Search/daniel stenberg
● Vendor

daniel stenberg

Known CVEs
0
Highest CVSS
—
In KEV
0
Vendor
curl
Connections
16 relationships
GitHub Cuts Public Bug Bounty Payouts, Moves Top Rewards to VIP Tier
Beginning July 27, 2026, GitHub will cut public bug bounty payouts by at least half at every severity level. Critical findings will drop from $20,000-$30,000+ to a fixed $10,000, while its permanent invite-only VIP tier will pay $30,000 or more. Reports filed before that date, including those already in GitHub's growing triage queue, will retain the previous payout terms. GitHub said the changes are intended to reduce noise while giving established researchers faster responses, higher rewards, and closer access to its security engineering team. "You don't earn more by submitting more," the company said. "You earn more by submitting better." The public program is moving from flexible ranges to fixed payments: Low: $250, down from $617-$2,000 Medium: $2,000, down from $4,000-$10,000 High: $5,000, down from $10,000-$20,000 Critical: $10,000, down from $20,000-$30,000+ The Hacker News calculated that the new public rates are 50% lower for medium, high, and critical findings and about 59% lower for low-severity reports when measured against the bottom of GitHub's previous ranges. GitHub said fixed payments should remove uncertainty and triage overhead, though it may still award discretionary bonuses for exceptional work. The VIP schedule sets payments at $1,000 for low-severity findings, $7,500 for medium, $20,000 for high, and $30,000 or more for critical vulnerabilities. Researchers can qualify for the private program by reporting at least one critical, two high, four medium, or seven low-severity vulnerabilities. The announcement does not specify a time window for meeting those thresholds or say whether qualification guarantees an invitation. GitHub said fuller criteria will appear on its public HackerOne program page. GitHub has not disclosed the HackerOne Signal threshold it will enforce. The company says researchers below it will receive up to four initial submissions. Separately, HackerOne's general rules give new researchers four trial reports per program within a rolling 30-day window. When Your Own AI Finds the Bug First GitHub's report controls arrive as AI makes candidate findings cheaper to generate and code review cheaper to repeat. More researchers can produce potential findings, while internal teams can scan code, validate issues, and feed fixes into release and commit pipelines before an external report arrives. A day before GitHub's announcement, Google introduced Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber, a lightweight model fine-tuned to find, validate, and patch software vulnerabilities. Google said the model will initially be available exclusively to governments and trusted partners through CodeMender, its code-security agent, as part of a limited pilot. Google said the model can be invoked repeatedly to examine more code paths without using a larger frontier model for every attempt. The company positions it for frequent repository scans, time-sensitive launch reviews, and commit-scanning pipelines. In Google-run tests, Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber found 55 unique confirmed V8 issues, compared with 47 for mainline Gemini 3.5 Flash and 36 for Claude Opus 4.6. Google separately said its Cloud Vulnerability Research team used the model to find remote code execution flaws in public APIs and a memory-corruption flaw in a sensitive production service within two hours. The model then generated what Google described as a 100%-reliable RCE exploit that bypassed ASLR and W^X. The benchmark figures and production exploit result are Google-reported and have not been independently verified. An internal security team can give an agent repository context, a project-specific threat model, and a validation environment tailored to the running system. Systems such as OpenAI's Codex Security can then test findings, generate working proofs of concept, and propose fixes that account for system intent and surrounding behavior. The work can happen during development and on every relevant commit, rather than waiting for a scheduled assessment or an external report. AI does not replace a penetration test, but source-code review, test generation, and first-pass validation are becoming easier to automate. Human testers retain more value where the work requires chaining weaknesses across trust boundaries, recognizing business-logic failures, modeling realistic attack paths, and proving material impact. Curl maintainer Daniel Stenberg ended the project's cash bug bounty at the end of January 2026 after its confirmed-vulnerability rate fell below 5% amid an increase in AI-generated junk reports. By April, after curl had ended cash rewards and returned to HackerOne, reports were arriving at about twice the 2025 rate and 15-16% were confirmed as vulnerabilities. Stenberg said almost every report appeared AI-assisted and most were now high quality. Taken together, GitHub's report controls, Google's repeated model calls, and curl's rising submission volume point to the same shift. AI can flood maintainers with junk, but it can also make capable researchers faster and let internal teams examine more code, more often. A plausible-looking candidate finding is becoming abundant. Triage, exploit proof, product context, disclosure, and remediation remain constrained. A reliable exploit, a product-specific attack chain, or a finding that crosses a boundary the vendor misunderstood remains scarce. Signal requirements and lower public rewards may suppress automated noise, but they can also make entry harder for capable researchers without an established HackerOne history. For a new HackerOne researcher, a four-report program limit leaves little room for mistakes, unfamiliarity with GitHub's security model, or a legitimate finding that is initially scored below expectations. The invite-only structure also concentrates GitHub's closest researcher relationships among people who have already succeeded inside the program. That may improve speed and report quality. It may also narrow the range of people examining the platform, one of the main advantages of a public bounty program. The restructuring follows a May 2026 policy change that demanded working proofs of concept, demonstrated impact, validation before submission, and closer attention to GitHub's scope and ineligible findings. GitHub said it welcomes AI-assisted security research and already uses AI across its internal security programs. Researchers remain responsible for reproducing and verifying anything their tools produce. "The tools don't matter," GitHub said. "The quality of the work does." As of July 22, a review by The Hacker News found that GitHub's rewards page still listed $20,000-$30,000+ for critical reports, while its FAQ retained the previous VIP eligibility test of at least $20,000 earned and two reports submitted during the preceding two years. The FAQ also said meeting those criteria did not guarantee an invitation and that GitHub reviewed candidates quarterly. GitHub's new table prices the shift directly: $10,000 for a critical public finding and $30,000 or more for a critical VIP finding. First-pass discovery is getting cheaper. Verified, product-specific impact is where the premium remains.
thehackernews.comJul 22, 2026extracted
UK banks offered access to OpenAI’s GPT-5.5 amid exclusion from Anthropic’s Glasswing expansion
Updated: UK banks are set to receive access to OpenAI’s GPT-5.5 Cyber after being excluded from Anthropic’s latest expansion of Project Glasswing. Project Glasswing, and access to the Mythos Preview model, is geared toward ensuring critical infrastructure providers are prepared to handle the threat posed by advanced AI models, once they inevitably make their way into the public domain, and therefore the hands of attackers. However, amid a fourfold expansion of Glasswing’s partners, only JPMorganChase was named among the financial institutions to receive access to Mythos Preview, despite financial services falling under the critical infrastructure umbrella. In light of the news, HSBC, Lloyds Banking Group, and Nationwide will be among the banks to receive access to GPT-5.5 Cyber, the BBC reported, while NatWest and Santander have already been playing with it as part of separate agreements. OpenAI offered nine UK banks access to its Mythos-rival model in total, after they were snubbed from Glasswing. It is not clear if this number also includes the Bank of England, whose governor, Andrew Bailey, has been outspoken about its exclusion from Glasswing. Bailey told Bloomberg TV last week that despite pushing for access so the UK’s financial system is protected, Anthropic has not handed over the keys to Mythos Preview. Liam Salsi, director of architecture at Talion, told The Register he suspects the decision to exclude UK banks was political. Bailey had also previously alluded to suspicions that Anthropic had not yet granted access to Mythos Preview due to processes at play related to the US administration. “The US government wants to control who has access to the platform and this is largely because it will limit the chances of it falling into the wrong hands,” said Salsi. “However, limiting access will ultimately leave some banks more exposed to cyber threats and could impact their vulnerability management, leaving larger windows of opportunities for attackers. “It's hopeful these gaps won't exist for too long because of competition among Advanced AI platforms. GPT-5.5 was issued only a few weeks after Mythos, and it's safe to assume more advanced AI platforms will surface soon, closing gaps and delivering more of these systems to a larger pool of critical organizations.” He added that it could also introduce a single point of failure in the global banking sector if every institution were using the same product. Anthropic has not commented publicly on its approach regarding which financial institutions receive Mythos access, although it's not just financiers who are pondering the company’s decision-making. It transpired this week that the EU’s cybersecurity agency, ENISA, will receive access to Mythos Preview, while the US equivalent, CISA, is yet to be selected. Glasswing goes big In other news, Anthropic said on Tuesday it is looking to induct many more organizations into its Project Glasswing initiative, taking the total number of members from around 50 to 200. The additional 150 or so organizations hail from 15 different countries and will join the old guard, comprised of security shops and other tech giants, government agencies, and open-source maintainers. It has not named these organizations officially, although reports suggest that South Korea is among the 15 countries, and its science ministry, Samsung, SK Hynix, and SK Telecom are among the new inductees. Project Glasswing is something of a private members’ club – a carefully selected cohort of organizations with early access to Anthropic’s most