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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Companies, incidents, information 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Industry Expectations

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congress is also getting impatient.

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

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

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

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

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

From CISA’s mouth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) canceled a contract with Penlink that used ad-surveillance technologies to track the location of Americans.

The contract was canceled a little more than a month after ATF Director Robert Cekada acknowledged under questioning from Rep. Michael Cloud, R-Texas, in a congressional hearing that the agency was purchasing the geolocation data of Americans through a contract for “an ad-tech type thing” that would provide the agency with geolocation data “based on the ads that go through.”

 “We have purchased access to that system but we have not used it for a criminal case because we have not established any policies yet on how we would do it,” Cekada said.

He described that system and data as novel and said ATF was still determining how to craft official guidance for how agents would use it in investigative work.

In an email, an ATF spokesperson confirmed to CyberScoop that the contract had been canceled, describing it as a limited pilot project for capabilities the agency was no longer seeking.

”ATF continually evaluates tools and techniques to enhance our investigations and ultimately reduce violent crime in American communities,” the spokesperson wrote. “We did conduct a pilot with Webloc to determine if it could improve our investigative capabilities. After completing our review, we determined the tool does not meet our needs and cancelled the contract. ATF is not currently using any other ad-tech-sourced services.”

According to Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., he requested and his staff received a briefing from ATF on the matter on June 12. In the meeting, Cekada identified purchasing licenses for Penlink’s Webloc commercial location surveillance tool as the contract in question.

Further he said the ATF had already conducted more than 340 searches using the system, including more than 222 that were directly tied to active ATF case numbers.

On its website, Penlink describes itself as an open-source intelligence analysis platform that provides real time data collection, forensic and web analysis and digital evidence collection. The firm touts its use of “AI-driven analysis” to increase case resolution rates by 80% as well as the ability to “tie disparate data together to one subject, place, or group using comprehensive identity resolution capabilities.”

Wyden, who earlier this year led a group of 70 congressional Democrats calling for an investigation into the purchase of commercial location data by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said that ATF ultimately did “the right thing” but called for Congress to pass his legislation that would change the practice throughout the federal government.

“After Representative Cloud and my staff informed the ATF about the legal and privacy quagmire surrounding adtech data,  the agency did the right thing,” Wyden said in a statement. “Canceling this contract is a victory for Americans’ constitutional rights, but Americans’ privacy shouldn’t depend on ad hoc congressional interventions. Congress must pass the Government Surveillance Reform Act to close the data broker loophole once and for all.”

Wyden’s office noted that the purchase of ad-tech geolocation data is illegal in some states, and that the Federal Trade Commission has already established that selling sensitive location data to government agencies and contractors falls under deceptive and unfair practices under the FTC Act.

The use of ad-tech to surveil and geolocate targets online is a growing problem. While such tools are commonly used by marketing and advertising agencies to send targeted ads based on geography or region, bad actors can also use use to unmask the identities or locations of individuals, or combine them with other public data in ways that worry privacy advocates. A University of Tennessee student is suing a company based in the Virgin Islands for pulling videos from her social media, turning them into nonconsensual ads for their dating service and then using ad-tech geolocation to serve the ads to men online near her.

Wyden’s office said in one instance, the tool was used to get location data for devices associated with a defense contractor at the same time as a suspected arson incident, but that the ATF later backed off from using it in court after both the prosecutor and judge expressed “serious discomfort with the use of warrantless adtech data.” The ATF ultimately opted to seek a court order for bulk cell phone tower data instead.

The post ATF cancels controversial commercial geolocation contract appeared first on CyberScoop.

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

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

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

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

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

The evolution of open-source risk 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A moment of momentum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The pressure is mounting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Members of Congress responded with skepticism and caution Tuesday to the Trump administration’s decision to impose export controls on Anthropic’s newest AI models.

The Friday order, which Anthropic said forced it to disable its Fable 5 and Mythos 5 artificial intelligence models, was prompted by what the administration said were national security concerns that a large number of cybersecurity professionals have dismissed as ill-founded.

Several Hill Democrats told CyberScoop they were concerned that the administration’s decision was driven by other considerations. Notably, the administration has feuded with Anthropic over use of its models for domestic surveillance and fully autonomous weapons.

Sen. Angus King, a Maine independent who caucuses with Democrats, said he would need to be convinced it was a legitimate national security order and hadn’t yet seen a full justification.

