A researcher chained two Unitree G1 flaws to gain root access remotely and showed how a compromised robot could attack others nearby. Security researcher Olivier Laflamme spent about three months digging into the Unitree G1 humanoid robot and eventually found a way to fully compromise it without plugging in a single cable. In his technical write-up, he details two vulnerabilities, CVE-2026-76639 and CVE-2026-76640, that can be chained across Bluetooth, Unitree’s cloud infrastructure, the mobile app, and the robot’s firmware to gain unauthenticated root access to any G1 within Bluetooth range. The first bug lives entirely inside the robot itself, no wireless attack surface needed if you can reach it over Ethernet. The G1’s AI chatbot service accepts a “knowledge” upload with almost no validation on the filename it writes to disk, and a classic path traversal payload lets an attacker write an arbitrary file anywhere on the filesystem, including into a directory that a separate service called bashrunner treats as trusted. Restart bashrunner, tell it to run the newly planted file, and you’ve got root-level shell execution with five DDS messages and zero authentication. The second chain is the one that should worry anyone deploying these robots at scale. It starts with a Bluetooth characteristic that accepts writes without pairing, something The Hacker News also covered in its own report on the disclosure. An unpaired device can request the robot’s encrypted key bootstrap blob, and Unitree’s cloud API would decrypt that blob for any free, logged-in Unitree account without ever checking whether the account actually owned that specific robot. “The blob is RSA-encrypted & the corresponding RSA private key is held by Unitree’s cloud infrastructure. This, in theory, is safe.. This is the security boundary Unitree appears to have relied on. Nearby devices can request the bootstrap blob, but only Unitree owns the RSA private key capable of opening it.” reads Laflamme’s report. “However, the Unitree mobile app reassembles the BLE notification chunks and slingshots that shit via a POST to Unitree’s cloud API /device/bindExtData on global-robot-api.unitree.com and the app stores the response body as gcmKey.” That decryption oracle is the crux of the whole chain, and Laflamme doesn’t undersell how convenient it made everything. “This single AES-128 key unlocks both the BLE protocol and the WebRTC signaling channels.” continues the report. Once an attacker has obtained it, they can authenticate to the robot’s Bluetooth handshake and unlock WiFi configuration commands that were previously locked behind that same key. From there, an oversized WiFi password triggers a fallback code path in Unitree’s own configuration script that inserts attacker-controlled text directly into a config file without escaping it, letting the attacker force the robot to join a hotspot they control, no physical access needed at any point. Going from “the robot connects to my Wi-Fi” to a full root shell required a buffer overflow in the G1’s Bluetooth server, and this is where the research gets particularly impressive. The server used a 500-byte buffer without proper bounds checking, allowing Laflamme to overwrite nearby memory with a carefully crafted 1,050-byte payload. He used that payload to create a fake cleanup structure that the program later interpreted as a legitimate function pointer, causing it to execute an attacker-controlled command with root privileges. There was one more obstacle: randomized memory addresses. To make the exploit work reliably, Laflamme first needed to discover where the vulnerable program was loaded in memory. He solved that by turning the first vulnerability into an information leak and using the result to make the second exploit work. In other words, one bug effectively helped unlock the other. The wormability is what turns this from an interesting security flaw into a much more serious operational risk. Once an attacker compromises one G1, that robot can use the same attack against other G1 robots within Bluetooth range, without requiring additional discovery or configuration. Laflamme tested the technique on just two robots in the same room, so the real-world reach of a chain reaction remains unclear. In a warehouse, laboratory, or campus where dozens of these robots operate close to each other, however, the possibility of one compromised machine spreading the attack to others is difficult to ignore. Unitree’s response gets genuine credit in the writeup, and it’s worth noting given how often vendor disclosure stories go badly. The company patched the cloud ownership-check flaw within about two months of the report, paid out a combined $5,000 bounty across both chains, and worked through verification quickly enough that Laflamme calls the collaboration close to ideal. “July 1-6 August, 2026 — Unitree implemented an account-to-robot cloud binding ownership check before returning the AES-128 key. Patching the “cloud-oracle” vulnerability discovered back in May. “August 6, 2026 — a $5,000 USD bounty was paid out, $4,000 for the BLE RCE and $1,000 for the chat_go RCE.” The BLE pairing and buffer overflow issues themselves, notably, sit deeper in the firmware and represent a harder, slower fix than a simple cloud-side ownership check. None of this required exotic tools or some cutting-edge attack technique. That is probably the detail that should get the most attention from anyone who still sees robot security as a niche problem. This was a $20,000 humanoid robot, the kind increasingly used in research labs and universities and likely to appear in more workplaces, compromised with a decompiled Android app, a firmware encryption scheme that researchers had already broken years ago, and a familiar class of buffer overflow that predates humanoid robots by decades. If your organization has a G1 sitting in a lab, lobby, or workspace, checking its patch status should be a priority. A 90-pound robot losing its collision-detection capabilities is not the kind of security incident you want to discover the hard way. “You could use the G1 to spy on people through audio and video, make it say obscene shit in public, swap out or backdoor the ResNet onboard AI models, tamper with perception and movement logic, disable collision detection and other safety checks (it weighs ~90lbs having that run into a kid, a wall, or even step on your toe will do some serious damage).” concludes the researcher. “They also cost a lot! I’d be pissed off if someone hacked into my G1, took control of it, and walked it off my factory/campus.” Follow me on Twitter: @securityaffairs and Facebook and Mastodon Pierluigi Paganini (SecurityAffairs – hacking, Robot)
