TeamPCP, the threat actor behind an unrelenting flurry of attacks on open-source software this year, has been active much longer than previously thought, according to research Oligo Security shared exclusively with CyberScoop. 

The threat actor, which gained notoriety and has captivated threat hunters as it compromised and injected malicious code into more than 1,000 software packages in less than four months earlier this year, was also responsible for attacks dating back to 2020, Oligo Security found. 

The security vendor’s research team found multiple attacks that bear the markings of TeamPCP, including a late 2025 campaign involving the exploitation of a ShadowRay vulnerability that resulted in the first self-propogating botnet running on hijacked AI infrastructure.

Evidence uncovered during that investigation into the ShadowRay 2.0 campaign was linked to more historical attacks originating from the same IPs, domains and other infrastructure TeamPCP used in attacks that captured widespread attention earlier this year. 

“The scariest thing in this campaign is the speed at which the payloads evolved and changed and adapted to the environment they run in. We saw changes in the speed that we’re not used to seeing in these kinds of attacks. They’re usually slow, careful,” said Uri Katz, director of research at Oligo Security. “This was clearly with the help of AI — the payloads changed rapidly to adjust and change to the environment that they were trying to attack.”

One of the domains that Oligo Security identified in July 2025 was in the profile of TeamPCP’s official GitHub account, said Avi Lumelsky, AI security researcher at Oligo Security. “It’s public, they’re not even trying to hide their identity,” he said. 

From there, Oligo linked TeamPCP to activity tracked under multiple names, including TA-NATALSTATUS and IronErn, spanning from 2020 to late 2025. Much of that activity was traced to the same IPs, domain names, a file server and command-and-control server, researchers said. 

TeamPCP emerged publicly as a brand in late 2025. Soon after, “TeamPCP started to go really broad and do campaigns, which are much more noisy,” said Gal Elbaz, co-founder and CTO at Oligo Security. 

Widespread adoption of AI and TeamPCP’s use of the technology supported this growth as the threat actor built a brand, got more active on social media and boasted publicly about its activities and claimed victims.

“The ability to control the infrastructure and orchestrate the attack with AI was also super new, and I’m sure it helps them,” Elbaz said. 

“All of the companies in the world are in this race to adopt AI because they are afraid their business will die, and they understand, of course, the opportunity. But it’s also what gives the attacker this power to go into it,” he added. “If you don’t really have visibility in what’s going on there or how it behaves, that’s exactly what attackers are after.”

TeamPCP’s more recent attacks have capitalized on new security gaps created by developers’ increasing reliance on AI and the automated systems companies use to deploy code. The threat actor is also consistently wrecking the open-source frameworks and software packages these systems rely on. 

“Most AI infrastructure is open source by design because nobody has the manpower and money to develop everything from scratch,” Lumelsky said. 

“We love open source. We use many of these products ourselves, but it’s all about reading the documentation, and I think many of these tools place the responsibility of using it right and security on the user, and developers are not used to these new kinds of animals,” he added. “That’s why the trust can be exploited at scale.”

As it uncovered a long operational history spanning multiple campaigns, Oligo Security has gained more confidence in understanding how TeamPCP operates. It also means TeamPCP was likely involved in other attacks that haven’t been attributed to it yet or attacks that haven’t been detected. 

“There’s a lot more out there that we haven’t caught or been able to prove up until now,” Elbaz said.

The post Open-source software’s archenemy TeamPCP goes back further than anyone thought appeared first on CyberScoop.

While AI is supposed to help defenders, it’s now creating more than twice as much noise as human-triggered incidents CrowdStrike detects as potentially malicious. The company’s threat hunting team and systems triaged an average of 14 million detection leads daily, resulting in about 36,000 customer alerts during the one-year period ending in June.

“AI agent-driven behaviors have surged past human triggers,” said Adam Meyers, senior vice president of counter adversary operations at CrowdStrike. “AI has driven the detections significantly above what humans are causing, and this gives you a sense of how frequently AI is being used, and really just that it’s being used everywhere.”

The threat posed by AI showed up incessantly during the past year, sparking alarming shifts and heightened targeting across software defects, open-source supply chains and AI tools themselves — all of which create greater difficulties for defenders, CrowdStrike said in its annual threat hunting report. 

“The AI tools that are being implemented by every enterprise across the globe right now are also creating an extended attack surface,” Meyers said during a press briefing. 

“AI is now a tool, a target, and a force multiplier for adversaries,” researchers wrote in the report, adding that AI-enabled malicious activity surged 89% during the past year as attackers used the technology to scale operations, hasten tradecraft and target AI infrastructure.

Attackers are using frontier AI models to uncover vulnerabilities and develop resources, including AI-generated scripts, payloads and commands that increase their effectiveness and efficiency. The technology also allows threat groups to design more creative ways to run automated attacks and boost impact by manipulating, interrupting or sabotaging AI systems and data.

“AI is both the weapon and the target,” Meyers said. 

Most organizations don’t view it as such, and thus far haven’t secured or put proper guardrails around the AI tools they use or address the ways attackers can use AI against them, he added. 

AI’s mark on vulnerabilities is particularly concerning, as reflected by what Meyers described as “one of the scarier stats” in this year’s report: 88% of vulnerabilities were weaponized through AI within 48 hours. 

