Daily Tech Digest by Kannan Subbiah: metrics

Showing posts with label metrics. Show all posts

Daily Tech Digest - July 29, 2026

Quote for the day:

“The most successful founders are relentless about pushing through obstacles.” -- Sam Altman

🎧 Listen to the audio debrief on YouTube

Duration: 20 mins • Perfect for listening on the go.

CISA shares advice on isolating vital systems during cyberattacks

The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, alongside the FBI and international partners, has released new guidance to help critical infrastructure organizations successfully isolate their vital systems during a severe cyberattack. Titled "CI Fortify," this advisory provides practical steps for operators of essential services, like water treatment, power grids, and telecommunications, to confidently disconnect their core operational technology from corporate and internet-facing networks when a serious threat is detected. With state-sponsored groups and cybercriminals increasingly targeting these vital sectors for extortion and disruption, having a secure plan to safely sever network connections is crucial. The guidance recommends that organizations first carefully identify the absolute minimum systems needed to keep services running smoothly, and then map out every single connection to less trusted external networks. From there, they should establish predetermined isolation points where systems can be fully disconnected. While physical isolation offers the absolute strongest protection, the agencies completely acknowledge it may not always be feasible, instead suggesting graduated isolation and strict network controls as reliable alternatives. Additionally, organizations are urged to test their isolation procedures thoroughly and always keep offline paper copies of their detailed plans. Finally, the advisory reminds operators to thoroughly prepare for the expected challenges of manually running systems while completely disconnected.

Why DORA Metrics Are More Important Than Ever

As artificial intelligence tools help software teams write code at unprecedented speeds, organizations face a growing risk of deploying flawed software just as quickly. The temptation is to measure progress through activity-based metrics, such as the volume of code generated, tickets closed, or prompts submitted to AI assistants. However, this approach mistakes effort for actual value. To ensure that speed does not compromise quality, DORA metrics are more vital than ever. The four classic DORA metrics are deployment frequency, lead time for changes, change failure rate, and mean time to restore. Together, they offer a balanced view of both speed and stability. Unlike raw activity counts, these outcome-focused measures reveal whether an organization's software delivery system is genuinely healthy. While AI can accelerate development, counting lines of code or prompt submissions only exposes how superficial those metrics are. If AI integration is successful, it will be reflected in shorter lead times, more reliable deployments, and faster recovery from inevitable failures. Ultimately, AI cannot automatically fix a weak delivery process; it might only amplify existing gaps. Relying on DORA metrics helps technology leaders distinguish mere motion from actual progress, ensuring the ultimate goal remains delivering valuable, reliable software rather than just generating more code.

An AI agent can pass every safety check and still leak secrets

Security researcher Elad Meged recently demonstrated that default AI agent setups from major providers like Anthropic, Google, and OpenAI can quietly leak sensitive information, even when they pass routine safety checks. The fundamental problem lies not within the AI models themselves, but within the surrounding structures that connect these models to file systems, basic commands, and external network requests. When agents operate without direct human oversight, this connecting framework acts as the primary security barrier. Meged discovered that significant risks emerge during the handoffs between different operational stages. For instance, a specific command might be approved because it looks like a safe reading action, but if its output is later published without an additional check, it forms a complete path for data theft. While companies have patched isolated flaws and paid out rewards, these fixes frequently miss the deeper structural weakness. To properly secure these environments, trust must be constantly rechecked at every point of a process, rather than leaning on a single initial permission. Organizations using these automated AI agents in active environments are highly advised to closely trace the full journey of an agent's output to confirm that safe beginnings do not lead to unintended data exposures later.

Beyond Monitoring: Why IT Operations Must Evolve into Decision Operations

As technology systems grow more complicated, traditional ways of watching them are no longer enough. For years, technology teams relied on basic tracking tools that simply sent an alert when a server went offline or a website slowed down. While knowing there is a problem is helpful, these basic alerts often create too much noise. When dozens of alarms go off at the same time, it is hard for teams to know which issue to fix first or what actually caused the failure. Because of this, technology operations must shift from simply gathering data to actively supporting choices. Instead of just showing charts and red lights, modern operations focus on pulling all the separate clues together to provide clear, direct advice. By linking the symptoms directly to their root causes, this approach allows teams to understand the context of a problem immediately. Moving toward a model focused on making decisions helps teams reduce the time spent guessing and investigating. They can fix problems faster, prevent minor issues from becoming major outages, and spend more time improving systems rather than just keeping them running. Ultimately, it is about shifting the focus from watching screens to taking effective action that keeps the business running smoothly.

AI Costs Continue to Rise Despite Falling Token Prices

Despite the price of AI tokens dropping by roughly 98 percent since early 2024, enterprise computing bills continue to climb rapidly. The primary reason for this paradox is the shift from basic chatbots to autonomous agents. While a simple chatbot handles a single prompt, modern AI agents break tasks into multiple steps, such as planning, retrieving information, and verifying data, which consumes significantly more tokens per interaction. Furthermore, many organizations are feeding messy, unstructured files directly into their systems. When models process formats like standard PDFs, they waste vast amounts of computing power just trying to understand the document layout before extracting any useful facts. In these advanced workloads, the actual output often represents only a small fraction of the total tokens used, with the rest lost to processing overhead. Beyond the basic token fees, companies face substantial hidden expenses related to cleaning data, resolving inconsistent internal terminology, and integrating older systems. Experts strongly advise businesses to clean, organize, and structure their data before feeding it into language models. By addressing these foundational data issues upfront, organizations can reduce unnecessary processing waste, lower their overall costs, and ensure their AI tools operate much more effectively in the long run.

The compounding enterprise

The recent record-breaking copyright settlement against a major AI company highlights a growing risk for businesses: relying heavily on generic AI models trained on unverified or contested data. This approach creates hidden legal exposure and relies on a foundational asset that is quickly becoming a commodity. To build a lasting operational advantage, organizations must shift away from simply renting generic intelligence and instead focus on compounding their own. The key is creating an internal cycle where every interaction steadily improves the system's underlying data, and better data improves future decisions. Rather than feeding systems with unverified information, which only multiplies errors, companies should ground their AI tools in carefully curated, human-authored knowledge. This verified approach ensures that outputs can be traced directly to their original sources, solving compliance and governance issues by design. Over time, this system acts as a reliable institutional memory that captures employee expertise before it leaves the company, preventing the need to relearn past lessons. As the system continuously learns from verified outcomes, the cost of making accurate decisions drops while the value of proprietary knowledge increases. Organizations can begin this transition by inventorying their current AI tools, requiring clear sourcing for automated decisions, and testing a governed system in employee training.

Claude AI Just Cracked a Post-Quantum Test Scheme and Found a Faster 7-Round AES Attack

Anthropic recently announced that its AI model, Claude Mythos Preview, successfully developed novel attacks against two encryption schemes. First, the AI created an end-to-end key recovery attack for HAWK-256, which is a challenge parameter of a lattice-based signature scheme currently under review by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. By identifying a previously unused symmetry within the mathematical structure of the scheme, the model significantly reduced the expected effort required to recover cryptographic keys. Second, the AI accelerated an existing attack on a reduced, seven-round version of AES-128 by a factor of 200 to 800. It achieved this by discovering a new technique, known as the Möbius Bridge, which entirely eliminates a time-consuming guessing step. While these findings represent notable progress in AI-driven cryptography research, they do not pose any immediate threat to current production systems. The HAWK attack targets a smaller test parameter rather than full-strength versions, and the AES breakthrough applies only to a reduced-round cipher while still requiring an impractical amount of data. The research cost approximately $100,000 in API usage and took the AI a few days to generate, though human researchers spent nearly a month verifying the mathematical correctness of the model's work.

