As Apple gears up to anoint John Ternus the new company CEO in September (while current leader Tim Cook takes a seat on the board) the company appears to be firing on all cylinders ahead of the leadership transition. 

What’s going well

Just look at the evidence: 

• Apple is building market share across its entire product range; even memory-driven price inflation doesn’t seem to have dampened demand for its hardware yet.
• While Apple had to raise prices, the company’s MacBook Neo remains seriously popular. It’s sitting atop Amazon’s US best-selling chart, which currently includes six Macs in the top 10. The Neo has topped this chart since its introduction.
• Apple’s iPhone 17 series continues to sell well, with recent market data showing sustained growth. Both Counterpoint and IDC tell us that iPhone shipments continue to increase, even as other vendor shipments slide.
• IDC analyst Francisco Jeronimo recently estimated that Apple’s upcoming foldable iPhone Ultra could grab 29.4% of global folding smartphone sales this year, rising to 34.9% in 2027.
• The company’s new 27 series of operating systems is attracting a great response as beta testers report that it is already solid, stable, and performing well.
• The AI narrative has really changed, with analysts no longer quite so starry-eyed at the prospects for the big frontier AI firms. Apple’s edge-AI-enabling approach is winning converts.

What’s coming up

The company’s newly-filed lawsuit against OpenAI may or may not succeed, but it will certainly help consolidate recognition of the importance of Apple’s designs and intellectual property in whatever hardware emerges from the AI firm. It also means both Apple and OpenAI are already competing in hardware, even though neither company yet offers anything that directly challenges the other. 

Apple has just set out its stall to brand-loyal fans in a big way and did so before OpenAI gets to woo the same set of customers with a wriggle of its Jony Ive-tinged talisman.

The stage is set for intense competition between the two. Though some say Apple’s needs to improve employee retention, if it does find proof of efforts to use recruitment to engage in industrial espionage, it’ll be easier to represent its own products as being the OG for new hardware. 

If nothing else, it means consumers will forever be asking, “If OpenAI’s designers are so good, why did it need to poach them from Apple?” Doubt is a weapon.

Managing perception

It doesn’t matter how the case goes, because there fight is already affecting consumer psychology. It also means that as Ternus prepares to take his seat atop the rainbow-colored Apple throne, we can already size him up. “A man is measured by his enemies,” Joe Abercrombie wrote in “The Trouble With Peace.”

Given the proximity of the leadership transition, it’s highly probable that Ternus signed-off on the litigation; in doing so he — and Apple — tell us to expect more of the same. 

Apple has, rightly or wrongly, decided that OpenAI will become its new existential bugbear, following in the footsteps of Microsoft Windows, Real Networks, Adobe Flash, Android, and Samsung, all of whom have been useful foils against which Apple has been able to build and maintain its identity.

Looking at that list, you’d be tempted to believe that nothing much is new. Apple has often defined itself by the enemies it sometimes keeps. What has been will be again, which in this case means even as OpenAI attempts to carve out an identity as a hardware manufacturer delivering solutions to compete with Apple and Google, Ternus’ team’s looks to drive a consensus-shaped wedge into the pro-LLM propaganda. 

That blow comes as Apple finally gets its act together around AI, and as the company prepares for a future in which the world’s most-used wearable device also becomes the wearable way to woo Siri AI.

My kingdom come

Rising market share, powerful solutions, an increasingly recognized and respected approach to AI, and an ideological crusade — these details constitute Apple’s place today and are Tim Cook’s coronation gift to Ternus. He’s passing along a strong and hyper-profitable baton that screams of timeliness and relevance even as the company gets set, ready, to go with a year or two of new product designs, new product families, and a 20^thanniversary iPhone.

This is Apple’s party. OpenAI’s name didn’t make the list. 

You can follow me on social media! Join me on BlueSky,  LinkedIn, Mastodon and subscribe to The Core.

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

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

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

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

A ‘significant opportunity’ in technology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday.com’s key market advantages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actions for the near-term

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on CIO.com.

Just in time for the iPhone’s 20th anniversary, Apple is moving closer to becoming a service company. It is set to launch its new deal with Klarna next week and when it does, Apple enthusiasts in the US will effectively be able to subscribe to their favorite Apple hardware, with the cost spread across up to three years.

This matters because when combined with Apple One and Apple’s Creator Studio subscriptions, the Klarna arrangement brings Apple closer to offering a full subscription model for hardware, software, and services. The only thing you don’t get under the new arrangement is AppleCare, for which you’ll allegedly need to pay extra.

Moving closer to hardware-as-a-service

Apple has slowly been transitioning toward hardware-as-a-service for almost a decade. Back then, Forrester analyst Frank Gillet predicted the company would eventually offer bundles of services and products for a monthly, all-in, fee. 

This isn’t quite where we are yet; you still need at least three subscriptions to get close. But, after the better part of a decade, Apple has moved much nearer to the hardware-as-a-service idea.

There are some products reportedly excluded from the arrangement, including MacBook Neo, Apple Watch SE, the entry-level iPad, and iPhone 16. Clearly, Apple sees those products as sufficiently affordable. 

Easy payments for RAM-ageddon

The new Klarna arrangement comes as Apple is forced to increase product prices as AI-driven memory price inflation becomes widely felt across every economy. In theory, I assume, Apple hopes to make its products available to cash-strapped consumers who need new hardware, while also navigating a time of deep economic tumult and uncertainty. It’s thought the company has previously rejected these plans to protect normal hardware sales, but normality is a kingdom we no longer seem to possess. Interesting times. Probable inflation incoming.

“Apple Upgrade lands at precisely the moment Apple needs it,” IDC analyst Francisco Jeronimo wrote in a note seen by Computerworld. “Having just pushed Mac and iPad prices up on the back of the memory shortage, with iPhone increases widely expected in September — as well as the new iPhone foldable expected at $2,500 — Apple’s real risk is that rising prices even further can impact the upgrade cycle.” 

New age, new shopping habits

The introduction of the scheme gives consumers a way to purchase the company’s popular high-end devices when they are introduced — no doubt,at higher cost — this fall. Plus, of course, if it’s good enough for GM, it’s good enough for Apple.

It’s all about attitude, too. From Apple’s perspective, it has done plenty of the groundwork required to convince its customers that subscription payments for things you value are no bad thing. 

Reluctance to embrace “Access Not Ownership’”purchasing models has dropped dramatically since Apple — and CEO Tim Cook — first began banging the drum for services income. Apple’s services stream has now become its second-biggest revenue driver after the iPhone. It has over 1 billion paid subscriptions, and an active hardware installed base of more than 2.5 billion devices globally.

A combination of changed customer habits and external threat means the stars are now aligned for hardware-as-a-service models. “Reframing a device as a low monthly payment protects that [upgrade] cadence and allows Apple to start marketing their products as device-as-a-service to consumers, which no other vendor was ever able to do,” Jeronimo wrote to me. 

There is a one-more-thing aspect to this: the products are effectively being leased, a new approach that will give Apple a stronger grip on EOL devices, helping it grab more of them for refurbishment, resale, and recycling. Over time, this will give the company a much stronger grip on the lucrative second-user market that exists around Apple equipment, even while for almost every consumer product we find the life we want is something we can rent, but probably can’t afford to own.

Managing future risk

The other solid reason to take a partnership approach is risk management. Apple had intended to develop its own buy-now, pay-later scheme via Apple Pay Later, but abandoned that plan as it became riskier with rising bank rates. “Also, by backing the program with Klarna rather than reviving the in-house subscription plan it shelved in 2024, Apple captures the demand upside without taking the credit risk onto its own balance sheet,” Jeronimo said.

You can follow me on social media! Join me on BlueSky,  LinkedIn, Mastodon and subscribe to The Core.

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

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

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

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

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

Tycoon2FA disruption sent attackers exploring

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phishing changes but the defense doesn’t

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on CSO.

When it comes to building an effective AI stack, context is king and power isn’t everything it’s cracked up to be.

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

“I’m on the business side, and so decisions made by our CIO and IT folks affect me directly, and my teams’ workflows and processes,” he added.

Speaking to a room of tech leaders at the CIO 100 Leadership Live New York event last week, Thakrar explained that every company wants the speed of AI-generated work wedded to the quality of human work, even though these two are diametrically opposed. No amount of model upgrades or spend will close that gap, so the only way forward is to architect your way out. Thakrar encapsulated this idea in a simple formula:

• Smaller: Stop deploying maximum firepower on every task. Many tasks don’t need it.
• Smarter: The system around the model decides more than the model does.
• Safer: Verify at the point a mistake gets locked in, not just downstream of it.

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

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

“The intelligence moves from the model into the architecture around it,” he said.

A steep learning curve

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

“What happened was I got this churn agent a couple months later, already embedded in our CRM, and within a week my team no longer trusted that agent,” Thakrar said. “The reason is we forgot to collect one very key point.”

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

Then a new problem arose. Many potential customers first purchase Zoho products as pilots or sandboxes. As those customers move from pilot to live instance, they close down the pilot versions. And again, the CRM would record that as subscriptions going inactive.

“The trust deteriorates again because everyone got excited for version 2,” Thakrar said.

Sometimes, a certain product might not be the best fit for a customer and Thakrar’s team will suggest the customer move to another product. That’s deliberate churn, not a churn risk.

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

The team is more on top of potential churn, though, but the promised productivity gains have yet to materialize because the agent has to earn back lost trust due to a lack of context.

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

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

Routing

Routing is about sending workloads to the proper model for the job, which entails providing enough context to a given task that a small, cheap model can handle it without the need for spare reasoning capacity to fill gaps.

Frontier models are expensive and companies can burn through a year’s budget worth of tokens in months. But most tasks can be handled by much smaller, more constrained models at a fraction of the cost.

“You don’t always have to pay the frontier guys for every task,” he said. “We’ve observed with some clients that we could save them 95% with a 3 billion parameter model.”

Harness

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

“It’s the process around the model, which matters way more than the model itself,” Thakrar said.

In benchmark tests, a superior harness on a less powerful model produces better results than an inferior harness on a much bigger model.

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

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

“The initial goal was just to eliminate that task completely from the human workflow,” he said. “The stakeholder map is done, it’s in the folder, and you can look at it.”

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

Ultimately, Thakrar said the agent still saved human team members time because the stakeholder map was usually pretty close, and the corrections also helped the model grow smarter by adding richer context.

Specialization

Specialization is transitioning a process from testing on a frontier model to production on a much narrower, smaller model. Once you’ve proven that an agent can do a job well, you want to stop paying master-craftsman rates to keep doing that one job well.

Specialization is all about capturing your subject matter experts’ best judgement and pattern recognition to build an open-weight, open source, trained, and fine-tuned model that can be deployed in your own data center.

“The true enterprise bet is to keep that orchestration layer, which is your IP and knowledge, in house,” Thakrar said. “You don’t want to host that on someone else’s model. The goal of everyone in enterprise should be to run, train, and host their own models.”

The traditional methods of measuring success no longer tell the full story. Here’s what should replace them — and why.

In brief:

• AI is transforming software as a service (SaaS), and the old ways of keeping score no longer apply.
• Smart companies are evolving new metrics that provide deeper insight into how AI-native software is performing in a new marketplace.
• These changes impact everything from pricing to valuations.

The transformation of the software-as-a-service (SaaS) industry toward AI-native operating companies is rapidly changing the unit of value across the industry.

The traditional metric of seats — which measured access — is rapidly giving way to credits designed to measure work performed. This evolution is upending the industry in multiple ways, impacting everything from pricing to enterprise valuations.

While many companies still cling to seat-based metrics to measure growth, efficiency and durability, the future is likely to be one in which companies utilize a credit-centric metrics framework, with seats and outcomes as the bookends of a spectrum.

Why do software companies need new metrics?

Why the rethink, and why now? There are five major forces that are driving this shift:

1. The unit of value is changing. Seats measured who could access software, and credits measure what the software actually does. But in an AI-native world, agents don’t have seats; they have workloads. Over the past 18 months, every major SaaS platform has moved to some forms of credit or consumption unit.
2. The cost of goods sold (COGS) is exploding. AI inference adds real per-unit costs that scale with usage. In an AI-native world, software companies can’t scale to infinite users at near‑zero marginal cost as before.
3. Buying is moving up the org chart. AI-native applications shift purchasing to higher-level operators — such as line-of-business leaders or chief operating officers — which expands the market from software budgets to labor budgets. And because AI agents replace services as well as software, the total market opportunity is 3x to 10x larger than traditional SaaS.
4. Time to value (TTV) is collapsing. With AI-native tools, customers start seeing meaningful results in weeks rather than quarters. Onboarding and setup are fast, workflows are pre-built, and there’s no need for extensive customer success or professional services — dramatically reducing implementation time and costs.
5. Retention is bifurcating. AI forces clarity in a way that traditional SaaS couldn’t. Products that can provide value become even “stickier” and retain customers. Those that don’t churn faster. In an AI-native marketplace, the middle disappears.

How this shift is impacting pricing

Given how AI-native software is transforming the market, the shift to more variable pricing options is inevitable.

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

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

Finally, the industry will likely see some move toward outcome-based pricing for results such as resolved tickets, recovered revenue or qualified leads. This strategy will mostly be limited to verticals where it is easy to prove AI impacted the result.

Where a software vendor sits on this spectrum is a signal of differentiation and pricing power. Credits are where most defensible AI-native businesses are landing because they balance customer predictability with vendor margin control.

How AI upends classic SaaS metrics

When SaaS was in its infancy, companies settled on key metrics designed to answer a small set of core questions. Are we growing? Are customers using the product? Are we retaining and expanding accounts?

