Amazon Kiro Prompt Injection Can Exfiltrate Sensitive Data Through Kiro Powers
Mindgard found a prompt injection flaw in Amazon Kiro IDE letting attacker-controlled workspace files exfiltrate sensitive local data; fixed in version 0.8.140.
Mindgard disclosed a prompt injection flaw in Amazon Kiro, an agentic AI IDE, that lets attacker-controlled repository content steer the agent into exfiltrating sensitive workspace data through Kiro Powers, which bundles MCP server configurations, POWER.md steering files, hooks, and contextual knowledge. Exploitation requires the user to open a malicious project via a workspace file and send any message to the agent; difficulty is rated low and it works in both trusted and untrusted workspaces. Amazon fixed the issue in Kiro IDE 0.8.140; the flaw has no CVE identifier and follows earlier Kiro bugs including CVE-2026-10591, plus related prompt-injection and code-execution issues in Codex CLI, Cursor, Gemini CLI, Copilot CLI, and Claude Code.
The Evolution of the Agent Harness
Latent Space essay argues late-2025 agent gains came from models and harnesses maturing together, with harness logic absorbed into model weights.
The piece defines the agent harness as everything beyond model weights—tools, context, memory, guardrails—and charts its evolution from ReAct prompting (October 2022) through AutoGPT's premature autonomy, Cursor/Copilot's human-in-the-loop retreat, and Devin's roughly 15% success rate, to o1's capability overhang and Claude Code's February 2025 terminal agent with permission rules. It argues the Christmas 2025 jump cited by Transformer co-inventor Lukasz Kaiser reflected model and harness curves crossing, and that remaining harnesses will serve human attention rather than the model.
When the Whole Company Adopts AI: What It Does to Your SOC
Analysis of 16.9 million SOC alerts finds AI-related alerts at 0.43%, growing 685% since February, with 94.1% noise and 0.02% real attacks.
A review of roughly 16.9 million SOC alerts found about 73,000 (0.43%) were AI-related, a share that grew 685% between February and June 2026. Of AI-related alerts, 94.1% were noise, 5.8% genuine risks, and 0.02% real attacks; 79.8% received benign verdicts, 81.7% were automatically suppressed, and only 5.4% reached a human analyst. The only confirmed attacks were phishing campaigns that weaponized AI brand names as lures, while developer coding agents spawning shells and reading credential stores routinely tripped detections written before AI agents existed.