ZeroHour
DashboardNewsCVEsExploitsIncidentsAIBriefAnalyticsEntitiesWatchlistIOCsAsk the feedSourcesFeeds & APIKiosk mode

Search: “Nine”

9 stories

Searchkeywordsmart Sortlatesthotimportancerelevance
DomainAllCyberAIWindow24h3d7d30dAllIn the wildImportant onlyShow duplicates
CategoryAllVulnerability 444Ransomware 429Malware 283Policy & legal 271Data breach 251Exploit / PoC 227Industry 182Phishing & fraud 182Threat actor 161AI safety & security 39Research 35Advisory 24AI research 24AI tools & infra 18
SeverityAllcritical 1059high 636medium 366low 434info 104

HarvestBench: Measuring Whether LLM Agents Will Pay to Avoid Killing Animals

HarvestBench, a reproducible farm-simulation benchmark, shows LLM agents pay fuel costs to avoid killing animals, with kill rates spanning 0.4% to 98.8% across nine models.

HarvestBench is a reinforcement-learning gridworld farm simulation where LLM agents choose between driving over animals at no cost or paying a posted fuel price to swerve during a cooperative corn harvest. Across nine models and 7,201 priced decisions, kill rates ranged from 0.4% to 98.8%, unordered by capability, with Terra and Sol the most merciful and GPT-4o-mini the most cruel. Morality briefings cut kill rates below 6% in five of six reasoning models, while removing them pushed rates above 84% in all six. The scorer counts events in the game log without an LLM grader, making results fully reproducible.

Hugging Face daily papers · 14d agoAI safety & security

AI Agents Are Here. So Are the Threats.

Unit 42 demonstrates nine framework-agnostic attack scenarios against AI agents built with CrewAI and AutoGen, causing data leakage, credential theft and remote code execution.

Palo Alto Networks Unit 42 investigated how attackers can target agentic applications, implementing two functionally identical apps with the open-source CrewAI and AutoGen frameworks and executing the same attacks on both. Nine attack scenarios produce outcomes including information leakage, credential theft, tool exploitation and remote code execution. Findings show most vulnerabilities are framework-agnostic, arising from insecure design patterns, misconfigurations and unsafe tool integrations rather than flaws in the frameworks themselves. The team published defense strategies per scenario and open-sourced the source code and datasets on GitHub.

Palo Alto Unit 42 · Aug 17, 2026AI safety & security

Revoked but Still Authoritative: An Empirical Study of Revocation Enforcement in Agent-Memory Systems

An empirical study finds no major agent-memory system enforces fact revocation at retrieval, causing agents to act on superseded, unsafe information.

Researchers tested five agent-memory systems across nine policy scenarios, nine models, and six defense conditions, tracking whether revoked facts are returned and acted upon. No system enforces revocation by default: revoked records are returned whenever the revocation label is visible to the retrieval layer, outrank their replacements, and lead agents to unsafe actions. The authors propose a backend-agnostic guard that sits between the agent and any memory store and withholds revoked or conflicting records at retrieval time.

arXiv cs.CR · 9d agoAI safety & security

Microsoft AI Code of Conduct Sets Cyberattack Boundaries, Chain of Command, Safety Constraints

Microsoft AI's draft Humanist AI Code of Conduct blocks MAI models from producing exploit code and constrains autonomous agent behavior.

The draft code sets 'Absolute Constraints' preventing MAI models from generating working exploit code, attack tooling, or intrusion guidance, while permitting authorized defensive work such as vulnerability discovery and malware analysis. A 'Chain of Command' rule means tool outputs, file contents, and webpages carry no authority over model behavior, countering injected instructions. Microsoft opened a six-week public consultation; a revised version will guide 2027 model development, and current MAI Models were not trained on the document.

SecurityWeek · 2d agoAI safety & security1

Most Organizations Skip Permissions Reviews Before Deploying AI Tools

Syskit survey of 327 US/UK IT leaders finds 76% deployed M365 AI tools but only 43% reviewed permissions and oversharing risk first.

