Security | Threat Detection | Cyberattacks | DevSecOps | Compliance

Twenty-two seconds. That’s the median time it now takes for one attacker to hand freshly compromised access to the next team in the chain, the group that drives toward ransomware. In 2022, that hand-off took more than eight hours. In 2025, it took twenty-two seconds. Now consider how the average security operations center (SOC) is structured to respond. An alert fires, lands in a queue, and waits for a Tier 1 analyst to triage it. It escalates to Tier 2 for investigation.

To write an AI usage policy, define its scope, list approved and prohibited tools, name the data types banned from prompts, write clear rules, align to recognized frameworks and set enforcement. A written policy is the decision layer; pairing it with technical controls is what turns those decisions into protection.

Governance, risk and compliance programs rarely fail at the design stage. The policies exist, the register exists, the assessment calendar exists, and an auditor examining the documentation finds a coherent program. The failures are operational and they share a shape, which is that a mechanism runs without ever reaching a decision. ‍ Six of those are common enough to be predictable.

Every enterprise control framework assumes the entity that requests an action and the entity that approves it are different. Multi-agent workflows quietly dissolve that assumption. Three agents each holding modest, individually reasonable permissions can compose an action none of them was authorized to take, and no single permission grant looks wrong in a review. ‍ That is the distinguishing property of multi-agent systems rather than a harder version of single-agent risk.

Organizations preparing for the EU AI Act keep asking which standard to certify against, and the honest answer is that the ones that will matter are not finished. No harmonized standard has been cited in the Official Journal, and nothing available today confers presumption of conformity with the Act's requirements for high-risk systems. ‍

Your security stack is a set of specialists, each guarding one territory. Exposed credentials don't respect the boundaries between them, and 64% of the ones found valid in 2022 were still valid four years later.

We benchmarked how well leading models produce vulnerability fixes that are both secure and functional, across ~150 real vulnerable code samples in JavaScript, Java, and Python. We ran each model on its own and with Snyk Intelligence (the new agentic Agent Fix architecture). The headline findings.

Route leaks push traffic down paths it was never meant to take. We have written and spoken publicly in the past about route leaks in Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), depicting these events as impactful incidents that cause misdirection of traffic through unintended network paths. BGP routing is driven by the relationships between Autonomous Systems (ASes), i.e., customer-provider and peer-peer.

You’re probably running a TLS configuration that the IETF says is “non-conformant”. But you didn’t do anything wrong. In July, the IETF published a pair of RFCs that took away three of TLS 1.2’s key exchange methods and froze the rest of it. The phrase they used is MUST NOT, the strongest thing a specification is allowed to say. Nginx, Apache, and Windows Server all ship with those key exchanges turned on by default. Nothing breaks tomorrow.