ZeroHour
DashboardNewsCVEsExploitsIncidentsAIBriefAnalyticsEntitiesWatchlistIOCsAsk the feedSourcesFeeds & APIKiosk mode

Search: “liability”

5 stories in the last 24h

Searchkeywordsmart Sortlatesthotimportancerelevance
DomainAllCyberAIWindow24h3d7d30dAllIn the wildImportant onlyShow duplicates
CategoryAllAI policy 2AI industry 1Policy & legal 1Vulnerability 1
SeverityAllcritical 0high 0medium 0low 0info 5

Treasury’s Scott Bessent says no liability exemptions for AI labs

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent urged Congress to reject AI labs' requested liability exemptions, arguing creator liability is the best safety guarantee.

Testifying before the House Financial Services Committee, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the government should not grant frontier labs liability waivers, responding to Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei's slowdown essay. He cited Treasury's AI safety work since the release of Anthropic's Mythos model, whose cybersecurity risks prompted an April meeting, and coordination with banks and labs after the July Hugging Face cyberattack. Bessent also highlighted the Gold Eagle clearinghouse run with CISA and called for more US-built open-source models to counter China.

CyberScoop · 18h agoAI policy

Underwriting Superintelligence: Backing Agents you can Sue — Rune Kvist, AIUC

AIUC raised a $40 million Series A to build AIUC-1, an agent security standard backed by insurance, serving Cursor, Harvey, Lovable, and ElevenLabs.

AIUC, cofounded by former Anthropic product hire Rune Kvist, announced a $40 million Series A led by Ribbit Capital and First Harmonic. The startup builds AIUC-1, an emerging standard for agent security, safety, and reliability, stress-testing agents for jailbreaks, hallucinations, and data leaks. It pairs standards with insurance underwriting through Lloyd's of London and counts Cursor, Harvey, Lovable, and ElevenLabs among its customers. Kvist argues trust and liability, not capability, are becoming the binding constraint on AI adoption.

Latent Space · 14h agoAI industry 2 sources

You don’t have to join the hack-back program to inherit its risk

A new US presidential memorandum creates a vetted private hack-back program, leaving participating vendors and their customers with untested legal liability and collateral risks.

The August 12 National Security Presidential Memorandum directs the National Coordination Center, run jointly by DOJ and DHS, to approve covert surveillance and disruptive Cyber Effects Operations by vetted private companies, with a forfeitable bond of at least $1 million required as a contract condition. The analysis argues the criminal shield rests on an untested reading of the CFAA exemption at 18 U.S.C. 1030(f), with no civil safe harbor, no state-law preemption and no foreign-law protection. Non-participating organizations can still inherit risk through shared infrastructure collateral damage, lack of customer disclosure, Lloyd's bulletin Y5381 state-backed attack exclusions, and threat-intelligence pipelines feeding offensive proposals.

CSO Online · 23h agoPolicy & legal

Re: Retrospective by 'gpg.fail' authors

oss-security follow-up to a gpg.fail authors' retrospective argues that GnuPG's unmaintained, forgotten code is a security liability and should be deleted.

On the oss-security mailing list, Soatok Dreamseeker responds to a retrospective published by the gpg.fail authors, asking why unmaintained code is retained and stating that forgotten, unmaintained code is a liability and effectively unmaintained by definition. The visible reply addresses Werner Koch and concerns GnuPG code maintenance. No specific CVE, flaw, or exploitation is described in this snippet.

oss-securityupdated · 5h agofirst · 15h agoVulnerability 9 sources1

What's Scarier Than Agents Taking over Internet? CEO Cartel Trying Take over AI

Opinion essay argues Dario Amodei's proposals for embedded evaluators and frontier AI coordination would require antitrust waivers and entrench a large-lab cartel.

The author critiques Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei's proposal for embedded evaluators inside AI labs, democratic coordination on safety standards and pacing, and global coordination with authoritarian governments. He argues such coordination requires loosening antitrust law, burdening startups while shielding incumbents like Anthropic, OpenAI, and xAI, and doubts verifiable global pacing given enormous defection incentives. The piece links lab motivations to data center subsidy pushback, competition from open-source and low-cost Chinese models, and upcoming IPO financial disclosures.

Hacker News · security · 8h agoAI policyHN 20↑ · 2 comments