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.

A federal judge in Massachusetts struck down major sections of a Trump administration executive order  that would have restricted mail-in ballots through the U.S. Postal Service and required states to adopt federally approved voter lists.

The ruling Thursday from Judge Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts found those parts of the order were unconstitutional, while declaring another section that directs federal law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute noncompliant state and local officials legally nonbinding.

Talwani wrote that the U.S. Constitution empowers States and Congress in different roles but “does not grant the President any specific power over elections.”

While the White House has cited the 2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA) and Civil Rights-era voting laws as justification, Talwani found those laws do not authorize the government to regulate state voter registration practices.

“Notably, nowhere in HAVA does Congress prescribe who should be included on State voter lists,” Talwani wrote. “Further, neither in HAVA nor any other federal statute does Congress authorize the federal government to create their own voting database. Instead, Congress, consistent with the Constitution, has left that authority to the States alone.”

Talwani also declined to remove President Trump and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick as named defendants in the suit, rejecting the administration’s argument that the court could not regulate or intrude upon the president’s’ constitutional authority “in the performance of his official duties.”

“Contrary to Defendants assertion, Presidential action is not inherently unreviewable,” Talwani wrote.

The order, issued in March, instructs the Homeland Security secretary, the director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigrations Services and the commissioner of the Social Security Administration to compile lists of American voters for each state, including their supposed citizenship status.

To build the lists, the agencies would rely on the controversial Systemic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database that DHS has been building under the Trump administration, as well as Social Security and federal citizenship and naturalization records.

Those lists would then be sent to states, most of which have already refused similar Trump administration efforts to control voter registration.. The order instructs the Department of Justice to investigate  and prosecute  state and local election officials who issue  ballots to ineligible voters. 

The order also requires mail-in ballots to be sent in special barcoded envelopes for tracking. Crucially, it demands states provide lists of voters eligible for mail-in voting, and threatens to deny ballots to states that refuse. It also claims the attorney general is entitled to withhold federal funding from noncompliant states.

Talwani found that states have shown they already have a rigorous voter registration and verification process to ensure non-citizens and other ineligible voters aren’t able to vote in U.S. elections, and have laws in place to investigate and prosecute those who do.

Executive branch lawyers argued the order was merely an internal federal directive that does not impedestate authorities. But Talwani noted that states like Connecticut were already pulling staff from critical activities, such as translating election materials required under the Voting Rights Act, to develop compliance plans for the order.

Nearly half of the states in the lawsuit have already purchased mail-in ballots for this election cycle that are out of compliance with the Postal Service’s envelope and design standards.

Despite a string of losses in the courts and Congress, the White House has continued to assert broad authority over the way states and localities administer elections.

The Department of Justice has sued dozens of states to force them to hand over sensitive voter data. In the 10 cases decided so far, states have won every one.

In their opinions, judges cited the executive branch’s lack of inherent authority to create state voter lists. Others accused the DOJ of misusing Civil Rights-era laws designed to protect Black and minority voters,  creating an “unreliable” database that would disenfranchise  legitimate voters.

The Massachusetts ruling comes to the same conclusion, with Talwani writing “it is clear that the federal agencies charged with compiling Confirmed Citizen Lists lack the ability to create complete and accurate lists of the U.S. citizens residing in every State.”

On Wednesday, Trump canceled a signing ceremony for a bipartisan housing bill in an attempt to pressure  congressional Republicans to pass the SAVE America Act, which would implement many of the same changes to U.S. elections. In a Truth Social post, Trump said he considered passage of the bill to be a “National Emergency.”

The post Federal court rules Trump election-focused executive order illegal appeared first on CyberScoop.

A federal court ruled Monday that the Trump administration’s national voter database violates federal privacy laws, interferes with Americans’ right to vote, and must be dismantled.

In the ruling, Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan of the District Court of Washington D.C. wrote that records reviewed by the court show federal agencies knew that the SAVE voter database violated federal laws like the Privacy Act, the Social Security Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, but were “scrambling” to comply with President Trump’s executive order to create a system for mass voter verification.

That pressure resulted in agencies “haphazardly” combining and repurposing the personal information of millions of Americans from different government databases, including citizenship data they knew was unreliable.

“The Court therefore sets aside and vacates the 2025 SAVE modified system and the related notices because they were contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, in excess of statutory authority, and without observance of procedure required by law,” Sooknanan wrote.

The League of Women Voters, its local affiliate groups and the Electronic Privacy Information Center filed the lawsuit last year. They argued the administration violated privacy laws that restrict the government’s ability to collect or combine private data without congressional authorization.

Sooknanan wrote that the SAVE database violates a prohibition in the Social Security Act against the disclosure of Social Security numbers and other related SSA records as well as substantive and procedural protections in the Privacy Act, which prevent the non-consensual disclosure of certain information both by federal agencies and between federal agencies and require notice and comment.

The court also ruled that SAVE violates the Administrative Procedures Act, which governs how the federal government develops regulations and makes official decisions to ensure they’re fair and impartial.

Sooknanan had earlier declined to rule the database illegal under the Administrative Procedures Act, saying the plaintiffs had failed to prove the data would cause  irreparable harm. In her final ruling, she changed course, writing that the states have since run their voter rolls through the federal government’s modified SAVE system, and some voters have been wrongfully identified as non-citizens and had their voter registrations canceled.

“All in all, the federal government has knowingly trampled on the privacy rights of American citizens in a manner that threatens the sacred right to vote,” Sooknanan wrote. “This Court cannot stand idly by while that happens.”

The ruling reinforces longstanding objections from former government officials and privacy experts over the past year, who have said Congress has repeatedly passed privacy laws explicitly to prevent the executive branch from using Americans’ data in ways not proscribed through law. That is what DHS did last year when it took SAVE, a database meant to process government benefits for legal immigrants, and combined it with data from the Social Security Administration and other agencies to create a new massive database of American voters and their citizenship status.

John Davisson, deputy director of enforcement at EPIC, celebrated the decision in a statement, saying the ruling “underscores that government agencies must follow the law, defend privacy and remain accountable to the public they serve.”

 “Today’s decision is a victory for us all. By halting the illegal consolidation of sensitive personal data across federal agencies, the court has safeguarded not only our privacy rights but also the bedrock of our democracy: the right to vote,” said Davisson. 

The post Court rules SAVE database illegal, orders it dismantled appeared first on CyberScoop.

President Donald Trump signed two executive orders Monday to accelerate the federal government’s transition to post-quantum encryption and reprioritize government financing to support the domestic quantum computing industry. 

The orders, which CyberScoop first reported on last year, direct the government to throw its weight behind the quantum computing industry. They are part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to put its stamp on the development of another key emerging technology.

In May, the Department of Commerce announced letters of intent for more than $2 billion in federal financing incentives for nine quantum companies under the CHIPS and Science Act. Last year, the administration did something similar with its AI-focused executive orders and action plan that created special federal export programs for AI technology and equipment, directed federal agencies to mobilize federal financing tools to support the industry, and cut or curtail regulations that the administration said may impede domestic growth. 

Ahead of the signing, sources previewed details of those orders to CyberScoop. Per one of those sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss pending administration actions, a “whole of government approach is used to empower research and development into quantum computing, as well as quantum sensing [and other resources].”

They described the Trump administration’s attitude for propping up industry as “don’t let us miss out on prioritizing the feeders for the research or the development of quantum.” 

The second order requires federal civilian networks to adopt quantum-resistant encryption faster than the current 2035 deadline. The new encryption algorithms, vetted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, will protect against future quantum computer attacks. 

Agencies that miss the new deadline must report to the Office of Management and Budget explaining why. 

On hand for the signing were Department of Energy Undersecretary for Science Darío Gil, Department of Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, National Cyber Director Sean Cairncross, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Federal Chief Information Officer Greg Barbaccia, and Office of Science and Technology Policy Director Michael Kratisos.

Multiple executives from technology companies were also on hand for the order’s signing, complimentary of the government’s efforts in boosting the industry.

“IBM applauds the Administration for taking this important, timely step forward,” said IBM CEO Arvind Krishna in a statement. “Sound policy, sustained investment and public-private partnership are vital to sustaining U.S. quantum leadership and technological resilience. We’re proud to keep building on this foundation — strengthening U.S. competitiveness and bolstering national security as we shape the quantum future together.”

“At Google, we are proud of our sustained breakthroughs in quantum computing and post-quantum cryptography,” said Google President and Chief Investment Officer Ruth Porat. “Quantum computing is a transformational technology that can advance national security, drug discovery, energy solutions and more.”

Update; 6/22/26; 5:20 p.m.: This story was updated after the signing with details about the orders, signing ceremony attendees, and comments from IBM’s Arvind Krishna and Google’s Ruth Porat.

