Quote for the day:
"Different times need different types of
leadership." -- Park Geun-hye

MCP substantially simplifies agentic AI adoption for developers. This roadmap
created by the MCP community clearly defines priorities and direction, providing
helpful guidance for implementation. Organizations will also benefit from the
key initiatives outlined in the roadmap, like the MCP Registry, which enables
developers to build a comprehensive network of agents. The emergence of OAuth as
a complementary standard protocol strengthens agent ecosystems even more. As
with any other framework, MCP has its challenges. MCP offers a wide array of
tools to support LLM reasoning, but it doesn’t prioritize coordinated,
high-quality task execution. ... ACP will make it easier to implement AI agents
on edge and local devices. In instances where the majority of decision-making
happens “on the go” in a disconnected environment, this protocol will be useful.
Now, developers can build modular systems that can coordinate with a standard
protocol to make edge AI easier. A2A will gain momentum and enable
cross-platform agents to work together to deliver superior intelligence to
customers. A2A will help coordinate agents built using diverse frameworks with a
common standard. The main requirement for this is to build an Agent Card that
allows agents to be used and consumed by others.

Industrial organizations and other kinds of critical infrastructure are
regularly near or at the top of vendor lists highlighting ransomware targets.
It's easy to see why; the important assets a threat actor could compromise put
immense pressure on affected organizations to pay up. Kurt Gaudette, vice
president of intelligence and services at Dragos, tells Dark Reading that the OT
side of the house is "where the bottom line is." And indeed, Sophos reported
last year that 65% of respondent organizations in the manufacturing sector
reported that they suffered a ransomware attack in the year preceding the
report; of those, 62% of organizations paid the ransom. Compounding this, the
security postures of organizations that use OT/ICS can vary dramatically
compared with traditional IT settings. The importance of staying patched is
complicated by the reality that some industrial processes are meant to run
uninterrupted for long periods of time and can't be subjected to the downtime
necessary to patch. Second, an organization like a local water treatment plant
might not have a significant security budget to invest in tools and personnel.
Also, ICS products tend to be expensive, and aging equipment is everywhere, with
many fields like healthcare drowning in legacy, hard-to-patch products or those
without built-in security features.

Although AI makes threats harder to detect, many breaches aren't caused by
sophisticated hacking. They happen because organizations might not realize
employees let their kids play Minecraft on their corporate laptops, or an old
server or forgotten IoT device is still online. If IT doesn't know an asset
exists, or who uses it, the team can't secure it, and hackers look for
forgotten, unmonitored devices to break in. ... Managing and securing multiple
systems can tempt employees to repeat passwords for simplicity. If employees
continue to avoid using tools like corporate password managers to enforce
strong, unique passwords, IT teams need to ask themselves why. How can they make
warnings about this more impactful without burdening staff? ... The trouble is
that, even with corporate password managers and MFA in place, hackers are still
finding ways to steal credentials. These tools are designed to prevent hackers
from entering your home, but if the door is left open, they won't stop anyone
from walking in. The average annual growth rate of exposed accounts is 28%.
Session expiration policies based on risk level and adaptive access policies can
trigger forced signouts if a session shows abnormal behavior (e.g., logging in
from a new IP while still active on another), which will help reduce account
session takeovers.
In 2025, industry watchers expect there will be an increase in the public budget
allocated to defense. In Spain, one-third of the budget will be allocated to
increasing cybersecurity. But for Fischbein, training teams is much more
important than the budget. “The challenge is to distribute the budget in a way
that can be managed,” he notes, and to leverage intuitive and easy-to-use
platforms, so that organizations don’t have to invest all the money in training.
“When you have information, management, users, devices, mobiles, data centers,
clouds, cameras, printers… the security challenge is very complex. ” he says. ”
... “In a security operations center (SOC), a person using Check Point tools
could previously take between two and four hours to investigate the causes of an
alert. Today that time has dropped to 20 minutes,” he says. He also explains how
they work with vulnerabilities. “Currently, Check Point checks all of them in a
few seconds and tells you whether you are protected or not. And if you are not,
it tells you which network to protect.” Regarding attackers, he acknowledges
that they now make “richer and more logical” attacks. “With AI, they check the
data and social networks of any person to impersonate a friend of the attacked
person, because when someone receives something more personal they lower the
defenses against phishing,” he says.

Acknowledging the limitations of exclusively using ID as a form of
verification, many state bills, including Montana, Louisiana, Arkansas, Utah,
and New York, have left the door open for “commercially reasonable” age
verification methods. However, they give very little clarification as to what
should be considered “commercially reasonable”. For example, in Utah, they
only specify that these options can, “[rely] on public or private
transactional data to verify the age of the person attempting to access the
material.” ... Throughout all of these bills, there is no insight as to
what type of data is permissible, how this data should be sourced, or any
consent mechanisms for leveraging the data. By leaving a loophole open for
undefined measures of age verification, there is a risk of potentially
invasive and privacy-violating data, such as biometric data, being required of
everyone who intends to access social media platforms. Not only could this
potentially compromise people’s ability to remain anonymous on the internet,
but it could also lead to the consolidation of uniquely identifiable sensitive
data within the entities performing these verifications. To combat this, all
bills with specifications for commercially reasonable age verification methods
prohibit the data being used for verification from being stored or retained
after verification is complete.

