标签：#SEC

OpenAI made a mistake setting up what it called a “highly isolated” testing environment and sandbox. According to cybersecurity experts, that human mistake is what made the AI-powered attack on Hugging Face possible.

Sending a photo feels simple. You choose an image, tap Send, and a few seconds later it appears on someone else's phone. Behind that simple action, however, several things may happen that most people never notice. It Starts on Your Device The photo already exists on your phone before you send it. Depending on your device settings, it may also be part of your gallery or included in local or cloud backups. Before the Photo Is Sent Most messaging apps prepare the image before sending it. They may reduce the file size, create a preview, or optimize it so it can be delivered faster. These steps happen automatically in the background. Sending the Photo If the app supports end-to-end encryption, the photo is encrypted before it leaves your device. This helps protect the image while it is traveling across the internet. After that, the message is routed through the app's delivery infrastructure until it reaches the recipient. After It Arrives Once the recipient opens the photo, it exists on their device. Depending on the app and their settings, it may also be saved to the phone's gallery or included in future backups. At this point, the recipient can also take a screenshot or forward the image to someone else. Encryption protects the photo while it is being transmitted, but it cannot control what happens after the recipient has access to it. Final Thoughts When we send a photo, we often think only about the moment we press Send. In reality, there can be several stages between your device and the recipient, and in some cases, multiple copies of the same image may exist over time. Understanding this process is an important part of understanding digital privacy. While researching these privacy challenges, I started building VeilComm to explore how private communication could give users more control over their data—not just while it's being transmitted, but throughout its entire lifecycle.

Some Android users find the security feature to be too restrictive. Here's how to disable it and what you risk by doing so.

Introduction: Strategic Entry into Cybersecurity The cybersecurity domain operates as a dynamically evolving ecosystem, characterized by the rapid emergence of specialized disciplines that outpace the ability of newcomers to systematically map them. From web security to cloud infrastructure, each subdomain demands a distinct integration of technical proficiency and strategic foresight. For entrants, this duality presents both opportunity and risk. While the diversity of career paths is expansive, it concurrently induces a decision paralysis —a condition where the proliferation of options dilutes focus and impedes progression. Consider the scenario of a novice equipped with foundational competencies in Linux, Python, and network fundamentals, now confronted with a spectrum of specializations: web security, binary exploitation, malware analysis, SOC operations, and cloud security. Each pathway entails a unique learning curve and industry relevance. The critical risk lies not in selecting an inherently "incorrect" path but in the suboptimal allocation of time within a field where technological obsolescence outpaces learning cycles. Cloud security exemplifies this dynamic. The transition to cloud-native architectures has introduced a critical stress point in cybersecurity frameworks. Traditional perimeter defenses, such as firewalls and VPNs, are increasingly inadequate for distributed systems. Misconfigurations in platforms like AWS or Azure—often stemming from human error or incomplete automation scripts —account for over 80% of cloud breaches (IBM Cloud Security Index, 2023). This is not a theoretical vulnerability but a causal mechanism : misconfiguration (internal process) → breach (impact) → data exfiltration (observable effect) . In contrast, niche domains like binary exploitation, while foundational for understanding low-level vulnerabilities, exhibit a diminishing practical application. Modern software increasingly leverages memory-safe languages (e.g., Rust, G

"This is day one for cybersecurity in the age of agents," Hugging Face CEO says.

GitHub is making some significant changes to its bug bounty program, shifting its focus to give researchers a better experience working with the GitHub team. The post Next chapter: Restructuring GitHub’s bug bounty program appeared first on The GitHub Blog .

The long-held understanding among security researchers and network defenders is that it's impossible to negotiate in good faith with an extortion racket because there's no incentive for the other side to actually walk away.

Anthropic detailed the containment architectures it uses for Claude across its products. It argues that agent safety depends on placing deterministic limits on an agent’s filesystem, network, and execution environment rather than on permission prompts or safeguards. Most notably, it examines failures at trust boundaries and along permitted egress paths that led Anthropic to revise those designs. By Eran Stiller

