The Federal Trade Commission wants to start regulating ideological bias in AI systems and assert federal control over state laws. They’re getting an earful from opponents on all sides of the political spectrum.

In a proposed policy statement released last month, the FTC said it was considering treating ideological bias in AI systems as an “unfair and deceptive practice” under Section 5 of the FTC Act.

The commission argued that consumers have an expectation that AI systems will provide them with information free from bias or ideological manipulation. Defining such bias as an unfair or deceptive practice would potentially allow the commission to regulate training or inputs that power AI algorithms. How precisely the FTC would determine when ideological bias exists in these systems is not fully explained in the document. 

Additionally, the statement suggests that the FTC believes this regulatory authority supersedes state AI laws. It specifically mentions the Colorado AI Act, which calls for models to be subject to risk assessments, transparency disclosures and “bias audits” before release. State lawmakers are now seeking to delay or eliminate the audits before the law takes effect in 2027.

CyberScoop reviewed dozens of public comments criticizing  the FTC’s proposal. Even ideological allies raised two main concerns: first, that the proposal distracts from real questions about the federal government’s role in regulating AI deception; and second, that it opens a Pandora’s Box by enabling political censorship of AI model outputs.

Leah Siskind, a former White House digital official and deputy director of the AI Corps at the Department of Homeland Security, told CyberScoop that AI companies face legitimate questions about their obligations to consumers, particularly whether they must ensure their models provide accurate information and protect against deliberate manipulation. 

Siskind’s past research has focused on how authoritarian propaganda tends to be overrepresented in answers provided by large language models, in part due to governments’ intentional efforts to poison data ingested by AI systems.

“There is a really interesting debate here about bias and about accuracy in models and whether that’s deceptive or not… about how we counter disinformation that has been absorbed and is now being reflected by LLMs…but this is not addressing that at all,” said Siskind, now a senior AI fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Instead, Siskind said the FTC statement appears primarily concerned about a power struggle with states over AI regulation and “petty squabbles about which AI model is more woke than the other.” She’s skeptical that the policy statement’s cited legal authorities are on sound footing.

“The way I see it is that the FTC’s role is to police consumer protection violations, not regulating AI systems, and it seems like they’re trying to solve a lack of congressional AI regulation by stretching section 5 [of the FTC Act] well beyond its traditional role,” she said.

Additionally, the policy statement’s language and sourcing suggests that the FTC is concerned with certain kinds of ideological bias more than others.

Anthropic, which has clashed with the Trump administration over AI guardrails and military applications of their technology, shows up more than half a dozen times in footnotes, many which are framed as examples of ideological bias the FTC is seeking to stamp out.

By contrast, the statement ignores a direct example of an American AI company owner influencing their model’s ideology: Elon Musk and his xAI-owned Grok model. Musk has publicly admitted, often on his own website, to intervening when Grok’s responses upset him. These interventions have shaped Grok’s outputs on specific topics, including South African race relations and the term “MechaHitler,” where the model now reflects Musk’s personal views.

But neither Musk and xAI are mentioned in the document, while Grok appears in a footnote which cites an advertisement for Grok as “your truth-seeking AI companion for unfiltered answers with advanced capabilities in reasoning, coding, and visual processing.”

Criticism across the spectrum

The FTC received more than 300 comments on its proposal from trade associations, think tanks, individual experts and members of Congress. Most criticized it as ill-defined and vulnerable to politically-motivated censorship, while some supported stronger rules against bias in AI systems. 

The International Center for Law and Economics noted the statement “offers little practical guidance about how the Commission will apply its deception authority to AI” and also does little to address hard questions, like where AI providers may be exercising their own First Amendment-protected activities.

The statement’s “focus on ‘ideologically motivated distortions’ suggests that the Commission’s concerns extend beyond factual misrepresentations in marketing to speech that may receive the highest degree of First Amendment protection,” the ICLE wrote.

The America First Legal Foundation, a conservative non-profit founded by top White House adviser Stephen Miller, pressed the FTC to adopt the policy “in full,” claiming that frontier models from OpenAI and Anthropic “have been programmed to prioritize ideologically liberal and progressive values as though they are objective, neutral positions rooted in truth.”

The group also argues that regulating these models’ ideological output falls under the FTC’s legal authority, because a “reasonable consumer” would expect that a model advertised for its usefulness and reliability would not prioritize liberal, ideological views.

“A reasonable consumer, based on AI companies’ advertising choices, would not expect that an AI system will adopt overwhelmingly liberal positions, thereby skewing results, or adopt a moral framework that would prefer to annihilate the earth rather than utter a slur,” wrote Emily Percival, senior counsel for America First Legal.

However, comments from other conservative groups questioned that rationale. The R Street Foundation’s Spence Purnell and Adam Thierer wrote that “the consumer expectations rationale is typically used in cases where there is an omission of information that should have existed.”

“Given that most LLMs already have disclosure statements [for their outputs], it seems unlikely that the FTC could explicitly prove that consumers were deceived about a product,” Purnell and Thierer wrote.

Reps. Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J., and Michael Lawler, R-N.Y., urged the FTC to carve out civil rights-related work from their scrutiny, such as preventing models from discriminating against users based on race, religion, gender, age and other federally protected characteristics.

“AI companies must not falsify facts in the name of fairness, but they also must prevent discrimination, stereotypes, and unequal treatment,” Gottheimer and Lawler wrote. “We would appreciate understanding how the FTC intends to ensure that these efforts remain permissible under the final policy framework.”

But the most common concern shared across the political spectrum was that the FTC could establish a precedent allowing the Trump White House and future administrations to reshape AI systems to reflect their political views.

David Inserra, Jennifer Huddleston and Juan Londoño of the Cato Institute point out that the FTC statement is conflating two different issues: ideological bias in AI systems and factual deception in marketing. 

“In other words, the FTC is trying to judge AI models’ accuracy and performance—two largely subjective variables—in the same way it evaluates dietary supplements’ medical-benefit claims or users being charged fees without proper notice or consent,” they write. “This is an absurd comparison.”

The post The FTC wants to regulate AI for ideological bias  appeared first on CyberScoop.

Senators from both parties Thursday probed Trump administration officials about whether federal agencies and foreign governments are coordinated enough in the battle against scammers, something witnesses told the Foreign Relations Committee they were working to remedy.

At least 13 federal agencies have authorities to counter scams, raising questions about whether someone needs to be in charge of all those efforts. And while there was some bipartisan sentiment at Thursday’s hearing that the Trump administration has taken good actions to battle scammers, both lawmakers and administration officials said that scam operations have demonstrated that cracking down on them in one place often just leads to them going elsewhere.

Sen. Pete Ricketts, R-Neb., compared the situation to an international initiative that gained prominence in the 1990s to counter drug trafficking, Joint Interagency Task Force South.

“Given that today’s scam centers are similarly transnational, combining cybercrime, human trafficking, money laundering and cryptocurrency, has the threat reached the point that we should establish a comparable multinational coordination mechanism?” he asked.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., focused on federal coordination: She paraphrased a former federal official who said, “there is nobody that is heading that effort up across agencies. We need to treat this like combat, and so we need somebody in charge.”

Shaheen, the top Democrat on the panel, is a co-sponsor of the bipartisan Scam Compound Accountability and Mobilization (SCAM) Act, which seeks to unify federal efforts on the subject.

A State Department official told Shaeen scammers were a national security priority for President Donald Trump, and that his executive order on the topic sought to tackle coordination.

“I do understand that this is a whole-of-government approach, and many agencies are focused on this,” said David Bedard, deputy assistant secretary at State’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs “The Action plan that was directed by the president is currently in the interagency review process to deconflict some of the concerns that you have raised. We certainly think the task force that will be implanted through the executive order will solve the problems you might be referencing.”

There’s also an international plan under the task force, he said. Currently, the administration shares intelligence on scammers with foreign allies, and Interpol has “productive” channels to work through there and is setting up its own task force, Bedard said, but there are concerns about other countries taking similar, duplicative action.

There have been signs of progress on the international front, Bedard and another State Department witness told the panel.

Michael DeSombre, assistant secretary at the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, said Trump has raised the subject with Chinese President Xi Jinping, and that China has used its influence in Asia as its own citizens have become scam victims. Still, there’s been more progress in countries where the United States has stronger relations, such as Cambodia, than in those where ties aren’t as close, like Burma and Laos.

In Cambodia, one key has been pursuing scam center bosses first and foremost, Bedard said.

The post Capitol Hill wants to know if executive branch, foreign allies coordinated enough to combat scams appeared first on CyberScoop.

The Trump administration executive order on artificial intelligence tried to strike the balance between responsible use, security and mutual benefit, all with an eye toward not making it regulatory in nature, National Cyber Director Sean Cairncross said Tuesday.

“Everyone is working towards the same goal in terms of protecting the country and securing our systems, and we are trying to ensure that defenders have this technology as quickly and at scale as possible, but there are obviously specific security concerns, and industry has been very sensitive to this as well,” Cairncross said at the Black Hat 2026 conference in Las Vegas.

The security concerns about AI have moved to the forefront of discussions about the technology after OpenAI models escaped a test environment to hack the company Hugging Face last month.

