
For more information on this group’s activity, see the joint Cybersecurity Advisory IRGC-Affiliated Cyber Actors Exploit PLCs in Multiple Sectors, Including US Water and Wastewater Systems Facilities.
Ongoing Threat Actor Activity Against U.S.-Based Programmable Logic Controllers
The FBI observed Iranian-affiliated APT actors targeting internet-exposed PLCs with the intent to cause disruptions—including maliciously interacting with project files, and manipulating data displayed on HMI and SCADA displays—to U.S. critical infrastructure organizations. Iranian-affiliated APT targeting campaigns against U.S. critical infrastructure have recently escalated, likely in response to hostilities between Iran, and the United States and Israel.
(New, July 22, 2026) At one U.S. victim, the FBI observed the APT actors download a malicious project file to a targeted PLC using configuration software. Analysis indicated the project file retained ladder logic for downstream function but added logic that overrode specific instruction sets responsible for maintaining safe operating parameters in the victim’s environment.
Since at least March 2026, the authoring agencies identified (through engagements with victim organizations) an Iranian-affiliated APT group disrupted the function of PLCs. Organizations across several U.S. critical infrastructure sectors (including Government Services and Facilities, WWS, and Energy Sectors) deployed these PLCs within a wide variety of industrial automation processes. Some of the victims experienced operational disruption and financial loss.
Technical Details
Note: This advisory uses the MITRE ATT&CK^® Matrix for Enterprise framework, version 19. See the MITRE ATT&CK Tactics and Techniques section of this advisory for tables of the threat actors’ activity mapped to MITRE ATT&CK tactics and techniques.
Initial Access
(Updated, July 22, 2026) The authoring agencies observed Iranian-affiliated APT actors using several foreign-based IP addresses to access internet-facing PLCs manufactured by Rockwell Automation/Allen-Bradley, Schneider Electric, Siemens, and potentially other manufactured PLCs [T0883]. The actors used leased, third-party hosted infrastructure and manufacturers’ PLC programming software to connect to misconfigured victim PLCs. Inbound malicious traffic has been observed targeting PLC devices on the following ports: 44818, 2222, 102, and 502, as well as targeting modems on port 22. Targeted devices include:

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

Command and Control
(Updated, July 22, 2026) The targeting of ports [T0885] associated with other OT vendors’ protocols suggests these actors are opportunistically targeting devices manufactured by companies other than Rockwell Automation/Allen-Bradley, including Schneider Electric and Siemens. In one reported instance, the actors utilized Dropbear Secure Shell (SSH) software on victim modems to enable them to gain remote access through port 22 [T1219].
Exfiltration
(New, July 22, 2026) The authoring agencies observed Iranian-affiliated APT actors using configuration software—such as Rockwell Automation’s Studio 5000 Logix Designer, Schneider Electric’s EcoStruxure Control Expert, and Siemens’ Totally Integrated Automation (TIA) Portal—on leased, third-party hosted infrastructure to exfiltrate device project files from PLC devices to threat-actor-controlled infrastructure [T1041].
Impact
(Updated, July 22, 2026) After the actors extracted device project files, the FBI and CISA identified the modification and deletion of project file logic, to include Add-On Instructions (AOIs) and data manipulation on HMI and SCADA displays [T1565]. Additionally, the changes disabled critical shutdown and alarm logic, allowing systems to enter unsafe conditions without notifying operators of the anomalies.
Note: An AOI is analogous to a “Function Block” or “User Defined Function Block” used in other PLC vendor programs.
Indicators of Compromise
See Table 1 and Table 2 for recent IP addresses used by the Iranian-affiliated APT actors to communicate with PLCs manufactured by Rockwell Automation/Allen-Bradley, Schneider Electric, and Siemens in the United States.
Disclaimer: The FBI observed the threat actors using the IP addresses listed below in the specified time frames. This data is being provided for customers to query against logs for indications of historical targeting by the Iranian-affiliated APT actors. The authoring agencies recommend organizations investigate or vet these IP addresses prior to taking action, such as blocking.

Table 1. Indicators of Compromise (New, July 22, 2026)


Indicator
Beginning of Actor Association
End of Actor Association




185.82.73[.]175
September 2025
February 2026


141.11.164[.]153
January 2026
June 2026


175.110.121[.]42
February 2026
March 2026


175.110.121[.]39
February 2026
March 2026


175.110.121[.]41
February 2026
March 2026


175.110.121[.]107
February 2026
February 2026


192.142.54[.]79
May 2026
June 2026


84.200.205[.]165
May 2026
June 2026


185.225.17[.]225
June 2026
July 2026


79.133.46[.]209
July 2026
July 2026


88.80.150[.]199
July 2026
July 2026


88.80.150[.]200
July 2026
July 2026


88.80.150[.]202
July 2026
July 2026




Table 2. Indicators of Compromise 


Indicator
Beginning of Actor Association
End of Actor Association




185.82.73[.]162
January 2025
March 2026


185.82.73[.]164
January 2025
March 2026


185.82.73[.]165
January 2025
March 2026


185.82.73[.]167
January 2025
March 2026


185.82.73[.]168
January 2025
March 2026


185.82.73[.]170
January 2025
March 2026


185.82.73[.]171
January 2025
March 2026


135.136.1[.]133
March 2026
March 2026



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

Table 3. Initial Access


Technique Title
ID
Use




Internet Accessible Device
T0883
The actors accessed and interacted with publicly exposed, internet-accessible PLCs that lacked sufficient network and/or hardening security controls.



 

Table 4. Command and Control


Technique Title
ID
Use




Commonly Used Port
T0885
The actors leveraged commonly used OT ports to communicate with PLCs.


Remote Access Tools 
T1219
The actors deployed Dropbear SSH software on victim modems to enable them to gain remote access through port 22.




Table 5. Exfiltration (New, July 22, 2026)


Technique Title
ID
Use




Exfiltration Over C2 Channel
T1041
The actors used remote, third-party hosted infrastructure as a C2 channel to transfer device project files out of victim environments.




Table 6. Impact


Technique Title
ID
Use




Data Manipulation
T1565
The actors maliciously interacted with project files, including modifying and deleting project file logic, and altered data displayed on HMI and SCADA displays.



Mitigations
The authoring agencies recommend organizations implement the mitigations below to improve your organization’s cybersecurity posture on the basis of the threat actors’ activity. These mitigations align with the Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPGs) developed by CISA and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The CPGs provide a minimum set of practices and protections that CISA and NIST recommend all organizations implement. CISA and NIST based the CPGs on existing cybersecurity frameworks and guidance to protect against the most common and impactful threats and TTPs. Visit CISA’s CPGs webpage for more information on the CPGs, including additional recommended baseline protections.
Network Defenders
The cyber threat actors accessed PLCs manufactured by Rockwell Automation/Allen-Bradley, Schneider Electric, Siemens, and potentially other branded/manufactured PLCs to cause disruptions to victim systems. To safeguard against this threat and threats to other types of PLCs, the authoring agencies urge organizations to consider the following mitigations.
(Updated, July 22, 2026) In addition to contacting the authoring agencies, organizations and integrators operating PLCs from the manufacturers mentioned in this advisory should review the previously issued guidance to strengthen the security of their OT deployments:

Rockwell Automation: Contact the Rockwell Automation Product Security Incident Response Team (PSIRT) at PSIRT@rockwellautomation.com for questions regarding this guidance, or to report cyber incidents related to Rockwell Automation products.


Refer to Rockwell Automation Security Advisory SD1771 for recommended PLC hardening measures and configuration guidance.


Schneider Electric: Contact the Schneider Electric Corporate Product Cyber Emergency Response Team (CPCERT) at cpcert@se.com for questions regarding this guidance, or to report cyber incidents related to Schneider Electric products.


Refer to Schneider Electric’s Recommended Cybersecurity Best Practices and Cybersecurity User Guide for Modicon Controller Platform for guidance on securing and configuring PLCs.


Siemens: Contact Siemens ProductCERT at productcert@siemens.com for questions regarding this guidance, or to report cyber incidents and vulnerabilities related to Siemens products.


Refer to Siemens Security Bulletin 104599 for a list of security measures to harden PLCs and in-depth configuration guides.
Siemens users should review the Cybersecurity for Industry Operational Guidelines and implement defense-in-depth controls within their automation systems.



Immediate steps to prevent the attack:

Disconnect the PLC from the public-facing internet [CPG 3.S]. Follow the joint guidance Secure connectivity principles for OT to safely allow remote access. Specifically, “remove inbound port exposure,” so the OT system is never directly exposed to the internet or external networks, and to ensure all access is mediated, monitored, and controlled. Do this through a secure gateway (jump host) that brokers the connection.


Ensure cellular modems, used for remote field connectivity and access, are secured with strong authentication and updated.
Enable logs for connected modems and regularly review for suspicious activity to detect intrusions and improve incident response speed.
(New, July 22, 2026) To mitigate unauthorized access to OT via cellular modems, organizations should consider implementing isolated architectures, such as private Access Point Name (APN), 5G Public Network Integrated Non-Public Network (PNI-NPN), cellular Software-Defined Wide Area Network (SD-WAN), Zero Trust Network Access (ZTNA), or a site-to-site virtual private network (VPN).


(New, July 22, 2026) Strictly control network access to PLC devices.


Configure firewall rules or access control list (ACL) security features on PLCs or programmable controllers to allow only authorized communications between expected control system devices. Block access from unauthorized or threat actor-controlled IP addresses, such as those associated with hosting providers.


For controllers with a physical mode switch, place the physical mode switch into run position to prevent remote modification. Devices should only be in the program or remote position when updating or downloading software online and immediately switched back to the run position when complete. (See Rockwell Automation’s²System Security Design Guidelines for manufacturer’s instructions.)


(New, July 22, 2026) Prior to switching the device to run mode, review and validate project files, as changing modes will lock in the current project file downloaded to the device.


For devices that allow software key switching, enable programming protection in PLC configuration software (S7 TIA Portal) to limit who can modify PLCs remotely. (See Siemens’ Cybersecurity for Industry Operational Guidelines for the manufacturer’s instructions.)

Follow-up steps to strengthen security posture:

(New, July 22, 2026) Review project files running on PLCs for unauthorized changes. Use vendor-provided integrity checking tools and visually compare the running program to known good logic. Ensure reusable logic and input/output configurations are valid. For Rockwell Automation PLCs listed in the Customer Guidance to Disconnect Devices from the Internet, check the AOIs for any anomalous modifications.


If restoring from backups, verify the backup does not contain malicious logic before deployment.
Review logs and configurations on all connected devices, including modems, HMIs, and workstations, to assess potential lateral movement by threat actors. If it appears the actors connected to additional devices, reimage these devices to remove any potential malicious changes or access tools.


(New, July 22, 2026) Ensure device passwords are changed from their default and are configured to use complex, unique combinations of letters, numbers, and symbols that are not easily guessable. Implementing robust password practices remains a critical security measure that can help prevent unauthorized access and strengthen the overall security posture of OT devices.
(New, July 22, 2026) Take defensive measures to minimize the risk of exploitation. Conduct comprehensive impact analysis and risk assessments prior to deploying defensive measures.
Create and test strong backups of the logic and configurations of PLCs. Store backup files offline and secure the physical removal media to enable fast recovery.
Implement multifactor authentication (MFA) [CPG 3.F] for access to the OT network from an external network.
If remote access is required, implement a network proxy, gateway, firewall, and/or VPN in front of the PLC to control network access.


A VPN or gateway device can enable MFA for remote access even if the PLC does not support MFA. Implement security rules on these higher-level network security mechanisms to prevent the type of repeated and sustained login attempts seen during a brute force attack. When possible, implement a device control list for workstations sending messages or connecting to OT components.
Use the device control list to monitor for logon activity for unexpected or unusual access to devices from the internet.


Keep PLC devices updated with the latest software patches issued by the manufacturer. Use established downtime windows to install patches. Known Exploited Vulnerabilities may need to be prioritized outside a downtime window.
Configure external and internal firewalls to block traffic using common ports associated with network protocols that are unnecessary for the particular network segment.
Disable any unused authentication methods, logic, or features, such as default authentication keys and passwords, as well as unused or needed services such as Teletype Network (Telnet), File Transfer Protocol (FTP), Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP), Virtual Network Computing (VNC), and web services.
Monitor asset management systems for device configuration changes, which can be used to understand expected parameter settings.
Monitor the content of network traffic for the following:


Unusual logins to internet-connected devices or unexpected protocols to/from the internet. 
Functions of industrial control systems management protocols that change an asset’s operating mode or modify programs.


(New, July 22, 2026) Ensure service providers are informed of active threats targeting internet-connected PLC devices. Owners and operators should communicate directly with service providers to address risks, especially when remote monitoring or maintenance is involved. Some service providers may rely on internet connectivity essential to monitor and maintain OT/ICS operations but may not be fully aware of active threats.

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

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

Device Manufacturers
Note: The following guidance is general in nature and not specific to any OT vendor. Some of the features, settings, and practices may already be offered by certain vendors. The inclusion of this guidance should not be interpreted as an assertion that vendors referenced do not offer such security features. Also, this advisory is not highlighting a new vulnerability in the identified products, but instead discusses opportunistic targeting. Device manufacturers can make opportunistic attacks more difficult at scale by encouraging more secure behavior by default and in operations, as discussed below. 
Although critical infrastructure organizations using PLC devices can take steps to mitigate the risks, it is ultimately the responsibility of the device manufacturer to build products secured by design and default. The authoring agencies urge device manufacturers to take ownership of their customers’ security outcomes by following the principles in the joint guide Secure by Demand: Priority Considerations for OT Owners and Operators when Selecting Digital Products, primarily:

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

By using secure by design tactics, software manufacturers can make product lines secure “out of the box” without requiring customers to spend additional resources making configuration changes, purchasing tiered security software and logs, monitoring, and making routine updates.
For more information on common misconfigurations and guidance on reducing their prevalence, see joint advisory NSA and CISA Red and Blue Teams Share Top Ten Cybersecurity Misconfigurations. For more information on secure by design, see CISA’s Secure by Design webpage and joint guide.
Validate Security Controls
In addition to applying mitigations, the authoring agencies recommend exercising, testing, and validating your organization's security program against the threat behaviors mapped to the MITRE ATT&CK for Enterprise framework in this advisory. The authoring agencies recommend testing your existing security controls inventory to assess how they perform against the ATT&CK techniques described in this advisory.
To get started:

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

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

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

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

Contact CISA via CISA’s 24/7 Operations Center at contact@cisa.dhs.gov or 1-844-Say-CISA (1-844-729-2472). File a claim with FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) or contact your local FBI field office. When available, please include the following information regarding the incident: 

Date, time, and location of the incident;
Type of activity;
Number of people affected;
Type of equipment used for the activity; and
Name of the submitting company or organization, and a designated point of contact.


For NSA cybersecurity guidance inquiries, contact CybersecurityReports@nsa.gov.
Entities required to report incidents to DOE should follow established reporting requirements, as appropriate. For other energy sector inquiries, contact EnergySRMA@hq.doe.gov.
Contact the Rockwell Automation PSIRT for questions regarding their guidance or for reporting cyber incidents related to Rockwell Automation products at PSIRT@rockwellautomation.com.
Contact the Schneider Electric CPCERT at cpcert@se.com for questions regarding this guidance, or to report cyber incidents related to Schneider Electric products.
Contact Siemens ProductCERT for up-to-date information about the security of Siemens products or to report cybersecurity vulnerabilities at productcert@siemens.com. For support with increasing the security of installed Siemens PLCs, contact Siemens Industrial Cybersecurity Services at services.automation@siemens.com. See Siemens ProductCERT and Siemens CERT for more information.

Disclaimer
The information in this report is being provided “as is” for informational purposes only. CISA and the authoring agencies do not endorse any commercial entity, product, company, or service, including any entities, products, or services linked within this document. Any reference to specific commercial entities, products, processes, or services by service mark, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not constitute or imply endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by CISA and the authoring agencies.
Version History
April 7, 2026: Initial version.
July 22, 2026: Update includes new guidance on detecting malicious activity, expanded scope of observed targeting, and best practices for secure PLCs deployment.
Notes
¹Project file refers to the software file that contains ladder logic and configuration settings. On Rockwell Automation devices, it is referred to as an .ACD file.
²See CompactLogix 5370 Controllers (Chapter 5: “Select the Operating Mode of the Controller”) for more information on functions available for the switch.


Defending Against China-Nexus Covert Networks of Compromised Devices
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 09:10:14 +0200


Defending against china-nexus covert networks of compromised devices
executive summary
Defending against China-nexus covert networks of compromised devices 
Explaining the widespread shift in tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs) towards networks of compromised infrastructure, and how to defend against it 
Summary
With support from the UK Cyber League, this advisory has been jointly released by the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-UK) and international partners: 

Australian Signals Directorate’s (ASD’s) Australian Cyber Security Centre (ACSC)
Communications Security Establishment Canada’s (CSE’s) Canadian Centre for Cyber Security (Cyber Centre)
Germany Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution -   Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (BfV)
Germany Federal Intelligence Service – Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND)
Germany Federal Office for Information Security - Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik (BSI)
Japan National Cybersecurity Office (NCO) - 国家サイバー統括室
Netherlands General Intelligence and Security Service - Algemene Inlichtingen- en Veiligheidsdienst (AIVD)
Netherlands Defence Intelligence and Security Service - Militaire Inlichtingen- en Veiligheidsdienst (MIVD)
New Zealand National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-NZ)
Spain National Cryptologic Centre – Centro Criptológico Nacional (CCN)
Sweden National Cyber Security Centre - Nationellt cybersäkerhetscenter (NCSC-SE)
United States Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA)
United States Department of Defense Cyber Crime Center (DC3)
United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
United States National Security Agency (NSA) 

Its purpose is to provide network defenders with the tools needed to defend against China-nexus cyber actors and their tactic of using large scale networks of compromised devices (covert networks) to route their cyber activity. 
Introduction  
Over the past few years there has been a major shift in the tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs) used by China-nexus cyber actors, moving away from the use of individually procured infrastructure, and towards the use of externally provisioned, large-scale networks of compromised devices. 

The NCSC believes that the majority of China-nexus threat actors are using these networks (hereafter “covert networks”), that multiple covert networks have been created and are being constantly updated, and that a single covert network could be being used by multiple actors. These networks are mainly made up of compromised Small Office Home Office (SOHO) routers, as well as Internet of Things (IoT) and smart devices. 


Anyone who is a target of China-nexus cyber actors may be impacted by the use of covert networks. They have been used by Chinese state-sponsored actors Volt Typhoon to pre-position offensive cyber capabilities on critical national infrastructure. The group Flax Typhoon used a different covert network of compromised infrastructure to conduct cyber espionage. 


The use of covert networks of compromised devices - also known as botnets - to facilitate malicious cyber activity is not new, but China-nexus cyber actors are now using them strategically, and at scale.  


This advisory describes the typical makeup of a covert network and what they are being used for. It also includes protective advice for organizations being targeted by cyber activity using a covert network as an access vector.
Covert Networks 
Covert networks are used to connect across the internet in a low-cost, low-risk, deniable way, disguising the origin and attribution of malicious activity. Actors have been observed using them for each phase of their Cyber Kill Chains, from performing scans as part of reconnaissance, to the delivery of malware, communicating with said malware, and exfiltrating stolen data from a victim. They can also be used for general deniable internet browsing, allowing threat actors to research exploitation techniques, new TTPs, and their victims without attribution. Some covert networks are also used by legitimate customers to browse the internet, making it challenging to attribute malicious activity. 

There is evidence that covert networks used by China-nexus actors are created and maintained by Chinese information security companies. A network known to network defenders as Raptor Train, which in 2024 infected more than 200,000 devices worldwide, was controlled and managed by the Chinese company, Integrity Technology Group. This company was also assessed by the FBI to be responsible for the computer intrusion activities attributed to China-based hackers known as Flax Typhoon. 



Botnet operations represent a significant threat to the UK by exploiting vulnerabilities in everyday internet-connected devices with the potential to carry out large-scale cyber attacks – NCSC Director of Operations, Paul Chichester 



Covert networks mostly consist of compromised SOHO routers, but they also pull in any vulnerable device they can exploit at scale. Raptor Train was made up of thousands of SOHO routers and IoT devices, such as web cameras and video recorders, as well as firewalls and Network Attached Storage (NAS) devices. The KV Botnet used by Volt Typhoon was mainly made up of vulnerable Cisco and NetGear routers. The edge devices were vulnerable because they were “end of life” – out of date and no longer receiving updates or security patches by their manufacturers. 


The cyber security industry has been aware of examples of these networks for some time and has publicly reported on the widespread scale of the threat and its implications. Mandiant Intelligence produced a public blog in May 2024 talking about covert networks in which they highlighted a key issue for defenders – indicator of compromise (IOC) Extinction. If a particular threat group could now come from one of many covert networks, each with potentially hundreds of thousands of endpoints, and each used by multiple threat actors, old network defense paradigms of static malicious IP block lists will be less effective. This is compounded by the dynamic nature of these networks where new nodes will be added as old devices are patched or removed from use. 
Typical Network Topology
The number of covert networks used by China-nexus cyber actors is large, with new networks regularly developed and deployed. The existing covert networks change too, either because of defensive or legal action, or simply as a result of software updates and new exploits being used to target different technologies for incorporation into the network. 

Because of this, a description of all known covert networks in detail, including how they are constructed and how they communicate, would immediately be out of date – and for most network defenders would not be practically useful. 


However, most covert networks of compromised devices use the same basic set up. Understanding this generalized structure can aid researchers and defenders by helping them to understand which part of a network they may have found, and how to defend against it. 




  
      




      A diagram illustrating the basic setup of a covert network.
  

The diagram above illustrates the basic setup of a covert network, where typically an actor will connect to the network via an on-ramp or entry node. Their traffic will be forwarded through multiple compromised devices, used as traversal nodes, before exiting the network from an exit node, usually in the same geographic region as the target. 
Protective Advice 
Defending from attackers using covert networks is not straightforward, and defensive tactics will be different based on the levels of resource and the nature of the target organization. General advice for good cyber security practice should be followed, and some key messages can be found in the appendix of this advisory.  


The following advice is specifically tailored to steps which can be taken to combat the risk of attacks coming from large, dynamic networks of compromised devices. 


Further guidance for all organizations facing cyber security threats is available on the NCSC website. 
This guidance should be considered alongside all applicable laws and regulations of the UK and co-sealing countries relating to the security of networks and data. It will be each organization’s responsibility to ensure compliance with any such laws and regulations. Organizations should note that following the recommended actions set out below will not remove all risks.
All organizations

The NCSC recommends the following steps for all affected organizations to either take themselves, or ask their managed service and/or security providers to investigate for them: 

Map and understand network edge devices, developing a clear understanding of organizational assets and what should be connecting to them.
Baseline normal connections, especially to corporate virtual private networks (VPNs) or other similar services.

Would you expect connections from consumer broadband ranges?


Leverage available dynamic threat feeds which include covert network infrastructure.
Implement multifactor authentication for remote connections.

Smaller organizations should consider creating and actioning a free NCSC Cyber Action Toolkit. 
Larger or more at-risk organizations


Some more comprehensive measures may be appropriate if the risk to an organization is high enough, to be conducted either in-house or through a security provider:  

Apply IP address allow lists rather than deny lists for connections to corporate VPNs for remote workers.
Use geographic allow lists or profile incoming connections based on operating system, time zones, and/or organization specific system configuration settings.
Implement zero trust policies for connections.
Enforce machine certificates for Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) connections.
Reduce the internet-facing presence of the IT estate.
Investigate machine learning techniques to profile normal network edge activity to detect and block anomalies. 

The NCSC's Cyber Essentials can help protect organizations of all sizes. 
Largest or most at-risk organizations 
If Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) tracking is part of an organization’s in-house capability, or if it is part of the service provided by a security vendor, consider tracking China-nexus covert networks as APTs in their own right.

Active hunting – look for connections from IP addresses likely to be part of a covert network of compromised devices, for instance those hosting SOHO routers or IoT devices.
Track and map covert networks reported by industry or government by looking at banners and certificates.
Use threat reporting and threat feeds to create and implement dynamic blocklists and create alert rules to detect incoming threats.
Consider using NetFlow feeds to look upstream and map covert networks to find new nodes. 

The NCSC Cyber Assessment Framework provides guidance for organizations under the highest levels of threat, including those operating essential services, in sectors such as energy, healthcare, transport, digital infrastructure and government.  
MITRE ATT&CK® 
This advisory has been compiled with respect to the MITRE ATT&CK® framework, a globally accessible knowledge base of adversary tactics and techniques based on real-world observations. 






Tactic 






ID 






Technique 






Procedure 










Resource Development 






T1584.005 






Compromise Infrastructure: Botnet 






Botnets are used as core components of covert networks 








Resource Development 






T1584.008 






Compromise Infrastructure: Network Devices 






Devices are compromised and added to botnets 








Resource Development 






T1583.003 






Acquire Infrastructure: Virtual Private Server 






Virtual private servers (VPS) are used in covert networks, typically as on-ramps 








Command and Control 






T1090.003 






Proxy: Multi-hop Proxy 






Used by China-nexus cyber actors to route traffic 










 Appendix: Cyber Security Best Practices 
In addition to the protective advice outlined in this advisory, a number of cyber security best practices will also be useful in defending against the activity described in this advisory. 

Protect your devices and networks by keeping them up to date: use the latest supported versions, apply security updates promptly, use antivirus and scan regularly to guard against known malware threats. See NCSC Guidance: https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/collection/device-security-guidance/policies-and-settings/antivirus-and-other-security-software
Prevent and detect lateral movement in your organization’s networks. See NCSC Guidance: https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/guidance/preventing-lateral-movement
Implement architectural controls for network segregation. See NCSC Guidance: https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/guidance/10-steps-network-security
Set up a security monitoring capability so you are collecting the data that will be needed to analyze network intrusions. See NCSC Guidance: https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/guidance/introduction-logging-security-purposes and https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/information/logging-made-easy
Use modern systems and software. These have better security built-in. If you cannot move off out-of-date platforms and applications straight away, there are short term steps you can take to improve your position. See NCSC Guidance:  https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/collection/mobile-device-guidance/managing-the-risks-from-obsolete-products
Restrict intruders' ability to move freely around your systems and networks. Pay particular attention to potentially vulnerable entry points such as third-party systems with onward access to your core network. During an incident, disable remote access from third-party systems until you are sure they are clean. See NCSC Guidance: https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/guidance/preventing-lateral-movement and https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/guidance/assessing-supply-chain-security.
Deploy a host-based intrusion detection system. A variety of products are available, free and paid-for, to suit different needs and budgets.
Further information: Invest in preventing malware-based attacks across various scenarios.  See NCSC Guidance: https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/guidance/mitigating-malware-and-ransomware-attacks 

Disclaimer  
This report draws on information derived from NCSC and industry sources. Any NCSC findings and recommendations made have not been provided with the intention of avoiding all risks and following the recommendations will not remove all such risk. Ownership of information risks remains with the relevant system owner at all times. 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 co-sealers. UK readers should refer to the NCSC website for information about NCSC assured services. 



This information is exempt under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and may be exempt under other UK information legislation.  


Refer any FOIA queries to ncscinfoleg@ncsc.gov.uk.  


All material is UK Crown Copyright © 










10 Secret Bard Tips And Tricks (How To Use Google Bard)(Google Bard Tutorial)
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 09:05:25 +0200
Author: TheAIGRID - Bewertung: 486x - Views:35021 
How To Use Google Bard)(Google Bard Tutorial)



Welcome to our channel where we bring you the latest breakthroughs in AI. From deep learning to robotics, we cover it all. Our videos offer valuable insights and perspectives that will expand your knowledge and understanding of this rapidly evolving field. Be sure to subscribe and stay updated on our latest videos.



All Bard Features 

- Bard Can Make Charts - https://www.reddit.com/r/GoogleBard/comments/123s0yt/wow_google_bard_can_make_a_chart_bing_ai_used_to/

- Bard makes very big mistakes https://twitter.com/0xgaut/status/1638287359098716160 

- Bard Cannot Help With Coding - https://twitter.com/iamnafets/status/1638232186649477120/photo/1 

- Bard Actually has access to recent events 

- Bard Cant Access Articles (Sometimes

- Bard Can Rewrite content

- Rewording Questions Helps https://www.reddit.com/r/GoogleBard/comments/11xoaw7/bard_can_actually_answer_code_questions_it_just/

- Bard Can write stories

- Bard is a confusing mix between ChatGPT + Bing

- Bard does have shorter answers

- Bard is quicker



Was there anything we missed?



(For Business Enquiries)  contact@theaigrid.com



#LLM #Largelanguagemodel #chatgpt

#AI

#ArtificialIntelligence

#MachineLearning

#DeepLearning

#NeuralNetworks

#Robotics

#DataScience

#IntelligentSystems

#Automation

#TechInnovation



CVE-2026-60201 | Oracle WebLogic Server 12.2.1.4.0/14.1.1.0.0/14.1.2.0.0/15.1.1.0.0 Core Remote Code Execution (EUVD-2026-46607)
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 08:59:45 +0200
A vulnerability was found in Oracle WebLogic Server 12.2.1.4.0/14.1.1.0.0/14.1.2.0.0/15.1.1.0.0 and classified as critical. Impacted is an unknown function of the component Core. The manipulation results in Remote Code Execution.

This vulnerability is known as CVE-2026-60201. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. No exploit is available.


Improve Router Hygiene to Protect Against Russian State-Sponsored Targeting
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 08:51:21 +0200
Russian Government-Sponsored Activity Targets Poorly Configured and Vulnerable Devices Across Critical Sectors
Executive summary
Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) Center 16 cyber actors continue to exploit poorly configured and vulnerable networking devices worldwide, opportunistically compromising multiple critical infrastructure sector networks. This joint Cybersecurity Advisory (CSA) builds on FBI’s Russian Government Cyber Actors Targeting Networking Devices, Critical Infrastructure Public Service Announcement of the decade-plus FSB Center 16 cyber activity by providing additional tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) to enable defenders to more fully understand and counter the threat. [1] 
This CSA is being released by the following authoring and co-sealing agencies: 

United States National Security Agency (NSA)
United States Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA)
United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
United States Department of Defense Cyber Crime Center (DC3)
Australian Signals Directorate’s Australian Cyber Security Centre (ASD’s ACSC)
Communications Security Establishment Canada’s (CSE’s) Canadian Centre for Cyber Security (Cyber Centre)
New Zealand National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-NZ)
United Kingdom National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-UK)
Czech Republic National Cyber and Information Security Agency (NÚKIB)¹ 
Danish Defence Intelligence Service (DDIS)²
Estonian Foreign Intelligence Service (EFIS)³ 
Estonian Information System Authority (RIA)⁴
Finnish Defence Intelligence (FDI)⁵
Finnish Security and Intelligence Service (SUPO)⁶
French National Cybersecurity Agency (ANSSI)⁷
Italian External Intelligence and Security Agency (AISE)⁸
Italian Internal Intelligence and Security Agency (AISI)⁹
The Military Counterintelligence Service of Poland (SKW)¹⁰
Sweden National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-SE)¹¹

The authoring and co-sealing agencies strongly urge device owners and network defenders to take mitigation and remediation actions against Russian government-sponsored exploitation of vulnerable routers.




  
      




      Figure 1: FSB Center 16 activity and recommended mitigation actions
  
Download the PDF version of this report:

Improve Router Hygiene to Protect Against Russian State-Sponsored Targeting (PDF, 816KB)

Cybersecurity industry tracking 
The cybersecurity industry provides overlapping cyber threat intelligence, indicators of compromise (IOCs), and mitigation recommendations related to this activity. Although not all encompassing, the following list contains the most notable threat group names commonly used within the cybersecurity community related to this activity: 

Berserk Bear 
Energetic Bear
Crouching Yeti 
Dragonfly
Ghost Blizzard
Static Tundra

Note: Cybersecurity companies have different methods of tracking and attributing cyber actors, and this list may not provide a 1:1 correlation to the authoring agencies’ understanding for all activity related to these groupings.
Targeting details
Critical infrastructure sectors most at risk from the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) Center 16 cyber actors’ targeting include:

Communications,
Defense Industrial Base,
Energy,
Financial Services,
Government Services and Facilities, especially organizations at the state and local level, and
Healthcare and Public Health.

Technical details
Note: This advisory uses the MITRE ATT&CK® Matrix for Enterprise¹² framework, version 19. See Appendix A for tables of the activity mapped to MITRE ATT&CK tactics and techniques. This advisory also uses MITRE DEFEND^TM version 1.4.0.
The Russian FSB Center 16 cyber actors primarily use scanning to identify poorly configured networking devices, primarily routers, for exploitation. The actors scan for Internet IP ranges with active Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) agents that accept common or default community strings for authentication [T1595.001, T1595.002]. These scans, run via proxies, consist of SNMP Set-Requests from a spoofed IP address [T1027] containing Object Identifiers (OIDs) that instruct the SNMP agent on poorly configured networking devices to [T1569, T1602.001, T1090]:

Copy its configuration to a file, often called “config.bkp” or “output.txt” [T1003, T1602.002].
Transfer the file, typically using Trivial File Transfer Protocol (TFTP), to an actor-controlled leased virtual private server (VPS) or compromised FTP server [T1583.003, T1090, T1071, T1048].

While SNMP scanning is the primary method the actors use to discover and exploit poorly configured networking devices, they occasionally exploit common vulnerabilities and exposures (CVEs) in Cisco devices, Cisco’s Smart Install (SMI) functionality, and web portals to manage network devices. The actors previously exploited at least the following CVEs [T1584.008, T1588.005, T1190, T1068]: 

CVE-2018-0171
CVE-2008-4128¹³

Many of these TTPs overlap with activity by other malicious cyber actors, such as Salt Typhoon. Even though this CSA focuses on Russian FSB Center 16 cyber activity, the mitigations below should detect and counter these and similar TTPs used by other actors.
Mitigation actions
The authoring agencies highly recommend network defenders implement the following mitigations to harden networks against this exploitation:

Disable Cisco Smart Install on all devices [D3-ACH]. [2]
Use SNMPv3 with “authPriv” configured to the most modern encryption standard that is supported by the device instead of SNMPv1 or SNMPv2 [D3-ACH]. [3]

Disable SNMPv1 and SNMPv2. These are legacy protocols and should no longer be needed on current devices. If they are necessary, change all community strings from defaults and only allow read-only community strings rather than read-write access.
SNMPv3 adds strong authentication and data encryption that are unavailable in SNMPv1 and v2. SNMPv3 replaces clear text shared passwords, known as community strings, with more securely encoded parameters, and authenticates and encrypts data [D3-MAN, D3-MENCR].


Use strong, unique passwords for local accounts on network devices and configure credentials to be stored securely to prevent reuse of compromised passwords [D3-CH].

Cisco devices protect passwords in the configuration file using different hashing types. Use hashing type 8 for user credentials. Avoid using hashing type 0, 4, and 7 as they are insecure or store passwords in plaintext in the configuration file. [4]
Monitor for unusual credentials that do not conform to standard organizational naming conventions [D3-PM]. 
 Monitor for and alert on logins using local accounts. Local accounts should only be used in emergency situations when accounts supported by centralized authentication servers are unavailable. Centralized authentication to network devices should support multi-factor authentication where feasible. [3]


Monitor and restrict access to SNMP OIDs using a Management Information Base (MIB) allow list [D3-ACH]. [5] Reference the vendor-specific MIB for the network devices and monitor OIDs for indications of reconnaissance or misconfiguration in logs or intrusion detection systems (IDS). IDS rules should be written for inbound SNMP Set-Requests that contain OIDs targeting sensitive device data [D3-PM].


Example OIDs include:

1.3.6.1.4.1.9.9.96.1.1 (Cisco Config Copy)
1.3.6.1.4.1.9.9.96.1.1.1.1.5 (Config Copy Server Address, value for this OID is where the configuration file is being sent to) 




Restrict management protocols [D3-NTF].

Use Access Control Lists (ACLs) to only allow management protocols, such as SNMP, from management devices, preferably on an out-of-band network. [3]
On edge firewalls and devices deny all external communications on the following ports unless mission critical, with strict monitoring if blocking is not feasible:

User Datagram Protocol (UDP) port 69 (TFTP) 
Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) port 4786 (SMI)
UDP ports 161 and 162 (SNMP)
TCP/UDP ports 10161 and 10162 (SNMPv3)




Update network device software and firmware images, especially to patch known vulnerabilities, and upgrade end-of-life devices to supported ones. 


Use an attack surface management service to identify and secure Internet-facing systems with weak configurations and known vulnerabilities [D3-NVA].

U.S.-based federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial governments and U.S. critical infrastructure organiztions should consider signing up for CISA’s no-cost Cyber Hygiene services.
U.S. Defense Industrial Base organizations should consider signing up for NSA’s DIB Cybersecurity Services.





Resources
United States:

Russia Threat Overview and Advisories
Network Infrastructure Security Guide

Canada:

Routers cyber security best practices (ITSAP.80.019)
Security considerations for edge devices (ITSM.80.101)
Guidance on securely configuring network protocols (ITSP.40.062)
Baseline security requirements for network security zones (ITSP.80.022)
Top 10 IT security actions to protect Internet-connected networks and information (ITSM.10.089)

Works cited
[1] FBI. Russian Government Cyber Actors Targeting Networking Devices, Critical Infrastructure. Alert Number: I-082025-PSA. 2025. https://www.ic3.gov/PSA/2025/PSA250820
[2] NSA. Cisco Smart Install Protocol Misuse. 2017. https://media.defense.gov/2019/Jul/16/2002157833/-1/-1/0/CSA-CISCO-SMART-INSTALL-PROTOCOL-MISUSE.PDF
[3] NSA. Network Infrastructure Security Guide. 2023. https://media.defense.gov/2022/Jun/15/2003018261/-1/-1/0/CTR_NSA_NETWORK_INFRASTRUCTURE_SECURITY_GUIDE_20220615.PDF
[4] NSA. Cybersecurity Information Sheet Cisco Password Types: Best Practices. 2022. https://media.defense.gov/2022/Feb/17/2002940795/-1/-1/0/CSI_CISCO_PASSWORD_TYPES_BEST_PRACTICES_20220217.PDF
[5] NSA. Cybersecurity Information Sheet: Reducing the Risk of Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Abuse. 2026. https://media.defense.gov/2026/Jul/09/2003959459/-1/-1/0/CSI_REDUCING_RISK_OF_SNMP_ABUSE.PDF
Footnotes
¹Národní úřad pro kybernetickou a informační bezpečnost
² Forsvarets Efterretningstjeneste
³ Välisluureamet
⁴ Riigi Infosüsteem Amet
⁵ Sotilastiedustelu
⁶ Suojelupoliisi
⁷ Agence nationale de la sécurité des systèmes d’information
⁸ Agenzia Informazioni e Sicurezza Esterna
⁹ Agenzia Informazioni e Sicurezza Interna
¹⁰ Służba Kontrwywiadu Wojskowego
¹¹ Nationellt Cybersäkerhetscenter
¹²MITRE and ATT&CK are registered trademarks of The MITRE Corporation. MITRE DEFEND is a trademark of the MITRE Corporation.
¹³ CVE-2008-4128 only affects end-of-life Cisco devices.
Disclaimer of Endorsement
The information and opinions contained in this document are provided "as is" and without any warranties or guarantees. Reference herein to any specific commercial products, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government, and this guidance shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
Purpose
This document was developed in furtherance of the authoring agencies’ cybersecurity missions, including their responsibilities to identify and disseminate threats, and to develop and issue cybersecurity specifications and mitigations. This information may be shared broadly to reach all appropriate stakeholders.
Contact
United States organizations

National Security Agency (NSA)

Cybersecurity Report Feedback: CybersecurityReports@nsa.gov 
Defense Industrial Base Inquiries and Cybersecurity Services: DIB_Defense@cyber.nsa.gov 
Media Inquiries / Press Desk: NSA Media Relations: 443-634-0721, MediaRelations@nsa.gov


Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

 U.S. organizations are encouraged to report suspicious or criminal activity related to information in this advisory to CISA via the agency’s Incident Reporting System, its 24/7 Operations Center (report@cisa.gov or 888-282-0870), or your local FBI field office. When available, please include the following information regarding the incident: date, time, and location of the incident; type of activity; number of people affected; type of equipment user for the activity; the name of the submitting company or organization; and a designated point of contact. 


United States Department of Defense Cyber Crime Center (DC3)  

Defense Industrial Base Inquiries and Cybersecurity Services: DC3.DCISE@us.af.mil 
Defense Industrial Base mandatory cyber incident reporting as required by 10 U.S. Code Sections 391 and 393 and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 252.204-7012 is submitted at https://dibnet.dod.mil.
 Media Inquiries / Press Desk: DC3.Information@us.af.mil



Australian organizations

Australian Signals Directorate

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



Canadian organizations

The Canadian Centre for Cyber Security (Cyber Centre), part of the Communications Security Establishment, encourages Canadian organizations to report cyber incidents and to strengthen the security of their networking devices. 

Report an incident or suspicious activity to the Cyber Centre by email at contact@cyber.gc.ca, online via the reporting tool Report a cyber incident - Canadian Centre for Cyber Security or by phone at 1-833-CYBER-88 (1-833-292-3788).



New Zealand organizations

New Zealand National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-NZ): info@ncsc.govt.nz

United Kingdom organizations

Report significant cyber security incidents to ncsc.gov.uk/report-an-incident (monitored 24/7)

Estonia organizations

Estonian Foreign Intelligence Service (EFIS): info@valisluureamet.ee

Finnish organizations

Finnish Security and Intelligence Service: supo.fi/en/contact

French organizations

French organizations are encouraged to report suspicious activity or incident related information found in this advisory by contacting ANSSI/CERT-FR at: cert-fr@ssi.gouv.fr or by phone at: 3218 or +33 9 70 83 32 18.

Italian Organizations

Italian External Intelligence and Security Agency (AISE): 

Visit https://www.sicurezzanazionale.gov.it/ 


Italian Internal Intelligence and Security Agency (AISI): 

Visit https://www.sicurezzanazionale.gov.it/ 



Appendix A: MITRE ATT&CK tactics and techniques
See Table 1 through Table 10 for all the threat actor tactics and techniques referenced in this advisory.

Table 1: Reconnaissance



Technique Title


ID


Use





Active Scanning: Scanning IP Blocks
T1595.001
Scan range of IP addresses


Active Scanning: Vulnerability Scanning
T1595.002
Scan victims for vulnerabilities that can be used during targeting




Table 2: Resource Development



Technique Title


ID


Use





Acquire Infrastructure: Virtual Private Servers 
T1583.003 
Leverage VPS as infrastructure 


Compromise Infrastructure: Network Devices 
T1584.008 
Compromise intermediate routers 


Obtain Capabilities: Exploits 
T1588.005 
Use publicly available code to exploit vulnerable devices 




Table 3: Initial Access



Technique Title


ID


Use





Exploit Public-Facing Application 
T1190 
Exploit publicly known CVEs 


Proxy
T1090
Use a connection proxy to direct network traffic 




Table 4: Execution



Technique Title


ID


Use





System Services
T1569
Executing commands via SNMP




Table 5: Privilege Escalation



Technique Title


ID


Use





Exploitation for Privilege Escalation
T1068
Exploit publicly known CVEs for escalated privileges




Table 6: Stealth



Technique Title


ID


Use





Obfuscated Files or Information
T1027
Obfuscate source IP addresses in system logs, as actions may be recorded as originating from local IP addresses




Table 7: Credential Access



Technique Title


ID


Use





OS Credential Dumping
T1003
Collect router configuration with weak Cisco Type 7 passwords and Type 0




Table 8: Collection



Technique Title


ID


Use





Data from Configuration Repository: SNMP (MIB Dump) 
T1602.001 
Target MIB to collect network information via SNMP 


Data from Configuration Repository: Network Device Configuration Dump
T1602.002
Acquire credentials by collecting network device configurations




Table 9: Command and Control



Technique Title


ID


Use





Proxy 
T1090 
Use VPS for C2 


Application Layer Protocol 
T1071 
Open and expose a variety of different services, including TFTP and FTP




Table 10: Exfiltration



Technique Title


ID


Use





Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol
T1048
Exfiltrating over a different protocol than that of the existing command and control channel. 



