The Russian state actor Star Blizzard has been using a new malware installation tactic dubbed “RedFlick” to deploy its signature CosmicPulse backdoor.

Although the tactic is not a new cybersecurity technique, it is a new delivery approach for the threat actor, allowing it to further automate attacks and reduce victim interaction.

Microsoft researchers say that Star Blizzard expanded its phishing operations and streamlined malware delivery in 2026.

Star Blizzard, active since 2017, is known for exploring new payload delivery avenues like ClickFix or WhatsApp, and for continually developing and deploying new malware families.

New RedFlick technique

RedFlick attacks begin with a phishing email, such as an invitation, followed by a second message containing a password-protected ZIP or RAR archive.

The archive contains a VHDX virtual disk with an LNK file disguised as a PDF. When the file is opened, it launches a command in a hidden window while displaying a decoy PDF to the victim.

The commands download and run an MSI installer that creates three scheduled tasks posing as legitimate maintenance components, each with a specific purpose:

1. Internet Quality Test Connection: sends the computer/network name and username to the attackers and can execute a remote DLL.
2. Network Configuration Manager: prepares Windows’ WebDAV functionality so remote web resources can be accessed through file-style paths.
3. System Health Monitor: uses control.exe to execute a remotely hosted next-stage payload.

Since the new method uses multiple scheduled tasks with distinct roles, it helps the attacker evade detection at different stages of the attack.

The next-stage payload is a downloader known as NOROBOT and BAITSWITCH, delivered in the form of a Control Panel applet (.cpl). Its purpose is to fetch and execute the CosmicPulse backdoor.

BAITSWITCH downloads two ZIP archives, one of them containing the Python 3.8 64-bit package and a Python file acting as a bootstrapper for CosmicPulse.

“The bootstrapper reads the encrypted key from the registry, recovers it using an embedded key in AES-ECB mode, and then uses the recovered key to decode the CosmicPulse payload,” Microsoft says.

Microsoft notes that the backdoor’s capabilities in the observed attacks remain the same as described in a report from Google in October 2025, including the execution of attacker-supplied Python code to download and run files or retrieve documents from infected systems.

From a practical perspective, RedFlick only requires the victim to open the malicious shortcut file to trigger an automated infection chain, whereas in the ClickFix attacks, Star Blizzard required victims to take multiple manual actions.

Microsoft’s report provides technical analysis of the infection chain and the components used in the attacks.

The company says that since the beginning of the year, it has observed at least 13 distinct large-scale phishing campaigns impacting more than 100 organizations, primarily in the United States and the United Kingdom.

“The RedFlick campaigns have targeted Ukrainian individuals and institutions, as well as international NGOs, think tanks, governments, and financial institutions that have supported Ukraine politically or financially,” the researchers say.

Despite changing its tactics, techniques, and procedures, StarBlizzard continues to target users by impersonating trusted contacts or organizations, and still relies on free email providers to deliver phishing messages.

Microsoft recommends that companies use phishing-resistant authentication, Conditional Access policies, email protection, and independently verify suspicious messages through established contact details.

Additionally, using an endpoint detection and response (EDR) solutions in block mode should prevent infections by blocking malicious artifacts even if they are not caught by the antivirus agent.

Join Mikko Hyppönen and security leaders from the NFL, CHANEL, and Atlassian for a two-hour digital summit on what AI-speed attacks change, what defenders should stop doing, and how to validate, decide, fix, and re-validate at machine speed.

Save your seat

Editor’s take: I’ve always wanted to capture an image of the Milky Way galaxy – or, at the very least, see it with my own eyes in real time. I’ve got the photography know-how to pull off what would be a frame-worthy shot of our galaxy, as well as the desire to make it happen, but the opportunity simply hasn’t presented itself yet. And if the statistics are to be believed, I might never get to cross this one off my bucket list.

Man-made light pollution is the culprit, and it’s not just from above. You’ve no doubt heard of the growing headache that orbiting satellites are causing astronomers trying to photograph the night skies. Compounding the matter is the modern amenity that is artificial light on the ground. Thanks to technologies like LED lighting, large cities and neighborhoods are brighter than ever.

And we’re not just talking small numbers here. According to one report, the average night sky got brighter by 9.6% per year from 2011 to 2022. That equates to a roughly doubling of the sky’s brightness every eight years. Another study notes that four out of five people live under light-polluted skies. Given those odds, it’s likely that you’ve never even seen the night sky as it was intended.

As Tove Danovich with The Guardian highlights, access to a dark sky is about more than just stargazing. Light pollution can confuse nocturnal animals that use moonlight to navigate, and being in a brightly lit environment around the clock can throw off the circadian rhythm of most all living creatures – humans included.

Some communities are already taking steps to reduce ground-based light pollution. Flagstaff, Arizona, has rules in place to regulate how much light can be used at night, what type, and where it can legally shine. New York state is also considering similar restrictions. But as Danovich correctly notes, such restrictions do nothing to combat space-based light pollution sources like satellites designed to beam sunlight to Earth at night.

