CrowdStrike co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch discusses how cyber operations support kinetic warfare, signal coming conflicts, and reshape the global battlefield.

The post The Fourth Battlefield: The Growing Role of Cyber Operations in Global Conflict appeared first on SecurityWeek.

President Donald Trump blamed Minnesota Friday for the cyberattacks its water systems have suffered in recent days, saying the state was “behind it.”

Trump said the state being “incompetent” was the issue, but it wasn’t clear whom he thought actually conducted cyberattacks that U.S. investigators have attributed to Iran — if, perhaps, somehow Minnesota incompetently cyberattacked itself. The White House referred a request for clarification back to Trump’s remarks.

“I think that Minnesota is behind it,” Trump told reporters Friday. “Because they’re grossly incompetent. I don’t think there was an Iranian cyberattack. I think Minnesota ought to get its act together.”

The White House also didn’t clarify whom the president believed was behind similar attacks in other states, when asked for comment. Trump has repeatedly used federal power aggressively in Minnesota, a state led by Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat who was on the ticket that ran against him in 2024 as the vice presidential nominee. Trump also has downplayed Iranian attacks amid the war he launched against the nation with Israel in February.

A number of cyber experts quickly pushed back on Trump’s comments after he made them.

“Victim blaming in cyber is so 2000 and late,” cybersecurity pioneer Chris Wysopal, Veracode co-founder and chief security evangelist, said on the Bluesky social media platform. Said Jake Williams, a member of the IANS faculty: “His own intelligence services are attributing this to Iran.”

Andy Jabbour — founder and CEO of Gate 15, a cybersecurity firm which provides support to the water sector — told CyberScoop that, “speaking candidly, I’m not even sure what he was actually saying or suggesting Minnesota’s government did or didn’t do.”

“Attribution is tricky business,” he continued, referencing recent alerts from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and others. “But logically, given an ongoing war with Iran, recent statements made by Iran-aligned threat groups, with assessments that the recent activity is aligned with recent CISA warnings, given yesterday’s statements from CISA and the FBI, random unsubstantiated allegations aimed at political opponents seem reckless and are a disservice to the American people.”

Walz struck back at Trump in a Facebook post, noting steps from his Department of Government Efficiency to slash federal funding. CISA has shrunken considerably under Trump, and his administration has pushed states to defend against cyberattacks that feds once countered.

“Trump knows exactly who is responsible for this attack, and knows that other states were hit too,” Walz said. “This is what modern warfare looks like, and it further illustrates there’s no plan to win a war with Iran.”

“DOGE took an axe to CISA and left the U.S. exposed to cyber attacks,” he continued. “Thankfully, our experts in Minnesota were able to identify the vulnerability quickly and work with local communities to stop it.”

A spokesperson for Minnesota IT Services, a state agency that has been responding to the water cyberattacks, declined to address Trump’s remarks.

“We remain focused on supporting affected communities, securing critical infrastructure and coordinating with local partners and federal officials as the investigation continues,” the spokesperson, Emily Zimmer, told CyberScoop. “We will not comment on political statements or speculate about attribution.”

Other cyber professionals declined to comment directly on Trump’s remarks, but offered thoughts on who was behind the attacks and their motives.

Bryson Bort, CEO and founder of Scythe said the evidence supports the attribution with Iran, and that it looks like hackers there found something they could exploit on the internet and seized the chance.

“This was a target of opportunity,” said Bort, co-founder of the ICS Village, a non-profit advancing awareness of industrial control system security; such systems are common in the water sector. “It wasn’t that Minnesota did something as a state to raise Iran’s ire.”

Cynthia Kaiser, a former top FBI cyber official, said that when the bureau conducts attributions, it looks at technical indicators but also who has the capability, who has conducted similar attacks in the past and what the purpose of the attacks is.

“Iran ticks all these kinds of things,” Kaiser, now senior vice president at cybersecurity firm Halcyon, told CyberScoop. “My view is, if it walks like a duck, if it talks like a duck, I strongly suspect it’s a duck. I’d be shocked if we found out it wasn’t Iran.”

Just last week, CISA updated an advisory about how Iranian hackers were targeting programmable logic controllers in the water sector and other sectors, a warning that the water industry’s information sharing and analysis center said it believed.

“WaterISAC is confident in our government partners’ assessment that the confirmed activity is aligned with the joint Cybersecurity Advisory (CSA) AA26-097A ‘Iranian-Affiliated Cyber Actors Exploit Programmable Logic Controllers Across U.S. Critical Infrastructure’ published and recently updated by CISA,” Tom Dobbins, executive director, WaterISAC, told CyberScoop. “We have evidence of earlier attacks from Iran even before this current conflict. Cyber attacks are the most viable way that Iran can directly attack our homeland, and it is logical that they would do so, especially given the challenges of absolute attribution.”

The water sector is often viewed as one of the most vulnerable critical infrastructure sectors, and Dobbins called on Congress to provide funding to provide funding for the ISAC.

Sen. Tina Smith, D-Minn., also took issue with Trump’s comments.

“The President provided an unserious response that is beneath the dignity of the office he holds. Iran’s purported cyberattack on Minnesota’s water infrastructure must be taken as a serious threat to our national security.  Smith said in a statement, adding that she’s been in touch with CISA and the FBI and was grateful to Minnesota’s IT experts. “The entire situation serves as a stark reminder of the danger this war puts us in the longer it drags on.”

Fellow Minnesota Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar had earlier been in touch with Sean Cairncross, the national cyber director and a Minnesota native, about the incident.

