A quantum-resistant cryptography algorithm that was under consideration as an official US standard has been taken out of the running after an Anthropic security model helped find a flaw that rendered it broken.
The algorithm is known as HAWK. It's a digital signature scheme designed to withstand future attacks from quantum computers. HAWK had survived two rounds of testing by NIST (the National Institute of Standards and Technology) for evaluating the security of PQC (post-quantum cryptographic) algorithms through widespread testing. HAWK was in a third round of testing designed to catch precisely the kinds of flaws Mythos helped uncover.
Following Anthropic's Monday announcement of the results, the developer of HAWK said Tuesday he was withdrawing it.
Chinese companies represent almost 70 percent of the global humanoid robot market Chinese humanoid robot manufacturers could face a significant setback in one of the world’s largest technology markets after the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) moved to block new foreign-produced advanced robotic devices from receiving equipment authorization. The move follows a determination by US […]
The US government has taken one of its most significant steps yet to regulate advanced robotics, adding foreign-produced humanoids, quadrupeds and other mobile robots to the Federal Communications Commission‘s “Covered List” of technologies considered to pose an unacceptable risk to national security. At first glance, the decision appears surprising. The FCC is best known for […]
Update follows determinations by executive branch agencies that these devices threaten national security The United States Federal Communications Commission updated its “Covered List” to include two new categories of devices – “advanced robotic devices” (defined as mobile robots, such as humanoids and quadrupeds) and, separately, connected power inverters produced in foreign countries. The action follows […]
In a new disclosure, OpenAI says its agent used exposed logins to gain access to at least four “publicly available services” in its unhinged quest to solve a test.
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.
Last week’s unprecedented security event in which two OpenAI security hacking models trespassed into the network of fellow AI company Hugging Face was enabled by exploiting one or more zero-day vulnerabilities in Artifactory, JFrog, the product’s developer, said Monday.
In an incident mimicking a dystopian sci-fi novel, two OpenAI models broke out of the restricted environment meant to keep them from accessing the Internet during an internal test, the AI company revealed last week. The models went on to breach Hugging Face’s network and steal confidential information and credentials. OpenAI said its agent achieved the feat by exploiting a previously unknown vulnerability. The company called the event “unprecedented,” and outsiders largely agreed.
Not the triumph it was made out to be
OpenAI said the models exploited multiple attack vectors, including stolen credentials and zero-days, to gain remote code execution capabilities, but until now, the vulnerable software was unknown. JFrog’s Monday disclosure said the product was a self-managed instance Artifactory, a repository management system that secures and streamlines customers’ software development operations. JFrog says Artifactory is used by more than 7,500 developer Teams, 80 percent of which work for Fortune 100 companies.
Every major security vendor now has an AI copilot, but Mate Security thinks they’re solving the wrong problem.
The Tel Aviv-based startup announced on Tuesday it has raised a $35 million Series A led by Canaan Partners, with participation from Insight Partners, Team8 and M12, Microsoft’s venture fund, just eight months after closing a $15.5 million seed round. Mate’s pitch is that security operations need more than an LLM bolted onto a SIEM; they need a new architectural foundation built around AI.
That’s a bold claim in a market dominated by the likes of Microsoft Security Copilot, Google Security Operations, CrowdStrike Charlotte AI and Palo Alto Networks Cortex AI, all of which promise to help analysts investigate alerts faster. Mate, however, is betting the real differentiator isn’t a smarter assistant but a richer understanding of the organization itself.
Central to that vision is what Mate calls its Security Context Graph, a continuously updated model of an organization’s assets, users, business processes, and data that AI agents use to investigate alerts and make decisions with far more business context than a standalone LLM can provide.
Mate’s pitch is that security operations need more than an LLM bolted onto a SIEM; they need a new architectural foundation built around AI.
Mate CEO and co-founder Asaf Wiener tells The New Stack that the company launched with that intelligence layer, but says the product has evolved significantly over the past eight months.
“We started with the intelligence layer, the context layer that we built for enterprises in order to investigate alerts and incidents,” Wiener says. “We moved forward into the detection layer to connect the two, and now we’re heading to the security data sources.”
Mate calls the architecture Continuous Detection, Continuous Response (CDCR), linking detection and investigation so each continuously improves the other.
“We’re connecting between those two layers in the security operations center,” Wiener says. “With this architecture, we’re seeing amazing results related to the quality, accuracy and precision that we can get.”