But as AI upends software itself, it is also requiring companies to adopt new metrics to track success. These new metrics fall into three primary buckets, rebuilt around the pricing spectrum described earlier and the trend toward credits as the primary frame:

Revenue composition

• Committed credit annual recurring revenue (ARR) vs. burndown ARR: Measuring the credits sold on annual commitment vs. those consumed and replenished. This is the single most important split for valuation. Committed credits behave like subscription and burndown behaves like usage.
• Credit utilization rate: The percentage of purchased credits consumed per period. This is a leading indicator of renewal sizing.
• Credit burn velocity: How fast is a customer consuming their credits, and is that consumption increasing or decreasing quarter over quarter? This metric predicts expansion or contraction before it shows up in ARR.
• Effective price per credit: The real revenue per credit after discounts, overage and rollover, which can detect revenue leakage and help companies set smarter guide rails.

Margin reality

• Credit margin: The gross profit the company earns per credit after subtracting inference costs. This is the core economic unit for AI-native, usage-based businesses — the replacement for gross margin per seat used in SaaS.
• Inference-adjusted gross margin: By carving out AI inference costs separately in the P&L statement, you can see true AI margins, avoid hiding deterioration inside blended SaaS margins, and clearly distinguish AI economics from legacy SaaS economics.
• Compute leverage ratio: This metric measures how efficiently the business converts compute spend into revenue. It shows whether your AI margins are improving as you scale.
• AI-adjusted “Rule of 40”: This updated metric recalibrates the traditional growth and profitability benchmark to account for AI’s lower gross margins and variable inference costs, giving a more accurate picture of business health for AI-native companies.

Behavioral and value signals

• Time-to-first outcome: Replaces traditional onboarding metrics. Tracks how fast a customer reaches their first measurable result.
• Adoption: AI-native adoption is measured by workflow penetration and active agent density, not seat count. As AI replaces human-driven usage, the unit of adoption shifts from people to automated workflows and agents.
• Net credit retention (NCR): Credit-volume retention across the customer base, tracked separately from net recurring revenue to avoid price-change impact.

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

What does this mean for enterprise value calculations?

As the internal metrics of success change, so do the ways the investment community measures growth and long-term viability.

Increasingly, a company’s valuation multiple depends on whether its revenue behaves like committed subscription ARR or volatile usage ARR, and the commit‑to‑burndown ratio is the metric investors use to decide where the company fits.

For example, a business with 80% committed credit ARR could trade closer to subscription comps and one with 80% burndown could trade closer to usage comps even though both have the same types of customers. Being able to proactively explain the commit‑to‑burndown mix can help companies avoid undervaluation.

In addition, utilization is expected to replace net promoter scores and seat usage as the primary predictor of churn or expansion. Low utilization guarantees downsizing at renewal, so companies must track utilization cohorts the same way SaaS tracks logo retention cohorts today.

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

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

What this means for leaders, boards and investors

The shift from classic SaaS metrics to new AI‑native measures isn’t cosmetic. It represents the seismic change the industry is experiencing as AI matures and transforms products and organizations.

While these metrics — and perhaps others yet to be determined — may evolve over time, there is no doubt they are already changing how AI companies allocate capital, price products, incent sales teams, evaluate performance and communicate with investors.

It’s important to remember that SaaS metrics were practical tools for a specific era of software. As that era draws to a close, winning companies will choose new metrics that shape behavior and drive smart decision-making.

The views reflected in this article are the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Ernst & Young LLP or other members of the global EY organization.

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

Cloudflare recently beat Q1 2026 earnings. Revenue up 34% year over year. EPS ahead of consensus. Full-year guidance raised. Then, in the same breath, they announced 1,100 layoffs, 20% of the company. CEO Matthew Prince’s explanation: “The way we work at Cloudflare has fundamentally changed.”

Block did the same thing. Beat guidance, raised outlook, cut 4,000+ jobs. Both framed it as architecting for the AI era.

This is not a contradiction. This is the new math boards are running. And if you’re a CIO who hasn’t started running it yourself, you’re behind.

The benchmark has moved

AI-native companies have quietly reset what “efficient” means for a technology organization. Midjourney generates over $500M in revenue with roughly 160 employees, over $3M per head. Anthropic hit a $14B annualized run rate in early 2026 with fewer than 3,000 employees. Across the top AI-native startups, the average revenue per employee is $3.48M, nearly twelve times the traditional SaaS benchmark of $300K.

Boards aren’t comparing you to your 2019 self anymore. They’re comparing you to Anthropic.

This is the pressure Cloudflare and Block are responding to. They’re not cutting people because the business is struggling. They’re cutting because investors have internalized a new denominator. Headcount is no longer a proxy for capacity; it’s a liability on the efficiency ratio.

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

Finding bodies to fill seats has never been easier. Finding people who operate at that level of leverage is a different problem entirely.

‘Acqui-hires’ are a shortcut with a hidden cost

Companies have figured out that recruiting AI-native talent one by one is too slow and that it’s faster to buy a team. Google’s acquisition of the Windsurf founders, Meta bringing in the Scale AI team, Accenture’s string of AI-focused acquisitions: these are acqui-hires dressed up as M&A. The premium on experienced AI talent is high enough, and the urgency real enough, that organizations are skipping traditional hiring loops entirely and buying their way in.

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

But there’s a cost that doesn’t show up in the acquisition price.

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

When you acqui-hire that team and then slot them into your existing approval processes, you’ve bought the people and killed the engine. The change agents you paid for become change-frustrated. The attrition that follows is expensive and predictable.

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

The CIO’s real problem

The governance stack most enterprise organizations run was designed for a headcount world. Every tool vetting cycle, every vendor review, every security approval was calibrated assuming you were managing a large team where consistency and control were the primary objectives.

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

The practical fix is structured experimentation: clear guardrails, defined boundaries, but explicit permission to try tools before deciding whether to roll them out broadly. Gating everything prevents you from ever discovering what 10x productivity looks like.

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

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

Closing the gap without slowing down

The AI talent wars are not primarily a recruiting problem. They’re a rethinking of what organizations are supposed to look like.

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

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

Talent density is the new headcount model. The sooner your governance, your tooling and your board conversations reflect that, the better positioned you’ll be when the next efficiency report lands.

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

I have worked alongside enterprise technology for more than 30 years and watched AI evolve from a lab experiment into the modern boardroom’s core focus. However, the last few years of implementing AI alongside our customers have delivered our most profound reality checks.

The initial hype has faded, leaving CIOs to drive real enterprise value. Based on my experience implementing Google, OpenAI and Anthropic technologies, here are the fundamental, technology-agnostic lessons every leader must anchor their strategy around.

AI as a leadership multiplier

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

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

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

Integrating AI into the broader business strategy also dictates how we measure success. It forces a shift away from short-term tech vanity metrics and anchors the technology into a long-term roadmap.

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

The requirement for top-down, executive ownership stems from three critical realities observed in the field:

• Silo-smashing and data collaboration: True enterprise AI is data-hungry and that data lives across disparate business lines, finance, operations, marketing and customer service. Only the CEO possesses the cross-functional authority to demand that data silos be dismantled.
• Cultural transformation and fear mitigation: AI triggers widespread anxiety over job displacement across all industries and hierarchies. When relegated to an “IT project,” resistance spikes as teams view it as a threat to their livelihoods. When I saw the CEO lead this cultural shift directly is when I noticed the best results.
• C-Suite education and strategic alignment: The mandate for AI capability cannot just be delegated downward; the transformation must begin at the very top. I have conducted more than 70 presentations for the Board of Directors and C-Level teams. These people need to be actively educated not on technical code, but on specific business use cases, return on investment (ROI) frameworks and how AI resolves core organizational bottlenecks.

PwC’s data found that only 12% of enterprises have achieved both cost and revenue benefits from AI. Those elite 12% succeeded precisely because their CEOs embedded AI extensively across strategic decision-making and cross-functional workflows. AI is simply too disruptive and too critical to be left exclusively in the hands of technical experts. If AI is not on the CEO’s weekly agenda, it is fundamentally missing from the company’s true strategy.

AI as a new operational framework

Traditional IT systems have operated on strict algorithmic certainty: if you input a specific set of data, the system executes an immutable line of code and guarantees the same, predictable output every single time.

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

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

In terms of cost calculation, we had to teach CIOs and business managers to forget the monthly subscription model for AI and learn to manage the primary unit of exchange in modern AI: the token.

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

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

The solution is not to halt AI adoption; doing so means losing your competitive edge. Instead, the cost per token must cease to be treated as a technical footnote relegated to the IT department. It must be elevated to a core business variable.

Risks in the AI adoption model

Since the beginning of the AI boom, I have seen all our customers making a critical tactical error that could cost them heavily in the medium term: they are focusing only on operational efficiency (reducing costs with AI).

I have observed that an alarmingly high percentage of companies remain trapped in pilot phases focused exclusively on short-term cost reduction. Bain & Company’s global Automation and AI Pathfinder Survey found that the largest share of companies measuring their AI initiatives (exactly 40%) realized cost reductions of 10% or less, heavily missing their internal targets. Our customers are putting too many resources and effort into marginal financial gains and in doing so, they are jeopardizing their most valuable assets: service quality, resilience and customer trust.

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

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

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

As we continue to deploy these technologies across industries, the blueprint for success is being rewritten in real time. Let’s keep this conversation going as we map out the future of business intelligence together.

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

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

The questions were not coming from the delivery teams. They were coming from the executive sponsor.

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

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

Most program failures are not execution failures. They are sponsor mismatches.

When governance becomes a debate about delivery practices

When the sponsor does not understand what an enterprise transformation actually requires, governance forums stop functioning as decision bodies and start functioning as practice debates.

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

None of these questions are unreasonable in isolation. Each one targets a real cost or timeline pressure. The problem is what is missing underneath them: an understanding of the operational risks the original choices were designed to mitigate.

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

The compounding cost is not unique to any single program. PMI’s research on executive sponsorship consistently identifies sponsor engagement quality, rather than sponsor presence alone, as one of the strongest predictors of project success. The visible symptom is debate. The actual cost is unmade decisions.

Authority is rarely the issue. Literacy is

When transformations stall under a mismatched sponsor, the diagnostic instinct is to question the sponsor’s authority. Are they senior enough? Do they have the cross-functional reach? Can they unblock?

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

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

Harvard Business Review’s research on effective executive sponsorship has emphasized that sponsorship effectiveness depends as much on judgment as on authority. Judgment is where literacy becomes operational. A sponsor with authority but limited transformation literacy will optimize for speed and cost in ways that consistently underestimate risk. A sponsor with both will make the tradeoffs the program actually needs.

Prosci’s longstanding benchmark studies on change management have ranked active and visible executive sponsorship as the single greatest contributor to change success for two decades. The word that matters in that finding is active. Active sponsorship without transformation literacy can introduce real cost. Not because the sponsor is acting against the program, but because the optimization choices they make are based on incomplete information about what the program is built to protect against.

Shift the conversation from delivery practices to business risk

When the sponsor relationship is already in place and cannot be changed, the program leadership team has one move that consistently works: shift the conversation.

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

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

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

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

The program leadership team’s job is not to make the sponsor an expert in SAP delivery. It is to provide enough transformation context so that executive decisions reflect both business priorities and implementation realities.

There are a few phrases I have used with executive sponsors over the years that capture the underlying issue. The sharpest one:

If the decision has to go above the sponsor, they are not the sponsor.

Sponsorship is defined by what the sponsor can decide without asking someone else. That is the test. Anything else is the appearance of sponsorship, not the substance.

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

A sponsor does not need to be the technical expert. They do need to know when to trust the people who are.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#2. Distinguish between human and autonomous agent behavior 

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

#3. Establish guardrails for automated package updates on endpoints

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

#4. Enforce principle of least privilege for AI agents

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

#5. Maintain continuous endpoint posture management

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

Summary

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

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

For years, I have been saying that cybersecurity is no longer a technology problem. It has become a business leadership challenge.

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

The obvious conclusion is that we are asking the wrong questions.

Too many executive teams remain preoccupied with the latest threat actor, the newest security product the CISO wants to buy or the latest vulnerability making headlines. Those issues matter, but they are not what should be keeping CEOs awake at night.

In my view, there are three far more fundamental issues that deserve the attention of every chief executive.

1. Corporate complexity, and the widening gap between business leadership and cybersecurity reality

Perhaps the biggest cybersecurity risk facing large organizations today is not technical at all.

It is the growing disconnect between executive perception and operational reality.

Many boards genuinely believe their organizations are reasonably well protected. They receive regular dashboards showing improving maturity scores, increasing compliance levels, falling vulnerability counts and reassuring traffic-light reports.

Unfortunately, cyber attackers do not read dashboards.

Behind those executive reports often lies an increasingly complex technology landscape, thousands of unmanaged digital assets, ageing infrastructure, rampant shadow IT, fragmented ownership, inconsistent governance and security teams struggling to keep pace with relentless business change.

The problem is rarely a lack of effort.

It is that corporate complexity has reached a level where traditional governance mechanisms are no longer capable of providing an accurate picture of organizational resilience.

Executives believe they understand the level of cyber risk they face because they receive regular reports. Those reports often measure activity rather than resilience.

Governance committees end up debating around another percentage point of phishing awareness or vulnerability remediation, while fundamental issues remain unaddressed in the background.

2. Organizational inertia, and the need for executive structure to evolve faster

Cyber criminals continue to evolve rapidly. Large organizations generally do not.

This is the second issue that should concern every CEO.

Throughout my career, I have observed organizations repeatedly responding to new cyber threats by adding another technology platform, another monitoring capability, another compliance framework or another governance committee.

Very rarely do they stop to redesign how cybersecurity operates.

The result is what I described several years ago as the “Cybersecurity Spiral of Failure”.