Trump has previously displayed a laissez-faire view toward other cyberattacks on the United States, such as when he’s been asked about Chinese and Russian cyberattacks and Trump shrugs them off as something America does, too.

He also has cast doubt before on his government officials’ assessments of who’s responsible for cyberattacks on the United States, such as when he asserted China rather than Russia was behind the landmark SolarWinds breach.

Updated 8/3/2026: with comments from Minnesota’s senators.

The post Trump blames Minnesota for cyberattacks on water sector, drawing pushback from cyber world 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.

A Russian state-sponsored threat group has been stealing sensitive data from governments and commercial organizations since July 2025 via a novel exploit in popular Linux-based enterprise software, U.S. authorities and cyber officials from more than a dozen other countries warned in a joint cybersecurity advisory Thursday.

Laundry Bear’s most recent espionage campaign involves the exploitation of a zero-day vulnerability in Zimbra Collaboration Suite that wasn’t patched until November 2025, five months after attacks were well underway, officials said. 

The exploit just requires a view — no clicks — and allows attackers to steal the previous 90 days’ worth of email, the account’s password, search history, the victim organization’s email directory, two-factor authentication tokens and other newly created passwords.

“The covert and persistent nature of this activity, along with the absence of any known financial extortion, almost certainly indicates this group’s involvement in espionage activities with Russian government backing,” officials wrote in the advisory. 

“Additionally, extensive Ukrainian targeting, prior to use against U.S. and other NATO allies, outlines an increasing trend within Russian cyber threat groups to target Ukrainian users first—both as a priority target and as a testbench for malicious cyber techniques before broader global deployment.”

The state-sponsored espionage group, also known as Void Blizzard, has compromised governments and organizations in the defense, education, energy, law enforcement, media, finance, transportation and technology sectors. 

Laundry Bear’s year-long campaign involving the exploitation of CVE-2025-66376 showcases more technical capabilities, including a custom JavaScript payload it delivers to targeted victims via phishing emails. The threat group could also likely adapt the novel data exfiltration and aggregation capability, dubbed “beehive,” to exploit other vulnerabilities, officials warned.

The defect’s medium-severity rating of 6.1 underscores the challenge defenders regularly confront in prioritizing patching schedules based on measure of severity alone.

The Russian state-supported group, which has been active since at least 2024, is still actively exploiting Zimbra Collaboration Suite instances that remain unpatched, officials said.

Authorities shared Thursday indicators of compromise, mitigation steps and urged organizations to update their vulnerable software.

“This campaign’s targeted victimology and limited exploitation capabilities likely indicate this group manually identifies and targets the victim organizations” by identifying organizations with public-facing infrastructure, officials wrote in the advisory.

Once a target is identified, Laundry Bear also likely compiles email addresses for users to target with the exploit via phishing emails. Officials did not identify specific victims or describe the volume of organizations already compromised.

The joint cybersecurity advisory was issued by the United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Italy, Moldova, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and Sweden.

The post Russian espionage group using novel Zimbra exploit to steal sensitive data from Western countries 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.

The people orchestrating North Korea’s IT worker scheme are funneling money through a web of front companies and intermediaries, including sanctioned entities, that partly fund Russia’s war effort against Ukraine, DTEX said in a report Tuesday.

The security firm’s research shows that the scheme is moving beyond funding the country’s weapons program and into a bigger pool that supports many of the regime’s objectives. This includes manufacturing weapons and supplying them to Russia’s military, according to DTEX.

“When we think IT workers, we typically think head down, get your money, support the weapons program,” Michael Barnhart, nation state investigator at DTEX and lead author of the report, told CyberScoop.

“It’s a broad cover-all statement when we say it’s supplying the weapons program,” he said. “That’s the predominant place it goes,” but many other domestic programs and entities tasked with other projects are taking cuts from that pool of money as well. 

Barnhart corroborated previously leaked data from an internal North Korean payment server, which included 390 IT worker accounts, chat logs and transaction data.

He mapped the transactions to organizations that received those funds, including multiple sanctioned entities: Sobaeksu, Saenal, and Songkwang. 

The money trail also showed $1.97 million in payments from North Korean IT workers between December 2025 and February 2026 flowing directly through Korea Ryonbong General Corp, a sanctioned defense entity that procures weapons for the regime’s military programs.

Western officials previously reported that North Korea provided ammunition and weapons to Russia in 2023, and in the fall of 2024 sent upwards of 15,000 soldiers to fight alongside Russian troops, according to the Council on Foreign Relations.

“This is a consequence that is often overlooked,” Barnhart wrote in the report. “Revenue from the IT worker stream does not stop at a resume scam or a payroll-abuse story. It can feed a larger DPRK system that supports sanctioned entities, domestic state needs, and a Russia war effort that is actively consuming all facets of North Korean weapons and military support.” 

Data from the internal North Korean payment server, which was first published by ZachXBT in April, is controlled by “PC-1234,” a single administrator that DTEX has been tracking for a while. The wallet and its cluster of activity remains active, Barnhart said. 

The three months of previous activity attributed to the wallet amounted to more than $2.84 million, which then flowed upward into dozens of organizations. 

“It’s not a top-down funded regime. It’s a bottom-up,” Barnhart said. “Everyone makes money at the bottom and then they take a tiny cut, and then the money goes upwards to what we just blanketly say is the weapons program. But really, it can go a lot more places.”

The post North Korea’s IT worker scheme funds Russia’s war effort appeared first on CyberScoop.