Mate says the extra context helps its agents work out whether something that looks suspicious actually warrants attention. A burst of failed logins, for example, might look like an attack until the system spots that a security test was scheduled for the same time. Similarly, a large download of sensitive files takes on a different meaning if the employee involved is about to leave the company.
That approach appears to be resonating. Just eight months after its seed round, Mate has landed a $35 million Series A, a pace Wiener says reflects customer demand more than fundraising momentum.
“The pace is really crazy. We didn’t expect that,” he said. “We saw incredible traction with our customers. We’re talking about Fortune 500 companies, and revenue growth of more than 500 percent since Q3 2025. That’s what led those VCs to come to us and want to be part of the journey.”
“We’re talking about Fortune 500 companies, and revenue growth of more than 500 percent since Q3 2025.”
“What we are seeing is more and more data sources that we need to protect. Every employee in the organization can build new applications and new data sources. We need to build more detections for those risks, and the result: We need to investigate an increasing number of alerts every day.
“With human staff alone, we cannot handle it,” he says. “We need technology to let us scale.”
That challenge isn’t unique to Mate. Every major security platform is trying to give AI more context about the environments it’s protecting, albeit in different ways. Microsoft builds Security Copilot on telemetry flowing through Defender and Sentinel; Google ties Gemini into its security operations platform; and CrowdStrike’s Charlotte AI draws on endpoint and identity data already stored in Falcon.
Mate wants other vendors’ agents to work with its Security Context Graph, rather than keeping the technology confined to its own tools. Those agents would have access to the same information about the customer and its environment. Mate says they can remember previous investigations, while a “least-agency” model restricts what each one can see and do.
While Mate is still building out that vision, Wiener said the speed at which large companies have bought into it has caught him by surprise.
“What I’m seeing right now is that we’re doing those sales cycles in a few weeks,” he says. “That’s incredible.”
He attributes that acceleration not just to security teams, but to executives pushing AI adoption from the top. “It’s amazing to see that coming also from the board level, the CEO and the CIO that are pushing organizations to leverage this kind of technology.”
The fresh funding will primarily go toward expanding both the product and the team, although Wiener says an AI-native company scales differently from traditional software businesses.
“The plan is to double and triple the size of the team to address the demand,” he says. “But our AI builders can do much more today with the technology around us.”
Mate is still competing against security giants with deeply entrenched platforms. But if its early customer growth is any indication, investors are betting that the next generation of security operations will depend less on adding another AI assistant and more on giving those assistants a deeper understanding of the businesses they’re protecting.
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.
Researchers tested top image editing models on Hugging Face and found they could easily create explicit deepfakes—and 1,000 image editing prompts show how people use the software.
Microsoft is introducing new AI tools designed to help customers continuously streamline and automate the process of identifying and reducing their exposure to security risks.
The new tools come less than a week after OpenAI lost control of two of its security models when they infiltrated the servers of startup Hugging Face. The hack, Hugging Face added, involved “a swarm of tens of thousands of automated actions” that stole internal Hugging Face credentials. The OpenAI models achieved this feat by exploiting a zero-day flaw in Hugging Face’s data-processing pipeline to run malicious code that escalated the models’ access to the company’s high-value cloud and server clusters.
Microsoft’s announcements on Monday made no reference to the event, which OpenAI said was “unprecedented.” The company also didn’t say what would prevent the new tools from similarly going rogue.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In a direct move to address these industry-wide concerns, 37 partners announced on Monday the formation of the new Open Secure AI Alliance and how the newly created body will develop techniques and tools to safeguard software by rapidly identifying and patching vulnerabilities.
Open Secure AI Alliance inaugural partners
The inaugural partners of the Open Secure AI Alliance are Adobe, Cadence, Capital One, Cisco, Cloudera, Cloudflare, Cognition, CrowdStrike, Databricks, Dell Technologies, DoorDash, Elastic, HPE, Hugging Face, IBM, LangChain, the Linux Foundation, Microsoft, Naver, NetApp, Nvidia, Nous, OpenClaw, Palantir, Palo Alto Networks, Red Hat, Reflection, Salesforce, SAP, ServiceNow, Siemens, SK Telecom, Snowflake, SpaceXAI, Synopsys, Thinking Machines, and TrendAI.