“What they did was pretty extreme, and I’d want to see what the basis was, as opposed to all the other issues that are swirling around in cybersecurity,” he said. “I’m a little skeptical because of their otherwise announced antipathy to this company.”

Leaders of the House Homeland Security Committee had contrasting takes, with Chairman Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y., offering a two-pronged response and the top Democrat on the panel, Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, panning the order.

“The administration is right to treat advanced AI cyber capabilities as a national security issue, especially when foreign adversaries and cybercriminals are actively looking for ways to weaponize these tools,” Garbarino said in a statement. “At the same time, we need to make sure our response does not unintentionally disadvantage American companies, allied partners, or critical infrastructure defenders who need access to the best secure tools available in order to protect our networks here at home.”

The United States, not China, needs to set standards for trusted AI, Garbarino said.

But Thompson said the order adds evidence to the appearance that the Trump administration doesn’t “have a coherent plan for mitigating the cybersecurity risks” of frontier AI models, he told CyberScoop in a statement.

“AI regulations should rely on standards and procedures that provide confidence to the public that decisions are based on the evidence and not on politics,” he said. “Instead, the Trump administration has adopted an ad hoc approach where decisions are made by political appointees in the White House rather than experts and where companies are left guessing on how to comply.”

Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, had also previously highlighted the administration’s quarrel with Anthropic in response to the order in a statement to CyberScoop.

Behind the scenes, the administration and Anthropic were reportedly continuing to try to forge a truce Tuesday. More broadly, the administration’s AI executive order had a rocky rollout as the administration swung back-and-forth on how involved the government should be.

Some lawmakers deferred on commenting Tuesday, such as Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Rand Paul, R-Ky., who told CyberScoop he didn’t have anything to say on the order.

Others said they were still seeking information from the administration.

“I have not had the opportunity to get a brief specifically as to the logic, the reasoning behind it, and so forth,” said Sen. Mike Rounds, the South Dakota Republican who chairs the Armed Services Subcommittee on Cybersecurity. “So I’m going to withhold judgment until I get an opportunity to get the rest of the story, so to speak.”

The post Lawmakers leery about Trump administration’s Anthropic order appeared first on CyberScoop.

A policy paper published Tuesday advocates for software bills of materials (SBOMs) for artificial intelligence as a mechanism for reducing cyber risk and improving transparency, and seeks to give lawmakers, federal agencies and others a roadmap on how to proceed.

The SBOM, commonly described as an inventory of software ingredients, emerged in the 2010s and has expanded beyond software to include hardware and AI.

But the paper from the Institute for Security and Technology, which CyberScoop is the first to report on, argues that AIBOMS require foundational work before they can be widely implemented.  This comes as some companies are already offering AIBOM services and other organizations are actively shaping AIBOM policy.

“What we’re worried about is we would end up in a ‘fire, ready, aim’ situation where everyone was doing it, but we were all doing slightly different things,” said a co-author of the paper, Allan Friedman, who has worked on SBOMs in multiple U.S. government roles. “If we don’t have a shared vision, it becomes a lot harder to have a coherent policy. It becomes a lot harder to have common tools and interoperable data and it becomes a lot harder to use the data that we’re tracking to actually deliver on the promise of supply chain transparency.”

The idea for the paper sprung from discussions with Hill aides and Pentagon staffers, Friedman said, and people like them are the target audience as well.

A key premise is that AIBOM policy needs to explore the topic from two sides.

“How do you solve the chicken-and-egg issue, where no one’s providing the data, so no one’s asking for it, and no one’s asking for it, so no one’s providing it?” Friedman told CyberScoop. “The answer is, you have to go from both supply and demand.”

On the supply side, “An AIBOM should capture relevant details about the models and datasets used for training, fine-tuning, evaluation, validation, testing, retrieval, grounding, augmentation, or other model development or operational purposes,” the paper suggests.

“The demand side begins with some form of forcing function or requirement that organizations understand what is in the products they manufacture and sell,” it states, with one such requirement potentially being an industry mandate to require the tracking of system components — for example, like the “lightweight” standards used in the payment card industry on data security that isn’t overly exact about how components should be tracked.

But it could also include government regulations or contracting conditions, Friedman argues with his Institute for Security and Technology colleague Nick Leiserson. (The scope of government directives on AI is a topic of considerable debate on Capitol Hill and within the Trump administration right now.)

Friedman said the paper isn’t meant to be the be-all, end-all, and acknowledged the prior work of organizations like the Open Worldwide Application Security Project (OWASP) and Linux Foundation.

