news aggregator

Exploit attempts are already hammering a newly disclosed NGINX bug dubbed "NGINX Rift," proving once again that attackers read patch notes faster than most admins. Researchers at VulnCheck said they are seeing active exploitation tied to CVE-2026-42945, a heap buffer overflow flaw affecting both NGINX Open Source and NGINX Plus that was disclosed last week after apparently sitting unnoticed for 18 years. VulnCheck's Patrick Garrity said the company observed exploitation activity on its canary systems "just days after the CVE was published." "An unauthenticated attacker can crash the NGINX worker process by sending crafted HTTP requests," he said. "On servers with ASLR disabled – which, of course, is extremely unlikely – code execution is possible." Researchers at Depthfirst disclosed the bug last week, saying the flaw had been sitting in NGINX's rewrite module since 2008. The vulnerability, nicknamed "NGINX Rift," was assigned a CVSS score of 9.2. According to F5, which acquired NGINX in 2019, the flaw can be triggered by specially crafted HTTP requests under certain server configurations. In most cases, the result is a crashed worker process and a forced restart, though systems running without standard Linux memory protections could potentially face code execution. A public proof-of-concept exploit appeared the same day patches dropped, which helps explain why researchers started seeing exploitation attempts almost immediately. In practice, turning this into reliable remote code execution takes a pretty specific setup. The target server must be running a specific rewrite configuration, attackers need enough knowledge of that setup to exploit it correctly, and ASLR must also be disabled on the host system. Security researcher Kevin Beaumont noted that while the bug is real, modern Linux defaults significantly reduce the likelihood of successful real-world RCE. "Regarding CVE-2026-42945 in nginx – no modern (or even old) Linux distribution runs nginx without ASLR," Beaumont said. "So, cool, sweet technical vuln – it's valid – but the RCE apocalypse ain't coming." Even so, VulnCheck said Censys scans surfaced roughly 5.7 million internet-exposed NGINX servers running potentially vulnerable versions, which means patching teams everywhere just inherited another very long week. ®

The Polish government is urging public officials and "entities within the National Cybersecurity System" to stop using Signal, directing them to instead use an encrypted messenger developed by a leading Polish research organization. In an announcement on Friday, the government stated that Signal comes with security risks, including social engineering attacks orchestrated by advanced persistent threat (APT) groups. "National-level Computer Security Incident Response Teams (CSIRTs) have identified phishing campaigns conducted by APT groups linked to hostile state agencies," the announcement says. "These attacks target, among others, public figures and government employees." Offering examples of these social engineering campaigns, the government said attackers impersonate Signal support staff and abuse this perceived trust to take over victims' accounts. Attackers trick users into opening malicious links by sending messages designed to create a sense of urgency, such as those supposedly informing them of their account being blocked. Successful attempts can expose victims' phone numbers and, crucially, messages sent between government officials, potentially threatening national security. A more detailed advisory cited "recent security incidents" related to Signal as reasons for the change. It didn't specify what these recent attacks were, or even who was behind them, but it can be reasonably assumed that the Polish government was indirectly referencing Russia's phishing attempts against both Signal and WhatsApp, which were revealed in March. Dutch intelligence agencies AIVD and MIVD reported a "large-scale" campaign targeting their own government officials, noting that some attacks were successful. "The Russian hackers have likely gained access to sensitive information," the AIVD and MIVD said, adding that successful attacks were carried out on government bods as well as journalists. Beyond Signal support staff impersonation, the agencies said the attacks can also involve outsiders persuading victims to surrender their verification codes or PINs, or abusing the platform's Linked Devices feature via QR codes to take control of accounts. The FBI, CISA, and the German information security department issued near-identical warnings. The alternative Poland announced the launch of mSzyfr Messenger in March, saying