Indeed, it feels like darkness is quickly becoming a luxury.

When the Chinese scientist He Jiankui announced in 2018 that he had created the first gene-edited babies, the experiment was widely condemned as reckless and premature. It ended with He in prison.

But that hasn’t stopped the push for gene-edited human embryos, with biotech entrepreneur Cathy Tie arguing that doing so isn’t just urgent—it’s a “moral imperative.”

Tie is the 30-year-old founder of Origin Genomics, a company that launched in March with plans to bring gene-edited embryos to IVF clinics. In a new commentary published in the journal Trends in Genetics, she argues for public funding and new regulatory pathways to advance gene-edited babies and eventually move into clinical use.

But questions remain about what evidence researchers will need to determine whether gene-edited embryos are safe enough to attempt a human pregnancy—and what risks might remain for the resulting children.

“There are cautionary tales of first human trials where there was really no flashing red light, and people died,” says Hank Greely, a law professor and director of the Center for Law and the Biosciences at Stanford University.

So-called germ-line gene editing involves modifying cells involved in human reproduction, like embryos. Any changes made could be passed on to future generations. That could mean, for example, correcting a devastating genetic mutation for good. But accidental DNA edits elsewhere, known as “off-target effects,” could introduce new health risks that could also be passed down. Those high stakes are part of why dozens of countries have banned gene-editing of human embryos intended for pregnancy.

People at risk of passing a genetic disease on to their children can use IVF combined with genetic screening to identify disease-free embryos before transfer to the womb. Critics of embryo editing argue that screening tools make the need for it very small. Gene-editing embryos, Greely says, would be helping “a fraction of a fraction of a fraction.”

The drawback of the current approach is that IVF is inefficient; viable embryos can be hard to come by, even for people without an inherited disease risk. Ian Watts and Cheyenne Ziegler, for example, underwent three rounds of IVF in their attempt to have children that do not carry the genetic variant responsible for Watts’ Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease, a degenerative neurological disorder that impacts fine motor skills and mobility. With any IVF cycle, eggs regularly don’t fertilize, and those that do often stall in development or have chromosomal abnormalities. Adding additional screening for disease means that some viable embryos also don’t make the cut.

In Watts and Ziegler’s case, three rounds of IVF have produced eight chromosomally normal embryos, but only three without Watts’ variant. Those three embryos are likely not enough to give the couple the three or four children they hope to have one day.

“The choices currently available are either not having children or doing lots of IVF,” says Watts, a 36-year-old engineer in Long Beach, California. Gene editing could give people like him more chances at a future family. It could also help couples in the extremely rare situation where every embryo would inherit a disease-causing mutation, such as partners who each have two copies of a harmful variant.

“We’re here to treat these diseases, not just exclude embryos and call it a day,” says Tie, a former Thiel fellow who’s alluded to herself as “biotech Barbie.”

The invention of CRISPR raised the possibility of gene-edited babies more than a decade ago, and newer forms of gene editing offer increasing precision. In June, researchers at Columbia University revealed that they had edited early-stage human embryos using a technique called base editing with incredible accuracy. Tie cites this work in her commentary, arguing that precision editing is now well within reach.

I’m approaching the age where I’m supposed to start desiring RV life. I’m not planning to retire anytime soon, but the older I get, the more appealing the idea of abandoning yard work, home repairs and geographic permanence for a life on the open road in a big old house on wheels becomes. My neighbors have an RV they park in the space between our houses, keeping both a permanent location and a home they can travel in; they still have yard work and house repairs, but few complaints.

So it was with some curiosity that I visited a pop-up for Lightship, a Colorado company making EV trailers for RV enthusiasts, outside the flagship Yeti outdoor-recreation store in Austin, Texas. The company’s eye-catching AE.1 trailer was parked and open to the public. (AE.1 refers to Aero-Electric 1.)

Lightship staffers handed out brochures, stickers and pins to visitors who climbed into the trailer, some of whom seemed surprised by the sleek, air-conditioned interior. The demo model boasted a cushioned lounge area, appliances including a hideaway dishwasher, microwave, full sink and stovetop, a full bathroom and shower area, and plenty of storage. It can sleep up to six.

The selling point of the highly customizable AE.1, which starts at $157,500, is that it offers a more modern design than most RVs and trailers. It includes thoughtful design touches and an electric-powered motor called TrekDrive that kicks in when in motion to lighten the load on whatever’s pulling the trailer. If it’s an EV truck or SUV, that could significantly extend the range between charges.

Pushing back on decades of RV design

Ben Parker, Lightship’s co-founder and chief product officer, worked at Tesla in California as a battery engineer and was inspired while traveling in an RV during the pandemic. Parker started the company with Toby Krauss, another former Tesla employee who worked in finance and product management and serves as Lightship’s CEO.

Parker said there’s a gigantic market of Americans who want to travel in camper RVs, but their options have been limited to a few highly consolidated manufacturers offering unchanging designs. So far, he said, customers interested in Lightship are a mix of EV owners and longtime enthusiasts who want “greater capacity, comfort and independence.”