“The design of this is that when there is something that happens, when there is a breach, when there is an event, that that system, that network of connections can exist, adapt to that, and seek to remedy that as quickly as possible, so that form follows function rather than turning that upside down, and as usual with the government pen just proceeding in a vacuum,” Cairncross said.

The Trump administration has drawn criticism over whether it has struck the right balance on AI rules. Trump’s AI executive order notably got pulled just before its scheduled release, with the final version signed in June missing some aspects that had drawn industry opposition.

“What needs to be built is a flexible, adaptable structure that enables information sharing between industry and government, so we can guarantee that this technology benefits everyone it’s going to benefit, but is used responsibly and securely,” Cairncross said.

He said the administration is working with industry during implementation of the executive order.

“A regulatory regime would not only strangle growth, development, and innovation, and be enormously harmful to the industry, but it would be obsolete 48 hours after it was gone through whatever process it had gone through,” Cairncross said.

Open source will play a “vital” role in the U.S. spreading its vision for AI across the globe, he said.

“We are extremely interested in looking at ways to build U.S. open source, make it competitive, make it the preferential adoption by planet Earth,” Cairncross said. “We understand and appreciate the value to the ecosystem that it has, the innovation, the startups who rely on it, the leap forward it makes possible in ways that otherwise would never happen. And so I think it’s an incredibly thriving ecosystem in AI right now, and we are looking to do what we can to grow, foster, and push that U.S. open source model.” 

Speaking at the same conference, Nick Andersen, the acting director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, seconded Cairncross’s comments about AI executive order implementation. He touted the Gold Eagle clearinghouse as one example.

“Those are fantastic opportunities we have to really provide a unifying function around the way that we’re going to do AI-enabled vulnerability reporting and disclosure at scale in a way that we haven’t had to do before with some of our legacy platforms, and just continue to expand out those opportunities,” he said. “That access — to build off the director’s point earlier — to really enable that industry collaboration, that’s so key and critical to us as we move forward.”

Matt Kapko contributed reporting to this story.

Updated 8/5/2026: to include comments from Andersen.

The post National cyber director lays out White House plans to secure AI without writing new rules appeared first on CyberScoop.

The Trump administration’s haphazard and opaque interventions into artificial intelligence security matters could catapult Chinese alternatives into broader acceptance, posing new security risks altogether, a group of Democratic senators wrote to top administration officials Monday.

The five senators said that the administration’s handling has alternated between too passive, such as when OpenAI models escaped testing in the Hugging Face hack last month, and overstepping, such as when the Commerce Department suspended access for any foreign national to Anthropic’s Fable 5 and Mythos 5 in June.

“The Administration’s ad hoc and unpredictable approach undermines U.S. competitiveness, heightening market incentives to adopt open weight models from vendors based in the People’s Republic of China (PRC),” wrote Sens. Kristen Gillibrand of New York, Adam Schiff of California, Mark Warner of Virginia, Chris Coons of Delaware and Mark Kelly of Arizona.

In the Hugging Face hack, the senators wrote that “the Federal Government cannot be passive as these capabilities emerge.”

In the case of the Fable 5 and Mythos 5 suspensions, the senators said that the administration “utilized an infrequently used authority to direct Anthropic to suspend all access to its Fable 5 and Mythos 5 models for foreign nationals (including foreign national employees inside the United States) citing an undisclosed national security concern later described as a narrow jailbreak finding.”

Because Anthropic couldn’t immediately assess users’ nationality, the firm had to disable both models for everyone. The administration and Anthropic negotiated for 18 days behind closed doors before reaching an agreement, the lawmakers complained.

“While the Administration may have been responding to real security concerns to protect the United States, even justifiable interventions can create broader harm if the standards and decision-making processes are opaque, ad hoc, or unpredictable,” they said in their letter to leaders in the White House, Office of the National Cyber Director and departments of State, Treasury and Commerce. “Moreover, when the Executive Branch exercises authority delegated from Congress, such as in the conduct of export control administration, it is essential that it keep Congress fully apprised of its actions and procedures.”

During the time Anthropic was under export controls, the stock price of “an entity-listed Chinese lab” nearly doubled, the senators said. And while Hugging Face was breached, the company “had to” rely on a Chinese open-weight model due to guardrails on U.S. frontier models.

“If American models are perceived as subject to sudden access disruptions based on a black-box U.S. Government process, or as unreliable because U.S. AI labs are overcorrecting in the face of this black-box process, companies and governments in the United States and abroad may hedge by adopting Chinese or other foreign models instead,” the senators contended. “That outcome would undermine U.S. technological leadership while increasing exposure to systems that may carry risks of PRC or otherwise directed censorship, espionage, IP theft, and other supply chain security risks.”

Their letter asked for answers to questions about the standards the administration uses to determine the national security risks a frontier model presents, what legal authorities it will use to invoke restrictions, which agencies are responsible for which decisions and more.

None of the offices or departments the letter was addressed to immediately responded to a request for comment.

The letter follows inquiries at the state level, where 15 attorneys general asked OpenAI for more information regarding the security incident at Hugging Face.

The post Dem senators criticize Trump administration decisionmaking on AI security risks appeared first on CyberScoop.

With identity protection services for millions of victims of the 2015 Office of Personnel Management breach set to expire, a group of lawmakers is making a push to extend them forever.

Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., introduced legislation to give lifetime identity protection coverage to around 4.2 million federal employees exposed in the historic breach by alleged Chinese hackers, which affected 22.1 million people. Warner said “the threat remains,” necessitating lifetime coverage.

That coverage is due to end at the end of September, as set by a 10-year authorization from Congress. That prompted the pair of lawmakers to introduce Reducing the Effects of the Cyberattack on OPM Victims Enduring Response and Protecting Identifiable Information Act, or  RECOVER PII Act.

“The data stolen included workers’ most sensitive and personal information – from Social Security numbers to security clearance records – and once that information is in the hands of a bad actor, you don’t get it back,” Warner said in a news release Monday. “We have a responsibility to stand by the federal workers who were put at risk through no fault of their own. This legislation will ensure those affected continue to receive the identity protection they need, while helping better safeguard personal information from future exploitation.”

But the bill could have an uphill climb, given the makeup of Congress and stance of the Trump administration.

The Democratic co-sponsors in the Senate are Tim Kaine of Virginia, with Angela Alsobrooks of Chris Van Hollen, both of Maryland. The Democratic House cosponsors are Reps. Don Beyer and James Walkinshaw of Virginia, with Steny Hoyer of Maryland.

Warner and Norton listed no co-sponsors from the GOP, which controls both chambers of Congress and the White House.  And OPM has declared the program too expensive based on the cost relative to the number of claims.

Similar legislation to extend the coverage, including from Norton, has fallen short in recent years.

“Lifetime identity protection is the only solution that will give the workers whose data was compromised the peace of mind they deserve,” Norton said Monday. “Because there is no limit on how long personal information can be exploited, Congress must protect these federal employees and contractors in perpetuity.”

Some watchdog scrutiny of the OPM program has been critical, and while consumer advocates say identity theft protections are helpful, they nonetheless say they aren’t adequate.

The Warner-Norton legislation also would offer reimbursements to federal employees and contractors for privacy services.

The post Lawmakers spring to save ID theft services for OPM breach victims, with expiration looming appeared first on CyberScoop.

The Senate is teeing up debate on a raft of new bills that would impact online privacy, kids safety and artificial intelligence.

The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation will mark up five bills Wednesday. The most high-profile legislation, the Kids Online Safety Act, sponsored by Sens. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., would implement broad changes to how social media and other websites handle data and accounts for users under the age of 17.

KOSA would require online platforms — including social media, video games, messaging apps and streaming services – to exercise “reasonable care” when designing features that could lead to more addictive or harmful online behaviors for minors. It would provide parents with digital tools to control and monitor their children’s accounts, prohibit market or product research on children under the age of 13 and empower the Federal Trade Commission to investigate, fine and enforce the law.

Earlier bill versions earned the backing of large tech companies, including Apple, OpenAI, and others.

By contrast in June, nearly 100 smaller parent, youth and tech-focused organizations signaled their opposition to the bill in a letter to congressional leaders. Some of the signatories, like the nonprofit Issue One, were previous supporters of KOSA who turned on the legislation after the House passed a significantly watered down version that stripped out stronger language around tech companies “duty to care,” which would have set a higher legal standard for covered platforms to consider user harm when designing their products.

Legal and ethical design standards are critical for online services, the groups argue, given lawsuits alleging that major tech platforms contribute to teenage addiction, depression, suicide, and non-consensual deepfakes.

“Major social media companies, the companies this bill regulates, are currently on trial across the country,” the letter said. “The evidence in those cases – internal records prioritizing teen engagement over teen wellbeing, safety changes shelved because platforms would lose users, buried research on the benefits of disconnection shows the default poor choices of these companies when the law does not require otherwise. Stripping the duty of care does not lighten a regulatory burden; it removes the most important obligation requiring these products to be designed safely in the first place.”

However, Blumenthal and Blackburn publicly stated that the House version was “dead on arrival” without those provisions, and they remain in the Senate version of the bill being considered Wednesday.