The post Trump executive orders speed up post-quantum migration, boost industry appeared first on CyberScoop.

Intelligence agencies for the United States, Canada, UK, Australia and New Zealand are warning that advanced AI models capable of wreaking havoc in the cyber domain are “months away” from being publicly available.

In a joint statement, the Five Eyes alliance say they expect the kind of advanced hacking capabilities provided by frontier models like Anthropic’s Fable 5 and OpenAI’s Daybreak to become broadly available the public within the year, despite efforts by AI companies to withhold them or restrict their access.

“Frontier Al models are anticipated to exceed current industry expectations, fundamentally transforming both offensive and defensive cyber capabilities,” the agencies said. “The timeline is not years, it is months.”

The statement, which included signatures from NSA’s Director of the Cybersecurity Directorate David Imbordino and acting CISA Director Nick Andersen, does not specifically cite secret or classified sources or methods to reach this conclusion.

But much of the underlying justification provided by the intelligence agencies also aligns with what public cybersecurity and AI experts have been warning about for months.

AI models capable of exploiting cybersecurity weaknesses are already available today through multiple channels: older commercial models, open-source versions, or foreign and black-market sources. And while newer models like Mythos are reportedly significantly more powerful for cybersecurity-related tasks, the breakneck pace of frontier model development often means that yesterday’s restricted frontier AI is tomorrow’s free, open-source AI.

Representative Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y., Chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, said the warning from intelligence agencies “underscores what the Committee has repeatedly heard through roundtables, briefings, and hearings with industry leaders: China is just months, if not now weeks, away from achieving frontier AI capabilities comparable to those of the United States.”

“This threat reinforces the urgency of ensuring that federal agencies and critical infrastructure operators can responsibly leverage advanced U.S. models, and receive the guidance and support necessary to do so, to find vulnerabilities before adversaries can exploit them,” said Garbarino in a statement.”

The agencies flag legacy systems, sluggish patching loops, unnecessary internet connectivity, weak identity and access controls, and a lack of pre-incident planning by organizations as key weaknesses that AI will excel at exploiting.

“The rapid pace of frontier AI development means cyber risk assumptions can become outdated in months, not years,” the agencies wrote. “We must act before and be prepared to adapt and withstand evolving threats.”

Since large language models burst onto the scene, open-source models have run about 6-8 months behind the largest frontier AI companies.

To give an idea of how quickly the field develops: the capabilities described in the Amazon threat intelligence report that convinced the Trump administration to place export controls on Fable 5 could already be accomplished through older models like Claude Opus and Claude Sonnet, as well as open-source Chinese models.

Anthropic shut down access to their Fable 5 and Mythos 5 models as a result, and despite releasing a statement that they believe the White House decision was a “misunderstanding” the dispute remains resolved.

Programs like Anthropic’s Project Glasswing and OpenAI’s Trusted Access for Cyber Program provide AI systems to organizations for cyberdefense.  The goal is to give defenders a head start in finding and fixing vulnerabilities before AI systems can exploit them routinely in the coming years.

However, for all the fear surrounding the new technology, the recommended guidance is largely the same as it has been for decades. Governments, businesses and leaders must stop treating the digital security of their work as an afterthought or compliance issue.

“Success will come from getting the basics right, acting quickly, and integrating cyber security into core business strategy,” the agencies wrote. “Those that do not will face growing operational and strategic disadvantage.”

06/23/2026: This story was updated to include comment from Rep. Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y.

The post Intel agencies: Frontier AI models will reshape cybersecurity faster than expected appeared first on CyberScoop.

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved a new bill this week that seeks to prevent unauthorized deepfakes of American artists, performers and public figures. While the bill sailed through a committee voice vote, both Senators and outside groups say they’re worried it could become a tool for the powerful to quash free speech. 

The NO FAKES Act, introduced by Sens. Chris Coons, D-Del., and Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., would give Americans near-exclusive rights to their own digital AI replicas, and those rights live on, passing to heirs, executors and estates for at least 70 years after an individual dies.

While living, creators would be able to essentially license their likeness and image to others, over 10-year contracts for adults and 5 years for minors.

It would also permit individuals to sue anyone who uses their AI-generated image without permission, and pay up to $750,000 for violations. Blackburn submitted letters of support for the bill from more than 40 groups, including the Screen Actors Guild – American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, the American Medical Association, Creative Artists Agency, the Broadcasters’ Associations and the Human Artistry Campaign.

“It is imperative that we put this national standard in place for voice and visual likeness protection of creators, to protect from proliferation of harmful AIgenerated deepfakes that are created without their consent,” said Blackburn in a Thursday markup of the bill.

The introduction of consumer-grade AI tools has made it trivial to create convincing deepfakes of real individuals and public figures. The harms are well documented: bad actors have used them to create nonconsensual pornography or sexualized media of people they know, create child sexual assault material (CSAM) , and blackmail or humiliate individuals.

Artists have faced real challenges in the AI era when it comes to controlling their digital likeness. Last year, the Better Business Bureau warned that its Scam Tracker had been flooded with complaints about AI-celebrity endorsement scams. These included  deepfakes of Oprah Winfrey promoting weight loss products, Kim Kardashian pleading for donations to fight California wildfires, and pop star Taylor Swift and celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay endorsing cookware.

In the political arena, candidates now create deepfakes of their political opponents, putting words into their mouths or placing them in embarrassing or humiliating situations. Online, disinformation actors have repeatedly spread AI-generated videos and images of politicians like Donald Trump, Kamala Harris, and even regional or local politicians saying or doing scandalous things.

The bill represents one of the most aggressive attempts by U.S. policymakers to protect the digital commercial rights of artists and public figures. New York, for instance, passed a law this month that requires film and television advertisers to publicize when they’re using deepfakes in ads, but does not create a similar copyright regime for artists’ likeness. A Tennessee law, The ELVIS Act, that prohibits the unauthorized use of an individual’s voice and likeness and creates secondary liability for large platforms that publish or distribute the content.

The NO FAKES Act faces opposition from an alliance of tech business and digital rights groups. They argue the bill  fails to balance the commercial rights of artists to control their own image with longstanding First Amendment constitutional rights to free speech and parody.

Amy Bos, vice president of government affairs at NetChoice, a trade association for online businesses, said that while her group supports legislation that prevents unauthorized AI generated deepfakes, “good intentions do not make good law.”

“As written, this bill creates a dangerous financial incentive for platforms to aggressively over-remove lawful content, burdens creators with an unworkable counter-notification system, and fails to deliver the uniform national standard its sponsors promised,” Bos said in a statement.

Many digital civil groups agree with that view. A broad coalition of policy groups – including the American Civil Liberties Union, the R-Street Foundation, the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others – wrote to the Senate Judiciary Committee this week to urge members to oppose the bill in its current form.

They argued the current bill creates a “Heckler’s veto” over most online content, allowing artists, public figures and advocacy groups to flood the notification system with takedown requests for content they don’t like. Similar to a law already on the books, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, virtually all the incentives in the bill push platforms to be overaggressive in taking down content, regardless of whether it violates the law or not.

This approach could end up quashing not just unauthorized ads but also scores of other likely First Amendment protected uses, such as education, humor, satire and parody.

In 2023, a humorous AI-generated image of Pope Francis in a puffy Balenciaga jacket went viral. Under the NO FAKES Act, the coalition says that post would be illegal for anyone to post until nearly 2100.

In the political arena, both Republicans like Trump and Democrats like California Governor Gavin Newsom have used AI deepfakes to skewer their political opposition.

“A law that undermines free expression will struggle to survive constitutional review,” the groups wrote. “In the meantime, it can do lasting damage, both to lawful speech and to the autonomy of the people it claims to protect. We urge the Committee not to advance the NO FAKES Act in its current form, to examine how existing state and federal law already addresses the legitimate harms the bill seeks to address, and to pursue narrowly tailored solutions only where a genuine gap remains. We would welcome the opportunity to assist.”

While the bill passed by voice vote and with broad support, multiple Republican and Democratic members of the committee said they had similar concerns and expressed a desire to continue tweaking the bill further before passage into law.

In the Senate meeting, Coons appeared to dismiss those charges, arguing that changes made to the bill ahead of markup adequately address any First Amendment concerns.

“I want to be clear, NO FAKES includes features that protect free speech,” Coons claimed. “Parody, satire documentaries, biopics, newscasts, they’re all protected and we built in appropriate counter notification processes and exempted research libraries and archives.”

The post Congress tees up No FAKES Act, aiming at AI-generated deepfakes appeared first on CyberScoop.

While Washington D.C. frets over the potential impact of Anthropic’s Claude Fable 5, security researchers continue to track how the integration of frontier AI tools are transforming the digital security landscape for malicious hackers and defenders alike.