“Our customers are people who love spending time outdoors and want more freedom in how they travel,” Parker said.

The AE.1’s most notable design feature is that it compresses from a 10-foot-tall Camp Mode with lots of windows and headroom to a Road Mode that lowers the roof to under 7 feet, making the AE.1 more aerodynamic in motion. Most of the trailer’s features, from the lighting to extras like an auto-leveling system and a motorized awning, are controlled by an app. A solar array on the trailer’s roof helps keep power flowing.

If you limit your A/C and power use, the AE.1 can last for about a week off the grid before it needs additional charging, Parker said. The AE.1 has hookups for EV charging as well as the kind of 220-volt hookups found at RV parks. It can hook up to external devices with vehicle-to-load power capabilities.

Some of the more interesting option features include a pull-down bed that attaches to the trailer’s ceiling and a setup for a 4K video projector that can be mounted inside the trailer for viewing on a pull-down screen.

“The demand we’ve seen reflects a broader appetite for innovation in the RV space,” Parker said. “Customers are excited by the idea of an RV that combines modern technology, energy independence and a dramatically improved towing experience in a single product.”

The co-founder said his company wants the buying and using experience of an AE.1 to wow customers enough for Lightship to gain a foothold in a market that’s not very open to newcomers.

“Breaking into any established industry requires earning trust,” he said. “We’ve focused on building a high-quality product that solves real customer pain points and delivering an experience that people can immediately appreciate once they see it and use it for themselves.”

New trailer players

Lightship is headquartered in Broomfield, Colorado. It’s expanding its manufacturing center there to accommodate additional trailer production, as well as production of a carriage-minus-trailer product called PowerSled, which it’s been selling to businesses like movie productions that need a mobile platform with electric power.

Lightship’s mission to disrupt the RV market is not unlike that of another company, Pebble, that has also been making EV trailers in California.

Parker said the main difference between Lightship and Pebble is that Lightship is sourcing more of its materials domestically. Parker estimates that about 75% of the materials used to make an AE.1 are sourced domestically, and all assembly is done in-house.

Pebble, however, is undercutting Lightship on price. Lightship originally planned to offer a lower-priced $125,000 base model without the self-propelled TrekDrive motor. However, the company has since changed its strategy, moving to a single standard base price with a standard 77 kWh battery and various add-on options and upgrades.

Possible retirement plans

For me, a non-RV person, the AE.1 feels design-forward and includes features like a built-in auto-hitch, an auto-leveler, and lots of charging ports and stations, all of which appeal to someone like me who has no idea what they’re doing. The interior feels spacious, but not so much that it makes the exterior look oversized. The ability to shrink down to a smaller size — the AE.1 performs safety checks before compressing to ensure windows aren’t open and nothing will break — brings the wow factor.

It doesn’t take much time in the trailer to imagine traveling in it and using Lightship’s trailer as a mobile workstation (satellite internet service is not included, but it can be hooked up).

The AE.1 isn’t cheap, but it might be worth putting on the retirement wish list. You will still have to wait: the company’s waitlist for delivery is currently about a year long.

Lightship began shipping AE.1 trailers last year and said it’s producing about 30 per month for the rest of this year. By sometime in 2027, with its expanded factory floor, it plans to ramp that up to 40 per month.

If you want to check out the AE.1 for yourself, the company maintains showrooms north of Denver and in San Francisco and will host a pop-up event in Las Vegas in late November.

Omar Gallaga has covered technology, digital culture and other topics for outlets including CNET, NPR, WIRED, Texas Monthly, MSNBC, Consumer Reports, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, The Atlantic and the Austin American-Statesman, where he was a longtime tech reporter, editor and podcaster. He lives in the Texas Hill Country.

See full bio

On the morning of June 7, 2023, I walked out of my Brooklyn apartment and noticed the skies were hazier than usual, but I chalked it up to a change in weather and headed to work. When I arrived at my Manhattan office that overlooked the Hudson River, though, I knew this was something very different. 

On a normal day, I’d have a clear view of New Jersey on the other side of the water, but on this day, it was merely a blur. As I inspected the thick fog, it dawned on me: This wasn’t fog at all. It was smoke from wildfires that were raging in Canada. The air quality monitor on my phone’s weather app confirmed it. 

Although there was a thick plume of smoke over the city, I could still see the blue skies peeking through, so I continued to work. But by the end of the day, the sky had turned completely dark with an ominous orange tint. This experience was a first for me, so I was alarmed about having to go back outside to return home, and I wasn’t alone, as people in my office began passing out dust masks. I wasn’t sure if they’d help much, but I took one just in case. 

Even in the subway system, the smell of smoke was undeniable. I made it home, took my dog for the shortest walk possible, then immediately went inside, opened my laptop and ordered an air purifier. I’ve had one running ever since.

