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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criticism across the spectrum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OpenAI announced Monday  it was expanding access to its frontier models for defensive cybersecurity, detailing different defensive and red-teaming workflows and a new partner program with major cybersecurity product providers.

In a pair of blogs posted Monday, OpenAI said it was updating its Daybreak program  – which provides unreleased frontier models to private organizations and governments for defensive cybersecurity work – and introducing a new model variant.

Daybreak Blue, powered by OpenAI’s ChatGPT-5.6-Sol, would operate with lower cybersecurity safeguards compared to other commercially available models and is described as “a recommended starting point for most defenders” that supports tasks like vulnerability discovery, secure code review, malware analysis, incident response and patch validation. 

Daybreak Red, meant for more advanced red-teaming, would provide access to a new model, dubbed GPT-5.6-Cyber, that the company said is more purpose-trained for finding vulnerabilities and testing (or exploiting) them. The model is also less likely to refuse requests around “dual-use cyber tasks.”

According to OpenAI, the organizations in Daybreak Red will have their use closely monitored and supervised, as GPT-5.6-Cyber is significantly more capable in carrying out malicious cyber tasks than Sol. A security evaluation the company devised tested both models on complex requests, including exploit chain development, authentication bypass, privilege escalation and other hacking tasks. Sol succeeded in 1.5% of the requests, while Cyber completed 95%.

OpenAI said it plans to publish a more detailed system card for GPT-5.6-Cyber at a later date.

“Models running with reduced safeguards carry risks beyond standard model usage, whether from misuse or misalignment,” the company said in a blog. “Despite these risks, we believe that democratizing access to frontier intelligence for defenders is crucial to accelerating and automating cyber defense.”

Additionally, OpenAI announced a partnership program with 16 major cybersecurity providers, saying organizations could access their models through their existing security services. The partners include IBM, CrowdStrike, Accenture, Ernst & Young, KPMG, Palo Alto Networks, Cisco, Cloudflare, Sophos and others. 

“These partners bring deep security expertise and established relationships with organizations around the world,” OpenAI said in its blog. “By bringing our frontier cyber models into their services, we can help more defenders find serious vulnerabilities, validate which ones matter, and fix them faster.”

Companies like OpenAI, Anthropic and others are trying to rebalance their priorities after a string of AI-agent sandbox escapes have rattled policymakers and caused some cybersecurity experts to question if AI companies are doing enough to properly isolate the models from the internet during testing. Last week, OpenAI said it was intentionally slowing down development of its newer “Astra” model in order to develop better guardrails to restrain its behavior.

Cybersecurity and AI experts have told CyberScoop that while AI systems have greatly improved at finding and exploiting vulnerabilities in software code, they still require substantial human guidance and supporting infrastructure to operate as intended.

Additionally, some research has shown that without such guidance, even near-frontier models can struggle to fully patch a discovered vulnerability or avoid introducing new bugs with their fixes.

The post OpenAI says Daybreak will expand to offer specialized cyber services  appeared first on CyberScoop.

As AI-generated code continues to be injected into all corners of the internet, concerns have risen about an expanding attack surface for malicious hackers to exploit.

Some have argued that the enhanced cybersecurity capabilities of large language models could serve as a check, finding and fixing vulnerabilities nearly as fast as they’re created.

But new research that tested the patching capabilities of two popular commercial models, OpenAI’s ChatGPT 5.5 and Anthropic’s Claude Opus 4.8, found that generative AI is more likely to create an exploitable patch or introduce entirely new bugs than close off a vulnerability.

Researchers at 1Password tested the models ability to patch six “high-impact, high-complexity” CVEs, including the “Copy Fail” vulnerability, a kernel flaw that can give an attacker root access to Linux cloud environments. The overall success rate (or fully patching the vulnerability without introducing new problems), was less than a coin flip at 47%.

“Our research findings show that, in aggregate across a variety of scenarios, both Claude and ChatGPT had a low rate of successful patch generation, which we define as full remediation of all known exploit paths with no erroneous changes to application behavior,” wrote Keith Hoodlet, Axel Mierczuk and Spencer Michaels.

