Earlier this week, a mass hack of refrigeration systems at an estimated 700 supermarkets throughout France caused them to suddenly malfunction, causing spoilage of untold tons of perishables and, in some cases, fires. As is now the norm, basic cybersecurity would have prevented it.

French authorities say the systems, made up of entire fleets of refrigerators and freezers throughout a store, were hacked. More specifically, Internet-connected controllers that allow technicians to remotely administer the store-wide systems were compromised. The unknown attackers responsible then activated defrosters long enough for the fridges to reach temperatures as high as 50° Celsius (122° Fahrenheit). By the time the mass compromise was discovered, food was spoiled, and in some cases their electrical systems caught fire.

The hacks that didn't have to happen

Multiple security advisories and public research reports show that all three of the controller models reportedly hacked in the incident—sold by Danfoss of Denmark and Dixell and its parent company Copeland in the US—contained critical vulnerabilities that allow attackers to remotely log in to the devices with the same system rights as administrators. Until recently, Danfoss controllers, for instance, used a credential that changes each day. The password is generated by the publicly available firmware based on the date. A hacker who takes the time to analyze the code can do the same thing on any device that hasn’t received a recent update. Daily passwords are identical across models located in hundreds or thousands of stores.

Read full article

Comments

© Getty Images

Singapore opened SICW 2026 with a blunt message: no government, company or country can see the full picture of today's cyber threats, and artificial intelligence is now raising the stakes for defenders and attackers alike. Speaking at the opening ceremony of the 11th Singapore International Cyber Week on 13 October 2026, Gwenda Fong, Commissioner of Cybersecurity and Chief Executive of the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore (CSA), called for stronger international cooperation as threats grow more complex. Her address came a day after Josephine Teo, Minister for Digital Development and Information and Minister-in-charge of Cybersecurity and Smart Nation, warned that trust in digital systems is becoming harder to sustain. This year's theme is "Cyber at a Crossroads: Shaping the New Cyber Order.

SICW 2026 Opens With a Warning

Fong, attending her first SICW as CSA chief, said Singapore's success has been built on being open and connected. That leaves its economy and society dependent on digital infrastructure, platforms and supply chains that extend well beyond its shores. Governments, infrastructure operators, cloud providers and cybersecurity firms each see part of the threat landscape, she said, but none sees all of it. "What appears to be an isolated incident to one organisation may in fact be part of a much larger campaign," Fong said. Assembling the picture is only half the challenge, she added. It must be done quickly enough to act before the adversary does.

AI Cuts Both Ways at SICW 2026

Fong said Singapore cannot simply keep adding analysts as threats grow in volume and sophistication. Instead, it wants AI to help defenders "see more, understand faster and to act more effectively." But adversaries can harness AI too, operating at greater speed and scale. The real test of AI cybersecurity, she said, is making sure the technology strengthens defences rather than tilting the advantage towards attackers. She also flagged a newer risk. As agentic AI systems gain access to data, applications and tools, they create new dependencies and vulnerabilities. "For years, cybersecurity has required us to understand what is connected to what. In an increasingly agentic world, we must also understand what can act on what," Fong said, pointing to questions of permissions and consequences.

SICW 2026 Puts AI Risks Into Practice

Rather than only discussing what AI could mean for security, CSA is testing it in practice this year. CSA is partnering with Google on an agentic AI cyber scenario exercise for international partners. It is working with the Singapore AI Safety Hub on a frontier AI governance workshop for officials from ASEAN and the wider Asia-Pacific. With Cloudflare, it is running hands-on training in AI-enabled cyber defence for critical infrastructure operators. Fong pointed to the ASEAN CERT Incident Drill, held since 2006, as proof that practising together builds the habits that matter in a real crisis.

The Trust Deficit Behind SICW 2026

On 12 October, Teo described what she called a paradox. At precisely the time when more trust is needed, trust is becoming harder to sustain. AI systems can make mistakes, be manipulated or behave in unintended ways, she said, and their capabilities are advancing faster than our understanding of the risks. Teo cited UNC3886's campaign against Singapore's telecommunications sector as a recent example of sophisticated actors targeting critical infrastructure. Ransomware and cybercrime remain pervasive, while strategic competition is forcing harder choices on technologies, suppliers, standards and interoperability. "We are willing to interact more, but find ourselves willing to trust less," she said. Without trust, Teo warned, businesses will hesitate to digitalise, citizens will be wary of new technologies, and countries will be less willing to stay open and connected.

"Accountability Cannot Be Outsourced"

Teo said industry must be a partner in securing the digital ecosystem, since it builds and operates much of the infrastructure economies depend on. That means shared standards, threat intelligence sharing, incident reporting and testing new technologies before deployment. On increasingly autonomous AI, she said human judgement, oversight or control must be retained where necessary. "Ultimately, accountability cannot be outsourced. Least of all, to machines," she said. She outlined steps already under way. CSA released its Securing Agentic AI Addendum earlier this year to guide organisations on securing autonomous AI systems. The agency is also working with industry to prepare critical infrastructure for the transition to quantum-safe systems. In addition, leading operational technology manufacturers and technology providers have committed to attain Singapore's Cyber Trust Mark.

What Comes Next

Teo said Senior Minister K Shanmugam would launch the Singapore Cybersecurity Strategy 2026, the country's updated national strategy, the following day, with partnerships remaining central to it. That approach will also carry into 2027, when Singapore assumes the ASEAN Chairmanship. Teo said Singapore will work with the bloc's 11 member states to strengthen collective cyber resilience, deepen practical cooperation and capacity building, and work more closely with industry. Estonia's Minister of Justice and Digital Affairs, Liisa-Ly Pakosta, also joined the week's proceedings for a fireside chat with Fong. Both leaders acknowledged that geopolitical competition is making cooperation harder. "Disagreement need not prevent dialogue, and competition need not preclude practical cooperation," Fong said. Teo put it simply: trust is not built through declarations, but through candid exchanges, competence and consistent action. Fong closed with a challenge to every delegate in the room: look beyond your own vantage point and find the people who can help you see the rest.

Morocco’s cybersecurity strategy is placing greater emphasis on proactive threat detection, critical infrastructure protection and artificial intelligence as the country strengthens its defenses against evolving cyber threats. Abdellatif Loudiyi, Minister Delegate to the Head of Government in charge of National Defense Administration, said securing information systems has become a necessity as digital transformation accelerates. Speaking at the opening of National Cybersecurity Week in Rabat on Monday, Loudiyi stressed that cybersecurity must be integrated into institutional governance rather than treated as an additional expense. He called for stronger preparedness, early threat detection and coordinated responses to cyber incidents. The event, organized by the General Directorate of Information Systems Security under the National Defense Administration, runs from October 12 to 14 under the theme “Cybersecurity in the service of digital transformation and development.”

Morocco Cybersecurity Strategy Emphasizes Proactive Defense

Loudiyi said cyberattacks have become a tangible reality affecting countries worldwide, including developed nations. Their consequences have raised awareness among public and private institutions about the importance of cybersecurity in managing risks and protecting operations. He argued that organizations can no longer rely on responding to incidents after they occur. Instead, they need an approach centered on preparedness, vigilance, early detection, and response. According to the minister, these responsibilities must begin at the highest levels of institutional decision-making and extend across organizations, with each component accountable for its role. He also emphasized that cybersecurity resilience requires continuous work. As attackers develop new methods, institutions must regularly review protection measures, assess system readiness, and adapt their defenses to emerging threats.

Five Pillars to Strengthen National Cybersecurity

The minister outlined five interconnected areas supporting Morocco’s efforts to establish a coordinated national cybersecurity framework. These include a clear legal and regulatory framework, the development of human, technical and financial capabilities, greater public awareness and a stronger cybersecurity culture, enhanced monitoring and response capabilities, and regional and international cooperation. Loudiyi stressed that these elements must function together to strengthen national resilience. He also highlighted the shared responsibilities of government authorities and organizations operating information systems. While the General Directorate of Information Systems Security exercises its legally defined powers, individual system owners must protect their systems and allocate the resources required to do so. The minister said this integration of responsibilities is essential to building a cohesive national cybersecurity system.

AI Threats and Critical Infrastructure Protection Take Priority

Looking ahead, Loudiyi identified four priorities for the next phase of Morocco’s cybersecurity efforts: training specialized cybersecurity professionals, supporting national cybersecurity companies, strengthening critical infrastructure protection, and addressing the challenges associated with artificial intelligence. He described artificial intelligence in cybersecurity as a dual-use capability that can benefit both attackers and defenders. While attackers can use AI to support malicious activities, defenders can apply the technology to detect threats earlier and accelerate incident response. The emphasis on specialized training also reflects the need to develop the expertise required to address increasingly complex cybersecurity challenges. Supporting national companies is another priority identified by the minister as part of the broader effort to strengthen the country's capabilities. Loudiyi said these priorities should help Morocco prepare not only for existing threats but also for risks that may emerge as technologies and attack methods evolve.

Morocco Calls for Stronger International Cybersecurity Cooperation

Loudiyi also highlighted the role of cybersecurity cooperation in strengthening national defenses. He said Morocco remains committed to initiatives and mechanisms that promote collaboration between countries, with particular attention to its African and Arab partners. He presented cybersecurity as a shared responsibility requiring coordination, investment in skills and a sustained culture of awareness and vigilance. The minister concluded that a secure digital environment depends on collective efforts to protect information systems and maintain trust as digital transformation advances. National Cybersecurity Week provides a platform for these discussions through roundtables and workshops involving decision-makers, cybersecurity experts and industry professionals. The October 12 to 14 program is intended to encourage dialogue and the exchange of views on key cybersecurity challenges and approaches to addressing them.

Authored By Salleh Kodri, Regional Director, Solutions Engineering, ASEAN, Cyble

For the last decade, cybersecurity has spent a lot of energy trying to solve a visibility problem. We wanted more logs. More telemetry. More threat intelligence. More detection rules. More dashboards. And to be fair, we got them. Today, many organisations have SIEM, EDR, NDR, attack surface management, identity security, vulnerability management, cloud security and multiple threat intelligence sources. The average SOC can probably see more of its environment than at any point in the past. Yet incidents still happen where, afterwards, somebody inevitably asks: "Did we already have the indicators?" Quite often, the answer is yes. That tells me the next cybersecurity problem is not simply visibility. It is decision latency. Seeing something is one thing. Understanding what it means, deciding what matters and taking the right action before the situation changes is something else entirely. And Agentic AI is about to make that gap much more obvious.

We Are Crossing a Speed Threshold

There is a lot of discussion right now about AI-powered cyberattacks. I think we need to be careful with the hype. AI does not suddenly make every traditional attack technique obsolete, nor does it mean tomorrow's attacker will be an entirely autonomous machine. The more immediate change is simpler. AI compresses time. Reconnaissance can become faster. Target discovery can become faster. Vulnerability analysis can become faster. Social engineering can become personalised at a scale that was previously difficult. Infrastructure can be analysed, changed and replaced faster. And increasingly, AI systems can help determine what to do next. Agentic systems take this one step further because they are designed around a loop:

Observe -> Reason -> Decide -> Execute -> Reassess

Potentially with less human involvement at every stage. So when I think about Agentic AI in cybersecurity, I do not start with the question, "How intelligent will the AI become?" I start with another question: What happens when the attacker can make decisions faster than the defender? That, to me, is the more immediate challenge.