A perfect storm  

Although the smoke cleared relatively quickly, and the New York skyline bounced back after two days, not every area is as lucky. Texas and the West Coast are particularly vulnerable to these recurring disasters due to their dry climates and the intensifying effects of climate change. Similarly, the 2023 Canadian wildfires occurred during the country’s driest period since 1980, according to NASA.

Data from the National Interagency Fire Center underscores the increasing threat of wildfires. There were 64,897 wildfires in 2024, a sharp increase compared with 77,850 in 2025. Rising temperatures, reduced rainfall and earlier snowmelt around the world create the ideal setting for wildfires to run rampant. 

These types of statistics can feel overwhelming, and while you largely can’t stop a wildfire from happening, you do have control over the air you breathe indoors. To see if air purifiers can make your home’s air safer and cleaner during wildfire season, we tested more than a dozen models to find out.

Key takeaways: 

• According to our exclusive lab data, air purifiers can help clear smoke from a home, but some do significantly better than others.
• After testing 18 air purifiers, the Coway 450 was the best overall in our 2026 tests. It had the best overall average results in our particle-removal test and received an Editors’ Choice award.
• The Coway 400S was selected as the best air purifier for wildfire smoke because it cleared T90 fine particles in 39 seconds on high fan, earning it a CNET Lab Test award for that performance.

Best Air Purifiers of 2026

What our testing revealed

To conduct our particle-removal tests at our lab in Louisville, Kentucky, our technicians built a custom smoke chamber to test how quickly an air purifier can remove particulate matter from the air. They created a homemade smoke bomb made from potassium nitrate (KNO3), sucrose (sugar) and sodium bicarbonate (baking soda), then placed it in the smoke chamber along with the unit being tested and a particle counter. 

This test showcases how well each air purifier works at clearing both coarse and fine particles. When determining which unit is best for wildfire smoke, we paid close attention to the fine-particle result, since, according to AirNow, “approximately 90% of total particle mass emitted from wildfires consists of fine particles.”

Fine particles are also the most detrimental to human health because they are tiny, less than or equal to 2.5 microns, so when they are inhaled, they can embed deep into your lungs and cause numerous health issues. 

Our lab data revealed that two Coway air purifiers and one Dreame air purifier especially excelled at clearing fine particles.

The Coway 400S is our top pick for clearing smoke from your home because of its exceptional performance at high fan speed. In our 2026 test, it cleared T90 (the time it took for 90% of particles to be removed) fine particles on high fan in just 39 seconds.

The Coway 450, CNET’s choice for best overall air purifier of 2026, was close to matching the 400S’s performance on high fan, but outperformed it on low fan, taking 1 minute and 53 seconds to remove T90 fine particles.

However, the Dreame Furcatch was the top performer in terms of low fan performance. It cleared T90 fine particles on low fan in 1 minute and 24 seconds, winning a CNET Lab Test award in the process. But it did not perform nearly as well as the Coway options above when set to high fan.

While all three models are great options for different reasons, your choice ultimately depends on how you plan to use the air purifier. 

If you need quick bursts at high fan speed in the event of sudden smoke, go with the Coway 400S. If you prefer a unit that does particularly well on low fan and you plan to always keep it on that setting, opt for the Dreame Furcatch. For the most consistent performance at both high and low fan speeds, the Coway 450 is the best option.

In addition to our particle-removal tests, we also tested energy usage and loudness. The Dyson HushJet earned two CNET Lab Test awards for being the quietest and most energy-efficient option on our list. 

Air purifier use in real life

CNET’s wellness editor, Anna Gragert, has experienced wildfires firsthand. In 2025, California’s Eaton Fire forced her to evacuate her apartment, but luckily, it stopped five miles short of her home.

“Despite taping up our window seams before deciding to evacuate, we returned to an apartment that smelled of smoke, and everything was covered in a thin layer of ash,” Gragert says. “We relied on two air purifiers to filter the air and remove the smoke smell, and wouldn’t have been able to comfortably live in our apartment without them after experiencing a wildfire so close to home.”

While an air purifier won’t protect your home from a wildfire and you should always pay close attention to evacuation orders in your area, it can provide an important line of defense if smoke hits your city so you can breathe easier, both figuratively and literally.

Corin Cesaric-Epple

Editor

Advertisement

Corin Cesaric-Epple is an Editor at CNET covering home and kitchen tech and meal kits, and reporting regularly on artificial intelligence. She earned her bachelor’s degree in journalism from the University of Missouri-Columbia. Before joining CNET, she covered crime at People Magazine and national and international news for NBC Local Television Stations.

See full bio

Google on Wednesday launched the screen-less Fitbit Air fitness tracker in India, but is pricing at ₹13,999 (roughly $146), ostensibly positioning it as a premium device. Comparatively, the device costs $99 in the U.S.

Unveiled in May, the Fitbit Air features health and fitness tracking, like 24/7 heart rate monitoring, heart rhythm monitoring with A-fib (atrial fibrillation) alerts, blood oxygen level, resting heart rate, heart rate variability, sleep stages, and duration.

