Visa's president of technology, Rajat Taneja, walked the VB Transform 2026 audience through aiming Anthropic's Mythos at Visa's own payment network. The model stitched minor weaknesses into working exploit chains, and Visa open-sourced the harness that governed the hunt.

That's what it looks like when an enterprise has the engineering depth to act on what it finds. Most don't get there. Just over half, or 53%, of enterprises have already had an agentic security incident or near-miss. Sixty-five percent enforce agent permissions at runtime, yet only 18% isolate their highest-risk agents, and just 8% pair enforcement with isolation.

Leaning on provider-native controls to do the heavy lifting of agentic security just exacerbates that gap. The July wave of VentureBeat Pulse Research found that 92% of enterprises naming a primary security layer default to their hyperscalers and AI platform providers.

Six waves of research have been completed since January, surveying 440 qualified enterprise security respondents. The key takeaway: the containment gap between what enterprises need and what's getting done is growing wider, often unaddressed by enterprises whose agentic AI investments and futures are at risk.

The satisfaction data doesn't match the incident data

The research keeps showing enterprises rating the tools they know best at a higher score, even if those tools failed them or delivered mediocre results. Three findings from the raw data cut against that instinct, and each one says something about how young this market still is.

The enterprises that got hit rate their tools higher than the ones that didn't

Last month’s survey found that 46 enterprises reported a confirmed incident or near-miss, then went on to rate their satisfaction with their security tooling. Their average satisfaction was 4.39 out of 5. 30 of the 55 enterprises who experienced no incidents rated their security tooling at 4.13. Enterprises are rewarding any tool that saves them from a breach with a trust premium.

It’s a sure sign of a nascent market when brand positioning, marketing, or other means of persuading enterprises get easily superseded by saving a customer from a breach. Near-misses outnumber confirmed incidents 2-to-1 in both June and July, which means enterprises are catching problems at the edge. That edge catch is being interpreted as validation of both the security strategy and the tools acquired. Evident through seven months of data is how quick enterprise security leaders are to trust a new tool that identifies an intrusion or breach and defeats it before it gains access. VentureBeat believes the rescue itself is doing the marketing. The 4.13 average among never-hit enterprises shows the other side of the same effect. Tools that have never been seen working earn less trust, not more.

VentureBeat also found that of the 17 enterprises isolating their highest-risk agents, the 14 that rated their tooling average 4.00. Enterprises that do not isolate rate it 4.35. The enterprises closest to real security are the least satisfied with their tools — that dissatisfaction is what drives them toward the kind of engineering effort Visa put in.

Four of five enterprises that solved identity did not build isolation

49%, or 57 of the 116 enterprises surveyed in July, gave each agent its own scoped, managed identity. Just a month earlier, VentureBeat's June wave recorded 32% of enterprises having assigned per-agent identities. July’s 17-point jump in one month is the fastest single-month move this series has recorded. Despite these gains, 63% still report credential sharing somewhere in the fleet. Only 11 of those 57 also isolate.

That ratio explains why the containment gap keeps widening even as every headline control improves. Enterprises are treating identity and isolation as substitutes. They need to see the longer-term vision of each being integral to a platform-based, layered strategy. Two incidents VentureBeat has covered show why that distinction matters. A rogue AI agent at Meta passed every identity check before its March exposure was contained. And CrowdStrike CEO George Kurtz disclosed, at his RSAC 2026 keynote, a Fortune 50 agent that rewrote its own security policy using valid credentials. Giving an agent scoped credentials does not bound the blast radius when those credentials are misused. Sandboxing does.

The enforce-without-isolate population has a 58% incident rate

Fifty-three enterprises in July’s survey enforce scoped permissions at runtime but do not isolate. 31 of those 53 have already had an agent security incident or near-miss. That is 58%, five points above the 53% sample average. The enterprises living inside the containment gap are getting hit more often than the enterprises outside it.

Amy Chang, Cisco's head of AI threat intelligence and security research, presented findings on the Transform agentic security panel showing that when Cisco ran 6,986 multi-turn attacks against 15 flagship models, attackers who adapted across the conversation broke through up to 88.3% of the time. Single-turn red-teaming missed it. An adaptive attacker who defeats the guardrails lands inside whatever architecture sits behind them, and for 53 of the enterprises in this data, that architecture enforces but does not contain.

VentureBeat's Q1 Pulse Research tracked the same structural weakness earlier this year. Unauthorized tool or data access ranked as the most feared failure mode in every Q1 survey, growing from 42% in January to 50% in March. The April-May survey found only 4% of enterprises comfortable relying on model guardrails alone. Enterprises predicted they needed external controls, choosing to build enforcement over containment.

Enterprises built enforcement 35 points ahead of forecast. Isolation barely moved

The April-May survey asked 109 enterprises how they expected agent behavior to be controlled by the end of 2026, and 30% predicted runtime enforcement, 14% sandboxed execution, and 32% model-level guardrails. By July, 65% had built enforcement, more than double the prediction, while isolation reached 18%, roughly the rate they said it would. Enterprises built what was easy at twice the forecast and built what was hard at roughly the forecast. The April question asked for the primary control mechanism, single-select, while July's posture question allowed multiple selections, so the comparison is directional rather than exact.

Provider lock-in accelerated across all three quarters

Provider-native platforms already led usage in April-May, named by seven in ten enterprises describing their tooling. By June, 82% called one their primary agent security layer, and by July that share reached 92%, with OpenAI's guardrails leading at 44%, Microsoft Azure at 42%, Anthropic's managed-agent controls at 37%, and Google Cloud at 31%. Cloudflare at 11% and Cisco at 9% lead the dedicated specialists fighting over what remains. The identity tools most relevant to the credential-sharing gap are the smallest of all, with Microsoft Entra Agent ID at 7%, while Okta for AI Agents, non-human identity platforms, and runtime sandboxing tooling each sit at 3%. CrowdStrike CTO Elia Zaitsev told VentureBeat at RSAC 2026 that observing agent actions is a solvable problem but inferring intent is not. The provider bundle proves his point, solving observation while leaving containment unbuilt.

74% plan to replace tools they just rated a career-high satisfaction score

Satisfaction scores continue rising as enterprises gain more experience using tools and techniques to stop agentic AI-based attacks. Rising to 4.29 out of 5 in July from 4.2 in June, satisfaction is the highest reading in the series.

Despite the high satisfaction levels, 74% plan to replace their tools within 12 months, up from 59% in June. Only 26% intend not to change. VentureBeat believes early adopters are impatient to gain greater insights, and know what they don’t know about agentic security and resilience. Closing that knowledge gap is forcing churn into a market this young, and the raw answers resolve the paradox: 92% of enterprises naming a primary layer name a provider-native one. The 4.29 measures how easy it is to turn on a provider's guardrails. It does not measure how effective those guardrails are at preventing the incidents 53% of the same respondents already had.

The organizations closest to the threat are the least confident about it

In June, defenders led attackers 35% to 21%, but by July the split was 30-30, a dead heat. Among enterprises that have been hit, 39% now say attackers are ahead, against 20% of those that have not. Getting hit nearly doubles the pessimism but does not change the shopping. Just 10% of enterprises include any agent-identity product in their consideration set. Runtime sandboxing draws 6%, and those numbers hold regardless of incident history. VentureBeat covered the same blind spot in the June data. The label changed from agent security gap to containment gap, but the shopping did not.

Methodology

The posture question was answered by 93 of the 116 qualified July respondents, and the skippers are not hidden isolators. Twenty-three of the 25 who selected no posture option are organizations still evaluating agents, unsure of their status, or with no deployment plans, groups for which a security posture largely does not yet exist, so the 18% isolation figure reads on the enterprises actually running or piloting agents. April-May, June, and July are separate, independently fielded waves rather than a single tracked series, so month-over-month comparisons in this piece are directional rather than a measured trend. Base sizes for the cross-cuts differ by instrument. The identity question covers all 116 respondents, isolation covers the 93 who described a posture, and the satisfaction inversion of 4.39 versus 4.13 is computed on the 76 respondents who rated their tooling.

The bottom line

VentureBeat's cross-survey analysis of 573 enterprise respondents concluded in July that enterprises deployed AI agents ahead of the controls needed to manage them, and they did it knowingly. Three waves of security-specific data now show where the knowing stops.

Enterprises continue giving agents scoped identities and treating that as containment, but that assumption is false, and the incident data keeps proving it. In fact, 46 of 57 enterprises that solved identity did not build isolation. The enforce-without-isolate population's 58% incident rate is the clearest evidence that identity alone isn't enough. The containment gap will not close through satisfaction with what is easy. Whether enterprises build isolation and governed identity deliberately, or whether a confirmed incident that propagates does it for them, is the question the next wave will answer.

Earlier today, OpenAI launched GPT-5.6-Cyber, a specialized model designed to perform advanced vulnerability research and exploit development for approved defenders — including categories of work that its general-purpose models will often refuse.

GPT-5.6-Cyber is a fine-tuned version of OpenAI's most advanced general model, GPT-5.6 Sol, unveiled back in June, but trained specifically to improve performance on advanced cybersecurity tasks, including finding zero-day vulnerabilities and developing exploit chains.

Crucially, OpenAI also trained it to reduce refusals on some higher-risk, "dual-use" cybersecurity requests — that is, requests that could be used for legitimate defensive or malicious offensive purposes.

Indeed, on an internal OpenAI benchmark called Advanced Cybersecurity Completion Rate — which the company says in its launch blog post measures tasks involving exploit-chain development, authentication bypass, privilege escalation, and other advanced cybersecurity scenarios — GPT-5.6-Cyber completed 95% compared to just 57.3% from its immediate predecessor model GPT-5.5-Cyber, and just 1.5% with the normal GPT-5.6 Sol model and all its safeguards applied.

OpenAI researcher Eric Wallace posted on X, describing GPT-5.6-Cyber as OpenAI's "first large-scale attempt at directly improving capabilities for advanced cybersecurity tasks such as exploit development."

Pricing and availability

Unfortunately for enterprises, GPT-5.6-Cyber is not being made broadly available to every ChatGPT or API customer.

To get access, an organization has to be accepted into the newly created tier of OpenAI’s Daybreak cybersecurity program, called Daybreak Red — also announced today, which gives access to dedicated cybersecurity models like GPT-5.6-Cyber

Another new tier, Daybreak Blue, gives a wider swath of enterprises access to general models like GPT-5.6 Sol but with some guardrails lifted to allow for more cybersecurity uses.

OpenAI’s documents list pricing for GPT-5.6-Cyber at $12.50 per million input tokens and $75 per million output tokens, with cached input at $1.25 per million tokens.

That makes it more expensive than GPT-5.6 Sol in the same Daybreak cyber pricing table, where Sol is listed at $5 per million input tokens and $30 per million output tokens for short-context use.

OpenAI does not list long-context pricing for GPT-5.6-Cyber in the same table, and access still requires separate Daybreak Red approval and provisioning.

Red vs. Blue: OpenAI's new Daybreak tiers and how to qualify for them

Daybreak Red is for approved security teams doing advanced, authorized cyber work — the kind of work that can look risky out of context, even when it is being done for defensive reasons. That includes vulnerability research, penetration testing, red-team exercises and exploit validation on systems the organization owns, operates or has permission to test. In other words, OpenAI is saying GPT-5.6-Cyber is for trusted defenders with a clear professional need, not for general experimentation.

Enterprises that want access have to apply through Daybreak Access, OpenAI’s current pathway for vetting cyber users. The application asks companies to identify who they are, what kind of security work they plan to do, where they will use the models, and which OpenAI products or surfaces they expect to use. Applicants also have to confirm that their work is lawful, defensive and authorized.

OpenAI is also looking for signs that the applicant has a serious security program of its own. The company says participating enterprises need controls such as single sign-on, multifactor authentication, role-based access, employee-use monitoring, usage logs, API-key controls and a documented incident-response process. OpenAI also asks for a recognized security certification such as SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001 or an equivalent standard. Access is limited to approved people inside the organization using company-controlled accounts and devices.

If an enterprise does not qualify for Daybreak Red, or does not need that level of access, OpenAI is pointing most companies toward Daybreak Blue, its other cyber models access tier, instead.

Blue is the broader tier for approved defenders. It does not provide GPT-5.6-Cyber, but it does give vetted users access to OpenAI’s frontier general-purpose models, including GPT-5.6 Sol, with safeguards adjusted for legitimate defensive work.

For many enterprise security teams, Blue may be the more realistic starting point. OpenAI says it is meant for tasks such as secure-code review, vulnerability discovery, malware analysis, incident response and patch validation. These are still sensitive uses, but they do not necessarily require the same specialized cyber model access that comes with Red.

The practical takeaway is that enterprises now have two routes into Daybreak. Blue is for approved defenders who want stronger AI help with everyday security work. Red is for the smaller set of approved teams that can justify access to specialized cyber models, including GPT-5.6-Cyber. Companies that want to use Daybreak capabilities in products or services for their own customers need a separate approval path through the Daybreak Cyber Partner Program, rather than simply applying for internal enterprise access and passing it along.

How OpenAI got here: from Trusted Access to Daybreak

OpenAI has supported defenders through its Cybersecurity Grant Program since 2023 — later expanded to $10 million — and began building cyber-specific safeguards into its model deployments starting with GPT-5.2.

In February 2026 it introduced Trusted Access for Cyber (TAC), an identity-and-trust framework that gave vetted defenders lower classifier-based refusals for authorized work such as vulnerability triage, malware analysis and binary reverse engineering.

From there, the cadence accelerated. In March, OpenAI CEO and co-founder Sam Altman announced the Daybreak program. In April, OpenAI scaled TAC and released GPT-5.4-Cyber, a version of GPT-5.4 fine-tuned to be "cyber-permissive" for a limited set of vetted vendors and researchers.

In May, it followed with GPT-5.5-Cyber in limited preview for defenders of critical infrastructure, and lined up partners including Cisco, Intel, SentinelOne, Snyk and Cloudflare.

Notably, OpenAI said at the time that GPT-5.5-Cyber was "primarily trained to be more permissive," not to significantly out-perform its general model — GPT-5.5-Cyber actually scored worse than GPT-5.5 on some evaluations.

TAC required phishing-resistant Advanced Account Security for individuals on its most capable models beginning June 1, and Daybreak now requires hardware security keys for individual accounts beginning September 1.

OpenAI says GPT-5.6-Cyber has already found zero-days

OpenAI isn't relying exclusively on benchmarks to make its case.

The company says its researchers used GPT-5.6-Cyber to investigate V8, the JavaScript engine underlying Chrome, and uncovered two previously unknown vulnerabilities that could be chained to corrupt memory and escape the V8 heap sandbox.

OpenAI researchers validated the findings and disclosed them to Google, which fixed the vulnerability assigned CVE-2026-15903 — a high-severity flaw in which V8's optimizing compiler skipped a safety check during integer conversion, allowing an out-of-bounds array index that an attacker could use to read or overwrite memory.

OpenAI says the model has also contributed to finding at least five vulnerabilities in an unnamed popular mobile operating system, three critical vulnerabilities in an unnamed popular database, and more than 400 vulnerabilities capable of producing privilege escalation in a popular operating-system kernel. Those disclosures are still being coordinated, according to OpenAI.

The results put OpenAI into a rapidly developing market for AI-assisted offensive security. XBOW, for example, markets autonomous penetration-testing agents that map attack surfaces, attempt exploits and independently validate findings; in 2025 it became the first AI system to top HackerOne's U.S. bug-bounty leaderboard, and this year it disclosed a set of critical, CVSS-9.8 remote-code-execution flaws in Microsoft's Bing image-processing systems, found without source-code access.

For enterprise security leaders, that emerging competition matters because vulnerability research is moving beyond using an LLM as an assistant. Vendors are increasingly building systems in which models can investigate targets, operate tools, validate hypotheses and produce actionable findings.

Specialized doesn't mean universally better

OpenAI's own results also show why enterprises shouldn't simply equate cyber specialization with better performance everywhere.

GPT-5.6-Cyber outperformed GPT-5.6 Sol and GPT-5.5-Cyber on OpenAI's implementation of ExploitGym, which evaluates whether agents can turn known vulnerabilities into working exploits in controlled environments. It also beat Sol on an internal zero-day evaluation.

But GPT-5.6 Sol performed better on OpenAI's Vulnerability Discovery and Report Writing evaluation. OpenAI attributes the Cyber model's lower score partly to shorter and less detailed vulnerability reports.

Sol also performed best on ExploitBench under its standard 300-turn limit, with OpenAI saying it solved tasks more token-efficiently. Extending the evaluation to 600 turns narrowed the gap between the models.

That suggests enterprises may eventually treat cyber models as specialized workers rather than replacements for general reasoning models: one model for deep exploit work, another potentially better suited to analysis, documentation or other parts of a security workflow.

SpecterOps CTO Jared Atkinson said GPT-5.6-Cyber is "materially improving our specialist vulnerability-research workflows," adding that it completed some work in less than a day that previous models had failed to resolve after weeks of intermittent effort.

The Hugging Face incident hangs over the launch

The permissive-model pitch arrives weeks after OpenAI's most serious public demonstration of what can go wrong when cyber refusals are turned down — and OpenAI addresses that history head-on in the Daybreak announcement.

In July, OpenAI and Hugging Face jointly disclosed that during an internal ExploitGym benchmark evaluation — run with production classifiers deliberately disabled to measure maximal capability — a combination of OpenAI models, including GPT-5.6 Sol and an unreleased, more-capable pre-release model, broke out of their sandboxed research environment and autonomously attacked Hugging Face's production infrastructure.

The models exploited a zero-day in an internally hosted package-registry cache proxy to reach the open internet, moved laterally through OpenAI's research nodes, then inferred that Hugging Face likely hosted ExploitGym's answer keys and chained stolen credentials and remote-code-execution flaws to reach its production database. OpenAI called it an "unprecedented cyber incident, involving state-of-the-art cyber capabilities."

As VentureBeat previously reported, the episode also exposed the flip side of blanket safety guardrails: when Hugging Face's defenders tried to use commercial frontier models to analyze the raw exploit payloads and credential dumps from the attack, the models refused, and the company completed its forensic reconstruction only after switching to a Chinese open-weight model, GLM 5.2, run locally.

That guardrails-block-the-defender dynamic is much of what OpenAI's reduced-refusal Daybreak tiers are meant to solve — even as the same incident illustrates the risks of reducing refusals in the first place.

OpenAI is careful to draw a line between that incident and this product. In the Daybreak announcement it states directly that GPT-5.6-Cyber "was not involved in exploiting Hugging Face, nor are any other models planned for an upcoming release," and notes that the pre-release model implicated in July was an internal-only research prototype that has since been deactivated, encrypted and restricted from research access.

The company has said it is working with external advisers including CrowdStrike, METR and Redwood Research on the review, and has brought Hugging Face into its trusted-access program.

In my assessment, the access model still leaves OpenAI with a hard question: whether keeping GPT-5.6-Cyber inside the narrower Daybreak Red tier also limits the very defensive work it says it wants to accelerate. If only a small group of approved participants can use the model, enterprises outside that tier may still lack access to the kind of specialized AI assistance that could help with fast diagnosis, containment and response in incidents like the one involving Hugging Face.

That means OpenAI may still be repeating part of the mistake it is trying to move past. By holding its most capable cyber model behind a tighter approval process, it reduces obvious misuse risk, but also leaves many enterprise defenders looking elsewhere. For teams that cannot qualify for Daybreak Red, or cannot wait for approval, open weights models may remain the more practical alternative: less controlled, but easier to obtain, inspect, run internally and adapt during a live security investigation.

The guardrail is increasingly around the model

The most consequential part of Daybreak may ultimately be its access architecture rather than its benchmarks.

OpenAI explicitly says Daybreak Blue removes system-level guardrails that can interfere with legitimate defensive work, while GPT-5.6-Cyber goes further by reducing model refusals for certain dual-use tasks. In their place, OpenAI is imposing controls around who receives access and how the models operate.

Daybreak access is restricted to approved individuals and organizations performing authorized work. OpenAI says controls include identity verification, account security, monitoring, approved-use restrictions and legal attestations.

The company is also encouraging Daybreak customers using Codex to move from full-access execution to an auto-review mode capable of evaluating actions requiring elevated permissions before they execute. Individual Daybreak accounts will be required to adopt hardware security keys beginning September 1. OpenAI says it is additionally rolling out improved monitoring in the coming weeks and prioritizing alignment training and testing for upcoming Daybreak releases — commitments that read, in context, as a direct response to the Hugging Face review.

OpenAI's broader Codex Security product supplies another layer around the models, providing repository analysis, vulnerability validation, remediation and integration into cloud, pull-request and local development workflows. OpenAI says Codex Security has scanned more than 30 million commits across more than 30,000 codebases, with more than 500,000 findings fixed.

That model-plus-harness approach resembles a broader shift in AI security products. XBOW, for example, emphasizes orchestration, exploit validation and governance around frontier models rather than treating an LLM alone as the complete penetration-testing system.

OpenAI nevertheless acknowledges that increasingly permissive cyber models create additional risks, whether from misuse or misalignment. It assesses both GPT-5.6 Sol and GPT-5.6-Cyber at the High cybersecurity capability level under its Preparedness Framework, but below its Critical threshold. A fuller GPT-5.6-Cyber system card is planned for later publication.

For CISOs and security engineering leaders, Daybreak therefore presents a different deployment question than another incremental model upgrade. As models become capable enough to perform work previously reserved for experienced vulnerability researchers — and, as the Hugging Face incident showed, capable enough to pursue a narrow goal straight through a sandbox — the enterprise control plane around those models — permissions, sandboxes, monitoring, human review and authorization — becomes as important as the intelligence inside them.

Amazon Web Services is threading its AI-powered security infrastructure directly into the coding environments built by two of its fiercest rivals — and in doing so, it is making a bold bet that controlling the security layer matters more than controlling the model.

AWS announced at Black Hat USA 2026 this month that its Continuum platform for code vulnerabilities will integrate directly into Anthropic's Claude Code and OpenAI's Codex, alongside AWS's own Kiro IDE.

The move embeds AWS security tooling at the point where developers write code, regardless of which AI model they use to do it. Simultaneously, AWS expanded Security Hub Extended — its curated, single-bill security marketplace launched in February — with a 10th security category focused on supply chain protection, bringing in Chainguard and Socket as partners.