advanced Mythos Preview model, the one the company claims will fundamentally alter the cybersecurity landscape. The cynics among us may see such claims as an extension of Anthropic’s marketing playbook, which some believe involves stoking excitement about a product through fear. When the AI biz announced Mythos in April, it did so by dubbing it too dangerous to unleash on the public. It was billed as an expert bug hunter and zero-day specialist, capable of finding vulnerabilities in code far more efficiently than humans. The oft-touted nugget from launch was the 27-year-old OpenBSD bug Mythos found during initial testing, but there were many more zero-days and other critical vulnerabilities – novel ones – Anthropic said its model was able to unearth. Those who have tinkered with Mythos Preview already report mixed results. Cloudflare CISO Grant Bourzikas wrote in May that the model represented “a real step forward,” and was able to find a series of low-severity bugs and chain them into working exploits. Others, such as cURL’s Daniel Stenberg, called Mythos Preview “an amazingly successful marketing stunt,” after it found just one vulnerability in the data transfer software. Likewise, security expert Kevin Beaumont said the model “is not great,” and “it’s marketing, essentially.” He said Mythos Preview was good at finding bugs in vibe-coded applications, but aside from that, it was not discovering much beyond what the models of yesteryear were capable of. Regarding the new intake of Glasswing partners, Anthropic but said each would have to pass its own security requirements before being granted access to Mythos Preview. It also said the new organizations brought into the fold all managed critical infrastructure services, and a successful attack on their systems could be “catastrophic.” “For most partners, we estimate that a major attack could affect more than 100 million people, with important ramifications for both global and national security,” the company said on Tuesday. “This expansion is the next step toward our long-term goals: for AI to make all software more secure, and for us to help the industry adjust to how AI could change many of the core assumptions of cybersecurity.” The big when? As for when the Mythos model will be made available to the wider public, Anthropic has kept that largely under wraps, but don’t expect it to be anytime soon. In its latest Glasswing announcement, the company said the safeguards required to prevent abuse are not yet available. “We’re working as quickly as we can to safely release Mythos-level capabilities in general access,” it stated. “To do so, we’ll need highly robust safeguards that prevent the model’s cyber capabilities from being misused – safeguards that we (and, to our knowledge, all other AI developers) have yet to develop. “Because cybersecurity has both helpful and destructive uses, making safeguards that are both strong and precise enough is a major challenge.” Anthropic may face some tough decisions in the next year, however, as by its own reckoning other AI companies will produce Mythos-level capabilities within their own models inside 6-12 months. Confusingly, it also said on Friday that it would be releasing Mythos-class models to all customers in the coming weeks. Anthropic said it will expand Glasswing further before Mythos is more widely launched, bringing in more critical infrastructure orgs, open-source maintainers, and safety testers. “We intend for future expansions to cover organizations in the US and overseas, just as this one does. We also intend to scale up our Cyber Verification Program, which would grant Mythos-class capabilities to many more organizations for specific cyberdefense tasks.” ® Updated to add at 1420 UTC: An OpenAI spokesperson confirmed to us that retired Brit politico and newspaper editor George Osborne – who has been OpenAI’s Head of OpenAI for Countries since the end of 2025, has "written to the CEOs / CISOs" at several UK financial institutions including HSBC, Natwest, Lloyds Banking Group, Nationwide, and others "to extend access to our latest defensive cyber capabilities." Global financial infrastructure provider Swift is also included. They added: "In total, we are extending access to nine leading financial institutions, which includes Santander Group and Natwest Group that already have access to GPT-5.5-Cyber as part of our existing relationships."
theregister.comJun 3, 2026extracted
AI is drowning software maintainers in junk security reports
AI is drowning software maintainers in junk security reports AI-assisted vulnerability research has exploded, unleashing a firehose of low-quality reports on overworked software maintainers who are wasting hours sifting through noise instead of fixing real problems. Linus Torvalds, the Linux kernel’s creator, says the flood has made the project’s security mailing list “almost entirely unmanageable, with enormous duplication due to different people finding the same things with the same tools.” Too many duplicates, and too much AI slop “If you found a bug using AI tools, the chances are somebody else found it too,” Torvalds wrote in the note accompanying the latest Linux kernel release candidate. “If you actually want to add value, read the documentation, create a patch too, and add some real value on *top* of what the AI did. Don’t be the drive-by ‘send a random report with no real understanding’ kind of person.” Jarom Brown, Senior Product Security Engineer at GitHub, acknowledged last week that while AI lowering the barrier to entry for security research is a welcome development, his team is being inundated by submissions that fail to demonstrate any real security impact. These include reports without a proof of concept, theoretical attack scenarios that don’t hold up under scrutiny, and findings already covered by GitHub’s published ineligible list. And GitHub isn’t the only recipient of this unwanted deluge. “Programs across the industry are grappling with the same challenge, and some have shut down entirely,” he said. GitHub has stopped short of such a drastic measure, but is now requiring submitters to validate AI-assisted findings before sending them in. Going forward, a complete submission must also include a working proof of concept demonstrating exploitation potential and concrete security impact. Also, reports covering known ineligible categories will be closed as Not Applicable, which may impact the submitter’s HackerOne Signal and reputation, he added. Finally, Brown urged researchers to be concise: bloated, AI-padded reports slow down triage and waste everyone’s time. The researcher’s view The collateral damage extends beyond the programs themselves. Shubham Shah, co-founder of Assetnote and a respected security researcher, says organizations are now taking far longer to review legitimate reports and act on real flaws, and that’s killing the feedback loop that keeps top researchers engaged. While bug bounty platforms like HackerOne and Bugcrowd are trying to fight the onslaught of AI-created spam reports with AI and added controls, he says that “the joy of reporting vulnerabilities to bug bounties is quickly dissipating” – and not just for him. “Hopefully the platforms actually work this out, but until then, I can’t see myself continuing to report high quality original research to certain programs where I have meaningfully contributed for a decade when they fail to understand the difference between myself and a researcher that doesn’t have any credibility,” he added. In the near term, some experienced researchers may retreat to private vulnerability research and invite-only bounties. Open source bears the brunt The AI-powered “industrialization” of vulnerability discovery is currently a much bigger problem for open source projects than big organizations like Microsoft or Google, as they rely on volunteer maintainers, whose number and time is limited. Those limitations have, for example, led the cURL project to stop accepting HackerOne submissions and eliminate monetary rewards for security reports. CURL lead developer Daniel Stenberg hoped the latter decision would remove the incentive for submitting AI slop, and stated his belief that “the best and our most valued security reporters still will tell us when they find security vulnerabilities.” The project switched to welcoming reports via GitHub or email, but a month later reverted to using HackerOne because those two avenues proved less effective than expected for reporting vulnerabilities. However, the project decided to stick with their decision not to offer bounties for bug reports. “From that day, the nature of the security report submissions have changed. The slop situation is not a problem anymore,” Stenberg noted in April. The number of reports rose, their quality was higher (even if they were compiled with the help of AI), and the rate of confirmed vulnerabilities surpassed the 2024 pre-AI level. While that change was welcome, Stenberg believes that the raised influx of “good” vulnerability reports will present a different problem for open source projects. “This avalanche is going to make maintainer overload even worse. Some projects will have a hard time to handle this kind of backlog expansion without any added maintainers to help,” he pointed out. In the wake of cURL’s departure and return, HackerOne acknowledged the problem AI slop may represent for under-resourced organizations, and advised customers to refine the scope and submission guidelines to reduce noise, use AI-assisted triage tools, and pair that automation with human oversight. “As AI makes it easier to automate submissions, preserving signal quality becomes critical so open source maintainers can stay focused on fixing real issues,” Michiel Prins, Co-founder & Senior Director, Product Management at HackerOne, told Help Net Security. “Our focus is helping programs manage that shift with workflows that filter noise early, surface credible reports, and keep vulnerability management sustainable, so open source communities can maintain the transparency and resilience they’re known for” The Open Source Security Foundation’s Vulnerability Disclosures Working Group is also seeking community feedback as it works to help open source maintainers tackle AI-generated junk reports. Its goals include compiling best practices, creating policy templates, and developing guidance to help maintainers spot and handle AI-assisted submissions. UPDATE (May 19, 2026, 06:55 a.m. ET): This article has been updated to reflect another change in cURL project’s bug bounty program, which happened in February 2026. The original article stated that the program was moved from HackerOne to GitHub, but we were unaware that cURL returned to HackerOne since then. The article has also been updated to include additional findings that emerged as a result of this switch and the elimination of rewards for vulnerability reports. Subscribe to our breaking news e-mail alert to never miss out on the latest breaches, vulnerabilities and cybersecurity threats. Subscribe here!
