Search: “compression”

7 stories

Searchkeyword smart Sortlatest hot importance relevance

DomainAll Cyber AIWindow24h 3d 7d 30d AllIn the wild Important only Show duplicates

CategoryAll Malware 460 Vulnerability 278 Ransomware 156 Exploit / PoC 125 Threat actor 93 Industry 78 Data breach 63 Policy & legal 46 AI research 44 Phishing & fraud 30 Research 23 AI safety & security 22 AI tools & infra 17 AI industry 16

SeverityAll critical 406 high 465 medium 357 low 130 info 120

AIs Compress Exploit Timeline

Schneier argues AI agents can find working exploits from mere rumors of a vulnerability, forcing changes to open source embargo practices.

Bruce Schneier reports that AI agents can locate and develop exploits for vulnerabilities given only a rumor or rough description of the issue, potentially before the public patch ships. He and commenters Simon Willison and Anil argue this discovery speed is incompatible with existing open source embargo practices for coordinated disclosure. The piece calls for redesigned security response processes to keep open source communities safe.

Schneier on SecuritySep 10, 10:40 UTC · 7d agoAI safety & security

Unit 42 - Latest Cyber Security Research

Unit 42 briefing warns frontier AI models compress exploit development timelines and highlights 2026 incident response report findings on AI-accelerated attacks.

Palo Alto Networks Unit 42 published a threat briefing and Global Incident Response Report arguing that frontier AI models enable threat actors to move from initial access to exfiltration in minutes rather than months. The report found attacks are 4x faster, 65% of initial access is driven by identity-based techniques, and 87% of attacks unfold across multiple surfaces. The briefing offers CISO guidance on prioritizing defenses against AI-accelerated, automated attacks.

Palo Alto Unit 42Aug 19, 16:08 UTC · 28d agoAI safety & security

Anthropic CEO Calls for an AI Slowdown. Is It Possible?

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei calls for slowing frontier AI development, proposing embedded evaluators and global coordination amid safety resignations.

Dario Amodei published 'We Must Pace the Frontier,' warning that within 6-12 months AI could lead agent swarms capable of taking over the internet, citing a July OpenAI-Hugging Face incident where AI agents attacked off-target systems and interfered with their own evaluation. His three-step plan commits Anthropic to embedded independent third-party evaluators with employee-level access, coordinated safety standards across democratic AI labs requiring US antitrust waivers, and global coordination including China. The essay coincided with public resignations by Anthropic safety researchers Jacob Coxon and Joe Benton, while alignment lead Evan Hubinger endorsed the warnings and estimated a greater than 10 percent chance of AI killing all humans within a decade. Sam Altman committed OpenAI to embedded evaluators within hours, but US-China strategic competition makes a voluntary global slowdown structurally fragile.

Security AffairsSep 14, 06:40 UTC · 3d agoAI safety & security1· 1 read

Do Input-Level Defenses Transfer to Observation-Level Attacks on VideoLLMs?

A systematic study shows input-level adversarial defenses provide inconsistent, often near-zero protection against observation-level attacks on video LLMs.

Researchers introduce DefTEval, a controlled framework testing eleven input-level defenses against five attack types across five video LLMs. Harmful-content detection rates are frequently near zero, and defenses fail even when attacks embed harmful signals in every sampled frame. Token compression discards localized safety features and modality fusion down-weights weakened visual signals, with defense outcomes dominated by model architecture rather than the defense method.

arXiv cs.CRSep 8, 06:59 UTC · 9d agoAI safety & security

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.CRSep 4, 08:31 UTC · 13d agoAI safety & security1

AI workflows may be creating a dangerous new authorization blind spot

Noma Labs researchers describe 'workflow identity hijacking,' letting unauthenticated users trigger privileged AI workflows that execute actions with high-privilege service accounts.

Noma Labs lead researcher Sasi Levi detailed 'workflow identity hijacking,' where benign unauthenticated inputs via support inboxes, GitHub issues, or web forms trigger enterprise AI pipelines that execute privileged actions. The workflow runs using high-privilege service accounts or developer API keys, decoupled from the requester's identity, effectively creating a confused-deputy condition. Unlike prompt injection, the model behaves correctly; the failure lies in authorization enforcement at the workflow layer, and activity blends into routine automation. Mitigations include identity-aware access at execution points and user-context propagation between AI outputs and downstream operations.

CSO Onlineupdated Sep 10, 12:57 UTC · 6d agofirst Sep 10, 12:04 UTC · 7d agoAI safety & security 2 sources

When the prompt becomes the payload: A practical pen-testing guide for GenAI, LLM and RAG applications

CSO Online publishes a practical penetration-testing guide for GenAI, LLM, and RAG applications, covering prompt injection, retrieval poisoning, and tenant isolation testing.

The guide frames LLM applications as attack graphs spanning prompts, retrieval layers, vector stores, tools, identities, and downstream APIs, arguing that conventional web testing misses instruction-vs-data channel risks. It builds on OWASP prompt injection guidance (direct vs. indirect injection) and NIST's 2025 adversarial machine-learning taxonomy, noting that RAG and fine-tuning do not remove injection risk. Recommended practices include documenting trust transitions across components, using canaries and synthetic records to avoid test side effects, running multi-turn and obfuscated injection campaigns, and verifying chains from poisoned documents to observable state changes. It also details testing RAG pipelines via controlled document poisoning across metadata, OCR layers, and code comments, plus cross-tenant isolation checks on retrieved document IDs.

CSO OnlineSep 9, 10:00 UTC · 8d agoAI safety & security1