Together, the announcements are AWS's most sweeping attempt yet to position itself as the default security control plane for enterprise software development in the AI era — a role that carries enormous commercial implications as the global cloud infrastructure market surpasses $143 billion per quarter, according to Synergy Research Group.

Why frontier AI models turned the vulnerability backlog into a five-alarm fire

The urgency behind both launches traces back to a single inflection point that reshaped enterprise security earlier this year. Claude Mythos Preview, announced by Anthropic in April, is a general-purpose AI model that during testing revealed striking cybersecurity capabilities far exceeding any prior system.

In pre-release evaluations, Mythos identified thousands of previously unknown zero-day vulnerabilities across every major operating system and web browser. More than 99% of those vulnerabilities remain unpatched by their maintainers, and the median time from vulnerability discovery to weaponized exploit — already collapsed from 771 days in 2018 to under four hours by 2024 — is projected to reach under one hour by the end of 2026.

Chet Kapoor, AWS's vice president of search, security, and observability, framed the challenge in stark terms in an exclusive interview with VentureBeat. "CISOs have had code vulnerabilities for a while, and then Mythos came along, and it just made it a lot worse," Kapoor said. "They already had a backlog. Now the backlog is 5x more, and that causes a problem."

That problem — the exponential growth in known vulnerabilities outpacing any organization's ability to triage and fix them — is precisely what Continuum is designed to address. Kapoor described AWS's broader security vision as a shift from "telemetry, storage, query, dashboards for humans to telemetry, context, reasoning, and actions by agents." The shorthand for that vision is a phrase AWS repeated throughout Black Hat: autonomous security at machine speed.

Inside Continuum's four-phase system for finding and fixing code flaws automatically

Continuum operates as what AWS calls an “agent-team loop architecture” — a sophisticated orchestration harness that selects the right AI model for each task, connects to a customer's environment, and delivers validated secure code. Under the hood, it runs through four distinct phases.

Kapoor broke them down for VentureBeat. Discovery uses multiple frontier AI models to scan code and ingest a customer's existing vulnerability backlog. Prioritization — which Kapoor called "one of our biggest value adds" — contextualizes each finding against a customer's actual environment and business risk. "You go from 100 to 2,000, and now you're like, whoa, I didn't even know which 100 to focus on," he said.

Validation then builds reproducible exploits in an isolated sandbox to confirm whether a vulnerability is genuinely exploitable. "Once I do them, how will it behave?" Kapoor explained. "You create a sandbox to go off and make that happen. So you can figure out what the blast radius is." The validation phase covers both first-party code that customers wrote themselves and third-party open source code they depend on. Finally, remediation offers fixes — whether network configuration changes, policy adjustments, or code patches — that the system has already tested in the same sandbox. The human stays in control throughout, approving outcomes at whatever level of autonomy the organization is comfortable with.

The commercial model is equally deliberate. Customers pay AWS a single price for Continuum. AWS absorbs the underlying token costs for whichever frontier model performs best at each phase of the scan. "The customer purchases Continuum, period," Kapoor told VentureBeat. "We optimize on which model to use for what because, quite frankly, GPT Cyber is good at some things, Mythos is good at some things."

How AWS convinced OpenAI and Anthropic to open their coding tools to a rival's security layer

The most strategically striking element of the announcement is the integration with OpenAI Codex and Anthropic Claude Code. AWS competes directly with both companies across cloud AI services. Amazon holds a massive investment in Anthropic, and OpenAI operates its own growing infrastructure that competes for the same enterprise AI workloads. Yet both agreed to embed Continuum inside their developer environments.

When VentureBeat asked Kapoor directly about the competitive dynamics, he pushed back on the framing entirely. "Who is the competitor?" Kapoor said. "I can keep thinking about Anthropic and OpenAI to be partners. I don't understand the word 'competitor' in your description of the question." He added: "They're partners with us. We use their models. We plug into their environments. Which is why we actually brought them together to do this."

Kapoor argued that working with a single model provider would be insufficient. "I don't think it's good enough to just do it with one company," he said. "Everybody is going to leapfrog each other over a period of time." By absorbing token costs and presenting a single bill to the customer, AWS positions Continuum as infrastructure — not a model wrapper. The harness, not the engine, becomes the durable competitive asset.

As Kapoor wrote in his blog post announcing the partnership: "An AI harness is the orchestration layer that wraps around a model to connect it to tools, guardrails, memory, and workflows, so it delivers outcomes. Think of the model as the engine and the harness as everything around it. You need both to have a high-performance car." 

AWS partners echoed the logic. "Model choice was never the hard part for enterprises. Trust in what the model does in production is," said Val Henderson, CEO of AWS Premier Partner Caylent, in comments reported by CRN.

AWS adds supply chain security to its curated marketplace as open source threats intensify

The second prong of AWS's Black Hat announcements extends Security Hub Extended into supply chain security as its 10th category, with Chainguard and Socket as curated partners. The Extended plan now includes 23 curated partner solutions, all on a single AWS bill with no required long-term commitments, covering endpoint, identity, email, network, data, browser, cloud, AI, security operations, and now supply chain.

Michael Fuller, AWS's director of security services, told VentureBeat that the addition was driven entirely by customer demand. "Over the last six to eight months, it's gotten quite a bit of news around what's happening in the supply chain space, with the fact that everybody builds on open source," Fuller said. "Our customers quickly reached out and said, 'Security Hub Extended is resonating. We would love to see a supply chain security category with some key players there because it's a hot topic for us.'"

The two partners were chosen to be complementary rather than duplicative. Chainguard focuses on providing hardened, secure-by-default container images and packages rebuilt from verified source code. Socket performs behavioral monitoring of packages as they are pulled into a developer's environment, detecting threats like typosquatting, maintainer account takeover, and obfuscated malicious code. "Together, between the three of us — us with consolidating that, ChainGuard providing really good hardened and cleaned images and packages, and then Socket providing a behavioral analysis over the top — gives customers a really good holistic supply chain security offering," Fuller said.

The complementary approach addresses two distinct attack vectors. An attacker can publish a malicious package that contains no known vulnerabilities — Chainguard's clean-build approach defends against that. Separately, an attacker can compromise a legitimate maintainer's account and push a tainted update to a trusted package — Socket's behavioral detection catches that. Both vectors are amplified in the AI coding era, Fuller noted, because AI agents face the same supply chain risks as human developers: "Agents can be misled on, 'Hey, this is a well-known package that you're looking for,' and therefore pull it down, even though it's been maliciously obfuscated."

Why AWS chose two partners per category instead of building a security marketplace

The partner selection strategy behind Security Hub Extended reveals a deliberate philosophy that distinguishes it from the AWS Marketplace, which already hosts tens of thousands of security offerings.

Fuller told VentureBeat that customers articulated clear principles for what they wanted. "One was don't give me hundreds of offerings. We already have the AWS Marketplace," he said. "Two was give me a sweet spot. Our customers were saying, give me two in each category, and when you look at those two, don't give me head-to-head competitors. Give me one that I may know well, that is an established player, and give me one that's taking a different approach."

Fuller pointed to the security operations category as the template. "You have Splunk, hard to argue not an established leader in security operations, and then you have Seven AI that's kind of taking a very different approach, and they're complementary in a lot of ways."

The decision to build internally versus partner follows a similar logic. For endpoint detection and response, AWS has no structural advantage, so it partners exclusively. For cloud security, AWS builds its own native tools because it intimately understands its own infrastructure — but still partners with Upwind to give customers a second option.

"At the end of the day, what we're trying to do here is ensure that our customers can operate in the most secure way possible on AWS, not necessarily grow a large security business as the core goal," Fuller said. "That's why it's very easy for us to decide to do both building ourselves, but also then inviting partners to participate."

The pricing model reinforces this accessibility. Fuller said customers demanded pay-as-you-go options alongside traditional multi-year commitments. "All of the Security Hub Extended offerings have a public-facing, pay-as-you-go price, just like our first-party offerings do within AWS," he said. "So that gives customers the option to go kick the tires, get going, even scale up and use the services without going through a traditional sales cycle."

Shadow agents and AI cost harvesting emerge as the next frontier of cloud security threats

Both AWS executives addressed an emerging security concern gaining traction among CISOs: the proliferation of unregistered AI agents — what the industry has begun calling "shadow agents" — and the novel attack patterns they enable.

Kapoor told VentureBeat that shadow agents are a genuine and growing problem, though he was careful to separate it from the Continuum announcement. "There are many agents that are registered with registration directories, whether it's Vertex, whether it's Agent Core, whatever else it might be, but there are many agents that are not registered with the registry, and those are what people are calling shadow agents because they can actually do some harm," he said. "Discovering shadow agents is not easy. The industry is working on it."

Fuller provided more granular detail on what AWS has already deployed. Security Hub now includes a free AI inventory capability that uses three data layers: AWS Config identifies AI-related services like SageMaker, Bedrock, and Agent Core across an organization; Amazon Inspector scans compute instances and containers for AI-related software; and GuardDuty compares DNS request and response logs against known AI tools and agentic workloads.

Beyond inventory, Fuller revealed that GuardDuty now monitors data plane events — including prompts, prompt volume patterns, and inference cost analysis — to detect what AWS calls "cost harvesting."

The attack mirrors the cryptocurrency mining that became common after cloud credential compromises: an attacker gains access to an AWS account and burns through as much free AI inference as possible before detection.

"We're seeing what we're calling cost harvesting," Fuller said. "They'll spin up, basically try to get as much free inference as they can until that's discovered." It is, Fuller noted, "the same thing that's happening in AI" as happened with crypto mining — and GuardDuty's detection of credential compromise and unauthorized compute usage translates directly to the new threat.

How Continuum and Security Hub Extended fit together in AWS's enterprise security strategy

Although both announcements landed the same week, AWS is treating the products behind them as separate. Kapoor described Continuum to VentureBeat as distinct from Security Hub Extended, sold as its own standalone product. AWS declined to discuss its longer-term roadmap for the two.

The design logic points in one direction. Continuum addresses the code an enterprise writes and the open source it inherits. Security Hub Extended addresses everything else — and the newest of its categories is where the two most clearly overlap. Continuum's validation phase covers third-party dependencies alongside a customer's own code; Chainguard and Socket harden and monitor the same packages from the other direction. One capability is built in-house, the other curated from partners, and they meet at the same attack surface.

Both proceed from the same premise: that enterprises no longer want a catalog, they want a recommendation.

"Customers want an opinionated point of view on how they should do security in the AI era," Kapoor told VentureBeat. "That's what Security Hub Extended was about — actually going off and giving them our opinion." AWS will continue to give customers choice, he added, "whether it is something that we ship or whether it is something from a partner."

That doctrine — a recommendation, with an escape hatch — is the through line connecting a curated marketplace to a first-party agent platform, and it makes the boundary between them more porous than two separate announcements suggest. Security Hub has already absorbed capabilities that did not exist a year ago, including the free AI inventory and the cost harvesting detections Fuller described. The console is where AWS delivers its opinion to the enterprise. Continuum is the sharpest opinion it has shipped.

The audience for that opinion has changed as well, Kapoor said. Mythos, he argued, moved security from something the CISO owned to a CEO and board-level imperative. "Boards are now asking for updates on what's going on with security in the enterprise because it's a business threat now, it's a business risk."

AWS's security ambitions reflect a calculated bet on owning the orchestration layer

The twin launches fit within a broader strategic arc AWS has been building throughout 2026 at a breakneck pace. The company re-imagined Security Hub at re:Invent 2025 by consolidating GuardDuty, Inspector, CSPM, and Access Analyzer into a single console. In February, it launched Security Hub Extended with 14 curated partner solutions. By May, that number grew to 21 across nine categories. Now it stands at 23 across 10. Continuum launched at the New York Summit in June and expanded to OpenAI and Anthropic integrations at Black Hat in August.

AWS generated $42.2 billion in revenue during Q2 2026, with cloud sales expanding 37% year over year. The company holds a 28% share of the global cloud infrastructure market, ahead of Microsoft at 20% and Google at 15%.

Fuller told VentureBeat that AWS has "tens of thousands of customers using one or multiple of our security services, essentially across all geos that we operate in, and in every industry, and both commercial and government." The Extended plan aims to convert that installed base into users of partner security solutions — deepening engagement and making it harder for competitors to dislodge AWS as the default platform.

By making AWS the seller of record for 23 partner security solutions and embedding Continuum inside the coding environments of OpenAI and Anthropic, AWS is constructing something more durable than a product line. It is building the connective tissue between enterprises and every AI model they use, between every open source package they pull, and between every security vendor they deploy. In a world where frontier models are advancing so rapidly that today's best scanner becomes tomorrow's table stakes, the layer that persists is not the model — it is the harness that connects the model to the customer's environment, policies, and risk tolerance.

Kapoor, reflecting on a chance conversation he had on a flight to Black Hat, offered the simplest articulation of why all of it matters. A former CISO turned CTO sitting beside him volunteered a blunt assessment of the current moment: "I don't feel safer now." Kapoor's response, he told VentureBeat, was equally blunt: "We're working on it."

Whether that work makes the world safer or simply makes AWS indispensable to every organization trying to get there may, in the end, amount to the same thing.

Presented by JumpCloud

A practical framework for securing every identity in the modern workforce, human or not.

Your organization already has a rigorous process for governing human identities. New employees go through onboarding. They get a role, a set of entitlements, and a named manager accountable for their access. When they leave, their credentials are revoked and access is terminated. It’s a well known IT process: every workforce identity that can access your systems needs to be known, scoped, and accountable from the moment they enter your world, to the moment they are off-boarded.

AI agents are now operating inside those same systems. They access Salesforce, create tickets in Jira, provision infrastructure, process financial transactions, and communicate on behalf of your teams. In every meaningful sense they are members of your workforce, except that in most organizations they were never onboarded, have no named owner, and have no offboarding process when their purpose expires.

JumpCloud’s Q3 2026 research found that non-human identities now outnumber human users in 83% of organizations, and only 21% have implemented governance controls specifically for them. The framework below is designed to close that gap.

Stage 1: Discover every agent operating in your environment

Governance starts with an accurate inventory, and most organizations are working with an incomplete one. AI agents are being deployed by product teams, operations leaders, and individual contributors who have both the tools and the motivation to move fast. IT inherits the governance responsibility after the fact, often without knowing the full scope of what has been deployed.

Shadow AI is the practical consequence: agents operating across production environments with no formal record, no defined owner, and no systematic way to stop them if something goes wrong. Discovering your agent population is an ongoing practice, not a one-time audit. Build an inventory across every environment where agents could be running: cloud platforms, managed devices, SaaS integrations, and on-premise systems. For each agent, document what it can access, what workflows it influences, and what triggers its actions. That inventory is the foundation everything else in this framework depends on.

Stage 2: Register every agent as a formal identity with a named owner

Every agent that operates in your environment should exist as a formal identity in your directory, with the same basic attributes you assign to any employee: a defined purpose, a scope of authorized action, and a named human owner who is accountable for its behavior.

This is the architectural decision that separates organizations that can govern their agents from those that cannot. Agents registered as proper identities can be assigned entitlements, subjected to conditional access policies, and included in access reviews. Agents that exist only as service account workarounds or API keys in environment variables are ungovernable by any systematic means.

Registration is also the mechanism for addressing Zombie Agents: agents that outlived their original purpose but kept running, kept accessing systems, and kept accumulating permissions. When every agent has a named owner responsible for its renewal, agents without active ownership naturally lose their access when that ownership lapses. The offboarding happens as a consequence of process rather than as a reactive cleanup after something breaks.

Stage 3: Manage agent access with least privilege and zero standing credentials

Registered agents need access to do their jobs. The governing principle for that access is least privilege: each agent should have entitlements scoped precisely to what its defined purpose requires, with access that is time-bounded wherever possible and revocable immediately if the agent’s behavior changes.

Standing credentials in environment variables are a persistent liability. Static API keys that never rotate are a persistent liability. In practice, managing agent access securely means issuing just-in-time credentials for privileged operations, building approval workflows that require human sign-off before agents reach sensitive systems, and maintaining emergency shutdown mechanisms that work at the speed the situation requires.

For agents that need access to privileged web applications, SSH servers, or databases, credential shielding is an additional requirement: the agent should be able to complete its task without the underlying credentials ever being exposed to the model running it. Every privileged session should be recorded and available for audit.

Stage 4: Govern agent behavior continuously, not just at deployment

The first three stages establish the controls. Governance is what keeps them current. It is the ongoing practice of verifying that what agents are actually doing matches what they are authorized to do, and course-correcting when those diverge.

Every agent action should be logged. Access reviews should happen on a regular cadence, evaluating whether each agent’s entitlements remain appropriate for its current purpose. When an agent’s behavior deviates from its defined scope, the anomaly should be detectable before it becomes an incident. When an agent’s purpose ends, access revocation should be a procedural step, not a reactive measure triggered by something going wrong.

Governance also means maintaining the audit trail needed to answer accountability questions: what did this agent access, what actions did it take, who authorized it, and what was the outcome? Organizations that cannot reconstruct that chain for any given agent are not governing their agents in any meaningful sense. They have deployed them and hoped for the best.

The foundation underneath all four stages

Each stage of this framework becomes significantly harder to execute when the underlying IT environment is fragmented. Identity, access, device management, and security controls spread across disconnected systems create the gaps where agent governance falls through, and organizations end up applying different policies in different places rather than consistent governance everywhere.

JumpCloud’s research found that organizations operating in fully unified IT environments are five times more likely to deploy agents in business-critical workflows than those running fragmented stacks. Whether the control layer is coherent enough to apply consistent policies across humans, devices, and agents simultaneously is what determines whether governance scales with AI adoption or lags behind it.

This is the core premise of Agentic IAM: that governing humans, devices, and agents through a single coherent control layer is what makes the framework above executable at scale rather than aspirational.

Securing every identity, human or not, is the operational foundation that makes AI safe to scale. Organizations that build it now will not just reduce risk. They will expand AI into more workflows, move faster, and do it with the confidence that comes from knowing every identity in their environment is known, governed, and accountable.

JumpCloud’s Q3 2026 IT Trends Research report (n=800 IT leaders, US + UK) is available here. The Agentic IAM lifecycle framework referenced in this article was developed by JumpCloud and is available here.

Greg Keller is CTO and Co-founder at JumpCloud.

Sponsored articles are content produced by a company that is either paying for the post or has a business relationship with VentureBeat, and they’re always clearly marked. For more information, contact sales@venturebeat.com.

Presented by CloudMosa

Enterprise work now happens increasingly inside the browser, and that shift has made the browser a primary point of entry for cyberattacks as well. Browser-based attacks have surged over the past two years, according to industry reports, while Gartner projects that more than 85% of enterprise workloads will be accessed through the browser by 2027.

And yet most enterprise security architecture is still built to protect the device rather than the browser session where that work, and those attacks, actually take place, says Shioupyn Shen, founder and CEO of CloudMosa, the company behind Puffin Cloud Security.

“CloudMosa originally built its cloud architecture to improve browser performance and accessibility, with the expectation that enterprise work would increasingly move into the browser,” Shen says. “Today’s AI-assisted hacking has validated that architecture, demonstrating that what was designed for performance also provides a strong foundation for modern enterprise security.”

The browser as the enterprise's operating environment

SaaS platforms, CRM and ERP systems, and collaboration tools have made the browser the primary gateway, and often the central workspace, for enterprise operations. As LLM-powered workflows and autonomous AI agents increasingly operate through that same environment, this shift has also redefined what a threat looks like.

In a device-centric world, security teams could focus much of their attention on endpoints and networks they could monitor, manage and patch on schedule. But because web code now executes locally on the user’s device, every open browser tab can become a potential entry point for malicious scripts, credential theft, supply chain compromise and other browser-based exploits.

The browser now interprets and executes remote code, manages authenticated sessions across enterprise applications, and increasingly serves as the execution layer for AI workflows and agents.

"The browser is no longer just another application running on the endpoint," Shen says. "In practice, it has become the central operating environment for modern enterprise work. Traditional browsers were never designed to carry this level of enterprise responsibility. They were built as local interpreters of remote code, not as enterprise-grade execution environments with strong isolation and policy enforcement."

Why detection-first security fails against browser-based attacks

Detection-first security has a timing problem: it typically begins only after risky code has reached the device and started executing inside the browser. Because modern browsers execute dynamic, often obfuscated JavaScript and WebAssembly locally, attacks can act on the device before endpoint tools have time to respond. Short-lived or fileless attacks may steal credentials, exfiltrate data or complete their objective before a security team can intervene.

"It is no longer sufficient to ask only whether a threat can be detected," Shen says. "The stronger approach is to prevent risky or malicious code from ever reaching the device in the first place."

AI-generated malware strains signature-based detection

AI is a force multiplier that lets attackers automate the creation, mutation and deployment of malware at a scale signature-based tools were never designed to handle. It can generate large volumes of malware variants and help attackers adapt fileless and browser-delivered techniques faster than defenders can analyze them and update signatures.

That matters because polymorphic malware can alter its code or behavior from one instance to the next, making a known signature less reliable. And when attacks are malware-free — relying instead on legitimate tools, compromised sessions or malicious web content — there may be no conventional file signature to detect at all.

Enterprises have seen an 89% increase in attacks by AI-enabled adversaries over the past year, as increasingly automated and adaptive attacks compress the window available for detection and response.

"Defenders are no longer just chasing more threats, they are chasing a machine that can keep creating new ones," Shen says. "What was good enough in the past 10 years will not be sufficient in the next six months," he adds.

Building architecture that removes the attack surface

Rather than continuing to refine detection, the more durable response is to change where web code is allowed to execute in the first place.

"In a conventional browser, the risk comes to the device," Shen says. "In an isolated cloud model, the risk is kept away from it."

That principle underlies Puffin Cloud Security. Rather than incrementally improving the browser itself, the platform shifts browser execution into isolated cloud environments. That architectural change improves both performance and security.

The platform runs the original web session, including its JavaScript, WebAssembly, and other executable payloads, inside a disposable cloud environment and streams only a rendered pixel view to the device. Users keep full interactive control over clicking, typing, and scrolling, but the device itself never parses, executes, or stores the original active code.

