The IP intelligence company will use the fresh investment to accelerate and scale its operations.
The post Spur Raises $200 Million for IP Intelligence Platform appeared first on SecurityWeek.
The Paris Peace Forum, a French non-profit that has convened world leaders on global security issues, is launching a new project to bring together international experts to assess AI-related threats to global internet infrastructure.
The Integrated Network for Trusted AI in Cyberspace (INTAiC) will tap researchers and civil society experts from government and the private sector, analyzing current AI cyber threats from the field and creating “forward-looking” reports on how the technology will impact society and what organizations can do to respond.
One of the project’s top goals is to create an international, quick-response coalition of government and business to address AI-related threats, similar to coordination mechanisms that exist in other areas of cybersecurity.
“Evidence fragmentation on AI-driven cyber threats isn’t incidental — it’s structural: those defending networks and those securing AI systems have long worked in separate spheres,” said Adrien Abecassis, policy initiatives director for the Paris Peace Forum. “That’s exactly why INTAiC is unique — it’s built to turn those fragments into one comparable reading of the threat, because this is a challenge no actor can meet alone.”
The network already lists a number of prominent businesses and organizations, including Microsoft, the Cyber Threat Alliance, the Cloud Security Alliance, Orange Cyberdefense and others.
According to the forum, INTAiC’s work will focus primarily on two, separate workstreams. One is a single and regularly updated resource for defenders to stay up to date on how AI is reshaping cyber threats. The resource is focused more on attacker capabilities, different forms of misuse and the impact on security operations rather than isolated incidents.
“The result is a common reference point, grounded in reality, that gives policymakers a clearer measure of the threat and identifies the risks most deserving of collective attention,” the Forum said in a release.
The second workstream will focus on evaluating and preventing cyber risks associated with AI, building up a base of independent third-party experts who can provide neutral or unbiased assessments of frontier model cyber capabilities. That work will pull in governments, research institutions and non-profits to develop new organizational and funding pathways to support that kind of research.
While the U.S. federal government has come a long way in recent years building up its own capacity to test and study AI cyber threats, much of the access and technical expertise around frontier model capabilities are concentrated within commercial AI companies. This has at times created concerns that federal agencies were being overly reliant on AI companies to explain how the technology worked and walk them through the possible threat scenarios.
As Anthropic and OpenAI have rolled out defensive cybersecurity programs like Project Glasswing and the Trusted Access for Cyber program, access to those models have become available to a wider group of researchers and organizations.
The Paris Peace Forum intends to brief the public further on INTAiC’s work and accomplishments in Paris later this year during the organization’s annual conference in November.
The post French nonprofit starts global intelligence and research hub for AI cyber threats appeared first on CyberScoop.
I keep hearing the same frustration when I talk with security leaders. The real problem sitting on their desk isn’t finding vulnerabilities. It’s deciding which ones actually matter.
The industry has spent billions on better visibility. We’ve convinced ourselves that if we could just discover more vulnerabilities, collect more data, and ingest more threat intelligence, we’d become more secure. But look around. Organizations still aren’t more secure. They’re just overwhelmed.
Then AI arrived and changed the game entirely. In a matter of months, vulnerability discovery accelerated dramatically. AI systems review code faster than human researchers ever could. They identify weaknesses at unprecedented scale. They scan continuously without the limitations of time, staffing, or attention. The headlines have been everywhere. Government leaders are reevaluating AI laws. CEOs are tossing and turning at night.
But we are focusing on the wrong issue. None of this is actually solving what matters most.
For years, security teams have been drowning in findings. Every new threat feed promised greater visibility. What arrived instead was noise—more data, more alerts, more dashboards, more vulnerabilities. Rarely clarity. Now AI is pouring gasoline on that fire.
The conversations around AI in cybersecurity often get stuck in the wrong place. People debate whether it will help defenders move faster or enable attackers more easily. Both matter, but they are not the core issue.
The real consequence of AI is that it’s exposing something organizations have avoided facing. A vulnerability is not risk, it’s just a clue. Risk emerges when information connects to context: how critical the affected asset is, what controls surround it, how likely exploitation is, the business processes it supports, and what happens operationally if it fails.