• As complexity and regulation increase, organizations invest in more security products.
• More products create more complexity.
• More products and greater complexity generate more alerts.
• More alerts require more analysts.
• More analysts produce more reports.
• More reports continue to build up executive confidence.
• Meanwhile, the underlying structural weaknesses remain largely unchanged, technical debt piles up and costs escalate.

And when the inevitable breach eventually happens, reality reveals itself, but distrust also sets in between senior executives and security teams.

This is not a funding problem. Nor is it a skills problem. It is fundamentally an operating model problem.

Many organizations continue trying to solve twenty-first century challenges using governance, accountability, organizational and reporting structures designed twenty-five years ago.

The cybersecurity function itself has evolved dramatically. Many executive structures have not.

This organizational inertia extends beyond technology: It affects budgeting cycles, investment priorities, procurement processes, accountability models and decision-making speed.

Cyber attackers innovate every day. Organizational change often takes years.

That imbalance should worry every CEO.

3. Accelerating technological disruption, and how it challenges organizations in areas where they are intrinsically weak

The third issue is potentially the most significant over the coming decade.

• Artificial intelligence, autonomous agents and machine identities
• Software supply chain complexity.
• Quantum computing, and post-quantum cryptography

Each of these developments represents far more than another technical trend.

Together, they fundamentally change the dynamics of cybersecurity.

Artificial intelligence is transforming countless business processes. At the same time, it is also increasing both the speed and sophistication of cyber-attacks while simultaneously transforming defensive capabilities.

Organizations have become increasingly dependent on software ecosystems that extend far beyond their own direct control. Engaging with the supply chain in ways that lead to a genuine appreciation of the risks involved has become a key challenge for most cybersecurity practices.

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

None of these challenges can be solved overnight: They require clear governance, sustained investment over a few years and cross-functional organizational coordination.

Most large organizations are weak on those three fronts: This is precisely why CEOs should be focusing on them now.

Waiting until some of those risks become obvious will almost certainly be too late.

Businesses naturally prioritise immediate commercial pressures. Cybersecurity often involves preparing for risks whose timing remains uncertain.

But one of the greatest leadership failures I keep seeing remains the inability of organizations to act decisively on known unknowns.

That tension explains why many organizations delay action until external events force them to respond. Unfortunately, cybersecurity rarely rewards late action.

Leadership will determine who succeeds

Cybersecurity discussions still frequently focus on technology. I believe they should focus far more on leadership.

Technology will continue evolving. Threat actors will continue adapting. Regulations will continue expanding. Those developments are inevitable.

What remains within the control of every CEO is how their organization responds.

Does cybersecurity remain an IT issue? Or is it recognised as an integral part of business resilience?

How is cybersecurity accountability assigned at executive level? Or does it still rest largely with a CISO hidden in the organization?

Does the board spend sufficient time discussing resilience? Or does cybersecurity appear only when approving budgets or reviewing incidents?

These questions will increasingly determine organizational success.

The companies that navigate the next decade successfully will not necessarily be those spending the most on cybersecurity. Nor will they be those deploying the latest security technologies first.

They will be the organizations whose leadership recognises that cybersecurity has become a permanent business capability — embedded into governance, strategy, operational decision-making and organizational culture.

That transformation cannot be delegated. It begins with the CEO.

And perhaps that is the single biggest issue that should keep every chief executive awake at night: Not when the next cyber-attack will happen, but whether their organization is evolving quickly enough on those matters to meet a threat landscape that is changing much faster than the business itself.

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

Predicting an outage is tricky business, but CIOs might want to circle Oct. 11, 2026, through Jan. 11, 2027, for likely trouble of a potentially widespread and puzzling nature.

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

Sai Joshitha Kathari, senior site reliability engineer at payment card giant Visa, says most enterprises have far more DNS-related exposure than they realize because of these many dependencies.

“This has the potential to create real downstream destruction when unresolved failures sit underneath important business functions,” Kathari says. 

The danger is that so many of these issues are either unknown to IT or handled by a third-party vendor and no one in IT has had reason to ask those vendors about DNS updates. 

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

Independent technology analyst Carmi Levy says that CIOs need to take this event very seriously. 

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

Levy adds: “Custom-built code that lives outside conventional support mechanisms may or may not function when the DNS changes go into effect.”

The DNSSEC update itself is straightforward, but it is also the first significant DNSSEC change — specifically a change in the trust anchor — since 2018. 

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

Expect nearly every enterprise to be impacted

Kim Davies, vice president of IANA Services and president of public technical identifiers at ICANN, says the extent of the impact on enterprises is unknowable, given the nature of shadow IT and other edge cases. 

But based on the massive number of dependencies both known and unknown in the typical global enterprise, Davies guesses that just about every enterprise will be impacted, to varying degrees. 

“In highly complex organizations, it is very likely there will be some impact in the corners, in the margins, of the organization,” Davies tells CIO. “DNS is such a core technology that underpins everything.”

As the updates propagate, hiccups will materialize, Davies notes. “When the system cannot validate the [DNS] information, it will treat it as suspect and DNS lookups will fail.”

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

Making this problem far worse, Kathari notes, is that the glitches will likely initially look like anything other thana DNS glitch. That will force IT staff to waste a vast number of hours chasing causes that ultimately prove to be unrelated to the incidents. 

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

Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research, agrees that IT will likely spin its wheels chasing the wrong ghosts.

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

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

It is widely expected that enterprises will not have any problems executing the change or, more likely, relying on their hyperscalers to properly handle the change. That is the concern. 

“CIOs are being distracted so much with AI and this is such a deep in the weeds infrastructure issue that this can and willcatch people off-guard,” Justin Greis, CEO of consulting firm Acceligence, tells CIO. “I think we’ll see a meaningful number of enterprise disruptions associated with the DNSSEC trust anchor rollover. Not because the update itself is especially difficult, but because it will expose weaknesses that already exist inside many organizations.”

Most enterprise IT operations have had no reason to compile a comprehensive list of all DNS dependencies, but many will be instantly discovered in January. 

Potentially widespread fallout

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

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

Greis adds that many enterprises will discover in January problems created by their own automation.

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

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

Cricket Liu, EVP and chief evangelist at Infoblox, gives the example of a DNS server that responds to factory-floor system queries.

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

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

Impossible to predict what will happen

One of the top network experts on DNS effects in enterprises is Geoff Huston, chief scientist at the Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC), the regional Internet Registry administering IP addresses for the Asia Pacific region.

Huston says it is difficult to project what will happen in January until it happens.

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

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

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

As a silver lining, Acceligence’s Greis says any hiccups that result from the DNS KSK update may be a gift in disguise for CIOs. 

“The irony is that some of the most business-critical components in the technology stack are often the least visible because they work in the background,” Greis says. January “may reveal how much modern business resilience depends on infrastructure that many organizations rarely examine until something breaks. For CIOs, that’s the real lesson. This is not fundamentally a story about a DNS update. It is a story about operational visibility, resilience, and governance. Organizations that treat the rollover as a routine infrastructure task will likely complete the update and move on. Organizations that use it as an opportunity to understand and strengthen the foundations of their technology environment may gain far more value than simply avoiding an outage.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

#2. Distinguish between human and autonomous agent behavior 

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

#3. Establish guardrails for automated package updates on endpoints

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

#4. Enforce principle of least privilege for AI agents

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

#5. Maintain continuous endpoint posture management

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

Summary

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

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

Enterprises typically operate separate systems for internal and external DNS because the two serve different audiences. Public DNS resolves names for services meant to be reached from the internet. Private DNS resolves internal resources, such as databases and internal applications, that should never be visible outside the corporate network. 

While public DNS is usually a single system, private DNS is often scattered across on-premises appliances, cloud-native resolvers, and split-horizon setups, where the same hostname resolves to a different answer depending on whether the query comes from inside or outside the network. Coordinating those deployments across headquarters, branch offices, and multiple clouds means ongoing manual synchronization work for network teams. 

Private DNS itself is not a new concept. It is already available from hyperscalers and established enterprise DNS vendors, but it typically runs apart from public DNS, with its own console, control plane and policy engine.

Cloudflare’s answer is a product it calls Internal DNS.

“Many organizations already use Cloudflare for their public DNS,” Enrique Somoza, product, performance and infrastructure at Cloudflare, told Network World. “Internal DNS extends that same platform to private DNS, so public and private are managed from the same global network and control plane.” 

How it works

Query handling starts at the resolver, not at the zone. That consolidation extends to daily operations as well.

“Instead of operating two separate DNS systems, customers use one API, one audit trail, one dashboard, and one policy engine for every DNS query—whether it is for a public website or an internal application,” Somoza said.

Policy first. The resolver sits ahead of every lookup, not behind it. “Architecturally, Cloudflare Gateway becomes the resolver that customers connect to, and can use WARP, DNS over HTTPS, DNS over TLS, or traditional DNS,” Somoza said. “Gateway evaluates zero -trust policies first, then routes the query to the appropriate DNS view based on context, such as source IP, device posture, or network location.”

No public path in. Internal zones sit outside the public DNS hierarchy entirely. “Internal zones are never assigned public nameservers—they are only reachable through Gateway, so every query is evaluated before it is resolved,” Somoza said.

One hostname, multiple answers. Branch offices, data centers and cloud environments no longer each need their own resolver stack. “Operationally, this simplifies environments that span branch offices, data centers, and multiple clouds,” Somoza said. “The same internal hostname can return different answers depending on where the request originated without maintaining separate resolver infrastructure, conditional forwarders, or duplicate zone files.”

Somoza described the underlying objective in direct terms: “The goal is to make internal DNS behave like a single service instead of a collection of independent deployments,” he said.

View selection. The same hostname can resolve to different IP addresses depending on where the request comes from. Gateway makes that call using several client signals. 

“View selection is policy driven,” Somoza said. “Gateway resolver policies evaluate the context of each DNS query, including attributes like source IP, device identity, or network location and determine which DNS view should answer the request.”

A view is a container, not a separate infrastructure stack. Somoza explained that a view is simply a logical grouping of internal zones. For example, a company could have separate views for Europe and North America, or for corporate users and operational technology networks.

Latency and resilience. Internal DNS inherits its performance characteristics from Cloudflare’s existing public network. “Internal DNS runs on Cloudflare’s global network, so queries are answered by the nearest available Gateway location, helping keep latency low for connected users,” Somoza said. “Because Internal DNS runs on the same global infrastructure as Cloudflare’s public DNS, it benefits from the same anycast architecture, geographic distribution, and resilient network design.”

How this differs from split-horizon DNS

Internal DNS replaces the duplicate-zone model traditional split-horizon setups depend on.

“Before migrating, many organizations maintain multiple versions of the same internal DNS zones across headquarters, branch offices, and cloud environments,” Somoza explained. “Conditional forwarders determine which resolver answers each query, and keeping those environments synchronized becomes an ongoing operational task.”

Internal DNS collapses those duplicate zones into a single authoritative copy split across views instead. “With Internal DNS, that configuration becomes much simpler,” Somoza said. “A customer might create a single corp.internal zone in Cloudflare and define multiple DNS views.”

For example, users in headquarters could receive one internal IP address for wiki.corp.internal, while branch offices receive a different address. Somoza emphasized that the zone itself only exists once. “Instead of maintaining multiple copies of the same configuration, administrators manage a single source of truth,” he said.

Early use cases and migration challenges

Not surprisingly, Somoza noted that the first use case Cloudflare sees for Internal DNS is for split-horizon DNS consolidation. There is also interest from organizations that operate across multiple cloud providers that want one consistent internal DNS service instead of managing separate DNS platforms in each environment.

Another common use case is extending zero-trust policies to internal name resolution. “Customers already use Gateway to control access to internet traffic, and Internal DNS lets them apply similar policy decisions before internal names are resolved,” Somoza said.

When it comes to migration, the friction customers report during migration is procedural rather than architectural.

“Customers need to think through API permissions, connectivity, and how existing local DNS forwarding rules interact with Gateway,” Somoza said. “Those are all well understood migration steps and customers often run both environments in parallel before completing the transition.”

I have worked alongside enterprise technology for more than 30 years and watched AI evolve from a lab experiment into the modern boardroom’s core focus. However, the last few years of implementing AI alongside our customers have delivered our most profound reality checks.

The initial hype has faded, leaving CIOs to drive real enterprise value. Based on my experience implementing Google, OpenAI and Anthropic technologies, here are the fundamental, technology-agnostic lessons every leader must anchor their strategy around.

AI as a leadership multiplier

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

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

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

Integrating AI into the broader business strategy also dictates how we measure success. It forces a shift away from short-term tech vanity metrics and anchors the technology into a long-term roadmap.

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

The requirement for top-down, executive ownership stems from three critical realities observed in the field:

• Silo-smashing and data collaboration: True enterprise AI is data-hungry and that data lives across disparate business lines, finance, operations, marketing and customer service. Only the CEO possesses the cross-functional authority to demand that data silos be dismantled.
• Cultural transformation and fear mitigation: AI triggers widespread anxiety over job displacement across all industries and hierarchies. When relegated to an “IT project,” resistance spikes as teams view it as a threat to their livelihoods. When I saw the CEO lead this cultural shift directly is when I noticed the best results.
• C-Suite education and strategic alignment: The mandate for AI capability cannot just be delegated downward; the transformation must begin at the very top. I have conducted more than 70 presentations for the Board of Directors and C-Level teams. These people need to be actively educated not on technical code, but on specific business use cases, return on investment (ROI) frameworks and how AI resolves core organizational bottlenecks.

PwC’s data found that only 12% of enterprises have achieved both cost and revenue benefits from AI. Those elite 12% succeeded precisely because their CEOs embedded AI extensively across strategic decision-making and cross-functional workflows. AI is simply too disruptive and too critical to be left exclusively in the hands of technical experts. If AI is not on the CEO’s weekly agenda, it is fundamentally missing from the company’s true strategy.

