Search This Blog

Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Labels

Footer About

Footer About

Labels

Showing posts with label AI. Show all posts

Researchers Find Security Gap in Anthropic Skill Scanners




Security researchers have uncovered a gap in the way Anthropic Skill scanning tools inspect third-party AI packages, allowing malicious code hidden inside test files to execute on developer systems even after scanners marked the Skills as safe.

The issue centers on Anthropic Skills, reusable packages designed for AI coding assistants such as Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf. These packages often include instructions, scripts, and configuration files that help AI agents perform development tasks inside IDE environments.

Researchers from Gecko Security found that existing Skill scanners focus primarily on files tied directly to agent behavior, particularly SKILL.md, while ignoring bundled test files that can still run locally through standard developer tooling.

In the demonstrated attack chain, a Skill passed all scanner checks because its visible instruction files contained no prompt injection attempts, suspicious shell commands, or malicious instructions. However, the repository also included a hidden .test.ts file stored elsewhere in the directory structure. Although the file was outside the agent execution layer, it still executed through the project’s testing framework with full access to local resources.

According to researcher Jeevan Jutla, the problem begins when developers install a Skill using the npx skills add command. The installer copies nearly the entire repository into the project’s .agents/skills/ directory. Only a few items, including .git, metadata.json, and files prefixed with underscores, are excluded during installation.

Once placed inside the repository, testing frameworks such as Jest and Vitest automatically discover matching test files through recursive glob patterns. Both frameworks reportedly enable the dot:true option, allowing them to search inside hidden directories including .agents/. Mocha follows similar recursive discovery behavior in many default configurations.

A malicious Skill can therefore include a file such as reviewer.test.ts containing a beforeAll function that silently executes before visible tests begin. Researchers said these payloads can access environment variables, .env files, SSH keys, AWS credentials, deployment tokens, and other sensitive information commonly available inside local developer environments and CI pipelines. The data can then be transmitted to external servers without triggering obvious warnings during test execution.

The researchers stressed that the AI agent itself is never involved in the compromise. Instead, the malicious behavior occurs through trusted developer tooling already integrated into the software workflow. Existing scanners inspect the files the AI agent can interpret, but not the files executed separately by testing infrastructure.

The technique resembles older software supply-chain attacks involving malicious npm postinstall scripts and poisoned pytest plugins. However, Gecko Security noted that the Anthropic Skill ecosystem creates an additional propagation problem because installed Skills are often committed into shared repositories so teams can reuse them collaboratively.

GitHub’s default .gitignore templates do not automatically exclude .agents/ directories. Once a malicious test file enters the repository, every teammate cloning the project and every CI pipeline running automated tests may execute the payload across branches, forks, and deployment workflows.

The findings arrived shortly after multiple large-scale security audits examining the broader Anthropic Skills ecosystem. A January academic study named SkillScan analyzed 31,132 Skills collected from two major marketplaces and found that 26.1% contained at least one vulnerability spanning 14 separate patterns. Data exfiltration appeared in 13.3% of examined Skills, while privilege escalation appeared in 11.8%. Researchers also determined that Skills bundling executable scripts were 2.12 times more likely to contain vulnerabilities than instruction-only packages.

Several weeks later, Snyk published its ToxicSkills audit covering 3,984 Skills from ClawHub and skills.sh. The company reported that 13.4% of scanned Skills contained at least one critical-level security issue. Automated analysis combined with human review identified 76 confirmed malicious payloads, while eight malicious Skills reportedly remained publicly accessible on ClawHub when the findings were released.

In April, Cisco introduced an AI Agent Security Scanner integrated into IDE platforms including VS Code, Cursor, and Windsurf. The scanner can detect prompt injection attempts, suspicious shell execution patterns, and data exfiltration behaviors within Skill definitions and agent-referenced scripts. However, Gecko Security said bundled test files remain outside the scanner’s documented detection surface because the tool was designed around agent interaction layers rather than developer execution layers.

Researchers noted that other products, including Snyk Agent Scan and VirusTotal Code Insight, face similar structural limitations. These tools inspect what the agent is instructed to execute but may overlook code paths triggered separately through local development frameworks.

Elia Zaitsev described the broader issue as a distinction between interpreting intent and monitoring actual execution behavior. In this case, the malicious code did not depend on prompt manipulation or AI instructions. It operated as ordinary TypeScript executed through legitimate test runners with full local permissions.

Zaitsev also warned that enterprise AI agents increasingly operate with privileged access to OAuth tokens, API keys, and centralized data sources. If those credentials are accessible through environment variables during automated testing, malicious test payloads can reach sensitive infrastructure without requiring direct agent compromise.

Mike Riemer added that threat actors frequently reverse engineer security patches within 72 hours of release, while many organizations take far longer to deploy fixes. In the case of the Anthropic Skill test-file issue, researchers warned that the exposure window becomes more difficult to manage because the malicious files may execute immediately after installation without triggering scanner alerts.

Security researchers are urging development teams to block test discovery inside .agents/ directories and inspect Skill repositories for files such as *.test.*, *.spec.*, conftest.py, __tests__/, and suspicious configuration scripts before merging code.

The report also recommends pinning Skill installations to verified commit hashes rather than installing the latest repository version. Researchers said this reduces the risk of attackers submitting clean repositories for scanner approval before later inserting malicious files. The approach aligns with guidance published in the OWASP Agentic Skills Top 10 project.

Organizations that already store Skills inside repositories are advised to audit existing .agents/ directories immediately, rotate exposed credentials if suspicious files are discovered, inspect CI logs for unexplained outbound network traffic, and review repository history to identify when potentially malicious files entered development pipelines.

The researchers additionally called on security vendors to provide greater transparency regarding which directories, execution surfaces, and file categories their scanners actually inspect. They argued that security teams evaluating Anthropic Skill scanners should verify whether products analyze bundled test files, build scripts, and CI configurations rather than focusing exclusively on prompt injection and agent instruction analysis.

9-Year-Old Linux bug Found by Researchers, Could Leak Data


Experts have revealed details of a bug in the Linux kernel that stayed unnoticed for nine years. The flaw is tracked as CVE-2026-46333 (CVSS score: 5.5). 

Improper bug management 

The incident is improper privilege management that could have allowed threat actors to reveal sensitive data as unprivileged local users and launch arbitrary commands on default installs such as Ubuntu, Debian, and Fedora. Its alias is aka ssh-keysign-pwn.

Vulnerability existed since 2016

Cybersecurity firm Qualys found the flaw. Since November 2016, the problem has been present in mainstream Linux (v4.10-rc1). 

Distribution updates and upstream patches are already accessible. There are publicly available working exploits, thus administrators should install vendor kernel upgrades right away, Qualys said.

Privilege compromise tactic

TRU discovered a small window in which a privileged process that is dropping its credentials can still be accessed through ptrace-family operations, despite the fact that its dumpable flag should have blocked that path, during ongoing study into Linux kernel privilege boundaries.  

