An unknown threat actor has infected 953 online stores, most of them running Magento, as part of a long-running campaign active since July 2025. According to Dutch e-commerce security company Sansec, the activity is designed to add a small piece of code to the store's pages that, when visited by unsuspecting users, serves malicious JavaScript loader code through Magento CMS blocks. "When you
PHP has rebuilt its official Windows packages for PHP 8.2 through 8.5 to fix CVE-2026-111497, a flaw in the Brotli compression library that the packages include. The flaw can let an attacker corrupt memory and potentially run code. PHP says the flaw can be reached through the cURL extension when the extension decompresses HTTP responses automatically. cURL leaves that off by default, but
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.
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
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)
Two critical RCE vulnerabilities (CVE-2026-109618 and CVE-2026-109619), collectively tracked as PHP2Shell, have been successfully exploited in the wild. The malicious activity was caught by Adel Karimi, detection and response lead at Perplexity, whose honeypots recorded evidence of confirmed remote code execution against an Apache mod_php installation running PHP 8.4.26. "This is now confirmed RCE with usable memory disclosure, not just a crash followed by a suspicious process. The response delivered an 800 KiB decoded cookie dump, and a function address derived from that dump using the public exploit's offsets appears in the subsequent execution payload," Karimi shared. "The client acknowledged the full response; the shell command then ran about 1.6 ms after the execution request's final captured byte."
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)
A single hacked device on a Tailscale network can be used to gain root access to other servers it can reach, according to a security researcher who published the findings this week. The attack requires two things: Tailscale SSH set up to allow port forwarding, and an attacker who already controls one device that the network's access rules permit to connect to the target. The findings were
Researchers found a malicious AGENTS markdown instruction file in a customer’s Downloads folder that tricked an AI coding agent into installing a rogue npm package. They reproduced the attack against OpenAI Codex and demonstrated a related technique against Claude Code to leak OAuth tokens and hijack the account using only the malicious instructions. Markdown files such as AGENTS.md are plain-text files that contain project-specific instructions for AI coding agents, such as the tools to use, how to run tests, and the coding conventions to follow. Researchers at Forever Security, a company that monitors for risks introduced by AI agents and autonomous software, discovered the tactic on a customer’s computer, where a coding agent attempted to install the malicious npm package ‘function-color.’
Confirm this action.
Leaving now will discard your changes.