The breakneck speed of model releases may be creating short, silent security gaps for developers who must choose between performance and security, according to a new report.

Researchers at Backslash Security pored through update logs for Claude Code, Anthropic’s flagship coding model, finding the company was patching dozens of newly discovered security vulnerabilities in the program between April and early June 2026.

The logs revealed the details of more than 30 security relevant patches implemented over that timeframe, but Anthropic did not publicize them. Instead, Backslash Security researchers found them by reviewing update logs for every new version of a Claude Code release in the last two months, noted the security-relevant fixes and traced each one back to the version and date it shipped.

The patches included fixes for data poisoning, prompt injection and arbitrary code execution vulnerabilities. One bypassed core safeguards put in place to prevent Claude Code from accepting catastrophic deletions commands, such as erasing an entire codebase, by adding a single backslash to the command. Another leaked user OAuth credentials, while a third allowed an AI agent to plant a backdoor in shell startup files.

There is nothing inherently odd about this: most companies regularly update and patch their software  and anyone who had auto-updates turned on would automatically be switched to the newest, secure version of Claude Code.

But Yossi Pik, co-founder and chief technology officer at Backslash Security, told CyberScoop that the research concluded “the way AI agents are released is different than previous software.”

“We debated internally, because when I originally said I wanted to write about this, I was told ‘Okay, every company has the [same] issue, then they patch and fix,” he said. “This is the nature of software, but I think that what makes this unique is the cadence and frequency of the releases.”

AI companies keep a ferocious pace when updating their models. Claude Code’s changelog indicates there have been 16 different versions through the first half of June, while OpenAI’s Codex was updated 6 times.

Because model updates often bring short-term performance and stability issues, software developers typically wait a week or more before upgrading to a new version.

These time gaps create small windows of vulnerability and force developers to choose between security and performance. The report identifies several reasons why developers don’t automatically update their AI models, including companies that may rely on internal vetting or release schedules, operate in regulated or air-gapped environments where model versions are frozen, and the need to maintain long-running sessions or use manual installations.

Pik said some IT and security teams have also told him they prefer not to install any new version of an AI model without letting it run on other environments first.

“You don’t have that much flexibility, either I go to the latest and I’m getting a less stable version [of the model] or I’m waiting for a few days or a week until I can install it, and hope that nothing would happen during this time,” said Pik.

The Backslash report is not intended as a dig at the security rigor of Anthropic, noting the company tends to “patch fast and document more than anyone” and has addressed every issue and vulnerability identified in the report.

Rather, it’s to highlight the series of mostly silent and persistent security exposures that an organization faces when adopting AI into their workflow.

Other software programs and technology products face similar tradeoffs through different updates, but most of the vulnerabilities detailed in the change log – such as getting an agent to leak data or accept malicious prompts – are unique to large language models and AI systems.

That means integrating AI tools can bring new security problems to an organization, both from outsiders who can poison or influence the model and insiders who can maliciously or accidentally direct the model to access or leak systems, data and identities.

For most Claude Code users, this process runs automatically in the background. Yet Yik points out that just as AI is transforming work itself,  it’s also changing how we need to approach software security and updates.

“It should not be compared to [Microsoft] Office that is installed and gets patched once in a while,” he said. “It’s a completely different beast that keeps evolving, and we don’t want to limit it…I think that it’s great for everyone. We just need to make sure that we do it in a secure way, and every organization should understand what that means for them.”

The post AI’s constant patching treadmill can be a security problem appeared first on CyberScoop.

Last Friday, the Trump administration sent a shock through the tech ecosystem when the Department of Commerce levied export controls on Anthropic’s new AI model Fable 5.

Anthropic has taken steps to limit the risks around the commercial sale of its Mythos model, including declining to release it publicly, funneling it to organizations for cyber defense and developing guardrails for Fable 5 that would default its answers to older, less powerful models around sensitive topics like cybersecurity and biological warfare.

But the Trump administration was reportedly alarmed by recent reports from Amazon and another cybersecurity researcher claiming to have jailbroken Fable 5 within days of its public release, and determined that if researchers in the U.S. could jailbreak the model, so could America’s foreign adversaries.

The Commerce Department’s decision spurred Anthropic to shut off the models for all users as they attempted to convince the White House to change course.

But some cybersecurity and AI experts have sharply disagreed with the White House’s actions, saying the research has not demonstrated that anyone has been able to circumvent Fable 5’s safeguards and access the kind of dangerous new capabilities that have worried officials.

Katie Moussouris, a well-known cybersecurity expert, said Monday that Anthropic provided her with a copy of third-party research on guardrail bypass techniques for Fable 5.

According to Moussouris, the researchers asked three Claude models – Fable 5, Mythos and Claude Opus – to review batches of known, vulnerable open source code for security issues. Fable 5 initially refused the request, but the researchers were able to use “a multistep and manual process” to get Fable 5 to turn the output into automated scripts that could test patches for the vulnerability.

Third-party research since Fable 5’s release has not found ways to bypass its safeguards around hacking. The capabilities researchers have demonstrated are foundational to what makes Fable 5 and other frontier models valuable for cybersecurity defense.

“Defenders need to be able to ask AI to fix the bugs in a file, explain why the fix matters, and write tests that confirm the patch works,” she wrote. “That is not a guardrail bypass. It is the most valuable thing an AI model can do for defensive security: executing the find, fix, and test loop defenders run every day.”

Moussouris previously provided technical expertise to the Waasenaar Agreement, a voluntary multilateral security agreement around controlling exports for both munitions and dual use technology that includes the U.S. and dozens of other countries.  Based on the research she’s seen, she called placing export restrictions on all foreign sales of Fable 5 “heavy handed” and “misguided.”

Some lawmakers who in favor of higher regulations and scrutiny on the national security implications of AI were nevertheless critical of the White House decision. Senator Mark Warner, D-Va., told CyberScoop in a statement that while “there may be circumstances where restrictions on the export of frontier AI models are warranted,” those decisions must be “grounded in a transparent, risk-based process with clear rules and consistent standards.”

The Trump administration’s approach, he argued, has been the opposite, and he called for Congress to pass a statutory framework for testing and approving frontier AI models based on transparency, predictability and fairness.

“This administration has repeatedly shown a willingness to weaken export controls designed to protect our national security and maintain our technological edge over adversaries, while also making no secret of its hostility toward Anthropic,” said Warner. “That raises serious questions about whether this effort is being driven by objective national security concerns or something else.”

Anthropic said it subjected Fable 5 to 1,000 hours of testing from internal and external red team, reporting that no universal jailbreaks were found that would remove those guardrails or allow the model to access Mythos for cyber and biology work.

Moussouris is far from alone. She is one of dozens of cybersecurity experts who signed an open letter Monday calling on the Trump administration to “Free Fable.”    

The researchers say that while Mythos-class models are “quite good” at identifying and exploiting vulnerabilities in software code, they “are not uniquely good” compared to other frontier models they use every day for cybersecurity defense.

For example, despite OpenAI’s Daybreak model offering similar vulnerability discovery and patching capabilities. It was not included in the Commerce Department’s restrictions.

The researchers also note that Fable 5’s guardrails have been notoriously oversensitive compared to other frontier models used by red teamers, becoming “a source of humor in the cyber community on launch day” as IT and cyber workers reported online that they couldn’t get the model to perform basic defensive cybersecurity tasks.

The letter questions whether the issues found in the jailbreaking reports would even qualify as offensive capabilities, and note they can be reproduced in other commercial and open-source models, including GPT 5.5, Claude Opus, Claude Sonnet and Chinese models like Kimi 2.7.

“The justification for this unprecedented action was that Fable provides a unique ‘uplift’ of capabilities beyond other AI models, but AI has been finding bugs and generating working exploits at superhuman levels since last year,” they wrote.

The White House decision comes as AI companies face increasing backlash from a public that is now overwhelming calling for more robust government intervention.

A Johns Hopkins University poll in May found broad, bipartisan support for AI regulations, with 73% calling for bans on AI-generated images and video, 68% calling for labels on AI content, 75% wanting disclosure laws around when they interact with AI chatbots and 70% calling for “the right to interact with a human rather than an AI in medical, legal, educational and government settings.”

Another global survey of 18,000 people released this week found that the top four concerns most people have around AI all revolve around the tool’s ability to spread misinformation, create deepfakes to embarrass or hurt others, making it easier for criminals to hack into victim networks and helping terrorists create new weapons.

Senior reporter Tim Starks contributed reporting for this story.

The post Cybersecurity experts don’t think Anthropic’s Fable 5 presents a unique threat  appeared first on CyberScoop.