“We’re not saying this is a brand new topic, nor are we saying that AIBOM will solve all AI security issues,” he said. “I’ve been fighting this fight for SBOM for a decade. You know, SBOM will not pick up your dry cleaning.”

And as AI continues to evolve rapidly, that means papers like the one published Tuesday are just at the beginning of the discussion, Friedman said.

The post A case for how to shape ‘ingredient lists’ for AI models appeared first on CyberScoop.

House Democrats criticized a draft Republican Department of Homeland Security spending bill Thursday that they said would cut funding for the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency by $250 million.

Republicans said the bill provides $2.4 billion for CISA, and that among its focuses are “improving cybersecurity resilience,” in the words of House Appropriations Chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla.

But Democrats decried it as a funding reduction. The panel’s subcommittee on homeland security is set to vote on the bill Friday.

The fiscal 2027 funding measure “dramatically cuts funding for cybersecurity and infrastructure protection despite an increasing number of sophisticated attacks from foreign adversaries against U.S. businesses, health care systems, utilities, schools, and state and local governments,” Democrats said in a fact sheet.

They also said it limits DHS’s ability to counter foreign propaganda seeking to undermine U.S. democracy, and to protect states against foreign groups during the elections.

The second Trump administration has sought deep cuts in CISA’s personnel numbers and budget in both fiscal 2026 and 2027, drawing concerns from both sides of the aisle.

Congress last year sought to implement some, but not all, of Trump’s proposed cuts for the agency, advancing legislation to set its budget at $2.6 billion.

In their fact sheet, Republicans said they were reallocating $100 million from past appropriations to fund CISA’s core missions.

They acknowledged some cutbacks, saying that the bill “Includes strategic reductions to redundant, unauthorized, or duplicative contracts, positions, and programs.”

Despite the cutbacks at CISA over the last year and a half, officials have talked about wanting to hire additional personnel. The fiscal 2027 bill includes “$31 million to hire mission critical positions to counter threats from foreign adversaries, such as China,” according to the GOP.

The GOP also highlighted other cyber funds in the DHS bill. DHS’s management director would get $11.3 million for “enhanced cybersecurity protections,” while the Homeland Security Investigations division of Immigration and Customs Enforcement would get $5 million for the Cyber Crime Center.

Neither panel Republicans nor Democrats responded to requests for comment seeking more detailed numbers for the fiscal 2027 bill.

The post Hill Dems hammer GOP for $250M CISA budget cut appeared first on CyberScoop.

Two cybersecurity-focused members of Congress agreed Thursday that reductions to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency have done too much damage to an agency essential to defending civilian networks against foreign adversaries.

Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., and Rep. James Walkinshaw, D-Va., spoke during a panel at the National Cyber Innovation Forum. Despite representing different parties, and serving on different congressional committees, the two lawmakers offered closely aligned assessments of CISA’s role and the consequences of recent cuts.

Bacon, who is the chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Cyber, Information Technologies, and Innovation, framed the agency as central to protecting domestic networks. 

“What we really need is a strong CISA that helps protect our domestic networks, our energy grids and things like that,” he said, before adding that “unfortunately” the administration had moved in the opposite direction over the past year. 

He said officials had not appreciated the agency’s defensive value, telling the audience he did not think they recognized the “one-for-one output” CISA provides.

Walkinshaw, who is a member of the House Homeland Security Committee, echoed that view and tied it directly to the threat picture. 

Referring to Chinese-linked intrusion campaigns like Salt Typhoon, he said the United States is contending with adversaries “getting into critical infrastructure overseas and coming after big parts of our critical infrastructure industry here at home.” He said CISA’s information-sharing function and its relationships with utilities and local governments are part of what makes a centralized civilian defense workable.

Both lawmakers placed their concern in the context of a threat environment they described as escalating. Bacon ranked China as the leading cyber adversary to the United States, surpassing Russia, and said intrusions lay groundwork for further actions. “They’re in our energy grid,” he said. “On Day 1 of the war, they want to turn off our energy.” 

The case for a well-resourced CISA, the two lawmakers said, rests on the fact that most of the entities targeted by foreign actors cannot defend themselves on their own. Walkinshaw drew on his work during his time as a county supervisor in Fairfax County, Va., where he worked with Fairfax Water. He said that even as that utility was “one of the most sophisticated, well-funded water authorities in the country,” it struggled to keep pace with the volume and sophistication of attacks. Smaller utilities, towns and businesses, he said, have no realistic path to defending themselves against a nation-state.