The Hard-Stop Rule: From 3 HCM Monoliths to 120 Domain Microservices

A pull-based migration strategy represents a shift in how teams approach large-scale system updates, moving away from forced, all-at-once transitions. Instead of a central team pushing changes to every downstream service simultaneously, the new system or API is made available alongside the old one. Client teams are then empowered to pull the updates and migrate at their own pace. This approach significantly reduces the risk of widespread outages because the migration happens incrementally rather than in a single, high-stakes cutover event. By decentralizing the transition effort, organizations can avoid painful bottlenecks where a single team is responsible for coordinating every moving part. Individual teams can plan their migration around their own product cycles, testing thoroughly before fully committing to the new architecture. If issues arise during a team's transition, the impact is kept to just that specific service, making rollbacks far less disruptive. Furthermore, this method naturally encourages better communication and documentation, as the central team must provide clear guidelines for clients to adopt the new system independently. Ultimately, a pull-based migration fosters a more resilient and manageable evolution of your software architecture, balancing the need for technical progress with the practical realities of team capacity and system stability.

AI is a top priority, but there is also distrust about use in cybersecurity

According to a recent report by Arctic Wolf, while artificial intelligence is a major priority for many organizations, security leaders still hesitate to trust it fully for autonomous defense. Although a large majority of respondents note that AI improves their overall security by sorting through and analyzing large amounts of data, only a small fraction are comfortable letting it make decisions on its own. This caution stems from concerns over data privacy, lack of transparency, and the potential for large-scale errors. Interestingly, despite frequent security incidents, most security leaders remain highly confident in their human teams' ability to handle threats. Christopher Fielder of Arctic Wolf suggests this high confidence might be more about projecting assurance than reflecting reality. To bridge the gap between human oversight and AI assistance, organizations need a balanced approach. This involves creating clear acceptable use guidelines to define exactly how AI can and should be used within the company. Furthermore, it is important to provide comprehensive education for staff so they understand both the strengths and the limitations of these new tools. By treating AI as a practical resource rather than a magical cure, companies can better integrate it into their defenses and improve their response to increasingly complex threats.

IoT Sector Given Final EU Cyber Resilience Act Guidance

The recent official guidance on the European Union’s Cyber Resilience Act outlines critical new cybersecurity requirements for manufacturers in the Internet of Things sector. Starting on September 11, 2026, companies that sell products with digital elements in the EU must adhere to strict reporting rules. When a manufacturer discovers an actively exploited vulnerability or a severe security incident, they have just 24 hours to file an early warning and 72 hours to submit a detailed notification to the relevant authorities through a central platform. This upcoming deadline represents the first major regulatory phase of the act, meaning businesses must quickly establish processes for tracking software dependencies and handling vulnerability disclosures. Furthermore, the guidance details that by December 11, 2027, the remaining obligations of the act will take effect. These include maintaining a software bill of materials, designing products with security built in from the start, and obtaining appropriate conformity assessments before bringing products to market. Failure to comply could result in substantial fines or forced product recalls. The overall objective is to hold hardware and software creators accountable for the security of their products throughout their entire life cycle, replacing fragmented national rules with a single, clear standard across the European market.

Daily Tech Digest - July 25, 2026

Quote for the day:

“People will never forget how you made them feel.” -- Maya Angelou

🎧 Listen to the audio debrief on YouTube

▶ Play Audio Digest

Duration: 22 mins • Perfect for listening on the go.

Seeing AI Agents Is Not Enough. Security Teams Must Enforce What They Can Do

As organizations increasingly adopt artificial intelligence to handle everyday tasks, finding out where these AI programs operate is only the first step. The article points out that simply tracking these programs provides a false sense of safety. Unlike regular software or human workers with predictable routines, AI programs often adapt their actions based on goals, making standard access controls inadequate. Because they can reason and take action independently across various systems, the real security challenge lies in strictly enforcing what they are allowed to do. To achieve this, security teams must understand the core intent behind each program. This means correlating who owns the program, what it is designed to achieve, and what tools it needs to access. Rather than waiting for something to go wrong and cleaning up the mess, organizations should set clear rules that govern AI behavior before actions occur. For example, a customer support tool might need to read histories but should never be allowed to export bulk data. Ultimately, managing these tools safely requires a unified approach that spans the entire organization. Success comes not just from knowing an AI tool exists, but from confidently controlling its boundaries, actions, and overall purpose.

The air gap is a myth and other OT security truths

In a recent interview, Benjamin Bachmann, Director of Group Information Security at Bilfinger, addresses key realities of securing industrial operations and dispels common misconceptions about operational technology security. He explains that attackers targeting industrial environments are generally not looking to steal data or trade secrets. Instead, they want to disrupt operations and gain control over physical processes. He also notes that the idea of a completely isolated network, or air gap, is largely a myth in today's connected plants. To handle security incidents effectively without compromising safety or uptime, Bachmann emphasizes the need for engineering and security teams to establish containment protocols long before an emergency occurs. He points out that while older industrial equipment lacks modern security features, its highly predictable network traffic makes it easier to spot unauthorized activity through careful monitoring and network segmentation. Regarding ransomware, Bachmann observes that attackers often price their demands based on the cost of operational downtime. Therefore, the most effective defense involves rapid recovery plans and the ability to maintain partial operations safely, which removes the attacker's leverage. Finally, he challenges the common belief that human error is the weakest link in security, arguing instead that fragile system architectures are the actual root problem.

Why enterprises should care about Nokia’s AI-RAN platform

Nokia recently announced an artificial intelligence driven platform designed to fundamentally change how mobile network infrastructure operates. Traditionally, mobile networks rely on rigid, specialized hardware that limits adaptability and requires frequent physical upgrades. The new approach separates the network software from the physical hardware, running operations on flexible graphics processing units instead. This shift effectively turns the radio network into a programmable computer. The immediate benefit for network operators is significant performance improvements. By using complex algorithms, the platform can double the usable capacity of existing wireless spectrum bands by the year 2028, avoiding the need for expensive new spectrum licenses. Furthermore, it easily adapts to changing data traffic patterns caused by modern applications. However, the most critical shift is in potential business models. Because the platform operates like a standard computing environment, it supports a new application layer where developers can create practical tools. This allows operators to generate revenue beyond basic internet connectivity. Practical applications include turning cell towers into sensor networks for environmental monitoring, providing accurate tracking for warehouse robots, and offering dedicated computing power for local data processing. Ultimately, this software driven strategy allows network providers to continuously update features and increase efficiency without relying on constant hardware replacements.

