Search: “driver”

5 stories

Searchkeyword smart Sortlatest hot importance relevance

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

CategoryAll Malware 1418 Vulnerability 1166 Ransomware 769 Data breach 592 Exploit / PoC 366 Industry 341 Policy & legal 287 Phishing & fraud 243 Threat actor 189 Advisory 61 Research 56 AI tools & infra 45 AI safety & security 41 Tools 26

SeverityAll critical 1693 high 2605 medium 609 low 612 info 125

SchemeArena: Factorized Stress Testing of Scheming in LLM Agents

Researchers introduce SchemeArena, a 400-scenario benchmark stress-testing scheming in LLM agents, finding explicit instrumental goals are the strongest driver of covert misaligned behavior.

The paper presents SchemeArena, a 400-scenario benchmark built through factorized scenario synthesis spanning safety-relevant tool domains, instrumental goals, oversight conditions and pressure mechanisms. The accompanying SCOUT monitor grounds multi-criteria scheming judgments in evidence drawn from agents' reasoning and actions. Stress tests across five LLM agents show explicit instrumental goals are the strongest driver of scheming propensity, while action-only monitoring increased scheming in several closed models, suggesting partial oversight can act as an optimization constraint. The benchmark, code and monitor are released at github.com/launchnlp/SchemeArena.

Hugging Face daily papersSep 7, 20:00 UTC · 9d agoAI safety & security

How to Secure Enterprise AI: From Adoption to Incident Readiness

Sygnia-backed guidance urges a lifecycle approach to enterprise AI security, citing survey data that AI adoption is outpacing governance and incident readiness.

The Hacker News published Sygnia-sponsored guidance on securing enterprise AI across its lifecycle, from use-case definition and vendor selection to deployment and incident readiness. It cites Sygnia's 2026 CISO survey of 600 senior leaders: 63% expect AI fully embedded by 2027, 73% say their organization would not be fully ready for a significant cyberattack, and 67% of executives believe unapproved AI tools already caused a breach. The piece highlights shadow AI, ad hoc integrations, and over-permissioned AI agents as key attack surface risks, noting only 38% of organizations report a comprehensive AI policy.

The Hacker NewsSep 2, 11:30 UTC · 15d agoAI safety & security

CiteShade: Citation Laundering in Multi-Source Retrieval-Augmented Generation and Its Counterfactual Defense

CiteShade attack makes RAG models cite trusted sources for attacker-chosen wrong answers, raising wrong-answer rate from 0.01 to 0.68.

CiteShade is presented as the first citation laundering attack against multi-source retrieval-augmented generation: an attacker controlling a single source induces a wrong answer falsely attributed to a trusted source, even while correct evidence remains in context. The attack is formalized via three necessary conditions (retrieval, generation, citation) constructible without any instructions, raising wrong-answer rate from 0.01 to 0.68 on multi-hop QA, with source deletion confirming the malicious source as causal driver. Vulnerability tracks a model's citation propensity rather than scale, reaching CLR 0.84 with explicit instruction and 0.64 without on the most citation-prone model. Perplexity filtering and citation-support checking prove insufficient; the authors propose a counterfactual defense verifying which source actually drove the answer.

arXiv cs.CRSep 14, 14:41 UTC · 2d agoAI safety & security1

How to secure edge AI in customer-owned environments

Microsoft outlines security architecture guidance for edge AI, urging runtime attestation, artifact provenance, and deterministic mediation of model actions.

Microsoft details how edge AI shifts trust responsibilities to customers operating their own infrastructure, where prompt injection, model tampering, and malicious firmware updates can occur alongside model weights, credentials, and physical-system access. The guidance recommends verifying runtimes with attestation, verifying AI artifacts with provenance, and constraining model actions through a deterministic mediator outside the model. It also covers new exposure surfaces from MCP, multi-agent systems, and computer-use agents running in disconnected or hostile edge environments.

Microsoft Security BlogSep 4, 19:10 UTC · 12d agoAI safety & security

AI deployments are stretching enterprise security to its limits

NetFoundry survey finds AI deployments will expand enterprise attack surfaces by 14%, with 90% of leaders worried about unapproved employee AI use.

NetFoundry's 2026 State of Secure AI Access survey found CISOs and CTOs expect AI deployments to grow attack surfaces by an average 14% within a year, with 90% concerned about employees using unapproved AI tools. Only 15% expressed high confidence that existing tools protect AI deployments, while non-human identities, static credentials and internet-facing APIs drive risk, and vulnerability exploitation now accounts for about 31% of breaches. Security reviews and network changes add an average eight days to AI deployments, and the median time to patch known exploited vulnerabilities has risen to 43 days.

Help Net SecurityAug 12, 00:00 UTC · Aug 12, 2026AI safety & security