An unpatched vulnerability in Calix GS7 XGS (GS5239XG) residential routers used by multiple U.S. broadband providers allows remote, unauthenticated attackers to create port-forwarding rules that can expose local network devices to the public internet.
A breach at South Korea's government-backed startup platform exposed encrypted personal data after an encryption key was included in an API. Penta Security explains why encryption keys must be securely managed and kept separate from the data they protect.
Slovakia warns that vulnerable speed cameras could expose vehicle data, enable remote access and provide attackers with a foothold into public networks. Slovakia’s National Security Authority, NBÚ, recently issued a warning about several road speed cameras, calling them a significant cyber threat. The alert is not about someone deleting a speeding ticket. It is about connected devices that collect vehicle data, communicate with other systems, and may contain remote-access functions that the operator cannot fully control. The Slovak authority examined a sample of the NERO R-ONE camera system at the request of the Interior Ministry. It named three product lines in its warning: NERO R-ONE devices sold by Cyprus-based SODASUS, Cordon-series speed cameras made by Russia’s Simicon, and Cordon-series products sold by Croatia’s NEROline. “The National Security Authority warns of a significant cyber threat associated with the use of several types of road speed cameras.” reads the alert. “A security analysis has identified several risks and recommends that affected entities identify the products in question in their infrastructure.” The problems went beyond a simple configuration issue. NBÚ found differences between the documented and actual communication settings, uncertainty about where the hardware and software came from, software that did not match the declared version, and weak security protections. “The security analysis identified several risks, including the true origin of the camera hardware and software, inconsistency between the documented and detected configuration of the product’s communication interfaces, and pre-configured remote access and product management mechanisms.” the agency wrote on LinkedIn. That last point deserves attention. A road camera should be managed by the organisation that owns it, under controls that it can inspect, configure and audit. If a device includes pre-set remote-access or management mechanisms outside the customer’s full control, it creates a blind spot in a system that may sit on a public-sector network or communicate with other operational services. Speed cameras do much more than take pictures and measure speed. They photograph vehicles, record timestamps, process licence-plate data, store evidence and send information to backend systems used by authorities. Depending on the setup, they may also connect to mobile networks, roadside equipment, police systems, municipal platforms or third-party maintenance services. If attackers compromise a camera, they could access data, change or delete records, manipulate how it measures or reports violations, or shut it down. If the network lacks proper segmentation, they could also use the camera as a foothold to reach other systems. The camera may not be the real target. It could simply be the unlocked door. The warning aims to alert essential-service operators and other organisations that these road cameras could pose a serious cybersecurity risk. In the wrong circumstances, attackers could use them to disrupt networks, systems or services. The Slovak Interior Ministry reportedly took the equipment out of its pilot deployment while the matter was investigated. Public reporting also says the ministry asked the supplier to remove the units and replace them with equipment meeting Slovak and EU legal, technical and security requirements. The Russian connection adds an obvious geopolitical dimension, but it should not become a substitute for technical analysis. NBÚ did not say that every device was actively spying on users or that the equipment contained a proven backdoor. Its warning is about identified security risks, limited operator control, uncertainty over hardware and software provenance, and remote-management mechanisms that could not be fully accounted for. That is enough reason to take action. Security checks for connected public devices cannot rely only on the brand, the country listed on the invoice or the vendor’s claims. Operators should know exactly what software and firmware the device runs, how remote access works and who controls it. They should also use independent security testing, secure updates and network segmentation. The same lesson applies beyond Slovakia. Smart cameras, licence-plate readers, parking sensors, environmental monitors, traffic lights and roadside communication systems are becoming part of public infrastructure. They are often cheap, easy to overlook and managed by public agencies, contractors and manufacturers. That makes them just as important to secure as other critical systems. Follow me on Twitter: @securityaffairs and Facebook and Mastodon Pierluigi Paganini (SecurityAffairs – hacking, Speed Cameras)
A package gets installed. A login prompt opens. A box sits exposed to the internet. Nothing looks unusual yet. That’s roughly the mood this week. Trusted tools turn hostile, old weak spots get fresh attention, AI makes exploit work cheaper, and researchers keep finding attacks that sound harder than they actually are. Plenty to clean up. Here’s the short version. ⚡ Threat of the Week U.S.
The ToxicPanda Android malware has evolved with new malicious functionality, expanding its targeting to 349 applications and adding support for 167 remote commands. The malware now requests VPN service permissions to create a local interface that allows it to control network traffic passing through it. The feature enables ToxicPanda 2.0 to block communication from Google Play and Google Play Services. Control at the network level permits the malware to interfere with various security checks and actions, such as app verifications, updates, Play Protect communication, or legitimate disruptions designed to protect users. After obtaining VPN service permissions, ToxicPanda 2.0 blocks communications to Google Play before extracting and installing its payload, then requests Accessibility Service permissions.