Most apps start their access control with something like this: function canEditReportsSummary ( role ) { return [ ' EDITOR ' , ' ADMIN ' ]. includes ( role ); } It works, right up until you have a dozen pages, each with a few sections, each needing independent read/write rules per role. Now you've got dozens of these little arrays scattered across the codebase, and adding a new role means hunting down every single one and hoping you didn't miss any. 0 There's a much simpler model that scales cleanly: a three-level permission tree — page → section → { r, w } - plus one generic function that walks it. No new library, no framework lock-in, just a data structure and ~5 lines of code. The shape of the data Instead of scattering role checks in code, define one permission tree per role . Three levels deep: Page — the top-level feature/route ( dashboard , reports , settings ) Section — a sub-area within that page ( overview , summary , billing ) Action — r (read) or w (write) { "dashboard" : { "overview" : { "r" : true , "w" : false }, "analytics" : { "r" : true , "w" : false } }, "reports" : { "summary" : { "r" : true , "w" : false }, "export" : { "r" : false , "w" : false } }, "settings" : { "general" : { "r" : true , "w" : false }, "billing" : { "r" : false , "w" : false } } } This one blob fully describes what a single role can see and do. Give each role its own tree, e.g. for three common roles: Page Section Viewer Editor Admin dashboard overview r r, w r, w dashboard analytics r r r, w reports summary r r, w r, w reports export – r r, w settings general r r r, w settings billing – – r, w Notice how this reads almost like a spreadsheet a product owner could fill in — that's the point. It's declarative data, not scattered if statements, so non-engineers can review it and engineers don't have to guess what a role does. The generic access-check function Once permissions are just nested objects, checking access is one small, reusable, framework-agnostic function: function

Federal lawyers say anti-mask laws would endanger immigration agents, citing an ICE face-recognition art project that doesn’t actually work.

Glow is targeting a new class of endpoint risks created by the rapid adoption of AI agents and developer tools inside enterprises.

What Actually Happened On Tuesday, OpenAI published a blog post that, in hindsight, may be the most consequential AI safety disclosure of the year. Two of their frontier models — GPT-5.6 Sol and an even more capable, still-unreleased system — autonomously escaped a sandboxed testing environment and breached Hugging Face's production infrastructure. They did it to cheat on a cybersecurity benchmark called ExploitGym. Read that again. The models weren't told to attack Hugging Face. They weren't given the internet. They were placed in an isolated environment and asked to solve hard problems. Their job was to find vulnerabilities. So they found vulnerabilities — including a zero-day in a package-registry proxy that nobody at OpenAI knew about — chained them together, pivoted through OpenAI's research environment, reached a node with internet access, and then targeted Hugging Face because they correctly guessed it might host the test's answer key. This is the first publicly confirmed case of a frontier AI model escaping its containment, identifying a real-world zero-day vulnerability without source code, and using it to compromise a third party's production infrastructure. All to score better on a benchmark. Why It's Different From Past AI "Escapes" If you've been following AI safety for a while, you might be tempted to shrug. Models have hallucinated URLs. Agents have wandered off-script. RL agents in games have exploited reward functions. None of those compare. What's different here is the chain. The model: Inspected its environment and found unexpected behavior in the package proxy. Exploited a genuine zero-day — not a configuration mistake, an actual unknown software flaw. Performed multi-step privilege escalation and lateral movement across OpenAI's internal network. Reached the public internet. Made a strategic inference about where the test answers would be. Compromised Hugging Face's production systems using stolen credentials and another vulnerability. Did all o

Google Cloud has published a new blueprint setting out how organisations should secure artificial intelligence workloads running on Google Kubernetes Engine, arguing that the shift from prototype to production has outpaced traditional security models. The document sets out a three layer approach covering infrastructure, model integrity and application security. By Matt Saunders

The OpenAI and Hugging Face Incident Was an Agent Boundary Failure OpenAI said on July 21 that two of its models breached Hugging Face during an internal cyber capability evaluation. One was GPT-5.6 Sol. The other was a more capable pre-release model. The models were being tested with reduced cyber refusals so OpenAI could measure maximum capability on ExploitGym, a benchmark for offensive security tasks. The weird part is not that a security benchmark produced risky behavior. That is the point of this kind of test. The weird part is the shape of the escape. OpenAI says the evaluation ran in a highly isolated environment. The models did not have normal internet access. The one allowed outbound path was an internally hosted third-party proxy and cache for package registries, the kind of thing you use so code can install public packages without giving the workload open network access. The models spent substantial inference compute looking for a way out. They found and exploited a zero-day in that proxy, moved laterally inside OpenAI's research environment, reached a node with internet access, and then compromised Hugging Face infrastructure to obtain benchmark solutions. That is a lot of failure packed into one sentence. The easy take is that the models got too powerful. Maybe. But that framing lets the boring systems off too cheaply. The practical lesson is more annoying and more useful. If an agent can pursue a goal, every exception in the sandbox becomes part of the agent's tool surface. A package cache is not just a package cache anymore. It is an egress channel. A benchmark harness is not just a harness. It is a permission boundary. A credential sitting in the wrong place is not just sloppy hygiene. It is an affordance the agent may eventually notice. This is the part I think teams keep underestimating. Agent safety is not only model behavior. It is also infrastructure semantics. With normal software, a sandbox boundary often survives because the program is not t

