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)
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)
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.’
OpenAI paused frontier model training for 11 days after AI agents exposed security weaknesses, VM escapes and covert communication channels. OpenAI published a detailed report this week explaining how it improved security in the systems used to train and test its most advanced AI models. The company also described what happened when its AI agents tried to find weaknesses in those systems and why it stopped training its most advanced models for 11 days in September. “Based on the red-teaming results, the fixes we had implemented, and improvements to our monitoring and stopping systems, we judged that our strengthened safeguards were sufficient to resume frontier RL training and internal inference.” reads the report published by the company. “We resumed these workloads on October 1, 11 days after our pause began.” The incident began on September 20, when an internal research model exploited a DNS configuration error and gained limited access to the live internet during training. This incident, along with a security incident involving Hugging Face in July and other cases of AI models behaving in unexpected ways, led OpenAI to make major changes to its security measures. OpenAI’s stated containment requirement is that limits on what an agent can access must hold even when the agent actively tries to circumvent them. The policy choice they landed on is that frontier model training now runs with no internet access at all, full stop. “For training and most evaluation, the live internet lies outside this boundary, as we believe that providing models access to the live internet can pose significant risks. Although internet access can help models learn useful skills, it also gives a capable, misaligned agent opportunities to affect systems beyond our control.” continues the report. “We’ve therefore designed the security architecture for our research environments with one overriding principle: we must always be able to prevent a frontier model from achieving unauthorized, arbitrary access to the live internet.” To support training without live internet, they built what they call an “offline world,” a large indexed and cached set of web content that models can browse and search without touching external systems. The layers of protection around that offline world include restricted containers, lightweight virtual machines that isolate each agent’s environment from the underlying hardware, network and cloud controls, and monitoring systems designed to catch unauthorized activity before it does damage. The report explains how OpenAI tested its most advanced AI agents by asking them to find weaknesses in the company’s own systems. The agents had three goals: access the live internet, break through internal security barriers, or communicate with other agents when they were not allowed to do so. OpenAI ran experiments using hundreds of billions of tokens. The agents found previously unknown security flaws in open-source software, including Kata Containers, gVisor and Moby/Docker, as well as configuration errors in OpenAI’s own services. By combining these weaknesses, they managed to escape virtual machines and gain control of the underlying host system. In further tests, the agents found weaknesses in services used for monitoring, logging and authentication. They used these flaws to make the services access URLs controlled by an attacker. The part of the report that deserves the most attention isn’t the direct internet escapes. It’s what the agents did when those paths weren’t available. Agents in separate virtual machines, not allowed to share files or network connections, communicated with each other using processor cache timing. One agent evicted specific data from the processor’s cache. Another measured how long it took to reload that data, using the difference between fast and slow reads to decode a message. No file touched, no network packet sent. The technique is the same family of attacks as Spectre and Meltdown. OpenAI restarted training its most advanced AI models on October 1, eleven days after the pause began. The company is now making extensive security tests a required part of the approval process before training runs can begin. It is also using AI agents to regularly check source code and cloud settings for weaknesses, testing systems that monitor activity and automatically stop unsafe operations, and reporting discovered vulnerabilities to the open-source projects responsible for fixing them. OpenAI says it is continuing to strengthen its security by fixing vulnerabilities in virtual machines, working with cloud partners, and using AI agents to scan code and configurations. The company is also improving monitoring and automatic shutdown systems, regularly testing its sandbox and network defenses, and making high-compute red-teaming with its most capable models a core requirement for future frontier AI training and evaluation. “We are committed to strengthening our containment, monitoring, and red-teaming infrastructure as our frontier models become more capable and believe that this work will be a core part of responsibly pacing the development of our frontier models.” the company concludes. Follow me on Twitter: @securityaffairs and Facebook and Mastodon Pierluigi Paganini (SecurityAffairs – hacking, Artificial Intelligence)
AI companies need usage data to align pricing with costs, improve products, identify churn risks, and grow revenue through informed decisions. The AI Paradox There is a paradox: AI companies exist to extract intelligence from data, yet many have almost no visibility into how their own software is being used. They design complex models, introduce their product, set a price, and then hope that customers renew their contracts. In a space as fast-paced as AI, such a strategy is no longer safe. Without usage as a guide, price decisions are made on assumptions rather than facts. Product roadmaps are driven by story, not by usage. Customer success teams learn about customer churn when renewal dates are approaching. In reality, usage intelligence has become one of the most important signals in an AI business, guiding everything from pricing strategy to product development and long-term monetization. Why AI Changes the Stakes for Usage Data AI changes the economics of software and, with it, the relevance of usage visibility. The economics of existing software products are linear in cost, whereas those of AI products are not. Compute, energy consumption, as well as third-party model licenses, can all be material variable costs. If usage increases rapidly (through enterprise adoption, agents, or