New Cryptographic Context Injection technique bypasses AI guardrails via AES-encrypted payloads, leaking full Grok chat histories zero-click Adversa AI researcher Rony Utevsky devised a new attack technique, called Cryptographic Context Injection, that bypasses AI safety filters by sending instructions as AES-encrypted ciphertext and tricking the model into decrypting them inside its own code execution runtime. The technique was demonstrated against two live production systems: xAI’s Grok and Google’s Gemini. “Cryptographic Context Injection hides malicious instructions inside AES-encrypted text so guardrails can’t read them, then tricks the AI into decrypting and trusting them as its own.” reads the report published by Adversa AI. “In Grok, an ordinary “summarize this page” steals the user’s chat data with no click or warning. In Gemini, it produces content the model normally refuses. Both are live production systems.” The Grok case is the more serious of the two. A user asks Grok to summarize a webpage containing an encrypted payload and instructions to decrypt it. Grok visits the page, decrypts the payload in its Python sandbox, and follows the hidden instructions. It then accesses the user’s private session data, including their name, location, subscription plan, and full chat history, and puts this information into a URL that it opens automatically. The user receives no warning and does not need to click anything. The key technical distinction from earlier cipher-based prompt injection work is what happens during decryption. “Static safety guardrails classify inputs as text; they do not execute them. An attacker ships ciphertext along with the key material and an instruction to decrypt it, and the model runs that decryption inside its own code execution sandbox.” continues the report. “Everything a guardrail’s scanner would need is right there on the page, but recovering the plaintext means running PBKDF2 and AES-256-GCM, which no content classifier does at inspection time. “ Prior techniques like CipherChat and CodeChameleon used substitution ciphers, XOR, or base64, schemes the model can decode natively in its own context without an interpreter. AES-256-GCM can’t be decoded that way. Recovery requires the runtime, and that’s the channel the attack depends on. Once the runtime decrypts the payload, the attacker’s instructions appear as the output of code the model just ran, not as untrusted external content. “The runtime execution launders attacker-controlled data into trusted instructions the agent will act upon. That is how the attack got its name: cryptography helps fabricate trusted context for the agent.” states the report. “The same cryptographic backbone works whether the injection is direct or arrives indirectly, for example through the browsing channel.” The attacker payload inherits a credibility the same text would never get if pasted directly into the prompt. The Grok demo hides the data theft behind what looks like a normal request. The payload tells the model to create a “decryption key,” but the key is actually a template containing the user’s private data, such as their name, location, subscription tier, and chat history. Grok then uses this information as a URL parameter when opening an attacker-controlled website to “fetch additional context.” The data is sent through the URL as part of a seemingly normal web request. Adversa said the attack was still reproducible on August 19, 2026. Adversa traces the structural problem to Grok’s agentic framework, not to any model-layer failure. The framework lets instructions from an untrusted external page drive the invocation of a privileged, internet-connected tool. It allows private session metadata and conversation history to be resolved into the inputs of outbound calls. It enforces no egress boundary or consent gate on that path. Adversa’s description maps cleanly to SQL injection: a system that can’t distinguish its own trusted state from attacker-supplied data flowing through the same channel. The Gemini case uses the same basic trick but in a different way. A prompt asks Gemini to run a Python script that decrypts some data and returns a small JSON result. Instead, the decrypted data contains a fake Python error message with hidden instructions designed to bypass Gemini’s safety rules. Because Gemini treats the sandbox output as trusted context, those instructions can influence its behavior. Adversa used the technique to make Gemini generate detailed instructions for building an incendiary device. A modified version also exposed Gemini’s system instructions. Adversa reported the Grok issue to xAI on June 3, 2026, but received no further response after the initial acknowledgment. The attack was still working shortly before publication. The Gemini issue was not formally reported because Google’s bug bounty excludes jailbreaks. Adversa said Gemini’s vulnerability rate has nevertheless dropped sharply since June. For defenders, Adversa’s guidance is that nothing about this attack requires a fix at the model layer. Every control that bounds it sits in the harness around the agent. Untrusted content should be processed in a context with no tools and no credentials, returning only structured data to the privileged context. Outbound network calls and writes outside the workspace should require explicit confirmation with fully resolved arguments visible before approval. Per-session tool traces with resolved arguments should be logged, because without them there’s no forensics and no detection. Detection should alert on sequences, not individual payloads: untrusted content enters context, code executes, agent contacts a host outside its normal dependency graph. That chain is the signal, not any single ciphertext blob. Follow me on Twitter: @securityaffairs and Facebook and Mastodon Pierluigi Paganini (SecurityAffairs – hacking, Cryptographic Context Injection)
A supply-chain attack targeting Android-based car head units is using a legitimate device-update app to spread malware that enlists compromised devices in a proxy botnet or uses them for ad fraud. Kaspersky researchers analyzed the malware and attributed the operation to the MoYu group, a threat actor previously associated with the BadBox malware botnet. The researchers note that this is the first documented case of a malware infection chain specifically created for the targeted car head unit. MoYu's operation targets systems from DoFun, a Chinese automotive software and hardware provider owned by Shenzhen Driving Control Technology Co., Ltd. DoFun is an automotive software, cloud services, and hardware provider that sells generic Android-based head units, which act as the command center for a car's infotainment, navigation, and settings systems.