The markup will also consider other major legislation that would regulate age on the internet, safety features for AI chatbots and more. While proponents claim the bills enhance privacy and safety protections, technology experts largely disagree.

The SCREEN Act, introduced last year by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, would require social media companies to implement age verification technology.

Lee has partnered with parent-led groups to advocate for state-level age verification laws that expand  parental control over children’s social media accounts. Some public surveys have shown broad public support for age verification laws.

Louis Eichenbaum, a former chief information security officer at the Department of the Interior, told CyberScoop that one of the biggest challenges around online age verification is that it “increasingly requires collecting, storing or validating sensitive identity information about them.”

“The goal should not simply be verifying age, it should be doing so while minimizing the collection, retention, and exposure of personally identifiable information,” said Eichenbaum, now federal chief technology officer at ColorTokens. “Every additional piece of identity data collected expands the attack surface and increases the potential impact of a breach.”

Some privacy groups oppose the SCREEN Act and similar age verification laws, arguing the required data collection outweighs child protection benefits. 

The Electronic Frontier Foundation said the SCREEN Act is broader than state-level age verification laws, which only cover websites that are predominantly sexually explicit.

“The bill requires nearly any service hosting even a single piece of sexually explicit content to verify the ages of its users,” wrote EFF director of federal affairs India McKinney. “The result is that the bill would apply not only to adult content sites like PornHub or OnlyFans, but also streaming services like Netflix, and social media platforms like Reddit, Discord, or Bluesky, if they host any adult content.”

The Youth AI Privacy Act, from Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., would require new safety features for AI chatbots.

According to a fact sheet released by Markey’s office in March, the bill would ban push alerts, require chatbots to disclose they’re not human, limit data retention, and prohibit using minors’ data for AI training or any purpose beyond providing answers.

The Chatbot Act, by Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Brian Schatz, D-HawaiI, John Curtis, R-Utah and Adam Schiff, D-Calif. would require AI companies to implement “family accounts” for AI chatbots that give parents the ability to monitor and restrict their children’s interactions. Cruz has said the status quo “has left many parents in the dark” on their kids’ AI use.

The Children’s Artificial Intelligence Toy Safety Act, by Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., would create a federal study around toys sold to children that include artificial intelligence or chatbot components.

The post Senate set to debate package of bills on privacy, AI and kids safety  appeared first on CyberScoop.

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency published a guidebook for federal agencies Thursday to aid them on managing security risks with open-source software, touching on topics like patching and open-source AI models.

An executive order President Joe Biden signed and that President Donald Trump amended ordered CISA and other agencies to issue open-source security recommendations to federal agencies. But the guidance is also timely, given a recent slew of attacks on open-source software (OSS).

“As part of our statutory mission, CISA remains laser-focused on enhancing the nation’s cybersecurity by collaborating with government, industry and the open-source community to understand and securely use OSS,” said Chris Butera, acting executive assistant director for cybersecurity. “CISA encourages federal civilian agencies to review this guide and implement the principles and practices to improve risk management, better execute their mission, and better serve the public.” 

The document, “Open Source Software: Security Principles and Practices,” touts the advantages of open-source software — which anyone can use, modify and share — as offering benefits in efficiency, cost, security transparency and more, but notes that it also has unique tradeoffs.

“All software carries risk, and OSS is no more or less risky than other software. The key distinction is that, with OSS, agencies can directly assess code quality and security, rather than relying solely on vendor assurances,” the guidance reads. “OSS is increasingly intertwined with emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence. Agencies that adapt to OSS’s unique characteristics will position themselves to meet future challenges and leverage new innovations.”

The guidance says that agencies need to take steps to evaluate the trustworthiness of an OSS project before approving an OSS component for use, and track OSS in their asset management repositories. It details how agencies should deal with patching, including when there’s a new OSS vulnerability that doesn’t have one. It offers advice on how agencies might contribute to OSS projects, produce them and secure rights for government reuse of code when contracting for custom software development. And it explains how it should approach open-weight AI models.

“Agencies should approach ‘open source’ AI systems differently from other OSS because open source licenses for AI software do not require the level of transparency needed to evaluate the trustworthiness of the software,” the guidance states.

Æva Black, an open-source security expert and former OSS lead at CISA, said she applauded her former agency for the guidance, telling CyberScoop that it “demonstrates a grounded understanding of the global, diverse, and participatory nature of open source software development, and provides essential guidance for federal agencies to safely use open soure during a crucial moment.” 

She singled out its recommendations on the risks of deploying unverifiable open-weight AI models on sensitive networks.

“Due to recent advances in AI, particularly in large language models capable of finding and exploiting software vulnerabilities, vulnerability management is facing a global crisis,” she said. “Many proprietary software vendors are using this as an opportunity to spread ‘fear, uncertainty, and doubt’ about open source in order to capture public attention, and, I presume, public money — but when used responsibly and maintained collaboratively, I believe open source software is, and will remain, the safest and most cost-effective means for building large scale public infrastructure.” 

CISA has produced a bevy of security guidance and updated advisory materials this week: on the creation of software bills of materials written in conjunction with other agencies and allied governments that won praise from experts; on the isolation of vital operational technology during a crisis, also written with other agencies and allied governments; and the release of updated secure cloud configuration baselines for Google Workspace.

The post CISA issues recommendations to federal agencies on open-source software security appeared first on CyberScoop.

Sen. Ron Wyden implored a trio of federal leaders Monday to lead a comprehensive campaign to purge older, insecure virtual private networks that are directly accessible via the public internet from federal agencies.

“For too long, federal agencies and government contractors have suffered devastating cyberattacks due to their reliance on legacy, insecure, internet-facing VPN servers to grant employees remote access,” Wyden, D-Ore., wrote in his missive to top officials at the Office of Management and Budget, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and National Institute of Standards and Technology. They should coordinate “require the adoption of modern, secure remote-access technology across the federal government,” he said.

Such VPNs serve as a digital “front door” accessible via the public internet that allows mobile devices and remote employees to log in, Wyden said in a letter first reported by CyberScoop.

Wyden referenced several attacks that have affected federal agencies, including the ArcaneDoor attacks on Cisco firewalls, the FortiBleed credential exposures across Fortinet gateways and vulnerabilities that hackers exploited across Ivanti and Check Point VPN appliances.

“Modern remote-access solutions eliminate this vulnerability entirely. Instead of leaving an open door accessible from the public internet, modern solutions provide remote access without broadcasting their presence,” he said. “This effectively makes these servers invisible, ensuring that hackers cannot attack an entry point they cannot see.”

Agencies should move away from what a Congressional Research Service report to Wyden called a “castle-and-moat” approach of assuming anyone inside the network is authorized to access an organization’s resources that VPNs rely upon by extending virtual bridges to a more remote workforce, he said. They should instead focus on zero-trust architecture that uses a never-trust, always-verify approach, he said.

Furthermore, CISA, the OMB and NIST need to fundamentally change how the federal government approaches agency vulnerabilities, Wyden wrote. 

“The federal government has become trapped in an endless game of ‘whack-a-mole’ in responding to widespread compromises of legacy remote access technologies,” he said. “To keep federal networks online, CISA has been forced to repeatedly issue extraordinary Emergency Directives and hyper-accelerated patch mandates. These reactive emergency mandates are unsustainable for federal cybersecurity teams, and fail to address the fundamental issue that these flaws are inherent in the use of legacy remote-access appliances.”

CISA needs to issue a binding operational directive that gives agencies two years to fully expunge legacy, public-facing remote access systems, he said. NIST needs to issue implementation standards for transitioning to zero-trust architectures.

OMB needs to issue a memo directing agencies to prioritize zero-trust architecture spending. And OMB needs to team with CISA and the Defense Department to update procurement rules to block agencies and defense contractors from buying network edge, VPN or other remote access solutions unless a vendor supplies an attestation that it complies with NIST zero-trust standards, Wyden wrote.

The post Sen. Wyden urges feds to discard older, insecure, public-facing VPNs appeared first on CyberScoop.

Industry groups who spoke at town halls hosted by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency about a pending cyber incident notification regulation had a few consistent messages:

We want this to apply to fewer of us. We don’t want to report to you on as many incidents. We want to give you less information when we do. 

CISA last week published transcripts from the town halls, where the agency sought feedback on the delayed rule for the 2022 Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act — perhaps the most significant cyber legislation Congress has ever passed. That law required critical infrastructure owners to report major cyberattacks to the federal government within 72 hours, and ransomware payments within 24 hours.

The law was designed to let the feds share information about significant incidents more widely to prepare other would-be victims. CISA published a proposed rule on the law in 2024 to define terms like “covered cyber incident” and more, and industry groups have persistently registered their objections since then.

CISA missed the October 2025 deadline for finalizing the rule, then missed a May reset target date, and now the administration says the rule will be completed in September.

Some industry sources told CyberScoop they consider that unlikely. Most also haven’t received any indications from CISA about how much of the town hall feedback it intends to embrace, they said.

Companies, incidents, information 

Those town hall comments over the course of four June dates were often very direct.

