Daily Tech Digest by Kannan Subbiah: NHI

Showing posts with label NHI. Show all posts

Daily Tech Digest - October 13, 2026

Quote for the day:

"Whenever you see a successful person you only see the public glories, never the private sacrifices to reach them." -- Vaibhav Shah

Bring Your Own Agent: Your Employees' Assistants Are Already Logged In

The integration of personal AI agents into the workplace is inevitable, creating a new security challenge categorized as Bring-Your-Own-Agent (BYOA). While the tech industry is captivated by tools like OpenClaw, Muse, Instinct, and GrokBot, these personal assistants are quietly accessing corporate environments through methods like OAuth consent, saved browser credentials, and API keys. Unlike the Bring-Your-Own-Device movement where IT departments could formally register and manage physical hardware, personal AI agents often live on vendor servers or blend seamlessly into employee laptops, making them difficult to govern. Many vendors are introducing controls for managed corporate deployments, but these solutions rarely cover truly personal AI agents. Blocking them outright is difficult and prevents employees from realizing significant productivity gains. Instead, organizations should manage these agents by treating identity as the central control plane. By discovering connected shadow AI, linking each agent to a human owner, properly scoping their access, and ensuring their permissions are revoked when the employee departs, companies can safely harness the potential of BYOA. Security teams must adapt to this shift by prioritizing robust identity management over attempting to ban tools that are already entrenched in their networks.

Absence of Evidence: What an AI-Orchestrated Intrusion Harness Teaches Us About AI Detection Engineering

Recent research into SecFlow, a China-nexus AI orchestration harness, offers a critical lesson in AI detection engineering for both attackers and defenders. Developed by a Chinese-speaking operator, SecFlow used AI models like Claude, Qwen, and DeepSeek for reconnaissance, exploitation, and reporting against government and telecom targets. The harness exposed a major flaw in automated workflows: it accepted a worker’s unverified claim of a successful Apache Shiro exploit as ground truth. Because the system assumed plausible output meant actual success without checking its work, more than 27 subsequent tasks were built on this error and consequently failed. This offensive failure mirrors a significant risk for security operations centers (SOCs) relying on AI-generated detection rules. An AI tool can instantly write a rule that is syntactically correct and loads perfectly into a SIEM, giving defenders a false sense of security. However, looking correct is not the same as being operationally effective. Without executing these rules against live attacks to verify they actually fire, defenders risk deploying rules that fail silently. Ultimately, the incident underscores that in automated security engineering, plausible success must never replace proven, tested execution.

A Digital Twin Is Only As Useful As The Decision It Improves

Many digital twin projects in manufacturing fail because teams focus on creating complex, plant-wide virtual replicas instead of solving specific operational problems. According to John Parraga, a digital twin is only truly useful when it targets a single, high-stakes decision by modeling one process using live operational data. The most effective digital twins are modest in scale but deeply practical, connecting to existing systems like PLCs and historians to validate control-sequence changes or diagnose recurring issues without gambling an entire shift of live production. To ensure long-term success, companies must avoid three common pitfalls that quietly erode a model's value. First, teams must prevent scope creep by maintaining strict boundaries around the initial use case. Second, hidden assumptions within the model should be documented clearly so operators understand exactly what the twin is telling them. Finally, because physical equipment and processes naturally change over time, the twin must undergo routine recalibration to prevent model drift. Ultimately, the best approach is to start small by testing one focused use case, proving its value in changing outcomes, and only expanding the twin once that specific process demonstrates measurable, repeatable success on the plant floor.

AI compels organizations to rethink data security

The traditional approach to data security, relying on static firewalls and a digital perimeter, is no longer effective in the age of autonomous artificial intelligence. As these intelligent agents rapidly scan corporate networks to connect information at machine speed, they expose the hidden flaws in older security systems and magnify the risks associated with unclassified legacy data. To maintain control, organizations must adopt a highly strict mindset for these automated programs, tightly locking down their permissions just as they would for regular human employees. Because these digital workers act with inherent curiosity and constantly test the boundaries of a network, conventional identity and access systems fall short. Instead, the focus must shift directly to the data itself. By embedding access rights directly into the metadata, the information becomes self-describing and capable of acting as its own gatekeeper, regardless of the application trying to use it. Furthermore, keeping these development tools in-house rather than relying on external models ensures clear data ownership and far tighter control. Although automation introduces significant complexity and new vulnerabilities, it also provides the solution. Security teams must leverage this same processing power to continuously monitor, detect, and counter automated threats from within their own systems.

Playbook for the Incoming Healthcare Regulatory Regime

Healthcare organizations must prepare for a strict new regulatory environment that will permanently change how they manage cybersecurity. Driven by the Health Care Cybersecurity and Resiliency Act and pending updates to the HIPAA Security Rule, the era of treating essential security measures as optional is finally ending. Soon, all providers will be required to implement multiple factor authentication, encrypt protected health information, conduct regular penetration testing, and maintain continuous network monitoring. While large health systems may adapt smoothly, smaller clinics and rural hospitals face significant financial hurdles. Early estimates suggest initial compliance costs could reach nine billion dollars, yet proposed government grants offer only a fraction of that amount with no funding guarantees. Experts strongly advise against waiting for these regulations to become final before taking action. Instead, organizations should begin immediately by mapping their systems, identifying security gaps, and prioritizing vital upgrades like authentication and data encryption. Special attention must be given to older medical devices and outside vendor contracts, which often harbor the greatest vulnerabilities. Ultimately, adopting these mandatory security practices is no longer just about meeting compliance standards; it is a necessary step to protect sensitive patient information from the growing threat of cyberattacks and data breaches.

The Non-Human Identity Blast Radius: Taming the 45:1 Machine-to-Human Imbalance

In modern digital environments, machine accounts like automated background tasks and system connections vastly outnumber human users, often by a ratio of forty-five to one. While organizations spend significant time and money managing employee access, these non-human accounts are frequently neglected. When an employee leaves a company, their access is promptly removed. However, machine accounts created for temporary projects or testing often remain active indefinitely, holding high-level permissions without any oversight. This creates a major vulnerability. Attackers specifically target these forgotten machine accounts because they bypass standard security measures like two-factor authentication. Once compromised, these accounts provide direct access to core systems while blending in with regular system traffic. To address this risk, organizations need to stop relying on permanent access keys and instead adopt systems that grant temporary credentials only when necessary. Furthermore, companies must manage machine accounts with the same strict discipline they apply to human employees. This means assigning clear human ownership to every machine account, setting expiration dates, automatically removing unused permissions, and regularly scanning for abandoned access points. Ignoring this vast portion of digital activity leaves the door wide open for security breaches, making proper, ongoing management of all automated accounts an absolute necessity today.

When Should You Use Liquid Clustering? Benchmarking Lakehouse Layout Strategies

Choosing the best storage layout for lakehouse analytical systems isn't a one-size-fits-all decision, and getting it wrong can negatively impact both cost and performance. A recent benchmark comparing Liquid Clustering, ZOrdering, and Partitioning on Delta Lake revealed crucial insights into when to use each. While Liquid Clustering generally outperforms the others for point lookups, time-range aggregations, and large aggregations, ZOrdering shines when handling stable, highly selective multi-column workloads where queries consistently filter on the same specific columns. However, ZOrdering has a hidden flaw: if a date column is used as a secondary or tertiary key, time-range queries can slow down significantly because sequential dates get scattered across files. On the flip side, Liquid Clustering can be noticeably slower than ZOrdering when queries are narrow and predictable, as its broader optimization trades exact file pruning for flexibility. Ultimately, Liquid Clustering is recommended as the default for teams with diverse or evolving query patterns because it eliminates the need for manual optimization tasks. Before making a final choice, teams should test their top query patterns against all three layouts to see what works best for their specific data.