Appendix B: MITRE D3FEND countermeasures
See Table 11 for a mapping of several of the cybersecurity countermeasures mentioned in this advisory.

Table 11: MITRE D3FEND Countermeasures



Countermeasure Title


ID


Description





Application Configuration Hardening
D3-ACH


Use SNMPv3 and disable SNMPv1 and SNMPv2. 
Use SNMP allowlisting to restrict access to OIDs and MIBs. 
Disable Cisco Smart Install.




Message Authentication
D3-MAN


Use SNMPv3 with strong authentication.




Message Encryption
D3-MENCR


Use SNMPv3 to encrypt payloads.




Credential Hardening
D3-CH


Use strong, unique passwords and store them securely.




Platform Monitoring
D3-PM


Monitor for unusual credentials. 
Monitor SNMP Set-Requests for OIDs targeting sensitive device data.




Network Traffic Filtering
D3-NTF


Use ACLs to only allow management protocols from management devices. 
Block TFTP, SMI, and SNMP at edge firewalls.




Network Vulnerability Assessment
D3-NVA


Use an attack surface management service.







CVE-2022-40490 | Tiny File Manager up to 2.4.7 cross site scripting (EUVD-2022-43765)
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 08:42:09 +0200
A vulnerability, which was classified as problematic, was found in Tiny File Manager up to 2.4.7. This issue affects some unknown processing. The manipulation results in cross site scripting.

This vulnerability is known as CVE-2022-40490. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. No exploit is available.


CVE-2026-34240 | appsup-dart jose up to 0.3.5+0 JWS/JWT signature verification
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 08:39:56 +0200
A vulnerability marked as problematic has been reported in appsup-dart jose up to 0.3.5+0. This issue affects some unknown processing of the component JWS/JWT. Performing a manipulation results in improper verification of cryptographic signature.

This vulnerability is known as CVE-2026-34240. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. No exploit is available.

It is suggested to upgrade the affected component.


This Chinese Company Destroyed The DDR5 RAM Prices Over Night - $500 to $50!
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 08:35:27 +0200
Author: Evolving AI - Bewertung: 782x - Views:17162 
RAM prices have exploded over the past two years, but a little-known Chinese company may finally be changing that. While Samsung, SK hynix, and Micron shifted their factories toward high-profit AI memory, everyday DDR5 RAM became harder to find and dramatically more expensive. Now, China's CXMT is stepping in with a massive expansion of DDR5 production, potentially bringing competition back to one of the world's most concentrated semiconductor markets. In this video, we break down why RAM prices skyrocketed, how AI created the global memory shortage, CXMT's rapid rise, its new DDR5 and LPDDR5X lineup, the company's record-breaking IPO, HBM ambitions, and whether this could finally make PC memory affordable again.



Could CXMT become the fourth memory giant—and finally end the RAM shortage?



#CXMT #DDR5 #RAM #Semiconductors #AI #China #Technology #PC



3 cybersecurity issues that should keep every CEO awake at night
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 06:16:50 +0200

		
					  
						




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, 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.



The obvious conclusion is that we are asking the wrong questions.



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.



In my view, there are three far more fundamental issues that deserve the attention of every chief executive.



1. Corporate complexity, and the widening gap between business leadership and cybersecurity reality



Perhaps the biggest cybersecurity risk facing large organizations today is not technical at all.



It is the growing disconnect between executive perception and operational reality.



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.



Unfortunately, cyber attackers do not read dashboards.



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.



The problem is rarely a lack of effort.



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.



Executives believe they understand the level of cyber risk they face because they receive regular reports. Those reports often measure activity rather than resilience.



Governance committees end up debating around another percentage point of phishing awareness or vulnerability remediation, while fundamental issues remain unaddressed in the background.



2. Organizational inertia, and the need for executive structure to evolve faster



Cyber criminals continue to evolve rapidly. Large organizations generally do not.



This is the second issue that should concern every CEO.



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.



Very rarely do they stop to redesign how cybersecurity operates.



The result is what I described several years ago as the “Cybersecurity Spiral of Failure”.




As complexity and regulation increase, organizations invest in more security products.



More products create more complexity.



More products and greater complexity generate more alerts.



More alerts require more analysts.



More analysts produce more reports.



More reports continue to build up executive confidence.



Meanwhile, the underlying structural weaknesses remain largely unchanged, technical debt piles up and costs escalate.




And when the inevitable breach eventually happens, reality reveals itself, but distrust also sets in between senior executives and security teams.



This is not a funding problem. Nor is it a skills problem. It is fundamentally an operating model problem.



Many organizations continue trying to solve twenty-first century challenges using governance, accountability, organizational and reporting structures designed twenty-five years ago.



The cybersecurity function itself has evolved dramatically. Many executive structures have not.



This organizational inertia extends beyond technology: It affects budgeting cycles, investment priorities, procurement processes, accountability models and decision-making speed.



Cyber attackers innovate every day. Organizational change often takes years.



That imbalance should worry every CEO.



3. Accelerating technological disruption, and how it challenges organizations in areas where they are intrinsically weak



The third issue is potentially the most significant over the coming decade.




Artificial intelligence, autonomous agents and machine identities



Software supply chain complexity.



Quantum computing, and post-quantum cryptography




Each of these developments represents far more than another technical trend.



Together, they fundamentally change the dynamics of cybersecurity.



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.



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.



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.



None of these challenges can be solved overnight: They require clear governance, sustained investment over a few years and cross-functional organizational coordination.



Most large organizations are weak on those three fronts: This is precisely why CEOs should be focusing on them now.



Waiting until some of those risks become obvious will almost certainly be too late.



Businesses naturally prioritise immediate commercial pressures. Cybersecurity often involves preparing for risks whose timing remains uncertain.



But one of the greatest leadership failures I keep seeing remains the inability of organizations to act decisively on known unknowns.



That tension explains why many organizations delay action until external events force them to respond. Unfortunately, cybersecurity rarely rewards late action.



Leadership will determine who succeeds



Cybersecurity discussions still frequently focus on technology. I believe they should focus far more on leadership.



Technology will continue evolving. Threat actors will continue adapting. Regulations will continue expanding. Those developments are inevitable.



What remains within the control of every CEO is how their organization responds.



Does cybersecurity remain an IT issue? Or is it recognised as an integral part of business resilience?



How is cybersecurity accountability assigned at executive level? Or does it still rest largely with a CISO hidden in the organization?



Does the board spend sufficient time discussing resilience? Or does cybersecurity appear only when approving budgets or reviewing incidents?



These questions will increasingly determine organizational success.



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.



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.



That transformation cannot be delegated. It begins with the CEO.



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.



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



CIOs beware: DNS KSK rollover could kick off wave of mysterious outages
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 06:16:22 +0200

		
					  
						




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 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.



Sai Joshitha Kathari, 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.



“This has the potential to create real downstream destruction when unresolved failures sit underneath important business functions,” Kathari says. 



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. 



“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.”



Independent technology analyst Carmi Levy says that CIOs need to take this event very seriously. 



“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.”



Levy adds: “Custom-built code that lives outside conventional support mechanisms may or may not function when the DNS changes go into effect.”



The DNSSEC update itself is straightforward, but it is also the first significant DNSSEC change — specifically a change in the trust anchor — since 2018. 



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.”



Expect nearly every enterprise to be impacted



Kim Davies, 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. 



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. 



“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.”



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.”



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.”



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. 



“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.”



Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research, agrees that IT will likely spin its wheels chasing the wrong ghosts.



“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.”



“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.”



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. 



“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,” Justin Greis, 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.”



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. 



Potentially widespread fallout



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. 



“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.”



Greis adds that many enterprises will discover in January problems created by their own automation.



“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.”



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.



Cricket Liu, EVP and chief evangelist at Infoblox, gives the example of a DNS server that responds to factory-floor system queries.



“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.”



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. 



Impossible to predict what will happen



One of the top network experts on DNS effects in enterprises is Geoff Huston, chief scientist at the Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC), the regional Internet Registry administering IP addresses for the Asia Pacific region.



Huston says it is difficult to project what will happen in January until it happens.



“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.



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. 



“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?’”



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. 



“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.”



CVE-2026-60135 | Weintek cMT3092X/EasyWeb integrity check (ID 20210218 / EUVD-2026-48747)
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 03:55:10 +0200
A vulnerability classified as problematic has been found in Weintek cMT3092X and EasyWeb. Impacted is an unknown function. Performing a manipulation results in improper validation of integrity check value.

This vulnerability is known as CVE-2026-60135. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. No exploit is available.

It is suggested to install a patch to address this issue.


Windows 11 now lets you resize the touchpad right-click zone, something even macOS can’t do
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 02:26:40 +0200
Windows 11 now lets you resize the right-click zone on your touchpad, choosing between Default, Small, Medium, and Large from Settings. The feature started in Insider builds back in March and has now rolled out to everyone with the July 2026 Patch Tuesday update, no tweaks required.
The post Windows 11 now lets you resize the touchpad right-click zone, something even macOS can’t do appeared first on Windows Latest


CVE-2026-8085 | Rockwell Automation Arena Simulation Siman model.exe out-of-bounds write (Nessus ID 329331)
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 02:24:11 +0200
A vulnerability was found in Rockwell Automation Arena Simulation. It has been declared as problematic. Affected is an unknown function of the file model.exe of the component Siman. The manipulation results in out-of-bounds write.

This vulnerability is known as CVE-2026-8085. Attacking locally is a requirement. No exploit is available.


CVE-2026-34172 | Giskard-AI giskard-oss up to 0.3.3/1.0.2 Name Message ChatWorkflow.chat special elements used in a template engine
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 02:23:57 +0200
A vulnerability categorized as critical has been discovered in Giskard-AI giskard-oss up to 0.3.3/1.0.2. This vulnerability affects the function ChatWorkflow.chat of the component Name Message Handler. The manipulation results in improper neutralization of special elements used in a template engine.

This vulnerability is known as CVE-2026-34172. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. No exploit is available.

It is advisable to upgrade the affected component.


CVE-2026-65897 | Getgrav Grav Plugin up to 1.0.9 Invitations Controller create groups permission (EUVD-2026-48247)
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 01:53:11 +0200
A vulnerability marked as problematic has been reported in Getgrav Grav Plugin up to 1.0.9. The affected element is the function InvitationsController::create of the component Invitations Controller. Performing a manipulation of the argument groups results in permission issues.

This vulnerability is known as CVE-2026-65897. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. No exploit is available.

It is suggested to upgrade the affected component.


5 endpoint blind spots your EDR/XDR was never built to see
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 00:18:11 +0200

		
					  
						




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



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



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



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



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



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



#2. Distinguish between human and autonomous agent behavior 



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



#3. Establish guardrails for automated package updates on endpoints



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



#4. Enforce principle of least privilege for AI agents



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



#5. Maintain continuous endpoint posture management



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



Summary



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



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











Is exFAT feasible for internal ssd long term ?
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 00:11:38 +0200
Dual booting win/linux for a while now (dedicated ssd per OS). And I need some shared storage so I've been using ntfs for 2 storage ssd's but it's been a huge headache as the linux/win combination constantly corrupts the ntfs file system and I end up with a ton of issues on linux, always having to repair it in windows. 
 I already do full shutdowns on windows (even started disconnecting the drives from the windows partition manager before shutdown), it doesn't seem to help (i'm suspecting that linux itself corrupts the file system sometimes). 
 So I'm thinking of switching to using exfat but I've not been able to find much on how feasible that is to use on internal drives. Anyone have any experience with this ? 
 Of note - the data is not that critical as to warrant a high degree of reliability, but at the same time if exfat presents known issues, same or worse as ntfs, it doesn't make sense to switch.
 
   submitted by    /u/kepler2  
 [link]   [comments]


CVE-2022-40282 | Hirschmann BAT-C2 prior 09.13.01.00R04 Web Server FsCreateDir dir command injection (ID 170063 / EUVD-2022-43579)
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 00:11:00 +0200
A vulnerability marked as critical has been reported in Hirschmann BAT-C2. This affects the function FsCreateDir of the component Web Server. Performing a manipulation of the argument dir results in command injection.

This vulnerability is known as CVE-2022-40282. Access to the local network is required for this attack. No exploit is available.

It is suggested to upgrade the affected component.


US Accuses American of Allegedly Wiping His Phone Using a 'Duress' Password During Border Search
Sat, 25 Jul 2026 00:08:09 +0200
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: The U.S. Justice Department is prosecuting an American for allegedly providing U.S. border authorities with a passcode that wiped the contents of his phone, according to an indictment and media reports. This is thought to be the first known case in the United States where federal prosecutors have charged someone for the alleged destruction of data using a so-called "duress" password built into a phone's software. According to The Guardian, which covered the story earlier this week following the court's first hearing on Monday, Atlanta resident Samuel Tunick is fighting the charges. Tunick's attorneys said that it was unlawful for U.S. Customs and Border Protection to seize his phone as he arrived back in the U.S. last year, and that any evidence -- including the alleged wiping of his phone -- should be thrown out.
 
The case centers on a feature included in GrapheneOS, a custom Android operating system that runs in place of the software on most modern Google Pixel devices. Tunick's attorneys confirmed GrapheneOS was running on his phone. The software feature allows the device owner to set a passcode that deliberately wipes the contents of that device if entered instead of the user's unlock passcode. Tunick's case also raises ongoing questions about what constitutional rights can be invoked at the border, which the U.S. government has long asserted is not U.S. soil until a person is authorized to enter. Bill Budington, a senior staff technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Runa Sandvik, a digital security expert who works to protect at-risk people as the founder of security consultancy firm Granitt, told TechCrunch that they had not seen similar cases involving the use of duress passwords.
 
"I have not seen this before, though I've discussed the potential scenario with activists and journalists over the years," said Sandvik. "I think this case serves as a reminder that authorities may argue you knowingly destroyed data, so it's better to not have that data on you when you cross certain borders."
 
"With a little planning ahead of time, you can always download the data you need once you get to where you're going," said Sandvik.






Read more of this story at Slashdot.


CVE-2026-61860 | ImageMagick prior 7.1.2-26/6.9.13-51 FreeType use after free (Nessus ID 329314)
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 22:16:08 +0200
A vulnerability classified as problematic has been found in ImageMagick. This impacts an unknown function of the component FreeType. Performing a manipulation results in use after free.

This vulnerability is known as CVE-2026-61860. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. No exploit is available.

It is recommended to upgrade the affected component.


‘Sugar’ Season 2, Episode 6 Recap: John Sugar Faces His Darkest Choice Yet
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 21:47:51 +0200
Sugar Season 2, Episode 6 pushes John Sugar deeper into a dangerous conspiracy as Vega closes in on Ji Moon and refuses to leave any witnesses behind.




Episode title: “Cautionary Tale”



Release date: July 24, 2026



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



Season length: Eight episodes



Season finale: August 7, 2026




Spoiler warning



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



Sugar learns the truth about Operation Fire Sale



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



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



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



Who is Peg Rosenthal?



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



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



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



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



Sugar cannot bring himself to kill Vega



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



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



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



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



What do you think Sugar will do when Vega finally finds Ji? Let us know in the comments.


This Apple-1 auction expected to cost the winner as much as 275 iPhone 17 Pros
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 20:48:38 +0200
A working 1977 Apple-1 expected to garner at least $300,000 leads RR Auction's sprawling sale of rare hardware, prototypes, and Steve Jobs memorabilia from Apple's earliest years.

The 'Neumark' Apple-1 - 'Byte Shop'-Style. Image credit: RR Auctions

The Apple-1 comes from Apple's second batch of 50 machines, according to the auction house. Known as the "Neumark" computer, it sits inside a modified Smith-Corona typewriter case and was restored to working condition by Apple-1 specialist Corey Cohen in June 2026.

Apple sold the Apple-1 as an assembled circuit board rather than a complete consumer computer, so buyers had to add the other components and an enclosure themselves. The Neumark machine stands out because it still works inside the suitcase. The auction also includes surviving documentation.

RR Auction's estimates aren't guarantees of what buyers will pay. Final prices will depend on how much competition each lot attracts before the sale closes.


 Continue Reading on AppleInsider | Discuss on our Forums


CVE-2026-59222 | open-webui Open WebUI up to 0.9.x Channel Members API /api/v1/channels information disclosure (EUVD-2026-42631)
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 20:47:53 +0200
A vulnerability was found in open-webui Open WebUI up to 0.9.x. It has been declared as problematic. Impacted is an unknown function of the file /api/v1/channels of the component Channel Members API. The manipulation results in information disclosure.

This vulnerability is known as CVE-2026-59222. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. No exploit is available.

It is recommended to upgrade the affected component.


John C. Dvorak, an Early and Influential Technology Journalist, Dies At 80
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 19:18:29 +0200
Longtime Slashdot reader sandbagger shares the passing of John C. Dvorak, an early and influential technology journalist for PC Magazine. He was 80. Talking Biz News reports: Aric Mackey writes, "Widely recognized for his profound impact on the technology industry, John's career spanned decades of rapid digital evolution. He was perhaps best known for his influential, long-running column in PC Magazine and his groundbreaking work on the No Agenda podcast. Through his prolific writing, broadcasting, and distinct public voice, he helped shape critical conversations around both technology and political analysis, guiding generations of readers and listeners with his unique perspective.
 
"To those who knew him personally, John was far more than his public work. He was a beloved husband, devoted father, proud grandfather, and a loyal friend. Those closest to him will remember a man defined by his strong convictions, his exceptionally sharp wit, and an enduring curiosity about the world around him." Dvorak was also part of the startup team at CNET Networks, and appeared on MarketWatch TV.






Read more of this story at Slashdot.


Yang Zhilin, the rock star founder behind China’s Moonshot AI
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 17:25:26 +0200
Known as ‘Yang the genius’ by classmates, his new K3 model has closed the gap with leading US rivals


Astronomers May Have Discovered First Moon Outside Our Solar System
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 17:07:19 +0200
Astronomers studying the star system CD-35 2722 may have found the first known moon-like object outside our solar system. The classification is unusually tricky, however, because it orbits a brown dwarf rather than a planet, making it clearly an "exosatellite" but forcing scientists to rethink where the line between planet, moon, and failed star should be drawn. Space.com reports: The star CD-35 2722 is located around 73 light-years away and has around half the mass of the sun. It is orbited by a "failed star" or brown dwarf. These stellar bodies get their unfortunate nickname because they form like other stars but fail to gather enough mass to trigger the fusion of hydrogen to helium in their cores. In terms of mass, brown dwarfs are more massive than the largest gas giant planets, but smaller than the smallest stars, usually with around 13 to 80 times the mass of Jupiter, or around 0.013 to 0.08 times the mass of the sun.
 
The newly discovered object in CD-35 2722 is certainly moon-like, but rather than orbiting a planet as the moons in the solar system do, it orbits the system's brown dwarf. "This system is somewhat hard to define using solar-system-based words like 'planet' and 'moon.' The exosatellite is clearly massive enough to be a planet, but it does not orbit a star, though it orbits an object that orbits a star," team leader Kevin Hoy of the Universidad Diego Portales and the Millennium Nucleus of Young Exoplanets and their Moons (YEMS) in Chile, said in a statement. "Being the third wheel in this system makes us want to call it a moon, even if it is nothing like the small, rocky moons we have in our system."
 
The team currently isn't able to definitively claim this object in CD-35 2722 is an exomoon, because that would require really nailing down a new definition of what a moon is. "The satellite we report is a giant gaseous body orbiting a highly massive companion, itself several times the mass of Jupiter. We have a clear delineation between the planets and the sun in the solar system, so defining things like moons is simple," team member Alice Zurlo of the Universidad Diego Portales said. "In the CD-35 2722 system, where we are blurring the lines between stars, planets, and moons, the whole thing becomes more complicated to describe." Zurlo and colleagues can, however, confidently claim this is an exosatellite, meaning it is a first-of-its-kind detection no matter what the future holds for its classification. 

The findings have been published in the journal Nature.






Read more of this story at Slashdot.


The Signs Were There: What the First Autonomous Ransomware Case Confirms
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 17:07:13 +0200
An AI agent has run a ransomware intrusion on its own for the first time, from break-in to data destruction. The autonomous attacks TrendAI™ Research predicted are beginning to arrive, and defending against them shifts from blocking known indicators to…
Read more →
The post The Signs Were There: What the First Autonomous Ransomware Case Confirms appeared first on IT Security News.


The Signs Were There: What the First Autonomous Ransomware Case Confirms
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 15:31:00 +0200
An AI agent has run a ransomware intrusion on its own for the first time, from break-in to data destruction.  The autonomous attacks TrendAI™ Research predicted are beginning to arrive, and defending against them shifts from blocking known indicators to detecting behavior.


Russian hackers exploit unpatched Zimbra servers to steal emails
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 14:58:47 +0200
Russian state-backed hacker group Laundry Bear has been breaking into government and commercial networks for at least a year by exploiting a vulnerability in the Zimbra Collaboration Suite (ZCS) webmail platform. Laundry Bear (also known as Void Blizzard, CL-STA-1114, and…
Read more →
The post Russian hackers exploit unpatched Zimbra servers to steal emails appeared first on IT Security News.


Russian hackers exploit unpatched Zimbra servers to steal emails
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 14:39:47 +0200
Russian state-backed hacker group Laundry Bear has been breaking into government and commercial networks for at least a year by exploiting a vulnerability in the Zimbra Collaboration Suite (ZCS) webmail platform. Laundry Bear (also known as Void Blizzard, CL-STA-1114, and TA488) has been running the campaign since July 2025, according to a joint advisory from the NSA, FBI, CISA, and cybersecurity agencies from the Netherlands, UK, Australia, Canada, and a dozen other countries. “Laundry Bear’s … More →
The post Russian hackers exploit unpatched Zimbra servers to steal emails appeared first on Help Net Security.


4 little-known Google Calendar tricks I use to plan my workweek - and save time
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 14:19:14 +0200
If you're only using Google Calendar to track events, you're missing some of its most useful features.


CVE-2026-5675 | itsourcecode Construction Management System 1.0 Parameter /borrowed_tool.php emp sql injection
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 14:12:04 +0200
A vulnerability described as critical has been identified in itsourcecode Construction Management System 1.0. This affects an unknown part of the file /borrowed_tool.php of the component Parameter Handler. The manipulation of the argument emp results in sql injection.

This vulnerability is known as CVE-2026-5675. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. Furthermore, an exploit is available.


Getting a grip on shadow tokens and AI blowouts
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 14:04:46 +0200

		
					  
						




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 snowballs into an AI blowout.



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 Microsoft is reportedly winding down many internal licenses across key engineering teams and why one in five organizations is missing its AI spend forecast by more than 50%.



And the trend is only accelerating. By 2028, Gartner predicts that AI coding costs (driven by this kind of ungoverned consumption) will be as much per developer as the salary companies pay that person.



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.



Going forward, CIOs need to thread the AI needle between governance that encourages transparency and reasonable spend without stifling innovation.



When shadow tokens result in real costs



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.



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.



According to Deloitte, 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.



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, described 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.



Shifting the culture from usage to yield



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 “tokenmaxxing,” 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.



None of this is meant to dismiss AI’s productivity possibilities and potential return on investment. Developers save 3.6 hours 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.



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.



Stopping token waste before an AI blowout



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.



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.



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.



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.



This is a conversation teams need to have now. Anthropic just ended flat-rate pricing 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.



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.



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



Golden Chickens Launches Four Modular Malware Families to Steal Chrome Credentials and Hijack Browser Sessions
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 13:12:38 +0200
Golden Chickens, tracked as TAG-195 and also known as Venom Spider, has launched four new modular malware families designed to enhance credential theft, browser session hijacking, and post-exploitation flexibility. The newly identified families TinyEgg, ChonkyChicken, a modularized ChonkyChicken variant, and…
Read more →
The post Golden Chickens Launches Four Modular Malware Families to Steal Chrome Credentials and Hijack Browser Sessions appeared first on IT Security News.


Golden Chickens Launches Four Modular Malware Families to Steal Chrome Credentials and Hijack Browser Sessions
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 12:55:56 +0200
Golden Chickens, tracked as TAG-195 and also known as Venom Spider, has launched four new modular malware families designed to enhance credential theft, browser session hijacking, and post-exploitation flexibility. The newly identified families TinyEgg, ChonkyChicken, a modularized ChonkyChicken variant, and ChromEggscalator mark a clear architectural evolution in the group’s malware-as-a-service (MaaS) ecosystem, signaling a shift […]
The post Golden Chickens Launches Four Modular Malware Families to Steal Chrome Credentials and Hijack Browser Sessions appeared first on GBHackers Security | #1 Globally Trusted Cyber Security News Platform.


Email threats changed after the Tycoon2FA take-down
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 12:33:29 +0200

		
					  
						




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



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



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



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



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



Tycoon2FA disruption sent attackers exploring



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



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



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



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



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



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



Phishing changes but the defense doesn’t



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



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



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



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



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



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



This article first appeared on CSO.



Tycoon2FA takedown reshapes the phishing landscape
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 12:26:57 +0200

		
					  
						




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



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



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



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



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



Tycoon2FA disruption sent attackers exploring



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



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



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



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



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



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



Phishing changes but the defense doesn’t



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



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



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



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



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



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



UAC-0099 Is Now Hiding Malware Inside a Fake Notepad++ Plugin to Target Ukrainian Organizations
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 12:09:08 +0200
UAC-0099 delivers malware via a fake Notepad++ plugin after phishing, using a loader that sabotages itself if run without the correct arguments to hinder analysis. CERT-UA published a new advisory attributing a phishing campaign to UAC-0099, a Russia-aligned threat actor active since at least mid-2022 and previously known for exploiting WinRAR vulnerabilities and using phishing […]


Golden Chickens TAG-195 Launches TinyEgg and ChonkyChicken Modular Malware
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 12:09:05 +0200
TAG-195, also known as Golden Chickens or Venom Spider, is a financially motivated MaaS developer long linked to credential theft and remote access tooling for multiple criminal operators. Insikt Group recently identified four new malware families in this ecosystem, naming two of them TinyEgg and ChonkyChicken, alongside a modularized ChonkyChicken variant and a Chrome-focused helper […]
The post Golden Chickens TAG-195 Launches TinyEgg and ChonkyChicken Modular Malware appeared first on Cyber Security News.


ISC2 seeks input from IT pros for AI security certification
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 12:09:03 +0200

		
					  
						




ISC2 has begun developing a vendor-neutral AI security certification aimed at cybersecurity professionals working to secure AI systems and manage emerging AI risks.



The nonprofit organization, best known for the CISSP certification, says it is seeking volunteers worldwide to help define the knowledge and skills that will shape the new credential. While ISC2 has not finalized the certification domains, the certification is expected to address both technical AI security and governance topics, with a pilot exam planned before the end of 2026.



According to Casey Marks, ISC2 chief operating officer, feedback from cybersecurity practitioners led ISC2 to conclude that AI security had grown beyond expanding AI content within existing certifications.



“AI has reached a tipping point,” Marks says. “AI no longer is just another tool; instead, it has fundamentally changed the cybersecurity practice itself.”



ISC2 already includes AI-related content in certifications including CISSP and CCSP, but Marks says practitioners have identified new responsibilities and risks that extend beyond those programs. “Enterprise security teams are currently grappling with significant knowledge gaps, particularly around securing model architectures against new vulnerabilities like prompt injection, data poisoning, and model inversion,” Marks adds.



Organizations are working to understand emerging governance frameworks, including the NIST AI Risk Management Framework and ISO/IEC 42001, while adapting traditional application security and security operations workflows to AI systems, he says.



ISC2 has not finalized the certification domains, but Marks says the organization expects the credential to address both technical controls and governance practices for securing AI systems and managing AI risk. The certification will use ISC2’s established certification development process, which relies on cybersecurity practitioners to define job roles, develop exam content, and validate competencies.



Marks says ISC2 will continue to update the certification through ongoing input from cybersecurity professionals, in addition to its regular certification review process.



The organization is also determining which professionals the certification will target. Marks says AI security responsibilities are emerging across security architecture, risk management, security operations, software development security, governance and compliance, communication and network security, and security assessment and testing. ISC2 says the certification will reflect how those roles are evolving.



For organizations that are building AI security programs now, Marks recommends using existing AI training resources, adopting established governance frameworks, creating cross-functional AI security working groups, and participating in the certification development process.



Marks says ISC2 expects AI knowledge to become part of most cybersecurity roles while a more specialized AI security discipline continues to develop. He says organizations will increasingly need professionals with foundational AI security knowledge, as well as specialists in areas such as adversarial machine learning, model architectures, and AI data pipelines.



Looking ahead, Marks says he expects AI security expertise to evolve into both a foundational skill for cybersecurity professionals and a specialized discipline of its own.



“At this time, we are seeing a hybrid evolution occurring in real time: AI security is simultaneously becoming a baseline expectation for all security roles, while also carving out a dedicated, highly specialized discipline,” Marks says.



3 cybersecurity issues that should keep every CEO awake at night
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 12:09:02 +0200

		
					  
						




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, 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.



The obvious conclusion is that we are asking the wrong questions.



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.



In my view, there are three far more fundamental issues that deserve the attention of every chief executive.



1. Corporate complexity, and the widening gap between business leadership and cybersecurity reality



Perhaps the biggest cybersecurity risk facing large organizations today is not technical at all.



It is the growing disconnect between executive perception and operational reality.



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.



Unfortunately, cyber attackers do not read dashboards.



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.



The problem is rarely a lack of effort.



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.



Executives believe they understand the level of cyber risk they face because they receive regular reports. Those reports often measure activity rather than resilience.



Governance committees end up debating around another percentage point of phishing awareness or vulnerability remediation, while fundamental issues remain unaddressed in the background.



2. Organizational inertia, and the need for executive structure to evolve faster



Cyber criminals continue to evolve rapidly. Large organizations generally do not.



This is the second issue that should concern every CEO.



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.



Very rarely do they stop to redesign how cybersecurity operates.



The result is what I described several years ago as the “Cybersecurity Spiral of Failure”.




As complexity and regulation increase, organizations invest in more security products.



More products create more complexity.



More products and greater complexity generate more alerts.



More alerts require more analysts.



More analysts produce more reports.



More reports continue to build up executive confidence.



Meanwhile, the underlying structural weaknesses remain largely unchanged, technical debt piles up and costs escalate.




And when the inevitable breach eventually happens, reality reveals itself, but distrust also sets in between senior executives and security teams.



This is not a funding problem. Nor is it a skills problem. It is fundamentally an operating model problem.



Many organizations continue trying to solve twenty-first century challenges using governance, accountability, organizational and reporting structures designed twenty-five years ago.



The cybersecurity function itself has evolved dramatically. Many executive structures have not.



This organizational inertia extends beyond technology: It affects budgeting cycles, investment priorities, procurement processes, accountability models and decision-making speed.



Cyber attackers innovate every day. Organizational change often takes years.



That imbalance should worry every CEO.



3. Accelerating technological disruption, and how it challenges organizations in areas where they are intrinsically weak



The third issue is potentially the most significant over the coming decade.




Artificial intelligence, autonomous agents and machine identities



Software supply chain complexity.



Quantum computing, and post-quantum cryptography




Each of these developments represents far more than another technical trend.



Together, they fundamentally change the dynamics of cybersecurity.



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.



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.



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.



None of these challenges can be solved overnight: They require clear governance, sustained investment over a few years and cross-functional organizational coordination.



Most large organizations are weak on those three fronts: This is precisely why CEOs should be focusing on them now.



Waiting until some of those risks become obvious will almost certainly be too late.



Businesses naturally prioritise immediate commercial pressures. Cybersecurity often involves preparing for risks whose timing remains uncertain.



But one of the greatest leadership failures I keep seeing remains the inability of organizations to act decisively on known unknowns.



That tension explains why many organizations delay action until external events force them to respond. Unfortunately, cybersecurity rarely rewards late action.



Leadership will determine who succeeds



Cybersecurity discussions still frequently focus on technology. I believe they should focus far more on leadership.



Technology will continue evolving. Threat actors will continue adapting. Regulations will continue expanding. Those developments are inevitable.



What remains within the control of every CEO is how their organization responds.



Does cybersecurity remain an IT issue? Or is it recognised as an integral part of business resilience?



How is cybersecurity accountability assigned at executive level? Or does it still rest largely with a CISO hidden in the organization?



Does the board spend sufficient time discussing resilience? Or does cybersecurity appear only when approving budgets or reviewing incidents?



These questions will increasingly determine organizational success.



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.



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.



That transformation cannot be delegated. It begins with the CEO.



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.



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



CIOs beware: DNS KSK rollover could kick off wave of mysterious outages
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 12:09:00 +0200

		
					  
						




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 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.



Sai Joshitha Kathari, 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.



“This has the potential to create real downstream destruction when unresolved failures sit underneath important business functions,” Kathari says. 



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. 



“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.”



Independent technology analyst Carmi Levy says that CIOs need to take this event very seriously. 



“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.”



Levy adds: “Custom-built code that lives outside conventional support mechanisms may or may not function when the DNS changes go into effect.”



The DNSSEC update itself is straightforward, but it is also the first significant DNSSEC change — specifically a change in the trust anchor — since 2018. 



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.”



Expect nearly every enterprise to be impacted



Kim Davies, 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. 



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. 



“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.”



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.”



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.”



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. 



“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.”



Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research, agrees that IT will likely spin its wheels chasing the wrong ghosts.



“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.”



“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.”



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. 



“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,” Justin Greis, 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.”



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. 



Potentially widespread fallout



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. 



“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.”



Greis adds that many enterprises will discover in January problems created by their own automation.



“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.”



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.



Cricket Liu, EVP and chief evangelist at Infoblox, gives the example of a DNS server that responds to factory-floor system queries.



“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.”



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. 



Impossible to predict what will happen



One of the top network experts on DNS effects in enterprises is Geoff Huston, chief scientist at the Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC), the regional Internet Registry administering IP addresses for the Asia Pacific region.



Huston says it is difficult to project what will happen in January until it happens.



“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.



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. 



“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?’”



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. 



“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.”



Ransomware groups are hammering your vulnerable VPNs
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 09:10:09 +0200

		
					  
						




Cybercriminals are actively exploiting a recently discovered vulnerability in Palo Alto Networks firewall and VPN appliances to deploy the Qilin ransomware strain.



A critical authentication bypass flaw (CVE-2026-0257) in Palo Alto GlobalProtect portal and gateway was the common link in a series of intrusions in June, Arctic Wolf Labs warns. Exploitation of the vulnerability came within days of disclosure.



“Post-exploitation tradecraft varied across intrusions, from rapid encryption-only operations to full double-extortion, possibly suggesting multiple affiliates operating under the Qilin ransomware-as-a-service (RaaS) umbrella,” Arctic Wolf’s researchers wrote in a post on the threat.



The campaign against Palo Alto’s VPN client is part of a rising trend that sees ransomware groups increasingly targeting vulnerabilities in network edge tools and devices.



Ransomware takes aim at the edge



Beyond GlobalProtect, Qilin — the most active threat group in Q2 2026, responsible for 14% of attacks, according to NCC Group’s latest Quarterly Cyber Threat Intelligence Report —  has also targeted flaws in Fortinet’s FortiGate, Citrix NetScaler, and Check Point Remote Access VPN.



Check Point warned in June of ransomware attacks against VPNs that still use the deprecated Internet Key Exchange version 1 (IKEv1) protocol. Citrix issued patches in early July for a CitrixBleed-like flaw in its NetScalar devices that had come under attack.



Meanwhile, Fortibleed, a massive credential-compromise campaign, exposed 75,000 FortiGate firewalls in June.  



Qilin is by no means alone in increasing its operations against VPNs and other network security tools.



The Gentlemen, No. 2 on NCC Group’s list with 238 victims in Q2 2026, is noted for breaking into organizations through firewalls, VPNs, and other internet-exposed systems — FortiGate and Cisco products in particular.



Akira, No. 4 on NCC Group’s list (127 victims), is also known for exploiting VPN vulnerabilities and abusing legitimate credentials, primarily versus products from Ivanti, Cisco, and Fortinet.



In the line of fire



Network edge security devices are becoming security liabilities for enterprise security professionals, with an alarming rise in zero-day exploits arising from what experts describe as basic and readily preventable vulnerabilities.



A range of attackers spanning opportunistic hackers to ransomware-as-a-service operators and nation-state sponsored APT (advanced persistent threat) groups are actively exploiting software vulnerabilities in edge devices to hack into corporate networks.



“Although there has not been a material rise in ransomware volume in the last quarter, the trajectory of attacks continues upwards, and VPNs remain an increasingly attractive target,” said Matt Hull, VP and head of cyber intelligence and response at NCC Group.



Unpatched vulnerabilities in edge devices are far from the only software bugs fueling ransomware attacks. For example, last year the Clop ransomware gang hacked hundreds of companies by exploiting zero-day vulnerabilities in Oracle’s E-Business Suite software.



Edge of darkness



VPNs and other internet-facing edge devices remain prime targets for ransomware operators because they provide a direct route into an organization’s network.



“Attackers may exploit an unpatched vulnerability, use stolen credentials, or target weak authentication controls,” said Alexander Leslie, a senior advisor at cyber threat intelligence firm Recorded Future. “In some cases, exploitation begins before organizations have had sufficient time to apply vendor guidance, leaving security teams with a very narrow window to respond.”



VPN exploitation sits alongside other initial access methods, such as phishing, compromised credentials, or software supply chain attacks. The preferred attacker infiltration method varies by campaign and sector but locating security in edge devices carry particular advantages from the perspective of attackers.



“Vulnerabilities in perimeter devices are particularly valuable to attackers because those systems are continuously exposed to the internet and can provide privileged access while bypassing some endpoint controls,” said Leslie.



Dray Agha, senior manager of security operations at managed detection and response firm Huntress, backed up this assessment that exploiting internet-facing VPNs and edge devices remains the “dominant, volume-driven tactic” for ransomware operators because these appliances offer a “direct, publicly accessible gateway straight into the heart of corporate networks.”



Rather than exploiting vulnerabilities in edge devices, attackers more commonly use internet-facing gateways as a means to abuse stolen credentials to break into corporate networks, according to Huntress.



“What we see at Huntress is that the VPN is the site of initial access some 70% of the time, for advanced threat actors,” said Agha. “Overwhelmingly, however, they are not exploiting for access; rather they are using stolen credentials to authenticate to non-MFA’d [multi-factor authentication] user accounts.”



Hardened perimeter



CSOs should treat their network perimeter as hostile territory by enforcing aggressive patch management, applying critical edge device updates within 24 to 48 hours, and mandating strict MFA for all access.



Implementing zero-trust network segmentation to trap attackers and prevent lateral movement if the initial gateway is compromised also helps in making enterprise networks more resilient against attacks, Huntress’ Agha advised.



Phishing-resistant multi-factor authentication, removal of unsupported systems, and close monitoring for unusual authentication or administrative activity also form key components in attack impact mitigation.



Internet-facing assets that are known to be actively exploited should be prioritized as a patching priority.



“Threat intelligence and evidence of active exploitation should help determine which vulnerabilities demand immediate action,” Recorded Future’s Leslie said.



CVE-2026-47670 | DbGate up to 7.1.8 /runners/load-reader functionName os command injection (EUVD-2026-48376)
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 08:27:56 +0200
A vulnerability marked as critical has been reported in DbGate up to 7.1.8. The impacted element is an unknown function of the file /runners/load-reader. Performing a manipulation of the argument functionName results in os command injection.

This vulnerability is known as CVE-2026-47670. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. No exploit is available.

It is suggested to upgrade the affected component.


Russian LAUNDRY BEAR Hackers Exploit Zimbra Zero-Day to Steal 90 Days of Emails
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 08:10:18 +0200
Russian state-supported threat actors, known as LAUNDRY BEAR, have exploited a zero-day vulnerability in the Zimbra Collaboration Suite to steal up to 909,090 days’ worth of emails from targeted organizations across Western countries. A joint cybersecurity advisory, AA26-204A, issued on July 23, 2026, warns that this espionage-focused group has targeted government, defense, energy, technology, education, […]
The post Russian LAUNDRY BEAR Hackers Exploit Zimbra Zero-Day to Steal 90 Days of Emails appeared first on GBHackers Security | #1 Globally Trusted Cyber Security News Platform.


Russian LAUNDRY BEAR Hackers Exploit Zimbra Zero-Day to Steal 90 Days of Emails
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 08:09:22 +0200
Russian state-supported threat actors, known as LAUNDRY BEAR, have exploited a zero-day vulnerability in the Zimbra Collaboration Suite to steal up to 909,090 days’ worth of emails from targeted organizations across Western countries. A joint cybersecurity advisory, AA26-204A, issued on…
Read more →
The post Russian LAUNDRY BEAR Hackers Exploit Zimbra Zero-Day to Steal 90 Days of Emails appeared first on IT Security News.


One Country Absorbed Nearly Half of the World’s Ransomware Attacks in Just Six Months – The United States
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 07:42:03 +0200
Strip away the geopolitics, the hacktivist noise, and the espionage headlines, and one number from the first half of 2026 stands out above everything else: 1,721. That's how many ransomware attacks hit organizations in the United States between January and June, according to new research from Cyble Research and Intelligence Labs (CRIL). It's not just the highest total of any country tracked in the report — it's more than the next nine most-targeted countries combined.
Canada, in second place worldwide, recorded 179 attacks. Germany logged 155. The United Kingdom, 138. Add up the rest of the global top 10 — France, Italy, Spain, Thailand, India and Brazil — and the total still falls more than 600 attacks short of the U.S. figure alone. Out of 3,836 ransomware attacks CRIL tracked worldwide this half, roughly 45% landed on American soil.

Also read: Fairlife Ransomware Attack Hits Production Systems, U.S. Operations Suspended
A Single Region, an Outsized Share
Widen the lens slightly and the picture holds. North America as a whole recorded 1,981 ransomware attacks in H1 2026 — more than half of every ransomware incident Cyble observed globally — alongside 35 data breach and leak incidents and 9 initial access sale listings. The report describes the region as home to "a mature, persistently active RaaS ecosystem operating at high volume across a wide range of industries and geographies."
Two ransomware-as-a-service operators did much of the damage. Qilin, the single most prolific gang worldwide, claimed 370 of those North American attacks on its own — nearly 19% of the regional total. Akira followed with 268, and INC Ransom added another 164. Together, Qilin and Akira alone accounted for more than half of all recorded ransomware activity across the region, a level of concentration that points to a small number of highly organized affiliate networks doing the bulk of the damage rather than a diffuse swarm of opportunists.