AI as a new operational framework

Traditional IT systems have operated on strict algorithmic certainty: if you input a specific set of data, the system executes an immutable line of code and guarantees the same, predictable output every single time.

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

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

In terms of cost calculation, we had to teach CIOs and business managers to forget the monthly subscription model for AI and learn to manage the primary unit of exchange in modern AI: the token.

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

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

The solution is not to halt AI adoption; doing so means losing your competitive edge. Instead, the cost per token must cease to be treated as a technical footnote relegated to the IT department. It must be elevated to a core business variable.

Risks in the AI adoption model

Since the beginning of the AI boom, I have seen all our customers making a critical tactical error that could cost them heavily in the medium term: they are focusing only on operational efficiency (reducing costs with AI).

I have observed that an alarmingly high percentage of companies remain trapped in pilot phases focused exclusively on short-term cost reduction. Bain & Company’s global Automation and AI Pathfinder Survey found that the largest share of companies measuring their AI initiatives (exactly 40%) realized cost reductions of 10% or less, heavily missing their internal targets. Our customers are putting too many resources and effort into marginal financial gains and in doing so, they are jeopardizing their most valuable assets: service quality, resilience and customer trust.

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

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

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

As we continue to deploy these technologies across industries, the blueprint for success is being rewritten in real time. Let’s keep this conversation going as we map out the future of business intelligence together.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tycoon2FA disruption sent attackers exploring

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phishing changes but the defense doesn’t

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on CSO.

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

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

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

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

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

Tycoon2FA disruption sent attackers exploring

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phishing changes but the defense doesn’t

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

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

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

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

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

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

ISC2 has begun developing a vendor-neutral AI security certification aimed at cybersecurity professionals working to secure AI systems and manage emerging AI risks.

The nonprofit organization, best known for the CISSP certification, says it is seeking volunteers worldwide to help define the knowledge and skills that will shape the new credential. While ISC2 has not finalized the certification domains, the certification is expected to address both technical AI security and governance topics, with a pilot exam planned before the end of 2026.

According to Casey Marks, ISC2 chief operating officer, feedback from cybersecurity practitioners led ISC2 to conclude that AI security had grown beyond expanding AI content within existing certifications.

“AI has reached a tipping point,” Marks says. “AI no longer is just another tool; instead, it has fundamentally changed the cybersecurity practice itself.”

ISC2 already includes AI-related content in certifications including CISSP and CCSP, but Marks says practitioners have identified new responsibilities and risks that extend beyond those programs. “Enterprise security teams are currently grappling with significant knowledge gaps, particularly around securing model architectures against new vulnerabilities like prompt injection, data poisoning, and model inversion,” Marks adds.

Organizations are working to understand emerging governance frameworks, including the NIST AI Risk Management Framework and ISO/IEC 42001, while adapting traditional application security and security operations workflows to AI systems, he says.

ISC2 has not finalized the certification domains, but Marks says the organization expects the credential to address both technical controls and governance practices for securing AI systems and managing AI risk. The certification will use ISC2’s established certification development process, which relies on cybersecurity practitioners to define job roles, develop exam content, and validate competencies.

Marks says ISC2 will continue to update the certification through ongoing input from cybersecurity professionals, in addition to its regular certification review process.

The organization is also determining which professionals the certification will target. Marks says AI security responsibilities are emerging across security architecture, risk management, security operations, software development security, governance and compliance, communication and network security, and security assessment and testing. ISC2 says the certification will reflect how those roles are evolving.

For organizations that are building AI security programs now, Marks recommends using existing AI training resources, adopting established governance frameworks, creating cross-functional AI security working groups, and participating in the certification development process.

Marks says ISC2 expects AI knowledge to become part of most cybersecurity roles while a more specialized AI security discipline continues to develop. He says organizations will increasingly need professionals with foundational AI security knowledge, as well as specialists in areas such as adversarial machine learning, model architectures, and AI data pipelines.

Looking ahead, Marks says he expects AI security expertise to evolve into both a foundational skill for cybersecurity professionals and a specialized discipline of its own.

“At this time, we are seeing a hybrid evolution occurring in real time: AI security is simultaneously becoming a baseline expectation for all security roles, while also carving out a dedicated, highly specialized discipline,” Marks says.

For years, I have been saying that cybersecurity is no longer a technology problem. It has become a business leadership challenge.

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

The obvious conclusion is that we are asking the wrong questions.

Too many executive teams remain preoccupied with the latest threat actor, the newest security product the CISO wants to buy or the latest vulnerability making headlines. Those issues matter, but they are not what should be keeping CEOs awake at night.

In my view, there are three far more fundamental issues that deserve the attention of every chief executive.

1. Corporate complexity, and the widening gap between business leadership and cybersecurity reality

Perhaps the biggest cybersecurity risk facing large organizations today is not technical at all.

It is the growing disconnect between executive perception and operational reality.

Many boards genuinely believe their organizations are reasonably well protected. They receive regular dashboards showing improving maturity scores, increasing compliance levels, falling vulnerability counts and reassuring traffic-light reports.

Unfortunately, cyber attackers do not read dashboards.

Behind those executive reports often lies an increasingly complex technology landscape, thousands of unmanaged digital assets, ageing infrastructure, rampant shadow IT, fragmented ownership, inconsistent governance and security teams struggling to keep pace with relentless business change.

The problem is rarely a lack of effort.

It is that corporate complexity has reached a level where traditional governance mechanisms are no longer capable of providing an accurate picture of organizational resilience.

Executives believe they understand the level of cyber risk they face because they receive regular reports. Those reports often measure activity rather than resilience.

Governance committees end up debating around another percentage point of phishing awareness or vulnerability remediation, while fundamental issues remain unaddressed in the background.

2. Organizational inertia, and the need for executive structure to evolve faster

Cyber criminals continue to evolve rapidly. Large organizations generally do not.

This is the second issue that should concern every CEO.

Throughout my career, I have observed organizations repeatedly responding to new cyber threats by adding another technology platform, another monitoring capability, another compliance framework or another governance committee.

Very rarely do they stop to redesign how cybersecurity operates.

The result is what I described several years ago as the “Cybersecurity Spiral of Failure”.

• As complexity and regulation increase, organizations invest in more security products.
• More products create more complexity.
• More products and greater complexity generate more alerts.
• More alerts require more analysts.
• More analysts produce more reports.
• More reports continue to build up executive confidence.
• Meanwhile, the underlying structural weaknesses remain largely unchanged, technical debt piles up and costs escalate.

And when the inevitable breach eventually happens, reality reveals itself, but distrust also sets in between senior executives and security teams.

This is not a funding problem. Nor is it a skills problem. It is fundamentally an operating model problem.

Many organizations continue trying to solve twenty-first century challenges using governance, accountability, organizational and reporting structures designed twenty-five years ago.

The cybersecurity function itself has evolved dramatically. Many executive structures have not.

This organizational inertia extends beyond technology: It affects budgeting cycles, investment priorities, procurement processes, accountability models and decision-making speed.

Cyber attackers innovate every day. Organizational change often takes years.

That imbalance should worry every CEO.

3. Accelerating technological disruption, and how it challenges organizations in areas where they are intrinsically weak

The third issue is potentially the most significant over the coming decade.

• Artificial intelligence, autonomous agents and machine identities
• Software supply chain complexity.
• Quantum computing, and post-quantum cryptography

Each of these developments represents far more than another technical trend.

Together, they fundamentally change the dynamics of cybersecurity.

Artificial intelligence is transforming countless business processes. At the same time, it is also increasing both the speed and sophistication of cyber-attacks while simultaneously transforming defensive capabilities.

Organizations have become increasingly dependent on software ecosystems that extend far beyond their own direct control. Engaging with the supply chain in ways that lead to a genuine appreciation of the risks involved has become a key challenge for most cybersecurity practices.

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

None of these challenges can be solved overnight: They require clear governance, sustained investment over a few years and cross-functional organizational coordination.

Most large organizations are weak on those three fronts: This is precisely why CEOs should be focusing on them now.

Waiting until some of those risks become obvious will almost certainly be too late.

Businesses naturally prioritise immediate commercial pressures. Cybersecurity often involves preparing for risks whose timing remains uncertain.

But one of the greatest leadership failures I keep seeing remains the inability of organizations to act decisively on known unknowns.

That tension explains why many organizations delay action until external events force them to respond. Unfortunately, cybersecurity rarely rewards late action.

Leadership will determine who succeeds

Cybersecurity discussions still frequently focus on technology. I believe they should focus far more on leadership.

Technology will continue evolving. Threat actors will continue adapting. Regulations will continue expanding. Those developments are inevitable.

What remains within the control of every CEO is how their organization responds.

Does cybersecurity remain an IT issue? Or is it recognised as an integral part of business resilience?

How is cybersecurity accountability assigned at executive level? Or does it still rest largely with a CISO hidden in the organization?

Does the board spend sufficient time discussing resilience? Or does cybersecurity appear only when approving budgets or reviewing incidents?

These questions will increasingly determine organizational success.

The companies that navigate the next decade successfully will not necessarily be those spending the most on cybersecurity. Nor will they be those deploying the latest security technologies first.

They will be the organizations whose leadership recognises that cybersecurity has become a permanent business capability — embedded into governance, strategy, operational decision-making and organizational culture.

That transformation cannot be delegated. It begins with the CEO.

And perhaps that is the single biggest issue that should keep every chief executive awake at night: Not when the next cyber-attack will happen, but whether their organization is evolving quickly enough on those matters to meet a threat landscape that is changing much faster than the business itself.

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

Predicting an outage is tricky business, but CIOs might want to circle Oct. 11, 2026, through Jan. 11, 2027, for likely trouble of a potentially widespread and puzzling nature.

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

Sai Joshitha Kathari, senior site reliability engineer at payment card giant Visa, says most enterprises have far more DNS-related exposure than they realize because of these many dependencies.

“This has the potential to create real downstream destruction when unresolved failures sit underneath important business functions,” Kathari says. 

The danger is that so many of these issues are either unknown to IT or handled by a third-party vendor and no one in IT has had reason to ask those vendors about DNS updates. 

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

Independent technology analyst Carmi Levy says that CIOs need to take this event very seriously. 

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

Levy adds: “Custom-built code that lives outside conventional support mechanisms may or may not function when the DNS changes go into effect.”

The DNSSEC update itself is straightforward, but it is also the first significant DNSSEC change — specifically a change in the trust anchor — since 2018. 

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

Expect nearly every enterprise to be impacted

Kim Davies, vice president of IANA Services and president of public technical identifiers at ICANN, says the extent of the impact on enterprises is unknowable, given the nature of shadow IT and other edge cases. 

But based on the massive number of dependencies both known and unknown in the typical global enterprise, Davies guesses that just about every enterprise will be impacted, to varying degrees. 

“In highly complex organizations, it is very likely there will be some impact in the corners, in the margins, of the organization,” Davies tells CIO. “DNS is such a core technology that underpins everything.”

As the updates propagate, hiccups will materialize, Davies notes. “When the system cannot validate the [DNS] information, it will treat it as suspect and DNS lookups will fail.”

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

Making this problem far worse, Kathari notes, is that the glitches will likely initially look like anything other thana DNS glitch. That will force IT staff to waste a vast number of hours chasing causes that ultimately prove to be unrelated to the incidents. 

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

Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research, agrees that IT will likely spin its wheels chasing the wrong ghosts.

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

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

It is widely expected that enterprises will not have any problems executing the change or, more likely, relying on their hyperscalers to properly handle the change. That is the concern. 

“CIOs are being distracted so much with AI and this is such a deep in the weeds infrastructure issue that this can and willcatch people off-guard,” Justin Greis, CEO of consulting firm Acceligence, tells CIO. “I think we’ll see a meaningful number of enterprise disruptions associated with the DNSSEC trust anchor rollover. Not because the update itself is especially difficult, but because it will expose weaknesses that already exist inside many organizations.”

Most enterprise IT operations have had no reason to compile a comprehensive list of all DNS dependencies, but many will be instantly discovered in January. 

Potentially widespread fallout

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

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

Greis adds that many enterprises will discover in January problems created by their own automation.

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

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

Cricket Liu, EVP and chief evangelist at Infoblox, gives the example of a DNS server that responds to factory-floor system queries.

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

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

Impossible to predict what will happen

One of the top network experts on DNS effects in enterprises is Geoff Huston, chief scientist at the Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC), the regional Internet Registry administering IP addresses for the Asia Pacific region.

Huston says it is difficult to project what will happen in January until it happens.

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

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

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

As a silver lining, Acceligence’s Greis says any hiccups that result from the DNS KSK update may be a gift in disguise for CIOs. 

“The irony is that some of the most business-critical components in the technology stack are often the least visible because they work in the background,” Greis says. January “may reveal how much modern business resilience depends on infrastructure that many organizations rarely examine until something breaks. For CIOs, that’s the real lesson. This is not fundamentally a story about a DNS update. It is a story about operational visibility, resilience, and governance. Organizations that treat the rollover as a routine infrastructure task will likely complete the update and move on. Organizations that use it as an opportunity to understand and strengthen the foundations of their technology environment may gain far more value than simply avoiding an outage.”

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

The questions were not coming from the delivery teams. They were coming from the executive sponsor.

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

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

Most program failures are not execution failures. They are sponsor mismatches.

When governance becomes a debate about delivery practices

When the sponsor does not understand what an enterprise transformation actually requires, governance forums stop functioning as decision bodies and start functioning as practice debates.

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

None of these questions are unreasonable in isolation. Each one targets a real cost or timeline pressure. The problem is what is missing underneath them: an understanding of the operational risks the original choices were designed to mitigate.

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

The compounding cost is not unique to any single program. PMI’s research on executive sponsorship consistently identifies sponsor engagement quality, rather than sponsor presence alone, as one of the strongest predictors of project success. The visible symptom is debate. The actual cost is unmade decisions.