From IT Custodian to Business Co-Owner: How Tech Drives the Everyday Operating Model at Tim Hortons GCC

According to Vinay Kumar, Head of IT at Tim Hortons GCC, the role of technology leaders in the quick-service restaurant (QSR) industry has shifted from managing IT systems to driving business outcomes. Technology is now central to everyday operations, and CIOs must ensure their solutions are robust, agile, and easy for frontline staff to adopt. Kumar notes that a seamless customer journey requires connecting multiple backend systems—such as point-of-sale, kitchen displays, and payments—through strong integration architecture and master data management. Furthermore, system reliability during peak hours is critical, requiring a focus on offline capabilities and quick recovery rather than just system uptime. Data and artificial intelligence are also transforming operations by optimizing demand forecasting, inventory planning, and workforce management. However, Kumar cautions that AI should simplify rather than complicate the frontline experience. To achieve success, IT leaders must understand the business deeply, standardize processes, and ensure all systems provide a smooth experience for the customer, who should never have to think about the technology working behind the scenes. In this connected ecosystem, maintaining strong cybersecurity and regulatory compliance across all touchpoints is also vital.

Be a good AI ancestor: Cybersecurity already gave us the playbook

In her recent article, Lisa Thee explains that the technology industry must apply decades of cybersecurity experience to the rapidly evolving field of artificial intelligence. While autonomous AI systems offer significant benefits, they also introduce serious risks like unauthorized actions, security breaches, and data exposure that require practical, technical solutions rather than just high-level ethical guidelines. Thee argues that it is time to move past theoretical discussions about responsible AI and instead establish enforceable boundaries, which she calls "Red Lines." These explicit boundaries clearly define what autonomous systems should never be allowed to do in practice. To achieve this, organizations must empower their engineers, cybersecurity professionals, and legal experts to design, test, and tightly regulate AI safeguards. Just as competing companies have historically collaborated to successfully combat digital crimes, they must now work together across international borders to ensure AI systems operate within safe, verifiable limits. Furthermore, businesses will soon need to provide concrete evidence that their AI tools are secure, leading to the creation of new specialized roles in AI safety and risk assessment. Ultimately, building a secure infrastructure today ensures we leave behind a safe and trustworthy digital environment for future generations to inherit and build upon safely.

Your AI agents can execute every tool call correctly and still break every enterprise rule

The article argues that even when AI agents execute every tool call correctly, they can still violate core enterprise rules because the real risk lies not in the tools themselves but in the decision layer that chooses how and when to use them. It explains that most enterprise AI strategies assume a simple formula — agents plus tools plus data equals agility — but this breaks down in real corporate environments where compliance, governance, and financial controls matter. Tool‑calling makes individual actions deterministic, yet the agent’s reasoning remains probabilistic, meaning it can choose a valid tool sequence that still bypasses labor laws, tax rules, approval workflows, or security boundaries. Attempts to fix this from the outside, such as policy middleware or oversized prompts, lead companies into the “shadow ERP” trap, where they rebuild fragile copies of business logic outside their system of record. The article argues that lawful agents require guardrails at the inference layer: a context engine that filters what the agent can see, a policy engine that enforces business rules, and an execution layer that ensures actions carry the authority of the human the agent represents. The closing message is steady and pragmatic — true enterprise‑grade AI must run where governance already lives, because distance from the system of record weakens both safety and speed.

Daily Tech Digest - May 31, 2026

Quote for the day:

“Make sure you don’t start seeing yourself through the eyes of those who don’t value you.” -- Anonymous

🎧 Listen to this digest on YouTube Music

▶ Play Audio Digest

Duration: 21 mins • Perfect for listening on the go.

AI observability: How CIOs can see past their org blind spots

The article discusses AI observability, highlighting how traditional IT monitoring tools are insufficient for evaluating artificial intelligence performance. As AI applications expand across modern businesses, CIOs frequently struggle with deep blind spots regarding system usage, model drift, performance degradation, and unauthorized "shadow AI" tools. Unlike standard software that relies on predictable metrics like uptime, AI systems operate probabilistically, meaning the exact same inputs can yield wildly varying outcomes. This inherent unpredictability creates compounding risks, especially as enterprises connect multiple autonomous agents into complex workflows where minor data issues can quietly corrupt downstream results for weeks before finally breaking. To address these organizational vulnerabilities, experts suggest shifting from front-loaded risk assessments to continuous, full-stack visibility. This comprehensive approach involves setting up automated guardrails for model outputs, maintaining a clear catalog of active systems, and establishing an integrated control plane. By compiling system telemetry, semantic mapping, and risk thresholds into a single shared interface, different corporate stakeholders, such as finance, human resources, and security teams, can easily monitor the metrics relevant to their own departments. Ultimately, treating observability as a core design principle rather than an afterthought enables leadership to safely scale their AI initiatives, manage ballooning costs, and build lasting organizational trust.

The Validation Gap Is Costing You More Than You Think

According to a report on software delivery, development teams are writing more code than ever, but less of it is actually reaching production. Analysis of millions of workflows reveals that while development throughput has spiked, main branch success rates have fallen to a five-year low of roughly seventy percent. This drop stems from a gap in how software is validated. Traditional continuous integration systems were designed for humans who commit code gradually. Today, automated artificial intelligence tools generate code at a rapid pace that completely overwhelms traditional review processes. When errors are caught late in the shared integration system, it results in expensive compute costs, wasted time, and broken focus as the automated tools have already moved on to other tasks. To solve this dilemma, engineering teams must shift testing much earlier into the initial writing phase. By running smaller, targeted tests while the automated code generator is still actively focused on a task, teams can fix errors immediately without draining infrastructure resources. When this early testing stage and the final integration pipeline share historical information, the entire delivery system becomes smarter and more efficient. Ultimately, addressing this validation imbalance helps organizations safely increase their software output without absorbing downstream failures.

Why Attack Surface Management Breaks in OT (and What Actually Works)

Traditional Attack Surface Management (ASM) fails in Operational Technology (OT) environments because industrial infrastructure operates on fundamentally different principles than standard enterprise IT systems. Many legacy industrial protocols, such as Modbus, DNP3, and BACnet, were created decades ago without built-in encryption, session management, or authentication mechanisms. Consequently, their lack of security is an inherent property of the system design rather than a simple configuration mistake that can easily be patched. Furthermore, the active interrogation techniques standard in IT security can severely disrupt operational networks; sending aggressive probes often overwhelms the limited network stacks of Programmable Logic Controllers (PLCs), causing critical physical machinery to misbehave or shut down entirely. Because these industrial environments do not support software agents or standard diagnostic queries, establishing a reliable asset inventory is remarkably difficult. To mitigate risks effectively, security teams must reverse their usual enterprise instincts by defaulting to passive network monitoring and treating active probing as a tightly managed privilege. Utilizing passive internet search data allows analysts to map exposed external components safely without introducing disruptive traffic to live plants. Ultimately, embedding clear safety workflows and strict rate limits into automated security tools ensures that scanning efforts do not cause unintended physical operational downtime.

