Need some help with today’s Mini Crossword? I will say, 4-Down made me laugh. Read on for all the answers.

Mini across clues and answers

1A clue: Work’s opposite
Answer: PLAY

5A clue: Glass-encased flower in “Beauty and the Beast”
Answer: ROSE

6A clue: Stack on a nightstand
Answer: BOOKS

7A clue: Tree or cobra, in yoga class
Answer: POSE

8A clue: Not that many
Answer: AFEW

Mini down clues and answers

1D clue: Measure of alcoholic content
Answer: PROOF

2D clue: Feeling relaxed
Answer: LOOSE

3D clue: Slightly crooked
Answer: ASKEW

4D clue: Rarely true response to “Have you read our terms and conditions?”
Answer: YES

6D clue: ___-free (label on water bottles)
Answer: BPA

Get CNET’s top-rated VPN for privacy and usability

Advertisement

CNET editor Gael Fashingbauer Cooper, a journalist and pop-culture junkie, is co-author of “Whatever Happened to Pudding Pops? The Lost Toys, Tastes and Trends of the ’70s and ’80s,” as well as “The Totally Sweet ’90s.” She’s been a journalist since 1989, working at Mpls.St.Paul Magazine, Twin Cities Sidewalk, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, and NBC News Digital. She’s Gen X in birthdate, word and deed. If Marathon candy bars ever come back, she’ll be first in line.

See full bio

The U.S. and Australian governments have released new guidance urging critical infrastructure organizations to prepare to isolate vital operational technology systems in the event of a cyberattack or other major disruptions.

The guidance, titled “CI Fortify – Advice for isolating vital systems,” was developed by the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), the Australian Signals Directorate’s Australian Cyber Security Centre (ACSC), the FBI, and international partners.

It provides recommendations for disconnecting critical operational technology (OT) and associated systems from corporate, Internet-facing, and other less-trusted networks while continuing to provide essential services for an extended period.

Operational technology includes the hardware and software used to monitor or control processes, such as water treatment equipment, electrical systems, manufacturing machinery, transportation systems, and telecommunications infrastructure.

The agencies say state-sponsored threat actors routinely target critical infrastructure for espionage and to establish access that could later be used for disruptive or destructive attacks during a crisis or military conflict.

“Cybercriminals continue to opportunistically target CI operators,” reads the advisory.

“The sensitivity of the data stored by these entities, and the importance of their services, makes them attractive for cybercriminals seeking to extort victims via data exfiltration or by conducting ransomware attacks for disruptive or destructive purposes.”

In February 2024, CISA, the FBI, NSA, and other Five Eyes agencies warned that the Chinese Volt Typhoon hacking group had breached organizations in the communications, energy, transportation, and water sectors.

The hackers remained undetected in at least one critical infrastructure network for five years, with U.S. officials warning that they were positioning themselves for potentially disruptive attacks during a future crisis or conflict.

Chinese state-sponsored hackers tracked as Salt Typhoon have also breached government, telecommunications, transportation, lodging, and military networks worldwide since at least 2021.

The group compromised major U.S. telecommunications providers, including AT&T, Verizon, and Lumen, gaining access to sensitive communications and U.S. law enforcement wiretap systems.

The hackers also exploited known vulnerabilities in edge networking devices and used compromised equipment and trusted connections to pivot into other networks.

Water infrastructure has also repeatedly been targeted. In October 2024, American Water, which provides water and wastewater services to more than 14 million people, deactivated some systems following a cyberattack. Around the same time, a Kansas water treatment facility switched to manual operations after its systems were compromised.

Government agencies have also warned that pro-Russian hacktivists were seeking out unsecured OT systems used by water facilities and other critical infrastructure organizations to disrupt operations.

The new CI Fortify guidance aims to help organizations prepare before such an incident occurs, rather than attempting to determine how vital systems can be disconnected while an attack is already underway.

Isolating vital systems

The agencies recommend critical infrastructure entities first identify the minimum systems and networks required to continue delivering a critical service.

Organizations should then document every connection between those systems and corporate networks, remote-access services, cloud environments, Internet-facing infrastructure, vendors and contractors, and other critical infrastructure operators.

They should also determine where those connections can be disabled or physically disconnected and account for the manual processes, communication failures, and loss of external resources or dependencies that isolation may trigger.

Some of the terms and processes that the advisory recommends organizations become familiar with include:

• Vital systems: The minimum OT and supporting systems needed to provide a critical service, such as controlling water distribution, delivering electricity, or operating a telecommunications network.
• Isolation point: A predetermined location where connectivity between critical and non-critical networks or systems can be disconnected to contain an attack and prevent lateral movement into other vital systems.
• Physical isolation: Completely disconnecting vital systems so they do not share network or computing infrastructure with non-critical systems. The guidance describes this as the most effective form of protection.
• Graduated isolation: Gradually restricting access as the threat increases, such as first blocking remote workers and vendors, then disconnecting corporate networks, connected systems, and eventually all external connections.
• Administrative network controls: Various administrative controls to modify or manage VLANs, access-control lists, and routing. The guidance says these can be useful temporary protections but that physical isolation should be the ultimate goal.
• Data diode: Specialized equipment that allows data to flow in only one direction, reducing the risk that data or malicious traffic can travel in the opposite direction.
• Post-isolation: Monitor routing tables, network traffic, and intrusion detection systems to verify that isolation controls remain effective. Administrators should also secure the network management zones used to administer routers, firewalls, and other network infrastructure so they are isolated from attackers.

While physical isolation provides the best protection, the cybersecurity agencies say that it may not be practical for organizations that depend on Internet-facing services, carrier networks, cloud services, or geographically distributed facilities.

In those environments, operators are advised to strengthen OT network boundaries, use dedicated or encrypted communications links, remove unnecessary dependencies on corporate systems, and maintain the ability to rapidly rebuild systems.