Bacon agreed. He said small companies are “the heart of American innovation” but cannot be expected to stand up to adversaries operating with the resources of China, Russia, Iran or North Korea without federal support.

President Donald Trump’s fiscal 2027 budget would cut CISA by $707 million, according to a summary released last month, though a separate budget document points to a smaller reduction of $361 million. Either figure would leave the agency with slightly more than $2 billion in discretionary funding, down from the roughly $3 billion it had at the start of the administration.

It has been a turbulent time for CISA during the second Trump administration, in which the agency lost roughly a third of its personnel, shuttered entire divisions and operated without a Senate-confirmed director. Former officials, industry partners and lawmakers from both parties have described diminished coordination with state and local governments, weakened relationships with the private sector and growing concern about whether the agency retains the capacity to manage a major cyber crisis. 

In the model both lawmakers endorsed, they pushed for CISA to play more of a role after an intrusion, helping affected entities restore their networks while the FBI works to identify the source. Walkinshaw said advanced artificial intelligence expands the attack surface and makes that kind of centralized support more important.

 “The advanced AI technology means that more and smaller, maybe not as well-funded organizations across the globe, can launch sophisticated attacks,” he said, adding that the result is that “the defense” becomes “more complex.”

Looking ahead, Walkinshaw said restoring CISA’s capacity should be within reach of a divided Congress. 

“In terms of bipartisan areas of agreement here in Congress, restoring and expanding those capabilities and those partnerships right now should be a top priority,” he said.

The post Lawmakers from both parties say CISA cuts have gone too far appeared first on CyberScoop.

Congress wants answers from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency about the reported public exposure of sensitive agency credential data on GitHub in an incident that the security researcher who discovered it called one of the worst leaks he’s ever seen.

Other security professionals also voiced concern Tuesday about the leak and the potential for abuse by any malicious parties who got a hold of the information.

Security firm GitGuardian said it discovered a public GitHub repository last week that exposed credentials for privileged AWS GovCloud accounts and internal CISA systems dating back to November. The repository, apparently maintained by a contractor, was named “Private-CISA.” 

Krebs on Security first reported the incident.

“My main fear … is that a state actor will get the data and might be able to do bad stuff,” GitGuardian security researcher Guillaume Valadon told CyberScoop that he thought to himself upon discovering the leak, after concluding it was real; he initially thought it looked fake.

State-based attackers who obtained the credentials “might be able to gain persistence,” Valadon said, “so for me it’s even worse than an attacker destroying everything, having someone in a governmental system — it’s really, really bad.”

A House Homeland Security Committee aide said the panel is seeking a staff-level briefing from CISA on the matter.

Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson, the top Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee, and Delia Ramirez, the top Democrat on the panel’s cyber subcommittee, had separately demanded a briefing Tuesday in a letter to CISA’s acting director, Nick Andersen. 

They said they wanted to learn “how this serious security lapse occurred, any potential security consequences, remediation activities, corrective actions related to the contractor personnel involved, and efforts to monitor for and prevent similar activity from occurring in the future.”

Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H., also sent a letter Tuesday to Andersen, seeking a classified briefing to answer questions about which systems were exposed, what forensic work CISA did to evaluate potential damage and what corrective action it has taken.

“This reported incident raises serious questions about how such a security lapse could occur at the very agency charged with helping to prevent cyber breaches,” Hassan wrote in the missive first reported by Axios, particularly “regarding CISA’s internal policies and procedures at a time of significant cybersecurity threats against U.S. critical infrastructure.”

Both letters pointed to personnel and budget cutbacks at the agency as a potential contributor to the incident.

CISA said it was looking into what happened.

“The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency is aware of the reported exposure and is continuing to investigate the situation,” a spokesperson said. “Currently, there is no indication that any sensitive data was compromised as a result of this incident. While we hold our team members to the highest standards of integrity and operational awareness, we are working to ensure additional safeguards are implemented to prevent future occurrences.” 

The repository was reportedly maintained by a contractor at Nightwing. A Nightwing spokesperson referred questions to CISA.

The kind of exposure that happened for CISA “is an unfortunately painful, but common and repeated, if not relentless, way that we see organizations inadvertently leak very sensitive credentials to the wider web,” said Ben Harris, founder of WatchTowr, a company that helps organizations detect such exposures.

Harris told CyberScoop he didn’t want to speculate on what attackers who obtained the credentials might be able to do with it, but he said that it would be “terrifying” if the contractor was transferring information from work to home, as one researcher theorized.