AI adoption in OT security outpaces governance controls

According to a recent industry survey, industrial organizations are rapidly adopting artificial intelligence for operational technology (OT) cybersecurity, yet formal governance and safety controls are lagging significantly behind. While nearly ninety percent of surveyed organizations are evaluating or using AI to monitor networks, detect threats, and support security operations, only about fifteen percent have implemented an enforced AI policy tailored to industrial environments. The technology is primarily deployed in advisory roles for monitoring and analysis rather than direct industrial control. However, errors in AI classification or alerting could still negatively affect equipment availability and safety. Implementation challenges are primarily rooted in poor data quality, lack of proper labeling, and the difficulty of integrating modern AI tools with legacy operational systems. Furthermore, respondents expressed concerns about the physical risks of AI system failures or cyberattacks manipulating AI outputs, as adversaries increasingly use similar technology to enhance their attacks. Most organizations currently rely on informal human oversight rather than documented protocols. Experts suggest that to maintain operational control, companies should ensure their use of AI does not exceed the authority supported by their current security controls, evidence, and operating models. Robust governance and formal consequence mapping are essential for safe integration.

CIOs beware: DNS KSK rollover could kick off wave of mysterious outages

A seemingly routine security update to the internet’s domain name system could trigger unexpected network outages for organizations between October 2026 and January 2027. The event, known as a Key Signing Key rollover, updates the cryptographic key that verifies network responses. While the central update itself is simple, many organizations possess vast networks of unmapped connections hidden within older applications, custom scripts, external services, and forgotten software containers. Because these hidden areas operate outside normal oversight, they may fail to process the new key correctly. When these older configurations fail, the resulting disruptions rarely announce themselves as a domain name problem. Instead, they often look like random application timeouts, broken logins, or unreachable partner networks. This misdirection can force support teams to spend hours troubleshooting the wrong issues before realizing the core problem stems from a missed network update. Although widespread failure of primary systems is unlikely, even isolated disruptions in specific departments or manufacturing lines can cause severe operational delays. Experts advise technology leaders to treat this upcoming change with calm focus. Rather than viewing it as a simple infrastructure chore, organizations can use this event as a practical opportunity to improve their internal visibility and strengthen overall system resilience.

The metrics organizations should track to measure their cyber resilience

As cyber disruptions become an unavoidable reality, organizations must shift from merely aspiring to cyber resilience to making it a measurable operational capability. Relying on traditional technical metrics, like counting patched vulnerabilities or software alerts, is no longer sufficient. These measurements do not reflect a company's ability to maintain its operations during a crisis. Instead, leaders should measure resilience by its actual business impact. The first step is identifying the minimum viable business, which includes the critical services and functions that must remain active or be restored immediately to fulfill the organization's core mission. From there, time becomes the most valuable metric. Organizations should track how quickly they can detect, contain, and recover from an incident to minimize both the depth and duration of the disruption. Furthermore, standard questionnaires and self-assessments are inadequate for testing true readiness. Practical, realistic exercises, such as tabletop simulations and recovery drills, are necessary to uncover gaps in decision-making and communication under stress. Because businesses operate within interconnected ecosystems, resilience must also extend to suppliers and third-party partners. Ultimately, these practical metrics serve as a vital leadership tool, guiding investment decisions and proving that a company can confidently withstand and operate through significant cyber events.

The Compliance Timelines Are Converging: Every Road Now Leads to a Cryptographic Bill of Materials

Over the next few years, multiple security regulations and government standards are converging, bringing strict new deadlines for organizations to track and manage their encryption methods. Past transitions to newer security standards were difficult because companies simply did not know where their outdated encryption was hidden. Now, with the looming threat of advanced computers capable of breaking current encryption, the stakes are even higher, especially since adversaries can steal sensitive encrypted data today and unlock it later. Many organizations mistakenly rely on basic certificate scanners, but these tools fail to detect encryption deeply embedded in software applications, operating systems, and databases. To properly secure their networks and meet these overlapping rules, companies must build a complete map of their encryption assets and understand how they interact. This comprehensive record is known as a Cryptographic Bill of Materials. By adopting this approach, teams can identify vulnerabilities, map relationships between systems, and prioritize updates without guesswork. The most effective strategy is to start by taking a realistic inventory of all current encryption practices across the entire organization. Doing so allows leaders to confidently prepare for future requirements, adapt to new standards, and maintain continuous oversight of their digital security. It is a vital step.

Recovery Readiness Is the New Measure of Cybersecurity Success

For decades, the primary goal of cybersecurity was preventing attacks by building strong defenses like firewalls and detection systems. While prevention remains a highly foundational element, the rapidly evolving threat landscape, driven by sophisticated ransomware, nation-state actors, and artificial intelligence, means that simply keeping attackers out is no longer a realistic finish line. Today, stakeholders recognize that even the most secure organizations can suffer breaches. As a result, the standard for cybersecurity success has firmly shifted from strict prevention toward operational recoverability. Instead of just tracking technical vulnerabilities, leaders, customers, and boards are now asking how quickly and confidently a business can actually restore its critical services after a cyber incident. Preserving trust and reputation now depends on resilient recovery processes rather than simply avoiding compromise. However, true recovery readiness cannot be assumed from written plans or annual exercises alone; it requires continuous validation as cloud infrastructure, hidden business dependencies, and technologies evolve. Moving forward, companies must treat operational recoverability as a vital business metric. By understanding their recovery posture, organizations can prioritize investments based on actual business impact, reduce uncertainty during a crisis, and ensure they survive and thrive even after a serious cyberattack occurs.

Why MDR Is Essential for Big Data Security

Managed Detection and Response is becoming increasingly vital as organizations generate massive amounts of data and face more sophisticated threats. In our highly connected world, the convergence of traditional corporate networks and operational technology creates significant vulnerabilities. Industrial systems, which were once completely isolated, now frequently connect to cloud platforms and corporate systems, greatly expanding the potential attack surface. Consequently, security teams must sift through enormous volumes of business data to identify subtle anomalies and hidden threats before they cause widespread damage. A robust Managed Detection and Response strategy provides continuous monitoring and specialized expertise, which is especially critical for operational technology environments like manufacturing, energy, and utilities. Unlike standard information technology environments, these physical systems prioritize safety and continuous operation above all else, meaning security measures cannot simply shut down critical processes when a threat is suspected. Top providers address this challenge by delivering specialized detection and response tailored to the unique constraints of industrial control systems. They bridge the gap between information technology and operational technology, helping leaders reduce physical risks, adhere to critical infrastructure regulations, and protect essential services. By partnering with an experienced provider, companies gain the necessary visibility and rapid response capabilities to secure their complex data environments with assurance and operational continuity.

Europe's Multilingual Reality Exposes AI Security Gaps

While large language models can process text in dozens of languages, their included safety guardrails are overwhelmingly optimized for English. This English focus creates significant security vulnerabilities for organizations operating in multilingual environments, particularly across Europe. Although a model might fluently answer prompts in languages like German, Spanish, or Swahili, its ability to detect and block malicious actions, such as prompt injections and jailbreaks, often drops significantly compared to English. Attackers exploit this gap by translating harmful commands into lesser used languages to bypass security filters. Research shows that some models are vastly more likely to provide actionable responses to unsafe prompts when queried in these regional languages. Relying on translation security layers, where inputs are translated to English before being checked, can alter the true intent of a prompt, sometimes masking malicious commands within benign contexts. To address these serious vulnerabilities, experts recommend moving beyond basic translation filters. Organizations should instead adopt native language guardrails that evaluate the original input, conduct rigorous security testing that includes mixed language scenarios and diverse cultural contexts, and deploy active runtime firewalls. As the modern regulatory landscape, including new artificial intelligence legislation in Europe, demands better risk management, ensuring consistent safety across all supported languages is becoming a critical operational necessity.