The U.S. Departments of Justice and Homeland Security seized multiple internet domains this week, accusing them of being used to publishing thousands of AI or digitally-altered images and videos of nude women.

The domains, CFAKE.com and SOCFAKE.com, specialized in digital forgeries that “were made to appear to be sexual images of famous women, including politicians, first ladies of multiple countries, royalty, journalists, television presenters, athletes, entertainers, and others” either nude or engaged in sexual activity,” according to a Department of Justice release.

In addition to creating sexual images and videos of women without their consent, the service allowed people to browse by topics, including “rape,” “forced,” and “degradation.”

That description comes from a Department of Justice release describing the contents of its probable cause affidavit and search warrants. CyberScoop has not viewed the court documents.  

The sites were seized under the TAKE IT DOWN Act, a law passed last year giving federal authorities the ability to criminally prosecute those who create and distribute deepfake porn. The law was a rare moment of bipartisan agreement in Washington D.C., gaining support from both Democrats and Republicans who said their constituents were demanding tougher laws to curb the use of AI to create nonconsensual deepfake porn.

The operation marks one of the largest seizures since the law went into effect. The details of the operation disclosed by the government show how creators of deepfake porn rely on a web of international assets and infrastructure to evade law enforcement.

Robert Fraiser, U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, said U.S. authorities worked in coordination with law enforcement agencies in France and Italy. According to U.S. officials, they were first notified about the website by Italian Polizia de Stato, while a parallel investigation run by the Paris Public Prosecutor’s Office in France resulted in the arrest of a suspect connected with the site, along with seized cryptocurrency funds.

“These seizures stopped a website that trafficked in humiliation, exploitation, and the violation of personal privacy on a massive scale,” said Frazer in a statement. “For the victims whose images were distributed without their consent, the harm is not virtual — it is deeply personal and often enduring.”

According to the Paris Prosecutor’s Office, Cyrille B., a 47-year-old French national was arrested and accused of being an administrator for CFAKE. A search of his home in Nice found computer equipment related to the site and a little more than $48,000 in Ethereum cryptocurrency that they said came from the site’s advertising.

The French investigation identified 300,000 images, 7,000 videos depicting 14,000 individuals from different countries. The site had approximately 200,000 user accounts, 4 million views per month and uploaded 50 pieces of new content every day.

The suspect had no prior criminal record, and will go to trial on July 7. The charges carry potential penalties of up to seven years in prison and €500,000.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigation division is leading the federal investigation, in conjunction with the U.S. Attorney’s office for New Jersey.

The post US, France, and Italian authorities shut down massive deepfake porn site appeared first on CyberScoop.

OpenAI’s threat intelligence team tracked what it believes are two distinct clusters of activity online from groups with ties to China and posting content seemingly designed to stoke anger around divisive topics like AI and data centers.

The first, dubbed “Data Center Bandwagon,” used ChatGPT to create imagery and social media comments claiming data center buildouts were raising electricity prices for Americans.

Another used the tool to develop images and online posts characterizing tariffs as a covert means for the countries to exert control over the global technological landscape. According to OpenAI, the originating prompts directed ChatGPT to only include U.S. President Donald Trump in this content, while leaving out Chinese President Xi Jinping, who has also made use of tariffs.  

In both cases, OpenAI said the operators “likely originated” in China. The anti-data center content was traced to an unnamed Chinese technology company that holds multiple contracts with regional Chinese governments, and both clusters used VPNs to evade restrictions, prompted ChatGPT in simplified Chinese and asked for both English and Chinese-language outputs, all while posing as Americans on social media platforms like X and YouTube.

“This looks like a classic example of a foreign influence operation jumping onto the bandwagon of a genuine and pre-existing domestic debate and trying to manipulate it by using fake accounts posing as Americans,” online, said Ben Nimmo, principal investigator at OpenAI and author of the report. 

While OpenAI – which has sought to raise hundreds of millions of dollars in funding to build datacenters in the U.S. – is not a neutral party, the report does not claim that anti-data center sentiment in the country is being driven or bolstered by foreign propaganda online.

There’s little evidence that the campaigns got much attention outside their own amplification networks. Such engagement from third parties is an imperfect but important indicator of an influence operation’s impact. OpenAI rated the campaigns a 1 and 2 on the Bookings breakout scale, scores that indicate activity on one or more platforms but no evidence of meaningful engagement by targeted audiences.

Additionally, researchers who study state-sponsored influence campaigns say these groups are happy to latch onto and amplify genuine domestic movements or messaging so long as it serves their larger destabilization goals.

Others have suggested that piggybacking off established narratives with organic momentum – like public anger at AI and data centers – can make an influence operation appear more effective.

While AI tools can be leveraged to create such internet content at scale, they often fail to gain traction. Some images used by Chinese actors appear clunky or use overly direct messaging that display a lack of familiarity with both the English language and internet virality.

“I do want to be really clear here: this was not a case of an influence operation creating a debate,” said Nimmo. “The debate existed already. This was an influence operation from China trying to interfere in it. We didn’t see any signs that it succeeded.”

He added that while such views are “reasonable” and “sincerely held” by many participants on both sides, “what we don’t want to see is a covert foreign influence operation posing as Americans to try to shape it, still less a foreign influence operation using the very AI that it attacks.”

According to the OpenAI report, the actors used ChatGPT to edit work reports which contained operational security details about their social media campaigns. In them, they described their goals as “establishing persistent and credible accounts, producing visually appealing content to expand audience reach in different regions and maintaining long term account viability by anticipating platform enforcement.”

Another report fed into ChatGPT discussed how best to leverage Facebook’s content ecosystem, groups, pages, hashtags, advertising tools, recommendation systems and reporting mechanisms, as well as strategies for evading Meta’s detection of coordinated inauthentic accounts.

The campaign around tariffs also used ChatGPT to create short comments, comics in English but also Italian, Japanese and traditional Chinese accusing the US of putting profits over loyalty to its allies. OpenAI said they were targeted by the same network on X with an influence campaign alleging a widespread user data breach that Nimmo said “never happened.”

While OpenAI said the campaigns likely originated in China, they do not directly attribute the operations to the Chinese government or actors working on their behalf, but do note that many parts of the campaign and its tactics overlap with pre-established Chinese government propaganda campaigns online.

The post OpenAI: ‘Likely’ Chinese influence operation tried to use ChatGPT to stir debate on data centers  appeared first on CyberScoop.

Earlier this year, Anthropic executives said that their new AI model, Claude Mythos, had such powerful capabilities for harm that they would not release it publicly.

On Tuesday, the company said it was making an altered version of Mythos available to the public, promising “new guardrails” that thwart the model’s best-in-class performance in hacking and bioweapons research.

Anthropic said Claude Fable 5 was the “same underlying model” as Mythos, but its responses for certain topics like cybersecurity and biology will be drawn from a previous Claude Opus model that is already public.

“Releasing a model this capable comes with risks. Without safeguards, Fable 5’s capabilities in areas like cybersecurity could be misused to cause serious damage,” the company said in a draft blog sent to CyberScoop ahead of the announcement. “We’ve therefore launched the model with safeguards that route queries on a narrow set of topics to our next-most-capable model, Claude Opus 4.8.”

Anthropic also said they subjected Fable 5 to both internal and external red team testing for common model vulnerabilities, like jailbreaking. Anthropic said these tests identified no known “universal” jailbreaking techniques, but does not specify if partial jailbreaking techniques were discovered.  

The company is betting that won’t change when Fable 5 is made available to the broader public, but it’s worth noting that cybersecurity researchers have consistently found ways to jailbreak older AI models.

“The uplift from Mythos-level capabilities is valuable to many adversaries—for instance, those who could financially gain from cyberattacks—and we therefore expect them to be motivated to try to circumvent our safety measures,” the company wrote.

Anthropic is changing its data retention policies for Fable and Mythos models, keeping all user traffic for 30 days on both its own platforms and third-party services. A White House executive order creates a voluntary framework for AI companies to share frontier models with the government up to 30 days before public release. The company says the retained data won’t be used to train new Claude models or for “any non-safety-related-purpose.”

Following publication, a spokesperson for Anthropic told CyberScoop the company’s data retention policies “are specific to their safeguards work and is unrelated to the EO.”

Most organizations are still deciding whether to adopt AI into their IT and cybersecurity ecosystem.  But models like Mythos can scan for vulnerabilities, chain together exploits, and steal data from a victim network in minutes. Automation in hacking existed before AI, but experts have said frontier models like Mythos and OpenAI’s Daybreak can allow even low-level cybercriminals to wreak havoc.