Three Russian nationals and a pair of bulletproof hosting providers directly supported a series of attacks on critical infrastructure in 21 states and several countries, according to a 2024 indictment unsealed in federal court Tuesday. 

Officials, who have been investigating the trio and their companies since 2019, said the attacks resulted in losses surpassing $62 million.

Alexander Alexandrovich Volosovik, the 43-year-old owner of Media Land; Yulia Vladimirovna Pankova, the 29-year-old owner of ML.Cloud; and 34-year-old Kirill Andreevich Zatolokin were charged with conspiracy to commit and aid computer fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering.

The State Department also offered a reward up to $10 million for information on government-linked associates of the alleged cybercriminals and malicious use of Media Land or ML.Cloud. The Treasury Department and officials from the United Kingdom and Australia imposed sanctions on Volosovik, Zatolokin, Pankova, Media Land and ML.Cloud in November 2025. 

The three accused Russians, Media Land and ML.Cloud were all based in St. Petersburg as of 2024.

“With today’s actions, the FBI and our partners are striking at the core services that cybercriminals rely on to attack U.S. critical infrastructure,” Brett Leatherman, assistant director of the FBI Cyber Division, said in a statement. “This is another step in our broader campaign to shrink the space in which these actors can operate, forcing them to work harder, take greater risks, and lose the anonymity they depend on.”

Media Land and ML.Cloud allegedly provided cybercriminals with infrastructure and technical support to infect systems with malware and ransomware for extortion. Officials said the organizations also supported criminal marketplaces, fraudulent domain registrations and platforms that cybercriminals used to commit phishing and brute-force attacks.

Officials said they identified a consistent and long-running pattern of criminal activities facilitated by Volosovik, Pankova, Zatolokin, Media Land and ML.Cloud.

Investigators located victims across 21 states, including nine cities in the Northern District of Ohio, where the indictment was filed. Additional victims were located in Australia, the European Union, the United Arab Emirates, Canada and the United Kingdom.

Bulletproof hosting providers are increasingly used by cybercriminals to obfuscate their activities, deliver malware, phishing, and host content and services that support ransomware, data extortion and denial-of-service attacks.

“From their overseas safe haven, these defendants ran the criminal infrastructure that powered attacks on critical institutions across our nation,” A. Tysen Duva, assistant attorney general of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, said in a statement. “Their actions put the American public at risk. We will continue to dismantle these networks and protect our critical infrastructure from cybercriminals at home and abroad.”

The post Russian trio indicted for allegedly running bulletproof hosting providers that spurred cybercrime 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.

Russian state-sponsored hackers are breaking into critical infrastructure around the world by exploiting poorly configured and vulnerable networking devices, authorities from the United States and 12 additional countries said in a joint cybersecurity advisory Monday.

Officials once again urged defenders to take more preventative measures to thwart attacks from the Russian Federal Security Service Center 16, which has been actively targeting critical infrastructure for more than a decade. The hackers are also tracked as Berserk Bear, Energetic Bear, Crouching Yeti, Dragonfly, Ghost Blizzard and Static Tundra.

“This is an ongoing issue that has impacted various U.S. and foreign networks across multiple sectors, including the defense industrial base, communications, energy, financial services, government facilities and health care sectors,” the National Security Agency said in a statement.

The state-sponsored attackers scan the internet for vulnerable routers using default or weak passwords, and have also exploited vulnerabilities in Cisco devices, Cisco’s Smart Install feature and web portals to take over network devices. 

Two of the Cisco vulnerabilities exploited by the Russian FSB Center 16 hackers are quite old, including CVE-2008-4128 and CVE-2018-0171. 

Officials shared technical details of the threat group’s activities and advised network defenders to disable Cisco Smart Install on all devices, use stronger modes of authentication and passwords, monitor for unusual credentials and logins using local accounts. 

The joint advisory comes nearly a year after the FBI issued a similar alert about the same group targeting end-of-life networking devices running Cisco Smart Install. 

On Monday, the European Union blamed Russia’s FSB Center 16 for a December 2025 attack on Poland’s energy grid. The United Kingdom, also on Monday, sanctioned 24 individuals and entities allegedly involved in various attacks attributed to Russian intelligence services.

“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,” Yvette Cooper, foreign security of the United Kingdom, said in a statement. 

Other countries behind the joint cybersecurity advisory include: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Italy, Poland and Sweden.

The post Officials once again warn defenders that Russian hackers are targeting network devices 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.

Authorities arrested an alleged member of Cyber Army of Russia Reborn, a pro-Russian hacktivist group accused of committing multiple attacks against critical infrastructure providers in the United States and Europe. 

Spain’s national police announced the arrest Monday but said it occurred back in March. Officials did not name the man who was detained at his home in Palencia following an investigation triggered by a tip from the FBI in August 2025.

FBI agents in the Los Angeles field office coordinated with Spanish officials to capture the alleged cybercriminal, the agency’s cyber division said in a LinkedIn post Monday. The FBI said the arrest was part of Operation Riptide, an ongoing global campaign targeting cybercriminals and the infrastructure and financial networks they use to commit fraud.

“Together, we will continue to impose costs on cybercriminals wherever they operate,” the FBI said.

Spanish officials said the arrested man provided logistical support to a Ukrainian hacker linked to Cyber Army of Russia Reborn, also known as Z-Pentest, facilitating the Ukrainian’s escape to Russia via Poland and Belarus. 