The SOC Does Not Have an Alert Problem. It Has a Decision Problem

In conversations with security teams across ASEAN, I rarely hear anyone asking for fewer sources of security data. They already have plenty. The problem is making sense of all of it quickly enough. Imagine an incident where an organisation detects suspicious authentication activity. The identity platform sees one piece. The endpoint platform sees another. Threat intelligence knows something about the IP address. Attack surface management identifies an exposed service. The vulnerability platform knows there is a weakness on that asset. Digital risk monitoring may already have discovered credentials belonging to the same employee somewhere outside the organisation. Every tool may technically be doing its job. But somebody still has to connect the dots. Is this actually malicious? Is the account privileged? Is the asset internet-facing? Is the vulnerability exploitable? Are the credentials genuine? Has the infrastructure been associated with a known threat actor? Should we isolate the endpoint? Should we disable the account? What happens to the business if we do? This is why I believe cybersecurity increasingly suffers from decision latency. For years, security architecture has been optimised heavily around detection latency. How quickly can I see something? Now the question has to become: How quickly can I understand enough of the situation to make the right decision? If five security systems generate five different pieces of the same attack, but an analyst has to manually correlate them before anybody understands the risk, we are still operating at human speed. That becomes a bigger problem when the attacker is not.

Threat Intelligence Has to Move Closer to Action

I have spent a significant part of my career working around threat intelligence, and one thing I believe strongly is that intelligence has to change a decision. Otherwise, it risks becoming another source of information. Traditionally, threat intelligence has often followed a model like this:

Collect -> Analyse -> Report -> Distribute

There is still an important place for that, especially for strategic intelligence. But operational security requires something closer to:

Detect -> Enrich -> Correlate -> Understand -> Decide -> Act

Take something as simple as a leaked credential. A username and password belonging to an employee appears in an underground marketplace. On its own, that is intelligence. Useful, but incomplete. Now imagine immediately correlating that information with the person's identity, privilege level, external applications, exposed infrastructure, endpoint activity, known vulnerabilities, suspicious infrastructure and current adversary behaviour. The question is no longer: "Did we find a leaked credential?" It becomes: "Does this credential create a credible path into something important, and do we need to act now?" That is a very different security outcome. And this is where I see the real potential of AI in the SOC. Not another AI assistant creating another summary. Not another chatbot sitting on top of another dashboard. AI should reduce the distance between intelligence and action.

ASEAN Has its Own Reality

This conversation becomes particularly interesting when viewed from ASEAN. One thing I have learned working across the region is that there really is no single "ASEAN cybersecurity maturity level." Singapore is different from Malaysia. Malaysia is different from Indonesia. Indonesia is different from Thailand or the Philippines. And even within each country, a major bank, a government agency, a telecommunications provider, a manufacturing company and a mid-sized enterprise can have completely different levels of cybersecurity maturity. Some organisations have mature SOC operations with substantial automation. Others are still strengthening basic identity security, vulnerability management, endpoint visibility and incident response. Yet they may ultimately face the same AI-assisted adversaries. That creates an uncomfortable reality: ASEAN may face machine-speed threats while many organisations are still operating human-speed security processes. We cannot solve that simply by telling everyone to hire more SOC analysts. The talent challenge is already real. Instead, I see AI becoming a force multiplier for analysts - handling repetitive enrichment, correlation, evidence collection and initial investigation so people can spend more time on the decisions where judgement actually matters. But this does not mean automating everything. In fact, the more powerful our automation becomes, the more careful we need to be.

Where AI Should Not Act Matters Too

This is particularly important for critical infrastructure. ASEAN economies depend heavily on energy, manufacturing, transportation, telecommunications and other essential services. Many of those environments include operational technology and legacy systems where the consequences of getting an automated decision wrong can be very different from traditional IT. Automatically isolating an employee laptop suspected of compromise is one thing. Automatically interfering with a production environment, operational control system or critical service is another. The cybersecurity decision may be technically correct and operationally disastrous. That is why I keep coming back to this principle: The faster AI can act, the more important it becomes to understand where it should not act. Context matters. Business impact matters. Safety matters. Authority matters. That is also why I do not believe the future SOC is simply an autonomous SOC. It has to be a governed autonomous SOC.

Agentic AI Needs a Trust Architecture

It would be dangerous to interpret Agentic AI as simply giving an AI agent access to every security tool and saying, "Go and defend us." Trust has to be engineered into the architecture. I think about this in three practical levels. Observe. Let the AI collect information, correlate events, investigate and build context. Humans retain the decision authority. Assist. Let the AI recommend an action, prepare the workflow and present the evidence. Humans approve significant actions. Act. Allow the AI to execute predefined actions automatically - but only within clearly established policies, authority boundaries and confidence thresholds. Most organisations will probably use all three at the same time. A low-risk containment action might be automated. Disabling a privileged identity may require approval. Taking action against a production system should probably have an even higher threshold. The technology is actually the easier part. The harder questions are governance questions. What agent is acting? What authority does it have? What evidence informed the decision? What is it prohibited from doing? When must it stop? When must a human become involved? And afterwards, can we explain exactly what happened and why? Autonomy without accountability is not resilience. It is another form of risk.

'Human in the Loop' is Not Enough

I also think we need to challenge one phrase that gets used constantly in AI discussions: Human in the loop. It sounds safe. But what does it actually mean? If an AI system generates 50 recommendations during an attack and every one of them requires an analyst to click "Approve," technically we still have a human in the loop. We have also recreated the bottleneck we were trying to remove. The better model may increasingly be human on the loop rather than human in every loop. Humans establish the rules. Humans define the authority. Humans establish thresholds, escalation conditions, prohibited actions and risk appetite. Machines operate inside those boundaries. And when the uncertainty, context or consequence exceeds those boundaries, the system escalates to a person. Machine-speed defence does not require removing humans from cybersecurity. It requires being far more precise about which decisions actually need a human.

The SOC Needs to Become a Decision System

This changes how I think about the future SOC. The traditional SOC workflow is roughly:

Alert -> Queue -> Analyst -> Investigation -> Response

The emerging model looks more like:

Signal -> Intelligence -> Context -> AI reasoning -> Decision -> Controlled action

That does not make the analyst less important. I think it makes good analysts more important. They should spend less time copying indicators between systems and more time understanding adversary behaviour, investigating complex incidents, assessing business impact, making judgement calls and defining how autonomous systems should operate. AI should automate the work around the analyst, not automate away the analyst's judgement. Because ultimately cybersecurity decisions are rarely purely technical. Blocking something can interrupt a business process. Disabling an identity affects a person. Taking a system offline can affect customers. Changing something in operational technology can create physical consequences. That context is what separates security automation from responsible security automation.

ASEAN can Leapfrog

There is also an opportunity here for ASEAN. We do not necessarily have to replicate every generation of security architecture built elsewhere. Some organisations in the region may be able to move directly from fragmented security operations toward more integrated, intelligence-driven models. But we cannot assume AI will compensate for weak foundations. Identity still matters. Asset visibility still matters. Security hygiene still matters. Threat intelligence still matters. Incident response still matters. And regional collaboration increasingly matters. As our economies become more connected, cyber risk does not respect national boundaries. A compromised supplier in one ASEAN country can affect customers in another. A threat actor targeting financial institutions may operate across several markets simultaneously. Infrastructure, cloud platforms and digital ecosystems increasingly cross borders. That means strengthening ASEAN's cyber resilience will require more than technology. It will require information sharing, public-private cooperation, critical infrastructure resilience, cross-border incident coordination, talent development and sensible AI governance. This is why the conversation taking place around Singapore International Cyber Week and GovWare is timely. SICW's discussion around shaping the new cyber order, and GovWare's focus on cyber at agentic velocity, are ultimately asking variations of the same question: How do we move faster without losing control?

Trust Becomes the Control Plane

I do not think the next cybersecurity race is simply going to be: AI attacker versus AI defender. That is too simplistic. The real advantage will belong to whichever side can understand what is happening, make the right decision and act faster. But for defenders, there is an additional requirement. We must do it without losing control of the decision itself. Speed will become a security capability. Intelligence will provide context. AI will provide scale. But trust must determine what happens next. As cybersecurity moves closer to machine speed, our security architecture will have to move with it. That does not mean every decision should become autonomous. And faster certainly does not automatically mean safer. The organisations that get this right will be the ones that combine machine-speed intelligence, machine-assisted decision-making and human accountability. For me, the formula is relatively straightforward:

INTELLIGENCE + CONTEXT + AI + GOVERNANCE -> TRUSTED ACTION

Everything before the arrow helps us move faster. Everything around it determines whether we should trust the outcome. And that is ultimately what trust at machine speed has to mean.

This weekly roundup covers a customer data breach at Spain's national rail operator, an Australian government warning about attackers hijacking corporate AI services, a patient data theft from a Polish medical software platform, phishing campaigns that turn legitimate remote management tools against their victims, and a gathering of Europe's police leaders focused on how AI is reshaping crime.  Two threads run through this week's stories. Artificial intelligence is now both a target and a tool for attackers: stolen API keys are draining company budgets, and AI is reportedly being used in intrusions. Meanwhile, attackers keep exploiting trusted software, from a medical records platform to legitimate IT administration tools, to stay hidden for days or weeks. 

The Cyber Express Weekly Roundup 

Renfe Confirms Data Breach Through Compromised Adif Servers 

Spanish rail operator Renfe confirmed on September 25 that hackers had accessed customer names and email addresses. The intrusion came through compromised servers belonging to Adif, the state-owned manager of Spain's rail infrastructure. Renfe said no financial data was exposed and train services were not disrupted. Read more… 

Australia Warns of Stolen AI Keys as Hijacked Access Costs Firms Up to $600,000 

The Australian Signals Directorate (ASD) has warned that attackers are taking over organizations' AI services. They get in through exposed API keys, stolen sessions, and compromised suppliers. Once inside, they burn through paid credits and generate harmful content. Where AI agents are deployed, they also use that access to reach connected systems and data. Read more… 

Polish Patient Data Stolen in Cyberattack on Medyc Medical Software 

Attackers exploited an SQL injection vulnerability in Medyc, a medical records platform developed by Polish vendor Qbusoft, on August 22–23. They stole patient names, PESEL national identification numbers, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses going back to July 2024. The breach went unnoticed until September 8–9, more than two weeks later. Read more… 

Phishing Campaigns Abuse MSP360 Remote Management Tool to Install ScreenConnect 

Microsoft has tracked phishing campaigns that tricked victims across several industries into installing MSP360, a legitimate remote management tool. The installers were disguised as Zoom downloads, Adobe updates, invitations, and delivery notices. After gaining a foothold, the attackers installed ConnectWise ScreenConnect as a backup access channel. Read more… 

Europe's Police Chiefs Warn AI Is Making Crime Faster and Larger in Scale 

More than 500 police leaders from 59 countries gathered at Europol's headquarters from September 28 to 30 to discuss how AI is changing crime. Europol warned that criminals are using generative AI, deepfakes, and autonomous agents to expand fraud, cybercrime, migrant smuggling, and child exploitation. It also pointed to AI's potential to speed up police investigations. Read more… 

Weekly Cybersecurity Takeaway 

Artificial intelligence features in several of this week's stories, in different roles. In Australia, AI services are the target: attackers hijack them to steal paid credits and to reach connected systems through AI agents. At Europol's gathering, police leaders described AI as a force multiplier that lets criminal groups run fraud and exploitation at greater speed and scale. In the Renfe case, AI was reportedly used in the attack, though that remains unconfirmed.  The other common thread is how attackers abuse what organizations already trust. In Poland, an injection flaw in widely used medical software exposed sensitive patient identifiers and went undetected for more than two weeks. Microsoft's findings show attackers installing two legitimate remote management tools so their activity looks like ordinary IT work.   The Renfe breach, which reached customers through a partner organization's servers, is a reminder that an organization's exposure extends to its suppliers and infrastructure partners.  Together, these developments call for practical steps. Organizations should treat AI credentials as carefully as any other privileged secret. They should watch for unexpected remote access software even when it is legitimate, and they should hold the vendors who handle their data to the same security standards they apply internally. 

