Connect with us
DAPA Banner

Tech

Endor Labs launches free tool AURI after study finds only 10% of AI-generated code is secure

Published

on

Endor Labs, the application security startup backed by more than $208 million in venture funding, today launched AURI, a platform that embeds real-time security intelligence directly into the AI coding tools that are reshaping how software gets built. The product is available free to individual developers and integrates natively with popular AI coding assistants including Cursor, Claude, and Augment through the Model Context Protocol (MCP).

The announcement arrives against a sobering backdrop. While 90% of development teams now use AI coding assistants, research published in December by Carnegie Mellon University, Columbia University, and Johns Hopkins University found that leading models produce functionally correct code only about 61% of the time — and just 10% of that output is both functional and secure.

“Even though AI can now produce functionally correct code 61% of the time, only 10% of that output is both functional and secure,” Endor Labs CEO Varun Badhwar told VentureBeat in an exclusive interview. “These coding agents were trained on open source code from across the internet, so they’ve learned best practices — but they’ve also learned to replicate a lot of the same security problems of the past.”

That gap between code that works and code that is safe defines the market AURI is designed to capture — and the urgency behind its launch.

Advertisement

The security crisis hiding inside the AI coding revolution

To understand why Endor Labs built AURI, it helps to understand the structural problem at the heart of AI-assisted software development. AI coding models are trained on vast repositories of open-source code scraped from across the internet — code that includes not only best practices but also well-documented vulnerabilities, insecure patterns, and flaws that may not be discovered for years after the code was originally written.

Badhwar, a repeat cybersecurity entrepreneur who previously built RedLock (acquired by Palo Alto Networks), founded Endor Labs four years ago with Dimitri Stiliadis. The original thesis was straightforward: developers were becoming “software assemblers,” writing less original code and importing most components from open source repositories. Then came the explosion of AI-powered coding tools, which Badhwar described as “the once in a generation opportunity of how to rewrite software development life cycle powered by AI.”

The productivity gains are real — more efficiency, faster time to market, and the democratization of software creation beyond trained engineers. But the security consequences are potentially devastating. New vulnerabilities are discovered every day in code that may have been written a decade ago, and that constantly evolving threat intelligence is not easily available to the AI models generating new code.

“Every day, every hour, new vulnerabilities are found in software that might have been written 5, 10, 12 years ago — and that information isn’t easily available to the models,” Badhwar explained. “If you started filtering out anything that ever had a vulnerability, you’d have no code left to train on.”

Advertisement

The result is a feedback loop: AI tools generate code at unprecedented speed, much of it modeled on insecure patterns, and security teams scramble to keep up. Traditional scanning tools, designed for a world where humans wrote and reviewed code at human speed, are increasingly overmatched.

How AURI traces vulnerabilities through every layer of an application

AURI’s core technical differentiator is what Endor Labs calls its “code context graph” — a deep, function-level map of how an application’s first-party code, open source dependencies, container layers, and AI models interconnect. Where competitors like Snyk and GitHub’s Dependabot examine what libraries an application imports and cross-reference them against known vulnerability databases, Endor Labs traces exactly how and where those components are actually used, down to the individual line of code.

“We have this code intelligence graph that understands not just what libraries and dependencies you use, but pinpoints exactly how, where, and in what context they’re used — down to the specific line of code where you’re calling a piece of functionality that has a vulnerability,” Badhwar said.

He illustrated the difference with a concrete example. A developer might import a large library like an AWS SDK but only call two services comprising 10 lines of code. The remaining 99,000 lines in that open source library are unreachable by the application. Traditional tools flag every known vulnerability across the entire library. AURI’s full-stack reachability analysis trims those irrelevant findings away.

Advertisement

Building that capability required significant investment. Endor Labs hired 13 PhDs specializing in program analysis, many of whom previously built similar technology internally at companies like Meta, GitHub, and Microsoft. The company has indexed billions of functions across millions of open source packages and created over half a billion embeddings to identify the provenance of copied code, even when function names or structures have been changed.

The platform combines this deterministic analysis with agentic AI reasoning. Specialized agents work together to detect, triage, and remediate vulnerabilities automatically, while multi-file call graphs and dataflow analysis detect complex business logic flaws that span multiple components. The result, according to Endor Labs, is an average 80% to 95% reduction in security findings for enterprise customers — trimming away what Badhwar called “tens of millions of dollars a year in developer productivity” lost to investigating false positives.

A free tier for developers, a paid platform for the enterprise

In a strategic move aimed at rapid adoption, Endor Labs is offering AURI’s core functionality free to individual developers through an MCP server that integrates directly with popular IDEs including VS Code, Cursor, and Windsurf. The free tier requires no credit card, no sign-up process, and no complex registration.

“The idea is that there’s no policy, no administration, no customization. It just helps your code generation tools stop creating more vulnerabilities,” Badhwar said.

Advertisement

Privacy-conscious developers will note a key architectural choice: the free product runs entirely on the developer’s machine. Only non-proprietary vulnerability intelligence is pulled from Endor Labs’ servers. “All of your code stays local and is scanned locally. It never gets copied into AURI or Endor Labs or anything else,” Badhwar explained.