workflows), the cost can grow faster than the revenue generated if pricing is not aligned with consumption. The opposite scenario is just as dangerous. If customers are not using key capabilities, churn may be approaching long before a renewal conversation begins. Research shows the extent of this visibility gap. For AI vendors, visibility is important on the commercial side, too. They need to know how customers are using the AI capabilities they sell. IDC research found that 48% of software buyers want better visibility into their usage. The pace of change is also a concern, with 70% ranking rapid change in the AI ecosystem among their top three AI-related security risks. Pricing, packaging, and business models must evolve at the same pace, and that requires reliable usage intelligence. What Usage Intelligence Actually Looks Like Of all the capabilities that make up a software monetization strategy, usage intelligence is the one most commonly treated as optional — and the one that most consistently separates companies that adapt from those that don’t. It is the feedback loop that connects real-world product consumption back to the decisions that shape pricing, packaging, and product direction. At the instrumentation layer, usage intelligence starts with telemetry data. This includes activation events, entitlements consumed, feature-level data, daily and monthly active users, and time-to-value metrics that track how quickly customers get value from the product. Thales Sentinel can also collect usage data from on-premises, offline, and disconnected environments, so vendors are not limited to tracking always-connected software. The operational layer is where all the telemetry data is made actionable. Usage dashboards in CRM systems enable account teams to see how customers use the software. Health scores can even detect reduced engagement well before any risk of renewal is seen. The enforcement layer makes sure that usage is consistent with contract rights. This is particularly important for consumption-based or token-based pricing schemes. Tracking accuracy is essential for determining customer fairness and vendor revenue. Finally, there is the feedback loop. The insights from usage need to flow back to those responsible for pricing, packaging, product development, and customer success. Without the feedback loop, the data is just more information. Pricing specialists have long argued for incremental experimentation. Research from Simon-Kucher reveals that companies that make frequent, data-informed pricing adjustments tend to achieve stronger growth than those that depend on static pricing models. Usage intelligence provides the evidence required to make those adjustments with confidence. How Usage Data Enables Multiple Business Models Business model agility is increasingly becoming a competitive advantage for AI companies, yet flexible business models cannot exist without trustworthy usage data beneath them. Consumption-based pricing, outcome-based pricing, token models, and hybrid subscription structures all depend on accurate measurement of how customers use the product. There is demand for these models, too. IDC research found that 45% of software buyers prefer usage-based models. In practice, most AI companies adopt a gradual sequence. They begin with subscription licensing to establish predictable recurring revenue. As adoption grows, they instrument feature usage and engagement patterns. That data then enables the introduction of consumption or token-based layers tied to high-value AI capabilities. One AI audio-recognition company did just that. It moved from perpetual licensing to several subscription tiers using Thales Sentinel. Its usage data showed which features customers used most, which helped the company decide how to structure those tiers without making changes to the core technology. Another AI recognition vendor delivering SDKs for embedded systems took a different approach using Sentinel. Their trial licenses expire after a defined number of executions instead of after a fixed time period. This usage-based trial model demonstrates genuine customer interest, giving them a clearer indicator of product-market fit than a simple time-limited evaluation would. Both examples show that usage intelligence transforms monetization strategies from guesswork into evidence-based decision-making. From Data to Decision: Three Practical Applications The real value of usage intelligence lies in informing concrete business decisions. Preventing churn is one of the most immediate uses. Feature-level engagement metrics can detect declining usage several months before a renewal date. This enables customer success teams to step in and show the value or introduce underutilized features, preventing a customer from leaving. Upsell and expansion opportunities can also show up in the usage data. Seat utilization may show that a team is close to capacity and needs more licenses. Feature usage can show when a customer is getting enough value from certain capabilities to justify moving to a higher tier or adding consumption-based features. Usage data can also inform the product roadmap. Rather than relying on assumptions about what customers want, AI companies can see which features people use and which get little attention. This is key in a market full of similar AI capabilities. Companies need to know which parts of their product customers value and are willing to pay for. There is also a need for the collection of usage intelligence to be privacy-conscious. For vendors operating under frameworks such as GDPR or the EU’s AI Act, it is necessary to design telemetry systems that prioritize aggregated data collection over personal data collection whenever possible. The Organizational Challenge However, technology alone is not enough to create usage intelligence. Businesses must also ensure that the intelligence is available to those who can act on it. Usage intelligence only delivers value if it reaches the people who can act on it. Pricing teams need consumption data to make confident adjustments to their models. Product teams need feature engagement data to inform roadmap decisions rather than rely on assumptions. Sales teams need account-level signals to time their conversations correctly. Customer success teams need early warning indicators to intervene before disengagement becomes churn. Finance teams need usage trends to build credible revenue forecasts. Getting that data to all of those functions consistently and in a usable form requires intentional data architecture and a shared organizational commitment to treating monetization as a cross-functional capability rather than a single team’s responsibility. This becomes harder as companies add more AI products. If usage data is