Qualys also added that an attacker can obtain open file descriptors and authenticated inter-process channels from a dying privileged process and utilize them under their own uid by combining this window with the pidfd_getfd() syscall (introduced in v5.6-rc1, January 2020)

What is successful exploit?

Successful bug exploit can allow a local threat actor to reveal /etc/shadow and ho'st private keys under /etc/ssh/*_key, and deploy arbitrary commands as root via four distinct hacks attacking ssh-keysign, accounts-daemon, chage, and pkexec.

PoC exploit

The bug reveal is a proof-of-concept (PoC) exploit for the bug. It was released recently, and soon after, a public kernel surfaced. CVE-2026-46333 is the latest security bug revealed in Linux after Dirty Frag, Fragnesia, and Copy Fail in recent months.

How to stay safe

Experts have advised to use the latest kernel update released by Linux distributions. If users are unable to do it immediately, temporary patchwork includes raising "kernel.yama.ptrace_scope" to 2.
Qualys added, "On hosts that have allowed untrusted local users during the exposure window, treat SSH host keys and locally cached credentials as potentially disclosed. Rotate host keys and review any administrative material that lived in the memory of set-uid processes,” Qualys said.

Incident impact

The incident happened after the release of a PoC for a local privilege exploit known as PinTheft that lets local hackers get access to root privileges on Arch Linux systems. The hack requires the Reliable Datagram Sockets (RDS) module to be deployed on the victim system, readable SUID-root-binary, io_ring enabling, and x86_64 support for the given payload.

Data Leak: Instructure, Canvas Allegedly Hacked, ShinyHunters Claim Responsibility


Instructure, a cloud-based LMS Canvas company was hit by a massive data attack. Ransomware gang ShinyHunters claimed responsibility for the attack, saying that it had stolen data related to 280 million students, teachers, and school staff.

100s of GBs data leaked

The data breach accounts for hundreds of gigabytes, possibly leaking Canvas users’ email ids, private messages, and names. 

Instructure revealed in May that it was hit by a data breach. The Canvas incidents of 8,809 universities, educational platforms, schools were impacted by the attack. ShinyHunters said that the numbers range between tens of thousands to several millions per institution.

It is concerning that a lot of K-12 students’ data has been leaked. If your child has been affected by the data breach, Malware Bytes can help in what to do next and how to stay safe.

Canvas compromised

Various students who tried using Canvas after the cyberattack received the message from ShinyHunters blackmailing to leak the data if Instructure did not contact the hackers by May 12. Canvas was shut down offline for various students following the incident, but it is now available for most users. 

GTA 6, Studio Rockstar were blackmailed too

ShinyHunters has been killing it this year, with only high profile targets in its track records. The group asked for a ransom from GTA 6 (a video game) Studio Rockstar in April. But in reality, it was a hoax demand as the hackers did not have anything important/worthy to leak. 

Nvidea Geforce allegedly hacked

But recently, the group allegedly claimed responsibility for the Nvidea’s GeForce Now breach, claiming to have “pulled their entire database straight from the backend."

Shiny hunters all over the place

In the Canvas incident, ShinyHunters allegedly stole user records through exposrting features inside the platform. This consists of DAP queries, APIs, and provisioning reports, according to Bleeping Computers. “The unauthorized actor carried out this activity by exploiting an issue related to our Free-For-Teacher accounts,” Instructure said. 

It also added that it “revoked privileged credentials and access tokens, deployed platform-wide protections, rotated certain internal keys, restricted token creation pathways, and added monitoring across our platforms." 

The impact

Instructure also “engaged a third-party forensic firm and notified law enforcement. Beyond the immediate response, we're hardening administrative access, token management, permissions, monitoring, and related workflows. The investigation may inform further improvements.”

However, it might be too little, too late—parents are unlikely to overlook the possibility of disclosing their children's information. The much bigger problem, though, is the disastrous harm ShinyHunters has caused to Canvas's operations and reputation, as malware historian vx-underground stated on X.

Token Pilfering: How Token Theft is Plaguing Cybersecurity


AI economy and computing threat

The rising AI economy is bringing a new type of cybercrime. Cybercriminals are scamming AI firms by signing up for new accounts to steal tokens via computing power. The problem is getting worse, according to Patrick Collison, CEO of payment behemoth Stripe. The token hackers now amount for one in every six new customer subscriptions.

Token pilfering

Experts said that the threat actors steal the tokens to later sell them on the dark web. ‘Token pilfering’ has plagued the cybersecurity world and is becoming quite expensive for AI startups to give free trials to potential customers.

Startups attacked for money

It is not new for hackers to attack startups. With the AI economy rising, it has created fractures for hackers because with traditional software trials, a registration for an AI firm brings valuable tokens for compute power that hackers can sell later.

The token theft

The most neglected subject in AI is token theft. Because they are using tokens at machine speed, these attackers can swiftly accrue enormous consumption bills that they never plan to pay and burn inference costs. This is one of the most frightening aspects of that.

In order to use the tokens for purposes unrelated to what the company is delivering or to resell them, token theft sometimes involves thieves creating many accounts at an AI company and across multiple firms. They always vanish after using up all of the tokens; Sands compared this swindle to those who "dine and dash" at restaurants.

Attack tactic

The problem surfaces as the crooks use agents to steal the tokens in minutes. Unlike a traditional software company, the cybercrime happens too fast for the organization to address the issue.

It is hell for AI firms who want to give out free trials to get more new users. Typically, it costs nothing for a firm to give out free trials on a temporary basis, but for AI firms, the customer-acquisition costs can go up to $500 due to scammers abusing the startup policies of giving out free tokens for trial accounts.

Token epidemic

The token epidemic has created problems for startups. Few have stopped free trials, but it has affected their growth as it shuts down the opportunities to get new customers.

Luckily, one solution exists. According to Stripe, there exists a product called Radar that works as a default fraud detector in the credit card payment network, adapts tools, and helps clients find and block token fraud.

Crypto at Risk: Experts Believe Quantum Threat Arriving by 2030


A recent report has warned that cryptographic foundations that secure trillions of dollars in digital currency can be hacked by quantum computers within the next four to seven years, and the blockchain industry is not prepared for damage control.

About quantum computing and threats

Project Eleven, a quantum security firm, published a report that said these quantum computers, even one, is powerful enough to hack the elliptic curve digital signatures securing Ethereum, Bitcoin, and other big blockchains. Experts say they won’t exist beyond 2033, and may end soon by 2030. The window for action is closing fast. According to the report, “Migration to quantum-resistant cryptography is no longer optional but imperative for any blockchain system expected to be trusted and secure into the future." 

Why is quantum computing so fast?

Recent innovations have significantly lowered the hardware bar needed to launch such attacks. A breakthrough Google paper said that breaking the elliptic curve cryptography threshold could be achieved within 1,200 logical cubits, and less than 90 minutes of computing time on a supercomputing hardware.