helpnetsecurity.comMay 18, 2026extracted
ThreatsDay Bulletin: PAN-OS RCE, Mythos cURL Bug, AI Tokenizer Attacks, and 10+ Stories
Everything is still on fire. This week feels dumb in the worst way — bad links, weak checks, fake help desks, shady forum posts, and people turning supply chain attacks into some cursed little game for clout and cash. Half of it feels new. Half of it feels like crap we should have fixed years ago. The mess keeps getting louder: users get tricked, boxes get popped, tools meant for normal work get used for bad stuff, and nobody seems shocked anymore. Great. Love that for us. Anyway. Let’s get into it. Exploited PAN-OS RCEPalo Alto Networks has released the first round of fixes to address CVE-2026-0300, a critical buffer overflow vulnerability in the User-ID Authentication Portal service of PAN-OS software that could allow an unauthenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code with root privileges by sending specially crafted packets. The company said it has observed the flaw being exploited in limited attacks since at least last month, with unknown threat actors leveraging it to drop payloads like EarthWorm and ReverseSocks5. Private AI chatsMeta has announced Incognito Chat with Meta AI in its namesake app and WhatsApp. Incognito Chat is "a completely private way to interact with AI, similar to how end-to-end encryption means no one can read your conversations, even Meta or WhatsApp," CEO Mark Zuckerberg said. "Incognito Chat handles all AI inference in a Trusted Execution Environment that ensures your messages are not accessible to us. The conversations on your phone also disappear when you exit the session." The feature is powered by Private Processing, which already underlies its message summarization and composition tools. Zero-auth data leakA defense technology company with Department of Defense contracts exposed user records and military training materials through API endpoints that lacked meaningful authorization checks. The issue affected Schemata, an AI-powered virtual training platform used in military and defense settings. According to Strix, an ordinary low-privilege account was able to access data across multiple tenants, including user listings, organization records, course information, training metadata, and direct links to documents hosted on Schemata’s Amazon Web Services instances. In a statement posted on the company’s website, Schemata said it did not have "evidence that any third party exploited the vulnerability to access customer data." Router update reprieveThe U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has extended the deadline for owners of banned internet routers to provide security updates to U.S.-based users by two years. In March 2026, the FCC banned the import and sale of all "consumer-grade" internet routers produced in a foreign country, citing unacceptable national security risks. In a new public notice published last week, the Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) said it is extending this deadline until "at least" January 1, 2029. That said, the extension only applies to software and firmware updates so as to ensure the continued safety of already deployed routers in the U.S. and mitigate potential harm. "These include all software and firmware updates to ensure the continued functionality of the devices, such as those that patch vulnerabilities and facilitate compatibility with different operating systems," per the FCC. APT phishing campaignA new state-sponsored threat cluster dubbed Operation GriefLure has been observed targeting Vietnam's telecom and the Philippines' healthcare sectors with a RAR archive distributed via spear-phishing emails to deploy a remote access trojan on compromised hosts, while leveraging credible decoy documents to give them a veneer of legitimacy and trust. The malware is capable of process enumeration, screenshot capture, file and directory listing, credential harvesting, and file execution capabilities. JPEG PowerShell lureA multi-stage intrusion campaign has been observed leveraging a weaponized PowerShell payload disguised as a legitimate JPEG image file to deliver a trojanized instance of ConnectWise ScreenConnect to stealthy remote access. "The intrusion likely originated through social engineering techniques such as phishing emails, malicious attachments, deceptive file-sharing interactions, or fake update lures involving a malicious file named sysupdate.jpeg," CYFIRMA said. "The payload was specifically crafted to exploit user trust and bypass conventional file-extension validation mechanisms while blending malicious activity with legitimate enterprise software." Aid-themed infostealerA targeted cyber espionage campaign is leveraging social engineering and trusted infrastructure to establish persistent access to victim systems. The activity, which employs lure themes centred around humanitarian aid, is assessed to target Russian-speaking individuals or entities. "The attack is delivered via phishing emails containing a malicious LNK file disguised within a RAR archive, using a Russian humanitarian aid request form to exploit contextual trust," Cyble said. "Execution triggers a stealthy, multi-stage infection chain in which a decoy document is presented to the user while a heavily obfuscated, fileless (PE-less) Python-based implant is silently deployed." The payload is retrieved from GitHub Releases, allowing the operator to blend in with legitimate enterprise activity. The implant operates as a "full-spectrum surveillance platform," facilitating credential harvesting, keystroke logging, clipboard and screenshot capture, sensitive data exfiltration, and covert remote access. Ransomware-like file lockA new proof-of-concept (PoC) tool dubbed GhostLock, created by Kim Dvash of Israel Aerospace Industries, has revealed that it's possible for a domain user with read access to a file share to deny access to files without the need for deploying any ransomware or requiring elevated privileges. "By calling CreateFileW with dwShareMode = 0x00000000 across a target share, a low-privileged user holds files in an exclusively locked state indefinitely," Dvash said. "Other clients receive STATUS_SHARING_VIOLATION (0xC0000043) on every access attempt. ERP systems fail. Workflow queues stall. The impact is indistinguishable from encrypted ransomware. The attack produces none of the signals that encrypted ransomware produces." The disruptive technique is not a vulnerability, but rather documented behavior required for data integrity. GhostLock affects "any organization running SMB-backed shared file infrastructure where users have standard domain credentials and network access to file shares." AI scan false positivescURL developer Daniel Stenberg said that Anthropic Mythos model's scan of the utility five "confirmed security vulnerabilities," out of which one was a low-severity bug, while the rest were false positives. "The single confirmed vulnerability is going to end up a severity low CVE planned to get published in sync with our pending next curl release 8.21.0 in late June," Stenberg said. "The flaw is not going to make anyone grasp for breath. All details of that vulnerability will ofcourse not get public before then, so you need to hold out for details on that." Stenberg, however, acknowledged that artificial intelligence powered code analyzers are significantly better at finding security flaws and mistakes in source code than any traditional code analyzers. Fraud intel pactThe Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), along with the Ministry of Home Affairs, and Reserve Bank Innovation Hub (RBIH), have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to "facilitate cooperation in the areas of fraud-risk intelligence sharing, analytical support, and operational coordination for strengthening proactive fraud detection and prevention mechanisms." The goal is to combat cyber-enabled financial fraud and curtail mule accounts across the banking and digital payments ecosystem. OnlyFans ransomware lureAttackers are enticing users seeking "free OnlyFans accounts" to download a seemingly harmless ZIP file that contains the crpx0 ransomware. The activity targets both Windows and macOS systems. "Inside that ZIP file is a small trick, a malicious shortcut disguised as something legitimate. When the user clicks it, it quietly executes hidden commands," Aryaka said. "A VBScript loader prepares the system and silently installs the components needed to run Python-based code. This is where the attack becomes more flexible. Rather than relying on a single static payload, the attackers now have a programmable environment. Once the Python script is running, it connects to a remote server." The Python-based malware allows the attackers to send commands, update the malware, or deploy new payloads. This enables system profiling, clipboard hijacking to conduct cryptocurrency theft, seed phrase harvesting, andransomware deployment. ClickFix proxy accessA new ClickFix campaign carried out via a compromised website has been observed using scheduled tasks for persistence and PySoxy, an open-source Python SOCKS5 proxy, to establish encrypted proxy access. "In the observed chain, one user-executed command led to persistence, domain reconnaissance, an initial PowerShell-based command-and-control (C2) channel, and a second C2 path through PySoxy, giving the attacker encrypted proxy access without relying on well-known malware or remote monitoring and management (RMM) tools," ReliaQuest said. "This development shows ClickFix moving beyond one-time user execution into modular post-exploitation, where older open-source tools can create redundant access paths that are harder to classify and contain." Tokenizer output hijackHiddenLayer has demonstrated a technique called tokenizer tampering that details how modifying the "tokenizer.json" file in Hugging Face AI models can give an attacker direct control over model output, enabling an attacker to exfiltrate sensitive data via, say, stealthy tool call injections. The attack works across Safetensors, ONNX, and GGUF formats. "Tokenizer.json ships with the model in a HuggingFace repository, as shown above, and is loaded automatically when the model is initialized for inference, making it a direct attack surface," HiddenLayer said. "This can affect conversational responses, tool-call arguments, and any other generated text, without weight modifications, adversarial input, or knowledge of the model’s architecture." Teams helpdesk lureThreat actors are sending Microsoft Teams messages from a fake IT Support account to trigger an attack chain that enables remote access, malware deployment, privilege escalation, credential theft, lateral movement, and exfiltration. "By abusing Teams external access, the threat actor