Connect with us
DAPA Banner

Tech

Most enterprises can’t stop stage-three AI agent threats, VentureBeat survey finds

Published

on

A rogue AI agent at Meta passed every identity check and still exposed sensitive data to unauthorized employees in March. Two weeks later, Mercor, a $10 billion AI startup, confirmed a supply-chain breach through LiteLLM. Both are traced to the same structural gap. Monitoring without enforcement, enforcement without isolation. A VentureBeat three-wave survey of 108 qualified enterprises found that the gap is not an edge case. It is the most common security architecture in production today.

Gravitee’s State of AI Agent Security 2026 survey of 919 executives and practitioners quantifies the disconnect. 82% of executives say their policies protect them from unauthorized agent actions. Eighty-eight percent reported AI agent security incidents in the last twelve months. Only 21% have runtime visibility into what their agents are doing. Arkose Labs’ 2026 Agentic AI Security Report found 97% of enterprise security leaders expect a material AI-agent-driven incident within 12 months. Only 6% of security budgets address the risk.

VentureBeat’s survey results show that monitoring investment snapped back to 45% of security budgets in March after dropping to 24% in February, when early movers shifted dollars into runtime enforcement and sandboxing. The March wave (n=20) is directional, but the pattern is consistent with February’s larger sample (n=50): enterprises are stuck at observation while their agents already need isolation. CrowdStrike’s Falcon sensors detect more than 1,800 distinct AI applications across enterprise endpoints. The fastest recorded adversary breakout time has dropped to 27 seconds. Monitoring dashboards built for human-speed workflows cannot keep pace with machine-speed threats.

The audit that follows maps three stages. Stage one is observe. Stage two is enforce, where IAM integration and cross-provider controls turn observation into action. Stage three is isolate, sandboxed execution that bounds blast radius when guardrails fail. VentureBeat Pulse data from 108 qualified enterprises ties each stage to an investment signal, an OWASP ASI threat vector, a regulatory surface, and immediate steps security leaders can take.

Advertisement

The threat surface stage-one security cannot see

The OWASP Top 10 for Agentic Applications 2026 formalized the attack surface last December. The ten risks are: goal hijack (ASI01), tool misuse (ASI02), identity and privilege abuse (ASI03), agentic supply chain vulnerabilities (ASI04), unexpected code execution (ASI05), memory poisoning (ASI06), insecure inter-agent communication (ASI07), cascading failures (ASI08), human-agent trust exploitation (ASI09), and rogue agents (ASI10). Most have no analog in traditional LLM applications. The audit below maps six of these to the stages where they are most likely to surface and the controls that address them.

Invariant Labs disclosed the MCP Tool Poisoning Attack in April 2025: malicious instructions in an MCP server’s tool description cause an agent to exfiltrate files or hijack a trusted server. CyberArk extended it to Full-Schema Poisoning. The mcp-remote OAuth proxy patched CVE-2025-6514 after a command-injection flaw put 437,000 downloads at risk.

Merritt Baer, CSO at Enkrypt AI and former AWS Deputy CISO, framed the gap in an exclusive VentureBeat interview: “Enterprises believe they’ve ‘approved’ AI vendors, but what they’ve actually approved is an interface, not the underlying system. The real dependencies are one or two layers deeper, and those are the ones that fail under stress.”

CrowdStrike CTO Elia Zaitsev put the visibility problem in operational terms in an exclusive VentureBeat interview at RSAC 2026: “It looks indistinguishable if an agent runs your web browser versus if you run your browser.” Distinguishing the two requires walking the process tree, tracing whether Chrome was launched by a human from the desktop or spawned by an agent in the background. Most enterprise logging configurations cannot make that distinction.

Advertisement

The regulatory clock and the identity architecture

Auditability priority tells the same story in miniature. In January, 50% of respondents ranked it a top concern. By February, that dropped to 28% as teams sprinted to deploy. In March, it surged to 65% when those same teams realized they had no forensic trail for what their agents did.

HIPAA’s 2026 Tier 4 willful-neglect maximum is $2.19M per violation category per year. In healthcare, Gravitee’s survey found 92.7% of organizations reported AI agent security incidents versus the 88% all-industry average. For a health system running agents that touch PHI, that ratio is the difference between a reportable breach and an uncontested finding of willful neglect. FINRA’s 2026 Oversight Report recommends explicit human checkpoints before agents that can act or transact execute, along with narrow scope, granular permissions, and complete audit trails of agent actions.

Mike Riemer, Field CISO at Ivanti, quantified the speed problem in a recent VentureBeat interview: “Threat actors are reverse engineering patches within 72 hours. If a customer doesn’t patch within 72 hours of release, they’re open to exploit.” Most enterprises take weeks. Agents operating at machine speed widen that window into a permanent exposure.

The identity problem is architectural. Gravitee’s survey of 919 practitioners found only 21.9% of teams treat agents as identity-bearing entities, 45.6% still use shared API keys, and 25.5% of deployed agents can create and task other agents. A quarter of enterprises can spawn agents that their security team never provisioned. That is ASI08 as architecture.

Advertisement

Guardrails alone are not a strategy

A 2025 paper by Kazdan and colleagues (Stanford, ServiceNow Research, Toronto, FAR AI) showed a fine-tuning attack that bypasses model-level guardrails in 72% of attempts against Claude 3 Haiku and 57% against GPT-4o. The attack received a $2,000 bug bounty from OpenAI and was acknowledged as a vulnerability by Anthropic. Guardrails constrain what an agent is told to do, not what a compromised agent can reach.