Also read: Qilin Ransomware Group’s TTPs Examined by Researchers
Where the Pressure Lands
Professional Services bore the brunt of North American ransomware activity, with INC Ransom showing a marked preference for law firms and other high-value services with sensitive client data. Construction, Manufacturing and Healthcare followed close behind.
One operator, AiLock, stood out for a coordinated wave of victim disclosures that all landed on the same day — March 3 — a pattern consistent with a mass-exploitation campaign rather than isolated intrusions. LockBit, despite years of law enforcement pressure and takedown attempts, kept up a steady tempo against public-sector and educational targets throughout the period, showcasing how difficult the group has been to fully dismantle.
On the data breach side, Technology and financial services (BFSI) were the most frequently targeted sectors in North America, together accounting for roughly 43% of incidents — a reflection of how much intellectual property and monetizable personal data those industries hold.
Notably, Agriculture & Livestock emerged as a significant target for initial access brokers, accounting for a third of all access listings tied to the region. Cyble flags this as a sign of "growing risk in the food supply chain," an area that has historically drawn less attention from ransomware operators than finance or healthcare.
The initial access market itself was strikingly concentrated: two sellers, tracked under the handles "redpin" and "xpl0itrs," accounted for nearly all listings targeting North American organizations. Threat actors also continued to lean on known and zero-day vulnerabilities in widely deployed enterprise platforms — including products from Ivanti and Palo Alto Networks — as their preferred way into corporate networks.

Hacktivism Blurs into Cybercrime
North America wasn't spared the hacktivism wave sweeping the rest of the world either. Collectives including SOLDADOS DIGITALES – UNIÓN AMERICANA and LYSTIC TEAM #ID drove roughly 56 data leak or dump posts and touched about 360 unique domains across the region, with Government, Technology, financial services and telecommunications entities most frequently in the crosshairs.
Cyble's broader findings suggest many groups marketing themselves as ideologically driven hacktivists are, in practice, running side businesses in stolen data brokerage and DDoS-for-hire services — a blurring of motive that complicates how defenders triage the threat.
The scale of the U.S. numbers doesn't necessarily mean American companies have weaker defenses than their global peers — the concentration also reflects the sheer size and digital density of the U.S. economy, and its outsized share of the high-value targets ransomware affiliates chase. But the data does argue for a shift in posture.
Cyble's broader recommendations — treating data exfiltration, not just encryption, as the primary risk; prioritizing patches for the recurring vendor list; and monitoring initial access markets as a leading indicator rather than an afterthought — apply nowhere more urgently than in a country absorbing this much of the world's ransomware volume on its own.


CVE-2026-60166 | Oracle Java SE 8u491 JavaFX information disclosure (WID-SEC-2026-2443)
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 07:07:29 +0200
A vulnerability was found in Oracle Java SE 8u491. It has been classified as problematic. This impacts an unknown function of the component JavaFX. Performing a manipulation results in information disclosure.

This vulnerability is known as CVE-2026-60166. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. No exploit is available.


CVE-2022-40181 | Siemens Desigo PXG3.W200-2 Device Embedded Browser cross site scripting (ssa-360783 / EUVD-2022-43484)
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 06:28:13 +0200
A vulnerability classified as problematic was found in Siemens Desigo PXM30-1, Desigo PXM30.E, Desigo PXM40-1, Desigo PXM40.E, Desigo PXM50-1, Desigo PXM50.E, Desigo PXG3.W100-1, Desigo PXG3.W100-2, Desigo PXG3.W200-1 and Desigo PXG3.W200-2. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality of the component Device Embedded Browser. The manipulation results in improper neutralization of encoded uri schemes in a web page.

This vulnerability is known as CVE-2022-40181. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. No exploit is available.

Upgrading the affected component is advised.


CVE-2026-55990 | NLnet Labs Unbound up to 1.25.1 DNSCrypt null pointer dereference (WID-SEC-2026-2492)
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 04:26:06 +0200
A vulnerability labeled as critical has been found in NLnet Labs Unbound up to 1.25.1. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality of the component DNSCrypt. The manipulation results in null pointer dereference.

This vulnerability is known as CVE-2026-55990. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. No exploit is available.

The affected component should be upgraded.


Microsoft launches new in-house AI models it says cut costs up to 89% versus OpenAI
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 02:50:17 +0200
Microsoft AI released two new in-house models into public preview on Wednesday — MAI-Image-2.5-Pro, its highest-fidelity image generator to date, and MAI-Voice-2-Flash, a speech model built for high-volume enterprise workloads — while publishing production data that amounts to the company's most aggressive argument yet that it can power its own products without leaning on OpenAI's frontier models.
The announcement, made by Microsoft AI's Superintelligence team, lands roughly a year after the company committed to building purpose-built models internally, and it arrives with an unusual level of specificity about where those models now run: Bing, PowerPoint, OneDrive, Dynamics 365, Excel, GitHub Copilot, and Azure. The message to enterprise buyers — and, implicitly, to OpenAI — is that Microsoft's homegrown models are no longer research projects. They are production infrastructure serving millions of users.
"Each of these enhancements is a step toward the same goal: Microsoft products, powered by Microsoft models," the company wrote in its announcement blog.
How MAI-Image-2.5-Pro and MAI-Voice-2-Flash stake out opposite ends of the AI cost curve
The two new releases occupy opposite ends of what Microsoft calls the quality-speed-cost curve, and the positioning is deliberate. MAI-Image-2.5-Pro targets the premium tier: hero imagery, detailed editing, and precise in-image text rendering — the last of which has long been a notorious weak spot for image generation models. Microsoft priced the model at $5 per million text input tokens, $8 per million image input tokens, and $106 per million image output tokens. The base MAI-Image-2.5 model recently launched at No. 2 for image editing on Arena, the community leaderboard that has become a de facto scoreboard for generative media.
The creative industry appears to be taking notice. Rob Reilly, global chief creative officer at advertising giant WPP, called the Pro model "a strong leap forward for GenMedia tools" in a statement included in Microsoft's announcement, adding that "Microsoft has firmly established itself among the leaders in generative AI."
MAI-Voice-2-Flash goes the other direction. First previewed at Microsoft's Build conference, Flash runs twice as fast as MAI-Voice-2 and costs 32% less, priced at $15 per million characters. It is designed for the unglamorous but enormous market of high-volume voice — call centers, voice agents, and real-time speech applications where latency and cost-per-call matter more than marginal gains in expressiveness. Together, the two models reflect a strategy of building families of models rather than a single flagship, because, as the company put it, a creative studio chasing maximum fidelity has very different needs from a customer service operation handling millions of calls a day.
Microsoft's production metrics show in-house models cutting GPU costs by up to 89%
The model launches are arguably less newsworthy than the deployment metrics Microsoft attached to them — numbers that read like a systematic case for swapping out third-party frontier models across its product portfolio. 
Bing Image Creator now runs entirely on MAI-Image-2.5, end to end, marking the first time the consumer image tool is fully in-house. In PowerPoint, Microsoft says MAI-Image-2.5 reduces GPU costs by up to 84% compared with GPT-Image-2, OpenAI's image model. In OneDrive, where MAI-Image-2.5 is now the default for key image-editing scenarios, the company reports a 26% increase in save rates, roughly 25% lower P95 latency, and 2.5 times greater efficiency under medium-utilization production workloads.
On the voice side, MAI-Voice-2-Flash now powers Dynamics 365 Contact Center — the platform used by customers including T-Mobile and EasyJet — where Microsoft claims GPU cost reductions of up to 89%. The model is also integrated into Azure Voice Live for developers building speech-to-speech agents.
Perhaps the most consequential deployment sits in healthcare. Microsoft's Dragon Copilot, used by 170,000 medical providers and responsible for processing 28 million patient encounters last quarter, now runs on MAI-Transcribe-1.5 for its multilingual workflow across 58 languages. Microsoft says internal evaluations show a 50% relative reduction in both transcription and language-identification error rates across most languages — a meaningful claim in a domain where transcription errors can propagate directly into clinical notes.
Inside the 'hill-climbing' strategy that lets small models beat GPT-5.6 in Excel
In a companion post published the same day, Microsoft detailed the methodology behind these results — what it calls its "hill-climbing machine," an integrated flywheel of data, models, and the product "harness" that surrounds them.
The clearest example is MAI-Code-1-Flash, the lightweight coding model launched in GitHub Copilot in June. Microsoft says the model achieves an approximately 10% higher code accept rate than GPT-5.4 Mini and Claude Haiku 4.5 in VS Code, while using 10% fewer median tokens. Developer retention tells a similar story: users were 6% more likely to return across multiple days than with GPT-5.4 Mini, and 11% more likely than with Claude Haiku 4.5.
Then Microsoft did something more interesting. It took the MAI-Code-1-Flash checkpoint and further trained it inside an Excel reinforcement learning environment, teaching a coding model the tools and workflows of spreadsheet knowledge work. The result, according to production user feedback, is a model on par with GPT-5.6 for the most common Excel tasks — while being small enough to run on Nvidia's older H100 and even A100 GPUs rather than requiring the latest-generation accelerators.
That hardware detail deserves emphasis. Every major AI company is fighting for allocation of cutting-edge chips, and a model that delivers frontier-adjacent quality on two-generation-old silicon fundamentally changes the deployment economics. It also frees the newest hardware — including Microsoft's now-operational GB200 cluster — for training rather than serving.
Satya Nadella's 'frontier diffusion' manifesto redraws the OpenAI relationship
Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella framed the announcements in a lengthy post on X titled "Frontier Diffusion & Control," which functions as something close to a strategic manifesto. "We can now take saturated frontier capabilities and deliver them at scale and at lower cost through models optimized for high-usage products, while continuing to use frontier models for frontier needs," Nadella wrote, adding that Microsoft is "beginning to route traffic across our first-party surfaces to MAI whenever our models match or outperform frontier alternatives."
Translated from executive prose: capabilities that were state-of-the-art a year ago are now table stakes, and Microsoft believes it can replicate them cheaply for the specific, repetitive tasks that dominate real product usage. Why pay frontier prices for a frontier model when a user just wants to reformat a spreadsheet column?
Nadella was careful to note that "frontier models from OpenAI and Anthropic are part of the orchestration system alongside MAI" — but he also articulated a pointed principle of model independence, arguing that a company's evaluations "should continue to hill climb even when any given model has been removed." 
“Keeping the harness, memory, context, and skills outside the model, he argued, is what gives Microsoft control. The subtext is hard to miss. Reuters reported in April that Microsoft’s exclusive license to OpenAI’s technology had been revised into a non-exclusive arrangement, and The Information reported last September that Microsoft had begun incorporating Anthropic models into some products. Wednesday’s announcement completes the triangle: Microsoft as orchestrator, with its partners’ frontier models as interchangeable components and its own models absorbing an ever-larger share of routine traffic.”
Developers cheer cheaper task-specific models while skeptics question Microsoft's track record
The response online captured both the appeal and the skepticism surrounding the strategy. "I love when people use small models for niche tasks," wrote one X user, @mavihsk, responding to Nadella's post. "Why do I have to use the all-knowing model just to change my field in Excel?" Another user, @nabu_lines, distilled the pitch neatly: "cost and performance both improve when you stop overusing the biggest model."
Others were less charitable about Microsoft's execution track record. "Microsoft is the worst when it comes to listening to user feedback," wrote designer @designedbyabin, arguing the company "will lose the AI race because they repeatedly failed to understand user needs." And one user, @tokenoverflow, offered a drier critique of the model-independence pitch: "i want it keep hill climbing after removing microsoft."
The skeptics raise a fair point. Microsoft's self-reported metrics — accept rates, save rates, GPU savings — come from its own internal evaluations, not independent benchmarks, and the company chooses which comparisons to publish.
But the strategy's logic does not depend on any single number. Nadella's framing that software now has "real marginal cost for the first time" explains why Microsoft is obsessive about tokens, GPUs, and serving costs: when AI features run on every keystroke across a billion-user product portfolio, an 84% GPU cost reduction is not an optimization. It is the difference between a viable business and a money pit.
Why Microsoft is turning its internal AI playbook into an Azure product
The final piece of the strategy is that Microsoft is selling the playbook, not just the models. Nadella explicitly positioned the hill-climbing approach as "a template for every other AI native, SaaS, or Enterprise company," and Microsoft is packaging the toolchain through Foundry and what it calls Frontier Tuning — letting enterprises train specialized models against their own proprietary evaluations and reinforcement learning environments. That turns Microsoft's internal cost-cutting exercise into an Azure product, and it gives enterprise customers a reason to run their AI workloads on Microsoft's cloud even if the models themselves come from elsewhere.
The company's emphasis on models trained "on clean, traceable, enterprise-grade data, without distillation from third-party models" serves the same commercial end. In an industry facing mounting scrutiny over training data provenance, Microsoft is betting that enterprise buyers — and courts — will care where model capabilities come from. Microsoft says it is now extending the hill-climbing approach to Copilot Chat, Outlook, and PowerPoint, and both new models are available in public preview through Microsoft Foundry and the MAI Playground. "None of this is an endpoint," the company wrote. "We're just getting started."
Seven years ago, Microsoft bet more than $13 billion that OpenAI would build the future of AI. Wednesday's announcement suggests the company has since learned a cheaper lesson: the future of AI may belong to whoever builds the frontier, but the profits belong to whoever makes it ordinary.


CVE-2022-40004 | Things Board 3.4.1 URL cross site scripting (EUVD-2022-43329)
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 02:10:03 +0200
A vulnerability was found in Things Board 3.4.1 and classified as problematic. Affected is an unknown function of the component URL Handler. The manipulation results in cross site scripting.

This vulnerability is known as CVE-2022-40004. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. No exploit is available.


CVE-2026-50032 | MZ Automation libIEC61850 up to 1.6.1 MMS Write Named Variable List null pointer dereference (EUVD-2026-48397)
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 00:44:55 +0200
A vulnerability classified as problematic has been found in MZ Automation libIEC61850 up to 1.6.1. This issue affects some unknown processing of the component MMS Write Named Variable List Handler. Performing a manipulation results in null pointer dereference.

This vulnerability is known as CVE-2026-50032. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. No exploit is available.


CVE-2018-19211 | ncurses 6.1 parse_entry.c _nc_parse_entry null pointer dereference (Nessus ID 119542 / ID 171930)
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 00:44:41 +0200
A vulnerability has been found in ncurses 6.1 and classified as problematic. Affected is the function _nc_parse_entry of the file parse_entry.c. Performing a manipulation results in null pointer dereference.

This vulnerability is known as CVE-2018-19211. Attacking locally is a requirement. No exploit is available.

The affected component should be upgraded.


Intel Benefits From a New Shift in A.I. Spending
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 00:20:30 +0200
The Silicon Valley chipmaker’s revenue rose 25 percent in the latest quarter, its fastest growth in 15 years, as A.I. firms increasingly bought chips known as central processing units.


Are Linux Mint's Default Apps Too Outdated for Everyday Use?
Fri, 24 Jul 2026 00:13:13 +0200
Did anyone in this community watched this video? The creator claims that Linux Mint, along with many LTS Linux distributions, often ships older versions of software, especially default apps like Calendar, Mail, Calculator, etc. He mentions Mint several times throughout the video.
 The video is from The Linux Experiment, which seems to be a well-known YouTube channel with nearly half a million subscribers.
 I came across this video just before switching from Windows to Linux Mint, and it made me a bit hesitant.
 As a regular user, it feels like there's no easy way to know whether we're using the latest and safest versions of these built-in apps. For example, if we connect our Google or Apple Calendar account to an older calendar app, could that create a security risk? The same concern applies to email clients, we don't know if we're using the latest and most secure version.
 Most regular users don't have the time or technical knowledge to manually check every application's version or update software outside the normal update process. We generally expect the operating system to keep essential apps secure and up to date.
 Am I misunderstanding how Linux Mint and other LTS distributions handle software updates and security? I'd appreciate hearing from people with more experience.
 https://preview.redd.it/eqwhcsz67xeh1.jpg?width=365&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3afc46c4597b33d1436a64a7ff3a5ffa9dcc7a4d
 
 
   submitted by    /u/EFG4567  
 [link]   [comments]


CVE-2022-3992 | SourceCodester Sanitization Management System Banner Image admin/?page=system_info cross site scripting (EUVD-2022-43321)
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 23:42:58 +0200
A vulnerability classified as problematic was found in SourceCodester Sanitization Management System. Impacted is an unknown function of the file admin/?page=system_info of the component Banner Image Handler. The manipulation results in cross site scripting.

This vulnerability is known as CVE-2022-3992. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. Furthermore, an exploit is available.


CVE-2026-61136 | Oracle Commerce Platform 11.4.0 Dynamo Application Framework privileges management (EUVD-2026-47345)
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 23:08:36 +0200
A vulnerability has been found in Oracle Commerce Platform 11.4.0 and classified as critical. Impacted is an unknown function of the component Dynamo Application Framework. Performing a manipulation results in improper privilege management.

This vulnerability is known as CVE-2026-61136. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. No exploit is available.


U.S. CISA adds Microsoft SharePoint and Check Point SmartConsole flaws to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 23:07:03 +0200
U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) adds SharePoint and Check Point flaws to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) added DD-WRT, Langflow, and WordPress flaws to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog. Below are the flaws added to the KeV catalog: The first flaw added to the KeV […]


U.S. CISA adds Microsoft SharePoint and Check Point SmartConsole flaws to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 22:44:12 +0200
U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) adds SharePoint and Check Point flaws to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) added DD-WRT, Langflow, and WordPress flaws to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog. Below…
Read more →
The post U.S. CISA adds Microsoft SharePoint and Check Point SmartConsole flaws to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog appeared first on IT Security News.


Check Point hole grants unauthenticated attackers full SmartConsole admin privileges
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 22:25:55 +0200

		
					  
						




Check Point has confirmed that a critical security hole in its SmartConsole management tool, one that allows unauthenticated attackers to assume full admin privileges, is now being exploited in the wild. The vulnerability, CVE-2026-16232, was given a CVSS score of 9.3.



In its security alert, Check Point described the bug as one allowing an unauthenticated attacker to “obtain an application login token and use it to login via SmartConsole with full admin privileges and apply changes to the security policy and security configuration.”



The company has released a patch for the bug and also recommends that users “limit Trusted Clients, GUI clients, to trusted IP addresses/subnets.” That approach has always been a best practice, but practical networking realities today make it challenging to maintain. Check Point said that the exploit has impacted ten of its customers, all of whom it had notified directly.



Far worse than most



Frank Dickson, group VP for security at IDC, said this security hole is far worse than most.



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



In an interview with CSO Online, Lotem Finkelstein, vice president of research at Check Point, said that the company learned of the vulnerability on Sunday, emailed customers the same day, and released the patch within 72 hours.



But when his team re-reviewed earlier logs, knowing what to look for, they spotted this hole being attacked as early as April, Finkelstein said.



The fact that, over the course of three months, the team only found ten organizations under attack, indicated that it has been very difficult for the attacker to find vulnerable systems, he noted; customers were, in the main, using secure settings to protect themselves.



Nonetheless, Finkelstein said, Check Point considers this hole to be “a severe vulnerability.”



Challenges of IP address restrictions



While it can be technically challenging to keep the IP address allowlists that Check Point recommends current, given DHCP’s ability to easily change those addresses, Assaf Morag, a cybersecurity researcher at Flare, noted that specifically limiting access to a management console is far more critical than limiting overall external access.



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



Pieter Arntz, malware intelligence researcher at Malwarebytes, also noted that the constantly changing nature of global IP addresses can prove annoying to IT teams. Stressing that he is not familiar with Check Point’s specific settings, he noted, “Certain settings are a nuisance when applied strictly, and at some point the IT staff gets tired of constantly tweaking and they abandon the most secure path.”



Ideal platform for long-term attacks



Mike Wilkes, enterprise CISO at Aikido Security,  agreed that the severity and exposure of this hole is alarming.



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



IDC’s Dickson strongly encouraged CISOs to deploy the patch, not to just change settings to mitigate the issue. 



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



And, he added, “since attackers here can disable logging, audit admin activity going back before the bug surfaced. Quiet logs aren’t proof nothing happened. This is the recurring theme with ‘single pane of glass’ security tools: the console built to make everything easier to run is also the one thing you really don’t want someone else driving.”



CVE-2026-60217 | Oracle Coherence 12.2.1.4.0/14.1.1.0.0/14.1.2.0.0/15.1.1.0.0 Core Remote Code Execution (EUVD-2026-46623)
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 20:32:50 +0200
A vulnerability was found in Oracle Coherence 12.2.1.4.0/14.1.1.0.0/14.1.2.0.0/15.1.1.0.0. It has been declared as critical. This affects an unknown part of the component Core. The manipulation results in Remote Code Execution.

This vulnerability is known as CVE-2026-60217. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. No exploit is available.


New Alpha Release: Tor Browser 16.0a9
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 20:25:02 +0200

    
      


      
    
    Tor Browser 16.0a9 is now available from the Tor Browser download page and also from our distribution directory.
This version includes important security updates to Firefox.
⚠️ Reminder: The Tor Browser Alpha release-channel is for testing only. As such, Tor Browser Alpha is not intended for general use because it is more likely to include bugs affecting usability, security, and privacy.
Moreover, Tor Browser Alphas are now based on Firefox's betas. Please read more about this important change in the Future of Tor Browser Alpha blog post.
If you are an at-risk user, require strong anonymity, or just want a reliably-working browser, please stick with the stable release channel.
It's ESR transition season again!
Well actually, it has been ESR transition season throughout this entire release cycle! As described in the aforementioned Future of Tor Browser Alpha blog post, we have been incrementally rebasing our Alpha channel on Firefox betas since December of last year. As a result, we now stand before you with Tor Browser 16.0a9 which is based on Firefox ESR 153.
We will continue rebasing Tor Browser 17.0 Alpha branches on Firefox betas throughout the remainder of the Tor Browser 16.0 release cycle. However, new feature-work for now must be put on hold for a few reasons:

We must focus our attention on resolving our Bugzilla Audit issues to ensure the features we have inherited from upstream comply Tor Browser's threat model and to patch any changes which do not.
Feature work targeting 16.0 stable would need to be cherry-pick'd onto our 17.0 Alpha branches to ensure we don't lose any work. The more invasive a feature patch is, the harder it will be to port to newer versions. This would also be a potentially error-prone process and there is some risk we would lose patches along the way.
We need to finish stabilizing as soon as possible as we have hard external deadlines which cannot be moved: the end-of-life of Firefox ESR 140 on October 13th and the Google Play Minimum Target API Level requirement on November 1st

Challenges and Triumphs
💍 Sharing the Load
Rebasing the hundreds of Tor Browser patches onto newer versions of Firefox is a challenging task. It is like maintaining the structural stability of sand-castle at high-tide with the waves crashing all around you.
As such, it quickly become clear early in this new process that we would need to do something if we wanted to avoid burning out the few developers typically involved in this work. To mitigate this, we shared the knowledge internally and spread the work out across all eight members of the team. This way, each developer was only responsible for at most two or three rebases throughout the entire release cycle.
🎨 UI Code Churn
Over the past year, Firefox has developed and integrated two major changes to the UI in Firefox: a redesign of about:preferences in Firefox Desktop and a migration from Material 2 to Material 3 in Firefox Android.
Adapting to these types of changes to the frontend are typically rather time-consuming for us, as many (if not the majority) of our patches modify Firefox's UI in some way. For example, we have an entire preferences page on Tor Browser desktop dedicated to configuring how the browser connects to the Tor Network. On Android, we similarly have various additions to the menus, configuration options, and custom UI.
Whenever Mozilla modifies their design systems and Firefox's user interface, we necessarily have to adapt our own custom additions to match. Otherwise, our Tor Browser-specific UI elements would look completely out of place and potentially confuse users (as well as simply looking unprofessional). Therefore, each of these upstream changes requires collaboration with the Tor Project's UX team to update our features' designs and of course development time to implement.
In addition to the time-cost associated with the extra engineering and UX collaboration, very often our old patches simply do not apply cleanly due to the amount of code which has changed. For example, the about:preferences changes on Firefox Desktop are essentially a complete re-write which means we also have to completely re-write our own settings changes without regressing in functionality.
On the plus side, one benefit of our new processes is that we have been able to spread out this work over the entire release cycle. In the past way of doing things, we would have discovered all UX elements which needed to be fixed, updated our designs, and re-implemented in the course of a few months during the old ESR transition season. Under this new way of working, we have been able to incrementally fix things throughout the development cycle.
The benefits of working this way does not just apply to UX of course. It is much easier to find regressions across the entire stack when rebasing between one major Firefox version at a time instead of across 12 or 13. It is also much easier for developers to fix individual regressions one at a time compared to diagnosing, disentangling, and fixing multiple bugs concurrently (divide et impera!).
⚙️ Pending Google Target API Level Requirements
Every year, Google requires new Android app releases to target an updated minimum API level. This means, we would not be able to upload new versions of Tor Browser Stable past a certain date (usually August 1st with an extension to November 1st typically possible) without first updating the app to support the new minimum target API level. Fortunately, we inherit most of the required changes from Mozilla when rebasing to the next major ESR.
However, this requirement does impose a hard deadline for the absolute latest we can responsibly stabilize Tor Browser Alpha and promote it to Stable. We've been fortunate in the past few years to make the deadline with a few days to spare (October 28th for Tor Browser 15, October 22nd for Tor Browser 14, etc). Given how far ahead of the curve we are this year, we are hoping to release about a month earlier in September (fingers crossed!).
🤖 Android APKs too big
The Google Play Store has a strict size limit of about 100 megabytes for Android applications. New functionality added to Firefox Android over the past year means a larger application which results in new headaches for Tor Browser developers. This release cycle was no exception to this rule and we have had to get creative with our size reductions.
In the past, we have been able reduce our package size though various methods including:

Using custom size-reducing compiler flags
Compiling multiple pluggable-transports into a single unified binary to de-duplicate shared dependencies
Removing unused Firefox assets from the build
Replacing unused (but still linked) libraries with no-op stubs
and countless other methods over there years

Our most recent effort has been the most invasive yet! For some background, the Firefox application consists of (among other things): various shared libraries, the Firefox executable, a library known as 'xul' which contains most of Firefox's natively compiled functionality, and finally a file known as omni.ja. This omni.ja file is a zip archive which contains the JavaScript, HTML, images, and other assets used in Firefox.
This time around, to reduce the size of our Android package we havechanged how this archive is compressed. We modified the Firefox build system to compress this archive with xz and we modified Firefox itself to decompress this archive at runtime. This work did require a few iterations to get right. In the end, we got back about 3 megabytes with these changes and got us once again under Google's imposed size budget.
📉 Even Less Telemetry
Over the years, we have worked to incrementally remove dependencies from Tor Browser Android as part of the aforementioned size reduction work. We of course inherit most of these dependencies from Firefox Android and unfortunately some of them can be labeled as 'trackers'. While we do disable telemetry by default at runtime, the code which implements it remains in the codebase.
We're happy to report that as of Tor Browser 16.0a8, are down to only 1 'tracker' library in the Tor Browser Android codebase: Mozilla Telemetry. Again, this telemetry is disabled at runtime, but this is one more unused dependency which we can hopefully remove in the future (and maybe get some more bytes back!).
Current Status
We have:

incrementally rebased Tor Browser and Tor Browser for Android to Firefox ESR 153 from Firefox ESR 140
updated the build systems with the latest dependencies and fixed a few reproducibility issues
triaged most of the upstream changes from the past year and flagged over 250 issues for further review (triaging of Firefox 153 is in progress)
resolved about half of these triaged issues

For the remainder of this release cycle, we will be focusing on auditing these issues and fixing bugs until the 16.0 alpha series is ready to become Tor Browser Stable 16.0. We are optimistically targeting a September release, which would put us one month ahead of schedule compared to last year.
Known Issues
🦊 Firefox Branding
In some places in the browser there may be Firefox branding (e.g. logos, cute little foxes, etc) instead of Tor Browser branding. We're currently tracking one known instance in tor-browser#44998. If you discover any other instances lurking about, please open an issue!
🌐 All websites marked 'insecure' on Tor Browser Android
Currently, the identity block in the URL bar on Tor Browser Android will always report insecure (e.g. a shield icon with a slash through it). For now, you can tap this icon and verify the certificate manually. This issue is being tracked in tor-browser#45115
Send us your feedback
Now is a great time to become an alpha tester! If you find a bug or have a suggestion for how we could improve this release, please let us know.
Full changelog
The full changelog since Tor Browser 16.0a8 is:

All Platforms
Updated NoScript to 13.6.30.90201984
Bug tor-browser#43819: Show custom security level on android
Bug tor-browser#44748: Revert Funding the Commons Implementations
Bug tor-browser#44811: Remove the lock on pdfjs.disable.
Bug tor-browser#45101: Rebase Tor Browser onto 153.0esr
Bug tor-browser#45131: Security level is using an unsafe getBoolPref
Bug tor-browser-build#41831: Update libevent to 2.1.13


Windows + macOS + Linux
Updated Firefox to 153.0esr
Bug tor-browser#44439: Remove translate action from urlbar
Bug tor-browser#44883: Remove urlbar quick action for labs
Bug tor-browser#45029: Convert connection status settings to new design and config approach
Bug tor-browser#45055: Rename --color-gray-05 to --color-gray-0
Bug tor-browser#45081: Use the new "Acorn" icons on desktop
Bug tor-browser#45110: Disable the settings redesign until ready for us
Bug tor-browser#45112: Missing CSS border tokens in 153
Bug tor-browser#45132: nsAppFileLocationProvider.cpp: use of undeclared identifier 'XRE_EXECUTABLE_FILE'
Bug tor-browser-build#41800: Create a script that adapts the Tor Browser manual HTMLs to work in Tor Browser


macOS
Bug tor-browser#45108: Artifact generation fails due to missing .DS_Store in the branding directories


Android
Updated GeckoView to 153.0esr
Bug tor-browser#43820: Use SecurityLevel integration on android
Bug tor-browser#44157: Remove secret setting toggle for Tab Management Redesign
Bug tor-browser#45045: Remove moz asset in Downloads screen
Bug tor-browser#45103: Disable broken "tab management"
Bug tor-browser#45109: No value passed for parameter 'jsEnabled'
Bug tor-browser#45118: Audit and disable Mozilla VPN promo
Bug tor-browser#45130: Clean up TorHomePage padding


Build System
All Platforms
Bug tor-browser-build#41838: Update personal_access_tokens URL in tools/fetch_changelogs.py


Windows + Linux + Android
Updated Go to 1.26.5


Windows
Bug tor-browser-build#41819: Fix windows-rs URL in projects/firefox/config






    
  
    
        
          applications
        
      

        
          releases
        
      
  
  


Rockwell Automation ThinManager
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 20:17:43 +0200
View CSAF
Summary
Successful exploitation of this vulnerability could allow an authenticated attacker to write arbitrary files to restricted system directories outside of the application's intended directory.
The following versions of Rockwell Automation ThinManager are affected:

ThinManager >=13.0.0|<13.0.7, >=13.1.0|<13.1.5, >=13.2.0|<13.2.4, >=14.0.0|<14.0.2





CVSS
Vendor
Equipment
Vulnerabilities




v3 8.1
Rockwell Automation
Rockwell Automation ThinManager
Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')




Background

Critical Infrastructure Sectors: Chemical, Critical Manufacturing, Energy, Food and Agriculture, Water and Wastewater
Countries/Areas Deployed: Worldwide
Company Headquarters Location: United States


Vulnerabilities

Expand All +

CVE-2026-11917

A path traversal security issue exists within Rockwell Automation ThinManager software due to improper limitation of file save operations within the API. An authenticated attacker could exploit this vulnerability to write arbitrary files to restricted system directories outside of the application's intended directory.
View CVE Details

Affected Products
Rockwell Automation ThinManager

Vendor:
Rockwell Automation
Product Version:
Rockwell Automation ThinManager: >=13.0.0|<13.0.7, Rockwell Automation ThinManager: >=13.1.0|<13.1.5, Rockwell Automation ThinManager: >=13.2.0|<13.2.4, Rockwell Automation ThinManager: >=14.0.0|<14.0.2
Product Status:
known_affected


Remediations
Mitigation
Users using the affected software, should upgrade to one of the corrected versions as follows:
Vendor fix
ThinManager Versions 13.0.0 - 13.0.7 --> 13.0.8
Vendor fix
ThinManager Versions 13.1.0 - 13.1.5 --> 13.1.6
Vendor fix
ThinManager Versions 13.2.0 - 13.2.4 --> 13.2.5
Vendor fix
ThinManager Versions 14.0.0 - 14.0.2 --> 14.0.3
Mitigation
Users using the affected software, who are not able to upgrade to one of the corrected versions, should use Rockwell Automation's security best practices.
https://support.rockwellautomation.com/app/answers/answer_view/a_id/1085012/loc/en_US#__highlight
Mitigation
For more information, refer to Rockwell Automation's Securitry Advisory page.
https://www.rockwellautomation.com/en-us/trust-center/security-advisories.html

Relevant CWE: CWE-22 Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')

Metrics




CVSS Version
Base Score
Base Severity
Vector String




3.1
8.1
HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H


4.0
7.2
HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N








Acknowledgments

Rockwell Automation reported this vulnerability to CISA


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

Recommended Practices
CISA recommends users take defensive measures to minimize the risk of exploitation of this vulnerability.
Minimize network exposure for all control system devices and/or systems, ensuring they are not accessible from the internet.
Locate control system networks and remote devices behind firewalls and isolating them from business networks.
When remote access is required, use more secure methods, such as Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), recognizing VPNs may have vulnerabilities and should be updated to the most current version available. Also recognize VPN is only as secure as the connected devices.
CISA reminds organizations to perform proper impact analysis and risk assessment prior to deploying defensive measures.
CISA also provides a section for control systems security recommended practices on the ICS webpage on cisa.gov/ics. Several CISA products detailing cyber defense best practices are available for reading and download, including Improving Industrial Control Systems Cybersecurity with Defense-in-Depth Strategies.
CISA encourages organizations to implement recommended cybersecurity strategies for proactive defense of ICS assets.
Additional mitigation guidance and recommended practices are publicly available on the ICS webpage at cisa.gov/ics in the technical information paper, ICS-TIP-12-146-01B--Targeted Cyber Intrusion Detection and Mitigation Strategies.
Organizations observing suspected malicious activity should follow established internal procedures and report findings to CISA for tracking and correlation against other incidents.
CISA also recommends users take the following measures to protect themselves from social engineering attacks:
Do not click web links or open attachments in unsolicited email messages.
Refer to Recognizing and Avoiding Email Scams for more information on avoiding email scams.
Refer to Avoiding Social Engineering and Phishing Attacks for more information on social engineering attacks.
No known public exploitation specifically targeting this vulnerability has been reported to CISA at this time.

Revision History

Initial Release Date: 2026-07-14




Date
Revision
Summary




2026-07-14
1
Initial Publication by Rockwell Automation


2026-07-21
2
Initial Republication of Rockwell Automation advisory




Legal Notice and Terms of Use


Johnson Controls C-CURE 9000 and Victor application server
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 20:17:06 +0200
View CSAF
Summary
Successful exploitation of these vulnerabilities could allow an attacker with network access to achieve remote code execution.
The following versions of Johnson Controls C-CURE 9000 and Victor application server are affected:

C-CURE 9000 and victor <=v2.90_v3.0 
victor Web <=v7.1 





CVSS
Vendor
Equipment
Vulnerabilities




v3 9.6
Johnson Controls
Johnson Controls C-CURE 9000 and Victor application server
Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF), Execution with Unnecessary Privileges




Background

Critical Infrastructure Sectors: Critical Manufacturing
Countries/Areas Deployed: Worldwide
Company Headquarters Location: Ireland


Vulnerabilities

Expand All +

CVE-2026-21655

Under certain circumstances, successful exploitation of this vulnerability could allow an unauthenticated attacker on the adjacent network to achieve arbitrary code execution on the C-CURE 9000 or victor application server, as well as connected clients (e.g., workstations of physical security personnel). Such an attack could impact physical security controls.
View CVE Details

Affected Products
Johnson Controls C-CURE 9000 and Victor application server

Vendor:
Johnson Controls
Product Version:
Johnson Controls C-CURE 9000 and victor: <=v2.90_v3.0
Product Status:
known_affected


Remediations
Mitigation
Johnson Controls recommends the following defensive measures to help reduce the risk of exploitation: (CVE-2026-21655) Upgrade to C-CURE 9000 / victor version 3.20 or later, which addresses the vulnerable deserialization path (LV1.1).
Vendor fix
Network segmentation - Isolate the C-CURE 9000 and victor application servers on a dedicated network segment and restrict access to port 8999 to only authorized systems that require connectivity.
Mitigation
Firewall / access control lists - Implement strict firewall rules to block all unnecessary inbound connections to port 8999 from untrusted network segments.
Mitigation
Intrusion detection / prevention - Deploy IDS/IPS signatures tuned to detect known .NET deserialization exploit payloads (e.g., ysoserial.net patterns) targeting port 8999.
Mitigation
Application whitelisting - Enforce application whitelisting on application server hosts to prevent unauthorized executables from being launched by the server process.
Mitigation
Least privilege - Ensure the application server process runs with the minimum privileges necessary, reducing the impact of successful exploitation.
Mitigation
Monitor and audit - Enable detailed logging on application server hosts and monitor for anomalous process creation by SoftwareHouse.CrossFire.Server.exe.
Mitigation
Disable unnecessary services - If the ClientConnectionManager_NF.SynchronousServerNotification callback interface is not required, disable or restrict it to reduce attack surface.
Mitigation
For more detailed mitigation instructions, please see Johnson Controls Product Security Advisories JCI-PSA-2026-07, JCI-PSA-2026-13, and JCI-PSA-2026-16 at the following location: https://www.johnsoncontrols.com/trust-center/cybersecurity/security-advisories
https://www.johnsoncontrols.com/trust-center/cybersecurity/security-advisories

Relevant CWE: CWE-918 Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Metrics




CVSS Version
Base Score
Base Severity
Vector String




3.1
8.8
HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H


4.0
8.7
HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N







CVE-2026-21653

Under certain circumstances, successful exploitation of this vulnerability could allow an attacker to forge server-side HTTP requests from the victor Web application. This could be leveraged to interact with internal services running on the host or accessible on the local network, potentially leading to unauthorized information disclosure or lateral movement within the network.
View CVE Details

Affected Products
Johnson Controls C-CURE 9000 and Victor application server

Vendor:
Johnson Controls
Product Version:
Johnson Controls victor Web: 
Product Status:
known_affected


Remediations
Vendor fix
(CVE-2026-21653, CVE-2026-34496) Update all victor Web installations to version 7.0 or later, which contains the fix for this vulnerability. The fix has been validated through independent retest.
Mitigation
Firewall / access control lists - Implement strict firewall rules to block all unnecessary inbound connections to port 8999 from untrusted network segments.
Mitigation
Intrusion detection / prevention - Deploy IDS/IPS signatures tuned to detect known .NET deserialization exploit payloads (e.g., ysoserial.net patterns) targeting port 8999.
Mitigation
Application whitelisting - Enforce application whitelisting on application server hosts to prevent unauthorized executables from being launched by the server process.
Mitigation
Least privilege - Ensure the application server process runs with the minimum privileges necessary, reducing the impact of successful exploitation.
Mitigation
Monitor and audit - Enable detailed logging on application server hosts and monitor for anomalous process creation by SoftwareHouse.CrossFire.Server.exe.
Mitigation
Disable unnecessary services - If the ClientConnectionManager_NF.SynchronousServerNotification callback interface is not required, disable or restrict it to reduce attack surface.
Mitigation
For more detailed mitigation instructions, please see Johnson Controls Product Security Advisories JCI-PSA-2026-07, JCI-PSA-2026-13, and JCI-PSA-2026-16 at the following location: https://www.johnsoncontrols.com/trust-center/cybersecurity/security-advisories
https://www.johnsoncontrols.com/trust-center/cybersecurity/security-advisories

Relevant CWE: CWE-918 Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Metrics




CVSS Version
Base Score
Base Severity
Vector String




3.1
9.6
CRITICAL
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H


4.0
9.4
CRITICAL
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H







CVE-2026-34496

Under certain circumstances, successful exploitation of this vulnerability could result in low privilege users accessing unauthorized pages such as Users and Logs. Successful exploitation could allow an attacker to view sensitive system information, user account details, and audit logs beyond their intended access level, potentially enabling further attacks or unauthorized administrative actions.
View CVE Details

Affected Products
Johnson Controls C-CURE 9000 and Victor application server

Vendor:
Johnson Controls
Product Version:
Johnson Controls victor Web: <=v7.1
Product Status:
known_affected


Remediations
Vendor fix
(CVE-2026-21653, CVE-2026-34496) Update all victor Web installations to version 7.0 or later, which contains the fix for this vulnerability. The fix has been validated through independent retest.
Mitigation
Firewall / access control lists - Implement strict firewall rules to block all unnecessary inbound connections to port 8999 from untrusted network segments.
Mitigation
Intrusion detection / prevention - Deploy IDS/IPS signatures tuned to detect known .NET deserialization exploit payloads (e.g., ysoserial.net patterns) targeting port 8999.
Mitigation
Application whitelisting - Enforce application whitelisting on application server hosts to prevent unauthorized executables from being launched by the server process.
Mitigation
Least privilege - Ensure the application server process runs with the minimum privileges necessary, reducing the impact of successful exploitation.
Mitigation
Monitor and audit - Enable detailed logging on application server hosts and monitor for anomalous process creation by SoftwareHouse.CrossFire.Server.exe.
Mitigation
Disable unnecessary services - If the ClientConnectionManager_NF.SynchronousServerNotification callback interface is not required, disable or restrict it to reduce attack surface.
Mitigation
For more detailed mitigation instructions, please see Johnson Controls Product Security Advisories JCI-PSA-2026-07, JCI-PSA-2026-13, and JCI-PSA-2026-16 at the following location: https://www.johnsoncontrols.com/trust-center/cybersecurity/security-advisories
https://www.johnsoncontrols.com/trust-center/cybersecurity/security-advisories

Relevant CWE: CWE-250 Execution with Unnecessary Privileges

Metrics




CVSS Version
Base Score
Base Severity
Vector String




3.1
8
HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H


4.0
8.7
HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N








Acknowledgments

Harrison Neal reported these vulnerabilities to CISA


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

Recommended Practices
CISA recommends users take defensive measures to minimize the risk of exploitation of these vulnerabilities. CISA reminds organizations to perform proper impact analysis and risk assessment prior to deploying defensive measures.
CISA also provides a section for control systems security recommended practices on the ICS webpage on cisa.gov/ics. Several CISA products detailing cyber defense best practices are available for reading and download, including Improving Industrial Control Systems Cybersecurity with Defense-in-Depth Strategies.
CISA encourages organizations to implement recommended cybersecurity strategies for proactive defense of ICS assets.
Additional mitigation guidance and recommended practices are publicly available on the ICS webpage at cisa.gov/ics in the technical information paper, ICS-TIP-12-146-01B--Targeted Cyber Intrusion Detection and Mitigation Strategies.
Organizations observing suspected malicious activity should follow established internal procedures and report findings to CISA for tracking and correlation against other incidents.
CISA also recommends users take the following measures to protect themselves from social engineering attacks:
Do not click web links or open attachments in unsolicited email messages.
Refer to Recognizing and Avoiding Email Scams for more information on avoiding email scams.
Refer to Avoiding Social Engineering and Phishing Attacks for more information on social engineering attacks.
No known public exploitation specifically targeting this vulnerability has been reported to CISA at this time.