delivered a Dropbox-hosted Python payload [called ModeloRAT] that established command-and-control, deployed multiple backdoors, and began mapping the internal environment," Rapid7 said. "The attacker then escalated privileges to SYSTEM using CVE-2023-36036 before deploying a fake Windows lock screen designed to harvest the user's domain password." The attackers then moved laterally to a second host, used legitimate tooling such as DumpIt to gather system memory, and likely exfiltrated the data via an anonymous file-sharing service. ReliaQuest has attributed the activity to a financially motivated initial access broker (IAB) tracked as KongTuke. Supply chain contestThe notorious threat actor known as TeamPCP, which was recently linked to the compromise of TanStack's npm packages, has teamed up with Breached forum to announce a supply chain attack competition with a $1,000 prize in Monero. As part of the announcement, the Shai-Hulud worm has been open-sourced and hosted on the forum's content delivery network. While it was also made available on GitHub, it has since been removed. According to screenshots shared by Dark Web Informer on X, the competition rules require participants to use the worm in their attacks and submit proof that they have obtained access to a target's environment. "The biggest supply chain based on the amount of weekly/monthly downloads will win," the threat actor said. "If you compromise many small packages, it will be added up." The development marks a newfound escalation of TeamPCP's tradecraft. "The contest essentially functions as a public recruitment stunt, turning supply chain compromise into a leaderboard for lower-tier actors willing to trade risk for recognition," Socket said. "TeamPCP has already been positioning supply chain compromise as a way to harvest credentials, expose enterprise environments, and hand access to groups that know how to monetize it. Now it is giving forum users an open source worm, a scoring system, and a reason to rack up compromises." NATS-powered C2An unknown threat actor has been spotted using a NATS server as a command-and-control (C2) channel rather than relying on traditional HTTP-based panels or chat platforms. The novel technique has been codenamed NATS-as-C2 by cloud security company Sysdig. The activity relates to the exploitation of CVE-2026-33017, an unauthenticated remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability in Langflow. "Over roughly 30 minutes of hands-on activity, the operator at 159.89.205.184 (DigitalOcean) downloaded a Python worker and a Go binary," the company said. While threat actors have adopted legitimate platforms and services as covert communication channels, this is the first time NATS, a high-performance communications system, has been leveraged for this purpose. That’s it. Attackers keep winning with simple crap: fake prompts, trusted tools, weak checks, and old systems nobody wants to fix. Do the boring work. Patch. Change keys. Check users. Test backups. Block the obvious junk. We’ll be back when the fire moves.
thehackernews.comMay 14, 2026extracted
Claude Mythos Finds Only One Curl Vulnerability; Experts Divided on What It Really Means
A test of Anthropic’s restricted Claude Mythos model found just one low-severity vulnerability in the widely used open source data transfer tool curl, casting doubt on the AI company’s bold claims, though some argue the results say more about curl’s robust security than Mythos’ limitations. Daniel Stenberg, the lead developer of curl, revealed in a blog post on Monday that he was recently given the opportunity to test the Claude Mythos frontier AI model, which Anthropic claimed had identified thousands of zero-days in the weeks leading up to its launch. Anthropic is offering Mythos only to a few dozen major organizations as part of a restricted program due to concerns about potential misuse. In the end, Stenberg did not conduct the analysis himself, nor did he have direct access to the AI model. Instead, a third-party tested curl using Mythos and provided Stenberg with a report detailing the findings. Mythos’ analysis of curl’s 178,000 lines of code, according to the report provided to the developer, unearthed five ‘confirmed security vulnerabilities’. However, a review of the findings showed that three of them were known issues described in official documentation and one was a bug rather than a security hole. The only issue confirmed by the curl developers to be an actual vulnerability was assigned a low severity rating and will be patched in late June. Curl was previously analyzed with other AI tools such as Zeropath, AISLE, and OpenAI’s Codex, which helped identify 200-300 issues, including “a dozen or more” confirmed vulnerabilities, according to Stenberg. He admitted that AI-powered code analysis tools are “significantly better” at finding security holes compared to traditional tools. However, he believes — based on the analysis of curl — that Mythos is not as ‘dangerous’ as Anthropic has described it. “My personal conclusion can however not end up with anything else than that the big hype around this model so far was primarily marketing,” Stenberg said. “I see no evidence that this setup finds issues to any particular higher or more advanced degree than the other tools have done before Mythos. Maybe this model is a little bit better, but even if it is, it is not better to a degree that seems to make a significant dent in code analyzing.” Curl is present on billions of devices, including servers, phones, and cars, making it a potentially valuable target for threat actors. However, exploiting curl vulnerabilities in the real world is not easy, and there are no public reports of any of the 188 CVEs assigned to date being used in the wild. The debate over Mythos’ performance Stenberg’s blog post has been widely debated on Hacker News, Reddit, and LinkedIn. Some members of the cybersecurity industry have pointed out that curl has been heavily audited and tested, including by other AI tools, making it difficult for major vulnerabilities to remain hidden. They argue that Mythos’ limited findings reflect the maturity and robustness of curl’s codebase, rather than any shortcoming of the model itself. In addition, it has been highlighted that Mozilla has been very impressed with Mythos, which helped it discover more than 270 Firefox vulnerabilities. While the Firefox findings prove Mythos to be highly efficient, Mozilla noted that all the vulnerabilities discovered by the AI could also have been found by elite human researchers. On the other hand, their rapid discovery closes the gap between attacker detection and vendor patching. Other industry members agree with Stenberg’s view and believe that Mythos should have been able to find more vulnerabilities if its developer’s claims were true. “I have a hard time believing that Mythos found the only remaining Curl vulnerability. It is possible, but highly improbable,” one user commented. Erik Cabetas of Include Security noted that he spoke with multiple organizations that have been given access to Mythos and they too reported results similar to curl. Related: Chinese Cybersecurity Firm’s AI Hacking Claims Draw Comparisons to Claude Mythos Related: OpenAI Widens Access to Cybersecurity Model After Anthropic’s Mythos Reveal
securityweek.comMay 12, 2026extracted
Anthropic’s bug-hunting Mythos was greatest marketing stunt ever, says cURL creator
cURL developer Daniel Stenberg has seen Anthropic’s Mythos, a model the AI biz has suggested is too capable at finding security holes to release publicly, scan his popular open source project. But after the system turned up just a single vulnerability, he concluded the hype around Mythos was “primarily marketing” rather than a major AI security breakthrough. Stenberg explained in a Monday blog post that he was promised access to Anthropic’s Mythos model - sort of - through the AI biz’s Project Glasswing program. Part of Glasswing involves giving high-profile open source projects access via the Linux Foundation, but while Stenberg signed up to try Mythos, he said he never actually received direct access to the model. Instead, someone else with access ran Mythos against curl’s codebase and later sent him a report. “It’s not that I would have a lot of time to explore lots of different prompts and doing deep dive adventures anyway,” Stenberg explained. “Getting the tool to generate a first proper scan and analysis would be great, whoever did it.” That scan, which analyzed curl’s git repository at a recent master-branch commit, was sent back to him earlier this month, and it found just five things that it claimed were “confirmed security vulnerabilities” in cURL. Saying he had expected an extensive list of vulnerabilities, Stenberg wrote that the report “felt like nothing,” and that feeling was further validated by a review of Mythos’ findings. “Once my curl security team fellows and I had poked on this short list for a number of hours and dug into the details, we had trimmed the list down and were left with one confirmed vulnerability,” Stenberg said, bringing us back to the aforementioned number. As for the other four, three turned out to be false positives that pointed out cURL shortcomings already noted in API documentation, while the team deemed the fourth to be just a simple bug. “The single confirmed vulnerability is going to end up a severity low CVE planned to get published in sync with our pending next curl release 8.21.0 in late June,” the cURL meister noted. “The flaw is not going to make anyone grasp for breath.” That said, Mythos did find several other non-security bugs that Stenberg said the team is working on fixing, and he notes that their description and explanation were well done. Mythos can do good work, in other words, but it’s not a ground-breaking, game-changing AI model like Anthropic has claimed. “My personal conclusion can however not end up with anything else than that the big hype around this model so far was primarily marketing,” Stenberg said in the blog post. “I see no evidence that this setup finds issues to any particular higher or more advanced degree than the other tools have done before Mythos.” cURL code is no stranger to AI To say cURL has become widely used in its nearly three decades of existence would be an understatement. Its wide reach has meant that its team has been running it through all sorts of static code analyzers and fuzz testing it since well before the dawn of the AI age. With AI’s rise, the cURL team has adapted, meaning Mythos is hardly the first AI to get its fingers on cURL’s codebase. “These tools and the analyses they have done have triggered somewhere between two and three hundred bugfixes merged in curl through-out the recent 8-10 months or so,” Stenberg said of tools like AISLE, Zeropath, and