it was designed for use by public administration entities, those involved in the National Cybersecurity System, and others to be decided by the government. Developed by the Ministry of Digital Affairs and the Scientific and Academic Computer Network – National Research Institute (NASK), mSzyfr was touted by the government as "the first secure instant messenger fully under Polish jurisdiction." It does, however, rely on multi-factor authentication (MFA) provided by US megacorps. Microsoft is the recommended option, but users can also opt for Google or FreeOTP. Further, if users want to retain access to messages even after logging out of the platform, they must set up a recovery key, which the installation manual suggests storing in a password manager. That undercuts the government's emphasis on Polish jurisdiction somewhat, since many popular password managers are either foreign-owned or open source. An FAQ document for mSzyfr states that the messenger is built with a privacy-by-design philosophy, and explicitly notes that neither WhatsApp nor Signal fits this description. It also claimed the US-based platforms are not GDPR-compliant. The mSzyfr app is not publicly available. Only individuals working for approved organizations are able to receive invites to join the platform. It replaces Swiss-founded Threema, which the Polish government began endorsing for state officials and law enforcement in 2022, but data such as messages cannot be transferred because of the apps' encrypted nature. All Threema users should expect to receive an invite to mSzyfr in the near future, if they have not already. The Register asked Signal to comment on Poland's announcement, but it did not immediately respond. It did, however, recently address security concerns raised by various intelligence agencies last week, introducing new warnings and alerts inside the platform to help users weed out potential impostors and bad actors. ®

John Lennon's last interview — just hours before he was shot on December 8, 1980 — has become a documentary directed by Steven Soderbergh, debuting Saturday at the Cannes Film Festival. In a new interview with the Associated Press, Soderbergh defends the film's limited use of AI to visualize concepts from that two-hour interview with John Lennon and Yoko Ono: Soderbergh was resolved to let the audio play. He could finds ways to visualize much of the film, but that still left a large gap where the conversation grows more philosophical. "I worked on everything that could be solved except that for as long as I could," Soderbergh says. "Then there was the inevitable moment of: OK, but really what are we going to do? We just started playing and ran out of time and money. That's where the Meta piece came in." Soderbergh accepted an offer to use Meta's artificial intelligence software to conjure surreal imagery for those sections, which make up about 10% of the film. When Soderbergh let the news out earlier this year, it prompted an uproar. One of America's leading filmmakers was using AI? In a film about a Beatle, no less? The AI parts (overwhelmingly slammed by critics in Cannes) are fairly banal and don't differ greatly from special effects — there are no deepfakes of Lennon. But they put Soderberg at the forefront of an industrywide debate about the uses of AI in moviemaking. It's a conversation the director, who has made movies on iPhones, is eager to have. While the film follows John and Yoko's conversation, "I needed a way to follow them in flight visually," Soderbergh says, "or I'm not doing my job." Though when asked about the strong negative reaction, Soderbergh acknowleges that "I knew what was coming. I take it very seriously, and I understand why people have an emotional response to this subject. As I've said before, I feel like I owe people the best version of whatever art I'm trying to make and total transparency about how I'm doing it." AP: Some fear generative AI will tear apart the film industry. You don't see it as a bogeyman, though. SODERBERGH: I think most jobs that matter when you're making a movie cannot be performed by this tech and never will be performed by this tech. As it becomes possible for anybody to create something that meets a certain standard of technical perfection, then imperfection becomes more valuable and more interesting. We haven't seen yet someone with a certain amount of creative credibility go full-metal AI on something, and see how people react. I think it's necessary. How do you know where the line is until somebody crosses it? "I don't think what I'm doing crosses it. Some people may disagree. I don't know where my line is yet. I'm waiting to see...