“This is creating a rich ecosystem of vulnerabilities for attackers to use against various systems,” he said. It also renders the 30-day patch window obsolete, forcing organizations to struggle under a new baseline patch cycle of 24 to 48 hours, according to Meyers.

The AI ecosystem also became the next software supply chain battleground during the past year, as evidenced by TeamPCP’s rampage through open-source software in the first half of this year. 

The threat cluster compromised more than 300 software dependencies in one day, Meyers said. 

AI tools are already in the crosshairs and the attack surface will continue to grow as agentic systems, AI application integrations and dependency managers for AI agents proliferate, the report concluded.

“The same AI tools driving modern businesses are creating under-defended attack surfaces that adversaries are exploiting,” Meyers said. “We have to secure AI. This is absolutely critical.”

The post CrowdStrike: AI is now both the weapon and the target in cyberattacks appeared first on CyberScoop.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amazon’s security researchers say a hacking group tied to North Korea targeted small, little-noticed software packages more than a year before it struck one of the internet’s most widely used programming tools.

The company’s threat intelligence team said Wednesday at a media roundtable at its Arlington, Va., offices that the same group linked to the recent compromise of the open-source axios software library also planted malicious code in a package called typo-crypto in March 2025, a full year before the axios breach. Researchers found the connection while tracing domain records tied to the axios attack back to earlier activity.

“We believe the March 2025 typo-crypto campaign was a rehearsal,” said CJ Moses, Amazon’s chief information security officer, adding that the target’s small scale let the group test its methods “without putting that on the big stage.”

Amazon said the group also compromised two other packages, debug and chalk, in September 2025. Until now, those three incidents had not been publicly linked to the same actor. Security researchers track the group under several names, including UNC1069, Sapphire Sleet and Stardust Chollima. 

Axios, debug and chalk are code libraries used by software developers around the world to build applications. Axios alone is downloaded more than 100 million times a week. “That number represents real organizations putting real code into production systems every single week,” Moses said.

In the typo-crypto case, the malicious file was named “core.js” and was made to look like a legitimate, unrelated package called core-js. Amazon said the file activated only when it received a specific numeric input, then reached out to a server controlled by the attackers to download a second piece of code. That second stage was written differently depending on whether the infected computer ran Windows, macOS or Linux. The code combined encoded text with a cipher, a method Moses said was meant to slow down analysis, including by AI-based review tools, without relying on heavy encryption.

Amazon said the typo-crypto package had few downloads compared with axios, debug or chalk. Researchers believe that initial target served as practice, letting the group refine its approach before turning to more widely used software. “They did what a lot of people do: crawl, walk, run,” Moses said. 

In each of the four cases, Amazon said, the attackers built a relationship with a maintainer who already had access to a package, then used that access to publish an update containing hidden code. “They didn’t break through a window,” Moses said. “They basically earned the trust of an employee to hand them the keys.”

Cybersecurity firm Wiz separately found that about 1 in 10 cloud computing environments were affected by the debug and chalk incident within a two-hour span, a finding Moses cited to illustrate how fast the impact spread. “Going from there not being a vulnerability, to there being a vulnerability, to there being an exploited vulnerability … used to be days to weeks. Now it’s hours to minutes,” he said.

Rick Anthony, senior engineering manager at Amazon Web Services, said the research further shows how attackers face two basic problems in these types of incidents: getting malicious code into a package that will eventually run inside an organization, and keeping that code hidden from developers or security tools. He said groups are increasingly building reputations as legitimate contributors over time. 

“Let me get my package deployed in as many places as possible so that I can spring the trap later,” said Anthony, describing the mindset behind the approach.

Researchers said generative AI has made it easier for attackers to produce code, documentation and contribution histories that look authentic. Anthony also described a technique in which attackers register package names that AI coding tools sometimes generate by mistake, so a developer following an AI suggestion could install malicious software without making any typing error of their own.

The findings come two years after a separate incident involving a program called xz-utils, in which an attacker spent time gaining the trust of the software’s maintainers before inserting a backdoor. Moses pointed to that case as an early example of a pattern now appearing “at scale” and tied to a nation-state.

Since that incident, separate groups have been running roughshod over open-source software. Another group known as TeamPCP has compromised and injected malicious code into more than 1,000 software packages over a four-month span this year. 

The post A little-known npm package was North Korea’s warm-up act for the axios hack appeared first on CyberScoop.

Malware targeting AI coding assistants and software developers’ automated workflows is spreading into more environments with more capabilities, placing defenders at a growing disadvantage.

A malware strain dubbed Sandworm_Mode, first discovered by Socket in February, represents a growing threat to software development. According to a CrowdStrike report, the self-propagating worm can spread through code repositories with minimal detection, raising alarms about software supply chains.

The malware’s capabilities are extensive, but not especially unique compared to the series of supply-chain worms known as Shai-Hulud, and more recently Mini Shai-Hulud.

“This is the new trend,” Adam Meyers, senior vice president of counter adversary operations at CrowdStrike, told CyberScoop. “This is something we’re seeing more and more. It’s the new hotness right now.”