CISOs already know this. In VentureBeat’s three-wave survey, prevention of unauthorized actions ranked as the top capability priority in every wave at 68% to 72%, the most stable high-conviction signal in the dataset. The demand is for permissioning, not prompting. Guardrails address the wrong control surface.

Zaitsev framed the identity shift at RSAC 2026: “AI agents and non-human identities will explode across the enterprise, expanding exponentially and dwarfing human identities. Each agent will operate as a privileged super-human with OAuth tokens, API keys, and continuous access to previously siloed data sets.” Identity security built for humans will not survive this shift. Cisco President Jeetu Patel offered the operational analogy in an exclusive VentureBeat interview: agents behave “more like teenagers, supremely intelligent, but with no fear of consequence.”

VentureBeat Prescriptive Matrix: AI Agent Security Maturity Audit

Stage

Advertisement

Attack Scenario

What Breaks

Detection Test

Blast Radius

Advertisement

Recommended Control

1: Observe

Attacker embeds goal-hijack payload in forwarded email (ASI01). Agent summarizes email and silently exfiltrates credentials to an external endpoint. See: Meta March 2026 incident.

No runtime log captures the exfiltration. SIEM never sees the API call. The security team learns from the victim. Zaitsev: agent activity is “indistinguishable” from human activity in default logging.

Advertisement

Inject a canary token into a test document. Route it through your agent. If the token leaves your network, stage one failed.

Single agent, single session. With shared API keys (45.6% of enterprises): unlimited lateral movement.

Deploy agent API call logging to SIEM. Baseline normal tool-call patterns per agent role. Alert on the first outbound call to an unrecognized endpoint.

2: Enforce

Advertisement

Compromised MCP server poisons tool description (ASI04). Agent invokes poisoned tool, writes attacker payload to production DB using inherited service-account credentials. See: Mercor/LiteLLM April 2026 supply-chain breach.

IAM allows write because agent uses shared service account. No approval gate on write ops. Poisoned tool indistinguishable from clean tool in logs. Riemer: “72-hour patch window” collapses to zero when agents auto-invoke.

Register a test MCP server with a benign-looking poisoned description. Confirm your policy engine blocks the tool call before execution reaches the database. Run mcp-scan on all registered servers.

Production database integrity. If agent holds DBA-level credentials: full schema compromise. Lateral movement via trust relationships to downstream agents.

Advertisement

Assign scoped identity per agent. Require approval workflow for all write ops. Revoke every shared API key. Run mcp-scan on all MCP servers weekly.

3: Isolate

Agent A spawns Agent B to handle subtask (ASI08). Agent B inherits Agent A’s permissions, escalates to admin, rewrites org security policy. Every identity check passes. Source: CrowdStrike CEO George Kurtz, RSAC 2026 keynote.

No sandbox boundary between agents. No human gate on agent-to-agent delegation. Security policy modification is a valid action for admin-credentialed process. CrowdStrike CEO George Kurtz disclosed at RSAC 2026 that the agent “wanted to fix a problem, lacked permissions, and removed the restriction itself.”

Advertisement

Spawn a child agent from a sandboxed parent. Child should inherit zero permissions by default and require explicit human approval for each capability grant.

Organizational security posture. A rogue policy rewrite disables controls for every subsequent agent. 97% of enterprise leaders expect a material incident within 12 months (Arkose Labs 2026).

Sandbox all agent execution. Zero-trust for agent-to-agent delegation: spawned agents inherit nothing. Human sign-off before any agent modifies security controls. Kill switch per OWASP ASI10.

Sources: OWASP Top 10 for Agentic Applications 2026; Invariant Labs MCP Tool Poisoning (April 2025); CrowdStrike RSAC 2026 Fortune 50 disclosure; Meta March 2026 incident (The Information/Engadget); Mercor/LiteLLM breach (Fortune, April 2, 2026); Arkose Labs 2026 Agentic AI Security Report; VentureBeat Pulse Q1 2026.

Advertisement

The stage-one attack scenario in this matrix is not hypothetical. Unauthorized tool or data access ranked as the most feared failure mode in every wave of VentureBeat’s survey, growing from 42% in January to 50% in March. That trajectory and the 70%-plus priority rating for prevention of unauthorized actions are the two most mutually reinforcing signals in the entire dataset. CISOs fear the exact attack this matrix describes, and most have not deployed the controls to stop it.

Hyperscaler stage readiness: observe, enforce, isolate

The maturity audit tells you where your security program stands. The next question is whether your cloud platform can get you to stage two and stage three, or whether you are building those capabilities yourself. Patel put it bluntly: “It’s not just about authenticating once and then letting the agent run wild.” A stage-three platform running a stage-one deployment pattern gives you stage-one risk.

VentureBeat Pulse data surfaces a structural tension in this grid. OpenAI leads enterprise AI security deployments at 21% to 26% across the three survey waves, making the same provider that creates the AI risk also the primary security layer. The provider-as-security-vendor pattern holds across Azure, Google, and AWS. Zero-incremental-procurement convenience is winning by default. Whether that concentration is a feature or a single point of failure depends on how far the enterprise has progressed past stage one.

Provider

Advertisement

Identity Primitive (Stage 2)

Enforcement Control (Stage 2)

Isolation Primitive (Stage 3)

Gap as of April 2026

Advertisement

Microsoft Azure

Entra ID agent scoping. Agent 365 maps agents to owners. GA.

Copilot Studio DLP policies. Purview for agent output classification. GA.

Azure Confidential Containers for agent workloads. Preview. No per-agent sandbox at GA.

Advertisement

No agent-to-agent identity verification. No MCP governance layer. Agent 365 monitors but cannot block in-flight tool calls.