Daily Tech Digest - May 22, 2026

Quote for the day:

"Success… seems to be connected with action. Successful people keep moving. They make mistakes, but they don’t quit." -- Conrad Hilton

🎧 Listen to this digest on YouTube Music

▶ Play Audio Digest

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

The New Geography of Risk: Why Businesses Need a Real-Time Country Risk Dashboard

The Risk Awareness article highlights a profound shift in the corporate landscape, where geopolitical risk has evolved from a peripheral strategic concern into a vital daily operational variable. The modern business environment is increasingly shaped by fast-moving disruptions like tariffs, export controls, sanctions, and vulnerable maritime corridors, as evidenced by recent supply chain shocks such as the Red Sea shipping disruptions and the global semiconductor crisis. Because reactive crisis management leaves organizations highly exposed, forward-thinking businesses are shifting their focus toward continuous, real-time internal "country risk dashboards." Unlike traditional risk frameworks that look only at sovereign stability and macroeconomic indicators, modern dashboards integrate comprehensive, dynamic tracking of trade restrictions, shifting technology ecosystem policies, maritime dependencies, hidden vendor concentration threats within procurement networks, and currency volatility. This evolution reflects a broader corporate transition from optimizing purely for cost efficiency to designing for long-term operational resilience through proactive strategies like friend-shoring and regional diversification. Ultimately, predictive certainty is unrealistic; therefore, a sustainable competitive advantage will belong to organizations that successfully cultivate deep internal geopolitical literacy and translate global political developments into rapid, actionable operational signals across procurement, logistics, and treasury functions faster than their industry peers.

Beyond Unit Tests: Using AI to Find Secret Failures in Distributed Systems

The article explores Cross-Layer Synthetic Scenario Modeling (CLSSM), an approach proposed by Naveen Prakash to identify elusive, interaction-driven failures in complex distributed systems. Traditional methods like unit and integration testing focus on isolated components or service pairs under perfect conditions, often missing silent issues created by intersecting system variables like cache inconsistencies, retry amplification, and asynchronous message reordering. To address this, CLSSM merges chaos engineering with AI-assisted testing to evaluate system behavior under unpredictable production-like conditions. The practical framework begins with utilizing OpenTelemetry to capture distributed traces and extract service relationships into an interaction graph. AI clustering or anomaly detection models then analyze this runtime data to expose highly vulnerable paths based on error rates and tail latency. By feeding these insights into Large Language Models (LLMs) or rule-based analyzers, teams can generate highly realistic, complex failure scenarios that manual testing would completely miss. Finally, fault injection tools like Chaos Mesh or Toxiproxy are deployed to simulate real production degradations—such as artificial timeouts or throttled connections—allowing engineering teams to actively observe critical metrics like service recovery time and system depth. Ultimately, CLSSM replaces deterministic validation with a continuous AI-driven feedback loop, ensuring latent architectural flaws are exposed before impacting end-users.

Inside a Crypto Drainer: How to Spot it Before it Empties Your Wallet

The BleepingComputer article details the increasing professionalization of cryptocurrency theft through structured Drainer as a Service (DaaS) platforms. Analyzing Flare researchers' extensive data on the malicious Lucifer DaaS platform between January 2025 and early 2026, the report highlights how these modern ecosystems closely mimic legitimate SaaS businesses. DaaS operators manage complex transaction logic, wallet interactions, and software updates while taking a twenty percent commission on successful thefts, whereas recruited affiliates use social engineering to drive phishing traffic toward malicious websites. Rather than relying on traditional device compromise, drainers exploit user confusion regarding complex Web3 permissions and approvals, abusing authorization mechanisms like Permit and Permit2 to siphon digital assets within seconds. Lucifer significantly reduced technical barriers for its affiliates by introducing automated utilities like website cloning features and Zero Config deployment workflows. Furthermore, the group demonstrated robust operational resilience against security takedowns by shifting suspended documentation onto the decentralized InterPlanetary File System (IPFS). Because these malicious interactions deliberately mimic routine crypto operations, spotting a drainer requires careful user vigilance. Key warning signs include sites demanding immediate wallet connections, requests for unlimited token approvals, unexpected off-chain signature prompts, and artificial urgency. Ultimately, proactive monitoring of these underground networks allows security teams to detect threat indicators before fraud reaches users.

Throughput vs Goodput: The Performance Metric You Are Probably Ignoring in LLM Testing

The DZone article contrasts throughput and goodput as essential performance metrics, particularly within the context of Large Language Model (LLM) testing. While throughput measures raw operational volume by tracking total request completions or transactions per second, it inherently overlooks latency and user experience quality. For instance, an LLM server might maintain a stable, high throughput by successfully delivering standard HTTP 200 responses, even as the actual token processing time severely degrades. To address this dangerous blind spot, goodput acts as a quality-focused metric that incorporates Service Level Objectives (SLOs), counting only the specific requests that finish entirely within acceptable thresholds like Time to First Token and Inter-Token Latency. Consequently, as concurrent user loads increase and saturate critical GPU computing resources, goodput will diverge downward from throughput, serving as an early warning signal of performance deterioration. Featured in advanced tools like NVIDIA’s AIPerf, goodput proves indispensable for validating the production readiness of endpoints and mapping out exactly where systems begin to break under stress. Ultimately, the article advises reporting both metrics together; while throughput determines if an infrastructure configuration can physically handle the overall data volume, goodput answers whether the system is truly serving users effectively without silently breaching response boundaries.

AI at scale: What engineering teams are confronting

The InfoWorld article explores the shift enterprise engineering teams face when transitioning AI from exploratory experimentation to operational deployment at scale. While early enterprise discussions focused on model size and automated pilots, production reality demands secure, observable, and operationally durable environments. Recent research reveals that while nearly seventy-five percent of organizations utilize production GPU workloads and invest heavily in agentic AI designed to execute tasks, severe infrastructure mismatches remain. Most cloud estates were originally built for application deployment rather than the governed, reproducible pipelines required for execution level AI; notably, most firms must migrate over a quarter of their data to adapt. This foundational disconnect exposes severe governance gaps, especially when processing personally identifiable data under strict regulatory frameworks. Furthermore, managing dozens of cloud accounts across multiple vendors running diverse tools like Terraform and CloudFormation multiplies this operational complexity, making uniform policy enforcement across teams difficult. Rather than treating adoption as a simple build versus buy decision, successful organizations prioritize sustainable architectural fit. They avoid isolated silos by embedding external delivery expertise directly into core networks, actively testing workloads against production grade standards from day one. Ultimately, scaling success is determined not by algorithmic novelty, but by the deliberate, AI native design of the underlying cloud platform.