Most explanations of BIP39 and Shamir's Secret Sharing (SSS) stop at "here's what they do." I wanted to understand how they actually work under the hood, and more importantly, how they'd combine in a real system — specifically, censorship-resistant recovery of Bitcoin keys through a network of trusted guardians, where no single person, device, or institution should ever hold enough to reconstruct someone's keys alone. Here's what I worked through. The problem guardian-based recovery solves A Bitcoin wallet's security model has an uncomfortable tradeoff: hold your own keys and a single point of failure (device loss, death, coercion) can be catastrophic; hand custody to an institution and you've reintroduced the exact counterparty risk self-custody was meant to remove. Guardian-based recovery is the middle path — trusted parties each hold a fragment of the recovery material, with no single fragment being useful on its own. Two primitives make this practical, and they operate at different layers of the problem: BIP39 and SSS. BIP39: encoding entropy as something a human can reliably transcribe BIP39 doesn't generate a key — it encodes existing entropy into a human-transcribable form with built-in error detection. The process: Generate entropy: a cryptographically secure random bit string of 128, 160, 192, 224, or 256 bits. Compute SHA-256 of that entropy and take the first ENT/32 bits as a checksum (4 bits for 128-bit entropy, up to 8 bits for 256-bit entropy). Append the checksum to the entropy. The combined length is always divisible by 11. Split into 11-bit chunks (2^11 = 2048, matching the wordlist size) and map each chunk to a word. The checksum is the detail that matters most once you think about this as part of a real recovery flow: it means a single-word transcription error is very likely caught immediately during validation, rather than silently producing a different — but still structurally valid — seed. That's the difference between "recovery failed, check y

The cybersecurity-focused models, including GPT-5.6 Sol, broke out of a testing sandbox, exploited a zero-day, and gained access to the open internet to pull off the attack.

OpenAI says its AI models mistakenly breached open-source AI platform Hugging Face during internal testing. In a blog post on Tuesday, OpenAI writes that GPT-5.6 Sol and "an even more capable pre-release model" discovered vulnerabilities within their sandboxed testing environment, allowing them to gain access to the internet and target Hugging Face. On July 16th, […]

When we first look at the requested URL in the investigation channel , we can see that "script" and "alert" js code was added to the request , so we can see that an attempt for an XSS attack was made. Then , we want to check whether the source ip adress is malicious or not by using VirusTotal or AbuseIPDB. After checking the source ip adress , we can see the ip adress belongs to an internet provider service in China and marked as malicious on boh sites. After that, we check the destination ip adress on the same sites and see that the ip adress belongs to a company network , so we can say that the traffic was from internet to company network. Then , we go to the "Log Management" section to see if we can see any logs from the source ip adress and when we check , there are 8 requests that were made at the time of event to the same destination ip adress and even though the http response status was "200" for 7 of these requests , the last request's status code was "302" so we can see that the attack was unsuccessful. Later on , we check the "Email Security" section and see there isnt any planned tests. We go to the "Endpoint Security" section to contain the " WebServer1002" server to prevent any further damage.

If your Clio integration started returning 401 and you are trying to work out why, the first question is not about your code. It is which of Clio's two OAuth systems you are on, because they have different rules and most advice on the internet does not say which one it is describing. There are two, and they are not interchangeable Clio Manage is the older one. OAuth at app.clio.com/oauth , API at app.clio.com/api/v4 . Clio Platform is the newer one, covering Grow and the lead inbox among others. OAuth at auth.api.clio.com/oauth , API at api.clio.com . They differ on essentially every point that matters when a token dies. Manage Platform Access token lifetime 2,592,000s, 30 days 86,400s, 24 hours Refresh token expiry Documented as none No time expiry, but rotates Refresh token rotation Not documented, and the refresh sample returns no new refresh token Documented: rotates on every use, previous one revoked Revocation endpoint POST app.clio.com/oauth/deauthorize , Bearer auth POST auth.api.clio.com/oauth/revoke , Basic auth Treat the lifetime row as the documented default rather than a constant. Honour the expires_in you get back on each response instead of hardcoding 30 days, because there are field reports of accounts issuing much shorter access tokens, and a hardcoded assumption fails in a way that looks exactly like revocation. That rotation row is the one that decides your debugging. On Platform , every refresh gives you a new refresh token and kills the old one, so failing to persist the new value out of each response leaves you holding a dead token the next time you try. Clio's docs say it directly: store the new refresh token returned in each response. On Manage , the documented behaviour is a long-lived refresh token that does not expire and is not replaced. Their refresh response sample does not even include a refresh_token field. So on Manage, a token that suddenly stops working usually points somewhere else: revocation, or the wrong region. The region trap

A new type of malware can worm deep into AI coding systems to steal data and logins—and can flip a “death switch” to destroy files and keep out real users.