The enterprise version adds the features large organizations need: full customization, policy configuration, role-based access control for teams of thousands of developers, and integration across CI/CD pipelines. Enterprise pricing is based on the number of developers and the volume of scans. Deployment options include local scanning, ephemeral cloud containers, and on-premises Kubernetes clusters with full tenant isolation — flexibility Badhwar said is “the most any vendor offers in this space.”

The freemium approach mirrors the playbook that worked for developer tools companies like GitHub and Atlassian: win individual developers first, then expand into their organizations. But it also reflects a practical reality. In a world where AI coding agents are proliferating across every team, Endor Labs needs to be wherever code is being written — not waiting behind a procurement process.

“Over 97% of vulnerabilities flagged by our previous tool weren’t reachable in our application,” said Travis McPeak, Security at Cursor, in a statement sent to VentureBeat. “AURI by Endor Labs shows the few vulnerabilities that are impactful, so we patch quickly, focusing on what matters.”

Advertisement

Why Endor Labs says independence from AI coding tools is essential

The application security market is increasingly crowded. Snyk, GitHub Advanced Security, and a growing number of startups all compete for developer attention. Even the AI model providers themselves are entering the fray: Anthropic recently announced a code security product built into Claude, a move that sent ripples through the market.

Badhwar, however, framed Anthropic’s announcement as validation rather than threat. “That’s one of the biggest validations of what we do, because it says code security is one of the hottest problems in the market,” he told VentureBeat. The deeper question, he argued, is whether enterprises want to trust the same tool generating code to also review it.

“Claude is not going to be the only tool you use for agentic coding. Are you going to use a separate security product for Cursor, a separate one for Claude, a separate one for Augment, and another for Gemini Code Assist?” Badhwar said. “Do you want to trust the same tool that’s creating the software to also review it? There’s a reason we’ve always had reviewers who are different from the developers.”

He outlined three principles he believes will define effective security in the agentic era: independence (security review must be separate from the tool that generated the code), reproducibility (findings must be consistent, not probabilistic), and verifiability (every finding must be backed by evidence). It is a direct challenge to purely LLM-based approaches, which Badhwar characterized as “completely non-deterministic tools that you have no control over in terms of having verifiability of findings, consistency.”

Advertisement

AURI’s approach combines LLMs for what they do best — reasoning, explanation, and contextualization — with deterministic tools that provide the consistency enterprises require. Beyond detection, the platform simulates upgrade paths and tells developers which remediation route will work without introducing breaking changes, a step beyond what most competitors offer. Developers can then execute those fixes themselves or route them to AI coding agents with confidence that the changes have been deterministically validated.

Real-world results show AURI can already find zero-day vulnerabilities

Endor Labs has already demonstrated AURI’s capabilities in high-profile scenarios. In February 2026, the company announced that AURI had identified and validated seven security vulnerabilities in OpenClaw, the popular agentic AI assistant, which were later acknowledged by the OpenClaw development team. As reported by Infosecurity Magazine, OpenClaw subsequently patched six of the vulnerabilities, which ranged from high-severity server-side request forgery bugs to path traversal and authentication bypass flaws.

“These are zero days. They’ve never been found, but AURI did an incredible job of finding those,” Badhwar said. The company has also been detecting active malware campaigns in ecosystems like NPM, including tracking campaigns like Shai-Hulud for several months.

The company is well-capitalized to sustain its push. Endor Labs closed an oversubscribed $93 million Series B round in April 2025 led by DFJ Growth, with participation from Salesforce Ventures, Lightspeed Venture Partners, Coatue, Dell Technologies Capital, Section 32, and Citi Ventures. The company reported 30x annual recurring revenue growth and 166% net revenue retention since its Series A just 18 months earlier. Its platform now protects more than 5 million applications and runs over 1 million scans each week for customers including OpenAI, Cursor, Dropbox, Atlassian, Snowflake, and Robinhood.

Advertisement

Several dozen enterprise customers already use Endor Labs to accelerate compliance with frameworks including FedRAMP, NIST standards, and the European Cyber Resilience Act — a growing priority as regulators increasingly treat software supply chain security as a matter of national security.

The bet that security can keep pace with autonomous software agents

The broader question hanging over AURI’s launch — and over the application security industry as a whole — is whether security tooling can evolve fast enough to match the pace of AI-driven development. Critics of agentic security warn that the industry is moving too quickly, granting AI agents permissions across critical systems without fully understanding the risks. Badhwar acknowledged the concern but argued that resistance is futile.

“I’ve seen this play out when I was building cloud security products, and people were fearful of moving to AWS,” he said. “There was a perception of control when it was in your data center. Yet, guess what? That was the biggest movement of its time, and we as an industry built the right technology and security tooling and visibility around it to make ourselves comfortable.”