“The rule includes too many companies,” said Grant MacIntyre, director of regulatory affairs and senior attorney at the Auto Care Association. CISA estimated that more than 300,000 entities will be subject to its requirements.

Some industries advocated for their removal entirely, such as two different groups representing elements of the insurance sector. Some sought to reduce the number affected within their sector, such as the Nuclear Energy Institute wanting the list cut down to those already subject to Nuclear Regulatory Commission cybersecurity reporting requirements.

While CISA wrote the regulation with the intention to avoid overburdening small businesses, some feared it wouldn’t work that way in practice.

“The current approach where an entity qualifies either by size or by sector effectively negates the intended limitation on small businesses,” said Douglas Leigh, vice president of legislative affairs for the Alliance for Chemical Distribution. “In chemical distribution, even small entities could be swept in under multiple cyber categories.”

Where the rule specifies what kind of data organizations should report in a major incident, CISA should “seek to collect the least amount of information possible in the easiest to report fashion to facilitate information accuracy and reporting speed,” said Samantha Burch, vice president of technology public policy at government affairs at AHIP, a health insurance industry trade association.

Many, for instance, argued the report should not include information on the affected entities’ security measures.

Others worried about what kind of incidents would trigger reporting requirements.

“My big concern is that you’re going to be asking us to report incidents on every time some foreign entity tickles our firewall, whether they do anything or not, if they just do a ping or a search,” said Tim Pospisil, chief security officer for Nebraska Public Power District. “And that could be extremely burdensome.”

Industry Expectations

One industry representative told CyberScoop that CISA’s willingness to hold town halls, combined with the Trump administration strategy emphasizing “common sense regulation,” was a good sign about where the rule might be heading.

‘They are not picking up on the Biden administration’s approach and tweaking it. They’re thinking, ‘What are the specific pieces of information we need during a cyber incident to help critical infrastructure companies respond?’” said Henry Young, senior director of policy for the Business Software Alliance. “In general, industry is optimistic that what we’ll end up with are a few of the most important pieces of information, so that in the emergency, companies can act quickly and actually respond to an incident rather than completing lots of paperwork.”

But multiple industry sources said they haven’t gotten many indications about CISA’s intentions. Nor are they optimistic CISA can meet the September target date in the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions.

“It could slip,” one said. “But I think they’re going to try.”

That industry source said they’d like to see a proposal from CISA before it cements anything forever.

Another industry source said it’s hard to trust the September date given past CISA delays, some of which aren’t CISA’s fault, such as dealing with multiple government shutdowns. Some of the delays trace to the Trump administration, given the massive cuts to CISA’s personnel.

Congress is also getting impatient.

The House Appropriations Committee “is concerned about delays in publishing the final CIRCIA rule and urges CISA to finalize it promptly following stakeholder review and feedback,” the panel wrote in the committee report for its fiscal 2027 Department of Homeland Security spending bill.

It’s a much different world than when CISA began writing the rule, something the agency also has to take into account now.

“AI has fundamentally changed the playing field,” the source said. “When this was set up, we didn’t even have the first generation of ChatGPT. We’re now in a mythos class environment.” That’s changed “how quickly we can identify threats, mitigate them, the level of human intervention, potential machine engagement.”

While CISA might have good intentions, past interactions give cause for skepticism about how capable it is of working collaboratively with industry, the source said.

Another industry source said conversations with CISA suggest the agency will look to simplify the regulation to keep it smaller and narrower, then potentially build upon it later.

From CISA’s mouth

Nick Andersen, the acting director of CISA, talked about his overarching intentions with CIRCIA at the town halls.

“CISA does not view CIRCIA as simply a check-the-box compliance exercise,” Andersen said at one. “CIRCIA will enhance visibility into the cyberthreat landscape to enable a robust national early warning capability for critical infrastructure. By quickly reporting covered cyber incidents and ransom payments to CISA, we will be able to provide timely and actionable defensive and eviction measures to your network defenders.”

Asked by CyberScoop about next steps for CIRCIA, and how it might incorporate the industry feedback, a spokesperson provided a statement.

“CISA recognizes the importance of CIRCIA, however, multiple funding lapses impacted CISA’s ability to conduct rulemaking activity for CIRCIA. CISA continues to work on the final rule,” the spokesperson said, adding that 1,200 critical infrastructure stakeholders attended the town halls.  “CISA will continue to communicate updates on the CIRCIA rulemaking process and timeline through CISA.gov/CIRCIA and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs’ Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions.”

The post Industry’s message on CIRCIA: Please ask us fewer questions about cyberattacks appeared first on CyberScoop.

Microsoft, along with more than two dozen tech companies, are pressing policymakers to support open-source AI systems and code across society, arguing that it will be a safer approach than attempting to restrict access or relying on a handful of closed, proprietary models.

The open letter, posted Friday, draws parallels to the software industry of the 1980s, when large businesses worried that open-source software code would cut into their business. While industry lost that battle, the end result was a vibrant ecosystem that now underpins much of the modern internet, government IT and even commercial software products.

It also created a “shared foundation of knowledge” that has fed countless future software projects and innovations.

“The United States now faces a similar choice with artificial intelligence,” the companies wrote. “Our AI leadership will be judged not by one frontier AI model, but by whether the United States builds a strong, open ecosystem that diffuses into every sector.”

Expanding access and support to open-source AI comes with meaningful security risk. Cybersecurity experts warn that one of the biggest beneficiaries of broadly available AI tools are  low-level criminals who until now lacked the technical expertise or resources to launch serious attacks.

Once a model is open weight, anyone can download it, customize it, strip it of any guardrails and use it for their own purposes. As open-source models have gotten better at creating deepfakes and other AI generated imagery, the danger of locally-customized CSAM and sexualized deepfakes could also grow.

But the letter argues that open-weight AI models are most beneficial to startups, universities, research labs and other small, ambitious organizations that can innovate and iterate the technology and make it more broadly useful to society.

“Open weights let every organization match the right model to the right job at the right cost, reserving frontier-scale capability for genuine frontier problems and running efficient specialized specialized models everywhere else,” The companies wrote. “That discipline is what will make AI economically sustainable as its use scales into the billions of everyday tasks.”

 For cybersecurity specifically, the letter argues that defenders armed with open-source AI will outpace attackers better than any closed model approach.

“In a world where cybersecurity attackers use advanced AI, defenders need access to models with comparable capabilities so they can detect, simulate, and respond to emerging threats,” the companies wrote. “Open models broaden defensive capability, increase transparency, and allow vulnerabilities to be discovered and remediated across many teams.”

Other notable companies signing the letter include Meta, Palantir, Perplexity, Mistral, NVIDIA, Mozilla, The Linux Foundation, Hugging Face, Dell Technologies and IBM.

US policymakers continue to grapple with balancing unrestrained support for the domestic AI industry and providing oversight and regulation of harms that result from their use.

The Trump administration has cycled through several frameworks since coming into office, first a laissez-faire approach within no restrictions, then an executive order creating a voluntary testing regime for industry, then the imposition of export controls on Anthropic’s Fable model and reportedly pressuring OpenAI to delay the release of their models out of cybersecurity concerns.

The letter comes as the Trump administration has reportedly considered an executive order that would restrict American access and availability to Chinese-made open-source models.

But the White House and US companies are trying to thread a needle in recognizing the overall benefits of an open source approach while being wary of doing anything that could potentially benefit their Chinese rivals.

Earlier this month the White House announced the creation of its Gold Eagle AI cybersecurity clearinghouse that would help coordinate government, private sector and civil society work finding and closing AI-discovered vulnerabilities. A big part of that effort, a senior White House official said, is supporting providers and maintainers of open-source AI tools.

The post Microsoft, tech companies throw weight behind spread of open-source AI appeared first on CyberScoop.

The State Department will restrict visas for cybercriminals like scammers to sextortionists, and in some cases even their family members, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Thursday.

The Trump administration has sought to make a crackdown on foreign-based scams one of the signature issues of his second term. An executive order that the president signed in March indicated that visa restrictions would be on the table as one response.

“By restricting visa issuance to those who are responsible for or complicit in these criminal enterprises, we are sending a clear message: The United States will go after those who prey on our citizens,” Rubio said.

Other departments have also made efforts to reduce foreign-run scams. In June, the Department of Justice seized infrastructure used by subsidiaries of the Huione Group, a Cambodia-based corporate conglomerate tied to one of the world’s most prolific criminal marketplaces used to commit cyber scams and other crimes.

Rubio authorized the visa restrictions under a 1952 law that gives the State Department the ability to deport or rule as inadmissible someone who poses “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.”

Critics have accused the Trump administration of abusing that provision of the law for political purposes.

Rubio’s statement on the visa restrictions mentions “individuals responsible for, or complicit in, cybercrime and cyber-enabled crime, such as those involved in cyberscams, and sextortion.”  Furthermore, he said, “Immediate family members of individuals engaged in such illicit activities may also be subjected to visa restrictions.”

Betsy Cooper, Founding Director of the Aspen Policy Academy, said the visa restrictions on cybercriminals could be valuable, but offered a caveat.