The arrested man also “participated in actions attributed to the pro-Russian hacktivist group NoName057(16), whose operations were later claimed in specialized portals related to geopolitics, with the aim of spreading pro-Russian and anti-Western narratives,” Spanish authorities said.

Police investigators searched the suspect’s home and seized computers and cryptocurrency storage devices, later freezing a cryptocurrency wallet he allegedly used to receive payment for his alleged crimes. 

Officials said the nearly year-long investigation recently concluded but did not announce specific charges, other than accusing him of collaborating with a terrorist organization, glorifying terrorism and damaging computers.

Authorities have been targeting Cyber Army of Russia Reborn and its alleged members for years. The Russian state-sponsored group has been active since 2022, officials said. 

The Treasury Department sanctioned the pro-Russian hacktivist group’s alleged leader and primary hacker, Yuliya Vladimirovna Pankratova and Denis Olegovich Degtyarenko, in July 2024.

In December 2025, the Justice Department indicted Ukrainian national Victoria Eduardovna Dubranova, accusing her of participating in attacks against critical infrastructure and other victims in support of Russia’s geopolitical interests as part of Cyber Army of Russia Reborn and NoName057(16). Dubranova was extradited to the United States last year and pleaded guilty in two federal cases brought against her. 

The State Department since late 2025 has been offering potential rewards for up to $2 million for information on individuals associated with Cyber Army of Russia Reborn and up to $10 million for information on individuals associated with NoName. NoName057(16), also known as NoName, was established by Russian President Vladimir Putin in October 2018, according to the Justice Department.

Multiple federal agencies and international partners issued a joint cybersecurity advisory in December 2025 about threats posed by pro-Russian hacktivist groups, including Cyber Army of Russia Reborn and NoName.

The post Spain arrests suspected hacker linked to Russian hacktivist campaign appeared first on CyberScoop.

Multiple U.S. Army internet subdomains were defaced in a 404 hijacking campaign, CyberScoop has confirmed.

As of Monday morning, error pages on two U.S. Army websites – oil.army.mil and ai2c.army.mil – displayed defacement messages visible to users. The messages denigrated President Donald Trump and United States Ambassador to Türkiye Tom Barrack, called to “FREE KURDISTAN,”  And included another line reading “Kurdish sr was here.”

One of the websites, oil.army.mil, belongs to the Army’s Open Innovation Lab, a test bed for software and cyber capabilities established in 2020. The other belongs to the Artificial Intelligence Integration Center, established in 2019 to integrate AI technologies into the Army and train personnel on emerging technologies.

The defacements were initially discovered by independent cybersecurity researcher Ronald Lovelace, who notified U.S. Army officials and CyberScoop.

404 hijacking exploits a website’s error-handling system — often by compromising a plugin, content management system, or server configuration — to control what content gets displayed when a page isn’t found, rather than breaching the site’s core pages directly. This lets malicious users insert defacement messages, malicious redirects, or other unauthorized content that visitors see specifically on error pages, sometimes making the compromise harder to detect since the rest of the site appears untouched.

Lovelace said the affected sites run on WordPress and Microsoft cloud infrastructure. It’s not clear how long the subdomains have been compromised or whether other subdomains are affected. 

“It raises the severity a decent amount because it shows it’s a bit deeper than just one single path” that’s being corrupted, Lovelace said.

However, while the defacement’s presence across multiple subdomains suggests the potential for “broad reach,” it doesn’t appear to affect all Army websites, with many  still showing normal 404 error pages.

Also unclear at this time is how the hackers gained the ability to edit error pages for those websites, whether the breach originated internally if it was due to an internal or through a third party breach, and whether the intrusion extends beyond limited website defacement.

The websites were taken offline after CyberScoop reached out to the Army for comment. An Army spokesperson told CyberScoop that the pages were hosted on a legacy third-party platform that is not connected to the Army’s enterprise network and have since been removed.

The spokesperson said incident response by Army cyber investigators remains ongoing, and that it’s too early to say whether the third-party platform will be patched or discontinued. 

“We are aware of unauthorized defacements on the error pages of oil.army.mil and ai2c.army.mil, which are hosted on a legacy, non-authoritative platform,” said Army spokesperson Maj. Sean Minton in a statement. “Technical teams took immediate action to mitigate the issue, and the affected pages have been secured. The Army takes all cyber incidents seriously and is actively investigating this matter to enforce our strict cyber defense and network security standards.”

It’s not clear who is behind the defacement beyond  the references to Kurdistan— a geographic region spanning parts of  Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria that is home to more than 30 million Kurdish people. The Kurdish separatist movement has fought for decades to establish an independent nation, and defacing government websites has long been a popular tactic among Kurdish hacktivists.

Trump and Barrack drew the ire of Kurdish proponents earlier this year for seeming to back a Syrian government military campaign to reestablish federal control over Kurdish-majority lands.

It’s not the first time that Army websites have been seemingly compromised by foreign hackers. In 2015, Army officials had to temporarily shut down major websites, including the Army main home page and the Department of Defense’s U.S. Strategic Command, after hackers from the Syrian Electronic Army defaced them.

The post US Army websites defaced with pro-Kurdish sentiments, insults to Trump 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.

Anthropic has announced its Fable 5 and Mythos 5 models will once again be available to the public as it has reached an agreement with the Commerce Department to deploy the AI models with new guardrails and classifiers meant to address jailbreaks.

In a blog posted Tuesday, Anthropic said that export controls that prevented their sale to foreign companies and individuals have been lifted after weeks of negotiation with the White House and Commerce Department. The company has also restored access to the model for U.S. users.