For Badhwar, the most exciting implication of agentic development is not the new risks it creates but the old problems it can finally solve. Security teams have spent decades struggling to get developers to prioritize fixing vulnerabilities over building features. AI agents, he argued, do not have that problem — if you give them the right instructions and the right intelligence, they simply execute.

Advertisement

“Security has always struggled for lack of a developer’s attention,” Badhwar said. “But we think you can get an AI agent that’s writing software’s attention by giving them the right context, integrating into the right workflows, and just having them do the right thing for you, so you don’t take an automation opportunity and make it a human’s problem.”

It is a characteristically optimistic framing from a founder who has built his career at the intersection of tectonic technology shifts and the security gaps they leave behind. Whether AURI can deliver on that vision at the scale the AI coding revolution demands remains to be seen. But in a world where machines are writing code faster than humans can review it, the alternative — hoping the models get security right on their own — is a bet few enterprises can afford to make.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Tech

What You Need to Know About the Foreign-Made Router Ban in the US

Published

on

The Federal Communications Commission has banned new consumer internet routers manufactured outside the US, citing national security concerns. The ban doesn’t affect any routers already in American homes or currently on sale in the US, but all new routers aimed at the consumer market will need to be approved.

While the headline is that foreign-made consumer routers are banned, manufacturers can apply for exemptions. There’s no need to throw out your router, and you’ll still find plenty of mesh systems on the store shelves. But what does this mean for you?

Why Are Foreign-Made Routers Banned?

“Malicious actors have exploited security gaps in foreign-made routers to attack American households, disrupt networks, enable espionage, and facilitate intellectual property theft,” the FCC wrote. “Foreign-made routers were also involved in the Volt, Flax, and Salt Typhoon cyberattacks targeting vital US infrastructure.”

Foreign-made consumer routers were added to the Covered List, which details equipment and services “deemed to pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States.”

Advertisement

Bogdan Botezatu, director of Threat Research at cybersecurity firm Bitdefender, says this ban is a step to harden the cybersecurity readiness of US households, given ongoing geopolitical tensions.

“Consumer routers sit at the edge of every home network, which makes them an attractive target and a strategic risk if compromised at scale,” he says. Asked whether he thinks the risk is real, Botezatu says the risk is real, though there’s no easy way to prove intent. “[Internet of Things] devices, including routers, are a weak point across the internet.”

Which Routers Are Banned?

The ban only affects the sale of new Wi-Fi routers aimed at consumer households. The ban does not apply to existing FCC-approved routers on sale in the US. Previously purchased routers already in use in homes across the country are also fine and are not part of the ban, according to the FCC’s FAQ. These routers can continue to be sold, used, and updated with new firmware.

Any new router manufactured outside the US now requires FCC approval before it can be imported, marketed, or sold in the US. This includes routers from US companies that are manufactured overseas, which is the vast majority of the market right now.

Advertisement

What Does Foreign-Made Mean?

This is decidedly murky. The ban is concerned with “consumer-grade” routers and could include any that are designed or manufactured outside the US or manufactured by companies that are not completely US-owned and operated. All the major players in the market, including Netgear, TP-Link, Asus, Amazon’s Eero, Google’s Nest, Synology, Linksys, and Ubiquiti, fall under the definition. As do most, if not all, of the routers supplied by internet service providers in the US.

Just like the recent federal drone ban, the router only applies only to new routers, but manufacturers can apply for Conditional Approval from the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security. Applications must include details about ownership, board membership, and country of origin for components, IP ownership, design, assembly, and firmware, among other things. The final section requests details of the applicant’s US manufacturing and onshoring plan, so there’s a clear push to persuade companies to commit to making their routers in the US.

“No routers or manufacturers have been granted a Conditional Approval so far, but as the process gets underway, we expect approvals to be granted in a timely manner,” an FCC spokesperson tells WIRED.

What About Foreign-Made Components?

Well, the FCC provides some clarification in its FAQ (“covered” here means banned):

Advertisement

“Non-‘covered’ devices do not become ‘covered’ simply because they contain a ‘covered’ component part, unless the ‘covered’ component part is a modular transmitter under the FCC’s rules,” it says. “Therefore, a router produced in the United States is not considered ‘covered’ equipment solely because it contains one or more foreign-made components.”

Manufacturers importing components from China but assembling them in the US will presumably be OK, though it’s far from clear. “Applicants will need to be able to have sufficient evidence that the routers were not produced in a foreign country to make this certification, but there is no specific documentation or evidence required,” according to the FCC.

Let’s look at the big three US router brands and see how they’re affected.

Will TP-Link Be Banned?

Advertisement

Since all of its routers are made overseas, TP-Link will have to apply for Conditional Approval or spin up manufacturing in the US to sell any new routers. Estimates vary, but TP-Link’s US consumer router market share is somewhere around 35 percent, with Netgear and Asus accounting for another 25 percent or so.

The US Commerce, Defense, and Justice departments have reportedly been investigating and considering a ban on TP-Link routers for more than a year over concerns about the company’s links to China. No ban has been enacted until now, but Texas attorney general Ken Paxton sued TP-Link in February, claiming the company allows the Chinese Communist Party to access American consumers’ devices. Detractors have also criticized perceived predatory pricing, claiming TP-Link flooded the US market with a wide range of affordable routers to establish dominance.