The device’s screen-less form is a bid to tap into the growing popularity of screen-less devices as people shy away from screens, opting for distraction-free health gadgets like Whoop’s fitness bands and Oura’s rings — though the new Fitbit is more pocket-friendly.

The health tracking space now has screen-less devices from Garmin, Fitbit founders’ new company, Luffu Link, as well as from Indian startups like Noise and Urban, which have been trying to undercut their Western rivals on price.

Research firm IDC noted in its global wearables report that despite a declining number of wristband shipments, screen-less trackers are carving out a niche. India currently accounts for only 5% of the screenless wearable market, per Counterpoint Research, and a wearable priced like a premium device might not make a dent in overall numbers, despite having a big name like Fitbit or Google behind it.

The Fitbit Air is available for purchase on the Google Store and retail partners, including Flipkart, Croma, Reliance Digital and Vijay Sales, from October 2. Google is also offering a free, three-month Google Health premium membership with the new band.

I love losing myself in a good book, and I’m not the only one. Finding great gifts for book lovers isn’t just about testing for the best e-reader (which we have!) or rounding up all the accessories worth adding to your Kindle (we’ve done that too), but rather it’s about setting up your favorite reader to keep enjoying stories.

You can help them with anything from a new reading gadget or a handy accessory to cozy items to settle in for a nice, long reading session. After all, if there’s anything we’ve learned from the rise of #BookTok, it’s that there’s no lack of accessories and items that can make a reader happier than ever. Here are our favorite gifts for book lovers we’re shopping this season.

Be sure also to check out our other buying guides, including Best Kindles, Best E-Readers, Best Kindle Accessories, and Best Digital Notebooks. If you’re on the hunt for more gifts, don’t miss the rest of our gift guides.

Updated September 2026: This guide has been refreshed with current prices and gift ideas, including the PopSockets Dragon Sterling case, Lamicall tablet stands, Ikea Kajplats smart bulb, and two LED devices to use while you read.

A New E-Reader

When I got back into reading, I fell in love with ebooks and getting free copies from the library that I would read on my Libby app. That year, for my birthday, I was gifted a Kindle from two different people, and I’ve never looked back. Whether they’re a new reader looking for a better way to read or one who’s complaining about how heavy their books are, an e-reader makes for a great solution (and you can still get those free library books on it!).

I’m in the bag for iPhone Duo, but I wanted to test out an iPhone 18 Pro Max camera system before going all in on Apple’s foldable. Here’s what I learned as I prepare for a potential camera downgrade.

I would love nothing more than to travel to some remote part of the planet and detail exactly how iPhone 18 Pro Max performs while showing off incredible one-of-a-kind photos. That isn’t what I’m here to do today.

My simple goal is to explain exactly what I have observed about Apple’s latest camera system, coming from the iPhone 17 Pro Max, and what buying an iPhone Duo might mean losing out on.

The iPhone 18 Pro Max showcases exactly what makes Apple’s smartphone camera such a well-balanced and all-around great camera system. It’s yet another pinnacle in years of slight improvements.

Photos captured on both iPhones are in the Bright Photographic Style at about -40 tone and +38 color.

Point and shoot

I’ve got my trusty Sony a7II from 2014 that continues to produce amazing results straight from the sensor, RAW or not. I always shoot full manual with that camera and have no interest in the automatic settings.

So, it might be odd to say that I behave exactly the opposite on iPhone. For years, I downloaded the pro-level camera apps, tinkered with my workflow, edited every image to death — it was a tad exhausting at times.

There had to be a better way.

I wanted more control and a more unique look to my photos than what capturing straight from the iPhone camera could give me. Editing and filters often felt overprocessed and unrealistic.

I wanted to capture photos quickly and easily without fiddling with all those little digital dials and settings. I also wanted a workflow that was non-destructive and easily changed later.

Photographic Styles bring non-destructive customization to every photo

Advertisement

Apple gave me exactly what I wanted with Photographic Styles. The fully-reversible non-destructive shooting modes that could be preset and forget transformed how I approached mobile photography.

My big camera still sits at full manual and offers me control when I want it. My iPhone, on the other hand, is basically full auto with custom Photographic Styles.

I stopped shooting Apple ProRAW except in circumstances where I specifically knew I’d like more editing control. Photographic Styles are just that good.

The issue has never been about a lack of control, as that could be solved with third-party apps, it’s the lack of physical controls. Apple tried to solve this with the poorly-executed Camera Control, which ends up being too fiddly as anything more than a shutter button.

Camera Control didn’t get any of the new pro controls on iPhone 18 Pro Max

Apple is already showing signs of being done with Camera Control — the new pro camera tools aren’t even part of it. I expect it’ll be gone in a generation or two.

I’d love to see Apple make a physical camera with knobs and dials for each minute setting, but that isn’t going to happen. The iPhone is inherently a point-and-shoot experience, and I’m okay with that.

I’ll never complain about having more options for precise control, but they’re going to be used as an exception to the norm. Nearly every photo captured will be done with the press of a shutter and nothing else.