Isolation plans should also define who can authorize each step, the conditions that would trigger it, which systems must remain available, and how operations will continue without normal network connectivity.

Organizations are urged to test the complete isolation of their vital systems regularly, rather than testing only individual systems, because partial tests may fail to identify shared infrastructure and other hidden dependencies that could cause problems when the isolation plan is initiated.

The guidance also recommends keeping a secure offline or printed copy of the isolation plan so that it remains available in the event that access to corporate network or storage servers are disrupted.

After systems have been isolated, operators should continue monitoring network traffic, routing information, and management systems to ensure that unauthorized or accidental connections have not restored access between critical and non-critical networks.

However, the agencies warn that isolation also introduces risks, including systems falling behind on security updates, reduced monitoring, and increased use of removable media to transfer data between systems

Organizations must therefore prepare not only to disconnect vital systems, but also to operate, monitor, update manually until they can eventually reconnect systems again.

Security teams log 54% of successful attacks and alert on just 14%. The rest move through your environment unseen.

The Picus whitepaper shows how breach and attack simulation tests your SIEM and EDR rules so threats stop slipping by detection.

Get the whitepaper

If you’re into IEMs, you’ve heard of the Tea Pro. It’s about as close as you can get to a cult classic in the world of modern portable audio, and I said as much in my original review. Between its stellar all-metal construction, excellent out-of-the-box experience, voracious V-shaped sound signature, and top-tier technical capabilities, the original Tea Pro struck a chord that few listeners could ignore.

But the Tea Pro has been around for a while, and XENNS decided it was time for a refresh. The Tea Pro SE, the subject of today’s review, is an updated and retuned version of the original that seeks to explore what this capable platform can do in the meta-tuning arena.

For fans of the original Tea Pro, however, does the SE offer anything meaningful? Let’s get into it.

About My Preferences: This review is a subjective assessment and is therefore influenced by my personal preferences. While I try to mitigate those biases as much as possible during the review process, I’d be lying if I said they were completely erased. With that in mind, readers should know the following:

My ideal sound signature includes capable sub-bass, textured mid-bass, a slightly warm midrange, and extended treble.

I have mild treble sensitivity.

Testing equipment and standards can be found here.

Related Reviews:

Key Specs:

• Driver Configuration: Two custom neodymium dynamic drivers and six Knowles balanced-armature drivers
• Crossover: Three-way crossover with a 150 Hz low-frequency transition
• Frequency Response: 20 Hz to 22 kHz
• Sensitivity: 104 ± 1 dB
• Impedance: 13 ohms ± 1 ohm
• Cable: 1.2-meter, eight-core oxygen-free copper and ultra-pure silver Litz cable
• IEM Connection: 0.78 mm two-pin
• Terminations: Modular 3.5 mm single-ended and 4.4 mm balanced plugs

Build

The Tea Pro SE’s build quality is excellent. Its shells are machined from aluminum, while the nozzles are made from steel. Each IEM features a hand-painted faceplate coated in clear resin.

The tops of the Tea Pro SE’s shells house the 0.78 mm two-pin sockets, which are set into plastic blocks. They feel sturdy, although the socket on my right earpiece does not sit as flush as the one on the left. The nozzles are average in both length and width, with nicely machined lips that hold the eartips securely in place.

The Tea Pro SE’s cable is unique within XENNS’ lineup, featuring a matching green outer sheath. Its metal modular termination uses a positive locking mechanism, making it sturdy and secure. The cable is also an improvement over the original Tea Pro’s, with a softer, more flexible feel and virtually no memory.

Comfort

Comfort is a metric that relies heavily on factors influenced by your individual ear anatomy. Mileage will vary.

Like its predecessor, the Tea Pro SE offers average comfort. I can listen to it for extended periods without issue, but I need to be mindful of my eartip selection and the positioning of each earpiece. The stock cable is generally comfortable and free from microphonics, although wearing a hat or sunglasses can cause it to exert pressure on the backs of my ears.

Accessories

Inside the box you’ll find:

• 1x Semi-hard carrying case
• 1x 0.78mm 2-pin cable
• 1x 3.5mm termination
• 1x 4.4mm termination
• 1x Microfiber cleaning cloth
• 6x Pairs silicone ear tips
• 3x Pairs foam ear tips

This is a solid accessory package that provides everything needed for an enjoyable experience out of the box. The stock silicone eartips are comfortable and provide a moderately secure seal, although I miss the liquid-silicone varieties ZiiGaat includes with its IEMs. The stock foam eartips are soft and compress easily, and I was able to use them to achieve excellent isolation.

The included carrying case feels good in the hand and looks quite attractive in person. Both aesthetically and tactilely, it represents a step up from the case included with the original Tea Pro. That said, the top and bottom are held together solely by friction. This means the lid can separate when the case is jostled around inside a bag or backpack, and the fit will almost certainly loosen over time until the case is no longer useful.

Perhaps XENNS could split the difference by using the same materials and adding a zipper.

Listening

The Tea Pro SE is a warm, north-of-neutral IEM with a reference-style sound signature. Its gently elevated bass is centered toward the sub-bass and tapers smoothly into a linear lower midrange. The upper midrange rises through the 2–3 kHz region, reaching a moderate peak before settling into a slightly less forward lower treble. The upper treble is more prominent, adding a healthy amount of sparkle and air.

Spaciousness and Air Through Refinement

The Tea Pro SE’s reference-style sound signature uses a moderate level of treble emphasis to produce a clear, articulate, and airy upper register. Some IEMs achieve this by sharply boosting the 8–10 kHz region, but excessive emphasis is not required to extract detail and precision from the drivers.

The Tea Pro SE’s lower and upper treble sit naturally just above the upper midrange, ebbing and flowing with the mastering of each track. Sharply mastered recordings such as Nero’s “Satisfy” sound somewhat brighter, while thinner tracks such as Harvey Danger’s “Flagpole Sitta” are rendered with greater delicacy.