The Queensland government department in charge of the state's cybersecurity efforts has disclosed a loss of roughly $800,000 from a cyberattack during the last financial year. Details of the CDSB cyberattack, which involved a third-party messaging service being "misused" for financial gain, appear in the QLD cybersecurity department's latest annual report, released on Friday.  The Customer Services, Open Data, and Small and Family Business department (CDSB) directs the Queensland government's cybersecurity strategy, governance, policy and investment. According to its annual report, the department lost $809,000 during the 2025-26 financial year as "a result of an external cyberattack for financial gain." 

How the CDSB Cyberattack Unfolded?

The report said the breach did not reach sensitive records. No government data or sensitive information was compromised during the incident," it stated. "The department blocked the attack and engaged a third party to mitigate any further exposure."  A CDSB spokesperson told Information Age that the attackers had not been paid.  "In July 2025, a third-party messaging service used by the Queensland government was misused to generate an inflated number of unauthorised SMS messages for financial gain," the spokesperson said in a statement.  "... Immediate steps were taken to contain and investigate the incident, and security controls have been further strengthened."  The spokesperson added that the Queensland government "is committed to protecting the security and resilience of its systems and services." 

Audit Found the QLD Cybersecurity Department 'Needs to Do More' 

The incident follows a Queensland Audit Office report, released in March, which found that CDSB "needs to do more" to help the state's public sector manage third-party cybersecurity risks.  Auditors found the QLD cybersecurity department was "not actively assessing and monitoring third-party cyber capability across the public sector," although improvements were in progress.  "The Queensland government has been slow to develop a framework to help entities manage their third-party cybersecurity risks," the audit said. It noted that the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD), the federal cybersecurity agency, "has been raising these risks since 2021."  During testing, auditors gained the "highest level of access" to two Queensland government entities. They did not name either entity, to "avoid publicly identifying any security vulnerabilities."  CDSB addressed the audit in its annual report. "In our cybersecurity leadership role, we agreed to all relevant recommendations and progressed actions during the reporting period, including initiatives to strengthen whole‑of‑government cybersecurity capability," it said.  The report described cybersecurity as something that "remains a daily discipline" for CDSB and the wider Queensland government.  "Investing in, and securing Queensland's digital assets remains important, as cyber threats become more complex, and national incident data shows that malicious actors continue to target all sectors of the economy," it added. 

Queensland Tops Cybercrime Reports 

The CDSB cyberattack comes against a broader backdrop of cybercrime in the state. ASD's latest Annual Cyber Threat Report found that Queensland reported the highest share of Australia's cybercrime incidents in the 2024-25 financial year.  Queensland accounted for 28 per cent of national cybercrime reports. Victoria followed with 26 per cent and New South Wales with 22 per cent. ASD found these figures were "disproportionately higher" than the three states' respective populations when compared with other jurisdictions.  Average losses were highest elsewhere. "The Australian Capital Territory reported the highest average self-reported financial losses – around $37,700 per cybercrime report – followed by those in New South Wales, with around $33,000," the report said. 

This weekly roundup covers a brazen breach claim against the FBI's recruitment portal, a multinational advisory exposing North Korea's fake-recruiter malware operation, a sweeping EU proposal to reshape children's access to social media, a conversation on application security in the age of AI agents, a short-lived Discord ban in the Philippines, and a multimillion-dollar hot-wallet heist at a crypto casino.  From federal law enforcement to individual job seekers, this week's developments show that no target is too prominent or too small. Cybercriminals are openly taunting the agencies that pursue them, state-backed actors are turning the hiring process into an attack vector, and governments are testing how far they can push platforms on child safety, sometimes reversing course within hours. 

The Cyber Express Weekly Roundup 

Shiny Hunters Claims FBI Breach, Says FBIjobs Agent Data Exposed 

The FBI is investigating an apparent breach after the cybercriminal group Shiny Hunters claimed to have stolen personal data belonging to thousands of federal agents, with the probe centering on the bureau's FBIjobs recruitment website. Read more... 

WaterPlum Hackers Steal $10.7M in Crypto From IT Workers 

A North Korean cyber actor group known as WaterPlum, also referred to as "Contagious Interview," has infected at least 30,000 devices across more than 100 countries while stealing cryptocurrency from IT professionals worldwide. Read more... 

EU KIDS Act Sets New Social Media Rules for Children 

The European Commission adopted the proposal on September 18, setting out rules that would prevent children under 13 from accessing social media and establish 15 as the minimum age for minors to open accounts independently. Users aged 13 to under 15 could instead access parent-managed mini accounts with limits on social contacts and up to 60 minutes of screen time per day, while platforms would bear the responsibility of proving their services are safe for children. Read more… 

Harness' Rahul Sood: AppSec in the Agentic Era Is About More Than Code. It's About Authority 

In this conversation, The Cyber Express spoke with Rahul Sood, the General Manager for Application Security at Harness, who leads the company's AppSec portfolio and focuses on building security for the AI era, integrated directly into modern DevOps workflows. The conversation centers on a shift in how security teams must think about AI agents: the risk no longer lies only in the code being shipped, but in what authority autonomous agents are granted once they operate inside production systems. Read more… 

Ban on Discord Lifted After Platform Commits to Work With DICT and CICC 

The Philippine government has lifted its ban on Discord after the platform's representatives met with officials from the Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT) and the Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC), with the restriction removed on Thursday, Sept. 24. Read more... 

Duelbits Hit by $7 Million Hack as Crypto Stolen Across Four Blockchains 

Crypto casino Duelbits has shut down its platform after attackers took roughly $7 million from several of its wallets, with the stolen assets moved across four blockchains and mostly converted into Ether. The company says funds held in user accounts have not been affected, but it has not explained how the attackers got in or when the site will return. Read more... 

Weekly Cybersecurity Takeaway 

This week's developments span the full spectrum of cyber risk, from a criminal group openly retaliating against the FBI over a public advisory, to a state-backed operation weaponizing job interviews against developers, to a crypto platform losing millions from the very hot wallets that keep it running.  Meanwhile, the policy response is moving on multiple fronts: the EU is flipping the burden of proof onto platforms to demonstrate child safety by design, and the Philippines has shown how quickly a government can block, and then restore, a major platform in exchange for enforcement commitments. At the same time, security leaders are warning that AI agents are introducing an entirely new question of who, or what, holds authority inside enterprise systems.  Taken together, the stories point to an increasingly confrontational threat landscape, where attackers are bolder, trust-based processes like hiring are being exploited at scale, and institutions are experimenting with more aggressive levers to hold platforms and adversaries accountable. 

Artificial intelligence systems are becoming more capable and autonomous, raising new questions about how they can be monitored, controlled and secured. Speaking before the United Nations Security Council, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman warned that the rapid pace of AI development could create significant AI security risks, particularly if systems advance faster than institutions can respond. Altman highlighted concerns ranging from human control and autonomous AI to emerging vulnerabilities, concentrated technological power and the need for international incident reporting. He also called for stronger cooperation between governments, critical infrastructure operators and technical experts to address emerging AI threats.

Here are six key AI security risks highlighted in his remarks.

1. Losing Human Control Over Advanced AI

One of Altman’s central concerns was the possibility that humans could lose control over increasingly capable AI systems. He warned that AI could move so quickly that people may no longer be able to understand what systems are doing or intervene when necessary. He argued that developers should not train systems unless they can make a strong case that those systems can remain under human control. The concern becomes more significant as AI systems become capable of handling increasingly complex tasks and making decisions with less direct human involvement.

2. AI Systems Becoming More Autonomous

The growing autonomy of AI systems presents another challenge for AI cybersecurity. Altman pointed to the possibility of AI systems improving themselves and future versions of themselves, describing this as recursive self-improvement. As the process of developing AI becomes more automated, the pace of progress could accelerate. For security teams and policymakers, increasingly autonomous systems could make monitoring, testing and intervention more difficult.

3. Emerging Vulnerabilities and New Threats

More capable AI systems could also introduce vulnerabilities and threats that organizations and governments may not yet fully understand. Altman called for secure channels between governments, critical infrastructure operators and technical experts to share information about emerging vulnerabilities and threats. The remarks place information sharing at the center of preparing for AI vulnerabilities, particularly as AI becomes increasingly integrated into important systems and infrastructure.

4. AI Power Concentrating in Too Few Hands

Altman also warned about the concentration of advanced AI capabilities among a small number of companies, individuals or countries. He argued that no single company or country should be able to use the most powerful AI systems to impose its worldview on others. From a security perspective, concentrated control over highly capable AI could create systemic risks if a limited number of actors have disproportionate access to powerful technology.

5. The Need for Global AI Incident Reporting and Threat Sharing

Altman called for accurate and speedy AI incident reporting, including classification and reporting protocols that would allow countries to learn from failures before they become larger problems. He also called for common standards covering AI capabilities, risk assessments, safeguards and human oversight. Such standards, he said, could help countries compare evidence and establish a shared understanding of what effective safeguards and oversight should look like.

6. AI Development Could Outpace Existing Safety Measures

The speed of AI development itself could become a security challenge. Altman warned that rapid progress could move faster than institutions are prepared to handle. He argued that competition between companies should not become a reason to accept excessive technological risk. He also stressed the importance of alignment, monitoring and safety guarantees as AI systems become more capable. For AI safety, this means ensuring that security measures and oversight develop alongside increasingly powerful systems rather than being added only after problems emerge.

AI Security Moves Into a Global Conversation

Altman’s remarks put AI security risks alongside broader questions about international cooperation, human oversight and technological governance. His proposed approach includes global standards for measuring AI capabilities and risks, incident reporting mechanisms, and secure communication between governments, critical infrastructure operators and technical experts. As AI systems become more autonomous and capable, the challenge will not only be what these systems can do, but whether organizations and governments can monitor, understand and respond to the risks they create.

The European Union’s ability to detect and respond to EU cybersecurity incidents faces significant gaps, particularly in information-sharing and coordination between national and EU-level bodies, according to a new report by the European Court of Auditors (ECA). The auditors said the EU has made progress in developing a cybersecurity cooperation framework, but several measures needed to support an effective response to significant and large-scale incidents are still incomplete. Cybersecurity incidents can disrupt public services, businesses, critical infrastructure and the EU’s internal market. While member states remain primarily responsible for responding to such incidents, the EU has a role when attacks cause major disruption, significant financial losses or substantial harm, or when incidents affect several countries and exceed the response capacity of a single member state.

EU Cybersecurity Incidents Face Information-Sharing Gaps

The ECA identified insufficient information exchange as a major weakness in the EU’s cybersecurity response system. The Cyber Blueprint, adopted in 2025, largely clarifies roles and responsibilities for managing major cybersecurity crises. However, the cooperation between two key EU cyber networks has not yet been formally defined. The auditors said this affects cooperation between the CSIRTs network, which brings together national teams responsible for handling cyber incidents, and EU-CyCLONe, which supports cooperation during EU-level cyber crises. Information-sharing is also affected by differences in national security laws and the ongoing implementation of updated EU cybersecurity rules, including the NIS 2 Directive. According to the auditors, these factors can make it harder for EU networks to identify threats early and coordinate an effective response. “The EU has made progress in building a cybersecurity cooperation framework, but it is not yet working as effectively as it should,” said George-Marius Hyzler, the ECA Member responsible for the audit. “When a serious cyber incident occurs, timely and actionable information is essential. Without it, networks and mechanisms lose much of their added value.”

European Cybersecurity Alert System Still Delayed

The audit also found that the European Cybersecurity Alert System was not operational at the time of the assessment. Two hubs examined by the auditors, ATHENA and ENSOC, had not started operating because of procurement delays. The system also lacked several elements needed for operation, including cooperation agreements, a common classification system and technical standards. The findings come as the EU continues to invest in cybersecurity. Under the 2021-2027 EU budget, €1.4 billion has been allocated to cybersecurity through the Digital Europe Programme, the EU’s main source of cybersecurity funding.