While Anthropic cited its commitment to developing safe and secure AI in its reasons for not publicly releasing Mythos, many organizations have been clamoring for access, and its enhanced cybersecurity functions in cybersecurity and other areas have been the subject of congressional hearings, national security papers and White House executive orders.

Releasing a limited version of the model in Fable 5 represents an attempt to split the difference between those two desires. Anthropic said it would release follow up benchmarks and assets for the model.

So what can Fable 5 do? 

Anthropic said it’s possible the restrictions built into Fable will make it harder for the model to fulfill both malicious and legitimate user requests.

“Because we have prioritized safety, we’ve deliberately tuned the safeguards to be cautious, and they are still stricter than would be ideal—for example, sometimes benign requests will trigger our classifiers,” the company wrote. “We recognize that this will be frustrating to some users, and our aim is to reduce false positives as we update and refine the safeguards after launch.”

If Fable 5 draws its cybersecurity and biology answers entirely from Claude Opus 4.8, it will still provide users with impressive – though not unique – dual use cybersecurity capabilities.

According to the system card published for Opus 4.8, the model is a slight improvement on previous models like 4.7 in the realm of cybersecurity but was “generally much less capable than Mythos Preview.”

Opus 4.8 was tested on its ability to write complete end-to-end exploits and build exploit primitives that provide attackers with the ability to execute arbitrary code. It averaged a score just 5 out of 16 in proficiency, compared to Mythos Preview which scored closer to 10.

Without safety guardrails in place, Opus 4.8 can still reproduce nearly 80% of previously discovered vulnerabilities in real open-source software projects when given a high level description of the weakness. The system card said Anthropic’s unspecified safeguards whittle this success rate down to 1%.

Another test assessing Opus’ ability to develop exploits for the popular Firefox browser found that, again without guardrails, the model could identify a full working exploit 8.8% of the time and a partial working exploit 68.8% of the time.

The company also said that members of Project Glasswing – a consortium of public and private businesses given access to a preview version of Mythos – will be able to upgrade to the latest full model, Claude Mythos 5, to continue their work. Access to Mythos 5 will be expanded over time “through a more systematic trusted-access program” including federal agencies.

The post Anthropic’s new model is Mythos on a leash appeared first on CyberScoop.

Government agencies, cybersecurity companies and threat researchers are pouring resources into studying how fast-developing AI tools can be wielded by malicious actors to hack into victim organizations.

But as agentic AI becomes more embedded in business infrastructure, there’s also a high possibility that a breach could be caused by an insider guiding the tool, whether maliciously or due to lack of security controls.

In research shared exclusively with CyberScoop, DTEX researchers detail how a common workflow in Anthropic’s Claude Cowork used in corporate environments offers convenience for AI agent deployment but grants near-total access to the system.

Claude Cowork includes tools that let users remotely control their agents. One particular tool, known as Dispatch, relays commands from a user’s phone to their desktop Claude agent. It also includes a plugin for communicating with Salesforce AI agents that access and transfer data.

DTEX researchers tested two scenarios. The first prompted Claude to summarize information from Salesforce and paste it into a draft Outlook email. The second tasked the agent with archiving selected files and transferring them via the Cowork app.

In both cases, researchers used simple, single-turn prompts and spent between 10-30 minutes preparing to exfil  the data.

Alex Desmond, director of insider threat intelligence and innovation at DTEX, told CyberScoop that both improvements in frontier models and deeper integration of AI tools into IT network operations have reduced the time defenders have to react to a breach.

“In cyberattacks, you talk about the kind of execution time of adversaries coming in and dropping ransomware, we’re now seeing the kill chain drop to 30 and 10 minutes depending on what they’re doing,” Desmond said. “Six months ago, that was a couple of hours.”

But that speed, when paired with direct access to business networks or cloud services, can also create an insider threat nightmare for organizations that must monitor for both malicious actors and potential mistakes from legitimate employees using the technology.

Over the past few years, western IT and cybersecurity businesses have been inundated with job applicants secretly working on behalf of the North Korean government. Their salaries are used to evade international sanctions and fund Pyongyang’s nuclear program, but it also positions the individuals to access or steal sensitive data or assets from these companies. 

“You’ve got a nation-state actor getting into an environment legitimately,” Desmond said. “Now if you gave them access to AI tools on top of that…you’re like ‘here’s the keys to everything and here’s this awesome tool that’s just going to make your job – stealing our data – easier.’”

Tests by DTEX confirmed that the agents indeed had access to sensitive systems, applications and data – including the ability to download SharePoint corporate data, production documentation in OneDrive, access to Outlook email, Salesforce data (and all the data it can access), and any other files on the user’s endpoint device. For each of these applications, Claude Cowork has a dedicated plugin or API to share externally if prompted.  

To be clear, DTEX’s research does not involve exploiting a software bug or configuration vulnerability, and it doesn’t come with a CVE. It’s more of an IT governance and visibility problem. Businesses are racing to integrate AI tools into their workflow and pushing employees to use the technology while failing to put in place the kind of security controls, access policies and monitoring required to spot problems.

For instance, it may not be possible to determine how a data breach or leakage involving an AI agent actually occurred if an organization is not logging and auditing its prompts – or whether the incident was the result of an agent running amok or responding to potentially malicious instructions.

While network and cloud monitoring can identify when data is being accessed or downloaded from SharePoint, that may not be a strong enough signal to stand out for defenders.

“If a user’s normal workflow is to pull sensitive files down to work locally all the time, you don’t have endpoint monitoring and you introduce an AI agent, it then just has access to all that data” along with the ability to exfiltrate it,” Desmond said.

The post Your AI agent could become your biggest insider threat  appeared first on CyberScoop.

The Trump administration issued a revised executive order Tuesday focused on artificial intelligence, offering a significantly pared-back vision for the federal government’s role vetting AI systems compared with a draft version that was spiked weeks ago.

The order keeps in place the administration’s largely voluntary framework for companies to engage with the federal government around testing new models before release, but appears to considerably weaken or loosen provisions that had been opposed by industry.

Under the order, AI companies would voluntarily provide the federal government access to frontier models before release, but now it will be for “up to” 30 days instead of the 90-day timeline included in previous drafts.

It also explicitly states that nothing in the program will be construed as mandatory or part of a federal licensing or permitting regime, and gives AI companies significant influence to help define what models would and would not be covered under for testing.

It also states that all federal testing and access to the models would be subject to “confidentiality, cybersecurity, insider-risk, and intellectual-property protection, use, and nondisclosure requirements.”

Section one of the order highlights the central friction that has plagued the Trump administration’s AI policy since assuming power: While the White House increasingly sees national security implications in the rapid release of frontier models from the private sector, it has also been one of the loudest critics of regulating the technology for fear it could harm American businesses.

“The United States continues to lead the world in Artificial Intelligence (AI) because of the enormous talent and innovation of our AI industry, and because we refuse to stifle this innovation with overly burdensome regulation,” the order reads.

That argument was bolstered in recent days as industry members and top advisers to Trump, like tech investor and AI czar David Sacks, lobbied against previous draft language, arguing it would put too much of a regulatory burden on U.S. businesses.

On X, Sacks called the revised EO, including changes reducing the government’s access from 90 days to up to 30 days “a game changer” because it would allow frontier labs to comply without delaying new model releases. He also said the discussions he’s had with the White House indicate that not all new model releases would be subject to even that level of scrutiny.

The White House characterization that the order is not a program for conducting oversight of all new AI models “is completely consistent with the discussions that I have participated in, where it was agreed that the EO is intended to apply only to models that represent a meaningful step-change in cyber capabilities (eg Mythos), not to incremental version numbers of existing models,” Sacks wrote.

The order also puts the Department of Treasury at the head of a new interagency cybersecurity clearinghouse on AI, where the private sector, critical infrastructure operators and federal agencies voluntarily collaborate to coordinate and deconflict scanning for software vulnerabilities, discovery and validation and remediation activities, like patching.

Treasury, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, the NSA, the Office of the National Cyber Director and other agencies would also be responsible for developing classified benchmarks that would be used to identify or flag the kind of advanced cyber and hacking capabilities that agencies are interested in testing.  

Questions linger over implementation, politicization

Consisting of less than 1200 words, the directive is vague in many areas about exactly how implementation will work.

“On frontier capability access, vulnerability discovery for critical infrastructure, and sharing with trusted partners, many questions remain,” wrote American Enterprise Institute fellow Ryan Fedasiuk.

Senator Mark Warner, D-Va., said the order would help the White House “begin to grapple” with the threats that new frontier models and their hacking capabilities pose to critical infrastructure and praised certain provisions, like putting the NSA in charge of classified testing of new models. But he was also sharply critical of the administration’s about face on the need for federal scrutiny of emerging AI technologies.