Multiple critical security flaws have been disclosed in WordPress plugins and themes, including WPMU DEV Dashboard, Avada, TranslatePress, Pods, and GiveWP, that could lead to authentication bypass, account takeover, and arbitrary code execution. The vulnerabilities, according to Wordfence and Patchstack, are listed below - CVE-2026-76581 (CVSS score: 9.8) - An authentication bypass flaw in
Trump targets foreign-made power grid equipment, citing cyber, sabotage and supply-chain risks to U.S. national security. Executive Order 14420, signed on August 26, targets equipment and technologies that could expose the power grid to sabotage, unauthorized access, malicious remote activity or supply-chain disruption. The timing matters. The White House points to the rapid expansion of data centers, artificial intelligence, advanced manufacturing and defense production as reasons why the United States now depends even more heavily on reliable electricity. A disruption that might once have been treated primarily as an energy problem can now affect defense operations, critical infrastructure, emergency services and large parts of the economy. The order frames the problem in two ways. Foreign-made equipment can introduce a direct cybersecurity risk, including the possibility of hidden digital access mechanisms, while dependence on overseas suppliers can create a second vulnerability if geopolitical tensions or trade disruptions suddenly cut off critical components. The White House’s language is unusually broad when describing the scope of the concern. “NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, find that the situation with respect to the foreign supply of bulk-power system electric equipment constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States and hereby declare a national emergency with respect to that threat.” reads the Executive Order 14420. “This threat exists both in the case of individual transactions and when transactions are considered as a class. To deal with this threat, additional steps are required to protect the security, integrity, and reliability of bulk-power system electric equipment used in the United States.” That definition matters because the order isn’t aimed only at a specific piece of hardware from a specific country. It creates a framework under which the Energy Secretary can determine whether particular foreign entities, suppliers, countries or equipment present an unacceptable risk and then restrict transactions involving them. The restrictions apply to the acquisition, importation, transfer or installation of foreign-produced bulk-power equipment when the relevant transaction involves a designated Covered Foreign Entity and meets one of the risk conditions set out in the order. Those conditions include the possibility of sabotage, subversion, unauthorized access, malicious remote action or disruption of the power system and its supply chain. The order also reaches beyond the physical equipment itself. Its scope includes critical components, software, firmware, digital services, maintenance services and remote-access capabilities associated with covered equipment. “the transaction involves bulk-power system electric equipment — or any critical component, software, firmware, digital service, maintenance service, or remote-access capability associated with such equipment — designed, developed, manufactured, or supplied by persons owned by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of a Covered Foreign Entity; and” continues the order. In practical terms, the government isn’t treating a transformer, an industrial controller and the software that manages it as completely separate security questions. That is particularly relevant to industrial control systems. The definition of covered equipment includes remote terminal units, programmable logic controllers, intelligent electronic devices, distributed control systems and safety instrumented systems, alongside transformers, generators, inverters, battery storage systems, protective relays, metering equipment and high-voltage circuit breakers. The order also allows agencies to consider software, firmware, remote access, update mechanisms and other supply-chain dependencies when deciding whether equipment falls within its security concerns. The geographical scope is also worth noting. The order defines the bulk-power system around interconnected transmission infrastructure and generation resources needed for grid reliability, including transmission lines rated at 69 kV or higher. Local electricity distribution facilities fall outside that definition. This isn’t only about equipment that companies might buy tomorrow. The Energy Secretary can also impose conditions on foreign-manufactured or foreign-operated equipment already installed before the order took effect. Depending on the risk, those measures could require operators to identify, isolate, monitor, secure, disconnect, replace or remove equipment. The order specifically requires officials to consider reliability, safety, the availability of secure replacements and continuity of essential services before demanding isolation or replacement. That last point is important because securing a power grid isn’t as