“Scamming people is a growing global enterprise, and it is a laudable goal to penalize those who scam and defraud people since they so rarely suffer consequences for their actions,” she said in a statement to CyberScoop. “So long as the new visa controls are used narrowly and deployed only against verified scammers and fraudsters, this is a positive step toward combatting cyber-enabled crime.”

While some cyber experts have questioned how much visa restrictions, prosecutions and other punishments of cyber miscreants who are based overseas will affect them, others maintain that it can serve as a deterrent to those who would consider getting into the line of work but want freedom to travel the globe.

FightCyberCrime.org, a nonprofit that seeks to help cybercrime victims, applauded the restrictions on the cybercriminals.

“We welcome efforts to hold cybercriminals accountable across borders. Cryptocurrency investment scams, romance scams, and sextortion cause devastating financial and emotional harm to victims,” it said in a statement to CyberScoop. “Meaningful disruption of these transnational criminal networks is an essential part of the response.”

But there’s still a long way to go in the fight, the statement continued.

“At the same time, we must invest more in victim support, prevention, and recovery resources,” the organization said. “Accountability is critical, but ensuring victims have access to trauma-informed support and resources is equally important.”

The post Rubio restricts visas for sextortionists, cyber scammers appeared first on CyberScoop.

Seven out of 10 federal cyber regulations requiring written reports to federal agencies are duplicated elsewhere, a report from a government watchdog found in a report to Congress Wednesday.

And so far, efforts to de-conflict haven’t had much success, the report from the Government Accountability Office concluded.

At the request of two top lawmakers, the GAO examined federal cyber regulations at 37 agencies. It counted 80 out of 117 rules that “either contain the same kind of reporting requirement applicable to a sector or the same reporting requirement as at least one other regulation.”

The desire to harmonize those conflicting rules gathered steam under the Biden administration, as it undertook a more aggressive push to regulate cybersecurity than prior administrations. It has continued into the second Trump administration.

The GAO scrutinized regulations that required the private sector to report cybersecurity incidents, plans and reviews to federal agencies, as part of a study sought by House Homeland Security Chairman Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y., and the top Democrat on the Senate counterpart to Garbarino’s panel, Gary Peters, D-Mich.

In some cases, a single critical infrastructure sector could have duplication with several agencies. For example, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency has been working on a regulation stemming from the 2022 Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act (CIRCIA), which would require critical infrastructure owners and operators to report when they are the victims of major attacks or make ransomware payments.

Elements of the financial services sector might fall under one of 15 preexisting cybersecurity reporting rules, depending on the agency that has oversight, but they may also be subject to the pending CIRCIA rules, GAO noted.

A 2024 national security memorandum tasked the Office of the National Cyber Director and the Department of Homeland Security to harmonize conflicting regulations, and both agencies made some progress on those goals.

But the executive branch paused some of those efforts after Trump issued an executive order in March of last year while the administration conducted a study of the 2024 memo, a study that was still underway as of last month, according to the GAO.

As such, on harmonization, “many past federal efforts have experienced delays and made limited progress,” the GAO concluded in its report Wednesday, its latest on the topic. 

Congress has also looked at ways to streamline cybersecurity regulations.

GAO’s study was focused only on federal rules. BreachRx, a cyber incident response firm, published its own report Wednesday looking at major cyber incidents and how overlapping regulatory reporting obligations came into play, folding in regulations from states and other sources.

The post Most federal cybersecurity reporting rules are duplicative, study finds appeared first on CyberScoop.

A top White House technology official is accusing a Chinese company of distilling Anthropic’s models to create their own AI product.

Michael Kratsios, who leads the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, claimed that Moonshot AI, a Beijing, China-based AI company, had distilled Anthropic’s recently-released Fable model to develop its own K3 model.

“To do this they developed a sophisticated internal platform to conduct large scale distillation against U.S. models, allowing them to quickly switch between multiple methods of access to avoid detection,” Kratsios wrote on X Wednesday.

Kratsios also said the company has used GB300 servers – either newly acquired or through Thailand – to train its AI models.

“The United States strongly supports the free and fair development of AI, including a thriving competitive ecosystem that spans frontier models, specialized systems, open-source frameworks, and open-weight models,” Kratsios continued. “Legitimate AI distillation used to create smaller, more efficient models plays a vital role in this open innovation ecosystem. However, large-scale, covert industrial distillation aimed at stealing proprietary U.S. technology and undermining American research is unacceptable.”

Kratsios did not provide details on how the U.S. government learned that K3 had been distilled from Anthropic’s model. 

Frontier AI companies in the U.S. have pressed policymakers to make it more difficult for third-parties to copy or duplicate advanced commercial models, calling it a form of intellectual property theft.

On their website, Moonshot AI describes its Kimi K3 model as the first open 2.8 trillion parameter model, and promotes its lower token costs while still delivering near-frontier performance. 

“While its overall performance still trails the most powerful proprietary models, Claude Fable 5 and GPT 5.6 Sol, Kimi K3 demonstrated frontier-level performance across our evaluation suite, consistently outperforming other tested models,” the company said on its website. 

A request for comment sent to Moonshot AI was not returned before this article’s publication. 

Piyush Sharma, CEO of Tuskira, an AI cybersecurity detection and response company, said distillation of AI models allows developers many of a model’s core capabilities. He pointed to another example when Anthropic earlier this year accused Chinese company Alibaba of distilling their Claude AI model.

According to Anthropic, the campaign used 25,000 fraudulent accounts to run 28.8 million interactions on Claude over six weeks. Given that kind of volume “the goal was clearly replication,” he said. 

“When a model has learned to reason through software weaknesses, security gaps, and attack paths, copying its behavior also copies that analytical capability,” said Sharma.

In April, Rep. Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y., who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee and Rep. John Moolenaar, R-Mich., Chair of the Select Committee on China, announced they were conducting a joint investigation into the integration of Chinese AI models.

The committees said the inquiry will also focus on “examining a pattern of conduct by [Chinese]-based AI laboratories involving the large-scale theft of proprietary capabilities from American frontier AI systems through adversarial distillation” as well as “ the redistribution of those stolen capabilities as open-weight models available for global download, and the incorporation of PRC-origin models into products used daily by hundreds of thousands of American developers and engineers.”

Western governments and industry accuse Chinese companies of routinely stealing their technology, intellectual property and other trade secrets, often with the tacit support of Beijing. The copying of AI models would continue a long and established tradition of Chinese-sponsored intellectual property theft.

However, while distillation attacks by foreign governments or companies on U.S. frontier companies can have real national security implications, it’s still a fraught question of where policymakers should draw the line.

The AI industry, which includes not just frontier companies but large businesses with their own bespoke models, smaller proprietary startups and a vibrant open-source ecosystem, routinely share and use third-party data, including critical code and training sets for AI models.

Further, U.S. frontier AI companies have built and trained their world leading models in large part by crawling the open internet, ingesting content created and produced by others. Critics (and multiple ongoing lawsuits) argue that AI companies like OpenAI and Anthropic built their empires on data and content from others, taken almost entirely without consent or compensation.

The post White House accuses Chinese company of distilling Anthropic’s Fable appeared first on CyberScoop.

After a year and a half spent downplaying calls for AI safety regulations, the Trump administration has sharply reversed course, embracing a level of government scrutiny of frontier AI systems before public release–a far stricter stance than the Biden administration took.

An executive order designed to be friendly to the AI industry was meant to let the federal government briefly review some new models on a voluntary basis.

When the Trump administration, suddenly and without much warning, slapped export controls on Anthropic’s Fable 5 and Mythos 5 in response to private sector threat intelligence reporting, the U.S. AI industry officially entered its regulatory era.

But key questions and gaps remain. It’s not clear why the administration drew the line where it did, or whether they will move it again in the future.

While newer models like Mythos and OpenAI’s Daybreak do have stronger cybersecurity capabilities, the private sector reports the administration relied on describe capabilities already available in older commercial, open-source and Chinese models that nearly anyone can access.

CyberScoop spoke with current users of the latest frontier models, including OpenAI’s ChatGPT 5.5 and Fable 5, to learn more about what these models are currently capable of in offensive and defensive cybersecurity.

Cybersecurity experts and former government officials say the administration may be playing catch up on threats that have been building for years as it has more fully realized the national security implications of the technology.

Are the models breaking new ground or just breaking things? 

Users of Chat GPT 5.5, introduced this past April, and Fable 5 tell CyberScoop those models have been largely helpful to their work, even as they complained about high token usage and safety guardrails that hinder,  but don’t meaningfully prevent, defensive cyber tasks.

Eyal Webber Zvik, chief strategy officer at Cato Networks, a cloud and cybersecurity network provider in OpenAI’s Trusted Access in Cyber program, said they use GPT 5.5 and later OpenAI models to scan and triage internal codebases for vulnerabilities, test new safeguards and provide “highly autonomized service” to their customers.

Zvik wouldn’t disclose how many bugs 5.5 has found but said the company’s view is that it helps both find bugs that humans missed and rank which ones to patch based on factors like each bug’s exploitability.

“It is now a native part of our development environment and cycles, and we use those models to scale our entire codebase and make sure what we release into the service that our customers use to run their networks and network security has the least likelihood of having any vulnerabilities that can be exploited,” said Zvik.