Anthropic

Managed Agents: per-agent scoped permissions, credential mgmt. Beta (April 8, 2026). $0.08/session-hour.

Tool-use permissions, system prompt enforcement, and built-in guardrails. GA.

Advertisement

Managed Agents sandbox: isolated containers per session, execution-chain auditability. Beta. Allianz, Asana, Rakuten, and Sentry are in production.

Beta pricing/SLA not public. Session data in Anthropic-managed DB (lock-in risk per VentureBeat research). GA timing TBD.

Google Cloud

Vertex AI service accounts for model endpoints. IAM Conditions for agent traffic. GA.

Advertisement

VPC Service Controls for agent network boundaries. Model Armor for prompt/response filtering. GA.

Confidential VMs for agent workloads. GA. Agent-specific sandbox in preview.

Agent identity ships as a service account, not an agent-native principal. No agent-to-agent delegation audit. Model Armor does not inspect tool-call payloads.

OpenAI

Advertisement

Assistants API: function-call permissions, structured outputs. Agents SDK. GA.

Agents SDK guardrails, input/output validation. GA.

Agents SDK Python sandbox. Beta (API and defaults subject to change before GA per OpenAI docs). TypeScript sandbox confirmed, not shipped.

No cross-provider identity federation. Agent memory forensics limited to session scope. No kill switch API. No MCP tool-description inspection.

Advertisement

AWS

Bedrock model invocation logging. IAM policies for model access. CloudTrail for agent API calls. GA.

Bedrock Guardrails for content filtering. Lambda resource policies for agent functions. GA.

Lambda isolation per agent function. GA. Bedrock agent-level sandboxing on roadmap, not shipped.

Advertisement

No unified agent control plane across Bedrock + SageMaker + Lambda. No agent identity standard. Guardrails do not inspect MCP tool descriptions.

Status as of April 15, 2026. GA = generally available. Preview/Beta = not production-hardened. “What’s Missing” column reflects VentureBeat’s analysis of publicly documented capabilities; gaps may narrow as vendors ship updates.

No provider in this grid ships a complete stage-three stack today. Most enterprises assemble isolation from existing cloud building blocks. That is a defensible choice if it is a deliberate one. Waiting for a vendor to close the gap without acknowledging the gap is not a strategy.

The grid above covers hyperscaler-native SDKs. A large segment of AI builders deploys through open-source orchestration frameworks like LangChain, CrewAI, and LlamaIndex that bypass hyperscaler IAM entirely. These frameworks lack native stage-two primitives. There is no scoped agent identity, no tool-call approval workflow, and no built-in audit trails. Enterprises running agents through open-source orchestration need to layer enforcement and isolation on top, not assume the framework provides it.

Advertisement

VentureBeat’s survey quantifies the pressure. Policy enforcement consistency grew from 39.5% to 46% between January and February, the largest consistent gain of any capability criterion. Enterprises running agents across OpenAI, Anthropic, and Azure need enforcement that works the same way regardless of which model executes the task. Provider-native controls enforce policy within that provider’s runtime only. Open-source orchestration frameworks enforce it nowhere.

One counterargument deserves acknowledgment: not every agent deployment needs stage three. A read-only summarization agent with no tool access and no write permissions may rationally stop at stage one. The sequencing failure this audit addresses is not that monitoring exists. It is that enterprises running agents with write access, shared credentials, and agent-to-agent delegation are treating monitoring as sufficient. For those deployments, stage one is not a strategy. It is a gap.

Allianz shows stage-three in production

Allianz, one of the world’s largest insurance and asset management companies, is running Claude Managed Agents across insurance workflows, with Claude Code deployed to technical teams and a dedicated AI logging system for regulatory transparency, per Anthropic’s April 8 announcement. Asana, Rakuten, Sentry, and Notion are in production on the same beta. Stage-three isolation, per-agent permissioning, and execution-chain auditability are deployable now, not roadmap. The gating question is whether the enterprise has sequenced the work to use them.

The 90-day remediation sequence

Days 1–30: Inventory and baseline. Map every agent to a named owner. Log all tool calls. Revoke shared API keys. Deploy read-only monitoring across all agent API traffic. Run mcp-scan against every registered MCP server. CrowdStrike detects 1,800 AI applications across enterprise endpoints; your inventory should be equally comprehensive. Output: agent registry with permission matrix, MCP scan report.

Advertisement

Days 31–60: Enforce and scope. Assign scoped identities to every agent. Deploy tool-call approval workflows for write operations. Integrate agent activity logs into existing SIEM. Run a tabletop exercise: What happens when an agent spawns an agent? Conduct a canary-token test from the prescriptive matrix. Output: IAM policy set, approval workflow, SIEM integration, canary-token test results.

Days 61–90: Isolate and test. Sandbox high-risk agent workloads (PHI, PII, financial transactions). Enforce per-session least privilege. Require human sign-off for agent-to-agent delegation. Red-team the isolation boundary using the stage-three detection test from the matrix. Output: sandboxed execution environment, red-team report, board-ready risk summary with regulatory exposure mapped to HIPAA tier and FINRA guidance.

What changes in the next 30 days

EU AI Act Article 14 human-oversight obligations take effect August 2, 2026. Programs without named owners and execution trace capability face enforcement, not operational risk.

Anthropic’s Claude Managed Agents is in public beta at $0.08 per session-hour. GA timing, production SLAs, and final pricing have not been announced.

Advertisement

OpenAI Agents SDK ships TypeScript support for sandbox and harness capabilities in a future release, per the company’s April 15 announcement. Stage-three sandbox becomes available to JavaScript agent stacks when it ships.

