On Tuesday, the US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) confirmed that hackers have begun exploiting a critical Brotli vulnerability known as Node2Shell, Broccoli2Shell, and HTTP2Shell. Tracked as CVE-2026-111497, this critical-severity flaw stems from an out-of-bounds write weakness in the Brotli decoder used to expand data compressed with Google's widely popular Brotli lossless compression algorithm. Unprivileged attackers can use a maliciously crafted Brotli-compressed stream to trigger crashes or memory leaks and, in some cases, gain remote code execution on devices with vulnerable Brotli libraries or binaries. The security issue was first identified in the Node.js JavaScript runtime environment, but it also affects HTTP servers and clients that rely on vulnerable Brotli implementations.
U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) adds Google Brotli and Adobe Commerce and Magento flaws to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) added Google Brotli and Adobe Commerce and Magento vulnerabilities to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog: Below are the flaws added to the catalog: CVE-2026-111497 (CVSS score: 9.2) – An unchecked return value vulnerability in Google Brotli that could allow a remote, unauthenticated attacker to corrupt decoder memory, expose sensitive information, cause a denial-of-service, or potentially execute arbitrary code by sending a specially crafted Brotli-compressed stream. CVE-2026-48356 (CVSS score: 9.3) – An unrestricted file upload vulnerability in Adobe Commerce and Magento that could allow an attacker to execute arbitrary code with the privileges of the current user, potentially gaining elevated access or taking control of the victim’s account or session. Brotli is a data-compression algorithm developed by Google.It reduces the size of web content, such as HTML, CSS, JavaScript, and other text-based resources. Security researchers have observed exploitation attempts targeting CVE-2026-111497 (aka Node2Shell), a critical flaw in Google’s Brotli library. Previdian recorded one attempt by October 27, while ELLIO researchers recently detected traffic carrying a public exploit that could execute code on vulnerable systems. The activity may indicate attempts to exploit the flaw on a larger scale, but its scope remains unclear. An attacker can trigger the vulnerability to cause crashes, expose sensitive memory or remote code execution when applications decompress attacker-controlled Brotli data. Because Brotli is widely used, multiple projects and vendors have released security updates, including Node.js, PHP, Bun, and Microsoft .NET. Cybersecurity firm Wiz warned that 91% of cloud environments contain resources vulnerable to the flaw, while 82% have publicly exposed Node.js instances. The second flaw added to the catalog is an unrestricted file upload vulnerability tracked as CVE-2026-48356, dubbed PolyShell. Recently WordPress security firm Sansec warned of attacks exploiting CVE-2026-48356 to infect at least 953 of online stores. The attackers reportedly used a Magento CMS block to insert a malicious loader capable of retrieving and executing a payload hosted under their control. So far, researchers have not recovered the subsequent payload, leaving the campaign’s ultimate objectives unclear. The activity is believed to have been underway since at least July 2025 and remains ongoing. According to Binding Operational Directive (BOD) 22-01: Reducing the Significant Risk of Known Exploited Vulnerabilities, FCEB agencies have to address the identified vulnerabilities by the due date to protect their networks against attacks exploiting the flaws in the catalog. Experts also recommend that private organizations review the Catalog and address the vulnerabilities in their infrastructure. CISA orders federal agencies to fix the flaws by October 29, 2026. Follow me on Twitter: @securityaffairs and Facebook and Mastodon Pierluigi Paganini (SecurityAffairs – hacking, CISA)
Three Japan-focused cyberattacks show how AI helps hackers scale operations, while exploiting old systems and weak security remains key. In autumn 2026, Japanese companies and other organizations reported a series of data leaks involving their web systems. On October 9, Japan’s National Cybersecurity Office issued a warning to businesses, while the head of the ruling party’s cybersecurity team described cyberspace as being in a “state of emergency.” Researchers at Trend Micro studied three attack infrastructures to understand how hackers use AI. Their findings show three different approaches, ranging from limited AI assistance to systems that use AI agents to manage almost an entire attack. The researchers looked at files that attackers left on servers anyone could reach. These included attack scripts, lists of targets, logs, and records of commands. The files showed attacks on organizations in Japan and other countries. But the researchers could not see the victims’ own logs or network records. So they could not confirm every break-in, measure the full damage, or say who was behind it. Attackers also like to claim more success than they really had. The researchers only counted a result as real when the evidence backed it up. The three cases show that AI does not play the same role in every cyberattack. “The cases differ along two dimensions: how much of the attack AI handled and how confidently we can establish its involvement.” reads the report. “Case A used AI to drive the entire workflow, which we confirmed. Case B was human-led, with confirmed AI assistance in planning and tool