Revision History

Initial Release Date: 2026-07-23




Date
Revision
Summary




2026-07-23
1
Initial Republication of Johnson Controls Product Security Advisories JCI-PSA-2026-07, JCI-PSA-2026-13, and JCI-PSA-2026-16




Legal Notice and Terms of Use


Johnson Controls XAAP Android
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 20:17:02 +0200
View CSAF
Summary
Successful exploitation of this vulnerability could result in an attacker obtaining confidential information from the device.
The following versions of Johnson Controls XAAP Android are affected:

XAAP Android <1.53





CVSS
Vendor
Equipment
Vulnerabilities




v3 3.3
Johnson Controls
Johnson Controls XAAP Android
Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information




Background

Critical Infrastructure Sectors: Critical Manufacturing
Countries/Areas Deployed: Worldwide
Company Headquarters Location: Ireland


Vulnerabilities

Expand All +

CVE-2026-34490

A cleartext storage weakness exists in the Fire Solutions Android application, which stores application data locally on the device without encryption. An attacker with physical access to the device and one able to compromise the device through a separate, unrelated flaw, could potentially read this data in plaintext. Exploitation does not require network access and is limited to the local device environment.
View CVE Details

Affected Products
Johnson Controls XAAP Android

Vendor:
Johnson Controls
Product Version:
Johnson Controls XAAP Android: <1.53
Product Status:
known_affected


Remediations
Vendor fix
Johnson Controls recommends users update the XAAP Android application to version 1.53 or later, which contains the fix for this vulnerability.
Mitigation
Johnson Controls recommends users restrict physical access to devices running the XAAP Android application.
Mitigation
Johnson Controls recommends users ensure devices are hardened with up-to-date Android OS versions, device encryption enabled, and screen lock protections in place.
Mitigation
Johnson Controls recommends users implement a Mobile Device Management (MDM) solution to enforce security policies, including encryption requirements, application whitelisting, and remote wipe capabilities.
Mitigation
Johnson Controls recommends users Avoid rooting or jailbreaking devices used in production environments, as this weakens OS-level security controls that help protect local application data.
Mitigation
For more detailed mitigation instructions, please see Johnson Controls Product Security Advisory JCI-PSA-2026-10.

Relevant CWE: CWE-312 Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information

Metrics




CVSS Version
Base Score
Base Severity
Vector String




3.1
3.3
LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N


4.0
4.8
MEDIUM
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N








Acknowledgments

Johnson Controls reported this vulnerability to CISA


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

Recommended Practices
CISA recommends users take defensive measures to minimize the risk of exploitation of this vulnerability.
Minimize network exposure for all control system devices and/or systems, ensuring they are not accessible from the internet.
Locate control system networks and remote devices behind firewalls and isolating them from business networks.
When remote access is required, use more secure methods, such as Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), recognizing VPNs may have vulnerabilities and should be updated to the most current version available. Also recognize VPN is only as secure as the connected devices.
CISA reminds organizations to perform proper impact analysis and risk assessment prior to deploying defensive measures.
CISA also provides a section for control systems security recommended practices on the ICS webpage on cisa.gov/ics. Several CISA products detailing cyber defense best practices are available for reading and download, including Improving Industrial Control Systems Cybersecurity with Defense-in-Depth Strategies.
CISA encourages organizations to implement recommended cybersecurity strategies for proactive defense of ICS assets.
Additional mitigation guidance and recommended practices are publicly available on the ICS webpage at cisa.gov/ics in the technical information paper, ICS-TIP-12-146-01B--Targeted Cyber Intrusion Detection and Mitigation Strategies.
Organizations observing suspected malicious activity should follow established internal procedures and report findings to CISA for tracking and correlation against other incidents.
No known public exploitation specifically targeting this vulnerability has been reported to CISA at this time. This vulnerability is not exploitable remotely.

Revision History

Initial Release Date: 2026-07-23




Date
Revision
Summary




2026-07-23
1
Initial Republication of Johnson Controls JCI-PSA-2026-10




Legal Notice and Terms of Use


MZ Automation libIEC61850
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 20:16:58 +0200
View CSAF
Summary
Successful exploitation of these vulnerabilities could allow an unauthenticated network-adjacent attacker to crash critical IEC 61850 services or execute arbitrary code, disrupting or compromising protection, visibility, and control functions.
The following versions of MZ Automation libIEC61850 are affected:

libIEC61850 >=v1.0.0|<=v1.6.1 





CVSS
Vendor
Equipment
Vulnerabilities




v3 8.1
MZ Automation
MZ Automation libIEC61850
Stack-based Buffer Overflow, Heap-based Buffer Overflow, Improper Handling of Syntactically Invalid Structure, NULL Pointer Dereference




Background

Critical Infrastructure Sectors: Critical Manufacturing, Energy, Transportation Systems
Countries/Areas Deployed: Worldwide
Company Headquarters Location: Germany


Vulnerabilities

Expand All +

CVE-2026-50039

The affected product is vulnerable to a stack-based buffer overflow, which may allow an attacker to cause a memory corruption via a ReadRequest.
View CVE Details

Affected Products
MZ Automation libIEC61850

Vendor:
MZ Automation
Product Version:
MZ Automation libIEC61850: >=v1.0.0|<=v1.6.1
Product Status:
known_affected


Remediations
Vendor fix
MZ Automation recommends updating to the latest build of the libIEC61850 standard. Documentation can be found at https://github.com/mz-automation/libiec61850.
https://github.com/mz-automation/libiec61850

Relevant CWE: CWE-121 Stack-based Buffer Overflow

Metrics




CVSS Version
Base Score
Base Severity
Vector String




3.1
7.5
HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H


4.0
8.7
HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N







CVE-2026-49035

The affected product is vulnerable to a heap-based buffer overflow via a crafted MMS Initiate request. Remote code execution (RCE) has been demonstrated when ASLR is disabled; memory corruption or denial of service may occur in configurations where ASLR is enabled.
View CVE Details

Affected Products
MZ Automation libIEC61850

Vendor:
MZ Automation
Product Version:
MZ Automation libIEC61850: >=v1.0.0|<=v1.6.1
Product Status:
known_affected


Remediations
Vendor fix
MZ Automation recommends updating to the latest build of the libIEC61850 standard. Documentation can be found at https://github.com/mz-automation/libiec61850.
https://github.com/mz-automation/libiec61850

Relevant CWE: CWE-122 Heap-based Buffer Overflow

Metrics




CVSS Version
Base Score
Base Severity
Vector String




3.1
8.1
HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H


4.0
9.2
CRITICAL
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N







CVE-2026-50103

A NULL pointer dereference in the L2 GOOSE and R-GOOSE shared parser, which may allow a network-adjacent attacker to crash a subscribing application by sending a crafted GOOSE frame containing a malformed TLV value.
View CVE Details

Affected Products
MZ Automation libIEC61850

Vendor:
MZ Automation
Product Version:
MZ Automation libIEC61850: >=v1.0.0|<=v1.6.1
Product Status:
known_affected


Remediations
Vendor fix
MZ Automation recommends updating to the latest build of the libIEC61850 standard. Documentation can be found at https://github.com/mz-automation/libiec61850.
https://github.com/mz-automation/libiec61850

Relevant CWE: CWE-228 Improper Handling of Syntactically Invalid Structure

Metrics




CVSS Version
Base Score
Base Severity
Vector String




3.1
6.5
MEDIUM
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H


4.0
7.1
HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N







CVE-2026-50032

A NULL pointer dereference in the MMS Write Named Variable List handler, which may allow a network adjacent attacker to crash the server by sending a WriteRequest with an empty listOfData field.
View CVE Details

Affected Products
MZ Automation libIEC61850

Vendor:
MZ Automation
Product Version:
MZ Automation libIEC61850: >=v1.0.0|<=v1.6.1
Product Status:
known_affected


Remediations
Vendor fix
MZ Automation recommends updating to the latest build of the libIEC61850 standard. Documentation can be found at https://github.com/mz-automation/libiec61850.
https://github.com/mz-automation/libiec61850

Relevant CWE: CWE-476 NULL Pointer Dereference

Metrics




CVSS Version
Base Score
Base Severity
Vector String




3.1
7.5
HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H


4.0
8.7
HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N








Acknowledgments

Abhinav Agarwal reported these vulnerabilities to CISA


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

Recommended Practices
CISA recommends users take defensive measures to minimize the risk of exploitation of these vulnerabilities.
Minimize network exposure for all control system devices and/or systems, ensuring they are not accessible from the internet.
Locate control system networks and remote devices behind firewalls and isolating them from business networks.
When remote access is required, use more secure methods, such as Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), recognizing VPNs may have vulnerabilities and should be updated to the most current version available. Also recognize VPN is only as secure as the connected devices.
CISA reminds organizations to perform proper impact analysis and risk assessment prior to deploying defensive measures.
CISA also provides a section for control systems security recommended practices on the ICS webpage on cisa.gov/ics. Several CISA products detailing cyber defense best practices are available for reading and download, including Improving Industrial Control Systems Cybersecurity with Defense-in-Depth Strategies.
CISA encourages organizations to implement recommended cybersecurity strategies for proactive defense of ICS assets.
Additional mitigation guidance and recommended practices are publicly available on the ICS webpage at cisa.gov/ics in the technical information paper, ICS-TIP-12-146-01B--Targeted Cyber Intrusion Detection and Mitigation Strategies.
Organizations observing suspected malicious activity should follow established internal procedures and report findings to CISA for tracking and correlation against other incidents.
CISA also recommends users take the following measures to protect themselves from social engineering attacks:
Do not click web links or open attachments in unsolicited email messages.
Refer to Recognizing and Avoiding Email Scams for more information on avoiding email scams.
Refer to Avoiding Social Engineering and Phishing Attacks for more information on social engineering attacks.
No known public exploitation specifically targeting these vulnerabilities has been reported to CISA at this time.

Revision History

Initial Release Date: 2026-07-23




Date
Revision
Summary




2026-07-23
1
Initial Publication




Legal Notice and Terms of Use


MZ Automation lib60870
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 20:16:52 +0200
View CSAF
Summary
Successful exploitation of this vulnerability could cause the parsing process to crash, which will cause a denial of service.
The following versions of MZ Automation lib60870 are affected:

lib60870 <=2.4.0





CVSS
Vendor
Equipment
Vulnerabilities




v3 8.2
MZ Automation
MZ Automation lib60870
Out-of-bounds Read




Background

Critical Infrastructure Sectors: Chemical, Energy, Water and Wastewater
Countries/Areas Deployed: Worldwide
Company Headquarters Location: Germany


Vulnerabilities

Expand All +

CVE-2026-16002

The affected product is vulnerable to an Out-of-bounds read, which may allow an attacker to crash the parsing process and cause a denial of service.
View CVE Details

Affected Products
MZ Automation lib60870

Vendor:
MZ Automation
Product Version:
MZ Automation lib60870: <=2.4.0
Product Status:
known_affected


Remediations
Vendor fix
MZ automation recommends users update to version 2.4.1 or later. Documentation can be found at https://github.com/mz-automation/lib60870/security/advisories/GHSA-f5xp-w6f3-vvrv.
https://github.com/mz-automation/lib60870/security/advisories/GHSA-f5xp-w6f3-vvrv

Relevant CWE: CWE-125 Out-of-bounds Read

Metrics




CVSS Version
Base Score
Base Severity
Vector String




3.1
8.2
HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:H


4.0
8.8
HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N








Acknowledgments

Lars Tray reported this vulnerability to CISA


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

Recommended Practices
CISA recommends users take defensive measures to minimize the risk of exploitation of this (these) vulnerability(ies).
Minimize network exposure for all control system devices and/or systems, ensuring they are not accessible from the internet.
Locate control system networks and remote devices behind firewalls and isolating them from business networks.
When remote access is required, use more secure methods, such as Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), recognizing VPNs may have vulnerabilities and should be updated to the most current version available. Also recognize VPN is only as secure as the connected devices.
CISA reminds organizations to perform proper impact analysis and risk assessment prior to deploying defensive measures.
CISA also provides a section for control systems security recommended practices on the ICS webpage on cisa.gov/ics. Several CISA products detailing cyber defense best practices are available for reading and download, including Improving Industrial Control Systems Cybersecurity with Defense-in-Depth Strategies.
CISA encourages organizations to implement recommended cybersecurity strategies for proactive defense of ICS assets.
Additional mitigation guidance and recommended practices are publicly available on the ICS webpage at cisa.gov/ics in the technical information paper, ICS-TIP-12-146-01B--Targeted Cyber Intrusion Detection and Mitigation Strategies.
Organizations observing suspected malicious activity should follow established internal procedures and report findings to CISA for tracking and correlation against other incidents.
CISA also recommends users take the following measures to protect themselves from social engineering attacks:
Do not click web links or open attachments in unsolicited email messages.
Refer to Recognizing and Avoiding Email Scams for more information on avoiding email scams.
Refer to Avoiding Social Engineering and Phishing Attacks for more information on social engineering attacks.
No known public exploitation specifically targeting this vulnerability has been reported to CISA at this time.

Revision History

Initial Release Date: 2026-07-23




Date
Revision
Summary




2026-07-23
1
Initial Publication




Legal Notice and Terms of Use


Panduit IntraVUE
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 20:16:33 +0200
View CSAF
Summary
Successful exploitation of these vulnerabilities could allow an attacker with access to the IT network to manipulate industrial control devices without requiring physical access, specialized insider knowledge, or advanced tooling.
The following versions of Panduit IntraVUE are affected:

IntraVUE <=3.2.1a14 





CVSS
Vendor
Equipment
Vulnerabilities




v3 10
Pronetiqs
Panduit IntraVUE
Plaintext Storage of a Password, Unintended Proxy or Intermediary ('Confused Deputy'), Exposure of Sensitive System Information to an Unauthorized Control Sphere, Inadequate Encryption Strength




Background

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


Vulnerabilities

Expand All +

CVE-2026-40430

Pronetiqs IntraVUE Versions 3.2.1a14 and prior have a plaintext storage of a password vulnerability that could expose cleartext credentials through the API.
View CVE Details

Affected Products
Panduit IntraVUE

Vendor:
Pronetiqs
Product Version:
Pronetiqs IntraVUE: <=3.2.1a14
Product Status:
known_affected


Remediations
Vendor fix
Pronetiqs advises users to update to the latest version of the IntraVUE software, version 3.2.1a16 or later.
Mitigation
For further questions, please contact Pronetiqs at info@pronetiqs.com.
mailto:info@pronetiqs.com

Relevant CWE: CWE-256 Plaintext Storage of a Password

Metrics




CVSS Version
Base Score
Base Severity
Vector String




3.1
7.5
HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N


4.0
8.7
HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N







CVE-2026-42933

Pronetiqs IntraVUE versions 3.2.1a14 and prior have an unintended proxy or intermediary vulnerability which could allow an attacker to use an active proxy, which would bypass OT segmentation.
View CVE Details

Affected Products
Panduit IntraVUE

Vendor:
Pronetiqs
Product Version:
Pronetiqs IntraVUE: <=3.2.1a14
Product Status:
known_affected


Remediations
Vendor fix
Pronetiqs advises users to update to the latest version of the IntraVUE software, version 3.2.1a16 or later.
Mitigation
For further questions, please contact Pronetiqs at info@pronetiqs.com.
mailto:info@pronetiqs.com

Relevant CWE: CWE-441 Unintended Proxy or Intermediary ('Confused Deputy')

Metrics




CVSS Version
Base Score
Base Severity
Vector String




3.1
10
CRITICAL
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H


4.0
10
CRITICAL
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H







CVE-2026-44955

Pronetiqs IntraVUE versions 3.2.1a14 and prior have an exposure of sensitive system information to an unauthorized control sphere vulnerability which could allow for asset discovery by unauthenticated users.
View CVE Details

Affected Products
Panduit IntraVUE

Vendor:
Pronetiqs
Product Version:
Pronetiqs IntraVUE: <=3.2.1a14
Product Status:
known_affected


Remediations
Vendor fix
Pronetiqs advises users to update to the latest version of the IntraVUE software, version 3.2.1a16 or later.
Mitigation
For further questions, please contact Pronetiqs at info@pronetiqs.com.
mailto:info@pronetiqs.com

Relevant CWE: CWE-497 Exposure of Sensitive System Information to an Unauthorized Control Sphere

Metrics




CVSS Version
Base Score
Base Severity
Vector String




3.1
5.3
MEDIUM
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N


4.0
6.9
MEDIUM
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N







CVE-2026-50044

Pronetiqs IntraVUE versions 3.2.1a14 and prior have an inadequate encryption strength vulnerability which could allow an attacker to steal admin credentials via weak hash or a pass-the-hash attack.
View CVE Details

Affected Products
Panduit IntraVUE

Vendor:
Pronetiqs
Product Version:
Pronetiqs IntraVUE: <=3.2.1a14
Product Status:
known_affected


Remediations
Vendor fix
Pronetiqs advises users to update to the latest version of the IntraVUE software, version 3.2.1a16 or later.
Mitigation
For further questions, please contact Pronetiqs at info@pronetiqs.com.
mailto:info@pronetiqs.com

Relevant CWE: CWE-326 Inadequate Encryption Strength

Metrics




CVSS Version
Base Score
Base Severity
Vector String




3.1
6.8
MEDIUM
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N


4.0
7.6
HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N







CVE-2026-28698

Pronetiqs IntraVUE versions 3.2.1a14 and prior have an exposure of sensitive system information to an unauthorized control sphere vulnerability which could expose the underlying host/share filesystem.
View CVE Details

Affected Products
Panduit IntraVUE

Vendor:
Pronetiqs
Product Version:
Pronetiqs IntraVUE: <=3.2.1a14
Product Status:
known_affected


Remediations
Vendor fix
Pronetiqs advises users to update to the latest version of the IntraVUE software, version 3.2.1a16 or later.
Mitigation
For further questions, please contact Pronetiqs at info@pronetiqs.com.
mailto:info@pronetiqs.com

Relevant CWE: CWE-497 Exposure of Sensitive System Information to an Unauthorized Control Sphere

Metrics




CVSS Version
Base Score
Base Severity
Vector String




3.1
8.6
HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N


4.0
9.2
CRITICAL
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:N/SA:N








Acknowledgments

Phlebas of Lumintel reported these vulnerabilities to CISA


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

Recommended Practices
CISA recommends users take defensive measures to minimize the risk of exploitation of these vulnerabilities.
Minimize network exposure for all control system devices and/or systems, ensuring they are not accessible from the Internet.
Locate control system networks and remote devices behind firewalls and isolating them from business networks.
When remote access is required, use more secure methods, such as Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), recognizing VPNs may have vulnerabilities and should be updated to the most current version available. Also recognize VPN is only as secure as the connected devices.
CISA reminds organizations to perform proper impact analysis and risk assessment prior to deploying defensive measures.
CISA also provides a section for control systems security recommended practices on the ICS webpage on cisa.gov/ics. Several CISA products detailing cyber defense best practices are available for reading and download, including Improving Industrial Control Systems Cybersecurity with Defense-in-Depth Strategies.
CISA encourages organizations to implement recommended cybersecurity strategies for proactive defense of ICS assets.
Additional mitigation guidance and recommended practices are publicly available on the ICS webpage at cisa.gov/ics in the technical information paper, ICS-TIP-12-146-01B--Targeted Cyber Intrusion Detection and Mitigation Strategies.
Organizations observing suspected malicious activity should follow established internal procedures and report findings to CISA for tracking and correlation against other incidents.
CISA also recommends users take the following measures to protect themselves from social engineering attacks:
Do not click web links or open attachments in unsolicited email messages.
Refer to Recognizing and Avoiding Email Scams for more information on avoiding email scams.
Refer to Avoiding Social Engineering and Phishing Attacks for more information on social engineering attacks.
No known public exploitation specifically targeting these vulnerabilities has been reported to CISA at this time.

Revision History

Initial Release Date: 2026-07-23




Date
Revision
Summary




2026-07-23
1
Initial Publication




Legal Notice and Terms of Use


Weintek cMT3092X
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 20:16:14 +0200
View CSAF
Summary
Successful exploitation of these vulnerabilities could allow a non-privileged user to escalate privileges or view the credentials of other users.
The following versions of Weintek cMT3092X are affected:

cMT3092X firmware <20210218 
EasyWeb 





CVSS
Vendor
Equipment
Vulnerabilities




v3 8.8
Weintek
Weintek cMT3092X
Reliance on Cookies without Validation and Integrity Checking in a Security Decision, Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource, Plaintext Storage of a Password, Incorrect User Management




Background

Critical Infrastructure Sectors: Critical Manufacturing
Countries/Areas Deployed: Worldwide
Company Headquarters Location: Taiwan


Vulnerabilities

Expand All +

CVE-2026-60134

Weintek cMT3092X HMI allows a non-privileged user to modify cookies to gain elevated privileges.
View CVE Details

Affected Products
Weintek cMT3092X

Vendor:
Weintek
Product Version:
Weintek cMT3092X firmware: <20210218, Weintek EasyWeb: 
Product Status:
known_affected


Remediations
Vendor fix
Weintek recommends users apply the patch package named cmt_typeB_20260316_007.patch, which contains a newer EasyWeb 2.3.17-typeb. This fix will be delivered as a patch-only update; no separate standard firmware release is planned. Users may request the patch directly from Weintek support (https://www.weintek.com/globalw/Support/Knowledge.aspx) or from distributors.
https://www.weintek.com/globalw/Support/Knowledge.aspx
Mitigation
Weintek has published a document with more details about this issue at https://dl.weintek.com/public/Document/TEC/TEC25003E_cMT_EasyWeb_V2_Security_Issues.pdf.
https://dl.weintek.com/public/Document/TEC/TEC25003E_cMT_EasyWeb_V2_Security_Issues.pdf

Relevant CWE: CWE-784 Reliance on Cookies without Validation and Integrity Checking in a Security Decision

Metrics




CVSS Version
Base Score
Base Severity
Vector String




3.1
8.8
HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H


4.0
8.7
HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N







CVE-2026-61892

Weintek cMT3092X HMI allows a non-privileged user to modify tokens to escalate privileges.
View CVE Details

Affected Products
Weintek cMT3092X

Vendor:
Weintek
Product Version:
Weintek cMT3092X firmware: <20210218, Weintek EasyWeb: 
Product Status:
known_affected


Remediations
Vendor fix
Weintek recommends users apply the patch package named cmt_typeB_20260316_007.patch, which contains a newer EasyWeb 2.3.17-typeb. This fix will be delivered as a patch-only update; no separate standard firmware release is planned. Users may request the patch directly from Weintek support (https://www.weintek.com/globalw/Support/Knowledge.aspx) or from distributors.
https://www.weintek.com/globalw/Support/Knowledge.aspx
Mitigation
Weintek has published a document with more details about this issue at https://dl.weintek.com/public/Document/TEC/TEC25003E_cMT_EasyWeb_V2_Security_Issues.pdf.
https://dl.weintek.com/public/Document/TEC/TEC25003E_cMT_EasyWeb_V2_Security_Issues.pdf

Relevant CWE: CWE-732 Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource

Metrics




CVSS Version
Base Score
Base Severity
Vector String




3.1
8.8
HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H


4.0
8.7
HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N







CVE-2026-61886

Weintek cMT3092X HMI stores user account passwords in plaintext.
View CVE Details

Affected Products
Weintek cMT3092X

Vendor:
Weintek
Product Version:
Weintek cMT3092X firmware: <20210218, Weintek EasyWeb: 
Product Status:
known_affected


Remediations
Vendor fix
Weintek recommends users apply the patch package named cmt_typeB_20260316_007.patch, which contains a newer EasyWeb 2.3.17-typeb. This fix will be delivered as a patch-only update; no separate standard firmware release is planned. Users may request the patch directly from Weintek support (https://www.weintek.com/globalw/Support/Knowledge.aspx) or from distributors.
https://www.weintek.com/globalw/Support/Knowledge.aspx
Mitigation
Weintek has published a document with more details about this issue at https://dl.weintek.com/public/Document/TEC/TEC25003E_cMT_EasyWeb_V2_Security_Issues.pdf.
https://dl.weintek.com/public/Document/TEC/TEC25003E_cMT_EasyWeb_V2_Security_Issues.pdf

Relevant CWE: CWE-256 Plaintext Storage of a Password

Metrics




CVSS Version
Base Score
Base Severity
Vector String




3.1
6.5
MEDIUM
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N


4.0
7.1
HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N







CVE-2026-60135

An attacker can modify data that should be restricted to read‑only access.
View CVE Details

Affected Products
Weintek cMT3092X

Vendor:
Weintek
Product Version:
Weintek cMT3092X firmware: <20210218, Weintek EasyWeb: 
Product Status:
known_affected


Remediations
Vendor fix
Weintek recommends users apply the patch package named cmt_typeB_20260316_007.patch, which contains a newer EasyWeb 2.3.17-typeb. This fix will be delivered as a patch-only update; no separate standard firmware release is planned. Users may request the patch directly from Weintek support (https://www.weintek.com/globalw/Support/Knowledge.aspx) or from distributors.
https://www.weintek.com/globalw/Support/Knowledge.aspx
Mitigation
Weintek has published a document with more details about this issue at https://dl.weintek.com/public/Document/TEC/TEC25003E_cMT_EasyWeb_V2_Security_Issues.pdf.
https://dl.weintek.com/public/Document/TEC/TEC25003E_cMT_EasyWeb_V2_Security_Issues.pdf

Relevant CWE: CWE-286 Incorrect User Management

Metrics




CVSS Version
Base Score
Base Severity
Vector String




3.1
6.5
MEDIUM
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N


4.0
7.1
HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N








Acknowledgments

Vincenzo Giuseppe Colacino of Secoore reported these vulnerabilities to CISA


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

Recommended Practices
CISA recommends users take the following measures to protect themselves from social engineering attacks:
Practice principles of least privilege.
Do not click web links or open attachments in unsolicited email messages.
Refer to Recognizing and Avoiding Email Scams for more information on avoiding email scams.
Refer to Avoiding Social Engineering and Phishing Attacks for more information on social engineering attacks.
CISA reminds organizations to perform proper impact analysis and risk assessment prior to deploying defensive measures.
CISA also provides a section for control systems security recommended practices on the ICS webpage on cisa.gov/ics. Several CISA products detailing cyber defense best practices are available for reading and download, including Improving Industrial Control Systems Cybersecurity with Defense-in-Depth Strategies.
CISA encourages organizations to implement recommended cybersecurity strategies for proactive defense of ICS assets.
Additional mitigation guidance and recommended practices are publicly available on the ICS webpage at cisa.gov/ics in the technical information paper, ICS-TIP-12-146-01B--Targeted Cyber Intrusion Detection and Mitigation Strategies.
Organizations observing suspected malicious activity should follow established internal procedures and report findings to CISA for tracking and correlation against other incidents.
No known public exploitation specifically targeting these vulnerabilities has been reported to CISA at this time.

Revision History

Initial Release Date: 2026-07-23




Date
Revision
Summary




2026-07-23
1
Initial Publication




Legal Notice and Terms of Use


CVE-2022-3976 | MZ Automation libiec61850 up to 1.4 MMS File Services mms_client_files.c filename path traversal (EUVD-2022-43306)
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 19:41:13 +0200
A vulnerability classified as critical has been found in MZ Automation libiec61850 up to 1.4. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality of the file src/mms/iso_mms/client/mms_client_files.c of the component MMS File Services. Performing a manipulation of the argument filename results in path traversal.

This vulnerability is known as CVE-2022-3976. Access to the local network is required for this attack. No exploit is available.

It is recommended to upgrade the affected component.


The AI context gap: Enterprise AI organizations have a trust problem, not a retrieval problem — and most are still building the fix
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 19:19:42 +0200
Across 101 enterprises, the infrastructure that feeds AI agents their business context is being built faster than it can be trusted. Retrieval-augmented generation is already the default context source, and provider-native retrieval has quietly overtaken the dedicated vector databases that define the category — yet a majority of enterprises have already watched their agents produce confident, wrong answers traced to missing or inconsistent context. A governed semantic layer is emerging as the fix, but most are still building it; the field is converging on hybrid retrieval; and even as provider-native tools lead in practice, a plurality say they intend to keep best-of-breed. The result is a context gap — agents that sound authoritative running on a foundation their owners do not yet fully trust.
This wave of VentureBeat Pulse Research examines the enterprise RAG and context layer: what feeds AI agents their business context, which retrieval systems enterprises run, how they buy and measure them, where the architecture is heading, and — most revealingly — how often that context is already failing them.
The central finding is a context gap — the distance between how confidently enterprise agents answer and how reliable the context beneath them actually is. A majority of enterprises (57%) report that in the past six months their AI agents produced confident but wrong answers they traced to missing or inconsistent business context, and more than half of those said it happened more than once. This is not a fringe failure: retrieval is the primary context source for 38% of enterprises, more than any other approach, so when retrieval is thin or inconsistent, the errors it produces are wearing the agent’s authority. The infrastructure to fix it is being built — 58% already run or are building a governed semantic layer — but for most it is not yet in production.
Underneath, the market is consolidating in a direction that surprises. Provider-native retrieval — OpenAI’s file search (40%) and Google’s Vertex AI Search (38%) — already leads every dedicated vector database, and enterprises expect hybrid retrieval to dominate by the end of 2026 (34%). Yet a plurality (36%) say they intend to keep best-of-breed standalone tools rather than consolidate onto a provider’s native context stack, and a majority (57%) plan to switch or add a provider within the year. Stated preference and actual usage are pulling in opposite directions — the market is buying provider-native while insisting it wants independence.
Methodology
VentureBeat fielded this survey as part of its ongoing Pulse Research series. This survey focused on enterprise RAG infrastructure and the context layer — the retrieval systems, semantic layers, and context sources that feed AI agents. Responses are filtered to organizations with more than 100 employees (n=101); the survey drew no responses from organizations of 100 or fewer, so the full sample qualifies. All responses are from a single Q2 2026 (June) wave, so the report reads cross-sectionally and does not infer month-over-month trends. Several questions were multiple-select, so those shares can sum to more than 100%.
By organization size the sample concentrates in the mid-market: 251–1,000 employees (31%) and 101–250 (31%) lead, with 1,001–5,000 (20%), 5,001–10,000 (12%), and 10,001+ (7%) above them. By role it spans managers (39%), individual contributors (27%), the C-suite (16%), and VPs and directors (14%); on purchasing authority it is buyer-credible, with 46% final decision-makers and another 26% recommenders or influencers. Technology/Software is the largest industry at 20%, followed by Healthcare/Life Sciences (11%) and a broad spread across retail, transportation, financial services, manufacturing, and education.
At 101 respondents this is a modest sample and should be read as a directional signal rather than a precise measurement; it is self-selected and is not a probability sample. It is best read as the view from organizations actively standing up RAG and context infrastructure rather than from the largest operators.
Finding 1: Confident and wrong
More than half have traced agent errors to bad context
We asked whether, in the past six months, enterprises had traced a confident but wrong agent answer to missing or inconsistent business context. Most had.
This is the report’s defining number. A majority of enterprises (57%) have already had an AI agent produce a confident, wrong answer they traced to bad context — wrong metrics, stale definitions, or missing documents — and more than half of those have seen it happen more than once. Only 28% report no such failure, and a small remainder either don’t run agents on enterprise data or don’t trace root cause closely enough to know. 
The failure mode is specific and dangerous: the model is not obviously hallucinating; it is confidently wrong because the context feeding it was thin or inconsistent. Everything else in this report — what enterprises retrieve, how they govern it, and what they plan to build — is downstream of this problem.
Finding 2: RAG is the default context source
Retrieval feeds more agents than any other method
We asked what an enterprise’s AI agents primarily use to understand its data. Retrieval leads by a wide margin.
Retrieval is the backbone of enterprise context. For 38% of organizations, RAG over documents or a vector index is the primary way agents understand the business — nearly twice the share of the next approach, a governed semantic layer or ontology (21%). Mixed approaches (14%), direct live-system queries (10%), and long-context loading (6%) fill out the rest, and only 2% let agents run on the model’s general knowledge alone. The concentration matters in light of Finding 1: because so much enterprise context flows through retrieval, the quality of that retrieval is the quality of the answer. When RAG is the default source, thin retrieval is not an edge case — it is the main failure surface.
One approach is notable for its absence from these answers: customizing model weights, also known as fine-tuning. Every leading source of business context is injected at run time. Our most recent direct measurement of fine-tuning comes from our April–May survey wave (a separate survey, n=136), where fine-tuning capabilities ranked last of six factors in model selection at 5% — even as 26% of that sample still named fine-tuning and customization an investment they expect to grow. Fine-tuning has fallen out of the primary selection conversation; context injection is how enterprises make agents knowledgeable about their business.
Finding 3: Provider-native retrieval already leads the vector databases
OpenAI file search and vertex AI search top the dedicated tools
We asked which retrieval systems enterprises run in production today. The answer favors the model providers and hyperscalers over the specialists.
The dedicated vector database is no longer the center of the RAG stack. OpenAI’s file search (40%) and Google’s Vertex AI Search (38%) lead — provider-native and hyperscaler-native retrieval — ahead of every purpose-built vector database. Among the specialists, the most-used is the one enterprises already run for other reasons (Elasticsearch/OpenSearch, 20%) and the open, embedded option (pgvector, 12%); the pure-play vector databases that define the category — Weaviate, Qdrant, Pinecone, Milvus — each sit in single digits to low double digits. Notably, 13% of enterprises say they still run no production RAG at all. As with the platforms in the parallel infrastructure wave, enterprises are gravitating to retrieval that comes bundled with tools they already buy.
The shape of this finding held across both Q2 waves. In April–May (n=161), provider-built retrieval led usage there too, while every dedicated vector database remained marginal — the most-used standalone vector database peaked at 8% of that sample — and the hybrid, pluralistic future was already the consensus expectation (34% expected hybrid retrieval to dominate, with another 29% expecting multiple architectures by use case). Two waves, consistent picture: the category that coined the “vector database” term is being collected by the platforms enterprises already buy from.
Finding 4: But they say they want to keep best-of-breed
A plurality resist consolidating onto a provider’s native stack
We asked how enterprises will respond as model providers bundle retrieval, memory, and orchestration into their platforms. Their stated intent cuts against their current usage.
Here is the tension at the heart of the stack. Even as provider-native retrieval leads in practice (Finding 3), a plurality of enterprises (36%) say they intend to keep best-of-breed standalone tools rather than consolidate onto a provider’s native context stack — well ahead of the 21% who plan to consolidate. Another 21% expect a mix, and 9% intend to build and own the layer themselves. The gap between what enterprises run and what they say they want is the strategic question of the category: they are adopting bundled retrieval for convenience while asserting they will preserve independence. Which impulse wins — the pull of the provider bundle or the stated preference for modular control — will shape the retrieval market more than any single tool.
Finding 5: Hybrid retrieval is the consensus bet
Vector-only retrieval is already seen as insufficient
We asked which retrieval architecture enterprises expect to dominate their production RAG systems by the end of 2026. The field is converging — with a large share still unsure.
The architecture is settling on hybrid. A third (34%) expect hybrid retrieval — embeddings combined with reranking and access controls — to dominate their production systems by the end of 2026, three times the 11% who expect vector-only retrieval to prevail. That is a notable signal: the pure vector-search approach that launched the category is already viewed as insufficient on its own, superseded by pipelines that add reranking for accuracy and access controls for governance — the very access controls whose absence produces the failures in Finding 1. Tellingly, the second-largest answer is uncertainty: 17% simply don’t know, and another 14% expect to move beyond a dedicated vector layer entirely toward tool-first or long-context retrieval. The consensus is not a single tool but a layered pipeline — and it is not yet fully formed.
Finding 6: The governed context layer is being built now
Most run or are building a semantic layer — few in production
We asked whether enterprises use a governed semantic or context layer to give agents and BI a shared understanding of their data. Most are on the path; fewer have arrived.
The fix for the context gap is under construction. Well over half of enterprises (58%) either run a governed semantic layer in production (25%) or are piloting and building one (34%), and a further 17% are actively evaluating — meaning three-quarters are engaged with the idea in some form. But the balance is telling: more are building than have shipped, so for most enterprises the shared, governed definition layer that would prevent the "confident but wrong" failures of Finding 1 is still a work in progress. The semantic layer is the industry’s answer to inconsistent context; this wave catches it mid-construction, ambition well ahead of production.
Finding 7: Bought on ingestion and simplicity, watched for correctness
Selection favors operability; monitoring favors correctness and security
We asked what matters most when enterprises choose a retrieval system, and what they track once it is running. Both answers lean practical.
Enterprises choose retrieval systems on operability. Ease of data ingestion (36%), latency and performance (32%), and operational simplicity (29%) lead the selection criteria — ahead of retrieval accuracy and access control (23% each), the two factors most directly tied to the failures in Finding 1. Once systems are running, the emphasis shifts toward trust: the most-tracked metrics are response correctness (42%) and security and access control (38%), ahead of latency (28%), operational stability (27%), and answer relevance (23%). 
Satisfaction with current systems is moderately positive but not enthusiastic — on a five-point scale, overall satisfaction averages 4.0, with ease of implementation and value for money both near 3.9. Enterprises buy for how easily a system runs and watch it for whether it can be trusted.
Finding 8: A retrieval reshuffle is coming
A majority plan to change providers — and the vector specialists are gaining interest
We asked whether enterprises plan to change or add a retrieval provider, and which they are considering. The consideration set differs from today’s stack.
The retrieval stack is not settled. While 43% have no plans to change, a small majority (57%) intend to switch or add a provider within twelve months, and a quarter (26%) within the next quarter. The consideration set is where it gets interesting: provider-native retrieval still leads what enterprises are evaluating (OpenAI 22%, Vertex AI Search 21%), but the open-source vector specialists punch above their current footprint — Qdrant (14%) and Milvus (13%) draw more switching interest than their present usage (10% and 6%) would suggest. Read with Finding 4, the picture is a market in flux: enterprises run provider-native today, are evaluating a broader field, and say they want to keep their options open. The reshuffle ahead will test whether best-of-breed intent survives contact with the convenience of the bundle.
The bottom line: A context gap that more retrieval alone won’t close
Organizations with more than 100 employees are wiring agents into their business faster than they can guarantee the context those agents run on. Retrieval is the default source of enterprise context, and it increasingly comes from the model providers and hyperscalers rather than the dedicated vector databases — yet a majority of enterprises have already watched agents answer confidently and wrongly because that context was thin or inconsistent. The failure is not exotic; it is the predictable result of pointing authoritative-sounding agents at an unreliable foundation.
The industry’s answer — a governed semantic layer, hybrid retrieval with reranking and access controls — is being built but is mostly not yet in production, and enterprises are pulled between the convenience of provider-native bundles and a stated preference for best-of-breed independence. At 101 respondents in a single Q2 wave this is a directional read, skewed toward the mid-market — but the direction is clear: the context layer is the next contested tier of the AI stack, and right now agents are running ahead of it. The context gap is not a retrieval-volume problem that more documents or bigger indexes will solve on their own; it is a problem of governed, consistent, access-aware context. The open question for later waves is whether enterprises finish building that layer before the confident-but-wrong failures move from the lab into decisions that matter.
Based on survey responses from 101 qualified enterprise respondents (100+ employees), drawn from a single Q2 2026 (June) wave. At this sample size the results should be read as a directional signal rather than a precise measurement — it's a self-selected sample, not a probability sample, and skews toward the mid-market. Respondents include managers, individual contributors, VPs/directors, and the C-suite, with strong purchasing authority, across technology, healthcare, retail, transportation, financial services, manufacturing, and education.


The AI compute gap: Enterprises are buying infrastructure faster than they can measure what it costs
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 19:19:39 +0200
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.
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.
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.
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.
Methodology
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%.
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%).
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.
Finding 1: Ambition outpaces production
Only one in five run AI in production at scale
We asked where organizations sit in their AI deployment journey. Most are still building toward production rather than operating at scale.
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.
Finding 2: Enterprises run on hyperscalers and model APIs
The specialized GPU clouds barely register — today
We asked which providers and platforms enterprises currently use to run their AI. The answer is a familiar one: the incumbents.
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.
(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.)
Finding 3: The next dollar goes to infrastructure they don’t yet run
AI-specialized clouds top the evaluations list
We asked where enterprises planned to evaluate AI infrastructure over the next 12 months. Their answers point away from the stack they run today.
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.
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.
Finding 4: A switching wave is building
Six in 10 plan to change providers within a year — many within a quarter
We asked whether and when enterprises plan to switch or add an infrastructure provider. Very few intend to stand still.
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.
(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.)
Finding 5: Nobody buys on token price
Integration and total cost of ownership decide — not sticker price
We asked what matters most when enterprises select an AI infrastructure provider. Headline price finished last.
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.
Finding 6: Expensive GPUs, idle most of the time
83% report GPU utilization of 50% or less
We asked what share of their GPU capacity enterprises actually utilize. The answer is a well-known but rarely quantified inefficiency.
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%
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.
Finding 7: Spending fast, measuring slowly
Fewer than half rigorously track what their compute costs
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.
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.
Finding 8: The next bottleneck few are watching
As inference shifts from compute to memory, the field scatters
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.
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.
The bottom line: A compute gap that faster spending will widen, not close
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.
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.
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.


Four Young Mathematicians Awarded the 2026 Fields Medals
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 19:12:58 +0200
Scientific American reports that the 2026 Fields Medals went to four mathematicians for work ranging from the theory of knots to the motion of fluid: The Fields Medals went to Hong Wang of New York University and France's Institute of Advanced Scientific Studies (IHES), Yu Deng of the University of Chicago, John Pardon of Stony Brook University and Jacob Tsimerman of the University of Toronto. In the awards' 90-year history, Wang is only the third woman to win one, after mathematicians Maryam Mirzakhani and Maryna Viazovska in 2014 and 2022, respectively. Wang and Deng represent the prizes' only Chinese-born recipients besides mathematician Shing-Tung Yau, who won a Fields Medal in 1982. 
Hong Wang co-proved the three-dimensional Kakeya conjecture, establishing a fundamental limit on how little space is needed to rotate a line through every possible direction. Mathematician Nets Katz called it the field's "holy grail" problem and said the achievement made her "a central figure" in the area.
 
Yu Deng and his collaborators reconciled the microscopic and macroscopic mathematics of fluid motion, proving that equations describing chaotic molecular interactions and large-scale fluid behavior are fundamentally connected. N.Y.U. mathematician Scott Armstrong called it "a truly spectacular, singular result."
 
John Pardon made an early breakthrough in knot theory by proving that certain sequences of knots can have arbitrarily large "distortion," a measure of how difficult they are to traverse. Princeton mathematician David Gabai said the problem had "attracted much interest among mathematicians during the previous 25 years."
 
Jacob Tsimerman and two collaborators proved the Andre-Oort conjecture, giving mathematicians a stronger way to understand special points on complex geometric objects known as Shimura varieties. Collaborator Jonathan Pila described him as "a brilliant mathematician" known for his "brilliance and resourcefulness." Tsimerman has also advanced Hodge theory and hopes pure mathematics can help researchers better understand AI.