Sandworm_Mode targets and steals sensitive data, including credentials, keys and secrets that unlock paths to additional services and dependencies throughout the AI toolchain. This includes AI assistants, cloud providers, API keys for nine major LLM providers, CI/CD pipelines and automated systems that build, test and publish code.

These actions blend in with tens of thousands of other commands occurring daily in any given environment infused with AI development tools. 

“Trying to find the signal of something malicious happening is very difficult because there’s so much noise out there,” Meyers said. 

The worm also paces itself, setting multi-day delays to separate initial access from follow-on malicious activity — creating a gap in victims’ telemetry windows, which makes it even more challenging for defenders to detect and attribute the chain of infection properly. 

“AI agents are pulling down all of these different dependencies continuously throughout the day,” Meyers said. “When you’re looking downrange from the perspective of the security operations team, you’re just seeing everybody pulling down these dependencies, and these dependencies self-unpacking and executing, so it just gets really, really noisy to try to find something bad happening.”

The malware covers its tracks further with a bit of a mean streak, by automatically destroying compromised environments if it can’t spread or accomplish its objectives.

“It’s well thought-through, and well developed, so somebody spent some time caring and feeding this thing,” Meyer said.

Despite CrowdStrike’s four-month review of Sandworm_Mode, the cybersecurity firm has yet to gain a firm handle on its intent, but Meyers said it is designed to attain a strong foothold, which could enable long-term access.

CrowdStrike hasn’t determined who is responsible for the malware, yet Meyers said he doesn’t think TeamPCP, a threat group that’s been on a rampage through open-source software this year, is involved. 

“It could be a nation-state threat actor, or it could be an e-crime actor that’s looking to use this to then sell access to other organizations,” he said. “We don’t really know what the intention is.”

The state of Sandworm_Mode and whether it remains active is also unclear. CrowdStrike said it continues to observe recently active malicious supply-chain packages that follow similar but technically divergent patterns.

Ultimately, “the world has changed,” Meyers said, adding that many attackers are pursuing similar paths in the AI toolchain, requiring defenders and threat hunters to place a greater focus on this burgeoning mode of aggression.

The post Malware is targeting AI tools in software development environments appeared first on CyberScoop.

The agentic security tool identifies potentially exploitable code flaws, traces attack paths, and recommends targeted remediations.

The post Capital One Open Sources AI-Powered ‘VulnHunter’ Security Tool appeared first on SecurityWeek.

The AI-focused executive order President Donald Trump signed last month gave the Treasury Department, the National Security Agency, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) 30 days to establish a new “AI cybersecurity clearinghouse.” The deadline passed last week.

The clearinghouse is meant to coordinate the scanning, discovery, and validation of software vulnerabilities in critical infrastructure, and then prioritize how those vulnerabilities get patched and distributed.

It’s the right problem to solve. The question now is whether what is created will actually solve it.

The risk is that urgency produces something that looks like a clearinghouse, but functions like a committee: collecting information, convening meetings, and then stalling when it gets to the hard part.

Going beyond bug discovery is mission critical

It’s counterintuitive at a moment when AI-assisted vulnerability discovery is advancing rapidly, but the hard part is no longer just finding bugs. Those of us working at the intersection of AI and cybersecurity know where the real bottleneck is. HackerOne has seen it firsthand as a launch partner in Patch the Planet, OpenAI‘s initiative to use AI to find and fix vulnerabilities in critical open-source software at internet scale. The lesson underpinning that work, and informed by more than a decade of running vulnerability disclosure programs, is consistent: AI tools can surface vulnerabilities faster than anyone can act on them. What lags behind is everything that comes after discovery: deciding which findings are real, assessing severity in context, writing and testing a fix, and getting a patch accepted and deployed by the people responsible for maintaining the affected code.

Experienced human reviewers frequently disagree with AI-assigned severity ratings, because a model cannot see a project’s threat model or operational context. Software providers, especially the many volunteer open-source maintainers that so much of today’s digital infrastructure rely upon, face a relentless queue: verify the claim, assess the importance, write the patch, coordinate disclosure. AI has accelerated the incoming volume without yet equally accelerating our people and processes’ capacity to manage it. Better bug-finding tools mean you find more bugs. The improvements that really matter are the ones that help defenders push patches out and get them deployed faster.

That lesson should sit at the center of how the clearinghouse is designed.

If the clearinghouse focuses primarily on scanning coordination, which the executive order’s text emphasizes, it risks widening that gap rather than closing it. A body that finds more vulnerabilities but cannot move them to resolution is not a security win. At national scale, it is a backlog generator.

Laying a foundation for success

The administration can get this right, but it requires building the correct infrastructure now, not layering it on later.

The clearinghouse needs to do more than coordinate scanning. It needs to actually triage the results. Its core job should be filtering reports to identify which findings are truly credible, exploitable, and consequential for critical infrastructure. Using shared validation standards and risk-based prioritization, it can determine what warrants a national response. Otherwise, it’s just automating bigger backlogs.

Second, the clearinghouse also needs to tackle something more fundamental. Defenders don’t have the resources to respond to what gets reported. Vulnerabilities in critical infrastructure often live in open-source code maintained by small teams or individuals with no formal obligation to respond to disclosures and limited capacity to act quickly. The clearinghouse should work with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to develop guidelines for open-source maintainers on structuring repositories and workflows to speed up patch review and deployment.

