Agregátor RSS

A previously unknown malware framework called BambooToken, active since at least 2023, is now using the Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT) protocol to communicate with Windows and Linux systems. [...]

Experienced IT leaders know that shadow IT is a persistent problem, but rapidly evolving AI and the proliferation of agents mean the potential threat - and cost - is greater than ever. AI agents are non-deterministic, autonomous, and adaptable. They excel at solving tasks in creative ways, often to the surprise of their creators. We've seen agents write blogs that criticize project maintainers that refused their pull requests. Another one hacked a McKinsey chatbot to gain read/write access without asking for permission. And agents are getting smarter all the time. As an industry veteran, DigiCert's senior vice president of product Brian Trzupek sees an old pattern. "When the promise of the technology is so good, people are willing to throw security out the window, and they just want to get to that promise real fast." CISOs should be worried about allowing these agents into their infrastructure without strict controls, but it's happening anyway. IBM's 2026 Cost of a Data Breach report found that more organizations lacked governance to manage AI or detect shadow AI, at 68 percent compared to 63 percent last year. The number requiring IT approval to deploy AI had fallen to 38 percent from 45 percent. DigiCert is trying to solve this problem with its own approach to AI governance called AI Trust. The framework, outlined in this white paper, builds on what the company is good at: public key infrastructure, DNS, and attestation. The AI governance questions CISOs should ask AI Trust uses these tools to help organizations answer five AI governance questions: · What agents your employees are using · What regulated data is flowing to them · Whose credentials they hold · Whether a compromised agent can be stopped immediately · Whether an incident can be reconstructed with a tamper-evident trail Almost every enterprise fails at the first hurdle, warns Trzupek. Developers build agents or buy them from vendors and deploy them internally without asking. Users might also spawn agents from inside tools like Claude Desktop or OpenAI Codex that will then create sub-agents. "Those sub-agents don't assume the same rights and responsibilities and authorization as the parent agent," he says. "So they try to delegate tasks that can be wholly controlled." How to manage AI agent identity Most companies haven't developed the tools to keep track of all these different agent types yet. The first step is to identify them. This is where many organizations make their first mistake by bolting agents onto the human identity and access management (IAM) stack they already have. The idea is that if you give an agent a service account and a long-lived API key you can treat them like a super-fast employee. That's impractical. "IAM was built for a human sitting at a keyboard who can tap 'approve' on their phone," Trzupek says. "An agent can't do that. So you fall back to a static API key that never expires and has way more scope than it needs, and now you've undone everything zero trust was supposed to give you. It's the exact credential we've spent a decade telling people to get rid of." Industry bodies have started converging on a different answer. IDC now recommends treating agent identity as a workload identity problem rather than an extension of human IAM, aligning with the IETF's Workload Identity Management and Security Extensions (WIMSE) and NIST's Cybersecurity Framework version 2.0. They can then frame agents as governed workloads requiring runtime attestation and short-lived credentials . This idea also pushes teams toward the Service Profile Identity (SPIFFE) and its SPIFFE Registration Endpoint (SPIRE). This is an open workload identity standard already deployed inside many hyperscaler-hosted Kubernetes estates, and they're part of DigiCert's AI strategy. DNS is a governance tool for agentic AI Inventory and identity might get you visibility, but you still need somewhere to enforce policy. DigiCert has strong opinions about where, tied to its history managing DNS integrity. No matter whether an agent is resolving an API endpoint or connecting to an MCP server, it has to query DNS first. So why not make that a core verification point? DigiCert proposes a solution that looks a lot like the DMARC standard used for email. An organization would publish an agent policy record in DNS that declares several things: · Its authorized agent identities · The certificate authority that issued their