John Hopper, vice president of engineering at SpecterOps, an identity security company, said newer models like GPT 5.5 are sharper and more persistent in pursuing their tasks.

“That can be a good or bad thing,” he noted.

One metric that SpecterOps tracks is how long it can keep a particular agent working before it moves off task or fails. That metric “matters a lot” because the longer an agent works without human help , the more agents a single operator can run at once.

Hopper said this provides defenders with immense value, and pushed back on the idea that the offensive capabilities the models offer are automatically more beneficial to malicious hackers. There is “a modicum of grounding that the industry needs when we talk about these models.”

“Yes, AI frontier tools will lower the barrier of entry, but these problems have always existed,” he said. “I don’t actually believe that AI is going to remove the needle in the haystack problem, but by howdy, using my two hands to find that damn needle, compared to using a backhoe, I can tell you which one I’d rather be driving.”

Eran Kinsbruner, vice president of product marketing at software security firm Checkmarx, told CyberScoop that later models like OpenAI’s Codex Security and GPT 5.5 are noticeably easier to set up and run with local systems, even for less technical users. That alone gives them an edge over many cybersecurity tools where interoperability is a constant concern.

However, GPT 5.5 burns through tokens at a much faster rate. He recalled one instance of using it to scan a medium-sized repository in three different programming languages.

“After 26 minutes I almost ran out of tokens, and it didn’t provide anything, just created a threat model for me and told me you want to buy more tokens?” he said.

In other instances, some of the scan results he received were not comprehensive.

Further, he expressed frustration with some of the guardrails designed to prevent risk – like only allowing users to scan local files but not code repositories like GitHub – “makes not too much sense” given how often developers must work with remote code.

Those kinds of guardrails – which can prevent models or developers from injecting malicious code or prompting into their models – sit at the heart of the debate in Washington D.C. and around the world. Some users feel differently about their utility.

Kinsbruner said that doesn’t make sense for organizations like his, which work with thousands of different enterprise organizations with  thousands of different code repositories spread across the internet.

“I cannot imagine how large-scale developers could just jump into this solution and make it an enterprise-grade, enterprise-level, de facto cybersecurity solution” out of it, said Kinsbruner.

OpenAI did not respond to a request from CyberScoop for an interview on GPT 5.5. The company has since released another model, GPT 5.6, that they said is more efficient at token use.

The White House’s crash course in AI cyber risk 

 The White House keeps changing its line on whether and how the U.S. government should limit the release of commercial frontier models. The shift comes from lessons learned since coming into office in Jan. 2025. Trump threw out Biden-era regulations meant to steer the industry toward safer models. Top officials like Vice President JD Vance argued against restricting industry progress.

Less than two years later, administration officials worry about the impact of speed and scale – two things AI excels at – in cyberspace.

According to Will Loucks, senior director of intelligence at the Office of the National Cyber Director, over the past two years the number of exposed and known vulnerabilities has shot up. Threat actors exploit those flaws faster before defenders can fix them. Once inside, the time from initial access to full network control shrinks.

“So in other words, every stage of the cyber operations lifecycle that a threat actor has to move through to get to a victim network and achieve an outcome, they’re just moving through more quickly faster,” said Loucks at a July 16 event in Washington D.C.

Speaking about AI in particular, Loucks said one of the defining characteristics of the technology is its ability to lower barriers for threat actors.

“Sometimes speed and volume have a threatening aspect alone, even if sophistication isn’t quite increasing in the same way, and the reason for that is because it places pressure on defenders…to triage alerts more quickly,” he said.

Jordan Rae Kelly, former director for cyber and incident response on the White House’s National Security Council during Trump’s first term, told CyberScoop that the changes over the past two years reflect the lessons the White House has learned on the issue since returning to office.

In the early days of this administration, Kelly said, “there is a sense and a spirit that the Biden administration was limiting AI and there was a kind of a rip-it-all-off [attitude], everybody go and do whatever, we will be the biggest and boldest and brightest.”

“I love that talking point, but I think what you’ve seen is probably an education over the last 19 months, where people [in the White House] have said that’s a challenging premise to put into place, knowing about the potential downsides and capabilities,” she added.

Michael Daniel, former White House cyber coordinator under President Barack Obama, thinks the horse may already be out of the barn.

Daniel, now head of the Cyber Threat Alliance, a membership nonprofit group focused on cyber threat information sharing between industry and government, said his members report that AI is being used to do things “faster and at a slightly bigger scale” but aren’t yet seeing the flood of exploitation that analysts have warned about. Not yet.

“I think what we’re seeing right now [and] talking about is ‘okay, where are the step changes [in the cyber threat landscape] actually going to occur?” said Daniel. “Are we and when will we see the explosion in vulnerability reporting from these Mythos-like capabilities? That’s what’s really got their attention right now.”

But Mythos and OpenAI’s Daybreak models are restricted to select organizations, and neither has publicly released its most powerful cybersecurity models to the public. That dynamic won’t last.

The UK’s AI Security Institute estimates that open source and foreign LLM models are between 4-7 months behind frontier U.S. models. In that setting, it’s hard to stop the development of AI models worldwide through export controls or other limits.

“It’s not like we’re buying ourselves five to ten years on this,” he said. “We’re not, and so I’m not sure the impact on the defenders who are trying to obey the law is worth whatever small hiccup we cause for our adversaries.”

Kelly said there’s merit to the administration’s current position, even if it took time to get there. Many federal cybersecurity procedures that operated even a decade ago – such as a Vulnerabilities Equities Process that could take days or weeks to consider the pros and cons of keeping an exploit – are no longer practical.

“All of that work to some degree, is out the window, because you can’t meet with the regularity you would need to meet to adjudicate vulnerabilities that are being found in seconds and exploited in minutes,” said Kelly.

But Kelly and others say that’s also because AI capabilities in cybersecurity are developing faster than policymakers can react, even in the best of times.

Key questions remain and the administration’s balance between national security and backing domestic industry will likely shift  in response to new events.  The administration wants a framework that can predict and manage the risks of AI models today and tomorrow. That may be harder than it sounds.

“Do I think they’ve been clear? No,” said Kelly. “But I think it’s a place where clarity is really hard to achieve.”

The post Where’s the Trump administration line on AI regulation? appeared first on CyberScoop.

An annual spy policy bill would authorize a cyberthreat intelligence sharing pilot program for state and local governments, and order an outside assessment of how intelligence agencies are currently sharing that information with those jurisdictions.

The House Intelligence Committee approved fiscal 2027 intelligence authorization legislation Monday that also includes provisions on election security and that are meant to boost intelligence community (IC) usage of artificial intelligence for cyber and other purposes.

The measure’s language on state and local information sharing come amid widespread frustration with Trump administration cutbacks on such aid from the federal government, with the president taking explicit action to shift more responsibility for cyber defenses to the local level.

Under the pilot program, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) would pick one state to receive monthly briefings from the ODNI, Department of Homeland Security, FBI and others to receive monthly briefings on “timely, specific, and actionable information regarding cyber threats” in unclassified form. After a year, the ODNI would then provide a report on the viability of a wider briefing program for state and local governments.

The bill requires the ODNI to produce a strategy on information sharing with states and local areas, and would require the Government Accountability Office to conduct an assessment of the state of such sharing now, including a summary of relevant agencies’ current efforts, how the agencies deconflict those efforts and what kind of obstacles security clearances pose to improving information sharing.

Trump’s pick to serve as DNI, Jay Clayton, emphasized his desire to focus on cyber threat information sharing as part of his Senate vetting last week, but some in the GOP are also pushing to significantly reduce the size of his office.

National Cyber Director Sean Cairncross has also talked about creating pilot programs for cyber threat information sharing with state and local governments, but there’s been little movement on that initiative.

During committee deliberation, panel Democrats won adoption of a trio of election security amendments.

An amendment from the panel’s top Democrat, Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut, would require the intelligence community to publish an unclassified assessment of foreign intelligence threats to the 2026 midterms. Rep. Jason Crow of Colorado’s amendment would partially withhold funding for the ODNI until Congress gets overdue reports it had required on the 2024 and 2026 elections. And  Rep. Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania’s amendment would “protect analysts from retribution by IC leadership for working on intelligence products related to foreign influence in US elections,” according to a news release.

The Democrats’ push arrives shortly after President Donald Trump delivered a primetime address seeking to bolster his long-debunked claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him.

According to a Republican summary of the bill, it includes provisions for “significantly increasing funding for expanded access and use of frontier AI models for intelligence and cyber missions,” to codify and expand the role of the Artificial Intelligence Security Center at the National Security Agency and strengthen information sharing on AI threats.

“This year’s [bill] balances strong transparency and accountability measures while equipping the IC with the resources needed to combat the ever-evolving threats from our adversaries around the world, with a particularly strong focus on the global AI race,” said House Intelligence Chairman Rick Crawford, R-Ark.

Another assessment that the bill orders would come from the Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence of the Department of Energy on foreign cyberthreats to critical energy infrastructure, including their intent and risks.