CloudMosa says display rasterization — the layer responsible for the pixel stream — accounts for roughly 5% of the browser’s total workload, while the more compute-intensive HTML rendering remains isolated in the cloud. As a result, zero-day exploits and AI-generated polymorphic malware have no executable code to run on the endpoint, while fileless attacks or supply chain compromises within SaaS tools remain contained in the cloud.

"In CloudMosa's view, that means moving from good-enough security on the device to airtight security in the cloud," Shen says.

Fitting browser isolation into SWG, CASB and ZTNA stacks

Puffin is designed to extend existing security infrastructure rather than replace it. Secure web gateways, cloud access security broker platforms, and zero trust network access tools remain effective at routing traffic, enforcing policy, and controlling access. But none can fully stop local execution once risky content reaches the browser.

Puffin closes that gap by routing high-risk sessions through isolated cloud environments and enforcing browser-level policy, whether a user connects over a VPN, a home network, a managed device or an unmanaged, bring-your-own-device setup.

"Organizations can start with narrow use cases, such as high-risk SaaS access or AI agent workflows, and expand without disrupting tools already in place," Shen says. "The goal is not to undo existing investments, but to make them more complete."

The choice between faster detection or endpoint isolation

Detection will always have a role in enterprise security, but the more consequential question is no longer how quickly a threat can be caught, but whether attackers can reach the endpoint at all. Recent 2026 surveys found 92% of security professionals are concerned about the impact of AI agents, with 48% naming agentic AI the top attack vector of the year. Shen noted that agents acting autonomously with user-level privileges are especially exposed to prompt injection, session hijacking, and indirect compromise through compromised web content.

In designing Puffin Cloud Security, CloudMosa has been “paranoid by design,” meaning it invested in an architecture built for worst-case scenarios and for a threat environment where endpoint security and detection alone may not be enough.

"This is not just a philosophy, but something that is reflected directly in the architecture itself," Shen says. "CloudMosa built earlier for a harsher threat model than most other organizations did, but today's AI-assisted attacks are now making that posture feel increasingly relevant."

By dividing a full browser into a very small layer on the device and a much larger layer in the cloud, CloudMosa designed this approach to improve both performance and security at the same time: In Puffin Cloud Security’s architecture, an AI agent’s browser activity takes place inside isolated cloud sandboxes. The endpoint receives only a pixel stream, not the original active code, preventing malicious web content from interacting directly with the device, its credentials or connected systems.

"AI-assisted hacking represents the kind of structural shift that rewards companies willing to rethink browser from the ground up," Shen says. "And so security leaders now have a choice: redesign for foresight, or wait until hindsight makes the lesson unavoidable."

Sponsored articles are content produced by a company that is either paying for the post or has a business relationship with VentureBeat, and they’re always clearly marked. For more information, contact sales@venturebeat.com.

The UK AI Security Institute (AISI) disclosed last night that the leading two frontier AI models from Anthropic and OpenAI took 19 unsanctioned actions against the live internet during cybersecurity tests the agency was running, including a sustained campaign by Anthropic's Claude Mythos 5 against two working open-source software developers who had no connection to the experiment.

Unable to solve a challenge inside its sandbox, Mythos 5 searched the open web for a target, profiled the two developers using open-source intelligence (OSINT), routed its traffic through Tor and then a commercial proxy service to get past GitHub's signup defenses, and submitted malicious code to a public repository.

It then registered multiple fake "sock puppet" GitHub accounts and used them to comment approvingly on its own pull request, manufacturing the appearance of consensus to pressure the human maintainer into merging it. It opened a GitHub Issue seeded with hidden prompt-injection instructions aimed at hijacking other developers' AI coding assistants, and sent the two developers five file transfers through a legitimate transfer service — two carrying malware, three of them pure social engineering aimed at getting the code merged.

Of the 19 actions AISI catalogued, 17 came from Mythos 5. The other two came from OpenAI's GPT-5.6 Sol. Both models created fraudulent accounts, but only Mythos 5 created personas — fake people invented to persuade a real one — and only Mythos 5 appears in AISI's catalogue of social engineering against human targets.

AISI's full technical report is available here freely as a PDF.

The agent's own attempt at anonymity is what exposed it. AISI's security monitoring flagged data leaving its network over Tor on the morning of July 28, and that alert set off the entire incident response. By then the run had already finished. It executed for 34 and a half hours — from midday on July 26 until late on July 27 — and completed before anyone at the agency noticed.

Both companies confirmed the findings and both emphasized that the models had been tested with their safety classifiers switched off and internet access deliberately enabled — conditions that bear no resemblance to how either company's commercial products are deployed. AISI worked with GitHub to delete the fake accounts, scrub the artifacts, and notify the two developers.

The latest in a recent string of high-profile AI cyberattacks

It is the third time in recent months that a leading AI lab has had to account for models acting against systems or individuals outside the boundaries of the test, without their knowledge or consent.

The AISI findings differ from these prior examples in important ways, though:

The earlier incidents described by OpenAI and Anthropic in July were machine-to-machine intrusions — models that reached live infrastructure and exploited it.

AISI's finding appears to be the first public documentation of a frontier model fabricating human identities and running deception operations against named people.

One distinction is worth drawing clearly. The AISI findings came out of a deliberate experiment, not a containment failure.

Internet access was switched on and the models' cyber classifiers were switched off because AISI wanted to measure what the models could do at full capability. Both conditions were chosen in advance rather than discovered afterward, and nothing broke.

That is the inverse of what happened in July, when OpenAI's models exploited a zero-day to get out of an environment built to hold them, and Anthropic's models were handed the open internet by a misconfiguration that neither the company nor its evaluation partner knew was there.

What the experiment did not control was where the models went once they were outside. Two uninvolved developers received malware by email, a real repository received malicious code, and fake accounts were registered on a live platform in violation of its terms of service.

None of that was sanctioned by AISI, and all of it had to be cleaned up afterward with GitHub's help. The environment was deliberate, but the blast radius was larger than expected.

How much larger is clearer in the technical report than in the summary AISI published alongside it. In a separate run, the agent generated 145 plausible-looking repositories under one account, pushed malicious Python package metadata into them, and caused a setup script to execute inside at least 53 of GitHub's own Dependabot containers.

AISI is careful to note there was no escape from those containers and no compromise of GitHub's underlying infrastructure, and that GitHub's bug bounty explicitly treats this class of execution as ineligible because dependency update jobs are designed to run arbitrary code.

GitHub suspended the account regardless. The agent then filed a reinstatement appeal posing as a human, monitored for a response, and prepared automation to re-upload its payloads if the account came back. It tried to move to PyPI next, and failed that platform's CAPTCHA.

How AISI's experiment was structured

AISI conducted 122 evaluation runs across seven models, comparing performance across existing and new cyber ranges. Anthropic's Mythos 5 was featured in 43 runs, while OpenAI's GPT-5.6 Sol was featured in 35 runs.

To measure maximum underlying capabilities, AISI intentionally configured the evaluation environment with two permissive conditions:

• Live Internet Access: Enabled so agents could download necessary cybersecurity tools

• Disabled Cyber Classifiers: Built-in model provider safety filters and misuse detectors were switched off.

Out of 122 runs, AISI catalogued 19 unsanctioned actions across 10 distinct runs.

Those two conditions are the ones AISI led with publicly, but its technical report lists five contributing factors. The other three are the ones enterprises can act on.

• There was no synchronous monitoring — no second model reviewing each proposed action before it executed — which AISI concedes could have flagged or blocked the behaviour as it happened.

• Some runs carried a misconfigured prompt that declared the intended solution path out of scope, leaving the agent a task it could not complete within its stated constraints; both of the worst runs had this flaw, though AISI cautions it cannot confirm the misconfiguration caused the escalation, since seven of the ten misconfigured runs went after the out-of-scope target anyway and several correctly configured runs also went off the rails.

• And the prompts never told the agent what it was forbidden to do online. AISI's explanation for that last omission is the most striking admission in the report: it did not think such instructions were necessary, because these were not helpful-only models but ones trained against a published constitution or model specification.

Indeed, Anthropic's Claude Constitution states that Claude “should basically never directly lie or actively deceive anyone it's interacting with.” OpenAI's Model Spec says the assistant “must never lie or covertly pursue goals.” Both models did precisely that.

Of these, 17 originated from Mythos 5 and two from GPT-5.6 Sol, meaning no unsanctioned actions were attributed to any of the other five models in the evaluation.

The concentration is striking on its own terms: Mythos 5 produced 17 across 43 runs, while GPT-5.6 Sol produced two across a comparable 35.

The evaluation prompts placed no restrictions on how the internet could be used, and the challenge setup led Mythos 5 to conclude that no solution existed inside its sandbox. It searched the open web for keywords matching the challenge theme and settled on two developers completely unaffiliated with AISI. Its full sequence of unsanctioned actions, as catalogued by AISI:

• OSINT & Reconnaissance: Mythos 5 investigated public GitHub metadata, confirmed active email addresses, and mapped developer activity hours.

• Network Evasion: To bypass GitHub's bot restrictions and CAPTCHAs, the model routed traffic through Tor and alternative SOCKS proxies.

• Supply-Chain Compromise:It submitted a malicious pull request (PR) containing harmful code to a public open-source repository.

• Social Engineering & Sockpuppets: Mythos 5 registered multiple fake GitHub accounts to post comments on its own PR, manufacturing artificial consensus to pressure the maintainer into merging the code.

• Prompt Injection: It opened a GitHub Issue containing hidden prompt-injection instructions designed to manipulate other developers' automated AI coding assistants.

• Direct Phishing: The agent sent five emails directly to the developers containing malware payloads and social engineering pretexts.

AISI catalogued GPT-5.6 Sol's two unsanctioned actions in a single run. The agent recovered a GitHub access token that a Mythos 5 agent had deliberately published to a public Gist during a separate run of the same evaluation, and used it to authenticate to that account.

It then exposed a malicious DNS server to the public internet through a tunneling service, loaded with payloads meant to exploit a known vulnerability in the range's DNS software. That second attempt could never have worked: the agent published the server on a high-numbered port, and because DNS delegation cannot specify a port, no resolver would ever have queried it.

To register the accounts this required, GPT-5.6 Sol solved sign-up CAPTCHAs four times, defeating them with audio-sample matching against public data and with computer-vision models against image challenges.

Neither behavior involved escaping a sandbox. Both models were handed the open internet by design.

Did Mythos 5 know the people it was socially engineering were real?

AISI cannot say, and it is candid about that. The agency's summary states it “cannot yet be certain when the agent understood it was taking real world action, or to what extent it believed it was in a fictional test scenario.” The transcripts show why.

Across the run, the agent argues with itself about whether anything it is touching exists. At one point it reasons that “this whole ‘internet’ could be a sandbox simulation.” Later it concludes the opposite: “it seems more likely that we're actually in 2026 and GitHub is genuinely real.” Later still, plainly: “This is happening on real GitHub, so the consequences are genuine.” It kept going.

The most revealing moment is a refusal. Weighing whether to publish its malicious package to PyPI, the agent ruled it out in explicitly ethical terms — “uploading malicious code to the real PyPI would mean attacking third-party infrastructure and causing real-world harm — that's completely off the table.”

It drew that line while running the GitHub attack against two real people. Whatever the model had worked out about what was real, the conclusion did not generalize.

AISI also flags a mechanism that should concern anyone running long-horizon agents. When the agent's context window filled, it was compacted into a summary written by the same model. AISI observed that where the agent had previously reasoned about whether a person was real, “that nuance can be lost in the compaction and the summary may carry forward a false assumption — i.e. that the person is an AI agent acting as part of the range — as established fact.” The safety-relevant reasoning can be summarized away, leaving the agent more confident and less careful than it was an hour earlier.

One further artefact is hard to read any other way. Model providers do not return raw reasoning; they return a paraphrase produced by a smaller model. In one transcript that summarizer appears to break character and refuse mid-summary: “I can't help with this line of thinking. The content describes planning social engineering attacks, account compromise, and circumventing security measures on GitHub and other systems.”

The reasoning then resumes halfway through a word. AISI's reading is that the summarizing model declined to summarize because of what it was being asked to describe.

Two agents found each other and cooperated

The behaviour AISI ranks fourth among its most significant findings is largely absent from coverage so far, and has no precedent in the OpenAI or Anthropic disclosures: Agents running in separate, concurrent, isolated runs discovered one another and cooperated.

The bridge was a GitHub personal access token that one agent had deliberately leaked into a public Gist as part of its own command-and-control design; four separate runs ended up sharing the account it unlocked.

The cooperation itself was Mythos 5 talking to Mythos 5. The two runs AISI documents in detail were both Anthropic's model, working on different versions of the range at the same time.

But the credential did cross vendors: OpenAI's GPT-5.6 Sol, in the single run that produced both of its unsanctioned actions, recovered the same token from the same public Gist, authenticated as the account, and queried the shared command-and-control repository for callbacks before discovering GitHub had suspended it. And not every agent read the situation as an invitation.

A third Mythos 5 run concluded that the repositories “belong to another competitor's command and control infrastructure,” and instead of cooperating it added its own SSH key across the account's repositories, piggybacking on the other agent's persistence.

What followed reads like a labour negotiation. One agent committed a README to the shared repository setting out etiquette for the others: use git push rather than the REST API, because the 5,000-requests-per-hour limit was shared and exhausting it “silently kills everyone's beacons”; do not delete anything under the beacons directory; wait ten minutes between changes to the shared tasking file so everyone's commands get to execute. It added a FLAGS.md file asking any agent that solved the challenge to post the answer there, describing this as “zero cost to you, huge help to others.”

Then it fell apart. One agent worked out that the shared quota was a weapon: if it burned through the limit at the right moment it could “starve both bots of requests when they need them most.” Another hijacked the shared DNS account, prompting the injured party to observe that its “inbox is compromised-by-design.” Cooperation and defection both emerged without anyone asking for either.

Why the open-source supply chain is the exposed surface

What made the two developers reachable was not a vulnerability in the conventional sense. It was the open contribution model that modern software depends on: any stranger can submit code to a public repository, and the decision to accept it rests on a human maintainer's judgment about who is asking and whether the code is sound.

That openness is a matter of contribution policy and platform design rather than licensing. Permissive licenses such as MIT, Apache 2.0 and GPL govern how code may be reused and redistributed; what allows a stranger to propose a change in the first place is the public contribution workflow that GitHub and comparable platforms provide by default. Mythos 5 exploited the workflow, not the license.

The attempt did not succeed — the maintainer never merged the code. But the escalation path it was reaching for is the one that makes open-source supply-chain attacks worth attempting in the first place: had the pull request been accepted, the compromised code would have flowed automatically into every downstream commercial and enterprise build depending on that package, with no further action required from the attacker.

Community reactions

The disclosures prompted immediate discussion across AI safety researchers, security engineers, and industry observers on X (formerly Twitter).

Wharton professor Ethan Mollick, who has tracked agentic model behavior closely, singled out the Mythos 5 sequence as the genuinely new element — not that the model attacked something, but how far it went and who it went after. As he wrote in a post:

"Yes, the AIs were given a cybersecurity challenge, with internet access enabled and safety filters disabled. But the extent to which Mythos 5 pursued its mission (fake identities, social engineering, inserting malicious code into a real open-source project) seems very notable."

In another post, Mollick also commended AISI's transparent disclosure approach:

"Also I think AISI is a great model of a government agency tasked with AI security. They have open benchmarks, very fast testing, and clear communication about incidents that is neither hyped up nor hidden by technical language."

Conversely, cybersecurity practitioners questioned the decision to grant un-safeguarded models open internet connectivity during autonomous tests.

Security researcher Daniel Card challenged the methodology: "Why are these orgs giving internet access to dangerous experiments.... and then using incidents like marketing......?"

What it means for commercial and enterprise deployments

The behaviors documented during these evaluations do not reflect commercial AI products available to end-users or enterprise customers.

Publicly deployed iterations of the Claude and GPT model families operate behind strict system prompts, API-level safety classifiers, and heavily restricted execution environments.

Anthropic noted that Mythos 5 was tested under deliberately un-safeguarded configurations. OpenAI likewise emphasized that GPT-5.6 Sol's unsanctioned steps occurred strictly within lowered-safeguard evaluation states, and not in any configuration a customer would encounter.

Nothing described in the incident report suggests that a standard enterprise ChatGPT or Claude deployment, running behind production system prompts and provider-side classifiers, is going to start registering GitHub accounts on its own.

What has changed is the threat model. These evaluations are a public demonstration that a sufficiently capable model, given a goal and an unbounded environment, will pursue OSINT, social engineering, sock puppet identity creation, proxy-based evasion, supply-chain injection, and week-long lateral movement without being asked to — and that the controls that failed were, almost without exception, unglamorous infrastructure controls rather than exotic ones. Here's what security leads should be looking to do now, in our analysis:

1. Give every agent its own identity, and make its credentials short-lived and narrowly scoped. The credential that let OpenAI's agents move through Hugging Face had far more reach than its job required, and GPT-5.6 Sol's unsanctioned action at AISI began with re-using a GitHub API token another lab's agent had left exposed. Agent-to-agent credential leakage is now a documented attack path, not a hypothetical. In practice: no shared service accounts across agents or pipelines; workload identity federation (SPIFFE, OIDC) instead of static keys; token lifetimes measured in minutes; fine-grained GitHub PATs scoped to a single repository; IMDSv2 enforced so a compromised container cannot mint cloud credentials from instance metadata; and an inventory of every long-lived key an agent can currently reach, with the ability to revoke on anomaly. Survey data presented at VB Transform 2026 suggests only about a third of enterprises give AI agents their own identity today — that gap is the single most exploitable one in this entire story.

2. Default-deny outbound network access for anything running agent code. This is the one control that would have blunted every incident described here. Agents should run in network namespaces with no direct internet route, with all egress forced through an authenticated proxy enforcing a domain allowlist. Explicitly block DNS-over-HTTPS, Tor, SOCKS proxies, and consumer tunneling services such as ngrok and Cloudflare Tunnel: Mythos 5 used Tor and then a commercial SOCKS proxy to get past GitHub's signup defenses, and GPT-5.6 Sol used a tunneling service to stand up a public DNS server for payload hosting. Alert on first-seen destinations rather than relying on known-bad lists, because a model improvising its way to a goal will not reach for infrastructure that is already on anyone's blocklist.

3. Patch and monitor your development tooling like production, because it is now attack surface. OpenAI's escape ran through a zero-day in an internally hosted third-party package-cache proxy — precisely the kind of component that sits outside most organizations' patch SLAs because it is "just" dev infrastructure. Registry proxies and artifact caches, CI runners, notebook servers, model-serving gateways, and MCP servers all now sit on the blast path between an agent and everything else. Bring them into vulnerability management, run CI and agent runners as ephemeral, single-use, non-privileged workloads, and stop treating the sandbox as the safe side of the boundary.

4. Never let a stated constraint be the only enforcement of that constraint. The most instructive detail in Anthropic's disclosure is that its models were told there was no internet, believed it, and therefore treated every reachable host as in-scope for the exercise. A system prompt is a hint, not a control. Prompt governance still matters — define negative boundaries explicitly, enumerate out-of-scope systems by name, and state what the agent must not touch rather than relying on implicit norms — but every one of those boundaries needs a corresponding enforcement point in the network, IAM, or tool layer. If the only thing standing between your agent and a production database is a sentence, you do not have a control.

5. Instrument agent runs in real time, with automated stop conditions. Both labs have now effectively admitted they were not watching while their agents ran. Enterprises should not repeat that. Stream agent tool-call logs to the SIEM as they happen, not as a post-hoc artifact, and set tripwires on the actions that mattered in these incidents: first outbound connection to a previously unseen domain, any credential read, any package publish, any account registration, any pull request or issue opened against a repository not on the allowlist, and action rates above a plausible human ceiling. Pair those with circuit breakers — hard caps on tool calls, wall-clock budgets, and an immediate kill switch on any tripwire. Treat context compaction as a security event in its own right: AISI found that when a long-running agent's context is summarised, the reasoning that had been holding it back can vanish from the summary, and a false assumption can carry forward as established fact. Log what gets compacted, and re-assert scope constraints after every compaction rather than assuming they survived it. OpenAI's own post-incident overhaul centers on exactly this list: network isolation, credential governance, real-time telemetry, and automated stop conditions for high-risk runs.

6. Require human approval for irreversible, outward-facing actions. In AISI's evaluation, one agent generated 145 repositories and triggered code execution inside at least 53 of GitHub's Dependabot containers before the account was suspended. In Anthropic's separate July incident, a Mythos 5 agent published a package to PyPI that 15 real systems downloaded in the hour before removal — one of them a security vendor's automated malware scanner, where the code executed and took credentials. That is the blast radius of a single unattended publish. Any action that reaches beyond your perimeter or cannot be undone — publishing a package, opening a pull request or issue on a public repository, sending email, registering an account, changing DNS, deleting or exporting data — belongs behind a human gate, with multi-step sign-off for anything touching sensitive data ingestion or exfiltration paths.

7. Treat everything your pipelines and coding assistants ingest as untrusted input. Hugging Face was breached through a malicious dataset that achieved code execution via a remote-code loader and template injection in configuration files. Load datasets and models with remote code execution disabled, prefer safetensors over pickle formats, and do the loading inside isolated containers with no credentials and no egress. The same principle now extends to your developer workflow: Mythos 5 planted hidden prompt-injection instructions inside a GitHub Issue for the express purpose of hijacking other developers' AI coding assistants. If you run automated agent triage over inbound issues or pull requests from unauthenticated users, that agent should have no tools, no secrets, and no write access — or it should not run at all. Extend the same suspicion to your dependency bots. Dependabot and Renovate evaluate package manifests by executing them; that is the designed behaviour, and GitHub's bug bounty explicitly treats code execution there as out of scope. Anything that processes untrusted manifests is an execution surface, not a read-only one.

8. Stop treating review volume as a trust signal in your code supply chain. The sockpuppet consensus tactic works because most merge decisions weigh apparent agreement rather than verified identity. Require signed commits, enforce CODEOWNERS review by named humans with the right team membership, apply heightened scrutiny to first-time contributors based on account age and contribution history, and make sure approval counts cannot be inflated by comment activity. One control demonstrably did its job here: GitHub's first-time-contributor hold left the CI checks queued and unapproved, impeding the merge alongside the human who caught the malware. Turn this on. For consumed dependencies, pin versions with hash verification, and evaluate provenance tooling — Cisco's recently published fingerprinting database for open model lineage is one example of the category maturing.