Windows named pipes provide fast interprocess communication, but weak access controls can expose privileged services to untrusted processes. ThreatLocker explains how endpoint verification, command authorization, strict input validation, and narrowly scoped privileges can help secure named-pipe communication.
A critical flaw (CVSS 9.4) in NASA/JPL’s AIT-GUI let anyone send unauthenticated commands to spacecraft instruments. Cycode researchers found that AIT-GUI, the browser-based operator console in NASA/JPL open-source AMMOS Instrument Toolkit, shipped with no authentication, no session checks, and no CSRF protection on any of its state-changing endpoints. “AIT-GUI, the web front end of NASA/JPL’s open-source AMMOS Instrument Toolkit, starts an HTTP server with no authentication, no authorization, and no CSRF protection on any of its state-changing endpoints.” reads the report published by Cycode. “Anyone who can reach the port, or any website an operator merely visits in a browser, can: Issue arbitrary commands via POST /cmd Run server-side scripts via POST /script/run Execute command sequences via POST /seq“ The vulnerability is tracked as GHSA-p9r8-2q67-fp86, rated Critical (CVSS score of 9.4), and fixed in AIT-GUI 2.5.2. AMMOS (Advanced Multi-Mission Operations System) is an open-source framework used by NASA/JPL and other missions to control spacecraft and instruments, send commands, and process the data they send back. AIT-GUI is the web interface operators use to do this in real time. Sending a command through this software is not like filling out a simple online form. The vulnerability isn’t one thing. It’s four ordinary web weaknesses that compose into something with unusual consequences. The first is that the server reads its configured host setting into a variable and then ignores it, binding instead to 0.0.0.0, which means all network interfaces. An operator who sets host: localhost to keep the console on the loopback gets a server exposed to the entire reachable network anyway. The second and third weaknesses follow from the first. There’s no login requirement, no session gate, no CSRF token, and no cross-origin restriction on any route. POST /cmd takes whatever arrives in the command field, parses it, and hands it directly to the command bus: no check, no validation, nothing between the network and the hardware. The fourth weakness lives on POST /seq and POST /script/run, which build filesystem paths by joining raw user input onto a root directory with no confinement. A seqfile value of ../../../../something resolves outside the intended sequence directory. The researchers note that the correct confinement check already exists in the same codebase, on a sibling route called /scripts/load; the safe pattern was already written, just not applied consistently. The CSRF risk is especially serious because a firewall does not stop it. Browsers can send certain form requests from another website without first checking with the target site. So, if an operator opens a malicious page in the same browser they use for the console, it could send commands such as POST /cmd, POST /seq, or POST /script/run. The attacker does not need direct access to the system or its network port—they only need the operator to open a malicious link. Cycode’s research team used a combination of AI-assisted code analysis and human validation to find and confirm the issues. The AI handled the initial codebase review, flagging recognizable patterns: state-changing routes with no auth anywhere in their call path, user input flowing from a request parameter into a subprocess call without sanitization, and a configuration value that was read and then silently discarded. The human researcher then confirmed each pattern was exploitable and reduced each to a working proof-of-concept, including a self-contained CSRF demonstration that drove a real headless browser and recorded zero network preflights. That second step matters. A pattern match points to a candidate; a reproduced exploit confirms the finding is real. Cycode says explicitly it only reports the second kind. “More broadly: operational and ground-system software inherits the same web weaknesses as everything else, but with a far higher cost of failure. Auth, CSRF defense, and input confinement are not optional extras on a panel that commands hardware.” concludes the report. The fix is in AIT-GUI 2.5.2. Operators should upgrade immediately and verify the console port is not reachable from untrusted networks. Anyone who ran an exposed instance before the patch should treat it as a reason to audit command and sequence history, since an unauthenticated POST leaves no user-level trace by design. Maintainers hardening deployments should add authentication and CSRF protection to the command, script, and sequence routes; bind the server to the configured host instead of 0.0.0.0; and apply the existing path-confinement logic from /scripts/load to /seq and /script/run. Follow me on Twitter: @securityaffairs and Facebook and Mastodon Pierluigi Paganini (SecurityAffairs – hacking, NASA/JPL)
More than 9,300 Amazon Web Services (AWS) access keys publicly exposed between August 2022 and August 2026 are still active and valid. Truffle Security has been tracking this exposure for the past four years and says that 817 of the exposed keys were linked to companies, 526 of them being AWS root keys. According to the researchers, 242 of the keys are associated with Identity and Access Management (IAM) users with the AdministratorAccess policy. This role has full permissions to create, modify, delete, and view virtually all AWS services and resources within an account. They note that each key of the 768 live keys in the two sets “full control of a company's AWS account.” The company found 431,875 AWS secrets across code repositories, Git history, datasets, Docker images, registries, and CI logs and extracted 64,024 unique AWS keys that corresponded to 50,654 AWS accounts after removing duplicates.
Confirm this action.
Leaving now will discard your changes.