Google has put a Q-Day (like D-day)  at 2032. Project Eleven’s research has decreased the timeline by two years: 2030. The report estimates that 6.9 million Bitcoin (one third of the total estimated supply) have already been leaked on-chain, exposed to the potential quantum attack. For ETH, exposure is more, with over 65% of all ETH held in quantum-exposed addresses.

Why are blockchains weak against quantum computing?

The public ledgers and bearer-instruments offer no security. Blockchains has no scam department, no redressal platform for stolen funds, and no chargeback measures. If a quantum hacker recovers a private key and steals money, the loss is permanent. The transition problem is further fouled by slow-moving blockchain governance. 

What makes blockchains particularly vulnerable, the report explains, is that their public ledgers and bearer-instrument design offer no safety net. Unlike a bank, a blockchain has no fraud department, no chargeback mechanism, and no way to reverse a forged transaction. Once a quantum attacker recovers a private key and drains a wallet, the loss is permanent. 

Why is crypto migration difficult?

Bitcoin SegWit upgrade took more than two years to complete whereas ETH’s transition of proof stake took around 6 years to build. Quantum migration reaches the most basic layer of any blockchain mechanism.

The tech world has already started moving. More than half of web traffic (human) is currently post-quantum encrypted, Cloudflare data from December 2025 said. 

Is the digital industry prepared?

The digital asset industry lacks preparedness. Crypto developers are suggesting various proposals but these plans will take years to execute while the threat is already brushing businesses and users.

"The internet has already moved," the report added. "The digital asset industry—which arguably has more at stake because blockchains directly protect bearer value with the exact cryptographic primitives that quantum computers threaten—has barely started."

4 Key Areas in 2026 for Organisation Safety Against Advanced AI Threats

4 Key Areas in 2026 for Organisation Safety Against Advanced AI Threats

2026 has not been a kind year to cybersecurity, as organizations and industries globally have been hit by ruthless cyberattacks. 

2026 and cybersecurity

Cybersecurity entered 2026 under stress to deploy AI tech while building foundations for a quantum future. Cybersecurity experts have to defend against advanced AI and hybrid attacks while facing talent scarcity, a rapidly shifting threat scenario, and rising operational challenges. 

It is the first time that hackers have access to the same advanced enterprise-level tech that security experts are using to defend their digital assets.

Is the convergence good or bad?

Organizations are in need of the transformational advantage that Quantum computing promises, however, it also risks affecting the cryptographic infrastructure that protects today’s digital world. Worse, cyber attackers are getting together and outbeating experts. 

Like experts, threat actors don’t mind playing the long game either, they gain initial access and stay hidden inside systems for longer periods of time. When the right opportunity arrives, they move laterally and hack important data that can affect operations, cause financial damage, and tarnish reputations.

So, what are these four key areas that businesses and users need to address or stay safe from?

1. System and skills problem

As per the ICS2 2025 report, 69% respondents suffered multiple cybersecurity breaches due to skill gaps. This is due to various factors such as budget constraints, misalignment in academia, and high enterprise demand.

2. Bug management shift to active exposure reduction

Hackers use GenAI to advance their attacks, scaling, and escape security experts. This reactive cycle delays response times, and gives just basic protection. What businesses need today is Continuous Threat Exposure Management (CTEM) approach that offers real-time visibility before flaws can be exploited. But the success depends on AI-based risk prioritization.

3. Advanced deepfake protection is the need of the hour

Reliability is the new attack vector. Deepfakes have plagued every digital aspect of human life. Traditional measures fail to address content due to AI, therefore AI-based protection is needed. Adaptive deepfake systems can address identity workflows and respond immediately to threats, flagging malicious activity and capturing attacks with detailed metadata for research and audit work.

4. Post-quantum protection 

Quantum computing is making strides in applicability; if sufficiently advanced, the systems can break public-key cryptographic systems in ransomware attacks such as RSA, where hackers extort millions. Hackers are already using the “harvest now, decrypt later” approach, stealing coded data with no promise of returning it. 

Thus, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have advised to adopt post-quantum cryptography (PQC) and tracking quantum-vulnerable assets.

New ChatGPT Settings Will Improve User Privacy and Data Training


Almost everyone has used ChatGPT now. Sometimes we share our personal information and files with the Chatbot. 

Do not feed your personal info to AI bots

To be safe, users should avoid feeding personal data to the AI, as it can be misused, and there are thousands of cases now. Users at the receiver end can not do much except using multifactor authentication, and creating a strong password and using two-factor authentication. But users can be happy now that a new feature is available to individual ChatGPT users.

What is Advanced Account Security

The new feature is called Advanced Account Security, it aims to provide better security to your account and protect your data. The option is aimed for security-minded users like journalists, politicians, activists, and researchers. 

With better security, Advanced Account Security provides four setting standards. The first one requires using a passkey or physical security key to log in. The second one requires better tactics to recover an account besides SMS or email authorization. In the third setting, our active session with an AI chatbot is limited to restrict its exposure. The fourth setting protects your chats from AI misuse.

About new safety settings

1. Use passkeys to avoid unauthorized access. Advanced Account Security asks for signing in with a passkey. Users can set up either one or both, but will also have to create two authentication methods.

2. Two-factor authentication for securing your account will help in recovering lost data. However, SMS and Email authentication are vulnerable to attacks. Advanced Account Security disables these two methods, so users are sometimes helpless.

3. Try to shorten your login sessions. Longer sessions are more exposed to malware or cyberattacks.

4. Turn off AI training. ChatGPT uses your conversations for AI training and learns to be human. But this capability is a risk to user privacy.

Enterprise support soon

Advanced Account Security protects users in Codex  if they use it to make and fine tune their code. Currently, this feature is only available to paid and free ChatGPT users with their personal accounts. However, OpenAI has said it is planning to expand it to the enterprise public.

Advanced Account Security also protects you in Codex if you use it to develop and fine-tune your own code. For now, the feature is available to free and paid ChatGPT users with their own accounts. But OpenAI said it expects to expand it to the enterprise crowd.

India’s Cybersecurity Workforce Struggles to Keep Pace as AI and Cloud Systems Expand

 



India’s fast-growing digital economy is creating an urgent demand for cybersecurity professionals, but companies across the country are finding it increasingly difficult to hire people with the technical expertise required to secure modern systems.

A new study released by the Data Security Council of India and SANS Institute found that businesses are facing a serious shortage of skilled cybersecurity workers as technologies such as artificial intelligence, cloud computing, and API-driven infrastructure become more deeply integrated into daily operations.

According to the Indian Cyber Security Skilling Landscape Report 2025–26, nearly 73 per cent of enterprises and 68 per cent of service providers said there is a limited supply of qualified cybersecurity professionals in the country. The report suggests that organisations are struggling to build teams capable of handling increasingly advanced cyber risks at a time when companies are rapidly digitising services, storing more information online, and adopting AI-powered tools.