These guidelines should include how to use AI-assisted patching and clarify what downstream consumers of open-source code should do to help maintainers address vulnerabilities.  Federal policy should create incentives for downstream users to share responsibility for remediation through funding, engineering support, AI-assisted patch development, and procurement requirements that reward participation in coordinated vulnerability response.

Third, the clearinghouse should treat software bills of materials (SBOMs), the structured inventories of the components that make up a software product, as foundational infrastructure. SBOMs are what make it possible to trace where a vulnerable component lives across the supply chain. Without them, validated findings won’t be fixed fast enough at scale.

Finally, the clearinghouse should measure success based on what is fixed, not based on what is discovered.  Agencies need to publish data on validation rates, time-to-patch, adoption of fixes, and recurring classes of vulnerabilities. These metrics help AI systems, software vendors, and policymakers to continuously improve how vulnerabilities are addressed.

Most importantly: the agencies standing up this clearinghouse should resist the temptation to build its operational model from scratch. The private sector and the open-source security community have years of experience running exactly the kind of vulnerability intake, triage, and coordinated disclosure workflows the clearinghouse needs. The executive order wisely calls for voluntary collaboration with industry. That collaboration should be structural, not advisory, embedded in how the clearinghouse operates from the start, not bolted on after the architecture is already set.

The clearinghouse can work. But the challenge is no longer finding vulnerabilities. It is building a system that can turn discoveries into action. That is how its success should be measured.

The post Found fast, fixed slow: The gap the AI clearinghouse must close appeared first on CyberScoop.

It will provide the tools and channels to report, patch, and disclose open source software vulnerabilities.

The post Linux Foundation Unveils New Open Source Security Project Akrites appeared first on SecurityWeek.

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.

TeamPCP is on a rampage through open-source software.

In less than four months, the threat actor has compromised and injected malicious code into more than 1,000 software packages. The extraordinary spree has transformed how software developers and maintainers distribute and manage their code, as their dependencies and repositories have become one of the most effective and prevalent attack vectors this year.

While there has been a host of technical exploits, TeamPCP’s greatest attack has been the uprooting of trust — repeatedly proving that most organizations fail to verify the code they ingest into their systems is legitimate, abusing a nearly blind faith that much of the software development industry relies on to power today’s modern economy.

Starting with Trivy in February, TeamPCP’s attacks have shaken that trust many times over.

The scale of TeamPCP’s attacks lies partly in the automated systems companies use to deploy code, like CI/CD pipelines. It is also capitalizing on new security gaps created by developers’ increasing reliance on AI. Yet, with relatively low effort and unoriginal tactics, TeamPCP is wrecking open-source frameworks and underlying systems at levels the technology community has rarely reckoned with.

“Developers didn’t do a great job of analyzing the security of their open-source dependencies before but, now with AI, there’s in some cases virtually no human in the loop or any kind of sanity check on what these tools are doing,” Feross Aboukhadijeh, founder and CEO at Socket, told CyberScoop.

“You have agents installing packages that haven’t been vetted,” he said. “When an attacker gets in, the impact is even broader because there’s less checks and balances to stop it from affecting everybody.”

TeamPCP hasn’t identified a new problem or proved anything novel. The crux of these attacks hinge on a central theme — defensive vulnerabilities the entire software industry has known about for years. Researchers and developers know the open source trust model is broken and susceptible to sabotage. Yet, the software industry has not fixed this problem. 

“The speed and scale of these attacks is what makes it most notable, not necessarily the methodology behind it, because at the core it is really about exploiting third-party trusts that we have,” said Kimberly Goody, senior manager at Google Threat Intelligence Group.

Software packages are typically subjected to intensive security monitoring to test for vulnerabilities and poisoned updates before they are released to live environments. 

Yet, the real vulnerability highlighted by TeamPCP lies further up the chain of command with the organizations or individuals that publish these packages to the wider market, according to Nathaniel Quist, manager of cloud threat intelligence at Palo Alto Networks.

“It is their responsibility to secure their credentials and not provide a jump off point to trigger a supply-chain event,” he said. “Everything that interacts with or crosses through that zone must be highly monitored and controlled to ensure a compromise can be contained quickly and easily.”

TeamPCP’s motivation

TeamPCP, like any prolific cybercriminal, has captured significant attention from threat hunters since it emerged in late 2025. Google attributes the activity to one core operator.

The company said it traced TeamPCP’s residential and mobile IP address connections to South Africa, indicating the primary operator was located there during at least some of its attacks.

“We don’t believe that there’s an established core group, at least not yet, and that a lot of this has been conducted by an individual,” Goody said. Google declined to name the core operator or confirm it knows the person’s true identity. 

Palo Alto Networks said the core manager of TeamPCP uses the “ResoluteXBF” handle on multiple platforms. The cybersecurity firm is also tracking two additional core members: “diencracked” and “Shinigami.”

If TeamPCP is primarily run by one person, law enforcement has a rare opportunity to make a lasting impact with a single arrest.

TeamPCP has collaborated with other cybercriminals, but most of those partnerships were short-lived and ended in a public feud or otherwise failed to get off the ground in any meaningful way, Goody said.