Dave Mitchell, senior director of threat intelligence at Infoblox, told CyberScoop the incident showed the importance of teams having controls and audits in place across their repositories.

“Of all the things that keep me up at night, misconfigurations in GitHub are a recurring nightmare. It’s critical for so many organizations — all it takes is one accidental upload or misconfiguration and you’ve signed yourself up for a major incident,” he said in a written statement. “No need for a threat actor to use advanced techniques to compromise you if the keys are already sitting on the counter.”

Travis Rosiek, public sector chief technology officer at Rubrik, noted that the timing of the issue aligned with the government shutdown that only recently resolved for DHS. He said the incident showed the federal government needs to prioritize resilience.

“A persistent shortage of cybersecurity talent, combined with funding lapses, high workforce turnover, and an increasingly complex threat landscape, created the perfect storm for this scenario,” he said in a written statement to CyberScoop. “No organization is immune, and we must ensure that the federal government, which is responsible for helping protect the nation’s critical infrastructure and enhancing our cybersecurity posture, remains fully operational 24-7, 365 days a year.”

Without minimizing the severity of the incident, some researchers who have looked at the leak said there are mitigating circumstances that make elements of it defensible or, at least, understandable.

CISA acted very swiftly to remove the repository, Valadon said, once he alerted them to the leak.

And even if CISA has the right policies in place, human error still can make it difficult to entirely avoid incidents like this, Harris said.

“The reality is this happens every single day to different organizations, including cybersecurity companies,” he said, noting it would be different if it was a pattern. “This is not exclusive to CISA. I don’t really think it reflects well if we saw this every single day with CISA. … It’s not ideal that it’s even happened once, but the reality is that cybersecurity is people, process, technology.”

CISA has had other security incidents in the past, including recently. The former acting director of the agency endured criticism for uploading sensitive contract data to ChatGPT last year. In 2024 the agency notified Congress of a breach of a chemical plant security tool.

Updated 5/20/26: to include more information on a House Homeland Security Committee briefing request.

The post CISA credential leak raises alarms, and Capitol Hill demands answers appeared first on CyberScoop.

Sean Plankey, most recently the nominee for director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, is joining defense technology company UFORCE as its U.S. chief executive officer.

The London-based company created out of nine Ukrainian-based firms announced Plankey’s move Monday less than a month after he withdrew his nomination amid difficulties overcoming objections from senators who had placed a hold on it.

Plankey’s a cyber veteran of the first Trump administration but also had been serving as senior adviser on the Coast Guard at the Homeland Security Department, retiring from the Coast Guard this year.

UFORCE makes combat drones for air, land and sea and plans to have its first U.S.-made unmanned surface vessels hitting the water by this summer. The startup reportedly brought its valuation to $1 billion earlier this year.

“The United States and its allies are looking for defense technology partners that can move

quickly, innovate continuously and deliver systems already proven across theaters of combat,” Plankey said in a statement. “UFORCE is uniquely positioned to meet that demand and we will do that by manufacturing these capabilities in America.”

Said Oleg Rogynskyy, co-founder and CEO of UFORCE: “Sean’s decision to join UFORCE reflects the strength of our platform and the growing recognition that the future of autonomous defense will be shaped by companies able to combine real combat validation with scalable Western deployment,” 

CISA has gone without a permanent director for the entirety of the second Trump administration, and the president has yet to put forward a nominee for the position since Plankey’s withdrawal last month.

Former Oklahoma senator Markwayne Mullin took over as DHS secretary in late March.

The post Former CISA nominee Sean Plankey named US CEO of defense startup appeared first on CyberScoop.

A House Democrat who’s been at the forefront of congressional efforts to scrutinize the federal government’s use of commercial spyware wants the Commerce Department to brief Capitol Hill amid apprehension that the Trump administration might further embrace the technology.

Rep. Summer Lee, D-Pa., sent a letter to the department Thursday seeking a briefing on several developments stemming from Immigration and Customs Enforcement acknowledging its use of Paragon’s Graphite spyware, as well as an American company purchasing a controlling stake in Israel’s NSO Group. The Commerce Department sanctioned NSO Group under former President Joe Biden after widespread abuse allegations, including eavesdropping on government officials, activists and journalists.

“The Trump Administration appears to be broadly receptive to using commercial spyware to infiltrate cell phones and allowing U.S. investment in sanctioned spyware companies like NSO Group,” Lee wrote in her letter to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, which CyberScoop is first reporting.

