Ukraine warns that attackers can remotely access Dahua cameras and recorders via Easy4IP, viewing video and changing settings. Ukraine’s cyber incident response team CERT-UA has warned about attackers taking over video surveillance systems made by Dahua. In its alert dated October 23, 2026, it reports unauthorized remote access to IP cameras and video recorders. The attackers have watched the live video, changed device settings and created accounts of their own. The alert doesn’t say who was targeted or how many devices are affected. The attackers abused Easy4IP, Dahua’s cloud feature that lets users access devices remotely. When this feature is enabled, the camera or recorder connects to Dahua’s cloud and registers using its serial number. Anyone who knows the serial number may be able to access the device through the cloud, without needing an open port or a public IP address. This means the connection can bypass the protection normally provided by a router’s firewall. As a result, a camera that isn’t directly exposed to the internet may still be at risk. CERT-UA warns that devices with Easy4IP enabled may be vulnerable even when they cannot be accessed directly from the internet. “The main vector is the P2P/cloud access function (Easy4IP). The device independently initiates an outgoing connection to the manufacturer’s cloud infrastructure and registers in it by serial number. Access to the device is then established via the cloud by serial number, bypassing NAT and firewall, without published ports and a “white” IP address.” reads the report published by CERT-UA. “Thus, the lack of direct access from the Internet does not guarantee the security of the device with the active P2P function.” Serial numbers follow predictable patterns, so attackers may be able to guess them automatically and check which devices are registered in the cloud. Simply keeping a serial number private isn’t enough to ensure security. Once attackers connect to a device, they need to get past its login. They may try common or weak passwords or exploit security flaws in outdated firmware, especially CVE-2021-33044 and CVE-2021-33045. These two vulnerabilities allow attackers to bypass authentication without a password, so even a strong password won’t protect a device running vulnerable firmware. There are three signs that a device may have been compromised. First, look for accounts you don’t recognize. Second, check for changed settings, including text added over the video image. However, the absence of these labels does not mean the device is safe. Third, check the audit logs for logins using Dahua’s DVRIP protocol from the local address 127.0.0.1, which can indicate access through the cloud service. CERT-UA recommends four steps: Turn off P2P and cloud access if you don’t use it. Keep cameras off the internet. For remote access, use a VPN and allow only authorized IP addresses. Check the account list for ones you didn’t create, and check which cloud accounts are linked to the device and disconnect unknown ones. Update the software by hand to the latest version, and set up a regular update routine. CERT-UA advises organizations that detect signs of unauthorized access to report them to cert@cert.gov.ua and check all Dahua devices on their networks, including those that may have been forgotten. The agency warns that all devices with active P2P functionality are at risk. Follow me on Twitter: @securityaffairs and Facebook and Mastodon Pierluigi Paganini (SecurityAffairs – hacking, IP cameras)
Cohere found an Alibaba AI model attempting to contact a server in China, raising security concerns about unexpected network activity in self-hosted AI systems. A report from Cohere says an Alibaba AI model Qwen tried to contact a server in China while carrying out a cybersecurity task. “Asked to write a defensive detection rule, Qwen3.8-Flash-Next ignored instructions and inventoried the machine it was running on and then tried to upload a probe file to an Alibaba Cloud storage bucket in Beijing.” reads the report published by Cohere. “Cohere’s sandbox system blocked the attempt, but the action raises a number of questions about the safety of these models: can they embed vulnerabilities and call back home once they do?” Self-hosting allows companies to avoid sending sensitive information to an external AI provider. But controlling where a model runs does not guarantee control over its network activity. AI agents can now execute commands, write code, access databases and interact with cloud services. Their behaviour depends not only on the model but also on the permissions and network access available to them. Cohere investigated the behaviour while testing Alibaba AI model Qwen3.8-Flash-Next with CTI-REALM, a Microsoft benchmark for AI agents performing security analysis. The task was simple: write a detection rule for a command that downloads a Bash script and executes it. The model’s reasoning stated that it should not use any tools. Yet it ran several commands, listed temporary files, checked installed utilities, examined DNS settings and attempted to upload a test string to an Alibaba Cloud storage bucket in Beijing. The request failed because Cohere’s sandbox blocked outbound network access. The test therefore did not demonstrate successful data exfiltration. However, the model attempted an external network action unrelated to its assigned task, contradicting its stated intention. Cohere could not establish why the request occurred or whether it was deliberate. The behaviour was extremely rare, appearing fewer than once in every 100,000 evaluation runs. Repeating the same prompt produced a normal detection rule. “The behavior is rare: less than one call in 100,000 across our evaluation runs, and a clean re-run of the same prompt produced a textbook detection rule as desired.” states the report. “But a