French energy giant ENGIE, one of the world's largest power and natural gas providers, confirmed that attackers stole customer data after breaching a marketing platform used by business partners. ENGIE operates in renewable energy, infrastructure, and customer energy supply in 30 countries, employs over 90,000 people, and reported €71.9 billion in revenue last year. An ENGIE spokesperson told BleepingComputer that it cut off the attackers' access to the compromised platform and that they didn't breach the company's internal systems. "ENGIE's internal IT systems were not compromised. ENGIE recently identified unusual data access activity within a tool used by partners as part of their customer prospecting activities and the marketing of energy offers," the spokesperson said. The ENGIE spokesperson didn't say how many customers were affected, but told BleepingComputer the incident is limited to customers in France.
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)
The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) has added two critical PHP vulnerabilities collectively tracked as PHP2Shell to its catalog of actively exploited security flaws. Threat actors without privileges can exploit the two security issues (CVE-2026-109618 and CVE-2026-109619) in high-complexity attacks to gain remote code execution (RCE) on unpatched systems. The PHP security team patched the two flaws on Wednesday, October 21, one day after urging security teams to install the security updates as soon as they became available. Although details on the PHP2Shell security flaws (including the CVE IDs and mitigation measures shared with critical infrastructure providers) leaked and some proof-of-concept (PoC) exploits were published online before patches went live, the PHP security team said that none were functional.
The University of Copenhagen in Denmark confirmed that hackers accessed one of its test environments containing personal data belonging to 525,000 people. The educational organization detected the breach last Tuesday and disclosed it on Friday. In an update yesterday, the university added another 20,000 staff and students whose PIN codes were exposed. “The University of Copenhagen has confirmed a cyber attack in which hackers gained access to one of the university’s test environments,” the university says. Founded in 1479, the University of Copenhagen is Denmark’s oldest university and one of its leading research institutions. It has approximately 36,800 students and 10,700 employees, with six faculties and more than 200 research centers. The University of Copenhagen is still investigating to determine the extent of the incident, but warns that the following information may have been exposed:
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.
Sansec tracks a Magento skimmer campaign that infected 953 stores, using five domains, bot filtering and malicious code hidden in CMS blocks. A criminal group has infected 953 online stores since July 2025, mostly Magento shops, according to Sansec researchers. The attackers add a small piece of code to store pages. When someone visits a shop, their browser contacts the attackers’ server to get further instructions. The server checks whether the visitor is a real shopper or a security scanner. If it detects a scanner, it hides the malicious activity. “deepveindrilling.com is the newest web address of a criminal group that breaks into online stores. The group adds a small piece of code to the store’s pages.” Sansec’s analysis states. “The group has done this to 953 stores since July 2025, mostly Magento shops. It moves to a new address every few months.” The group’s latest domain is deepveindrilling.com. Sansec found it in the CMS blocks of 83 stores, almost all running Magento. CMS blocks are content sections that Magento adds to store pages. The domain was registered on October 6, 2026, and the first stores began loading it the following evening. This is the fifth domain linked to a campaign that Sansec has tracked since July 2025 and reported in March as the PolyShell mass attack. Most stores using the latest domain had already been targeted. Of the 83 stores, 60 had previously loaded one of the group’s malicious scripts, and 34 had been doing so since October 2025. The domain sits behind Cloudflare, and its front page returns a 404. It only answers script requests from visitors of infected stores. The loader code lives in the cms_block table, and Sansec’s scanner, eComscan, found it there on 148 server installs over the campaign, never in core_config_data or theme files. eComscan first found the new loader at 21:54 UTC on October 7. By the end of October 8, Sansec’s crawler had found it on 74 stores, as two scripts. The first reads a value called fpCode from the visitor’s browser storage, and when the value is set, the script puts the stored