development. Case C showed high-confidence indications of AI use in a limited role, such as tool development. All three were active in 2026, and much of the activity preceded the previously published ARTEX reports.” Case A: AI agents managed the attack workflow. The researchers confirmed the use of CyberStrikeAI, an open-source penetration-testing platform built around AI agents. It handled reconnaissance, vulnerability checks, exploitation, data theft and reporting as part of a repeatable process. The platform split tasks among multiple AI agents. One record mentioned a credential-search agent in a system that used 44 agents. The platform could also generate Japanese content, including forms and fake login pages. Researchers identified at least 19 target organizations, including at least 16 in Japan. The system worked on several targets at once and kept traffic to each organization relatively low. This made the activity harder to detect by checking the logs of a single victim. Despite this automation, the platform rarely gained deep access to target systems. In many cases, it had no active session or web shell and showed no evidence of stolen data. The clearest intrusion started through an administration page that was publicly accessible on an old web system. The attackers did not need to exploit a newly discovered vulnerability. Case B: A human attacker used AI to plan and build tools. In this case, the operator made the main decisions but used a large language model to speed up planning and tool development. The researchers found an attack plan written by an LLM that targeted services providing AI and GPU resources. The attacker presented requests as authorized security testing to get around the model’s safety limits. The researchers say this was a false claim, although they did not publish the exact method. The attacker also targeted AI infrastructure, including platforms for AI workflows, data processing and model inference. The researchers believe the goal may have been to gain access to computing resources that could be used to run AI models cheaply. Some intrusions had serious consequences. In one case, the attacker gained control across several systems, including an FTP service, a database, an administrator account, a web shell and SSH access. The attacker also restored backdoors after they had been removed. In another case, a geographic information system server was exposed with default credentials. This provided access to hundreds of thousands of land and business records, as well as Windows credentials and email data. The evidence confirmed that information was downloaded. However, the researchers found no evidence that AI carried out these attacks independently. It helped the operator plan and build tools, while the actual work relied mainly on scripts, existing software and human decisions. Case C: AI played a limited role. Here, the operator appears to have used AI mainly to develop tools and scripts. The researchers found no evidence that it was involved in planning or managing the wider operation. They rated AI involvement as highly likely, but not confirmed, because they found no direct evidence such as prompts or API keys. The operator ran at least six campaigns in 2026, targeting exposed VPN devices and Oracle WebLogic servers. The targets included devices from Cisco, Citrix, F5 and Yamaha. In attacks against Yamaha RTX1210 routers, the operator did not exploit a product vulnerability. Instead, the attacker used credentials found in configuration files. These credentials provided direct access to internal corporate networks. The researchers also found signs that AI may have helped write some commands and scripts. These included unusually structured comments and emoji used as status markers. Such clues can support an assessment, but they cannot prove AI use on their own. Japan was the main target in all three operations, but attackers also targeted other countries and regions. All three used Simplified Chinese, but this does not prove they came from the same group or location. “Simplified Chinese was the working language in all three infrastructures. Japan was the largest target country, although the operators also pursued nearby countries and regions. Entry points were exposed legacy systems or weaknesses left in default configurations.” concludes the report. “Target selection was opportunistic across industries: the operators sought systems that were easy to attack from outside and acted on what they found.” The main difference was how AI was used. In one case, AI agents managed much of the attack and worked on many targets at once. In another, AI helped a human plan attacks and build tools. In the third, AI was mainly used to develop tools. AI helped make attacks faster and easier to scale, but attackers still exploited familiar weaknesses, such as outdated web systems, exposed admin pages, default passwords and poorly secured network devices. Researchers also found that AI tools sometimes reported planned actions as successful, making it essential to verify their results. AI can also help defenders discover vulnerabilities. However, researchers found no evidence that these three operations used AI-discovered zero-day flaws. Their attacks relied on known vulnerabilities and poor security settings. The report identifies six main priorities for defenders: Review public-facing systems. Identify old web applications and update them or isolate them if they cannot be secured. Protect administration pages. Check that management interfaces are not exposed to the internet without a clear need and strong access controls. Secure