Risk-based testing measures the importance of criteria instead of conducting
equal checks for every factor. It evaluates potential flaws based on failure
impact, likelihood of failure, and business criticality. This approach ensures
efficient resource management and improves software reliability by: Focusing
on Critical Areas: Instead of testing everything equally, RBT ensures that
high-risk components receive the most attention. Evaluating Failure Impact:
Identifies and tests areas where defects could cause significant damage.
Assessing Likelihood of Failure: Targets unstable parts of the software by
analyzing complexity, frequent changes, and past defects. Prioritizing
Business-Critical Functions: Ensures essential systems like payment processing
remain stable and reliable. Optimizing Resources and Time: Reduces unnecessary
testing efforts, allowing teams to focus on what matters most. Improving
Software Dependability: Detects major issues early, leading to more stable and
reliable software. ... Machine learning improves software testing by examining
prior data (code changes, bug reports, and test results) to identify high-risk
locations. It gives key tests top priority; it finds anomalies before failures
start; it keeps getting better with fresh data. Automating risk assessment
helps ML speed tests, improve accuracy, maximize resources, and make software
testing smarter and more effective.

The cyber MOC specifically targets changes affecting connected and
configurable technologies, such as PLCs, IIoT devices, and network switches.
The specific implementation of this process will vary depending on the
organization’s structure and operational needs, as will the composition of the
teams responsible for its execution. The reality is that many existing MOC
frameworks were conceived before cybersecurity became a critical concern.
Consequently, they often prioritize physical safety, leaving a significant gap
in addressing potential cyber vulnerabilities. Traditional MOC tools, designed
to support these processes, lack the necessary mechanisms to evaluate changes
that could compromise cybersecurity. This oversight is a significant risk,
particularly as infrastructure organizations become increasingly reliant on
interconnected technologies. To bridge this gap, a fundamental shift is
required. MOC tools and workflows must be revamped to incorporate
cybersecurity considerations. While preserving core data fields and
attributes, new fields must be introduced to capture cyber-related
information. Similarly, RACI (responsible, accountable, consulted, and
informed) matrices, which define responsibilities, must be expanded to include
cyber risk accountability.
Treat deepfakes like any other cyber threat and apply a zero-trust mindset.
That means don’t assume anything is real just because it looks or sounds
convincing. Update your response plan to include steps for verifying video or
audio content, especially if it’s being used to request sensitive actions.
Build a risk model that considers how deepfakes could be used to target
critical business processes, such as executive communications, financial
approvals, or customer interactions. Make sure your team knows how to spot red
flags, who to alert, and how to document the incident. Use detection tools
that can scan media in real time and save flagged content for review. The
faster you can identify and act, the more damage you can prevent. In today’s
environment, it’s safer to question first and trust only after you verify. ...
Deepfake awareness should be built into regular training so employees can spot
warning signs early. Utilizing the detection tools to support teams by
scanning and flagging suspicious media in real time, helping them make faster,
safer decisions. Incident response plans must also cover how to escalate,
preserve evidence, and communicate if a deepfake is suspected. At the end of
the day, questioning unusual communications must become the norm, not the
exception

Another big payoff comes from paying down security debt. Wysopal said
organizations with the most mature secure development practices fix 10% of
their vulnerabilities on an annual basis and avoid having any security debt
that is more than a year old. By contrast, "the lagging companies fix less
than 1% of open bugs per month," he said. This strategy isn't always feasible.
Notably, "we found that 70% of critical debt was in third-party code," and
teams that built software with third-party - or sometimes fourth or fifth
party - dependencies sometimes must wait months for fixes to become available,
Wysopal said. "Some software packages that are widely used by other software
packages are harder to fix, so you have a lot what we call transitive
dependencies." There's no easy solution for this challenge. "When you're using
open source, you're really dependent on the fixing speed of another team that
is not getting paid, and they're just doing it because they love to do that
project," he said. ... Another wrinkle is that more code is built by
artificial intelligence tools - Google and Microsoft each say roughly a third
of their code is AI-generated. Developers report being more productive,
shipping on average 50% more code when they use AI tools. Wysopal said such AI
tools appear to produce code with vulnerabilities at the same rate as
classical development tools. More code shipped risks a greater number of
vulnerabilities.
Developing and operating AI-ready data centers necessitates specialized legal
expertise across multiple disciplines. Financing attorneys provide guidance in
structuring capital arrangements that support data center development, which
requires substantial upfront investment before generating any operational
revenue. Capital arrangements must incorporate sufficient flexibility to
accommodate the rapid evolution of AI technology availability and unique power
supply challenges at an individual site. Energy lawyers guide PPA
negotiations, facilitate utility discussions, manage interconnection filings
with relevant authorities, and resolve rate disputes when they arise. Their
specialized work ensures that facilities maintain access to reliable,
cost-effective power resources that meet operational requirements under all
anticipated conditions. As regulatory approaches to AI infrastructure continue
to evolve, energy counsel must remain current on emerging policies and their
potential impact on both existing and future facilities. Technology and
intellectual property specialists address essential operational aspects of
data centers, including complex licensing arrangements, service level
agreements, comprehensive data governance frameworks, and cross-border data
flow compliance strategies.
No comments:
Post a Comment