“The models often addressed only a subset of vulnerable code paths, added fragile guard code that satisfied tests while failing to address the vulnerability’s root cause, and sometimes introduced subtle changes in the application’s behavior while patching the immediate vulnerability,” the authors continued.

The research suggests that largely autonomous vulnerability-discovery and patching may not yet be effective in fixing the explosion of vulnerable code that is being created in the AI era.

Other private sector research has pointed to a similar problem. A report this year from Veracode found that while LLMs have made “enormous strides” in crafting workable code, “security is a different story.” Testing across a range of frontier models found the average security “pass rate” for AI generated code is around 56%. Newer models like GPT 5.5 push closer to 70%, while more than half sit between 50-53%.

Veracode tested 100 different models and while there was variability, in general a small number of models were showing progress on security patching while the rest have experienced “stagnation.” Similar to the 1Password research, in 44% of Veracode tests the models introduced a detectable OWASP Top 10 vulnerability into the codebase.

An important caveat: neither report tested newer models, like Anthropic’s Mythos or OpenAI’s GPT-5.6-Sol, that frontier companies tout as having significantly higher cybersecurity capabilities.

Those advanced models can identify and fix vulnerable code. Anthropic and OpenAI are distributing them to key industries through Project Glasswing and Daybreak before foreign or open-source alternatives can compete.

Tim Jarret, vice president of product at Veracode, told CyberScoop that AI tools are still subject to a range of limitations that can make them unreliable for cybersecurity patching without knowledgeable humans in the loop.

While some vulnerabilities – like SQL injections – can be easily patched through automation, other bugs like cross-site scripting, can be exploitable in several different ways and require either a human touch, additional context or both to fully close off. Additionally, models can slowly lose context from prior sessions over time, affecting their ability to complete tasks correctly and raising the possibility they’ll hallucinate to fill in the missing gaps.

“I think we would say, at this point, that Iits premature to treat those as anything other than another code change to the code base that needs to be reviewed and accepted by the team, as opposed to letting the agent merge the code freely,” said Jarrett.

However, he acknowledged that may not be possible in a world where AI agents are generating exponentially more code for human defenders to review. Some kind of automated code review will be necessary – preferably not by the same automation tool that produced the code. The ultimate goal is the same as it has always been in security: “trust but verify.”

“Ninety percent of the time, the human check might just be ‘did the cross check look good?’ Do we have a thumbs up?’” Jarrett said. “In those cases where there’s still something wrong, that’s where you focus your attention a little bit more.”

The post More than half of AI-generated patches are broken appeared first on CyberScoop.

A spokesperson said Irregular’s investigation into what happened with Anthropic, OpenAI and Meta's AI models was ongoing and that they could not “go into further details.”

OpenAI is rolling out a more reliable version of ChatGPT GPT-5.6 Sol for Plus and Pro users, while Free users are getting unlimited text chats with GPT-5.6 Luna. [...]

Last week, the FBI and EPA issued a joint alert that should concern anyone who drinks water in America–which is to say, everyone. Since July 27, water and wastewater utilities in at least seven states have reported cyberattacks against internet-facing programmable logic controllers (PLCs), the small industrial computers that run pumps, valves, and treatment equipment. Some of these attacks degraded operations. Utilities reported pressure loss and flooding, several systems reverted to manual control, and one Minnesota community declaring a local state of emergency.

Nothing about these attacks required sophisticated methods. The attackers didn’t use zero-day exploits or novel malware. They found controllers exposed to the public internet, many of them so old that they stopped receiving security patches years ago. They logged in, changed IP addresses and passwords, and locked operators out of their own equipment. In at least one case, they modified the ladder logic controlling industrial equipment. These were not Hollywood-style hacks. The controllers sat exposed and undefended.

If this feels familiar, it should. In late 2023, attackers compromised controllers at water utilities across several states, including the widely reported incident in Aliquippa, Pennsylvania. The federal government issued guidance then, too. One of the crucial differences between then and now is that attackers have grown in ambition. They’ve moved from defacing screens to disrupting operations across dozens of systems at once, exploiting the fact that third-party integrators often deploy the same vulnerable configuration across many small utilities. 