Overlap Among EU Cybersecurity Bodies

The ECA also identified overlapping responsibilities among some EU bodies involved in monitoring cybersecurity threats. The European Commission’s cyber situation centre, established in 2022 and largely supported by external providers, carries out work that the auditors said partly duplicates existing capabilities at the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA). These capabilities include monitoring threats and developing cybersecurity situational awareness. The auditors called for better coordination to reduce duplication and strengthen the overall effectiveness of the EU’s cybersecurity framework.

Funding Checks Raise Security Concerns

The report also highlighted weaknesses in checks on some organisations receiving EU cybersecurity funding. These checks are intended to reduce risks linked to intrusion or influence by non-EU states and prevent sensitive security information from being shared with non-EU authorities. However, while grant beneficiaries are responsible for assessing the ownership and control of third parties receiving financial support, the European Cybersecurity Competence Centre does not verify those assessments. The ECA warned that this could expose sensitive infrastructure, operational data and security-critical technologies to security risks. The audit covered the period from 2022 to 2025 and assessed whether EU actions effectively supported the detection of and response to significant and large-scale cybersecurity incidents. Audit missions were conducted in Ireland, Greece and Italy.

Ukraine has appointed Ihor Klymenko to lead the country’s National Cybersecurity Coordination Center (NCCC), placing the former law enforcement official at the center of the government’s Ukraine cybersecurity coordination efforts. President Volodymyr Zelensky made the appointment through a decree dated September 14, 2026. The National Cybersecurity Coordination Center operates under Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) and brings together government agencies responsible for cybersecurity. Klymenko’s appointment puts him in charge of the body responsible for coordinating the country’s response to major cyberthreats.

Ihor Klymenko Takes Over Cybersecurity Role

According to the presidential decree, Ihor Klymenko, identified in the document as the Secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, has been appointed head of the NCCC. The decree changes the existing provision governing the leadership of the center and took effect upon publication. Klymenko succeeds Rustem Umerov, who previously headed the National Cybersecurity Coordination Center. The leadership change comes as Ukraine continues to focus on protecting critical infrastructure and government systems amid ongoing security challenges. The appointment gives Klymenko responsibility for a national body that coordinates cybersecurity activities across government agencies. The NCCC’s role places it within the country’s wider national security structure, linking cybersecurity coordination with the work of the NSDC.

Cybersecurity Coordination Expands Beyond Digital Systems

The appointment comes alongside a broader government focus on protecting critical infrastructure. In a September 15 address, Zelensky said a staff meeting had focused on protecting critical infrastructure, the energy system and logistics, with particular attention given to Ukraine’s railway network. Zelensky said additional contracts would be issued for systems intended to strengthen the protection of railways, border crossings and other facilities operated by Ukrzaliznytsia, Ukraine’s state railway operator. He said decisions on those contracts had already been made. The president also discussed efforts to protect Ukraine from attack drones, saying interceptor systems were being developed and tested. He reported that another Ukrainian interceptor solution had successfully hit a Shahed drone during testing, although technical aspects still required refinement. According to Zelensky, interceptor crews achieved a 93% interception rate against regular Shaheds during the previous night. He said the government was directing state resources and funding toward additional forms of protection against attack drones.

Ukraine Cybersecurity Efforts Under National Security Structure

The NCCC’s position within the National Security and Defense Council places cybersecurity coordination within Ukraine’s broader national security framework. The center brings together government agencies responsible for cybersecurity and is tasked with coordinating responses to major cyberthreats. The leadership change therefore places Klymenko at the head of a body responsible for coordinating government-level cybersecurity activity, while Ukraine continues to strengthen protections for critical infrastructure and other essential systems. The presidential decree does not provide further details about changes to the NCCC’s mandate or announce specific new cybersecurity programs following Klymenko’s appointment. It formally establishes his leadership of the center following Umerov’s tenure.

This weekly roundup covers a bounty offer targeting an alleged Iranian cyber official, a massive data-exposure incident affecting airline travelers, a breach of an education platform used by students, a flaw exposing ChatGPT users' Gmail data, and a new EU compliance deadline for connected-product manufacturers.  From nation-state attribution efforts to AI-model exploitation and airline record exposure, this week's developments show how identity data, cloud misconfigurations, and AI infrastructure all remain prime attack surfaces — while regulators tighten disclosure timelines. 

The Cyber Express Weekly Roundup 

US Offers $10 Million for Alleged Iranian Cyber Chief 

The State Department is offering $10 million for information on Amir Yaryab, accused of directing the IRGC-CEC's Cyber Operations Command and overseeing groups including CyberAv3ngers, which has previously claimed attacks on industrial control systems and critical infrastructure in the US, Israel, and elsewhere, including exploitation of default credentials on Unitronics PLCs. Read more… 

Mathspace Breach Exposes Data on Over 1 Million Users 

A vulnerability in a self-hosted Metabase reporting tool let attackers gain administrator access without logging in, exposing names, emails, and account metadata for more than 1 million students, parents, and teachers in Australia and New Zealand. Passwords and authentication tokens were not affected, and Mathspace has notified regulators in both countries. Read more… 

220 Million Airline Passenger and Crew Records Exposed 

A misconfigured, inconsistently secured Elasticsearch cluster left roughly 220.8 million passenger and crew records — including passport numbers and full itineraries spanning nine years — reachable over the internet before researchers helped get it secured in June. The server's origin remains unconfirmed, though it was linked to Vietnamese IP space. Read more… 

ChatGPT Sandbox Flaw Let Attackers Read Victims' Gmail 

Check Point Research found that a shared internal package-caching system let separate ChatGPT sessions pass messages to each other, allowing a planted prompt to instruct a victim's session to fetch Gmail data and hand it to an attacker's account — without any visible confirmation step. OpenAI has since decommissioned the affected instance. Read more… 

EU's 24-Hour Vulnerability Reporting Rules Take Effect 

Manufacturers of connected products sold in the EU must now report actively exploited vulnerabilities within 24 hours under the Cyber Resilience Act, more than a year ahead of the law's full 2027 rollout. Non-compliance can draw fines up to €15 million or 2.5% of global revenue. Read more… 

AI Just Broke Crypto: What's Next for Defenders and Attackers Alike

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXtwaaxnq_0

Weekly Cybersecurity Takeaway 

This week's developments show attackers and regulators converging on the same weak points: identity data sitting in exposed or under-secured systems, and AI platforms whose infrastructure — not their models — created the exploitable gap. The Mathspace and airline incidents both trace back to unpatched or misconfigured backend systems rather than sophisticated intrusion techniques, while the ChatGPT flaw shows that shared infrastructure underlying AI services can become a cross-account attack surface even when the model itself behaves correctly.  Meanwhile, the Yaryab bounty and the EU's new reporting clock reflect a parallel push on the policy side — attribution efforts aimed at raising the cost of state-linked attacks, and regulation aimed at compressing how long vulnerabilities can sit unreported. Organizations should treat backend admin tools and internal caching layers with the same scrutiny as customer-facing systems, and multinational manufacturers should confirm their incident-response playbooks account for the new EU timelines now in effect. 

💾

It won’t work:

My suspicion was that GPT 5.6-Cyber would succeed, but the frequency and manner of its success removed all doubt. We have to reassess sandboxing quality for capable AI agents, and in general the software stack with which they interact.

An off-the-shelf VM is not enough to contain a modern, cyber-capable AI agent. There is simply too much attack surface. Even innocuous features (like running with a display) add extra, exploitable attack surface.

This weekly roundup highlights a range of cybersecurity developments affecting artificial intelligence platforms, enterprise software, healthcare organizations, social media accounts, and internet-facing infrastructure.  From stolen Claude sessions and bypassed PaperCut security fixes to an attempted attack targeting hundreds of thousands of X users, recent incidents demonstrate how attackers continue to exploit both software vulnerabilities and active user sessions.  The latest developments also show that organizations face growing risks across AI services, on-premises systems, enterprise edge devices, and account recovery infrastructure. Security teams are being urged to respond quickly as attackers increasingly target exposed systems and authentication mechanisms. 

The Cyber Express Weekly Roundup 

Anthropic Warns of Claude Session Hijacking 

Anthropic has warned that common infostealer malware is being used to steal active Claude sessions, potentially allowing attackers to bypass passwords and two-factor authentication. The campaign involves malware such as Vidar, LummaC2, RedLine, and Atomic Stealer, which is often distributed through pirated software and illicit downloads. Attackers may also consume victims’ paid AI usage. Read more… 

PaperCut Releases Second Emergency Patch After First Fix Is Bypassed 

PaperCut has released a second emergency patch for two actively exploited vulnerabilities affecting its NG and MF print management servers. Researchers discovered ways to bypass the initial security fix, potentially allowing attackers to chain the flaws and achieve pre-authentication remote code execution on exposed systems. Read more… 

Boston Scientific Cyberattack Limited to Certain On-Premises Systems 

Boston Scientific says its ongoing cybersecurity incident is limited to certain on-premises systems, with no impact identified on its cloud-based applications. The company has also reported no confirmed data breach or evidence of unauthorized activity since August 25, as its investigation into the incident continues. Read more… 

DOJ Investigates Attempted Cyberattack on Hundreds of Thousands of X Users 

The U.S. Department of Justice is investigating a large-scale cyberattack targeting hundreds of thousands of X accounts through the platform’s password-recovery system. Attorney General Todd Blanche said X detected and disrupted the campaign before the targeted accounts could be captured, preventing the attempted account takeover operation from succeeding. Read more… 

Two Citrix NetScaler Flaws Put Enterprise Edge Devices at Risk 

Two vulnerabilities in Citrix NetScaler ADC and Gateway have prompted an urgent patching warning from Australia’s cybersecurity agency. CVE-2026-19489, a memory overflow flaw, and CVE-2026-19490, an authentication bypass, can affect systems with specific configurations involving SIP ALG, SAML, or VPN gateway functionality. Read more… 

Weekly Cybersecurity Takeaway 

This week’s developments demonstrate that cybersecurity threats are increasingly targeting authentication systems, active user sessions, exposed enterprise infrastructure, and critical business applications. AI platforms, print management servers, healthcare environments, social media accounts, and network edge devices all remain potential targets for attackers.  Organizations should prioritize rapid security patching, protection of active sessions, strong authentication controls, careful monitoring of exposed infrastructure, and timely investigation of suspicious activity. Security teams should also review systems that rely on password-recovery mechanisms and identify enterprise devices operating with vulnerable configurations.  As businesses continue to rely on cloud services, AI platforms, remote access technologies, and internet-facing enterprise systems, attackers are finding new opportunities to exploit trusted sessions and security weaknesses. Organizations must maintain continuous monitoring and rapid response capabilities to reduce the impact of increasingly targeted cyberattacks. 

This is interesting:

The records describe a force-generation mechanism for several General Staff components, including the GRU, Main Operational Directorate, and 8th Directorate, which is associated with protected communications, cryptography, and information security.

[…]

The reporting also linked a 2024 Department No. 4 graduate, Aleksei Kondrashov, to Military Unit 74455, widely known as Sandworm.

That unit has been associated with destructive cyber activity against Ukraine and other targets, including the 2017 NotPetya attack.

The reports do not establish that every listed graduate participated in a named operation; assignments should therefore be described as reported unit placements, not proof of individual operational involvement.

The Bauman material reframes Russia’s cyber capability as an institutional system, not merely a collection of well-known threat groups.

It suggests that Moscow has formalized a recurring pathway from university recruitment to military service, where students receive supervised technical and ideological preparation before entering intelligence, cyber, and security roles.

For defenders, the leak reinforces the need to track Russian operations as a combined threat: espionage, destructive activity, military reconnaissance, technical surveillance, and influence campaigns may draw on related personnel pipelines and overlapping doctrine.