TP-Link has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing and claims it has divested from its Chinese roots and is now headquartered in the US with the bulk of manufacturing in Vietnam. TP-Link’s cofounder and CEO, Jeffrey Chao, recently applied for permanent US residency through President Trump’s Gold Card program, according to the Times of India.

“Virtually all routers are made outside the United States, including those produced by US-based companies like TP-Link, which manufactures its products in Vietnam,” a spokesperson from TP-Link tells WIRED. “It appears that the entire router industry will be impacted by the FCC’s announcement concerning new devices not previously authorized by the FCC.”

Advertisement

TP-Link is a privately owned company and not publicly listed on any stock exchange. Chao and his wife, Hillary, are listed as the company’s sole owners.

Will Netgear Be Banned?

While it is a US-founded and headquartered company, Netgear’s routers are manufactured abroad, mostly in Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, and Taiwan, so it will have to apply for Conditional Approval. The company has moved away from China in recent years. Netgear has been lobbying the government on “cybersecurity and strategic competition with China.”

“We commend the administration and the FCC for their action toward a safer digital future for Americans,” a Netgear spokesperson tells WIRED. “Home routers and mesh systems are critical to national security and consumer protection, and today’s decision is a step forward.”

Advertisement

Netgear is a publicly traded company on the Nasdaq, mostly owned by institutional investors, including BlackRock and Vanguard. The company’s stock rose on news of the ban, suggesting that many investors believe it won’t be hit too hard.

Will Asus Be Banned?

Asus primarily makes its routers in Taiwan, though it has production facilities in China and works with several third-party manufacturers. Recent tariff pressures led the company to branch out to Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, Mexico, and the Czech Republic, but the bulk of its routers still come from Taiwan or China. Asus will have to apply for Conditional Approval to sell new routers. The company did not respond to WIRED’s request for comment.

The company is listed on the Taiwanese Stock Exchange and is mostly owned by public shareholders. The ban doesn’t appear to have impacted its stock price.

Advertisement

Are Any Routers Manufactured in the US?

The only routers I know of that are manufactured in the US are some Starlink Wi-Fi routers, which are primarily made in Texas. Starlink is part of Elon Musk’s SpaceX company, but many of the components in these routers come from East Asia.

Botezatu says what matters more than geography is the security model behind the product. Companies that invest in “long-term firmware support, vulnerabilitgy management, and built-in protection layers” offer stronger security.

How Will the Router Ban Impact Ordinary Folks?

It’s not entirely clear, but it probably won’t have a huge immediate impact. There is already a wide range of Wi-Fi 7 routers and mesh systems on the market that will continue to be sold—they enable speeds well in excess of what most people need at home. Whether companies spin up manufacturing in the US or find other ways to satisfy government agencies that their wares are not a security risk, the result is likely to be higher prices for consumers.

“This ruling has the potential to significantly disrupt the US consumer router market,” Brandon Butler, a research manager of Network Infrastructure and Services at IDC tells WIRED. “In the near term, much will depend on how quickly conditional waivers are processed. Most vendors are likely to pursue them, but any delays could constrain supply and create upward pressure on pricing.”

Advertisement

If you haven’t upgraded to the latest Wi-Fi 7 standard, now might be a good time to do it. But it’s worth keeping in mind what you’re buying. Botezatu says consumers should “stick with reputable manufacturers that have a track record of issuing updates and maintaining their devices. Check that your router is still supported and runing the latest firmware.”

Unanswered Questions

The ban does leave several unanswered questions. Why is it being applied only to consumer routers? Which routers or manufacturers will be granted a Conditional Approval? Why are the foreign-made routers currently on sale and in our homes deemed safe? The FCC did not address these questions.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech

This startup will pay you $800 to yell at AI all day

Published

on


As Boston Dynamics demonstrated years ago, “bullying” technology designed to mimic intelligent behaviors is nothing new. Memvid is now offering $800 to someone interested in putting modern AI models to the test – a “professional” yeller tasked with spending an entire day stressing popular chatbots.
Read Entire Article
Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Pentagon’s ‘Attempt to Cripple’ Anthropic Is Troubling, Judge Says

Published

on

The US Department of Defense appears to be illegally punishing Anthropic for trying to restrict the use of its AI tools by the military, US district judge Rita Lin said during a court hearing on Tuesday.

“It looks like an attempt to cripple Anthropic,” Lin said of the Pentagon designating the company a supply-chain risk. “It looks like [the department] is punishing Anthropic for trying to bring public scrutiny to this contract dispute, which of course would be a violation of the First Amendment.”

Anthropic has filed two federal lawsuits alleging that the Trump administration’s decision to designate the company a security risk amounted to illegal retaliation. The government slapped the label on Anthropic after it pushed for limitations on how its AI could be used by the military. Tuesday’s hearing came in a case filed in San Francisco.