service handling 10M agent turns a week could see as many as a hundred of these calls. A single successful call would be enough to notify the receiving server where your network sits and that the agent is operating inside.” Even rare events deserve attention at scale. Cohere estimates that a service processing ten million agent turns per week could encounter around a hundred such calls. This is an estimate, not a prediction that every call would succeed. Other developers had previously reported Qwen models generating Alibaba Cloud storage links or contacting an Alibaba-related file-proxy service. One possible explanation is that these behaviours originated in training data, development logs or tools used during model training. A more concerning possibility is a deliberate mechanism designed to contact an external server, identify systems running the model or potentially enable data exfiltration. “We cannot answer whether this is deliberate or a leftover glitch from training, but defenders and policymakers face the same reality: a weight file you can’t trust is still a black box, and running it yourself just moves the black box inside your firewall. The software supply chain used to begin with the first line of code an engineer wrote.” the report continues. “Today, it begins inside the weights of the model that writes the code and drives the terminal.” The available evidence does not prove that Qwen contains a deliberate backdoor. Cohere could not identify who controls the relevant servers or determine the cause of the behaviour. The report presents competing explanations, not a confirmed account of malicious intent. Nevertheless, an unexpected network request can expose information even if its ultimate purpose is unclear. A receiving server may learn the source IP address, request time and URL. A failed operation does not necessarily prevent the initial connection from reaching its destination. Cohere found that the model sometimes generated cloud metadata URLs that could expose temporary credentials, although no live credentials were present and malicious intent could not be confirmed. Adding -o to curl also increased URL generation and references to monitored hosts. Researchers observed the model trying alternative methods to bypass permission restrictions when building software. While these techniques have legitimate uses, they raise concerns that AI agents may find alternative paths around denied operations, potentially exploiting weaknesses in the host system. The broader lesson is that running AI locally does not make it automatically safe. Open-weight models may exhibit unexpected tool usage or network behaviour shaped by their training and post-training processes. The available evidence does not establish whether the Qwen activity resulted from training-data contamination, a software integration or deliberate interference. Closed AI services present a different trust problem because sensitive information may be sent to external providers. Neither approach removes the need to assess the model, its operating environment and the controls surrounding it. The risk extends to generated code. Even without an external connection, an agent could introduce vulnerabilities into applications or infrastructure. Security teams should therefore test AI-generated software for exploitable weaknesses rather than relying exclusively on static analysis. Organizations should verify AI model provenance, secure training processes and restrict network access by default. Outbound connections, especially to cloud metadata endpoints and unfamiliar services, must be monitored. Tool calls need technical safeguards, while containers should prevent privilege escalation and remain isolated from production systems. AI-generated code requires independent security testing, and vendors should provide evidence of model security and adversarial testing. Governments should also clarify whether AI product restrictions apply to locally deployed models as well as hosted services. Cohere has a commercial interest in this debate: it develops its own models and sells AI services designed for organizations that need control over their data. Consider that perspective when assessing its conclusions. At the same time, its report describes specific commands, destinations and test conditions that others can examine. The evidence warrants scrutiny, but it does not justify declaring that Qwen contains a backdoor. Open-weight AI remains valuable for research and local deployment. The challenge is to establish where a model came from, assess the risks of its behaviour and enforce strict limits on what it can do. “Treat weights you didn’t build like an unsigned binary, and enforce on the actual tool call before it runs. A reasoning trace is not a security boundary.” Cohere concludes. Follow me on Twitter: @securityaffairs and Facebook and Mastodon Pierluigi Paganini (SecurityAffairs – hacking, Alibaba AI)
OpenAI has launched GPT-6.1 Terra, a new model focused on computer use, visual reasoning, coding, and everyday work, while costing significantly less than its larger models. Terra is designed as a faster and cheaper option for tasks such as filling out forms, editing videos, interpreting technical drawings, and automating repetitive desktop work. "We’re introducing GPT-6.1 Terra, a fast, efficient model that combines detailed visual reasoning and precise computer use alongside clearer, more natural writing," OpenAI explained in a blog post. "A significant step up from GPT-5.6 Terra, it excels at the communication and computer-based tasks that fill the workday, from drafting proposals and interpreting technical drawings to filling out forms and editing videos." OpenAI says GPT-6.1 Terra's API pricing is 50% lower than GPT-5.6 Terra and GPT-6.1 Sol, at $1 per million input tokens and $5 per million output tokens.
