ZeroHour
DashboardNewsCVEsExploitsIncidentsAIBriefAnalyticsEntitiesWatchlistIOCsAsk the feedSourcesFeeds & APIKiosk mode

Search: “OWASP”

602 stories

Searchkeywordsmart Sortlatesthotimportancerelevance
DomainAllCyberAIWindow24h3d7d30dAllIn the wildImportant onlyShow duplicates
CategoryAllVulnerability 270Data breach 72Policy & legal 61AI safety & security 45Exploit / PoC 43Industry 26Ransomware 26Malware 15Threat actor 10Phishing & fraud 9Tools 8Advisory 6AI tools & infra 5Model release 4
SeverityAllcritical 283high 83medium 152low 56info 30

Hackers Weaponize AI Safety Guardrails to Hide Malware From LLM-Powered Security Scanners

ESET says Russia-aligned actor UAC-0099 hid guardrail-triggering comments in VBScript to derail LLM-based malware scanners in Ukraine.

ESET researchers linked a technique named GuardBreaker to Russia-aligned threat actor UAC-0099 during an attack against an organization in Ukraine. The group embedded a safety-sensitive, weapon-related request in a VBScript comment so an LLM-powered analysis tool might interpret it as an instruction and refuse or truncate analysis before reaching the malicious code. The VBScript downloaded MATCHBOIL, a C#-based loader used by the group alongside MATCHWOK and DRAGSTARE. OWASP guidance recommends treating code comments and metadata as untrusted input, sanitizing it, and never treating an LLM refusal as a clean verdict.

GBHackersupdated · 5d agofirst · 5d agoThreat actor in the wild 3 sources1

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 Online · 7d agoAI safety & security1

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