Anthropic is seeking a temporary order to pause the designation. The relief, Anthropic hopes, would help convince some of the company’s skittish customers to stick with it just a bit longer. Lin can issue a pause only if she determines that Anthropic is likely to win the overall case. Her ruling on the injunction is expected in the next few days.

Advertisement

The dispute has sparked a broader public conversation about how artificial intelligence is increasingly being used by the armed forces, and whether Silicon Valley companies should give deference to the government in determining how the technology they develop is deployed.

The Department of Defense, which now calls itself the Department of War (DoW), has argued that it followed procedures and appropriately determined that Anthropic’s AI tools could no longer be relied upon to operate as expected during critical moments. It has asked Lin not to second-guess its assessment about the threat it claims Anthropic poses to national security.

“The worry is that Anthropic, instead of merely raising concerns and pushing back, will say we have a problem with what DoW is doing and will manipulate the software … so it doesn’t operate in the way DoW expects and wants it to,” Trump administration attorney Eric Hamilton said during Tuesday’s hearing.

Lin said that it was Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s role—not hers—to decide whether Anthropic is an appropriate vendor for the department. But Lin said it’s up to her to determine whether Hegseth violated the law by taking steps beyond simply canceling Anthropic’s government contracts. Lin said it was “troubling” to her that the security designation and directives more broadly limiting use of Anthropic’s AI tool Claude by government contractors “don’t seem to be tailored to stated national security concerns.”

Advertisement

As Anthropic’s spat with the government escalated last month, Hegseth posted on X that “effective immediately, no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic.”

But on Tuesday, Hamilton acknowledged that Hegseth has no legal authority to bar military contractors from using Anthropic for work unrelated to the Department of Defense. When asked by Lin why Hegseth would have posted that, Hamilton said, “I don’t know.”

Lin further questioned Hamilton about whether the Pentagon had considered taking less punitive measures to move the department away from using Anthropic’s tools. She described the supply-chain-risk designation as a powerful authority typically reserved for foreign adversaries, terrorists, and other hostile actors.

Michael Mongan, a WilmerHale attorney representing Anthropic, said it was extraordinary for the government to go after a “stubborn” negotiating partner with the designation.

Advertisement

The Pentagon has said it is working to replace Anthropic technologies over the coming months with alternatives from Google, OpenAI, and xAI. It also said it has put measures in place to prevent Anthropic from engaging in any tampering during the transition. Hamilton said he didn’t know if it was even possible for Anthropic to update its AI models without permission from the Pentagon; the company says it is not.

A ruling in the other case, at the federal appeals court in Washington, DC, is expected to come soon without a hearing.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech

What’s new with the instant camera?

Published

on

Fujifilm has recently unveiled the latest addition to its instant camera range, with the aptly named Instax Mini 13.

As the Fujifilm Instax Mini 12 has a spot on our best instant cameras list, are there enough improvements with the Mini 13 to warrant an upgrade? Or, is the Mini 12 still a great choice for many.

We’ve compared the specs of the Fujifilm Instax Mini 13 to the Mini 12 and noted all the noteworthy differences between the instant cameras below. Keep reading to see what’s new with the Mini 13 and to decide whether or not you should upgrade.

For more of an overview, we’ve also rounded up a list of the best cameras we’ve reviewed recently. 

Advertisement

Price and Availability

At the time of writing, Fujifilm is yet to provide an exact launch date for the Instax Mini 13, and instead has promised the instant camera will be available “in or around late June 2026”. Its current MSRP is £79/€89.99/$93.95.

Advertisement

In comparison, the Fujifilm Instax Mini 12 is readily available to purchase now and has an RRP of around £79.99/$94. Having said that, it is possible to nab the instant camera with a decent price drop.

Instax Mini 13 includes a self-timer

One of the main new additions to the Instax Mini 13 is the inclusion of a self-timer. The timer is fitted with an LED lever that allows you to switch between either a two-second or ten-second countdown. The shorter two-second timer is designed for capturing hands-free selfies with reduced blur, while the ten-second alternative enables easier group shots and different angles.

Advertisement
Self timer on Instax Mini 13Self timer on Instax Mini 13
Self timer on Instax Mini 13. Image Credit (Fujifilm)

As mentioned, this is a brand new addition to the Mini 13 so the Mini 12 unfortunately lacks this tool. Even so, it’s still worth noting that we found the Mini 12 to be easy to use, thanks to the few buttons or features on offer.

Both feature a selfie mirror and close-up mode

If you’re coming from an older Instax Mini, then you’ll be pleased to know that both the Mini 13 and Mini 12 are fitted with built-in selfie mirrors at their respective fronts. It’s a great addition that allows you to check whether everyone is in the frame before potentially wasting a precious print.

Not only that, but both cameras also benefit from Close-Up Mode which is enabled by twisting the lens twice. Essentially, Close-Up Mode could also be classed as “selfie” mode, and ensures the main subject is captured right in the centre.