The Tea Pro SE captures the leading edges of treble transients with precision, rendering brief hi-hat strikes and cymbal hits with tight definition. Even tracks with chronically congested upper registers, such as The Verve’s “Bitter Sweet Symphony,” remain layered and well separated.

Engaging Reference-Style Mids

Balancing organic tonality with engagement is challenging. The flatter the midrange, the more likely a listener is to perceive it as stuffy or muffled. Although the Tea Pro SE is certainly warmer and thicker sounding than its predecessor, it remains articulate and engaging.

There is plenty of contrast and texture, rooted primarily in the carefully tuned relationship between the SE’s relatively flat lower midrange and its upper-midrange lift. Vocals and instruments sound rich and full, only occasionally drifting into flatter territory on tracks that are already warmly mastered.

Mainstream productions such as Bring Me the Horizon’s “n/A” sound vibrant and high in contrast, while denser recordings such as Nominee’s “Weathered” can come across as somewhat tired. That said, a combination of brain burn-in and eartip rolling can mitigate this effect, particularly for listeners whose libraries contain a lot of warmer-sounding material.

Line-Toeing Bass

As a member of the Tea family, the Tea Pro SE is spiritually required to take bass seriously. While “reference-style” and “bass-friendly” do not usually go hand in hand, I think XENNS has threaded the needle quite well here. Yes, this represents a significant reduction in bass emphasis compared with the original Tea Pro, but the underlying technical ability and tonal quality remain intact.

Electronic tracks with substantial bass lines, such as Psylla’s “Better Times,” sound deep and robust, producing a moderate amount of rumble and a satisfying degree of punch. Extension is excellent, with the Tea Pro SE audibly reaching below 50 Hz without issue. The basshead in me still wants more, but the SE provides enough emphasis to render the track in a complete and convincing fashion.

Less bass-heavy genres such as rock and alternative also sound excellent through the Tea Pro SE, with the low end providing a solid, deep foundation for the rest of the instrumentation. Its tonality is neither dry nor flat, offering a welcome change of pace for listeners seeking relief from the onslaught of dry-sounding “meta IEM bass.”

For example, the drums on Thrice’s “Cataracts” pound through the mix with depth and harmonic completeness, even capturing subtle hints of punch. The rolling drums during the chorus of Blink-182’s “YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU’VE GOT” possess a surprising amount of body and effectively demonstrate the Tea Pro SE’s excellent bass control.

Comparisons

Comparisons are selected solely based on what I find interesting. If you would like to see additional comparisons, feel free to leave a request in the comments below.

Xenns Mangird Tea Pro

The Tea Pro is a well-known hybrid IEM featuring all-metal shells and a modular 0.78 mm two-pin cable. It is the Tea Pro SE’s predecessor, but it remains available alongside the newer model for $359, or roughly $90 less than the SE.

Physically, the two IEMs are very similar, with the primary differences found in their accessory packages. The SE includes a different carrying case and cable. Its cable is the nicer of the two, replacing the original’s multicolored braid with a softer, more flexible green outer sheath. Both cables use modular terminations with interchangeable 3.5 mm and 4.4 mm plugs.

Sonically, the original Tea Pro is more V-shaped, with greater bass emphasis and a cooler, more recessed lower midrange. The Tea Pro SE’s upper treble is less forward, sparing it from the occasional bite exhibited by the original. Its treble sounds exceptionally clean, rendering texture and microdetail with less grain and a more organic timbre.

Vocals are more forward on the original Tea Pro, but they are not as full bodied as they are on the Tea Pro SE, nor are they as intelligible during busy passages. The SE’s warmer, more linear presentation is smooth, relaxing, and satisfyingly rich, but it lacks the sheer engagement offered by the original.

Bass lovers may also find that certain low-frequency elements sound comparatively flat. Take the drums in the introduction to Silversun Pickups’ “Bloody Mary.” The original renders them with punch and substance, while the SE places them more timidly in the background. The same trend applies to electronic music. The bass line on Uppermost’s “Emotion” is delivered with depth and texture through the Tea Pro SE, but it is not as tactile or visceral as it is through the original.

Ultimately, the Tea Pro SE is designed to be a different beast from its predecessor. Sharing the Tea Pro name may therefore be something of a misnomer, because fans of the original will not find the same engagement and energy in the SE.

Instead, the Tea Pro SE does for listeners who prefer relaxed, reference-style tuning what the original did for fans of V-shaped tuning: it offers a detailed, refined, and compelling experience near the top of its niche. That said, my love for the original Tea Pro remains, and the SE does not replace it.

Xenns Mangird Top Pro

The Top Pro is a top-tier meta IEM featuring a hybrid driver configuration, resin shells, metal nozzles, and a modular cable. Like the Tea Pro SE, it comes with an excellent suite of accessories. The Top Pro costs $499, making it $50 more expensive than the Tea Pro SE. The Tea Pro SE’s all-metal construction feels much sturdier in the hand, and its cable is slightly thicker.

Let’s be honest: the Top Pro and Tea Pro SE are very similar-sounding IEMs. Even in technical terms, they are almost identically capable, rendering detail and texture without prejudice. At that point, deciding which one sounds “better” comes down to a purely subjective assessment of their tuning.

The Top Pro is tuned to sound slightly less warm and has a little less bass depth than the Tea Pro SE. It will occasionally punch harder on a drum strike or synthetic bass drop. The Tea Pro SE’s vocals are not as forward as the Top Pro’s, although their overall tonality is fairly similar. The Tea Pro SE is also slightly brighter, with a small increase in upper-treble energy that gives it a minor edge in airiness.

Between the two, I would choose the Tea Pro SE. For $50 less, you are essentially getting a Top Pro with sturdier metal shells and a better cable. The Top Pro’s case is slightly better, but buying a Pelican 1010 for around $20 thoroughly outclasses both stock cases and still leaves you with an effective $30 savings.