The hiring process itself is also becoming slower. Around 84 per cent of organisations surveyed said cybersecurity positions often remain vacant for one to six months before suitable candidates are found. This delay reflects a growing mismatch between industry expectations and the skills available in the job market.

Researchers noted that many applicants entering the cybersecurity workforce lack practical exposure to real-world security environments. Around 63 per cent of enterprises and 59 per cent of service providers said candidates often do not possess sufficient hands-on technical experience. Employers are no longer only looking for basic security knowledge. Companies increasingly require professionals who understand multiple areas at once, including cloud infrastructure, application security, digital identity systems, and access management technologies. Nearly 58 per cent of enterprises and 60 per cent of providers admitted they are struggling to find candidates with this type of cross-functional expertise.

The report connects this shortage to the changing structure of enterprise technology systems. Many organisations are moving away from traditional on-premise setups and shifting toward cloud-native environments, interconnected APIs, and AI-supported operations. As businesses automate more routine tasks, demand is gradually moving away from entry-level operational positions and toward specialised cybersecurity roles that require analytical thinking, threat detection capabilities, and advanced technical decision-making.

Artificial intelligence is now becoming one of the largest drivers of cybersecurity hiring demand. Around 83 per cent of organisations surveyed described AI and generative AI security skills as essential for future operations, while 78 per cent reported strong demand for AI security engineers. The findings also show that nearly 62 per cent of enterprises are already running active AI or generative AI projects, which experts say can create additional security risks if systems are not properly monitored and protected.

As companies deploy AI systems, the attack surface for cybercriminals also expands. Security teams are now expected to defend AI models, protect sensitive datasets, monitor automated systems for manipulation, and secure APIs connecting multiple digital services. Industry experts have repeatedly warned that many organisations are adopting AI tools faster than they are building security frameworks around them.

Some cybersecurity positions remain especially difficult to fill. The report found that almost half of service providers and nearly 40 per cent of enterprises are struggling to recruit security architects, professionals responsible for designing secure digital infrastructure and long-term defence strategies. Demand is also increasing for specialists in operational technology and industrial control system security, commonly known as OT/ICS security. These professionals help protect critical infrastructure such as manufacturing facilities, power systems, transportation networks, and industrial operations from cyberattacks.

At the same time, companies are facing growing retention problems. Around 70 per cent of service providers and 42 per cent of enterprises said employees are frequently leaving for competitors offering better salaries and career opportunities. Limited access to advanced training and upskilling programs is also contributing to workforce attrition across the sector.

The findings point to a larger issue facing the cybersecurity industry globally: technology is evolving faster than workforce development. Experts believe companies, educational institutions, and training organisations may need to work more closely together to create industry-focused learning pathways that prepare professionals for modern cyber threats instead of relying heavily on theoretical instruction alone.

With India continuing to expand digital public infrastructure, cloud adoption, fintech services, AI development, and connected industrial systems, cybersecurity professionals are expected to play a central role in protecting sensitive information, maintaining operational stability, and preserving trust in digital platforms.

Cybersecurity Industry Split Over Impact of Anthropic’s Mythos AI

 





Advanced artificial intelligence systems are rapidly reshaping the cybersecurity industry, but experts remain sharply divided over whether the technology represents a manageable evolution in security research or the beginning of a large-scale vulnerability crisis.

The debate escalated after Anthropic introduced Claude Mythos Preview, an experimental version of its language model that the company says demonstrates unusually strong performance in identifying software vulnerabilities and handling advanced cybersecurity tasks. Concerned about the possible risks of releasing such capabilities broadly, Anthropic restricted access to a limited initiative known as Glasswing, allowing only a select group of organizations to test the system while the security community prepares for the implications.

Since the announcement, discussions across the cybersecurity sector have centered not only on the model’s technical abilities, but also on whether restricting access to it is realistic at all. Reports surfaced this week suggesting unauthorized individuals may already have accessed the Mythos preview, raising concerns that attempts to tightly control the technology may prove ineffective once similar capabilities become reproducible elsewhere.

The industry’s reaction has largely fallen into three competing schools of thought.

One group believes AI-driven vulnerability discovery could overwhelm existing security infrastructure. Supporters of this view warn that highly capable models may dramatically increase the speed at which attackers uncover exploitable weaknesses, potentially leading to widespread cyber incidents before defenders can respond effectively. Analysts aligned with this perspective argue that the cybersecurity ecosystem is already struggling to keep pace with current levels of vulnerability reporting.

A second group has taken a more operational approach, focusing on how organizations can defend themselves if AI-assisted exploit discovery becomes commonplace. This position has been reflected in work published through the Cloud Security Alliance, where hundreds of chief information security officers collaborated on guidance discussing defensive strategies. However, even within this camp, some security professionals have criticized Anthropic’s rollout process, arguing that patch management and vulnerability remediation are far more complex than the company appears to acknowledge.

A third camp remains skeptical of the broader panic surrounding Mythos. Researchers associated with AISLE argued that the model’s capabilities are not entirely unique because similar vulnerability discovery results can already be reproduced using publicly accessible open-weight AI models. In one cited example, researchers reportedly recreated a FreeBSD exploit demonstrated during the Mythos announcement using multiple open models, including systems inexpensive enough to operate at minimal cost. The finding suggests that moderately skilled attackers may already possess access to comparable capabilities independent of Anthropic’s platform.

This debate arrives as the cybersecurity industry is already experiencing a dramatic increase in vulnerability disclosures. The National Institute of Standards and Technology recently adjusted how it processes entries for the National Vulnerability Database after reporting a 263 percent increase in submissions between 2020 and 2025, including a sharp rise within the past year alone. The agency stated that it would prioritize only the most critical Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures entries for enrichment, highlighting how existing human review systems are struggling to scale alongside the growing volume of reported flaws.

Some experts believe artificial intelligence is already contributing to that acceleration, even before systems such as Mythos become widely available.

At the same time, defenders argue that existing security architectures still provide meaningful protection. Anthropic’s own findings reportedly acknowledged that while Mythos could identify vulnerabilities, it was unable to remotely exploit many of them because layered security controls prevented deeper compromise. This concept, commonly referred to as “defense in depth,” relies on multiple overlapping safeguards designed to stop attackers even if one weakness is discovered.

Despite disagreements over the severity of the threat, there is broad consensus that AI-assisted vulnerability discovery will continue advancing. The larger disagreement centers on how the software industry should adapt.

Some researchers argue that attempting to restrict access to advanced models through programs like Glasswing may ultimately fail because comparable capabilities are increasingly emerging in open-source ecosystems. Others believe the long-term answer may resemble principles already established in modern cryptography.