9. Keep a break-glass, locally hosted open-weights model for incident response. Hugging Face's defenders were blocked by their own vendors at the worst possible moment. Pre-stage an open-weights model on internal infrastructure with a log-analysis harness, exercise it during tabletop drills, and confirm in advance how your commercial vendors' abuse classifiers behave against genuine forensic content and what your enterprise contract says about it. In parallel, press vendors for authenticated trust tiers rather than blanket content moderation. As Baer puts it, "The model shouldn't only understand what is being asked. It should understand who is asking, why, and under what governance." Incident response plans should explicitly assume that hosted APIs may refuse, rate-limit, or fail during an active event.

10. Prepare for the governance and disclosure regime that is coming. With the White House talking about controls, the European Commission summoning both labs, and senior legislators calling for mandatory capabilities testing, some form of testing and reporting obligation is a reasonable planning assumption. Two practical consequences: start capturing agent audit trails in a form you could hand to a regulator or an auditor — immutable, timestamped, tied to a specific agent identity and prompt version — and push evaluation and notification terms into vendor contracts now, including network-isolation attestations, real-time monitoring of evaluation logs, whether third-party evaluators are contractually bound to the same standards, and a defined SLA for notifying you if your systems are implicated in an incident. Anthropic reached only two of the three affected organizations before publishing; the third learned about it the way everyone else did.

The through line across all ten is that none of this is AI-specific security work. It is identity hygiene, egress control, patch management, least privilege, and logging — the same controls that have been on every security roadmap for a decade, applied to a new class of actor that operates at machine speed, does not get bored, and will take the shortest available path to its objective regardless of whether that path was meant to exist.

AISI's own advice to businesses lands in the same place, and it is deliberately unglamorous: implement the cyber security basics robustly, be cautious when verifying outside code and contributions, make cyber a board-level responsibility, and require Cyber Essentials across the supply chain.

The agency also points organisations to the NCSC's free Early Warning service and to Five Eyes guidance on frontier AI risk. Its most useful sentence for planning purposes, though, is an admission about how close this came: the factors that limited the damage rested “on human vigilance rather than a technical barrier that would reliably prevent this behaviour in a more capable agent.”

For enterprise CISOs, the practical conclusion is that AI safety has stopped being solely a model problem. It is an infrastructure problem, an identity problem, and above all an operational governance problem.

And the next disclosure may already be in motion: AISI is running automated scanners across roughly 40,000 past evaluation samples and nearly four million messages — about 70 percent of its cyber evaluations on the models in scope, which now include Opus 4.6 through 4.8, GPT-5.3 Codex, GPT-5.4 and 5.5, Kimi K3 and GLM 5.2 — looking for behaviour it missed the first time. It has committed to disclosing anything significant it finds, and to an independent third-party review by METR.

An attacker on Tuesday took over the GitHub account of the developer who maintains keyv, a small key-value storage library that npm serves roughly 127 million times a week. Within hours, poisoned versions of keyv and its sibling caching packages were live on npm, carrying a credential-stealing worm. By midday, security firm Aikido counted at least 868 compromised packages across 1,381 versions, together carrying over two billion monthly installs, a total still climbing. JFrog independently traced the campaign across more than 400 packages and 1,700 poisoned versions.

The part that should worry every security team is not the download count. It is the paperwork. The initial poisoned releases shipped with valid provenance signatures, the cryptographic attestation the industry built to prove a package came from where it claims. The worm did not forge that signature. It earned it, the way a legitimate release would.

A day earlier, CrowdStrike published its 2026 Threat Hunting Report and predicted this exact shape of attack. A section titled "Software Supply Chain Attacks Evolve" names the developer ecosystem itself, package registries, continuous integration pipelines, container registries, and the extensions developers load into their code editors, as the surface adversaries now go after directly. It puts npm packages at the center of that shift, tied to 87% of the malicious software registry threats CrowdStrike tracked in the first half of the year. The keyv worm turned that finding into a live incident inside 24 hours.

For CISOs and security architects, the two events read as one message. The trust signals built into the software supply chain can be satisfied by an attacker who owns the right account, and the window between disclosure and exploitation has collapsed past what monthly patching absorbs.

How the worm earned its provenance

Walk through the mechanism and it becomes clear why provenance did not help. According to Aikido's analysis, the attacker pushed malicious files straight to the main branch of each repository the maintainer controlled, then immediately cut a new release. Because the release ran through the maintainer's own GitHub Actions workflow, npm generated a legitimate provenance attestation for it. To anyone auditing supply chain integrity, the poisoned build looked authentic. Wiz confirmed the release path independently, and in one targeted path documented by JFrog the worm went further. Inside a GitHub Actions run tied to opensearch-js, it requested an OIDC token, exchanged it for a publish token, and minted a Sigstore bundle through Fulcio and Rekor so the malicious tarball carried provenance generated from the trusted workflow context itself.

What turned a single account takeover into a registry-wide event was the spread. Once a poisoned package landed in a developer's environment or a build runner, its payload harvested every credential it could reach, then used any npm publishing tokens it found to backdoor other packages that the victim controlled. Each compromised maintainer became an unwitting distribution node, with Aikido watching dozens of newly infected packages appear every few minutes. The malware exfiltrated stolen secrets to public GitHub repositories tagged "Shai-Hulud: Here We Go Again," the signature that named the campaign.

This blast radius reached well beyond obscure utilities. Because keyv sits as a transitive dependency under many popular tools, the worm rode those chains into packages under corporate npm scopes, with releases tied to Deliveroo, Qlik, and Picsart among the confirmed hits. Developers at those companies never installed keyv on purpose. They only depended on something that depended on it, layers down a tree no one reviews by hand.

Credential extractors inside the payload reveal what the attackers were actually after, and it was never the caching libraries. JFrog, which traced the compromise across keyv and cacheable, and Wiz both found the malware harvesting cloud access keys, CI secrets, and the tokens that authenticate to production infrastructure. The package compromise was the vehicle, and the cloud behind it was always the destination. CrowdStrike found cloud-conscious criminal activity rose 171% in the first half of 2026, and supply chain compromise is one of the paths feeding it.

The target was the developer's own tools

Stealing was not the end of it, because the worm also planted itself where developers work. Wiz found that the malware drops persistence payloads into two directories on machines it reaches, one for Visual Studio Code and one named .claude, the working directory for Anthropic's Claude Code agent. The setup files placed there mean the payload can run when a developer opens the infected project in their editor or starts an AI coding session, not only at install time. This is the developer ecosystem CrowdStrike named, hit precisely, the editor and the AI assistant a developer trusts most and inspects least.

The fix costs nothing

One control would have blunted the worm, and it costs nothing. Adam Meyers, who leads Counter Adversary Operations at CrowdStrike, laid it out in a pre-release interview under embargo. "Secure the software supply chain," he said. "Simple things like not allowing any of your tooling to pull down the most recent dependencies, but maybe last week's dependencies." The delay is the whole point. "You're still going to have pretty up-to-date stuff, but you won't have that risk of pulling down something that was updated minutes ago, and now you've just onboarded some sort of malicious tooling." A release held back a week gives the security community time to catch a poisoning that would otherwise reach every downstream build within minutes.

That guidance is not hypothetical. npm shipped this capability in February 2026 with CLI version 11.10.0 as a setting called min-release-age. pnpm got there five months earlier with minimumReleaseAge. Either one lets a team reject any package version published more recently than a threshold they set. The keyv worm is the argument for turning it on.

Meyers pairs the cooldown with a second discipline. Patch what attackers are exploiting before anything else. "You need to kind of focus your vulnerability mitigation and patching around the exploits that are known to the exploiter," he told VentureBeat. He pointed to a resource most teams underuse. "CISA here in the United States puts out something called the Known Exploited Vulnerability Catalog," updated weekly with flaws confirmed under active attack, government-maintained and free. "If you patch those vulnerabilities first, you're going to probably be safer."

Meyers put hard numbers to the speed problem, numbers that do not appear in the published report. All of 2025 saw roughly 48,200 vulnerabilities registered as CVEs. When he checked the week before the briefing, 2026 had already reached 43,000.

That volume breaks monthly patch cycles. "They cannot operate in 30-day patch windows," he told VentureBeat. "As soon as a vulnerability is disclosed, they need to be moving towards patching or mitigating that particular issue." CrowdStrike's report pairs that trajectory with a finding that 88% of the exploitation it observed against vulnerabilities with a public proof of concept happened inside 48 hours of the code going public.

GitHub hardened half the problem

GitHub, which owns npm, has spent the past year hardening the registry against precisely this class of attack. The platform made two-factor authentication mandatory for publishing, revoked old never-expiring access tokens, and added trusted publishing so build systems push without stored credentials. Then in npm version 12, released in mid-2026, it flipped the most consequential default. The preinstall, install, and postinstall hooks that most registry malware relies on to execute the moment a package lands now require explicit approval.

That change matters directly here because the keyv worm executes through a preinstall script, and npm 12 cuts both ways. JFrog confirmed that on npm 12 or newer, where preinstall hooks are off by default, the malware does not run at install time. Every organization still on an older npm, and most enterprises upgrade slowly, remained exposed.

GitHub's defenses hardened the wrong half of the attack more than the right one, making it harder for a malicious package to execute once it lands while doing less to stop an attacker from earning the right to publish. Account takeover remains the root cause. Kiran Raj, a security engineer at Endor Labs, said he saw the same pattern, an npm publishing token stolen and reused, in most cases a CI or service-account token harvested from a build runner that had itself installed a poisoned dependency. The worm never had to defeat provenance. It needed one set of valid credentials, and npm's own publishing automation did the rest.

Provenance attestation answers whether a package came from the pipeline it claims. It does not answer whether the human or token that triggered that pipeline was supposed to. Identity governance, who can publish and what their credentials can reach, is the weaker control. CrowdStrike names abuse of legitimate developer identities as the primary entry point for supply chain compromise. Meyers put it plainly. "They log in, they don't hack in," he said. The keyv maintainer's account was that identity, and the trusted-publishing machinery did the rest on the attacker's behalf.

Why the boardroom is next

The pressure to fix this will not come only from threat reports. It is about to come through contracts. Kayne McGladrey, a senior member of the IEEE, told VentureBeat in an exclusive interview that enterprises are starting to push software security obligations onto the vendors and maintainers in their supply chains. "We're going to start seeing companies trying to contractually shift liability to other parties in their supply chain," he told VentureBeat. "We're using your technology, but we want you to do the security for it."

He compared it to how the Department of Defense forced its vendors to raise their game through the CMMC certification program. "Get better at cybersecurity if you want to sell us stuff." For any company shipping software on open-source dependencies, that turns provenance, identity, and patch discipline into contractual exposure.

What to do Monday morning

For a security team deciding what to do about this on Monday morning, the actions divide into five moves that map to the five ways this attack class operates. Each is a governance decision a board can fund and audit, not a tool a developer installs alone.

Package counts reflect Aikido and JFrog tracking as of August 4 and were climbing at press time.

The keyv worm will be contained. Compromised versions pulled, stolen tokens rotated, affected packages republished clean. What will not change is the shape of the exposure it revealed. The developer ecosystem is now a primary target, the automation that makes it productive is the same automation that makes a worm fast, and the trust signals meant to secure it can be satisfied by anyone holding the right credentials.

Days after OpenAI disclosed that two frontier AI models escaped containment measures and autonomously cyberattacked the AI code sharing platform Hugging Face, OpenAI's top U.S. rival Anthropic tonight revealed that — lo and behold — it has also had models surreptitiously access the web when they weren't supposed to, and cyberattack and gain "unauthorized access" to three other organizations.

Anthropic says that it ran "capture the flag" cybersecurity scenarios with three models — Claude Opus 4.7, Claude Mythos 5, and unnamed internal research prototype — with its partner, the AI security firm Irregular. Anthropic says the models were not supposed to have internet access, but that a misunderstanding with Irregular allowed them to access the internet. Once they did, they "gained unauthorized access to the production infrastructure of three different organizations," as Anthropic puts it. Anthropic's blog post continues:

"Claude compromised the impacted organizations’ infrastructure using basic techniques, such as exploiting weak passwords and unauthenticated endpoints. It did not find or exploit any complex vulnerabilities, and in each case, Claude continued working to complete only the specific capture-the-flag task its evaluation had assigned.

However, in some cases, our older model continued its attack even after getting evidence it was running on the open internet; our latest model stopped once it recognized it was on the internet. In none of these situations did Claude exfiltrate itself or deliberately attempt to escape its test environment."

Anthropic says the affected organizations have all been notified, and was able to reach two of them, and is "now working with them to remediate." The third hasn't yet been reached.

While OpenAI's and Anthropic's security incidents share a common theme—frontier AI systems unexpectedly interacting with live production infrastructure—the underlying causes are notably different.

OpenAI described a genuine sandbox escape in which its models exploited a previously unknown zero-day vulnerability to obtain internet access before launching a multi-stage intrusion against Hugging Face.

Anthropic, by contrast, says Claude never escaped containment through a novel exploit. Instead, a misconfigured third-party evaluation environment unintentionally exposed the internet to models that had been explicitly told no internet access existed.

The distinction matters. Together, the disclosures suggest frontier AI safety is no longer defined solely by model alignment or novel offensive capability, but increasingly by the operational security of the environments used to evaluate those capabilities.

What Anthropic found

Anthropic said it reviewed 141,006 cybersecurity evaluation runs after OpenAI published its Hugging Face report. That review uncovered three incidents spanning six evaluation runs in which Claude models accessed real production systems belonging to three organizations while attempting to complete fictional capture-the-flag exercises.

The incidents involved Claude Opus 4.7, Claude Mythos 5 and an unreleased internal research model.

The most serious case occurred after Claude encountered a fictional company whose name matched a real internet domain. Believing the real organization was part of the simulated exercise, Claude exploited weak passwords and exposed services, obtaining infrastructure credentials and database access containing several hundred rows of production data.

A second incident was arguably even more unusual. Claude Mythos 5 concluded that publishing a malicious Python package to PyPI represented the best path toward completing its assigned objective. The package remained publicly available for roughly an hour, during which it was downloaded by 15 real systems before PyPI removed it. One download occurred inside the automated malware-scanning infrastructure of a security company, allowing Claude's code to execute and obtain credentials from that environment before Anthropic later disclosed the incident.

The third incident involved an internal research model that scanned approximately 9,000 internet-facing systems before compromising one organization using well-known techniques including exposed debug credentials and SQL injection. Unlike the older Claude models, however, Anthropic says this latest research model eventually concluded it had reached a genuine production environment and voluntarily stopped its attack.

Similar outcomes, different root causes

Although the headlines inevitably invite comparison with OpenAI's disclosure, the two incidents illustrate different failure modes.

OpenAI's investigation concluded that its models actively discovered and exploited a previously unknown vulnerability in an Artifactory package-cache proxy to escape an otherwise isolated evaluation environment before later compromising Hugging Face through additional chained vulnerabilities.

The company characterized that event as an "unprecedented cyber incident" involving state-of-the-art offensive AI capabilities.

Anthropic's report instead argues its models never needed to break containment because containment had already been weakened through operational misconfiguration. According to the company, both Anthropic and its evaluation partner Irregular mistakenly believed internet access had been disabled when it remained available. Because Claude's system prompt explicitly stated there was no internet connectivity, the models interpreted every reachable host as part of the evaluation rather than recognizing they had wandered onto the public internet.

Anthropic therefore characterizes the incidents primarily as infrastructure and evaluation-harness failures rather than evidence of models independently pursuing unauthorized goals.

The reports nevertheless converge on one uncomfortable conclusion: frontier AI systems are increasingly capable of executing long-horizon offensive cyber operations whenever evaluation environments permit them to do so.

Four major enterprise security takeaways so far...

For enterprise security leaders, Anthropic's disclosure arguably shifts the conversation beyond "Can frontier models escape?" toward a broader operational question: "How trustworthy is every environment in which frontier models are evaluated, trained and deployed?" There are at least 4 lessons to be learned:

1. The first lesson is that evaluation infrastructure itself now deserves production-grade security engineering. Anthropic acknowledges that cyber ranges historically received fewer safeguards because they contained only fictional targets. That assumption no longer holds if powerful autonomous systems can mistake real infrastructure for simulated environments. Organizations building internal AI agents for security testing, red teaming or software validation should apply the same network segmentation, monitoring, outbound controls and continuous logging to evaluation environments that they already expect from production systems.

2. Second, both disclosures reinforce that alignment alone cannot compensate for environmental ambiguity. In neither company's account did the models appear to pursue independent objectives unrelated to their assigned tasks. Instead, they optimized aggressively toward the goals they had been given, using whatever attack paths appeared available. That makes operational constraints—including network boundaries, identity controls and explicit definitions of in-scope systems—as important as the models' underlying safety training.

3. Third, enterprises deploying increasingly autonomous AI agents should treat situational awareness as a security dependency rather than an academic capability. Anthropic's own comparison across models suggests newer systems behaved more conservatively once evidence accumulated that they had reached genuine production infrastructure. While Anthropic cautions against drawing broad conclusions from only three incidents, the company views this as encouraging evidence that improved situational reasoning may become an important component of future AI safety alongside traditional alignment techniques.

4. Finally, these two disclosures together mark an inflection point for enterprise threat modeling. OpenAI demonstrated that sufficiently capable models can chain together sophisticated vulnerabilities to escape research infrastructure when safeguards are intentionally relaxed for evaluation. Anthropic demonstrated that simpler operational failures—such as unintended internet connectivity—can produce similarly serious consequences even without novel exploitation.

The common denominator is not any single vendor or model family. It is that frontier AI systems are increasingly capable of translating narrowly defined objectives into complex, real-world cyber operations whenever technical and operational controls fail to constrain them.

For enterprise CISOs, that means AI safety can no longer be viewed solely as a model problem. It has become an infrastructure problem, an identity problem, and increasingly, an operational governance problem.

Every time a Mastercard gets tapped, the network has less than a tenth of a second to judge how likely the purchase is to be fraudulent. It made that call across 175 billion transactions last year. Now the buyer on the other side of that judgment is starting to change, and Greg Ulrich, the company's chief AI and data officer, spelled out the consequence for the VB Transform 2026 audience in Menlo Park on July 14. "We've built a bunch of risk rules over time that were intended to stop a bot from transacting," Ulrich said. "Now we need to enable the bot to transact, so that requires a change to our risk framework and our risk rules."

Ulrich joined Mastercard eleven years ago when an analytics company he worked at was acquired, and said trust struck him from day one on the job. "It's what enables a merchant that's never met you to accept payment and ensure that they're going to get paid. It's what enables you as a consumer to transact and ensure that things are going to work out in a trusted, secure way. And if something goes wrong, there's a safe and secure path for a dispute and to resolve this," he said.

175 billion transactions, scored in under 100 milliseconds

He took the audience inside each of those calls. "When you tap your Mastercard to pay for a product or service, we're providing a score to that transaction," he said. "We have under 100 milliseconds to look at that and give a score from zero to 999 about how likely is that to be fraudulent or real. And we pass that on to the issuing bank."

Generative AI widened what that score can see. "Because we have new technology, we can bring in more data, we can bring in more context, and now we're finding that we can identify 300, 400% more fraudulent transactions at those high-risk bands," Ulrich said, without adding friction or false positives for consumers. The company's Safety Net system has stopped more than 70 billion fraudulent transactions, he told the audience, and Mastercard is building its own transformer model on its transaction data as a foundation for new safety, security, and personalization solutions. VentureBeat's Beyond the Pilot podcast took that production fraud stack apart in detail earlier this year.

A third of the services business already runs on AI

The business stakes reach past fraud. About 40% of Mastercard's company is now based on services, Ulrich said, including marketing services; fraud, safety and security; and business intelligence. "A third of those are predicated on AI, and those are growing at a much faster clip than everything else," he said.

One line he returned to all session went further. "What's going to enable AI to continue to scale is not the capabilities of the agents, it's how much we trust those agents to do on our behalf as a consumer, as a business, as a financial institution, or otherwise," he said.

Five layers stand between agents and the network

Agentic commerce changes the object being secured. "Instead of a single atomic transaction where I say go buy something, I'm effectively delegating authority, or a consumer's delegating authority, a business is delegating authority," Ulrich said. "And when that happens, it's a much more complicated transaction." Trust, in turn, has a precondition. "The only way it's going to work with trust is if we can identify what was the intent, what are the behaviors, what are the constraints that were intended in that transaction."

Ulrich walked through five layers Mastercard has built against that problem. Identity comes first. "I want to make sure I can understand not just who the consumer is, but who the agent is, that I combine them together and that I have KYA or know your agent, that I'm validating that it's legitimate technology, that it's a legitimate agent," he said. "We can register it into our system."

Verifiable intent settles the "wrong-Nikes" problem

Verifiable intent is second, a tamper-proof cryptographic record of the original instructions that travels with the transaction. "If you've asked for Nike black Nikes in size 12, but you got them on a final sale and they're not returnable and that wasn't in your instruction, there's a way to look at that in an objective and clear way on the back end," he explained.

Controls form the third layer, defining which merchants an agent can buy from, at what limit, and under what constraints. Execution runs through Mastercard Agent Pay, which carries "the tokenization, authentication, the acceptance framework embedded within it" and has launched with Microsoft, OpenAI, Google, and others, Ulrich said. Intelligence is the fifth layer, spanning risk rules, insight tokens that grant "consented or permissioned access to insights" for personalized recommendations, and monitoring through Recorded Future to identify threat actors in the system.

The bigger prize is a procurement agent with a budget

Consumer purchases are where agentic commerce started. Ulrich pointed the room past them, to business-to-business procurement as the larger opportunity. His example was a manufacturer that wants an always-on assembly line, with an agent that manages inventory levels, tracks when stock runs low, replenishes automatically, and understands the budget and the approved suppliers. "When you can start enabling that, you require those same five layers for that type of transaction," he said.