It’s a grouping of some of the most influential names in technology, but also includes two notable exceptions: OpenAI and Anthropic, two closed, proprietary AI labs. Their absence is understandable, as they operate closed labs and open-weight AI models are effectively the competition.
Nvidia VP of enterprise platforms, Justin Boitano, has explained that open-weight models are foundational to American AI leadership and cybersecurity.
“To maintain U.S. leadership in the AI industrial revolution, the infrastructure that runs our economy needs safe, secure access to both closed and open models,” Boitano said. “For cybersecurity, open models and open harnesses are essential because they broaden defensive capability, increase transparency for defenders, and complement frontier closed models with customizable, localized controls.”
As regulators grapple with AI safety, Boitano predicts it will be important to “recognize open models and open tooling as defensive assets” — thus enabling transparency, independent evaluation and shared remediation.
Nobody can subpoena a downloaded weights file
Mark Vigoroso, founder & CEO of technology consultancy firm The Enterprise Edge, tells The New Stack that AI regulators have traditionally “built their entire AI safety apparatus” around auditing a handful of closed labs. And now, that approach is out of date.
“Open weight models blew past that closed model approach months ago,” Vigoroso says. “This alliance is an admission that the actual safety work now has to happen in the infrastructure layer: patch cycles, provenance, identity around who’s deploying what, because nobody can subpoena a downloaded weights file.”
“This alliance is an admission that the actual safety work now has to happen in the infrastructure layer: patch cycles, provenance, identity around who’s deploying what, because nobody can subpoena a downloaded weights file.”
Vigoroso argues that the AI safety debate is “stuck on model-level controls”, while the real regulatory gap is provenance of infrastructure and identity, i.e., knowing where a model came from, who deployed a model and what it touched, not just whether the model itself is safe.
“Groups like the EU AI Office, NIST’s Center for AI Standards and Innovation (CAISI), and the UK’s AI Security Institute (AISI) focus almost entirely on frontier closed models. Open weight models (Mistral, DeepSeek, and others) fall into a regulatory blind spot: Once weights are released, there’s no way to enforce downstream safety obligations.
Current regulatory frameworks for AI models assume a single accountable deployer; open source has none. That’s the real story: Regulators are writing rules for a centralized world while the ecosystem is decentralizing, Vigoroso says.
While detailed operational information explaining the intended actions of this alliance is currently scant, Nvidia has highlighted that it is contributing solid research to the Open Secure AI Alliance to speed the development of new cybersecurity tools and techniques.
Harnesses integrate with models, making agents easier to test
The open source Nvidia Labs Object-Oriented Agent (NOOA) project is now available on GitHub to make advanced AI safety capabilities more accessible for agent harnesses. This research framework enables harnesses to integrate with models to make agent behavior easier to test, trace, audit, and govern.
Aparna Rayasam, CEO of verified identity and end-to-end encryption company Atsign, tells The New Stack that the “AI blitzkrieg conversation has reached a critical inflection point.” This moment is one where we cannot build the next era of open cognitive innovation on top of what Rayasam calls “legacy, Swiss-cheese infrastructure.”
…the “AI blitzkrieg conversation has reached a critical inflection point.”
“The formation of the Open Secure AI Alliance proves that AI safety isn’t just an algorithmic math problem — it is a foundational networking problem,” Rayasam says. “The massive, distributed pipelines required to train and run modern AI demand an entirely new paradigm of trust. True safety means ensuring that the data pipelines feeding these models are inherently invisible, un-attackable, and completely stripped of open network perimeters.”
The key notion here is that we are moving from a world of protecting data at rest to a world where the connective tissue of AI must be secure by design.
One AI vendor to secure them all? No thanks.
Founder and CPO of agentic identity and permissions security company Reco, Gal Nakash, tells The New Stack that the launch of the Open Secure AI Alliance is an “important signal” which underlines why AI security can’t be solved by one vendor or one closed framework.
“Jensen Huang’s point that every SaaS company will become a GaaS company captures why this matters now: Software is shifting from passive tools people log into, to AI agents that access data, take actions, and execute workflows,” says Nakash. “Open source tools and shared standards can help the industry move faster, but they need to be grounded in real enterprise context across identity, permissions, data access and behavior.”
Chris Boehm, Field CTO at automated, identity-driven microsegmentation company Zero Networks, tells The New Stack that news of the Open Secure AI Alliance makes him feel like he’s seen this before somewhere.