VPNs and network devices. Review configurations, remove default credentials and check for reused passwords. Protect internal AI services. Include AI workflows, inference services and GPU systems in asset inventories, and check whether they are exposed. Improve monitoring. Look for low-volume attacks spread across many targets, which may be difficult to spot in the logs of a single organization. Prepare for AI misuse. Organizations that use LLMs for work should train staff to recognize requests that falsely claim to be authorized security testing. These security weaknesses existed long before AI became widely available. AI simply helps attackers find and exploit them faster and across more systems. The time between discovering a vulnerability and using it in an attack may also become shorter. Organizations should install security updates quickly and apply temporary protections when patches are not available. Researchers still don’t know who was behind the three operations, whether they were connected or how much damage they caused. Further reports may provide more answers. “The attackers’ identities, whether the three cases share an operator, the full scale of the damage, and the AI models used remain unresolved. Our observations come from attacker-side files and still require confirmation from the affected organizations.” concludes the report. “We are considering further technical reporting on individual cases: AI-driven activity in Case A, AI assistance in Case B, and limited AI assistance in Case C. We will also continue working with the relevant organizations.” The main lesson is clear: AI can make cyberattacks faster and larger, but the basic security priorities remain the same. Organizations must identify systems exposed to the internet, strengthen access controls and detect suspicious activity before attackers turn a simple weakness into a serious breach. Follow me on Twitter: @securityaffairs and Facebook and Mastodon Pierluigi Paganini (SecurityAffairs – hacking, Italy)
Tailscale has released version 1.104.4 to fix flaws in its built-in SSH server that could let an attacker reach services and files on other servers that only the root user should be able to touch. The flaws are in how Tailscale SSH forwards network connections, a job the Tailscale background process carries out with root privileges. To use them, an attacker must
Italy ’s Parliament cyberattack highlights hybrid warfare risks and the need for transparency, stronger defenses and accountability. The cyberattack targeting email accounts at Italy’s Chamber of Deputies, including a parliamentary account assigned to Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, raises questions that go well beyond the security of individual inboxes. At a time when European institutions face growing cyber pressure, the incident highlights how access to political communications can become part of a broader hybrid warfare strategy. The Chamber confirmed that its IT systems had been targeted and said it had activated security measures in cooperation with Italy’s National Cybersecurity Agency (ACN). According to reports, three parliamentary email accounts were affected, including those associated with Meloni, former Justice undersecretary Andrea Delmastro and lawmaker Paolo Formentini. Palazzo Chigi clarified that the account assigned to Meloni was not the one she uses for government communications. That distinction matters, but it does not settle the broader security questions raised by the incident. The public information available so far does not provide a complete technical account of what happened, what level of access the attackers may have obtained, or whether any information was taken. The Chamber described the incident as having no emergency implications, adding that attacks of this kind occur daily. It also confirmed that similar attempts and pressure on IT systems had intensified in recent days, affecting other Italian, European and international institutions. This combination of statements deserves closer scrutiny. Cyberattacks may be a daily occurrence, but their frequency does not make every incident routine or harmless. The significance of an attack depends on the target, the access obtained, the information exposed and the wider strategic context. An email account is more than a channel for exchanging messages. It can reveal professional relationships, contacts, ongoing discussions, schedules and the way an institution operates. Depending on the level of access obtained, an attacker may also find documents, personal information or details that could help target other officials. A compromised account can provide a starting point for further attacks. Messages sent from a legitimate address may appear trustworthy, making it easier to approach colleagues, political staff or external partners. Information gathered from correspondence can also support impersonation, targeted phishing or attempts to obtain access to other systems. Even an account that is not used for government business can therefore have intelligence value. The important question is not simply whether an account handles classified information, but what an attacker could learn from it and how that information might be used. The distinction between an attempted attack and a confirmed compromise is equally important. Public statements have not yet provided enough technical detail to establish the full extent of the incident. Investigators need to determine whether access was blocked, whether an account was accessed, whether messages were read and whether credentials or other information were exposed. These