Backup and recovery architecture best practices for UK SMEs

The Security Boulevard article explains that smaller businesses in the UK should treat backup and recovery as a practical safety measure rather than a simple file storage task. A sensible backup plan focuses entirely on restoration outcomes, ensuring a company can keep trading after an incident like an accidental deletion, system failure, or cyberattack. Instead of buying expensive software tools first, these organizations should prioritize their systems based on how a disruption directly impacts their daily operations, clearly defining how much downtime and data loss they can realistically handle. To build stronger protection, companies must keep multiple copies of their files across separate locations and accounts so that a single compromise or mistake cannot destroy both the live data and the backups. Furthermore, restricting access to named administrative accounts, applying settings that prevent recent copies from being altered or deleted, and choosing backup styles that match different types of systems will lower overall risk. Because copying data does not automatically mean a system can be successfully rebuilt, regular testing is necessary to catch unexpected delays and overlooked technical connections. Ultimately, the article recommends documenting these steps in short, straightforward guides with clear ownership so that staff can respond calmly when an unexpected outage occurs.

Challenging AI Assumptions

In his Forbes article, John Werner encourages readers to reconsider common assumptions about artificial intelligence that might limit our ability to effectively navigate the future. He notes that early technology milestones, such as the IBM Watson era, conditioned the public to view machine intelligence as a centralized database focused entirely on factual recall, rapid calculation, and deterministic logic. However, as the field quickly moves toward a future centered on autonomous software agents, Werner argues that continuing to rely on these old centralized frameworks is a foundational mistake. Drawing from insights shared at a recent MIT-linked conference, he suggests that the true development of artificial intelligence will ultimately mirror biological organisms and complex economic networks rather than centralized computer hardware. Because the long-term impact of this technology on global society is frequently compared to foundational discoveries like fire or electricity, our structural approach must evolve accordingly. Instead of designing isolated, top-down systems, we should foster collaborative, decentralized, and biologically inspired ecosystems of digital agents. By shifting our perspective away from rigid central control, human society can establish cooperative frameworks that allow these increasingly autonomous systems to be integrated smoothly, sustainably, and safely into everyday life.

The Architecture Questions I Ask Before an Initiative Starts

In his article, Eetu Niemi outlines three practical architectural questions to ask before any major business project begins, aiming to clarify scope and prevent costly downstream surprises. The first question focuses on what is actually changing within the organization. Project names can often be deceptive, so teams must carefully distinguish between a project's stated scope and its actual, wider impact. If a change only alters a single isolated system, heavy architectural planning is rarely needed. The second question addresses visible dependencies, identifying which software applications, data streams, teams, or external vendors the project relies upon. Uncovering this scattered knowledge early helps avoid scheduling or financial surprises down the line without over-documenting every minor connection. The final question evaluates which decisions would be expensive to reverse later on. While choices regarding technology platforms, data models, or core software might seem like minor delivery choices initially, they quickly harden into fixed constraints once other systems are built around them. By addressing what is changing, identifying dependencies, and flagging irreversible choices early on, architects can guide decision-making through plain conversations and basic diagrams. This upfront evaluation allows organizations to balance development speed with long-term operational stability without drowning teams in unnecessary paperwork or rigid governance structures.

Building a Quantum-Safe Foundation: WWT and Cisco Accelerate Post-Quantum Readiness

The article outlines how World Wide Technology and Cisco are working together to help organizations secure their networks against future quantum computing threats. Central to this effort is the use of Cisco 8000 Series Secure Routers, which address post-quantum security in two main areas: protecting data in transit with encryption that resists quantum attacks, and maintaining internal device integrity through hardware-anchored trust and secure boot processes. Importantly, these routers already contain the necessary hardware components to run these new cryptographic standards, meaning companies do not need to replace their existing infrastructure and can implement the updates through straightforward configuration changes. This compatibility allows quantum-safe equipment to run on the same network as older systems, removing the need for a risky, immediate complete network overhaul. To guide organizations through this transition, World Wide Technology provides planning and deployment support through its specialized security division and its Advanced Technology Center lab facility. In this testing lab, engineering teams can evaluate encryption tunnel behaviors and test fallback systems under realistic network conditions before rolling them out. Ultimately, the collaboration highlights that achieving security against quantum threats is an ongoing program requiring careful testing, technical depth, and phased adjustments rather than a simple product purchase.

The Next Wow Factor: A Conversation with Sidney Lu, Chairman and CEO, Foxconn Interconnect Technology (FIT)

In this interview, Sidney Lu, the chairman and chief executive officer of Foxconn Interconnect Technology, reflects on his forty year career and personal leadership philosophy. He oversees a large global workforce that manufactures vital electrical parts, such as connectors and cables, for common electronics like smartphones, electric vehicles, and computer servers. Lu credits his way of leading to a balance of Eastern discipline and Western workplace confidence, which he gained while studying and working in the United States. A foundational lesson from his mother taught him to take full responsibility, avoid self pity, and quickly move past mistakes, a clear mindset he later applied to difficult engineering problems. As a leader, Lu strongly emphasizes supporting his employees by taking personal blame for business setbacks rather than shifting it downward to others. To stay relevant and avoid falling behind, he consistently challenges his team to deliver an unexpected, fresh product or advancement every three years. Under his quiet guidance, the company has expanded significantly while building long lasting relationships with clients based on deep trust. Ultimately, Lu attributes his steady motivation to a simple, genuine enjoyment of his daily work and a constant curiosity about what comes next.

Post-quantum cryptography is not the future. It is your current reality

The article explains that post-quantum cryptography is an immediate operational necessity rather than a distant concern. Major tech companies and governments are already deploying these new algorithms because waiting for a functional quantum computer introduces severe, immediate risks to digital infrastructure. Chief among these is the "Harvest Now, Decrypt Later" strategy, where adversaries actively intercept and store encrypted network traffic today with the intention of decrypting it once advanced quantum hardware becomes available. Additionally, existing digital signatures and root certificates face future retroactive forgery, threatening the core authenticity of secure software supply chains. Successfully upgrading an enterprise is rarely an issue of funding or algorithm selection; the real challenge is an absolute lack of visibility. Modern corporate networks contain countless forgotten encryption points hidden within legacy software, cloud environments, and device firmware. To address this, organizations must establish a continuous inventory, known as a Cryptography Bill of Materials, to locate and evaluate their vulnerable assets. Once an organization maps these internal elements, it can cultivate true cryptographic agility, enabling systems to swap underlying protocols smoothly without disrupting daily operations or breaking system compatibility. Rather than delaying, companies must prioritize data based on its overall longevity and methodically adapt to finalized standards, securing their systems before the available implementation runway runs out entirely.