code in an invisible div and clicks it. The browser then runs the code as an event handler, without using eval(). Nothing in the block writes fpCode, so the script from deepveindrilling.com has to set it. A visitor who received the payload once runs it again on every later page view, even when the domain is offline or blocked. The March version deleted its stored payload after one run. On October 23 the operator rewrote the blocks again, and the loader appeared on 9 more stores. All 71 stores Sansec re-crawled by October 24 run the new version. It replaces the plain script tag with an inline loader that sends a browser fingerprint to https://deepveindrilling.com/?s=49b7ca5f&fp=. The fingerprint flags automated browsers through navigator.webdriver, Selenium globals and ChromeDriver’s cdc_ properties. It also adds the GPU name from WebGL, CPU cores, memory, screen size, time zone, languages and client hints. The server picks its response from all of that. The filter works. When urlscan.io loaded an infected store with an automated Chrome browser, it got HTTP 200, and Sansec found no added content in the page. Sansec hasn’t captured the final payload yet. Older payloads give a hint of what real visitors get. Sansec Watch, the firm’s monitoring service for content security policies, shows what the earlier stage served. On December 12, 2025, a customer logged in to an infected store got a script from manulfie.click that loaded https://crypto-insider.top/ssl/ and, five minutes later, https://leqdger.click/ssl/. On December 15 and 16, neswnsssn.click inserted the same leqdger.click script on two more stores. leqdger.click is a misspelling of the crypto wallet brand Ledger. It was registered on September 12, 2025 and has since expired. Before October, the second script was the “Script (async)” integration of Keitaro, a commercial ad tracker that doubles as a traffic distribution system, a tool that sorts visitors. It sends the referrer, page title and query string to a base64 encoded URL such as https://additionalver.com/Mb2z8J?&se_referrer=, where the path is the Keitaro campaign alias. The system then decides per visitor whether to return a payload, a redirect or nothing. “When Sansec requested the additionalver.com script as a Windows desktop visitor on October 24, it returned QWE=123;, a statement that does nothing, and set a cookie that marks the visitor for 24 hours. deepveindrilling.com drops Keitaro and moves the bot filtering into the loader.” continues the report. Here are the five loader domains over 15 months: DomainRegisteredFirst seen on storesStoresmanulfie.clickbefore July 2025, re-registered 2026-05-232025-07-09863neswnsssn.clickbefore December 2025, re-registered 2026-05-222025-12-12494lanhd6549tdhse.top2026-03-252026-03-30355additionalver.com2026-06-072026-06-08246deepveindrilling.com2026-10-062026-10-0783 Two other domains were found on a small number of stores: hdfdsi84j3h.top, registered three minutes after lanhd6549tdhse.top, and c85grt98sd.com. Two older domains, neswnsssn.click and manulfie.click, expired and were registered again in May 2026. Both now use the nameservers of abovedomains.com, a domain parking service. Between August and October 2026, Sansec still found the manulfie.click loader on nine stores and the neswnsssn.click loader on six. When visitors open these stores, their browsers send information about the previous page and the current page title to the new domain owner. The browsers also run any script returned by that domain. Sansec Watch received reports of visitors’ browsers connecting to all four earlier domains. One domain, additionalver.com, was linked to around 52,000 reports. The October activity did not rely on a new vulnerability. Of the 83 affected stores, 60 had already been infected. Earlier attacks appear to have exploited file upload flaws in Magento. In March, the group injected its malicious code into 471 stores in just one hour by uploading webshells through PolyShell (CVE-2026-48356). Some infected Magento stores had files uploaded through PolyShell or SessionReaper (CVE-2025-54236). In a separate group of 3,024 stores affected by another skimmer, the infection rate was 32%. One Magento 2.4.7-p1 store contained PolyShell webshells disguised as PNG images, alongside malicious code in a CMS block. The code switched from additionalver.com to deepveindrilling.com on October 7. The store had not installed Adobe’s PolyShell fix, APSB26-73. However, installing all patches does not guarantee a store is safe. Another store running Magento 2.4.7-p10 had no missing core patches but was infected on October 23. Earlier scans had already found a rogue admin account and a GSocket backdoor. Sansec recommends checking CMS content for malicious code, including base64-encoded domains. Administrators should search both the cms_block and cms_page