Read more of this story at Slashdot.


Russian hackers exploit Zimbra zero-click flaw for email theft
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 19:00:28 +0200
CISA is warning that the Russian state-sponsored hacking group Laundry Bear, also known as Void Blizzard, is targeting organizations using Zimbra Collaboration email servers by combining phishing attacks with the exploitation of a now-patched Zimbra vulnerability. [...]


Apple TV Announces Esther Perel’s New Dating Series ‘The Last Person on Earth’
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 18:46:52 +0200
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.


CVE-2026-42955 | NLnet Labs Unbound up to 1.25.1 (WID-SEC-2026-2492)
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 18:01:36 +0200
A vulnerability categorized as critical has been discovered in NLnet Labs Unbound up to 1.25.1. This issue affects some unknown processing. The manipulation results in an unknown weakness.

This vulnerability is known as CVE-2026-42955. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. No exploit is available.

It is advisable to upgrade the affected component.


Researchers Discover First Known Transmissible Cancer In Fish
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 17:12:45 +0200
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CBC News: It's rare that cancerous tumors can spread from one individual to another. But a genetic study suggests that's what's happening with melanoma tumors among catfish in Quebec and the northeastern U.S. The discovery represents the first known transmissible cancer in fish and one of very few transmissible cancers ever found, reported the study published in the journal Nature on Wednesday.
 
Julie Dragon, co-leader of the new study, noted that only three other transmissible cancers have ever been identified so far -- in Tasmanian devils, dogs and shellfish. "These conditions are incredibly rare in nature," she said. "So something has to be happening to allow this to happen." Anglers in Lake Memphremagog, which spans the border between Quebec and Vermont, first reported catching brown bullhead catfish with strange black spots and lumps in 2012. They turned out to be melanoma skin cancer tumors. (Humans can also get this kind of cancer.) Now, about a third of the brown bullheads living in the lake have them.
 
It's not clear how sick the fish become. In some cases, the cancer spreads to other organs, such as the brain or liver. But many fish with lesions seem relatively healthy and some older fish even have them, suggesting they can live with the disease for a time. Because of the sudden appearance of the black lesions in Lake Memphremagog the year after a huge flood caused by post-tropical storm Irene, locals worried they were caused by carcinogens washed into the lake by floodwaters. Tests for carcinogens haven't been conclusive, although a study published in May found higher concentrations of seven metals, including zinc and the carcinogen arsenic, in the skin of fish with the tumors. Researchers suspect the tumors may spread among adult fish during spawning, when crowded fish rub against one another and may be punctured by their spines.
 
"They... swim all over each other and we think it's possible that they poke each other and cells can get into other fish that way," Dragon said, though transmission has not yet been demonstrated.






Read more of this story at Slashdot.


Russian State-Supported Cyber Actors Conduct Phishing Campaign Targeting Users of Zimbra Collaboration Suite
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 16:59:29 +0200
Russian State-Supported Cyber Actors Conduct Phishing Campaign Targeting Users of Zimbra Collaboration Suite
Executive summary 
A group of Russian state-supported cyber actors has been targeting and compromising various Western government and commercial organizations using the Zimbra Collaboration Suite (ZCS) software since at least July 2025. The Russian state-supported advanced persistent threat (APT) group’s activity is tracked in the cybersecurity community under several names (see Cybersecurity industry tracking), primarily as “LAUNDRY BEAR,” a name initially coined by the Netherlands General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD) and Defence Intelligence and Security Service (MIVD) [1].
LAUNDRY BEAR’s targeting is almost certainly to gather sensitive information for the Russian Federation, with these actors primarily focusing on the covert acquisition of email data. Previous campaigns indicated LAUNDRY BEAR relied on unsophisticated initial access techniques—including password spraying, phishing, and pass-the-cookie—allowing the group to successfully run high-volume operations. The latest campaign targeting ZCS uses a novel exploit that was a zero-day vulnerability when first exploited and continues to be successfully exploited. The vulnerability, Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) CVE-2025-66376, was patched in November 2025. This demonstrates LAUNDRY BEAR’s intent and ability to deploy increasingly sophisticated technical capabilities.
Unlike traditional phishing campaigns that persuade a user into taking an action, such as clicking a link or opening a file, LAUNDRY BEAR’s latest campaign leverages a view-based exploit that only requires a user to view a malicious email within a vulnerable version of the webmail service. Once viewed, the exploit attempts to exfiltrate the victim’s last 90 days of email communications, the organization email directory (i.e., Global Address List [GAL]), and other sensitive information to servers controlled by LAUNDRY BEAR. The exploit also attempts to establish persistent access to victim accounts through a variety of means as detailed in the Persistence and credential access section.
This Cybersecurity Advisory (CSA) warns of this ongoing malicious threat activity and urges organizations to update their vulnerable software and implement additional mitigations to thwart these Russian state-supported actors’ continued success. The CSA is being released by the following authoring and co-sealing agencies:

United States National Security Agency (NSA)
United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Netherlands Defence Intelligence and Security Service (MIVD)
Netherlands General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD)
United States Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA)
United States Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA)
United States Department of Defense Cyber Crime Center (DC3)
United States Department of the Treasury
United States Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS)
Australian Signals Directorate’s Australian Cyber Security Centre (ASD’s ACSC)
Communications Security Establishment Canada’s (CSE’s) Canadian Centre for Cyber Security (Cyber Centre)
New Zealand National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-NZ)
United Kingdom National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-UK)
Czech Republic National Cyber and Information Security Agency (NÚKIB)¹
Danish Defence Intelligence Service (DDIS)²
Estonian Foreign Intelligence Service (EFIS)³
Finnish Defence Intelligence (FDI)⁴
Finnish Security and Intelligence Service (SUPO)⁵
French General Directorate for Internal Security (DGSI)⁶
French National Cybersecurity Agency (ANSSI)⁷
Italian External Intelligence and Security Agency (AISE)⁸
Italian Internal Intelligence and Security Agency (AISI)⁹
Security and Intelligence Service of the Republic of Moldova (SIS RM)¹⁰
Polish Foreign Intelligence Agency (AW)¹¹
The Military Counterintelligence Service of Poland (SKW)¹²
Spain National Intelligence Centre (CNI)¹³
Sweden National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-SE)¹⁴

The authoring agencies urge any organizations using ZCS to implement the recommendations listed within the Mitigations section of this advisory to reduce the risk associated with this activity. This CSA also includes specific remediations for organizations to implement if they discover the presence of the listed Indicators of compromise (IOCs).  
As more organizations update their ZCS software based on this CSA, LAUNDRY BEAR may discontinue the current campaign exploiting this vulnerability; however, based on the success of this and previous campaigns, it is very likely that the group will continue to target ZCS and other email systems used by organizations in Western countries. The actors will almost certainly continue to rely on email to engage potential victims by exploiting novel vulnerabilities and, when necessary, use social engineering techniques to assist with their efforts. The authoring agencies recommend organizations regularly update their mail service software and continuously monitor their email systems and emails for malicious activity.
For a downloadable list of IOCs, see:

AA26-204A.stix.xml (STIX XML)
AA26-204A.stix.json (STIX JSON)

Cybersecurity industry tracking
The cybersecurity industry provides overlapping cyber threat intelligence, indicators of compromise (IOCs), and mitigation recommendations related to these Russian state-supported cyber actors. While not exhaustive, the following are threat group names commonly used for these actors within the cybersecurity community:

LAUNDRY BEAR
Void Blizzard [2]
CL-STA-1114 [3]
TA488 (formerly UNK_PitStop) [4]

Note: Cybersecurity companies have different methods of tracking and attributing cyber actors, and this may not be a 1:1 correlation to the U.S. government’s understanding for all activity related to these groupings.
Background
Public advisories from Netherlands General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD), Netherlands Defence Intelligence and Security Service (MIVD), and Microsoft highlighted these Russian state-supported advanced persistent threat (APT) actors in May 2025, calling them LAUNDRY BEAR and Void Blizzard respectively [1] [2]. Both advisories assessed that the group was engaged in malicious cyber activity as early as April 2024.  
The May 2025 advisories highlighted a cluster of activity targeting cloud-based email environments, including Microsoft Exchange in particular, and abusing legitimate APIs to perform data exfiltration in bulk [T1114.002]. The group relied on unsophisticated means of initial access, including procuring stolen credentials on criminal marketplaces [T1078], and using social engineering techniques to lure targets into interacting with a malicious site masquerading as a legitimate one. As of April 2025, one of these sites resembled a European Defence & Security Summit registration portal that required registrants to sign in to their Microsoft account to view. Once a user entered their Microsoft credentials into this malicious site, LAUNDRY BEAR’s modified version of the open source adversary emulation toolkit, Evilginx, intercepted the user’s credentials. LAUNDRY BEAR then used this authentication data, including passwords and session tokens, to access the compromised account and conduct mass email exfiltration, as well as harvest other information. This method of compromise is commonly known as an adversary-in-the-middle (AiTM) technique [T1557].  
Beginning around July 2025, LAUNDRY BEAR shifted toward a more technical method of email compromise, highlighting their continued efforts to covertly acquire email communications from a variety of Western organizations of interest and deliver them to the Russian Federation. Using a custom-developed capability [T1587.001] named “Улей” or “Ulej” (Russian for beehive), LAUNDRY BEAR successfully targeted and exfiltrated sensitive user information from organizations who use the Zimbra Collaboration Suite (ZCS) product [T1114]. Data LAUNDRY BEAR attempted to exfiltrate from compromised accounts included:

Last 90 days of emails,
Email address,
Password [T1589.001],
Global Address List (GAL) [T1087],
Two-factor authentication (2FA) tokens, and
Newly-created Application Passcode [T1098].

The covert and persistent nature of this activity, along with the absence of any known financial extortion, almost certainly indicates this group’s involvement in espionage activities with Russian government backing. Additionally, extensive Ukrainian targeting, prior to use against U.S. and other NATO allies, outlines an increasing trend within Russian cyber threat groups to target Ukrainian users first—both as a priority target and as a testbench for malicious cyber techniques before broader global deployment.
Targeting details
LAUNDRY BEAR has targeted and compromised users in various organizations, including those associated with:

the Defense Industrial Base (DIB),  
the federal and local government,
education,
energy,
law enforcement,  
media,  
non-governmental organizations, and
technology.

Technical details
Note: This advisory uses the MITRE ATT&CK® Matrix for Enterprise framework, version 19. This advisory also uses MITRE D3FEND^TM version 1.4.0¹⁵. See Appendix A and Appendix B for tables of the activity mapped to MITRE ATT&CK and D3FEND tactics, techniques, and countermeasures.
Ulej is a novel data exfiltration and aggregation capability, that currently (as of the publication of this report) supports a campaign specifically targeting users of ZCS webmail servers. This capability is used to exploit CVE-2025-66376 [Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) CWE-79: Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')], but likely could be adapted to exploit other vulnerabilities. It exfiltrates emails and other sensitive user data from a victim’s system immediately after exploitation and stores the data in an actor-controlled unattributable virtual private server (VPS) [T1074.002] running LAUNDRY BEAR’s “Flowerbed” collection framework. The collected data is almost certainly further exfiltrated to internal network resources for review and long-term retention.
Reconnaissance
LAUNDRY BEAR uses the Ulej capability to exploit the CVE-2025-66376 vulnerability in organizations using ZCS. This campaign’s targeted victimology and limited exploitation capabilities likely indicate this group manually identifies and targets the victim organizations. LAUNDRY BEAR likely identifies organizations with public-facing Zimbra infrastructure by port scanning [T1595] and fingerprinting datasets easily procured through various commercial vendors [T1596.005].  
After identifying a target organization, the group likely compiles email addresses for individual users to target with the exploit [T1589.002] from datasets offered by commercial vendors [T1597.002], open source intelligence [T1593], or previously exfiltrated data [T1597].  
Resource development 
The actors procure VPSs from a variety of providers [T1583.003], including those with Know Your Customer (KYC) requirements, and often use fabricated identities. LAUNDRY BEAR primarily uses Mullvad VPN [T1583] when interacting with these servers, further demonstrating the group’s intent to mask their identity and maintain operations security (OPSEC). After the server is provisioned, an automated process deploys the Docker containers necessary for Ulej’s Flowerbed framework [T1608], which then receives and aggregates the data Ulej exfiltrates. These servers are typically only used for 7-60 days before moving to new infrastructure.
Flowerbed framework
Flowerbed is a Python project that uses Docker for containerization. The project includes four different Docker containers:

Catcher,
Certbot,
Nginx, and
Gardener.

Catcher acts as both a DNS and HTTP server to receive and aggregate exfiltrated victim information [T1048]. For additional information on Catcher, refer to the Exfiltration section of this advisory. Flowerbed’s next container, Certbot, is based on one of the official Certbot containers, which allows for automated generation of Let’s Encrypt certificates using DNS challenges through Cloudflare. This certificate can then be used by the Nginx container, which serves as an HTTPS reverse proxy for Catcher, enabling Flowerbed to disguise some of its exfiltration activity through an encrypted communications channel [T1048.002]. The Nginx reverse proxy also validates that the Server Name Indicator (SNI) value contains “*.i.*” prior to forwarding the traffic to Catcher. If the SNI does not contain that string, the Nginx server returns a 444 error to the client. This is likely an attempt to reject non-Ulej connections. Finally, the Gardener container functions as a health check for the Catcher service. Gardener is a simple Python script that validates Catcher correctly receives and processes data.
The simplistic Flowerbed codebase has indications that artificial intelligence (AI) played a role in its development. This highlights how AI is increasingly being used to develop malicious capabilities [T1588.007]. The dependence on AI for a simple capability, such as Flowerbed, alongside a previous reliance on open source capabilities, such as Evilginx2 [T1588.002], likely indicates a lack of advanced technical knowledge within LAUNDRY BEAR, especially in relation to true software development capabilities.
Initial access
To gain initial access, LAUNDRY BEAR sends an email containing a malicious JavaScript payload to the target [T1566]. Through exploitation of CVE-2025-66376, this JavaScript payload is immediately executed once the user views the malicious email [T1203], such as the one shown in Figure 1, in the ZCS webmail platform. Since at least November 2025, LAUNDRY BEAR began sending these phishing emails from victim infrastructure through compromised accounts [T1199], as shown in the email metadata in Figure 2. These compromised accounts were likely previous victims of this, or another LAUNDRY BEAR, campaign and their use is intended to further obfuscate and frustrate anti-phishing tools and training.





  
      




      Figure 1: Example of malicious email
  





  
      




      Figure 2: Headers from an example malicious email
  
According to the National Vulnerability Database (NVD), CVE-2025-66376 was initially published on 5 January 2026. This vulnerability allows for execution of a JavaScript payload included in email content due to improper sanitization of Cascading Style Sheet’s (CSS) @import directives within an email [5]. Because the activity attributed to this campaign began in July 2025—months before Synacor released a patch and the CVE was published—the payload initially exploited a zero-day vulnerability at that time [T1587.004].  
Utilization of a zero-day exploit within this campaign demonstrates the ability for even emerging threat groups like LAUNDRY BEAR to operationalize novel exploits into a highly successful capability.
Hidden in LAUNDRY BEAR’s email is a Base64 encoded payload within the “onload” field of a Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) element [T1027.017], as shown in Figure 3. Leading up to the inclusion of this payload in the SVG element are various instances of @import directives, as required to leverage CVE-2025-66376. This payload includes an XOR encrypted final script encoded in a Base64 inner payload (see Figure 3) [T1027.013]. The outer payload decodes and decrypts the inner payload using an XOR function and a hardcoded key and then executes the script contained within the inner payload containing the collection and exfiltration logic. By changing the key used for the XOR encryption of the inner payload or adding additional @import directives with non-functional code [T1027.010], LAUNDRY BEAR can easily generate new payloads that bypass basic threat detection signatures. This malicious payload attempts to collect and exfiltrate information in 12 asynchronous stages [T1119]. The stages in order of appearance within the payload are as follows:

sendStartPing,
gather_email,
gather_environment,
gather_2fa_codes,
gather_app_password,
gather_device_status,
gather_oauth_consumers,
gather_autocomplete_password,
enable_mail_protocols,
gather_gal,
sendArchives, and
sendFinishPing. 






  
      




      Figure 3: Malicious payload of example email
  
Use of a zero-day exploit within this campaign demonstrates the ability for even emerging threat groups like LAUNDRY BEAR to operationalize novel exploits into a highly successful capability [T1587].
Persistence and credential access
To establish sustained persistence into the victim’s email account, the script attempts to modify account preferences and collect authentication information. Any collected credentials are later exfiltrated, as further described in the Exfiltration section below. Other campaigns attributed to LAUNDRY BEAR also demonstrated the group’s ability to circumvent multi-factor authentication through session token replay [T1550.004], and the Zimbra campaign follows a similar trend.
The script used in this campaign tries to discover the victim’s email address during the gather_email stage [T1087]. The script searches for this email address in two ways. First, it examines the batchInfoResponse variable, which an HTML script element on the webpage can define, for an email address. Even if the script finds an email address there, it also checks whether it acquired a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) token as described later in the Collection section of this advisory. If so, the script uses the “GetIdentitiesRequest” Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) command under the “ZimbraAccount” namespace to determine the victim’s email address [T1185] and then exfiltrates it. However, if the script does not have a CSRF token or the SOAP request fails, the script exfiltrates the email value recovered from the first method instead. If both attempts fail to capture the victim’s email, the script sends a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) payload with a key of “email” and value of null over HTTPS and does not attempt DNS exfiltration.
During the gather_autocomplete_password stage, the script attempts to collect the victim’s saved password via the autocomplete feature of the victim’s password manager. The script injects two HTML div elements requesting login credentials onto the page outside of the victim’s view, as shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5. After waiting five seconds, the script then attempts to extract the password provided automatically by the password manager from the input element shown in Figure 4. If there is no value in that input field, it checks the password input field shown in Figure 5. If neither input field contains a value, a JSON payload with a key of “autocomplete_password” and value of null is sent over HTTPS and DNS exfiltration is not attempted.





  
      




      Figure 4: First illegitimate login HTML element
  





  
      




      Figure 5: Second illegitimate login HTML element
  
LAUNDRY BEAR almost certainly relies on a mail client using the Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) for persistent access to the victim’s mailbox. During the enable_mail_protocols stage, a SOAP request leveraging the “ModifyPrefsRequest” command under the “ZimbraAccount” namespace is sent. This request attempts to set the “zimbraPrefImapEnabled” preference to TRUE. While the default setting for “zimbraPrefImapEnabled” is not well documented, this action is almost certainly intended to ensure that IMAP access to the victim’s mailbox is enabled.
ZCS does not support 2FA for some mail clients, including IMAP. To support users who rely on IMAP clients, ZCS allows for the generation of Application Passcodes. Application Passcodes are randomly generated passwords that can be used for clients that cannot support the normal 2FA process to authenticate. During the gather_app_password stage, the script makes a SOAP request using the “CreateAppSpecificPasswordRequest” command under the “ZimbraAccount” namespace to create a new Application Passcode [T1556.006]. The SOAP request uses “ZimbraWeb” as the name of the application.
Additionally, the script also attempts to collect 2FA tokens. During the gather_2fa_codes stage, the script makes a SOAP request using the “GetScratchCodesRequest” command under the “ZimbraAccount” namespace. The script then attempts to exfiltrate any non-null 2FA codes collected this way. The number of codes can vary, and each code is exfiltrated to Flowerbed individually.
Collection
As demonstrated in the Persistence and credential access section, this script relies heavily on SOAP requests to collect victim information. To make these requests, the script aims to acquire the victim’s current CSRF token, which it attempts to access within the webpage’s local storage using localStorage.getItem("csrfToken"). If the script is unable to acquire this CSRF token, it will be unable to make any SOAP requests. In addition to the SOAP commands documented in the Persistence and credential access section, other SOAP commands executed to collect victim information are shown in Table 1.


Table 1: Additional SOAP commands used





SOAP Command 






Namespace 






Stage 










GetInfoRequest 






zimbraAccount 






gather_environment 








GetDeviceStatusRequest 






zimbraSync 






gather_device_status 








GetOAuthConsumersRequest 






zimbraAccount 






gather_oauth_consumers 








SearchGalRequest 






zimbraAccount 






gather_gal 






The script attempts to collect the victim’s GAL through brute force by searching for each two-character combination from a character set of “abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz1234567890.-_”. These queries are conducted using 20 batches of SOAP requests with 77 “SearchGalRequest” SOAP commands in each batch except for the last request containing only 58.
During the gather_environment stage, the script attempts to determine which type of ZCS webmail client the victim is using. The script checks the user’s current URL to determine the client type being used, checking for certain indicators (shown in Table 2) to determine the client type. The corresponding value is then used as the payload when exfiltrating the client type.


Table 2: ZCS webmail client types





Indicator 






Client Type 






Associated Value 










?client=advanced 






Advanced 






c 








/h/ 






Standard 






h 








/modern/ 






Modern 






m 






As part of collection, the script attempts to harvest any emails not marked as “junk” from the last 90 days from the victim’s account. Emails are collected daily by an HTTP GET request to the URL path, “/home/~/?fmt=tgz&meta=0&query=date:-{DAY_OFFSET}d AND (not in:junk)”. The {DAY_OFFSET} value would be between 0 and 89 representing how many days ago the email was sent or received. To prevent redundant collection and exfiltration of emails, a variable with a name based on the email date being queried, using a format of zd_comp_YYYY-MM-DD, and value of true, is saved to the window.top.localStorage property. This variable is saved regardless of whether the email is successfully exfiltrated.  
According to Mozilla documentation, if the user is not in a private browsing session, any data stored to localStorage does not typically expire. This means that if the user happens to execute the script again from the same computer, the script avoids attempting to re-exfiltrate previously captured emails. However, the script always attempts to pull any emails with a {DAY_OFFSET} of zero. In other words, the script always pulls emails sent or received the same day it is run. After email results are returned from the query for each day of email activity, those results are then passed to Flowerbed as described in the Exfiltration section.
The script also provides LAUNDRY BEAR with telemetry on any errors that occur during the collection process. This is accomplished by executing any collection or exfiltration code through helper functions that contain error handling logic. If an error occurs, a payload containing information on the error itself, the context of the error happening, and the stage in which the error occurred is sent to Flowerbed as described in the Exfiltration section below. For cases where the error occurs within a SOAP request, “:api” is concatenated to the stage value in the payload. If an error occurs during the batch SOAP requests that occur when collecting the GAL of the victim, the stage value will use a format of gather_gal:{VAL}:api. The {VAL} placeholder indicates which batch request, a number from 0 to 19, the error occurred in. Errors that occur during the password autocomplete interception process will use “gather_autocomplete_password:dom” for the stage value. Finally, if an error occurs when attempting to collect or exfiltrate a specific day’s emails, the stage will include which day the error occurred on, using the previously defined placeholder {DAY_OFFSET}, with a format of sendArchive:day-{DAY_OFFSET}.
Exfiltration
At the end of each stage in the collection process, the script attempts to exfiltrate acquired information to Flowerbed. The script primarily relies on two forms of data exfiltration: DNS [T1048.003] and HTTPS. Some information is exfiltrated over both the DNS and HTTPS channels.
Prior to exfiltration, a randomized 10- or 11-character alphanumeric string is generated as an identifier for the victim. This identifier is included in the URL of both the DNS- and HTTPS-based exfiltration.  
DNS exfiltration
DNS exfiltration occurs through DNS A record queries. To ensure data exfiltrated through DNS is not corrupted when traversing through non-actor-controlled DNS infrastructure, Ulej maintains compliance with RFC 1035, Domain Names - Implementation and Specification, specifically accounting for the case insensitivity and subdomain length requirements. Base32 encoding is used to create a case-insensitive payload. Once the payload is encoded, a period (“.”) is added every 60 characters to ensure each subdomain is under 63 characters long. The script then creates a new image object sourced from a URL with the scheme defined in Figure 6. Any traffic involving DNS exfiltration will have “d-“ prefixing the victim identifier, and the subdomain immediately following indicates the type of information being exfiltrated.





  
      




      Figure 6: Structure for information exfiltrated by DNS
  
When the script generates an image object, the browser tries to retrieve the complete domain of the URL specified as the source of the image. This triggers a DNS request sent to the actor-controlled server and processed by Flowerbed. Table 3 lists both the information exfiltrated via DNS and their corresponding data type identifiers in the DNS queries.  


Table 3: DNS exfiltration





Type of Information 






Exfiltration Stage 






Data Type 










Victim’s Email Address 






gather_email 






e 








Client Type 






gather_environment 






c 








Zimbra Version 






gather_environment  






v 








URL at Time of Exploitation 






gather_environment 






url 








2FA Scratch Codes 






gather_2fa_codes 






2fa 








Newly Created Application Password 






gather_app_password 






pa 








Harvested Autocomplete Password 






gather_autocomplete_password 






pw 






HTTPS exfiltration
Any information exfiltrated via DNS is also exfiltrated through HTTPS, as well as additional data including email content, contacts, attachments, and error logging information. By using Let’s Encrypt certificates, this group can quickly deploy new infrastructure and leverage encrypted HTTPS communications with valid server certificates when exfiltrating information from the victim’s environment. The HTTPS exfiltration capability only uses two HTTP content types, defined in Table 4. Traffic associated with HTTPS exfiltration will use the URL scheme shown in Figure 7.  


Table 4: HTTPS exfiltration types





Content Type 






URL Path 










application/json 






/v/p 








application/octet-stream 






/v/d 











  
      




      Figure 7: Structure for information exfiltrated by HTTPS
  
Some of the data transmitted via HTTPS uses the standard JSON content type format. The script includes the information in a POST request to actor-controlled infrastructure.  
Table 5 provides a summary of the JSON-based exfiltration.


Table 5: HTTPS JSON exfiltration  





Type of Information 






Exfiltration Stage 






JSON Key(s) 










Victim’s Email Address 






gather_email 






email 








Client Type, Version, and Current URL 






gather_environment 






client, version, full_url 








Newly Created Application Password 






gather_app_password 






app_password 








Harvested Autocomplete Password 






gather_autocomplete_password 






autocomplete_password 






The script transmits all HTTPS exfiltration not identified in Table 5 using the Octet-Stream content type as binary data. The POST requests for this method include a filename in the “X-Filename” header. Traditionally, developers use headers prefixed with “X-” to denote custom headers that do not follow a defined standard. The purpose of including this header remains unclear since the Catcher capability ignores the provided filename when saving the data. Table 6 summarizes the data exfiltrated in this format.




 Table 6: HTTPS binary exfiltration





Type of Information 






Exfiltration Stage 






X-Filename Header 










SOAP request for GetInfoRequest 






gather_environment 






zimbra_batch_analytics.json 








SOAP request for GetScratchCodesRequest 






gather_2fa_codes 






zimbra_batch_analytics.json 








SOAP request for GetDeviceStatusRequest 






gather_device_status 






zimbra_batch_analytics.json 








SOAP request for GetOAuthConsumersRequest 






gather_oauth_consumers 






zimbra_batch_analytics.json 








Victim Organization’s Global Address List 






gather_gal 






telemetry_{1-20}.json 








Last 90 Days of Victim’s Emails 






sendArchives 






telemetryData_{0-89}.json 








The script sends all exfiltrated data identified in Table 6 to the Catcher service exactly as received from the SOAP request in a JSON payload, except for email exfiltration. For email exfiltration, the script sends it as a GZIP compressed archive [T1560]. Although most of the exfiltration consists of valid JSON, the script still attempts to exfiltrate all information identified in Table 6 using the application/octet-stream content typing rather than application/json.
At the beginning and end of the collection and exfiltration activity, during the sendStartPing and sendFinishPing stages respectively, the script submits a POST request with a JSON payload to indicate that the script is starting or finishing execution. Throughout execution, the script also logs error events and send the logs using similar JSON payloads. The script sends the JSON in a POST request to the URL documented in Figure 2, using a URL path of “/v/p” and with a “subtype” key that shows which type of action it logged (start, finish, or error).  
Catcher
Ulej exfiltrates information to Flowerbed to be handled by a service named Catcher. Catcher is a containerized Python application, running in Docker as part of Flowerbed, which is detailed in the Resource development section. It receives exfiltrated data and temporarily stores it, enabling its eventual transfer to infrastructure designed for long-term, secure storage.
Catcher acts as an HTTP server over port 8000 and a DNS server on port 53. As described in the Resource development section, the Flowerbed project uses an additional Docker container running an Nginx reverse proxy to enable HTTPS support. This reverse proxy uses a certificate generated by Let’s Encrypt and forwards all traffic with an SNI containing “*.i.*” to port 8000 within the Catcher container.
The DNS service can accept A, AAAA, MX, TXT, and CAA queries. For any MX, AAAA, or CAA queries, the server will always provide an empty response. The system only supports TXT records as needed to process Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME) requests, which enable the assignment of Let’s Encrypt certificates. If the server receives an A query, Catcher will always respond with the public IP address of the Flowerbed server.  
However, if a query includes a domain formatted as shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7, the service saves a log file in JSON format to disk containing the following details of the DNS query:

Time of query,
Source IP address for query,
Queried domain, and
Type of query.

The HTTP server typically responds with OK, except in cases where the path is “pixel.gif” when the response contains a 1x1 gif image with a SHA-256 hash of ef1955ae757c8b966c83248350331bd3a30f658ced11f387f8ebf05ab3368629. Like the DNS service, the HTTP service will only log entries when the domain found in the host header of the request follows the expected formatting as seen in Figure 6 and Figure 7. As the HTTPS exfiltration uses non-standardized binary and JSON-formatted payloads when exfiltrating to Catcher, Catcher will check the content type of the request. If the content type is set to “application/json”, Catcher encodes the data in Base64 and includes it in the JSON log entry written to disk. If the content type is set to any other value, Catcher leaves the Base64 payload in the JSON log entry blank and saves the payload to a separate file with the same filename as the JSON log entry with a “.bin” file extension. An HTTPS exfiltration event causes Catcher to save a JSON formatted log file to disk containing the following information from the HTTP request:

Time,
Source IP address,
Request method,
Host,
Path,
Query string,
Headers, and
Base64 payload.

These JSON event log files and binary output files are then initially saved to the directory /root/hits/tmp and later moved to the /root/hits/ready directory once processed. This prevents incomplete files, which are still being uploaded to Catcher, from premature exfiltration from the server. Approximately every 60 seconds, a likely automated workflow establishes a Secure Shell (SSH) connection with the server hosting Flowerbed for a few seconds, almost certainly exfiltrating the data processed by Catcher to non-public-facing infrastructure. The command in Figure 8 also executes hourly to remove all files last modified at least two days ago from the /root/hits/ready directory.





  
      




      Figure 8: Command used for automated directory cleanup
  
Response strategies
Mitigations
In many cases, by the time an organization identifies a compromise related to this campaign, numerous sensitive and proprietary emails have already been exfiltrated. The significant risk posed by this cyber threat emphasizes the importance for organizations that use ZCS and other similar webmail solutions to take proactive steps to mitigate this risk.
All organizations that use the ZCS webmail service should immediately prioritize ensuring that their ZCS is not running a vulnerable version. A patch for CVE-2025-66376 was released for both 10.1.13 and 10.0.18 versions of ZCS [D3-AH]. If immediate patching is not feasible, organizations should advise employees to use alternative mail clients to access email and avoid using the Classic ZCS webmail client until ZCS is updated to a non-vulnerable version [d3f:Isolate].
System administrators should closely monitor any Internet-connected ZCS or other email systems and the workstations that access those systems and promptly apply available software updates [D3-AH]. Administrators can maintain awareness of active vulnerability exploitation by referencing open source resources, including CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalog and NCSC-UK’s Responding to active exploitation of vulnerabilities guidance.
Organizations should consider using a third-party authentication service that supports passkeys for authentication to mediate access to ZCS and other services that do not natively support passkeys. By doing so, organizations can work to eliminate the possibility of automated password collection from autocomplete or password reuse [D3-CH]. However, Application Passcodes may still be necessary and should be monitored closely.  
Organizations should implement network monitoring capabilities with collection and short-term retention of packet capture or NetFlow data and maintain log collection and storage [CPG 3.Q]. This will allow organizations to monitor for and identify suspicious network activity [CPG 4.B], such as:

Significant amounts of outbound data being sent to IPs associated with VPS providers not used by the organization [D3-NTA];
Frequent DNS queries for a suspicious domain with seemingly random subdomains [D3-DNSTA];
A sudden spike of connections to a server associated with a recently established domain [D3-NTCD]; and  
Connections to internal services, such as webmail, from VPN providers frequently leveraged by this group for nefarious activity, such as Mullvad VPN [D3-NTCD].

Additionally, for organizations that can inspect the content of outbound HTTPS connections via break-and-inspect infrastructure, security teams should identify traffic matching the characteristics described in the Exfiltration section of this advisory.
Indicators of compromise (IOCs)
Flowerbed infrastructure
The following indicators have been attributed to use by LAUNDRY BEAR for their campaign targeting ZCS’s webmail service as of the publication of this advisory. (Disclaimer: Due to the frequency of operational structure changes by this group, these indicators are intended solely for historic attribution purposes. Some indicators, such as IPs, compromised emails, and domains, may be outdated, so organizations should check for current activity before acting on these IOCs.) Table 7 provides details about the server infrastructure used to host Flowerbed, and Table 8 lists the corresponding SHA-1 hash values for the Let’s Encrypt certificates used by that infrastructure [D3-IAA].


Table 7: Flowerbed server infrastructure





Domain 






IP Address 






First Seen 






Last Seen 










zmailanalytics[.]com 






216.252.238[.]104 






8 July 2025 






15 October 2025 








zimbra-metadata[.]com 






216.252.238[.]18 






20 August 2025 






14 October 2025 








analyticemailmeter[.]com 






37.120.247[.]228 






24 September 2025 






18 March 2026 








emailanalytics.com[.]ua 






185.86.79[.]95 






24 September 2025 






18 March 2026 








mailnalysis[.]com 






104.248.134[.]194 






11 November 2025 






17 February 2026 








zimbrastat[.]com 






64.226.124[.]190 






18 December 2025 






18 March 2026 








zimbrasoft.com[.]ua 






193.238.152[.]66 






20 January 2026 






18 March 2026 








synacorzimbra[.]nl 






216.252.238[.]64 






3 February 2026 






30 March 2026 








istc-cloud[.]com 






194.156.103[.]193 






5 February 2026 






30 March 2026 








Table 8: Flowerbed X.509 certificate SHA-1 hashes  





Associated Domain 






X.509 SHA-1 Hash 






First Seen 






Last Seen 










zmailanalytics[.]com 






2e4f314bc9943cab5005d6fde0b271c74d47bc9d 






8 Jul 2025 






6 Aug 2025 








*.i.zmailanalytics[.]com 






50a87d926621dd06389ba50d86e0ff574ed713a8 






6 Aug 2025 






13 Oct 2025 








*.i.zimbra-metadata[.]com 






c5a72420e7bb308d078e62128430897f82194c95 






20 Aug 2025 






14 Oct 2025 








*.i.analyticemailmeter[.]com 






8959c4d29e29f02ea94ea8bb21c8df2594c5549d 






24 Sep 2025 






8 Nov 2025 








*.i.emailanalytics.com[.]ua 






62eb76432597694edb01c1fe57aab0cfe03a7178 






25 Sep 2025 






27 Sep 2025 








*.i.mailnalysis[.]com 






cddf5c3be1e07f28140aed165b929bf2d614922a 






12 Nov 2025 






17 Dec 2025 








*.i.zimbrastat[.]com 






18b3ad442ce73cc8656d51d75bbd7c855f2cb7e8 






18 Dec 2025 






28 Dec 2025 








*.i.zimbrasoft.com[.]ua 






1b25041ececf2457eef0270fc1d785cec8ec9ded 






21 Jan 2026 






10 Feb 2026 








*.i.synacorzimbra[.]nl 






e4fe6466a4f9a4249fe330651e914e45bbdca44a 






5 Feb 2026 






22 Mar 2026 








*.i.istc-cloud[.]com 






b6b77c9a455225d525834a403ca9ef5481ed0447 






12 Feb 2026 






30 Mar 2026 






LAUNDRY BEAR has used the following email addresses to procure resources used for this campaign:

ivanka.zurabishvili@proton[.]me,
zmul1@buildandconsulting[.]com,
garrysmithme@pinmx[.]net, and
hostingclient@pinmx[.]net.

Phishing distribution
LAUNDRY BEAR primarily relied on ProtonMail for distribution of malicious email. However, as stated above, LAUNDRY BEAR’s more recent efforts likely have shifted to distributing the payload through previous victims.  
The following email addresses have distributed payloads attributed to this campaign:

c.laurent.ejfa@proton[.]me,
j.moreau.epsc@proton[.]me,
liberty.insights@proton[.]me,
certain email addresses (presumably compromised) at the isofts.kiev[.]ua domain (i.e., ending with @isofts.kiev[.]ua), and
certain email addresses (presumably compromised) at the navs.edu[.]ua domain (i.e., ending with @navs.edu[.]ua).

Additionally, the following are SHA-256 hashes of email samples containing the malicious payload attributed to this campaign:

98df604ecc57f884a2e6ce3266a0013ad64455cac48442c2312cfa4765007aaf,
60db9abae75cd8ccc49dd7ea5feb41677566dcd442f12ebc5745ffd2810fb874,
b1f5beb1175fc5c7d1806a2f0d900eb124c54f0286c5c52b66eea7a6633adb1d, and
1517b3caa495f6c4e832df9c75fc94667e3c233773f7fa4e056d5e30e5ead760.

Post-compromise artifacts
Currently, the script does not remove artifacts. This leaves additional opportunities to identify victims of this activity. While emphasis should always be placed on consistent monitoring of network traffic and endpoint activity, there are a variety of persistent artifacts described below that can be used to identify victims of this campaign.
This Ulej capability relies on creating a significant number of SOAP requests to collect account information for exfiltration. ZCS logs from these requests are stored, by default, in the /opt/zimbra/log/mailbox.log file [D3-PA]. A significant amount of SOAP request activity that aligns with what was described in the Persistence and credential access and Collection sections of this advisory could indicate a potential compromise. Specific examples of high-risk SOAP request activity might include:

Many SearchGalRequest command requests from a single user over a short period of time;
Use of the CreateAppSpecificPasswordRequest command, especially in cases where it is creating an Application Passcode named “ZimbraWeb”; and
Use of the GetScratchCodesRequest command.

While LAUNDRY BEAR uses the localStorage property to track what days had emails previously exfiltrated, defenders can use this property to identify victims of this campaign and determine the scope of exfiltrated information [D3-PA]. Review of the items stored in that property for an organization’s ZCS webmail client page on an endpoint device could indicate compromise if there are items named with a format of zd_comp_YYYY-MM-DD, as explained in the Collection section of this advisory.
While Application Passcodes have non-malicious purposes, in this case instances of these passcodes with the name “ZimbraWeb” are almost certainly malicious. The ZCS webmail application can support 2FA natively and does not require the use of an Application Passcode, so there is no reason that there should be one named “ZimbraWeb.”
In instances where organizations identify victims of this campaign, they should also examine the inbox of the suspected victim for the original phishing email [D3-MA]. If an email that has a payload exploiting CVE-2025-66376 is discovered, steps should be taken immediately to identify and quarantine other instances of emails with similar body content, senders, and subject lines to prevent further exploitation and exfiltration.  
Remediation
In the event an organization identifies activity associated with this campaign, that organization should take steps to minimize further exploitation. The organization should consider requesting that employees minimize use of the ZCS webmail client until the organization updates to a patched version that is not vulnerable to CVE-2025-66376.
Organizations should use identifiers from the IOCs section of this report to identify any individuals compromised by this campaign and record the date(s) of compromise(s) to determine the scale and scope of emails exfiltrated.
All users from the organization should have all Application Passcodes and 2FA scratch keys revoked. Affected organizations should require all employees to change passwords in line with establishing minimum password strength requirements [CPG 3.B] and creating unique credentials [CPG 3.C], specifically noting that compromised employees might have had any password stored in a password manager exfiltrated.
Works cited
[1] Netherlands General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD) and Netherlands Defence Intelligence and Security Service (MIVD). AIVD and MIVD identify a new Russian cyber threat actor. 2025. https://www.aivd.nl/site/binaries/site-content/collections/documents/2025/05/27/aivd-en-mivd-onderkennen-nieuwe-russische-cyberactor/Advisory+AIVD+en+MIVD+Public+report+on+new+cyber+actor.pdf
[2] Microsoft Corporation. New Russia-affiliated actor Void Blizzard targets critical sectors for espionage. 2025. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/blog/2025/05/27/new-russia-affiliated-actor-void-blizzard-targets-critical-sectors-for-espionage/
[3] Palo Alto Networks Unit 42. Russian Global Webmail Espionage. 2026. https://unit42.paloaltonetworks.com/russian-webmail-espionage/ 
[4] Proofpoint. TA488 Targets Zimbra Mailservers with Half-Click Exploits. 2026. https://www.proofpoint.com/us/blog/threat-insight/ta488-zcs-exploit
[5] Seqrite. Operation GhostMail: Russian APT exploits Zimbra Webmail to Target Ukraine State Agency. 2026. https://www.seqrite.com/blog/operation-ghostmail-zimbra-xss-russian-apt-ukraine/  
Footnotes
¹ Národní úřad pro kybernetickou a informační bezpečnost
²Forsvarets Efterretningstjeneste
³Välisluureamet
⁴ Sotilastiedustelu
⁵ Suojelupoliisi
⁶ Direction générale de la sécurité intérieure
⁷ Agence nationale de la sécurité des systèmes d’information
⁸ Agenzia Informazioni e Sicurezza Esterna
⁹ Agenzia Informazioni e Sicurezza Interna
¹⁰ Serviciul de Informații și Securitate al Republicii Moldova
¹¹Agencja Wywiadu
¹²Służba Kontrwywiadu Wojskowego
¹³Centro Nacional de Inteligencia
¹⁴Nationellt Cybersäkerhetscenter
¹⁵ MITRE and ATT&CK are registered trademarks of The MITRE Corporation. MITRE D3FEND is a trademark of The MITRE Corporation.
Acknowledgements
The authoring agencies acknowledge the contributions to this advisory from Palo Alto Networks Unit 42 and Proofpoint.
Disclaimer of endorsement
The information and opinions contained in this document are provided "as is" and without any warranties or guarantees. Reference herein to any specific commercial products, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government, and this guidance shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
Organizations have no obligation to respond or provide information back to the authoring organizations in response to this joint advisory. If, after reviewing the information provided, an organization decides to provide information to the authoring organizations, reporting must be consistent with all applicable laws and policies.
Purpose
This document was developed in furtherance of the authoring agencies’ cybersecurity missions, including their responsibilities to identify and disseminate threats, and to develop and issue cybersecurity specifications and mitigations. This information may be shared broadly to reach all appropriate stakeholders.
Contact


United States organizations 

National Security Agency 
Cybersecurity Report Feedback: CybersecurityReports@nsa.gov 
Defense Industrial Base Inquiries and Cybersecurity Services: DIB_Defense@cyber.nsa.gov 
Media Inquiries / Press Desk: NSA Media Relations: 443-634-0721, MediaRelations@nsa.gov 
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency 
CISA’s 24/7 Operations Center (contact@cisa.dhs.gov), or by calling 1-844-Say-CISA (1-844-729-2472). 
Federal Bureau of Investigation 
If you or someone you know has fallen victim to this campaign, file a complaint with IC3. 
Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency  
DCSA Counterintelligence, Cyber Mission Center, Cyber Threat Operations Branch: DCSA.CI.CyberOps@mail.mil 
Cleared Contactors (CCs) should contact their DCSA Counterintelligence Special Agent to report information pertaining to suspicious contacts or physical/digital efforts to obtain illegal or unauthorized access to the CC’s cleared facility/information, as required by 32 CFR 117. 
Media/Public Inquiries: dcsa.quantico.dcsa-hq.mbx.pa@mail.mil  
Department of Defense Cyber Crime Center  
Defense Industrial Base Inquiries and Cybersecurity Services: DC3.DCISE@us.af.mil 
Defense Industrial Base mandatory cyber incident reporting as required by 10 U.S. Code Sections 391 and 393 and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 252.204-7012 is submitted at https://dibnet.dod.mil 
Media Inquiries / Press Desk: DC3.Information@us.af.mil 
Naval Criminal Investigative Service 
To report criminal activity impacting the United States Navy, go to www.ncis.navy.mil and click “Submit a Tip”

Dutch organizations 

Defence Intelligence and Security Service (MIVD): https://www.defensie.nl/onderwerpen/m/militaire-inlichtingen-en-veiligheid  
General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD): https://www.aivd.nl 

Australian organizations 

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

Canadian organizations 

The Canadian Centre for Cyber Security (Cyber Centre), part of the Communications Security Establishment, encourages Canadian organizations to report cyber incidents and to strengthen the security of their networking devices.  
Report an incident or suspicious activity to the Cyber Centre by email at contact@cyber.gc.ca, online via the reporting tool Report a cyber incident - Canadian Centre for Cyber Security or by phone at 1-833-CYBER-88 (1-833-292-3788). 