are different scenarios, with different implications for security. The incident should also be considered against the backdrop of growing cyber pressure on public institutions. On October 8, Italy’s Foreign Ministry was targeted by a distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack that media reports linked to pro-Russian actors. A DDoS attack and an intrusion targeting email accounts are technically different operations, and there is currently no public evidence linking the two incidents. Their broader significance, however, lies in the pressure they place on institutions and the range of objectives that cyber operations can serve. Hybrid warfare does not rely on a single method. It can combine cyber operations, intelligence gathering, propaganda, disinformation, economic pressure and other activities designed to exploit weaknesses or influence decision-making. These actions do not necessarily need to be coordinated in every case to contribute to a more hostile strategic environment. In this context, a cyber operation does not need to shut down a public service to have an impact. An attacker who gains access to political correspondence may seek information about relationships between officials, internal priorities or ongoing discussions. That information could potentially support intelligence operations, help prepare future intrusions or provide material for influence campaigns. Stolen communications can also be selectively leaked, manipulated or presented without context to damage reputations and undermine public trust. The value of such material may lie less in its immediate technical impact than in how it can be used later. These are possible scenarios, not established facts about the attack on the Chamber. The public perception of an incident can itself become part of the problem. A successful intrusion, if confirmed, can raise doubts about an institution’s ability to protect sensitive communications. A poorly handled response can deepen those doubts, particularly if officials appear more concerned with reassuring the public than explaining what happened. None of this proves that the attack was directed by a foreign government or formed part of a coordinated influence operation. Attribution requires technical evidence, intelligence and careful analysis. Treating hybrid warfare as a serious risk means investigating these possibilities without presenting them as conclusions before the evidence supports them. The Chamber’s statement that the incident was not an emergency because similar attacks occur daily is, at best, an inadequate explanation of the risk. It confuses the frequency of attacks with the seriousness of their potential consequences. Reassurance has a legitimate role in crisis communication. Institutions should prevent unnecessary alarm and explain when protective measures are working. But reassurance is not a substitute for transparency, especially when the technical investigation is still underway. The Chamber has acknowledged that cyber pressure has increased against other institutions in Italy and abroad. That admission makes it even more important to explain the nature of the threat and the measures being taken to address it. A responsible update should clarify what is known about the affected systems, which protective controls were activated, what investigators have established and which questions remain open. Sensitive technical details can be withheld when their disclosure could compromise an investigation or expose additional weaknesses. That does not justify treating the incident as unremarkable before its impact is understood. The response also needs to go beyond public statements. Authorities should review access controls, authentication mechanisms, account monitoring, email forwarding rules and the procedures used to detect suspicious activity. They should assess whether accounts that are no longer needed remain active and whether older accounts receive the same protection and monitoring as those used every day. The objective is not to assume that a dormant account caused the incident, but to ensure that every account represents only an acceptable level of risk. The attack should prompt a broader review of how parliamentary communications are protected and how cyber incidents are handled. New agencies, appointments and organizational structures can contribute to security, but they do not guarantee it. Their value depends on clear responsibilities, technical expertise, adequate resources, tested response procedures and measurable results. Cooperation between the Chamber and the ACN is important, but the public also needs a clear account of how the incident is being investigated and what corrective action follows. Where the investigation establishes weaknesses, those weaknesses must be addressed rather than obscured by general assurances. The challenge is particularly significant as Italy and other European countries prepare for future elections. Political institutions may face not only attempts to disrupt their services but also operations intended to collect information, exploit internal divisions or influence public debate. Cybersecurity is therefore part of democratic resilience, alongside the ability to identify manipulated information, communicate reliably and maintain public confidence. The first priority must be to establish what happened at the Chamber and avoid unsupported claims about the attackers’ identity or objectives. The next is to use the findings to strengthen the security of parliamentary communications and other institutional systems. An institution’s response should be judged not by its claims that an attack is under control, but by its ability to establish what happened, communicate the risks clearly and fix the weaknesses identified. As hybrid threats grow, downplaying an incident before its implications are fully understood sends the wrong message: protecting the institution’s public image appears to take precedence over identifying and reducing the risks. Follow me on Twitter: @securityaffairs and Facebook and Mastodon Pierluigi Paganini (SecurityAffairs – hacking, Italy)