Authority is rarely the issue. Literacy is

When transformations stall under a mismatched sponsor, the diagnostic instinct is to question the sponsor’s authority. Are they senior enough? Do they have the cross-functional reach? Can they unblock?

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

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

Harvard Business Review’s research on effective executive sponsorship has emphasized that sponsorship effectiveness depends as much on judgment as on authority. Judgment is where literacy becomes operational. A sponsor with authority but limited transformation literacy will optimize for speed and cost in ways that consistently underestimate risk. A sponsor with both will make the tradeoffs the program actually needs.

Prosci’s longstanding benchmark studies on change management have ranked active and visible executive sponsorship as the single greatest contributor to change success for two decades. The word that matters in that finding is active. Active sponsorship without transformation literacy can introduce real cost. Not because the sponsor is acting against the program, but because the optimization choices they make are based on incomplete information about what the program is built to protect against.

Shift the conversation from delivery practices to business risk

When the sponsor relationship is already in place and cannot be changed, the program leadership team has one move that consistently works: shift the conversation.

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

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

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

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

The program leadership team’s job is not to make the sponsor an expert in SAP delivery. It is to provide enough transformation context so that executive decisions reflect both business priorities and implementation realities.

There are a few phrases I have used with executive sponsors over the years that capture the underlying issue. The sharpest one:

If the decision has to go above the sponsor, they are not the sponsor.

Sponsorship is defined by what the sponsor can decide without asking someone else. That is the test. Anything else is the appearance of sponsorship, not the substance.

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

A sponsor does not need to be the technical expert. They do need to know when to trust the people who are.

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

A new attack method found by Zenity Labs reveals that AI agents are becoming persistent insiders that attackers can recruit, rather than malware they have to install.

Its researchers have discovered AgentForger, a phishing-based attack that silently creates and launches a fully autonomous AI agent within OpenAI workspaces.

Once running, the agent has full access to apps like Outlook, Slack, SharePoint, and Google Drive. It is configured to operate indefinitely without further user interaction, can approve its own access by toggling “never ask” settings, and can continue to act on new assignments sent via email by the attackers that control it. Broad, unfettered access to systems allows it to perform reconnaissance, harvest sensitive data and credentials, impersonate victims, and launch phishing campaigns.

While OpenAI resolved the vulnerability four days after disclosure, on a larger scale, AgentForger sheds light on what can happen when AI agents go rogue.

“We’re moving into a world where software doesn’t just help people work. It works alongside them,” said Michael Bargury, co-founder and CTO of agentic AI security platform Zenity. “As AI agents become more capable, attackers will naturally look for ways to influence them, just as they’ve always looked for ways to influence people.”

A ‘persistent operator’ that acts without approval

OpenAI’s Workspace Agents can connect and work autonomously across Outlook, Gmail, Slack, Google Drive, SharePoint, and Teams. Users open the agent builder, describe what the agent can do in natural language, connect to tools, set approvals, review and test, schedule actions, then publish. For instance, an agent can autonomously handle incoming emails, review and take actions with approval, gather information from various sources to send out daily briefings, or automatically respond to questions in ChatGPT or Slack channels.

Normally, this is “useful automation,” Zenity AI red team researcher Mike Takahashi wrote in a blog post. But in this attack, “the same scheduler becomes the persistence mechanism.”

The creation workflow kicks off the moment a user clicks on a phishing link containing instructions from the threat actor. For the attack to work, a victim must be logged into ChatGPT and Workspace Agents, and have at least one integration with another app, such as Outlook, Gmail, Slack, Google Drive, SharePoint, or Teams.

Because those connections already exist, OAuth consent screens are not triggered. Furthermore, the victim does not need to click on another link, keep a Builder tab open, or even visit ChatGPT again.

The forged agent is a “persistent operator;” it is installed on the original click and given a schedule, and at those predetermined times, the agent invokes itself, scans for emails from attacker addresses with the subject line “task”, carries those orders out, then returns results to the same attacker-controlled email address.

It goes undetected because the attacker prompt instructs the Builder to toggle Outlook to never ask for approval of its actions. Typically, the default is “always ask,” to keep agents from taking unauthorized action; that switch gives agents the ability to act without asking for human approval.

“AgentForger showed that an attacker could deploy an autonomous insider agent inside your ChatGPT workspace with a single click,” said Bargury. From there, it can continue to access information, harvest credentials from various sources, impersonate employees, and carry out phishing attacks and fraud while “leveraging the trusted victim’s identity.”

A ‘planted accomplice’ that does all the work

Once activated, AgentForger can perform reconnaissance to create an internal map of a company. For instance, agents can scan Outlook, Slack, Teams, Google Drive, SharePoint, or calendar data to identify people, roles, active projects, internal discussions, or all-hands recurring meetings. This can help attackers identify where in the enterprise to target next, based on active teams and channels, projects in the works, or prominent users.

“This is the kind of internal context an attacker normally has to build slowly,” Takahashi noted. But in this scenario, action is based on a single emailed assignment. The attacker’s “planted accomplice” does all the work.

In another scenario, the agent can steal data by searching for and identifying financial documents, business agreements, or invoices. Or, it can steal credentials by scanning for messages containing passwords, one-time codes, access tokens, password recovery links, or API keys. Further, it can impersonate victims to carry out phishing scams, for instance, by sending legitimate-looking Teams messages instructing users to confirm their credentials on a fake Microsoft login page.

In all cases, collected information is organized, analyzed, and sent back to the attacker.

“AgentForger points to something much bigger than a single vulnerability,” said Bargury. “It’s less about one bug and more about understanding how the security model changes as AI becomes part of everyday business operations.”

FOMO exposing security gaps

This isn’t necessarily about trust, but more about the need to move fast and adapt, Bargury emphasized. AI agents are helping employees automate work, make decisions faster, and get more done. But enterprises fear they’ll fall behind if they don’t move quickly enough.

“The challenge is that we’re introducing a fundamentally new kind of technology into the enterprise,” said Bargury. “The pressure to integrate the next AI feature is outpacing the security controls needed to safely deploy it.”

However, the answer isn’t to slow down adoption, he emphasized; the business value is too significant. Rather, the first step is understanding where AI agents exist, who created them, what they’re connected to, and what they’re allowed to do. And when it comes to autonomous agents, enterprises need to pay attention to the processes that trigger them: A schedule, an incoming email, or another automated event.

“Those triggers should be governed just as carefully as the agent itself,” said Bargury.

High-impact actions should require approval where appropriate, and security teams should be able to quickly disable an agent or its triggers if something doesn’t look right, he said.

More broadly, AI agents are introducing the need for a new security model, he pointed out. The question is no longer just “Does this agent have permission?” It’s also, “Is this the behavior we intended?”

“The organizations that answer both questions will be in the strongest position to adopt AI safely,” Bargury said.

Check Point has confirmed that a critical security hole in its SmartConsole management tool, one that allows unauthenticated attackers to assume full admin privileges, is now being exploited in the wild. The vulnerability, CVE-2026-16232, was given a CVSS score of 9.3.

In its security alert, Check Point described the bug as one allowing an unauthenticated attacker to “obtain an application login token and use it to login via SmartConsole with full admin privileges and apply changes to the security policy and security configuration.”

The company has released a patch for the bug and also recommends that users “limit Trusted Clients, GUI clients, to trusted IP addresses/subnets.” That approach has always been a best practice, but practical networking realities today make it challenging to maintain. Check Point said that the exploit has impacted ten of its customers, all of whom it had notified directly.

Far worse than most

Frank Dickson, group VP for security at IDC, said this security hole is far worse than most.

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

In an interview with CSO Online, Lotem Finkelstein, vice president of research at Check Point, said that the company learned of the vulnerability on Sunday, emailed customers the same day, and released the patch within 72 hours.

But when his team re-reviewed earlier logs, knowing what to look for, they spotted this hole being attacked as early as April, Finkelstein said.

The fact that, over the course of three months, the team only found ten organizations under attack, indicated that it has been very difficult for the attacker to find vulnerable systems, he noted; customers were, in the main, using secure settings to protect themselves.

Nonetheless, Finkelstein said, Check Point considers this hole to be “a severe vulnerability.”

Challenges of IP address restrictions

While it can be technically challenging to keep the IP address allowlists that Check Point recommends current, given DHCP’s ability to easily change those addresses, Assaf Morag, a cybersecurity researcher at Flare, noted that specifically limiting access to a management console is far more critical than limiting overall external access.

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

Pieter Arntz, malware intelligence researcher at Malwarebytes, also noted that the constantly changing nature of global IP addresses can prove annoying to IT teams. Stressing that he is not familiar with Check Point’s specific settings, he noted, “Certain settings are a nuisance when applied strictly, and at some point the IT staff gets tired of constantly tweaking and they abandon the most secure path.”

Ideal platform for long-term attacks

Mike Wilkes, enterprise CISO at Aikido Security,  agreed that the severity and exposure of this hole is alarming.

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

IDC’s Dickson strongly encouraged CISOs to deploy the patch, not to just change settings to mitigate the issue. 

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

And, he added, “since attackers here can disable logging, audit admin activity going back before the bug surfaced. Quiet logs aren’t proof nothing happened. This is the recurring theme with ‘single pane of glass’ security tools: the console built to make everything easier to run is also the one thing you really don’t want someone else driving.”

Cloudflare recently beat Q1 2026 earnings. Revenue up 34% year over year. EPS ahead of consensus. Full-year guidance raised. Then, in the same breath, they announced 1,100 layoffs, 20% of the company. CEO Matthew Prince’s explanation: “The way we work at Cloudflare has fundamentally changed.”

Block did the same thing. Beat guidance, raised outlook, cut 4,000+ jobs. Both framed it as architecting for the AI era.

This is not a contradiction. This is the new math boards are running. And if you’re a CIO who hasn’t started running it yourself, you’re behind.

The benchmark has moved

AI-native companies have quietly reset what “efficient” means for a technology organization. Midjourney generates over $500M in revenue with roughly 160 employees, over $3M per head. Anthropic hit a $14B annualized run rate in early 2026 with fewer than 3,000 employees. Across the top AI-native startups, the average revenue per employee is $3.48M, nearly twelve times the traditional SaaS benchmark of $300K.

Boards aren’t comparing you to your 2019 self anymore. They’re comparing you to Anthropic.

This is the pressure Cloudflare and Block are responding to. They’re not cutting people because the business is struggling. They’re cutting because investors have internalized a new denominator. Headcount is no longer a proxy for capacity; it’s a liability on the efficiency ratio.

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

Finding bodies to fill seats has never been easier. Finding people who operate at that level of leverage is a different problem entirely.

‘Acqui-hires’ are a shortcut with a hidden cost

Companies have figured out that recruiting AI-native talent one by one is too slow and that it’s faster to buy a team. Google’s acquisition of the Windsurf founders, Meta bringing in the Scale AI team, Accenture’s string of AI-focused acquisitions: these are acqui-hires dressed up as M&A. The premium on experienced AI talent is high enough, and the urgency real enough, that organizations are skipping traditional hiring loops entirely and buying their way in.

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

But there’s a cost that doesn’t show up in the acquisition price.

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

When you acqui-hire that team and then slot them into your existing approval processes, you’ve bought the people and killed the engine. The change agents you paid for become change-frustrated. The attrition that follows is expensive and predictable.

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

The CIO’s real problem

The governance stack most enterprise organizations run was designed for a headcount world. Every tool vetting cycle, every vendor review, every security approval was calibrated assuming you were managing a large team where consistency and control were the primary objectives.

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

The practical fix is structured experimentation: clear guardrails, defined boundaries, but explicit permission to try tools before deciding whether to roll them out broadly. Gating everything prevents you from ever discovering what 10x productivity looks like.

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

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

Closing the gap without slowing down

The AI talent wars are not primarily a recruiting problem. They’re a rethinking of what organizations are supposed to look like.

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

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

Talent density is the new headcount model. The sooner your governance, your tooling and your board conversations reflect that, the better positioned you’ll be when the next efficiency report lands.

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

The traditional methods of measuring success no longer tell the full story. Here’s what should replace them — and why.

In brief:

• AI is transforming software as a service (SaaS), and the old ways of keeping score no longer apply.
• Smart companies are evolving new metrics that provide deeper insight into how AI-native software is performing in a new marketplace.
• These changes impact everything from pricing to valuations.

The transformation of the software-as-a-service (SaaS) industry toward AI-native operating companies is rapidly changing the unit of value across the industry.

The traditional metric of seats — which measured access — is rapidly giving way to credits designed to measure work performed. This evolution is upending the industry in multiple ways, impacting everything from pricing to enterprise valuations.

While many companies still cling to seat-based metrics to measure growth, efficiency and durability, the future is likely to be one in which companies utilize a credit-centric metrics framework, with seats and outcomes as the bookends of a spectrum.

Why do software companies need new metrics?

Why the rethink, and why now? There are five major forces that are driving this shift:

1. The unit of value is changing. Seats measured who could access software, and credits measure what the software actually does. But in an AI-native world, agents don’t have seats; they have workloads. Over the past 18 months, every major SaaS platform has moved to some forms of credit or consumption unit.
2. The cost of goods sold (COGS) is exploding. AI inference adds real per-unit costs that scale with usage. In an AI-native world, software companies can’t scale to infinite users at near‑zero marginal cost as before.
3. Buying is moving up the org chart. AI-native applications shift purchasing to higher-level operators — such as line-of-business leaders or chief operating officers — which expands the market from software budgets to labor budgets. And because AI agents replace services as well as software, the total market opportunity is 3x to 10x larger than traditional SaaS.
4. Time to value (TTV) is collapsing. With AI-native tools, customers start seeing meaningful results in weeks rather than quarters. Onboarding and setup are fast, workflows are pre-built, and there’s no need for extensive customer success or professional services — dramatically reducing implementation time and costs.
5. Retention is bifurcating. AI forces clarity in a way that traditional SaaS couldn’t. Products that can provide value become even “stickier” and retain customers. Those that don’t churn faster. In an AI-native marketplace, the middle disappears.