Researchers have linked TeamPCP to extortion crews, dark web forums and affiliates including Lapsus$, ShinyHunters, Vect, DragonForce, BreachForums and “HasanBroker.” TeamPCP listed about 4,000 private code repositories on a dark web forum with an asking price of $95,000.

The actions to date, including unpredictable behavior, indicate motivations beyond financial gain and a “clear desire for notoriety,” Goody said. “They seem to like to make chaos.”

Quist draws the same conclusion from his months-long investigation, noting that it encourages other cybercriminals to get in on the action, at one point offering financial rewards for the largest software supply-chain attack. 

TeamPCP isn’t in the game for extortion payments, he said. “These actors are more interested in the underground street cred they are gaining” and “causing as much damage and mayhem as possible.”

Victims abound, but exposure limited

TeamPCP has been remarkably noisy, opportunistically injecting malware into open-source software for the purpose of stealing credentials for Kubernetes environments, Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud and many other connected services.

The group’s claimed victim list is staggering: Checkmarx, Bitwarden, LiteLLM, Telnyx, Mercor AI, PyTorch Lightning, AntV, SAP, GitHub, TanStack, UiPath, MistralAI, Microsoft DurableTask, Red Hat and Nx Console.

The full collection of packages compromised or poisoned by TeamPCP to date accounts for roughly 500 million weekly downloads combined, according to Quist.

While the breadth of potential downstream compromise flowing from those downloads is substantial, many endpoints infected with those malware-riddled packages aren’t exposed to the internet and less susceptible to attack, he added.

“I don’t think there’s going to be a very extremely large number of victims,” Quist said. “There’s going to be a lot of people who potentially could be compromised and have potentially vulnerable packages in their environment, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re in an exploitable position.”

While these incidents have grabbed headlines, TeamPCP hasn’t accumulated payouts nearly as large as other cybercriminals. The broader reputational impact it has wrought, however, is massive.

TeamPCP has publicly claimed more than 10,000 victims and about $90,000 in extortions, according to Quist.

“They might not be making a lot of money, but they are causing a lot of impact,” Goody said. “Their campaigns have been very disruptive.”

How TeamPCP’s operating model targets development

TeamPCP’s victim list has grown as its hijacked open-source repositories on npm, PyPI, GitHub and other outsourced developer tools that are incorporated into upstream code running in production environments.

Developer laptops and other endpoints that are assigned to install, build and publish software widely contain keys and access to source code that create incredibly valuable supply-chain targets for attackers, Amitai Cohen, head of the attack vector intel team at Wiz, explained during a June presentation on TeamPCP at SleuthCon in Arlington, Va. 

The group targets CI runners, which are automated systems that build, test, and publish code. TeamPCP injects malware into the code repositories these runners maintain. When other developers pull that code into their own systems, they unknowingly download the malware alongside it. 

Some of these artifacts, including Python libraries, npm registries and GitHub Actions, are downloaded almost immediately by thousands or millions of developers who’ve set their runners up to consistently pull the latest version, according to Cohen. “We as a security industry have taught them that that is the right thing to do. You want to use the latest version because you want to be protected against vulnerabilities, and obviously you want to benefit from all the latest features.”

That instinct is exactly what TeamPCP exploits. By compromising one company’s CI/CD workflow, the group gains access to every downstream user who automatically pulls that infected code. “This is what allows [TeamPCP] to leverage initial access to some patient zero, some company that had a vulnerability in their CI/CD workflow, in order to gain access to their downstream users,” Cohen said. “That’s just how the software supply chain works. Everything has dependencies upon dependencies upon dependencies.”

Some of the packages compromised by TeamPCP were live for almost 13 hours, but security practitioners have responded by identifying code-injection attacks much quicker now, pulling some compromised repositories within 15 minutes, said Ben Read, director of strategic intelligence at Wiz.

The threat group’s operations remain high-tempo. TeamPCP infects new software packages almost daily, validates compromises and captures sensitive data within 24 hours, according to Wiz researchers.

The threat group has consistently evolved its tactics, developing payloads in JavaScript and Python while spreading from local files to Kubernetes application programming interfaces and bundled software development kits. Most recently, it’s been stealing credentials via custom protocols. 

The group’s ambitions have expanded beyond its own attacks. TeamPCP is also responsible for a self-replicating piece of malware known as Mini Shai-Hulud, which infected hundreds of software packages across open-source registries in back-to-back attack sprees last month. A TeamPCP affiliate published the full source code for the malware on GitHub last month and encouraged other cybercriminals to use it for their own campaigns.

“TeamPCP is going for volume. They are not being discriminating, they’re not necessarily trying to be stealthy or trying to maximize ROI. They’re going for an all-of-the-above strategy,” Read said during the Sleuthcon presentation.

Defensive gaps create openings for attack

TeamPCP’s attack spree has also underscored how difficult it is for organizations to revoke compromised secrets. Multiple victims have experienced recurring infections, sometimes falling prey to TeamPCP three times within a month, because they didn’t rotate secrets properly, Cohen said. 

At its core, these attacks highlight a direct trade-off organizations accept when they update software quickly to fix vulnerabilities, but learn that doing so too quickly could expose them to illegitimate registries containing malware.