The export controls were put in place after the Trump administration became alarmed by a threat intelligence report from Amazon claiming to have jailbroken Fable’s cybersecurity capabilities.

On X, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick appeared to confirm that the restrictions would be lifted.

“Over the past two weeks, we have worked closely with Anthropic to analyze and approve Fable 5 to ensure alignment across the US Government and strengthen America’s leadership in AI,” Lutnick wrote.

The administration levied the export controls after becoming concerned that the release of Fable 5 would lead to the model being jailbroken, giving users access to cybersecurity and other capabilities that Anthropic has said could wreak havoc on the open internet if  placed in the wrong hands. The Amazon report convinced administration officials that such jailbreaks were on the immediate horizon.

However, one oddity of the administration’s decision is that the capabilities described in the Amazon report, by all accounts, are not cutting-edge. Scanning code and breaking down how to exploit vulnerabilities for a user is already possible with existing models.

Anthropic confirmed that, saying that further testing found that equivalent and lesser models like ChatGPT 5.5, Claude Opus 4.8 and Kimi K2.7 could identify the same vulnerabilities as Fable did in the Amazon report, while a half dozen existing models were able to produce the same proof of concept code as Fable.

Crucially, Anthropic reiterated that they have yet to see a jailbreak that affects the model’s restrictions on cybersecurity and biology work, though they did call this instance “a borderline case.” Indeed, some cybersecurity professionals have publicly complained that existing safety guardrails on Fable 5 blocked many routine defensive cybersecurity work in addition to malicious use cases.

“Importantly, the reported technique did not expose any unique Mythos-level cyber capabilities,” the blog continued. “The behavior reflected a borderline case for Fable 5’s safeguards…there are some tasks that are unlikely to be dangerous but are nonetheless blocked by the safeguards out of an abundance of caution. The reported technique allowed access to one such behavior, but it only involved routine defensive cybersecurity work.”

Anthropic said it has trained new safety classifiers to target and block the behaviors described in the Amazon report and notify users when it happens, and that the new safeguards have been stress tested by the federal Center for AI Standards and Innovation. The new classifiers will block the techniques “99.9%” of the time, but Anthropic said they’re not expected to block all lower risk routine cyberdefense capabilities, just the most harmful ones.

The restrictions will likely make it even harder to use Fable 5 for defensive cybersecurity. One effect the company expects is that more “benign” requests for routine coding and debugging tasks will be flagged by the system.

Christopher Padilla, former Assistant Secretary for Commerce for export administration in the George W. Bush administration, said that while it’s “good news” the controls have ultimately been lifted, the Trump administration’s AI policy stumbles over the past two years illustrate “the risks of ad hoc, transactional policymaking.”

In a LinkedIn post, Padilla called the Trump administration’s approach chaotic and unpredictable — the opposite of the clear, consistent rules industry depends on. While Vice President J.D. Vance mocked AI safety regulations in a speech in Europe last year, the administration has quietly partnered with OpenAI and Anthropic on voluntary national security testing, especially as frontier models began showing advanced automation and cyberattack capabilities.

That national security arrangement was supposedly codified in a White House executive order last month, shaped heavily by industry boosters who feared regulatory delays would slow U.S. development. But days after Fable’s release, Commerce imposed new export controls on Anthropic’s models anyway.

Padilla called proposed AI safety regulations by the Biden administration “flawed and overly complex” but nevertheless predictable compared to the status quo. Instead of replacing those proposed regulations with their own vision, the Trump White House has been “to put it mildly, all over the place on AI policy.”

“The same BIS that stopped Fable and Mythos has a permissive policy for exporting high-end AI semiconductors to China — in exchange for a cut of the take,” said Padilla, referencing the Trump administration’s lifting of export controls on advanced AI chips. “This is not a smart way to make policy. Bad for industry competitiveness and for national security.”

The post US lifting export control restrictions on Anthropic’s Mythos, Fable appeared first on CyberScoop.

A new Senate draft bill would establish a list of AI agent software providers that people can use to establish human ownership and securely run agents on social media and other online platforms.

The Artificial Intelligence Access, Gatekeeper Exchange, and Nondiscriminatory Transfer (AI AGENT) Act, led by Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., would allow end users of large online platforms with more than 50 million customers or subscribers per month the right to choose at least one AI agent provider who complies with security and identity standards developed by the Federal Trade Commission.

Such agents are increasingly making decisions on behalf of users, like shopping, posting content on social media, or changing account settings, sometimes without the user’s consent or knowledge.

Under the bill, the FTC would certify independent bodies to vet AI agent vendors. These certification bodies would ensure products meet baseline protections for privacy, data security and acting in the user’s interest. The bill would also require providers to link each AI agent to its human operator’s identity and to include built-in controls that let users clearly grant or revoke permission for the agent to act on their behalf.

While the commission cannot bar platforms from using AI agent providers that fail to meet those standards, it can deregister violators from the FTC list.

The bill is a discussion draft, and Warner said he was releasing it now to receive feedback before introducing a formal version for consideration in the Senate.

“As agentic AI transforms how Americans interact with technology, consumers deserve a real choice in the marketplace – and AI agents must be accountable to the people they serve,” Warner said in a statement. “This discussion draft is a major step toward building a clear federal framework that promotes innovation, protects consumers, and ensures the United States continues to lead the world in emerging technology.”

Last year, Morgan Stanley estimated that nearly one-in-four (23%) Americans made purchases using AI over a 30-day period, and that agentic shoppers could account for potentially hundreds of billions of dollars in online commerce by 2030.