Non-Human Identities Are Outgrowing Your Governance Model

Many companies have developed dependable systems to manage human user identities, but they are falling behind when it comes to non-human accounts. Machine identities, such as service accounts, API keys, security certificates, and automated workloads, now vastly outnumber human credentials, particularly in cloud computing environments. Because these digital entities lack individual managers, specific start dates, or standard offboarding processes, they often slip through traditional corporate tracking systems completely unnoticed. This ongoing management gap leads to significant security problems, including orphaned accounts that maintain high-level administrative access years after a project ends, static passwords that are never rotated, and old third-party integrations that leave access doors wide open to former external vendors. Additionally, neglecting these machine identities creates serious compliance exposure during regulatory audits under strict frameworks like SOC 2 or ISO 27001, which mandate clear internal accountability and regular access reviews. To fix these issues, organizations need to update their tracking strategies and treat non-human credentials with the exact same discipline applied to human staff. This approach means assigning clear owners to every automated account, mapping their actual usage patterns, setting up predictable update cycles, and deleting them automatically when software is retired. By establishing this structured oversight, security teams can successfully close dangerous operational loopholes and maintain control.

Daily Tech Digest - February 28, 2026

Quote for the day:

"Stories are the single most powerful weapon in a leader's arsenal." -- Howard Gardner

AI ambitions collide with legacy integration problems

Many enterprises have moved beyond experimentation and are preparing for formal deployment. The survey found that 85% have begun adopting AI or expect to do so within the next 12 months. Respondents also reported efforts to formalise AI governance, reflecting greater attention to risk, accountability and oversight. ... Integration sits at the centre of that tension. AI initiatives often depend on clean data, consistent definitions and reliable access across multiple applications, requirements that legacy estates can complicate. The survey links these constraints to compliance risks, including data retention, access controls and auditability across connected systems. ... Security and privacy concerns featured prominently. Data privacy across systems was cited as a top risk by 49% of respondents, while 48% said they were concerned about third parties handling sensitive data. The results highlight the difficulty of managing information flows when AI systems interact with multiple internal applications and external providers. Governance approaches varied. Fewer than half (47%) said board-level reporting forms part of risk management for AI and related technology work, suggesting uneven executive oversight as AI moves into operational settings where incidents can carry regulatory and reputational consequences. ... Despite pressure to move quickly on AI initiatives, respondents said engineering quality remains a priority.

Striking the Right Balance Between Automation and Manual Processes in IT

Rather than thinking of applying AI wherever possible and over-automating, leaders should think about the most beneficial uses of the technology and begin implementation of the technology in those areas first before expanding further. Automation is a powerful tool, but humans are the most powerful tool in the IT stack. Let’s discuss how today’s IT leaders can strike the right balance between automation and manual processes. ... Even with the many benefits of automation, human-led processes still reign supreme in certain areas. For example, optimal IT operations happen at the intersection of tools and teamwork. IT teams must still foster a collaborative culture, working with other departments to ensure cross team visibility and alignment on business goals. While the latest AI technology can help in these efforts, ultimately, humans must do this collaborative work. Team dynamics can also be complex at times. Conflict resolution and major team decisions are not things that automation can solve. Moreover, if there is a critical system issue, DBAs must be able to work with IT leaders to resolve this issue and forge a path forward. Finally, manual processes are often necessitated by convoluted workflows. Many DBA teams have workflows in which every step is a set of if-then-else decisions, with each possible outcome also encumbered with many if-then decisions cascading through multiple levels of decisions.

Translating data science capabilities into business ROI

The fundamental challenge in demonstrating data science ROI is that most analytics infrastructure feels optional until it becomes essential. During normal operations, executives tolerate delays in reporting and gaps in visibility. During a crisis, those same gaps become existential threats. ... The turning point came when I realized we weren’t facing a data problem or a technology problem. We were facing a decision-making problem. Our leadership needed to maintain operational stability for a multi-trillion-dollar asset manager during unprecedented disruption. Every day without visibility meant delayed decisions, missed opportunities, and compounding uncertainty. ... Speed-to-value often trumps technical sophistication. The COVID dashboard taught me this lesson definitively. We could have spent months building a comprehensive data warehouse with sophisticated ETL pipelines and machine learning-powered forecasting. Instead, we focused ruthlessly on the minimum viable solution that executives needed immediately. ... Strategic positioning creates a disproportionate impact. I served as strategic architect for a major product repositioning — a multi-million-dollar initiative essential for our competitive positioning. My data-backed strategies produced immediate, quantifiable market share gains and resulted in substantially larger deal sizes and accelerated acquisition rates that fundamentally altered our market position.

The reliability cost of default timeouts

Many widely used libraries and systems default to infinite or extremely large timeouts. In Java, common HTTP clients treat a timeout of zero as “wait indefinitely” unless explicitly configured. In Python, requests will wait indefinitely unless a timeout is set explicitly. The Fetch API does not define a built-in timeout at all. These defaults aren’t careless. They’re intentionally generic. Libraries optimize for the correctness of a single request because they can’t know what “too slow” means for your system. Survivability under partial failure is left to the application. ... Long timeouts can also mask deeper design problems. If a request regularly times out because it returns thousands of items, the issue isn’t the timeout itself. It’s missing pagination or poor request shaping. By optimizing for individual request success, teams unintentionally trade away system-level resilience. ... A timeout defines where a failure is allowed to stop. Without timeouts, a single slow dependency can quietly consume threads, connections and memory across the system. With well-chosen timeouts, slowness stays contained instead of spreading into a system-wide failure. ... A timeout is a decision about value. Past a certain point, waiting longer does not improve user experience. It increases the amount of wasted work a system performs after the user has already left. A timeout is also a decision about containment. Without bounded waits, partial failures turn into system-wide failures through resource exhaustion: blocked threads, saturated pools, growing queues and cascading latency.

From dashboards to decisions: How streaming data transforms vertical software

For years, the standard for vertical software has been the nightly sync. You collect data all day, run a massive batch job at 2:00 AM, and provide your customers with a clean report the next morning. In a world of 2026, that delay is becoming a liability rather than a best practice. ... Data streaming isn’t just about moving bits faster; it’s about changing the fundamental value proposition of your application. Instead of being a system of record that tells a user what happened, your software becomes a system of agency that tells them what is happening right now. This shift requires a mental move away from static databases toward event-driven architectures. You’re no longer just storing a “state” (like current inventory); you’re capturing every “event” (every scan, every sale, every sensor ping) that leads to that state. ... One of the biggest mistakes I see software leaders make is treating real-time data as a “table stakes” feature that they give away for free. Streaming infrastructure is expensive to run and even more expensive to maintain. If you bake these costs into your standard subscription without a clear monetization strategy, you’ll watch your gross margins shrink as your customers’ data volumes grow. ... When you process data at the edge, you’re also solving the “data gravity” problem. Sending thousands of high-frequency sensor pings from a factory floor to the cloud just to filter out the noise is a waste of bandwidth and money.

MCP leaves much to be desired when it comes to data privacy and security

From a data privacy standpoint, one of the major issues is data leakage, while from a security perspective, there are several things that may cause issues, including prompt injections, difficulty in distinguishing between verified and unverified servers, and the fact that MCP servers sit below typical security controls. ... Fulkerson went on to say that runtime execution is another issue, and legacy tools for enforcing policies and privacy are static and don’t get enforced at runtime. When you’re dealing with non-deterministic systems, there needs to be a way to verifiably enforce policies at runtime execution because the blast radius of runtime data access has outgrown the protection mechanisms organizations have. He believes that confidential AI is the solution to these problems. Confidential AI builds on the properties of confidential computing, which involves using hardware that has an encrypted cache, allowing data and inference to be run inside an encrypted environment. While this helps prove that data is encrypted and nobody can see it, it doesn’t help with the governance challenge, which is where Fulkerson says confidential AI comes in. Confidential AI treats everything as a resource with its own set of policies that are cryptographically encoded. For example, you could limit an agent to only be able to talk to a specific agent, or only allow it to communicate with resources on a particular subnet.