OpenAI Codex Security that’ve tested cURL code. “A bunch of the findings these AI tools reported were confirmed vulnerabilities and have been published as CVEs. Probably a dozen or more.” Stenberg’s experience with AI testing cURL, in other words, makes it a great candidate to see how effective Mythos can really be at finding more than the average AI. As Stenberg noted elsewhere in his blog post, Mythos isn’t doing anything particularly novel when it comes to security discoveries: It might be a bit better at finding things than previous models, but “it is not better to a degree that seems to make a significant dent in code analyzing,” the cURL author noted. Stenberg isn’t an AI doomer when it comes to its ability to improve software design, though. Yes, he may have closed the cURL bug bounty earlier this year due to an influx of sloppy, useless bug reports, but he also noted a few months prior to the bounty closure that some security researchers assisted by AI have made valuable reports. “AI powered code analyzers are significantly better at finding security flaws and mistakes in source code than any traditional code analyzers did in the past,” Stenberg said, adding an important qualifier for the Mythos moment: “All modern AI models are good at this now.” Mythos isn’t any more creative than its creators Both older AI models and security-focused tools like Mythos have a common limitation, as far as Stenberg is concerned: They’re only as good at finding security vulnerabilities as the humans who programmed them. “AI tools find the usual and established kind of errors we already know about. It just finds new instances of them,” Stenberg said. “We have not seen any AI so far report a vulnerability that would somehow be of a novel kind or something totally new.” As for Mythos, Stenberg remains unimpressed, calling it "an amazingly successful marketing stunt for sure" in his blog post. In an email to The Register, Stenberg admitted that it’d be possible for AI models to actually discover new, novel types of vulnerabilities, but he’s still not convinced that they can go beyond what humans are capable of finding, given that they’re limited by our understanding of how software vulnerabilities work. At the end of the day, Stenberg explained, when we talk about security, we’re only talking about code. “Source code is text and it feels like maybe we already know about most ways we can do security problems in it,” he pondered in his email. In other words, like the valuable AI-assisted reports made to the cURL bug bounty program before its closure due to a flood of AI garbage, making valuable use of systems like Mythos is going to require humans to get creative. Sorry, no foisting your critical thinking onto a bot. “Human researchers have always used tools when they look for security problems,” Stenberg told us. “Adding AIs to the mix gives the humans even more powerful tools to use, more ways to find problems. I expect that many security bugs going forward will be found by humans coming up with new ways and angles of prompting the AIs.” Stenberg said that he hopes he’ll actually get his hands on Mythos so he can experiment with its capabilities, but he doesn’t seem to be holding out hope the promised access will materialize. “I have been promised access and for all I know I will eventually get it,” Stenberg told us. “I just don't know when.” ®
theregister.comMay 11, 2026extracted
Project Glasswing and open source software: The good, the bad, and the ugly
OPINION Anthropic describes Project Glasswing as a coalition of tech giants committing $100 million in AI resources to hunt down and fix long-hidden vulnerabilities in critical open source software that it's finding with its new Mythos AI program. Or as The Reg put it, "an AI model that can generate zero-day vulnerabilities." Oh boy! Just what we needed. Not just AI security bug slop, but automated, dedicated AI security bug slop! While Anthropic claims its Claude Opus 4.6 can barely find zero-days, Mythos Preview can pop up working exploits 72.4 percent of the time. It's a good thing Anthropic has limited its use for now; if it lives up to its hype, Mythos would crash the internet in a day. Project Glasswing is generously offering free access to Mythos Preview, which Anthropic claims "surpasses all but the most skilled humans at finding and exploiting software vulnerabilities." Free with $100 million in usage credits for Mythos Preview and $4 million in direct donations to open source security organizations. Is that enough money to secure open source software, 97 percent of all working software? I doubt it. Can we believe in Anthropic? The company claims it has found a 27-year-old bug in OpenBSD, a 16-year-old vulnerability in FFmpeg's video encoding code, and a new set of chained exploits in the Linux kernel that enable an attacker to escalate from ordinary user access to complete root control. I'm not impressed by that. I got my start in programming by finding bugs myself, and I was never any great shakes as a developer. On the other hand, as long-term Linux kernel maintainer Greg Kroah-Hartman told us recently, AI security bug reports suddenly went from slop to useful. OK, let's say that even in early beta, Mythos is that good at finding bugs. What will that mean? Well, next we need someone to fix those bugs. Who's going to bell that cat? So I asked people who are a lot smarter than I am about software security and open source software, and this is what they told me. First, I contacted Daniel Stenberg, founder and lead developer of cURL, where AI slop reports caused his team to stop paying bug bounties. He told The Register: "Yeah, this risk adds more load on countless open source maintainers already struggling." There's the rub. Stenberg agreed that "AI reporting has gotten a lot better over the last few months. The frequency of old-style, really stupid AI slop reports has gone down significantly." However, lots of those are still not vulnerabilities but end up being "just bugs," and the reports tend not to come with fixes or solutions, so even if we like getting bugs reported, getting a lot of them as security reports adds a significant load. So even if Mythos is "close to being as good as they claim in their marketing, I figure we will see the maintainer load go up even more soon. As I've pointed out time and again, there are never enough maintainers or financial support for open source projects." Can't AI itself help? Sure. Dirk Hohndel, Verizon's senior director of open source, posted on LinkedIn that while AI coding tools aren't yet ready to maintain code, he believes they will be soon. "This is almost possible today. And at the rate of improvement these tools have seen over the last couple of quarters, I am convinced that it will be possible with acceptable results at some point this year." However, Stenberg concluded that, so far, AIs typically aren't nearly as good at fixing the problems as they are at finding them, which also adds to the imbalance: several monster-sized companies and armies of users of their tools fill the inboxes of the far fewer and far less resourced open source projects. So even when those reports are good, this is a burden. Dan Lorenc, CEO and co-founder of the security company Chainguard, agreed. He said: "I think Glasswing is exciting, and a careful rollout like this is a responsible way to get these capabilities into the hands of people trying to use them for good. At the same time, projects and enterprises using them probably aren't ready for the influx of real vulnerabilities and patches they're going to need to get out quickly." Lorenc warned: "It's only a matter of time before others get similarly powerful models out, so everyone is going to have to prepare for an onslaught of work very soon. People can't keep pretending this isn't real or coming." I then checked in with David Wheeler, director of Open Source Supply Chain Security at the Linux Foundation (LF). The LF, by the way, is one of the groups supporting Glasswing. Wheeler said: "Anthropic is pitching not just 'find' but 'scan and secure.' That is, they're using AI not only to find vulnerabilities, but also to create fixes for them. I think that's key; a good proposed fix makes the report much easier to act on, and it makes it much clearer what the purported vulnerability is." We'll soon see how good Anthropic is at finding and fixing. I'm also worried about another issue. Mythos is proprietary software. Oh sure, we all had a look at Anthropic's Claude code, but as Anthropic's lawyers will tell you in big red letters, their code is not open source. So even if Mythos turns out to be the greatest thing in programming since the compiler was invented, doesn't that mean open source software will be locked into a proprietary solution? The very idea gives me the creeps. Wheeler replied: "Is there a risk of lock-in? Yes, that's always a risk. That said, I don't think the risk is as bad and we're working on ways to address this." "First: even if the tool is only available for a period of time, if the tool can help us find and eliminate vulnerabilities, that's still a good thing. Software is finite; it has a finite number of defects, and some security defects are more important than others. The more we can eliminate the vulnerabilities, the fewer that can be exploited, even if the service ends or becomes too expensive." "That said, we do worry about the lock-in. We are also interested in solutions. After all, the new open source software cyber reasoning system (OSS-CRS) emerged from AIxCC and is a standard orchestration framework for building and running LLM-based autonomous bug-finding and bug-fixing systems." In particular, "OSS-CRS defines a unified interface for CRS development. Build your CRS once by following the development guide, and run it across different environments (local, Azure...) without any modification. We're encouraging people building CRSs to use interfaces like this so they aren't as subject to lock-in. OSS-CRS also makes it easy to run an ensemble (a set of these tools). OSS-CRS does other things, but that hopefully shows that there are ways to mitigate the risk." Well, we'll see. Personally, I'd be a lot happier if Mythos were open source software. Almost all AI software is, at its roots, based on open source. That said, we're at an inflection point in AI and software development. Things are changing radically. I have to agree with LF CEO Jim Zemlin, who stated: "The urgency is real. We are in the most dangerous period, the transition, when attackers might gain a significant advantage as the technology ecosystem digests the impact of AI. We have already seen evidence of what smart cybersecurity crews can do when leveraging AI, and witnessed in-the-wild novel exploit kits written with AI assistance. Falling behind is not an option." All true, but once more, and with feeling, I really, really wish the answer was written in open source code. ®