How this shift is impacting pricing

Given how AI-native software is transforming the market, the shift to more variable pricing options is inevitable.

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

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

Finally, the industry will likely see some move toward outcome-based pricing for results such as resolved tickets, recovered revenue or qualified leads. This strategy will mostly be limited to verticals where it is easy to prove AI impacted the result.

Where a software vendor sits on this spectrum is a signal of differentiation and pricing power. Credits are where most defensible AI-native businesses are landing because they balance customer predictability with vendor margin control.

How AI upends classic SaaS metrics

When SaaS was in its infancy, companies settled on key metrics designed to answer a small set of core questions. Are we growing? Are customers using the product? Are we retaining and expanding accounts?

But as AI upends software itself, it is also requiring companies to adopt new metrics to track success. These new metrics fall into three primary buckets, rebuilt around the pricing spectrum described earlier and the trend toward credits as the primary frame:

Revenue composition

• Committed credit annual recurring revenue (ARR) vs. burndown ARR: Measuring the credits sold on annual commitment vs. those consumed and replenished. This is the single most important split for valuation. Committed credits behave like subscription and burndown behaves like usage.
• Credit utilization rate: The percentage of purchased credits consumed per period. This is a leading indicator of renewal sizing.
• Credit burn velocity: How fast is a customer consuming their credits, and is that consumption increasing or decreasing quarter over quarter? This metric predicts expansion or contraction before it shows up in ARR.
• Effective price per credit: The real revenue per credit after discounts, overage and rollover, which can detect revenue leakage and help companies set smarter guide rails.

Margin reality

• Credit margin: The gross profit the company earns per credit after subtracting inference costs. This is the core economic unit for AI-native, usage-based businesses — the replacement for gross margin per seat used in SaaS.
• Inference-adjusted gross margin: By carving out AI inference costs separately in the P&L statement, you can see true AI margins, avoid hiding deterioration inside blended SaaS margins, and clearly distinguish AI economics from legacy SaaS economics.
• Compute leverage ratio: This metric measures how efficiently the business converts compute spend into revenue. It shows whether your AI margins are improving as you scale.
• AI-adjusted “Rule of 40”: This updated metric recalibrates the traditional growth and profitability benchmark to account for AI’s lower gross margins and variable inference costs, giving a more accurate picture of business health for AI-native companies.

Behavioral and value signals

• Time-to-first outcome: Replaces traditional onboarding metrics. Tracks how fast a customer reaches their first measurable result.
• Adoption: AI-native adoption is measured by workflow penetration and active agent density, not seat count. As AI replaces human-driven usage, the unit of adoption shifts from people to automated workflows and agents.
• Net credit retention (NCR): Credit-volume retention across the customer base, tracked separately from net recurring revenue to avoid price-change impact.

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

What does this mean for enterprise value calculations?

As the internal metrics of success change, so do the ways the investment community measures growth and long-term viability.

Increasingly, a company’s valuation multiple depends on whether its revenue behaves like committed subscription ARR or volatile usage ARR, and the commit‑to‑burndown ratio is the metric investors use to decide where the company fits.

For example, a business with 80% committed credit ARR could trade closer to subscription comps and one with 80% burndown could trade closer to usage comps even though both have the same types of customers. Being able to proactively explain the commit‑to‑burndown mix can help companies avoid undervaluation.

In addition, utilization is expected to replace net promoter scores and seat usage as the primary predictor of churn or expansion. Low utilization guarantees downsizing at renewal, so companies must track utilization cohorts the same way SaaS tracks logo retention cohorts today.

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

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

What this means for leaders, boards and investors

The shift from classic SaaS metrics to new AI‑native measures isn’t cosmetic. It represents the seismic change the industry is experiencing as AI matures and transforms products and organizations.

While these metrics — and perhaps others yet to be determined — may evolve over time, there is no doubt they are already changing how AI companies allocate capital, price products, incent sales teams, evaluate performance and communicate with investors.

It’s important to remember that SaaS metrics were practical tools for a specific era of software. As that era draws to a close, winning companies will choose new metrics that shape behavior and drive smart decision-making.

The views reflected in this article are the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Ernst & Young LLP or other members of the global EY organization.

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

When it comes to building an effective AI stack, context is king and power isn’t everything it’s cracked up to be.

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

“I’m on the business side, and so decisions made by our CIO and IT folks affect me directly, and my teams’ workflows and processes,” he added.

Speaking to a room of tech leaders at the CIO 100 Leadership Live New York event last week, Thakrar explained that every company wants the speed of AI-generated work wedded to the quality of human work, even though these two are diametrically opposed. No amount of model upgrades or spend will close that gap, so the only way forward is to architect your way out. Thakrar encapsulated this idea in a simple formula:

• Smaller: Stop deploying maximum firepower on every task. Many tasks don’t need it.
• Smarter: The system around the model decides more than the model does.
• Safer: Verify at the point a mistake gets locked in, not just downstream of it.

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

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

“The intelligence moves from the model into the architecture around it,” he said.

A steep learning curve

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

“What happened was I got this churn agent a couple months later, already embedded in our CRM, and within a week my team no longer trusted that agent,” Thakrar said. “The reason is we forgot to collect one very key point.”

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

Then a new problem arose. Many potential customers first purchase Zoho products as pilots or sandboxes. As those customers move from pilot to live instance, they close down the pilot versions. And again, the CRM would record that as subscriptions going inactive.

“The trust deteriorates again because everyone got excited for version 2,” Thakrar said.

Sometimes, a certain product might not be the best fit for a customer and Thakrar’s team will suggest the customer move to another product. That’s deliberate churn, not a churn risk.

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

The team is more on top of potential churn, though, but the promised productivity gains have yet to materialize because the agent has to earn back lost trust due to a lack of context.

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

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

Routing

Routing is about sending workloads to the proper model for the job, which entails providing enough context to a given task that a small, cheap model can handle it without the need for spare reasoning capacity to fill gaps.

Frontier models are expensive and companies can burn through a year’s budget worth of tokens in months. But most tasks can be handled by much smaller, more constrained models at a fraction of the cost.

“You don’t always have to pay the frontier guys for every task,” he said. “We’ve observed with some clients that we could save them 95% with a 3 billion parameter model.”

Harness

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

“It’s the process around the model, which matters way more than the model itself,” Thakrar said.

In benchmark tests, a superior harness on a less powerful model produces better results than an inferior harness on a much bigger model.

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

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

“The initial goal was just to eliminate that task completely from the human workflow,” he said. “The stakeholder map is done, it’s in the folder, and you can look at it.”

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

Ultimately, Thakrar said the agent still saved human team members time because the stakeholder map was usually pretty close, and the corrections also helped the model grow smarter by adding richer context.

Specialization

Specialization is transitioning a process from testing on a frontier model to production on a much narrower, smaller model. Once you’ve proven that an agent can do a job well, you want to stop paying master-craftsman rates to keep doing that one job well.

Specialization is all about capturing your subject matter experts’ best judgement and pattern recognition to build an open-weight, open source, trained, and fine-tuned model that can be deployed in your own data center.

“The true enterprise bet is to keep that orchestration layer, which is your IP and knowledge, in house,” Thakrar said. “You don’t want to host that on someone else’s model. The goal of everyone in enterprise should be to run, train, and host their own models.”

Running containers on Windows has never been as easy as it should be. While there are versions of Docker Desktop and Podman that work with both the Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL) and Hyper-V, I’ve found both overly complex and unstable. Where they have worked, it’s turned out that Hyper-V has been the best option, using a Linux virtual machine to host my containers. That all adds up to overhead, layers of virtual infrastructure that get in the way of work and that need to be rebuilt every time I restart my PC.

Part of the problem is WSL. It’s a good tool, but WSL2’s file-system integration is slow, and you’re left having to work with code using Visual Studio Code’s remote integration, which means putting a VS Code Server in every container you’re building and testing. If you’re working with Kubernetes, that’s even more complexity that needs to be managed, dragging you away from code.

I ended up running most of my container testing and development from a separate machine, a Linux server running containerd. But though it worked (and had all the resources of workstation-class device), it wasn’t portable, and for some reason I’ve yet to uncover, Ubuntu’s remote desktop access doesn’t work for me.

So, it was good to see Microsoft make several announcements around WSL at Build 2026 as part of a push to make Windows a developer platform again. The first, an improved WSL3, is still some way away, but the second, WSL-native container support, shipped at the end of June. It is already seeing community-driven development of Docker Desktop-like tooling to help monitor and manage your containers.

Delivering a WSL-based container platform fits in with the other developer-focused Windows announcements at Build. Making Windows behave more like Linux is Microsoft responding to developer needs, given that more than 50% of servers on Azure run a Linux distribution. Linux is the basis of cloud-native infrastructure, so developers need to be able to build on it wherever they are.

Getting started with WSL container

WSL container provides a new CLI that works in parallel to the familiar WSL, with commands to support the entire container life cycle, from creation to shut down. All you need to do to get started is upgrade your WSL installation to the current pre-release build (at the time of writing this was 2.9.3). Simply open an administrator PowerShell terminal and enter wsl --update --pre-release.

This downloads and installs the latest WSL release. Once you’ve closed and re-opened your terminal (to ensure that you’ve updated its context) you can check that WSLC has installed by entering wslc, which should list the available commands. The new CLI is aliased to WSL container, if you prefer to keep your container work separate from WSL (and avoid typos that might accidentally affect your WSL installations).

Under the hood Microsoft is using WSL container to trial new integration points for Linux in Windows. One key change is the use of a new file system that significantly speeds up access to Windows from inside a container. Another improvement gives WSL container a new networking mode that relays networking connections directly through the Windows network stack, ensuring it has access to the same resources and security as Windows.

Calling Linux containers from Windows applications

Things get more interesting when you start to use the WSL container API from inside your Windows code. Here you can include calls to Linux containers inside your desktop applications, taking advantage of existing services, building and deploying containers from inside your CI/CD pipeline. Using the new file system and networking stack helps reduce the friction that comes with crossing the boundaries between the two platforms.

The WSL container API is available as a NuGet package, with support for C, C#, and C++. It allows your code to start and stop containers, and interact directly with them, sending command-line calls and reading back responses. Where things get interesting is being able to launch a containerized service from your code, exposing its REST or gRPC APIs on a local network port. Microsoft has provided sample code to show you what’s possible at this early stage.

Microsoft is doing something revolutionary here. It’s taking the cloud-native, service-driven model and bringing it into Windows and using it to bridge decades of divergent development. You no longer have to rewrite a service that works on Linux to run in Windows; all you need to do is containerize the service and launch it from the WSL container API. When you’re done, the API will tidy up after you, shutting down the container and reclaiming the memory it used.

It’s important to remember that this is only the first public preview of a rapidly developing platform. There are many opportunities here to, say, build on the syscall translation layer developed for WSL1 to produce a native Windows-to-Linux application integration stack that removes the overhead of using web-based service calls. It will be interesting to see what develops, but this first release is very interesting indeed.

Manage Linux containers from Windows

If you want a Docker Desktop-like experience for building and testing containers on Windows developer hardware, you may not have long to wait. WSL container’s underlying API is already being used to build tools that manage and monitor containers for you. One such tool is the WSL Container Desktop, under development on GitHub. While there aren’t any release builds yet, it’s easy enough to compile and get running by cloning the source repository and building using the .NET CLI. You do need to have the Windows App SDK installed, and some features require access to the Azure CLI.

WSL Container Desktop is built in C#, with a WinUI front end. It’s currently only verified for use on x64, though I was able to compile and run it on an Arm64 PC and use it to test and run containers. Once running, it gives you a well-designed front end for your WSL-hosted containers, showing what’s running and what resources they are using. You can link WSL Container Desktop to container registries, like Docker’s and Azure’s, so you can quickly pull base containers and then use the WSL container environment to add your own code and customizations.

Your main interaction point is the WSL Container Desktop dashboard, which shows what containers are running and their current resource usage. Elements are displayed in cards, taking a cue from Windows’ own user interface and especially from its Settings app. From the dashboard, you can drill down into the available containers, with quick start, stop, and reload options, as well as an extended memory that includes the ability to open a web browser to the appropriate port. I tested this with a container that included an entire KDE webtop, giving me a Linux distro running in a container in my browser.

Other options include a details view that displays current logs and provides tools for inspecting the state of a container. This is the type of tool that comes in useful when debugging and testing container applications, as it can provide insights that the WSL container CLI doesn’t offer. Another option helps you clean up after you’ve downloaded an image and don’t need it anymore, with analytics that show the largest images and images you haven’t used for some time. On top of its tooling for working with WSL containers, WSL Container Desktop provides a basic settings tool that helps you configure its look and feel, as well as how it integrates with Windows.

Run Kubernetes inside Windows for cloud-native development

One of the more useful features of WSL Container Desktop is the ability to quickly stand up a K3s Kubernetes instance in WSL that can be used to host WSL containers, providing a local environment to build and test cloud-native applications wherever you might be. The K3s tooling offers a similar experience to the Kubernetes project’s own Headlamp UI, making it easy to go between your development environment and a production Kubernetes cluster.

It’s fair to describe WSL container as one of those Windows features you didn’t think you needed, but now it’s here you can’t live without it. WSL container simplifies building a container development tool chain in Windows, and at the same time allows you to think about a new generation of hybrid applications that take advantage of decades of development in both Windows and Linux.

