ZeroHour
DashboardNewsCVEsExploitsIncidentsAIBriefAnalyticsEntitiesWatchlistIOCsAsk the feedSourcesFeeds & APIKiosk mode

Search: “agent security”

6,826 items

Searchkeywordsmart Sortlatesthotimportancerelevance
DomainAllCyberAIWindow24h3d7d30dAllIn the wildImportant onlyShow duplicates
CategoryAllVulnerability 1347Malware 975Ransomware 690Exploit / PoC 625Policy & legal 566Industry 460Data breach 458Threat actor 435AI safety & security 380Phishing & fraud 338AI tools & infra 110Tools 101Research 87AI industry 64
SeverityAllcritical 2466high 1453medium 1425low 859info 623

What 90 days and a small budget can buy in AI agent security

Versa Field CISO details hidden costs of self-hosting open-weight models and a 90-day AI agent security plan of inventory, blast-radius reduction and testing.

In a Help Net Security interview, Prasad Tharippala, Field CISO at Versa, argues running open-weight models in-house improves control but shifts hardening, patching, access control, monitoring and incident response onto the buyer, with underestimated costs in GPU infrastructure, licensing review, EU AI Act compliance and scarce AI/ML security skills. On red-teaming AI agents, he recommends testing prompt injection, indirect injection, excessive permissions, data leakage, memory and RAG poisoning, malicious tool outputs, cross-agent trust abuse and infrastructure attack paths, mapped to OWASP agentic guidance and MITRE ATLAS. He highlights the handoff between chained agents as a major risk zone and stresses exercising human approval, shutdown and rollback controls under test conditions. For teams with 90 days and small budgets, he ranks inventory, blast radius reduction and ongoing testing as the priority order.

Help Net Security · 19d agoAI safety & security

The Model Proposes, the Code Disposes: A Pre-Registered Ablation of a Verifier-and-Acceptance Stage in an LLM-Orchestrated Offensive-Security Agent

Pre-registered ablation finds a model verifier stage in an LLM offensive-security agent suppresses findings; removing it eliminated suppression with precision tradeoff.

The paper evaluates a verifier-and-acceptance stage in an LLM-orchestrated offensive-security agent via a pre-registered 20-run confirmatory ablation and a 2x2 factorial study with 40 runs on vulnerable lab targets. Removing the stage eliminated pre-report suppression (median 2 vs 0 findings, p = 0.00003) but reduced model-blinded shipped precision (0.471 vs 0.353, p = 0.0087). Suppression was attributed to the model verifier rather than deterministic acceptance rules, and an instrumented canary recorded zero external contacts in all 60 runs. The full design retained 93.8% of model-adjudicated true candidates but failed its pre-registered non-inferiority floor of 0.90.

arXiv cs.CR · 1d agoResearch