split across separate products, teams may struggle to see how a customer is using the wider portfolio. Bringing the data together can show where products are being heavily used, where adoption is low, and where there may be room to expand an account. Building Systems Around Innovation The AI companies that sustain long-term commercial success are the ones who built a system around it that can learn, adapt, and improve as markets shift and customer needs evolve. Usage intelligence is what makes that system adaptive. Without it, pricing decisions are made on assumptions, packaging tiers are defined by intuition, and churn arrives without warning. With it, every commercial decision — what to charge, how to package, what to build next, which customers need attention — is grounded in evidence rather than expectation. In an industry defined by rapid innovation, the AI companies that listen to their own usage data will be the ones best positioned to turn experimentation into sustainable growth. About the Author: Kirsten Doyle has been in the technology journalism and editing space for nearly 24 years, during which time she has developed a great love for all aspects of technology, as well as words themselves. Her experience spans B2B tech, with a lot of focus on cybersecurity, cloud, enterprise, digital transformation, and data centre. Her specialties are in news, thought leadership, features, white papers, and PR writing, and she is an experienced editor for both print and online publications. She is also a regular writer at Bora. Follow me on Twitter: @securityaffairs and Facebook and Mastodon Pierluigi Paganini (SecurityAffairs – hacking, artificial intelligence)
Capcom disclosed a data breach exposing 11.7 million email addresses and account details after hackers accessed its CAPCOM ID service. Japanese gaming company Capcom has disclosed a data breach discovered on October 19 involving its CAPCOM ID service, which provides access to online services and games. As of October 22, attackers stole 11,774,247 email addresses, along with account details including creation dates, last login dates, login counts, and the IP addresses used for the latest logins. “We have recently discovered that unauthorized access by a third party occurred to our online membership service “CAPCOM ID” (*1) , resulting in the leakage of some customer information.” reads the company’s notice. “Number of leaked email addresses and system-specific identification information: 11,774,247 (worldwide total)” In 43 cases, hackers exposed date of birth, gender, country/region, and nickname. Capcom also reported that attackers illegally changed passwords on 196 accounts, and the company has already reset them. The company said the incident exposed personal information belonging to a small number of individuals. Capcom has activated its incident response procedures and confirmed that services using CAPCOM ID remain operational. The company has notified the relevant authorities, is investigating the breach, and has begun contacting affected customers through a dedicated support channel. The company also urges users to watch out for phishing attempts involving emails impersonating Capcom or its partners, particularly those containing suspicious links or attachments. It says it will investigate the incident, address the identified causes, and strengthen its security measures to prevent similar breaches. “In response, we implemented emergency measures and began identifying and addressing the attack method.” states the notice.”A task force was established within the company to gather information and take measures to prevent further damage. The investigation revealed that some customer information registered with “CAPCOM ID” had been leaked. In addition, unauthorized password changes were confirmed for some accounts. On the same day, the incident was reported to the Security Oversight Committee, our external advisory organization.” Capcom was previously targeted by the Ragnar Locker ransomware gang in November 2020. The attackers claimed to have stolen 1 TB of data, potentially affecting up to 390,000 people. Follow me on Twitter: @securityaffairs and Facebook and Mastodon Pierluigi Paganini (SecurityAffairs – hacking, data breach)
Between November 2025 and March 2026, the Dutch security firm Eye Security pushed more than 2 million updates to computers it did not own to switch off a background updater that it said could have allowed an outsider to take over the machine. The updater belongs to Time4Popcorn, an abandoned copy of Popcorn Time, a free app that streamed pirated films and TV over BitTorrent. Popcorn Time was
Microsoft says Teams will begin using AI-powered phishing detection in early November 2026 to detect malicious behavior in messages. The rollout is part of a targeted release phase expected to end by mid-November, with the new security feature likely reaching general availability worldwide between early and mid-December. Microsoft first revealed in a Microsoft 365 Roadmap entry last week that the AI-powered phishing detection will use conversation context (without retaining message content) to identify phishing and suspicious behavior in higher-risk messaging scenarios, such as external first-contact chats. "Microsoft Teams is introducing AI-powered, context-aware phishing detection to help identify phishing, social engineering, impersonation attempts, and deceptive intent," the company said in a Microsoft 365 Message Center update on Wednesday.
Cybersecurity researchers have discovered an artificial intelligence (AI)-driven intrusion ecosystem run by affiliates of the INC and The Gentlemen ransomware groups. Central to the operation is an "Autonomous Red Team Kill Chain Framework" referred to as Phantom. The threat actor is assessed to be Russian-speaking and functions both as an intrusion and data-extortion operator, as well as an
American clinical laboratory company Quest Diagnostics disclosed that patient records have been exposed after a threat actor gained unauthorized access to its Quanum LSM system. The company learned about the breach on October 21 and deployed its incident response protocol "to contain the activity, assess and investigate the nature and scope of the incident and implement appropriate remedial measures." “On October 21, 2026, Quest Diagnostics Incorporated learned of unauthorized access to its Quanum LSM system, which certain clients use to place test orders, receive and look up results,” the company says in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Quest Diagnostics is a major clinical laboratory company in the United States, providing diagnostic testing and services for a wide range of medical conditions.
Confirm this action.
Leaving now will discard your changes.