credentials · The scopes they're allowed to act within A gateway can then query that record to verify whether an inbound agent is legit, and terminate the session if the check fails . And if an agent contacts an unauthorized domain mid-execution, DNS can block the query and the MCP gateway kills the session. IDC likes this idea but warns that scale is an issue. As the number of agents grows, DNS records might not keep up, and stale records might become a loophole. Overly permissive scope declarations are also still a potential problem. "The scale problem is real, but it's the same problem DNS has solved a hundred times before," Trzupek responds. "You automate the lifecycle, you tie the record to the certificate issuance, and when the cert expires the record goes with it." And operators writing wildcard scopes because they're in a hurry is a discipline problem, not an architecture problem, he adds. Inside DigiCert's AI Passport Agents built in-house live alongside third-party agents like Microsoft Copilot, Salesforce Agentforce and ServiceNow, and the control planes for the two categories are different. DigiCert's answer is a single SPIRE server anchored to a DigiCert CA for identity, with policy enforced centrally in an Open Policy Agent engine, and a unified kill switch that operates across both categories. The AI Agent Passport is the artifact that ties the identity to the authorization. It's a cryptographically protected record of approved systems and permitted operations. Each 'passport' also contains things like data sensitivity classifications and expiration state, along with an accountable human owner. Trzupek says the field that generates the most pushback in the design is policy itself, because customers typically have a complex web of policies already in GCP or AWS. "Trying to replace those or displace them is a fool's errand," he says. So the passport can hold pointers to those engines rather than replacing them. How to manage model integrity Governing agents is only half of the challenge. The models themselves are strategic assets, and they're subject to integrity and provenance controls too. That means encryption and cryptographic signing of model artifacts, Open Container Initiative-compliant packaging with tools like the Sigstore code signing initiative, and a cryptographically verifiable Model bill of materials describing weights, datasets and dependencies . It also means governing models at runtime, not just securing the supply chain. DigiCert's AI Trust framework advocates trusted hardware execution to help solve that problem. A model running inside a trusted execution environment on Intel TDX or AMD SEV-SNP stays encrypted in memory, isolated from the host OS. DigiCert operates a confidential computing attestation service that follows the IETF Remote ATtestation Procedures (RATS) architecture. The execution environment is the attester and DigiCert is the verifier. Downstream systems are the relying parties. This approach moves attestation from a neutral third party rather than the cloud operator running the workload, which serves regulated buyers. Hyperscalers shouldn't attest to their own integrity. Those regulated buyers face some heavy governance conversations. In healthcare, the question is whether the AI model cleared through an FDA 510(k) pathway is the exact algorithm running in clinical deployment. Cryptographic attestation lets these companies prove model integrity before every inference. That addresses the FDA's 2023 cybersecurity guidance on software integrity verification and SBOM enforcement. But while some regulated verticals have specific needs, AI governance is a cross-sector problem. Any organization storing customer data an agent can access or exfiltrate needs these controls. Why build in AI governance now This is agentic AI's moment, so companies are at a pivot point, and they've been here before. Many of them spent the last 25 years following a cybersecurity antipattern: move fast to grab an opportunity with a significant new technology development, and call in the security team later to clean up the loose ends. It hasn't gone well. With many organizations at the beginning of their agentic AI journey, they now have an opportunity to break that habit and do things right from the beginning using verifiable controls. As frontier model prices climb and AI crops up as a noticeable cost on enterprise budgets, this will become an increasingly visible choice, concludes Trzupek. Companies will hold people more accountable for their use of agentic technology. Wouldn't it be nice to have the controls in place and be ahead of the game for once? Sponsored by DigiCert