The uncomfortable truth is that this was preventable. The reason it wasn’t stopped is more structural than technical. The United States has roughly 50,000 community water systems. Most are small, publicly funded, and run by operators whose primary job is keeping water safe and flowing. Cybersecurity ranks far below that, if it ranks at all. The devices in question are often a decade or more old and replacing them takes capital these utilities don’t have. Rules governing water cybersecurity remain mostly voluntary. Attackers understand these economics perfectly. We should too, yet these attacks keep happening.

 But inaction is a choice. The defenses that work here cost little and require no exotic technology. The FBI and EPA guidance is sound, and every water and wastewater organization should act on it this week, not later. Here’s how:

• Get controllers off the public internet. No PLC should be reachable from the outside world. Remote access should go through a secure gateway that mediates, monitors, and logs every connection. That includes cellular modems, which are the overlooked entry point in nearly every audit.
• Fix passwords. Default and shared credentials are still the most common way in. Strong, unique passwords are the cheapest security control available.
• Restrict communication between devices. Firewall rules and access control lists should allow only expected communication between known control system devices. Block traffic from hosting providers and other sources that have no business touching a water plant.
• Lock the logic. Keep physical and software key switches in the run position except during authorized updates. This prevents unauthorized changes to configuration and firmware.
• Practice running manually. The utilities that survived these attacks best were the those that switched to manual operations quickly. That skill requires constant practice.
• Verify, don’t assume. Nearly every utility believes its PLCs aren’t internet-exposed, right up until an inventory proves otherwise. You can’t protect what you can’t see. Most operators are surprised by what a complete asset inventory reveals: forgotten modems, integrator-installed remote access, devices nobody knew were still online.

Every attack like this follows the same pattern. Attackers change configurations, reset passwords, and modify project files. Every one of those actions creates a signal on the network before operations degrade. In this most recent case, one victim only noticed ladder logic discrepancies across multiple sites. Catching intrusions shouldn’t depend on a sharp-eyed engineer having a good day. Continuous monitoring of OT environments exists to turn those signals into alerts within minutes instead of days. That difference is the difference between an incident report and a boil-water notice.

Water systems have the least margin for error and, too often, the fewest resources to defend themselves. The FBI and EPA have told us plainly what’s happening and what to do about it. The attackers are betting we won’t follow through. For the third time in three years, they’re testing that bet.

Let’s finally prove them wrong.

The post The water sector just got it’s wake-up call. Again. appeared first on CyberScoop.

Like seemingly everything else these days, artificial intelligence will re-shape the way voters gather information on candidates running in the 2026 midterm elections.

In some ways, this is already the reality. Voters are increasingly turning to AI chatbots for information instead of Google.  Political campaigns are deploying deepfakes of their opponents. And AI systems have been developed to carry out increasingly complex  hacks.

Since the last major U.S. election in 2024, major tech companies have  embedded AI into their products while hundreds of millions of people have adopted the tools, either by purchasing subscriptions to commercial models or using open-source models. Yet both research and experts state that while AI systems have gotten better at handling basic facts, they’re nowhere near reliable enough to be a main source of  accurate or complete information. 

While chatbots are becoming a primary way that voters gather information on  local races, candidates, issues, and voting information, they are not substitutes for more authoritative sources, like a voter’s state or local election office. 

“I think this is one of the first elections we’re seeing…where AI is just everywhere,” said Thania Sanchez, senior vice president of research and analytics at the nonprofit States United Democracy Center. “Even if you just Google it, [now] the first thing that comes up is the AI overview.”

While AI companies have worked to cut down on errors in their model’s responses for questions around basic election information, they continue to fall short in important ways.

In new research shared exclusively with CyberScoop ahead of its release, States United Democracy Center tested two of the most popular tools — OpenAI’s ChatGPT’s free tier and the AI interface used alongside Google Search — for their performance on a series of basic questions around elections, such as how to register to vote, or a list of candidates in a race.

The models were chosen because they are free and easy to access. For Google AI, the nonprofit tested two types of accounts: ones running in Incognito Mode and ones that had a history of browsing election-skeptical websites.