3 Ways OT-IT Integration Helps Energy and Utilities Providers Modernize Grid Operations

Increasingly, energy providers are turning to digital twins to model and simulate critical infrastructure across generation, transmission and distribution environments. By feeding live telemetry from supervisory control and data acquisition systems, intelligent electronic devices and other OT assets into IT-based simulation platforms, utilities can create real-time digital replicas of substations, turbines, transformers and even entire grid segments. This enables teams to test load-balancing strategies, maintenance schedules or DER integrations without disrupting service. ... Private 5G networks offer a compelling alternative. Designed for high reliability and low latency, private 5G can operate effectively in interference-heavy environments such as substations or generation facilities. When paired with TSN, utilities can achieve deterministic, sub-millisecond communication between protection systems, controllers and analytics platforms. ... Federated machine learning allows utilities to train AI models locally at the edge — analyzing equipment performance, detecting anomalies and refining predictive maintenance strategies — without centralizing raw operational data. For industries such as energy and oil, remote sites can run local anomaly detection models tailored to site-specific conditions, while still sharing insights that strengthen enterprisewide safety and operational protocols.

Even if AI demand fades, India need not worry - about data centres

AI pushes rack densities from ~5–10kW to 50–100kW+, making liquid cooling, greater power capacity, and purpose‑built ‘AI‑ready’ Data Centre campuses essential — whether for regional training clusters or dense inference. What makes a Data Centre AI-ready is the ability to support advanced cooling, predictable scalability and direct access to clouds, networks and partners in a sustainable manner. ... In India, enterprises are rapidly adopting hybrid and multi-cloud architectures as they modernise their digital infrastructure. Domestic enterprises, particularly in BFSI and broking, are moving away from in-house data centres toward third-party colocation facilities to gain scalability, efficient interconnection with their required ecosystem, operational efficiency and access to specialised talent. This shift is being further accelerated by distributed AI, hybrid multi-cloud architectures and a growing focus on sustainability. ... India’s Data Centre market is distinctive because of the scale of its digital consumption, combined with the early stage of ecosystem development. India generates a significant share of global data, yet its installed data centre capacity remains comparatively low, creating strong long-term growth potential. This growth is now being amplified by hyperscalers and AI-led demand. India aims to become a USD 1 T digital economy by 2028. It is already making significant progress, supported by the country’s thriving startup ecosystem, the third largest in the world, and initiatives like Startup India.

Surprise! The One Being Ripped Off by Your AI Agent Is You

It’s now happening all the time: in the sale of location data and browsing histories to brokers who assemble and sell our highly personal profiles, and in DOGE’s and other data grabs across the federal government, where housing, tax, and health information is being weaponized for immigration enforcement or misleading voter fraud “investigations.” With AI agents, it just gets worse. Data betrayal is an even more intimate act. Yet the people who granted OpenClaw access to their accounts were making a reasonable choice—to use a powerful tool on their behalf. ... The data aggregation capabilities of AI add another dimension of risk that rarely gets even a mention, but represent a change in scale that adds up to a sea change, making someone marketed as “productivity” software a menacing vector for data weaponization. The same capabilities that make agents useful—synthesizing enormous amounts of information across sources and acting autonomously across platforms with persistence and memory—make them extraordinarily powerful instruments for state surveillance and targeted repression. An autocratic government could build dossiers on dissidents, journalists, or voters from financial records, social media, location data, and communications metadata, acting in real time: micro-targeting people with persuasion campaigns, swarming targets with coordinated social media attacks, engineering entrapment schemes, or flagging individuals based on patterns no court ever authorized.

What makes Non-Human Identities in AI secure

By aligning security goals with technological advancements, NHIs offer a tangible solution to the challenges posed by AI and cloud-based architectures. Forward-thinking organizations are leveraging this strategic advantage to stay ahead of potential threats, ensuring that their digital remain both protected and resilient. ... Can businesses effectively integrate Non-Human Identities across diverse sectors? Where industries such as financial services, healthcare, and travel become increasingly dependent on digital transformation, the need for securing NHIs is paramount. Each sector presents unique challenges and requirements that necessitate tailored approaches to NHI management. In financial services, for example, the emphasis might be on protecting transactional data, while healthcare organizations focus on safeguarding patient information. Thus, versatile solutions that accommodate varying security demands while maintaining robust protection standards are essential. ... What greater role can NHIs play where emerging technologies unfold? The growing intersection of AI and IoT devices creates a complex web of interactions that requires robust security measures. Non-Human Identities provide a framework for securely managing the myriad connections and transactions occurring between devices. In IoT networks, NHIs authenticate and authorize communication between endpoints, thus safeguarding the integrity of both data and operations.

Daily Tech Digest - February 17, 2026

Quote for the day:

"If you want to become the best leader you can be, you need to pay the price of self-discipline." -- John C. Maxwell

6 reasons why autonomous enterprises are still more a vision than reality

"AI is the first technology that allows systems that can reason and learn to be integrated into real business processes," Vohra said. ... Autonomous organizations, he continued, "are built on human-AI agent collaboration, where AI handles speed and scale, leaving judgment and strategy up to humans." They are defined by "AI systems that go beyond just generating insights in silos, which is how most enterprises are currently leveraging AI," he added. Now, the momentum is toward "executing decisions across workflows with humans setting intent and guardrails." ... The survey highlighted that work is required to help develop agents. Only 3% of organizations -- and 10% of leaders -- are actively implementing . "This limited adoption signals that orchestration is still an emerging discipline," the report stated. "The scarcity of orchestration is a litmus test for both internal capability and external strategic positioning. Successful orchestration requires integrating AI into workflows, systems, and decision loops with precision and accountability." ... Workforce capability gaps continue to be the most frequently cited organizational constraint to AI adoption, as reported by six in 10 executives -- yet only 45% say their organizations offer AI training for all employees. ... As AI takes on more execution and pattern recognition, human value increasingly shifts toward system design, integration, governance, and judgment -- areas where trust, context, and accountability still sit firmly with people.

Finding the key to the AI agent control plane

Agents change the physics of risk. As I’ve noted, an agent doesn’t just recommend code. It can run the migration, open the ticket, change the permission, send the email, or approve the refund. As such, risk shifts from legal liability to existential reality. If a hallucinates, you get a bad paragraph. ... Every time an AI system makes a mistake that a human has to clean up, the real cost of that system goes up. The only way to lower that tax is to stop treating governance as a policy problem and start treating it as architecture. That means least privilege for agents, not just humans. It means separating “draft” from “send.” It means making “read-only” a first-class capability, not an afterthought. It means auditable action logs and reversible workflows. It means designing your agent system as if it will be attacked because it will be. ... Right now, permissions are a mess of vendor-specific toggles. One platform has its own way of scoping actions. Another bolts on an approval workflow. A third punts the problem to your identity and access management team. That fragmentation will slow adoption, not accelerate it. Enterprises can’t scale agents until they can express simple rules. We need to be able to say that an agent can read production data but not write to it. We need to say an agent can draft emails but not send them. We need to say an agent can provision infrastructure only inside a sandbox, with quotas, or that it must request human approval before any destructive action.