Hackers are actively exploiting a critical vulnerability in the WooCommerce Wholesale Lead Capture premium plugin for WordPress to upload a PHP backdoor. [...]

Co kdybychom na mapu vynesli polohu všech souprav metra, tramvají, autobusů, trolejbusů a regionálních vlaků v Praze a okolí a vytvořili časosběrné video celého jednoho dne? Minulý týden jsme to samé udělali s Brnem a jihomoravskou krajskou sítí IDS-JMK, pražský PID, který obhospodařuje i ...

AI is shrinking the time between vulnerability disclosure and exploitation, leaving defenders less time to wait for patches or public exploits. Picus Security explains how exploitability validation, security control testing, and autonomous pentesting can help teams close exposure gaps before attackers arrive. [...]

Mladé Slunce mohlo v rané fázi pohltit velkou kamenitou superZemi • Pohlcením planety lze vysvětlit odchylky vnitřní struktury naší mateřské hvězdy • Tento dramatický děj zároveň objasňuje nízké zastoupení lithia na povrchu

A Swiss court has sentenced a 52-year-old Ukrainian ransomware developer to 12 years and nine months in prison for his role in attacks on companies including Stadler Rail. Zurich District Court found that the man developed LockerGoga, MegaCortex, and Nefilim, but was not the mastermind behind the operations. He also received a ten-year ban from Switzerland. The judgment is not final and can be appealed. He had been held in pretrial detention since October 2021 and consistently denied knowing that his software was being used for criminal purposes. He said the source code found at his home in Basel-Landschaft came from his consulting work for an unidentified IT security client. The court rejected that explanation because extortion messages were also found among his data, SWI reported. The ransomware developer was also found guilty of playing a key role in high-profile ransomware attacks, including the one that hit Stadler Rail in 2020 [PDF]. Not to be confused with the more recent attack on the rolling stock manufacturer – that one was claimed by Everest – the earlier breach occurred in May 2020. At the time, Stadler Rail did not use the word "ransomware," but said the attack involved malware, that it "most likely led to a data leak," and that "the offenders tried to extort a large amount of money," threatening to leak the files if the ransom was not paid. As it did following this year's incident, Stadler refused to pay. The 2020 Nefilim ransom demand was reportedly $6 million. The court also found that he played a key role in attacks on HVAC company Meier Tobler and software company Crealogix. In September 2022, Zurich prosecutors reported that a suspect had been arrested in Basel-Landschaft in October 2021 on suspicion of money laundering and data corruption. The statement accused the perpetrators of involvement in attacks on more than 1,800 individuals and institutions across 71 countries, causing estimated losses of several hundred million Swiss francs. The same law enforcement action in 2021 led to the identification of other alleged members of the three ransomware operations, none of whom were named. Volodymyr Tymoshchuk was formally indicted in the US last year and was described by prosecutors as the mastermind of all three ransomware crews. Unlike many others, Tymoshchuk has not yet been arrested, but is on the FBI's most wanted list, with an $11 million bounty placed on the information that could lead to his arrest or conviction, or that of other key leaders. He was allegedly responsible for attacks on at least 250 companies, including the infamous Norsk Hydro attack in 2019. ®

Chystají se přísnější pravidla pro dovoz zboží ze zemí mimo EU. • Větší odpovědnost ponesou online tržiště jako Temu či Shein. • Přibude také poplatek za kontrolu dováženého zboží.

Článek na Raspberry Pi představuje nový vzhled desktopu operačního systému Raspberry Pi OS v aktuálním vydání 2026-09-15.

The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) warned security teams that ransomware gangs have now joined ongoing attacks exploiting a critical VMware vCenter vulnerability patched in July. [...]

Nové verze Roundcube Webmailu 1.6.19 a 1.7.4 řeší několik zranitelností.

With artificial intelligence (AI) shrinking the window between vulnerability discovery and exploitation and lowering the barrier to entry for bad actors, new findings from Sysdig show that skilled human operators can move just as swiftly after gaining initial access. In one instance highlighted by the cloud security company, the threat actor pivoted from a vulnerable Marimo notebook to an SSH Ravie Lakshmananhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/[email protected]

V prodeji je celá řada herních konzolí. Plánujete nákup? Pomůžeme s výběrem.

Introduction Security teams have gotten pretty good at testing against what can hurt them. Can this EDR agent catch this payload? Will my organization fail the phishing simulation? Does this SIEM rule fire on this particular technique? And, in more mature organizations, this testing happens continuously rather than as a one-off exercise. But no matter how much you validate against these [email protected]

Cybersecurity researchers have disclosed details of a mass-scanning campaign that has targeted Vite deployments siphon sensitive data. The first is an automated effort aimed at internet-exposed Vite development servers that's designed to steal cloud credentials, configurations from Amazon Web Services (AWS) and Microsoft Azure instances, and infrastructure state files, per F5 Labs. The Ravie Lakshmananhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/[email protected]

Mark Gurman z agentury Bloomberg je léty prověřený „leaker“ připravovaných produktů značky Apple a v posledním reportu tvrdí, že firma pracuje na herním ovladači pro iPhone. Kód operačního systému MacOS zmiňuje dokonce dva modely, detaily však neznáme. Možná ještě zajímavější jsou zvěsti, že Apple ...

The colorful CEO of Automattic, which controls WordPress, was forced out last Thursday by his board of directors, which put him on a leave of absence. He used his system access to remove the accounts of the acting CEO and others — an action that could get most employees fired. Instead, he was fully reinstated to CEO a couple of days later.