The discussion frequently references the work of 19th-century cryptographer Auguste Kerckhoffs, who argued that secure systems should remain safe even if attackers understand how they operate, except for protected keys or credentials. Over time, cybersecurity researchers have increasingly adopted a similar philosophy in software security, where openly scrutinized systems often become more resilient because flaws are exposed and corrected publicly.

Supporters of this approach believe AI could eventually force the software industry toward more rigorously tested open-source infrastructure. Under such a future, software components would face continuous AI-driven scrutiny before gaining widespread trust. However, experts also caution that this transition would be difficult because many companies still depend on proprietary code to protect intellectual property and maintain competitive advantages.

Another striking concern involves economics. Much of the modern internet depends heavily on open-source software, yet relatively few organizations financially contribute to securing and auditing the projects they rely upon. Although AI models may simplify vulnerability discovery, the computational resources required to run these systems remain expensive. Analysts warn that access to large-scale vulnerability analysis may increasingly depend on who can afford the computing power necessary to operate advanced models.

Some researchers fear this imbalance could create repeating cycles of major cyberattacks followed by emergency patching efforts before the industry temporarily stabilizes again. Recent supply chain attacks affecting widely used software tools have reinforced concerns that large-scale exploitation campaigns may become more frequent as AI-assisted discovery improves.

The sharp turn of events could also redefine the cybersecurity market itself. Companies specializing in vulnerability discovery may face mounting pressure as AI automates portions of their work. By contrast, vendors focused on remediation and layered defensive protections may see increased demand as organizations attempt to strengthen prevention measures and respond more rapidly to emerging threats.

For users and organizations heavily dependent on open-source software, the transition period may prove particularly difficult. However, some analysts remain cautiously optimistic that continuous scrutiny from increasingly advanced AI systems could eventually produce stronger and more resilient software ecosystems over the long term.

Exposed by Design: What 1 Million Open AI Services Reveal About the Future of Cyber Risk

 

The rapid ascent of artificial intelligence, once heralded as the great accelerator of productivity, now casts a long and unsettling shadow, one that reveals not merely innovation, but a profound erosion of foundational security discipline. 

A recent large scale scan of internet facing AI infrastructure has uncovered a reality that is difficult to ignore. Over 1 million exposed AI services across more than 2 million hosts were identified, many of them operating with little to no protection, silently accessible to anyone who knows where to look. This is not a marginal oversight. It is a systemic condition, one that reflects how speed, ambition, and competitive pressure are quietly outpacing prudence. 

The Illusion of Progress: When Innovation Outruns Security 


For decades, the software industry painstakingly evolved toward secure by design principles, including authentication layers, least privilege access, and hardened deployments. Yet, in the fervour surrounding AI, many of these hard earned lessons appear to have been set aside. 

Organizations are increasingly self hosting large language models and AI agents, driven by the promise of efficiency and control. But in doing so, they are deploying systems that are, paradoxically, less secure than legacy software ever was. 

The result is a peculiar contradiction. The most advanced technologies of our time are often protected by the weakest defenses. 

Perhaps the most alarming discovery is deceptively simple. Many AI services have no authentication at all. Fresh installations frequently grant immediate, high level access without requiring credentials. This is not due to sophisticated bypass techniques or unknown exploits. It stems from defaults that were never hardened in the first place. In such environments, attackers simply walk through the front door. 

When Conversations Become Vulnerabilities 


Among the exposed systems were AI chat interfaces that inadvertently revealed complete conversation histories. In enterprise contexts, such data is far from trivial. These exchanges may contain internal operational strategies, infrastructure configurations, proprietary code snippets, and sensitive business queries. 

Even seemingly harmless prompts can, when combined, form a detailed map of an organization’s inner workings. The quiet intimacy of human and machine interaction, once considered private, is thus transformed into a potential intelligence goldmine. A deeper inspection of these systems reveals not isolated mistakes, but recurring design flaws. Applications are often running with elevated privileges. Credentials are sometimes hardcoded into deployment files. Containers are misconfigured and services are left exposed. AI agents operate without sufficient sandboxing. Within days of analysis, researchers were able to identify new vulnerabilities, including risks related to remote code execution, which highlights how immature much of this ecosystem remains. 

These are patterns that repeat across environments. Unlike traditional applications, AI systems often possess extended capabilities. They can execute code, interact with APIs, and manipulate infrastructure. 

When such systems are exposed, the consequences escalate dramatically. A compromised AI agent is not merely a data leak. It can become an active participant in its own exploitation. Weak sandboxing and poorly segmented environments further amplify this risk, allowing attackers to move from one system to another with alarming ease. 

In this sense, AI does not just introduce new vulnerabilities. It magnifies existing ones. This phenomenon does not exist in isolation. Across the cybersecurity landscape, AI is reshaping both offense and defense. Recent analyses indicate that the time required to exploit vulnerabilities has shrunk dramatically, often from years to mere weeks. AI generated phishing and malware are increasing in both scale and sophistication. Even individuals with limited technical expertise can now execute complex attacks. 

The exposed AI services are therefore part of a larger transformation in how cyber risk evolves. 

At the heart of this issue lies a cultural shift. Organizations today operate under relentless pressure to innovate, deploy, and iterate. In this race, security is often treated as a secondary concern rather than a foundational requirement. 

Developers focus on functionality. Businesses focus on speed. Security becomes something to address later, once the system is already live. The irony is difficult to ignore. The very tools designed to enhance efficiency are being deployed in ways that create inefficiencies of far greater consequence, including breaches, downtime, and reputational loss. 

Lessons from the Exposure: What Must Change 


If there is a singular lesson to be drawn, it is this. AI infrastructure must be treated with the same level of rigor as traditional systems, if not more. 

This requires secure default configurations, mandatory authentication and access controls, elimination of hardcoded secrets, proper isolation of AI agents, and continuous monitoring of external attack surfaces. Security cannot remain reactive. In an AI driven world, it must become anticipatory. 

Conclusion: A Turning Point, Not a Footnote 


The exposure of over a million AI services is a warning more than just headlines. It reveals a fragile foundation beneath a rapidly expanding technological landscape. If left unaddressed, these vulnerabilities will not remain theoretical. They will manifest as real world breaches, financial losses, and systemic disruptions. 

Yet within this warning lies an opportunity to pause, to reassess and to restore the balance between innovation and responsibility. In the end, the true measure of technological progress is how wisely we secure what we create.

GlassWorm Malware Campaign Attacks Developer IDEs, Steals Data


About GlassWorm campaign 

Cybersecurity experts have discovered another incident of the ongoing GlassWorm campaign, which uses a new Zig dropper that's built to secretly compromise all integrated development environments (IDEs) on a developer's system. 

The tactic was found in an Open VSX extension called "specstudio.code-wakatime-activity-tracker”, which disguised as WakaTime, a famous tool that calculates the time programmes spend with the IDE. The extension can not be downloaded now. 