TeamPCP has targeted what Aboukhadijeh describes as a “public good,” open-source registries that were never perfect but widely trusted and rarely turned into a point of entry for supply-chain attacks. 

Rapid open source software installation is one of the most dangerous things an organization can do right now, he said, adding that there’s a roughly 1 in 10 chance that any package installed by an organization could trigger an active attack. 

TeamPCP has compromised security scanners, password managers, automation tools, data visualization software, and CI/CD infrastructure across various environments.

And it’s lifted a trove of credentials and other sensitive data from victims.

Researchers like Cohen at Wiz, who have been tracking this attack spree since the beginning, are nearing a breaking point. 

“This is also too hard on us. We’re very tired. I’m sure a lot of people working on this problem space are very tired, and it’s just kind of become untenable,” Cohen said.

“You can’t keep existing in a world where you wake up every morning and some super prevalent package is compromised and everybody’s just going to be using it like nothing,” he added. “We need to start taking this a bit more seriously.”

The post How software development’s speed obsession enabled TeamPCP’s chaos crusade appeared first on CyberScoop.

Securing some of the open-source technology that serves as the backbone for all modern digital infrastructure is going to require some “hard decisions” amid a wave of malware attacks, the leader of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency said Thursday.

“The open-source community is one that I’m particularly worried about when we start to think about rapid escalation of vulnerability discovery,” acting director Nick Andersen said, referencing a cartoon about how key technologies that underpin the internet are often maintained by a single person. 

In one recent attack, a hacker hijacked an account of a single open-source project maintainer to  publish malicious updates for axios, popular with software developers, raising the potential for attacks that could spread more widely. TeamPCP, a suspected North Korean hacking group, has been on a sweeping spree of open-source attacks.

“There’s tremendous opportunity here to re-architect areas … to make investments in areas where we know that we’ve been lacking, and to just force some hard security decisions to be made… where people thought that their risk profile was different than what it is,” Andersen said.  “We see the escalation in terms of speed, scale and velocity of vulnerability discovery to weaponization and exploitation.”

CISA has been working with industry and others “to modify our approach to vulnerability management, modify our approach to coordinated vulnerability disclosure, modify our approach to remediation, with the explicit understanding that we’re just not going to be able to keep up using traditional mechanisms,” Andersen said, speaking at the National Cyber Innovation Forum in Washington, D.C.

The government and private sector can work together to identify the biggest threats and then give them the right level of attention, he said. On the federal government side, that means working to get a full picture of the extent of reliance on open-source technologies.

Overall, the United States has put off too many necessary security improvements, Andersen said.

“Whether you look at the private sector or you look at our governments and public sector networks and systems that we’re supporting, there’s just a tremendous amount of technical debt that’s out there,” he said. We’ve not made the right level of investment required in order to be able to readily secure ourselves for the future.”

The post CISA chief frets about open-source vulnerabilities, delayed security improvements 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.

A self-replicating malware campaign known as Mini Shai-Hulud has resurfaced, this time embedding itself across hundreds of npm packages. The threat actor behind it, identified as TeamPCP, has been linked to earlier waves of the same campaign, with this latest variant more capable than previous waves.

Researchers analyzing the payload found a worm that spreads autonomously, installs persistent backdoors at the operating system level, and is specifically engineered to survive the most common first response: removing the package.

How the attack works

The malware executes the moment an affected software package is installed, whether in a developer’s local environment or inside a CI/CD pipeline. A hook fires before any other step, giving the payload immediate access to the machine.

It harvests GitHub tokens, npm tokens, SSH keys, cloud provider credentials, and database connection strings. In automated build environments, it uses the pipeline’s own trusted identity to obtain publishing credentials, allowing it to push poisoned package versions to the registry under a legitimate maintainer’s name. The stolen data is sent to attacker-controlled GitHub repositories.

After it steals a publishing token, the malware checks every package that token can access, adds its code to those packages, and publishes new poisoned versions using the maintainer’s account. One infected CI runner — the machine or virtual server that automatically builds, tests and publishes code for a project — can therefore taint every package that runner is allowed to publish. It also searches a developer’s computer for other Node.js projects and copies itself into them, so a single infected install can compromise an entire workstation.

“If any of the affected packages ran in your environment, treat the machine or runner as exposed until secrets are rotated, persistence artifacts are removed, and recent publish activity has been reviewed,” Aikido Security researchers wrote in a blog post. 

Removing the package is not enough

Researchers found that a standard dependency rollback leaves the attacker’s access intact. The malware embeds backdoors in developer tool settings — notably .vscode/tasks.json and .claude/settings.json — which remain on disk even after the npm package is removed. Those files must be audited and cleaned to eliminate the attacker’s foothold.

The payload also installs OS-level background services: a systemd user service on Linux, a LaunchAgent on macOS. Both run a backdoor called kitty-monitor, which polls GitHub’s commit search every hour for signed remote commands. A second process, gh-token-monitor, checks stolen GitHub tokens every 60 seconds — alerting the attacker the moment one is revoked. An attacker can maintain access and monitor the victim’s response in near real time, long after the original infection has been discovered.

Multiple security companies have pointed out which popular dependencies are being targeted. In this wave, it’s been popular data visualization software, including Alibaba’s open-source AntV and TallyUI. The campaign also touched widely used utilities such as echarts-for-react (a React wrapper for ECharts) and timeago.js (a small JavaScript library that allows developers to format timestamps).