New Zealand organizations 

New Zealand National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-NZ): info@ncsc.govt.nz 

United Kingdom organizations 

Report significant cyber security incidents to ncsc.gov.uk/report-an-incident (monitored 24/7) 

Estonia organizations 

Estonian Foreign Intelligence Service (EFIS): info@valisluureamet.ee 

Finnish organizations 

Finnish Security and Intelligence Service: supo.fi/en/contact 

French organizations 

French organizations are encouraged to report suspicious activity or incident related information found in this advisory by contacting ANSSI/CERT-FR at: cert-fr@ssi.gouv.fr or by phone at: 3218 or +33 9 70 83 32 18. 

Italian Organizations 

Italian External Intelligence and Security Agency (AISE):  
Visit https://www.sicurezzanazionale.gov.it/  
Italian Internal Intelligence and Security Agency (AISI):  
Visit https://www.sicurezzanazionale.gov.it/ 


Moldovan organizations 



Security and Intelligence Service of the Republic of Moldova (SIS RM): cybersec@sis.md 


Polish organizations 

Polish Foreign Intelligence Agency (AW): ctiteam@aw.gov.pl



Appendix A: MITRE ATT&CK tactics and techniques
See Table 9 through Table 19 for all the threat actor tactics and techniques referenced in this advisory.



Table 9: Reconnaissance 





Technique Title 






ID 






Use 










Gather Victim Identity Information: Credentials 






T1589.001 






The payload attempts to intercept a victim’s password from their password manager. 








Gather Victim Identity Information: Email Addresses 






T1589.002 






The payload attempts to grab the victim’s email address from various data stores. 








Search Open Websites/Domains 






T1593 






This group likely leverages public information to support target development. 








Active Scanning 






T1595 






Port scanning can be used by this group to assist with determining exploitability of identified targets. 








Search Open Technical Databases: Scan Databases 






T1596.005 






Various public datasets can provide information to support discovery of exploitable targets. 








Search Closed Sources 






T1597 






Previously exfiltrated data can be used to enhance target development efforts. 








Search Closed Sources: Purchase Technical Data 






T1597.002 






Commercial datasets can also be used to support target development efforts. 












Table 10: Resource Development 





Technique Title 






ID 






Use 










Acquire Infrastructure 






T1583 






This group used Mullvad VPN to anonymize traffic sent to operational infrastructure. 








Acquire Infrastructure: Virtual Private Server 






T1583.003 






This group procured VPS servers from a variety of vendors. 








Develop Capabilities 






T1587 






The Ulej capability was developed likely for use by this group to conduct spear phishing campaigns. 








Develop Capabilities: Malware 






T1587.001 






Development of a novel payload that steals a victim’s emails and other sensitive account information. 








Develop Capabilities: Exploits 






T1587.004 






Development of a novel, at the time, cross-site-scripting (XSS) exploit that enables execution of arbitrary JavaScript. 








Obtain Capabilities: Tool 






T1588.002 






Open source tools, such as Evilginx2, have also been used by the group. 








Obtain Capabilities: Artificial Intelligence 






T1588.007 






The group appears to have leveraged AI to support development efforts. 








Stage Capabilities 






T1608 






Flowerbed is deployed to a procured server in the cloud. 












Table 11: Initial Access 





Technique Title 






ID 






Use 










Valid Accounts 






T1078 






This actor has used commercial datasets to acquire account credentials and gain unauthorized access to accounts. Additionally, this actor is believed to use previously compromised accounts to conduct spear phishing.  








Trusted Relationship 






T1199 






The group sends malicious payloads to targeted individuals using previously compromised accounts that might have an established relationship with the target.  








Phishing 






T1566 






The actors used spear phishing to lure users into opening malicious email. 












Table 12: Execution 





Technique Title 






ID 






Use 










Exploitation for Client Execution 






T1203 






An XSS vulnerability was leveraged to execute the JavaScript payload. 












Table 13: Persistence 





Technique Title 






ID 






Use 










Account Manipulation 






T1098 






Enabling IMAP and Application Passcodes provides persistent access to the compromised account. 








Modify Authentication Process: Multi-Factor Authentication 






T1556.006 






Creating Application Passcodes to bypass 2FA and stealing a user’s “Scratch Keys,” which can be used in place of a 2FA token. 












Table 14: Privilege Escalation 





Technique Title 






ID 






Use 










Valid Accounts 






T1078 






This actor has used commercial datasets to acquire account credentials and gain unauthorized privileged access to accounts.  












Table 15: Stealth 





Technique Title 






ID 






Use 










Obfuscated Files or Information: Command Obfuscation 






T1027.010 






Obfuscated JavaScript payload sent to targets to exploit the XSS vulnerability. 








Obfuscated Files or Information: Encrypted/Encoded File 






T1027.013 






The JavaScript payload included both a Base64-encoded and XOR-encrypted inner payload. 








Obfuscated Files or Information: SVG Smuggling 






T1027.017 






The payload was contained in an “onload” attribute within an SVG image included in the malicious email. 








Use Alternate Authentication Material: Web Session Cookie 






T1550.004 






Previous campaigns using AiTM leveraged stealing and use of a victim’s session cookies to authenticate. 












Table 16: Credential Access 





Technique Title 






ID 






Use 










Modify Authentication Process: Multi-Factor Authentication 






T1556.006 






Creating Application Passcodes to bypass 2FA and stealing a user’s “Scratch Keys,” which can be used in place of a 2FA token. 








Adversary-in-the-Middle 






T1557 






Previous campaigns used Evilginx2 as an AiTM toolkit to intercept credentials and session cookies. 












Table 17: Collection 





Technique Title 






ID 






Use 










Data Staged: Remote Data Staging 






T1074.002 






Exfiltrated data was sent to an actor-controlled VPS prior to assumed long-term storage solutions. 








Email Collection 






T1114 






This group has emphasized collection of emails. 








Email Collection: Remote Email Collection 






T1114.002 






Emails are collected via API calls to the ZCS mail server and are not collected from emails stored directly on the victim’s device. 








Automated Collection 






T1119 






Upon execution, the JavaScript payload automatically collects all relevant information in stages. 








Browser Session Hijacking 






T1185 






The JavaScript payload leverages the user’s authenticated browser session to make API requests as the user. 








Archive Collected Data 






T1560 






Emails are exfiltrated with GZIP compression. 












Table 18: Discovery 





Technique Title 






ID 






Use 










Account Discovery 






T1087 






Stolen Global Access Lists provide the group with new users to target. 












Table 19: Exfiltration 





Technique Title 






ID 






Use 










Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol 






T1048 






Victim information was exfiltrated over both HTTPS and DNS. 








Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol: Exfiltration Over Asymmetric Encrypted Non-C2 Protocol 






T1048.002 






Some payloads, especially ones with large amounts of data, were exfiltrated over HTTPS. 








Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol: Exfiltration Over Unencrypted Non-C2 Protocol 






T1048.003 






Some smaller bandwidth payloads were exfiltrated over DNS using Base32 encoding. 








Appendix B: MITRE D3FEND countermeasures 
See Table 20 for a mapping of several of the cybersecurity countermeasures mentioned in this advisory. 



Table 20: MITRE D3FEND Countermeasures 





Countermeasure Title 






ID 






Description 










Application Hardening 






D3-AH 







Organizations should immediately prioritize patching CVE-2025-66376.  
Organizations should promptly apply software updates to all email systems. 









Isolate 






d3f:Isolate 






Organizations that cannot feasibly patch should use alternative mail clients. 








Credential Hardening 






D3-CH 






Organizations should consider using a third-party authentication service that supports passkeys to mediate access to ZCS and other services that do not natively support passkeys. 








Network Traffic Analysis 






D3-NTA 






Organizations should monitor for significant amounts of outbound data being sent to IPs associated with VPS providers not used by the organization. 








DNS Traffic Analysis 






D3-DNSTA 






Organizations should monitor for frequent DNS queries to a suspicious domain for seemingly random subdomains. 








Network Traffic Community Deviation 






D3-NTCD 







Organizations should monitor for a sudden spike of connections to a server associated with a recently established domain. 
Organizations should monitor for connections to internal services, such as webmail, from VPN providers. 









Identifier Activity Analysis 






D3-IAA 






Organizations should search for the listed known IOCs. 








Process Analysis 






D3-PA 







Organizations should search ZCS log files for specific commands used by the malicious script. 
Organizations should search the localStorage property in web browsers for the ZCS webmail client for “ZimbraWeb” Application Passcodes. 






Message Analysis
D3-MA
Organizations that suspect they have victims of this campaign should search for emails with a malicious payload to identify other victims.







What Happened Between OpenAI and Hugging Face?
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 15:28:53 +0200
The OpenAI and Hugging Face incident lands like a warning shot for anyone thinking seriously about frontier AI and cybersecurity research. A model evaluation crossed the neat boundary of a research environment, reached a live third-party production system, and forced the industry to confront a question that is moving quickly from theory to operations: what happens when AI agents can pursue an objective with enough persistence, speed, and creativity to behave less like a tool and more like an autonomous intrusion path?
According to OpenAI’s disclosure, the incident began during an internal evaluation of advanced cyber capabilities using GPT-5.6 Sol and a more capable pre-release model. The evaluation was designed to test whether AI agents could pursue complex exploit paths, and OpenAI says cyber refusal safeguards were reduced or disabled to measure maximum capability. Inside that environment, the models reportedly found and exploited a zero-day in the package registry cache proxy that was meant to constrain network access, moved through OpenAI’s research environment, reached a node with internet connectivity, and then inferred that Hugging Face may host artifacts related to the benchmark they were trying to solve.
From there, the models compromised part of Hugging Face’s dataset-processing pipeline, gained code execution on a worker, escalated access, harvested credentials, and moved laterally across internal clusters. Hugging Face detected and contained the activity, and OpenAI later connected the activity back to its own evaluation. Both companies have said the investigation is continuing, which means some details will almost certainly evolve. Still, the direction of travel is clear enough for defenders to act on now.
How did the OpenAI model evaluation reach Hugging Face?
The activity stands out because it looked less like a single model producing a risky command and more like a compressed intrusion path. Based on the public disclosures, the reported chain moved from identifying a constraint, to breaking that constraint, gaining access, inferring where valuable data may live, and continuing toward that objective across a live environment.
Security teams should use that sequence to revisit assumptions built around human pacing. Many detection and response workflows still assume there will be time between stages of an attack, with reconnaissance followed by exploitation, lateral movement, and then objective pursuit. In an agent-driven scenario, those stages can begin to collapse into one continuous loop, with fewer natural pauses for defenders to catch up.
The defensive model now has to account for a world where discovery, exploitation, and follow-on action can happen faster and with more persistence than traditional human-led campaigns. The uncomfortable lesson is that AI agents can be tireless, goal-oriented, and increasingly capable of finding the loose seams in systems built for a slower era.
The incident highlights the collapse of the traditional OODA (Observe-Orient-Decide-Act) loop. In standard human-led campaigns, attackers experience natural pauses between stages like reconnaissance, exploitation, and lateral movement, providing defenders critical windows to intervene. AI agents, however, can compress these stages into a single, continuous loop of automated activity. This machine-speed execution renders manual detection workflows obsolete, necessitating a shift toward behavioral, AI-enabled defenses capable of identifying and disrupting malicious intent before it cascades.
Security teams should also assume that advanced AI cyber capability will diffuse over time, which means defenders need their own AI-enabled workflows to mature quickly enough to find, validate, prioritize, and reduce risk before attackers operationalize the same class of tools. Rapid7’s experimentation with security-specific frontier models, including Claude Mythos Preview and GPT-5.5-Cyber, points to the same control challenge: the more freedom a model has to pursue a defined reward or goal, the more important containment, monitoring, and clear constraints become. Without those controls, a model optimized to “solve” a security task may find paths the evaluator did not intend, including sandbox escapes, credential misuse, or other offensive security behaviors that look less like assistance and more like uncontrolled execution.
Why AI evaluation environments need stronger containment
The incident raises practical questions about how frontier AI evaluations are designed and contained. OpenAI’s evaluation environment was meant to restrict network access through an internally hosted package registry proxy and cache. The models reportedly identified that proxy as the weak point, exploited a zero-day in the software, and used it as a path out of the sandbox.
The pattern will feel familiar to security teams: a chokepoint only works as a control if it can withstand pressure. Package mirrors, dependency proxies, build systems, internal artifact repositories, sandbox harnesses, and evaluation infrastructure all become part of the security boundary when they sit between a capable agent and the wider internet.
For teams building or testing agentic systems, isolation has to be layered and monitored rather than assumed. Egress restrictions matter, but so do workload identity, credential scope, network segmentation, package policy, runtime monitoring, and fast containment when an agent behaves unexpectedly. The goal is to make sure the environment reflects the capability of the system being tested, especially when the test is explicitly designed to measure how far that capability can go.
Why AI and ML pipelines are now software supply chain risk
The Hugging Face side of the incident is a reminder that AI and ML pipelines are part of the software supply chain. Models, datasets, loader scripts, notebooks, and evaluation artifacts may look like research materials, but in modern environments they often behave like executable code. Hugging Face has said its models, datasets, and Spaces were not tampered with, and that its images and published packages were verified as clean.
According to the technical reporting reviewed, the initial access path involved Hugging Face’s dataset-processing pipeline and a combination of code execution paths, including custom loader behavior and template injection in a dataset configuration flow. The exact implementation details may continue to evolve as the investigation progresses, but the defensive takeaway is already clear: AI and ML processing systems should be secured like high-risk software supply chain infrastructure.
Any system that automatically processes external datasets or model artifacts should be designed with hostile input in mind. Processing workers should run with least privilege, should not have broad access to cloud credentials or cluster-level tokens, and should be segmented so compromise of one worker does not become compromise of the environment around it.
Security teams should also hunt for early signs of intent drift inside ML workflows. Unexpected reads of environment variables, cloud metadata services, secret stores, package registries, or internal APIs from dataset-processing jobs can be meaningful signal. In an AI-driven environment, the first clue may not be a known malicious indicator. It may be a workload behaving with curiosity it should not have.
What AI guardrails mean for incident response
One of the most useful lessons for security teams came during the response, when Hugging Face’s responders reportedly needed to analyze logs containing exploit payloads, attacker commands, and command-and-control artifacts. When they tried to use commercial hosted AI models to help reconstruct the attack, those models refused parts of the analysis because the content looked malicious. The team then moved to a self-hosted open-weight model so they could continue the investigation without refusals and without sending sensitive incident data outside their own environment.
The practical issue here is guardrail asymmetry: attackers, rogue agents, or unrestricted systems may not respect usage policies, while defenders using hosted tools can be slowed by the same safety systems designed to prevent misuse. Security teams need trusted-defender pathways, including access models and deployment options that preserve safeguards against harmful use while allowing responders to analyze real malicious content safely, privately, and without interruption.
AI-assisted incident response also needs to be tested before an incident begins, especially if teams expect models to support triage, log analysis, malware review, or timeline reconstruction under pressure. Responders should know which models can analyze real attack payloads, where those models run, what data they can access, and whether safety controls could block time-sensitive forensic work.
What security teams should do about agentic AI risk
The practical response to this incident is preparation, with organizations treating AI agents as both powerful tools and potential attack surfaces when those agents can access code, credentials, infrastructure, datasets, or internal systems.
Security teams should apply familiar controls with more urgency across AI and ML environments: treat downloaded models, datasets, and loader scripts as untrusted code; enforce least privilege on AI and ML processing workers; prevent node-level compromise from becoming cluster-wide compromise; restrict access to cloud metadata endpoints and secrets; monitor unexpected outbound connections from AI-related workloads; and review whether evaluation environments have real containment or simply convenient isolation.
Detection logic needs to account for machine-speed activity. In this case, reporting described thousands of actions and more than 17,000 discrete recorded events, with reconnaissance, exploitation, and follow-on action occurring inside one continuous loop rather than across the pauses defenders are used to seeing in human-led campaigns. Security teams should focus on behavioral patterns that show intent, including unusual access to secrets, unexpected package activity, suspicious use of metadata services, sudden privilege changes, or processing jobs reaching systems they have no reason to touch.
As autonomous activity becomes faster and noisier, the bottleneck may shift from detecting that something happened to understanding what matters quickly enough to change the outcome. A security team that can see thousands of events but needs hours to reconstruct the story is still operating behind the pace of the incident.
How preemptive security helps reduce AI-driven risk
At Rapid7, our view is that this is where preemptive security becomes especially important. Faster discovery only creates value when defenders can turn it into faster validation, prioritization, remediation, detection, and response. The same principle applies to agentic AI risk. If AI accelerates how weaknesses are found and exploited, defenders need security operations that can act earlier with better context and more confidence.
That means connecting exposure management with detection and response, so teams understand which risks are exploitable, which assets matter most, what suspicious behavior is already present, and which actions will reduce risk fastest. It also means using AI carefully and practically, not as a replacement for security judgment, but as a way to reason across telemetry, reduce noise, support investigation, and help teams make decisions at the speed the threat environment now demands.
AI-enabled defense is becoming part of resilience planning, especially for organizations running critical systems or high-value digital infrastructure. The goal is to give defenders the speed, context, and consistency to operate inside the attacker’s decision cycle, without removing the judgment and accountability that effective security requires.
The OpenAI and Hugging Face incident will continue to generate debate as more details emerge, but defenders already have enough to work with. Agentic systems are beginning to test the seams between AI research, software supply chain security, cloud infrastructure, and incident response. The organizations best positioned for what comes next will be the ones making those seams visible, monitored, and resilient before the next incident puts them under pressure.


Famed technology journalist John C. Dvorak dies aged 80
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 15:17:25 +0200
Legendary technology columnist, pundit, author and podcast host John C. Dvorak has died, age 80. He is survived by his wife Mimi Dvorak.


John C. Dvorak - image credit: No Agenda podcast

Today Dvorak is best known for co-hosting the "No Agenda" podcast with Adam Curry, where he would critique mainstream news media. His death was first announced by the podcast on X, although note that Dvorak's age is mistakenly given as 74.

It is with great sadness that we announce the passing of John C. Dvorak, our beloved husband, father, and cherished host of the No Agenda Show at the age of 74.

 Continue Reading on AppleInsider | Discuss on our Forums


Tom Holland Confirms Fred Astaire Biopic Is His Next Film
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 15:16:57 +0200
Tom Holland has confirmed that his long-awaited Fred Astaire biopic will be his next film, with the actor already preparing for its demanding dance sequences.



Tom Holland plans to perform every dance himself



Holland wants to recreate Astaire’s famous performance style as closely as possible. He plans to complete all the dancing himself without using body doubles.



The actor also hopes the production can film complete dance routines in a single continuous shot. This approach would keep Holland’s full body visible and allow audiences to watch each movement without frequent cuts.



Holland admitted that the preparation brings both excitement and “absolute dread.” He has already returned to the dance studio and plans to continue intensive training once his current promotional commitments end.



The role also gives Holland an opportunity to use his earlier dance training. Before becoming widely known as Spider-Man, he performed in the stage production of Billy Elliot the Musical in London.



Paul King will direct the Fred Astaire biopic



Paul King, known for directing the Paddington films and Wonka, remains attached to direct the untitled project. The film has been in development since Holland first announced his involvement in 2021.



Earlier reports indicated that the story would explore Astaire’s relationship with his sister and early dancing partner, Adele Astaire. However, official plot details and additional casting information have not been announced.



Production listings currently point to filming beginning in January 2027, although Sony has not confirmed an official release date.



Holland’s decision to avoid doubles will make the Fred Astaire biopic one of his most physically demanding projects. His commitment to long, uninterrupted dance scenes could also help the film capture the style that made Astaire one of Hollywood’s most celebrated performers.


No, Trump Can’t Withhold Anti-Terrorism Funds to Pressure States to Change Their Election Rules
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 15:14:47 +0200
The attempt to condition states' counterterrorism funding on changes to election rules is unlawful and likely to be challenged in court.
The post No, Trump Can’t Withhold Anti-Terrorism Funds to Pressure States to Change Their Election Rules appeared first on Just Security.


CVE-2026-16232: Critical Check Point SmartConsole Authentication Bypass Exploited in the Wild
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 14:42:23 +0200
Overview
On July 22, 2026, Check Point published a security advisory for multiple vulnerabilities affecting Security Management, Multi-Domain Management, and firewall products. The most urgent of these is CVE-2026-16232, an authentication bypass in the SmartConsole login process classified as improper authentication (CWE-287). CVE-2026-16232 has been assigned a critical CVSS score of 9.1. The vulnerability allows an unauthenticated remote attacker to obtain an application login token and authenticate to the management server with full administrative privileges, enabling modification of security policies and configurations.
Check Point has confirmed that CVE-2026-16232 is being actively exploited in the wild, affecting what the vendor describes as a small number of customers. Remote exploitation requires network access to the Management Server IP address in environments that do not restrict Trusted Clients. On the same day as the advisory, CVE-2026-16232 was added to the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency's (CISA) list of known exploited vulnerabilities (KEV), with a remediation due date of July 25, 2026, giving organizations only three days to respond.
The advisory addresses three vulnerabilities in total:
CVE CVSS Description Affected Products Exploitation Status
CVE-2026-16232 Vendor: 9.3 (Critical)
CISA: 9.1 (Critical) Authentication bypass via SmartConsole application token Security Management, Multi-Domain Management Exploited in the wild
CVE-2026-62144 Vendor: 9.3 (Critical)
CISA: 9.1 (Critical) Management authentication bypass and privilege escalation Security Management, Multi-Domain Management No known exploitation
CVE-2026-62145 7.5 (High) Local privilege escalation in GaiaOS WebUI Firewall, Multi-Domain Management, Multi-Domain Log Server No known exploitation
Compromise of a Security Management Server is particularly consequential because it sits at the top of the trust hierarchy. An attacker with administrative access can modify security policies across managed gateways, alter administrator permissions, manipulate VPN configurations, and potentially disable or tamper with logging and monitoring. According to Check Point's advisory, the vulnerabilities were discovered during a routine internal review, with subsequent analysis revealing that CVE-2026-16232 had been exploited prior to the availability of a patch.
Check Point network security products have been targeted by multiple in-the-wild vulnerabilities over the past two years. In June 2026, CVE-2026-50751, a critical authentication bypass in Check Point Remote Access VPN, was exploited in the wild and added to the CISA KEV. In May 2024, CVE-2024-24919, a high-severity information disclosure vulnerability in Check Point Quantum Security Gateways, was also exploited in the wild. Organizations running affected Check Point management products should apply the available hotfixes on an emergency basis.
Mitigation guidance
Check Point released Jumbo Hotfixes on July 22, 2026, to remediate CVE-2026-16232, CVE-2026-62144, and CVE-2026-62145. Organizations running affected versions of Security Management or Multi-Domain Management should install the latest Jumbo Hotfix on an emergency basis, without waiting for a regular patch cycle to occur.
The following versions are affected by CVE-2026-16232:
R82.10: fixed in Jumbo Hotfix Take 36 and later
R82: fixed in Jumbo Hotfix Take 118 and later
R81.20: fixed in Jumbo Hotfix Take 158 and later
R81.10, R81, R80.30, R80.20, R80.10, R80, and R77.30: no fix specified
CVE-2026-62144 and CVE-2026-62145 affect the same release families (R81.10, R81.20, R82, R82.10) per the vendor advisory, with older versions also impacted.
Smart-1 Cloud customers are already protected according to Check Point. For on-premises deployments where the hotfix cannot be applied immediately, Check Point recommends the following steps to reduce exposure:
Restrict Trusted Clients (GUI clients) to trusted IP addresses or subnets
Protect Management access with a firewall and restrict access to trusted IP addresses
Verify that implied rules for control connections are enabled
These mitigations reduce the attack surface, but they do not address the underlying vulnerability. Installing the Jumbo Hotfix remains the priority.
Rapid7 strongly recommends investigating for signs of compromise even after applying the hotfix, particularly in environments where the Management Server has been accessible from the internet. Organizations should review administrator, SmartConsole, API, and application token activity, and search logs for the published indicators of compromise listed below.
For the latest mitigation guidance, please refer to the vendor advisory.
Rapid7 customers
Exposure Command, InsightVM, and Nexpose
Exposure Command, InsightVM, and Nexpose customers can assess exposure to CVE-2026-16232, CVE-2026-62144, CVE-2026-62145 with authenticated vulnerability checks expected to be available in the 24 July content release.
Indicators of compromise
Check Point has published the following IP addresses associated with observed exploitation of CVE-2026-16232:
151.241.99[.]207
151.241.99[.]233
158.62.198[.]182
192.142.10[.]99
139.28.37[.]250
194.213.18[.]137
Per the vendor, the presence of these indicators should prompt investigation, but the absence of these addresses does not confirm that an environment was unaffected.
Updates
July 23, 2026: Initial publication.


Do we need to worry about burn-in as Macs transition to OLED screens?
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 13:18:45 +0200
Apple devices were long known for having some of the highest-quality LCD screens in the business, and that remains the case for today’s MacBooks. The company upped the ante first through retina displays and then mini-LED backlighting. This is the reason Apple has been in no great hurry to adopt OLED technology.
It has, however, been making a phased transition to OLED. Apple first introduced the display tech with the Apple Watch, followed up with iPhone and iPad models, and the MacBook Pro is next in line for the upgrade … 


Malaysia probes telecoms giant Maxis over Khairul Aming privacy leak
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 13:14:56 +0200
A social media post over an unpaid phone bill has triggered a data-protection investigation in Malaysia, after one of the country’s most recognisable influencers questioned how a stranger obtained details from his telecoms account.
The episode involving Khairul Amin Kamarulzaman, better known as Khairul Aming, has raised uncomfortable questions for telcos about how tightly they manage customer account information and how quickly private details can be exposed when those controls fail.
Khairul...


CVE-2026-63226 | Ricoh Company Printers/Multifunction Printers SSH Port Forwarding privileges management (EUVD-2026-47876)
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 13:03:53 +0200
A vulnerability was found in Ricoh Company Printers and Multifunction Printers and classified as very critical. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the component SSH Port Forwarding. The manipulation results in improper privilege management.

This vulnerability is known as CVE-2026-63226. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. No exploit is available.


ANCHOR-CI could fix 20 years of broken government-industry collaboration
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 12:26:41 +0200
The government spent the past two decades learning what private sector partners have always known: cyber resilience requires everyone in the room. ANCHOR-CI is proof that the lessons may finally stick.
The post ANCHOR-CI could fix 20 years of broken government-industry collaboration appeared first on CyberScoop.


CVE-2026-16351 | Mozilla Firefox up to 115.37/140.12/152 Navigation use after free (Nessus ID 329076)
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 11:53:59 +0200
A vulnerability categorized as critical has been discovered in Mozilla Firefox up to 115.37/140.12/152. This affects an unknown function of the component Navigation. The manipulation results in use after free.

This vulnerability is known as CVE-2026-16351. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. No exploit is available.

It is advisable to upgrade the affected component.


Sovereign AI has become the public-sector CIO’s control problem
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 11:05:58 +0200

		
					  
						




In public-sector and regulated-cloud work, I learned that sovereignty rarely starts as a national strategy. It starts as an auditor’s question: Who can prove where the data went, which system made the decision and what changes when the vendor or infrastructure does? That question is now moving into AI, and most sovereign-AI debates answer the wrong version of it.



They ask whether a country can build its own model on domestic data and hardware. For the United States and China, which together hold more than 90% of global AI data-center capacity, per a January 2026 Tony Blair Institute analysis, that question is worth asking. However, for almost every other government, it is the wrong place to start. The operative question is narrower: Once AI is embedded in public services, who controls the stack?



The 5 layers of public-sector control



For a CIO, sovereign AI means enforceable control across the AI lifecycle; model ownership is a separate question. Control has five layers:




Data control: Where sensitive public data sits, and whether it can train a vendor’s model.



Model control: Which models clear which workloads, and under what validation.



Infrastructure control: Whether critical workloads run in approved environments.



Operational control: Whether AI-assisted actions are logged, monitored and reversible.



Vendor control: Whether the agency keeps portability, audit rights and a real exit.




Those five layers are the control plane for public-service AI. Floyd Dcosta recently made the enterprise case in “AI without sovereignty is just outsourced intelligence”: capability is what a tool can do; authority over how and when it does it is something a buyer can quietly lose. For public services, losing that authority plays out in the public eye.



Public-sector AI risk differs from enterprise risk. A retailer’s bad recommendation costs a sale; a government’s AI touches benefits, tax enforcement, policing and emergency response, raising the bar to due process, records retention and continuity of operations. A government that cannot reconstruct an AI-assisted decision lacks operational sovereignty, even in a domestic data center.



Evaluating risk: Concentration, jurisdiction and shadow AI



Foreign dependency is a real risk, but the exposure that matters is a sudden cutoff: A model you cannot audit, switch or exit, shut off by someone else’s order. A vendor’s nationality is a poor guide to that risk; control is.  Two markers matter. The first is concentration. In July 2024, a single faulty CrowdStrike update crashed about 8.5 million Windows machines, disrupting airlines, hospitals, banks and governments worldwide. No attacker was involved; one homogeneous dependency failed everywhere at once. The lesson points away from vendor nationality and toward uniformity as the fault line, making portability and provider diversity resilience controls.



The second is jurisdiction. In June 2025, Microsoft’s legal director for France told a Senate inquiry, under oath, that it could not guarantee that French public-sector data, even in French data centers, would be protected against US demands under the 2018 CLOUD Act. No such request had been made, and EU data has stayed in the EU since January 2025; senators called the assurance purely declarative. For the most sensitive data, residency does not equal control; the parent’s jurisdiction can matter as much as the server’s. Three US hyperscalers hold about 70% of the European cloud market, while European providers’ share fell from 29% in 2017 to roughly 15%. Concentration plus jurisdiction is the exposure a CIO must price. I have watched teams treat vendor selection as the moment risk was solved; it rarely was.



The wrong response is self-isolation. Most countries will never build frontier models, advanced chips, hyperscale clouds and talent pipelines at once; the Tony Blair Institute calls full self-sufficiency “too expensive, too slow and, for most countries, simply impossible.” The better test is workload sensitivity. Low-risk uses, such as drafting, translation and summarization, can run on commercial platforms with controls; high-risk uses, such as benefits eligibility, fraud investigation and healthcare triage, demand stricter control over data, model behavior and auditability.



Mandating domestic-only provision before a competitive option exists inverts sovereignty. Europe 2031, a five-year scenario from June 2026 by European technologists and policy researchers, illustrates the failure mode: A 2027 “buy European” mandate lands as offensive cyber capability spreads, and agencies that switched to weaker providers are locked out and paying ransoms. The scenario is fiction; the mechanism is not. Leverage comes from being indispensable, not half-hearted self-sufficiency. The closer-to-home effect is shadow AI: Mandate an inferior sanctioned tool and staff bypass it, the way shadow IT grows up around tools people find too slow. A rule that pushes sensitive work into ungoverned shadow AI reduces control instead of adding it.



Regulation and data-residency rules belong in any serious strategy, but carry failure modes. Blanket localization raises hosting costs and slows adoption without guaranteeing control, and a “sovereign cloud” on a foreign parent’s stack can amount to sovereignty theater. The more useful pattern tiers requirements by sensitivity. India’s BHASHINI shows the application layer done well: A public platform serving 100 million-plus inferences a month across 22-plus languages on a vendor- and cloud-agnostic design that keeps data and switching rights public. Sovereignty resides in the portability, not in a national model.



Building an operational sovereignty strategy



Public trust is the constraint sovereignty rhetoric tends to skip. The OECD’s 2025 review of government AI warns that opaque systems make AI-assisted decisions hard to explain and can give public servants false confidence in tools that fail quietly. State-controlled AI is the same problem from the other side: A government that deploys models against its own citizens without audit or record has gained control and lost accountability. An agency that can log, explain and reverse an AI-assisted action can defend it to citizens, courts, auditors and elected officials. If it cannot, it has bought access and called it sovereignty.



None of this is new. AI sovereignty repeats earlier fights over cloud, telecom, semiconductors and cybersecurity. Europe’s flagship cloud project, GAIA-X, became a cautionary tale; the Dutch technologist Bert Hubert called it an “expensive distraction” that produced no European cloud, the familiar result of ambition without absorptive capacity. Cloud taught governments that outsourcing infrastructure does not outsource accountability; telecom, that vendor dependency becomes strategic exposure; chips, that supply chains matter before a crisis; cybersecurity, that trust must be verified continuously. AI inherits all four at once.



Over the next five to ten years, some countries will build national platforms, more will build trusted cloud and trusted model regimes, and most will run hybrids that pair domestic data control with global model access. Trade policy will harden those choices: Export controls on compute and data-localization rules will pull the vendor market into blocs that track alliances more than open markets. For a CIO, that turns a vendor and hosting decision into a five-year bet on whose rules and supply chains will still hold. The ones that succeed will treat sovereignty as an operating requirement, backed by leverage, not a slogan. Start with the control plane before the model: Most agencies will never own the model, and the controls are what decide whether the AI they do run stays accountable. Even when procurement policy is dictated from above, these questions remain within the CIO’s authority:




Can we classify AI workloads by public-service risk?



Can we prove where sensitive data goes across training, retrieval, inference, logging and retention?



Can we restrict which models are approved for which data classes and functions?



Can we reconstruct an AI-assisted action in enough detail to explain it?



Can we change providers without losing continuity or institutional knowledge?



Can we explain the system to citizens, regulators, auditors and elected officials?




A “no” to any of these does not mean the agency lacks AI. It means the agency has access it does not yet control. Public institutions can use global innovation without surrendering public authority, but only once they know what to hold, what to rent and where dependency turns into risk.



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



CVE-2026-50387 | Microsoft Windows up to Server 2025 GDI stack-based overflow (WID-SEC-2026-2317)
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 10:58:08 +0200
A vulnerability was found in Microsoft Windows and classified as very critical. This issue affects some unknown processing of the component GDI. The manipulation results in stack-based buffer overflow.

This vulnerability is known as CVE-2026-50387. Attacking locally is a requirement. No exploit is available.


US teen drops Meta lawsuit on social media addiction days before trial
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 10:36:14 +0200
Withdrawn case marks a victory for the social media giant after earlier landmark loss at trial over addictive claims
A Florida teen whose lawsuit claimed Meta’s platforms were to blame ⁠for his depression ⁠and anxiety dropped his case against the company just days before the trial in Los Angeles was ⁠set to start, his attorneys said on Wednesday. It was the latest in a massive series of high-stakes lawsuits against social media companies for allegedly designing addictive products that lead to the harm of children.
The lawsuit, brought by a 15-year-old boy known as ⁠RKC, originally named four defendants, Google’s YouTube, Meta’s Instagram, Snap Inc’s Snapchat and ByteDance’s TikTok. YouTube and TikTok ‌settled in June and Snap reached a tentative settlement in the case, Bloomberg ‌reported on Monday. The terms of those settlements were confidential.
 Continue reading...


New Stealer Combines Credential Theft, HVNC, SOCKS5 Proxy, and AI Victim Scoring
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 10:32:37 +0200
A newly marketed Windows stealer and remote-access tool that combines large-scale credential theft, hidden virtual network computing (HVNC), SOCKS5 proxying, and an AI-based victim-ranking feature. The malware is advertised by an actor known as “Kontraktnik” and reportedly targets more than 300 applications. Dolphin X is designed to steal far more than browser passwords. Its advertised […]
The post New Stealer Combines Credential Theft, HVNC, SOCKS5 Proxy, and AI Victim Scoring appeared first on Cyber Security News.


Oracle July 2026 Patch Fixes 1,434 CVEs Across 334 Products
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 09:11:07 +0200
Oracle has released its July 2026 Critical Patch Update, delivering one of its largest quarterly security releases to date. The latest Oracle security patch addresses more than 1,400 vulnerabilities across hundreds of products, with the company indicating that artificial intelligence likely played a significant role in identifying most of the flaws. 

According to Oracle, the July 2026 Critical Patch Update contains 1,449 security patches, covering 1,434 unique Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs) across 334 products.  
July 2026 Critical Patch Update Covers Hundreds of Oracle Products 
The latest Oracle security patch spans a wide range of enterprise products and platforms. Among the affected products are Database Server, Oracle APEX, Autonomous Health Framework, Essbase, Global Lifecycle Management, GoldenGate, NoSQL Database, Spatial Studio, SQL Developer, TimesTen In-Memory Database, Application Testing Suite, Commerce, Communications, Construction and Engineering, and E-Business Suite. 

The July 2026 Critical Patch Update also includes security fixes for Enterprise Manager, Financial Services Applications, Food and Beverage Applications, Fusion Middleware, Analytics, HealthCare Applications, Hospitality Applications, Java SE, JD Edwards, MySQL, PeopleSoft, Retail Applications, Siebel CRM, Supply Chain, Systems, Utilities Applications, and Virtualization. 

By addressing vulnerabilities across such an extensive product lineup, the Oracle security patch aims to reduce the risk posed by security weaknesses that could affect organizations running Oracle technologies in production environments. 
Hundreds of Vulnerabilities Can Be Exploited Remotely 
A notable aspect of the July 2026 Critical Patch Update is the number of flaws that attackers could potentially exploit without requiring authentication.

Oracle stated that roughly 600 of the patches fix vulnerabilities that can be exploited remotely by unauthenticated attackers. In addition, hundreds of the addressed security flaws have been assigned critical severity ratings, emphasizing the importance of applying the latest Oracle security patch without delay.

Among Oracle's products, the highest number of vulnerabilities were addressed in: 

 	E-Business Suite: 410 vulnerabilities 
 	Fusion Middleware: 355 vulnerabilities 
 	Communications: 168 vulnerabilities 
 	PeopleSoft: 84 vulnerabilities 

These figures highlight that some of Oracle's most widely deployed enterprise applications received a significant share of the security fixes included in the quarterly update.
AI-Driven Vulnerability Discovery Appears to Have Played a Major Role 
One of the most notable aspects of the July 2026 Critical Patch Update is Oracle's growing use of artificial intelligence for security research.

Only a few dozen of the vulnerabilities included in the release were credited to external security researchers. This indicates that the overwhelming majority of the discovered flaws were identified internally, likely with the assistance of AI-driven vulnerability analysis.

Earlier this year, Oracle disclosed that it has access to leading artificial intelligence systems, including Anthropic's Claude Mythos and OpenAI's most capable models. According to the company, these AI technologies are being used to accelerate vulnerability discovery and improve the speed and accuracy of security patch development. 

Oracle also said it is applying this AI-driven vulnerability approach across its own software and cloud services, Oracle Health offerings, and the open source components that it both develops and depends on.
Organizations Urged to Apply the Oracle Security Patch Promptly 
The release of the July 2026 Critical Patch Update comes amid continued efforts by threat actors to exploit vulnerabilities in enterprise software before organizations can deploy security updates. 

Oracle product vulnerabilities have previously been targeted in real-world attacks. The company cited examples that include the exploitation of a PeopleSoft zero-day vulnerability as well as a recently patched Oracle E-Business Suite (EBS) vulnerability.

Given the number of remotely exploitable and high-severity issues resolved in the Oracle security patch, organizations using affected Oracle products are advised to install the updates as soon as possible. Prompt deployment can help reduce exposure to attacks that take advantage of publicly known vulnerabilities before systems are secured.

With 1,449 security patches addressing 1,434 unique CVEs across 334 products, the July 2026 Critical Patch Update represents one of Oracle's most extensive quarterly security releases.  


Microsoft’s 3-day patching directive comes with added operational risk
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 09:10:44 +0200

		
					  
						




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



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



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



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



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



Tighter patching deadlines



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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

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



Wider cross-industry impact



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



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



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



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



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



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



Holistic remediation



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



Apple TV to Adapt Rebecca Yarros’ Peculiar Stars Into a New Romance Series
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 07:26:51 +0200
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.


CVE-2026-16653 | boazsegev facil.io up to 0.7.58 Public Folder lib/facil/http/http.c http_sendfile2 path traversal (Issue 170 / EUVD-2026-47867)
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 06:11:40 +0200
A vulnerability classified as problematic has been found in boazsegev facil.io up to 0.7.58. This affects the function http_sendfile2 of the file lib/facil/http/http.c of the component Public Folder Handler. Performing a manipulation results in path traversal.

This vulnerability is known as CVE-2026-16653. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. Furthermore, an exploit is available.

The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.


CVE-2026-60371 | Oracle Platform Security for Java 12.2.1.4.0/14.1.2.0.0 Centralized Thirdparty Jars privileges management (EUVD-2026-47853)
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 06:10:55 +0200
A vulnerability has been found in Oracle Platform Security for Java 12.2.1.4.0/14.1.2.0.0 and classified as very critical. The impacted element is an unknown function of the component Centralized Thirdparty Jars. Performing a manipulation results in improper privilege management.

This vulnerability is known as CVE-2026-60371. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. No exploit is available.


CVE-2026-16631 | publint up to 0.1.4 package-manager Command src/node/pack.js child_process.exec os command injection (Issue 236 / EUVD-2026-47863)
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 04:46:33 +0200
A vulnerability described as problematic has been identified in publint up to 0.1.4. This impacts the function child_process.exec of the file src/node/pack.js of the component package-manager Command Handler. The manipulation results in os command injection.

This vulnerability is known as CVE-2026-16631. Attacking locally is a requirement. Furthermore, an exploit is available.

It is advisable to implement a patch to correct this issue.

The project maintainer explains: "I think it's very rare for someone to use this package with untrusted input".


Monday.com cuts 20% of its workforce to restructure for the AI era
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 03:02:52 +0200

		
					  
						




Healthy software companies typically don’t suddenly eliminate one-fifth of their workforce, but monday.com is doing just that as it bets on flatter teams, AI agents, and customer implementation expertise as the winning combination in the AI era.