tables for suspicious patterns such as fpCode and se_referrer. They should also inspect uploaded files for webshells, check for unknown admin accounts, and look for suspicious processes. Removing the malicious scripts is not enough: store owners must also identify and fix the vulnerability or backdoor that allowed the attackers in. After cleanup, change the database, admin and API integration passwords. Install APSB26-73 for PolyShell and APSB25-88 for SessionReaper. Sansec Shield blocks both attacks while you schedule the upgrade. Sansec lists the indicators of compromise at the end of its report. “If your store loads any domain from the indicators of compromise, the attacker can write to your database. Deleting the script does not remove that access. See How to check your store.” concludes the report. Follow me on Twitter: @securityaffairs and Facebook and Mastodon Pierluigi Paganini (SecurityAffairs – hacking, Magento)
DreamHost has forced password resets for email and FTP/SFTP users following an incident that disrupted connections to the File Manager interface. The latest update from the web hosting provider notes that all affected account owners have received recovery instructions. Users will be unable to log in until their account owner sets new credentials. DreamHost is a U.S. web hosting provider and domain registrar that offers WordPress hosting, business email, virtual private servers, dedicated servers, and cloud services. According to the company page, it serves over 400,000 customers in more than 100 countries and supports at least 1.5 million websites and applications, including 750,000 WordPress installations. DreamHost initially reported connectivity problems affecting its File Manager interface on October 23, but the impact quickly expanded to other services.
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.
Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States. Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock (LockA locked padlock) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Share: Opens in a new window Opens in a new window Opens in a new window Press Release CISA Unveils New Strategy to Strengthen National Cyber Defense and Critical Infrastructure Security CISA 2030: Defend, Harden, Prevail Released October 26, 2026 Related topics: Cybersecurity Best Practices , Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience WASHINGTON – The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) today released its new strategy, CISA 2030: Defend, Harden, Prevail, which advances President Trump’s Cyber Strategy for America and National Resilience Strategy while strengthening the security and resilience of the nation’s critical infrastructure.
Cyfirma links PHP2Shell scans of 216 vulnerable hosts to a suspected North Korean campaign using AI to rank public exploits. On October 21, PHP released emergency patches for two critical vulnerabilities, CVE-2026-109618 and CVE-2026-109619, both rated 9.2 on the CVSS scale. The flaws affect all PHP versions that handle web requests. The vulnerable code dates back to PHP 5.4, released in 2012, and resides in the PHP engine itself rather than in individual applications. Attackers can exploit the flaws to execute code remotely by sending specially crafted HTTP requests, without authentication. Exploitation attempts increased rapidly after the vulnerabilities became public. Cloudflare researchers reported tens of thousands of attempts within the first 45 minutes, hundreds of thousands in just two hours, and millions by October 22. Cyfirma reported that a group of North Korea-linked group has identified 216 hosts that may still be vulnerable to PHP2Shell. The operators communicate through a private I2P channel that Cyfirma has monitored since October 22. On October 24, they reported that 216 hosts appeared to be unpatched or only partly protected, earlier than Cyfirma expected. They are checking the systems from 21 compromised machines. At the time Cyfirma captured the conversation, the operators had already checked about one-third of the targets. “Two handles active since March 2026, coordinating in a closed I2P channel; staging infrastructure shared in-channel.” states the cybersecurity firm. “Target set and scan nodes. “On 24 October the operators reported 216 unpatched or partially mitigated hosts and named 21 scan nodes; the same addresses were seen performing web-shell tooling and upload-progress session-poisoning attempts.” The scanning is slow on purpose. Volume stays low, the machines rotate, and any node that shows filtering or rate limiting gets pulled and never reused. That’s why a rate-based alert will probably stay quiet. Who’s behind it? Cyfirma assesses with moderate confidence a link to the Lazarus family of North Korean groups, based on language, operating style and old habits with