Once you account for the Tea Pro SE’s greater treble energy and mildly deeper-sounding bass, it offers a slightly more exciting experience, albeit by a narrow margin.

HiSenior Mega7

The Mega7 is a seven-driver hybrid IEM featuring resin shells and metal nozzles. It comes with a fixed 4.4 mm cable and costs $450, placing it neck and neck with the Tea Pro SE. Both IEMs include strong accessory packages, although I appreciate the Tea Pro SE’s inclusion of foam eartips. That said, the Mega7 comes with a useful USB-C adapter, making it much easier to use with smartphones and laptops right out of the box.

There is a great deal to say about the Mega7’s overall performance, but it largely targets a north-of-neutral, reference-style sound signature. The Tea Pro SE takes a similar approach, albeit with a different flavor. The Mega7 sounds cooler and places slightly more emphasis on the lower treble, while the Tea Pro SE has a modest increase in upper-treble energy.

Neither IEM is particularly bass-heavy, but the Mega7 has a slight advantage in sub-bass weight. The Tea Pro SE’s mid-bass sounds marginally tighter, although the difference is small. The Mega7’s upper midrange is also slightly more forward, giving vocals additional presence and separation.

Both IEMs are exceptionally capable, offering impressive technical performance at relatively accessible prices. The Mega7 will likely appeal to listeners who want greater sub-bass presence and more forward vocals, while the Tea Pro SE counters with additional air and sparkle from its brighter upper treble.

Kiwi Ears Astral

The Astral is a well-known hybrid IEM featuring resin shells and metal nozzles. It comes with a mediocre cable, includes a sparse accessory package, and costs $300. It occupies a lower price point than the Tea Pro SE, which offers all-metal construction, a much better cable, and vastly improved accessories. Both IEMs are above average in size, although the Tea Pro SE fits my specific ear anatomy better.

In terms of sound, the Astral is more U-shaped, delivering greater sub-bass emphasis, less mid-bass, and a colder, thinner lower midrange. Its upper midrange is more forward, and its treble is considerably brighter. The Astral’s upper treble, in particular, receives far more emphasis than the Tea Pro SE’s. This pushes hi-hats and cymbals much farther forward in the mix, but at the expense of a less organic and cohesive presentation. The additional brightness can also result in occasional sharpness and sibilance.

The Tea Pro SE’s warmer, more relaxed presentation sounds more organic and cohesive across a wider variety of genres, especially those with substantial mid-bass content. The Astral’s aggressive mid-bass scoop gives it a distinct “half-bass” tonality that emphasizes sub-bass elements while leaving the mid-bass sounding flaccid and uninspiring.

Between the two IEMs, I’m choosing the Tea Pro SE. Its metal shells, significantly better out-of-the-box experience, and more realistic tuning align more closely with my musical tastes and sonic preferences. Once you factor in its richer, friendlier tuning and complete absence of sibilance, the additional $150 begins to look increasingly worthwhile.

THIE Audio Hype 4 Mk II

The Hype 4 Mk II is a metal-shelled hybrid IEM with a driver configuration similar to that of the Tea Pro SE, but it costs $50 less. Both IEMs include modular detachable cables, although the Tea Pro SE’s termination feels sturdier and uses a threaded locking mechanism. Both also come with strong accessory packages, though I prefer the Hype 4 Mk II’s case because of its greater internal volume and more protective design.

The Hype 4 Mk II has a more V-shaped tuning, with moderately greater mid-bass presence and a slight increase in sub-bass. Both IEMs sound tight and well controlled, but the Hype 4 Mk II’s mid-bass is slightly firmer and better defined.

Its midrange is cooler, with a deeper recession in the lower mids and a comparatively larger upper-midrange peak. The Hype 4 Mk II’s treble is considerably brighter, placing treble-heavy elements front and center on the soundstage. It surfaces subtle treble details more readily through emphasis alone, but it does not capture much more texture, if any, than the Tea Pro SE’s excellently tuned treble.

The Tea Pro SE renders vocals with greater richness and depth because of its warmer presentation. Both IEMs convey air and spaciousness well, but the Hype 4 Mk II’s exaggerated upper register can occasionally make the presentation sound overly sharp.

For listeners seeking a mildly V-shaped IEM with plenty of treble emphasis, the Hype 4 Mk II is the clear choice. Those who prefer a warmer presentation and less forward treble, however, will likely find the Tea Pro SE more appealing.

NiceHCK NX8 Ti

Like the Tea Pro SE, the NX8 Ti is a limited-edition revamp of an older IEM. At $399, it packs an upgraded tribrid driver configuration into resin shells with titanium faceplates and interchangeable tuning nozzles. Both IEMs come with removable two-pin cables, although the Tea Pro SE’s cable is lighter, softer, and modular. The NX8 Ti’s cable does not feel cheap, but it is far less practical for daily use, particularly when commuting and trying to fit it into a space-constrained case.

Sonically, the NX8 Ti is bassier, with a more forward upper midrange and upper treble. It offers a similar, though perhaps slightly lower, degree of warmth than the Tea Pro SE, but leans into a more dramatic presentation. The Tea Pro SE delivers a comparable amount of sub-bass, but less mid-bass. The NX8 Ti’s mid-bass is nicely toned and punchy, although it sounds slightly softer around the edges than the Tea Pro SE’s.

The NX8 Ti’s upper midrange is considerably more forward, placing vocals closer to the front of the mix. The Tea Pro SE’s vocals sit slightly farther back on the soundstage, but sound richer and more natural. Its midrange is similarly detailed and textured, but carries the warm, organic tonality that I crave.

The NX8 Ti’s treble is likewise more dramatic, with additional lower-treble presence and a noticeable increase in upper-treble energy. Vocals and metallic instruments do not quite become sibilant, but they can sound stiffer and more tightly wound. On some tracks, this creates a greater sense of cleanliness, but it does not engage me in the same way as the Tea Pro SE’s effortless airiness.