But AI agents can still be unreliable or erratic. They can make absurd purchases that a user would never knowingly approve, leak sensitive data or act contrary to a user’s interest.

As more agents flood the internet, it increases the likelihood of AI bots interacting with and buying from other AI bots – underscoring the need for safe or regulated user solutions that can verify accountable human identities behind AI activity and provide baseline security and privacy protections.

The Trump administration is trying to find its own baseline for regulating frontier models. Earlier this month the Department of Commerce placed export controls on Anthropic’s Mythos 5 and Fable 5 models, and the two parties are attempting to negotiate a framework to provide government oversight of newer releases.

An AI executive order released by the Trump administration set up a voluntary 30-day testing program for AI companies to submit certain frontier models for testing and evaluation, but the administration imposed the export controls days after Anthropic released Fable 5 publicly, reportedly citing concerns that the model could be jailbroken.

Anthropic claims that extensive internal testing has identified no universal jailbreaks for Fable 5 and that third-party research released thus far hasn’t shown that their guardrails preventing access to the model’s enhanced cybersecurity or biological capabilities have been circumvented. Those are the capabilities that Anthropic cited when it held back its newest model, Mythos, from public release.

The post Warner bill would create federally vetted list for secure, trustworthy AI agents appeared first on CyberScoop.

The Federal Communications Commission approved new rules Thursday that boost cybersecurity regulations for the nation’s emergency alert systems and update security rules for the nation’s undersea cables.

The new rule would overhaul two national emergency systems, the Emergency Alert System and Wireless Emergency Alerts, to better protect against hijacking attacks from malicious actors.

The EAS is a national public warning system that state and local authorities use to disseminate information related to weather events, AMBER alerts and other emergencies via radio and television broadcasting stations. The WEA handles much of the same messaging via text.

A compromise of either system by a foreign government, cybercriminal group or other rogue actor could be used to sow chaos and disinformation in calmer times, or impede coordination efforts in the face of a genuine emergency. Any vulnerability in systems like the Emergency Alert System “can have serious consequences,” said FCC Commissioner Olivia Trusty in a statement after the vote.

“That is why it has been appropriate for the Commission to conduct a comprehensive review of the EAS framework by focusing on the security of the system itself,” Trusty continued. “As cybersecurity threats continue to evolve, EAS participants must take appropriate steps to safeguard the infrastructure that supports the delivery of life-saving alerts.”

The new rules amount to basic – but still critical – cyber hygiene practices for users accessing and updating the EAS and WEA systems. They must use strong passwords, quickly install security patches from vendors and use firewalls to limit access to their equipment.

The rule also creates a new authentication ID system to verify alerts before they’re submitted and avoid duplicate or unauthorized alerts from spreading.

Another rule passed by the Commission Thursday provided the first comprehensive update to the FCC’s submarine cable regulations in decades, and moves to tighten cybersecurity requirements in some areas while loosening them in others.

It exempts some undersea cable providers from submitting to stringent national security licensing reviews needed to land and operate cables that touch U.S. territory.

The review, called “Team Telecom,” is an interagency body led by the Department of Justice’s Foreign Investment Review Section and other federal agencies that advise the FCC on the national security implications of their telecom policies.

The new rules would presumptively exempt applications for undersea cable licensees when the provider can self-certify to “high security standards” that are “structured to increase certainty, predictability, and faster timelines for the licensing process.”

“Currently, all submarine cable applications get referred to Team Telecom…the changes adopted would exempt applications from applicants that have operated cables without incident, can certify to the highest national security standards, and agree to ongoing oversight and monitoring,” the FCC said in a release.

Other parts of the rule give the FCC greater oversight of critical functions within undersea cable operations. Owners and operators of submarine line terminal equipment, who connect submarine cables to land-based facilities in the U.S., will be subject to a new licensing requirement.

The rule also moves to update safeguards meant to address vulnerabilities related to principal equipment, third-party service providers, and other areas of concern in the undersea cable supply chain.

The post FCC passes new cybersecurity rules for emergency systems, undersea cables appeared first on CyberScoop.

Russian authorities used Cellebrite phone-cracking technology to break into a device belonging to a prominent domestic human rights activist they arrested and imprisoned, despite the company canceling its contract with the Russian government, according to a report published Thursday.

The University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab reached its conclusions after analyzing a phone belonging to Andrey Pivovarov and examining court documents he provided confirming the usage of Cellebrite’s UFED product.

Pivovarov was arrested in March 2021, sentenced in 2022 and released in 2024 as part of a prisoner exchange. Citizen Lab found evidence that authorities accessed his phone around June 2021 while the phone was in Russian government hands.

Investigators also said it appears Russian authorities might have used information it got from Pivoarov’s phone to surveil other regime opponents, combining information in the court documents with the later targeting of fellow dissident Anastasiya Burakova in a hacking campaign linked to Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB).

“The historic architecture of Cellebrite forensic systems means that much of the functionality in the UFED product has continued to operate long after updates cease,” Citizen Lab said in its report. “Furthermore, Cellebrite systems have historically featured an offline mode. Consequently, the way Cellebrite’s technology was designed appeared to make it difficult for the company to meaningfully cut off problematic customers.

“While Cellebrite has argued that its cancellations in Russia … went beyond what was legally required, this investigation contributes evidence that the contract cancellation did not immediately block Russia from leveraging Cellebrite’s tools for political persecution,” it continued.