The result is something that was unimaginable a few years ago: dropping a Linux container into the middle of a Windows application and treating it as another local service. As the WSL container platform evolves, you should expect to see more ways of bringing Linux and Windows together, using containers to deliver a hybrid platform that gives us the best of both worlds at long last.

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

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

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

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

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

Tighter patching deadlines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wider cross-industry impact

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

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

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

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

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

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

Holistic remediation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A ‘significant opportunity’ in technology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday.com’s key market advantages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actions for the near-term

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on CIO.com.

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

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

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

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

A ‘significant opportunity’ in technology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday’s key market advantages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actions for the near-term

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

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

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

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

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

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

A global law enforcement crackdown has seized infrastructure serving the massive phishing-as-a-service (PhaaS) group Kratos, as well resulting in the arrest of an unnamed Kratos “developer and technical administrator” in Indonesia. 

The effort was managed by German law enforcement and involved agencies from the US, Indonesia and other countries.

Although a German statement claimed that the Kratos infrastructure “has been completely disabled” and that “Kratos-supported phishing campaigns can no longer be carried out,” cybersecurity analysts and consultants question how much of a dent in enterprise phishing activity will result, and how long it will last.

“A server seizure and a single arrest overseas remove infrastructure, not the intellectual property,” said Frank Dickson, group VP for security at IDC. “PhaaS kits get cloned, forked and resold routinely, and the 1,800 Kratos customers didn’t vanish. They just lost a vendor in a market where vendors get replaced fast.”

He added, “seizing 200-plus servers and arresting the developer pulls a major supplier out of that specific niche. It doesn’t touch the broader phishing economy. For every roach that you squish, there are a hundred that you do not see.”

Noah Kenney, principal consultant at Digital 520, takes an even more pessimistic view, arguing that there might not even be that much of a short-term phishing slowdown. 

“What makes this different from a botnet or ransomware takedown is that the people running the attacks were never part of the organization. Kratos was just a vendor,” Kenney said. “The 1,800 customers who bought it still have their target lists, their sending infrastructure and whatever access they had already established. The tooling went dark, but the people phishing your employees last week are still working, shopping for a replacement that already exists. Enterprises should not read this as a drop in (likely) threat volume.”

One thing that the security community seems to agree on is that Kratos was a major player in the lucrative PhaaS space. But precisely determining the percentage of PhaaS activity controlled by Kratos is impossible, given that Kratos sold their kits to others. Security researchers even disagree on what they should call Kratos kits.

“Microsoft tracks this kit as SneakyLog, others tie it to Sneaky 2FA, and KnowBe4 disputes the lineage entirely. When the security industry cannot agree on what a kit is to be called, that is because renaming and reselling is continuous rather than something that happens after a raid,” Kenney said. “What actually changed this time is the arrest and the [shutdown of the] servers. Standing up new hosting is only a weekend of work, but replacing a developer who understood how to keep an adversary in the middle proxy stable and evasive at scale is harder.”

IDC’s Dickson added that the biggest value from the takedown is in the information gleaned from the seized servers. 

“Kratos operated in the adversary-in-the-middle category, generating convincing fake Microsoft 365 login pages that harvest session tokens and step past MFA, the exact technique behind a lot of the business email compromise activity of the past two years,” he said. “I would love to see what law enforcement does with the customer list. That, my friend, is gold.”

Regardless, Assaf Morag, a cybersecurity researcher at Flare, dubbed the German crackdown “symbolic,” given Kratos’ reach within phishing circles. 

He argued that the very nature of software makes it all but impossible to shut down in a meaningful way.

“Although this is malicious infrastructure, it is still software, and modern development and deployment practices make it relatively quick to rebuild or replicate,” he said. “Demand is likely to shift to competing providers, allowing the ecosystem to recover even if this particular operation has been disrupted.”

Pieter Arntz, malware intelligence researcher at Malwarebytes, agreed that the crackdown is disruptive but not definitive. 

“This appears to be more than a routine website seizure. The reporting points to a PhaaS platform with centralized infrastructure, subscription-style customers, and Microsoft 365 session theft / MFA-bypass tooling, so taking down the backend likely hurts many downstream affiliates at once. In that sense, it is a meaningful disruption to the phishing ecosystem, not just one campaign,” Arntz said.

But, he added, “a rebrand or partial re-emergence is plausible, which is the historical pattern for PhaaS operations. Even if the core infrastructure is gone, the code, customer lists, and operator tradecraft can survive.”

This means that customers and affiliates can shift to other phishing kits, he said, so it’s likely that the takedown will create a temporary decline in Kratos-specific activity, but probably not a lasting reduction in phishing overall.

Flavio Villanustre, CISO for the LexisNexis Risk Solutions Group, also concluded that the impact of this crackdown will be short-lived. 

“For each criminal organization that is dismantled, ten new ones pop out of nowhere. Unless there is a coordinated international effort by more than a few countries, this is a whack-a-mole exercise,” he said. “These are all loosely connected individuals and akin to a lernaean hydra, with two heads growing whenever you chop off one. Their leadership emerges from their lines organically without a real center of control. This makes it almost impossible to completely eliminate these criminal organizations.”

Business email and collaboration suite Zimbra has received a major security update that fixes several critical issues that could allow attackers to execute malicious code on the server or in users’ browsers.

Available in commercial and open-source editions, Zimbra Collaboration Suite is a self-hosted Microsoft Exchange alternative that is popular with businesses, government entities, and educational institutions, which has made it a target for attackers in the past.

Version 10.1.20 released this week includes patches for nine vulnerabilities, including a permanent fix for a critical flaw announced in June in the SNMP monitoring component that could be exploited to inject commands when notifications are enabled.

The release also fixes four cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in the Classic Web Client that could allow attackers to execute malicious scripts when users view emails in the web interface. For example, one vulnerability can be triggered through specially crafted attachment filenames and another when users render an attachment.

XSS vulnerabilities are dangerous because they execute scripts in the user’s browser in the context of the page. That gives rogue code the same privileges as the user, enabling it to perform malicious actions, exfiltrate data, or even leak session cookies.

In 2025, an XSS vulnerability in the calendar import feature of the Zimbra Classic Web Client (CVE-2025-27915) was exploited in attacks targeting Brazilian military personnel. Many other Zimbra vulnerabilities have been exploited over the years, sometimes as zero-days, especially by Russian state-sponsored APT groups, such as Fancy Bear (APT28), Cozy Bear (APT29), and Winter Vivern (TA473).

A recent incident involved a Russian threat group targeting a Ukrainian critical infrastructure agency in March using specifically crafted emails that exploited a known Zimbra stored XXS vulnerability (CVE-2025-66376).

Another vulnerability fixed in the newly released Zimbra 10.1.20 could allow authenticated attackers to bypass email forwarding restrictions. Adding email forwarding rules to a compromised account is a common way to achieve persistence and continuously exfiltrate emails from a mailbox over an extended period of time, even if the account password is changed.

The release also fixes a security issue related to access controls in the EWS extension, an authorization issue in mailbox delegation, and a server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in the Nextcloud integration. Nextcloud is another self-hosted collaboration suite that is popular with government and public institutions that don’t want to rely on public clouds.

It’s worth noting that this is the second Zimbra security update this month. Version 10.1.19, released on July 7, patched another unspecified security issue in the Classic Web Client that could run malicious code when specially crafted emails were opened by users.

Zimbra owner Synacor strongly advises customers to upgrade to the latest available version as soon as possible to keep their environments secure. While none of these flaws had zero-day status, hacker groups have a history for quickly adopting known Zimbra exploits.

Oracle’s July 2026 Critical Patch Update, its largest ever, contains 1,449 new security patches spanning 32 product families, from Oracle Database and E-Business Suite to PeopleSoft, GoldenGate, Java SE, and Fusion Middleware.

Fusion Middleware was particularly hard hit, with new security patches for 355 security vulnerabilities, 219 of them remotely exploitable without authentication, meaning they can be exploited over a network without requiring user credentials. Ten of them scored a “perfect” 10.0 on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).

These included easily exploitable vulnerabilities allowing unauthenticated attackers with network access via HTTP to compromise Oracle Data Integrator, Oracle Access Manager, Oracle HTTP Server, Oracle Platform Security for Java, Oracle WebCenter Content, Service Delivery Platform, or Oracle Weblogic Server Proxy Plug-in,

No other products were found to have quite such extreme vulnerabilities, but there were plenty of others scoring almost as badly.

Two critical flaws in Oracle Database Server

The most severe flaw Oracle patched in its flagship database product is CVE-2026-61211, a vulnerability in the RDBMS component’s DBMS_CLOUD package with a CVSS score of 9.9.

This easily exploitable vulnerability allows a low-privileged attacker having Execute DBMS_CLOUD privilege with network access via Oracle Net to compromise the RDBMS, Oracle said in the patch update statement. “While the vulnerability is in RDBMS, attacks may significantly impact additional products (scope change). Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in takeover of RDBMS,” it warned.

The flaw affects Database Server versions 19.3 through 19.31 and 23.4.0 through 23.26.2.

Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research, said the 9.9 score should be read as serious but conditional. Exposure depends on configuration, he said: On customer-managed databases, DBMS_CLOUD is absent until installed, and grants and network access lists determine the radius from there. “Where DBMS_CLOUD is broadly granted and reachable, the emergency is real and the window is seventy-two hours; where it is absent, the accelerated database wave will do.”

Vibhum Dubey, a cybersecurity researcher and red teamer, said the flaw stood out to him because it checks several boxes that concern defenders.

“Database servers often hold an organization’s most valuable data, so even if exploitation is not publicly observed yet, I don’t think this is the kind of issue you leave until the next routine maintenance window if your environment is exposed,” Dubey said.

A second Database Server flaw, CVE-2026-47040, affects Connection Manager in Oracle Net Services, is remotely exploitable without credentials. Oracle’s risk matrix lists six Database Product vulnerabilities in this cycle as reachable over a network with no authentication required, the statement added.

CVE-2026-7383, an OpenSSL-related TLS vulnerability, affects two products, Database Server and Autonomous Health Framework, since both bundle the same third-party component. Oracle’s advisory notes the Database Server patch for that CVE also resolves 19 related OpenSSL CVEs bundled into the same fix.

Oracle GoldenGate received 27 new patches, nine of which do not require authentication to exploit, including CVE-2026-2332, a flaw in the Big Data and Application Adapters component tied to Eclipse Jetty, the statement added.

There were also two critical flaws in Oracle’s TimesTen in-memory database.

The remainder of the release spans E-Business Suite, WebLogic Server, PeopleSoft, Siebel, JD Edwards, Communications, Retail Applications, Utilities Applications, MySQL, Solaris and VM VirtualBox.

Volume repair

Gogia said the volume itself marks a shift.

“At 1,449 patches, against 481 in April 2026 and 309 a year earlier, patch load has outgrown the queue built to hold it,” he said. He recommended a tiered response: “The reachable and the reported inside seventy-two hours, the trusted core inside ten days, the rest by risk before the October release.”

He also flagged a specific risk in how organizations might triage E-Business Suite. “Oracle’s advisory concedes that E-Business Suite exposure sits partly in underlying Database and Fusion Middleware versions outside the E-Business Suite matrix. The fastest way to mis-prioritise this release is to patch by product logo instead of trust boundary.”

Third Tuesday, quarterly cycle

The July release is the third quarterly Critical Patch Update of 2026, and the first since the introduction in May of the monthly Critical Security Patch Update program.

Gogia said Oracle has effectively layered a second cadence on top of the existing one rather than replacing it.

“Quarterly Critical Patch Updates remain and stay cumulative; monthly Critical Security Patch Updates now sit on top,” he said, adding that enterprise adoption of the new rhythm remains low because of “certification obligations, regression exposure and scarce specialist hours.”

Dubey made a similar point about organizational readiness: “In large enterprises, patching is rarely a technical problem. It is an operational one. Database administrators, application owners, infrastructure teams, business stakeholders, and change advisory boards all have to align.”

Niyati Daftary, principal analyst at Gartner, said the release underscores a broader shift in how patching is approached.

“Patching is no longer a race to remediate every vulnerability. It is a discipline of identifying the exposures that matter most and reducing business risk as efficiently as possible,” she said, adding that organizations should prioritize based on exposure, business impact and exploitability, starting with internet-facing assets and mission-critical systems.

Daftary pointed to continuous threat exposure management and adversarial exposure validation as increasingly relevant frameworks, since CVSS scores “measure theoretical severity rather than actual enterprise risk.” Patching alone will not be sufficient, Daftary said, and organizations should continue investing in defense in depth, including behavioral threat detection and incident response.

Oracle’s next cumulative Critical Patch Update will come on Oct. 20, 2026, with smaller Critical Security Patch Updates on Aug. 18 and Sept. 15.

This article first appeared on CSO.

Oracle’s July 2026 Critical Patch Update, its largest ever, contains 1,449 new security patches spanning 32 product families, from Oracle Database and E-Business Suite to PeopleSoft, GoldenGate, Java SE, and Fusion Middleware.

Fusion Middleware was particularly hard hit, with new security patches for 355 security vulnerabilities, 219 of them remotely exploitable without authentication, meaning they can be exploited over a network without requiring user credentials. Ten of them scored a “perfect” 10.0 on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).

These included easily exploitable vulnerabilities allowing unauthenticated attackers with network access via HTTP to compromise Oracle Data Integrator, Oracle Access Manager, Oracle HTTP Server, Oracle Platform Security for Java, Oracle WebCenter Content, Service Delivery Platform, or Oracle Weblogic Server Proxy Plug-in,

No other products were found to have quite such extreme vulnerabilities, but there were plenty of others scoring almost as badly.

Two critical flaws in Oracle Database Server

The most severe flaw Oracle patched in its flagship database product is CVE-2026-61211, a vulnerability in the RDBMS component’s DBMS_CLOUD package with a CVSS score of 9.9.