Advertisement

Instax Mini 12 main imageInstax Mini 12 main image
Instax Mini 12. Image Credit (Trusted Reviews)

Speaking of similarities, it’s also worth noting that both the Mini 13 and Mini 12 have automatic lighting adjustment and promise to print a photo in just five seconds and have it develop within 90. 

Instax Mini 13 has new film

Alongside the launch of the Instax Mini 13, Fujifilm has also revealed a couple of new additions and updates to its existing line-up. Firstly, the Instax Up! Smartphone apps will now integrate AI to increase image scanning precision, which is thanks to an update to its “overall learning capability”. This, according to Fujifilm, is promised to recognise images over backgrounds for “more precise scans” overall.

Advertisement

In addition, Fujifilm is also introducing a new Pastel Galaxy-themed film roll which includes sparkly, gloss embellishments and more colours too. This will be available by “late June 2026” with an MSRP of €9.99.

Although both of these new additions are introduced with the Instax Mini 13, the film and smartphone app updates will be supported by the Instax Mini 12.

Instax Mini 12 photosInstax Mini 12 photos
Instax Mini 12 photos. Image Credit (Trusted Reviews)

Advertisement

Instax Mini 13 includes a camera angle adjustment accessory

Designed to work with the self-timer, the Instax Mini 13 comes equipped with a camera angle adjustment tool. Made up as part of the wrist strap, the tool can be used to position the camera with a slight upward tilt – negating the need for a tripod or any additional equipment.

Instax Mini 13 camera adjustment accessoryInstax Mini 13 camera adjustment accessory

Instax Mini 13 has more of a square design

Although at first glance you’d be forgiven for not noticing a huge design difference between the two, there are a few things to consider. Firstly, although both are undoubtedly portable, it’s fair to say that neither are quite pocket-friendly cameras to whip out in a flash. If that’s something you’d prefer, then we’d recommend the Instax Mini Evo instead.

Instax Mini 13Instax Mini 13
Instax Mini 13. Image Credit (Fujifilm)

Otherwise, alongside the addition of the timer lever at its side, the Mini 13 also has more of a uniform rounded shape compared to the Mini 12. Either way, both cameras are compact and come in a choice of five pastel colours too.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Early Verdict

With the addition of a self-timer, a rounder and more uniform design and the inclusion of the camera angle adjustment accessory on its wrist strap, the Instax Mini 13 looks set to be a brilliant instant camera – especially if you’re coming from an older model.

However, whether you really need to upgrade from the Instax Mini 12 is still up for debate as, although the Mini 12 may lack the self-timer, it still sports Close-Up Mode, automatic light and flash control and speedy photo printing too. We’ll be sure to update this versus once we do review the Instax Mini 13.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech

Epic cuts 1,000+ jobs amid financial struggles, seeks half-billion-dollar cost savings

Published

on


Sweeney also pointed to industry-wide changes including slower growth, weaker spending on games and consoles, tougher cost economics, and new forms of entertainment competing for gamers’ attention as additional factors hurting their business.
Read Entire Article
Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Embedding compliance in AI adoption

Published

on

Kyndryl’s Ismail Amla discusses the company’s new policy as code process, and how it can help address AI issues such as agentic drift.

When it comes to AI adoption in enterprise, compliance concerns are becoming ever more important.

According to Kyndryl’s most recent Readiness Report, 31pc of enterprise customers cite regulatory or compliance concerns as a primary barrier limiting their organisation’s ability to scale recent technology investments.

2026 marks an important point on the AI compliance timeline in particular, with the EU’s AI Act transparency rules coming into effect in August.

Advertisement

Last month, Kyndryl announced its new ‘policy as code capability’ – a new process designed for creating policy-governed agentic AI workflows for enterprises.

“Policy as code is the process of translating an organisation’s rules, policies and compliance requirements into machine-readable code, so AI systems are restricted to only operating within pre-defined guardrails,” explains Ismail Amla, senior vice-president at Kyndryl Consult. “Human experts continue to oversee all activities related to these processes.”

Compliant design

“Many organisations, especially those in complex, highly regulated environments, want to scale agentic AI, but are held back by concerns around security, compliance and control”, says Amla.

Speaking to SiliconRepublic.com, he says policy as code can help organisations support “consistent policy interpretations” and define clear operational boundaries, subsequently ensuring agent actions are explainable, reviewable and “aligned with organisational standards”.

Advertisement

Amla also says the framework can help reduce costs, accelerate decision-making, eliminate errors and “power AI-native workflows within defined policy guardrails”.

“By embedding policy and regulatory requirements directly into AI agent operations, policy as code can help organisations execute AI workflows that are governed, transparent, explainable and aligned to business requirements.”

But what about the long-term applications of policy as code?

Amla says the main benefit of the process is “trust through stronger governance, better transparency, lower operational risk and more reliable AI at scale”.

Advertisement

“Managing agentic workflow execution in this way supports controlled and responsible deployment of policy-constrained AI agents in sectors such as financial operations, public services, supply chains and other mission-critical domains, where reliability and predictability are essential,” he explains.