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Microsoft has admitted that the May 2026 security update might fail to install with a "Something didn't go as planned. Undoing changes" message. The problem is related to the EFI System Partition (ESP), which is usually where the device boots from. Its minimum size is 200 MB, and the operating system manages it. However, if there is 10 MB or less free space, then the update might fail with a 0x800f0922 error code and the helpful message. "On affected devices, the installation might proceed through the initial phases but fail during the reboot phase at approximately 35-36% completion," Microsoft said. As with all security updates, there is important stuff in here that needs to be installed. In our earlier coverage, we called this a "doozy of a Patch Tuesday." While nothing was reported as being under active attack, there were dozens of fixes for critical Microsoft CVEs. On devices experiencing the issue, Microsoft has suggested either a registry edit, which will have administrators rolling their eyes, or a Known Issue Rollback (KIR) to deal with the problem. The company wrote: "The resolution has already propagated automatically to consumer devices and non-managed business devices." The issue affects Windows 11 25H2 and 24H2, and emerged while Microsoft was enjoying a period of no known issues with its operating system products. The admission was made doubly unfortunate by coinciding with a company blog post titled "Improving Windows Quality". Microsoft clearly has more work to do on the quality front, which, frankly, is understandable. Windows is more akin to a supertanker than an agile skiff, and changing direction will take time. However, as administrators reach for the KIR group policy to deal with this latest issue, many would be forgiven for looking at Microsoft's protestations around quality and muttering the infamous aphorism: "The more things change, the more they stay the same." ®

Britain's F-35 fighter fleet is set to carry US-made glide bombs as an interim measure until delayed F-35 software updates from Lockheed Martin add support for the SPEAR 3 mini-cruise missile intended for the aircraft. The news comes in an official response from the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to Parliament's Public Accounts Committee (PAC), which published a scathing report last year on the MoD's management of the F-35 program. That report noted that the stealth fighter force lacks essential capabilities, one of which is a stand-off weapon to attack ground targets from a safe distance. The SPEAR missile is intended to fulfil this requirement, but although it is ready and passed test firings in 2024, the F-35 is not currently able to operate it. This capability should have been delivered by now through the Block 4 software update from F-35 prime contractor Lockheed Martin, but this has met with a series of delays. It is now expected in 2031, five years behind schedule. One of the PAC's recommendations was that the MoD should set out in the Defence Investment Plan (DIP) how it will ensure a stand-off capability until SPEAR 3 is fully integrated onto the aircraft. Permanent Secretary at the MoD Jeremy Pocklington wrote back in a letter that approval has been given to proceed with a Foreign Military Sales (FMS) procurement of the precision-guided munition, Small Diameter Bomb (SDB II). "This acquisition will provide the F-35 with an interim stand-off capability until the introduction of SPEAR 3 into service," he stated. SDB II, designated GBU-53/B StormBreaker in US service, is a roughly 200-pound (93 kg) bomb with fold-out wings to allow it to glide to a target up to 69 miles (111 km) away. It has a tri-mode seeker in the nose that lets it use radar, infrared, or laser tracking to home in. Other criticisms leveled at the MoD were that it lacked suitably qualified engineers, and the department's pattern of delaying purchases to meet annual budget targets, which the PAC claimed has the effect of inflating total program costs while reducing operational capacity. Pocklington conceded that not enough spares were available to support the F-35 squadrons aboard aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales during the eight-month Operation Highmast deployment last year. "The surge to 24 F-35B aircraft during Operation HIGHMAST exceeded the Afloat Spares Pack capacity of 12. This was mitigated by supplementing with the Deployable Spares Pack [designed for land-based deployments] and taking additional spares from the RAF Marham Base Spares Pack," he wrote. "The Lightning Force is collaborating closely with the Royal Navy to optimise joint scheduling between home and embarked operations, given the current limitation of two front-line squadrons. The Department also plans to double the capacity of the Afloat Spares Pack and procure an additional Deployable Spares Pack for land operations, subject to the DIP." In response, PAC chair Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP commented on the "entirely unacceptable incompetence that flies in the face of any kind of sensible planning from the Ministry of Defence." "At the heart of any military planning is sound logistics. The UK sent an aircraft carrier with 24 F-35 fighter jets on it to the Middle East – with not enough spare parts to support them." "In an increasingly dangerous world, our military and the country need more than this half-baked approach from the MoD. Our brave fighting men and women, before