The nonprofit ran two rounds of testing in 2025 and 2026, collecting nearly one thousand responses from the models submitted by users across six swing states (Arizona, Michigan, North Carolina, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin).

In 2025 tests, 6.9% of responses from Google AI and 8.2% responses from ChatGPT“contained verifiable factual errors,” like not listing the correct candidates in a race or false guidance around polling site locations.

However, follow up tests in 2026 across Arizona, Pennsylvania and Michigan found that the error rates in both models had dropped to zero. The study notes that “this is real progress and should be acknowledged.”

But underneath those topline numbers, a more murky picture emerges around the tools’  reliability.

An AI response can sound accurate without actually being complete.  To wit: ChatGPT provided incomplete lists of current gubernatorial primary race candidates 88.9% of the time when queried.

Linking to a state election website – an output the study considers the single most important measure of voter utility  — happened less than 40% of the time. Whether due to formatting issues or the model ingesting outdated information, it’s a problem if voters use them as their primary information source for elections.

“It will be like ‘this person is the Republican candidate and this person is the Democratic candidate’ but it is not telling you there’s also these other third-party candidates,” said Sanchez. “It’s not giving you complete information, so the voter thinks these are the [only] two people running.”

A June survey from the Pew Research Center found that about half of U.S. adults reported having used chatbots at least once, up from a third in 2024, while a quarter reported using them daily. The top use case listed for engaging with the chatbot was searching for information.

Isabel Linzer, an elections policy analyst at the Center for Democracy and Technology, told CyberScoop that voters, campaigns and governments alike are using AI more freely and with fewer restrictions.

Bad actors in the information space have followed suit, and “we are in a phase now of generative engine optimization” where information operations are structured to rank higher in AI model responses.

“We’ve moved beyond [SEO] to [Generative Engine Optimization], and that’s where we’re seeing campaigns thinking about how to structure their materials to make sure that they are in a format that AI models want to use when they’re searching the web…to develop their responses to user queries,” she said.

There is also the underlying problem of frontier AI companies constantly tinkering with their models, their algorithms and the technologies they are intertwined with. . Election officials, by contrast, have decades of experience educating voters about their options.

A prime example of this churn occurred this past February, in between the first and second round of the study, when Google AI suddenly shifted to providing only links for election related queries in incognito mode, replacing the written summaries that showed up in the first round.

Like the study’s authors, Linzer said most people are still best served by going directly to local sources for accurate information on elections. With issues like ideological bias, the potential for bespoke or sycophantic answers for each user based on their prior chat histories and lack of predictability, voters should still be very careful about using AI chatbots as political truth machines.

The best thing that tech companies can do to educate voters is “making sure that for high-stakes situations like elections, that chats are connecting directly to the most important sources, like the website where you can actually register to vote,” said Linzer.

The post AI is getting better at election facts, but voters shouldn’t rely on it appeared first on CyberScoop.

An artificial intelligence agent built by Anthropic independently planted malicious code in a real software project and sent phishing emails to developers during a U.K. government security evaluation, according to Britain’s AI Security Institute.

Zero-knowledge proofs could let infrastructure operators answer key security questions without handing over the sensitive data behind their answers.

Imagine a major software flaw is discovered in equipment used across pipelines, power plants and telecom networks. The government needs to know as fast as possible which companies are exposed. But answering that question may require firms to share software inventories, network diagrams and vulnerability scans, which could become attack roadmaps for attackers if compromised. A lesser-known cryptographic concept could help solve this problem. The method, known as zero-knowledge proofs, allows companies prove a vulnerability exists without disclosing how their systems work or other proprietary information.

For more than a decade, Washington has tried to address companies’ concerns about sharing cybersecurity data. Congress has provided legal protections, and agencies have created information-sharing programs. Those efforts have helped companies exchange signs of an attack, incident reports, and defensive advice. But they’ve done much less to get companies to share data on vulnerabilities and security controls before an incident occurs.

The data that would help the most is what companies are least willing to share. A vulnerability scan can show which devices are connected, which software is running, how systems are configured and where defenses are weak. If unintentionally exposed, it would be a terrific guide for adversaries.