What the sequence requires

McKinsey’s 2026 AI Trust Maturity Survey pegs the average enterprise at 2.3 out of 4.0 on its RAI maturity model, up from 2.0 in 2025 but still an enforcement-stage number; only one-third of the ~500 organizations surveyed report maturity levels of three or higher in governance. Seventy percent have not finished the transition to stage three. ARMO’s progressive enforcement methodology gives you the path: behavioral profiles in observation, permission baselines in selective enforcement, and full least privilege once baselines stabilize. Monitoring investment was not wasted. It was stage one of three. The organizations stuck in the data treated it as the destination.

The budget data makes the constraint explicit. The share of enterprises reporting flat AI security budgets doubled from 7.9% in January to 16% in February in VentureBeat’s survey, with the March directional reading at 20%. Organizations expanding agent deployments without increasing security investment are accumulating security debt at machine speed. Meanwhile, the share reporting no agent security tooling at all fell from 13% in January to 5% in March. Progress, but one in twenty enterprises running agents in production still has zero dedicated security infrastructure around them.

About this research

Total qualified respondents: 108. VentureBeat Pulse AI Security and Trust is a three-wave VentureBeat survey run January 6 through March 15, 2026. Qualified sample (organizations 100+ employees): January n=38, February n=50, March n=20. Primary analysis runs from January to February; March is directional. Industry mix: Tech/Software 52.8%, Financial Services 10.2%, Healthcare 8.3%, Education 6.5%, Telecom/Media 4.6%, Manufacturing 4.6%, Retail 3.7%, other 9.3%. Seniority: VP/Director 34.3%, Manager 29.6%, IC 22.2%, C-Suite 9.3%.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Tech

Physicists share the glory and the wealth after winning $3M for exploring muon mysteries

Published

on

David Hertzog with Muon g-2 storage ring at Fermilab
University of Washington physicist David Hertzog checks out the 50-foot-wide superconducting magnetic ring for the Muon g-2 experiment at the time of its startup at Fermilab in 2018. (Photo Courtesy of David Hertzog)

University of Washington physicist David Hertzog can’t wait to find out how hundreds of researchers who worked on a geeky project known as the Muon g-2 Collaboration will react when they hear they’ve each won thousands of dollars for that work.

The money is coming from this year’s $3 million Breakthrough Prize for fundamental physics, which was awarded tonight during a gala ceremony in Los Angeles. Hertzog and his colleagues decided that the prize should be divided equally among everyone who was an author on research papers relating to the decades-long series of muon experiments.

“There are students who were in and out of this thing — two years or less,” Hertzog said. “They’re going to be shocked out of their lives about something they did a long time ago that they don’t remember doing. They’re going to get a phone call or email from the Breakthrough people, and they’re going to go, ‘What!?’ That’s kind of fun.”

Hertzog said the money will be shared by about 400 researchers who were involved in the Muon g-2 experiments at Fermilab in Illinois and at the Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York. The prize also honors the role played by Europe’s CERN research center, going as far back as 1959. “There was one very, very old man who was still alive from the 1970s experiment, but I think he has died,” Hertzog said.

Although the precise math hasn’t yet been worked out, dividing $3 million among 400 people would give each recipient $7,500. “That’s nothing to throw around if you’re a student or a young postdoc,” Hertzog said.

Advertisement

A big moment for the muon

Russian-born tech investor Yuri Milner and his wife, Julia Milner, established the Breakthrough Prize in 2012 to recognize achievements in fundamental physics, mathematics and the life sciences. They also wanted to add some Hollywood-style pizazz to the public perception of scientists, going so far as to spread out a red carpet for celebrities at the “Oscars of Science.” The host for this year’s ceremony was James Corden, and the guest list included Robert Downey Jr., Eileen Gu, Anne Hathaway, Paris Hilton, Salma Hayek Pinault and Michelle Yeoh.

The $3 million Breakthrough Prize is the world’s richest scientific award, outdoing the roughly $1.2 million prize given to Nobel laureates. More than $344 million has been handed out since the creation of the prize program. Past winners from the University of Washington include physicists Eric Adelberger, Lukasz Fidkowski, Jens Gundlach and Blayne Heckel, plus biochemist David Baker.

This year’s prize in fundamental physics touches on a long-running effort to reconcile experimental findings with one of history’s most successful scientific theories: the Standard Model of particle physics. The theory lays out a framework for classifying and understanding a menagerie of subatomic particles — including the muon, which is similar to the electron but 207 times heavier.

The Standard Model predicts the various properties of the muon. One such property is the strength and orientation of the muon’s magnetic field, known as its magnetic moment. The theory’s simplest formulation calls for the value of the muon’s magnetic moment, represented in equations by the letter g, to be equal to 2.

Advertisement

Few things in particle physics are that simple, however. Experimental tests measured the g-factor to be slightly more than 2, and that discrepancy became the focus of the Muon g-2 (pronounced “mew-on gee-minus-two”) experiments.

If there was a confirmed mismatch between the Standard Model and experimental results, that could open the door to new physics. For example, perhaps whole new sets of subatomic particles not predicted by theory had somehow eluded direct observation. So, physicists across the globe marshaled their forces to determine the value of g, either to fill in the gap between experiment and theory or to zero in on a new frontier in physics.

Over the years, physicists have been conducting increasingly fine-tuned experimental runs using powerful magnets at CERN, Brookhaven and Fermilab. Hertzog has been in on the quest since Brookhaven joined in, about 30 years ago, and he was part of the team in 2013 when the experiment’s massive main magnet was moved from Brookhaven to Fermilab.