That’s the beauty of Photographic Styles. Take the photos you want now at whatever preset you’ve chosen and change them later as needed.

I like a camera that I can point and click the shutter, even my Sony a7II can function that way thanks to a back-button focus I have set up. I adjust the dials when needed, but most of the time I can set them and just capture photos until conditions change.

iPhone and Photographic Styles lets me do the same, if not even more efficiently. iPhone 18 Pro Max, however, is a step in the opposite direction in some cases.

Variable aperture is just fine, actually

Apple’s approach to variable aperture is likely one of necessity. The iPhone 18 Pro Max Main Fusion camera is f/1.48 fully open.

Variable aperture only gets you so much control on a sensor that small

The problem is, until now, all iPhones shot photos fully open. There wasn’t a physical aperture to close and let in less light.

Previous recent models shot at around f/1.78, which produced a soft bokeh when close enough to the subject. The subject was still sharp while plenty of light was gathered — it was the perfect set point for something that couldn’t be changed.

Then arrives the f/1.48 sensor. It’s “better” in that it can let in more light, meaning faster shutter speeds and better ISO (less noise).

The problem is you definitely do not want to shoot at that level all the time. With this sensor, f/1.48 is at the edge of beginning to lose sharpness in the subject.

The iPhone 18 Pro Max will default to f/1.8 for most shots and automatically switch to f/1.48 in low-light settings. The f/2.8 setting is a bit sharper even if it lets in less light, while f/4.0 is the max and loses sharpness again.

You’ll use f/4.0 in the brightest of settings to ensure all faces are in focus in a cluster of people, for example. It’s also great in dimmer or complex lighting environments where the aperture creates a “star” wherever pinpoints of light are visible.

The star looks best at f/2.8 in my opinion, but some may not like them at all, as they are technically a flaw in the photo being captured. The star results from how bright light is shown on the sensor through the aperture blades.

iPhone 18 Pro Max has a sun star effect when the aperture is anything other than full open

I appreciate this level of control in my iPhone camera. That said, it does feel a bit fiddly.

I expect the friction and fiddly nature of variable aperture on iPhone will ultimately result in me relying on the automatic setting. I’m enthusiastic about it now in my testing, but I’m certain I’d only rarely choose to change that toggle.

The smallest of gains

After variable aperture, the first thing you’ll notice in a one-to-one comparison is how Photographic Styles has changed. It appears Apple has tweaked the pipeline and application values that result in slightly different, more refined looks versus the previous version.

Variable aperture isn’t a reason to jump ship from iPhone 17 Pro Max

Upon further investigation, there is also a difference in how the iPhone deals with white balance. There is a pro tool for choosing white balance compensation on iPhone 18 Pro Max, but it’s set to auto by default.

Whatever has changed with white balance behavior is noticeable in some light. It sometimes feels like an overcorrection, which is why you might want to use the manual control.

The available pro tools are great to have in the Apple Camera app. Shutter speed is something I love being able to control, as that is how you can get light trails in some situations.

Third-party apps can control these aspects of the iPhone camera, so that’s not exactly new. It’s a little weird that Apple doesn’t include the pro camera controls in iPhone Duo or other non-pro iPhones.

I think third-party apps will be the better place to control these aspects of iPhone photography. The only reason you might use the Camera app to control these aspects is if you still want access to Apple’s full camera pipeline.

Pro camera controls are exclusive to iPhone 18 Pro models

Minus the pro camera controls I mentioned, all of this is coming to iPhone Duo. The new Photographic Styles, updated processing, and white balance differences will be present in Apple’s foldable.

In my previous camera spec breakdown, I found that the two most notable differences between iPhone 18 Pro and iPhone Duo will be the existence of an optical telephoto camera and variable aperture.

Nearly every other aspect is identical, which means iPhone Duo users shouldn’t be worried about having a “worse” camera experience. Funny enough, for me at least, there may not be that much difference.

What is gained, what will be lost

Like everyone else, I won’t have an iPhone Duo to test until October 23, so that aspect will have to wait for another day. For now, I can only address what I’ve learned about iPhone 18 Pro Max.

Specs suggest iPhone Duo will have great cameras

I wish I had more time with the iPhone 18 Pro Max, and I’m perfectly aware of my limited time, so take what I have to say here with that in mind.

From what I can tell without holding an iPhone Duo in hand, I believe my previous conclusion stands true: optical telephoto and variable aperture are all I’ll miss on iPhone Duo.

What I gain will be a foldable with new camera abilities like Smart Take and Duo FaceTime. Whether or not that’s an equivalent exchange will be determined at a later date.

Like with Apple Watch Ultra, I believe a lot of iPhone “Pro” features fall into aspirational purchase territory. It’s not that I don’t consider myself a “professional” photographer, or find iPhone’s pro controls too unwieldy, just that they’re unnecessary for most applications.