go.theregister.comApr 10, 2026extracted
In Other News: €1.2B GDPR Fines, Net-NTLMv1 Rainbow Tables, Rockwell Security Notice
SecurityWeek’s cybersecurity news roundup provides a concise compilation of noteworthy stories that might have slipped under the radar. We provide a valuable summary of stories that may not warrant an entire article, but are nonetheless important for a comprehensive understanding of the cybersecurity landscape. Each week, we curate and present a collection of noteworthy developments, ranging from the latest vulnerability discoveries and emerging attack techniques to significant policy changes and industry reports. Here are this week’s stories: €1.2 billion in GDPR fines European authorities issued approximately €1.2 billion ($1.4 billion) in GDPR fines in 2025, with Ireland leading enforcement, accounting for a record €4.04 billion ($5.1 billion) in aggregate penalties since 2018, according to a DLA Piper study. The report also highlights a 22% surge in personal data breach notifications, which reached an all-time high of more than 440 average daily reports. Mandiant releases Net-NTLMv1 rainbow tables Google Cloud’s Mandiant has publicly released a comprehensive dataset of Net-NTLMv1 rainbow tables to highlight the critical insecurity of the legacy authentication protocol and accelerate its deprecation. This release demonstrates that an attacker using consumer-grade hardware can now recover password hashes in under 12 hours, underscoring the urgent need for organizations to migrate to more secure alternatives. Interpol issues Red Notice for Black Basta leader Interpol has issued a Red Notice for Oleg Evgenievich Nefedov, who law enforcement authorities have identified as the leader of the Black Basta ransomware gang. This designation follows a collaborative investigation by German and Ukrainian authorities that also led to raids against suspected affiliates. Cloudflare WAF bypass FearsOff researchers identified a vulnerability where Cloudflare’s WAF could be bypassed by targeting specific ACME challenge paths intended for certificate validation. The flaw, which has since been patched by Cloudflare, allowed attackers to reach origin servers directly, potentially exposing environment data or facilitating other attacks even when global block rules were active. Cloud training applications exploited Pentera researchers discovered that thousands of exposed cloud training applications, including ones hosted by Fortune 500 companies and security firms, are being actively exploited by attackers for crypto-mining and other unauthorized activities. These vulnerable environments frequently utilize overly permissive cloud roles, providing adversaries with a potential foothold to move laterally into broader corporate cloud infrastructure. Canonical Snap Store abused for malware delivery Security researcher Alan Pope reports that scammers are hijacking legitimate Canonical Snap Store publisher accounts by registering expired domains associated with those accounts to trigger password resets. Once in control, these attackers push malicious updates to established, trustworthy applications to deploy cryptocurrency wallet-draining malware. Rockwell Automation security notice Rockwell Automation has issued a high-severity advisory regarding multiple DoS vulnerabilities in its 1756-RM2 ControlLogix Redundancy Modules, which could cause devices to become unresponsive or experience nonrecoverable faults. No firmware updates are planned for the affected hardware and the company strongly recommends that customers upgrade to the newer 1756-RM3 modules to mitigate the risks. Curl terminating bug bounty program The open source project curl is terminating its bug bounty program at the end of January 2026 due to a surge in low-quality, AI-generated vulnerability reports. Lead maintainer Daniel Stenberg stated that the move aims to remove financial incentives for ‘AI slop’ that has overwhelmed the security team’s resources while failing to identify valid vulnerabilities. 300,000 affected by Minnesota Department of Human Services data breach The Minnesota Department of Human Services has informed the public about a data breach involving its MnCHOICES system, which is used for long-term care services and support planning for people with disabilities or chronic needs. FEI Systems, the firm that manages MnCHOICES, discovered that a user associated with a provider had access to the demographic information of more than 300,000 people, as well as additional data for 1,200 of them. There is no evidence that the information has been misused.
securityweek.comJan 23, 2026extracted
Curl ending bug bounty program after flood of AI slop reports
The developer of the popular curl command-line utility and library announced that the project will end its HackerOne security bug bounty program at the end of this month, after being overwhelmed by low-quality AI-generated vulnerability reports. The change was first discovered in a pending commit to curl's BUG-BOUNTY.md documentation, which removes all references to the HackerOne program. Once merged, the file will be updated to state that the curl project no longer offers any rewards for reported bugs or vulnerabilities and will not help researchers obtain compensation from third parties either. "Up until the end of January 2026 there was a curl bug bounty. It is no more. The curl project no longer offers any rewards for reported bugs or vulnerabilities. We also do not aid security researchers to get such rewards for curl problems from other sources either," reads the upcoming update. curl is a command-line utility that allows you to transfer data over various protocols, most commonly used to connect to websites. An associated libcurl library enables developers to incorporate curl into their applications for easy file transfer support. Since 2019, its bug bounty program has been run through HackerOne and the Internet Bug Bounty, offering cash rewards for responsibly disclosed security vulnerabilities in curl and libcurl. Daniel Stenberg, curl's founder and lead developer, says the program has seen a large increase in low-effort and invalid reports, many of which appear to be AI-generated slop. AI slop is the growing flood of low-effort, AI-generated content that sounds good but doesn't actually contain anything useful or productive. In a recent post to his personal mailing list, Stenberg explains that these low-quality reports are straining the curl security team, leading him to withdraw from the program. "We started out the week receiving seven Hackerone issues within a sixteen hour period. Some of them were true and proper bugs, and taking care of this lot took a good while. Eventually we concluded that none of them identified a vulnerability and we now count twenty submissions done already in 2026," explained Stenberg. "The main goal with shutting down the bounty is to remove the incentive for people to submit crap and non-well researched reports to us. AI generated or not. The current torrent of submissions put a high load on the curl security team and this is an attempt to reduce the noise," continued his post. In comments on the pull request, Stenberg said that withdrawing from HackerOne may not stop the flood of junk reports. However, he said that curl is a small open-source project with a limited number of active maintainers, and that, to ensure its survival and protect developers' mental health, he needed to take this action. Stenberg has also shared examples of what he considers AI slop reports and said he has seen a steep rise in security submissions at curl compared to other open-source projects. "We seem to have data that confirms that the #curl bug-bounty has received a steep increased submission rate through 2025, while several other Open Source programs also hosted on Hackerone have not," Stenberg posted to Mastodon. The switch from HackerOne's bug bounty program to an internal submission process will happen in stages. Stenberg says the curl project will accept HackerOne submissions until January 31, 2026, and that any reports in progress at that time will continue to be processed. Starting February 1, 2026, the project will no longer accept new HackerOne submissions and will instead ask researchers to report security issues directly through GitHub. Curl's new stance is also reflected in a recent update to its security.txt file, which states that the project offers no monetary compensation for reported vulnerabilities and warns that people who submit "crap" reports will be banned and ridiculed publicly. Stenberg says he will publish a blog post next week with more details about this upcoming change. After publishing our article, HackerOne told BleepingComputer that they are seeing increased volume in AI-helped reports across the entire security industry. The company says they have introduced AI features to help companies filter low-quality reports and filter duplicates. “The pressure of added volume can feel acute in open source, where small teams and volunteers often shoulder vulnerability intake and validation directly, without extra buffering layers," explained HackerOne. "curl’s experience is not representative of what we typically see across enterprise engagements. Most organizations rely on HackerOne’s managed triage and AI workflows so internal teams stay focused on findings that warrant deeper investigation." "With the right architecture and support, bug bounties remain one of the most powerful tools for uncovering novel, hard-to-find exposures that drive real-world risk." Update 1/28/26: Added a HackerOne statement. Overall prevention scores can hide what happens after initial access. Once attackers are using valid credentials, prevention drops sharply. The Blue Report 2026 measures defenses technique by technique across 338 million simulations run in customer production environments. Get the report
bleepingcomputer.comJan 22, 2026extracted
Week in review: Chrome 0-day fixed, npm supply chain attack, LinkedIn data used for AI