The trend in Congress is for lawmakers to incorporate the annual intelligence authorization bill, or some of its provisions, into the annual National Defense Authorization Act, which often reaches the president’s desk at the end of each calendar year.

The post House intel bill includes provisions on state and local threat intelligence, election security, AI appeared first on CyberScoop.

State and local officials and election security experts largely panned a Thursday night primetime speech by President Donald Trump, saying it was reflective of White House “desperation” to find any credible evidence to support their claims that U.S. elections have been rigged against the two-term president.

While the White House teased explosive new claims about the potential compromise of U.S. elections by China, Trump’s speech was a rehash of claims that both have no supporting evidence and have been repeatedly debunked when investigated. 

David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research and a former voting and civil rights attorney at the Department of Justice, said none of Trump’s claims or allegations were new or substantively different from previous theories he’s been espousing over the past six years.

“The White House promised a bombshell and they delivered a dud,” Becker said on a call with reporters Friday. “There was nothing that even calls into question past elections — certainly not the 2020 election.”

The administration declassified a huge tranche of documents from the intelligence agencies, and news outlets continue to sift through them, but thus far nothing has been found that remotely validates the administration’s claims about foreign interference from China costing Trump the 2020 election.

In fact, some of the most relevant documents found at this point have supported the opposite conclusion, with agencies assessing that while China engaged in influence campaigns around the election, it was not attempting to outright interfere with U.S. election infrastructure, hack voting machines or manipulate ballots.

John Solomon, a former journalist and opinion writer at The Hill brought in by the White House to lead the investigation, also told reporters Thursday that his search hasn’t turned up evidence that the 2020, 2022 or 2024 elections were affected by fraud.

The one new major claim by Trump — that the Department of Homeland Security determined hundreds of thousands of noncitizens were registered to vote across four states — is almost certainly false or overinflated, given that it contradicts post-election state audits that have routinely found single or double-digit numbers of noncitizens registered to vote within a single state across multiple elections.

Over the past six years, similar claims by GOP secretaries of state and political activists purporting to find mass numbers of noncitizens registered to vote have turned out to be grossly inflated due to shoddy data analysis, and the vast majority of cases involving “suspected noncitizens” turn out to be U.S. citizens who are legally registered to vote.

The White House has provided little to no information on the methodology used to flag and identify supposed noncitizen voters, other than alluding to the use of “commercial data” and federal databases. A federal court recently ordered DHS to dismantle the SAVE database, its primary database for verifying the citizenship status of U.S. voters, because it was unreliable and violated longstanding privacy laws. 

 Apart from DHS admitting its own data on citizenship is incomplete, Becker said using a list that relies on matching voter files with commercial data is not a reliable way of determining citizenship.

“It is impossible to take a public voter file with very little information that is uniquely identified, like a driver’s license number, and compare it to a commercial database and say for sure the Maria Rodriguez or the John Lee or the Shawn O’Hara you have on that is the same person,” he said.

Election officials also responded forcefully. Nevada Democratic Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar said that Trump has spent a decade attempting to manufacture a crisis around voter fraud and the president’s speech Thursday night was an extension of that effort. 

“As Nevada’s chief elections officer, it’s my job to call balls and strikes — so when the President lies, I am obligated to call him out,” Aguilar said in a statement. “The facts have not changed: Nevada’s elections are among the safest, most secure and accessible in the nation.”

It’s not just Democrats that have objected to the administration’s efforts. GOP states have gone to court to block the Department of Justice from obtaining their voter data, and Idaho’s Republican secretary of state responded to a DOJ letter threatening prosecution of election officials as “not well met” and potentially illegal under state ethics laws. 

Trump’s speech potentially casts additional light on recent White House decisions, such as firing all three commissioners on the Election Assistance Commission. The agency helps certify voting machines for security, and all three commissioners have served across administrations and maintain close relationships with state and local election officials.  

Pamela Smith, CEO of the nonprofit Verified Voting, said that while the EAC can’t take certain actions that need commissioner approval, “critical functions like voting system testing and certification can continue under the existing framework and should not be affected.”

In 2020, Trump’s initial claims of widespread election fraud were undercut by leaders at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which said there was no evidence the election was compromised. The removal of EAC commissioners could represent an attempt to preempt any efforts to rebut or criticize White House claims that elections and voting machines have been compromised.

Some have worried that Trump could use the speech as a pretext to declare a national emergency or cancel elections.

Tom Lopach, CEO of the Voter Participation Center, said “you don’t dismantle election security infrastructure if you’re serious about protecting elections.”

“You dismantle it if you’re planning to claim, without evidence, that the system failed you,” he said. 

While Becker takes Trump’s broadsides against state election authority seriously, he also said it’s important not to lose sight of the fact that, in his view, the administration is losing the argument across the board.

More than a dozen federal courts have unanimously rejected the federal government’s attempts to forcibly obtain state voter data, while other courts have rejected core pieces of his election-related executive orders. State officials have publicly — and at times, angrily — pushed back on the administration’s demands as blatant federal overreach. 

Becker predicted that such an act would be quickly shot down by courts as well, noting that the U.S. has never canceled or postponed an election in its 250-year history, including when British troops were marauding on American soil during the War of 1812 or even at the height of the Civil War.

It’s important not to conflate the White House’s bluster and intentions with its actual authorities or capability to seize control of U.S. elections.

“This is what panic and desperation look like,” Becker said. “They’ve had 18 months in total control of the federal government and they have found nothing that would support President Trump’s lies about the 2020 election, and so they’re just trying to grab as much garbage as they can and throw it up against the wall, and it’s not sticking.”

The post State officials, election experts pan Trump speech: ‘This is what desperation looks like’ appeared first on CyberScoop.

The Trump administration unveiled its new federal clearinghouse for sharing AI cyber threat information between the government and private sector, and said the project is already receiving threat intelligence on cybersecurity vulnerabilities and prioritizing patching.

Created last month through a White House executive order, “Gold Eagle” will be managed by the Department of the Treasury, with contributions from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, Department of Homeland Security, and Department of Defense, as well as open-source software providers, critical infrastructure operators and industry.

“Under President Trump’s leadership, the Treasury Department is working hand in hand with the private sector to safeguard our financial institutions, close vulnerabilities, and protect the integrity of the U.S. financial system,” Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent said in a statement. “Treasury, along with our partner agencies, will continue to harness frontier AI capabilities to stay ahead of our adversaries and defend the American people from emerging threats.”

Gold Eagle is meant to help both public and private organizations find, fix and patch vulnerabilities found using AI tools before they’re discovered and exploited by bad actors. The work will involve using AI to find cybersecurity vulnerabilities in victim systems and software, and Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin said it would also further explore ways for the technology to be leveraged for cyber defense.

A senior White House official told reporters on a background call that closed source models from frontier AI models, including Anthropic’s Mythos, will be used to discover vulnerabilities.

White House officials said they worked with the Software Engineering Institute, SEI at Carnegie Mellon University to develop a new platform, the Vulnerability Information and Coordination Environment – or VINTS – to receive third-party reports on AI-discovered vulnerabilities. According to the White House, the system has already begun collecting intelligence on vulnerabilities and prioritizing patches.

“I think on the early side of this, we have seen that the scale of vulnerability discovery, particularly with users of new technology to scan their system, is something that is a step function change [than] we’ve seen seen before,” the official said.

As AI models have improved at carrying out core cybersecurity-related tasks – like scanning code for vulnerabilities or developing proof-of-concept exploit code – cybersecurity experts and policymakers have become increasingly worried. The modern internet is rife with insecure code, misconfigurations and other mistakes that can be identified and exploited faster than ever before using AI tools.

Vulnerabilities in open-source software can be both widespread and hidden, as many commercial software products on the market rely on open-source code but few bother to document it. When hackers compromised a logging tool in the Log4J open-source Apache software library in 2021, it required a massive, multi-month coordination effort by CISA, the private sector and other stakeholders to find and fix affected pieces of software.

The White House official said the work of Gold Eagle is reflective of the administration’s “full support” of U.S. open-source software providers and maintainers.

Open source tools are “vital to systems that run throughout our country and daily life,” a senior administration official said, speaking to reporters on background. “It is being maintained by a talented group of people and entities and we will do everything we can to support the strength of that community.”

Michael Daniel, former White House cyber coordinator under President Barack Obama, told CyberScoop that AI is still so new that policymakers continue to observe its impact and adapt. While some existing communication channels for sharing cybersecurity threat information could probably be duplicated for tracking AI threats, there is still much for policymakers to learn more about the technology, the kind of threats it produces and its ecosystem of stakeholders.

“It may turn out at the end of the day that phishing is still phishing, and the fact that now you’ve got AI tools doing it, it’s still phishing. Or there may be something fundamentally different about it that we need to figure out how to combat and share information around,” he said.

The post White House details ‘Gold Eagle’ clearinghouse for AI cyber threats appeared first on CyberScoop.

European governments sanctioned Russian individuals and organizations Monday over what they said was a years-long campaign of cyberespionage from Turla and other Russian government-led “destructive attacks” against the bloc.