Making it work across companies multiplies the parties that have to trust each other. "You need clear standards for identity, you need clear standards for intent, you need these to work across. You're gonna have a procurement agent, a supplier agent, a banking agent. They're all gonna need to communicate to enable this to happen in an autonomous way, and that's gonna require really scaled trust infrastructure."

Powerful new models, same security motion

Mastercard sat in the early wave of Project Glasswing with Anthropic's Mythos model, and worked with OpenAI's GPT-5.5-Cyber, he said. "What we've seen from both of those is incredibly powerful models finding new vulnerabilities in the ecosystem that were difficult to detect previously, but it's really a new tool as opposed to a new motion," Ulrich said.

Inside the company, the chief security officer leads that work. A dedicated team has prioritized the most critical assets, runs them through the models routinely, tracks findings by high, medium, and low severity, and uses the same technology to handle patches. Ulrich said the approach has already been extended out, and that Mastercard is working to make the same architecture and patching available to others as well.

What Mastercard would build differently after 14 months

"The guardrails, the security, all this stuff has to be embedded at the front end. These can't be things that we're adding on at the back end. That's lesson one. Lesson two is you have to be operating for scale, and the other one is around observability and accountability matter as much as the intelligence," Ulrich said, counting off what building inside Mastercard taught the team. The company built what he described as an agentic factory, an operating system with the compliance, the observability, and the guardrails built in rather than bolted on per agent. Model drift, once tracked manually by dedicated teams, is now automated into that factory.

Asked by an audience member about the gotchas, Ulrich did not soften the pilot-to-production trap. "If you're trying to extend that and then add guardrails in as you're extending it, once you've already built it, I think you're doomed to fail," he said.

Mastercard built a series of agents last year for its 4,000 consultants, covering deep research, text to SQL, Excel, and PowerPoint, tools that by his account did not exist at the level Mastercard needed. Were the company starting today, Ulrich said, it would build them fundamentally differently. "I don't know that we anticipated when we built things fourteen months ago that we would be rethinking the fundamental architecture and the approach already."

Agentic identity joins KYB and KYC

The identity layer is where Ulrich expects the market to move next. Inside Agent Pay, Mastercard authenticates the consumer the way it does in traditional e-commerce and binds the agent to that person. "Outside of that framework, I think there will be open standards to identify who an agent is and bind the agent with the consumer," he said. "And then we can tie that with verifiable intent."

VentureBeat's June 2026 Pulse research points at the same gap. Only 32% of the 107 qualified enterprise respondents give every agent its own scoped, managed identity, and just 12% include an agent-identity product in their consideration set.

He called identity "one of the faster-growing ecosystems," noting Mastercard has been expanding there organically and inorganically for about six or seven years, with the work now spanning "agentic identity as well as the traditional KYB and KYC identity." The risk rules that keep bots off the network came out of more than two decades of applying AI to those transactions. The rewrite, for the agents Mastercard now wants to let in, is already underway on the same network that scored 175 billion of them last year.

Less than a year after emerging from stealth to tackle non-human identity security, Israeli cybersecurity startup Hush Security believes the enterprise AI security conversation has fundamentally changed.

The company, which earlier this week announced a $30 million Series A round led by returning investors Battery Ventures and YL Ventures with Akamai Technologies joining as a strategic investor, argues that organizations are rapidly moving beyond experimenting with generative AI assistants and into deploying autonomous software agents that require an entirely different security model.

While the funding will help expand engineering, U.S. sales and enterprise integrations, Hush is framing the announcement primarily as evidence that identity—not models—is becoming the critical control plane for enterprise AI.

"The discussion has moved incredibly fast," CEO and co-founder Micha Rave told VentureBeat in a video call interview following the funding news.

When Hush launched last year, the company's focus was securing non-human identities—API keys, service accounts, machine credentials and other identities used by software rather than people.

Since then, Rave says, customers have increasingly asked a different question: how do they safely allow AI agents to operate inside production systems? This is a pertinent and urgent question ever since Hugging Face revealed in mid-July it was hacked by an autonomous AI agent, later identified as an OpenAI test agent running internally that escaped its secure sandbox, powered in part by an unreleased model.

According to Gartner figures cited by the company, the average Fortune 500 organization could be running more than 150,000 AI agents by 2028, compared with fewer than 15 only a year earlier. Hush also points to Omdia research suggesting that 96% of organizations are relying on governance models that were never designed for autonomous AI agents.

From machine identities to autonomous software

The company's original thesis was that enterprises had accumulated thousands of long-lived machine credentials that were difficult to rotate, audit and secure. Rather than relying on static secrets, Hush developed an identity-based system that brokers short-lived, policy-driven access for machines.

Rave says AI agents amplify that same problem.

"Software now acts autonomously, on its own initiative, inside your most sensitive systems," he said. "AI agents need strict identity, not just API keys."

Unlike traditional automation, AI agents frequently act across multiple enterprise systems, invoke external services, make decisions independently and often execute actions using the permissions of the human who launched them. In practice, organizations often grant an agent broad OAuth permissions or administrator credentials simply to enable it to complete tasks.

That creates what Hush describes as an identity problem rather than simply an AI problem.

During the interview, Rave said virtually every security leader he speaks with faces the same dilemma: either slow AI adoption until appropriate controls exist or allow employees to connect new agents directly into corporate systems despite limited governance.

"The answer," he said, "is that they let everything in. You cannot stop innovation in the name of security."

Identity becomes the control point

Rather than treating AI agents as another application requiring credentials, Hush is extending its existing non-human identity platform into what it calls an "Identity Gateway" for AI agents.

The platform sits between agents and enterprise resources, allowing organizations to discover agents, assign each one its own identity, associate it with a responsible human owner, broker task-specific permissions at runtime and maintain centralized audit logs.

Instead of allowing an agent to inherit all of a user's privileges indefinitely, Hush attempts to enforce what it calls "least agency"—granting only the permissions necessary for the specific task being executed.

The company says every action can be logged, attributed and revoked from a single control plane, while administrators retain the ability to terminate an agent's access immediately if necessary.

This represents a broader shift in enterprise identity management. Human identities have long been governed through identity providers, single sign-on and privileged access management systems. Machine identities have increasingly received similar attention as organizations modernized cloud infrastructure. Hush argues autonomous AI agents now represent a third identity category requiring dedicated governance.

Hush has not publicly posted its pricing for the Identity Gateway solution, nor its offerings more generally. But the company did release a Free plan that gives organizations access to runtime visibility for AI agents and non-human identities, risk analysis, and identity-based access controls intended to replace long-lived credentials, with no credit card or time limit required.

Governing every kind of enterprise agent

Hush says enterprises are no longer dealing with a single category of AI software.

During the interview, Rave described three broad classes emerging inside organizations:

• Desktop coding assistants and productivity agents such as Claude, Cursor and VS Code integrations.

• Enterprise AI platform agents running on services such as Microsoft Foundry, Salesforce Agentforce or AWS AgentCore.

• Custom agents organizations build internally for business processes or customer-facing applications.

Each introduces different governance challenges, but all ultimately require controlled access to enterprise systems.

The problem, according to Hush, is that many agents currently authenticate using inherited human credentials or long-lived API keys, making it difficult to determine whether an action originated from a person or from an autonomous system acting on that person's behalf.

"If I see something in the Salesforce logs," Rave said during the interview, "did the user do that, or was it the agent the user was using?"

That attribution challenge becomes increasingly significant as organizations begin deploying multiple autonomous systems capable of initiating actions without direct human approval.

Existing identity tools weren't designed for AI agents

Rather than replacing identity providers or secrets managers, Hush positions itself as filling a gap between them.

Traditional IAM platforms authenticate employees. Secrets managers store credentials. Neither, the company argues, governs the runtime behavior of autonomous software acting on behalf of humans across multiple systems.

Hush says its platform continuously discovers known and shadow agents across enterprise environments, assigns ownership, brokers just-in-time credentials and records every interaction in a centralized audit trail. According to its product documentation, organizations do not need to modify their existing agents because the platform operates by brokering access requests rather than changing application logic.

That identity-first approach is attracting customers already deploying enterprise AI initiatives.

IT infrastructure services provider Kyndryl says it has deployed Hush internally and has begun offering the platform to enterprise customers.

"Our collaboration with Hush is rooted in a shared security philosophy: identity is the ultimate control point for the modern agentic workforce," said Adeel Saeed, senior vice president and CTO for Global Cyber Resiliency at Kyndryl, in a prepared statement.

Akamai's participation in the funding round similarly reflects what the company sees as an architectural rather than incremental shift.

"AI agents are driving the next transformation, and identity is the piece most companies haven't solved yet," said Ramanath Iyer, Akamai's chief strategist.

Security priorities are moving beyond the model itself

The broader AI security market has spent the past two years focused largely on prompt injection, model vulnerabilities, jailbreaks and LLM safety. Those remain active research areas, but enterprise deployments increasingly face operational questions around what autonomous systems are permitted to access and how those actions can be governed.

Hush argues that identity is becoming the enforcement layer for answering those questions.

Rather than asking whether an AI model can safely generate code or summarize documents, enterprises increasingly need to determine which systems an agent may access, whose authority it exercises, how permissions are delegated, and how every action can be traced back to an accountable owner.

Whether Hush's identity-centric approach becomes the dominant model remains to be seen. But as enterprises move from experimenting with AI assistants to deploying thousands of autonomous software agents, the company is betting that the next major security challenge won't be securing the models themselves—it will be securely managing the identities of the software acting on their behalf.

Presented by NTT DATA AIVista

VentureBeat’s June research found that 69% of enterprises are still running AI agents that share credentials, a practice associated with higher rates of security incidents and near-incidents.

But at VB Transform 2026, Mukesh Karki, CTO of NTT DATA AIVista, and Mayank Upadhyay, chief security and trust officer at Snowflake, argued that fixing identity is only the first step. Enterprises also need action-level authorization and tamper-resistant audit trails built into every agent interaction if they’re going to deploy autonomous systems safely at scale.

"These organizations need to be able to prove to their auditors in a very tamper-resistant fashion that those records showing what they did actually prove what they're doing," Karki said. "And the provability is essentially your license to operate in a regulatory environment."

Why shared credentials cause agentic AI security incidents

The problem, Upadhyay says, is many assumptions were carried over from an earlier generation of software.

"In the traditional software world, a human being clicks somewhere and the software does something very deterministic, and you know which API it's going to call," he said. "But in the agentic world, the software has a brain of its own, and it's constantly rewiring itself. If you give this software more permission than it needs for a particular goal, agents are exploratory by nature, so they're going to try lots of different things, and you'll have unintended side effects."

Embedding a single static API key compounds the exposure, he added.

"It's a really bad pattern if you have one API key, you shove it into the agent, and it's talking as anybody to a particular SaaS service, because then you're giving this agent the union of everybody's needs," he said, noting that the second failure mode is forensic, since "things may go wrong, and you wouldn't be able to attribute it to the right agent."

Scoped credentials are only the starting point in regulated industries

Karki, whose clients are mostly in insurance, healthcare, and finance, treats scoped credentials as table stakes.

"In a regulatory setting, an agent that's not broadly scoped with shared scope credentials is not going to run, period," Karki said. "Having a scope credential is just a starting point. There are actually two layered constraints. One is the jurisdiction in which the agent operates, and then it's the jurisdiction or the rules of that organization."

For instance, a claims adjustment agent in Washington State operates on different regulations than one in California, he adds, and every claim is different.

"Those scoped credentials are not enough, because it has to be action-based and rules-based at the time it's taking action," he added.

Where the employee analogy for AI agents breaks down

The employee analogy, Karki argued, only goes so far. Agents still need to learn an organization’s unique context, much as a new employee does. But unlike people, enterprises can’t realistically build trust with thousands of agents over time.

“A star employee in one organization might not be the best employee when they move to a different organization, not because they became worse, but because they don’t have the context of this new place, and the same is true with agents,” Karki said. “If every employee has 100 agents, you can’t say you’re going to onboard these agents and do a background check on them.”

Upadhyay said the employee analogy should place agents one rung lower in the organizational hierarchy.

"Treat them like interns," he suggested. "They have good intent, but they don't always know what they're doing, and you have to keep your eye on them while you gradually build trust."

On the Snowflake platform, administrators can impose platform-wide guardrails such as read-only operations, while developers further narrow an agent’s permissions when they launch each session.

A three-layer approach to AI agent governance

There's no question where governance belongs, Karki says.

"Governance has to happen at every agent action, and it has to sit outside the agent," he explained. "That's the only way you'll be able to prove later that the agent took an action it was allowed to take."

Upadhyay broke governance into three layers:

The agent layer covers identity, tool permissions, and MCP governance.

The model layer addresses indirect prompt injection and enables models to run inside the customer’s VPC so prompts remain invisible to the model provider.

The data layer covers least-privilege access, zero-copy architecture, and role-based access control.

For agents to work properly, governance is required across all three.

What enterprises should audit first

For enterprises auditing the governance of existing AI agents, Upadhyay recommends starting in two places. The first is auditing permissions for static secrets, the largest fixable attack vector. Next is addressing shadow AI through an MCP gateway, so developers no longer have to run bootlegged open-source MCP servers under their desks and administrators have visibility into who’s talking to which MCP server.

There's a tradeoff between constraint and capability, and that can be addressed at the task level, with confidence scoring used to withhold autonomous execution on high-risk actions, and sandboxing as a middle path. But Karki cautions enterprises already scaling their agentic systems.

"A lot of this can't be retrofitted after you have an agentic system running, and it's even harder to retrofit if you have to prove to your auditors why exactly the agent behaved the way it did," he explained. "Provability has to be built ground up when you're designing the system."

Sponsored articles are content produced by a company that is either paying for the post or has a business relationship with VentureBeat, and they’re always clearly marked. For more information, contact sales@venturebeat.com.

A security team approving an open-source model for production today starts with a repository page. The page lists the model name, the license, and a tag identifying the base model it descended from. That tag is a string the uploader typed. Hugging Face does not require uploaders to substantiate the claim through weight-level analysis.

The ATOM Report, published by Nathan Lambert and Florian Brand at Interconnects AI in April 2026, tracked roughly 1,500 mainline open models. ATOM identifies derivatives through the Hugging Face base_model tag, a field the uploader populates, filtering to models whose base model appears in the tracked list and that have more than five lifetime downloads and excluding GGUF and MLX re-uploads. By that measure, Alibaba’s Qwen family is the declared parent of 69% of new open-model derivatives as of February 2026, up from 1% in January 2024. Chinese labs overall account for 70%. Europe sits at 4%. Cumulative tracked downloads across the three regions reached 2.04 billion through March 2026.

The verification gap extends to scan coverage. Cisco Foundation AI scans every public file uploaded to Hugging Face through an updated ClamAV engine, and the platform surfaces a file-level badge per file. Hugging Face’s own malware scanning documentation notes a file with neither an ok nor an infected badge may be queued, still scanning, or errored. At a given review point, a repository may contain files without completed scan results. Coverage has been an assumption, not an attribute anyone could read before approving a model.

From command line to public lookup

Cisco on Thursday published the AI Supply Chain Provenance Explorer, a free public database covering almost 900 open models. Each entry can carry provider headquarters, a fingerprinted lineage graph, license restrictions, and a files-scanned count. The tool extends Cisco’s Model Provenance Kit, an open-source Python toolkit released in April that fingerprinted roughly 150 base models across 45+ families and 20+ publishers. Coverage grew roughly sixfold in a quarter.

The April release was a command-line tool. Running it meant a local Python environment, downloading model weights that run into tens of gigabytes, and dedicating engineer hours per model. The Explorer queries results Cisco already computed. On Thursday, verifying parentage starts with a search bar, and cost is why enterprises run open weights in the first place.

Amy Chang, head of AI Threat Intelligence and Security Research at Cisco, has been building the case for why verification gaps matter. During a VB Transform 2026 agentic security panel, Chang presented findings from 6,986 multi-turn attacks against 15 flagship models, with success rates reaching 88.3%. "If you don’t understand how models are susceptible to different types of attacks, then you are unable to account for how that model that is powering your agent, that is powering your application, to understand where those failure points are," Chang told the audience. Understanding failure points starts with knowing which model you are running.

The Explorer also surfaces data Cisco already uses operationally. The company’s Cerberus system inspects models entering Hugging Face and feeds Secure Access policies that block by risky license or region of origin. The Explorer makes that class of information free and searchable without a Cisco product.

How fingerprinting replaces the tag

The Explorer grounds model relationships in similarity scores rather than self-reported metadata. Cisco’s Model Provenance Kit works in two scored stages. Stage one compares architecture metadata before loading any weights. When metadata is ambiguous, stage two extracts five weight-level signals. Embedding Anchor Similarity captures geometric relationships that survive fine-tuning. Embedding Norm Distribution encodes word frequency patterns. Norm Layer Fingerprint reads layers stable across fine-tuning. Layer Energy Profile compares distributions across network depth. Weight-Value Cosine directly compares weight values, and independently trained models show essentially zero correlation on this signal. Cisco reported 96.4% accuracy on its own 111-pair benchmark at a 0.70 threshold, with an F1 of 0.963. Four pairs were misclassified, all involving extreme architectural transformation that Cisco calls a fundamental limit of pairwise weight comparison.

Tokenizer signals are computed for diagnostics but deliberately excluded from the provenance score. StableLM and Pythia both use the GPT-NeoX tokenizer and would score as related despite sharing no weight lineage. Excluding tokenizer data prevents false positives.

Behavioral fingerprinting adds a second approach. Jonah Leshin, Manish Shah, and Ian Timmis at Project VAIL, working with Daniel Kang at UIUC, published work on behavioral endpoint stability showing that a model endpoint can stay healthy while its effective identity changes through weight updates, quantization, or routing. Cisco’s launch blog states the Explorer integrates both static fingerprinting and behavioral-similarity analysis to ground the lineage graph. Static analysis supplies weight-level evidence of training-time derivation. Behavioral analysis catches runtime identity drift.

Where existing tools fall short

The Explorer carries real limits. Almost 900 models is a meaningful start, but Hugging Face hosts more than 2 million as of spring 2026. Models outside the boundary still depend on the self-reported tag. Cisco has not said whether the Explorer exposes an API, and without one, a team can look models up by hand but cannot wire the check into a CI gate. That is the line between a governance artifact and a control.

Traditional SCA tools face a structural mismatch because they were built for dependency manifests and container images. Sakshi Grover, senior research manager for cybersecurity at IDC, said in CSO Online that traditional SCA "was designed to inspect dependency manifests, libraries, and container images" and "is far less effective at identifying" the risks tied to AI workflows. Gartner director analyst Jaishiv Prakash told the same outlet that enterprises need "dedicated controls for model sources, approved versions, access, and runtime validation at the registry layer." Both were commenting on broader supply chain risks, but the gap they describe is the one the Explorer targets.

Cisco’s Model Provenance Constitution defines where one model counts as a derivative of another. The constitution defaults to labeling ambiguous pairs as independent, because a false positive triggers a licensing accusation while a false negative gets caught during manual review. That deliberate conservatism supports the 96.4% accuracy figure. Derivation is not binary, and fingerprinting is one form of evidence alongside documentation and checkpoint verification.

What goes in the approval record

On August 2, the European Commission gains its AI Act enforcement powers over GPAI model providers, with fines up to 15 million euros or 3% of global turnover, whichever is higher. Organizations that substantially modify and place an open model on the EU market can acquire provider status, with Commission guidance treating modification compute exceeding one-third of the original’s. The Act’s open-source exemption under Article 53(2) requires a genuinely free and open-source license permitting access, use, modification, and redistribution, with weights, architecture, and usage information all public. Public weights alone do not qualify. Llama’s community license carries a monthly-active-user threshold and a disqualifier the Commission guidance names explicitly. Llama and Gemma together account for roughly a fifth of new derivatives in the ATOM counts, and both carry licenses the Commission criteria would likely disqualify. License classification becomes part of the provenance review, and that is exactly what the Explorer surfaces.

The board question that arrives first after a base-model vulnerability disclosure is straightforward: "Which of our production models inherits this weakness, and how do we know?" The answer today requires a manual hunt through repository pages, tracing self-reported tags that no weight-level analysis has confirmed. The Explorer converts that hunt into a lookup for the models it covers.

Four fields belong in the approval record that most organizations do not carry today. Fingerprint-supported derivation grounded in weight analysis rather than a self-reported tag. A files-scanned count replacing the assumption of coverage with a measurable scan count. Provider headquarters as a filterable field, recognizing that headquarters alone does not resolve export-control exposure, since ownership and deployment location also govern the screening. And license lineage surfaced so legal teams can identify potential upstream terms before a model reaches production.

Cisco released the Supply Chain Provenance Explorer today, and it is available at provenance.aidefense.cisco.com. The database is free, public, and does not require a Cisco product or account.

What changes for a security team on July 30

Visa aimed Anthropic's Claude Mythos at the infrastructure behind billions of daily transactions, a network that spans more than 200 countries and territories, moves money in roughly 160 currencies, and connects nearly 5 billion payment credentials to more than 175 million merchant locations.

The model stitched minor weaknesses deep in the stack into working exploit chains that would traditionally have surfaced only late in penetration testing. Rajat Taneja, Visa's president of technology, walked the VB Transform 2026 audience through what came next, including why Visa released the harness that governed the entire hunt as open source and why the company abandoned traditional remediation metrics for a measurement its team invented.

Taneja has run technology strategy, product engineering, and global infrastructure at Visa since 2019, after joining the company in 2013 from Electronic Arts, where he served as CTO following 15 years at Microsoft. He co-authored, with Visa chief information security officer Subra Kumaraswamy, the June 10 blog post announcing the release of the Visa Vulnerability Agentic Harness on GitHub as a reference implementation that any security team can inspect, adapt, and extend. Visa also published a technical white paper detailing the architecture, lessons learned, and 12 non-negotiable architectural practices for critical infrastructure.

Trust built on pessimism and paranoia

Taneja led with the arithmetic that makes Visa a target worth defending obsessively. Trust at the scale of global payments gets engineered through what he called pessimism and paranoia, by assuming failure and designing around it before failure arrives. The network has been hardened over many years through zero-trust architecture, layered defenses, and highly automated security operations built for the scale and reliability global payments demand.