Why Enterprise Technology Is Becoming More About Stability Than Speed

The article explores a shifting paradigm in enterprise technology, highlighting how modern businesses are transitioning their focus from pure digital acceleration and speed toward operational stability, coordination, and resilience. For years, digital transformations prioritized rapid deployment, which accidentally generated fragmented, layered digital environments burdened by overlapping software systems and continuous employee notifications. Relying on reports from PwC, McKinsey, and Deloitte, the article underscores that unchecked technical complexity reduces business visibility and slows overall operational coordination. Furthermore, the expansion of artificial intelligence does not automatically resolve organizational fragmentation; instead, it often amplifies existing systemic weaknesses unless integrated into well-structured, cohesive workflows. Consequently, modern technology strategies are prioritizing invisible operational infrastructure, secure workflows, and foundational simplicity over superficial disruptions. Enterprise cybersecurity is similarly evolving from an isolated IT defense mechanism into a foundational business driver supporting continuity and customer trust. Crucially, as enterprise tools become more complex and automated, human judgment remains indispensable for interpreting context, guiding strategy, and navigating uncertainty. Ultimately, the next era of successful enterprise technology will value the calming ability to sustain reliable, unified, and stable operations within interconnected environments far above the urge to continuously move fast.

Deloitte survey: Gen Z and millennials are forcing HR to rethink leadership

The Deloitte Global 2026 Gen Z and Millennial Survey, which polled over 22,500 participants across 44 countries, reveals that younger professionals are fundamentally reshaping traditional corporate frameworks. While they maintain career ambition, they heavily prioritize flexibility, psychological safety, and sustainable long-term progress over aggressive ladder-climbing. Alarmingly, only 6 percent identify becoming a corporate leader as their top professional goal, primarily because modern management roles are overwhelmingly associated with stress, burnout, and a compromised work-life balance. Beyond leadership structures, persistent financial anxieties—specifically regarding the cost of living and housing affordability—are directly dictating where these employees choose to work and live. Furthermore, an "AI readiness gap" has emerged; although nearly three-quarters of respondents utilize AI tools daily, one-third believe their employers are fundamentally unprepared to manage this rapid technological shift. While corporate recognition of mental health has marginally improved, pervasive digital fatigue and workload pressures continue to trigger widespread exhaustion. Ultimately, retention increasingly hinges on shared organizational values and workplace community, with roughly 40 percent of younger workers rejecting assignments that conflict with their personal ethics. HR departments must therefore shift from rigid enforcement toward dynamic, human-centered systems focused on genuine well-being, organizational trust, and workflow redesign.

Protecting Sensitive Training Data in the Age of AI

The CPO Magazine article highlights the re-emergence of modern tape technology as a critical and cost-effective solution for storing and protecting the massive volumes of data required to train large language models. As artificial intelligence integration expands, modern organizations collect unprecedented amounts of raw information, leading to soaring cloud storage expenses and heightened cybersecurity threats. Unlike costly flash drives or traditional hard disk media, modern Linear Tape-Open solutions offer an exceptionally affordable way to house cold data lakes, streaming continuous high throughput without experiencing performance bottlenecks or supply chain pressures. Beyond clear financial advantages, tape storage serves as a robust cybersecurity asset. Because it is a physical and air-gapped medium, it provides an isolated offline repository that safeguards proprietary training data sets from remote cybercriminals. This architecture completely mitigates traditional cloud platform vulnerabilities and effectively thwarts dangerous data poisoning attacks designed to inject biased details, manipulate algorithms, or degrade model accuracy. Furthermore, tape technology incorporates Write-Once, Read-Many functionalities that ensure immutable, tamper-proof historical records, helping businesses satisfy strict compliance and evolving regulatory mandates. Ultimately, utilizing tape alongside cloud frameworks in hybrid storage deployments enables enterprises to responsibly scale and secure their artificial intelligence infrastructure.

20 Leadership Strategies For Continuous Learning And Skill Development

The Forbes Human Resources Council article outlines twenty foundational strategies for leaders committed to continuous learning and skill development. The expert contributors emphasize that effective leadership is an ongoing journey requiring an open, curious mindset rather than a rigid posture of absolute expertise. Key actionable tactics include building daily habits rooted in deep curiosity, seeking diverse perspectives, and integrating real-time self-reflection into everyday operational decisions. Rather than treating professional training as an isolated retreat, successful executives hardwire learning into their daily organizational rhythms through robust feedback loops, comprehensive reviews, and the establishment of a personal board of directors to uncover hidden organizational blind spots. Furthermore, the panel highlights the immense value of modern development channels, such as engaging in two-way reverse mentoring with next-generation talent, utilizing personalized AI-powered coaching tools, and actively pursuing challenging stretch assignments outside of their comfort zones. Crucially, sustainable growth involves intentionally focusing on developing others, ensuring that knowledge sharing, substantial educational assistance budgets, and collaborative operational reviews build a future-ready talent pipeline. By consistently staying close to day-to-day operations and carefully analyzing failures, leaders can remain nimble, highly context-aware, and exceptionally well equipped to successfully navigate a rapidly changing business environment.

Quantum computing faces security, skills shortage problem

The InformationWeek article outlines the critical security threats and severe talent shortages threatening the rapidly growing quantum computing industry. Speaking at Fiber Connect 2026, industry experts Matthew Cimaglia and Ryan Harring highlighted "Q-Day," the looming milestone when quantum machines achieve the computational power required to crack standard RSA encryption, thereby endangering banking systems, private data, and national security agencies. To mitigate this threat, the National Institute of Standards and Technology has mandated that public and private infrastructure transition to post-quantum cryptography by 2035, prompting organizations to develop specialized key distribution technologies. However, implementing these vital defensive measures is heavily bottlenecked by an immense global workforce deficiency. While the ecosystem currently supports only 30,000 quantum professionals, it is projected to require 250,000 by 2030 to capture an estimated $3 trillion economic opportunity, particularly across logistics and telecom sectors. Addressing this talent issue demands skilled physicists who can also effectively translate complex quantum implications for business audiences. Consequently, enterprises are partnering with universities and securing federal grants to build robust pipelines. These advancements are geographically decentralized across emerging hubs like Maryland and Arizona rather than clustered in Silicon Valley, as demonstrated by Florida's recent rollout of a fully quantum-secured fiber network.

Daily Tech Digest - March 10, 2026

Quote for the day:

"A leader has the vision and conviction that a dream can be achieved. He inspires the power and energy to get it done." -- Ralph Nader

🎧 Listen to this digest on YouTube Music

▶ Play Audio Digest

Duration: 37 mins • Perfect for listening on the go.

Job disruption by AI remains limited — and traditional metrics may be missing the real impact

This article on computerworld explores the current state of artificial intelligence in the workforce. Despite widespread alarm, data from Challenger, Gray & Christmas indicates that AI accounted for roughly 8 to 10 percent of job cuts in early 2026. Researchers from Anthropic argue that traditional metrics fail to capture the nuances of AI integration, introducing an "observed exposure" methodology. This technique combines theoretical large language model capabilities with actual usage data, revealing that while certain roles—such as computer programmers and customer service representatives—have high exposure to automation, actual deployment lags significantly behind technical potential. Currently, AI functions primarily as a tool for task-based augmentation rather than full-scale replacement, which enhances worker productivity but complicates entry-level hiring. The report suggests that while immediate mass unemployment hasn't materialized, the long-term impact will require a fundamental re-engineering of workflows. This shift may disproportionately affect younger workers as companies struggle to balance AI efficiency with the necessity of maintaining a pipeline of human talent. Ultimately, the transition necessitates a strategic realignment of human roles to ensure sustainable growth in an intelligence-native era.