Cellebrite provided a response to Citizen Lab’s report, saying that Cellebrite’s technology would be ineffective in Russia today.

“Any use of legacy Cellebrite hardware in Russia after March 2021 is entirely unauthorized,” Cellebrite spokesperson Victor Cooper told CyberScoop, echoing the Citizen Lab response. “The Cellebrite hardware previously sold, prior to March 2021, would now be incompatible with modern devices and would operate without our technical support, our consent or any legal sanction from Cellebrite. Rapid technology advances render legacy digital forensic hardware and software ineffective within a short period of time. Russia remains permanently on our restricted-customer list.”

The Russian Embassy in Washington, D.C. did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The post Russia uses Cellebrite to break into human rights activist’s phone, even after cancellation of contract appeared first on CyberScoop.

An epidemic of cyberattacks on open-source software has mounted in recent months, making clear how uniquely difficult it is to protect the publicly available code, from both a policy and a technical perspective, that serves as the foundation for so much of the digital world.

While open-source software security got a boost in attention under President Joe Biden — whose administration grappled with the fallout from the potentially catastrophic Log4j flaw that emerged in 2021 — a number of open-source experts say that government protection efforts have suffered setbacks under President Donald Trump. Many also say companies that heavily rely on open-source software, which is basically all of them, haven’t shouldered enough of the responsibility for safeguarding it.

“What we’re seeing is years of lack of investment sustainment in open-source software that is finally starting to catch up to us, where it seems like every week there’s a new supply chain compromise,” said Jack Cable, who held a role at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency where he worked on open-source security before departing under Trump.

The advancements of frontier artificial intelligence models stand to exacerbate the risk further, while simultaneously illustrating what makes defending open source difficult: Project Glasswing said shortly after its announcement that it had uncovered 6,202 high- or critical-severity vulnerabilities in a scan of more than 1,000 open-source projects, but that it had disclosed only 502 of them to open-source project maintainers and only 75 had been patched as of May 22 (albeit some due to typical patching lagtimes).

At the same time, there are questions about how much the government can help, even as overseas governments seek to focus on open-source security.

The evolution of open-source risk 

There are a series of factors contributing to the current threat to open-source software, experts say.

One is simply that attackers go to the area where they can get the highest return on their work. Compromising open-source software gives them the chance to get into the supply chain and exploit additional targets.

“Twenty years ago, open source was still fairly niche,” said Æva Black, who also worked on open-source security at CISA but left when Trump came back into power. “The potential blast radius if you managed to compromise open source was relatively small, because back then the world didn’t run on open source. Now almost everything runs on open source,” she said, from modern cars to satellites.

Another part is the nature of open-source software itself.

“It’s a symptom [of having] lots of open source [that] is a little bit under-maintained or not cared for enough, so that we spend too little effort and money and infrastructure on them,” said Daniel Stenberg, who is the creator and maintainer of cURL, a popular open-source project. “Lots of open source is being maintained by small teams, lots of volunteers, and I think that that’s a tough situation.”

That doesn’t mean the maintainers are to blame, Stenberg said. The companies that rely on open-source need to be diligent about using it, Black said.

“What we’re seeing in that realm right now is not new; it is more advanced and far more widespread,” she said. “The problem remains that companies who use open source — because open source is by far the most efficient way to collaborate on non-product value features — most companies are not implementing a responsible and safe utilization pathway.”

Open-source projects lack a systematic way to handle coordinated vulnerability disclosures, unlike companies or industry groups with formal processes, said Dan Lorenc, CEO and co-founder of Chainguard. Project maintainers sometimes aren’t reachable, and those who are available are flooded with reports, many of them unverified findings from AI tools that waste their time without adding value..

Of course, some of those vulnerability reports turn out to be legitimate. “Mythos and AI models have contributed to an uptick in the number of vulnerabilities and things that we’re able to find” in open-source software, said Alex Zenla, chief technology officer for the cybersecurity company Edera.

All of that leaves more room for companies, non-profits and world governments to improve open-source security.

A moment of momentum

While open-source software security isn’t a new issue, the 2021 discovery of the Log4j flaw sounded alarms within the cybersecurity community. Jen Easterly, then the director of CISA, called it “one of the most serious I’ve seen in my entire career, if not the most serious,” with the potential to affect hundreds of millions of devices given the ubiquitous nature of the popular open-source logging library.

A year later, the Cyber Safety Review Board released its report on the incident, concluding that swift action from industry and government averted a disaster. But the incident “called attention to security risks unique to the thinly-resourced, volunteer-based open source community,” it wrote. “This community is not adequately resourced to ensure that code is developed pursuant to industry-recognized secure coding practices and audited by experts.”

The U.S. government actions after included some steps focused specifically on open-source software such as creation of the Open-Source Software Security Initiative and hires of well-regarded open-source security experts at CISA such as Black, but also some steps that could be applied more generally and still help with open-source security, such as greater promotion of secure-by-design, memory-safe languages and software bills of materials (SBOMs).

Some of the Biden administration work on open-source security started before Log4j, such as provisions from an executive order he issued in 2021 that directed CISA along with the Office of Management and Budget and General Services Administration to issue guidance to agencies. 

The administration’s 2023 cybersecurity strategy also stepped into the long, thorny discussions over software liability, with a mention of open-source security: “Responsibility must be placed on the stakeholders most capable of taking action to prevent bad outcomes, not on the end-users that often bear the consequences of insecure software nor on the open-source developer of a component that is integrated into a commercial product.“ The Biden administration always indicated that addressing software liability would take a prolonged battle ahead.