simple as unplugging a suspicious device. Removing a component without a suitable replacement can itself create an operational problem. The order therefore leaves room for phased compliance and negotiated mitigation measures rather than assuming that every risky component can disappear overnight. The government also wants to avoid turning security screening into a permanent procurement bottleneck. The Energy Secretary can establish criteria for pre-qualified equipment and vendors, creating a list of products and suppliers that can receive exemptions from the baseline restrictions. At the same time, the order makes clear that pre-qualification doesn’t prevent the government from scrutinizing or restricting a transaction later if circumstances warrant it. The order doesn’t name a specific country as the target. Instead, it defines a Covered Foreign Entity broadly enough to include governments under certain U.S. arms embargoes or sanctions regimes, as well as entities that the relevant U.S. authorities determine are engaged in conduct detrimental to national security or foreign policy. SecurityWeek also noted that the structure resembles earlier Trump-era restrictions on foreign bulk-power equipment, including measures that previously focused on entities associated with China. The order does not mention any country by name. However, its structure is very similar to a 2020 Trump-era order on the U.S. power grid, which later led the Department of Energy to ban companies linked to China. The next phase will be regulatory rather than rhetorical. Within 120 days, the Energy Secretary is expected to issue rules or regulations needed to implement the order, including procedures for identifying covered entities, equipment and countries and for licensing transactions that would otherwise be prohibited. The administration also wants recommendations for changes to federal procurement rules that would give greater weight to national security risks and favor U.S.-manufactured energy infrastructure. Those procurement changes have their own timetable. The Energy Secretary has 180 days to develop recommendations for revisions to the Federal Acquisition Regulation, while the FAR Council would then have 90 days to consider proposing corresponding amendments for public comment. The policy fits into a wider push by the administration to reduce dependence on foreign supply chains for strategically important infrastructure. The Department of Energy said earlier this month that it is working to increase domestic production and availability of critical grid components, pointing to rapid growth in electricity demand and the need to strengthen the grid supply chain. For cybersecurity professionals, however, the most interesting part of the order isn’t the preference for domestic manufacturing. It’s the decision to treat supply-chain exposure, remote access and embedded technology as part of the attack surface of the power grid. That changes the question organizations need to ask about critical equipment. It’s no longer enough to know whether a device has a vulnerability today; operators also need to understand who made it, who controls the supplier, where critical software and firmware come from, who can remotely access the equipment, how updates reach it and what happens if that supply chain suddenly becomes unavailable. The uncomfortable reality is that a power grid compromise doesn’t necessarily begin with someone breaking through the perimeter of a utility network. It can begin much earlier, when an organization buys a component it can’t fully inspect, relies on a remote maintenance channel it doesn’t control, or becomes dependent on a supplier it can’t replace quickly. That’s the security problem Executive Order 14420 is trying to address. The White House has effectively moved part of the grid’s cyber defense line back into procurement, manufacturing and supply-chain decisions. And for critical infrastructure operators, that’s a much harder problem to solve than simply finding another firewall. Follow me on Twitter: @securityaffairs and Facebook and Mastodon Pierluigi Paganini (SecurityAffairs – hacking, power grid)
A 68-year-old has been sentenced in the U.K. to more than six years in prison for operating an illegal IPTV (Internet Protocol Television) service that generated £980,812 ($1.3 million) over three years. An investigation by the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) at the City of London Police found that Milan Ibrahim ran a "sophisticated operation" that provided illegal IPTV services to users in the UK and abroad. According to PIPCU, Ibrahim sold illegal broadcasts from major rights holders such as the BBC, ITV, Sky, the Premier League and the Motion Picture Association. The police seized and shut down all servers they found during the operation, disrupting the illegal streams that users of the IPTV service received. “The investigation revealed that the business operated on 80 servers from premises in Chorley and generated £980,812 over a three-year period,” announced the City of London Police.
Hasbro, one of the world's largest toy and game companies, has disclosed that attackers have accessed the personal and financial information of an undisclosed number of employees. Founded in 1923, Hasbro is a publicly traded American multinational entertainment conglomerate on the NASDAQ and owns many brands, including Monopoly, Clue, Nerf, Transformers, Play-Doh, Peppa Pig, Scrabble, Magic: The Gathering, Dungeons & Dragons, and many others. The company has filed data breach notification letters with the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office, but didn't disclose the total number of affected individuals or when the incident was detected. "The information involved varied by individual but may have included your name and one or more additional personal information elements such as email, address, phone number, national ID number, or financial information," Hasbro said.