being sent into potential harm's way, must have absolute certainty that they are well-supported in their equipment, with clear and reliable supply lines," he added. Pocklington's letter also said a short-term reduction in the availability of F-35 aircraft was likely due to the MoD stepping up corrosion awareness and prevention practices. While corrosion can be an issue for all aircraft, this is especially true for those operated from carriers, and it can also impact the F-35's radar-defeating stealth capabilities. The PAC report had noted that the MoD is behind in delivering a UK Aircraft Signature Assessment Facility, needed to check that the F-35's stealth technology is still doing its job and has not been compromised. On the lack of qualified engineers, Pocklington claimed that steps were being taken to address this by increasing available posts to 168. "The RAF has plans in place to fill its remaining engineering posts by 2032. This date is driven by the amount of time (up to three years) it takes to make engineers fully competent on an aircraft type," he said, adding that "the number of personnel recruited into the Engineering Profession, who are now in the training system, has already increased." However, the government's Defence Investment Plan (DIP) was due in autumn 2025, but there is currently no official publication date for it, despite the fact that many key projects are in limbo until it is delivered. ®

Mozilla has warned Britain not to turn VPNs into collateral damage in the government's increasingly desperate hunt for ways to stop kids dodging Online Safety Act age checks. In a submission to the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology's "Growing up in the online world" consultation, Mozilla argued that VPNs are "essential privacy and security tools" used by millions of ordinary people, from those securing public Wi-Fi and remote work traffic to journalists, activists, and other vulnerable users. "VPNs serve as critical privacy and security tools for users across all ages," said Svea Windwehr, policy manager at Mozilla. "By hiding users' IP addresses, VPNs help protect users' location, reduce tracking and avoid IP-based profiling." Windwehr added that people rely on VPNs for everything from connecting remotely to school or work networks to avoiding censorship and "simply protecting their privacy and security online." The filing lands in the middle of an increasingly strange UK debate where privacy tools are being recast as a threat to online safety enforcement. VPN usage in the UK surged almost immediately after Online Safety Act age checks started rolling out last year, as users scrambled to avoid handing sensitive identity data to adult websites and platforms demanding facial scans or ID verification. Child safety advocates and officials then turned their attention to VPNs themselves, with the Children's Commissioner for England even suggesting the government should explore ways to stop children from using them altogether. Mozilla's response argues the government is chasing the wrong target. The company pointed to research from Internet Matters suggesting that relatively few children use VPNs in the first place, and that only a small minority use them specifically to bypass age restrictions. Mozilla instead argued that most successful workarounds involve fake birth dates, borrowed accounts, weak age assurance systems, or laughably fragile facial estimation tools that children have reportedly fooled with drawn-on facial hair. Mozilla also pointed out a central problem with age-gating VPNs: users would first need to hand over personal information before accessing software intended to reduce tracking and data collection. Britain is not the only country suddenly developing strong opinions about VPNs. Denmark recently floated anti-piracy legislation broad enough to trigger fears that VPN usage itself could become legally risky, before ministers hurriedly insisted nobody was trying to ban VPNs. Across Europe, VPNs are being treated less like routine security software and more like an obstacle to enforcement as users turn to them to bypass restrictions. Unfortunately for regulators, the technology industry appears to be moving in the opposite direction. Mozilla has already been testing built-in VPN functionality directly inside Firefox, joining a wider browser trend toward integrating privacy features that previously required separate software. Blocking standalone VPN apps is one thing, but trying to untangle VPN functionality from modern browsers is a much bigger problem. Mozilla's submission repeatedly argues Britain is drifting toward "safety through surveillance" instead of addressing the recommendation systems, engagement algorithms, and platform incentives that actually drive online harms. ®