Another problem: Once sensitive data leaves a company, it can be stolen, subpoenaed, passed to another agency or used in a regulatory proceeding the company never expected. Industry is constantly asked to reduce security risk by creating more elsewhere.

Zero-knowledge proofs could reduce the need to disclose the underlying sensitive data. The idea is simple, even if the math is not: a company can prove that an agreed evaluation of its authorized scan data indicates that a specific software flaw is present, without disclosing its full asset inventory, network architecture or configuration data.

A computer does not read a vulnerability scan the way a person does. A security analyst might open a report, look through the devices and software versions, and decide whether a vulnerable product is present. A zero-knowledge proof turns that same evaluation into a local mathematical calculation.

For example, the government and a company could agree on a precise question: Does a specific vulnerability exist anywhere inside a defined group of systems? The company keeps its scan data inside its own network. A cryptographic tool checks that data against the agreed question, compares the software and version information against the vulnerability, and produces a proof tied to the final answer. If the scan data satisfies the agreed conditions for a “yes” result, the company cannot generate a valid proof supporting a false “no” answer under those same rules.

The government never sees the raw scan report, the device list, the software inventory, or the network map. It only receives and verifies the mathematical proof, confirming that the answer follows from the agreed rules and underlying data without exposing that data.

This isn’t theoretical. FDD’s Center on Cyber and Technology Innovation recently tested the approach with anonymized vulnerability data from three operational environments. The test asked yes-or-no questions about 38 known vulnerabilities while keeping the raw scans inside the participating environments. Results were promising: only the proofs and answers were shared, yet they revealed how widespread each vulnerability was across the environments.

The test proved the approach works, but that does not mean the government should rush to build a national system around it. A lot of work still needs to be done before agencies can rely on these for compliance, vulnerability reporting, or procurement decisions.

The next step should be structured pilot programs, not mandates. Federal cyber officials and standards bodies should test this with narrow, practical questions: whether a known vulnerability is present or whether a specific security control is in place.

Only after those pilots should agencies decide what underlying data can be trusted and what counts as sufficient proof in a regulatory setting. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and regulatory agencies are natural candidates to run these pilots. CISA already works with critical infrastructure operators on cyber risk, while NIST can help define what a trustworthy proof should look like before agencies try to rely on one. Regulatory agencies, meanwhile, could reduce private sector headaches by developing more secure mechanisms for companies to share compliance information.

Zero-knowledge proofs won’t solve every problem when it comes to cyber information-sharing. But they could solve one of the hardest: how to give the government a trustworthy answer without forcing companies to expose the very systems everyone is trying to protect. The government should test this concept now, while there is still time to learn, and avoid blindly entering the next cyber crisis.

The post How companies could share cyber risks without exposing their secrets appeared first on CyberScoop.

A tip from WhatsApp led OpenAI to ban multiple accounts associated with investment scams and human trafficking operations based in Cambodian scam centers.

Seeking to protect users' iCloud accounts, Apple is reportedly mounting a new challenge to British legal demands for ways around the company's Advanced Data Protection feature.

OpenAI has revealed Astra, an unreleased model designed to tackle complex, long-running tasks, after an internal version produced ten significant advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science. [...]

The outpost will have its own director, though no one has yet been named for the post, and support the command’s nascent Cyber Warfare Innovation Center (CIWC).

Claude maker Anthropic said its AI models escaped test environments and breached networks at three companies on the open internet.

Finland stopped power transmissions with Russia at the start of the war in Ukraine, and two related telecom connections will stop at the end of this year, authorities said.

OpenAI says it has reduced the price of two GPT-5.6 models, cutting Luna's API price by 80% and Terra's by 20% as it works to make its models more efficient. [...]

The four additional targeted organizations weren’t named. OpenAI said they were not affected as severely as Hugging Face.

Russia is seeking to place Telegram founder Pavel Durov on an international wanted list, alleging that the app has been used by Ukrainian intelligence to organize terrorist attacks and conduct espionage inside Russia.

Claude is down for some users, with Anthropic confirming elevated errors across multiple AI models. The disruption is causing requests to fail with a "529 Overloaded" message, including in Claude and tools that rely on its API. [...]

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.