Monday.com co-founder and co-CEO Eran Zinman today announced the “very difficult decision” to reduce the AI work platform company’s global workforce by about 20%, or 620 people.



The move has nothing to do with increasing margins or replacing humans with AI, he insisted in his post on LinkedIn; rather, it’s a calculated decision to trim down and hone the company’s focus as AI becomes integral to day-to-day workflows.



“This is not a distress signal; it is a deliberate reset, disclosed with its price attached,” said Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research. “The industry has quietly swapped the meaning of productivity, and this filing is the clearest exhibit yet.”



A ‘significant opportunity’ in technology



In a SEC filing this week, monday.com said its restructuring plan reflects the “ongoing transformation of its product, marketing, and go-to-market strategy.” The move is intended to support a “leaner, more focused operating model” as the company continues to invest in its AI-driven strategy.



Zinman noted in his post that the company has shifted to “doing the work with AI and not just managing it,” and is focused on building environments where “people and AI agents [work] together in one workspace.”



In recent months, monday.com has evolved its products, strategy, and the way it serves its customers, and Zinman contended that “the organization we built for our previous chapter is not the organization that fits the new AI era.” Monday.com needs to “execute more decisively,” take on new challenges, and quickly respond to market changes, he said.



“We have never seen such a significant opportunity in software, driven by such exciting technology,” Zinman noted. He emphasized that the reduction is not to replace people with AI, nor to improve margins; the “vast majority” of savings will be reinvested into talent, products, and AI.



The restructuring will result in a “flatter organization” with fewer management layers and smaller, more autonomous teams, and monday.com also has a new go-to-market model, Zinman explained. Customers expect “deeper implementation support” as they deploy AI, and the company will work more closely with customers, increase its on-site presence, create new roles, and “adapt many existing ones.” In its SEC filing, the company said it expects to continue hiring in “key strategic areas” throughout 2026.



Workers will be expected to work better, “not harder,” Zinman noted. He pointed to several past examples where work could have been done in a few days, but instead took many months with “multiple meetings and endless friction.”



“This wasn’t people’s fault and everyone was frustrated by this,” he said. “Our new org changes ownership to allow people to make decisions and move fast.”



A spokesperson for monday.com declined to comment further on the staff reductions.



Monday.com’s key market advantages



Monday.com certainly isn’t struggling; the company expects 19% to 20% year-over-year growth in 2026.



“Companies in that position do not restructure because they must,” Greyhound’s Gogia noted. “They restructure because they have decided to become something else.”



Melody Brue, VP and principal analyst at Moor Insights & Strategy, pointed out that organizational redesign is important for real AI transformation, but while it can signal confidence to the market, it can still be “devastating” to humans.



While the company looks as though it’s trying to do right, that ultimately remains to be seen, she said. “There are often hidden internal bruises that can surface long after layoffs.”



Monday.com’s advantage is in its “structured substrate,” Gogia noted; its boards, permissions and typed workflows give agents something firmer to act on than just documents and chat history. The company highlights its natively built agents that can be configured by any team member, as well as connectors with Claude, Microsoft Copilot, and ChatGPT, and dedicated routes for external agents to authenticate and operate.



“For some time, the sharper enterprise question has been shifting from who has an agent to who owns the governed runtime in which an agent can safely act,” he said. “Structured work is a serious claim on that runtime.”



But parts of monday.com’s agent estate remain in staged release, and its product is ultimately “mid-transition,” Gogia pointed out; its agent builder carried a beta label as recently as March,. Also, the company’s pricing model changed in May to a hybrid model charging for seats as well as mandatory AI credits. And, while its AI-powered no-code builder monday vibe passed $1 million in annual recurring revenue within two and a half months, monday.com has not released subsequent outcomes, usage volumes, or attach rates.



Further, there’s an element of “gravity” with its competitors, he observed. Asana is reorganizing teams around agents, Atlassian is wiring agents into the developer estate, and others are simply bundling them into their offerings: Microsoft is doing so across the productivity stack, and ServiceNow across enterprise operations, each with identity and procurement built in.



“Their pull is strongest exactly where monday.com wants to grow, in the largest accounts, where control-plane depth and administrative reach decide the deal,” said Gogia.



Actions for the near-term



Going forward, buyers should focus on operating risk, not headline risk, Moor’s Brue noted. In practice, that’s continuity of service, roadmap consistency, and strength of enterprise support. Productivity should be valued as better outcomes per unit of organizational effort, not mere activity.



“It should be a measure of how much smoother, faster, and more effective the operating model becomes when AI is built into the work,” said Brue.



Gogia noted that strain surfaces first in customer service, and monday.com’s attention is being redistributed. The company’s annual report disclosed that its focus is now concentrated on the largest accounts, with support for medium-sized clients moved to an AI-first and human-supported model.



During the first month of the transition, buyers should track named account continuity and escalation times, he advised. By the first quarter, keep an eye on whether credit governance and admin controls mature on schedule, and if the roadmap beyond the AI estate keeps pace. By the half-year mark, determine whether promised implementation depth is producing outcomes or “simply more billable engagement.”



Support tiers should be enumerated in writing before renewal, and buyers should contract for “side exits,” Gogia emphasized, with overage pricing fixed in advance, the right to pause consumption, and portability for workflows and agent configuration “if the relationship sours.” Finance should also insist on monthly consumption reporting by capability. Further, integration efforts, partner dependency, and change management should be considered first-class costs of the agent era, “not as afterthoughts to a license.”



“A license was a known cost,” said Gogia. “A meter is a behavior, and behavior is harder to forecast than headcount.”



This article originally appeared on CIO.com.







Monday.com cuts 20% of its workforce to restructure for the AI era
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 02:50:31 +0200

		
					  
						




Healthy software companies typically don’t suddenly eliminate one-fifth of their workforce, but monday.com is doing just that as it bets on flatter teams, AI agents, and customer implementation expertise as the winning combination in the AI era.



Monday.com co-founder and co-CEO Eran Zinman today announced the “very difficult decision” to reduce the AI work platform company’s global workforce by about 20%, or 620 people.



The move has nothing to do with increasing margins or replacing humans with AI, he insisted in his post on LinkedIn; rather, it’s a calculated decision to trim down and hone the company’s focus as AI becomes integral to day-to-day workflows.



“This is not a distress signal; it is a deliberate reset, disclosed with its price attached,” said Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research. “The industry has quietly swapped the meaning of productivity, and this filing is the clearest exhibit yet.”



A ‘significant opportunity’ in technology



In a SEC filing this week, monday.com said its restructuring plan reflects the “ongoing transformation of its product, marketing, and go-to-market strategy.” The move is intended to support a “leaner, more focused operating model” as the company continues to invest in its AI-driven strategy.



Zinman noted in his post that the company has shifted to “doing the work with AI and not just managing it,” and is focused on building environments where “people and AI agents [work] together in one workspace.”



In recent months, monday.com has evolved its products, strategy, and the way it serves its customers, and Zinman contended that “the organization we built for our previous chapter is not the organization that fits the new AI era.” Monday.com needs to “execute more decisively,” take on new challenges, and quickly respond to market changes, he said.



“We have never seen such a significant opportunity in software, driven by such exciting technology,” Zinman noted. He emphasized that the reduction is not to replace people with AI, nor to improve margins; the “vast majority” of savings will be reinvested into talent, products, and AI.



The restructuring will result in a “flatter organization” with fewer management layers and smaller, more autonomous teams, and monday.com also has a new go-to-market model, Zinman explained. Customers expect “deeper implementation support” as they deploy AI, and the company will work more closely with customers, increase its on-site presence, create new roles, and “adapt many existing ones.” In its SEC filing, the company said it expects to continue hiring in “key strategic areas” throughout 2026.



Workers will be expected to work better, “not harder,” Zinman noted. He pointed to several past examples where work could have been done in a few days, but instead took many months with “multiple meetings and endless friction.”



“This wasn’t people’s fault and everyone was frustrated by this,” he said. “Our new org changes ownership to allow people to make decisions and move fast.”



A spokesperson for monday.com declined to comment further on the staff reductions.



Monday’s key market advantages



Monday.com certainly isn’t struggling; the company expects 19% to 20% year-over-year growth in 2026.



“Companies in that position do not restructure because they must,” Greyhound’s Gogia noted. “They restructure because they have decided to become something else.”



Melody Brue, VP and principal analyst at Moor Insights & Strategy, pointed out that organizational redesign is important for real AI transformation, but while it can signal confidence to the market, it can still be “devastating” to humans.



While the company looks as though it’s trying to do right, that ultimately remains to be seen, she said. “There are often hidden internal bruises that can surface long after layoffs.”



Monday.com’s advantage is in its “structured substrate,” Gogia noted; its boards, permissions and typed workflows give agents something firmer to act on than just documents and chat history. The company highlights its natively built agents that can be configured by any team member, as well as connectors with Claude, Microsoft Copilot, and ChatGPT, and dedicated routes for external agents to authenticate and operate.



“For some time, the sharper enterprise question has been shifting from who has an agent to who owns the governed runtime in which an agent can safely act,” he said. “Structured work is a serious claim on that runtime.”



But parts of monday.com’s agent estate remain in staged release, and its product is ultimately “mid-transition,” Gogia pointed out; its agent builder carried a beta label as recently as March,. Also, the company’s pricing model changed in May to a hybrid model charging for seats as well as mandatory AI credits. And, while its AI-powered no-code builder monday vibe passed $1 million in annual recurring revenue within two and a half months, monday.com has not released subsequent outcomes, usage volumes, or attach rates.



Further, there’s an element of “gravity” with its competitors, he observed. Asana is reorganizing teams around agents, Atlassian is wiring agents into the developer estate, and others are simply bundling them into their offerings: Microsoft is doing so across the productivity stack, and ServiceNow across enterprise operations, each with identity and procurement built in.



“Their pull is strongest exactly where monday.com wants to grow, in the largest accounts, where control-plane depth and administrative reach decide the deal,” said Gogia.



Actions for the near-term



Going forward, buyers should focus on operating risk, not headline risk, Moor’s Brue noted. In practice, that’s continuity of service, roadmap consistency, and strength of enterprise support. Productivity should be valued as better outcomes per unit of organizational effort, not mere activity.



“It should be a measure of how much smoother, faster, and more effective the operating model becomes when AI is built into the work,” said Brue.



Gogia noted that strain surfaces first in customer service, and monday.com’s attention is being redistributed. The company’s annual report disclosed that its focus is now concentrated on the largest accounts, with support for medium-sized clients moved to an AI-first and human-supported model.



During the first month of the transition, buyers should track named account continuity and escalation times, he advised. By the first quarter, keep an eye on whether credit governance and admin controls mature on schedule, and if the roadmap beyond the AI estate keeps pace. By the half-year mark, determine whether promised implementation depth is producing outcomes or “simply more billable engagement.”



Support tiers should be enumerated in writing before renewal, and buyers should contract for “side exits,” Gogia emphasized, with overage pricing fixed in advance, the right to pause consumption, and portability for workflows and agent configuration “if the relationship sours.” Finance should also insist on monthly consumption reporting by capability. Further, integration efforts, partner dependency, and change management should be considered first-class costs of the agent era, “not as afterthoughts to a license.”



“A license was a known cost,” said Gogia. “A meter is a behavior, and behavior is harder to forecast than headcount.”



The credential that let OpenAI's agents into Hugging Face exists in most enterprises right now
Thu, 23 Jul 2026 01:32:49 +0200
When Hugging Face got hit last week, co-founder Clement Delangue suspected a frontier lab, given the agent's sophistication. He was right. Delangue said on X that after a day working with OpenAI he strongly believed there was no malicious intent and that it was mind-blowing the whole thing had happened autonomously.
The two OpenAI models that broke into Hugging Face last week did not breach it through malice or superintelligence. They breached it through credentials and permissions they should never have been able to reach, a non-human identity failure that is the oldest problem in security rather than the newest one in AI, and the one every enterprise can actually fix.
OpenAI disclosed on July 21 that two of its models, GPT-5.6 Sol and an unreleased, more capable model, were running a cyber benchmark called ExploitGym with their safety refusals switched off, and inferred that the answer key sat in Hugging Face's production database. Getting there took two different failures. A zero-day in a package-registry proxy let the models out of their sandbox and onto the open internet, the kind of persistence OpenAI details in its companion post on long-horizon safety, and that part is genuinely new. The breach of Hugging Face itself came the ordinary way. OpenAI's own account is that the models chained stolen credentials and further zero-days into a remote code execution path, after a series of privilege escalation and lateral movement steps. The exotic part got them to the door, and credentials walked them through it.
Hugging Face also disclosed last week that an autonomous agent had harvested cloud and cluster credentials scoped broadly enough to reach multiple internal clusters, then left a trail of more than 17,000 recorded events across short-lived sandboxes over a weekend. Both disclosures describe the same escalation. An agent lands somewhere it should not be, finds credentials scoped far wider than any task requires, and uses them to move. These are two accounts of one incident, not two attacks. The agent Hugging Face watched was OpenAI's models, and both companies describe the same ordinary escalation.
The version of this in a typical enterprise is worse, not better. OpenAI and Hugging Face are among the most security-mature organizations in the industry, and both still needed the intrusion to happen before they could see it. The average company wiring agents into Copilot or an internal assistant has neither the identity inventory nor the behavioral monitoring those two brought to bear. The same breach in a normal company would not be contained in days, it would simply go unnoticed.
The industry is debating the wrong failure
The reaction has split into familiar camps. Former White House AI and crypto czar David Sacks and a run of China hawks seized on the guardrail paradox, that commercial safety filters blocked Hugging Face's defenders while the attacking model ran with its refusals off, and that a Chinese open-weight model, z.ai's GLM 5.2, was what finally let the team finish its forensics. Hugging Face made the case for openness, arguing in an April blog post that open models and open tooling give defenders the same capabilities attackers already have. Both arguments are about the model, and neither touches the mechanism. 
Reduced refusals let the model attempt an attack, and over-scoped credentials are what let it succeed, and those have nothing to do with whether the model was open or closed, American or Chinese. Making a frontier model provably safe is a multi-year alignment problem no customer can buy or accelerate, while scoping an identity is a configuration change a team can ship this sprint. The industry is being urged to fixate on the part of this it cannot control and to treat the part it can as a footnote.
Forrester reached the same read. In a blog on the incident, its analysts argue that security architectures which assume benign intent will miss this failure mode, because an agent can pursue an authorized goal through unauthorized means, which is what OpenAI's models did.
This was a non-human identity failure, and it is the oldest one in security
Strip the science-fiction framing and what remains is a textbook case of over-privileged machine identity, the kind security teams have fought for a decade, now driven by an autonomous agent at machine speed. Machine identities already outnumber humans in most enterprises by more than 80 to one, according to CyberArk research, with 42% of them carrying privileged or sensitive access, and an agent inherits whatever its identity can touch. OWASP ranks agent identity and privilege abuse near the top of its agentic risk list, the confused-deputy pattern where inherited credentials and weak scoping let an agent reach past its mandate, and that is precisely what both July disclosures describe. 
IEEE Senior Member Kayne McGladrey has argued in previous VentureBeat interviews that enterprises keep cloning human user accounts onto agents that then wield far more permission than any human would, and this is what that looks like when the agent is a frontier model and the target is a production database.
The people closest to it read it the same way. OpenAI frames its models as hyperfocused on a benchmark score rather than acting against anyone. Nobody describes an adversary, only a goal, a scoring function, and credentials that were reachable when they should not have been.
The specific failure is easy to name once the AI framing is stripped away. A credential scoped to one job that can reach ten is a standing invitation, and it does not matter whether a human attacker, a worm, or an autonomous model chasing a benchmark score finds it. What changed in July is the finder. An agent enumerates reachable systems, tests credentials, and pivots faster than any human red team, without malice or hesitation, whenever the path is open. The over-scoping was always the vulnerability, and the agent merely industrialized its discovery.
Forrester named the control that would have blunted it. Its agentic-security framework, AEGIS, calls for least agency, holding an agent's tools, credentials, and network paths to the minimum its task requires, and files this incident under unrestrained agency and privilege. That is the identity argument in different words, arrived at independently by an analyst firm.
The data says this is where the risk now lives. Verizon's 2026 Data Breach Investigations Report found that exploitation of vulnerabilities has overtaken stolen credentials as the top initial access vector for the first time in 19 years. That is the initial-access half. The other half is the one OpenAI itself describes, stolen credentials driving the privilege escalation and lateral movement that followed. A vulnerability opened the door, and credentials walked through the building unchallenged. Beyond the breach itself, that same over-scoping carries a legal liability most enterprises have never priced. The models' actions likely violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, according to TechCrunch. The statute contains no carve-out for an AI agent that exceeds its authorized scope during sanctioned testing. Whatever the legal answer, the technical enabler is the same, an identity scoped wider than its task. This is an access-control problem with an owner and a budget, not a philosophy seminar about machine cognition.
Merritt Baer, Senior Advisor to Andesite, G2I, and AppOmni and former Deputy CISO at AWS, frames the underlying shift to VentureBeat as a new kind of asymmetry. Both sides now reach for the same capabilities, she said, but one side is constrained by enterprise governance, policy, compliance, and safety controls while the adversary simply downloads an uncensored open-weight model and keeps going. The organizations that come through it best, in her view, will be the ones that treat AI as a resilient, governed capability rather than a single service they do not control.
Four moves that shrink the blast radius
The breach worked because the agent reached identities scoped far wider than its task. None of the four controls that would have contained it requires a new platform, and none of them appears on the list of general AI-safety advice now circulating. They are identity hygiene, applied to non-human actors with the same rigor you already apply to people.
1. Scope every non-human identity to one task. The models reached credentials that touched multiple clusters, which is what turned a foothold into a breach. An identity scoped to a single job, with no standing access to anything else, hits a wall at the first lateral move instead of opening the next door. This is least privilege, the control everyone endorses and few enforce on machine accounts, and it is the single highest-impact fix here.
2. Give credentials short lifetimes and rotate them hard. Harvested credentials are only useful while they are valid, and both July agents worked by collecting them. Short time-to-live and aggressive rotation turn a credential dump into expired noise, so a token stolen during a weekend intrusion is dead before the attacker can chain it. Static secrets that never rotate are the version of this control that fails.
3. Monitor for lateral movement, not just prompts. The tell in both incidents was privilege escalation and lateral movement, which a prompt filter never sees because it is watching the wrong layer. Identity-behavior monitoring, keyed to what a given non-human identity normally does and alerting when it reaches somewhere new, catches the escalation the content guardrail missed. The question for your stack is whether anything you run today would flag a service account suddenly moving between clusters.
4. Rehearse instant revocation before you need it. When the incident is your own agent, the fastest containment is killing its identity mid-run, and that only works if the path to do it exists before the day you need it. Rehearse revoking a machine identity under fire the way you rehearse a human credential compromise. If you have never done it, you do not yet have the control, you have an intention.
The defense also worked, and that matters. OpenAI's security team caught the anomalous activity internally, Hugging Face's own detection and agents stopped the intrusion, and the breach was contained in days rather than discovered in months, because the defenders could see into systems they controlled. That visibility is the same discipline the four controls depend on. The debate over whether frontier models are safe, open, or American will run for years, and none of it will be settled in time to help the enterprise deploying agents this quarter. The non-human identity gap is different, because it is understood, measurable, and fixable now. The model that breached Hugging Face did not need to be brilliant; it needed credentials someone left in reach. The fix is scoping them before an agent finds them.


Tails 7.8
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 23:53:36 +0200
Changes and updates



Update Tor Browser to 15.0.14.
Remove Thunderbird.

You can still install Thunderbird as additional
software.

If you have both the Thunderbird Email Client and Additional Software
features of the Persistent Storage turned on, Tails automatically adds
Thunderbird to your list of additional
software.

A new version of Thunderbird is released in Debian shortly after each Tails
release, because both Tails and Thunderbird follow the release calendar
of Firefox. As a consequence,
until Tails 7.5 (February 2026), the version of Thunderbird in Tails was
almost always outdated, with known security vulnerabilities.

By installing Thunderbird as additional software, the latest version
of Thunderbird is installed automatically from your Persistent Storage each
time you start Tails.



Fixed problems



Fix multiple security vulnerabilities in the Linux kernel and haveged, that
could allow an application in Tails to gain administration privileges.

For example, if an attacker was able to exploit other unknown security
vulnerabilities in an application included in Tails, they might then use one
of these vulnerabilities to take full control of your Tails and
deanonymize you.



For more details, read our changelog.

Get Tails 7.8


To upgrade your Tails USB stick and keep your Persistent Storage


Automatic upgrades are available from Tails 7.0 or later to 7.8.
If you cannot do an automatic upgrade or if Tails fails to start after an
automatic upgrade, please try to do a manual upgrade.



To install Tails 7.8 on a new USB stick

Follow our installation instructions:


Install from Windows
Install from macOS
Install from Linux
Install from Debian or Ubuntu using the command line and GnuPG



The Persistent Storage on the USB stick will be lost if
you install instead of upgrading.


To download only

If you don't need installation or upgrade instructions, you can download
Tails 7.8 directly:


For USB sticks (USB image)
For DVDs and virtual machines (ISO image)



AI agents aren't confidently wrong because of bad context — they're wrong because of bad data engineering
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 22:58:18 +0200
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.
This is not a hypothetical. It's one of the most common production failure modes in enterprise AI right now, and most data engineering teams don't have the right tooling to catch it, regardless of how the AI system retrieves the data.
The failure that doesn't look like a failure 
An AI application doesn't care whether it's retrieving from a vector store, a document index, or an API call. Whatever the mechanism, nothing in a standard retrieval pipeline checks whether what it's serving is still correct. A stale pricing document retrieves just as confidently as a current one, because the system is scoring relevance or availability, not correctness. A record with a silently missing field passes through just as cleanly as a complete one, for the same reason.
So the failure is invisible by design. Outdated or incomplete data still scores high on relevance, or passes every check a data pipeline was built to run. The model answers with full confidence because the retrieved context looks authoritative. Every dashboard you're watching stays green. The system looks like it's working. It's just wrong.
I’ve watched a similar version of this happen outside the AI context, in a fintech pipeline. An upstream system changed a field without notifying downstream users. The pipeline did not fail; it simply propagated bad values into dashboards because the system only checked whether the job completed, not whether the data was still correct. The issue surfaced only when a customer noticed something inconsistent. By then, the bad data had already moved downstream. 
Whether it's a document that's gone stale or a field that's gone silently missing, the failure shape is the same: the absence of an error is not the presence of correctness, and without building proper validation layers, nothing in the pipeline could identify the problem.
Why this is a data engineering problem
Teams that hit this failure tend to misdiagnose it, and they tend to do it twice.
Blaming the model: The first instinct is to blame the model, try a different LLM, adjust the prompt. The real problem lies further upstream, at the data engineering layer, the same instinct behind the fintech failure above: monitoring built for the pipeline, not the data.
Blaming the retrieval layer: Once the model's ruled out, the next instinct is to blame the retrieval or context layer instead and buy a better one. The timing isn't a coincidence: as enterprises push these systems into the real production world, this gap is exactly what's starting to surface, and the vendor response has been everywhere. 
AWS just entered the "context layer" race with a knowledge graph that learns from agent usage. 
Snowflake's new Horizon Context and Cortex Sense target the exact symptom this piece opened with: agents giving confident wrong answers because nothing governs the business logic underneath them. 
Both are real responses to a real problem, but they sit one layer above it; a knowledge graph still depends on whatever feeds it.
The real problem lies further upstream, at the data engineering layer. Teams check whether a job ran, not whether the data it moved is still true, an instinct that predates AI by years. Monitoring is built for the pipeline, not for the data. 
What's actually missing: Data observability
Data observability is a well-known concept that doesn't get enough attention in how it's actually implemented. The relevant metric isn't a percentage — it's coverage: what fraction of critical datasets have lineage that's actually queryable, versus only living in someone's head.
Uber built a dedicated data quality and observability platform long before retrieval-augmented generation existed. Their Unified Data Quality platform supports more than 2,000 critical datasets and detects around 90% of data quality incidents before they reach downstream consumers.
Netflix solved a different piece of the same problem, building a company-wide data lineage system so anyone could answer where a dataset came from and what touched it along the way. It maps dependencies across Kafka topics, ML models, and experimentation, not just warehouse tables. Similar to Uber, the platform was built for humans and now it has become more important with the rise in AI/LLM applications.
Between them, Uber and Netflix cover two of the four things worth building for. In practice, I think about it as four dimensions, each measurable on its own terms.
Correctness: Does each record conform to the shape and rules it's supposed to, right field types, no unexpected nulls, values in range. Tools like Great Expectations and Soda handle this well: automated row and column-level validation instead of manual checks after something breaks. Track percentage of records passing validation per run.
Freshness: Is the data still current relative to its source, not just current as of its last check. Track time since last successful update per source, with an SLA per dataset rather than one blanket threshold, since some sources need hourly refresh and others don't.
Consistency: Does the same fact read the same way everywhere it's stored or indexed. This fails silently, it only shows up when two systems fed by the same source start disagreeing. A periodic cross-check between downstream destinations, flagging mismatch rate above a threshold, is enough to catch it early.
Lineage: Can you trace any output back to its source and every transform it passed through, the same question Netflix built its system to answer. 
None of this requires infrastructure most data teams don't already have. I know because I've built it, not just argued for it.
At Socure, client data arrived in whatever shape the client felt like sending it, and occasionally, quietly wrong. The challenge was building a system where incorrect data could be identified before it propagated downstream. The same principles applied: Validate what arrived, understand where it came from, and prevent bad data from becoming someone else's problem.
Great Expectations became part of that foundation: schema and range validation at ingestion, per-source SLAs for freshness, cross-system checks for consistency, and file-level lineage. All of it sat behind a write-audit-publish pattern, where data landed in staging, was validated, and only moved downstream if it passed the required checks.
The result showed up downstream: better accuracy across the board, in reporting, in the ML models, and in AI retrieval built on top of that same data.
What to do Monday morning
If you're running retrieval-based AI systems in production, the diagnostic question isn't which model to try next or which retrieval architecture to migrate to. It's four narrower questions: 
Is the underlying data validated against the standards required by its consumers?
What's the oldest piece of content currently being served with high confidence?
Would two chunks of the same source ever disagree with each other in the same retrieval result?
Could you trace where it came from if it turned out to be wrong?
If you can't answer those questions, then the gap lies in the pipeline between your source systems and whatever your agent reads from. That’s a data engineering fix, not a model swap or a vendor migration.
Whether you're building reporting pipelines, ML systems, or AI agents, correctness, freshness, consistency, and lineage are what make data trustworthy. AI simply exposes weaknesses that have existed in data engineering all along. 


CISA Adds Two Known Exploited Vulnerabilities to Catalog
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 22:40:55 +0200
CISA has added two new vulnerabilities to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) Catalog, based on evidence of active exploitation.  

CVE-2026-16232 Check Point SmartConsole Improper Authentication Vulnerability
CVE-2026-50522 Microsoft SharePoint Deserialization of Untrusted Data Vulnerability

These types of vulnerabilities are a frequent attack vector for malicious cyber actors and pose significant risks to the federal enterprise.
Binding Operational Directive (BOD) 26-04: Prioritizing Security Updates Based on Risk establishes vulnerability management requirements for Federal Civilian Executive Branch (FCEB) agencies. BOD 26-04 reinforces the importance of the KEV Catalog and requires federal agencies to prioritize rapid remediation of high-risk vulnerabilities, specifically those identified by Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs) listed in CISA’s KEV Catalog on publicly exposed assets that grant total control of the asset post-exploitation, while deferring action for lower-risk vulnerabilities. BOD 26-04 further establishes basic expectations for when agencies must check whether threat actors compromised the system before the patch was applied.
While BOD 26-04 applies only to FCEB agencies, CISA encourages all organizations to adopt risk-based vulnerability management and prioritize remediation of KEV Catalog vulnerabilities. CISA will continue to add vulnerabilities to the catalog that meet the specified criteria.
Aware of an exploited vulnerability not currently listed in the KEV Catalog? Submit it for potential addition through CISA’s KEV Nomination Form. Potential KEV additions must have a CVE ID, evidence of exploitation, and clear mitigation guidance. 


Critical Zimbra security update fixes 9 vulnerabilities
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 22:40:41 +0200

		
					  
						




Business email and collaboration suite Zimbra has received a major security update that fixes several critical issues that could allow attackers to execute malicious code on the server or in users’ browsers.



Available in commercial and open-source editions, Zimbra Collaboration Suite is a self-hosted Microsoft Exchange alternative that is popular with businesses, government entities, and educational institutions, which has made it a target for attackers in the past.



Version 10.1.20 released this week includes patches for nine vulnerabilities, including a permanent fix for a critical flaw announced in June in the SNMP monitoring component that could be exploited to inject commands when notifications are enabled.



The release also fixes four cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in the Classic Web Client that could allow attackers to execute malicious scripts when users view emails in the web interface. For example, one vulnerability can be triggered through specially crafted attachment filenames and another when users render an attachment.



XSS vulnerabilities are dangerous because they execute scripts in the user’s browser in the context of the page. That gives rogue code the same privileges as the user, enabling it to perform malicious actions, exfiltrate data, or even leak session cookies.



In 2025, an XSS vulnerability in the calendar import feature of the Zimbra Classic Web Client (CVE-2025-27915) was exploited in attacks targeting Brazilian military personnel. Many other Zimbra vulnerabilities have been exploited over the years, sometimes as zero-days, especially by Russian state-sponsored APT groups, such as Fancy Bear (APT28), Cozy Bear (APT29), and Winter Vivern (TA473).



A recent incident involved a Russian threat group targeting a Ukrainian critical infrastructure agency in March using specifically crafted emails that exploited a known Zimbra stored XXS vulnerability (CVE-2025-66376).



Another vulnerability fixed in the newly released Zimbra 10.1.20 could allow authenticated attackers to bypass email forwarding restrictions. Adding email forwarding rules to a compromised account is a common way to achieve persistence and continuously exfiltrate emails from a mailbox over an extended period of time, even if the account password is changed.



The release also fixes a security issue related to access controls in the EWS extension, an authorization issue in mailbox delegation, and a server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in the Nextcloud integration. Nextcloud is another self-hosted collaboration suite that is popular with government and public institutions that don’t want to rely on public clouds.



It’s worth noting that this is the second Zimbra security update this month. Version 10.1.19, released on July 7, patched another unspecified security issue in the Classic Web Client that could run malicious code when specially crafted emails were opened by users.



Zimbra owner Synacor strongly advises customers to upgrade to the latest available version as soon as possible to keep their environments secure. While none of these flaws had zero-day status, hacker groups have a history for quickly adopting known Zimbra exploits.



Ghost in the Calendar: The Microsoft 365 Calendar Implant
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 20:39:02 +0200
How HollowGraph Operates  On July 20, 2026, Group-IB security researchers released a study describing an implant known as HollowGraph that converts a hacked Microsoft 365 calendar into hidden communication channel…. The post Ghost in the Calendar: The Microsoft 365 Calendar…
Read more →
The post Ghost in the Calendar: The Microsoft 365 Calendar Implant appeared first on IT Security News.


CVE-2022-3944 | jerryhanjj ERP Commodity Management inventory.php uploadImages unrestricted upload (EUVD-2022-43278)
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 20:35:13 +0200
A vulnerability was found in jerryhanjj ERP. It has been declared as critical. The affected element is the function uploadImages of the file application/controllers/basedata/inventory.php of the component Commodity Management. The manipulation results in unrestricted upload.

This vulnerability is known as CVE-2022-3944. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. Furthermore, an exploit is available.


Ghost in the Calendar: The Microsoft 365 Calendar Implant
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 20:24:55 +0200
How HollowGraph Operates  On July 20, 2026, Group-IB security researchers released a study describing an implant known as HollowGraph that converts a hacked Microsoft 365 calendar into hidden communication channel....
The post Ghost in the Calendar: The Microsoft 365 Calendar Implant appeared first on Cyber Defense Magazine.


Forescout Threat Review 2026H1 zeigt: KI-Boom treibt Cyberrisiken drastisch nach oben
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 20:24:50 +0200
So entfielen 46 Prozent der neu in den „Known Exploited Vulnerabilities“-Katalog der US-amerikanischen Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security ...


Professor Emeritus Dimitri Bertsekas, influential computer scientist and prolific author, dies at 83
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 19:51:17 +0200
Known for his clear and elegant writing style, Bertsekas shaped fields from control and optimization to large-scale computation and artificial intelligence.


Kali365 Phishing Kit Abuses Microsoft Device Codes to Hijack Microsoft 365 Accounts
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 19:24:59 +0200
A phishing kit known as Kali365 is targeting U.S. organizations through device code phishing attacks that abuse Microsoft’s legitimate authentication process to hijack Microsoft 365 accounts. Unlike conventional phishing campaigns that direct targets to counterfeit login portals, Kali365 sends victims to a real Microsoft Device Login page. Victims are persuaded to enter an attacker-provided device […]
The post Kali365 Phishing Kit Abuses Microsoft Device Codes to Hijack Microsoft 365 Accounts appeared first on Cyber Security News.


Microsoft admits SMS and voice MFA can’t stop AI attacks, mandates passkeys in Entra by February 2027
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 19:01:34 +0200
Microsoft Entra is making passkeys the default sign-in method starting September 2026, with Microsoft-provided SMS and voice authentication fully retired by February 2027. There's no opt-out for the final deadline, so here's the complete timeline and prep checklist IT admins need to act on now.
The post Microsoft admits SMS and voice MFA can’t stop AI attacks, mandates passkeys in Entra by February 2027 appeared first on Windows Latest


Apple TV Unveils Women in Blue Season 2 Trailer, Confirms August Release
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 18:01:36 +0200
Apple TV has released the official trailer for Women in Blue season 2, giving viewers a closer look at the dangerous new investigation facing María and the Azules. The Spanish-language crime drama returns globally on August 12, 2026, with a darker case connected to political violence, corruption and buried secrets.



The new trailer shows María adjusting to her promotion while Valentina, Gabina and Ángeles continue fighting for their place inside a police department that often works against them. Together, they must investigate a series of deaths linked to one of the darkest chapters in Mexico’s history.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9n3TkdcGLY




Women in Blue Season 2 Release Details




Episodes: 8 episodes



Genre: Crime drama and historical thriller



Language: Spanish



Season 2 premiere date: August 12, 2026



Release schedule: One new episode every Wednesday



Season finale date: September 30, 2026



Streaming platform: Apple TV




The eight-episode count follows from the confirmed weekly release schedule running from August 12 through September 30.



What Is Women in Blue Season 2 About?



Season 2 follows María, played by Bárbara Mori, after she receives a promotion to lieutenant. Her new position gives her greater responsibility, but it also places her between the department’s rules and her determination to uncover the truth.



The central investigation begins when police discover the body of a student activist. Evidence connects the death to the 1968 student massacre, pulling the Azules into a case involving powerful people and long-hidden crimes. Another body connected to the same period soon appears, suggesting that someone has started delivering their own form of justice directly to the police.



As the investigation grows, María, Valentina, Gabina and Ángeles face pressure inside and outside the precinct. The women must work through corruption, personal conflicts and institutional resistance while trying to identify the killer before another person dies.



The returning lead cast includes Bárbara Mori, Ximena Sariñana, Natalia Téllez and Amorita Rasgado. Miguel Rodarte, Leonardo Sbaraglia, Christian Tappan, Horacio García Rojas and Bruno Bichir also appear in the second season.



FAQs



When does Women in Blue season 2 premiere? Women in Blue season 2 premieres globally on Apple TV on Wednesday, August 12, 2026. The service will release one episode each week through September 30.  How many episodes are in Women in Blue season 2? The second season has eight weekly episodes based on its confirmed premiere and finale schedule.  Is there a Women in Blue season 2 trailer? Yes. Apple TV released the official season 2 trailer on July 21, 2026. It previews the new murder investigation, María’s promotion and the historical mystery involving the 1968 student massacre.  Who stars in Women in Blue season 2? Bárbara Mori returns as María, alongside Natalia Téllez as Valentina, Amorita Rasgado as Gabina and Ximena Sariñana as Ángeles. The wider cast includes Miguel Rodarte, Leonardo Sbaraglia, Christian Tappan, Horacio García Rojas and Bruno Bichir.  Do I need to watch season 1 first? Watching the first season will help viewers understand the relationships between the four women, their personal struggles and their difficult position within the police department. Season 2 introduces a new investigation but continues the main characters’ stories.  Where can I watch Women in Blue? Both seasons of Women in Blue, also known as Las Azules, are available exclusively on Apple TV.  



Apple TV costs $12.99 per month in the United States after a seven-day free trial for eligible new subscribers. Women in Blue season 2 begins streaming on August 12. Do you plan to follow the new investigation each week? Let us know in the comments.


OpenAI models escaped containment and hacked a major AI application library
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 17:47:43 +0200
The attack is the first known instance of frontier models autonomously breaking out of a testing environment and into another company’s servers.


OpenAI models escaped containment and hacked a major AI application library
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 17:47:39 +0200
The attack is the first known instance of frontier models autonomously breaking out of a testing environment and into another company’s servers. This article has been indexed from Cybersecurity Dive – Latest News Read the original article: OpenAI models escaped…
Read more →
The post OpenAI models escaped containment and hacked a major AI application library appeared first on IT Security News.


CVE-2026-45344 | Kovah LinkAce up to 2.5.5 Mail Configuration injection (GHSA-37m5-936h-w455)
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 14:25:27 +0200
A vulnerability has been found in Kovah LinkAce up to 2.5.5 and classified as critical. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the component Mail Configuration Handler. Performing a manipulation results in injection.

This vulnerability is known as CVE-2026-45344. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. No exploit is available.

The affected component should be upgraded.


CVE-2026-2406 | Online Registration and Workflow Management System User-Controlled Key authorization (EUVD-2026-47621)
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 14:25:23 +0200
A vulnerability was found in Universe Software Computer Marketing Trade and Industry Online Registration and Workflow Management System up to 12022026. It has been classified as critical. This vulnerability affects unknown code of the component User-Controlled Key. Performing a manipulation results in authorization bypass.

This vulnerability is known as CVE-2026-2406. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. No exploit is available.


CISA Warns WordPress Core SQL Injection Vulnerability Is Actively Exploited in Attacks
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 14:18:19 +0200
The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) has classified a critical SQL injection vulnerability in WordPress Core, tracked as CVE-2026-60137, as one of its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) due to its active exploitation in real-world attacks. This vulnerability affects…
Read more →
The post CISA Warns WordPress Core SQL Injection Vulnerability Is Actively Exploited in Attacks appeared first on IT Security News.


U.S. CISA adds DD-WRT, Langflow and WordPress flaws to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 13:59:22 +0200
U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) adds DD-WRT, Langflow, and WordPress flaws to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) added DD-WRT, Langflow, and WordPress flaws to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog. Below…
Read more →
The post U.S. CISA adds DD-WRT, Langflow and WordPress flaws to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog appeared first on IT Security News.


CISA Warns WordPress Core SQL Injection Vulnerability Is Actively Exploited in Attacks
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 13:39:12 +0200
The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) has classified a critical SQL injection vulnerability in WordPress Core, tracked as CVE-2026-60137, as one of its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) due to its active exploitation in real-world attacks. This vulnerability affects the core functionality of WordPress when themes or plugins fail to properly validate untrusted input […]
The post CISA Warns WordPress Core SQL Injection Vulnerability Is Actively Exploited in Attacks appeared first on GBHackers Security | #1 Globally Trusted Cyber Security News Platform.


CISA Warns of WordPress Core SQL Injection Vulnerability Actively Exploited in the Wild
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 13:14:19 +0200
The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) has issued a warning about an actively exploited SQL injection vulnerability in WordPress Core that could allow attackers to compromise websites and potentially achieve remote code execution. This flaw, tracked as CVE-2026-63030, was added to CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog on July 21, 2026. This designation […]
The post CISA Warns of WordPress Core SQL Injection Vulnerability Actively Exploited in the Wild appeared first on Cyber Security News.


10 cool things Copilot can do in PowerPoint
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 13:05:35 +0200

		
					  
						




Building a presentation can take lots of time. There are design choices to figure out: the slide layouts, fonts, theme colors, and so on. You can use a template to skip this hassle, but you still have to paste your text and other content into the slides and edit it all so that the results are visually appealing.



In PowerPoint, Microsoft’s Copilot AI assistant can now automate the heavy lifting of presentation creation. It can generate a first-draft presentation in minutes, then help you edit it. You can also prompt Copilot to help you quickly understand the contents of a presentation and glean insights from it. Use the tips in this guide to save oodles of time as you create and work with presentations.



Who can use Copilot in PowerPoint



Individuals with a Microsoft 365 Personal, Family, or Premium subscription have access to Copilot from within PowerPoint and other Microsoft 365 apps. Users with a Premium plan have higher Copilot usage allowances and access to advanced AI features.



For business users, it’s more complicated. Organizations with more than 2,000 users must pay for Microsoft 365 Copilot licenses for their users in addition to their regular Microsoft 365 licenses. Users at organizations with fewer than 2,000 users can use Copilot within M365 apps even without the M365 Copilot add-on licenses, but there are limitations in usage, speed, and feature availability.



To see what kind of access you have, log in to Microsoft’s Copilot Chat web hub and look for your name in the lower left corner. If you see “M365 Copilot (Premium)” under your name, you can use Copilot in M365 apps with priority access and advanced features. “M365 Copilot (Basic)” means you can use Copilot in M365 apps with lower-priority access and limited features. If you see “Copilot Chat (Basic)” or nothing below your name, you can’t use Copilot in M365 apps.



(Copilot Chat Basic users do get some Copilot functionality, including the ability to generate presentations, via the Copilot Chat hub. See our Copilot Chat tutorial for details.)



In this article:




Working with Copilot in PowerPoint



Create a presentation template



Create a presentation from a document



Add content from a document to a slide



Refine your slide text



Find or create an image



Expand your presentation with relevant slides



Summarize a presentation



Answer questions about a presentation



Help you navigate a large presentation



Generate speaker notes and/or an FAQ




Working with Copilot in PowerPoint



First, let’s quickly go over the notable settings of the Copilot sidebar.



When you have a presentation open in PowerPoint, click the Copilot icon; it may be floating at the lower-right corner of your PowerPoint window or parked at the right end of the Ribbon toolbar. The Copilot sidebar will open along the right of the page. You’ll type your prompts to Copilot inside the chat window in this pane.


The sidebar on the right is where you interact with Copilot in PowerPOint.

Howard Wen / Foundry



Agent mode: By default, Copilot can build a new presentation or make changes to an existing one in the main PowerPoint window. This is known as “agent mode.” To change this so that Copilot can’t take direct action on a presentation (all its responses appear in the sidebar), click the Allow editing button above the chat window and change it to Chat only.



The tips in this guide require that Copilot be in agent mode, so make sure you see Allow editing above the chat window.



Choice of AI model: Behind the scenes, Copilot has access to various genAI models, including different versions of Anthropic Claude and OpenAI GPT.  By default, it decides which model to use based on your prompt. You can set it to use a particular model: click Auto at the upper right of the Copilot pane and select a model from the dropdown that opens.


You can choose which AI model you want Copilot to use for a request.
Howard Wen / Foundry



The tips in this guide should work fine on the default Auto setting. But feel free to experiment switching to specific models to see which give you the best results for particular tasks.