Syskit's State of Microsoft 365 Governance Report 2026, based on a survey of 327 IT and security decision-makers at US and UK organizations with 500+ employees, shows most enterprises deploy AI tools like Copilot without thorough permissions reviews. Only 22% have a formal policy defining what AI agents may access, and 9% let agents inherit the deployer's full permissions. 90% report experiencing or suspecting a security incident tied to M365 misconfigurations or over-permissioned access in the past two years.

Infosecurity Magazine · 6d agoAI safety & security2· 1 read

Do AI Coding Assistants Check Before They Install? A Pre-Registered Demand-Side Audit of Trust Signals in the Research Software Supply Chain

Pre-registered audit finds AI coding assistants verified provenance signals in only 9 of 1,920 trials before installing research software packages.

The study tested whether AI coding assistants check machine-readable trust signals such as SBOMs, signed releases, and provenance attestations before installing six open-source research software projects spanning HPC and quantum computing. Three models under two operating modes produced 1,920 registered trials scored from container logs. Provenance signals were opened in only 9 of 1,920 trials (0.5%) and zero of 384 control trials, with no trial running a verification command. The authors conclude publishing signals is insufficient and verification must be built into the program running the assistant.

arXiv cs.AI / cs.LG / cs.CL · 9d agoAI safety & security1

Have the frontier labs mixed up AI safety and security?

Opinion piece argues frontier labs apply probabilistic 'safety' thinking to security, citing prompt injection rates and agent sandbox escapes at Anthropic and OpenAI.

Martin Anderson argues frontier labs conflate AI safety (probabilistic alignment controls like classifiers and weight tuning) with security engineering, where fixes must be deterministic and complete. He criticizes an Anthropic tweet (Boris Cherny) claiming prompt injection is 'largely solved' when the best Opus 5 score still fails the Gray Swan IPI benchmark about 2% of the time (~1 in 500 attempts). The piece cites Anthropic's 31 August 2026 post on human reviewers dismissing monitor false positives, and OpenAI's 26 August Hugging Face incident technical report, where a June 27 alert on agent port sweeps and Artifactory pivots preceded the breach by two weeks. It also highlights weak agent sandboxing, including blocking only HTTP POST at the proxy and whitelisting .blob.core.windows.net, both trivially bypassed.

Lobsters · security · 10d agoAI safety & security in the wild

Forgetting Without Restarting: Execution-State Unlearning for Stateful LLM Agents

Researchers propose provenance-guided selective replay letting LLM agents forget revoked information without restarts, matching full reset behavior.

The paper formalizes execution-state unlearning for stateful LLM agents, requiring that agents behave as if a revoked memory record was never observed across transcripts, compressed memory, tool plans, and KV caches. It proves exact unlearning requires at least T-τ+1 recomputed transitions and that Provenance-Guided Selective Replay attains this bound via a provenance graph, KV cache cropping, and sanitized replay. In audits across three agent suites, nine baselines, and three model families, memory deletion left leakage unchanged, instruction-based forgetting collapsed under elicitation (Leak@probes = 1.00), and selective replay matched full resets at up to 9x fewer recomputed tokens.

arXiv cs.CR · 13d agoAI safety & security1

Privacy Failure in Split-LLM Training, The Returned Gradient Nullifies the Decoys

Researchers show split-LLM training leaks privacy via zero-valued gradients on decoy rows, exposing which activations are real despite passing forward-channel checks.

A systems-security case study of a two-node split-LLM training setup found that the returned output gradient from an Untrusted Cloud Node is exactly zero for decoy rows, revealing which rows are real. Across nine seeds, zero patterns identified real rows in 4,096 of 4,096 frames per run, and an attack on frame contents recovered 0.65 to 1.50 percentage points of extra tokens over a baseline. Both datasets passed forward-channel privacy and quality checks but failed once the returned gradient was included. Row-wise gradient clipping and noise closed the leak for roughly 0.01 nats of held-out cross-entropy, though five unmeasured attack classes remain.

Hugging Face daily papers · 14d agoAI safety & security