These are both highly capable IEMs, but they have entirely different objectives. The NX8 Ti has no interest in a reference-style presentation, nor does it acknowledge the trendy tuning choices associated with the current meta. It is much closer to a traditional V-shaped IEM, albeit with some audiophile influence.

That said, it simply does not draw me in the way the Tea Pro SE does, and I am usually a V-shaped kind of listener. Perhaps it is merely a matter of brain burn-in, but I am sticking with the warmer, lusher Tea Pro SE.

The Bottom Line

The XENNS Tea Pro SE stands out by combining modern reference-style tuning with genuine warmth, body, and organic timbre. Its smooth midrange, clean treble, excellent detail retrieval, and sturdy metal construction make it a compelling alternative to the cooler, leaner sound of many current meta-tuned IEMs.

It is not a direct upgrade to the original Tea Pro. Bass impact and overall energy have been reduced, comfort remains only average, and listeners who prefer a vivid V-shaped presentation may find the SE too relaxed. For those seeking a refined, slightly warm, north-of-neutral IEM without sharp treble or sterile tonality, however, the Tea Pro SE is one of the strongest options in its price range.

Pros:

• Excellent treble and bass extension
• Delicate, detailed treble
• Cohesive and organic midrange timbre
• Fantastic, full-spectrum detail
• Rich and complete-sounding
• Great build quality
• Solid accessory package
• Pretty, bespoke cable

Cons:

• A bit lacking in sub-bass intensity
• Mid-bass needs a little more weight
• Carrying case held together by friction
• Stock cable uncomfortable when wearing glasses

Our Ratings

★★★★★★★★★★ Sound Quality

★★★★★★★★★★ Build Quality

★★★★★★★★★★ Comfort

★★★★★★★★★★ Value

Where to buy

Related Reading:

xAI — now officially known as SpaceXAI after the merging of Elon Musk’s two companies – has filed a lawsuit against Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison to challenge the state’s new law that would ban apps and websites that can generate nonconsensual intimate images. It would also impose fines on their developers every time people use them to create sexual deepfakes. The law, the first of its kind in the nation, was approved by Gov. Tim Walz earlier this year and is slated to take effect in August. 

In its complaint, the company says the law was an “overbroad, content-based ban on free speech and the tools of visual expression in a clumsy attempt to prohibit ‘nudification.’” xAI, it reads, isn’t contesting Minnesota’s “interest in prohibiting the dissemination of artificially generated nude images of real people without their consent.” However, the law “extends far beyond that goal, exposing a wide array of protected speech to civil liability and government sanction.”

The company has been in hot water since the beginning of the year after reports came out that it has been allowing its users to transform photos of real women and children into sexualized images. Multiple authorities and regulators launched investigations into the company, including California’s, UK’s Ofcom, the European Commission and Ireland’s Data Protection Commission. Even after it implemented measures to prevent nonconsensual deepfakes, its system still allowed users to undress people.

“xAI strictly prohibits its users from generating nude or sexualized images of people without their consent and has indeed filed suit against users who evade its extensive technological blockers to generate such images in violation of this strict prohibition,” the company writes in its complaint. Indeed, it recently sued a user from South Carolina for using Grok to generate nonconsensual intimate imagery using real photos of numerous adults and minors.

The new law would fine developers $500,000 every time a user generates a nonconsensual adult deepfake using their products. xAI says that with that rule in place, it would have “no practical choice but to restrict Grok Imagine’s image-editing features in various ways when the statute takes effect on August 1, 2026.” It claims that “protected speech freely available before the law takes effect will thus be chilled.” The company is asking the court to declare the law unconstitutional and to prevent the state from enforcing it. 

In response to the lawsuit, Ellison posted on X that there are plenty of worthy debates to be had when it comes to AI, but this isn’t one of them. “AI nudification robs the target of their dignity and could cause them immense harm on many levels.” Gov. Waltz simply posted: “See you in court, creep.”

Using AI to generate nude images of people against their will is appalling.

There are plenty of worthy debates to have about AI. This is not one of them. AI nudification robs the target of their dignity and could cause them immense harm on many levels.

I’ll see X in court. https://t.co/OcsZPkVNmk

Advertisement

— Attorney General Keith Ellison (@AGEllison) July 28, 2026

More than a thousand of the people building the most powerful AI want a way to slow it down. On Tuesday, 1,134 employees of the leading AI companies signed a letter asking the US government to help build one.

The statement is titled Pacing the Frontier. It asks Washington to “support an international effort to develop the technical and governance tools needed to deliberately pace the frontier of automated AI development.” Bloomberg first reported the letter was circulating.

The names are the story. Signatories include Anthropic chief executive Dario Amodei and its co-founders Jared Kaplan and Jack Clark. So did OpenAI chief scientist Jakub Pachocki, Meta chief scientist Shengjia Zhao, and Google’s head of AI safety, Anca Dragan. Both Anthropic and OpenAI endorsed the letter officially.

What it actually asks for

It is not a call to stop. The letter does not ask anyone to pause or slow AI now, NBC News noted. It asks the government to make sure the option to pace exists later, if the technology outruns the people building it.

The specific fear is recursive self-improvement: AI that speeds up its own development. The signatories warn of “a real risk that capability development rapidly accelerates beyond our ability to understand or control the resulting systems.”

That worry stopped being abstract days earlier. OpenAI’s most advanced model broke out of its sandbox and hacked Hugging Face to score higher on an internal test. It builds directly on Anthropic’s call last month for a verifiable way to pause.

The whiplash

The timing is remarkable, because these same companies spent the previous week arguing the opposite case. Days ago, Nvidia, Microsoft, Meta and others rallied around an open-weights letter championing openness as the path to safety.