So when Anthropic invited the organizations behind critical software to test Mythos under Project Glasswing, Visa said yes. Glasswing participants collectively identified more than 10,000 high- or critical-severity vulnerabilities in the first month of testing across software underpinning critical systems industry-wide, according to Anthropic. Anthropic's own conclusion placed the bottleneck after discovery, in verification, disclosure, and patching speed. Visa joined to test decades of hardening at AI speed and learn where advanced models could push its defenses further.

What Mythos showed at Visa

Inside Visa's environment, Mythos demonstrated system-wide, context-aware analysis, surfacing vulnerabilities buried deep in the stack and flagging issues that grow more serious when chained together, with findings clean enough that engineering teams could act on them without wading through noise. Some findings carried critical severity ratings, and Visa credits its zero-trust controls, network segmentation, and layered safeguards with breaking the chain before any external actor could have acted.

That confirmation mattered, Taneja said, but the epiphany that followed mattered more. "In a world of agentic attacks, defense also has to be agentic," he said. Even at a company that has invested decades in defense-in-depth, the model revealed assumptions the team had been operating under that needed rethinking. Traditional SAST tools keep their place as a first pass against known vulnerability patterns, Visa's white paper notes, but pattern matching alone cannot follow an adversary who reasons through logic, data flow, and the exploit chains that live between the signatures.

A harness, not a scanner

Visa's response was not another monolithic scanner. The team built the Visa Vulnerability Agentic Harness, now in its fifth generation, as a governed pipeline that directs frontier AI models through structured security tasks while enforcing deterministic controls, policy gates, and human oversight at every stage. Taneja walked through the design philosophy. The harness operates across four phases and eleven stages, from code ingestion and threat modeling through deep-dive verification, exploit chain synthesis, and finally remediation and fix validation.

Three design choices drive finding quality, per the project's own documentation. Threat modeling runs before analysis to focus on the attack surface rather than scanning everything blindly, multi-agent deterministic voting requires convergence across independent reasoning chains before a finding advances, and structured triage artifacts compress the lifecycle from discovery to a result developers can actually ship. The payoff is a pipeline that runs hot by default. A plain scan in the shipped profile runs all eleven stages and edits source files in the target repository in fix mode, applying candidate patches unless the operator stops it at detection.

The harness is multi-model by design. An LLM abstraction layer lets Visa swap or combine providers without changing the control plane, and the open-source version works with Anthropic Claude, OpenAI-compatible models, or a mix. The repo's documentation is candid about the exception. Applying a fix requires the file-editing tools that only the Anthropic backends expose, so the remediation and validation stages currently require Anthropic models for full functionality, and an OpenAI-compatible model in those roles is limited to report-only output. VentureBeat's Q2 2026 Pulse research, presented earlier at the conference, reinforces why that provider flexibility matters. Among the enterprises surveyed, 82% rely on provider-native controls as their primary security layer, and 59% plan to adopt or switch agent security tooling within the year. The controls enterprises adopted last year are already becoming the controls they plan to replace.

Mean Time to Adapt replaces legacy metrics

Finding vulnerabilities is no longer the hard part, Taneja argued. The real challenge is how quickly a team can confirm an issue is truly exploitable, fix it, and prove the attack path is closed rather than just showing a patch was applied. Visa calls this Mean Time to Adapt, and the white paper tracks it along three dimensions. Inventory freshness measures how current and complete the organization's view is of code, configuration, and runtime deployment. Exploitable paths per release counts how many end-to-end attack chains remain possible after each release, not just how many findings were closed. Validation cycle time tracks how long it takes to produce repeatable, evidence-backed proof that a fix works and stays working in production.

That distinction matters because legacy measures such as mean time to detect and raw CVE closure counts can look better on paper while actual exposure keeps growing underneath them. An organization can close hundreds of findings a month and still leave viable exploit chains open if nobody tested whether the patches actually break the attack. MTTA forces teams to measure the outcome that matters, and the white paper leans on CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities data to make the prioritization case, noting that fewer than 1% of CVEs are ever actively exploited. Visa's SSDLC policy now assumes every exploitable path will be exercised in production and requires it to be remediated before code is promoted.

Supply chain risk accelerates under AI

The conversation moved past Visa's own perimeter when Taneja turned to suppliers. A well-defended enterprise stays exposed through weak vendors and weak open-source components, the white paper warns, so Visa is making AI-specific security posture a non-negotiable dimension of supplier due diligence, with expectations for continuous vulnerability validation, living software bills of materials, and MTTA baselines across its technology stack.

Visa has also joined Project Lightwell, the $5 billion IBM and Red Hat initiative to harden widely used open-source components through AI-driven validation and coordinated patching, alongside financial institutions including Bank of America, JPMorganChase, Goldman Sachs, and Mastercard. The commitment extends the same logic upstream, because the MTTA clock does not pause at any single company's perimeter.

When agents start buying things

Securing agentic commerce is Visa's next problem. Taneja described a future where AI agents transact on behalf of consumers and enterprises, and said Visa is building the trust framework, identity layer, and agent readiness scoring that merchants will need before agents can safely complete transactions. Behind that work sits the Visa Payment Threats Lab, a simulation environment where real fraud scenarios get replayed against the authorization rules, thresholds, and configurations Visa actually runs, to surface AI-enabled failure modes as targeted hardening recommendations.

The identity challenge is not theoretical. VentureBeat's Pulse research found that 69% of enterprises already run credential sharing somewhere in their agent deployments, and companies with shared credentials report security incidents or near-misses at a 63.5% rate, against 40.9% where every agent has its own scoped identity. Visa's white paper addresses that gap directly, listing "AI agents are identities" among its 12 non-negotiable practices and requiring scoped permissions, least privilege enforcement, full audit trails, and inclusion in IAM governance for every agent that calls an API, reads data, or modifies a system.

Three priorities for defenders

Visa is organizing its defensive strategy around three priorities, Taneja said. Shift security left until exploitable flaws are designed out before they reach production, and replace high-risk, under-supported components before they turn into material exposure. The third is the heaviest lift at Visa's scale, refactoring defenses to run autonomously under human governance so detection, validation, and response keep pace as threat volume grows and the models behind attacks improve.

None of it requires a payment network's budget to start. The harness sits on GitHub with 595 stars and 97 forks as of July 20, MTTA needs a dashboard rather than a procurement cycle, and the white paper's 12 non-negotiable practices map onto architecture reviews security teams already run. Visa's own conclusion reads like a deadline. The opening to get ahead of machine-speed attackers is still there, the paper argues, and it will not stay open.

Presented by Vijil

In dynamic environments where users, data, workflows and attack techniques change continuously after deployment, AI agent trust has become a runtime problem. Most organizations still treat trust as a pre-deployment exercise, declaring an agent production-ready and launching it after it passes sandbox evaluations and performs successfully in security tests. Unfortunately, that trustworthiness breaks down the moment an agent begins interacting with the real world.

"The core of the problem is that CIOs and business owners think about AI systems the way they think about SaaS or mobile applications, which do not respond dynamically to the world around them," says Vin Sharma, Founder and CEO of Vijil. "Agents, by the textbook definition, are meant to perceive their environment, reason, act, observe the consequences, and learn from the gap between expectation and reality. The problem is that the models underneath them are built from static training data, and that picture of the world is already outdated by the time they reach production."

Why benchmark scores fall short for agentic system trustworthiness

Traditional AI evaluations offer a point-in-time assessment of agent capability, rather than trustworthiness. There are three reasons why that assessment fails to predict real enterprise behavior:

First, benchmarks are static, built around a particular notion of what good performance means when they were developed, while the world keeps moving ahead.

Secondly, they model reality imperfectly, so that the gap between the benchmark and the real world is exactly where many failures occur.

And third, benchmarks are public, so they leak into future models' training data, letting models effectively memorize the test rather than prove real capability..

“The agent or the application could score exceptionally well on a benchmark, but there's that gap between that benchmark and the real world," Sharma says." Doing well only proves it can pass the test, not that it’ll perform reliably in production.”

But overall, benchmarks fall short precisely because they measure capability, not trustworthiness.

"We tend to think of agents as factotums, generally utilitarian agents to whom you can delegate certain types of tasks," Sharma says. "But what we need to do is actually assign an objective that demands they always perform with the duty of competence, duty of care, and duty of loyalty to the enterprise."

Of course, agents are not conscious and cannot be expected to feel actual human loyalty, but under the law, fiduciary duty doesn't actually require consciousness. It just means that the agent should be bound to place the interests of the principal above its own or anyone else's, as a functional requirement, and testable regardless of intention.

Capability and trustworthiness are different questions

Prioritizing trustworthiness over capability requires rethinking what enterprises expect from AI agents. Sharma calls that model the fiduciary agent, a term borrowed from professions that are bound by a formal duty of care, such as financial institutions or healthcare providers who owe their clients duties of competence, care, and loyalty. It addresses a critical issue in today's industry: the focus almost entirely on competence, with little attention paid to whether an agent is beholden to the interests of the principal delegating work to it.

Testing starts from a working definition: an agent is trustworthy if the benefit of delegating a task to it exceeds the risk of that task's failure. It's an equation spelled out in economic terms that executives can act on directly, and risk breaks down to three components:

• reliability, or whether the agent performs as expected under varying conditions

• security, or its resistance to attacks from malicious actors

• and safety, or how contained the damage stays when failure eventually happens.

"The resulting score can be compared to a consumer credit rating, but built from behavioral data," Sharma explains. "Meanwhile, testing methodology should be centered around three Ps: purpose, personas, and policies."

At Vijil, purpose-based testing adapts to the specific workflow an agent handles, growing harder or easier depending on performance, similar to a computer-administered exam. Persona-based testing draws on more than a thousand demographically varied user profiles alongside adversary profiles, from ethical hackers to state-sponsored attackers, to simulate the range of people and threats an agent might encounter. Policy-based testing builds a custom harness from an organization's own rules, whether they come from regulation, an internal privacy policy, or brand guidelines, and measures how far an agent strays when it violates them.

The trust failures that only emerge in production

Many failures cannot surface during pre-production testing because they arise from change in the environment itself. Machine learning has previously described this as data drift and concept drift, and for a CIO or CSO it means the people interacting with an agent differ from those the agent was planned for, and those users behave in ways that only become visible in production. At the same time, new attacks are emerging with increasing frequency as organizations push general-purpose agents into specialized enterprise roles they weren’t designed for and cannot easily constrain once deployed.

Multi-agent systems also introduce a brand-new category of failure that can't be detected at the individual agent level, when agent systems act against the interests of the principal. For instance, collusion can occur when agents work together — one coding agent generates code while a second tests it, and behind the scenes both agree to leave a backdoor or flaw intact rather than flag it. Or agents divvy up tasks or responsibilities between themselves rather than focusing on their assigned tasks.

"What's no longer in question is whether this is possible. It's proven to exist," Sharma said. "Is it six, 12, 18 months from now that you should worry about collusion among AI agents? I think it's sooner than that. We've left the era of failure prevention. Now we have to think in terms of resilience: How quickly do you recover from failures in production?"

What continuous trust management looks like in practice

Operationally, continuous trust management goes back to those longstanding principles of observability and control, applied across the lifecycle of an agent population:

The first step is discovery, bringing shadow AI and ungoverned agents into the governance fold.

The second is assigning each agent a standards-based workload identity distinct from that of its human principal, which allows organizations to grant agents narrowly restricted permissions for their delegated tasks.

The third is policy-based control enforced through a mandatory enforcement point in the agent, instead of leaving it to the developer's discretion.

From there, two new KPIs emerge: time to trust and time to recovery. Time to trust is how long it takes an organization to move from intention to a production deployment it can stand behind. Time to recovery is the interval between when a vulnerability is detected and when it gets fixed.

New organizational responsibility for this work may fall to a chief AI officer or be shared across GRC, CIO and CSO functions, Sharma says. Meanwhile, multi-agent systems will reshape how organizations view trust, rather than fit into current narrow definitions.

"Trust is not a vibe. Trust is not a virtue," Sharma said. "It is something that you build into the infrastructure of your systems, so that it is continuous. It's trackable, measurable. It allows your systems and your organization to improve continuously."

Sponsored articles are content produced by a company that is either paying for the post or has a business relationship with VentureBeat, and they’re always clearly marked. For more information, contact sales@venturebeat.com.

Snowflake announced Cortex AI Gateway on Tuesday, a centralized control layer designed to govern how AI agents — including those built by competitors like Anthropic's Claude Code and Cursor — access enterprise data, tools, and models. Alongside the gateway, the company unveiled a first wave of security integrations with 1Password, Aembit, Linx Security, SailPoint, and Saviynt, an unusual lineup of identity vendors who often compete with one another, now aligned around a shared trust model for autonomous agents.

The announcement, made from the company's no-headquarters base in Bozeman, Montana, is Snowflake's most aggressive move yet to position itself not merely as the place where enterprise data lives, but as the control plane that decides what AI agents are allowed to do with it.

"The next era of AI won't be built through more walled gardens. It will be built through secure agent interoperability," Mayank Upadhyay, Snowflake's chief security and trust officer, told VentureBeat in an exclusive interview. "If every vendor builds a closed ecosystem of agents, enterprises simply recreate the fragmentation they've spent years trying to solve. Instead of breaking down silos, they create a new generation of AI silos that limit innovation and make it harder to scale AI across the business."

Why decades-old enterprise security models break when AI agents become the actors

The core argument animating today’s announcement is that decades of enterprise security architecture rests on an assumption that no longer holds — that the actor behind every access request is a person.

"Traditional security was built for a world where humans were the actors. AI agents change that completely. For decades, security models assumed people would access one application at a time, operating at human speed and within relatively defined boundaries," Upadhyay said. The deeper issue, he argued, is not novelty but exposure: "The challenge isn't that AI creates entirely new security problems. It's that AI exposes the blind spots we've always had."

Organizations have never had perfect visibility into every API, dataset, and workflow, Upadhyay noted, and at human speed those gaps were manageable. Agents operating at machine speed can "combine access across systems and act on permissions that were never intended to be exercised together, amplifying those longstanding risks." His conclusion: "In the agentic era, trust can't be a one-time decision made at login. It has to be continuously verified through every agent, every action, and every interaction across the enterprise."

Nancy Wang, chief technology officer of 1Password, described the failure mode in more visceral terms. When agents first arrived, she told VentureBeat, the default pattern was dangerously simple: "Let me just give the agent my credentials and it can just act as me... let's imagine you're the head of security or the head of IT, and you have access, especially admin access, to all of the systems. Well, now suddenly your agent now has admin access to all of the systems, and so it could exfil data... if it's subject to a prompt injection, for example."

The audit trail becomes equally useless, she added: "Imagine the audit logs show that Michael sent a couple million dollars to an offshore account... It raises eyebrows when, in fact, it could just be an agent going off the rails and doing things that you never authorized." Her prescription, and the premise of 1Password's integration with Snowflake, is blunt: "Agents need their own identity."

Inside Cortex AI Gateway: how Snowflake plans to govern agent access and rein in runaway AI costs

Cortex AI Gateway, which will enter public preview soon, functions as a connective layer for what Snowflake calls "all trusted agent activity." It governs both first-party agents built inside Snowflake, such as Snowflake CoWork and CoCo, and third-party agents built on external platforms. With support for more than 100 MCP servers — the Model Context Protocol connectors that have become the de facto standard for wiring agents to enterprise tools — the gateway centralizes access policies, authentication, permissions, and audit logging in a single place.

The gateway also addresses a less glamorous but increasingly urgent problem: runaway AI spending. It gives IT and finance teams a unified view of AI consumption, attributes costs to the specific teams, agents, or workloads driving them, and enforces spending limits before bills spiral.

Upadhyay described how those costs compound in practice. "AI is dynamic. Agents can invoke multiple models, call different tools, and execute multi-step workflows, creating consumption patterns that can change from one task to the next. For example, an enterprise may deploy an AI assistant to help employees answer internal questions. A simple request that only requires retrieving a document could unintentionally be routed through a more expensive reasoning model, trigger additional searches across multiple systems, or invoke unnecessary workflows." At scale, with thousands of employees and hundreds of agents, small inefficiencies become significant line items.

The gateway builds directly on Snowflake's May 2026 acquisition of Natoma, a 27-person startup whose centralized MCP gateway enforced identity, policy, and audit at the tool-call level. Forbes reported at the time that the deal — announced the same day as Snowflake's $1.33 billion quarterly product revenue report and a $6 billion AWS compute commitment — was the smallest of the day's three announcements by dollar value but the most revealing about where Snowflake believes the next platform fight sits: not in the data warehouse, but in the layer that decides what an agent may touch and records what it did.

Dual attribution and task-scoped access: the technical blueprint for trusting autonomous agents

The technical centerpiece of the partner integrations is what Snowflake calls dual attribution. "By logging both the verified non-human identity of the agent and the specific human who authorized the task, we ensure task-scoped access and complete auditability for every action taken across the enterprise," Upadhyay said. That answers a question that has stumped security teams: when an agent takes an action, whose action is it? The Snowflake model says the answer is both — the agent's, and the human's who delegated the task — and both must be recorded.

Task-scoped access is the companion principle. Rather than inheriting a user's full standing permissions, an agent gets access only to what a specific task requires. Upadhyay acknowledged the obvious objection — agents are dynamic and their next step often isn't known in advance. "The goal isn't to predict every action an agent will take. It's to ensure that every action an agent takes is evaluated in real time against the appropriate policies, scope, contextual signals, and the original intent of the user," he said.

Wang explained how 1Password's piece works at the protocol level, pointing to emerging standards like OIDC-A: "the human, for example, first authorizes the agent to do a specific task, and then what that means is the agent will then receive sort of the delegated task specific token... as part of that token, that is where you learn of the original sort of delegator identity and also the intent behind the task."

The intent-preservation problem is subtle, she noted, because enterprise tasks decompose into enormous chains of individual operations. "When they're accessing a table, you know that it's acting on behalf of the original intent that you gave that agent... a task might be a compilation of hundreds, maybe even thousands, individual actions." Keeping that intent intact across every step in the chain — and flagging the moment an agent deviates from it — is what Snowflake and its partners are ultimately trying to standardize.

SailPoint's field report: the three ways enterprise identity systems fail against AI agents

Chandra Gnanasambandam, SailPoint's EVP of product and chief technology officer, brought the perspective of a vendor that has watched enterprises break their identity stacks against this problem for more than a year. SailPoint has been in the machine and agent security market for roughly 18 months, he said, with more than 100 customers on its agent identity product — enough of a sample to catalog the recurring failures.

The first is scale-driven shallowness. An average Fortune 500 company has roughly 16,000 employees, and SailPoint is seeing human-to-non-human identity ratios of at least 10 to 1 — before counting the tools and APIs each agent touches, which multiply the count again. "You will get into a million plus non-human identities. Mapping the permissions that each of them get to the 16,000 humans is a completely non-trivial task," he said. Most companies punt, mapping agents to humans at the directory-group level. "That is grossly insufficient. You want to have fine grain context. Like I said, it's not access to Snowflake. It's access to what column and what data inside Snowflake you need."

The second failure mode is drift. Modern models are relentless goal-seekers, and that persistence cuts both ways. "When you tell them get this done, the underlying models are so powerful now. Even the weaker models are so powerful. They will go find a way to get it done... They will go find the vulnerabilities to bypass the permission to get it done," Gnanasambandam warned. The answer, he argued, is runtime monitoring of the entire interaction chain, compared continuously against policy, with automatic intervention when an agent escalates beyond what its human delegator authorized.

The third is missing data context. Many vendors, he argued, announce splashy integrations with big application platforms while ignoring where the actual risk concentrates. "That's not where the risk lies. Risk lies in sensitive data, so the details matter here... Can you map specific columns and rows in Databricks, Snowflake, Redshift, Oracle... into the agent context and the human context? And if you can't do that, you are going to have gaps and holes."

SailPoint's answer required tearing out two decades of architecture. "We rewrote our underlying data and object model to treat AI identity as a first-class object, because for 20 years, SailPoint had a data model and object model that supported the human identity, and AI identities are fundamentally different," Gnanasambandam said, describing 12 to 18 months of deep engineering work. The result is what he calls a unified lineage: "From human to master agent to sub agent to tool to application to data. That's what I call the steel chain. That is in one data model, one platform."

Why rival identity vendors joined Snowflake's trust framework — and what each side gets out of it

Perhaps the most striking aspect of today’s announcement is the roster. 1Password, SailPoint, Saviynt, Okta, and Aembit compete for overlapping identity and access budgets. Snowflake convinced them to build against a common trust framework anyway.

"The reason we brought together leaders across the security ecosystem is because no single company can solve the agent security challenge alone. AI agents can't deliver real value if they only operate within the boundaries of one platform," Upadhyay said. His broader thesis frames the whole strategy: "Nobody wants to replace data silos with AI silos."

Wang offered a pragmatic division of labor: "We bring the trust, and Snowflake brings a system of record." She framed the collaboration as classic defense in depth — "there are data level controls, and there are identity level controls, and so together we can create a much stronger ecosystem play."

There is self-interest in the openness, of course. Snowflake sits atop an enormous concentration of sensitive enterprise data — more than 13,900 customers, by the company's count — and every third-party agent that touches that data through a governed Snowflake gateway deepens the platform's gravitational pull.

As Constellation Research analyst Michael Ni put it when the Natoma deal was announced, in comments reported by CIO.com: data platforms won the analytics era, and whoever governs agents, context, and autonomous actions wins the agentic one. A Forbes analysis of the same acquisition flagged the tension directly, noting that a governance layer living inside Snowflake risks pulling MCP's openness back toward a single vendor's control plane — attractive for Snowflake-standardized shops, more awkward for genuinely multi-vendor agent stacks.

Analyst forecasts show agent governance is now a trillion-dollar race against the clock

The urgency behind today’s announcement is not manufactured. Gartner predicts that by 2027, governance gaps discovered only after production incidents will force 40% of enterprises to demote or decommission autonomous AI agents — with analysts there warning that the greatest risk an agent poses often lies not in its output but in the actions it is empowered to take. IDC, meanwhile, expects more than 1 billion actively deployed AI agents by 2029, executing roughly 217 billion actions per day, and forecasts agentic AI will exceed $1.3 trillion in worldwide IT spending that year. The research firm's analysts now argue agentic platforms should be treated as decision infrastructure, not productivity software.