Attack tactic 

In previous attacks, GlassWorm used the same native compiled code in extensions. Instead of using the binary as the payload directly, it is deployed as a covert indirection for the visible GlassWorm dropper. It can secretly compromise all other IDEs that may be present in your device. 

The recently discovered Microsoft Visual Studio Code (VS Code) extension is a replica (almost).

The extension installs a universal Mach-O binary called "mac.node," if the system is running Apple macOS, and a binary called "win.node" for Windows computers.

Execution 

These Zig-written compiled shared libraries that load straight into Node's runtime and run outside of the JavaScript sandbox with complete operating system-level access are Node.js native addons.

Finding every IDE on the system that supports VS Code extensions is the binary's main objective once it has been loaded. This includes forks like VSCodium, Positron, and other AI-powered coding tools like Cursor and Windsurf, in addition to Microsoft VS Code and VS Code Insiders.

Malicious code installation 

Once this is achieved, the binary installs an infected VS Code extension (.VSIX) from a hacker-owned GitHub account. The extension, known as “floktokbok.autoimport”, imitates “steoates.autoimport”, an authentic extension with over 5 million downloads on the office Visual Studio Marketplace.

After that, the installed .VSIX file is written to a secondary path and secretly deployed into each IDE via editor's CLI installer. 

In the second-stage, VS Code extension works as a dropper that escapes deployment on Russian devices, interacts with the Solana blockchain, gets personal data, and deploys a remote access trojan (RAT). In the final stage, RAT installs a data-stealing Google Chrome extension. 

“The campaign has expanded repeatedly since then, compromising hundreds of projects across GitHub, npm, and VS Code, and most recently delivering a persistent RAT through a fake Chrome extension that logged keystrokes and dumped session cookies. The group keeps iterating, and they just made a meaningful jump,” cybersecurity firm aikido reported. 

Salesforce Unveils AI-Powered Slack Overhaul with 30 Game-Changing Features

 

Salesforce has unveiled a transformative AI overhaul for its Slack platform, introducing 30 new features designed to elevate it from a mere messaging tool to a comprehensive AI-powered workflow engine. Announced by CEO Marc Benioff at a San Francisco event in late March 2026, this update builds on Slack's acquisition five years ago, which has driven two-and-a-half times revenue growth across a million businesses. The changes position Slack at the heart of Salesforce's AI-centric strategy, aiming to automate repetitive tasks and boost enterprise productivity. 

Central to the makeover is an enhanced Slackbot, now boasting agentic capabilities far beyond basic queries. Following a January 2026 update that enabled it to draft emails, schedule meetings, and scan inboxes, the new features introduce reusable AI skills. Users can define custom tasks—like generating a project budget—that Slackbot executes across contexts by pulling data from channels, connected apps, and external sources. These skills come pre-built in a library but allow personalization, slashing manual effort dramatically. 

For instance, commanding Slackbot to "create a budget for the team retreat" triggers it to aggregate expenses from Slack threads, integrate CRM data, draft a plan, and auto-schedule a review meeting with relevant stakeholders based on their roles. This seamless automation extends to Slackbot acting as an MCP client, interfacing with external tools like Salesforce's Agentforce platform from 2024. It routes queries intelligently to the optimal agent or app, minimizing human oversight. 

Meeting management sees significant upgrades too, with Slackbot now transcribing huddles, generating summaries, and extracting action items. Missed details? A quick ask delivers a personalized recap, including your assigned tasks. The bot's reach expands beyond Slack, monitoring desktop activities such as calendars, deals, conversations, and habits to offer proactive suggestions—like drafting follow-ups. Privacy controls let users tweak permissions, ensuring data access aligns with comfort levels. 

These 30 features, rolling out gradually over coming months, underscore Salesforce's vision to embed AI deeply into daily work. Early tests report up to 20 hours weekly productivity gains, powered partly by models like Anthropic’s Claude. Slack evolves into a versatile hub where communication, automation, and decision-making converge, potentially redefining enterprise tools. As businesses grapple with AI integration, this Slack revamp highlights both promise and challenges—like dependency on vendor ecosystems and data governance. For teams already in Salesforce's orbit, it promises efficiency; for others, it signals a competitive push in AI-driven collaboration. The update arrives amid rapid tech shifts, urging companies to adapt swiftly.

Quantum Computing Could Threaten Bitcoin Security Sooner Than Expected, Study Finds

 



New research suggests the cryptocurrency industry may have less time than anticipated to prepare for the risks posed by quantum computing, with potential implications for Bitcoin, Ethereum, and other major digital assets.

A whitepaper released on March 31 by researchers at Google indicates that breaking the cryptographic systems securing these networks may require fewer than 500,000 physical qubits on a superconducting quantum computer. This marks a sharp reduction from earlier estimates, which placed the requirement in the millions.

The study brings together contributors from both academia and industry, including Justin Drake of the Ethereum Foundation and Dan Boneh, alongside Google Quantum AI researchers led by Ryan Babbush and Hartmut Neven. The research was also shared with U.S. government agencies prior to publication, with input from organizations such as Coinbase and the Ethereum Foundation.

At present, no quantum system is capable of carrying out such an attack. Google’s most advanced processor, Willow, operates with 105 qubits. However, researchers warn that the gap between current hardware and attack-capable machines is narrowing. Drake has estimated at least a 10% probability that a quantum computer could extract a private key from a public key by 2032.

The concern centers on how cryptocurrencies are secured. Bitcoin relies on a mathematical problem known as the Elliptic Curve Discrete Logarithm Problem, which is considered practically unsolvable using classical computers. However, Peter Shor demonstrated that quantum algorithms could solve this problem far more efficiently, potentially allowing attackers to recover private keys, forge signatures, and access funds.

Importantly, this threat does not extend to Bitcoin mining, which relies on the SHA-256 algorithm. Experts suggest that using quantum computing to meaningfully disrupt mining remains decades away. Instead, the vulnerability lies in signature schemes such as ECDSA and Schnorr, both based on the secp256k1.

The research outlines three potential attack scenarios. “On-spend” attacks target transactions in progress, where an attacker could intercept a transaction, derive the private key, and submit a fraudulent replacement before confirmation. With Bitcoin’s average block time of 10 minutes, the study estimates such an attack could be executed in roughly nine minutes using optimized quantum systems, with parallel processing increasing success rates. Faster blockchains such as Ethereum and Solana offer narrower windows but are not entirely immune.

“At-rest” attacks focus on wallets with already exposed public keys, such as reused or inactive addresses, where attackers have significantly more time. A third category, “on-setup” attacks, involves exploiting protocol-level parameters. While Bitcoin appears resistant to this method, certain Ethereum features and privacy tools like Tornado Cash may face higher exposure.

Technically, the researchers developed quantum circuits requiring fewer than 1,500 logical qubits and tens of millions of computational operations, translating to under 500,000 physical qubits under current assumptions. This is a substantial improvement over earlier estimates, such as a 2023 study that suggested around 9 million qubits would be needed. More optimistic models could reduce this further, though they depend on hardware capabilities not yet demonstrated.