PAM in Multi‑Cloud Infrastructure: Strategies for Effective Implementation

The "Identity Gap" has emerged as the leading cause of cloud security breaches. Traditional vault-based Privileged Access Management (PAM) solutions, designed for static server environments, are inadequate for today’s dynamic, API-driven cloud infrastructure. ... PAM has evolved from an optional security measure to an essential and fundamental requirement in multi-cloud environments. This shift is attributed to the increased complexity, decentralized structure, and rapid changes characteristic of modern cloud architectures. As organizations distribute workloads across AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, and on-premises systems, traditional security perimeters have become obsolete, positioning identity and privileged access as central elements of contemporary security strategies. ... Fragmented identity systems hinder multi‑cloud PAM. Centralizing identity and federating access resolves this, with a Unified Identity and Access Foundation managing all digital identities—human or machine—across the organization. This approach removes silos between on-premises, cloud, and legacy applications, providing a single control point for authentication, authorization, and lifecycle management. ... Cloud providers deliver robust IAM tools, but their features vary. A strong PAM approach aligns these tools using . RBAC assigns permissions by job role for easy scaling, while ABAC uses user and environment attributes for tight security.

Giving AI ‘hands’ in your SaaS stack

If an attacker manages to use an — hiding malicious instructions in a calendar invite or a web page the agent reads — that agent essentially becomes a confused deputy. It has the keys to the kingdom. It can delete opportunities, export customer lists or modify pricing configurations. ... For AI agents, this means we must treat them as non-human identities (NHIs) with the same or greater scrutiny than we apply to employees. ... The industry is coalescing around the model context protocol (MCP) as a standard for this layer. It provides a universal USB-C port for connecting AI models to your data sources. By using an MCP server as your gateway, you ensure the agent never sees the credentials or the full API surface area, only the tools you explicitly allow. ... We need to treat AI actions with the same reverence. My rule for autonomous agents is simple: If it can’t dry run, it doesn’t ship. Every state-changing tool exposed to an agent must support a dry_run=true mode. When the agent wants to update a record, it first calls the tool in dry-run mode. The system returns a diff — a preview of exactly what will change . This allows us to implement a human-in-the-loop approval gate for high-risk actions. The agent proposes the change, the human confirms it and only then is the live transaction executed. ... As CIOs and IT leaders, our job isn’t to say “no” to AI. It’s to build the invisible rails that allow the business to say “yes” safely. By focusing on gateways, identity and transactional safety, we can give AI the hands it needs to do real work, without losing our grip on the wheel.

AI-fuelled supply chain cyber attacks surge in Asia-Pacific

Exposed credentials, source code, API keys and internal communications can provide detailed insight into business processes, supplier relationships and technology stacks. When combined with brokered access, that information can support impersonation, targeted intrusion and fraud activity that blends in with legitimate use. One area of concern is open-source software distribution, where widely used libraries can spread malicious code at scale. ... The report points to AI-assisted phishing campaigns that target OAuth flows and other single sign-on mechanisms. These techniques can bypass multi-factor authentication where users approve malicious prompts or where tokens are stolen after login. ... "AI did not create supply chain attacks, it has made them cheaper, faster, and harder to detect," Mr Volkov added. "Unchecked trust in software and services is now a strategic liability." The report names a range of actors associated with supply-chain-focused activity, including , Scattered Spider, HAFNIUM, DragonForce and 888, as well as campaigns linked to Shai-Hulud. It said these groups illustrate how criminal organisations and state-aligned operators are targeting similar platforms and integration layers. ... The report's focus on upstream compromise reflects a broader trend in cyber risk management, where organisations assess not only their own exposure but also the resilience of vendors and technology supply chains.

Automation cannot come at the cost of accountability; trust has to be embedded into the architecture

is actively working with issuers, merchants, and payment aggregators to roll out authentication mechanisms based on global standards. “Consumers want payments to be invisible,” Chhabra adds. “They want to enjoy the shopping experience, not struggle through the payment process.” plays a critical role in enabling this vision. By replacing sensitive card details with unique digital tokens, Visa has created a secure foundation for tap-and-pay, in-app purchases, and cross-border transactions. In India alone, nearly half a billion cards have already been tokenised. “Once is in place, device-based payments and seamless commerce become possible,” Chhabra explains. “It’s the bedrock of frictionless payments.” Fraud prevention, however, is no longer limited to card-based transactions. With real-time and account-to-account payments gaining momentum, Visa has expanded its scope through strategic acquisitions such as Featurespace. The UK-based firm specialises in behavioural analytics for real-time fraud detection, an area Chhabra describes as increasingly critical. “We don’t just want to detect fraud on the Visa network. We want to help prevent fraud across payment types and networks,” he says. Before deploying such capabilities in India, Visa conducts extensive back-testing using localised data and works closely with regulators. “Global intelligence is powerful, but it has to be adapted to local behaviour. You can’t simply overfit global models to India’s unique payment patterns.”

Most ransomware playbooks don't address machine credentials. Attackers know it.

The gap between ransomware threats and the defenses meant to stop them is getting worse, not better. found that the preparedness gap widened by an average of 10 points year over year across every threat category the firm tracks. ... The accompanying Ransomware Playbook Toolkit walks teams through four phases: containment, analysis, remediation, and recovery. The credential reset step instructs teams to ensure all affected user and device accounts are reset. Service accounts are absent. So are API keys, tokens, and certificates. The most widely used playbook framework in enterprise security stops at human and device credentials. The organizations following it inherit that blind spot without realizing it. ... “Although defenders are optimistic about the promise of AI in cybersecurity, Ivanti’s findings also show companies are falling further behind in terms of how well prepared they are to defend against a variety of threats,” said Daniel Spicer, Ivanti’s Chief Security Officer. “This is what I call the ‘Cybersecurity Readiness Deficit,’ a persistent, year-over-year widening imbalance in an organization’s ability to defend their data, people, and networks against the evolving threat landscape.” ... You can’t reset credentials that you don’t know exist. Service accounts, API keys, and tokens need ownership assignments mapped pre-incident. Discovering them mid-breach costs days.

CISO Julie Chatman offers insights for you to take control of your security leadership role

In a few high-profile cases, security leaders have faced criminal charges for how they handled breach disclosures, and civil enforcement for how they reported risks to investors and regulators. The trend is toward holding CISOs personally accountable for governance and disclosure decisions. ... You’re seeing the rise of , heads of IT security instead of full CISO titles. It’s a lot harder to hold a fractional CISO personally liable. This is relatively new. The liability conversation really intensified after some high-profile enforcement actions, and now we’re seeing the market respond. ... First, negotiate protection upfront. When you’re thinking about accepting a CISO role, explicitly ask about D&O insurance coverage. If the CISO is not considered a director or an officer of the company and can’t be given D&O coverage, will the company subsidize individual coverage? There are companies now selling CISO-specific policies. Make this part of your compensation negotiation. Second, do your job well but understand the paradox. Sometimes when you do your job properly, you’re labeled ‘the office of no,’ you’re seen as ‘difficult,’ and you last 18 months. It’s a catch-22. Real liability protection is changing how your organization thinks about risk ownership. Most organizations don’t have a unified view of risk or the vocabulary to discuss it properly. If you can advance that as a CISO, you can help the business understand that risk is theirs to accept, not yours.