Without that context, prioritization becomes impossible. Resources get spent on low-risk issues while mission-critical, vulnerabilities sit unfixed.
Now AI is now making the data volume problem almost impossible to comprehend. An enterprise working with hundreds of software vendors, cloud providers, contractors, and technology partners must investigate every relationship. It’s like a cybersecurity nesting doll where AI continuously identifies vulnerabilities across that entire ecosystem, every minute of every day.
The real challenge today isn’t discovering weaknesses. It’s determining which of tens of thousands of newly discovered weaknesses could actually disrupt operations, impact customers, halt revenue, or create regulatory exposure. Most organizations can’t answer that question quickly.
Some still rank risk using severity scores built for technical teams rather than business leaders. Others rely on manual triage that was already struggling before AI. Many still measure security maturity by how many findings they identify rather than the speed and accuracy of their decisions.
These approaches don’t work anymore. They probably didn’t work yesterday either.
What’s uncomfortable to acknowledge is that AI isn’t creating a cybersecurity crisis. It is revealing one that’s existed for years. The organizations that succeed in this an AI world will transform discovery into judgment faster than their competitors. When AI can find nearly every weakness, security belongs to those who know what to act on. It belongs to those who can connect data to business reality.
That’s the real edge. That’s what separates secure organizations from those that are just collecting more findings.
The post Finding vulnerabilities was never the hard part appeared first on CyberScoop.
While Washington D.C. frets over the potential impact of Anthropic’s Claude Fable 5, security researchers continue to track how the integration of frontier AI tools are transforming the digital security landscape for malicious hackers and defenders alike.
The breakneck speed of model releases may be creating short, silent security gaps for developers who must choose between performance and security, according to a new report.
Researchers at Backslash Security pored through update logs for Claude Code, Anthropic’s flagship coding model, finding the company was patching dozens of newly discovered security vulnerabilities in the program between April and early June 2026.
The logs revealed the details of more than 30 security relevant patches implemented over that timeframe, but Anthropic did not publicize them. Instead, Backslash Security researchers found them by reviewing update logs for every new version of a Claude Code release in the last two months, noted the security-relevant fixes and traced each one back to the version and date it shipped.
The patches included fixes for data poisoning, prompt injection and arbitrary code execution vulnerabilities. One bypassed core safeguards put in place to prevent Claude Code from accepting catastrophic deletions commands, such as erasing an entire codebase, by adding a single backslash to the command. Another leaked user OAuth credentials, while a third allowed an AI agent to plant a backdoor in shell startup files.
There is nothing inherently odd about this: most companies regularly update and patch their software and anyone who had auto-updates turned on would automatically be switched to the newest, secure version of Claude Code.
But Yossi Pik, co-founder and chief technology officer at Backslash Security, told CyberScoop that the research concluded “the way AI agents are released is different than previous software.”
“We debated internally, because when I originally said I wanted to write about this, I was told ‘Okay, every company has the [same] issue, then they patch and fix,” he said. “This is the nature of software, but I think that what makes this unique is the cadence and frequency of the releases.”
AI companies keep a ferocious pace when updating their models. Claude Code’s changelog indicates there have been 16 different versions through the first half of June, while OpenAI’s Codex was updated 6 times.
Because model updates often bring short-term performance and stability issues, software developers typically wait a week or more before upgrading to a new version.
These time gaps create small windows of vulnerability and force developers to choose between security and performance. The report identifies several reasons why developers don’t automatically update their AI models, including companies that may rely on internal vetting or release schedules, operate in regulated or air-gapped environments where model versions are frozen, and the need to maintain long-running sessions or use manual installations.
Pik said some IT and security teams have also told him they prefer not to install any new version of an AI model without letting it run on other environments first.
“You don’t have that much flexibility, either I go to the latest and I’m getting a less stable version [of the model] or I’m waiting for a few days or a week until I can install it, and hope that nothing would happen during this time,” said Pik.
The Backslash report is not intended as a dig at the security rigor of Anthropic, noting the company tends to “patch fast and document more than anyone” and has addressed every issue and vulnerability identified in the report.