“Once again, the Trump administration has belatedly discovered the need to redo something it hastily dismantled in its first year,” Warner said in a statement. “While this course correction – a rehash of proposals contained in the last administration’s 2023 executive order, bipartisan congressional legislation, and each of the last three years of intel authorization bills the Senate Intel Committee has passed – can begin to grapple with widespread impacts that new frontier models will have on our critical infrastructure, it can’t undo the years wasted on dismantling some of the most vital pillars of our nation’s cybersecurity response, including key information sharing initiatives and the federal agency established to protect the security of U.S. critical infrastructure.”

Warner also said he will be “watchful” for indications the administration may politicize any testing regime, for instance, such as using the partnerships “to pressure U.S. firms into making changes to their products or Terms of Service to suit partisan or legally questionable objectives of the president and his allies.”

The administration’s lighter touch approach around voluntary testing yielded approval from some experts who have traditionally been more in favor of regulation, but who also expressed similar worries about the downsides of putting the federal government in charge of vetting AI models.

Samir Jain of the Center for Democracy and Technology, said that while AI models pose real cybersecurity threats to critical services, the order “attempts to avoid the deeply concerning implications of a mandatory licensing regime for release of new models.”

“Testing and benchmarking programs are important to promote cybersecurity and address other risks,” Jain said in a statement. “However, the EO should not become a mechanism for the Administration to punish companies for political or other arbitrary reasons, and so we will be closely monitoring the details of its implementation as they emerge.”

You can read the full order on the White House’s website.

The post Trump administration releases scaled-back AI executive order appeared first on CyberScoop.

Former Mesa County, Colorado election clerk Tina Peters remained unapologetic in her first public interview since her prison sentence was commuted, reiterating many of the same conspiratorial beliefs about elections while vowing to recover her health and fight on in court to have her criminal record expunged.

In an interview with former Trump campaign manager and White House official Steve Bannon, Peters called it a “miracle” that Democratic Governor Polis commuted her sentence and defended him from “the horrible media and haters” who were critical of the move.

Peters said those critics “don’t go after murderers and people like that [Polis] chose to pardon but they go after me, so there is a concern there for my well-being and my safety.”

Although Polis has said that Peters expressed contrition for her crimes prior to the commutation, she complained in her interview with Bannon that the Colorado governor had refused to issue her a full pardon that would remove the conviction from her criminal record, vowing to continue to “fight” the matter in court using leftover legal funds.

“Even though Governor Polis reduced my sentence from nine years to four and a half years, I still have a fight to clear my name and bring the truth of why they came after me the way they did,” Peters said.

Peters was convicted of seven felonies and sentenced to nine years in prison for stealing another person’s identity and using it to break into Mesa County election facilities, turn off the cameras and take voting system data.

Polis’ commutation of Peters sentence, which came after two years of relentless pressure from Trump, was met with cheers from conservative allies and bitter criticism from members of his own party.

The Colorado Democratic Party censured Polis and banned him from participating in future state party events. Incumbent Senator Michael Bennet, D-Colo., is running to succeed Polis as the Democratic candidate for governor this year, potentially putting him in position to appoint his own successor in the Senate. 

In an interview with CNN, Bennet called the commutation a “terrible decision” and that after announcing it Polis called him to say he would not be interested in the job.

Bennet wasn’t surprised.

“I viewed the decision that he made with respect to Tina Peters as disqualifying, and I think he knows that,” Bennet said.

Following the commutation, Polis has defended his decision, claiming Peters was being punished holding incorrect but constitutionally protected beliefs about election fraud that were unrelated to her actual crimes. He recently showed up to a virtual gathering of Colorado Democrats wearing a piece of tape over his mouth and has predicted the commutation will be looked upon “fondly” in the future.

Reached for comment, Polis’ press office referred CyberScoop to a previous May 15 Facebook post by the governor announcing Peters’ commutation and a follow up Substack blog he posted on Sunday defending the decision.

In his Substack, Polis said he believes Peters committed “real crimes” and deserved her conviction, but also argued that her sentence had become disconnected from her crimes. He pointed to a Colorado Court of Appeals hearing last month that upheld her conviction but ordered her to be resentenced in court as evidence that her sentence was lengthened for her First Amendment protected beliefs.

“Tina Peters should be punished for what she did,” Polis wrote. “She should not receive additional punishment for what she believed or said.” Still trying to figure out what that would look

But many election officials have also publicly stated that Peters committed serious felonies, remains unrepentant for her actions, and that her conspiratorial beliefs played a direct role in motivating her crimes.

The post Tina Peters, convicted in election-security breach, emerges defiant and vows legal fight appeared first on CyberScoop.

The U.S. Postal Service is moving forward with mail-in ballot restrictions, following a court’s rejection of a request by voting rights groups to immediately block an executive order from President Donald Trump ordering the changes.

A new regulation proposed last Friday seeks to apply “uniform standards for the mailing of absentee ballots to and from voters,” including new ballot envelope standards with unique barcodes, election mail logos and other changes that would allow the federal government unprecedented abilities to track – and halt – the movement of mail-in ballots across the country.

Trump has long argued that mail-in ballots facilitated election fraud in 2020 that cost him the presidency, though election experts, election officials and even some Trump allies have dismissed those claims as baseless.

According to the proposed rule, these changes would allow USPS to follow ballots at a granular and individual level, something critics have said will make it easier for the Trump administration to meddle with their delivery.

“Uniquely serialized [barcodes] facilitate the tracking of individual pieces of Ballot Mail to and from individual voters as the barcodes are scanned on the Postal Service’s mail processing equipment,” the proposed rule states.

Trump’s executive order, issued in March, would require states to send the federal government a list of all voters eligible to vote by mail prior to USPS mailing them ballots. The federal government has indicated that it plans to cross-check those voters with data from the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice.

The proposed rule says that after states submit their list of eligible mail-in and absentee voters, USPS will “compile” the information and then provide a “Mail-In and Absentee Participation List” back to them. The Postal Service said it “would not change the information provided by states” when compiling the return list. 

Further, the proposed regulation also includes new “verification” procedures that could potentially place USPS above states in deciding which voters are eligible to receive ballots. This would include having the USPS “confirm that a state submitted a list consistent with the conditions laid out in the proposed rule, and that the outbound ballot mail, and thus the blank ballot that could be returned by mail, is destined to individuals on the list, by checking the barcodes.”

The rule claims that USPS “would not verify whether individuals should be included” on state lists and that states retain “full control over the content of that list.”

However, the White House’s March order also instructed the Department of Justice to prioritize the investigation and prosecution of state and local officials or any others involved in the administration of federal elections who issue federal ballots to individuals not eligible to vote in a federal election.

That order was immediately challenged through lawsuits in multiple federal courts, where many of the White House’s plans to take greater control of elections have fallen short. That includes a lawsuit brought by Democrats and nonprofits in Washington.

While Judge Carl Nichols declined to halt the order, that decision was made on strictly procedural grounds, and he indicated the plaintiffs could be in a better position to prove their case later.

“The Court recognizes that the Postal Service may ultimately issue a final rule that directly affects Plaintiffs or their members, or that the Government may develop State Citizenship Lists that omit specific individuals due to particularized flaws,” Nichols wrote. “Plaintiffs may, of course, renew their motions if and when those future actions occur. Until then, however, Plaintiffs cannot show that preliminary injunctive relief is warranted.”

A separate federal lawsuit challenging the order in Massachusetts remains ongoing.

Alexandra Chandler, director of Free and Fair Elections at nonprofit Protect Democracy, noted that USPS and the federal government have no constitutional authority to regulate how states administer their elections, including micromanaging voter roll maintenance.

While the proposed regulation claims USPS will not overrule states on a voter’s eligibility to receive mail-in or absentee ballots, it’s also peppered with caveats and exceptions that could allow USPS to do just that if they determine it is part of their obligation to uphold federal laws or assist law enforcement investigations.

The rule states that USPS “assumes no responsibility for any outbound ballot mailing” until its accepted into the mail, and is “not responsible for service delays” whenever preparation or entry standards aren’t met.

Chandler called the proposed rule a clear attempt to disrupt election processes, sow distrust in elections among voters and lay “the groundwork to disrupt ballot delivery in real time, create fodder for false investigations and prosecutions, and to contest the midterms after the fact.”

“The administration is trying to turn postal workers into de facto election auditors with the power to decide whether people’s votes get counted while at the same time building an entire federal voter data and technical infrastructure it has no legal authority to create,” Chandler said.

The post USPS moving forward with mail-in ballot changes as courts weigh Trump’s election order  appeared first on CyberScoop.

President Donald Trump said he would postpone the release of an executive order that would set up a 90-day testing and vetting regime for frontier AI models, hours before the White House was set to publicly announce the signing. 

Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office Thursday, Trump said he opted to delay the order “because I didn’t like certain aspects of it” and expressed concerns that it could harm U.S. AI industry competition with countries like China. 

According to multiple sources, a draft version of the order circulating in the last 24 hours would have set up a voluntary testing regime between the U.S. federal government and frontier AI companies that would allow the government to study new models for 90 days before they’re publicly released. In addition to the government, the draft order would also facilitate access to the models for cybersecurity testers in critical infrastructure sectors, like finance and healthcare.

The draft order empowered the National Security Agency to conduct classified evaluations of frontier AI models, while the Department of the Treasury would have set up a new information sharing agreement between AI companies and cybersecurity defenders in critical infrastructure.

Other agencies, like the Office of the National Cyber Director, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and the National Institute for Standards and Technology, would also be involved in defining which models are covered under the vetting regime.

In some sense, the order would formalize an already cooperative relationship between AI companies and governments like the U.S. and UK, where tech-focused agencies and regulators have already been provided access to previous models ahead of their release for testing and evaluation. 

A former federal official who has seen the latest draft circulated before Thursday’s announcement told CyberScoop that based on their conversations with the administration, the order was intended to facilitate more robust testing from government agencies compared to evaluations conducted for previous models. They said that is in part a reflection of the federal government’s maturing understanding of AI technology over the past five years.

“In the past there has been containerized optionality for the intelligence community and others to take a look at things, but it was really a lot of hand holding [from AI companies] and self-explanation of what they expect this thing to do,” said the official, granted anonymity to discuss sensitive conversations with the administration. “And now the government is coming forward and saying now we feel we’re prepared enough for you to just give us your tool…and we’ll go from there.”

But it also represents a stark pivot by the Trump administration, which came into office openly dismissive of AI safety policies and arguing that they would inhibit U.S. industry. Trump’s latest comments in delaying the order echo those same attitudes. 

The former official said that while the Trump White House doesn’t view its mission as telling AI companies “don’t develop AI that can do X, which was perceived to be the previous administration’s role,” they also acknowledged the administration’s early rhetoric on AI regulation has painted them into a corner. 

“I think the biggest challenge the administration has is that their tone was ‘no institution of guardrails’ and they don’t have a better word for making sure that the capabilities of emergent frontier models don’t disrupt security than to say ‘let’s test it and institute guardrails,’” the official said.  

While debate about how best to regulate AI-related harms continues, most agree there are genuine national security concerns around the technology.

Ram Shankar Siva Kumar, founder of Microsoft’s AI red team, told CyberScoop that in 2019, his staff consisted of himself and a few other security and machine learning specialists. Now a much larger staff of technologists are supported by specialists in psychology, linguistics, bioweapons and other fields.

“Because of frontier harms, what we have done has really morphed,” Siva Kumar said.

The United States, along with Israel, Russia, Ukraine and others have already deployed AI in targeted military operations or integrated the technology into their larger command and control structure. AI is being used to supercharge drone warfare, global hacking campaigns, and sophisticated surveillance and targeting of military personnel and civilians, imbuing the engineering choices of frontier AI companies with life and death consequences.

Some congressional members who previously opposed allowing AI to make autonomous kill decisions on the battlefield have been reconsidering their position.

Rep. Don Beyer, D-Va., who co-chaired the Congressional AI Caucus and was appointed to a bipartisan AI task force in 2024. said that while he thinks “we need to guard against dehumanizing” those decisions, he also worries that adversarial countries will use the same technology against the United States.

“It’s like if we say that Americans have to have a human in the loop and the Chinese don’t have to have a human in a loop, the non-human one will beat the human one every time,” Beyer said at an AI conference in Washington D.C. earlier this month.  

Meanwhile, experts have been increasingly concerned about the technology’s impact on cybersecurity, as current models are remarkably good at finding software bugs and vulnerabilities, while newer models like Anthropic’s Mythos and OpenAI’s Daybreak are capable of chaining together multiple exploits to conduct more sophisticated attacks.

While state-sponsored hackers are experimenting with the technology and using it to gain targeted efficiencies in their hacking operations, cybersecurity experts in the private sector and law enforcement agencies say the technology has mostly benefitted cybercriminals and scammers.

The post Trump postpones executive order focused on AI security  appeared first on CyberScoop.

On Wednesday, Microsoft released two new red teaming tools — Rampart and Clarity — meant to help developers design more secure agentic software and assist incident responders in the face of ongoing breaches.

Rampart is built on top of PyRIT, an existing open automation framework Microsoft developed for red teaming generative AI systems. But while PyRIT scans already-built systems for security flaws, Rampart is made to continuously test code for vulnerabilities during the development process, encoding both adversarial and benign testing scenarios into the software development pipeline to flag exploitable bugs and dependencies.

Microsoft said Rampart was built to focus on cross-prompt injection attacks, where “an agent retrieves or processes potentially poisoned content from documents, emails, tickets, and other data sources that manipulate behavior indirectly.” It also confirms fixes or exploits work as intended through multiple rounds of testing, as opposed to tools that perform “single shot validation.”

The second tool, Clarity, can be run as a desktop app, a web interface or directly embedded into a coding agent to provide real time security engineering guidance to developers at the outset of a project. It can categorize and track different business objectives related to the code and highlight downstream security implications along with more secure by design alternatives.

Ram Shankar Siva Kumar, who founded Microsoft’s AI red team in 2019, told CyberScoop that the company has seen internal security benefits from using the tools, but believesRampart and Clarity’s growth depends on contributions from other developers outside the Microsoft ecosystem.

In the fast-moving world of AI, where vibe coding, rogue AI agents and a steady churn of new model releases create fresh security implications nearly every week, Siva Kumar said it was important to begin building foundational, AI-centric security processes into the software development pipeline.

“When you hear a lot of talk about AI safety and security, it seems to be a lot of philosophical debates,” he said. “You’ll see frameworks, you’ll see white papers, and I think we’re really past that time, now. We really need to start thinking of AI safety as an engineering discipline and trying to bring security where the developers are.”

Rampart’s potential utility to defenders goes beyond just securing software development pipelines. It can also be used during an active incident response to speed up or automate red teaming for hot fixes, patching and remediation.

Microsoft has used Rampart when investigating reported vulnerabilities in their own products. Siva Kumar said the tool was able to help condense a week’s worth of manual work —  replicating the vulnerability, identifying different variants of the same bug, then patching and re-testing those variants to ensure they’re no longer exploitable — into hours.

Clarity, meanwhile, acts as a security adviser for software projects, prompting developers to consider potential risks in their design decisions and their downstream security consequences. With the rise of AI-generated code and agents, and execution becoming cheaper, this kind of proactive guidance is increasingly important.

“You’re going to be able to create apps, create MCP servers to pull things out from the internet,” said Siva Kumar. “The question is, ‘should you be doing it?’ And Clarity is a step in that direction. It is asking, ‘hey, should you be doing this in the first place?’”

The post Meet Rampart and Clarity, Microsoft’s new red team combo AI agents appeared first on CyberScoop.

As defenders get their hands on newer AI models with more powerful cybersecurity capabilities like Anthropic’s Mythos and OpenAI’s Daybreak, organizations are being told to prepare for a flood of new vulnerability reports.

But for bug bounty programs across the nation, that day may already be here, as yesterday’s frontier models and today’s open-source AI tools have dramatically increased the volume of bug reports flowing into companies around their own products or on larger bounty platforms online.

GitHub, one of the world’s largest online code repositories, said it is tightening its definition of a “complete” bug report after a significant increase in AI-assisted submissions over the past year.

Although the influx has had some benefits, many reports are submitted without proof of concept, are reliant on unrealistic attack scenarios or cover issues already listed as ineligible. As a result, the company is having difficulty separating signal from noise.

“This isn’t unique to GitHub,” wrote Jarom Brown, senior product security engineer at GitHub. “Programs across the industry are grappling with the same challenge, and some have shut down entirely.”

Brown said GitHub does not want to ban the use of AI generated reports entirely, calling it a “force multiplier” for security in the right context. But in a world where it’s never been easier to use AI to generate theoretical bugs, the company wants researchers to go the extra mile to confirm that their discoveries can actually be exploited in real-world conditions.

What we need is the same standard we’ve always expected: validation,” Brown wrote. “An AI-assisted finding that’s been verified, reproduced, and submitted with a working proof of concept is a great submission. An unvalidated output submitted as-is without reproduction or demonstrated impact is not.”

Grant Bourzikas, chief security officer at Cloudflare, said triaging bugs and proving they can be exploited  has always been one of the hardest parts of vulnerability research, and AI vulnerability scanners and code have “made it worse.”

