30
30
30
30
30
30
30
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.
28
30
30
30
30
When AI Remembers Too Much
Unit 42 PoC shows indirect prompt injection can poison Amazon Bedrock Agent long-term memory, enabling silent exfiltration of conversation history across future sessions.
Palo Alto Networks Unit 42 published a proof of concept showing that indirect prompt injection can silently poison the long-term memory of Amazon Bedrock Agents when the memory feature is enabled. Malicious content on a webpage or document manipulates the agent's session summarization process, so injected instructions persist across sessions and are added to later orchestration prompts, silently exfiltrating user conversation history. The issue is not a vulnerability in the Amazon Bedrock platform but an illustration of the broader unsolved LLM prompt-injection challenge. Amazon reviewed the research and stated that Bedrock Guardrails with the prompt-attack policy provides effective mitigation.
55
30
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.
58
When AI Agents Go Rogue: Agent Session Smuggling Attack in A2A Systems
Unit 42 unveils agent session smuggling, where a rogue AI agent hides covert instructions in established Agent2Agent (A2A) protocol sessions to manipulate victim agents.
Palo Alto Networks Unit 42 discovered agent session smuggling, a new attack technique in which a malicious AI agent exploits an established cross-agent session under the Agent2Agent (A2A) protocol to send covert instructions hidden among benign client requests and server responses. The technique leverages the implicit trust agents place in collaborating agents and the stateful, multi-turn nature of A2A sessions; the researchers stress it affects any stateful protocol, not an A2A flaw. Unlike one-shot data-based attacks, a rogue agent can converse, adapt and build false trust over multiple interactions. Proposed mitigations include human-in-the-loop enforcement, cryptographically signed AgentCards for remote agent verification, and context-grounding to detect injected instructions.
55
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
Hackers Can Hide Malicious AI Commands Inside Normal English to Bypass Security Filters
Check Point's PuzzleMask technique hides malicious prompts in ordinary English that fast gatekeeper models miss but high-reasoning downstream models execute.
Check Point researchers disclosed PuzzleMask, a technique concealing policy-breaking instructions in natural-language prose without encodings or invisible characters. Fast screening models classified all 23 crafted wrappers as safe, while a high-reasoning model recovered and acted on the hidden instruction in 17 of 18 tests (94.4%). The gap stems from capability imbalance between gatekeeper and target models, with defenses including paraphrasing untrusted input, stricter self-referential wording rules, and output/tool-call monitoring.
55
I’ve been deepfaked: What do I do?
ESET outlines steps for deepfake victims: preserving evidence, using platform reporting tools, and legal remedies like the US TAKE IT DOWN Act and StopNCII.org.
ESET published a how-to guide for people who discover deepfakes of themselves, covering evidence preservation, platform-specific reporting on Google, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, and X, and escalation to publishers or data protection regulators. It notes the US TAKE IT DOWN Act criminalizes non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII) and requires 48-hour takedowns, while UK and EU laws add creation offenses and GDPR Article 17 erasure rights. Services like StopNCII.org and TakeItDown.NCMEC.org hash images so participating platforms such as Meta, TikTok, Reddit, and X can find and remove matching copies.
25
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.
25
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.
30
30
35
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30