Google is encouraging its database developers to lean "heavily" on AI coding tools as it ramps up contributions to open source projects such as PostgreSQL. Earlier this year, Google announced a raft of new contributions to PostgreSQL, the open source database that has become a popular RDBMS for developers building new applications in the cloud. Sailesh Krishnamurthy, VP of Databases, Google Cloud, told The Register that the company was using AI coding tools to accelerate its contributions to open source database systems, although each developer remains responsible for their individual contributions. "We do encourage folks to use AI heavily ," he said. "We are seeing huge amounts of productivity improvements internally. In the end, we have individual engineers take accountability for our contributions. Whether you have a piece of code that is completely drafted by AI, or not even part of what you're pasting into your development environment, you have a whole spectrum where AI is used in different places. Either way, the accountability remains on behalf of the person who's done it." AI coding tools can be especially suited to developing contributions to open source projects because the codebase is publicly available and has been used to train the generative models, he said. "That's how models have a better sense of the code, as opposed to many proprietary pieces of code, which are inside the firewall." PostgreSQL was designed to be extensible. As such, it can be a system well suited to vibe coding to get new ideas off the ground quickly, Krishnamurthy said. "The sweet spot is where you have maybe an interesting academic idea that is well understood, and you have a codebase that's well understood, and you're trying to say, well, I want to take this idea and I want to take this piece of code and build an extension for it. That's a great example where you have something isolated – the blast radius is small – and you can go and use AI to interpret the code. Our own engineers are using AI quite heavily, but also judiciously." PostgreSQL became the most popular database among developers in 2023, according to the Stack Overflow survey. The trend owes a great deal to the plethora of PostgreSQL database services out there, not least from the big three cloud providers, which have ramped up investment in the open source system. Last year, Microsoft contributed pg_documentdb_core, a custom PostgreSQL extension that enables support for Binary JavaScript Object Notation (BSON, a binary-encoded serialization of JSON documents), and pg_documentdb_api, a data layer providing MongoDB-compatible commands for create, read, update and delete (CRUD) operations, queries, and index management. The extensions are set to run on the Azure Cosmos DB PostgreSQL database service and offer a document-store-style database to rival MongoDB. Microsoft has also announced a distributed PostgreSQL database service called HorizonDB. Krishnamurthy said: "The industry at large is investing heavily in PostgreSQL. We see this across the board, whether it's customers, whether it's digital native services, and certainly we see the migrations coming from commercial databases. It is also a broad industry trend of PostgreSQL as a layer, no matter where data is being stored." As such, Google has contributed new code to the project, with the engineering effort focused on advancing logical replication. Contributions included Automatic Conflict Detection, designed to allow the replication worker to automatically detect when an incoming change (Insert, Update, or Delete) conflicts with the local state; and logical replication of sequences. Demand for PostgreSQL services is coming from migrations as well as new applications, Krishnamurthy said. Customers are ditching Oracle, Microsoft SQL Server, and IBM Db2, as well as other legacy systems, including Sybase and Informix. Research from Gartner earlier this year shows that of the leading database vendors 15 years ago – Oracle, IBM, Microsoft, and SAP – only Microsoft has grown its market share since. As well as its own database systems, Microsoft offers PostgreSQL and MySQL services, as does AWS, the leading database vendor. Oracle remains third, ahead of Google, and that position seems unlikely to change soon. Nonetheless, with all the major cloud vendors contributing to open source database projects such as PostgreSQL, momentum is slowly shifting. ®

OPINION The terms "blindingly obvious," "logical consequence," and "that is not how it works" appear nowhere in the government handbook of internet legislation. In particular, the discovery that imposing age access controls on websites has pushed users to VPNs has come as a huge surprise to legislators in the UK, the EU, Canada, and Australia. Nobody here knows how old VPN users are, be they kids unwilling to lose access or adults unwilling to disgorge personally identifying data to who knows what. As they recover from this shocking discovery, these fine people are looking at ways to control VPNs, whether by adding age verification here too or by some magical "digital age of consent" technology that somehow evades the paradox that demanding more personal information in the name of safety itself reduces safety. Yet here, as in so many ways, the rest of the world is lagging behind America – more specifically, the great state of Utah, which has just enacted an anti-VPN law. This law makes it compulsory for any site that the state says needs age verification – porn, basically – to impose those checks on anyone physically in Utah whether or not they are using any VPN. Those would be the same VPNs whose sole purpose is to prevent the geolocation of their users. Which would seem, and is, another paradox. The only way to comply is to impose global age checks, effectively giving Utah worldwide regulatory powers. As there is no global standard for this, it's not a practical option. But then, there are no practical options to control VPNs, short of cutting off all internet access à la North Korea. Even China, the world's most effective cyber-authoritarian state and one which very much enjoys telling its citizens what to think, has to be very wary of putting the VPN screws on too harshly. The