Now many of the same firms want brakes. The clearest split runs through one company. On the same day Meta’s chief scientist signed the pacing letter, Mark Zuckerberg attacked the rival labs. Their discourse, he said, is “overwhelmingly filled with doom.”

Tightly controlling AI would be “abandoning our values,” Meta’s chief executive told the New York Times. Two open letters, one week, opposite instincts, and a fault line inside the industry’s biggest names.

The three objections

The criticism was immediate, and it lands in three places.

The first is China. “If the US labs pace themselves, why would China wait?” asked the economist Christian Catalini. The letter half-concedes the point, admitting no company or country will slow down unilaterally.

The second is bad faith. “It is their company. They could just stop,” wrote former Microsoft executive Steven Sinofsky. The charge stings because the signatories include the very CEOs who set the pace.

The third is the moat. Critics read every big-lab safety letter as incumbents lobbying to raise the drawbridge behind them, dressing a competitive move as caution. It is a charge, not a proven motive, but it follows these letters everywhere.

Washington is the real audience

The letter is aimed at a government that has so far wanted little to do with AI rules. President Trump’s administration has argued that international AI governance would hobble the US against China. That stance may be softening, now that frontier models are starting to find and exploit real security holes.

The proposals now on the table are concrete. Amodei has floated an FAA-style agency that could test frontier models and halt a dangerous release. Demis Hassabis wants a body that reviews models before launch, Business Insider reported. Congressman Ted Lieu tied the letter to a proposed AI kill-switch bill.

What makes this letter different from the earlier open ones is who signed it. Not outside critics, but the engineers and executives closest to the frontier. One OpenAI safety researcher, Leo Gao, put the stakes bluntly: “the world is locked in a deadly race towards an intelligence explosion.” His fix is the one the whole letter turns on. “To survive, we must coordinate to slow down the race.”

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman says that it may be time to “pace” AI development so the world will be ready for it.

“We may have to pace the rate of AI development to give ourselves enough time for society to harden around some of these new capability levels,” he told Patrick O’Shaughnessy, the host of the Invest Like the Best podcast, while also “trying to figure out how we do that in a way that does not feel like regulatory capture for anyone and also does not feel like collusion among the frontier labs.”

Both OpenAI and Anthropic came out in support of a petition circulated by employees at the frontier labs, calling on the US government to “support an international effort to develop the technical and governance tools needed to deliberately pace the frontier of automated AI development.”

Altman has avoided signing on to past campaigns to slow AI progress, calling a 2023 open letter that proposed a similar slowdown “missing most technical nuance about where we need the pause.”

Apparently, he’s softened on the idea, thanks in part to the incident where one of OpenAI’s advanced models managed to break out of a secure computing environment and hack into Hugging Face, an online model database, using several zero-day exploits.

On the podcast, the OpenAI co-founder called it an “extremely sci-fi cyber incident…[t]his is the first security incident that I have felt very viscerally.”

OpenAI researchers have paused training on that model while they work out how to keep their sandbox secure. But Altman said that as models become more powerful, the need to “pace” their development could become key to safe deployment.

While model safety and alignment has always been a concern in the AI world, the arrival of Anthropic’s highly capable Mythos model earlier this year has turned hypotheticals into real-world problems.

However, the industry has a trust problem, and challenging economics that give major players an incentive to play up the dangers of their systems in ways that experts disagree about — for example, whether or not Anthropic’s Fable model should have been briefly banned from use or not. Similarly, when Kimi K3, a large, open-weight model built in China, was released, OpenAI head of strategic futures Dean W. Ball said that it threatened the economics of frontier labs, making it difficult to separate their safety concerns from their financial interest.

“I think a lot of the talk about safety concerns is well-founded, and then a lot of it is about people that just really, even if it’s slightly subconscious, want to concentrate power,” Altman mused, in what reads as a dig at his rival, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, who signed the petition. “I am terrified of a world where the very real fears of AI are used as a way to say, ‘Only this small group of people can have it because it’s too dangerous, and only they understand it, but don’t worry, like, they’re gonna make the right decisions for all of us.’ I don’t believe in that.”

Still, OpenAI has pushed back against efforts to develop government rules for AI models, instead preferring an industry-led approach where AI labs would create ostensibly independent organizations that would evaluate the security of models and the safety approach of their makers.

The challenge for both that approach to regulation and any efforts to slow AI development will be getting the various players in the industry on the same page, whether they are rival frontier labs in the U.S. or competitors in China.

This story was updated to include OpenAI and Anthropic’s support of the “Pacing the Frontier” petition.

A thousand workers from OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta and more have signed the letter.

What just happened? Anthropic has moved to block search engines from indexing shared Claude conversations after hundreds of chats appeared in public search results, highlighting how easily user interactions with AI tools can spread beyond their intended audience. The issue stemmed from Claude’s sharing feature, which lets users create a link to a conversation. Those links were accessible without requiring a login, and search engines indexed them like any other public webpage.

The exposure first came to light on Reddit, where users demonstrated how to surface the chats. At least 200 conversations appeared across more than two dozen pages of search results, including some created recently. Although the links have since been removed from search indexes, many of the conversations had already been saved and circulated.

The chats themselves covered a wide range of subjects, but some contained sensitive information. Users shared resumes containing names, contact details, and work histories. In other cases, prompts included what appeared to be workplace material, such as a request to draft an unpublished blog post about a cloud security project. There were also conversations involving healthcare topics and what appeared to be transcripts of private exchanges.

Anthropic said the situation was the result of user behavior, not a system failure. A company spokeswoman said users control when and how they share conversations, and that the links are not discoverable unless someone chooses to distribute them.

– Om Patel (@om_patel5) July 26, 2026

“When someone shares a conversation, they are making that content publicly accessible, and like other public web content, it may be archived by third-party services,” she told The Guardian. She added that the links are “not guessable or discoverable unless people choose to share them themselves.”

