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 They may try common or weak passwords or exploit security flaws in outdated firmware, especially CVE-2021-33044 and CVE-2021-33045.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)
South Korean police identified seven suspects linked to a cybercrime operation that breached more than 90 organizations in the country, with ARTEX AI pentesting framework used in most of the attacks. According to local media citing the Seoul Metropolitan Police, the gang leader has a background in penetration testing and worked at a cybersecurity company between 2019 and 2022. In 38 of the incidents, the threat actor demanded ransom payments of 360 million won ($270,000), promising in exchange not to leak stolen data. Authorities believe the threat actor stole 8.2 million records from compromised organizations, including educational institutes, hospitals, large corporations, and even golf courses. Yonhap News says that the gang leader is a self-taught 32 year-old hacker and started attacking organizations in September 2025.
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.
Cybersecurity researchers are calling attention to what they say is a "recurring social engineering pattern" across hundreds of cases in which threat actors use Microsoft Teams' external chat creation feature to conduct impersonation scams or to deliver malware. "A consistent pattern of attacker behavior has emerged across these incidents: the use of the same throwaway tenants, the same 'IT
Dutch police arrest two men over AI-voiced bank fraud that allegedly used a fake app to steal card data from 170 victims, causing €380,000 in losses. Rotterdam police have arrested two men over a new type of bank fraud that used AI-generated phone calls, a fake banking app, and NFC technology to steal bank card data. In just three weeks, the scheme allegedly cost 170 victims around €380,000. “Rotterdam police arrested two suspects accused of a new form of bank-helpdesk fraud. The operation allegedly caused around €380,000 in losses for 170 victims in just three weeks.” NL Times reports. “The suspects allegedly used AI-generated phone calls and a fake banking app to copy victims’ bank cards remotely, allowing accomplices to withdraw thousands of euros. Victims came from across the Netherlands and ranged in age; dozens were in their twenties and thirties.” The suspects allegedly used AI-generated calls to trick victims into believing their bank accounts were at risk. They then persuaded them to install a fake banking app and scan their bank cards with their phones. The app used NFC to capture card data, which accomplices could use to withdraw money. Victims came from across the Netherlands and included people of all ages, with dozens in their twenties and thirties. A 23-year-old man from Vaassen, in Gelderland, is suspected of developing the technology and directing the group. A 25-year-old from Ede, also in Gelderland, is suspected of coordinating the operation. On Tuesday, a Rotterdam court ordered both men to remain in custody for at least another 90 days while the investigation continues. The case started in mid-September, when Dutch banks reported the new fraud through the Electronic Crimes Task Force (ECTF). That’s a partnership of banks, police and prosecutors that shares information and expertise to fight financial and digital crime. Within days of consulting the task force, Rotterdam’s cybercrime team had identified the digital infrastructure used by the group. Investigators monitored the servers to understand how the operation worked. They traced the people behind the technology, the phone calls made to victims, and the cash withdrawals. The scam started with a recorded message warning victims about suspicious activity on their bank accounts. “The callers used artificial intelligence (AI) to produce dozens of recordings featuring different voices, banks, companies, and scenarios. Victims were asked to press 1 if they did not recognize the alleged activity.” states the report. “They were then connected to someone posing as a bank employee.” The message asked people to press 1 if they did not recognize the activity. They were then connected to someone pretending to be a bank employee. Following a prepared script, the caller pressured them to act quickly and take steps to block their bank cards. The fake employee told victims to download an app and hold their bank card against the phone to scan it. The criminals presented this as a way to secure the accounts. If a caller ever asks you to scan your card with an app, hang up and phone your bank on the number printed on the card. According to police, the app sent data from the card’s near-field communication (NFC) chip, the technology behind contactless payments, to an app run by an accomplice. That person waited at a cash machine or payment terminal and could withdraw thousands of euros without the victim realizing what was happening. “Police described this technical method as one they had not encountered before.” the report concludes. Follow me on Twitter: @securityaffairs and Facebook and Mastodon Pierluigi Paganini (SecurityAffairs – hacking, NFC)
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.
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
Cybersecurity researchers have disclosed a Microsoft 365 campaign that has been observed leveraging an adversary-in-the-middle (AitM) relay to capture sign-in sessions and then replay the stolen tokens to break into email accounts at 79 organizations. Huntress, which observed the activity between July 14 and September 22, 2026, said it detected 497 successful Microsoft 365 sign-in events across
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)
Confirm this action.
Leaving now will discard your changes.