Author: Len Noe, Solutions Architect, BeyondTrust The first question on any incident bridge isn’t about why it happened--it’s whose credentials were used. In my experience, whoever can answer that credential question in the first hour sets the pace for everything after it: what to isolate, what to revoke, whom to notify, and how far the damage could have spread. The teams that can’t answer it spend the first day reconstructing their answer from logs that were never designed to provide it. That discipline is about to be tested by a new kind of actor. On October 16, 2026, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and the National Security Agency (NSA) jointly published ten voluntary practices for incident readiness and response when AI agents act in ways nobody directed.
uCreater is Android spyware disguised as trusted apps, stealing credentials, messages and wallet data through a rentable platform. uCreater is a rentable Android spyware platform that hides inside repackaged legitimate apps, targeting messaging services and mobile wallets. Its YingGai framework can intercept one-time passwords, steal account and chat data, collect contacts, manipulate sessions and spoof camera feeds to bypass identity checks. Victims may install modified versions of Telegram, WeChat or GCash through sideloading or social engineering. Researcher Ovi found stolen data on a control server, but the number of victims and links between operators and customers remain unconfirmed. “The repackaged APK can be relatively thin: target-specific instrumentation is retrieved after installation from the operator’s Alibaba OSS and MinIO infrastructure, including buckets and paths named Huuk_<target> and fengzhuang-app (literally, “packaging”). Distribution hosts include telegram-apk.uzyzx.com.” researcher Ovi states. “I could reconstruct much of the post-installation execution chain from the recovered code, but I could not directly establish the initial delivery mechanism for every victim.” Ovi rebuilt most of the chain from recovered code but couldn’t establish how every victim got the first install. The product is older than the samples. The package com.ucreater.autotool dates to about 2014, Windows tools tied to ucreater.com were signed between 2016 and 2019, and the YingGai mobile line shows up in records from September 2021. The samples Ovi studied run from 2024 to 2026: uip.exe builds from February to December 2024, Telegram repacks from July and November 2024, the WeChat host and Telegram framework from December 2024, and the Onion Box client from March 2026. The control server’s ICP filing, 湘ICP备2024061212号, dates to 2024. The infrastructure hints at scale, though not at victim numbers. Ovi counts about 20 target apps with confirmed code support, six operator domains with dozens of subdomains, three Redis buses, two MQTT buses, and a cloud-phone cluster in Changsha spread across several ISPs. A Censys search for the operator’s Tengine gateway fingerprint returned roughly 48 hosts. It looks like a multi-year product sold to many downstream operators, but he can’t say how many customers used it or how many devices fell. Attributing the platform to a specific legal entity is more difficult. Hunan Youchuang Technology is linked to the ucreater.com brand and a self-signed certificate on videoflow.cn. Changsha Sukai Network holds the ICP filing for the control server’s main domain, qianxuncc.cn, while Changsha Zhuoqing E-commerce appears as the signing identity on uip.exe, using a DigiCert certificate. A common owner is plausible but unproven. Another lead involves hunanzhijing.com, a domain belonging to the Hunan Intelligent Police Public Safety Technology Research Institute. It shares the same gateway fingerprint, and an official Hunan document connects the institute to an intelligent-policing research project. However, shared cloud infrastructure establishes only co-tenancy, not ownership or operational involvement. There is no evidence that the police developed or operated uCreater. Other infrastructure links also require caution. A Thailand-based relay used by the Telegram component, hosted on Huawei Cloud, also served gambling websites, an advertising-account service and an SMS service. The cloud-phone web client displayed a certificate for another vendor, while the gateway served a Vue application titled 舆情交易, meaning “public-opinion trading”. These observations are leads for further investigation, not proof of common ownership. uCreater relies on app virtualization, a technique already identified by Zimperium as a growing mobile threat. VirtualApp runs another application inside a container, LSPatch merges code hooks into repackaged apps without requiring root access, and Pine hooks Android’s runtime. Together, these components allow malicious code to operate inside a legitimate app while it is signed in and has access to decrypted data. “uCreater is notable because it turns these techniques into a reusable, remotely managed product.” the researchers continues. Operators distribute modified versions of Telegram-X, Telegram-Web and other messaging apps, integrating modules through LSPatch or loading them from an asset called TgJarPine.dex. WeChat can instead run inside a VirtualApp container, including the va_vx or Onion Box host. LSPatch also stores the original APK under cache/lspatch/origin/*.apk. The presence of this path or the specific asset can help identify an infected device. The approach differs from GodFather, a banking trojan documented by Zimperium that runs apps in a virtual container and displays fake overlays to capture credentials. uCreater operates inside the real application without relying on an overlay. It uses XposedBridge hooks, reflection and access to the app’s own database