The AI bubble will burst for firms that can’t get beyond demos and LLMs

Even though the discussion of a potential bubble is ubiquitous, what’s going on is more nuanced than simple boom-and-bust chatter, said Francisco Martin-Rayo, CEO of Helios AI. “What people are really debating is the gap between valuation and real-world impact. Many companies are labeled ‘AI-driven,’ but only a subset are delivering measurable value at scale,” Martin-Rayo said. Founders confuse fundraising with progress, which comes only when they are solving real problems for real clients, said Nacho De Marco, founder of BairesDev. “Fundraising gives you dopamine, but real progress comes from customers,” De Marco said. “The real value of a $1B valuation is customer validation.” ... The AI shakeout has already started, and the tenor at WEF “feels less like peak hype and more like the beginning of a sorting process,” Martin-Rayo said. ... Companies that survive the coming shakeout will be those willing to rebuild operations from the ground up rather than throwing AI into existing workflows, said Jinsook Han, chief agentic AI officer at Genpact. ”It’s not about just bolting some AI into your existing operation,” Han said. “You have to really build from ground up — it’s a complete operating model change.” Foundational models are becoming more mature and can do more of what startups sell. As a result, AI providers that don’t offer distinct value will have a tough time surviving, Han said.

What could make the EU Digital Identity Wallets fail?

Large-scale digital identity initiatives rarely fail because the technology does not work. They fail because adoption, incentives, trust, and accountability are underestimated. The EU Digital Identity Wallet could still fail, or partially fail, succeeding in some countries while struggling or stagnating in others. ... A realistic risk is fragmented success. Some member states are likely to deliver robust wallets on time. Others may launch late, with limited functionality, or without meaningful uptake. A smaller group may fail to deliver a convincing solution at all, at least in the first phase. From the perspective of users and service providers, this fragmentation already undermines cross border usage. If wallets differ significantly in capabilities, attributes, and reliability across borders, the promise of a seamless European digital identity weakens. ... While EU Digital Identity Wallets offer significantly higher security than current solutions, they will not eliminate fraud entirely. There will still be cases of wallets issued to the wrong individual, phishing attempts, and wallet takeovers. If early fraud cases are poorly handled or publicly misunderstood, trust in the ecosystem could erode quickly. The wallet’s strong privacy architecture introduces real trade-offs. One uncomfortable but necessary question worth asking is: are we going too far with privacy? ... The EU Digital Identity Wallet will succeed only if policymakers, wallet providers, and service providers treat trust, economics, and usability as core design principles, not secondary concerns.

Daily Tech Digest - December 23, 2025

Quote for the day:

"What seems to us as bitter trials are often blessings in disguise." -- Oscar Wilde

The CIO Playbook: Reimagining Transformation in a Shifting Economy

The CIO has travelled from managing mainframes to managing meaning and purpose-driven transformation. And as AI becomes the nervous system of the enterprise, technology’s centre of gravity has shifted decisively to the boardroom. The basement may be gone, but its persona remains — a reminder that every evolution begins with resistance and is ultimately tamed by the quiet persistence of those who keep the systems running and the vision alive. Those who embraced progressive technology and blended business with innovation became leaders; the rest faded into also-rans. At the end of the day, the concern isn’t technology — it’s transformation capacity and the enterprise’s appetite to take risks, embrace change, and stay relevant. Organisations that lack this mindset will fail to evolve from traditional enterprises into intelligent, interactive digital ecosystems built for the AI age. The question remains: how do you paint the plane while flying it — and keep repainting it as customer needs, markets, and technologies shift mid-air? In this GenAI-driven era, the enterprise must think like software: in continuous integration, continuous delivery, and continuous learning. This isn’t about upgrading systems; it’s about rewiring strategy, culture, and leadership to respond in real time. We are at a defining inflection point. The time is now to connect the dots — to build an experience delivery matrix that not only works for your organisation but evolves with your customer.

Flexibility or Captivity? The Data Storage Decision Shaping Your AI Future

Enterprises today must walk a tightrope: on one side, harness the performance, trust, and synergies of long-standing storage vendor relationships; on the other, avoid entanglements that limit their ability to extract maximum value from their data, especially as AI makes rapid reuse of massive unstructured data sets a strategic necessity. ... Financial barriers also play a role. Opaque or punitive egress fees charged by many cloud providers can make it prohibitively expensive to move large volumes of data out of their environments. At the same time, workflows that depend on a vendor’s APIs, caching mechanisms, or specific interfaces can make even technically feasible migrations risky and disruptive. ... Budget and performance pressures add another layer of urgency. You can save tremendously by offloading cold data to lower-cost storage tiers. Yet if retrieving that data requires rehydration, metadata reconciliation, or funneling requests through proprietary gateways, the savings are quickly offset. Finally, the rapid evolution of technology means enterprises need flexibility to adopt new tools and services. Being locked into a single vendor makes it harder to pivot as the landscape changes. ... Longstanding vendor relationships often provide stability, support, and volume pricing discounts. Abandoning these partnerships entirely in the pursuit of perfect flexibility could undermine those benefits. The more pragmatic approach is to partner deeply while insisting on open standards and negotiating agreements that preserve data mobility.

Agentic AI already hinting at cybersecurity’s pending identity crisis

First, many of these efforts are effectively shadow IT, where a line of business (LOB) executive has authorized the proof of concept to see what these agents can do. In these cases, IT or cyber teams haven’t likely been involved, and so security hasn’t been a top priority for the POC. Second, many executives — including third-party business partners handling supply chain, distribution, or manufacturing — have historically cut corners for POCs because they are traditionally confined to sandboxes isolated from the enterprise’s live environments. But agentic systems don’t work that way. To test their capabilities, they typically need to be released into the general environment. The proper way to proceed is for every agent in your environment — whether IT authorized, LOB launched, or that of a third party — to be tracked and controlled by PKI identities from agentic authentication vendors. ... “Traditional authentication frameworks assume static identities and predictable request patterns. Autonomous agents create a new category of risk because they initiate actions independently, escalate behavior based on memory, and form new communication pathways on their own. The threat surface becomes dynamic, not static,” Khan says. “When agents update their own internal state, learn from prior interactions, or modify their role within a workflow, their identity from a security perspective changes over time. Most organizations are not prepared for agents whose capabilities and behavior evolve after authentication.”

Expanding Zero Trust to Critical Infrastructure: Meeting Evolving Threats and NERC CIP

StandardsPrevious compliance requirements have emphasized a perimeter defense model, leaving blind spots for any threats that happen to breach the perimeter. Zero Trust initiatives solve this by making accesses inside the perimeter visible and subjecting them to strong, identity-based policies. This proactive, Zero Trust-driven model naturally fulfills CIP-015-1 requirements, reducing or eliminating false positives compared to threat detection methods. In fact, an organization with a mature Zero Trust posture should be able to operate normally, even if the network is compromised. This resilience is possible when critical assets—such as controls in electrical substations or business software in the data center—are properly shielded from the shared network. Zero Trust enforces access based on verified identity, role, and context. Every connection is authenticated, authorized, encrypted, and logged. ... In short, Zero Trust’s identity-centric enforcement ensures that unauthorized network activity is detected and blocked. Even if a hacker has network access, they won’t be able to leverage that access to exfiltrate data or attack other hosts. A Zero Trust-protected organization can operate normally, even if the network is compromised. ... Zero Trust doesn’t replace your perimeter but instead reinforces it. Rather than replacing existing network firewalls, a Zero Trust can overlay existing security architectures, providing a comprehensive layer of defense through identity-based control and traffic visibility.