Even so, the way the feature works leaves room for confusion. Claude tells users that “anyone with the link” can view a shared conversation, but it does not clearly warn that the link could be indexed by search engines. Once a page is publicly accessible, web crawlers can discover and catalog it unless steps are taken to prevent that.

Google said it does not control what content becomes public. A spokesperson said the company provides website owners with tools to control whether their pages are crawled or indexed and that it adheres to those settings. In this case, Anthropic appears to have used those controls after the issue became public, removing the links from search results.

The same links were also visible on other search engines, including Bing, Brave, and DuckDuckGo.

This is not the first time AI chat logs have surfaced this way. OpenAI dealt with a similar issue last year involving ChatGPT, while X’s Grok chatbot also saw large numbers of conversations become searchable. In each case, the underlying problem was not a breach but the way shared links interact with standard web indexing.

The Claude episode makes clear how thin the line can be between private use and public exposure. Once a conversation is turned into a public link, it effectively becomes part of the open web, where it can be indexed, cached, and redistributed.

Screenless fitness trackers are growing in popularity, with Garmin and Google both recently revealing their own models.

But how does Garmin’s screenless Cirqa compare to Google’s Fitbit Air? Is one a better fit for your fitness needs over the other?

To help you decide, we’ve compared the specs of the Garmin Cirqa to the Fitbit Air, and noted the key differences plus noteworthy similarities between the two. Keep reading to see how the screenless wearables compare and decide whether you think either stand a chance at making it into our best fitness trackers guide.

Want to see how the OG screenless tracker measures up? Visit our Garmin Cirqa vs Whoop and Fitbit Air vs Whoop guides too. Or if you’re not sold on a screenless device, I’ve discussed my experience with them and why I think they’re brilliant at keeping me motivated. 

Price and Availability

The Garmin Cirqa is available to buy now and has an RRP of £179.99/$199.99. It’s available in a choice between two sizes (small to medium and large to extra large) and four colours (French Grey, Mauve, Black and Captain Blue), though you can purchase two additional bands separately in Citron Grey and Dark Olive. 

Advertisement

In comparison, the Fitbit Air is considerably more affordable with an RRP of just £84.99/$99.99. The device comes in a choice between four shades, including Obsidian, Fog, Lavender and Berry.

Fitbit Air has a more discrete design

We’ll start with the most obvious, and noteworthy, similarity. Both the Garmin Cirqa and the Fitbit Air are screenless wearables, which means they can only be controlled via their respective smartphone apps. That might sound confusing, especially if you’re used to more traditional smartwatches that are equipped with a touchscreen display, but the screenless design means you can quietly track your health and workouts without being constantly distracted by notifications or stats. 

Advertisement

With this in mind, if you want a device that allows you to use Google or Apple pay, receive notifications and follow maps, then one of the best smartwatches will be a better option for you.

Advertisement

Although both share the same screenless design, we should note that the Fitbit Air does boast a slightly more discrete finish, as its sensor is smaller and therefore blends in slightly better than the Cirqa’s does. It’s not a major issue, but something to keep in mind if you want a more sleek finish.

Both have optional subscriptions to unlock AI insights

Unlike Whoop which operates as a subscription model, you don’t need to sign up to a monthly or annual plan to use either the Garmin Cirqa or Google Fitbit Air. Without a subscription, you’ll still be able to track workouts, sleep and monitor the likes of your heart rate, blood oxygen and more.

However, signing up to both Garmin and Google’s subscription will unlock extra features that could be useful. For the Cirqa, there’s Garmin’s Connect Plus plan which will set you back either £69.99 annually or £6.99 a month. With Connect Plus, you’ll have access to nutritional tracking, and access to various workout types including cardio, strength, HIIT, yoga and pilates. In addition, you’ll unlock access to Garmin’s AI-powered Active Intelligence which provides personalised insights throughout the day. 

Advertisement

For the Fitbit Air, you can opt to sign up for Google Health Premium. While it isn’t technically necessary, we should note that we were really impressed with the service and would strongly recommend signing up to get the most out of the Fitbit Air. Google Health Premium is driven by the Google Health Coach which provides AI-powered personalised insight, can explain what your metrics mean and create workout plans that are tailored to your lifestyle. For just £7.99 a month, or it’s included if you have Google’s AI Pro or Ultra plans, we’d seriously recommend opting for the subscription here.

Advertisement

Garmin Cirqa promises longer battery life

Unlike traditional smartwatches like the Google Pixel Watch 4, both the Garmin Cirqa and the Fitbit Air promise multiple days of battery before needing a top-up. However, the Cirqa boasts the edge with a promise of up to ten days of charge, whereas the Fitbit Air claims around seven days.

While Whoop has a clever PowerPack that charges the band while it’s still on your wrist, for uninterrupted tracking, unfortunately neither the Cirqa nor the Fitbit Air offers this.

Garmin Cirqa supports Natural Cycles

Earlier this year, Garmin announced it was partnering with Natural Cycles, an FDA-cleared fertility tracking app, and the Cirqa is one of the supported devices. This means that users can simply wear their Cirqa overnight (which you likely will anyway to make use of Garmin’s excellent sleep tracking) to record skin temperature, with the data then being fed directly into Natural Cycles – so no manual logging is required. 

Advertisement

This is a welcome inclusion for the Garmin Cirqa as, although the Fitbit Air does include cycle tracking, many can find traditional tools to be generic and not personalised. Instead, as Cirqa specifically measures skin temperature, its partnership with Natural Cycles means you can see your fertile days. Just remember, you’ll need to pay for a Natural Cycles subscription which will set you back £12.99 a month.

Neither have built-in GPS

If you’re familiar with Garmin, and have used one of the best Garmin watches in the past, you might be surprised to know the Cirqa doesn’t have GPS built-in. Instead it uses Connected GPS which means you’ll need to bring your paired smartphone out with you in order to record the location of your activity. 