A cyberattack on Manchester Airports Group exposed data of 8.7 million customers across Manchester, Stansted, and East Midlands airports. Manchester Airports Group disclosed that an unauthorised third party accessed customer data belonging to approximately 8.7 million people across three of England’s busiest airports: Manchester, London Stansted, and East Midlands. “Manchester, London Stansted and East Midlands airports have been hit by a cyber-attack in which hackers accessed the data of about 8.7 million customers.” reads the report published by The Guardian. “The incident involved data related to “car park, lounge and fast-track bookings and in-airport wifi sign-ups”, and the hackers obtained email addresses, phone numbers, vehicle registration numbers and postcodes, said Manchester Airports Group (MAG), which operates the three hubs.” MAG says it learned about the incident on Tuesday, August 25, after attackers breached the system over the weekend. The affected data included car park bookings, lounge and fast-track security reservations, and airport Wi-Fi sign-ups. Attackers accessed email addresses, phone numbers, vehicle registration numbers, and postcodes. The system did not store bank or payment details. According to MAG, most of the 8.7 million affected customers only lost their email addresses, while the impact varies depending on which services they used. The attack did not disrupt airport operations or flights. As a precaution, MAG temporarily suspended its Manage My Booking service, but all existing reservations remain valid. Customers who need to change a booking within the next 72 hours can use a dedicated phone line. “We would urge you to be particularly cautious of unexpected emails, calls or text messages claiming to be from us. We will never contact you unexpectedly to ask for payment or banking information. We apologise for any inconvenience or concern this may cause.” reads the email sent by Stansted to affected customers. That warning is relevant because the combination of an email address, a phone number, and the knowledge that someone recently made a parking or lounge booking gives a convincing starting point for a targeted phishing message. Attackers don’t need payment data if they can impersonate the airport convincingly enough to obtain it themselves. The timing adds pressure. The attack landed during the peak summer travel season, with millions of families flying back into the UK before the school year begins. The three airports combined handled around 54 million passengers last year, and MAG recently reported a record 66 million passengers across its network. The scale of the data exposure reflects the sheer volume of ancillary services these airports sell, and how much personal data those services routinely collect. The wifi registration system is the detail worth noting: signing into airport wifi typically requires a name, email, and phone number at minimum, and that information now belongs to whoever executed this breach. MAG says it quickly contained the incident, brought in external cybersecurity experts and notified the relevant authorities. No group has claimed responsibility, and investigators have not publicly linked the attack to any specific actor. The incident adds to a growing list of cyberattacks against UK infrastructure. Earlier in August, Iran-linked hackers took a British power plant offline for four days, marking the first confirmed case of Iranian actors shutting down a UK generator. Last year, attacks disrupted production at Jaguar Land Rover and targeted Marks & Spencer, Harrods and the Co-op. Heathrow also faced flight delays and cancellations after attackers disrupted check-in and boarding systems used by several European airports. MAG’s breach adds further pressure on UK infrastructure operators to strengthen their cyber defenses. Follow me on Twitter: @securityaffairs and Facebook and Mastodon Pierluigi Paganini (SecurityAffairs – hacking, UK Airport Operator MAG)
Berlin's state government has confirmed that it is the target of an extortion attempt following the August compromise of the city's state administrative network, and said it will not meet the extortionists' demands. The same statement disclosed that forensic work had found further data outflows in the portfolio of the Senate Department for Mobility, Transport, Climate Protection and Environment
Malicious actors are exploiting a newly patched security flaw in PaperCut NG and MF to execute arbitrary code on susceptible instances, as the company released a fresh emergency fix with additional hardening. "This vulnerability gives an unauthenticated attacker remote control over PaperCut's trusted configuration, which could be used to execute arbitrary Java code inside the application's
Security researcher Olivier Laflamme has disclosed two independent root remote code execution (RCE) chains affecting the Unitree G1 EDU, including a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) path that can reach root on the robot's Locomotion PC. The flaws are tracked as CVE-2026-76639 and CVE-2026-76640, with the first involving a network-adjacent path through chat_go and bashrunner and the
An Identity Fabric knits fragmented identity systems into a coherent layer that observes how identities behave across applications, APIs, and infrastructure. As enterprise access spans more cloud services and automated workloads, identity security depends less on static configuration and more on runtime visibility. This article covers the architecture, the risks of unmanaged identities, and
Confirm this action.
Leaving now will discard your changes.