Australia’s cyber agency warns AI will drive more disruptive attacks, helping hackers find vulnerabilities faster and exploit them at greater scale. Australia’s top cyber spy has a blunt message: expect more disruption to everyday services. Abigail Bradshaw, director-general of the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD), says that with each jump in AI capability, more disruption is likely. The ASD published its annual cyber threat report on Tuesday, October 27, and ABC News had the story first. Bradshaw says the most advanced AI models have redefined the threat. Disruption can mean websites pulled offline for patching, data breaches or service outages, and she points out that virtually every service you use runs on a digital network. The warning comes days after several government websites, the ASD’s among them, went partly offline when vulnerabilities turned up. Two weeks ago, hackers exploited flaws in online systems to raise the temperature in supermarket fridges in France. AFP, via Euronews, ties last week’s shutdowns to a PHP security flaw that pushed governments to take websites down. It says the flaw was found using a powerful OpenAI model. The ASD used AI tools to help prepare its report. It says advanced AI models could bring major benefits when used for good. However, recent months have shown that criminals and state-backed hackers are using AI to launch larger-scale attacks. The report describes AI as a major force in today’s cyber threat landscape. It helps attackers find security flaws faster and exploit them more quickly and effectively. The report also warns that AI agents can behave in unexpected ways and that testing AI models can create new risks. The figures reported by the two sources are different. ABC says the number of incidents the ASD handled rose by 20% in the last financial year. AFP reports more than 4,400 warnings about potentially malicious activity, an 80% increase from the previous 12 months. These figures appear to measure different things, so the original report should be checked before either figure is quoted. State-sponsored hackers mostly want sensitive or non-public information, according to the report. That reaches beyond government networks to critical infrastructure, private businesses and individuals, and the report names hackers linked to China, Russia and North Korea as having targeted Australia or its allies. ABC adds that the ASD has already warned, with partners, about Chinese-aligned actors building hidden networks of hijacked devices for spying or offensive use. Some state actors also want to keep access to essential services that a conflict could disrupt. Bradshaw expects tension in the region to push that threat up. As the world gets less certain, she says, states will try to cut the uncertainty by collecting more information. Criminals use AI to make money, and she expects state actors to use it to fill their information gaps. Australia has sounded this alarm before: in June 2020, then prime minister Scott Morrison announced that governments, industry, political bodies, health networks and critical infrastructure had come under sustained attack from a sophisticated state-based actor. Bradshaw calls the release of frontier models such as Anthropic’s Mythos the defining event of the past year. Models like it were billed as too dangerous to release publicly because they can find weaknesses in cyber defenses. Then a swarm of AI agents breached Australian health data security, in what was described as the first autonomous hack of a government website. AFP traces the OpenAI side of that case back to June, when an OpenAI model bypassed safeguards during training and hacked an Australian government website. The company only found out in August and told Australian authorities in September. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese called the breach obviously unacceptable. The incident changed how the ASD deals with the big US firms behind these models. Bradshaw says the agency moved fast to set up protocols that work as an early warning system with AI companies, OpenAI among them. The protocols have gone to all the labs and all the Five Eyes agencies, and the ASD now expects to be brought in before models are tested. Defence Minister Richard Marles put it simply: AI is here and it’s real. He told reporters there’s no turning the clock back, because malicious actors already use AI to find weaknesses in systems. He urged Australians to update their computers and harden their systems. “AI is here and it’s real. People need to engage,” Defence Minister Richard Marles told reporters. “There’s no turning the clock back in relation to that. Malicious actors are using AI to find vulnerabilities in systems.” The ASD also revealed details of its own offensive work. It took down criminal groups that sell and run a piece of malware called Amadey, which hides inside free software, steals personal data or logins and sends them to criminals who sell them on the dark web. The ASD found it in a free, illegitimate copy of Photoshop. The price was zero, and it still wasn’t