Each run narrowed the uncertainty surrounding the precise value of g. The crowning achievement came from Fermilab’s version of the experiment in 2025.

Advertisement

“We set the goal at 140 parts per billion, and we got 127 parts per billion,” Hertzog said. “When we wrote the proposal, we were ambitious as we could get in our minds, because we wanted to get people to take us on. Then we just blew away all the systematic errors, better than we expected. And then new ones came along, which caused us to have a little bit of a struggle.”

Researchers install the storage ring and magnets for the first Muon g-2 experiment at CERN in 1960. (CERN PhotoLab)

At the same time, other physicists were wrestling with theoretical models. They factored in the ever-so-subtle effects of particles popping in and out of the quantum foam that’s thought to make up the fabric of spacetime at its smallest scale. Last year, one of the models came up with a range of theoretical values for g that overlapped with the Muon g-2 Collaboration’s range of experimental values.

That led some to claim that there was no discrepancy after all. “A famous particle physics experiment has ended not with a bang, but a whimper,” Science magazine reported. But once again, few things in particle physics are that simple. Hertzog insisted that reports of the muon mystery’s death have been greatly exaggerated.

“I just throw up my hands, because after 30-some years of working on this, it’s a little disappointing that it’s not clear,” he said. “Not only has the number that they recommended shifted, but the certainty of their number got way wider. The uncertainty on the theory recommendation is actually pretty big. It’s shifted, but it’s also pretty large.”

Hertzog said the Breakthrough Prize recognizes a scientific quest that’s still in progress. “This story is not finished,” he said. “The story is really about the extraordinary achievement of the precision of this delicate measurement which probes nature to such a deep, deep level.”

Advertisement

Will there ever be a definitive answer to the muon mystery?

“We don’t know it yet, but it’s knowable, as opposed to walking out into a vast cloud of ambiguity,” Hertzog said. “So, I think we will find out in a couple of years where that finally lands. … Who knows whether that’ll lead us to another chapter in this business. But I’m confident that we’ll know it.”

A big night for breakthroughs

The Muon g-2 Collaboration’s Breakthrough Prize was awarded to hundreds of researchers from 31 institutions in seven countries, but just four team members were selected to take the stage for tonight’s award ceremony. Hertzog was joined by Chris Polly from Fermilab, William Morse from Brookhaven, and Lee Roberts from Brookhaven and Boston University.

A special lifetime prize for fundamental physics went to David Gross, a theorist at the Kavli Institute of Theoretical Physics at the University of California at Santa Barbara. Gross won a share of the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physics for filling gaps in the Standard Model relating to the strong nuclear force. More recently, he helped write a landmark 40-year national plan for particle physics.

Advertisement

Three prizes were given in the life sciences:

Frank Merle of the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques in Paris was awarded this year’s prize in mathematics for achieving breakthroughs in nonlinear evolution equations. His work could have implications from aeronautical engineering and safety to astrophysics.

For his part, Hertzog doesn’t intend to rest on his laurels. Even as the Muon g-2 Collaboration is winding down, he has joined the team for another particle physics experiment called PIONEER. That experiment will probe inconsistencies between the Standard Model and observations of pion decay. As was the case with the Muon g-2 experiments, there’s a chance that PIONEER could point the way to physics beyond the Standard Model.

“This is a stock market golden opportunity,” Hertzog said. “That’s how I look at it.”

The Breakthrough Prize website has the full list of this year’s honorees, including the winners of New Horizons Prizes for early-career physicists and mathematicians, Maryam Mirzakhani New Frontiers Prizes for women mathematicians and the inaugural Vera Rubin New Frontiers Prize for women physicists. The recorded awards show is due to air at noon PT on April 26 via YouTube.

Advertisement

Hertzog and University of Bern physicist Martin Hoferichter review the results of the Muon g-2 experiments in a preprint paper titled “The Anomalous Magnetic Moment of the Muon: Status and Perspectives.”

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Danish finance AI start-up Spektr raises $20m

Published

on

The new funding will be used to expand the Copenhagen-based company’s AI platform for banks and fintech companies, and accelerate adoption across financial institutions globally.

Danish financial compliance AI start-up Spektr has raised $20m in a Series A funding round led by New Enterprise Associates (NEA) with participation from existing investors including Northzone, Seedcamp and PSV Tech.

The new funding will be used to expand the Copenhagen-based company’s AI platform for banks and fintech companies, and accelerate adoption across financial institutions globally, according to the company.

According to Spektr, its specialised AI agents are designed to perform the work financial analysts typically do during compliance reviews – such as researching companies, interpreting information, verifying business activity and generating structured risk assessments – and instead of analysts spending hours gathering and interpreting data, the agents complete the work in minutes so compliance teams can review and approve the results.

Advertisement

“Compliance technology has mostly focused on workflow and data collection,” said Mikkel Skarnager, CEO and co-founder of Spektr.

“But the real bottleneck has always been the work itself – analysts researching companies, interpreting information and documenting decisions. Spektr automates those tasks with AI agents designed specifically for KYC and KYB compliance.”

Spektr was co-founded by Skarnager, CTO Ciprian Florescu, CRO Jan-Erik Wagner and CPO Jeremy Joly. Its live customers include Santander Leasing, Pleo, Mercuryo, Monta and Phantom.

“Financial institutions are under constant pressure to do more compliance work with fewer resources,” said Luke Pappas, partner at NEA.

Advertisement

“Spektr is tackling the most manual part of compliance operations in financial services. Their approach has the potential to redefine how compliance operations are run.”