It’s not hard to compare this to the saga at OpenAI almost three years ago when an eerily similar series of events happened. The board fired the CEO for having repeatedly lied to it. Within a few days, the board reversed itself. 

A weaker historical comparison is with Steve Jobs, who was ousted from his Apple CEO role, only to later return. But Jobs at least had the decency to wait a few years while he created and ran NeXT.

To be fair, boards have often been criticized for being puppets of the CEO, who often have a lot to say about who serves on the board. But that criticism doesn’t hold for the first OpenAI board nor for the initial Automattic board.

Some years ago, I was involved with a VC-funded startup, and we were at the stage of forming a board of directors. I was talking with the person who was to be the board chair and he needed candidates for board secretary, which is typically an attorney. That role is supposed to be a lawyer who cares about the board, as opposed to the company’s general counsel, who reports into the CEO and only cares about the company. 

The chair said that we need someone who is trustworthy. I had the perfect candidate in mind, until I probed deeper and found that there is a vast chasm between “trustworthy” and “someone we can trust.” 

I envisioned someone who was honest and had integrity, someone who would take their duties seriously and would tell the board the truth regardless of the implications. That turned out to be precisely what the chair did not want. 

He wanted someone who would vote with us regardless of their legal opinion. He didn’t actually want trustworthy. He wanted blind unconditional loyalty. (That business, thank goodness, never ended up launching.) 

But that seems to be what CEOs now want, which undermines the entire point of having an independent board. Other than deciding whether to accept an acquisition offer, the most important decision of any tech board is the hiring — and firing — of the CEO. 

What does it say when a board makes that decision for what it seems to be a legitimate business reason — and then reverses itself within a couple of days? 

In the case of Automattic, it is not a good look. The board said absolutely nothing about why it forced the CEO out, which made its reversal over the weekend even more perplexing. 

When Automattic emailed reporters on Thursday to announce that the CEO had been ousted, the messages were cryptic: “Matt Mullenweg is currently on leave from Automattic. Mark Davies, Automattic’s CFO, will lead the company as interim CEO. The Board has full confidence in Mark’s leadership and in the team’s ability to execute against the company’s priorities.”

The next we heard was an equally cryptic message sent Saturday afternoon: “Matt Mullenweg is the chairman and CEO of Automattic, with full support of the board, and if you search online you can see many top executives and Automatticians supporting him as well.”

Huh? We then asked for clarification of what happened and why. At 2:26 AM Eastern on Sunday, the media team emailed: “Matt and Automattic’s leadership team have great respect for everyone involved. While we can’t comment on specific individuals, we’re thankful for their contributions to Automattic and its mission, and we remain excited about what’s ahead with Matt at the helm. Matt was away for only 33 hours and 20 minutes — we’re now back to work.”

My proposal: A board’s decision to hire or terminate a CEO should be defended with public specifics. And so should a hiring decision. Or, in this case, a reversal of a mandatory leave of absence decision. 

If the board is going to take the extreme step of relieving the CEO, it should be required to say why. In some situations, it may need to be vague (as in “personnel situation involving a substantiated sexual assault”), but the board needs to give some kind of reason. That should happen so at the very least, a reversal is also explained. 

Further reading:

• Automattic CEO Matt Mullenweg is out: Does this mean long-term viability, or liability, for WordPress customers?
• Matt Mullenweg: WordPress developer hours cutback may or may not slow innovation
• WordPress.org statement threatens possible shutdown for all of 2025
• About that brawl between the WordPress co-founder and WP Engine…
• One-twelfth of Automattic staff leave over WordPress-WP Engine spat
• Things get nasty in lawsuit between WordPress.org and WP Engine

Five alleged leaders of the Black Axe cybercrime syndicate, known for its involvement in global-scale cyber-enabled financial fraud, have been extradited to the United States to face wire fraud and money laundering charges. [...]

Na Kickstarteru běží kampaň na podporu hloupého (jenom volání a SMS) tlačítkového DIY telefonu MAKERphone 2.0 od společnosti CircuitMess postaveného na ESP32-S3 a volitelně také s hodinkami MAKERband. S možností psaní vlastních aplikací. S volitelnými HW rozšiřujícími moduly.