“Even if only a subset of those packages received malicious updates, the popularity of the package ecosystem creates meaningful downstream exposure for organizations that automatically pull new dependency versions,” wrote researchers from Socket, an application security company.

The campaign remains active. Because the worm propagates using tokens stolen from infected environments, the number of affected packages is expected to grow. Researchers have warned that any machine or pipeline that installed an affected version should be treated as fully compromised.

Last week, TeamPCP targeted other prominent software libraries with the malware, including TanStack, UiPath, and MistralAI.

The post Mini Shai-Hulud returns, compromising hundreds of npm packages appeared first on CyberScoop.

Wade Woolwine is Senior Director, Product Security at Rapid7.

The headlines around Glasswing have focused on how quickly AI can surface vulnerabilities, which has naturally caught the attention of security leaders. In my conversations with teams and customers, the more useful discussion has been about what that speed means in practice for business protection, especially across open source risk, dependency choices, and software supply chain resilience. The deeper issue for security leaders sits elsewhere. 

Software risk is becoming harder to manage across the full lifecycle, especially in open source dependencies, build pipelines, developer environments, and the operational processes that sit between disclosure and remediation. When vulnerabilities can be found faster and at greater depth, security teams need more than another source of findings. They need a stronger way to understand what they run, what they trust, what they can patch quickly, and where a single weak dependency can create disproportionate risk.

Faster discovery makes software supply chain resilience a more immediate leadership issue. CISOs need a clearer view of how dependencies are chosen, monitored, validated, and governed across production, build, and developer environments, especially as open source remains essential to modern software development.

Organizations already struggle to absorb vulnerability disclosures at the pace they are coming in, because when discovery gets faster, the operational gap widens between knowing there is a problem and being able to do something useful about it. That gap is especially serious in the software supply chain, where a single dependency can introduce risk into build systems, production workloads, developer endpoints, and the tools used to secure them.

This is why I would frame AI-driven vulnerability discovery risk as a lifecycle challenge. The pressure does not sit in one place, but across inventory, dependency decisions, threat intelligence, patching discipline, and validation – with people, process, and visibility shaping how well an organization can respond. Technology matters, but it cannot compensate for a weak operating model underneath it.

Open source still matters. Dependency choices matter more.

Open source remains essential to modern software development because it helps teams move faster and get products to market without rebuilding common functionality from scratch. The better response is to be more deliberate about where and how third-party code enters the environment. 

Open source has always involved a trade-off between speed, efficiency, flexibility, and inherited risk, and that trade-off becomes harder to manage as AI makes code review deeper and faster. More flaws and supply chain compromises will likely be found in packages that teams have trusted for years, including transitive dependencies most developers did not knowingly choose. One only needs to look back a few weeks to find that the widely used Axios package suffered a supply chain compromise that bundled a Remote Access Trojan (RAT) charged with stealing secrets. That raises the value of understanding which dependencies are essential, which ones can be removed, which ones pull in large chains of transitives, and which ones are maintained by too few people to inspire confidence.

That work starts with a more disciplined question than “Is there a package that does this?” It starts with “Do we need this dependency, and do we understand the risk that comes with it?” The safest dependency is often the one that never enters the environment in the first place.

Why inventory has to go deeper than package lists

Supply chain resilience begins with knowing what you are actually running, which sounds straightforward until a critical disclosure lands in a package no one realized was in the environment three layers deep. Dependency graphs are deeper than most teams think, and transitive risk is where a lot of operational pain begins. A package chosen directly by a developer may bring in dozens of additional packages, each with its own maintainers, release cadence, security posture, and potential failure points.

A mature approach to inventory needs to move beyond a static package list, because CISOs need confidence in three views at once: What is declared in source, what is resolved and built, and what is actually running in production? Those views often drift apart over time, which means a package can be patched in source and still remain unpatched in a deployed container or runtime environment. An SBOM on its own will not close that gap; continuous, usable inventory will.

That inventory also needs clear ownership attached to it, because the moment a critical dependency is identified, someone has to decide what happens next, coordinate the change, and absorb the operational consequences. Security teams cannot do that well if responsibility is unclear, which is why ownership needs to be treated as part of resilience rather than an administrative detail.

Build pipelines and developer environments deserve the same scrutiny as production

Supply chain conversations still tend to start with production systems, even though recent incidents have shown how quickly compromise can move through the build layer, developer tooling, or the security tooling inside the pipeline itself. Those environments hold code, secrets, and trust relationships that attackers know how to exploit, while developer workstations often carry a rich mix of credentials and elevated privileges because speed matters to the business. Build systems are predictable and privileged, which makes them both valuable and vulnerable, but also easier to monitor.

Seeing those layers as part of the same attack surface means asking harder questions about how code enters the build, how package updates are governed, how actions and dependencies are pinned, what secrets exist in CI/CD, and what controls are in place on developer endpoints to detect anomalous behavior or stop high-risk package activity before it goes unnoticed.

You can gauge the maturity of the operating model with the answers to a few basic questions:

• How tightly are dependencies controlled in CI?

• How are package lifecycle scripts governed?

• What secrets exist in CI/CD, and what protections surround them?