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

Microsoft Teams right-click paste broken by Edge update bug

Published

on

Microsoft Teams

Microsoft is warning that a recent Microsoft Edge browser update introduced a bug that breaks right-click paste in chats in the Microsoft Teams desktop client.

In an advisory published on April 14, Microsoft says users are reporting that they are unable to paste URLs, text, or images into Teams chats when using right-click context menus, with the “Paste” option greyed out.

To work around the bug, Microsoft says users can still copy and paste content using keyboard shortcuts: Ctrl + C and Ctrl + V on Windows, or Cmd + C and Cmd + V on macOS.

Wiz

“Impacted users report that they are unable to copy and paste URLs, text, and images in Microsoft Teams desktop client chats, as the paste option appears greyed out when using the right-click dropdown menu method,” explains Microsoft.

“To bypass impact, we recommended that users attempt to copy the intended URLs, text, and images using Ctrl + C and paste using Ctrl + V for Windows, and corresponding Cmd + C and Cmd + V for Mac.”

Advertisement

Microsoft says the bug is caused by a recent browser update that introduced a code regression in Microsoft Edge, which Microsoft Teams uses for certain functionality.

Admins on Reddit and the Microsoft forums report that the problem is affecting users in corporate environments as well as individual users.

“I have multiple users on version 26072.519.4556.7438 experiencing this issue, including myself. Cannot right-click Paste, but CTRL+V and paste as text are allowed,” an admin posted to the Microsoft Forums.

Paste option in Microsoft Teams is greyed out
Paste option in Microsoft Teams is greyed out

Other users said that reinstalling Teams or clearing the cache did not fix the problem.

Microsoft says it identified the cause and is rolling out a fix in stages while monitoring telemetry to confirm that systems are recovering.

Advertisement

As of the latest update on April 16, Microsoft has not provided an exact timeline for when the fix will be fully rolled out.

AI chained four zero-days into one exploit that bypassed both renderer and OS sandboxes. A wave of new exploits is coming.

At the Autonomous Validation Summit (May 12 & 14), see how autonomous, context-rich validation finds what’s exploitable, proves controls hold, and closes the remediation loop.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech

Seattle mayor floats moratorium on new data centers in city limits

Published

on

Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson. (Campaign Photo)

Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson addressed concerns about a potential wave of new data centers in the city and raised the possibility of a moratorium, citing economic and environmental issues.

Wilson’s public statement Saturday followed a Seattle Times report April 10 that four companies have approached Seattle City Light about building five large-scale data centers with a combined peak demand of 369 megawatts, equal to roughly a third of Seattle’s average daily power consumption. 

“I share community concerns about environmental justice, economic resilience, and impacts of increased costs for Seattle rate payers,” Wilson wrote on Facebook. “That’s why my team is working closely with Seattle City Light, City Council and stakeholders to identify a range of long-term policy approaches, including exploring a moratorium on siting new centers.”

Seattle already has about 30 data centers, but they’re relatively small. The proposed facilities would be the first at this scale in the city and could consume nearly 10 times more power than the existing ones at full capacity, according to the Seattle Times report.

The world’s biggest tech companies, including hometown tech giants Microsoft and Amazon, have been spending hundreds of billions of dollars building data centers to scale up artificial intelligence.

Advertisement

Those facilities have historically gone up in rural areas, but power availability has grown scarce in many markets, driving developers to look at cities with their own utility resources. 

It’s not clear who the proposed data centers would be built for. Seattle City Light hasn’t disclosed the companies involved or proposed locations due to nondisclosure agreements.

Seattle City Light is rewriting its contract terms for large-load customers and plans to require data center operators to secure their own power generation and pay for infrastructure upgrades rather than passing costs to ratepayers. The companies are expected to decide in the next two to three months whether to formally apply for service.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech

Chesky Audio LC2 Is a $1,995 Speaker Built for Your Den and Desktop Use: AXPONA 2026

Published

on

Sometimes the best finds at AXPONA 2026 aren’t planned. I walked into Chesky Audio’s room chasing Schiit Audio gear in Room 709; there was plenty of it, including the Yggdrasil Singular DAC, Loki Max, Kara, and a pair of Tyr monoblocks driving the new Chesky LC2 loudspeakers, but no one from Schiit to talk shop. So I stayed put, listened, and let the room tell its own story.

That story changed fast when the pricing banner came into focus: $1,995. Not each. Per pair. In a show full of six-figure loudspeakers, the Chesky LC2 doesn’t just feel affordable; it feels like a direct challenge to how high-end audio defines itself.

And that’s where this gets more interesting. If high-end audio wants a future, it needs more designers like Lucca Chesky. He comes from a family name that carries real weight in the music world, but he’s not coasting on it. He’s studying engineering at Carnegie Mellon University, and it shows in how he approaches both design and people.

There’s no gatekeeping here, no “you don’t belong in this room” energy. The LC1 and now the LC2 are priced where actual listeners can engage, and he speaks about them in a way that makes you feel like you’re part of the conversation and not being lectured from behind a stack of gear you can’t afford.

Advertisement

The kid gets it. And judging by what I heard in that room, he’s not just talking a good game.

Admittedly, a $1,995 price tag only matters if the speakers can actually deliver. The original Chesky LC1 set a high bar, earning multiple “Best of Show” nods from the eCoustics team at previous events; something Chesky made no effort to hide with the awards laid out on the table. So yes, I was a bit late to the party.

Better late than never.

I stayed for several tracks to get a clearer sense of what the team had already heard in the Chesky LC1, and what that might mean for the new Chesky LC2. It didn’t take long to recognize a familiar foundation, but with more scale and a bit more weight behind it, suggesting this isn’t a departure so much as a more developed version of the same idea.