Week in review: Chrome 0-day fixed, npm supply chain attack, LinkedIn data used for AI Here’s an overview of some of last week’s most interesting news, articles, interviews and videos: Most enterprise AI use is invisible to security teams Most enterprise AI activity is happening without the knowledge of IT and security teams. According to Lanai, 89% of AI use inside organizations goes unseen, creating risks around data privacy, compliance, and governance. Arkime: Open-source network analysis and packet capture system Arkime is an open-source system for large-scale network analysis and packet capture. It works with your existing security tools to store and index network traffic in standard PCAP format, making it easy to search and access. Building security that protects customers, not just auditors In this Help Net Security interview, Nir Rothenberg, CISO at Rapyd, discusses global differences in payment security maturity and the lessons that can be learned from leading regions. He points out that good engineering usually leads to strong security, and cautions against just going through the motions to meet compliance requirements. Creating a compliance strategy that works across borders In this Help Net Security interview, Marco Goldberg, Managing Director at EQS Group, discusses how compliance and regulation are evolving worldwide. He talks about how organizations can stay compliant with international rules while keeping their systems practical and user-friendly. How a fake ICS network can reveal real cyberattacks Researchers have introduced a new way to study and defend against ICS threats. Their project, called ICSLure, is a honeynet built to closely mimic a real industrial environment. Behind the scenes of cURL with its founder: Releases, updates, and security In this Help Net Security interview, Daniel Stenberg, lead developer od cURL, discusses how the widely used tool remains secure across billions of devices, from cloud services to IoT. He shares insights into cURL’s decades-long journey of testing, reviewing, and refining its code to minimize risks. LLMs can boost cybersecurity decisions, but not for everyone LLMs are moving fast from experimentation to daily use in cybersecurity. Teams are starting to use them to sort through threat intelligence, guide incident response, and help analysts handle repetitive work. But adding AI into the decision-making process brings new questions: When do these tools actually improve performance, and when might they create blind spots? Phishing campaign targets Rust developers Developers publishing crates (binaries and libraries written in Rust) on crates.io, Rust’s main public package registry, have been targeted with emails echoing the recent npm phishing campaign. Ransomware attackers used incorrectly stored recovery codes to disable EDR agents All target organizations are different, but ransomware attackers are highly adaptive and appreciate – and will exploit – any mistake you make. Self-replicating worm hits 180+ npm packages in (largely) automated supply chain attack A potentially monumental supply chain attack is underway, thanks to a self-replicating worm-like payload that has been compromising packages published on the npm Registry. Microsoft disrupts the RaccoonO365 Phishing-as-a-Service operation, names alleged leader Microsoft and Cloudflare have disrupted a Phishing-as-a-Service operation selling the RaccoonO365 kit for stealing Microsoft 365 account credentials. Many networking devices are still vulnerable to pixie dust attack Despite having been discovered and reported in 2014, the vulnerability that allows pixie dust attacks still impacts consumer and SOHO networking equipment around the world, NetRise researchers have confirmed. Google fixes actively exploited Chrome zero-day vulnerability (CVE-2025-10585) Google has released a security update for the Chrome stable channel to fix a zero‑day vulnerability (CVE-2025-10585) reported by its Threat Analysis Group (TAG) on Tuesday. SonicWall says attackers compromised some firewall configuration backup files Between attackers exploiting 0-day and n-day vulnerabilities in the company’s firewalls and Secure Mobile Access appliances, SonicWall and its customers have had a tough year. AI video surveillance could end privacy as we know it AI-powered video surveillance brings up big questions about privacy. On one hand, it can make us feel safer, but on the other, it can easily cross the line into intrusion. The more we let technology watch and track our behavior, the harder it is to know where privacy stops and surveillance starts. Google introduces VaultGemma, a differentially private LLM built for secure data handling Google has released VaultGemma, a large language model designed to keep sensitive data private during training. The model uses differential privacy techniques to prevent individual data points from being exposed, which makes it safer for handling confidential information in sectors like healthcare, finance, and government. GitHub adds post-quantum protection for SSH access GitHub is adding post-quantum cryptography to secure SSH connections, a move that signals the company’s preparation for a time when current encryption may no longer be safe. AI made crypto scams far more dangerous The first half of 2025 saw one of the worst waves of crypto hacks to date, with more than $3.01 billion stolen. AI was a big part of it, making scams easier to run and letting even low-skill criminals get in on the action. LinkedIn now uses your data for AI by default, opt out now! LinkedIn is making major changes to its User Agreement and Privacy Policy, effective November 3, 2025. Among the most notable updates, the company will now use member data by default to improve its generative AI models, unless users manually opt out. Shifting supply chains and rules test CPS security strategies Cyber-physical systems are getting harder to protect as the business landscape keeps shifting. Economic pressures, supply chain changes, and new regulations are creating more openings for attackers while complicating how organizations manage security. What could a secure 6G network look like? The official standards for 6G are set to be announced by the end of 2029. While the industry is moving towards consensus around how the 6G network will be built, it also needs to anticipate how it will be compromised and make sure to build it with a secure-by-design approach. Why neglected assets are the hidden threat attackers love to find In this Help Net Security video, Tim Chase, Tech Evangelist at Orca Security, explores one of the most overlooked cybersecurity risks: neglected assets. Bots vs. humans? Why intent is the game-changer In this Help Net Security video, Jérôme Segura, VP of Threat Research at Datadome, explains why intent, not just identifying bots, must be the new focus for cybersecurity teams. The real-world effects of EU’s DORA regulation on global businesses In this Help Net Security video, Matt Cooper, Director of Governance, Risk, and Compliance at Vanta, discusses the EU’s Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) and its effects six months after it went into effect. DORA is the first EU-wide framework for managing ICT risk in the financial sector, designed to strengthen digital resilience and reduce systemic risk. Static feeds leave intelligence teams reacting to irrelevant or late data Boards and executives are not asking for another feed of indicators. They want to know whether their organization is being targeted, how exposed they are, and what steps need to be taken. A new report from Flashpoint argues that most current intelligence models cannot keep up with these demands and that primary source collection (PSC) should become the standard approach. OT security needs continuous operations, not one-time fixes Cyberattacks keep hitting the OT systems that critical infrastructure operators run, according to new research from Forrester. In a survey of 262 OT security decision-makers, 91% reported at least one breach or system failure caused by a cyberattack in the past 18 months. Old file types, new tricks: Attackers turn everyday files into weapons Attackers are finding new ways to blend in with everyday business tools, hiding their activity inside formats and processes that workers and IT teams often trust. The latest quarterly Threat Insights Report from HP Wolf Security shows how attackers continue to adapt, making it harder for defenses to keep up. Rayhunter: EFF releases open-source tool to detect cellular spying The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has released Rayhunter, a new open-source tool designed to detect cell site simulators (CSS). These devices, also known as IMSI catchers or Stingrays, mimic cell towers to trick phones into connecting so they can collect data. Global hiring risks: What you need to know about identity fraud and screening trends Hiring new employees has always carried some risk, but that risk is growing in new ways, and identity fraud is becoming more common in the hiring process. HireRight’s 2025 Global Benchmark Report takes a close look at how organizations around the world are handling background screening. Shadow AI is breaking corporate security from within Cybersecurity leaders know the attack surface has been growing for years, but the latest State of Information Security Report 2025 from IO shows how fast new risks are converging. Drawing on responses from more than 3,000 security professionals in the UK and US, the report points to three areas shaping board-level conversations this year: AI, compliance, and supply chain security. The unseen side of malware and how to find it Security teams rely on threat reports to understand what’s out there and to keep their organizations safe. But a new report shows that these reports might only reveal part of the story. Hidden malware variants are quietly slipping past defenses, leaving teams with a false sense of security. Researchers believe Gamaredon and Turla threat groups are collaborating ESET Research has discovered evidence of collaboration between the Gamaredon and Turla threat groups. Both groups are linked to Russia’s primary intelligence agency, the FSB, and were found working in tandem to target high-profile organizations in Ukraine. Product showcase: Exaforce – The full lifecycle AI SOC platform By combining a unique multi-model AI purpose-built for security operations with agentic automation and advanced data exploration capabilities, Exaforce delivers an agentic AI SOC platform that detects what others miss, filters out false positives, automates investigations, orchestrates response, and saves costs all in one place; available as a SaaS platform or fully managed MDR service. Product showcase: Clean Links exposes what’s hiding behind a QR code Clean Links is a handy app that shows you exactly where a link will take you before you click it. It strips out trackers, expands shortened URLs, and helps you avoid scams while saving you time and frustration. Cybersecurity jobs available right now: September 16, 2025 We’ve scoured the market to bring you a selection of roles that span various skill levels within the cybersecurity field. Check out this weekly selection of cybersecurity jobs available right now. New infosec products of the week: September 19, 2025 Here’s a look at the most interesting products from the past week, featuring releases from Absolute Security, Catchpoint, Nagomi Security, Neon Cyber, and QuSecure.