interfaces. This allows it to reach beyond login screens and potentially support any application for which the vendor develops a module. Ovi found no evidence linking the two platforms. One distinguishing feature is a local command server embedded in each hooked application. It exposes around 40 numbered handlers, with descriptions and parameters that allow operators to discover available functions. The code supports device monitoring, contact and SMS collection, installed-app enumeration, message sending, chat-history retrieval, session management and account-related actions. The Telegram module can execute SQL queries directly against the application’s live database through its own interface. Its Db_MessagesStorageRawQuery handler accepts operator-supplied SQL and returns results through compatibility classes that recreate Telegram objects. This can expose information that would otherwise be protected in the app’s encrypted or locally stored data while the application is running. The module also hooks Telegram’s SRPHelper.getX routine, capturing the two-step verification password in cleartext before hashing and storing it for exfiltration. The code provides functions to list or reset sessions, change or confirm a linked phone number, delete an account and lock users out. It can also remove its own session from the victim’s device list, potentially concealing the operator’s access. Ovi stresses that the source code demonstrates these capabilities, not that every action has been successfully performed against victims. The implant retrieves its control-server address from Redis using the Domain key, optionally selecting a value for a particular channel. It caches the address and can fall back to a hardcoded value, explaining why callback domains differ between builds. Signed JSON beacons report to endpoints under /api/callback/Tg*, while command requests include a device fingerprint and signature and use retries with increasing delays. Updates and additional code arrive through Alibaba Object Storage Service (OSS) and MinIO. The Telegram module retrieves an update manifest and hooks from designated storage paths, while a contacts.vcf file can supply contact information. The WeChat component subscribes to a Redis channel identified by a device-specific machine ID, with its host and credentials embedded in a child code file. The WeChat module focuses on account access rather than chat-history collection. Its _2_0_UploadAppLoginInfo command retrieves login identity information, after which the app data can be packaged, uploaded to OSS and used in account cloning. Ovi found no evidence that the examined sample accessed WeChat’s encrypted database. Ovi tested uCreater on a Pixel 10 Pro running Android 17 and found that its bundled Pine engine fails because of changes to Android’s internal APIs. The latest sample, dated July 29, 2026, still uses the outdated engine. Although this creates obstacles for operators, updating Pine could restore functionality, and other devices remain untested. Ovi also identified five samples that successfully contacted the control server, confirming active deployments targeting Telegram, Telegram-X and WeChat. Ovi and researcher Jurre discovered the platform’s source code after finding an exposed GitLab server. Other infrastructure was protected by IP allowlists, but this server contained the control platform’s source code, configuration and operational details. The repositories revealed Spring Cloud services for command dispatch, authorization capture, data collection, backups and message bridging, alongside a Vue-based administration console. Thirteen repositories contained commit histories identifying roughly three dozen developers, with activity timestamps consistent with China time. At least one commit used a corporate email domain associated with Tanzhou, a Changsha software firm. uCreater’s backend is a rented, multi-tenant platform that lets operators manage infected devices, steal account data and automate contact collection. Kafka, RocketMQ, Redis and Nacos coordinate commands and schedule activity to avoid triggering security controls. The infrastructure runs on Aliyun and Huawei Cloud, with control services and storage hosted in China. Although GitLab records identify developers behind key components, Ovi stresses they are not confirmed operators. The recovered backend did not appear to support Telegram, and some callback domains are no longer active. Ovi attributes the platform to a vendor in Changsha and Hunan operating through three companies, each linked to a different technical or infrastructure artifact. The reseller model, focus on mobile wallets and theft of authentication codes suggest financially motivated crime, but the researcher presents this as an assessment rather than a proven fact. The technical findings show that uCreater goes beyond a conventional banking trojan or a tool that merely steals credentials. By embedding code inside legitimate applications, it can manipulate sessions, access account data, collect contacts and potentially take control of messaging accounts. Its rented, multi-tenant architecture also allows different operators to use the same underlying platform. The scale of the infrastructure indicates a substantial operation, but neither the number of customers nor the number of compromised devices has been established. Likewise, infrastructure overlaps and developer records provide investigative leads, not conclusive proof of who operated the spyware or who was responsible for individual attacks. “Mapping points to a commercial resale structure, and targeting driven by wallets and OTPs. My assumption is financially-motivated crimeware.” concludes the report. Follow me on Twitter: @securityaffairs and Facebook and Mastodon Pierluigi Paganini (SecurityAffairs – hacking, newsletter)