ground truth about VPNs is that if you allow people access to anywhere on the internet outside your direct control, they can access a VPN. Obvious vectors of denial, such as blacklisting VPN ingress or egress IP ranges, don't work for long. VPN operators are adept at moving these, and you can build your VPN infrastructure in the cloud, and there are plenty of stealth techniques. A VPN pipe looks to any router it traverses like an encrypted bitstream, which is to say like most internet traffic, and if you disguise the session establishment ports and protocols, it’s HTTPS going about its lawful business. All this adds up to a landscape where hundreds of VPN providers are able to react to any official monitoring or clampdown in ways that leave them more resilient and more expensive to tamper with. China knows this, discouraging rather than preventing access altogether, and putting the squeeze on only briefly as occasion demands. The reason age verification works as far as it does for social and salacious media is that these are advertising-driven, which means having a commercial presence everywhere they have advertisers. That puts their cash flow at the mercy of local regulators, which is how the British pirate radio ships of the 1960s were closed down. They operated in international waters and couldn't be jammed, so the UK government made it illegal to advertise on them. VPNs take your money directly, so don't react to local edicts. Plus, even if none of the above were true, VPNs are so essential to enterprise security, and are so available as open source, that they could no more be banned or backdoored than, say, HTTPS. VPNs are bombproof, as far as sense extends. Which means attempts to bomb them into compliance or out of existence in a fit of epic fury will work as well on the internet as it does in the desert. Lots of collateral damage, not so much victory. This isn't an unalloyed good, as the consumer VPN market is far less competitive than it appears and there are plenty of questions about connections between those who control VPNs and various national security interests. A VPN service is literally a man in the middle you pay to use, and assigning trust is up to you. Freedom rarely comes for free, and it would be unwise to rely on any VPN you can't check out if you're doing anything that might summon the intelligence services. Most of us aren't, at least in the free world, at least for now. VPNs, for all their faults, remain a genuine and essential brick in our antisurveillance Lego set. It is very much in our interests that we aren't forced to disclose additional identifying data to them, and that they're not used as an excuse to effectively close down services and sites a particular state dislikes. The Utah law may yet fail on various grounds, as it has already been challenged in court – although given the way the American legal system is being stress-tested right now, this is harder to call than it should be. If it stands, then it will spread to like-minded states like butter across a hot pan. The obvious consequence will be that people move their attention to smaller, less savory sites more resistant to state interdiction. This will come as a surprise to nobody except the legislators. Outside the US, the progress of the Utah experiment will be watched closely by those who see VPNs as loopholes to be blocked. It's our job to demonstrate that VPN regulation would be counterproductive and dangerous, and that concentrating on reducing harm at source is better than forcing consumers to reveal ID and tampering with the infrastructure. ®

Iran's government "wants to charge the world's largest tech companies for using the subsea internet cables laid under the Strait of Hormuz," reports CNN. Their article also notes that Iran's state-linked media outlets "have vaguely threatened that traffic could be disrupted if firms don't pay." Lawmakers in Tehran discussed a plan last week which could target submarine cables linking Arab countries to Europe and Asia. "We will impose fees on internet cables," Iranian military spokesperson Ebrahim Zolfaghari declared on X last week. Iran's Revolutionary Guards-linked media said Tehran's plan to extract revenue from the strait would require companies like Google, Microsoft, Meta, and Amazon to comply with Iranian law while submarine cable companies would be required to pay licensing fees for cable passage, with repair and maintenance rights given exclusively to Iranian firms. Some of these companies have invested in the cables running through the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf, but it's unclear if those cables traverse Iranian waters. It's also unclear how the regime could force tech giants to comply, as they are barred from making payments to Iran due to strict US sanctions; as a result, the companies themselves may view Iran's statements as posturing rather than serious policy. Still, state-affiliated media outlets have issued veiled threats warning of damage to cables that could impact some of the trillions of dollars in global data transmission and affect worldwide internet connectivity... Iran's threats are part of a strategy to demonstrate its leverage over the Strait of Hormuz and ensure the survival of the regime, a core objective for the Islamic Republic in this war, said Dina Esfandiary, Middle East lead at Bloomberg Economics. "It aims to impose such a hefty cost on the global economy that no-one will dare attack Iran again," she said. The article notes