Catch the drift

Over the past year, according to Amla, the biggest change he’s noticed in AI adoption is that organisations are moving beyond proofs of concept and “focusing more seriously on what it takes to make AI work in production and at scale”.

“That means more attention on infrastructure, governance, data quality and organisational readiness,” he says. “Organisations are moving from experimentation to making more strategic decisions with the experience they have gained to drive higher value outcomes and performance for their organisation, and receive a return on their investment.”

But with increased focus on serious AI integrations comes risk, particularly if an organisation is not fully prepared.

Advertisement

Amla warns of something called ‘agentic drift’, which refers to when an AI agent can appear reliable while working toward unwanted outcomes due to a gradual separation from the agent operator’s original intention or goal.

“Agentic drift creates pressing challenges for all organisations, but it is especially acute in the public sector and highly regulated sectors, such as banking and healthcare,” says Amla.

“In these industries, organisations cannot move from pilots to production if issues around control, trust and compliance remain unresolved. It’s clear enterprises urgently need a way to constrain what agents can do at runtime and close governance gaps long before drift leads to financial or compliance failures.”

Amla believes that policy as code can help address this issue, due to its ability to allow businesses to translate their rules and policy into machine-readable instructions that “govern how AI agents reason, adapt and act”.

Advertisement

“This greatly reduces the risk of agentic drift,” he says. “It also alleviates the trust and compliance concerns standing between large enterprises and a return on their AI investments.”

Don’t miss out on the knowledge you need to succeed. Sign up for the Daily Brief, Silicon Republic’s digest of need-to-know sci-tech news.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech

Sony is reportedly shutting down Dark Outlaw Games, run by former Call of Duty director

Published

on

Sony is shutting down Dark Outlaw Games, a first-party game studio led by former Call of Duty producer Jason Blundell, Bloomberg‘s Jason Schreier reports. Before leading Dark Outlaw Games, Blundell was the head of Deviation Games, which was an independent studio, but also happened to be developing a PlayStation game before it shut down, Schreier says.

Dark Outlaw Games had yet to announce what it was working on, but considering Blundell’s experience with the Call of Duty franchise, it seems likely the studio was developing a multiplayer project for PlayStation. Blundell was a programmer and producer at Activision before making the jump to Treyarch to work on Call of Duty 3, and he contributed to multiple Call of Duty: Black Ops games after that, including serving as the director for the campaign and Zombies mode of Call of Duty: Black Ops III and the career and Zombies modes of Call of Duty: Black Ops 4.

Engadget has contacted Sony for more information about the fate of Dark Outlaw Games. We’ll update this article if we hear back.

The studio’s shutdown is being paired with cuts to staff at PlayStation focused on mobile development, according to Schreier. Sony has made a habit of laying off staff and shutting down studios in the last year, seemingly as a way to retreat from an earlier investment in online, live-service multiplayer games. The company shut down Bluepoint Games in February following attempts to get a live-service God of War game off the ground. Sony also closed Firewalk Studios after the spectacular failure of multiplayer shooter Concord in October 2024. And a year before that, Naughty Dog officially abandoned work on a standalone multiplayer version of The Last of Us in December 2023.

Advertisement

That leaves Sony with at least two Horizon Zero Dawn spin-offs, a co-op game from original developer Guerilla Games and a MMO from developer NCSoft; Fairgame$, which is still in active development despite the departure of Haven Studios head Jade Raymond; Arrowhead Game Studios’ Helldivers 2; Bungie’s Destiny 2 and Marathon; and if you really want to stretch, Gran Turismo 7. Sony clearly hasn’t given up on producing online multiplayer games, but it’s not hard to characterize its attempt to expand into the space as a disaster.

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Anthropic hands Claude Code more control, but keeps it on a leash

Published

on

For developers using AI, “vibe coding” right now comes down to babysitting every action or risking letting the model run unchecked. Anthropic says its latest update to Claude aims to eliminate that choice by letting the AI decide which actions are safe to take on its own — with some limits.  

The move reflects a broader shift across the industry, as AI tools are increasingly designed to act without waiting for human approval. The challenge is balancing speed with control: too many guardrails slows things down, while too few can make systems risky and unpredictable. Anthropic’s new “auto mode,” now in research preview — meaning it’s available for testing but not yet a finished product — is its latest attempt to thread that needle. 

Auto mode uses AI safeguards to review each action before it runs, checking for risky behavior the user didn’t request and for signs of prompt injection — a type of attack where malicious instructions are hidden in content that the AI is processing, causing it to take unintended actions. Any safe actions will proceed automatically, while the risky ones get blocked.

It’s essentially an extension of Claude Code’s existing “dangerously-skip-permissions” command, which hands all decision-making to the AI, but with a safety layer added on top.

Advertisement

The feature builds on a wave of autonomous coding tools from companies like GitHub and OpenAI, which can execute tasks on a developer’s behalf. But it takes it a step further by shifting the decision of when to ask for permission from the user to the AI itself. 