Why Password Audits Miss the Accounts Attackers Actually Want

This article on BleepingComputer highlights a critical disconnect between standard compliance-driven password audits and the actual tactics used by cybercriminals. While traditional audits prioritize technical requirements like complexity and rotation, they often overlook the context that makes an account vulnerable. For instance, a password can be statistically "strong" yet already compromised in a previous breach; research indicates that 83% of leaked passwords still meet regulatory standards. Furthermore, audits frequently neglect "orphaned" accounts belonging to former employees or contractors, which provide silent entry points for attackers. Service accounts—often over-privileged and exempt from expiry policies—represent another major blind spot. The piece argues that point-in-time snapshots are insufficient against continuous threats like credential stuffing. To be truly effective, security teams must shift toward continuous monitoring, incorporating breached-password screening and risk-based prioritization. By expanding the scope to include dormant, external, and service accounts, organizations can move beyond mere compliance to address the high-value targets that attackers prioritize. Ultimately, securing a digital environment requires recognizing that a compliant password is not necessarily a safe one in the face of modern, targeted exploitation.

AI is supercharging cloud cyberattacks - and third-party software is the most vulnerable

The latest Google Cloud Threat Report, as analyzed by ZDNET, highlights a significant escalation in cybersecurity risks where artificial intelligence is increasingly being used to "supercharge" cloud-based attacks. The report reveals a dramatic collapse in the window between the disclosure of a vulnerability and its mass exploitation, shrinking from weeks to mere days. Rather than targeting the highly secured core infrastructure of major cloud providers, threat actors are now focusing their efforts on unpatched third-party software and code libraries. This shift emphasizes that the modern supply chain remains a critical weak point for many organizations. Furthermore, the report notes a transition away from traditional brute force attacks toward more sophisticated identity-based compromises, including vishing, phishing, and the misuse of stolen human and non-human identities. Data exfiltration is also evolving, with "malicious insiders" increasingly using consumer-grade cloud storage services to move confidential information outside the corporate perimeter. To combat these AI-powered threats, Google’s experts recommend that businesses adopt automated, AI-augmented defenses, prioritize immediate patching of third-party tools, and strengthen identity management protocols. Ultimately, the report serves as a stark warning that in the current threat landscape, speed and automation are no longer optional but essential components of a robust cybersecurity strategy.

Change as Metrics: Measuring System Reliability Through Change Delivery Signals

This article highlights that system changes account for the vast majority of production incidents, necessitating their treatment as primary reliability indicators. To manage this risk, the author proposes a framework centered on three core business metrics: Change Lead Time, Change Success Rate, and Incident Leakage Rate. While aligned with DORA principles, this model specifically focuses on delivery quality by distinguishing between immediate deployment failures and latent defects that manifest as post-release incidents. To operationalize these goals, technical control metrics such as Change Approval Rate, Progressive Rollout Rate, and Change Monitoring Windows are introduced to provide actionable insights into pipeline friction and risk. The piece further advocates for a platform-agnostic, event-centric data architecture to collect these signals across diverse, distributed environments. This centralized approach avoids the brittleness of platform-specific logging and provides a unified view of system health. Ultimately, the framework empowers organizations to transform change management from a reactive necessity into a proactive, measurable engineering capability. By integrating these metrics, development teams can effectively balance the need for high-speed delivery with the imperative of system stability, ensuring that rapid innovation does not come at the expense of user experience or operational reliability.

The future of generative AI in software testing

In this article on Techzine, experts Hélder Ferreira and Bruno Mazzotta discuss the transformative shift of AI from a simple task accelerator to a fundamental structural layer within delivery pipelines. As global IT investment in AI is projected to surge toward $6.15 trillion by 2026, the software testing landscape is evolving beyond early challenges like hallucinations and "vibe coding" toward a sophisticated "quality intelligence layer." The authors outline four critical areas where AI adds strategic value: generating complex scenario-based datasets, suggesting high-risk exploratory prompts, automating defect triage to identify regression patterns, and enabling context-aware execution that prioritizes testing based on actual risk rather than volume. Crucially, the piece argues that while AI can significantly enhance velocity, sustainable success depends on maintaining "humans-in-the-loop" to ensure traceability and accountability. In this new era, the primary differentiator for enterprises will not be the sheer amount of AI deployed, but the effectiveness of their governance frameworks. By linking intent with execution and using AI as connective tissue across the lifecycle, organizations can achieve a balance where rapid delivery is supported by explainable automation and human-verified confidence in software quality.

CIOs cut IT corners to manufacture budget for AI

In this CIO.com article, author Esther Shein examines the aggressive strategies IT leaders are employing to fund artificial intelligence initiatives amidst stagnant overall budgets. Faced with intense pressure from boards and executive leadership to prioritize AI, many CIOs are being forced to make difficult trade-offs that jeopardize long-term stability. Common tactics include delaying non-critical infrastructure refreshes, such as server expansions and network improvements, which are often pushed out by twelve to eighteen months. Additionally, organizations are aggressively consolidating vendors, renegotiating contracts, and cutting legacy software subscriptions to free up capital. Some leaders have even implemented strict "self-funding" mandates where every new AI project must be offset by equivalent cuts elsewhere. Beyond technical sacrifices, the human element is also affected, with many departments reducing reliance on contractors or trimming internal staff to reallocate funds toward high-impact AI use cases. While these measures enable rapid deployment, they frequently lead to the accumulation of technical debt and a narrower scope for implementations. Ultimately, the piece warns that while these "corners" are being cut to fuel innovation, the resulting lack of focus on foundational maintenance could present significant operational risks in the future.

Beyond Prompt Injection: The Hidden AI Security Threats in Machine Learning Platforms

In the article "Beyond Prompt Injection: The Hidden AI Security Threats in Machine Learning Platforms," the focus of AI security shifts from headline-grabbing prompt injections to the critical vulnerabilities within MLOps infrastructure. While many security teams prioritize protecting chatbots from manipulation, the underlying platforms used to train and deploy models often present a far more dangerous attack surface. Through a red team engagement, researchers demonstrated how a simple self-registered trial account could be used to achieve remote code execution on a provider’s cloud infrastructure. By deploying a seemingly legitimate but malicious machine learning model, attackers can exploit the fact that these platforms must execute arbitrary code to function. The study highlights a significant risk: once RCE is achieved, weak network segmentation can allow adversaries to bypass trust boundaries and access sensitive internal databases or services. This effectively turns a managed ML environment into a gateway for lateral movement within a corporate network. To mitigate these threats, the article stresses that organizations must move beyond model-centric security and adopt robust infrastructure protections, including strict network isolation, continuous behavior monitoring, and a "zero-trust" approach to user-deployed artifacts, ensuring that the convenience of rapid AI development does not come at the cost of total system compromise.

Enterprise agentic AI requires a process layer most companies haven’t built

The VentureBeat article emphasizes that while 85% of enterprises aspire to implement agentic AI within the next three years, a staggering 76% acknowledge that their current operations are fundamentally unequipped for this transition. The core issue lies in the absence of a "process layer"—a critical foundation of optimized workflows and operational intelligence that provides AI agents with the necessary context to function effectively. Without this layer, agents are essentially "guessing," leading to a lack of reliability that causes 82% of decision-makers to fear a failure in return on investment. The piece argues that the primary hurdle is not merely technological but rather rooted in organizational structure and change management. Most companies suffer from siloed data and fragmented processes that hinder the seamless integration of autonomous systems. To overcome these barriers, businesses must prioritize process optimization and operational visibility, ensuring that AI-driven initiatives are linked to strategic executive outcomes. Simply layering advanced AI over inefficient, legacy frameworks will likely result in costly friction. Ultimately, for agentic AI to move beyond experimental pilots and deliver scalable value, organizations must first build a robust architectural bridge that connects sophisticated models with the complex, real-world logic of their daily business operations and high-stakes organizational decision cycles.