In an unusual move, the team did not publish the full attack design. Instead, they used a zero-knowledge proof generated through the SP1 zero-knowledge virtual machine to validate their findings without exposing sensitive details. This approach, rarely used in quantum research, allows independent verification while limiting misuse.

The findings arrive as both industry and governments begin preparing for a post-quantum future. The National Security Agency has called for quantum-resistant systems by 2030, while Google has set a 2029 target for transitioning its own infrastructure. Ethereum has been actively working toward similar goals, aiming for a full migration within the same timeframe. Bitcoin, however, faces slower progress due to its decentralized governance model, where major upgrades can take years to implement.

Early mitigation efforts are underway. A recent Bitcoin proposal introduces new address formats designed to obscure public keys and support future quantum-resistant signatures. However, a full transition away from current cryptographic systems has not yet been finalized.

For now, users are advised to take precautionary steps. Moving funds to new addresses, avoiding address reuse, and monitoring updates from wallet providers can reduce exposure, particularly for long-term holdings. While the threat is not immediate, researchers emphasize that preparation must begin well in advance, as advances in quantum computing continue to accelerate.

How Duck.ai Offer Better Privacy Compared to Commercial Chatbots


Better privacy with DuckDuckGo's AI bot

Privacy issues have always bothered users and business organizations. With the rapid adoption of AI, the threats are also rising. DuckDuckGo’s Duck.ai chatbot benefits from this.

The latest report from Similarweb revealed that traffic to Duck.ai increased rapidly last month. The traffic recorded 11.1 million visits in February 2026, 300% more than January. 

Duck.ai's sudden traffic jump

The statistics seem small when compared with the most popular chatbots such as ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini. 

Similarweb estimates that ChatGPT recorded 5.4 billion visits in February 2026, and Google’s Gemini recorded 2.1 billion, whereas Claude recorded 290.3 million. 

For DuckDuckGo, the numbers show a good sign, as the bot was launched as beta in 2025, and has shown a sharp rise in visits. 

DuckDuckGo browser is known for its privacy, and the company aims to apply the same principle to its AI bot. Duck.ai doesn't run a bespoke LLM, it uses frontier models from Meta, Anthropic, and OpenAI, but it doesn't expose your IP address and personal data. 

Duck.ai's privacy policy reads, "In addition, we have agreements in place with all model providers that further limit how they can use data from these anonymous requests, including not using Prompts and Outputs to develop or improve their models, as well as deleting all information received once it is no longer necessary to provide Outputs (at most within 30 days, with limited exceptions for safety and legal compliance),”

Duck.ai is famous now

What is the reason for this sudden surge? The bot has two advantages over individual commercial bots like ChatGPT and Gemini, it offers an option to toggle between multiple models and better privacy security. The privacy aspect sets it apart. Users on Reddit have praised Duck.ai, one person noting "it's way better than Google's," which means Gemini. 

Privacy concerns in AI bots

In March, Anthropic rejected a few applications of its technology for mass surveillance and weapons submitted by the Department of Defense. The DoD retaliated by breaking the contract. Soon after, OpenAI stepped in. 

The incident stirred controversies around privacy concerns and ethical AI use. This explains why users may prefer chatbots like Duck.ai that safeguard user data from both the government and the big tech. 

Claude Mythos 5: Trillion-Parameter AI Powerhouse Unveiled

 

Anthropic has launched Claude Mythos 5, a groundbreaking AI model boasting 10 trillion parameters, positioning it as a leader in advanced artificial intelligence capabilities. This massive scale enables superior performance in demanding fields like cybersecurity, coding, and academic reasoning, surpassing many competitors in handling complex, high-stakes tasks. 

Alongside it, the mid-tier Capabara model offers efficient versatility, bridging the gap between flagship power and practical deployment, with Anthropic emphasizing a phased rollout for ethical safety. Claude Mythos 5's model excels in precision and adaptability, making it ideal for cybersecurity threat detection and intricate software development where accuracy is paramount. In academic reasoning, it tackles multifaceted problems that require deep logical inference, outpacing previous models in benchmark tests. 

Anthropic's commitment to responsible AI ensures these tools minimize risks like misuse, aligning innovation with accountability in real-world applications. Complementing Anthropic's releases, GLM 5.1 emerges as a key open-source milestone, excelling in instruction-following and multi-step workflows for automation tasks. Though not the fastest, its reliability fosters community-driven innovation, providing accessible alternatives to proprietary systems for developers worldwide. This model democratizes AI progress, enabling collaborative advancements without the barriers of closed ecosystems. 

Google DeepMind's Gemini 3.1 advances real-time multimodal processing for voice and vision, enhancing latency and quality in sectors like healthcare and autonomous systems. OpenAI's revamped Codeex platform introduces plug-in ecosystems with pre-built workflows, streamlining coding and boosting developer productivity. Meanwhile, the ARC AGI 3 Benchmark sets a rigorous standard for agentic reasoning, combating overfitting and driving genuine AI intelligence gains. 

These developments, including Mistral AI’s expressive text-to-speech and Anthropic’s biology-focused Operon, signal AI's transformative potential across industries. From ethical trillion-parameter giants to open benchmarks, they promise efficiency in research, automation, and creative workflows. As AI evolves rapidly, balancing power with safety will shape a future of innovative problem-solving.

Quantum Computing: The Silent Killer of Digital Encryption

 

Quantum computing poses a greater long-term threat to digital security than AI, as it could shatter the encryption underpinning modern systems. While AI grabs headlines for ethical and societal risks, quantum advances quietly erode the foundations of data protection, urging immediate preparation. 

Today's encryption relies on algorithms secure against classical computers but vulnerable to quantum power, potentially cracking codes in minutes that would take supercomputers millennia. Adversaries already pursue "harvest now, decrypt later" strategies, stockpiling encrypted data for future breakthroughs, compromising long-shelf-life secrets like trade intel and health records. This urgency stems from quantum's theoretical ability to solve complex problems via algorithms like Shor's, demanding a shift to post-quantum cryptography today. 

Digital environments exacerbate the danger, blending legacy systems, cloud workloads, and AI agents into opaque networks ripe for lateral attacks. Breaches often exploit seams between SaaS, APIs, and multicloud setups, where visibility into east-west traffic remains limited despite regulations like EU's NIS2 mandating segmentation. AI accelerates risks by enabling autonomous actions across boundaries, turning compromised agents into rapid escalators of privileges. 

Traditional perimeters have vanished in cloud eras, rendering zero-trust policies insufficient without runtime enforcement at the workload level. Organizations need cloud-native security fabrics for continuous visibility and identity-based controls, curbing movement without infrastructure overhauls. Regulators like CISA push for provable zero-trust, highlighting how unmanaged connections form hidden attack paths. 