The exposure of Department No. 4 also provides researchers with a clearer lens for understanding how the GRU sustains cyber capacity beyond the familiar APT28 and Sandworm brand names.

This weekly roundup highlights a broad range of cybersecurity and technology developments affecting cloud identity infrastructure, social media platforms, businesses, digital assets, and international law enforcement.   From a critical Microsoft Entra ID vulnerability exploited before remediation to a global crackdown on West African cybercrime networks, recent developments demonstrate how attackers continue to target both technical systems and human trust.  The latest developments also show that cybersecurity risks are expanding alongside the rapid adoption of cloud services and artificial intelligence. Organizations are facing threats involving identity infrastructure, autonomous AI agents, software vulnerabilities, digital transactions, online fraud, and the misuse of emerging technologies. 

The Cyber Express Weekly Roundup 

Microsoft Confirms Exploited Entra ID Flaw 

Microsoft confirmed that a critical vulnerability in Entra ID, CVE-2026-69836, was exploited before the flaw was fixed server-side. The vulnerability carries a CVSS score of 10.0 and could allow unauthenticated attackers to achieve remote code execution, potentially affecting Microsoft’s cloud-based identity infrastructure. Read more... 

New Zealand Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s 

New Zealand has introduced legislation that would require high-risk social media platforms to prevent users under the age of 16 from accessing their services. Proposed age-verification methods could include digital identification, facial age estimation, or official identification documents. Read more... 

Cyble and DRONA Launch AI Cyber Defense Initiative in India 

Cyble and DRONA Cyber Solutions have launched an AI-powered cybersecurity initiative in Ahmedabad aimed at helping mid-sized businesses detect, investigate, and contain cyber threats. The initiative combines threat intelligence, AI-driven investigations, and endpoint enforcement to provide organizations with faster and more coordinated responses to security incidents. Read more... 

AI Agents Could Create New Cybersecurity Risks 

Adarsh Kant Sinha, CEO of ANVE.AI, warned that autonomous AI agents could introduce significant new cybersecurity risks as organizations increasingly allow them to interact with business-critical systems. AI agents may gain access to email, customer relationship management platforms, cloud infrastructure, and financial systems, potentially creating new avenues for misuse or compromise. Read more... 

Ledger Fixes Ethereum App Flaw Amid Disclosure Dispute 

Ledger said it fixed a clear-signing vulnerability in its Ethereum application approximately two weeks before security firm TestMachine publicly disclosed the issue. The vulnerability could potentially allow a malicious application to display one transaction to a user while preparing a different transaction for signing. Read more... 

Global Crackdown Nets 58 Arrests in West African Crime Networks 

An eight-month international law enforcement operation led by INTERPOL has resulted in 58 arrests and the identification of 263 suspects across 22 countries. Operation Jackal IV targeted West African criminal networks involved in cyber-enabled fraud, money laundering, romance scams, and investment scams. Read more... 

Weekly Cybersecurity Takeaway 

This week’s developments demonstrate that cybersecurity threats are crossing organizational, technological, and geographical boundaries, affecting cloud identity systems, artificial intelligence, digital platforms, cryptocurrency applications, and international financial crime.  Organizations should prioritize strong identity and access controls, rapid vulnerability remediation, careful management of AI-agent permissions, secure integrations, human oversight, and continuous threat monitoring.   As autonomous technologies become more deeply integrated into business operations and cybercriminal networks continue to operate across borders, security teams must adapt to a threat landscape that is becoming broader, more interconnected, and increasingly difficult to contain. 

This weekly roundup highlights a broad range of cybersecurity threats affecting government agencies, businesses, enterprise AI systems, and software platforms. From a major French tax authority breach to a critical GitLab vulnerability, recent incidents demonstrate how attackers continue to exploit sensitive data, digital systems, and emerging technologies. The latest developments also show that cybersecurity risks are expanding beyond traditional attacks. Organizations are increasingly facing threats involving sensitive customer information, AI-powered systems, supply-chain risks, software vulnerabilities, and potential interference with critical operations.

The Cyber Express Weekly Roundup

French Tax Authority Data Breach Hits 678,000 People 

France’s tax authority, DGFiP, confirmed a cyberattack that exposed tax and cadastral information belonging to 678,000 individuals and professionals. The accessed information includes tax income, withholding rates, business details, addresses, and property information. DGFiP said online accounts and passwords were not compromised and is continuing to investigate the incident. Read more... 

Cyberattack Targets Ukraine Agency Ahead of Major Asset Tender 

Ukraine’s Asset Recovery and Management Agency (ARMA) suffered a suspected cyberattack shortly before a major deadline to select a manager for assets linked to sanctioned Russian oligarch Mikhail Fridman. ARMA said the incident, combined with earlier cyber activity and increased information pressure, could indicate a coordinated attempt to disrupt its operations or influence the tender. Read more... 

Oz Hair and Beauty Data Breach Exposes Customer Information 

Oz Hair and Beauty confirmed that an unauthorized party accessed customer information, including names, email addresses, phone numbers, and purchase history. The company said credit card, banking, and home-address information were not compromised. The number of affected customers remains undisclosed, while an investigation into the breach continues. Read more... 

Enterprise AI Is Expanding the Cybersecurity Risk 

Guild Group’s Mohammad Arif warned that the rapid adoption of enterprise AI is creating new cybersecurity challenges as AI systems gain access to sensitive data, applications, and business workflows. Key concerns include shadow AI, data leakage, insecure integrations, AI supply-chain attacks, prompt injection, and AI-powered phishing. Read more... 

Critical GitLab Flaw Could Let Attackers Delete Public Projects 

GitLab patched a critical vulnerability, CVE-2026-19478, that could allow unauthenticated attackers to remotely modify or delete public projects and user data. The flaw carries a CVSS score of 9.4. GitLab also addressed a high-severity GraphQL CSRF vulnerability, CVE-2026-19650. Read more... 

Weekly Cybersecurity Takeaway 

This week’s incidents demonstrate that cybersecurity threats are increasingly crossing organizational and technological boundaries, affecting government systems, customer data, enterprise AI, and software development platforms. Organizations should prioritize strong access controls, rapid vulnerability patching, data protection, AI governance, employee awareness, and continuous monitoring. As attackers continue exploiting both human trust and technical weaknesses, security teams must adapt to a threat landscape that is becoming broader, faster, and increasingly interconnected.

The AI Security Institute has a new report of AI systems engaging in “unsanctioned behavior”—what I have been calling “genie behavior—while being tested on their cybersecurity capabilities.

The incident stemmed from a single evaluation where agents were given a task of solving a cyber security challenge. We ran this challenge 122 times across several models. Our investigation found that in 10 of those runs, an AI agent took autonomous, unsanctioned action on the live internet, targeting real people and organisations. In total, we catalogued 19 such actions. Almost all of this behaviour (17 actions) came from a single model, Anthropic’s Mythos 5, with 2 actions involving OpenAI’s GPT-5.6-Sol with cyber classifiers (mechanisms to prevent misuse) disabled. In the most serious case, an agent tried to insert malicious code into an open-source project. In an attempt to get the code approved, the agent engaged in social engineering—creating fake online identities and using them to pressure the project’s maintainer to approve the code. A human maintainer caught and refused to approve the malicious code.

[…]

Below, we highlight the four most significant behaviours observed. A full summary of cases is available in our technical incident report.

1. An attempted supply-chain attack on real open-source software. In the most serious sequence, an agent tried to insert malicious code into a publicly used open-source project and took actions in an attempt to secure approval for this insertion by human reviewers. The agent researched the project’s human maintainers, created multiple fake identities, and used the fake identities to socially engineer a real maintainer into approving the code. When the agent’s pull request was challenged in public, it edited its earlier activity to appear harmless and considered adopting a fresh identity to continue. The agent used Tor to bypass some network restrictions on GitHub, which is what first triggered AISI’s security alert.
2. Attempts to deceive and target real people. As part of the same effort, the agent tried to contact real people directly, sending messages and files through an online file-transfer service to persuade them, or their own AI coding tools, to run malicious code. Some messages carried harmful payloads, and some were attempts at social engineering; targeted at real people—something we’ve never previously observed.
3. Attempts to plant and prompt-inject malicious code. The agent tried to insert malicious instructions where it reasoned that other automated AI systems might pick them up and execute them. Prompt-injections are hidden instructions designed to manipulate AI coding assistants.
4. Collaboration between independent agents being assessed simultaneously. One agent left public messages on GitHub offering collaboration with other agents working on the same challenge. It also provided instructions to reuse accounts and artefacts it had left behind, which were discovered and used by subsequent agents.

What’s especially interesting about this technical report is that, unlike what we’ve been getting from OpenAI and Anthropic, we can see the exact prompt. It’s in Appendix B. And reading it, it seems that the models didn’t break any rules—they found loopholes in the rules. They behaved like a genie.

Cássio De Alcântara is Director, LATAM Sales at Rapid7.

Across Latin America, organizations are embracing cloud, AI, and digital transformation to drive innovation and business growth. These technologies create new opportunities, but also introduce greater complexity and expanding attack surfaces.

In this environment, security leaders are being asked to understand where risk exists across increasingly distributed environments and quickly eliminate blind spots like Shadow IT and Shadow AI – all without adding operational complexity.

To help security leaders and practitioners address this complexity, Rapid7 is excited to announce a new strategic distribution partnership with Licencias OnLine (LOL) across Latin America.

Helping organizations stay ahead of evolving threats

In order to keep day-to-day business operations moving, organizations need security solutions that not only protect critical assets but also support innovation, regulatory compliance, and long-term digital transformation.

Rapid7's AI-powered cybersecurity operations platform helps organizations strengthen cyber resilience by unifying continuous exposure management, AI-driven threat detection and response, and security automation. By connecting security data across endpoint, cloud, identity, and infrastructure environments, organizations leverage one platform to gain the visibility to reduce risk and act with confidence.

A shared commitment to partner success

Success in today’s fragmented cybersecurity environments depends on a strong ecosystem of partners who can help organizations implement, optimize, and maximize the value of unified security operations.

This is where Licencias OnLine comes in. With a strong, well-established presence across Latin America, deep cybersecurity expertise, and a highly specialized channel ecosystem, Licencias OnLine brings the local knowledge, technical enablement, and operational agility needed to help partners grow their cybersecurity practices and deliver greater value to customers.

Together, Rapid7 and Licencias OnLine will invest in technical training, partner enablement, joint marketing initiatives, and go-to-market programs that help partners expand managed security services, strengthen customer relationships, and accelerate business growth across the region.

Building cyber resilience together

As organizations across Latin America continue to modernize their IT environments, they should have access to security operations that are integrated, intelligent, and designed for today's AI-powered threat landscape.

Rapid7's open platform supports this approach through hundreds of technology integrations that help organizations eliminate security silos, improve visibility across their attack surfaces, and automate response workflows. This enables security teams to reduce operational complexity while improving cybersecurity program maturity.

By combining Rapid7's global cybersecurity innovation with Licencias OnLine's regional expertise and trusted partner network, this new alliance will make it easier for organizations across Latin America to strengthen cyber resilience while enabling partners to see greater success through measurable business outcomes.

We're excited to begin this next chapter together and look forward to supporting our partners as they help customers build stronger, more resilient security operations across the region.

Ready to grow with Rapid7? Discover how Rapid7 and Licencias OnLine are helping partners accelerate cybersecurity maturity across Latin America.

Gopan Sivasankaran is Rapid7's Regional Director, Middle East & Africa.

Across Egypt, Nigeria, and Kenya, organizations are expanding their use of cloud infrastructure, artificial intelligence, digital services, and connected operations. But more technology does not automatically create stronger security operations; many security teams are not short on data, but rather on time, context, and specialist capacity.