Top 5 enterprise tech priorities for 2026

The first is that the top priority, cited by 211 of the enterprises, is to “deploy the hardware, software, data, and network tools needed to optimize AI project value.” ... “You can’t totally immunize yourself against a massive cloud or Internet problem,” say planners. Most cloud outages, they note, resolve in a maximum of a few hours, so you can let some applications ride things out. When you know the “what,” you can look at the “how.” Is multi-cloud the best approach, or can you build out some capacity in the data center? ... “We have too many things to buy and to manage,” one planner said. “Too many sources, too many technologies.” Nobody thinks they can do some massive fork-lift restructuring (there’s no budget), but they do believe that current projects can be aligned to a long-term simplification strategy. This, interestingly, is seen by over a hundred of the group as reducing the number of vendors. They think that “lock-in” is a small price to pay for greater efficiency and reduction in operations complexity, integration, and fault isolation. ... The biggest problem, these enterprises say, is that governance has tended to be applied to projects at the planning level, meaning that absent major projects, governance tended to limp along based on aging reviews. Enterprises note that, like AI, orderly expansions in how applications and data are used can introduce governance issues, just like changes in laws and regulations.

Why flaky tests are increasing, and what you can do about it

One of the most persistent challenges is the lack of visibility into where flakiness originates. As build complexity rises, false positives or flaky tests often rise in tandem. In many organizations, CI remains a black box stitched together from multiple tools as artifact size increases. Failures may stem from unstable test code, misconfigured runners, dependency conflicts or resource contention, yet teams often lack the observability needed to pinpoint causes with confidence. Without clear visibility, debugging becomes guesswork and recurring failures become accepted as part of the process rather than issues to be resolved. The encouraging news is that high-performing teams are addressing this pattern directly. ... Better tooling alone will not solve the problem. organizations need to adopt a mindset that treats CI like production infrastructure. That means defining performance and reliability targets for test suites, setting alerts when flakiness rises above a threshold and reviewing pipeline health alongside feature metrics. It also means creating clear ownership over CI configuration and test stability so that flaky behaviour is not allowed to accumulate unchecked. ... Flaky tests may feel like a quality issue, but they are also a performance problem and a cultural one. They shape how developers perceive the reliability of their tools. They influence how quickly teams can ship. Most importantly, they determine whether CI/CD remains a source of confidence or becomes a source of drag.

Stop letting ‘urgent’ derail delivery. Manage interruptions proactively

As engineers and managers, we all have been interrupted by those unplanned, time-sensitive requests (or tasks) that arrive outside normal planning cadences. An “urgent” Slack, a last-minute requirement or an exec ask is enough to nuke your standard agile rituals. Apart from randomizing your sprint, it causes thrash for existing projects and leads to developer burnout. ... Existing team-level mechanisms like mid-sprint checkpoints provide teams the opportunity to “course correct”; however, many external randomizations arrive with an immediacy. ... Even well-triaged items can spiral into open-ended investigations and implementations that the team cannot afford. How do we manage that? Time-box it. Just a simple “we’ll execute for two days, then regroup” goes a long way in avoiding rabbit-holes. The randomization is for the team to manage, not for an individual. Teams should plan for handoffs as a normal part of supporting randomizations. Handoffs prevent bottlenecks, reduce burnout and keep the rest of the team moving. ... In cases where there are disagreements on priority, teams should not delay asking for leadership help. ... Without making it a heavy lift, teams should capture and periodically review health metrics. For our team, % unplanned work, interrupts per sprint, mean time to triage and periodic sentiment survey helped a lot. Teams should review these within their existing mechanisms (ex., sprint retrospectives) for trend analysis and adjustments.

How does Agentic AI enhance operational security

With Agentic AI, the deployment of automated security protocols becomes more contextual and responsive to immediate threats. The implementation of Agentic AI in cybersecurity environments involves continuous monitoring and assessment, ensuring that NHIs and their secrets remain fortified against evolving threats. ... Various industries have begun to recognize the strategic importance of integrating Agentic AI and NHI management into their security frameworks. Financial services, healthcare, travel, DevOps, and Security Operations Centers (SOC) have benefited from these technologies, especially those heavily reliant on cloud environments. In financial services, for instance, securing hybrid cloud environments is paramount to protecting sensitive client data. Healthcare institutions, with their vast troves of personal health information, have seen significant improvements in data protection through the use of these advanced cybersecurity measures. ... Agentic AI is reshaping how decisions are made in cybersecurity by offering algorithmic insights that enhance human judgment. Incorporating Agentic AI into cybersecurity operations provides the data-driven insights necessary for informed decision-making. Agentic AI’s capacity to process vast amounts of data at lightning speed means it can discern subtle signs of an impending threat long before a human analyst might notice. By providing detailed reports and forecasts, it offers decision-makers a 360-degree view of their security.

AI-fuelled cyber onslaught to hit critical systems by 2026

"Historically, operational technology cyber security incidents were the domain of nation states, or sometimes the act of a disgruntled insider. But recently, we've seen year-on-year rises in operational technology ransomware from criminal groups as well and with hacktivists: All major threat actor categories have bridged the IT-OT gap. With that comes a shift from highly targeted, strategic campaigns to the types of opportunistic attacks CISA describes. These are the predators targeting the slowest gazelles, so to speak," said Dankaart. ... Australian policymakers are expected to revise cybersecurity legislation and regulations for critical sectors. Morris added that organisations are looking at overseas case studies to reduce fraud and infrastructure-level attacks. ... "The scam ecosystem will continue to be exposed globally, raising new awareness of the many aspects of these crimes, including payment processors, geographic distribution of call centres and connected financial crimes. ... "The solution will be to find the 'Goldilocks Spot' of high automation and human accountability, where AI aggregates related tasks, alerts and presents them as a single decision point for a human to make. Humans then make one accountable, auditable policy decision rather than hundreds to thousands of potentially inconsistent individual choices; maintaining human oversight while still leveraging AI's capacity for comprehensive, consistent work."

Rising Tides: When Cybersecurity Becomes Personal – Inside the Work of an OSINT Investigator

The upside of all the technology and access we have is also what creates so much risk in the multitude of dangerous situations that Miller has seen and helped people out of in the most efficient and least disruptive ways possible. But, we as a cyber community have to help, but building ethics and integrity into our products so they can be used less maliciously in human cases; not simply data cases. ... When everything complicated is failing, go back to basics, and teach them over and over again, until the audience moves forward. I’ve spent a decade doing this and still share the same basic principles and safety measures. Technology changes, so do people, but sometimes the things they need the most are to to be seen, heard and understood. This job is a lot of emotional support and working through the things where the client gets hung up making a decision, or moving forward. ... The amount of energy and time devoted to cases has to have a balance. I say no to more cases than I say yes, simply because I don’t have the resources or time to do them. ... As the world changes, you have to adapt and shift your tactics, delivery, and capabilities to help more people. While people like to tussle over politics, I remind them, everything is political. It’s no different in community care, mutual aid, or non-profit work. If systems cannot or won’t support communities, you have a responsibility to help build parallel systems of care that can. This means not leaving anyone behind, not sacrificing one group over another.