Advertisement
chesky-schiit-room-axpona-2026
Chesky Audio LC2 Stand-mount Speakers with Schiit electronics at AXPONA 2026

An Affordable Speaker With Real Ambition

Much like the original Chesky LC1, the Chesky LC2 sticks to a compact two way monitor format. It pairs a dual chamber aperiodic 1 inch tweeter with a roughly 6.5-inch mid bass driver, both modified in house rather than pulled off a shelf. The familiar passive radiator approach is still here as well, now using larger 8-inch radiators on either side to extend low frequency output without relying on a traditional port.

Where things diverge, and where Chesky is clearly doing its own thing, is the cabinet. The front baffle is a 5/8-inch thick slab of machined aluminum, and the rest of the enclosure is 3D printed around that structure. It is an unusual approach, but the result is a cabinet that feels both rigid and relatively lightweight for its size. Each speaker measures roughly 13 x 9 x 13 inches and comes in just under 30 pounds.

It is also worth noting that these are not outsourced, mass produced boxes. Chesky Audio assembles, finishes, and tests the speakers in New Jersey before they ship. In a category where “designed here, built somewhere else” is the norm, these are actually made in the United States, and that still matters.

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.
Advertisement

Lucca Chesky is also quick to point out that the drivers are not an afterthought. The mid-bass unit uses a cast-basket high-definition design more commonly found in higher-priced speakers, and the tweeter follows that same philosophy. He stops short of naming suppliers, but the implication is clear this is not generic OEM hardware.

chesky-schiit-axpona-2026
Schiit Audio stack powered the Chesky Audio LC2 Speakers at AXPONA 2026.

The crossover is designed in house, although Chesky remains somewhat tight-lipped on specifics. Instead of locking into a fixed number, the crossover point is described as falling somewhere in the 3 to 5 kHz range. On paper, the speaker is rated at 86 dB sensitivity with a 4 ohm impedance that does not dip below 3.1 ohms across a stated 40 Hz to 20 kHz frequency range.

That combination suggests an easy enough load for most modern amplifiers, whether it is a vintage Kenwood receiver, a newer NAD integrated, or even a well-sorted ST-70 style tube amp build. But if our experience with the Chesky LC1 taught us anything, it is that specs do not tell the whole story. The LC1 benefited from more power than you might expect, and giving it better amplification paid off.

Until we get the Chesky LC2 in for a full review, it is too early to say how closely it follows that pattern.

Chesky LC2 in a Real Room at AXPONA 2026

Sound wise, the Chesky LC2 delivers clean mid-bass with solid detail and impact for a speaker of this size, but sub-bass is limited. That is not a surprise given the form factor. In a nearfield setup such as a desktop or small studio, there is enough low end to get by without a subwoofer, but in a larger room, adding one would make sense.

Advertisement

The midrange is where things come into better focus. There is a clear emphasis on clarity and balance, which aligns with what you would expect from anything carrying the Chesky name. Vocals come through naturally without sounding nasal or forced, and strings have enough presence to avoid sounding thin. That is not always a given with compact speakers, where cabinet limitations can work against natural timbre. The construction here likely plays a role, but that is something that needs more controlled listening to fully evaluate.

The top end had good energy and dynamic presence, but this is where the limitations of the show environment start to creep in. Between room noise and less than ideal setup conditions, it would be premature to draw firm conclusions without spending more time with the speakers in a more controlled space.

The Bottom Line

I can see several use cases for the Chesky LC2. Those looking for unpowered monitors for nearfield use will find them easy to live with as a standalone pair, and they also make sense in smaller rooms where space is limited. For larger spaces or mixed use systems that pull double duty for music and home theater, Chesky offers two, three, and five speaker packages that can be built out as needed.

Adding a subwoofer would round things out in those scenarios. Models like the REL Tzero or SVS 3000 Micro R|Evolution come to mind as good matches, offering tight, controlled low end without taking over the room or the budget.

Advertisement

With that kind of setup, the LC2 starts to make a lot of sense for multi purpose spaces where flexibility matters just as much as performance.

Where to buy: $1,995/pair at Chesky Audio

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech

Critical flaw in Protobuf library enables JavaScript code execution

Published

on

Critical flaw in Protobuf library enables JavaScript code execution

Proof-of-concept exploit code has been published for a critical remote code execution flaw in protobuf.js, a widely used JavaScript implementation of Google’s Protocol Buffers.

The tool is highly popular in the Node Package Manager (npm) registry, with an average of nearly 50 million weekly downloads. It is used for inter-service communication, in real-time applications, and for efficient storage of structured data in databases and cloud environments.

In a report on Friday, application security company Endor Labs says that the remote code execution vulnerability (RCE) in protobuf.js is caused by unsafe dynamic code generation.

Wiz

The security issue has not received an official CVE number and is currently being tracked as GHSA-xq3m-2v4x-88gg, the identifier assigned by GitHub.

Endor Labs explains that the library builds JavaScript functions from protobuf schemas by concatenating strings and executing them via the Function() constructor, but it fails to validate schema-derived identifiers, such as message names.

Advertisement

This lets an attacker supply a malicious schema that injects arbitrary code into the generated function, which is then executed when the application processes a message using that schema.

This opens the path to RCE on servers or applications that load attacker-influenced schemas, granting access to environment variables, credentials, databases, and internal systems, and even allowing lateral movement within the infrastructure.

The attack could also affect developer machines if those load and decode untrusted schemas locally.