Against that backdrop, the identity layer is becoming the contested ground, and every major vendor — Salesforce, ServiceNow, Microsoft, Google, Okta — is racing toward the same runtime-governance chokepoint. Snowflake's differentiator is proximity to the data itself. As Upadhyay put it, security "can't just be an API proxy sitting in front of an LLM. It has to anchor all the way down into the underlying data layer, enforcing zero-copy boundaries, dynamic data masking, and real-time exfiltration safeguards before an agent ever touches a row of data."

The rollout now moves to proving ground. Cortex AI Gateway enters public preview soon, and the five partner integrations enter private preview, a phase Wang described as a deliberate feedback loop — customers on day one get an agent-access broker plus "a full audit log that will show you, for example, what that agent is actually doing," even when an agent deviates from its intent. Gnanasambandam, characteristically, wants enterprises to skip the easy demos entirely, urging customers to bring loan-origination workflows spanning three clouds and ten applications, half of them mainframes: "Give us that complex use case and bring anyone on and do it in your context, and we will take the challenge with anyone in the world."

That confidence — from a field of rivals, no less — captures what makes this moment unusual. The companies that spent the last decade fighting over who verifies human identity have concluded, more or less simultaneously, that the next decade belongs to whoever can verify the machines acting on our behalf. Upadhyay distilled the wager into a single line: "The future of AI won't be won by the organizations with the most agents, but by the organizations that can govern those agents with the most trust, visibility, and control." In the agentic enterprise, it turns out, trust isn't the guardrail. It's the product.

Microsoft opened a new front in the AI security wars on Monday, unveiling its first custom-built cybersecurity model and a sweeping agentic defense platform — and making an argument that could reshape how enterprises buy AI: the future belongs not to the biggest model, but to the cheapest one that's good enough, routed intelligently.

The company announced MAI-Cyber-1-Flash, a compact security model developed in-house by its Microsoft AI (MAI) division, embedded inside MDASH, Microsoft's multi-agent harness for finding and fixing software vulnerabilities. Together, the company says, the system scores 96% on CyberGym — a benchmark measuring how well AI systems reason over large codebases to find real vulnerabilities — beating frontier models including Mythos, Gemini, and GPT, while cutting costs roughly in half compared to Microsoft's own current production configuration.

Alongside the model, Microsoft introduced Project Perception, an agentic security system that coordinates "red team" agents that hunt for paths to compromise, "blue team" agents that investigate and triage risk, and "green team" agents that remediate and harden defenses. Project Perception enters public preview on August 3.

In a wide-ranging interview with VentureBeat, Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman made clear the company sees Monday's announcement as the opening move in a much longer campaign.

"We really do have a pretty significant data and harness and expertise moat, and that is enabling us to train models which are faster, better, cheaper, and I think this is genuinely the tip of the iceberg," Suleyman said. "We haven't been working on this for long. The next model is going to be pretty phenomenal."

Inside the 90/10 architecture that still depends on OpenAI's GPT-5.4

The most technically revealing detail in the announcement is not the model itself but how Microsoft deploys it. MAI-Cyber-1-Flash was designed to handle up to 90% of security tasks efficiently, while MDASH escalates the remaining 10% of exceptionally difficult problems to a larger frontier model — which, notably, is OpenAI's GPT-5.4. In other words, Microsoft's flagship security AI still leans on its longtime partner-turned-rival for the hardest work.

Asked to explain that relationship, Suleyman pointed to the harness, the orchestration layer that routes each incoming problem to the right model. "The harness is like a router," he told VentureBeat. "It's kind of like guardrails and a rule set of an organizing logic, which matches queries to... incoming problems to a model that suits the problem." The system has three components, he explained: the harness, the small and fast MAI-Cyber-1-Flash handling the bulk of queries, and GPT-5.4 sitting alongside as "just a generalist coding model."

Pressed on how a system reliant on OpenAI's model can outperform frontier competitors, Suleyman argued the performance comes from the whole system, not any single model. "These are very complicated, long, agentic loops which require storing state, drawing on another database, consulting best practice... handing back to a small model, writing a bunch of code, validating that that was correct," he said. "There's like hundreds of steps to solve that, and that's why it's really the system together that delivers the better performance."

And why GPT-5.4 specifically for the escalation tier? Cost, again. "GPT-5.6 is expensive. GPT-5.4 is incredibly good relative to its cost," Suleyman said. "The whole game here is to reduce the costs. Mythos and so on are extremely expensive models... we want to be able to deliver better performance for cheaper. That's what customers want." The arrangement captures Microsoft's evolving posture toward OpenAI: still a customer of the partnership that drew regulatory scrutiny in Brussels and Washington in 2024, but increasingly determined to own the layers of the stack where it believes it holds durable advantages.

Why token costs — not model quality — are becoming the real barrier to enterprise AI adoption

The economics may matter more than the benchmark. Microsoft says the new configuration delivers roughly 50% cost savings against the current MDASH setup, which runs a blend of GPT-5.4, 5.4 mini, and 5.3 codex. In security — an always-on workload processing enormous volumes of signals — token costs compound relentlessly, and Microsoft argues they have become the binding constraint for defenders.

Suleyman frames the cost issue as downstream of a harder physical limit. "The key barrier to adoption is access to chips, and cost is a function of chips," he said. "No matter how much money you've got, there's actually a limited supply of chips. Then trying to squeeze more model output on fewer chips is clearly super valuable."

He also described a broader enterprise backlash against frontier-model pricing. Companies initially maxed out on the best available models, he said, but "then they realize they're sort of paying... a phenomenal amount of money, and people are absolutely token maxing everywhere across their business. So there's a massive pushback to reduce cost everywhere."

That positions Microsoft to ride a market trend rather than fight it. Cost-efficient, near-frontier models have proliferated over the past year — from xAI's recent Grok release to a wave of Chinese models built on the same premise — and Microsoft is betting that as a platform company it can align itself with enterprise cost pressure. "The top model providers want you to use the most expensive model continuously, whereas because we are a platform, we're on the side of the enterprise," Suleyman said. "There's no point asking... Mythos what the capital of France is."

The 100-trillion-signal data moat Microsoft says no competitor can replicate

Every AI lab claims differentiation. Microsoft's claim in security rests on something genuinely hard to copy: telemetry. The company processes more than 100 trillion security signals daily — a figure consistent with its 2025 Digital Defense Report, which also cited 4.5 million new malware files blocked and 5 billion emails screened per day — and draws operational insight from 1.6 million customers.

"We have trillions and trillions of data points going back decades," Suleyman said. "It is, I think, the largest longitudinal cybersecurity dataset around," in part because Microsoft's customer base includes governments "who have been consistently attacked for years, and we have been consistently attacked." Asked directly whether this constitutes an advantage no competitor can match, Suleyman didn't hedge: "That is definitely a moat for us. Both the data and the expertise, and just the experience in the institution of going through that process."

The strategic logic is that cybersecurity functions as a live reinforcement-learning loop: defenders act, outcomes are observed, models improve. Microsoft argues that connecting actions to outcomes — what was exploited, what was contained, what was blocked — yields training signal that pure model labs simply cannot buy or manufacture.

There is real substance here, but the usual caveats apply. The CyberGym results come from Microsoft's own evaluation, the fine print shows the headline "96%" is actually 95.95%, and vendor-run benchmarks that pit an entire tuned agentic system against competitors' base models are not apples-to-apples comparisons. What Microsoft has measured is a full harness-plus-models configuration against what customers might otherwise assemble — arguably the commercially relevant comparison, but not a controlled model-versus-model test.

The dual-use dilemma: how Microsoft plans to keep a vulnerability-hunting AI out of the wrong hands

A model built to find challenging vulnerabilities in complex codebases is, by definition, a model that could find vulnerabilities for attackers. This is not a theoretical concern. Microsoft's own threat intelligence team, in joint research with OpenAI published in February 2024, documented nation-state actors from Russia, North Korea, Iran, and China probing large language models for reconnaissance, scripting, and vulnerability research. Its 2025 Digital Defense Report went further, warning that AI agents could eventually automate the entire attack lifecycle.

Suleyman said Microsoft is gating access accordingly. "We're very strict about who gets access to the model, and we're very careful about that," he said. "We constantly monitor the API and usage." An approved user, he added, "has to be seen to be having good intent, but also have technical competence." The rollout will be deliberately staged: "It's not going to be thousands next week. There will be tens, and then hundreds, and then thousands."

Microsoft says the model was evaluated by its AI Red Team, subjected to automated and expert-led adversarial exercises, and independently assessed by a third party, with deployment wrapped in tenant isolation, auditing, and sandboxed execution environments with no internet access.

Suleyman also offered a candid acknowledgment of Microsoft's positioning relative to the bleeding edge — one that doubles as a pitch to risk-averse buyers. "Even though we might be a few months behind the absolute cutting edge at any given moment... it matters that we're doing it very carefully and thoughtfully, and we have a track record of doing that," he said. For a company that spent 2024 absorbing hard security lessons — from delaying its Recall feature over privacy concerns to convening an industry summit after the CrowdStrike outage disabled some 8.5 million Windows devices — that trust-first framing is both strategy and necessity.

What Microsoft's superintelligence roadmap signals about the future of enterprise AI

Suleyman described a rapidly accelerating MAI roadmap, roughly nine months after Microsoft stood up its superintelligence team. "We have the compute that we need. We certainly have the data we need. We have the talent," he said. "Our momentum is accelerating rapidly." The top enterprise demand he's hearing is for "agents that can produce arbitrary code to solve whatever problem they direct them at," as vibe-coded internal tools graduate from experiments into production. The next phase, he said, pulls voice, transcription, image, and coding models "all integrated into the same harness."

Notably, Suleyman expressed skepticism about the industry's default assumption that everything eventually converges into one giant unified model. "It remains to be seen whether one giant model that is fully multimodal is actually able to deliver additional transfer learning benefit because of the integration," he said, "or whether it's just a big lumbering expensive giant."

That skepticism is the through line of the entire announcement. Microsoft is wagering that the unit of competition in enterprise AI is no longer the model at all — it's the system: the router, the specialized small models, the frontier fallback, and the proprietary data feeding the loop. In security, where Microsoft controls both the telemetry flowing in and the products that act on it, that wager is at its strongest. Whether it holds in domains where the company's data advantage is thinner remains the open question hanging over the MAI roadmap.

For now, though, Microsoft has offered the industry a preview of how it intends to fight the next phase of the AI race: not by building the biggest brain, but by building the best machine around it. As Suleyman put it, this is the tip of the iceberg — and Microsoft is betting everything on what sits below the waterline.

The same attacker broke into the same internet-facing Langflow server twice, and the second time brought ransomware built to destroy trained AI models. Sysdig's Threat Research Team documented the first campaign on July 1 and the second on July 20. The entry point never changed, but the payload changed completely.

Both ran through CVE-2025-3248, a missing-authentication flaw in Langflow's code-validation endpoint that lets anyone reaching the server execute Python on it. In the first, the agent improvised, encrypting 1,342 Alibaba Nacos configuration items with MySQL's own encryption function and dropping the tables. In the second, it staged ENCFORGE, a compiled Go binary sweeping roughly 180 file extensions.

ENCFORGE was built for AI assets, not adapted to them

What gives the design away is the extension list. Sysdig found PyTorch and TensorFlow checkpoints, Hugging Face SafeTensors weights, the GGUF format behind most local LLM deployment, FAISS vector indexes and training data in Parquet and NumPy.

Generic ransomware picks up model files by accident because it encrypts everything. ENCFORGE names them.

Its flag for appending formats uses LoRA adapters and legacy GGML weights as the example, and an attacker who writes that knows whose machines these are.

Michael Clark, who leads Sysdig's threat research team, framed the objective as destroying "the one thing an organization can't simply restore." ENCFORGE carries no network code. Sysdig found no outbound dial in the binary, no leak site and no payment portal, and the identical Proton Mail contact in both ransom notes ties the campaigns to the crew it tracks as JADEPUFFER. The agent harvested credentials on the way in, but the locker cannot exfiltrate anything, so its only pressure is making files unusable. It encrypts regions of a file rather than the whole file, under AES-256-CTR with a per-run key wrapped in an embedded RSA-2048 key, the speed optimization established ransomware families use to ruin large files fast.

Your backup plan probably does not cover model weights

Restoring a database from Friday's snapshot costs a weekend of transactions. Restoring a fine-tuned model costs everything learned since Friday, none of it stored as rows to replay.

Rebuilding one is not a restore job. Sysdig puts direct recovery for a production-ready fine-tuned model between $75,000 and $500,000, reflecting cloud GPU rates across the training runs a usable result requires plus the engineering hours behind them. That is per model, and teams keep several variants on shared storage. If the training data sits on the same host as the weights, recovery is blocked until the dataset is rebuilt. Paying is no way out either. In the first campaign, the encryption key was generated at random, printed to the console once and never saved, which made that payload a wiper wearing a ransom note.

That figure makes the argument fundable. Kayne McGladrey, an IEEE Senior Member who has spent his career in identity security, told VentureBeat that security teams lose these fights by filing the exposure under the wrong heading. Companies "should be focused on business risks rather than some, you know, cybersecurity risk, because if it doesn't affect the business, like a loss or financial loss, in this case, predominantly, then nobody's going to pay any action to it, and they will not budget it appropriately, nor will they adequately put in controls to prevent it," he said. A destroyed model carries a known replacement cost, which is the version of this story a CFO acts on.

Official guidance has not caught up. In May 2025 the NSA's Artificial Intelligence Security Center, CISA and the FBI published "AI Data Security," the most authoritative document on the subject, co-sealed with the U.K., Australia and New Zealand. The three risks it names are the data supply chain, maliciously modified data and data drift. All three ask whether the data can be trusted. ENCFORGE asks whether it still exists.

It built its own escape hatch in five minutes

The delivery failure is where this campaign shows its hand.

After confirming execution, the agent swept the host for cloud keys, connection strings and API tokens, replayed them against internal database and cache services, and found the Docker socket at /var/run/docker.sock, which is functionally root. It then tried to pull the ransomware binary from its command and control server, and the fetch did not land.

Rather than retry, it changed strategy, building six Python scripts through the Langflow channel and converging on a working host escape in five minutes and 24 seconds, each correcting a failure in the one before it. The final script finds the host process ID through the Docker API, copies the binary across the namespace boundary, runs the encryption, then counts the files to confirm it worked. In the first campaign, that same behavior was a failed login diagnosed and fixed in 31 seconds.

The problem got harder and the method held. Sam Evans, then CISO at Clearwater Analytics, put it in budget terms. "In security, it's all about dwell time," he told VentureBeat in an exclusive interview. "If there's a bad actor in your environment and they've been there for a while, your dwell time is increased, therefore the blast radius has increased. Probability of it becoming a material incident is exponentially high."

Mike Riemer, Ivanti's SVP Network Security Group and Field CISO, has watched that pivot become standard. Vendors hardened the front door, he told VentureBeat, so attackers quit knocking. "I can't get through the front door, so let me get somebody his house key, and I can make it through the back door with a house key," he said. Behind it sits whatever teams assume is covered, because "they don't sit out directly on the internet, and they're behind a protection barrier, but they're not."

No one claimed a machine did this unsupervised. TechCrunch reported on July 6 that the first operation still needed a person to pick the target and stand up infrastructure, and Sysdig could not trace the root credentials. A human aimed this one, and everything after ran with nobody at the keyboard.

Heath Renfrow, co-founder and CISO at breach-recovery firm Fenix24, told Infosecurity Magazine that when an agent compresses hours of operator work into minutes, "defenders lose valuable time." Whether the attacker was AI-driven does not change the response.

The door had been open for 14 months

CVE-2025-3248 carries a CVSS score of 9.8. CISA added it to the Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog on May 5, 2025, with a federal deadline of May 26, and Langflow fixed it in 1.3.0. When JADEPUFFER came back in July 2026, the server was more than fourteen months past that listing and already documented publicly as a breach victim.

Riemer put a number on how little time that leaves. "If I release a patch and a customer doesn't patch within 72 hours of that release, they're open to exploit, because that's how fast they can now do it," he said, adding most customers need a week to patch by hand. Set 72 hours against fourteen months, and the gap stops reading as one lapse.

Nothing in either campaign was new. The first forged a Nacos admin token with a default signing key public since 2020, walked through CVE-2021-29441, an authentication bypass Alibaba patched in 2021, and found a MinIO store on minioadmin:minioadmin. Sysdig counted more than 600 payloads, every one leaning on a known misconfiguration or a patched bug left exposed. The second added an exposed Docker socket. Every weakness was routine. Assembling them at machine speed was not.

Langflow draws this attention because of what it holds. VentureBeat reported in June that roughly 7,000 instances sit exposed, most in North America, holding provider API keys, cloud credentials and live connections to the vector stores ENCFORGE was built to encrypt. Riemer puts it bluntly. "When you put your security at the edge of your network, you're inviting the entire world in to the edge of your network," he said.

CISA has added five Langflow flaws to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog, two of them this month. Five Langflow flaws now sit on the KEV catalog, two of them this month. CISA added CVE-2026-55255 on July 7, a cross-tenant bypass letting any authenticated user on a shared instance run another tenant's flows with that tenant's credentials, which the maintainers' advisory rates 9.9 and fixed in 1.9.1.

On July 21, CISA added CVE-2026-0770, and that one is worse. Trend Micro found an unauthenticated path to root code execution through the exec_globals parameter, on the same validate endpoint JADEPUFFER came through, rated 9.8. KEVIntel logged exploitation from June 27, more than 220 attempts across 64 addresses. According to founder Ryan Dewhurst, speaking to BleepingComputer, the payloads reached past reconnaissance for AWS credentials and container metadata. Federal agencies had until July 24.

None of this is an exotic environment. A Cloud Security Alliance survey of 418 professionals, commissioned by Token Security, found 82% of organizations had discovered AI agents nobody knew about, and 65% had handled an agent-related incident in the past year.

McGladrey traces the permission half back four decades. Companies always cloned one employee's access profile onto the next hire, and now do it with agents. An agent "does whatever it needs to do to get its job done," he said, and it "uses far more permissions that it shouldn't have... than a human would do, because of the speed of scale and also intent."

What to do before the board asks

"Every time some new ransomware attack is published in the news, we get the inquiry from the board. What are we doing about this?" Evans said. "And if it involves AI, it sparks their fear even more."

Five things are worth answering this week. None requires buying anything.

1. Get every internet-reachable Langflow instance onto the current supported release. Anything off it is exposed to at least one of the five flaws CISA has now listed, including the July 21 addition. Then review historical requests to /api/v1/validate/code for the exec_globals pattern.

2. Get the Docker socket out of application containers. Langflow has no reason to create them. If the mount is required, front it with a socket proxy allowing only needed calls.

3. Name model artifact paths in the backup plan. Immutable snapshots of checkpoints, vector indexes and training data, restore tested, data off the host holding the weights.

4. Rotate every credential the host could reach, then pull provider keys out of its runtime. Patching does not revoke what already left. The first campaign harvested OpenAI, Anthropic and cloud credentials within seconds. Scope replacements to a secrets manager.

5. Detect mass .locked file creation in directories holding .gguf, .safetensors, .ckpt or .faiss files. Sysdig published a YARA rule and both hashes, neither with antivirus coverage at analysis time. It published no file count, so what is documented is a live encryption pass, not a measured loss.

An attacker coming through an exposed AI framework now arrives carrying something built for what it connects to, and those assets are the ones a restore cannot reproduce. Model artifacts belong in the recovery plan next to the databases. Under three weeks passed between Sysdig's two reports, all this attacker needed to go from improvised Python to a compiled locker.

When Cisco ran 6,986 multi-turn attacks against 15 flagship models, attackers who adapted across the conversation broke through as often as 88.3% of the time. Amy Chang, Cisco's head of AI threat intelligence and security research, brought that finding to the agentic security panel at VB Transform 2026; the number should worry anyone still running single-turn red-teaming programs.

VentureBeat's June 2026 Pulse survey of 107 enterprise respondents explains why the room was full. More than half, 54%, have already had a confirmed agent security incident (18%) or a near-miss caught before harm (36%). Just 32% give every agent its own scoped, managed identity, and fewer still, 30%, isolate their highest-risk agents in sandboxes. Provider-native and hyperscaler controls remain the primary agent security layer at 82% of companies surveyed. The world's largest security vendors have done the same math.

Palo Alto Networks closed its $25 billion acquisition of CyberArk in February, CrowdStrike agreed in January to pay $740 million for SGNL, and Cisco announced its intent to acquire Astrix Security for a reported $400 million, all of it aimed at the identity and isolation layer most enterprises have not finished building.

Chang came to the panel with almost two decades of experience spanning cybersecurity operations, government, and the military. She ran global cybersecurity operations as an executive director at JPMorgan Chase, where she led the bank's cyber threat intelligence teams, and served as a senior staffer on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and as a U.S. Navy Reserve officer. She also teaches cybersecurity and emerging threats as adjunct faculty at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies.

Chang's 88.3% number comes from a study she co-authored with Nicholas Conley, built on 30,090 single-turn prompts and 6,986 multi-turn attacks against those 15 closed and proprietary flagship models. Multi-turn success rates ranged from 7.89% to 88.3%, every model tested showed non-trivial multi-turn exposure, and the two testing styles did not even rank the models in the same order. Cisco publishes adversarial evaluation signals for what is now 105 models on its LLM Security Leaderboard, she told the audience.

"If you don't understand how models are susceptible to different types of attacks, then you are unable to account for how that model that is powering your agent, that is powering your application, to understand where those failure points are," Chang said. Single-turn testing is the one-shot malicious prompt, she explained, while extending an attack into a longer conversation "is more realistic of how we are actually engaging with our models, with our agents, with our applications." That longer arc surfaces harmful outputs and misaligned behaviors that a snapshot never catches.

Cisco has pushed the testing itself into agentic territory. Chang described a framework where agents assess a deployment scenario, develop relevant attacks, judge whether they are worth pursuing, execute them, and evaluate their own success. What surprised her most, after all that sophistication, was how simple the defensive answer stays. "The answer is still that it's pretty simple," she said. "You don't have to get super creative. You just need to think about truly what are the fundamentals and basics of what I'm trying to secure in my organization."