This easily exploitable vulnerability allows a low-privileged attacker having Execute DBMS_CLOUD privilege with network access via Oracle Net to compromise the RDBMS, Oracle said in the patch update statement. “While the vulnerability is in RDBMS, attacks may significantly impact additional products (scope change). Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in takeover of RDBMS,” it warned.

The flaw affects Database Server versions 19.3 through 19.31 and 23.4.0 through 23.26.2.

Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research, said the 9.9 score should be read as serious but conditional. Exposure depends on configuration, he said: On customer-managed databases, DBMS_CLOUD is absent until installed, and grants and network access lists determine the radius from there. “Where DBMS_CLOUD is broadly granted and reachable, the emergency is real and the window is seventy-two hours; where it is absent, the accelerated database wave will do.”

Vibhum Dubey, a cybersecurity researcher and red teamer, said the flaw stood out to him because it checks several boxes that concern defenders.

“Database servers often hold an organization’s most valuable data, so even if exploitation is not publicly observed yet, I don’t think this is the kind of issue you leave until the next routine maintenance window if your environment is exposed,” Dubey said.

A second Database Server flaw, CVE-2026-47040, affects Connection Manager in Oracle Net Services, is remotely exploitable without credentials. Oracle’s risk matrix lists six Database Product vulnerabilities in this cycle as reachable over a network with no authentication required, the statement added.

CVE-2026-7383, an OpenSSL-related TLS vulnerability, affects two products, Database Server and Autonomous Health Framework, since both bundle the same third-party component. Oracle’s advisory notes the Database Server patch for that CVE also resolves 19 related OpenSSL CVEs bundled into the same fix.

Oracle GoldenGate received 27 new patches, nine of which do not require authentication to exploit, including CVE-2026-2332, a flaw in the Big Data and Application Adapters component tied to Eclipse Jetty, the statement added.

There were also two critical flaws in Oracle’s TimesTen in-memory database.

The remainder of the release spans E-Business Suite, WebLogic Server, PeopleSoft, Siebel, JD Edwards, Communications, Retail Applications, Utilities Applications, MySQL, Solaris and VM VirtualBox.

Volume repair

Gogia said the volume itself marks a shift.

“At 1,449 patches, against 481 in April 2026 and 309 a year earlier, patch load has outgrown the queue built to hold it,” he said. He recommended a tiered response: “The reachable and the reported inside seventy-two hours, the trusted core inside ten days, the rest by risk before the October release.”

He also flagged a specific risk in how organizations might triage E-Business Suite. “Oracle’s advisory concedes that E-Business Suite exposure sits partly in underlying Database and Fusion Middleware versions outside the E-Business Suite matrix. The fastest way to mis-prioritise this release is to patch by product logo instead of trust boundary.”

Third Tuesday, quarterly cycle

The July release is the third quarterly Critical Patch Update of 2026, and the first since the introduction in May of the monthly Critical Security Patch Update program.

Gogia said Oracle has effectively layered a second cadence on top of the existing one rather than replacing it.

“Quarterly Critical Patch Updates remain and stay cumulative; monthly Critical Security Patch Updates now sit on top,” he said, adding that enterprise adoption of the new rhythm remains low because of “certification obligations, regression exposure and scarce specialist hours.”

Dubey made a similar point about organizational readiness: “In large enterprises, patching is rarely a technical problem. It is an operational one. Database administrators, application owners, infrastructure teams, business stakeholders, and change advisory boards all have to align.”

Niyati Daftary, principal analyst at Gartner, said the release underscores a broader shift in how patching is approached.

“Patching is no longer a race to remediate every vulnerability. It is a discipline of identifying the exposures that matter most and reducing business risk as efficiently as possible,” she said, adding that organizations should prioritize based on exposure, business impact and exploitability, starting with internet-facing assets and mission-critical systems.

Daftary pointed to continuous threat exposure management and adversarial exposure validation as increasingly relevant frameworks, since CVSS scores “measure theoretical severity rather than actual enterprise risk.” Patching alone will not be sufficient, Daftary said, and organizations should continue investing in defense in depth, including behavioral threat detection and incident response.

Oracle’s next cumulative Critical Patch Update will come on Oct. 20, 2026, with smaller Critical Security Patch Updates on Aug. 18 and Sept. 15.

This article first appeared on CSO.

Oracle’s July 2026 Critical Patch Update, its largest ever, contains 1,449 new security patches spanning 32 product families, from Oracle Database and E-Business Suite to PeopleSoft, GoldenGate, Java SE, and Fusion Middleware.

Fusion Middleware was particularly hard hit, with new security patches for 355 security vulnerabilities, 219 of them remotely exploitable without authentication, meaning they can be exploited over a network without requiring user credentials. Ten of them scored a “perfect” 10.0 on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).

These included easily exploitable vulnerabilities allowing unauthenticated attackers with network access via HTTP to compromise Oracle Data Integrator, Oracle Access Manager, Oracle HTTP Server, Oracle Platform Security for Java, Oracle WebCenter Content, Service Delivery Platform, or Oracle Weblogic Server Proxy Plug-in,

No other products were found to have quite such extreme vulnerabilities, but there were plenty of others scoring almost as badly.

Two critical flaws in Oracle Database Server

The most severe flaw Oracle patched in its flagship database product is CVE-2026-61211, a vulnerability in the RDBMS component’s DBMS_CLOUD package with a CVSS score of 9.9.

This easily exploitable vulnerability allows a low-privileged attacker having Execute DBMS_CLOUD privilege with network access via Oracle Net to compromise the RDBMS, Oracle said in the patch update statement. “While the vulnerability is in RDBMS, attacks may significantly impact additional products (scope change). Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in takeover of RDBMS,” it warned.

The flaw affects Database Server versions 19.3 through 19.31 and 23.4.0 through 23.26.2.

Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research, said the 9.9 score should be read as serious but conditional. Exposure depends on configuration, he said: On customer-managed databases, DBMS_CLOUD is absent until installed, and grants and network access lists determine the radius from there. “Where DBMS_CLOUD is broadly granted and reachable, the emergency is real and the window is seventy-two hours; where it is absent, the accelerated database wave will do.”

Vibhum Dubey, a cybersecurity researcher and red teamer, said the flaw stood out to him because it checks several boxes that concern defenders.

“Database servers often hold an organization’s most valuable data, so even if exploitation is not publicly observed yet, I don’t think this is the kind of issue you leave until the next routine maintenance window if your environment is exposed,” Dubey said.

A second Database Server flaw, CVE-2026-47040, affects Connection Manager in Oracle Net Services, is remotely exploitable without credentials. Oracle’s risk matrix lists six Database Product vulnerabilities in this cycle as reachable over a network with no authentication required, the statement added.

CVE-2026-7383, an OpenSSL-related TLS vulnerability, affects two products, Database Server and Autonomous Health Framework, since both bundle the same third-party component. Oracle’s advisory notes the Database Server patch for that CVE also resolves 19 related OpenSSL CVEs bundled into the same fix.

Oracle GoldenGate received 27 new patches, nine of which do not require authentication to exploit, including CVE-2026-2332, a flaw in the Big Data and Application Adapters component tied to Eclipse Jetty, the statement added.

There were also two critical flaws in Oracle’s TimesTen in-memory database.

The remainder of the release spans E-Business Suite, WebLogic Server, PeopleSoft, Siebel, JD Edwards, Communications, Retail Applications, Utilities Applications, MySQL, Solaris and VM VirtualBox.

Volume repair

Gogia said the volume itself marks a shift.

“At 1,449 patches, against 481 in April 2026 and 309 a year earlier, patch load has outgrown the queue built to hold it,” he said. He recommended a tiered response: “The reachable and the reported inside seventy-two hours, the trusted core inside ten days, the rest by risk before the October release.”

He also flagged a specific risk in how organizations might triage E-Business Suite. “Oracle’s advisory concedes that E-Business Suite exposure sits partly in underlying Database and Fusion Middleware versions outside the E-Business Suite matrix. The fastest way to mis-prioritise this release is to patch by product logo instead of trust boundary.”

Third Tuesday, quarterly cycle

The July release is the third quarterly Critical Patch Update of 2026, and the first since the introduction in May of the monthly Critical Security Patch Update program.

Gogia said Oracle has effectively layered a second cadence on top of the existing one rather than replacing it.

“Quarterly Critical Patch Updates remain and stay cumulative; monthly Critical Security Patch Updates now sit on top,” he said, adding that enterprise adoption of the new rhythm remains low because of “certification obligations, regression exposure and scarce specialist hours.”

Dubey made a similar point about organizational readiness: “In large enterprises, patching is rarely a technical problem. It is an operational one. Database administrators, application owners, infrastructure teams, business stakeholders, and change advisory boards all have to align.”

Niyati Daftary, principal analyst at Gartner, said the release underscores a broader shift in how patching is approached.

“Patching is no longer a race to remediate every vulnerability. It is a discipline of identifying the exposures that matter most and reducing business risk as efficiently as possible,” she said, adding that organizations should prioritize based on exposure, business impact and exploitability, starting with internet-facing assets and mission-critical systems.

Daftary pointed to continuous threat exposure management and adversarial exposure validation as increasingly relevant frameworks, since CVSS scores “measure theoretical severity rather than actual enterprise risk.” Patching alone will not be sufficient, Daftary said, and organizations should continue investing in defense in depth, including behavioral threat detection and incident response.

Oracle’s next cumulative Critical Patch Update will come on Oct. 20, 2026, with smaller Critical Security Patch Updates on Aug. 18 and Sept. 15.

Just in time for the iPhone’s 20th anniversary, Apple is moving closer to becoming a service company. It is set to launch its new deal with Klarna next week and when it does, Apple enthusiasts in the US will effectively be able to subscribe to their favorite Apple hardware, with the cost spread across up to three years.

This matters because when combined with Apple One and Apple’s Creator Studio subscriptions, the Klarna arrangement brings Apple closer to offering a full subscription model for hardware, software, and services. The only thing you don’t get under the new arrangement is AppleCare, for which you’ll allegedly need to pay extra.

Moving closer to hardware-as-a-service

Apple has slowly been transitioning toward hardware-as-a-service for almost a decade. Back then, Forrester analyst Frank Gillet predicted the company would eventually offer bundles of services and products for a monthly, all-in, fee. 

This isn’t quite where we are yet; you still need at least three subscriptions to get close. But, after the better part of a decade, Apple has moved much nearer to the hardware-as-a-service idea.

There are some products reportedly excluded from the arrangement, including MacBook Neo, Apple Watch SE, the entry-level iPad, and iPhone 16. Clearly, Apple sees those products as sufficiently affordable. 

Easy payments for RAM-ageddon

The new Klarna arrangement comes as Apple is forced to increase product prices as AI-driven memory price inflation becomes widely felt across every economy. In theory, I assume, Apple hopes to make its products available to cash-strapped consumers who need new hardware, while also navigating a time of deep economic tumult and uncertainty. It’s thought the company has previously rejected these plans to protect normal hardware sales, but normality is a kingdom we no longer seem to possess. Interesting times. Probable inflation incoming.

“Apple Upgrade lands at precisely the moment Apple needs it,” IDC analyst Francisco Jeronimo wrote in a note seen by Computerworld. “Having just pushed Mac and iPad prices up on the back of the memory shortage, with iPhone increases widely expected in September — as well as the new iPhone foldable expected at $2,500 — Apple’s real risk is that rising prices even further can impact the upgrade cycle.” 

New age, new shopping habits

The introduction of the scheme gives consumers a way to purchase the company’s popular high-end devices when they are introduced — no doubt,at higher cost — this fall. Plus, of course, if it’s good enough for GM, it’s good enough for Apple.

It’s all about attitude, too. From Apple’s perspective, it has done plenty of the groundwork required to convince its customers that subscription payments for things you value are no bad thing. 

Reluctance to embrace “Access Not Ownership’”purchasing models has dropped dramatically since Apple — and CEO Tim Cook — first began banging the drum for services income. Apple’s services stream has now become its second-biggest revenue driver after the iPhone. It has over 1 billion paid subscriptions, and an active hardware installed base of more than 2.5 billion devices globally.

A combination of changed customer habits and external threat means the stars are now aligned for hardware-as-a-service models. “Reframing a device as a low monthly payment protects that [upgrade] cadence and allows Apple to start marketing their products as device-as-a-service to consumers, which no other vendor was ever able to do,” Jeronimo wrote to me. 

There is a one-more-thing aspect to this: the products are effectively being leased, a new approach that will give Apple a stronger grip on EOL devices, helping it grab more of them for refurbishment, resale, and recycling. Over time, this will give the company a much stronger grip on the lucrative second-user market that exists around Apple equipment, even while for almost every consumer product we find the life we want is something we can rent, but probably can’t afford to own.

Managing future risk

The other solid reason to take a partnership approach is risk management. Apple had intended to develop its own buy-now, pay-later scheme via Apple Pay Later, but abandoned that plan as it became riskier with rising bank rates. “Also, by backing the program with Klarna rather than reviving the in-house subscription plan it shelved in 2024, Apple captures the demand upside without taking the credit risk onto its own balance sheet,” Jeronimo said.

You can follow me on social media! Join me on BlueSky,  LinkedIn, Mastodon and subscribe to The Core.

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

To win the AI race, Hyperscalers (Google, Meta, Amazon, Microsoft, Alibaba, Oracle, IBM, Tencent) are spending huge amounts of money on data center development. In the USA, the hyperscalers are planning to spend $650 billion in 2026, which is around 70% higher than 2025 spending, according to Yahoo Finance.

As per McKinsey research, by 2030, companies will invest around $7 trillion in Capex on data center infrastructure globally. More than $4 trillion will go towards computing hardware investment. More than 40% of this spending will be invested in the United States.

Demand growth in data centers

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

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

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