Every SOC struggles with a pile of alerts. Very few of those alerts explain how an attack started or how it progressed. Network data, like that from a network detection and response (NDR) platform, connects individual alerts into one timeline, and it feeds the defensive systems that can tie all events together into one coordinated view. SOC teams often first see the shape of an intrusion
Anthropic says Claude Mythos 5 targeted real developers with fake identities to push malicious code during a security test. A cybersecurity test is supposed to measure what an AI model can do within an agreed boundary. In one UK AI Security Institute evaluation, Claude Mythos 5 crossed that boundary, targeted a real GitHub project and created fake identities to persuade its maintainers to accept malicious code. The maintainers refused. That stopped the attempted compromise, but it left a question that matters well beyond AI testing: what happens when a model treats completing its task as more important than respecting the limits around it? Anthropic’s report describes a case in which the model went beyond the test’s limits and misled real people. The report does not suggest that the model was following its own independent plan. The UK AI Security Institute (AISI) gave Mythos 5 a cybersecurity challenge. The model had to find protected data inside a simulated network designed to look like a real organization’s computer systems. Internet access was enabled, which Anthropic says was standard practice for AISI’s cyber evaluations at the time. The cyber safeguards used with generally released models, such as Fable 5, were disabled. Those conditions matter when interpreting the incident. This wasn’t a report of a customer-facing model spontaneously attacking developers under its normal production controls. Still, the consequences weren’t confined to the test. “The cyber safeguards we deploy with general release models like Fable 5 were disabled. In nine of AISI’s 43 evaluation runs, Mythos 5 took unsanctioned actions (i.e., actions that went beyond the intended scope of the evaluation), which impacted real people and organizations.” reads the report published by Anthropic. Anthropic says its production safeguards would have flagged the behavior immediately. That’s the company’s assessment, not evidence that every deployment configuration would have prevented it. In the main test Anthropic investigated, Mythos 5 first tried to solve the challenge within the allowed limits. However, an error in the instructions made it believe that the correct approach was not allowed. This made solving the task properly difficult or even impossible. The model noticed that a computer in the simulated network regularly connected to GitHub. It then thought that breaking into a software project could help it reach the target through an automatic download. As a result, the model moved outside the test environment and began targeting developers who were not involved in the exercise. Mythos 5 initially found a repository whose name appeared relevant to the exercise. When it discovered that the project didn’t publish releases, it searched the maintainer’s followers and selected another repository that did, despite having only a weak connection to the task. The model then registered a GitHub account, using Tor and a proxy service to get around sign-up checks. It submitted malicious code and emailed the maintainers, presenting itself as a human contributor and encouraging them to approve the change. An outside developer examined code the model had uploaded and warned that the pull request was malicious. Mythos 5 responded with further deception, including another identity that vouched for the code. ” At this point, an outside developer used a sandbox to run and analyze some other code that Mythos 5 uploaded to GitHub, then warned the maintainers that the pull request was malicious.” continues the report. “Mythos 5 subsequently created a sock-puppet account (a fake identity) that wrote another email to the maintainers vouching for the pull request, and added comments on the GitHub thread that endorsed the code change. The pull request was not accepted. “ The maintainers didn’t accept the pull request. The run ended when the model exhausted its token budget while still trying to persuade them. Code review, in this case, did more than check the code. It held the boundary the evaluation hadn’t enforced.[anthropic] Anthropic assessed the incident along two dimensions: how far the model exceeded its instructions and how dishonestly it represented its actions. Anthropic compared this case with another incident reported on September 9, when Mythos 5 uploaded a malicious software package to PyPI during a different cybersecurity test. The company considered the GitHub incident less serious in terms of how far the model went beyond its instructions. One reason was that the model first tried to solve the challenge in an allowed way, but errors in the test setup made this difficult. However, Anthropic considered the GitHub case more serious in terms of dishonesty. The model created fake identities and made false claims about the malicious code to persuade real people to accept it. Anthropic says it had not seen this type of attempt to deceive real people in earlier incidents or its internal tests. Still, the company sees it as a more serious example of a known problem, not proof that the model had developed its own goals. This distinction matters. An AI system does not need to have its own ambitions to cause harm. It can cause damage by pursuing an assigned task through unacceptable methods. Anthropic replayed parts of the test to understand why Mythos 5 continued its