Monday’s confrontation of Moscow included action from the European Union, its individual member governments and the United Kingdom. It mostly took aim at Center 16 of Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) over its control of the cyber threat group known by a list of names including Turla, Secret Blizzard and Waterbug.

“Cybercriminals, self-proclaimed hacktivists and private companies linked to Russia, including actors operating under its instructions, direction or control, have also carried out, enabled and facilitated a wide range of malicious activities,” European Union High Representative Kaja Kallas said in a statement.

The EU called out Russia for the Turla campaign that dated back to 2010 in France with targeting of the government there, and has also featured activity against Germany, Poland, Cyprus, the Netherlands, Austria, Slovakia, Romania and Finland. It made special mention of blaming the FSB for last December’s attacks on Poland’s energy grid, which left half a million people without heat.

In all, the European Union sanctioned nine Russian individuals and four entities. While the EU didn’t name them, Kallas’s statement said it also included officers of Russia’s Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff (GRU).

The United Kingdom’s cyber sanctions, the first it’s done in coordination with the EU, featured a longer list of 24 individuals and entities. The U.K. named GRU senior leadership figures Vyacheslav Stafeyev, Ivan Senin and Ivan Kasyanenko for their alleged hybrid cyberattacks in conjunction with cybercriminals and recruitment of hackers across Russian universities. The U.K. also sanctioned individuals behind Lumma Stealer, the target of an international takedown last year.

“These sanctions strike at the core of the cybercriminal networks propping up the Russian state’s aggression, and the UK and EU are sending a clear message that Russia cannot hide behind its use of these proxy groups,” Foreign Secretary, Yvette Cooper, said in a news release that mentioned “destructive attacks” by Russia. “From directing criminals to targeting businesses, and striking Poland’s energy grid in the depths of winter, the Russian state is sinking to new lows in its attempts to undermine European security.”

At least two European governments, Germany and France, said they would be summoning Russia’s ambassadors in their nations over the attacks.

Also Monday, the European Union announced sanctions against the company behind Russia’s messaging app, Max, citing its use of surveillance features to clamp down on dissent. And separately, 13 nations including the United States issued a warning on Monday about Russian government hackers targeting routers to carry out critical infrastructure attacks.

Russia routinely denies allegations of responsibility for any malicious cyber activity.

The post Europe strikes out against Russia’s Turla over espionage, ‘destructive attacks’ appeared first on CyberScoop.

The Paris Peace Forum, a French non-profit that has convened world leaders on global security issues, is launching a new project to bring together international experts to assess AI-related threats to global internet infrastructure.

The Integrated Network for Trusted AI in Cyberspace (INTAiC) will tap researchers and civil society experts from government and the private sector, analyzing current AI cyber threats from the field and creating “forward-looking” reports on how the technology will impact society and what organizations can do to respond.

One of the project’s top goals is to create an international, quick-response coalition of government and business to address AI-related threats, similar to coordination mechanisms that exist in other areas of cybersecurity.

“Evidence fragmentation on AI-driven cyber threats isn’t incidental — it’s structural: those defending networks and those securing AI systems have long worked in separate spheres,” said Adrien Abecassis, policy initiatives director for the Paris Peace Forum. “That’s exactly why INTAiC is unique — it’s built to turn those fragments into one comparable reading of the threat, because this is a challenge no actor can meet alone.”

The network already lists a number of prominent businesses and organizations, including Microsoft, the Cyber Threat Alliance, the Cloud Security Alliance, Orange Cyberdefense and others.

According to the forum, INTAiC’s work will focus primarily on two, separate workstreams. One is a single and regularly updated resource for defenders to stay up to date on how AI is reshaping cyber threats. The resource is focused more on attacker capabilities, different forms of misuse and the impact on security operations rather than isolated incidents.

“The result is a common reference point, grounded in reality, that gives policymakers a clearer measure of the threat and identifies the risks most deserving of collective attention,” the Forum said in a release.

The second workstream will focus on evaluating and preventing cyber risks associated with AI, building up a base of independent third-party experts who can provide neutral or unbiased assessments of frontier model cyber capabilities. That work will pull in governments, research institutions and non-profits to develop new organizational and funding pathways to support that kind of research.

While the U.S. federal government has come a long way in recent years building up its own capacity to test and study AI cyber threats, much of the access and technical expertise around frontier model capabilities are concentrated within commercial AI companies. This has at times created concerns that federal agencies were being overly reliant on AI companies to explain how the technology worked and walk them through the possible threat scenarios.

As Anthropic and OpenAI have rolled out defensive cybersecurity programs like Project Glasswing and the Trusted Access for Cyber program, access to those models have become available to a wider group of researchers and organizations.

The Paris Peace Forum intends to brief the public further on INTAiC’s work and accomplishments in Paris later this year during the organization’s annual conference in November.

The post French nonprofit starts global intelligence and research hub for AI cyber threats  appeared first on CyberScoop.

In 2022 and 2023, the European Parliament’s PEGA Committee investigated spyware abuses across the European Union following journalistic revelations about government deployment of NSO Group’s Pegasus technology.

Now, years later, it turns out that someone was using Pegasus spyware on one of the committee’s own. 

In a report published Friday, the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab revealed that it found Pegasus on the phone of substitute PEGA Committee member Stelios Kouloglou, a Greek journalist and former member of the European Parliament. It’s the first time a member of the committee has been publicly identified as a Pegasus victim.

For Kouloglou, the Pegasus infection was surprising. For another PEGA Committee member, it was fully expected, if delayed. For Citizen Lab, it was ironic.

For all of them, it was further evidence that much more needs to be done to prevent spyware abuses — such as enacting the very recommendations of the PEGA Committee’s final report that never saw action in the European Parliament.

Kouloglou told CyberScoop that he had run security tests on his phone prior to joining the PEGA committee in 2022, so he didn’t think anyone would be bold enough to try to infect his phone once he became a member. With Greece’s use of Predator spyware under scrutiny, “it would be a big scandal” if he was hacked while on the panel, he said.

But someone — Citizen Lab’s investigation didn’t uncover whom — infected Kouloglou’s phone with Pegasus twice, once around October of 2022 and once around March of 2023, investigators concluded with “high confidence.”

During the first infection, the committee was preparing for some prominent hearings and the first draft of its report. Kouloglou was in the hospital and got a visit from another Greek journalist who had testified before the committee and had himself had his phone infected with spyware earlier. Given the ability of spyware to listen to audio through an infected phone, it’s possible the infection ran afoul of protections for health data.

During the second infection, the panel was preparing for yet more hearings and “was engaged in intense discussions related to the final drafting process,” according to Citizen Lab.

The Citizen Lab investigation of Kouloglou’s came about this May, after he said a lawyer he knew told him there was a way to send his phone’s data to the research organization, during a time when Kouloglou was doing some investigative reporting and writing a “scandal of the week” column. “I said, ‘Why not? Let’s do it,” he said.

Whoever was responsible for infecting Kouloglou’s phone did so during “crucial moments” of the committee’s work, said Hannah Neumann, a member of the PEGA Committee and European Parliament member from Germany.

“Many of us were expecting some hacks during the committee, but it’s still frustrating now to figure out that it really happened,” she told CyberScoop. “When we decided to set up the Pega Committee, we really worked hard with our internal European Parliament IT security…  so that they can provide spyware checks for the members of the Pega Committee and their staff.”

Kouloglou and Neumann could only speculate on who was responsible. But for the two of them, and Citizen Lab, the motive seems clear.

“It is ironic that a member of the committee charged with investigating Pegasus was himself targeted with Pegasus spyware,” Ron Deibert, founder and director of Citizen Lab. “Someone, somewhere likely wanted to breach parliamentary privilege and find out what was going on in that committee. This case shows how the still unregulated and highly abused mercenary spyware industry is poisonous to democratic processes.” 

Kouloglou said he plans to pursue legal action against NSO Group. Many spyware victims have had difficulty winning lawsuits against spyware makers, although not all.

Israel-based NSO Group did not respond to a request for comment Thursday afternoon.

Neuman said the lessons learned as a result of Kouloglou’s phone infection include, “for members of national parliament and the European Parliament: Regularly get your devices checked. Apparently they don’t respect European democracy and parliamentarism.”

Most importantly, it’s time to enact the PEGA committee’s recommendations, she said.

“I don’t know how much more it needs for member states and the commission to wake up and actually start implementing the very good recommendations of our PEGA committee, because we all know that there is a spyware abuse,” Neuman said. “I don’t need to have another committee for that. I just need them to act.”

Kouloglou almost certainly won’t be the last member of parliament to get infected, said John Scott-Railton, senior researcher at Citizen Lab. Some had been infected prior to the work of the PEGA Committee, and some have been found to be targeted since. (The United States’ legislative body has been targeted in the past as well.)

“Providing highly secretive government agencies with surveillance tools supplied by unaccountable and often unethical mercenary firms is a recipe for the abuse of power,” he told CyberScoop. “I can tell you how the next chapter will go: more hacked Parliamentarians. In fact, I suspect there are members voting and attending high level meetings with no idea that their phone has been turned into a spy in their pocket.”

The post Someone infected a spyware probe overseer with spyware appeared first on CyberScoop.