For instance, code written in C and C++ programming languages are vulnerable to a range of exploits – like buffer overflows and out-of-bounds reading and writing – that don’t exist in memory safe languages like Rust. AI tools scanning software written in memory unsafe programming languages are far more likely to generate false positives.

But one of the biggest flaws continues to be that AI tools are also designed to give the user what they’re asking for, even when it’s not there. This leads to the generation of bug reports filled with speculation and qualifiers around exploitability that require human follow up.

“That’s a reasonable bias for an exploratory tool,” Bourzikas wrote. “It’s a ruinous one for a triage queue, where every speculative finding spends human attention and tokens to dismiss, and that cost compounds across thousands of findings.”

Cloudflare recently shared results from testing Mythos on 50 of its own code repositories, looking for exploits. Bourzikas called Mythos “a different kind of tool doing a different kind of work” from other frontier models, and that it made significant progress in reducing false positives.

For example, he pointed to two Mythos capabilities that stood out compared to other models: chaining exploits together and generating its own proof-of-concept code to confirm exploitability.

Older models could spot many of the same bugs, but they often couldn’t figure out how to exploit them effectively, or show that the issue could be exploited in real world conditions.

Others have argued that the gap in bug hunting capabilities between newer frontier AI models and older ones, or open source models available today is not as large as advertised. 

Swedish software developer Daniel Stenberg, lead developer for curl, an open source file transfer tool used around the world, recently wrote about his experience with Mythos Preview. Like others, he has also seen a higher volume of AI-fueled bug reports over the past year, but said the flood of low-quality reports has tapered off significantly since March as models have improved.

Curl is mature and polished by the standards of most software: Stenberg estimates each line of code has been rewritten or altered at least four times, and he said he has used both human and AI tools in the past to implement hundreds of bug fixes over Curl’s existence.

That makes it a unique testing ground for the enhanced capabilities of Mythos, which was reportedly so powerful at finding vulnerabilities that Anthropic opted not to release it to the general public.

After gaining access to Mythos, Stenberg received the results of a scan of 178,000 lines of curl code. Ultimately, the scan flagged five “confirmed” vulnerabilities. Further exploration by human researchers found that 4 of the bugs were false positives or had no security impact. The one remaining bug Mythos found? A low-severity flaw that will be fixed in a regular June update.

Even as he praised the impact of AI on cybersecurity generally, Stenberg concluded that for all the hype, Mythos is only “a bit better” than previously released models.

“My personal conclusion can however not end up with anything else than that the big hype around this model so far was primarily marketing,” he wrote. “I see no evidence that this setup finds issues to any particular higher or more advanced degree than the other tools have done before Mythos.”

The post AI might cut false positives, but it won’t stop the slop  appeared first on CyberScoop.

Colorado Governor Jared Polis has commuted the prison sentence of Tina Peters, the former Mesa County election clerk who was sentenced last year to serve nine years in state prison for carrying out one of the most serious election-related data breaches in U.S. history.

Peters was arrested in 2021, accused of abusing her position as clerk to break into Mesa County election facilities under false pretenses, steal election and voting machine data and share them with allies of President Donald Trump in a quixotic quest to prove he won the 2020 presidential election.

Peters has served less than a year and a half of a nine-year prison sentence handed down last year by a judge after she was convicted of using another Mesa County resident’s identity to enter county election facilities, where she stole voting data from the 2020 election and shared it with Trump allies online.

Peters hoped the data would show that Trump actually won the state in 2020. It did not. Election and cybersecurity experts have said Peters’ actions were a serious breach of election data, while Mesa County officials say it has cost them millions of dollars to deal with the legal fallout while Peters ran for higher office in 2022.

In handing down her nine-year prison sentence, Judge Matthew Barrett called Peters a “charlatan” and deserved a longer punishment because “I’m convinced you’d do it all over again.”

But for months, Colorado’s Democratic Governor Jared Polis has hinted at pardoning or commuting her sentence,  claiming that it was overly harsh for her crimes.

Trump has attempted to pressure state officials to pardon or commute Peters’ sentence. Because Peters was convicted of state crimes, she could be freed by a federal pardon alone, though Trump tried that as well.

In the past, Polis has claimed that he would only grant clemency to Peters if she showed remorse for her crimes. However, Peters’ own community and neighbors in Mesa County testified at her sentencing hearing last year that she has been largely unrepentant even after she was arrested and charged.

A review of dozens of Polis pardons and commutations as Colorado Governor by Denver news affiliate KUSA shows that Polis has never previously pardoned or commuted the sentence of a prisoner who did not openly express remorse for their crimes. Polis claimed in an interview with the outlet that Peters expressed regret.

Polis’ office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The post Colorado governor commutes prison sentence for election denier Tina Peters  appeared first on CyberScoop.

The Federal Trade Commission is set to begin enforcing a key provision of the Take Down Act on May 19, requiring websites and online services to remove nonconsensual deepfake media within 48 hours after a victim’s notice—or risk fines and FTC investigation.

The law, passed by Congress last year, allowed law enforcement to immediately prosecute individuals who create and post such content online. But platforms and websites that host the material were given a yearlong runway to build out their reporting and takedown system. Under the enforcement regime taking effect, businesses that fail to remove flagged media within the 48-hour notification window could face fines and an investigation from the FTC.

This week, FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson sent letters to private-sector companies detailing how the commission intends to police compliance once enforcement begins. The FTC set a maximum civil penalty of – $53,088 per violation for companies that don’t take down content as required, and Ferguson’s letter outlines other requirements, including that companies make it easy and convenient for users to submit takedown requests.

“We stand ready to monitor compliance, investigate violations, and enforce the Take It Down Act,” Ferguson said in a statement. “Protecting the vulnerable—especially children—from this harmful abuse is a top priority for this agency and this administration.”

Ferguson’s letter sheds new light on how the FTC will enforce content takedowns under the law.  Both nonconsensual intimate imagery posted online using real photos of other individuals as well as AI-generated or modified “digital forgeries” would be considered violations.

Companies must also make it easy for victims without accounts to report potential violations, details their reporting and removal program on their website “in plain language” and provide “clear and conspicuous” notice to users about how to request removals.

According to the FTC, the law covers websites, apps, social media, image or video sharing services and gaming platforms. Ferguson’s letters were addressed to a who’s who of tech and social media companies, including Amazon, Alphabet, Apple, Automattic, Bumble, Discord, Match Group, Meta, Microsoft, Pinterest, Reddit, SmugMug, Snapchat, TikTok and X.

Earlier this year, Grok, the AI service that X users have access to, was used to flood the social media site with nonconsensual, sexualized deepfakes of real people. Elon Musk, X’s owner, initially brushed off critics but has since been hit with multiple criminal and civil investigations stemming from the incident, as well as lawsuits and calls from some world leaders to ban the app entirely.

 The FTC is also recommending that companies implement hashing technologies “to prevent the reappearance of intimate content you already removed from your platform” and share their findings with nonprofits like the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and StopNCII.org to track across other parts of the internet.

Becca Branum, director of the Free Expression Project at the Center for Democracy and Technology, told CyberScoop that some elements of the FTC’s approach – like requiring clear and simple reporting options for victims – aligns with best practices established by civil society groups.

But she also said the FTC’s role under the Take It Down Act is materially different from anything the commission has done before. The sheer scale of enforcement and monitoring will require human and technical resources on par with those of major social media companies.

“I’m very concerned about the FTC and its ability to fairly enforce this law,” said Branum. “They are now in the business of regulating content moderation. That is hard work and not something they’re used to doing.”

Some legal and privacy experts pointed to the large financial penalties set by the FTC as a sign that policymakers are looking to put real teeth behind enforcement. Those penalties could pile up quickly if a business is hosting or publishing multiple copies of the same flagged media and declines to remove it within two days.

“For covered platforms, compliance with the Act is critical given the FTC’s emphasis on enforcement – reflecting White House priorities – and potential civil penalties up to $53,088 per violation,” wrote privacy attorneys Duane Pozza and Ian Barlow.

But Branum said the hefty fines also emphasize “just how much incentive will be in place for platforms to take anything that comes down the complaint line.”

While the Take It Down Act is designed to force companies to investigate claims and remove violating content, the regulatory and financial incentives push them to simply remove almost all content reported by default. That approach, which many of the same tech companies have taken under laws like the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, can be exploited by bad faith actors seeking to shut down legal speech or content online.

“If you think there’s any given post [where] if you ask an attorney is it worth $53,000 for me to keep this post up, the answer is always going to be taken it down,” Branum said. “I can’t imagine any service wanting to risk that type of fine on edge cases or anything they can’t verify or account for within 48 hours.”

The post Here’s how the FTC plans to enforce the Take It Down Act appeared first on CyberScoop.