Rather, it’s to highlight the series of mostly silent and persistent security exposures that an organization faces when adopting AI into their workflow.
Other software programs and technology products face similar tradeoffs through different updates, but most of the vulnerabilities detailed in the change log – such as getting an agent to leak data or accept malicious prompts – are unique to large language models and AI systems.
That means integrating AI tools can bring new security problems to an organization, both from outsiders who can poison or influence the model and insiders who can maliciously or accidentally direct the model to access or leak systems, data and identities.
For most Claude Code users, this process runs automatically in the background. Yet Yik points out that just as AI is transforming work itself, it’s also changing how we need to approach software security and updates.
“It should not be compared to [Microsoft] Office that is installed and gets patched once in a while,” he said. “It’s a completely different beast that keeps evolving, and we don’t want to limit it…I think that it’s great for everyone. We just need to make sure that we do it in a secure way, and every organization should understand what that means for them.”
The post AI’s constant patching treadmill can be a security problem appeared first on CyberScoop.
Government agencies, cybersecurity companies and threat researchers are pouring resources into studying how fast-developing AI tools can be wielded by malicious actors to hack into victim organizations.
But as agentic AI becomes more embedded in business infrastructure, there’s also a high possibility that a breach could be caused by an insider guiding the tool, whether maliciously or due to lack of security controls.
In research shared exclusively with CyberScoop, DTEX researchers detail how a common workflow in Anthropic’s Claude Cowork used in corporate environments offers convenience for AI agent deployment but grants near-total access to the system.
Claude Cowork includes tools that let users remotely control their agents. One particular tool, known as Dispatch, relays commands from a user’s phone to their desktop Claude agent. It also includes a plugin for communicating with Salesforce AI agents that access and transfer data.
DTEX researchers tested two scenarios. The first prompted Claude to summarize information from Salesforce and paste it into a draft Outlook email. The second tasked the agent with archiving selected files and transferring them via the Cowork app.
In both cases, researchers used simple, single-turn prompts and spent between 10-30 minutes preparing to exfil the data.
Alex Desmond, director of insider threat intelligence and innovation at DTEX, told CyberScoop that both improvements in frontier models and deeper integration of AI tools into IT network operations have reduced the time defenders have to react to a breach.
“In cyberattacks, you talk about the kind of execution time of adversaries coming in and dropping ransomware, we’re now seeing the kill chain drop to 30 and 10 minutes depending on what they’re doing,” Desmond said. “Six months ago, that was a couple of hours.”
But that speed, when paired with direct access to business networks or cloud services, can also create an insider threat nightmare for organizations that must monitor for both malicious actors and potential mistakes from legitimate employees using the technology.
Over the past few years, western IT and cybersecurity businesses have been inundated with job applicants secretly working on behalf of the North Korean government. Their salaries are used to evade international sanctions and fund Pyongyang’s nuclear program, but it also positions the individuals to access or steal sensitive data or assets from these companies.
“You’ve got a nation-state actor getting into an environment legitimately,” Desmond said. “Now if you gave them access to AI tools on top of that…you’re like ‘here’s the keys to everything and here’s this awesome tool that’s just going to make your job – stealing our data – easier.’”
Tests by DTEX confirmed that the agents indeed had access to sensitive systems, applications and data – including the ability to download SharePoint corporate data, production documentation in OneDrive, access to Outlook email, Salesforce data (and all the data it can access), and any other files on the user’s endpoint device. For each of these applications, Claude Cowork has a dedicated plugin or API to share externally if prompted.
To be clear, DTEX’s research does not involve exploiting a software bug or configuration vulnerability, and it doesn’t come with a CVE. It’s more of an IT governance and visibility problem. Businesses are racing to integrate AI tools into their workflow and pushing employees to use the technology while failing to put in place the kind of security controls, access policies and monitoring required to spot problems.
For instance, it may not be possible to determine how a data breach or leakage involving an AI agent actually occurred if an organization is not logging and auditing its prompts – or whether the incident was the result of an agent running amok or responding to potentially malicious instructions.
While network and cloud monitoring can identify when data is being accessed or downloaded from SharePoint, that may not be a strong enough signal to stand out for defenders.