PHP web shells and hijacked web servers. It has no shared malware or infrastructure to point to yet, and it admits that a Korean-speaking criminal crew without state backing would fit the same facts. Its confidence in the campaign itself is high. Government agencies and banks come first. Next in line are logistics, ports, airports and aviation, manufacturing, and online transaction and trading platforms. The countries named are the US, Japan, South Korea, Thailand, Indonesia, Australia, Taiwan, India, Singapore, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and the EU. Cyfirma has not named any victims or seen the full list of targeted systems. The operators have not announced when they plan to launch attacks, and the researchers have not confirmed that this group has compromised systems on a large scale. Cyfirma gives the campaign an imminence score of 78 out of 100. The operators plan to check all 216 hosts, select the most promising targets, and decide which publicly available exploits to adapt. The group does not appear to be developing new exploits. Instead, its members use a local AI model to rank public exploit repositories, then test the results manually in a lab. Cyfirma believes this approach could help attackers turn newly disclosed vulnerabilities into working attacks more quickly. However, researchers warn that some proof-of-concept exploits shared online are fake and may contain malware, so downloading and running them can be dangerous. Technical details leaked on October 20, ahead of coordinated disclosure, and the PHP project shipped fixes on October 21. Apache mod_php with default settings and prefork is the confirmed worst case for 109618, with full unauthenticated code execution. For 109619, PHP-FPM is validated through the upload-progress path. One correction matters for your temporary controls. Early coverage tied the session upload-progress field to 109618, but PHP’s advisories put it under 109619 only. Disabling upload progress does nothing for 109618, so the two bugs need different stopgaps. Triggering the bug is easy, but reliable code execution isn’t. The attacker has to land a follow-up request on the same worker and shape heap data into the freed space, otherwise the worker crashes or answers normally. VulnCheck reports working code execution on x86-64 with ASLR enabled against PHP 8.4.10 to 8.4.26, while ARM64 only leaks memory so far. Short of code execution, attackers have already shown worker crashes, arbitrary file reads through OPcache and a leak of about 67 KB of process memory. The fixed releases are PHP 8.5.12, 8.4.27, 8.3.36 and 8.2.35. PHP 8.1, 8.0 and 7.4 get only minimal backports, and vendors such as cPanel EasyApache, CloudLinux, TuxCare and Plesk carry their own builds, so confirm coverage with yours. Anything from PHP 5.4 to 7.3 has no fix, so migrate or isolate it. Restart every worker after patching, because a reload that keeps old workers alive leaves the stale state in place. Isolate anything internet-facing that you can’t patch within hours, starting with Apache mod_php. If you suspect a host is compromised, capture memory and logs before you patch, since a restart destroys the CVE-2026-109619 state. Then rebuild the host from a trusted image and rotate every secret the PHP worker could reach. Hunt back to October 17, the earliest known exploitation, and use long time windows. The strongest single signal is a PHP or web server process spawning something it never normally spawns. Application logs will usually show nothing, because the bug fires before application code runs. Look for odd multipart POSTs to endpoints that never take uploads, bursts of worker crashes and memory errors, new PHP files in web roots, and new cron jobs, local users or SSH keys. Cyfirma includes Sigma, Splunk and YARA content, though it says the YARA set hasn’t been tested on real application code yet. It also lists 21 scan-node addresses, 17 source addresses from October 23 and 15 staging addresses, all defanged. Some scan nodes are described as compromised and may belong to victims, so hunt for prior contact before assuming who owns them. If you can’t patch yet, the advisory suggests limits such as a low post_max_size and disabling session upload progress for 109619. Cyfirma is clear that none of it replaces patching. The operators’ own selection rule is the most useful detail in the whole advisory, because they dropped every host that showed a fixed version or sat behind heavy filtering. That makes a current version string a cheap filter against you, and for once being boring pays off. “Hosts still bannering older PHP are the ones the operators kept.” Cyfirma states. Follow me on Twitter: @securityaffairs and Facebook and Mastodon Pierluigi Paganini (SecurityAffairs – hacking, PHP2Shell)
Confirm this action.
Leaving now will discard your changes.