As environments expand, the challenge is no longer finding another security product. It is turning existing technology and new investments into clearer risk decisions, faster investigations, and more consistent response, which requires more than software.

Rapid7 and StarLink: From access to operational capability

Africa has been an important region for Rapid7 for many years, and we’re proud of the role we’ve played in protecting organizations across the continent. We see significant opportunity ahead and remain committed to investing in our presence, partner ecosystem, and customer relationships across the region.

That continued investment is why Rapid7 is expanding its partnership with StarLink across Egypt, Nigeria, and Kenya.

Security teams are often managing data across endpoints, cloud environments, identities, and third-party systems. Adding another disconnected tool can increase workload rather than reduce it. Modern security operations require a more connected approach. Exposure data should help teams understand where risk exists. Detection should identify active threats. Response and automation should help teams act before an issue becomes a larger business incident.

But even a well-designed platform needs skilled partners who can help customers deploy it, integrate it, and adapt it to local operational needs.

Why regional partner capability matters

Cybersecurity maturity varies by country, industry, and organization. A bank in Africa, a digital services provider in Kenya, a public-sector organization in Egypt, and an enterprise in Nigeria may share some security challenges, but they do not operate in identical environments. Partners provide the bridge between global technology and local customer reality.

Through this collaboration, Rapid7 and StarLink intend to give resellers, systems integrators, and managed security service providers access to technical enablement, solution expertise, and joint go-to-market support. The goal is to help partners build sustainable security practices, not simply complete individual product transactions.

Connecting exposure, detection, and response

Rapid7’s security operations approach brings exposure management, threat detection and response, managed services, and automation together. This can help teams connect two questions that are too often handled separately:

• Where are we most exposed?

• Where are attackers active now?

When partners can help customers answer both questions using shared security context, they can support more informed prioritization, faster investigation, and clearer remediation decisions.

Looking ahead

Africa’s digital growth will continue to create new security demands. Meeting them will require technology, but also skills, services, local understanding, and long-term collaboration. Rapid7 and StarLink are working together to help build that capability across the region.

Ready to build your security practice with Rapid7? Contact your Rapid7 or StarLink representative for upcoming training, technical enablement, and joint go-to-market opportunities, or explore the Rapid7 PACT Partner Program.

This weekly roundup highlights the expanding range of threats facing businesses, technology platforms, and individuals. From social engineering attacks against corporate systems and vulnerabilities uncovered by AI agents to large-scale software patches and cyberattacks disrupting logistics operations, recent incidents demonstrate how quickly the threat landscape is evolving.  The latest developments also show that cybersecurity risks are no longer limited to traditional malware or ransomware. Attackers are increasingly exploiting human behavior, software weaknesses, interconnected supply chains, and personal online accounts. At the same time, artificial intelligence is emerging as both a defensive tool and a new way to identify security weaknesses. 

The Cyber Express Weekly Roundup 

Levi Strauss Targeted in Cyberattack, Corporate Files Accessed 

Levi Strauss & Co. disclosed a cybersecurity incident after attackers used social engineering techniques to gain access to three company-issued computers. The company believes certain corporate files were accessed and some information may have been exfiltrated. Levi Strauss said it moved quickly to contain the incident and terminate the unauthorized access, limiting the potential impact of the attack. Read more...

AI Agent Exploits Gym Booking Vulnerability 

An AI-powered agent reportedly identified an authentication weakness in an Australian gym’s online booking system. The agent, powered by Anthropic’s Claude and operated through OpenClaw, was originally instructed to help a user book a popular class. During the process, it was able to reserve classes months ahead and cancel another customer's booking. Read more...

AI Will Automate Cybersecurity Toil, Not Replace Security Professionals 

Harsha Reddy, Head of Information Security at Veterinary Emergency Group, argues that artificial intelligence is more likely to transform cybersecurity work than eliminate cybersecurity jobs. AI can assist with repetitive activities such as reviewing logs, triaging alerts, and collecting evidence, allowing security professionals to concentrate on investigation, strategy, and higher-value defensive operations. Read more...

Microsoft Fixes More Than 400 Security Flaws 

Microsoft’s August 2026 Patch Tuesday addresses roughly 400 vulnerabilities across its products, including three zero-days. One of the vulnerabilities was reportedly being actively exploited, while two others had been publicly disclosed before patches became available. The update includes 42 critical vulnerabilities, with 37 associated with remote code execution, reinforcing the importance of timely patching across enterprise environments. Read more...

CEVA Logistics Cyberattack Disrupts European Operations 

A cyberattack against CEVA Logistics disrupted activity at eight European warehouses on July 29, affecting shipments and exposing customer data connected to several major clients. The logistics company, part of the CMA CGM Group, has not publicly identified the attackers or provided detailed information about the technical nature of the incident. Read more...

FBI Warns of Theft of Explicit Content From Social Media 

The FBI has warned that cybercriminals are targeting social media and personal accounts to steal explicit images and videos, including non-consensual intimate images. Stolen material may subsequently be distributed or sold online, while associated personal information can expose victims to harassment, stalking, and sextortion. Read more...

Weekly Cybersecurity Takeaway 

This week’s incidents demonstrate that cybersecurity risks are expanding across corporate networks, software ecosystems, supply chains, AI-powered systems, and personal accounts.  Organizations should prioritize strong authentication, rapid vulnerability patching, employee awareness, third-party risk management, and continuous monitoring. At the same time, responsible use of AI could help security teams reduce repetitive workloads and respond more effectively to emerging threats.  As attackers continue finding new ways to exploit technology and human trust, organizations and individuals must strengthen security controls while remaining prepared for threats that increasingly cross traditional digital boundaries. 

💾

This weekly roundup highlights the growing cybersecurity risks affecting businesses, government agencies, and critical service providers. From the continued dominance of ransomware operations to government database breaches and third-party supply chain incidents, recent events demonstrate how attackers are increasingly targeting trusted systems and external service providers to maximize disruption and data exposure.  The latest developments reinforce that cyber threats are no longer limited to direct attacks on organizations. Threat actors are exploiting ransomware-as-a-service ecosystems, compromising government registries, targeting law enforcement databases, and abusing third-party platforms that support retail and healthcare operations.   Organizations must strengthen third-party risk management, improve data protection measures, and enhance incident response capabilities to reduce the impact of evolving cyber threats. 

The Cyber Express Weekly Roundup 

Qilin Dominated Ransomware Attacks in H1 2026 

Qilin emerged as the most active ransomware group during the first half of 2026, targeting organizations worldwide through its ransomware-as-a-service (RaaS) operation. Manufacturing, healthcare, construction, and professional services were among the sectors most affected as the group continued expanding its global reach. Read more… 

Hackers Breach Beneficial Owners Registry, Expose Data of 31,000 Firms 

Hackers breached the Register of Beneficial Owners (VwbP), gaining unauthorized access to data associated with approximately 31,000 legal entities. Authorities temporarily took the registry offline, launched an investigation, and established a crisis response team, stating there is currently no evidence that records were altered or deleted. Read more… 

PNLD Data Breach Leaks Police and Government Contact Details 

A data breach involving the Police National Legal Database (PNLD) exposed names, organizations, and work email addresses belonging to police officers, government partners, criminal justice professionals, and some Ask the Police users after the information appeared on the dark web. Authorities are investigating the incident and assessing its potential impact. Read more… 

De Bijenkorf Logistics Cyberattack Delays Orders and Raises Data Exposure Concerns 

A cyberattack targeting a third-party logistics provider disrupted deliveries, returns, and refunds for Dutch retailer De Bijenkorf. While the retailer confirmed its internal systems were not compromised, investigators are assessing whether customer contact details and order information were exposed. Payment information, passwords, and financial data were not affected, and customers have been advised to remain vigilant against phishing attempts. Read more… 

Updoc Data Breach Exposes Customer Contact Information 

Australian telehealth provider Updoc disclosed a data breach after unauthorized access to a third-party operational platform exposed some customers' names, email addresses, and postal addresses. The company confirmed that its internal systems remained secure and that no medical records, payment information, or financial data were compromised. Read more… 

Weekly Cybersecurity Takeaway 

This week's incidents highlight the continued evolution of cyber threats across ransomware operations, government data breaches, and third-party supply chain compromises.  A common theme across these events is the growing risk posed by trusted third-party platforms and shared digital ecosystems. Attackers are targeting external service providers, government databases, and ransomware affiliate networks to expand their reach and maximize operational disruption.  Organizations should prioritize stronger third-party risk management, continuous monitoring, robust access controls, and timely incident response to reduce the impact of supply chain attacks and data breaches. As businesses become more interconnected, strengthening the security of partner ecosystems is becoming just as important as protecting internal infrastructure. 

The Updoc data breach has raised fresh concerns about cybersecurity in Australia's healthcare sector after the telehealth provider confirmed that an unauthorized third party may have accessed customer contact information through an external system.   The data breach at Updoc, disclosed on August 7, stemmed from a brief security incident involving a third-party platform that supports the company's operations. While the Updoc cyberattack did not expose medical or financial records, it is the latest cyber incident affecting Australia's healthcare sector. 

Updoc Data Breach Traced to Third-Party Platform 

Updoc, an Australian telehealth provider offering round-the-clock online healthcare services, including medical certificates, prescriptions, and specialist referrals, detected unauthorized access to a third-party operational system on Friday, July 31.  In a statement shared with The Cyber Express, the company said the incident was limited to an external system used to support its operations. The exposure was confined to customer contact information, which may have included account holders' names, email addresses, and postal addresses.  Updoc said its internal systems were not accessed during the incident and confirmed that no health records, financial information, or payment details were involved. The company added that it acted immediately to block the unauthorized access and found no evidence of any further activity after the initial event.  According to the company, customers are not required to take any immediate action because account logins and security remain unaffected. Updoc also apologized for any concern or inconvenience caused by the incident. 

Updoc Cyberattack Adds to Healthcare Sector Threats 

Founded in 2021, Updoc generates approximately $10 million in annual revenue. According to its founders, the platform has served more than one million patients since launch, while its website states that it has over 500,000 users.  The Updoc cyberattack follows a series of cybersecurity incidents targeting Australian healthcare and consumer-facing organizations. In June, clinic network Partnered Health disclosed a cyberattack in which hackers stole personal information and health records from patients across at least 21 clinics in five Australian states.  That breach exposed sensitive information, including medical records, Medicare numbers, consultation notes, referral letters, and pathology results. The attack affected clinics in Melbourne, Sydney, Canberra, the Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, and Coffs Harbour. At the time, another five clinics, including several in Western Australia, remained under investigation.  Although the Updoc data breach was limited to contact information and did not compromise medical or payment data, the data breach at Updoc highlights the risks associated with third-party service providers. As healthcare organizations continue to depend on external platforms, the incident underscores how vulnerabilities outside a company's own infrastructure can still result in customer information being exposed. 

Amarbir Singh, Senior Director – AI & Cloud Solutions, AHEAD Building a secure cloud foundation for AI has become a top priority as enterprises move quickly to put AI at the center of how they operate. However, the rush to adopt AI is also reshaping the security agenda. The World Economic Forum’s Global Cybersecurity Outlook 2026 finds that 94 percent of organizations now see AI as the most significant driver of change in cybersecurity this year, while the share with processes in place to assess AI tools before deployment has risen from 37 percent to 64 percent. That is an encouraging sign. It suggests enterprises are beginning to match AI ambition with stronger assurance. The challenge now is to build the secure, scalable cloud foundation that allows this progress to continue without creating more risk and complexity.