“If a user’s normal workflow is to pull sensitive files down to work locally all the time, you don’t have endpoint monitoring and you introduce an AI agent, it then just has access to all that data” along with the ability to exfiltrate it,” Desmond said.
The post Your AI agent could become your biggest insider threat appeared first on CyberScoop.
As businesses and governments turn to AI agents to access the internet and perform higher-level tasks, researchers continue to find serious flaws in large language models that can be exploited by bad actors.
The latest discovery comes from browser security firm LayerX, involving a bug in the Chrome extension for Anthropic’s Claude AI model that allows any other plugin – even ones without special permissions – to embed hidden instructions that can take over the agent.
“The flaw stems from an instruction in the extension’s code that allows any script running in the origin browser to communicate with Claude’s LLM, but does not verify who is running the script,” wrote LayerX senior researcher Aviad Gispan. “As a result, any extension can invoke a content script (which does not require any special permissions) and issue commands to the Claude extension.”
Gispan said he was able to execute any prompt he wanted, blow through Claude’s safety guardrails, evade user confirmation and perform cross-site actions across multiple Google tools. As a proof of concept, LayerX was able to exploit the flaw to extract files from Google Drive folders and share them with unauthorized parties, surveil recent email activity and send emails on behalf of a user, and pilfer private source code from a connected GitHub repository.
The vulnerability “effectively breaks Chrome’s extension security” by creating “a privilege escalation primitive across extensions, something Chrome’s security model is explicitly designed to prevent,” Gispan wrote.
Claude relies on text, user interface semantics, and interpretation of screenshots to make decisions, all things that an attacker can control on the input side. The researchers modified Claude’s user interface to remove labels and indicators around sensitive information, like passwords and sharing feedback, then prompted Claude to share the files with an outside server.
That means cybersecurity defenders often have nothing obviously malicious to detect. Where there is visible activity, the model can be prompted to cover its tracks by deleting emails and other evidence of its actions.
Ax Sharma, Head of Research at Manifold Security, called the vulnerability “a useful demonstration of why monitoring AI agents at the prompt layer is fundamentally insufficient.”
“The most sophisticated part of this attack isn’t the injection, but that the agent’s perceived environment was manipulated to produce actions that looked legitimate from the inside,” said Sharma. “That’s the class of threat the industry needs to be building defenses for.”
Gispan said LayerX reported the flaw to Anthropic on April 27, but claimed the company only issued a “partial” fix to the problem. According to LayerX, Anthropic responded a day later to say that the bug was a duplicate of another vulnerability already being addressed in a future update.
While that fix, issued May 6, introduced new approval flows for privileged actions that made it harder to exploit the same flaw, Gispan said he was still able to take over Claude’s agent in some scenarios.
“Switching to ‘privileged’ mode, even without the user’s notification or consent, enabled circumventing these security checks and injecting prompts into the Claude extension, as before,” Gispan wrote.
Anthropic did not respond to a request for comment from CyberScoop on the research and mitigation efforts.
The post Flaw in Claude’s Chrome extension allowed ‘any’ other plugin to hijack victims’ AI appeared first on CyberScoop.
By Troy Wojewoda During a recent Breach Assessment engagement, BHIS discovered a highly stealthy and persistent intrusion technique utilized by a threat actor to maintain Command-and-Control (C2) within the client’s […]
The post The Curious Case of the Comburglar appeared first on Black Hills Information Security, Inc..
In this Black Hills Information Security webcast John breakdowns why he hates threat intelligence… Again… But, he breaks down some of the cool new projects that are focusing on durable […]
The post Webcast: Durable vs. Ephemeral Threat Intel appeared first on Black Hills Information Security, Inc..
John Strand// Using threat intelligence feeds for good….instead of wasting time and money. John’s intense hatred for threat intelligence feeds is pretty well known. Trying to defend your network against […]
The post WEBCAST: How to Use Threat Intelligence appeared first on Black Hills Information Security, Inc..
The webcast John did with Paul and Security Weekly a few weeks ago. Better late than never though, are we right??
The post WEBCAST: How Threat Intelligence Can Go Wrong appeared first on Black Hills Information Security, Inc..
Login