NSO Group’s new executive chairman, David Friedman, is a former Trump ambassador to Israel and was his bankruptcy attorney. He has said in November that he expects the administration will be “receptive” to using NSO Group tech.

“Given those close ties between NSO Group and the Trump Administration, and the serious concerns about how NSO’s technology could be used to spy on Americans, we write to request information regarding the purchase of NSO Group by an American company and the potential usage of NSO Group spyware by federal law enforcement,” wrote Lee, who sits on the Oversight and Government Reform panel and is the top Democrat on its Federal Law Enforcement Subcommittee.

Lee was one of the authors of a recent Democratic letter seeking confirmation of ICE’s use of Paragon’s Graphite, which ICE acknowledged. But they criticized the administration for not answering all their questions, in addition to being outraged.

In her latest letter, Lee asked the Commerce Department to brief Oversight and Government Reform Committee staff about internal department deliberations, Commerce communication with the White House and any outside conversations — including with Friedman — about government use of NSO Group technology or any other commercial spyware, and American investment in NSO.

NSO Group “appears to view the Trump administration as friendly to its interests in the United States, pitching itself as a vital tool for the U.S. government to safeguard national security,” Lee wrote, citing company court filings that it “is reasonably foreseeable that a law enforcement or intelligence agency of the United States will use Pegasus.”

The Biden administration sanctions, and court losses in a case against Meta, represented setbacks for NSO Group’s ambitions. And prior to the U.S. investment firm controlling stake purchase last fall, the Commerce Department under Trump rebuffed efforts to remove NSO Group from its sanctions list.

But the tens of millions of dollars worth of investment, following news that Israel had used Pegasus to track people kidnapped or murdered by Hamas, was a boon.

NSO Group maintains that its products are designed only to help law enforcement and intelligence fight terrorism and crime, and that it vets its customers in advance as well as investigates misuse. News accounts and other investigations have turned up a multitude of abuses.

There have been scattered reports of U.S. flirtation with using NSO Group technology. The FBI acknowledged it had bought a Pegasus license, but stopped short of deploying it. The Times of London reported that “it is believed” the Central Intelligence Agency used Pegasus spyware as part of a rescue mission last month for a U.S. airman downed in Iran.

You can read the full letter below.

The post One House Democrat is pressing Commerce on the government’s spyware use appeared first on CyberScoop.

Congress extended a controversial surveillance law for 45 days on Thursday, hours before its latest expiration following an earlier extension.

The Senate passed — then the House cleared — a 45-day extension of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which authorizes warrantless surveillance of foreign targets. But those targets are sometimes communicating electronically with Americans, and intelligence officials can search the database using their identifying information, which has long given privacy groups and privacy-minded lawmakers heartburn.

The 45-day reprieve gives lawmakers more time to hammer out a lasting deal, and comes after the leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee agreed to send a letter to the Director of National Intelligence and attorney general, seeking swift declassification of a letter on a classified ruling from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., had sought release of that opinion, and had resisted giving unanimous consent for the latest short-term extension to move forward until Senate Intelligence Chairman Tom Cotton, R-Ark., and top panel Democrat Mark Warner of Virginia agreed to send the letter.

A declassification review was already underway, but the Cotton-Warner letter states that “We expect that this declassification review will be completed and the FISC opinion released publicly within 15 days,” according to Wyden, speaking on the Senate floor.

The March 17 opinion reportedly came with annual recertification of the warrantless surveillance program. The Justice Department is appealing that ruling because it blocked them from using certain tools to analyze communications.

“A few weeks ago, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court found major compliance problems related to the surveillance law known as section 702,” Wyden said earlier this month. “These compliance problems are directly related to Americans’ Constitutional rights.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said the extension will give lawmakers additional room to hold “discussion on reforms.”

The House this week had passed a 3-year reauthorization with some changes to the surveillance program, but key to doing so was leadership’s agreement to attach legislative language on a separate matter that would ban a central bank digital currency. Thune had said that language was going nowhere in the Senate.

On Thursday, the House voted 261-111 to extend the law for 45 days. President Donald Trump has sought a “clean” 18-month reauthorization of the surveillance powers.

The extension continues a perennial ritual for the Hill when it comes to Section 702: A deadline looms, and Congress kicks the can down the road repeatedly.

The post Congress kicks the can down the road on surveillance law (again) appeared first on CyberScoop.