Anthropic hasn’t detailed the specific criteria its safety layer uses to distinguish safe actions from risky ones — something developers will likely want to understand better before adopting the feature widely. (TechCrunch has reached out to the company for more information on this front.)

Auto mode comes off the back of Anthropic’s launch of Claude Code Review, its automatic code reviewer designed to catch bugs before they hit the codebase, and Dispatch for Cowork, which allows users to send tasks to AI agents to handle work on their behalf.  

Techcrunch event

Advertisement

San Francisco, CA
|
October 13-15, 2026

Auto mode will roll out to Enterprise and API users in the coming days. The company says it currently only works with Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Opus 4.6, and recommends using the new feature in “isolated environments” — sandboxed setups that are kept separate from production systems, limiting the potential damage if something goes wrong.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

OpenAI Discontinues Sora Video Platform App

Published

on

OpenAI is shutting down Sora, its generative-AI video creation platform it launched in December 2024. “The move is one of a number of steps OpenAI is taking to refocus on business and coding functions ahead of a potential initial public offering as soon as the fourth quarter of this year,” reports the Wall Street Journal.

CEO Sam Altman announced the changes to staff on Tuesday. “We’re saying goodbye to Sora,” the Sora Team said in a post on X. “To everyone who created with Sora, shared it, and built community around it: thank you. What you made with Sora mattered, and we know this news is disappointing. We’ll share more soon, including timelines for the app and API and details on preserving your work.”

Last week, OpenAI announced plans to combine its Atlas web browser, ChatGPT app, and Codex coding app into a singular desktop “superapp.” “We realized we were spreading our efforts across too many apps and stacks, and that we need to simplify our efforts,” said CEO of Applications, Fidji Simo. “That fragmentation has been slowing us down and making it harder to hit the quality bar we want.” This could behind the decision to kill Sora as the company redirects its resources and top talent towards productivity tools that benefit both enterprises and individual users.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech

This version of the Kindle Scribe Colorsoft is quite hard to get hold of

Published

on

A few months after its initial launch, Amazon has recently unveiled the Kindle Scribe Colorsoft in a brand new fetching Fig shade that’s proved especially popular.

In fact, the Fig-colour Kindle Scribe Colorsoft is so popular that it’s becoming increasingly difficult to get our hands on the e-reader, with shipping delays stretching well beyond the typical delivery windows we’d expect from Amazon.

At the time of writing, new orders for the Fig iteration in the US are expected to arrive anywhere between mid-April to mid-May. However, you can get your hands on the standard Graphite finish which is currently still in stock within the US. This suggests that the issue really only affects the newer colour option, rather than the entire product line.

Such differences in availability often point to supply constraints or production adjustments, particularly when a new finish launches after the initial release and demand shifts toward the latest variant.

Advertisement
Kindle Scribe Colorsoft in FigKindle Scribe Colorsoft in Fig
Kindle Scribe Colorsoft in Fig. Image Credit (Amazon)

Advertisement

It’s worth noting that at the time of writing, neither the Fig nor Graphite Kindle Scribe Colorsoft has officially launched in the UK. In addition, neither iterations are even available to pre-order, as the product page just states the e-reader is “coming soon”. Instead, you can opt into receiving an email to get notified on when the product will be available to buy.

Delays highlight uneven availability

The Kindle Scribe Colorsoft was initially only available in a Graphite option until Amazon recently introduced the new Fig finish, which seemingly appears to have drawn a considerably higher demand than anticipated. Either that, or the Fig shade has encountered production challenges soon after release.

However, delays tied to a specific colour variant are not uncommon, as sometimes manufacturing complexity or material sourcing can affect certain finishes differently than standard models.

In addition, the extended wait times also suggest that supply has not yet caught up with demand, especially as colour e-paper devices remain a relatively new category with more limited production scale compared to traditional e-readers.

Advertisement
Kindle Scribe Colorsoft in GraphiteKindle Scribe Colorsoft in Graphite

Essentially, customers are left choosing between faster delivery by opting for the Graphite version, or waiting considerably longer to nab the Fig iteration instead.

Advertisement

This situation leaves buyers choosing between faster delivery with the Graphite version or waiting longer to secure the Fig model.

Same hardware, different buying experience

Following on from the above, it’s worth noting that both versions of the Kindle Scribe Colorsoft share the same core hardware, including an 11-inch colour e-paper display based on Kaleido 3 technology, which combines standard black-and-white clarity with lower-resolution colour output.

The device also integrates a redesigned front-light system and a textured display surface that improves writing feel, placing it closer to digital notebooks than traditional e-readers focused only on reading.

Advertisement

Storage options and connectivity remain consistent across variants, with support for Wi-Fi, Bluetooth audio, and bundled stylus input, which reinforces that the delay relates to availability rather than product capability.

Amazon has not provided a detailed explanation for the extended shipping times on the Fig model, but current delivery estimates suggest that availability may stabilise later in the Spring.

Advertisement

If you are exploring other options, our Best Kindle 2026 roundup highlights the top-performing e-readers available today.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025