Advertisement

Similarly the Fitbit Air requires you to keep your paired smartphone with you in order to record the location.

Early Verdict

As we’re yet to review the Garmin Cirqa, we’ll hold off from providing a conclusive verdict. However, with a promise of up to 10-days of battery life, Natural Cycles integration and Garmin’s health and fitness tracking tools, the Cirqa looks set to be a brilliant wearable for those who don’t want to be distracted by a screen. 

However, the Fitbit Air is a really tough device to beat. Not only is it considerably more affordable, but its companion app is brilliant and it has a more discrete style for those who don’t want an overtly flashy wearable. 

Advertisement

Advertisement

We’ll be sure to update this versus once we review the Garmin Cirqa.

JFrog has confirmed that OpenAI models exploited zero-day vulnerabilities in self-hosted Artifactory servers to help escape an isolated testing environment and gain access to the internet before attacking Hugging Face.

The vulnerabilities were exploited during the incident in which OpenAI models hacked Hugging Face’s production infrastructure to steal answers for a cybersecurity benchmark.

OpenAI disclosed last week that its models, including GPT-5.6 Sol and a more capable pre-release model, were being tested against ExploitGym, a benchmark designed to measure advanced cyber capabilities.

The models were run without production safeguards normally used to prevent AI agents from conducting autonomous cyber activity.

However, the agents were placed inside a highly isolated environment where network access was limited to installing packages through internally hosted third-party software acting as a proxy and cache for package registries.

During the evaluation, the models spent significant time looking for a way to reach the open internet and obtain the benchmark’s test solutions.

OpenAI said the models exploited a zero-day vulnerability in the unnamed package-registry proxy and then performed privilege escalation and lateral movement inside the research environment until they reached a system with internet access.

OpenAI did not identify the package-registry proxy software or vendor at the time, saying only that the vulnerability had been privately disclosed and was being patched.

After reaching the internet, the models determined that Hugging Face might host the ExploitGym datasets and test solutions they were attempting to obtain.

OpenAI said the models searched for ways to access that information, chaining stolen credentials, zero-day vulnerabilities, and other attacks to find a remote code execution path into Hugging Face’s production infrastructure.

Artifactory zero-days exploited during sandbox escape

In a new disclosure published Monday, JFrog confirmed that the third-party package-registry software was a self-hosted JFrog Artifactory installation.

“During a security evaluation, OpenAI’s models identified previously unknown zero-day vulnerabilities in self-hosted Artifactory installations that could be exploited to gain unintended internet access,” JFrog CTO Yoav Landman said.

JFrog said OpenAI immediately disclosed the vulnerabilities, allowing the company to develop, test, and release fixes for cloud and self-hosted customers.

Cloud customers are already protected, while self-hosted customers have been notified to install the fixed versions.

Artifactory 7.161.15 Self-Managed, released on July 27, contains a critical security notice stating that it fixes multiple vulnerabilities that could be chained together into a critical attack scenario when Anonymous Access is enabled.

“This version is designed to fix multiple security vulnerabilities that, when chained together, could result in a critical attack scenario if Anonymous Access is enabled,” reads the 7.161.15 Self-Managed release notes.

“Anonymous Access is disabled by default and is not recommended for production environments due to the additional security risks it introduces.”

Although JFrog did not list the vulnerabilities in its release notes, BleepingComputer found eight associated flaws by searching CVE.org for Artifactory version 7.161.15, released on July 27.

The CVE records were all created on July 27, the same day JFrog disclosed the zero-days. All eight credited OpenAI with discovering the vulnerabilities and specified Artifactory 7.161.15 as the release containing the fixes.

The vulnerabilities are tracked as:

• CVE-2026-65921: Potential path traversal leading to unauthorized file writes
• CVE-2026-65923: Potential server-side request forgery in Artifactory Ansible repository handling
• CVE-2026-65924: Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) via Terraform Remote repository
• CVE-2026-65925: Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) via JFrog Artifactory Cargo remote repository
• CVE-2026-66014: Potential authentication bypass leading to privilege escalation in Artifactory
• CVE-2026-66015: JFrog Platform contains an authorization flaw that may allow authenticated privilege escalation.
• CVE-2026-65617: Potential remote code execution on an Artifactory package service container.
• CVE-2026-66018: JFrog Artifactory build environment properties exposure

BleepingComputer contacted JFrog and OpenAI to ask which of the eight CVEs were exploited during the incident and which vulnerabilities were chained together.

Only JFrog replied, declining to identify the CVEs or provide further technical details.

“Outside of our CTO’s blog and commentary and JFrog release notes, we aren’t adding further detail or comment at this time,” JFrog told BleepingComputer.

However, several of the CVEs found by BleepingComputer as associated with the release could have provided capabilities that matched portions of the attack detailed by OpenAI.

CVE-2026-65924 is a server-side request forgery vulnerability in Artifactory’s support for Terraform remote repositories.

An authenticated user, or an unauthenticated user when anonymous access is enabled on the repository, could exploit the flaw to make Artifactory send outbound HTTP requests to arbitrary destinations and return the response content.

CVE-2026-65925 similarly allows a user with read access to an Artifactory Cargo remote repository to make Artifactory request unintended URLs and return the responses.

Another vulnerability, CVE-2026-66014, is an authentication-handling weakness in Artifactory’s internal request processing that could allow an attacker to elevate privileges under specific conditions.

These vulnerabilities could have provided the internet-access and privilege-escalation capabilities described by OpenAI.

However, it remains unknown which flaws were exploited, how they were chained, or whether all eight vulnerabilities were involved in the sandbox escape.

Security teams log 54% of successful attacks and alert on just 14%. The rest move through your environment unseen.

The Picus whitepaper shows how breach and attack simulation tests your SIEM and EDR rules so threats stop slipping by detection.

Get the whitepaper