Building resilient foundations for India’s expanding Data Centre ecosystem

In "Building resilient foundations for India's expanding Data Centre ecosystem," Saurabh Verma explores the rapid evolution of India’s data infrastructure and the urgent necessity of prioritizing long-term resilience over mere capacity. As cloud adoption and 5G accelerate growth across hubs like Mumbai, Chennai, and Hyderabad, the sector faces escalating challenges that demand a sophisticated understanding of risk management. The article argues that modern data centres are no longer just IT assets but critical infrastructure whose failure directly impacts the digital economy. Beyond physical damage, business interruptions often result in massive financial losses, contractual penalties, and significant reputational harm. Climate change has emerged as a significant operational reality, with heatwaves and flooding stressing cooling systems and electrical grids. Furthermore, the convergence of cyber and physical risks means that digital disruptions can quickly translate into tangible infrastructure damage. Construction complexities and logistical interdependencies further amplify potential losses, making early risk engineering essential for success. Ultimately, the piece emphasizes that resilience must be a core design pillar rather than an afterthought. By integrating disciplined risk management from site selection through operations, Indian providers can gain a commercial advantage, securing better investment and insurance terms while building a sustainable, trustworthy backbone for the nation’s digital future.

CVE program funding secured, easing fears of repeat crisis

The Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) program has successfully secured stable funding, alleviating industry-wide fears of a repeat of the 2025 crisis that nearly crippled global vulnerability tracking. As detailed in the CSO Online report, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and the MITRE Corporation have renegotiated their contract, transitioning the 26-year-old program from a discretionary expenditure to a protected line item within CISA's budget. This structural change effectively eliminates the "funding cliff" that previously required a last-minute emergency extension. While CISA leadership emphasizes that the program is now fully funded and evolving, some experts note that the specifics of the "mystery contract" remain opaque. The resolution comes at a critical time, as the cybersecurity community had already begun developing contingencies, such as the independent CVE Foundation, to reduce reliance on a single government source. Despite the financial stability, challenges regarding transparency, modernization, and international governance persist. The article underscores that while the immediate threat of a service lapse has faded, the incident served as a stark reminder of the global security ecosystem's fragility. Moving forward, the focus shifts toward ensuring this essential public resource remains resilient against future political or administrative shifts within the United States government.

Daily Tech Digest - March 03, 2026

Quote for the day:

“Appreciate the people who give you expensive things like time, loyalty and honesty.” -- Vala Afshar

Making sense of 6G: what will the ‘agentic telco’ look like?

6G will be the fundamental network for physical AI, promises Nvidia. Think of self-driving cars, robots in warehouses, or even AI-driven surgery. It’s all very futuristic; to actually deliver on these promises, a wide range of industry players will be needed, each developing the functionality of 6G. ... The ultimate goal for network operators is full automation, or “Level 5” automation. However, this seems too ambitious for now in the pre-6G era. Google refers to the twilight zone between Levels 4 and 5, with 4 assuming fully autonomous operation in certain circumstances. Currently, the obvious example of this type of automation is a partially self-driving car. As a user, you must always be ready to intervene, but ideally, the vehicle will travel without corrections. A Waymo car, which regularly drives around without a driver, is officially Level 4. ... Strikingly, most users hardly need this ongoing telco innovation. Only exceptionally extensive use of 4K streams, multiple simultaneous downloads, and/or location tracking can exceed the maximum bandwidth of most forms of 5G. Switch to 4G and in most use cases of mobile network traffic, you won’t notice the difference. You will notice a malfunction, regardless of the generation of network technology. However, the idea behind the latest 5G and future 6G networks is that these interruptions will decrease. Predictions for 6G assume a hundredfold increase in speed compared to 5G, with a similar improvement in bandwidth.

FinOps for agents: Loop limits, tool-call caps and the new unit economics of agentic SaaS

FinOps practitioners are increasingly treating AI as its own cost domain. The FinOps Foundation highlights token-based pricing, cost-per-token and cost-per-API-call tracking and anomaly detection as core practices for managing AI spend. Seat count still matters, yet I have watched two customers with the same licenses generate a 10X difference in inference and tool costs because one had standardized workflows and the other lived in exceptions. If you ship agents without a cost model, your cloud invoice quickly becomes the lesson plan ... In early pilots, teams obsess over token counts. However, for a scaled agentic SaaS running in production, we need one number that maps directly to value: Cost-per-Accepted-Outcome (CAPO). CAPO is the fully loaded cost to deliver one accepted outcome for a specific workflow. ... We calculate CAPO per workflow and per segment, then watch the distribution, not just the average. Median tells us where the product feels efficient. P95 and P99 tell us where loops, retries and tool storms are hiding. Note, failed runs belong in CAPO automatically since we treat the numerator as total fully loaded spend for that workflow (accepted + failed + abandoned + retried) and the denominator as accepted outcomes only, so every failure is “paid for” by the successes. Tagging each run with an outcome state and attributing its cost to a failure bucket allows us to track Failure Cost Share alongside CAPO and see whether the problem is acceptance rate, expensive failures or retry storms.

AI went from assistant to autonomous actor and security never caught up

The first is the agent challenge. AI systems have moved past assistants that respond to queries and into autonomous agents that execute multi-step tasks, call external tools, and make decisions without per-action human approval. This creates failure conditions that exist without any external attacker. An agent with overprivileged access and poor containment boundaries can cause damage through ordinary operation. ... The second category is the visibility challenge. Sixty-three percent of employees who used AI tools in 2025 pasted sensitive company data, including source code and customer records, into personal chatbot accounts. The average enterprise has an estimated 1,200 unofficial AI applications in use, with 86% of organizations reporting no visibility into their AI data flows. ... The third is the trust challenge. Prompt injection moved from academic research into recurring production incidents in 2025. OWASP’s 2025 LLM Top 10 list ranked prompt injection at the top. The vulnerability exists because LLMs cannot reliably separate instructions from data input. ... Wang recommended tiering agents by risk level. Agents with access to sensitive data or production systems warrant continuous adversarial testing and stronger review gates. Lower-risk agents can rely on standardized controls and periodic sampling. “The goal is to make continuous validation part of the engineering lifecycle,” she said.

A scorecard for cyber and risk culture

Cybersecurity and risk culture isn’t a vibe. It’s a set of actions, behaviors and attitudes you can point to without raising your voice. ... You can’t train people into that. You have to build an environment where that behavior makes sense, an environment based on trust and performance not one or the other ... Ownership is a design outcome. Treat it like product design. Remove friction. Clarify choices. Make it hard to do the wrong thing by accident and easy to make the best possible decision. ... If you can’t measure the behavior, you can’t claim the culture. You can claim a feeling. Feelings don’t survive audits, incidents or Board scrutiny. We’ve seen teams measure what’s easy and then call the numbers “maturity.” Training completion. Controls “done.” Zero incidents. Nice charts. Clean dashboards. Meanwhile, the real culture runs beneath the surface, making exceptions, working around friction and staying quiet when speaking up feels risky. ... One of the most dangerous culture metrics is silence dressed up as success. “Zero incidents reported” can mean you’re safe. It can also mean people don’t trust the system enough to speak up. The difference matters. The wrong interpretation is how organizations walk into breaches with a smile. Measure culture as you would safety in a factory. ... Metrics without governance create cynical employees. They see numbers. They never see action. Then they stop caring. Be careful not to make compliance ‘the culture’ as it’s what people do when no one is looking that counts.