“This looks like the Trusted Platform Module (TPM) at Microsoft story all over again,” Boehm says. “It’s a case of an industry group defining what trusted hardware means, the platform vendors adopt it, and within a few years it’s a procurement requirement rather than a suggestion.”
He explains that “Windows 11 did exactly that with TPM 2.0 and Secure Boot”, and both Linux and Apple adapted. “I’d expect the same for AI infrastructure, where attested silicon becomes the floor for regulated workloads, and the vendor list narrows to whoever can meet it,” predicts Boehm.
“This looks like a case of an industry group defining what trusted hardware means, the platform vendors adopt it, and within a few years it’s a procurement requirement rather than a suggestion.”
A more global and geographically-inclusive approach is needed
Amanda Brock, CEO of open technology body OpenUK, tells The New Stack that the Open AI Alliance is undoubtedly a great starting point, particularly with OpenAI’s security woes it divulged last week.
For this alliance to succeed, Brock insists that it will need to take a more “global and geographically-inclusive approach”, beyond the US-centric founding members.
“It must also engage the open source ecosystem of individuals and innovators who are building the infrastructure, agentic harness functions and developer tools for AI. It’s important to realize that open AI infrastructure development shifts the innovation into the hands of the many, in direct opposition to the small number of corporate creators of frontier models,” Brock adds.
Nvidia’s Boitano echoes Brock’s view. In a blog post reviewed in draft by The New Stack, he writes that “open models turn more AI users into AI builders,” expanding opportunity, accelerating innovation, and keeping progress from being concentrated in only a few organizations or regions.
Boitano concludes by saying that open models also enable independent scientific research into how AI systems behave, allowing researchers to understand, evaluate, and improve them. It’s all about what he has called making broad, continuous defense possible.
Looking ahead, it feels like the next wave of AI safety bodies, movements, or alliances won’t just be model auditors—they’ll be trust-infrastructure standards bodies (encompassing identity verification, content provenance, credence, etc.) using borrowed approaches to governance and compliance. Ultimately, this may be the only enforcement layer that survives open weight proliferation.
Building a great AI agent isn’t just about choosing the right models. The harness is the architecture surrounding the model. How it renders context, executes...
Building a great AI agent isn’t just about choosing the right models. The harness is the architecture surrounding the model. How it renders context, executes actions, manages state, and decides when a task is done shapes outcomes just as much as the model itself. Harness design alone can account for double-digit swings in benchmark results and significant differences in token cost…
Plus: Russian hackers are trying to steal US nuclear scientists’ emails, the State Department bans known scammers from entering the United States, and more.
So, what really happened? OpenAI reports an autonomous security-evaluation run of GPT‑5.6 Sol and a pre-release model broke out of a sandbox, reached the internet, and then targeted Hugging Face to try to solve the ExploitGym benchmark.
By OpenAI’s account, “an internal evaluation which prompts models to pursue advanced exploitation using complex attack paths … [with] maximal cyber capabilities by running this evaluation without production classifiers used to prevent models from pursuing high-risk cyber activity.”
OpenAI continues, “Our benchmarks run in a highly isolated environment, with network access constrained to the ability to install packages through an internally hosted third-party software that acts as a proxy and cache for package registries.”
“All evidence suggests that the models were hyperfocused on finding a solution for ExploitGym, going to extreme lengths to achieve a rather narrow testing goal.”
The AI models, however, cracked their sandbox. Once out, they “identified and chained vulnerabilities across OpenAI’s research environment and Hugging Face’s production infrastructure to obtain test solutions directly from Hugging Face’s production database. All evidence suggests that the models were hyperfocused on finding a solution for ExploitGym, going to extreme lengths to achieve a rather narrow testing goal.”
AI expert Ken Huang describes the process in a blog post: “The model spent enormous inference budget probing the sandbox, then found a zero-day in the third-party software OpenAI used as a package-registry proxy and cache.
“It used that bug to gain unrestricted internet access. It then reasoned that Hugging Face probably hosted the ExploitGym datasets, chained stolen credentials with several more vulnerabilities into a remote code execution path, and pulled the benchmark answers straight out of Hugging Face’s production database.”