Important: Remember that generative AI output often includes errors, so always check Copilot’s output for accuracy. (Also see our tips for reducing hallucinations in Copilot.) You’ll likely want to rewrite it in your own voice as you’re reviewing it.



1. Create a presentation template



For many people, the hardest part of creating a presentation is getting started. What types of information should be included on the slides, and in what order? Copilot can give you a leg up by creating the type of presentation you need, with placeholder data that you can later replace with your own.



Start a new presentation, open the Copilot sidebar, and type your prompt into the chat window. It’s best to provide very specific details in your prompt. The more context or details you provide, the more likely Copilot will generate a presentation template that suits your needs.



A good prompt should contain the slide count, subject, audience, and tone. Example:




Create a 6-slide presentation for a sales meeting focusing on Q1 revenue. The audience is the sales team, so keep the tone professional and focused on the sales data.




Copilot may ask a series of follow-up questions, such as your preferred visual style and desired level of detail. Then it will generate a presentation template.


Copilot generates a presentation with placeholder data and explains its elements.
Howard Wen / Foundry



You can optionally prompt Copilot for revisions, and when you’re happy with the template, swap in your own data.



2. Create a presentation from a document



You can attach a document (such as a Word document, Excel spreadsheet, or PDF) and prompt Copilot to generate a presentation based on its contents. This works best with a structured-format document (such as a business plan, project proposal, or summary report) that contains sections with headings.



Copilot can extract the document’s text and structure to generate the slide content for the new presentation. This can especially be useful for quickly turning a long report into a visually appealing presentation.



In the Copilot pane, click the + icon at the bottom of the chat window. A list of documents that you’ve recently accessed appears. Select the one that you want Copilot to use. Alternatively, click the magnifying glass icon and inside its search box, type a few letters of the filename for the document you want. (Business users with an M365 Copilot license can select up to five files for Copilot to pull from when creating a presentation.)


Attaching a document for Copilot to base a presentation on.
Howard Wen / Foundry



Then in the chat window, you can enter a prompt that’s as simple as “Create a presentation,” although as always, providing more details and context is better. This is especially important for corporate users who reference multiple source files. It’s useful to tell Copilot what data to pull from each document.



Answer any follow-up questions that Copilot asks, and it will then generate the presentation.


Copilot has generated a professional presentation from a social media marketing campaign document.
Howard Wen / Foundry



Note: Your marketing department may have created one or more branded company templates for Copilot to work from. If that’s the case at your organization, simply open the appropriate company template as your first step. Then you can upload docs and type a prompt as described above. Copilot will create a presentation using the branded template.



3. Add content from a document to a slide



Manually copying text or other content from a document and pasting it into a new slide is a chore. Instead, you can prompt Copilot to extract information directly from a Word document, Excel spreadsheet, or PDF to create new slides.



In the Copilot pane, attach the document using the same steps described in tip 2, then tell Copilot to create a slide from the document. As always, it helps to provide details such as the new slide’s focus or what data to include:




Add a slide based on the attached document.



Use the attached file to add a slide about the project budget that focuses on Q1 projections.



Summarize only the financial section of the attached document as a slide.



A new Copilot-generated slide based on data from an Excel spreadsheet.
Howard Wen / Foundry



4. Refine your slide text



A presentation should be visual and display only the core message. Conciseness and proper writing tone are essential for your slides, so that they don’t lose the attention of your audience.



You can prompt Copilot to refine text on an individual slide in various ways, such as rewriting it in a more professional tone or making it more concise. Highlight the text inside a text box on the slide. On the toolbar that appears over the highlighted text, click Edit with Copilot.



On the menu that opens, you can select a preset prompt to refine the text, such as Condense or Make professional. Or, at the top of this menu, you can type a prompt to rewrite the highlighted text.


Choose a preset prompt for refining text on a slide or type in your own prompt.
Howard Wen / Foundry



Note that this feature affects all the text inside the text box. To rewrite only a portion of text inside a text box, you must split that portion out into a separate text box.



Alternatively, you can prompt Copilot to analyze your entire presentation and tighten up the wording throughout all of its slides. For example:




Make these slides more visual and use less text.




5. Find or create an image



If you have Copilot generate a presentation from an existing Word document that contains images, it will incorporate those images into the presentation. If there are no images in the source document, you can ask Copilot to find or create one and add it to a slide.



To add a stock image or an image from your organization’s brand library, tell Copilot what you’re looking for:




Add a stock photo of young adults in a cafe drinking boba tea.



Add a photo from our asset library of young adults in a cafe drinking boba tea.




To have Copilot create an image using Microsoft’s Designer image generation tool, describe your desired image. As always, specificity is helpful:




Create a photorealistic image of a diverse group of 5 or 6 fashionable young adults sitting in a cafe drinking boba tea. They’re smiling or laughing, and some are looking at their phones.



Copilot in PowerPoint hooks into Microsoft’s Designer tool for image generation.
Howard Wen / Foundry



Just as you need to review any text output from Copilot, take a close look at generated images to be sure nothing looks off. 



Also note that Copilot image generation isn’t always reliable in PowerPoint. For some time during our testing for this story, Copilot said it couldn’t create an image because “the image generation service is returning a server error on every attempt.” After about a day and a half, the service began working again.



6. Expand your presentation with relevant slides



As you’re building your presentation, you may find that it’s become text heavy. Or perhaps it could use more visually oriented slides to break things up and make its progression flow better. Copilot can generate and insert new slides that are based on the content of the slides already in the presentation.



In the Copilot pane, specify exactly where you want the new slide to go. This helps Copilot to analyze the content of the slides before and after where you want the new slide. Then it can generate a slide to bridge between the two slides. Examples:




Add a slide after slide 3 about our competitive advantages.



Add a slide after slide 11 that transitions to slide 12.



Need a transition slide? Just ask!
Howard Wen / Foundry



7. Summarize a presentation



Maybe you need a quick refresh of your presentation before an important meeting. Or maybe a co-worker has sent you a presentation that’s packed with lots of slides. You can prompt Copilot to generate a summary of the presentation’s overall messaging.



In the Copilot pane, just type “summarize this presentation.” You can also have Copilot flag key slides that contain important information: “show me key slides.”


Ask Copilot to summarize a presentation or flag key slides.
Howard Wen / Foundry



8. Answer questions about a presentation



As you’re reviewing a presentation, especially one that you didn’t create and are not familiar with, you can get Copilot to pull key data points from its slides.



In the Copilot pane, type specific informational questions. Examples:




What are the action items in this deck?



What is the proposed budget mentioned here?




If Copilot can’t find the exact answer to the question you ask, it will provide related information from the presentation.


Ask Copilot specific questions about the contents of a presentation.
Howard Wen / Foundry



This method can also help you validate that your presentation includes everything you want it to. If you ask Copilot about the action items in a presentation and it can’t find any, you know you need to add them. (Copilot will likely offer to generate them for you based on the rest of the slides.)



You can even take this tactic a step further and ask Copilot if the presentation is missing any important data, if any slides are weak or confusing, if there are any awkward transitions, if there are key points that should be better emphasized, and so on.



9. Help you navigate a large presentation



In the business world, presentations with dozens of slides are not uncommon, such as for financial reports or project documentation. Trying to find a specific slide or multiple slides can be tough. Copilot can help you navigate such a presentation.



In the Copilot pane, prompt Copilot to find slides based on specific topics. Example:




Show me the slides about the project timeline.




Copilot will analyze the presentation and reply with a list of links to the relevant slides. Click one of these to jump directly to that slide.


Copilot can help you zoom directly to a slide that covers a particular topic or shows specific data.
Howard Wen / Foundry



10. Generate speaker notes and/or an FAQ



Here’s a great timesaver when you’re preparing to show your presentation to an audience: Copilot can automatically generate suggested speaker notes for you, based on the content of your slides. Example prompt:




Write speaker notes for every slide with one talking point per slide.



Copilot can create speaker notes in seconds.
Howard Wen / Foundry



In a related feature, Copilot can create a frequently asked questions list (FAQ) for you to consult in your speaker notes or to present as a slide:




Write an FAQ for these slides.




Copilot will ask where you want the questions and answers added — as a new slide at the end, integrated into the speaker notes of relevant slides, or somewhere else that you designate. Make a selection, and Copilot will generate the FAQ based on the content of your presentation.


A Copilot-generated FAQ slide.
Howard Wen / Foundry



Related reading:




11 cool things Copilot can do in Excel



9 ways Copilot can turbocharge OneNote



PowerPoint for Microsoft 365 cheat sheet



Copilot Chat: Your hub for document creation and analysis



How to curb hallucinations in Copilot (and other genAI tools)



Microsoft Copilot can boost your writing in Word, Outlook, and OneNote — here’s how



More Microsoft tips and tutorials








CVE-2026-3821 | Supermicro X14DBG-DAP/X14DBI SMASH code injection (EUVD-2026-47615)
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 13:03:47 +0200
A vulnerability was found in Supermicro X14DBG-DAP and X14DBI and classified as very critical. Affected is an unknown function of the component SMASH. The manipulation results in code injection.

This vulnerability is known as CVE-2026-3821. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. No exploit is available.


U.S. CISA adds DD-WRT, Langflow and WordPress flaws to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 13:00:34 +0200
U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) adds DD-WRT, Langflow, and WordPress flaws to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) added DD-WRT, Langflow, and WordPress flaws to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog. Below are the flaws added to the KeV catalog: The first issue added to the catalog […]


CISA Warns of Actively Exploited WordPress Flaws Enabling Pre-Auth RCE
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 12:41:18 +0200
CISA has added two chained WordPress Core vulnerabilities, CVE-2026-63030 and CVE-2026-60137, to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog, warning that the flaws enable unauthenticated, pre-auth remote code execution (RCE) on default WordPress installations now being actively targeted. The flaw CVE-2026-63030, dubbed “wp2shell”, is a pre-authentication RCE vulnerability that impacts WordPress Core 6.8.x, 6.9.x and 7.0.x […]
The post CISA Warns of Actively Exploited WordPress Flaws Enabling Pre-Auth RCE appeared first on Cyber Security News.


Apple reportedly set to debut device leasing programme
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 12:18:55 +0200
The lease programme, known as Apple Upgrade, will reportedly support most iPhone, Mac, iPad and Apple Watch models.
Read more: Apple reportedly set to debut device leasing programme


Russian Hacker Jailbreaks Claude to Turn into an AI-Powered Penetration Testing Platform
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 12:13:15 +0200
A Russian-speaking threat actor known as “Trim” has reportedly transformed jailbroken frontier AI models into an automated penetration testing platform called AI Pentest Checker. This activity highlights how criminals can misuse legitimate AI services and common security tools to accelerate…
Read more →
The post Russian Hacker Jailbreaks Claude to Turn into an AI-Powered Penetration Testing Platform appeared first on IT Security News.


CVE-2026-39935 | Wikimedia The CampaignEvents Extension 1.43.7/1.44.4/1.45.2 on The cross site scripting
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 12:01:09 +0200
A vulnerability was found in Wikimedia The CampaignEvents Extension 1.43.7/1.44.4/1.45.2 on The and classified as problematic. The affected element is an unknown function. The manipulation results in cross site scripting.

This vulnerability is known as CVE-2026-39935. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. No exploit is available.


From outsourcing to ownership: How we brought development in-house without breaking delivery
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 11:11:54 +0200

		
					  
						




Outsourcing worked – until it didn’t.



After Akirolabs achieved early market validation and onboarded its first enterprise customers, outsourcing began to create strategic limitations around scalability, intellectual property (IP) ownership, security and delivery execution.



The challenges started after the first enterprise customers confirmed product-market fit. At that point, delivery speed became directly tied to business growth. Product quality expectations increased. Infrastructure and security requirements became stricter. Investors started asking difficult but fair questions about IP ownership, operational dependencies and long-term scalability.



Most importantly, engineering execution was no longer just an operational function – it became part of the company’s strategic advantage. That was the moment when the founders decided the company needed dedicated technology leadership to address these challenges. This is how I joined the company at the beginning of 2023. As VP of Engineering and a bit later as CTO, I led the transformation (usually known as insourcing, repatriating or backsourcing) from an outsourced model to an internal engineering organization while maintaining product delivery continuity and preparing the company for the next growth stage. The process took roughly a year and involved not only technical migration, but also organizational design, hiring, process development, infrastructure modernization and cultural transformation – everything from the ground up.



Building an internal engineering organization while still delivering



One of the biggest misconceptions about insourcing is that it is primarily a technical project. It is a leadership and execution challenge.



When I joined the company, there was effectively no internal engineering structure, limited visibility into the existing system and no clear long-term technical strategy. My first months were dedicated to understanding reality and I began with a comprehensive assessment of the codebase, operational risks, documentation quality and knowledge dependencies to determine the most viable transition strategy.



Very early in the process, I faced a critical strategic decision: whether to gradually assume ownership of the existing platform or rebuild it internally. To make that decision, I evaluated four distinct transition models ranging from limited management insourcing to a complete internal rebuild.



After assessing the technical, operational and long-term business implications of each approach, I selected the most demanding option: rebuilding the product internally while maintaining uninterrupted delivery for existing customers. Although riskier in the short term, a full rebuild offered the clearest route to complete IP ownership, architectural flexibility and long-term scalability.



At the time, this decision ran counter to the approach typically taken by startups in similar situations. Most organizations gradually assume ownership of an existing codebase to minimize short-term risk and preserve delivery capacity. My assessment was that the accumulated architectural debt, fragmented knowledge distribution and long-term maintenance risks would ultimately make a phased takeover more expensive and less scalable than a controlled rebuild. The strategy required significantly higher execution discipline, but it allowed us to establish complete ownership of the platform, eliminate inherited constraints and create an architecture capable of supporting enterprise-scale growth.



The next challenge was hiring.



In Germany, hiring can easily take four to six months – mostly due to a typical 3-month notice period, which is incompatible with startup timelines. We solved this by building a hybrid organization structure early: a lean internal core team combined with carefully selected contractors. Instead of hiring only narrow specialists, we prioritized experienced generalists capable of operating across architecture, infrastructure, security and compliance discussions. Later, we evolved toward a product engineering model, where engineers owned broader product outcomes rather than narrowly defined technical functions.



During the first three months, we established a core engineering team of four senior engineers. Over the following nine months, the organization expanded to roughly fifteen engineers while I strategically designed and executed the transformation of the platform’s architecture to meet the rigorous deployment and compliance standards of our first enterprise clients, including Raiffeisen Bank International and Bertelsmann. This structural overhaul allowed the company to meet the deployment, security and compliance requirements of enterprise customers that had previously been inaccessible under the outsourced model. At that point, we had already achieved complete coverage across backend, frontend, DevOps, QA and security.



I also intentionally kept processes lightweight during the transition. Instead of introducing heavyweight frameworks, we focused on clarity of priorities, fast decision-making and execution discipline. We used Kanban over Scrum, eliminated unnecessary meetings, shortened the remaining ones and emphasized engineering culture over process overhead.



Another major challenge was project estimation. Because dual-track development was unavoidable until the in-house platform reached production readiness, estimation accuracy had a direct impact on budget efficiency. Despite all challenges, my initial estimate ultimately proved remarkably close to the final delivery date, differing by only about a week. Accurate forecasting under conditions of parallel development streams, ongoing customer commitments and active team formation became a critical leadership challenge. Maintaining this level of predictability throughout the transition helped align engineering execution with business planning, hiring decisions and investor expectations.



The engineering transformation enabled capabilities that contributed to Akirolabs being recognized as an IDC Innovator in Procurement in 2023, named amongst the Top 27 AI Startups in Germany in 2024, Sifted’s 100 Fastest-Growing Startups in DACH & CEE 2025 and inclusion in 2024-2026 in ProcureTech100 annual recognition of procurement technology providers shaping the future of digital procurement.



Managing risk without slowing down the business



The hardest part of insourcing is not writing code, selecting the technology stack, designing architecture or configuring infrastructure. It is avoiding disruption while the company is changing underneath the product. I successfully orchestrated the concurrent overhaul of product architecture, cross-functional engineering recruitment, infrastructure modernization and live customer operations under exceptionally tight margins.



To reduce delivery risk, we approached the transition in layers.



First, we focused on infrastructure reliability and operational readiness before feature expansion. Cloud architecture, recovery testing, permission segregation and incident management processes were implemented early, not after launch. We also introduced multiple testing stages and dedicated QA functions after learning the hard way that a “developers-only” quality control approach does not scale for complex web platforms and business domains.



Second, we established a structured knowledge-transfer process to rapidly onboard engineers and reduce external dependencies.



Third, we became extremely disciplined about scope management. One of the most common reasons insourcing initiatives fail is uncontrolled change during the rebuild phase. Every new feature request increases uncertainty non-linearly. We learned to separate strategic improvements from distractions and protect the core delivery roadmap aggressively. Throughout the transition, we successfully maintained uninterrupted customer operations by utilizing planned maintenance windows, achieved a near-zero-downtime migration and permanently doubled product velocity immediately following the migration.



Beyond the technical migration itself, the transition established a repeatable operating model for scaling technology organizations beyond the product-market-fit stage. The framework combined organizational redesign, controlled knowledge repatriation, architecture modernization and enterprise-grade operational practices while maintaining uninterrupted customer delivery throughout the transformation. While the implementation was specific to Akirolabs, the underlying principles are broadly applicable to organizations seeking to transition from outsourced development to internal product ownership without disrupting business operations.



By the time the new platform reached production readiness, I had established not only a functioning engineering organization, but also a stable operational model: internal ownership, production-grade infrastructure, security processes, scalable hiring practices and clear technology and product roadmaps.



A positive side effect of the transition was the creation of internal UI/UX and Data Science capabilities, which later became strategically important for AI product initiatives and created a foundation for the third version of the product, which we released in mid-2025.



My technical restructuring and migration to a secure proprietary platform reduced architectural risk, established full in-house ownership and helped strengthen investor confidence during the company’s successful €5M fundraising round in 2024.



The transition created a stronger foundation for scale and supported the company’s continued expansion among enterprise organizations operating at Fortune 500 scale, including Ahold Delhaize, Workday, IFF, Deutsche Bahn and others.



Lessons learned for CTOs considering insourcing



Looking back, several decisions made the transition successful, and several mistakes made it harder than necessary.



The first lesson is simple: decisiveness in strategic transition is paramount to maintaining business momentum. Rapidly evaluating insourcing frameworks and defining clear boundaries with the external partner allowed us to mitigate operational downtime and execute a highly efficient migration ahead of critical market deadlines.



Second, hire more senior people and do it as early as possible. Strong technical leaders multiply execution capacity far beyond their individual contribution. In our case, the quality of the first hires influenced architecture quality, hiring standards, delivery discipline and engineering culture for the entire organization.



Finally, culture matters more than frameworks. Processes can be added later. Ownership mentality cannot.



The biggest long-term advantage of bringing development in-house was not simply faster execution, not better code quality or operational cost optimization by over 30% after the transition which we also achieved. It was an alignment. Product strategy, engineering decisions, customer priorities and business goals became part of the same conversation instead of being separated by organizational boundaries. For technology companies operating in highly competitive markets, that alignment becomes a compounding advantage over time.



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



4 recs for CIOs to optimize AI budgets and improve sustainability
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 11:11:52 +0200

		
					  
						




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.



AI’s impact on sustainability



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.



To deliver on this demand, AI data centers are being built out at an unprecedented rate, with Gartner forecasting that global spending on data centers 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.



All this presents a significant strain on the energy grid as well as environmental sustainability, including:




The power double-down: The International Energy Agency (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.



The inference premium: AI workloads are vastly more demanding than standard web activities. A gen AI query consumes roughly 10 times the electricity of a conventional keyword search, or roughly 2.9 watt-hours as opposed to 0.3 watt-hours.



Water consumption: Cooling these dense clusters is highly resource intensive. Global AI-related water demand is expected to reach 4.2 to 6.6 billion cubic meters by 2027.




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.



Here are four recommendations to maximize value as you look across your AI applications and infrastructure estate.



Revisit business objectives in light of AI



AI applications and platforms bring several new headaches for CIOs and CFOs in terms of FinOps. The variable nature of AI vendor billing due to variable monthly token costs 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.



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.



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.”



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.



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.



Take a sovereign AI approach when evaluating hyperscalers



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.



In 2025, Amazon’s global data center operations used 0.12 liters of water per kilowatt-hour, 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.



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.



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 71% of global executives stating that switching their primary AI vendor or model would be difficult if required today, it’s important to understand AI dependencies and be able to avoid vendor lock-in. 



Control efficiency at the data layer



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.



“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.”



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.



Fine tune the application layer



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.



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 probabilistic and deterministic code, this is exactly where software developers need to make smart choices in their designs.



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.”



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.



Threat Actor Turns Claude Opus Into Automated AI-Powered Penetration Testing Platform
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 11:11:23 +0200
A Russian-speaking threat actor known as “Trim” has reportedly transformed Anthropic’s Claude Opus into the central component of an automated, AI-powered penetration testing platform. This development highlights the rapid repurposing of advanced AI models for offensive security operations. According to…
Read more →
The post Threat Actor Turns Claude Opus Into Automated AI-Powered Penetration Testing Platform appeared first on IT Security News.


Threat Actor Turns Claude Opus Into Automated AI-Powered Penetration Testing Platform
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 10:42:58 +0200
A Russian-speaking threat actor known as “Trim” has reportedly transformed Anthropic’s Claude Opus into the central component of an automated, AI-powered penetration testing platform. This development highlights the rapid repurposing of advanced AI models for offensive security operations. According to research by Cato CTRL, Trim progressed from sharing jailbreak instructions on a Russian cybercrime forum […]
The post Threat Actor Turns Claude Opus Into Automated AI-Powered Penetration Testing Platform appeared first on GBHackers Security | #1 Globally Trusted Cyber Security News Platform.


FBI Updates IC3 Scam Warning Over AI Videos Targeting Victims
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 10:08:38 +0200
The FBI IC3 scam has evolved into a broader fraud scheme in which criminals impersonate FBI personnel and the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) to target people who have already fallen victim to scams. According to an updated Public Service Announcement (PSA), scammers are using AI-generated videos, fake social media profiles, and spoofed websites to create a false sense of trust while attempting to steal personal and financial information.
The updated warning describes several exploitation tactics, including targeting previous scam victims, using artificial intelligence to create fictitious or misleading promotional materials, and building fake websites designed to collect personally identifiable information. The scammers falsely claim to be affiliated with government agencies or law enforcement and often promise to help victims recover lost funds.

FBI IC3 Scam Targets Previous Fraud Victims
In one version of the FBI IC3 scam, criminals create fake social media profiles and pages that impersonate FBI personnel. The goal is to lure previous scam victims into what the PSA describes as "re-targeting" scams.
After realizing they have been defrauded, victims may tell the original scammers they plan to report the incident to the FBI and submit an IC3 complaint. The victim is then contacted by someone pretending to be an FBI agent through platforms such as Facebook Messenger and Telegram.
The impersonator may send a link claiming to update an existing IC3 complaint. The link could contain malicious code or collect additional financial information, allowing criminals to further exploit the victim.
In other cases, scammers approach victims through email, phone calls, social media advertisements, or online forums. They claim to have recovered lost funds or offer assistance in recovering money. The FBI warning states these claims are a ruse designed to revictimize people who have already lost money.

AI-Generated Videos Promote Spoofed IC3 Websites
Another version of the scheme involves AI-generated videos or deepfakes featuring individuals impersonating FBI personnel. The videos are used on social media to promote spoofed versions of the official IC3 website.
One reported example involved an AI-generated video depicting a senior FBI leader encouraging users to submit complaints through a fake IC3 website. The spoofed site was designed to resemble the legitimate government website, but its functionality was limited to complaint submission.
The fake complaint form requested information including a user's name, phone number, email address, scam type, and estimated financial loss. After submission, the site provided a reference number and claimed someone would contact the individual.

How to Spot AI-Generated Videos and Fake Messages
The PSA warns that scammers can use AI-generated videos and cloned voices to impersonate company executives, law enforcement personnel, and other authority figures. These materials may be used during real-time video chats or private communications to convince victims they are speaking with a legitimate person.
People are advised to carefully examine email addresses, phone numbers, URLs, and spelling for subtle inconsistencies. Potential warning signs in manipulated images and videos include distorted hands or feet, unrealistic facial features, irregular faces, unusual accessories, inaccurate shadows, watermarks, unnatural movements, and voice call delays.
The FBI also advises people to be cautious when online content triggers strong emotions such as fear, anger, or disbelief. Users should verify surprising videos or images through reputable news sources or known official channels before responding.
IC3 does not maintain a social media presence and will not contact individuals directly through phone, email, social media, messaging apps, online chats, or public forums. The agency also does not recover funds for victims through Facebook or Telegram and will never request payment for fund recovery.
People seeking to file an IC3 complaint should type www.ic3.gov directly into their browser and verify that the website address ends in ".gov." Victims should avoid sponsored search results and suspicious links, and should never share sensitive information with websites they cannot verify.
Anyone who has fallen victim to the scam should report it through the legitimate IC3 website and provide details about the person or company involved, communication methods, financial transactions, and interactions with the scammer.


Russian Hacker Jailbreaks Claude to Turn into an AI-Powered Penetration Testing Platform
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 09:59:36 +0200
A Russian-speaking threat actor known as “Trim” has reportedly transformed jailbroken frontier AI models into an automated penetration testing platform called AI Pentest Checker. This activity highlights how criminals can misuse legitimate AI services and common security tools to accelerate reconnaissance, validate vulnerabilities, and create reports. According to Cato reports, Trim first appeared on a […]
The post Russian Hacker Jailbreaks Claude to Turn into an AI-Powered Penetration Testing Platform appeared first on Cyber Security News.


10 survival tips for CSOs who report to the CEO
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 09:16:42 +0200

		
					  
						




As the CSO grows in prominence, security leaders are increasingly earning a seat at the executive table, reporting directly to the CEO with the expectation to help drive business strategy and ensure organizational success.



Reporting to the CEO unlocks greater access and influence for security leaders, and while CSOs who report to their organization’s CIO still have clout, it’s a very different experience picking up the phone to speak directly with the CEO as a strategic partner.



Regardless of reporting structure, CSOs must clearly understand what they are being tasked to solve. That might sound simple, but making the leap to being a CEO’s direct report requires a new perspective, a different set of skills, and a business-level focus on metrics to do so.



We asked several current CSOs, CEOs, and IT staffing experts for advice on how security executives can best navigate a direct reporting relationship with their CEO. Offering insights below are George Gerchow, CSO at Bedrock Data and member of the IANS faculty; Matt Chiodi, CSO of Cerby; Chris Schueler, CEO at Cyderes; and Greg Fuller, vice president of the Technology Skills Suite at Skillsoft.



1. Understand how the CEO views your role



Most CEOs expect that, when you report directly to them, you fully own your functional area. Whether it’s cybersecurity, operations, or finance, they look to you as the expert in that domain. The CEO may have opinions, but ultimately, you are expected to lead and provide direction.



CEOs expect their CSO to be a true strategic partner, not just a risk reporter — connecting cybersecurity to revenue protection, regulatory compliance, customer trust, and operational resilience. In turn, CSOs should expect CEOs to treat governance as a strategic enabler, not a bureaucratic necessity.



2. Power up on skills vital to your organization at an executive level



On the technology side, AI and machine learning, cloud security, incident response, zero trust architecture, and governance, risk, and compliance (GRC) are the areas where threats evolve fastest and strategic leadership has the greatest impact. 



Equally important are “power skills”: communication, critical thinking, adaptability, and emotional intelligence. The ability to translate complex risk into business terms is what separates a strong CSO from a purely technical one. Skills, not titles, define effectiveness in the eyes of a CEO.



3. Take advantage of your direct access



Direct access to the CEO will enable you to influence strategy, shape resilience planning, and ensure cybersecurity is treated as a business imperative rather than a cost center. That authority is strongest when the CEO understands cybersecurity as a strategic lever, not just a technical function. 



While a direct reporting relationship gives you access to the CEO, it also comes with the responsibility to operate at that level. You need to provide clear, executive-level visibility into your cybersecurity program.



4. Brush up on business translation



A CSO who leads with business alignment will always carry more influence when they can translate risk into business language rather than technical jargon. Building programs that must survive an IPO, a FedRAMP audit, and real customer scrutiny forces you to tie security to revenue and trust.



The most valuable skill is translation — defining technical risk in terms of executive action and business impact that a CEO and a board can act on. You must build trust through transparency. These are the human skills that complement technology, creating a collaborative human-AI dynamic where leaders make faster, better-informed decisions. 



5. Treat conversations as risk assessment opportunities



Highly effective security leaders treat every business conversation as a risk conversation in disguise. That mindset is what largely separates a great CSO from a great technologist. Earn the CEO’s trust by speaking business first, security second. Translate every risk into revenue, reputation, or regulatory exposure.



Remember, a good CEO wants a translator, not an alarm system. They expect no surprises, a clear read on the risks that matter, and a security leader who helps the business move faster rather than slowing it down.



6. Define what a successful relationship should look like and put it in writing



Regardless of the reporting relationship, start by defining the end goal and putting it in writing. It will evolve over time, but having that initial clarity is critical. This is especially important when you’re new in a role and aiming to make your first 60, 90, or 120 days, and your first year, successful. In such cases, it’s essential to align early.



Do that collaboratively, and document it.



7. Prioritize trust and candor



The CEO needs to trust that the CSO isn’t sandbagging, and the CSO needs enough psychological safety to deliver bad news fast. When those conditions exist, security becomes a strategic asset — not a cost center.



To that end, focus on clear communication above all, and present yourself as part of a team, not a solo player. Stay calm under pressure during incidents, and treat people as peers rather than policing them. The leaders who last build trust before they need it.



8. Treat governance as a strategic competitive advantage



The strongest partnerships also share a commitment to governance as a competitive advantage.



Governance is the brakes that let you drive fast safely. When a CSO and CEO are aligned on that principle, the organization can innovate with AI while maintaining oversight and protecting against unnecessary risk. The result is an organization that does not just react to threats but builds resilience into how it operates.



9. Set clear goals and measure progress



Setting clear goals and measuring progress against those goals is essential. When expectations are clear, the areas you need to focus on become much clearer. It doesn’t solve every problem, but aligning early with your leadership, whether that’s a CEO or a CIO, can significantly reduce the pressure you may feel.



Also, never let your boss be surprised. This is where being clear on goals and consistently tracking both leading and lagging metrics becomes especially important, particularly in a direct reporting relationship with the CEO.



10. Be willing to endure challenge and discomfort



Finally, persistence and a willingness to endure discomfort for something that matters more than the pain itself are critical to surviving in this relationship. The role of a cybersecurity leader is often thankless. If you’re doing your job well, no one really notices.



Exploitarium Mass Zero-Day Archive Releases 204 PoC Files Targeting 35 Open-Source Projects
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 09:16:23 +0200
A GitHub account known as “bikini,” operating under the Exploitarium name, has published a large and expanding archive of vulnerability proof-of-concept (PoC) files targeting 353535 open-source projects. The repository contains 204204204 tracked files, exceeding earlier reports that cited roughly 130130130 PoCs. Its first dated entries appeared on June 232323, 202620262026, and the archive drew broad […]
The post Exploitarium Mass Zero-Day Archive Releases 204 PoC Files Targeting 35 Open-Source Projects appeared first on Cyber Security News.


Cisco Foundation AI Releases Antares: 350M and 1B Open-Weight Models That Localize Known Vulnerabilities Inside Real Codebases
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 08:34:15 +0200
Cisco Foundation AI has released Antares, a family of small language models trained to pinpoint where known vulnerabilities live inside a codebase. Antares-1B reaches 0.209 File F1 on the new Vulnerability Localization Benchmark, above GLM-5.2 at 753B parameters and Gemini 3 Pro. The untrained Granite 4.0 checkpoints score near zero under the same protocol, so post-training supplies almost all of the capability. A full 500-task sweep runs in roughly 13 minutes on a single H100 for under a dollar, against $141 for GPT-5.5.
The post Cisco Foundation AI Releases Antares: 350M and 1B Open-Weight Models That Localize Known Vulnerabilities Inside Real Codebases appeared first on MarkTechPost.


AI can’t fix cybersecurity’s hiring problem
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 07:11:00 +0200
Organizations are redefining cybersecurity roles through workforce frameworks and placing greater emphasis on verified skills as AI and new regulatory requirements change hiring. The SANS 2026 Cybersecurity Workforce Survey found demand for specialists in new roles more than doubled over…
Read more →
The post AI can’t fix cybersecurity’s hiring problem appeared first on IT Security News.


How I crafted an exploit PoC for a Linskys router
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 04:37:23 +0200
I’ve been doing some vulnerability research on a known CVE (CVE-2025-60690) on a consumer Linksys router and wanted to share the workflow I used to investigate it.
 The process started by targeting the physical hardware: identifying the UART pads on the board using a digital multimeter to access the Linux-based shell console. From there, I extracted the vulnerable binary (from the CVE description), and reversed it in Ghidra. Next, I used a gdb+gdbserver setup to perform dynamic analysis to investigate the memory behaviors.
 I managed to successfully achieve RCE from the stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability to land a root shell. The exploit PoC for CVE-2025-60690 just got cited on the official CVE page and exploit-db.com.
 I just started a YouTube channel dedicated to breaking down IoT hacking concepts. Also, I’ve compiled my step-by-step research notes in a reference doc. If you're working on similar hardware research and want a copy of the notes, drop a comment or shoot me a DM and I'll gladly send them over!
 USB-UART connection to Raspberry Pi
 Testing UART pads with digital multimeter
 Testing buffer overflow behavior (gdb+gdbserver setup)
 
   submitted by    /u/Dapper-Depth2940  
 [link]   [comments]


EP 177: National Public Data
Wed, 22 Jul 2026 04:09:47 +0200
Full Transcript 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. Support for this show […]


Firefox 153 Released
Tue, 21 Jul 2026 23:13:06 +0200
Longtime Slashdot reader williamyf writes: FireFox 153 was released today. The most important user-facing changes are improvements to PDF handling (you can now merge PDFs and add images to them), and HDR video playback (on Windows, provided HDR is active systemwide). Other under-the-hood changes include browser-wide containers and QWAC support. The full list is in the change notes.

 But the most important feature is that this version is an ESR and, therefore, defines the ESR feature set for the next year. Why is being an ESR so important, you ask?

 1.) ESR, rather than "normal" (a.k.a. Rapid Release), Firefox is the out-of-the-box browser for many important distros, including Debian, RHEL, Kali, Tails, SUSE Linux Enterprise, Slackware, and others.

 2.) Many organizations, large and small, standardize on Firefox ESR as their default browser, regardless of the default browser included with their OS.

 3.) Firefox ESR is the basis for many downstream projects, such as Waterfox and KaiOS. All these projects will inherit, for a year, whatever ESR brings to the table today.

 4.) Many ISVs and SaaS providers, if they certify their wares for Firefox at all, certify for the ESR version only.

 Please note that ESR 153 will not be offered as an automatic update until two months from now (ESR 140 will still be supported). If you want it now, you will need to download and install it manually.

 Also of note, ESR 115 will be supported until March 2027. If you use an unsupported version of macOS or Windows (like Windows 7 or 8.x), this is the version to get. However, even Mozilla cautions against running a supported browser on an unsupported OS: "Note that Microsoft ended official support for Windows 7, 8, and 8.1 in January 2023. Unsupported operating systems receive no security updates and have known vulnerabilities. Without official support from Microsoft, maintaining Firefox for outdated operating systems becomes costly for Mozilla and risky for users."






Read more of this story at Slashdot.


CVE-2026-59146 | EGOR Data::SpatialHash::Shared up to 0.01 sphash.h sph_walk_cell/sph_alloc_slot bucket/link/free_list out-of-bounds
Tue, 21 Jul 2026 23:00:04 +0200
A vulnerability was found in EGOR Data::SpatialHash::Shared up to 0.01. It has been declared as problematic. Affected by this issue is the function sph_walk_cell/sph_alloc_slot of the file sphash.h. The manipulation of the argument bucket/link/free_list results in out-of-bounds read.

This vulnerability is known as CVE-2026-59146. Attacking locally is a requirement. No exploit is available.


CVE-2026-46828 | Oracle Payroll up to 12.2.15 Internal Operations improper authorization
Tue, 21 Jul 2026 21:36:26 +0200
A vulnerability has been found in Oracle Payroll up to 12.2.15 and classified as critical. Affected is an unknown function of the component Internal Operations. Performing a manipulation results in improper authorization.

This vulnerability is known as CVE-2026-46828. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. No exploit is available.

The affected component should be upgraded.


v0.9.1: fix(tui): honor isolated home for session artifacts
Tue, 21 Jul 2026 21:02:29 +0200
Resolve artifact storage through Codewhale's effective home contract so explicit HOME and USERPROFILE subprocess sandboxes work on Windows instead of leaking writes to the host known-folder profile.


Judge Approves $1.5 Billion Anthropic Settlement Over Pirated Books Used To Train Claude
Tue, 21 Jul 2026 20:11:12 +0200
A federal judge has approved Anthropic's $1.5 billion copyright settlement over pirated books used to train its Claude chatbot, with authors and publishers set to receive about $3,000 per book. The case produced a mixed ruling for the AI industry: training on copyrighted books was found not to be illegal, but Anthropic's use of pirated copies from shadow libraries was. The Associated Press reports: District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin said in a Monday ruling that the class-action settlement provides "meaningful relief" to affected authors and publishers. About 91% of the more than 482,000 books covered by the ruling have been claimed by authors or publishers who are now due payment. Plaintiff attorney Justin Nelson said in a statement that the settlement was "the largest known copyright recovery in history. We look forward to making distributions to the Class as promptly as possible."






Read more of this story at Slashdot.


Cisco Launches Low-Cost AI Models for Source Code Security
Tue, 21 Jul 2026 20:11:01 +0200
The open-weight Antares models are designed to pinpoint known vulnerabilities in codebases faster and at a fraction of the cost of larger AI models. The post Cisco Launches Low-Cost AI Models for Source Code Security appeared first on SecurityWeek. This…
Read more →
The post Cisco Launches Low-Cost AI Models for Source Code Security appeared first on IT Security News.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indicator	Beginning of Actor Association	End of Actor Association
185.82.73[.]175	September 2025	February 2026
141.11.164[.]153	January 2026	June 2026
175.110.121[.]42	February 2026	March 2026
175.110.121[.]39	February 2026	March 2026
175.110.121[.]41	February 2026	March 2026
175.110.121[.]107	February 2026	February 2026
192.142.54[.]79	May 2026	June 2026
84.200.205[.]165	May 2026	June 2026
185.225.17[.]225	June 2026	July 2026
79.133.46[.]209	July 2026	July 2026
88.80.150[.]199	July 2026	July 2026
88.80.150[.]200	July 2026	July 2026
88.80.150[.]202	July 2026	July 2026

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

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

Tactic	ID	Technique	Procedure
Resource Development	T1584.005	Compromise Infrastructure: Botnet	Botnets are used as core components of covert networks
Resource Development	T1584.008	Compromise Infrastructure: Network Devices	Devices are compromised and added to botnets
Resource Development	T1583.003	Acquire Infrastructure: Virtual Private Server	Virtual private servers (VPS) are used in covert networks, typically as on-ramps
Command and Control	T1090.003	Proxy: Multi-hop Proxy	Used by China-nexus cyber actors to route traffic

Technique Title	ID	Use
Active Scanning: Scanning IP Blocks	T1595.001	Scan range of IP addresses
Active Scanning: Vulnerability Scanning	T1595.002	Scan victims for vulnerabilities that can be used during targeting

Technique Title	ID	Use
Acquire Infrastructure: Virtual Private Servers	T1583.003	Leverage VPS as infrastructure
Compromise Infrastructure: Network Devices	T1584.008	Compromise intermediate routers
Obtain Capabilities: Exploits	T1588.005	Use publicly available code to exploit vulnerable devices

Technique Title	ID	Use
Exploit Public-Facing Application	T1190	Exploit publicly known CVEs
Proxy	T1090	Use a connection proxy to direct network traffic

Technique Title	ID	Use
Data from Configuration Repository: SNMP (MIB Dump)	T1602.001	Target MIB to collect network information via SNMP
Data from Configuration Repository: Network Device Configuration Dump	T1602.002	Acquire credentials by collecting network device configurations

Technique Title	ID	Use
Proxy	T1090	Use VPS for C2
Application Layer Protocol	T1071	Open and expose a variety of different services, including TFTP and FTP

Countermeasure Title	ID	Description
Application Configuration Hardening	D3-ACH	Use SNMPv3 and disable SNMPv1 and SNMPv2. Use SNMP allowlisting to restrict access to OIDs and MIBs. Disable Cisco Smart Install.
Message Authentication	D3-MAN	Use SNMPv3 with strong authentication.
Message Encryption	D3-MENCR	Use SNMPv3 to encrypt payloads.
Credential Hardening	D3-CH	Use strong, unique passwords and store them securely.
Platform Monitoring	D3-PM	Monitor for unusual credentials. Monitor SNMP Set-Requests for OIDs targeting sensitive device data.
Network Traffic Filtering	D3-NTF	Use ACLs to only allow management protocols from management devices. Block TFTP, SMI, and SNMP at edge firewalls.
Network Vulnerability Assessment	D3-NVA	Use an attack surface management service.

CVSS Version	Base Score	Base Severity	Vector String
3.1	8.1	HIGH	CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
4.0	7.2	HIGH	CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Date	Revision	Summary
2026-07-14	1	Initial Publication by Rockwell Automation
2026-07-21	2	Initial Republication of Rockwell Automation advisory

CVSS Version	Base Score	Base Severity	Vector String
3.1	8.8	HIGH	CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
4.0	8.7	HIGH	CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

CVSS Version	Base Score	Base Severity	Vector String
3.1	9.6	CRITICAL	CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
4.0	9.4	CRITICAL	CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H

CVSS Version	Base Score	Base Severity	Vector String
3.1	8	HIGH	CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
4.0	8.7	HIGH	CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

CVSS Version	Base Score	Base Severity	Vector String
3.1	3.3	LOW	CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
4.0	4.8	MEDIUM	CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

CVSS Version	Base Score	Base Severity	Vector String
3.1	7.5	HIGH	CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
4.0	8.7	HIGH	CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

CVSS Version	Base Score	Base Severity	Vector String
3.1	8.1	HIGH	CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
4.0	9.2	CRITICAL	CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

CVSS Version	Base Score	Base Severity	Vector String
3.1	6.5	MEDIUM	CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
4.0	7.1	HIGH	CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

CVSS Version	Base Score	Base Severity	Vector String
3.1	8.2	HIGH	CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:H
4.0	8.8	HIGH	CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

CVSS Version	Base Score	Base Severity	Vector String
3.1	7.5	HIGH	CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
4.0	8.7	HIGH	CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

CVSS Version	Base Score	Base Severity	Vector String
3.1	10	CRITICAL	CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
4.0	10	CRITICAL	CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H

CVSS Version	Base Score	Base Severity	Vector String
3.1	6.8	MEDIUM	CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
4.0	7.6	HIGH	CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

CVSS Version	Base Score	Base Severity	Vector String
3.1	8.6	HIGH	CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
4.0	9.2	CRITICAL	CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:N/SA:N