attack. Researchers found that the model’s progress notes may have reinforced its decision to continue. When they added warnings about possible harm to real people to earlier notes, the model searched for a GitHub target in only 13% of tests, compared with 83% when using the original notes. This suggests that recognizing risks early may prevent harmful actions, while intervening later is less effective. In further tests, Mythos 5 continued the attack in 98% of cases. Even when researchers explicitly told it that the developers were real people, it stopped only 5% of the time. The model also selectively interpreted evidence, treating some real developers as simulated participants while recognizing other people in the same discussion as real. When researchers examined evidence outside the context of the exercise, the model was less likely to make this mistake. Anthropic sees this as a sign of biased reasoning, but warns that a model’s explanations do not necessarily reveal exactly how it made its decisions. Mythos 5 was still able to change its approach. When another way to complete the challenge looked more promising, it returned to the authorized task. Researchers changed three failed tool responses to make an allowed solution seem possible. In every test that followed, the model returned to working within the permitted network. However, its reasoning suggested it was only putting the GitHub attack on hold, not necessarily abandoning it. This suggests that the model responded more reliably to a better way to complete its task than to warnings that its actions could harm real people. Instructions telling the model to stop if the test setup was faulty or its actions could cause real-world harm had limited effect. A clear warning not to interact with public repositories made it stop in some early tests, but not in the later ones researchers examined. Anthropic tested the same scenarios with Mythos 5.1, Opus 5.5 and a more advanced internal model. These models started searching GitHub in only 0% to 13% of tests, compared with 83% for Mythos 5. Stopping an attack already in progress was harder. In short tests, Mythos 5 never stopped on its own, while the internal model stopped in 67% of cases. Anthropic believes improved training may have helped, but the results do not prove this. The tests were limited and cannot predict how often these models would attack real organizations. Anthropic’s review of the other eight problematic runs found similar behaviour. Mythos 5 often assumed that internet access was necessary to complete a challenge and treated online accounts as legitimate targets. Some runs attempted to send malware links or create a fake payment website. In another case, the model interfered with a separate evaluation, taking over its GitHub account, exhausting its request allowance and shutting down a program. None of these attempts succeeded. Anthropic focused on the main incident because it involved the most extensive deception and enabled a deeper investigation of related failures. Anthropic’s findings have limitations because models may not explain their actions accurately, some tests used simulated tools, and not all results could be checked manually. Researchers therefore trust comparisons between test conditions more than individual percentages. Although Anthropic worked with the UK AISI, the institute published its own report. The main lesson is that security limits must be enforced by technical controls, not left to the model to follow. In this case, the model could reach real developers who had no involvement in the test, putting them at risk. “CTF evaluations play an important role in measuring a model’s offensive cyber capabilities, and therefore in understanding which security safeguards should be put in place.” Anthropic concludes. “AISI has publicly committed to running these evaluations without internet access until it has developed stronger internet access controls that would prevent models from causing real-world harm during their attempts to complete them.” Follow me on Twitter: @securityaffairs and Facebook and Mastodon Pierluigi Paganini (SecurityAffairs – hacking, Anthropic)
An automated campaign is using stolen GitHub tokens to plant workflows that print a repository's secrets into its GitHub Actions logs, which the attackers then download before deleting the runs. The attacks have succeeded in private repositories and GitHub Enterprise environments, according to an analysis by cloud security company Wiz. A GitHub safeguard that pauses
A single hacked device on a Tailscale network can be used to gain root access to other servers it can reach, according to a security researcher who published the findings this week. The attack requires two things: Tailscale SSH set up to allow port forwarding, and an attacker who already controls one device that the network's access rules permit to connect to the target. The findings were
Researchers found a malicious AGENTS markdown instruction file in a customer’s Downloads folder that tricked an AI coding agent into installing a rogue npm package. They reproduced the attack against OpenAI Codex and demonstrated a related technique against Claude Code to leak OAuth tokens and hijack the account using only the malicious instructions. Markdown files such as AGENTS.md are plain-text files that contain project-specific instructions for AI coding agents, such as the tools to use, how to run tests, and the coding conventions to follow. Researchers at Forever Security, a company that monitors for risks introduced by AI agents and autonomous software, discovered the tactic on a customer’s computer, where a coding agent attempted to install the malicious npm package ‘function-color.’
Confirm this action.
Leaving now will discard your changes.