Why intent no longer matters
This was not, as John W. Larson, president and chief AI officer of the AI security company Babel Street, tells The New Stack, a “Terminator” moment. OpenAI models and agents “[were not] acting out of malice or trying to attack Hugging Face. It encountered obstacles, developed an unexpected strategy, bypassed safeguards, and pursued its assigned goal in a way its creators never anticipated. The incident demonstrates that harmful cyber incidents no longer require malicious intent: Only highly capable autonomous AI optimizing for an objective.
Harmful cyber incidents no longer require malicious intent: Only highly capable autonomous AI optimizing for an objective.
That’s the first issue we must be aware of. Software attacks no longer require a hacker. All it needs is an LLM freed of guardrails with a mission to accomplish, and it will take whatever steps are needed to reach its goal.
In addition, Adam Boynton, senior enterprise security manager of EMEIA at the Apple Identity and Access Management company Jamf, tells The New Stack, “This happened inside a frontier lab deliberately stress-testing its most capable models, in conditions no enterprise would ever run.”
Boynton also notes that this episode confirmed that “AI tools are no longer just applications people open. They act on the user’s behalf, with the user’s access. So every organization needs a clear view of which AI tools its people are running, and how those tools are configured and used.”
An agent given too much power is far more capable than a user armed with a superuser password of causing havoc both to your systems and to ones far outside your control.
Where container isolation failed
As for the attack itself, Edera CMO Kaylin Trychon writes in a blog post, “This incident deserves more attention than ‘an AI did the hacking now.’ The interesting part isn’t who was driving, or even that it was a model instead of a person. It’s where the walls gave way, twice, in two different companies’ infrastructure — and that part is entirely familiar to anyone who’s spent time securing container infrastructure.”
Exactly so. Trychon continues, “Strip away the framing and this is a story about two escalation chains, back to back.” The first consisted of “The model found and exploited a zero-day in that proxy, then used privilege escalation and lateral movement inside OpenAI’s own ‘highly isolated’ testing environment until it reached a node with open internet access.”
Next, OpenAI’s models inferred, correctly, that “Hugging Face likely hosted the datasets, models, and reference solutions for the benchmark it was trying to solve. It chained stolen credentials with a remote-code-execution path into Hugging Face’s servers, harvested more credentials, and moved laterally into several internal clusters over a weekend, all in pursuit of one narrow goal: Finding the answer key.”
“The failure that actually matters is what a single code-execution event is allowed to become — and notably, that failure happened the same way twice, at two different companies, in the same incident.”
The serious issue, from Trychon’s perspective, is that “both companies’ blast radius was a cluster instead of a container.”
That’s because “the failure that actually matters is what a single code-execution event is allowed to become – and notably, that failure happened the same way twice, at two different companies, in the same incident. In a typical container fleet, workloads share a kernel.
“A process that gets popped, or a model that gets a shell, is one syscall boundary away from the node it’s running on, and the node is one set of mounted credentials away from the rest of the cluster. Namespaces and cgroups are process-isolation primitives, not security boundaries — they were never designed to hold against an attacker (human or model) that already has code execution and time.”
Edera’s CTO and co-founder Alex Zenla tells The New Stack, “The sandbox escape here isn’t really the surprising part of this attack. An entire market of AI sandboxing tools has exploded over the past couple of months, and this is the reality they’re all built on top of: containers, VMs via namespaces — whatever the branding — most of them still share a kernel with the host or with each other.
“That’s a boundary enforced in software, and software boundaries are exactly the kind of thing an agent that can try ten thousand escape paths over a weekend is going to find a way through. We shouldn’t be shocked that this happened; we should be shocked at how many teams are still betting their infrastructure on technology that was never designed to withstand such a persistent adversary. The fix isn’t a better sandbox; it’s getting out of the sandbox paradigm entirely.”
Zenla continues, “Teams should adopt secure execution environments that are hardware-enforced and eliminate the shared kernel flaw. This technology exists today and would have made this specific escalation chain structurally impossible, not just harder. Teams running agents with real permissions and real access need to stop treating this as a someday problem, because the next version of this week is already being tested somewhere right now.”
That underlines the most important issue of all. Thanks to AI, security attackers are coming harder and faster than ever. Security can no longer be an afterthought.
You literally no longer have time to wait for security fixes. You must bake in as much security as you can as fast as you can, or your systems will be broken into. It’s as simple as that.
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.
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.
Login