The variable aperture on iPhone 18 Pro Max doesn’t have enough range to capture photos like the fountain example above. The water looks like that on the Sony a7II because I could set the aperture to f/22 and allow very little light in during a longer exposure.

When I use my Sony a7II camera, I’m using it the same way a professional might by taking control of every aspect of each photo using the device’s physical controls. The interface and physicality of that camera leans into it being used as a professional tool.

When I shoot photos with my iPhone, I’m just pressing the shutter and letting the device do the rest. Photographic Styles give me enough control to ensure every photo I capture is uniquely mine, so I don’t feel the need to dive deeper into the settings.

Too much control can lead to you missing the shot

Photographic Styles 3 with texture and grain options is available on iPhone Duo. Apple is not including pro controls, so no manual white balance, shutter speed, or access to a histogram will be available.

Here’s the thing, I don’t know that I’ll even notice or care. If I need control over those things, I can access them in third-party apps.

Sometimes you just need to take the damn photo

When I was testing iPhone 18 Pro Max as a camera, I noticed how much time I spent in menus selecting each little tool set point. I would take a couple of shots, then back to those menus.

iPhones make great cameras because they’re the one you have on you

The more photos I shot, the less time I spent adjusting anything manually. It was just too time-consuming to adjust aperture manually for each shot or worry about shutter speed.

As I’ve always inevitably learned with the iPhone, it is better to just point and shoot. If I want to have more control for a specific shot, there are third-party apps or Apple’s controls available.

Thanks to that mentality, it means my photo-shooting experience will be very similar on iPhone Duo. Even the variable aperture fades to the background since most photos are taken at f/1.8.

iPhone Duo will capture all photos at f/1.78.

An iPhone couldn’t take this photo

Advertisement

The iPhone 18 Pro Max is Apple’s best camera system yet. It has the most options for manual control, includes an interesting variable aperture, and has the best image pipeline so far.

That variable aperture is interesting, and in a generation or two, it’ll be so good it’ll be hard to miss. Today, the gains provided by it are minimal, and only a good eye will spot the difference in most shots.

If you’re anything like me, there won’t be much to miss when choosing the iPhone Duo. It is still an iPhone camera system, and a powerful one at that with A20 Pro and Photographic Styles 3.

I have no doubt that future Apple foldables will have pro-level camera systems. Today, iPhone Duo doesn’t, which makes it a primary purchase decision between the two devices.

This write up was for the photography nerds like me. Most iPhone users won’t be able to spot the difference between shots on an iPhone 17 Pro and iPhone 18 Pro without being told what to look for.

That Charmander figure is softer and less defined here thanks to the iPhone’s f/1.48 wide open aperture.

It’s a big leap in performance and function, don’t get me wrong. However, even the big leaps only show through so much on an already amazing camera system.

For those just wondering how it compares with previous iPhone cameras, think of it this way: your iPhone is already the best camera you own. The only differences an upgrade will bring is better experiences at the fringes.

You’ll always capture pristine and beautiful photos in broad daylight. Dim and night photos will prove a challenge to even the best smartphone cameras, but Apple’s latest systems perform marginally better over previous ones.

iPhone 18 Pro Max gives photographers more control than ever

iPhone 18 Pro Max is about control. However, I’m increasingly wondering how much control we actually need when the cameras are this good.

I’m glad the options are there, first or third-party, but it just goes to show how good the iPhone has become as a camera that the controls are almost unnecessary. I’m aware that these thoughts might reflect my own journey as a photographer more than what is true of Apple’s offering, so your miles may vary.

The thing is, I don’t feel this way about my dedicated camera. It’s more akin to using a record player — deliberate and thoughtful.

When I pull out my Sony camera, I’m setting out on a photographic journey to accomplish a shot I’m envisioning using the controls in my hands. When I pull out my iPhone, I’m looking to capture a moment or a memory in an instant.

I matched the Sony’s settings with the result from the iPhone, which produced a dimmer shot. That’s mostly due to the exposure stacking iPhone performs with every shot.

Each of these devices serves different purposes and reaches different goals. When photographing people, the big camera draws attention, for better or for worse, and changes the environment you’re photographing by the nature of the device.

The iPhone can show up and not draw anyone’s eye, though I’m sure that’ll be an issue for the iPhone Duo for a time. In any case, there’s something more fleeting and unserious about capturing an iPhone photo.

Into the corn maze

I’m over 2.3k words into this, so I’ll keep this bit short. I spent a day at a pumpkin patch with my friends recently and had three cameras on my person — iPhone 17 Pro Max, iPhone 18 Pro Max, and Sony a7II.

A still frame of the spatial video captured on iPhone 18 Pro Max

I took about 80 keepable photos and some video during the day, with about 39 on my Sony a7II. The sun was too bright and over-exposing everything, so it was a challenging shooting day for full-manual controls.

Nearly every other photo was taken on the iPhone 17 Pro Max, and zero with the telephoto camera. I wanted to reserve the iPhone 18 Pro Max, deliberately, for situations I thought called for that specific device.

None arose, though I did capture a spatial video in the corn maze with it.