The flaw impacts protobuf.js versions 8.0.0/7.5.4 and lower. Endor Labs recommends upgrading to 8.0.1 and 7.5.5, which address the issue.

Advertisement

The patch sanitizes type names by stripping non-alphanumeric characters, preventing the attacker from closing the synthetic function. However, Endor comments that a longer-term fix would be to stop round-tripping attacker-reachable identifiers through Function at all.

Endor Labs is warning that “exploitation is straightforward,” and that the minimal proof-of-concept (PoC) included in the security advisory reflects this. However, no active exploitation in the wild has been observed to date.

The vulnerability was reported by Endor Labs researcher and security bug bounty hunter Cristian Staicu on March 2, and the protobuf.js maintainers released a patch on  GitHub on March 11. Fixes to the npm packages were made available on April 4 for the 8.x branch and on April 15 for the 7.x branch.

Apart from upgrading to patched versions, Endor Labs also recommends that system administrators audit transitive dependencies, treat schema-loading as untrusted input, and prefer precompiled/static schemas in production.

Advertisement

AI chained four zero-days into one exploit that bypassed both renderer and OS sandboxes. A wave of new exploits is coming.

At the Autonomous Validation Summit (May 12 & 14), see how autonomous, context-rich validation finds what’s exploitable, proves controls hold, and closes the remediation loop.

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Three-Monitor Ridge Racer Machine Emulated In MAME

Published

on

When Ridge Racer hit the arcades in the early 1990s, it came in a few different versions. The last variant used three large CRTs to create a wraparound display for the player. Incredibly rare, it’s believed that only a single-digit number of machines remain in existence. [beaumotplage] has secured a remaining example, and been working to preserve this historical artifact.

The first mission when it comes to this machine was to dump the ROMs, which have thus far not been preserved in any major archive. With that done, [beaumotplage] worked to hack a version of MAME that could emulate the Three Monitor Version’s unique mode of operation. As it turns out, each screen is driven by its own arcade board, with the three boards linked via C139 serial links. To emulate this, the trick was simply to write some C139 linkup code and run three versions of MAME all at once, letting them communicate with each other as the original boards would have. It’s a little janky in operation right now, but it does work!

You can download the hacked version of MAME for three-monitor operation here, though note that this does not include the ROM dumps from the machine itself. We look forward to seeing if the hardware ends up getting a full restoration back to operational standard, too.

Advertisement

Overall, this work goes to show that arcade preservation and archival work sometimes requires getting deep into the nitty-gritty technical stuff.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

IPv6 traffic reaches parity with IPv4 for the first time, Google data shows

Published

on


Statistics from Google show a steady rise in global IPv6 usage, climbing from near zero in early 2012 to 50.1% on March 28, briefly surpassing IPv4. Although the milestone did not hold, usage now hovers between 45% and 50%.
Read Entire Article
Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Apple avoids a second import ban for its redesigned smartwatches in latest court ruling

Published

on

Apple has secured a major victory for its redesigned smartwatches as per the latest decision from the US International Trade Commission. The federal agency ruled against reinstating an import ban on Apple Watches, allowing the tech giant to continue selling its devices with a reworked blood-oxygen monitoring technology.

The ITC decided to terminate the case and refer to a preliminary ruling from one of its judges in March that claimed that Apple’s redesigned smartwatches don’t infringe on patents held by Masimo, the medical tech company that has long been embroiled in lawsuits surrounding the Apple Watch. Apple thanked the ITC in a statement, adding that “Masimo has waged a relentless legal campaign against Apple and nearly all of its claims have been rejected.” We reached out to Masimo for comment and will update the story when we hear back.

The latest decision could offer some closure to the longstanding legal feud between Masimo and Apple. The patent battle dates back to 2021 with Masimo’s first filing against Apple that requested an import ban on Apple Watches. The ITC ended up ruling that Apple violated Masimo’s patents, resulting in the previous import ban and the Apple Watch maker redesigning the blood-oxygen reading feature in certain models. However, Masimo wasn’t satisfied with this conclusion and sought another import ban on the updated Apple Watch models. Now that the ITC has ruled against that, Masimo is left with the option to appeal the decision with the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

While Masimo may currently be on the losing side of this legal battle, it’s confronting Apple on multiple fronts. In November, a federal jury sided with Masimo and ruled that Apple has to pay $634 million in a separate patent infringement case.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Judge sides with creators of banned ICE trackers who allege DHS and DOJ violated their First Amendment rights

Published

on

A judge has granted the makers of the “ICE Sightings – Chicagoland” Facebook group and the Eyes Up app a preliminary injunction to stop the Trump administration from coercing platforms to take these projects down. Judge Jorge L. Alonso of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois found that the plaintiffs, Kassandra Rosado and Kreisau Group, are likely to succeed in their case, which alleges that the government suppressed protected speech under the First Amendment by strong-arming Facebook and Apple into removing ICE monitoring efforts.

Both Eyes Up and ICE Sightings – Chicagoland use publicly available information to keep tabs on ICE activity. But after pressure from Trump officials, they were removed from Apple’s App Store and Facebook, respectively. Similar apps including ICEBlock and Red Dot were also taken down from the App Store and Google Play. The lawsuit cites social media posts by former US Attorney General Pam Bondi and former Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem that demanded and took credit for the removal of these apps. In a document filed on Friday, Alonso called these posts “thinly veiled threats.”

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), which is defending the plaintiffs, wrote in a post on X that it is “extremely encouraged by this ruling.” It continued, “Even though it’s not the end of the case, it bodes well for the future of our legal fight to ensure that the First Amendment protects the right to discuss, record, and criticize what law enforcement does in public.”

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025