Why a Secure Cloud Foundation for AI Matters More Than Ever

Too often, enterprises make that job harder for themselves. Attackers tend to work with discipline. They standardize, repeat and refine. Enterprises often do the opposite. They add tools, customize around every edge case and accumulate exceptions until their environments become harder to understand and harder to defend. In that kind of estate, every new control can create another blind spot. Building a secure cloud foundation for AI is not just about adding capability. It is about reducing unnecessary complexity, improving visibility and making deliberate choices about what truly needs to be there. That matters because many organizations are now stuck between urgency and overload. The market moves fast, threat categories keep shifting and new frameworks and vendors appear almost every week. In that environment, hesitation can feel prudent, but it often becomes the bigger risk. Security and cloud leaders do not need perfect certainty before they move. They need a clear direction, a practical operating model and the discipline to iterate. The era of fixed multi-year plans is giving way to shorter roadmaps that can adapt as the threat landscape changes. Progress now matters more than perfection.

Moving Beyond Traditional Security Operating Models

This is where traditional execution models begin to fall short. Annual policy reviews, slow approval chains and static response plans were built for a slower world. They are poorly suited to a landscape where AI adoption, cyber risk and business priorities can all shift within a quarter. Security cannot function as a document that gets reviewed once a year. It has to function as a living operating model across the business. That means decisions happen faster, ownership is clearer and incident response is tested often enough that teams know what to do when pressure is real. The shift that matters most is a shift from tools to outcomes. Security maturity is still too often measured by how much technology has been bought rather than what risk has actually been reduced. But tools are inputs, not outcomes. What matters is faster patching, lower exposure, stronger identity controls, clearer accountability and a more resilient business. Vulnerability management should reduce the attack surface. Identity controls should let a distributed workforce operate safely and consistently. Resilience architecture should protect the services the business truly depends on. If a control does not support a meaningful outcome, its value should be questioned. The same logic applies to cloud foundations in the AI era. Resilience should be designed around actual business need, not assumed as an abstract virtue. Some applications justify multi-region or even multi-provider architectures. Others do not. Building beyond the point of business need adds cost and complexity without adding meaningful protection. The stronger approach is to calibrate resilience to risk, not to fashion. Identity is equally central. A zero trust model anchored in strong identity, multifactor authentication and disciplined access controls gives enterprises a consistent way to secure users, workloads and data across environments. At the same time, visibility and observability have to improve. Enterprises need to know where data is moving, where AI is being used and where new dependencies are emerging. Without that visibility, governance becomes reactive. With it, governance becomes an enabler of safe adoption rather than a brake on progress.

Using AI to Improve Security Without Replacing Human Judgment

AI itself should be part of this foundation, but not as a substitute for judgement. Used well, it can improve efficiency, accelerate detection and help teams manage growing operational demands. But people still need to stay firmly in the loop. The goal is not automation for its own sake. The goal is better decisions, faster response and stronger control in an environment that is only getting more dynamic. The enterprises that scale AI securely will not be the ones that chase every new tool or wait for the market to settle. They will be the ones that simplify where they can, standardize where it matters and build cloud foundations that are governed, observable and designed around business outcomes. In the AI era, trust will depend less on how loudly an organization talks about innovation and more on whether it has built the foundations to sustain it securely at scale.

Ross Baker is Senior Director, Northern Europe at Rapid7.

As organizations across the United Kingdom and Ireland embrace AI, cloud technologies, and digital transformation in the name of enhancing customer experiences and accelerating business growth, the cybersecurity landscape must continue to evolve just as quickly.

In this environment, business leaders still expect security to enable innovation, not slow it down. They're pushed to reduce risk, improve visibility across expanding attack surfaces, and respond faster than ever before, with limited resources now table stakes. This is precisely why Rapid7 is excited to announce a new strategic distribution partnership with Exclusive Networks across the United Kingdom and Ireland, following previous announcements alongside the firm to better support partners across Benelux and the Nordics.

Organizations no longer want disconnected security tools or transactional vendor relationships. They're looking for trusted advisors who can help simplify security operations, strengthen cyber resilience, and deliver measurable business outcomes.

In this moment, cybersecurity customers are demanding experiences that create more calm. This means no more disconnected security tools or reactive approaches, but integrated security operations, trusted expertise, and partners who can help them improve visibility and build long-term cyber resilience.

Investing in partner success

The UK and Ireland represent one of Europe's most mature and partner-driven cybersecurity markets, with partners playing an increasingly important role in helping organizations modernize security operations for today’s AI-enabled threats.

This partnership with Exclusive Networks reflects Rapid7's continued investment in the regional channel ecosystem. More than expanding distribution, it's about empowering partners with specialist expertise, technical enablement, and the go-to-market support they need to grow their cybersecurity businesses with confidence.

Exclusive Networks has built an outstanding reputation as one of the UK's leading specialist cybersecurity distributors, combining deep technical expertise with a strong, partner-first approach.

Together, we're creating new opportunities for partners to strengthen their capabilities while delivering greater value to customers.

Helping partners deliver modern security operations

Security teams are increasingly looking for platforms that unify exposure management, threat detection, response, and automation. Again we go back to the urgent need for improved visibility while reducing operational complexity.

Rapid7's AI-powered cybersecurity operations platform helps organizations simplify SecOps through integrated exposure management, managed detection and response, and security automation. By bringing these capabilities together, customers can identify risk earlier, respond faster, and improve cyber resilience without adding more tools.

Combined with Exclusive Networks' technical enablement, solution engineering expertise, and established channel ecosystem, this new alliance makes it easier for partners to deliver integrated cybersecurity solutions while expanding managed security services and fostering long-term customer relationships.

Looking ahead

Rapid7 and Exclusive Networks share a common commitment to helping partners grow through technical excellence, collaboration, and continuous enablement. Together, we're investing in the resources, expertise, and support needed to help partners succeed in one of Europe's most dynamic cybersecurity markets.

Ready to grow with Rapid7? Head to our Partners page for more news, resources, and opportunities.

This essay was written with Barath Raghavan, and originally appeared in The Guardian.

In July, Hugging Face, a company that hosts much of the world’s AI software and open-source AI models, was hacked. A malicious dataset had been used to run code on one of its servers. Whoever was behind it captured internal security credentials and moved through systems over a weekend, running thousands of actions from a swarm of temporary server environments. It looked like the work of a sophisticated criminal group.

It was not. It was one of OpenAI’s new, still unreleased GPT models.

Their science experiment had escaped the lab. OpenAI was running the unreleased AI model through a benchmark that tests how well AI can successfully hack systems. To push the limits and evaluate the AI’s true capability, the company switched off the safety filters that normally stop it from doing this kind of hacking. Aware that this could go wrong, they confined the AI to an isolated environment and denied it access to the internet.

But the new AI cheated. It took literally its goal to get as high of a score as possible. It broke out on to the open internet. It inferred, probably from its training data, that it could “solve” the task by getting the answers from Hugging Face’s servers. So it chained together stolen credentials and further unknown security exploits to hack the company’s network.

Nobody instructed the AI to do any of this. It was, in OpenAI’s words, “hyperfocused on finding a solution” to the test it was being given. And while this might seem like something new with AI, it’s really very old. This is how a genie behaves, and it is a key challenge with AI agents in general.

In folklore, genies—and other magical beings—grant wishes literally, not how the wisher intended. King Midas asked that everything he touched turn to gold, and starved. The sorcerer’s apprentice wanted the broom to fill the cistern, and it performed its task so well that it flooded the house.

We now have machines that do this. Ask a modern AI agent to save money on your phone plan and it might simply cancel the plan. Tell it to book a flight, and it might hack the airline website to override restrictions. Or, like OpenAI, ask it to do well on a test and it might break into another company to steal the answers. Each time, it recognizably completed the task you set, but it didn’t do what you would have wanted.

This isn’t malicious behavior. No one asked for, or wanted, Hugging Face to be hacked. OpenAI and Hugging Face and the AI were ostensibly on the same side, and the AI was trying to do what it had been asked. That’s what makes it so difficult to guard against: you can’t filter for bad instructions because the instructions were fine.

The gap is between the words we use and what we mean by them. We call that gap the Genie coefficient.

AI labs know this is a problem, and they’re quietly saying so. For example, the Chinese lab Moonshot recently warned that its latest AI model may have “excessive proactiveness” and “make unexpected decisions on the user’s behalf”. The UK’s AI Security Institute has started tracking “cheating behavior in frontier model evaluations”. We wouldn’t tolerate a car that is excessively proactive or ruthlessly efficient, and yet that’s the reality of AI today.

Improvement is possible. Just as AIs have gotten much better at resisting prompt injection attacks over the last few years, we can safely predict that they will get better at avoiding genie-like behavior. The point of the Genie coefficient is to track progress. AI companies like benchmarks, and they all work to compete to be the best.

Dozens of benchmarks and leaderboards tell us how well these AI models write code, perform logical reasoning, and pass standardized legal and medical exams. But there is nothing that scores whether a system does what you actually meant. We need to develop a measure for this, test it regularly, and push for improvement. We’re not going to have trustworthy AI agents without it.

There’s new benchmark measuring AI’s ability to perform mathematical cryptanalysis. Anthropic’s frontier model actually found new attacks.

The benchmark: “CryptanalysisBench: Can LLMs do Cryptanalysis?” The idea is to benchmark the ability of LLMs to discover new mathematical cryptanalytic attacks against a series of historical algorithms.

Abstract: Cryptanalysis—the task of finding attacks against cryptographic schemes—its at the intersection of mathematical reasoning and cybersecurity, two areas where LLMs have advanced fastest. Cryptanalysis represents both a clean testbed for frontier reasoning (as practical attacks can be automatically verified) and a domain with unusually high stakes, since the primitives under study underpin our digital security. In this paper we ask whether LLMs can do cryptanalysis, and find that the answer is increasingly yes. We introduce CryptanalysisBench, 191 tasks across six families of cryptographic primitives (block ciphers, hash functions, etc.) drawn primarily from four NIST standardization competitions. Our benchmark consists of three tiers: (i) primitives with known practical breaks; (ii) primitives with no known practical break, evaluated both at full strength and as scaled-down variants; and (iii) a challenge set of production primitives at the frontier of cryptanalysis. Five frontier models (Claude Opus 4.8, Sonnet 5, Mythos 5, GPT-5.5, and the open-weights GLM-5.2) break 65%­86% of Tier 1 schemes, 6­12 Tier-2 schemes at full strength, and 24­61 across all scaled-down variants. Beyond deriving known results, models produce novel cryptanalysis, such as a key-recovery attack that exploits a design flaw in the SpoC AEAD and an error in KINDI’s published CCA-security proof, both to the best of our knowledge not previously known.

We release CryptanalysisBench as a tool to help track if (or when) AI cryptanalysis becomes a serious factor and as a scaffold for stress-testing candidate schemes before deployment. The attacks that the benchmark already surfaces are an early snapshot of a fast-moving frontier that may soon match, and in places exceed, the published state of the art.

Anthropic used the benchmark to test Mythos Preview, and found new vulnerabilities in Hawk and reduced-round AES.

Still early results, but this is definitely something to watch.

SlashDot thread.

Claudia Zoon is Senior Manager, Channel Sales at Rapid7.

Across Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg, organizations are accelerating digital transformation through AI, cloud adoption, and increasingly connected business operations. These investments are creating new opportunities for innovation, but also reshaping the cybersecurity landscape.

In this dynamic environment, Rapid7 is excited to announce an expanded strategic distribution partnership with Exclusive Networks across the Benelux region. Why now? Because as organizations grow,  so too do the expectations of security teams. As attack surfaces expand, more sophisticated AI-enabled threats emerge; as compliance requirements evolve, leaders expect security to scale right along with the business – all without adding unnecessary complexity.

In this chaotic environment, cybersecurity customers are demanding experiences that create more calm. This means no more disconnected security tools or reactive approaches, but integrated security operations, trusted expertise, and partners who can help them improve visibility and build long-term cyber resilience.