helpnetsecurity.comSep 21, 2025extracted
Behind the scenes of cURL with its founder: Releases, updates, and security
Behind the scenes of cURL with its founder: Releases, updates, and security In this Help Net Security interview, Daniel Stenberg, lead developer od cURL, discusses how the widely used tool remains secure across billions of devices, from cloud services to IoT. He shares insights into cURL’s decades-long journey of testing, reviewing, and refining its code to minimize risks. Stenberg also explains the team’s approach to handling vulnerabilities, ensuring transparency, and maintaining trust in the open-source ecosystem. cURL is embedded in billions of devices, from cloud services to IoT. What keeps you up at night when you think about the security of such a widely used tool? cURL’s journey and global adoption has been a gradual thing. As cURL has gotten more widely used, it has also become more tested, reviewed and scanned for problems by users and fellow developers. For decades we have worked on quality and have continuously been adding new tests and tweaking the architecture in order to reduce the risk that we introduce problems. We keep iterating and we keep tightening bolts all over and that is work that never ends. That background, combined with our test suite and CI setup with all its tooling is what makes me feel fairly confident that cURL is okay. I feel fine with having our code in billions of devices! I think customers and users feel safe and secure with running cURL in all these devices, services and tools because we have a proven track record since decades of taking these subjects seriously and of shipping rock solid products. Can you walk us through how your team handles a newly reported vulnerability, from discovery and verification to communicating fixes to downstream users? Every security report starts out with someone submitting an issue to us. The reporter tells us what they suspect and what the problem is. This report is kept private, visible only to the cURL security team and the reporter. In recent months we have gotten 3-4 security reports per week. The cURL security team right now consists of seven long time and experienced cURL maintainers. We immediately start to analyze and assess the received issue and its claims. Most reports do not identify security problems and are then quickly dismissed and closed. Some of them are identifying bugs that are not security issues and then we move the discussion over to the public bug tracker instead. If we think the issue might have merit, we ask follow-up questions, test reproducible code and discuss with the reporter. A small fraction of the reports is considered security vulnerabilities. We work together with the reporter to reach a good understanding of what exactly is required for the bug to trigger and what the flaw can lead to. Together we set a *severity* for the problem (low, medium, high, critical) and we work out a first patch which also helps to make sure we understand the issue. Unless the problem is deemed serious we tend to sync the publication of the new vulnerability with the pending next release. Our normal release cycle is eight weeks so we are never farther than 56 days away from the next release. For security issues we deem to be severity low or medium we create a pull request for the problem in the public repository but we don’t mention the security angle of the problem in the public communication of it. This way, we also make sure that the fix gets added test exposure and time to get polished before the pending next release. Over the last five or so years, only two in about eighty confirmed security vulnerabilities have been rated a higher severity than medium. Fixes for vulnerabilities we consider to be severity high or critical are instead merged into the git repository when there is approximately 48 hours left to the pending release to limit the exposure time before it is announced properly. We need to merge it into the public before the release because our entire test infrastructure and verification system is based on public source code. Next, we write up a detailed security advisory that explains the problem and exactly what the mistake is and how it can lead to something bad including all the relevant details we can think of. This includes version ranges for affected cURL versions and the exact git commits that introduced the problem as well as which commit that fixed the issue plus credits to the reporter and to the patch author etc. We have the ambition to provide the best security advisories you can find in the industry. (We also provide them in JSON format etc on the site for the rare few users who care about that.) We of course want the original reporter involved as well so that we make sure that we get all the angles of the problem covered accurately. As we are a CNA (CVE Numbering Authority), we reserve and manage CVE Ids for our own issues ourselves. About a week before the pending release when we also will publish the CVE, we inform the distros@openwall mailing list about the issue, including the fix, and when it is going to be released. It gives open source operating systems a little time to prepare their releases and adjust for the CVE we will publish. On the release day we publish the CVE details and we ship the release. We then also close the HackerOne report and disclose it to the world. We disclose all HackerOne reports once closed for maximum transparency and openness. We also inform all the cURL mailing lists and the oss-security mailing list about the new CVE. Sometimes we of course publish more than one CVE for the same release. The vulnerability reporter can then claim a bug bounty from the Internet Bug Bounty which pays the researcher a certain amount of money based on the severity level of the cURL vulnerability. Given how integral cURL is to other software, what steps are you taking to ensure the integrity of builds, libraries, and updates across such a massive ecosystem? With some exceptions we only ship source code. We then rely on operating system makers and everyone else to build, package and ship the binary versions of cURL and libcurl as they see fit. This makes us distro agnostic and also unaware and uncaring about the state and checks of dependencies, libraries and build systems etc. We work with signed commits, signed tags and we upload only signed release tarballs. The signatures can easily be verified. I generate the release tarballs on my local machine. To reduce the risk that this introduces something bad into the tarballs (if I go rogue or if someone has maliciously planted malware in my release machine), I build them fully reproducible using a fixed and documented container image everyone is encouraged to verify the release tarball and we also provide an easy-to-use script for doing so. The tarball verification makes sure that it was generated with the proper tools and only contains contents from the git repository. We have also in recent times worked on reducing the amount of binary and base64 encoded data in tests and example code, to further decrease the risk that someone can inject something encoded into the git repository xz-style. As a side-note I can perhaps mention that we only run read-only CI jobs, so a breached cloud instance cannot infect or spread to our source repository. Are there common mistakes you see developers make when using cURL or libcurl that lead to security issues? What best practices do you wish more people followed? Every time we have a confirmed security vulnerability we try to learn from it. What detail or habit made us make this specific mistake. It is usually hard to see patterns among them and not just a series of seemingly random mistakes. We have however identified a few things that have helped to contribute to previous vulnerabilities and we nowadays try to steer the code in ways that ideally help us avoid repeating them. For example we try hard to avoid direct memory function calls and instead offer a set of helper functions, we limit the places in the code where we do realloc(), we restrict the length of input strings to 8MB and we have a whole range of functions that are banned from use (gets, sprintf, sscanf, strncpy, strtol, etc). It is hard to be sure if our methods and precautions help. The average age of reported security vulnerabilities (the time they have existed in the source code since the mistake was first merged) is still about eight years! The primary method to maintain security is simply to do all the engineering steps we know we should: sensible and enforced code style, reviews, lots of tests, lots of CI, proper documentation so users know what to expect and how to behave, picky compiler warnings, warnings-as-errors, apply several source code analyzers and fix all nits, throw fuzzers at every API. If all projects that did this, we would be in a pretty good place. cURL is a volunteer-driven open-source project at its core. How do you foster a security-aware contributor community, and what advice do you have for other open-source maintainers facing similar challenges? Primarily I try to lead by example so that if and when contributors copy or mimic our style, it should be decent. I try to spread and share sensible concepts for how to think about and write code to make it as good as possible; often with review comments and sometimes with contributing helping additional commits to guide contributors, but also to make sure internal APIs and frameworks are comfortable and easy to use, and hard to get wrong. Our source code rules are checked and fundamental quality is enforced to a decent extent with automatic tools so people are gently nudged into doing the right thing to get their submissions turned green.
helpnetsecurity.comSep 18, 2025extracted