There are a few photos I really like from the iPhone, as they captured casual situations more easily. A few exemplified the speed at which I could get a photo when using an iPhone versus a larger camera.

I snuck a few photos with the iPhone 17 Pro Max while recording video with the iPhone 18 Pro Max

Nearly all of my favorite shots came from the Sony a7II. Not just because it is a superior full-frame camera with a powerful lens, but because they felt more deliberate.

I took the time to compensate for lighting whether we were in the sun or shade, using the easy-to-use controls on the camera. Adjusting these things on the fly was intuitive and simple compared to the digital touch interface of an iPhone.

Some shots were a bit out of focus or had motion blurring where the iPhone wouldn’t have allowed it. However, there’s something I can’t quite put my finger on that separates the “quality” of the two images.

Of course, no smartphone can truly compete with a full-frame camera. There is a reason professionals still buy them over simply shooting with an iPhone for everything.

iPhone 18 Pro Max is incredible in spite of its small camera sensors

That’s the point I’m reaching for, though I’m not sure I’m conveying it well. Apple wants iPhone 18 Pro Max to reflect the performance and control of a high-end full-frame camera, but falls short due to a lack of dedicated physical controls and sensor size.

Physics will always win in this contest. There isn’t space for good physical camera controls on iPhone, nor is there room for larger sensors.

My point is, pros will always choose the bigger camera when possible. However, the power of the iPhone is that it is always on your person, therefore winning as the best camera for that reason.

Though, because of the physical limitations of a smartphone, I think it makes more sense to lean into automatic settings and systems like Photographic Styles. It’s great more control is available to those that need it, but very few people will.

iPhone accessories never quite recreate the dedicated camera experience

Advertisement

I wouldn’t mind seeing more accessories for iPhone that bring pro-level physical controls to iPhone. Apple should build more APIs to allow that, but that’s a conversation for another day.

To bring this thing to a close, I’ll share this: iPhone 18 Pro Max is amazing, and in some ways, better even than the iPhone 17 Pro Max I still possess. However, iPhone cameras have gotten so good that simply getting the shot and worrying about the details later is the way to go in 99% of situations.

The iPhone Duo will get Photographic Styles 3 with texture and grain control, so I’ll dive more into that when I’m testing the foldable. I can already tell that I’ll love grain when it is warranted, but it can be too aggressive at times.

Smart Take and Kid Cue are features exclusive to iPhone Duo

Advertisement

I’m glad I took the time to test out the iPhone 18 Pro Max cameras myself. I can now say quite confidently that even as good as the upgrades are, they’re ones I can and will live without.

Next up, iPhone Duo as a camera. If my assumptions are right, the only thing I will truly miss is the optical telephoto 4x camera and the lack of spatial video capture support.

I have zero doubt iPhone Duo will capture photos just as good as iPhone 18 Pro Max in most day-to-day situations. I’ll share those experiences later in October.

Signal, the secure messaging app, released version 8.30, completing the rollout of its secure backups feature across all supported operating systems (Android, iOS, Linux, macOS, and Windows).

The feature, introduced on Android nearly a year ago, lets users create end-to-end encrypted backups of their chats and restore them on other devices if they lose their phone.

The backup system supports two options: Signal-hosted backups, limited to 45 days of media and 128 KB per message for free users (100 GB in paid plans), and on-device, local backups, with no size restrictions.

Backups for both options are encrypted and require a recovery key to decrypt, but hosted backups also have a supplemental key that rotates daily inside a Trusted Execution Environment for additional protection and forward secrecy.

According to Signal, an on-device backup recovery key can decrypt all past backup files it encrypted, regardless of where they are stored.

Threat actors have already taken notice of the key’s value and incorporated it into their targeting scope shortly after Signal introduced the feature.

The latest update brings on-device backups to iOS and desktop, and revamps Android backups to use the same cross-platform format.

Now, when linking a new device from the primary device, the new one will retrieve older attachments missing from the chat.

Signal also says that media is now stored separately from the backup archive, and duplicate files are stored only once, eliminating excessive backing up and syncing.

Additionally, paying users will get a new option to purge old media from local storage and keep only thumbnails, while automatically retrieving them in full from hosted backups.

The backup system will ignore ‘disappearing messages’ set to vanish within 24 hours on both backup methods, preventing them from being included in the archive.

For users who take both hosted and on-device backups, it is noted that the former does not wipe the latter. However, during restoration, expired disappearing messages from local backups will be skipped.

The 8.30 iOS client release enables direct iPhone-to-iPhone transfer, using a local end-to-end encrypted Wi-Fi Aware link that Signal says improves speed and reliability.

Signal says this rollout completes its first phase of the backups project, and its engineers will now focus on improving non-backup systems.

Join Mikko Hyppönen and security leaders from the NFL, CHANEL, and Atlassian for a two-hour digital summit on what AI-speed attacks change, what defenders should stop doing, and how to validate, decide, fix, and re-validate at machine speed.

Save your seat