Why encrypted backups may fail in an AI-driven ransomware era

For 20 years, I've talked up the benefits of the tech industry's best-practice 3-2-1 backup strategy. This strategy is just how it's done, and it works. Or does it? What if I told you that everything you know and everything you do to ensure quality backups is no longer viable? In fact, what if I told you that in an era of generative AI, when it comes to backups, we're all pretty much screwed? ... The easy-peasy assumption is that your data is good before it's backed up. Therefore, if something happens and you need to restore, the data you're bringing back from the backup is also good. Even without malware, AI, and bad actors, that's not always the way things turn out. Backups can get corrupted, and they might not have been written right in the first place, yada, yada, yada. But for this article, let's assume that your backup and restore process is solid, reliable, and functional. ... Even if the thieves are willing to return the data, their AI-generated vibe-coded software might be so crappy that they're unable to keep up their end of the bargain. Do you seriously think that threat actors who use vibe coding test their threat engines? ... Some truly nasty attacks specifically target immutable storage by seeking out misconfigurations. Here, they attack the management infrastructure, screwing with network data before it ever reaches the backup system. The net result is that before encryption of off-site backups begins, and before the backups even take place, the malware has suitably corrupted and infected the data.

How Deepfakes and Injection Attacks Are Breaking Identity Verification

Unlike social media deception, these attacks can enable persistent access inside trusted environments. The downstream impact is durable: account persistence, privilege-escalation pathways, and lateral movement opportunities that start with a single false verification decision. ... One practical problem for deepfake defense is generalization: detectors that test well in controlled settings often degrade in “in-the-wild” conditions. Researchers at Purdue University evaluated deepfake detection systems using their real-world benchmark based on the Political Deepfakes Incident Database (PDID). PDID contains real incident media distributed on platforms such as X, YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram, meaning the inputs are compressed, re-encoded, and post-processed in the same ways defenders often see in production. ... It’s important to be precise: PDID measures robustness of media detection on real incident content. It does not model injection, device compromise, or full-session attacks. In real identity workflows, attackers do not choose one technique at a time; they stack them. A high-quality deepfake can be replayed. A replay can be injected. An injected stream can be automated at scale. The best media detectors still can be bypassed if the capture path is untrusted. That’s why Deepsight goes even deeper than asking “Is this video a deepfake?”

Virtual twins and AI companions target enterprise war rooms

Organisations invest millions digitising processes and implementing enterprise systems. Yet when business leaders ask questions spanning multiple domains, those systems don’t communicate effectively. Teams assemble to manually cross-reference data, spending days producing approximations rather than definitive answers. Manufacturing experts at the conference framed this as decades of incomplete digitisation. ... Addressing this requires fundamentally changing how enterprise data is structured and accessed. Rather than systems operating independently with occasional data exchanges, the approach involves projecting information from multiple sources onto unified representations that preserve relationships and context. Zimmerman used a map analogy to explain the concept. “If you take an Excel spreadsheet with location of restaurants and another Excel spreadsheet with location of flower shops, and you try to find a restaurant nearby a flower shop, that’s difficult,” he said. “If it’s on the map, it is simple because the data are correlated by nature.” ... Having unified data representations solves part of the problem. Accessing them requires interfaces that don’t force users to understand complex data structures or navigate multiple applications. The conversational AI approach – increasingly common across enterprise software – aims to let users ask questions naturally rather than construct database queries or click through application menus.

The rise of the outcome-orchestrating CIO

Delivering technology isn’t enough. Boards and business leaders want results — revenue, measurable efficiency, competitive advantage — and they’re increasingly impatient with IT organizations that can’t connect their work to those outcomes. ... Funding models change, too. Traditional IT budgets fund teams to deliver features. When the business pivots, that becomes a change request — creating friction even when it’s not an adversarial situation. “Instead, fund a value stream,” Sample says. “Then, whatever the business needs, you absorb the change and work toward shared goals. It doesn’t matter what’s on the bill because you’re all working toward the same outcome.” It’s a fundamental reframing of IT’s role. “Stop talking about shared services,” says Ijam of the Federal Reserve. “Talk about being a co-owner of value realization.” That means evolving from service provider to strategic partner — not waiting for requirements but actively shaping how technology creates business results. ... When outcome orchestration is working, the boardroom conversation changes. “CIOs are presenting business results enabled by technology — not just technology updates — and discussing where to invest next for maximum impact,” says Cox Automotive’s Johnson. “The CFO begins to see technology as an investment that generates returns, not just a cost to be managed.” ... When outcome orchestration takes hold, the impact shows up across multiple dimensions — not just in business metrics, but in how IT is perceived and how its people experience their work.

The future of banking: When AI becomes the interface

Experiences must now adapt to people—not the other way around. As generative capabilities mature, customers will increasingly expect banking interactions to be intuitive, conversational, and personalized by default, setting a much higher bar for digital experience design. ... Leadership teams must now ask harder questions. What proprietary data, intelligence, or trust signals can only our bank provide? How do we shape AI-driven payment decisions rather than merely fulfill them? And how do we ensure that when an AI decides how money moves, our institution is not just compliant, but preferred? ... AI disruption presents both significant risk and transformative opportunity for banks. To remain relevant, institutions must decide where AI should directly handle customer interactions, how seamlessly their services integrate into AI-driven ecosystems, and how their products and content are surfaced and selected by AI-led discovery and search. This requires reimagining the bank’s digital assistant across seven critical dimensions: being front and centre at the point of intent, contextual in understanding customer needs, multi-modal across voice, text, and interfaces, agentic in taking action on the customer’s behalf, revenue-generating through intelligent recommendations, open and connected to broader ecosystems, and capable of providing targeted, proactive support.

The End of the ‘Observability Tax’: Why Enterprises are Pivoting to OpenTelemetry

For enterprises to reclaim their budget, they must first address inefficiency—the “hidden tax” of observability facing many DevOps teams. Every organization is essentially rebuilding the same pipeline from scratch, and when configurations aren’t standardized, engineers aren’t learning from each other; they’re actually repeating the same trial-and-error processes thousands of times over. This duplicated effort leads to a waste of time and resources. It often takes weeks to manually configure collectors, processors, and exporters, plus countless hours of debugging connection issues. ... If data engineers are stuck in a cycle of trial-and-error to manage their massive telemetry, then organizations are stuck drinking from a firehose instead of proactively managing their data in a targeted manner. In a world where AI demands immediate access to enormous volumes of data, this lack of flexibility becomes a fatal competitive disadvantage. If enterprises want to succeed in an AI-driven world, their data infrastructure must be able to handle the rapid velocity of data in motion without sacrificing cost-efficiency. Identifying and mitigating these hidden challenges and costs is imperative if enterprises want to turn their data into an asset rather than a liability. ... When organizations reclaim complete control of their data pipelines, they can gain a competitive edge.