NIST's 2024 post-quantum standards mark progress, but migrating cryptography alone fortifies a flawed base amid current complexity breaches. True resilience embeds security into network fabrics, auditing paths and enforcing policies proactively against cumulative threats. As quantum converges with AI and cloud, only holistic defenses will safeguard digital trust before crises erupt.

China-based TA416 Targets European Businesses via Phishing Campaigns

Chinese state-sponsored attacks

A China-based hacker is targeting European government and diplomatic entities; the attack started in mid-2025, after a two-year period of no targeting in the region. The campaign has been linked to TA416; the activities coincide with DarkPeony, Red Lich, RedDelta, SmugX, Vertigo Panda, and UNC6384.

According to Proofpoint, “This TA416 activity included multiple waves of web bug and malware delivery campaigns against diplomatic missions to the European Union and NATO across a range of European countries. Throughout this period, TA416 regularly altered its infection chain, including abusing Cloudflare Turnstile challenge pages, abusing OAuth redirects, and using C# project files, as well as frequently updating its custom PlugX payload."

Multiple attack campaigns

Additionally, TA416 organized multiple campaigns against the government and diplomatic organizations in the Middle East after the US-Iran conflict in February 2026. The attack aimed to gather regional intelligence regarding the conflict.

TA416 also has a history of technical overlaps with a different group, Mustang Panda (UNK_SteadySplit, CerenaKeeper, and Red Ishtar). The two gangs are listed as Hive0154, Twill Typhoon, Earth Preta, Temp.HEX, Stately Taurus, and HoneyMyte. 

TA416’s attacks use PlugX variants. The Mustang Panda group continually installed tools like COOLCLIENT, TONESHELL, and PUBLOAD. One common thing is using DLL side-loading to install malware.

Attack tactic

TA416’s latest campaigns against European entities are pushing a mix of web bug and malware deployment operations, while threat actors use freemail sender accounts to do spying and install the PlugX backdoor through harmful archives via Google Drive, Microsoft Azure Blob Storage, and exploited SharePoint incidents. The PlugX malware campaigns were recently found by Arctic Wolf and StrikeReady in October 2025. 

According to Proofpoint, “A web bug (or tracking pixel) is a tiny invisible object embedded in an email that triggers an HTTP request to a remote server when opened, revealing the recipient's IP address, user agent, and time of access, allowing the threat actor to assess whether the email was opened by the intended target.”

The TA416 attacks in December last year leveraged third-party Microsoft Entra ID cloud apps to start redirecting to the download of harmful archives. Phishing emails in this campaign link to Microsoft’s authentic OAuth authorization. Once opened, resends the user to the hacker-controlled domain and installs PlugX.

According to experts, "When the MSBuild executable is run, it searches the current directory for a project file and automatically builds it."

Attackers Exploit Critical Flaw to Breach 766 Next.js Hosts and Steal Data


Credential-stealing operation

A massive credential-harvesting campaign was found abusing the React2Shell flaw as an initial infection vector to steal database credentials, shell command history, Amazon Web Services (AWS) secrets, GitHub, Stripe API keys. 

Cisco Talos has linked the campaign to a threat cluster tracked as UAT-10608. At least 766 hosts around multiple geographic regions and cloud providers have been exploited as part of the operation. 

About the attack vector

According to experts, “Post-compromise, UAT-10608 leverages automated scripts for extracting and exfiltrating credentials from a variety of applications, which are then posted to its command-and-control (C2). The C2 hosts a web-based graphical user interface (GUI) titled 'NEXUS Listener' that can be used to view stolen information and gain analytical insights using precompiled statistics on credentials harvested and hosts compromised.”

Who are the victims?

The campaign targets Next.js instances that are vulnerable to CVE-2025-55182 (CVSS score: 10.0), a severe flaw in React Server Components and Next.js App Router that could enable remote code execution for access, and then deploy the NEXUS Listener collection framework.

This is achieved by a dropper that continues to play a multi-phase harvesting script that stores various details from the victim system. 

SSH private keys and authorized_keys

JSON-parsed keys and authorized_keys

Kubernetes service account tokens

Environment variables

API keys

Docker container configurations 

Running processes

IAM role-associated temporary credentials

Attack motive

The victims and the indiscriminate targeting pattern are consistent with automated scanning. The key thing in the framework is an application (password-protected) that makes all stolen data public to the user through a geographical user interface that has search functions to browse through the information. The present Nexus Listener version is V3, meaning the tool has gone through significant changes.

Talos managed to get data from an unknown NEXUS Listener incident. It had API keys linked with Stripe, AI platforms such as Anthropic, OpenAI, and NVIDIA NIM, communication services such as Brevo and SendGrid, webhook secrets, Telegram bot tokens, GitLab, and GitHub tokens, app secrets, and database connection strings. 

Why Email Aliases Are Important for Every User


Email spam was once annoying in the digital world. Recently, email providers have improved overflowing inboxes, which were sometimes confused with distractions and unwanted mail, such as hyperbolic promotions and efforts to steal user data. 

But the problem has not disappeared completely, as users still face problems sometimes. To address the issue, user can use email aliases. 

About email alias 

Email alias is an alternative email address that allows you to get mails without sharing your address. The alias reroutes all incoming mails to your primary account.

Types of email aliases 

Plus addressing: For organizing mail efficiently, you are a + symbol and a category, you can also add rules to your mail and filter them by source. 

Provider aliases: Mainly used for organizations to have particular emails for sections, while all mails go to the same inbox. 

Masked/forwarding aliases: They are aimed at privacy. Users don't give their real email, instead, a random mail is generated, while the email is sent to your real inbox. This feature is available with services like Proton Mail. 

How it protects our privacy 

Email aliases are helpful for organizing inbox, and can be effective for contacting business. But the main benefit is protecting your privacy. 

There are several strategies to accomplish this, but the primary one is to minimize the amount of time your email is displayed online. Your aliases can be removed at any moment, but they will still be visible and used. The more aliases you use, the more difficult it is to identify your real core email address. 

Because it keeps your address hidden from spammers, marketers, and phishing efforts, you will have more privacy. It is also simpler to determine who has exploited your data. 

Giving email aliases in specific circumstances makes it simpler to find instances when they have been abused. Instead of having to deal with a ton of spam, you can remove an alias as soon as you discover someone is abusing it and start over.

Aliases can be helpful for privacy, but they are not a foolproof way to be safe online. They do not automatically encrypt emails, nor do they cease tracking cookies.

The case of Apple

Court filings revealed that Apple Hide My Email, a function intended to protect genuine email addresses, does not keep users anonymous from law enforcement, raising new concerns about privacy.

With the use of this feature, which is accessible to iCloud+ subscribers, users can create arbitrary email aliases so that websites and applications never see their primary address. Apple claims it doesn't read messages; they are just forwarded. However, recent US cases show a clear limit: Apple was able to connect those anonymous aliases to identifiable accounts in response to legitimate court demands