• What visibility exists into anomalous behavior on developer endpoints?

• How would the team detect or prevent high-risk package activity before it spreads?

If those answers are unclear, important parts of the model are still missing.

Why prioritization matters more as scanning accelerates

When software risk rises, the instinct is often to add another scanner because more visibility feels like progress. What matters more over time, though, is how well teams can prioritize the findings that follow, assign them to the right owner, choose the right mitigation, and prove that exposure actually went down. Broader scanning and faster discovery mostly add to the pile unless the operating model behind them is strong enough to turn findings into action. Feed more issues into a process that is already stretched and the backlog grows, priorities become harder to sort, and remediation slows in the places where speed matters most. The organizations that come through this period well will be the ones that treat supply chain resilience as a systems problem, with stronger intake, clearer governance, better intelligence, and faster paths from alert to action.

What stronger software supply chain resilience looks like in practice

A stronger response starts with a deeper inventory of dependencies across source, build, and runtime, so teams can see both direct and transitive packages and connect them back to real environments and real owners. Once that picture is in place, intelligence monitoring becomes far more useful when it runs continuously against credible signals on vulnerabilities, package risk, maintainer health, end-of-life software, and unusual changes in dependency behavior.

The same level of care needs to carry through into dependency governance, where better decisions depend on asking whether a new package is necessary, how much transitive risk it introduces, whether its maintenance model is healthy, and what policy governs its path into production. Build and developer controls belong in that same conversation, because version pinning, private registries, secret handling, script restrictions, immutable builds, ephemeral runners, and stronger endpoint monitoring all reduce the attack surface around the software supply chain.

Monitoring threat intelligence for notifications about new vulnerabilities and compromised packages and having a well defined and practiced process for scoping and remediating emerging threats becomes critical. Your supply chain vulnerability and compromise response should be practiced – just like your incident response plan – through table top exercises and simulated threat events. You don’t want to wait until the house is on fire to know how to execute an effective response.

Similarly, Engineering, DevOps, and Security teams should collaborate on establishing a trust and reputation scoring mechanism for supply chain dependencies. Being able to evaluate the speed of response, transparency of communication and updates, and ultimate resolution of the vulnerability or compromise speak volumes for how much you can trust the maintainers of the software you depend on. The OpenSSF Scorecard project offers a great place to start evaluating the open source packages you’re already using.

Organizations should also have a fallback plan for when obtaining a security patch is not available. Some options to consider include exploring other open source packages that perform similar functions, exploring other mitigations such as application firewalling, or even forking and contributing a security patch back to the community.

Validation closes the loop by showing whether the artifact came from where it was supposed to, whether the package has drifted in unexpected ways, and whether the mitigations applied are reducing live risk rather than simply documenting the process.

How CISOs should think about the next 12 months

The strain on security teams is only growing, and the potential for AI to relieve some of that pressure is understandably compelling, especially when boards, CEOs, and CFOs are asking how the organization plans to adopt it. That makes this a leadership question as much as a technology one. CISOs need a clear point of view on where AI can genuinely improve resilience, where it still introduces too much uncertainty, and how to explain those choices in business terms.

If software engineering teams are already adopting AI-assisted development, security teams should be part of that conversation early, especially around dependency management. I have seen teams begin connecting AI coding agents to vulnerability management workflows so those agents can interpret vulnerabilities found in the code base, assess reachability with more context, help plan remediation, and validate updates much faster than traditional handoffs usually allow. Used well, that can reduce drag across the workflow and help teams move faster on classes of issues that are currently slowing them down.

Getting there safely still depends on the foundation underneath it. A more resilient path starts with a clearer picture of the environment and a more complete inventory of dependencies across source, build, and runtime. From there, ownership needs to be explicit, threat and vulnerability intelligence needs to be embedded into how the organization prioritizes, and dependency sprawl needs to be reduced with more discipline around what actually enters production. The same mindset should carry through to the build layer and developer endpoints, where tighter controls and better visibility help reduce unnecessary exposure, while faster and more repeatable paths from disclosure to action make it easier for teams to respond before risk compounds.

That foundation will matter regardless of which AI model or platform becomes dominant six or twelve months from now. It will also matter if the next wave of AI makes backlog reduction, lower-tier remediation, or patch validation more practical. Organizations that know what they run and how they operate will be in a much better position to adopt those capabilities with intent.

The shift security leaders should make now

Security in an AI-accelerated world needs to be managed as a systems challenge, with supply chain resilience shaped by how well organizations connect software composition, exposure visibility, dependency governance, threat intelligence, build integrity, endpoint controls, remediation workflows, and validation. When those layers are treated separately, gaps open quickly; when they are tied together through a stronger operating model, teams are in a much better position to absorb faster discovery without losing control of the response.

For CISOs, that means continuing to use open source with a more deliberate view of dependency risk, reducing unnecessary packages where possible, knowing what is running and who owns it, and monitoring threat and vulnerability intelligence with enough discipline to act before the queue overwhelms the team. It also means paying closer attention to the attack surface across production, build, and developer environments, while treating AI as something that will amplify both the strengths and the weaknesses already present in the program. Faster discovery is here, and the organizations that handle it best will be the ones that can respond with the same level of discipline.