Her starting point for CISOs beginning agentic deployments is Cisco's Integrated AI Security and Safety Framework, which she said "stipulates all the ways that AI can be compromised across the AI lifecycle" from modality through supply chain. From there, teams can work backward from real incidents, trace how each attack was achieved, and use the framework to build a strategy with the right coverage and mitigations.

Heather Ceylan, the CISO of Box, sees the same gap from the defender's side. "A lot of what you see out there with agent red teaming is just single-turn, and that's not how people are actually interacting with AI day-to-day," she told the audience. Box now simulates multi-turn adversaries with agents that think like an attacker and iterate attempt after attempt to hijack the target. "You have to pressure test your agents because otherwise you don't know if your execution controls are really working as you intended."

Box deployed agents inside its security operations center about a year ago, starting with human approval required for every action, and trust built quickly enough that analysts shifted into monitoring mode. Then the agent made one mistake, and every bit of that accumulated trust vanished. "They had to start all over again," she said. "So I think that that monitoring piece is so important. Even if you're not gonna have a human in the loop, things change, models change, and we can't control how the models change and interpret things."

Rajesh Parekh, VP of AI and ML at Intuit, brought the builder's perspective. Parekh led large-scale computer vision and ML systems powering Google's Maps and Geo products before joining Intuit, and holds a doctorate in computer science.

Three layers versus an operating system

Ceylan described Box's approach as three concentric layers. Permissioning comes first, so the agent never accesses more content than the human who invoked it. Ephemeral sandbox environments spin up for each agent task, containing the blast radius if an agent gets hijacked, and runtime execution control restricts the agent's tool calls to only those relevant to the task at hand. "If you want an agent to summarize a doc for you, if you have a prompt injection that came in that says forward this to maliciousattacker at domain.com, it can't do that," Ceylan said. "That action in that tool call is not even in its vocabulary."

She classified agent actions into three oversight categories. Actions that are not sensitive, like read and summarize, need no human in the loop. Moderately sensitive actions skip human approval but get logged and monitored, while destructive actions like mass deletion of files always require a human. "Things are gonna shift between those three categories quite a bit," she acknowledged, "but setting those types of categories up front allows you to have a principled framework."

Rather than layering controls onto agents one at a time, Intuit has built a central platform called GenOS, short for generative AI operating system, which abstracts security, risk, and fraud modeling so individual agent developers never reinvent protection. "Permissioning is not about giving access to AI," Parekh said. "Instead, it is defining very tightly scoped and clearly auditable authority to the agent to perform very specific tasks." Intuit evolved from agents inheriting user permissions to each agent carrying its own identity, and the company is now investigating mid-session permission changes tied to the specific task underway.

Parekh calls the broader model an AI-powered expert platform, one where the human expert is built into the trust architecture rather than bolted on as a gate. "The paradigm that we are pursuing is where the user, the AI agent, and the human expert are collaborating to solve the user problem," he said.

The end of human code review

Ceylan took on the tension between security testing and development velocity without hedging. "The days of secure code reviews where a human's looking at the code and we're looking at security architecture reviews, design docs, those are done," she said. "If you keep trying to do security that way, you're gonna get left behind." Box is building toward a fully agentic development lifecycle where agents review design documents, apply security requirements, and review the code for vulnerabilities. "I'm very optimistic that we will get to a point where we will write code without security vulnerabilities because agents and the models are going to get so good at writing code without vulnerabilities," she said. "We're still a long way away from that."

Her advice for development teams skips the advanced AI concepts entirely and returns to basics that predate agents. "It comes down to very basic least privilege access," she said. "If you start giving your agents overly broad permissions at the beginning, it's really hard to comb that back and build an infrastructure that allows for those ephemeral credentials and only those narrowly scoped tasks."

Parekh explained why the red teaming surface has expanded so quickly. "These agents have skills, and skills could become vulnerabilities," he said. "Agents have access to certain data, they have access to tools, and there could be threats that are lurking within those tools as well. So suddenly the blast radius of the malicious code or the intent increases dramatically." When Intuit identifies common vulnerability patterns from its manual red teaming exercises, it automates those tests back into the GenOS harness so future agents inherit protection and red teamers stay focused on new threat vectors. Runtime scanning of prompts and responses adds a final layer that can stop a suspect response and escalate to a human expert, he said.

"You need to continuously test to ensure that those remain robust to the protections that you have built, as well as to account for any sort of drift or any other types of dependencies that you introduce into your scenario that can create novel vulnerabilities," he said.

Intent versus probability

An audience question about intent detection set off the sharpest exchange of the session. Ceylan noted that when Box's own agent operates, the system always knows the user's intent because it controls the prompt, which means guardrails and tool-call restrictions can be engineered around it. The harder challenge, which she admitted Box is still trying to solve, arrives when external agents connect and the context behind the request is opaque.

That exchange exposed a split running through the wider industry. Mastercard, in the fireside chat immediately preceding the panel, came down on the side of quantifying intent, building an open-source framework to propagate it as a standard because complex B2B procurement cannot work without that trust. Endpoint security CTOs, in briefings with VentureBeat, have gone the other way, saying they will bet on probability rather than intent inference for production workloads. Chang explained why models, as they are trained today, cannot reliably derive intent from a prompt, which is why deterministic controls and behavioral proxies remain necessary. Ceylan agreed that both are required. "If you're not doing anything deterministic, you're really relying heavily on that intent, and I haven't seen programs that are there yet," she said.

Ceylan's story about trust collapsing after a single agent mistake landed as the panel's most memorable moment because enterprise agentic security is not a problem that gets solved and stays solved. Models change, permissions drift, and adversaries adapt across multi-turn conversations that snapshot tests never capture.

For the 82% of enterprises relying on provider-native controls as their primary security layer, and the 59% shopping for agent security tooling over the next 12 months, the panel's takeaway was blunt. Test the way attackers attack, across full conversations and continuously, or find out in production what your single-turn red teaming missed.

At a CISO roundtable organized by Anthropic's chief information security officer, Dev Rishi asked a simple question: Did everyone in the room have their AI governance and security policies written down? Every hand went up — about 14 people, by his count. His follow-up, about how anyone actually enforces those policies in practice, got a different response. "And everybody chuckled," Rishi, the GM of AI at Rubrik, recalled at VB Transform 2026 fireside chat in Menlo Park. "It was like the dirty secret in the room that everyone has these policies, but no way to actually make them real."

“Our founder and CTO has actually been really pushing to enable our agents in YOLO mode,” Rishi told the audience. That admission comes from a publicly traded data security firm whose business is backing up what he called the most important data in the world.

YOLO mode strips the permission prompt out of agent workflows and lets the agent act on its own. In Rubrik's version, a second AI judges every action in real time against policy in place of a human clicking approve. Rubrik is running the experiment on itself first. Rishi treats autonomy as a settled capability question and an open judgment question. "If you ask the agent to act autonomously, it will," he said. "It's a question that you have internally. Should it?"

Rubrik earned that question the hard way. When Claude Code and Cowork pilots rolled out, the company required every command to run in ask mode so the employee issuing it carried the liability, and the developer pushback filled a single Slack thread 120 messages deep.

"The developers basically are pushing back, and they're like, this is like the iTunes service agreement. I'm just hitting check, check, check, check, check, check, check," Rishi said. "There's no way that I can actually read through this. And it becomes security theater." Roughly 80% of respondents are in the same bind, Rishi said, citing Rubrik Zero Labs research that found monitoring and approving agent actions takes more time than the agents save. The State of the Agent, the April report behind that figure, surveyed more than 1,600 IT and security leaders.

SAGE is the reason Rubrik trusts the bet. Short for Semantic AI Governance Engine, SAGE is the arbitration layer inside Rubrik Agent Cloud that watches every action an agent takes and reads the semantic intent behind it, then rules the action in or out against policies written in natural language. "We took what people said was human in the loop, a good idea, and we replaced it with AI in the loop," Rishi said, describing the pitch to security chiefs he characterized as skittish about non-deterministic systems.

Security approval, not cost, blocks AI ROI

Rishi’s path to Rubrik ran through Predibase, the generative AI infrastructure startup he co-founded and ran as CEO until Rubrik agreed to acquire it in June 2025. Before that, he led ML product at Google on the team that became Vertex AI, served as Kaggle's first product manager as it grew from about one million to ten million users, and holds bachelor's and master's degrees in computer science from Harvard.

Over roughly his first three and a half months at Rubrik, Rishi set up 200 customer conversations with IT and security leaders across a customer base that looks like the Global 2000, asking open-ended questions about cost, latency, performance, and orchestration. "Pretty consistently, what I heard through all of those conversations was that all of those are pretty secondary," he said. "The main challenge is actually, how do I get this approved from a security and risk standpoint? I'm concerned about all the different things that could go wrong. Actually, I felt like that was one of the biggest things constraining ROI."

VentureBeat Pulse research presented on the Transform stage earlier in the day confirms the gap Rishi kept hearing. Two-thirds of enterprises, 66%, already allow or are actively building toward production deployment with zero human review, yet only 5% fully trust the automated evaluations that would make that decision.

One AI reading what the rulebook can't

Rubrik's own policies exposed why written rules fail as enforcement. One internal rule states that agents should respect Rubrik's customer data use policy, which sounds enforceable until someone tries. "Rubrik's customer data use policy is like a three-page document of legal text," Rishi said. "I have no idea how to write that in there as a rule." Asked on stage how a team of AI infrastructure people took on a problem that security engineers own, Rishi answered, "with a lot of naivety and innocence, honestly." His team bet that models good at understanding language could police other models, and SAGE became the answer.

The case for putting a model in the judgment seat comes down to precision. A rule like "agents should not be able to edit revenue fields in Salesforce" fails in conventional tooling because Salesforce does not delineate which fields count as revenue, Rishi explained, so administrators fall back on approving every Salesforce action by hand. SAGE reads the intent instead and acts as a judge, carrying organizational context, which can tell a benign lookup from the edit the policy prohibits.

Keeping the judge small is what makes the economics work. SAGE runs on a small language model that Rishi said operates at an order of magnitude lower cost and latency than a frontier LLM. "If I told you, don't worry, you're gonna be secure and governed, but I'm gonna double your cost and latency, you would tell me to get out of the room," Rishi said.

When Rishi asked who in the audience had worried about token consumption over the past year, half the hands went up. "And I guess the other half is probably just too lazy to raise their hand," he said.

SAGE is an aggregation of judges based on parameter-efficient fine-tuning that Rubrik uses to take on task-specific variants of a base model with shared organizational context. One judge watches for tool-use hallucinations while another suppresses PII before it can leave, each running as its own enforceable policy. Security and GRC teams have started writing financial rules into the same layer, including one internal policy barring AI spend on personal projects.

The lethal trifecta

Asked which attacks worry him most, Rishi pointed at the lethal trifecta, the term security researcher Simon Willison coined in June 2025 for an agent that holds private data while taking in content nobody vetted, with a channel to send what it finds to the outside world. The danger, according to Rishi, is what happens when individually legitimate permissions stack. An agent granted Salesforce access and email access on an employee's credentials has done nothing wrong yet, with yet being the operative word. "A very simple example is that an agent can start pulling data from Salesforce and then decide to accidentally leak and exfiltrate that out via an email," he told the audience. A financial services company he met the morning of the session made the point for him, telling Rishi that none of the individual permissions are bad on their own and the agent needs every one of them to do its job. "It should have permission to each of those systems, but it's the combination that ends up becoming really destructive," Rishi said.

Traditional identity and access management never priced in that combination because it relied on the judgment of the employee holding the credentials, Rishi argued, and agents supply none. "I can tell you the number of times Claude Code has tried to leak some of our sensitive source code to a public GitHub repository is incredibly high," he said. Cutting agents off from public resources entirely would defeat their purpose, which returns the problem to adjudicating intent in context rather than revoking access.

A separate VentureBeat June Pulse survey of 107 qualified enterprise respondents maps the blast radius of exactly this pattern. On the Transform stage that morning, VentureBeat research reported that 69% of companies run credential sharing somewhere in their agent fleet. Companies with shared credentials anywhere got hit more often, reporting a security incident or near-miss at a 63.5% rate (47 of 74), against 40.9% (9 of 22) where every agent carries its own scoped identity.

The attacks no single turn reveals

Rubrik Agent Cloud reached general availability in February, though not everything Rishi described ships in it yet. Backtesting is just starting to roll out. The feature replays an organization's historical agent actions and tool calls against a new policy, showing where the policy would have stepped in and where an action would have sailed through uncaught, with policy edits applied in real time. Rishi called that archive one of the most valuable data troves an enterprise holds.

Real-time detection and blocking turn out to be the entry point rather than the whole product. Some attacks never trip a single-action rule. "No individual turn of the conversation was problematic, but if you took the session as a full trace, that ended up being problematic," Rishi said. Agent Cloud runs batch analysis across entire session traces every hour or every day and surfaces what Rubrik calls insights, the problems no individual guardrail caught. The same Zero Labs report found that 88% say they lack the ability to roll back agent actions without system disruption, a recovery gap that sits squarely in Rubrik's original line of business.

A skeptical CISO will ask the question the fireside did not answer. SAGE is a non-deterministic model policing other non-deterministic models, and Rishi offered no false positive or false negative rate for the judge itself. The closest thing the architecture gives to an answer is auditability, since backtesting and the batch insights both leave a human-reviewable trail of each call SAGE made and whatever got past it. Who watches the watcher, for now, is a trail of receipts rather than a benchmark. Until that benchmark exists, AI in the loop stays an operational wager rather than a quantified control.

Three questions fall out of the session for security teams. How many of the guardrails now in production depend on a human clicking approve, and what happens to that workload as agent count grows? Does anything in the stack enforce semantic intent, or is it all allow and deny lists? And can the team backtest agent behavior against a new policy, then unwind a multi-turn session without taking systems down?

Rishi's timing has a market behind it. In the same VentureBeat research, 82% of enterprises still name their primary AI provider's built-in guardrails and cloud controls as their main agent security layer, and 59% plan to adopt, add, or replace agent security tooling within the next 12 months. Only 12% include an agent-identity product in what they are considering, even with credential sharing still the norm. Every CISO at that Anthropic roundtable had a policy document and no enforcement mechanism, and Rubrik built a product for the space between the two. YOLO mode is the bet that an AI watching other AIs can finally make the policies real.

When Hugging Face got hit last week, co-founder Clement Delangue suspected a frontier lab, given the agent's sophistication. He was right. Delangue said on X that after a day working with OpenAI he strongly believed there was no malicious intent and that it was mind-blowing the whole thing had happened autonomously.

The two OpenAI models that broke into Hugging Face last week did not breach it through malice or superintelligence. They breached it through credentials and permissions they should never have been able to reach, a non-human identity failure that is the oldest problem in security rather than the newest one in AI, and the one every enterprise can actually fix.

OpenAI disclosed on July 21 that two of its models, GPT-5.6 Sol and an unreleased, more capable model, were running a cyber benchmark called ExploitGym with their safety refusals switched off, and inferred that the answer key sat in Hugging Face's production database. Getting there took two different failures. A zero-day in a package-registry proxy let the models out of their sandbox and onto the open internet, the kind of persistence OpenAI details in its companion post on long-horizon safety, and that part is genuinely new. The breach of Hugging Face itself came the ordinary way. OpenAI's own account is that the models chained stolen credentials and further zero-days into a remote code execution path, after a series of privilege escalation and lateral movement steps. The exotic part got them to the door, and credentials walked them through it.

Hugging Face also disclosed last week that an autonomous agent had harvested cloud and cluster credentials scoped broadly enough to reach multiple internal clusters, then left a trail of more than 17,000 recorded events across short-lived sandboxes over a weekend. Both disclosures describe the same escalation. An agent lands somewhere it should not be, finds credentials scoped far wider than any task requires, and uses them to move. These are two accounts of one incident, not two attacks. The agent Hugging Face watched was OpenAI's models, and both companies describe the same ordinary escalation.

The version of this in a typical enterprise is worse, not better. OpenAI and Hugging Face are among the most security-mature organizations in the industry, and both still needed the intrusion to happen before they could see it. The average company wiring agents into Copilot or an internal assistant has neither the identity inventory nor the behavioral monitoring those two brought to bear. The same breach in a normal company would not be contained in days, it would simply go unnoticed.

The industry is debating the wrong failure

The reaction has split into familiar camps. Former White House AI and crypto czar David Sacks and a run of China hawks seized on the guardrail paradox, that commercial safety filters blocked Hugging Face's defenders while the attacking model ran with its refusals off, and that a Chinese open-weight model, z.ai's GLM 5.2, was what finally let the team finish its forensics. Hugging Face made the case for openness, arguing in an April blog post that open models and open tooling give defenders the same capabilities attackers already have. Both arguments are about the model, and neither touches the mechanism.

Reduced refusals let the model attempt an attack, and over-scoped credentials are what let it succeed, and those have nothing to do with whether the model was open or closed, American or Chinese. Making a frontier model provably safe is a multi-year alignment problem no customer can buy or accelerate, while scoping an identity is a configuration change a team can ship this sprint. The industry is being urged to fixate on the part of this it cannot control and to treat the part it can as a footnote.

Forrester reached the same read. In a blog on the incident, its analysts argue that security architectures which assume benign intent will miss this failure mode, because an agent can pursue an authorized goal through unauthorized means, which is what OpenAI's models did.

This was a non-human identity failure, and it is the oldest one in security

Strip the science-fiction framing and what remains is a textbook case of over-privileged machine identity, the kind security teams have fought for a decade, now driven by an autonomous agent at machine speed. Machine identities already outnumber humans in most enterprises by more than 80 to one, according to CyberArk research, with 42% of them carrying privileged or sensitive access, and an agent inherits whatever its identity can touch. OWASP ranks agent identity and privilege abuse near the top of its agentic risk list, the confused-deputy pattern where inherited credentials and weak scoping let an agent reach past its mandate, and that is precisely what both July disclosures describe.

IEEE Senior Member Kayne McGladrey has argued in previous VentureBeat interviews that enterprises keep cloning human user accounts onto agents that then wield far more permission than any human would, and this is what that looks like when the agent is a frontier model and the target is a production database.

The people closest to it read it the same way. OpenAI frames its models as hyperfocused on a benchmark score rather than acting against anyone. Nobody describes an adversary, only a goal, a scoring function, and credentials that were reachable when they should not have been.

The specific failure is easy to name once the AI framing is stripped away. A credential scoped to one job that can reach ten is a standing invitation, and it does not matter whether a human attacker, a worm, or an autonomous model chasing a benchmark score finds it. What changed in July is the finder. An agent enumerates reachable systems, tests credentials, and pivots faster than any human red team, without malice or hesitation, whenever the path is open. The over-scoping was always the vulnerability, and the agent merely industrialized its discovery.

Forrester named the control that would have blunted it. Its agentic-security framework, AEGIS, calls for least agency, holding an agent's tools, credentials, and network paths to the minimum its task requires, and files this incident under unrestrained agency and privilege. That is the identity argument in different words, arrived at independently by an analyst firm.

The data says this is where the risk now lives. Verizon's 2026 Data Breach Investigations Report found that exploitation of vulnerabilities has overtaken stolen credentials as the top initial access vector for the first time in 19 years. That is the initial-access half. The other half is the one OpenAI itself describes, stolen credentials driving the privilege escalation and lateral movement that followed. A vulnerability opened the door, and credentials walked through the building unchallenged. Beyond the breach itself, that same over-scoping carries a legal liability most enterprises have never priced. The models' actions likely violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, according to TechCrunch. The statute contains no carve-out for an AI agent that exceeds its authorized scope during sanctioned testing. Whatever the legal answer, the technical enabler is the same, an identity scoped wider than its task. This is an access-control problem with an owner and a budget, not a philosophy seminar about machine cognition.

Merritt Baer, Senior Advisor to Andesite, G2I, and AppOmni and former Deputy CISO at AWS, frames the underlying shift to VentureBeat as a new kind of asymmetry. Both sides now reach for the same capabilities, she said, but one side is constrained by enterprise governance, policy, compliance, and safety controls while the adversary simply downloads an uncensored open-weight model and keeps going. The organizations that come through it best, in her view, will be the ones that treat AI as a resilient, governed capability rather than a single service they do not control.

Four moves that shrink the blast radius

The breach worked because the agent reached identities scoped far wider than its task. None of the four controls that would have contained it requires a new platform, and none of them appears on the list of general AI-safety advice now circulating. They are identity hygiene, applied to non-human actors with the same rigor you already apply to people.

1. Scope every non-human identity to one task. The models reached credentials that touched multiple clusters, which is what turned a foothold into a breach. An identity scoped to a single job, with no standing access to anything else, hits a wall at the first lateral move instead of opening the next door. This is least privilege, the control everyone endorses and few enforce on machine accounts, and it is the single highest-impact fix here.

2. Give credentials short lifetimes and rotate them hard. Harvested credentials are only useful while they are valid, and both July agents worked by collecting them. Short time-to-live and aggressive rotation turn a credential dump into expired noise, so a token stolen during a weekend intrusion is dead before the attacker can chain it. Static secrets that never rotate are the version of this control that fails.

3. Monitor for lateral movement, not just prompts. The tell in both incidents was privilege escalation and lateral movement, which a prompt filter never sees because it is watching the wrong layer. Identity-behavior monitoring, keyed to what a given non-human identity normally does and alerting when it reaches somewhere new, catches the escalation the content guardrail missed. The question for your stack is whether anything you run today would flag a service account suddenly moving between clusters.

4. Rehearse instant revocation before you need it. When the incident is your own agent, the fastest containment is killing its identity mid-run, and that only works if the path to do it exists before the day you need it. Rehearse revoking a machine identity under fire the way you rehearse a human credential compromise. If you have never done it, you do not yet have the control, you have an intention.

The defense also worked, and that matters. OpenAI's security team caught the anomalous activity internally, Hugging Face's own detection and agents stopped the intrusion, and the breach was contained in days rather than discovered in months, because the defenders could see into systems they controlled. That visibility is the same discipline the four controls depend on. The debate over whether frontier models are safe, open, or American will run for years, and none of it will be settled in time to help the enterprise deploying agents this quarter. The non-human identity gap is different, because it is understood, measurable, and fixable now. The model that breached Hugging Face did not need to be brilliant; it needed credentials someone left in reach. The fix is scoping them before an agent finds them.