Under Trump, many of the Biden administration’s efforts have languished. CISA’s splashy hires on open-source are gone, including Black, Tim Pepper and Anjana Rajan. Also departed are leading figures on secure-by-design and SBOMs, with CISA personnel cutbacks slicing deep. 

No one has seen any sign that the national cyber director-led Open-Source Software Security Initiative is active, with few participants remaining in government today. The Trump administration cyber strategy doesn’t mention open-source.

“The loss of open-source experts at CISA “is unfortunate, and it will be hard for the government to try to rebuild capacity, but I do think now more than ever CISA has a core role to play to secure open source software,” Cable said.

The pressure is mounting

It’s not that the issue is getting zero attention from those in a position to make a difference. Nick Andersen, the acting director of CISA, said last month that open-source security was an area of particular concern for him.

Andersen responded to concerns about CISA staffing levels on open-source security and spoke more broadly on the topic in a statement to CyberScoop.

“As artificial intelligence and other technologies have the power to transform how vulnerabilities are discovered and exploited, CISA recognizes that the open source software (OSS) that underpins much of the nation’s critical infrastructure will need to be hardened,” he said. “CISA actively collaborates with our partners on shared priorities, including OSS security, to ensure time and resources are spent where they matter the most.  We have an immensely talented team, but are also accelerating our hiring in critical areas, to strengthen the nation’s defenses against cyber threats.”

The Office of the National Cyber Director did not respond to requests for comment.

There’s been some activity on Capitol Hill, too. The Securing Open Source Software Act, which Cable worked on during a stint as a Senate staffer, would direct CISA and other agencies to take actions to mitigate open-source software security risks, but the legislation has stalled since its introduction in 2022. A portion of the bill, however, was included in the Department of Homeland Security funding law Trump signed in April, directing CISA to brief Congress on the value of establishing something like an open source program office, which some companies use to manage open source within a given firm.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton, R-Ark., has pushed the executive branch to improve its awareness of foreign adversaries playing roles in open-source software used by national security-focused agencies.

The annual defense policy bill in the House calls on the Defense Department’s chief information officer to report to Congress on a plan to secure open-source software supply chains, saying lawmakers are “concerned that the Department lacks sufficient visibility into the origins, maintenance, and security of OSS applications and software dependencies.”

That defense authorization bill language is “really beneficial, and I think it signals acknowledgement of this changing of culture” around open-source security risks, said Hayden Smith, founder of HuntedLabs, whose company won a contract with the Space Development Agency on supply chain security — agency work that the defense bill singled out.

“The report language is the first time the Hill is trying to get a true handle on foreign influence in open source code where they have oversight,” he said, saying it was a “piece of the puzzle” along with Cotton’s letter and a memo from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth last year about foreign influence in the Pentagon supply chain. “It’s good and would trickle down into everyone who provides software to the department.”

Zenla, though, believes trying to isolate China from open-source systems isn’t in and of itself a good idea. 

“I don’t think that that makes a lot of sense, because they’re actually pretty good things that people contribute to open source,” she said. “Not everyone is malicious, and what are we going to do, spy on every single open source maintainer?” It’s more about doing things like making sure that highly-classified systems are set up in a separate way, she said.

Europe is also taking action to secure open-source software that the United States doesn’t seem ready or willing to do right now. Germany, for instance, devotes grants to the security of open-source projects, although Stenberg pointed out that sometimes money doesn’t equate to maintainers being able to fix flaws more quickly, depending on the project’s size.

The Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) adopted by the Council of the European Union in 2024 could offer another road on open-source security. The CRA requires those who use open-source software products as part of any commercial activity to take certain security measures. 

Black said that when she was at CISA, there were discussions between the agency and European counterparts about finding compatible ideas on open-source security, but that momentum died with the Trump administration.

But “Europe kept rolling, and now has in place a new legal framework that is set to really reshape open-source security for potentially the whole world, but certainly for anyone who wants to work with Europe on open source,” she said.

Lorenc recently wrote that “open source isn’t governable.” He said an organization like a neutral nonprofit, possibly using some government funding, should take responsibility for things like coordinating vulnerability disclosure into one pipeline. He also said there needs to be one authority in charge of “forking” — that is, taking a project and assigning stewardship elsewhere — when a maintainer isn’t responsive to vulnerabilities. 

There are differing opinions on how much past government warnings, advisories and guidance have helped. Smith gave some credit to government agencies that “have all responded to open source attacks using the means they have.”

Stenberg said that “I don’t think they make any big dent at all in the big scheme of things.” They might get some attention initially, “then two years later we all forgot about them, and they actually didn’t change much.”

Ideally, everyone could get on the same page, Zenla said. “The best way to do this is if people actually collaborated on a global scale on some sort of regulation around this, but that seems nearly impossible at the current moment,” she said. (The United Nations’ Open Source Week runs all this week.)

But if there’s an upside to the spate of attacks on open-source software, it’s the energy it gives to how better to secure it, Lorenc said, invoking the political saying to never let a good crisis go to waste.

“Everyone knows the industry has to change,” he said. “This is a really good crisis, and the right things are happening in the right places, and organizations are rethinking their culture around software development, and they know what they have to do. It’s just something that’s never been top of the priority list for the last 10 years. Now it is, and they’re doing it, and it’s, ‘Can we do it fast enough?’”

The post Open-source security is posing challenges governments can’t easily solve appeared first on CyberScoop.