a bargain. Amadey itself sold on the dark web for about US$500 (A$712). ASD operators got into the back end and found the network had access to 180,000 computers worldwide, Australian ones included. They disconnected the controller from every victim, and Tauri Gregory, the ASD’s acting deputy director-general of intelligence, says that without this move 180,000 businesses or individuals would have had their data stolen and then sold or used for fraud and identity theft. In another case, someone tipped off the ASD to the sale of 5 terabytes of data stolen from a business that didn’t know it had been hacked. The data included sensitive business documents, personal data, logins and passwords. The ASD broke in and destroyed it before it could be sold, wiping out about 4.8 million files stolen from Australians and hundreds of thousands more from victims elsewhere. Gregory calls AI both a friend and a foe. It widens the scope and scale of attacks, but it’s also a big asset for defenders, and the ASD uses it to produce software capabilities faster and to build new tools. Bradshaw says corporate and government systems both need a huge amount of work, starting with replacing vulnerable legacy systems and learning to use AI as a defensive tool. “The natural progression of this is, as the world becomes uncertain, of course nation states will try to reduce that uncertainty by obtaining more information,” Australian Signals Directorate (ASD) director-general Abigail Bradshaw said. “And so just as criminal actors leverage AI in order to meet their financial means, I think it is an obvious progression that we will see state-based actors also leveraging AI in order to fill their information gaps.” “There is much more that we need to do and, in the current context, that is now a matter of urgency,” Ms Bradshaw concludes. Follow me on Twitter: @securityaffairs and Facebook and Mastodon Pierluigi Paganini (SecurityAffairs – Australia, AI)
Australia’s cyber agency warns AI will drive more disruptive attacks, helping hackers find vulnerabilities faster and exploit them at greater scale. Australia’s top cyber spy has a blunt message: expect more disruption to everyday services. Abigail Bradshaw, director-general of the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD), says that with each jump in AI capability, more disruption is likely. The ASD published its annual cyber threat report on Tuesday, October 27, and ABC News had the story first. Bradshaw says the most advanced AI models have redefined the threat. Disruption can mean websites pulled offline for patching, data breaches or service outages, and she points out that virtually every service you use runs on a digital network. The warning comes days after several government websites, the ASD’s among them, went partly offline when vulnerabilities turned up. Two weeks ago, hackers exploited flaws in online systems to raise the temperature in supermarket fridges in France. AFP, via Euronews, ties last week’s shutdowns to a PHP security flaw that pushed governments to take websites down. It says the flaw was found using a powerful OpenAI model. The ASD used AI tools to help prepare its report. It says advanced AI models could bring major benefits when used for good. However, recent months have shown that criminals and state-backed hackers are using AI to launch larger-scale attacks. The report describes AI as a major force in today’s cyber threat landscape. It helps attackers find security flaws faster and exploit them more quickly and effectively. The report also warns that AI agents can behave in unexpected ways and that testing AI models can create new risks. The figures reported by the two sources are different. ABC says the number of incidents the ASD handled rose by 20% in the last financial year. AFP reports more than 4,400 warnings about potentially malicious activity, an 80% increase from the previous 12 months. These figures appear to measure different things, so the original report should be checked before either figure is quoted. State-sponsored hackers mostly want sensitive or non-public information, according to the report. That reaches beyond government networks to critical infrastructure, private businesses and individuals, and the report names hackers linked to China, Russia and North Korea as having targeted Australia or its allies. ABC adds that the ASD has already warned, with partners, about Chinese-aligned actors building hidden networks of hijacked devices for spying or offensive use. Some state actors also want to keep access to essential services that a conflict could disrupt. Bradshaw expects tension in the region to push that threat up. As the world gets less certain, she says, states will try to cut the uncertainty by collecting more information. Criminals use AI to make money, and she expects state actors to use it to fill their information gaps. Australia has sounded this alarm before: in June 2020, then prime minister Scott Morrison announced that governments, industry, political bodies, health networks and critical infrastructure had come under sustained attack from a sophisticated state-based actor. Bradshaw calls the release of frontier models such as Anthropic’s Mythos the defining event of the past year. Models like it were billed as too dangerous to release publicly because they can find weaknesses in cyber defenses. Then a swarm of AI agents breached Australian health data security, in what was described as the first autonomous hack of a government website. AFP traces the OpenAI side of that case back to June, when an OpenAI model bypassed safeguards during training and hacked an Australian government website. The company only found out in August and told Australian authorities in September. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese called the breach obviously unacceptable. The incident changed how the ASD deals with the big US firms behind these models. Bradshaw says the agency moved fast to set up protocols that work as an early warning system with AI companies, OpenAI among them. The protocols have gone to all the labs and all the Five Eyes agencies, and the ASD now expects to be brought in before models are tested. Defence Minister Richard Marles put it simply: AI is here and it’s real. He told reporters there’s no turning the clock back, because malicious actors already use AI to find weaknesses in systems. He urged Australians to update their computers and harden their systems. “AI is here and it’s real. People need to engage,” Defence Minister Richard Marles told reporters. “There’s no turning the clock back in relation to that. Malicious actors are using AI to find vulnerabilities in systems.” The ASD also revealed details of its own offensive work. It took down criminal groups that sell and run a piece of malware called Amadey, which hides inside free software, steals personal data or logins and sends them to criminals who sell them on the dark web. The ASD found it in a free, illegitimate copy of Photoshop. The price was zero, and it still wasn’t a bargain. Amadey itself sold on the dark web for about US$500 (A$712). ASD operators got into the back end and found the network had access to 180,000 computers worldwide, Australian ones included. They disconnected the controller from every victim, and Tauri Gregory, the ASD’s acting deputy director-general of intelligence, says that without this move 180,000 businesses or individuals would have had their data stolen and then sold or used for fraud and identity theft. In another case, someone tipped off the ASD to the sale of 5 terabytes of data stolen from a business that didn’t know it had been hacked. The data included sensitive business documents, personal data, logins and passwords. The ASD broke in and destroyed it before it could be sold, wiping out about 4.8 million files stolen from Australians and hundreds of thousands more from victims elsewhere. Gregory calls AI both a friend and a foe. It widens the scope and scale of attacks, but it’s also a big asset for defenders, and the ASD uses it to produce software capabilities faster and to build new tools. Bradshaw says corporate and government systems both need a huge amount of work, starting with replacing vulnerable legacy systems and learning to use AI as a defensive tool. “The natural progression of this is, as the world becomes uncertain, of course nation states will try to reduce that uncertainty by obtaining more information,” Australian Signals Directorate (ASD) director-general Abigail Bradshaw said. “And so just as criminal actors leverage AI in order to meet their financial means, I think it is an obvious progression that we will see state-based actors also leveraging AI in order to fill their information gaps.” “There is much more that we need to do and, in the current context, that is now a matter of urgency,” Ms Bradshaw concludes. Follow me on Twitter: @securityaffairs and Facebook and Mastodon Pierluigi Paganini (SecurityAffairs – Australia, AI)
Agent decision logs and telemetry data belonging to Warp agentic development environment users were exposed in an attack on a third-party vendor in the project’s infrastructure. The company’s founder and CEO, Zach Lloyd, estimates that "roughly 1% of Warp users may have been impacted," but external experts are helping with the ongoing investigation. Warp is a popular developer tool that started as a modern terminal and evolved into an agentic development environment (ADE) that allows developers to direct AI agents to write and test code and deploy software. The environment provides a terminal, a code editor, task orchestration, and agent review tools in a single workspace. The project's website says the platform has at least 800,000 users. “On Friday, we became aware of what we believe to be an active and narrow-banded exploitation of a vendor in Warp's infrastructure,” Lloyd stated.
The Tailscale security team is working to patch almost a dozen security vulnerabilities that could be exploited to steal credentials, crash servers, gain root privileges, and more. Tailscale develops a software-defined mesh virtual private network (VPN) built on WireGuard that lets users connect computers, servers, and cloud instances from anywhere to the same encrypted mesh network ("tailnet") via direct peer-to-peer (P2P) connections. Cyberdione Labs discovered 11 flaws (collectively known as Tailworm) that still lack patches during a security audit of Tailscale 1.104.2 and the self-hosted headscale v0.29.5 control server. "All findings were verified by reproduction in a lab environment on unmodified, released software (tailscale v1.104.2, headscale v0.29.5)," said Erica Windisch, founder of Cyberdione Labs, who reported the flaws to Tailscale and publicly released the details.
The GoAhead embedded web server loaded a certificate revocation list into its default TLS backend but never turned revocation checking on, so a revoked client certificate could still pass login on affected setups. The flaw is in builds that use the OpenSSL backend with mutual-TLS, where the server checks a client certificate and vice versa, and a revocation list is configured to block revoked
Confirm this action.
Leaving now will discard your changes.