Supporting a rapidly evolving market

The Benelux region has long been at the forefront of digital innovation. As organizations continue modernizing their infrastructure, they're also preparing for increasingly rigorous cybersecurity requirements through regulations such as NIS2 and DORA. Along these lines, operational resilience has become a board-level priority, making it more important than ever for security teams to simplify operations while maintaining visibility across their environments.

Meeting these expectations requires more than technology; it requires partners who understand the regional market, can provide specialist expertise, and help customers navigate an increasingly complex cybersecurity landscape.

Why specialist partnerships matter

Channel partners play a critical role in acting as trusted advisors who help organizations modernize security operations through technology evaluation, solution implementation, and long-term security strategy build-out.

Our expanded partnership with Exclusive Networks reflects Rapid7's continued investment in supporting that partner ecosystem.

Exclusive Networks has established itself as one of the region's leading specialist cybersecurity distributors, combining deep technical expertise with a partner-first approach that prioritizes enablement, collaboration, and long-term growth. Together, we're making it easier for partners to access the technical resources, training, and support needed to deliver stronger outcomes for their customers.

Helping partners grow

Rapid7's AI-powered cybersecurity operations platform helps organizations simplify security operations by unifying exposure management, threat detection and response, managed services, and security automation into one platform.

Combined with Exclusive Networks' cybersecurity expertise, technical enablement, and regional support, partners are better positioned to expand managed security services, strengthen customer relationships, and deliver integrated cybersecurity solutions that reduce complexity and improve cyber resilience.

Looking ahead

Cybersecurity success increasingly depends on strong partnerships that combine innovative technology with local expertise and long-term collaboration.

Rapid7 and Exclusive Networks share a commitment to helping partners grow and enabling organizations across Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg to modernize security operations with confidence.

We're excited about the opportunities ahead and look forward to working together to help partners build stronger cybersecurity practices and deliver measurable and positive outcomes for customers across the Benelux region.

Ready to grow with Rapid7? Learn more about the Rapid7 PACT Partner Program and discover how Rapid7 and Exclusive Networks are helping partners strengthen cybersecurity operations across the Benelux region.

The Estée Lauder data breach has prompted the global cosmetics company to notify affected individuals after hackers exploited a vulnerability in Oracle E-Business Suite, a platform used for human resources (HR) operations.   The Estée Lauder cyberattack stemmed from unauthorized access that occurred on or around August 9, 2025, though the company said it identified the incident last month and confirmed the scope of the breach on June 19, 2026. 

Estée Lauder Data Breach Exposed Sensitive Personal Information 

According to the company's notification letter, the attackers gained access to the Oracle E-Business Suite system and obtained personal information belonging to certain individuals.  We became aware of a cybersecurity issue involving a vulnerability in the Oracle E-Business Suite system which is used by the Estee Lauder Companies for HR management purposes," the notice states.  It further adds: "On June 19, 2026, we determined through our investigation that, on or around August 9, 2025, an unauthorized third party gained access to the Oracle E-Business Suite system and obtained personal information of certain individuals."  The exposed data in the incident includes full names, postal addresses, email addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers (SSNs), passport numbers, financial account information, including bank account numbers, health information, and employment records such as payroll and performance reports. 

Oracle Vulnerability Tied to Estée Lauder Cyberattack 

Although Estée Lauder did not identify the specific vulnerability used in the attack, the timeline aligns with the widespread exploitation of the Oracle E-Business Suite flaw CVE-2025-61882.  In October 2025, researchers from Google warned that the Clop ransomware group had exploited the vulnerability as a zero-day to steal data. The flaw affected Oracle EBS versions 12.2.3 through 12.2.14, allowing attackers to bypass authentication and remotely execute code through the BI Publisher Integration component. Successful exploitation could provide access to sensitive HR and business information.  Oracle released security patches for CVE-2025-61882 on October 4, 2025. Soon after, cybersecurity company CrowdStrike confirmed that Clop had been exploiting the vulnerability since early August 2025. 

Company Offers Identity Monitoring 

Estée Lauder, headquartered in New York, generates annual revenue of $14.3 billion, employs around 57,000 people, and operates retail stores and online businesses worldwide, making it the world's second-largest cosmetics company.  Following the Estée Lauder data breach, the company is urging recipients of its notification letter to monitor for signs of identity theft and fraud. It is also providing 24 months of complimentary identity monitoring services through Kroll.  The Estée Lauder cyberattack is part of a broader campaign that affected several high-profile organizations, including Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, Dartmouth, the University of Phoenix, The Washington Post, Logitech, GlobalLogic, Cox Enterprises, and American Airlines subsidiary Envoy Air.  This is not the first time the company has been impacted by Clop. In 2023, Estée Lauder was also compromised after the ransomware group exploited a separate zero-day vulnerability in the MOVEit Transfer platform, one of the company's internal software tools. 

The Partnered Health cyberattack has exposed sensitive patient information across multiple Australian clinics, raising fresh concerns about healthcare cybersecurity. The Partnered Health data breach, involving clinics owned by healthcare provider Partnered Health, a company backed by Quadrant, affected facilities in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, and the ACT. The incident has also renewed scrutiny of the growing number of cyberattacks targeting Australia's healthcare sector.

Partnered Health Data Breach Impacted Medical and Personal Information 

Partnered Health confirmed that a malicious actor accessed its systems on 23 June, compromising data from 21 clinics across cities, including Sydney, Melbourne, and Canberra. The healthcare provider disclosed the breach more than three weeks later, informing patients that investigations had confirmed personal and health information had been taken from some clinics within its network. "Our investigations to date have confirmed that personal information (including health information) was taken from some of the clinics in our network," the company said. It added, "As a health services provider, we know our patients and our people trust us with personal and medical information, and we sincerely apologise for any concern and inconvenience this may cause them." The stolen information includes names, dates of birth, addresses, contact details, Medicare information, private health insurance details, concession card information, consultation notes, referral letters, pathology reports, diagnostic results, and other treatment records maintained by general practitioners.

Investigation into the Partnered Health Cyberattack Continues 

Partnered Health said the cyberattack has been reported to the Australian Cyber Security Centre, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, and law enforcement authorities. The company has also secured an interim injunction from the NSW Supreme Court preventing the stolen information from being used or published. While investigations remain ongoing, the provider said the extent of the breach is still being determined at five clinics, including three in Western Australia and two in Victoria. "While there is no direct evidence that patient records have been viewed, as a precaution we have written to patients from these clinics to make them aware of this and provide details of steps that can be taken to protect their information," a Partnered Health spokesperson said. The spokesperson added, "We understand that this sort of news can cause concern. We sincerely apologize for any distress this may have caused our patients."

Quadrant-backed Healthcare Provider Faces Growing Scrutiny 

Established in 2013, Partnered Health operates more than 60 medical centres, along with skin cancer, allied health, and mental health clinics, providing services to more than 5 million people nationwide. The company is owned by Quadrant, while Bupa announced in June that it would acquire the healthcare provider. The Partnered Health data breach comes amid a record year for cybersecurity incidents in Australia. According to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, 1,205 data breach notifications were recorded in 2025, marking an 8% increase compared with 2024. Among the year's largest incidents was the cyberattack on Qantas, which compromised the information of 5.7 million customers and was reportedly leaked on the dark web. A spokesperson for the Department of Home Affairs said the federal government is aware of the Partnered Health cyberattack and confirmed that relevant agencies are engaged as investigations continue. Authorities have not yet disclosed how many patients were affected or the full scope of the stolen data.

In a rare combined cybersecurity/squid post, a twenty-nine-year-old squid proxy bug can leak HTTP requests.

As usual, you can also use this squid post to talk about the security stories in the news that I haven’t covered.

Blog moderation policy.

Last week, national security agencies from the Five Eyes—that’s the rich, English-language-speaking countries club—jointly released a statement warning of the increasing cyber risks of AI models: in particular, their ability to autonomously hack into systems and networks. The statement was more measured than some of the breathless headlines about it, and the advice they gave is pretty much the standard advice everyone gives—albeit with newfound urgency.

Internet risks are nothing new, and cyberattacks—both large and small—have been a significant issue since long before the current crop of generative AI models.

What’s been changing over the decades, and what AI is changing even faster, is the gap between skill and ability. For most of human history, the two terms were synonymous—but computers have decoupled them. As the gap between the two expands, humans empowered with these AI tools can do more: more writing, more research, more analysis and also more damage than ever before. These models can, with little detailed direction, autonomously hack into networks, steal data, deploy ransomware and destroy systems. And to the extent there is a solution, it’s going to involve harnessing AI for the defense.

In 1998, seven people from the hacker group L0pht testified before Congress. They told a mostly clueless Senate committee that they could take down the internet in 30 minutes. That was partly real and partly bravado, but it illustrates an important point: hacking into systems, stealing data and causing damage all required skill.

Contrast the L0pht hackers with hackers derided as “script kiddies.” They didn’t understand computers, or security. Instead, they used hacker tools written by others. Their actions required minimal skill and even less knowledge. But once those hacking tools became widespread, the number of potential attackers increased.

That number has continued to increase, as quality and availability of prewritten attack tools has grown. And it is growing dramatically with AI. Today’s AI systems—not just the frontier models, but most of them—are capable of carrying out cyberattacks automatically. They all do better in the hands of skilled attackers, but increasingly they are able to act autonomously with only minimal prompting.

The thing about people with ability but no skill is that they are often outsiders, not part of any professional community, and not bound by any rules or norms. This phenomenon is much more general than in cybersecurity. Any doctor can tell you how to untraceably poison someone, and many virus researchers know how to create a bioweapon. Any bridge engineer can tell you how to place explosives to blow a bridge up. The reason that murderous doctors and terrorist engineers are so rare is that the lengthy process of acquiring those skills also instills a moral and ethical code. If every random person has access to good poisoning advice, that puts us all in danger.

Modern AI systems are, in effect, a universal adviser to help people do harmful things. And while the current AI megacorporations are trying to build guardrails to prevent people from asking questions whose answers will enable the questioner to do harm, that’s not going to work in the long term. Smaller, cheaper, open-source models, including models that can run on people’s computers, and especially groups of models that run in concert with each other, are just as good as the frontier models from companies like OpenAI and Anthropic. And they continue to get better. These models will be passed around from person to person, like script kiddie hacker tools, and they won’t have any such guardrails.

Instructing AI models to spy on people and report any malicious prompts to the authorities fails for similar reasons. The megacorporations can do that, but the locally run open source models won’t. This could buy us a few months at best.

A third possibility is to somehow make the models themselves unable to hack into computers, create bioweapons or do anything else that might harm people or society. That won’t work, for the same reason we can’t teach doctors how to treat poisonings without also teaching them how to poison. It’s the same knowledge. It’s the same with construction and demolition. And it’s the same with cybersecurity. We want these AI models to be able to review computer code, find vulnerabilities and automatically fix them. The benefit to our collective security will be enormous. Unfortunately, the same knowledge can be used for attacks.

Where this leaves us is in a world of increased volatility. Super-powered humans with AI assistants will be able to do both wonderful and horrible things.

This brings us back to the Five Eyes statement. Everything they recommend is something security professionals have been recommending for years, if not decades. They are things talked about at that congressional hearing back in 1998, titled “Weak computer security in government: Is the public at risk?” Even the Five Eyes admitted that their security advice is not new, only more urgent.

What’s new is how fast things are changing: “The rapid pace of frontier AI development means cyber risk assumptions can become outdated in months, not years. We must act before and be prepared to adapt and withstand evolving threats.” The Five Eyes point to AI technology—not necessarily chatbots, but AI more generally—being used to strengthen every aspect of defense, to “detect vulnerabilities earlier, improve software quality, monitor unusual behavior, and respond faster to incidents—reducing both the cost and impact of incidents.”

Excellent advice from the Five Eyes security agencies. We need to do this with every risk that AI heightens, not just cybersecurity.

This essay was originally published in The Guardian.