that subsea cables "carry vast internet and financial traffic between Europe, Asia and the Persian Gulf," and that targetting them "would affect far more than internet speeds, threatening everything from banking systems, military communications and AI cloud infrastructure to remote work, online gaming and streaming services." CNN spoke to Mostafa Ahmed, "a senior researcher at the United Arab Emirates-based Habtoor Research Center, who published a paper on the effects of a large-scale attack on submarine communications infrastructure in the Gulf." Armed with combat divers, small submarines, and underwater drones, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) poses a risk to underwater cables, Ahmed said, adding that any attack could trigger a cascading "digital catastrophe" across several continents. Iran's neighbors across the Persian Gulf could face severe disruptions to internet connection, potentially impacting critical oil and gas exports as well as banking. Beyond the region, India could see a large proportion of its internet traffic affected, threatening its huge outsourcing industry with losses amounting to billions, according to Ahmed... Any disruption could also slow financial trading and cross-border transactions between Europe and Asia, while parts of East Africa could face internet blackouts. And if Iran's proxies decide to employ similar tactics in the Red Sea, the damage could be far worse.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

The perennial question "Can it run Doom?" has a new answer, of sorts, after the USA's Library of Congress (LOC) added the iconic game's soundtrack to its National Recording Registry. An announcement of this year's new additions to the Registry hails Bobby Prince's 1993 soundtrack as "the perfect riff-shredding accompaniment for the game's demon-slaying journey to hell and back." "Key to Doom's popularity was the adrenaline-fueled soundtrack created by freelance video game music composer Bobby Prince," the LOC asserts, before revealing that the composer took inspiration from "a pile" of CDs loaned by Doom designer John Romero, including "seminal works by Alice in Chains, Pantera and Metallica." Prince was apparently "fascinated" by MIDI (Musical Instrument Digital Interface) and used his knowledge of the standard "to ensure that the sound effects he created could cut through the music by assigning them to different MIDI frequencies." That approach, the LOC says, saw the Doom soundtrack "go on to inspire countless remixes and lay the foundation for future generations of game composers." The Doom soundtrack is the third recording to make its way into the National Recording Registry, which added the Super Mario theme by Koji Kondo in 2023 and last year selected Daniel Rosenfeld's Minecraft: Volume Alpha soundtrack. Joining the Doom soundtrack in the archive are Taylor Swift's 2014 album 1989, Beyoncé's 2008 tune Single Ladies, and Weezer's 1994 debut The Blue Album. The National Recording Registry adds 25 titles each year, as recommended by the Librarian of Congress, who gets advice from the National Recording Preservation Board. All works added to the Registry are at least a decade old and are held to be "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant." Other nations collect games, and therefore soundtracks, in their national archives – but don't conduct an annual inculcation process in the same way as the USA's National Recording Registry. ®

WHO, ME? Welcome to Monday morning, the time of week when The Register always asks “Who, Me?” because that’s the title of our reader-contributed column in which you confess to having made a mess, and found a way to egress without career distress. This week, meet a reader we’ll Regomize as “Miller” who told us that as a whippersnapper of just 21 summers he found himself tending a mainframe that created a virtual machine, and accompanying virtual disk, for each user. Miller’s employer shut down those VMs at the end of the working day to free up resources for overnight jobs. He therefore wrote a cleanup routine that removed the drives and backed up their contents. This story took place in 1981, a time when it was possible for code written by a 21-year-old to go into production without much scrutiny. Oversight arrived at 3 AM, when the overnight operators ran Miller’s cleanup code and it produced a “file not found” message. Miller spent his entire Saturday finding the problem, the roots of which lay in the fact that the mainframe assigned a letter to each user drive, with A-Z as the available labels. “The routine attached to all users’ drives and backed them up to a temporary drive,” Miller explained. “But you never knew in advance what drive letter the system would assign to the temporary drive. So I wrote a routine to attach it and capture the letter.” That approach worked, until it didn’t – because on this day Miller’s employer gave another user an account on the mainframe. And that user’s virtual drive meant the mainframe used the entire alphabet of disks. “The call for temp disk failed and my routine passed back an asterisk instead of an error code,” Miller confessed. The routine then ran its delete command, but instead of specifying a drive letter to destroy, applied the asterisk and deleted everything. “Every file, all the data, and all the code,” Miller admitted. “I had written all the code myself, long before the days of peer reviews or DevOps or any other controls, so it was all on me,” he added. The Register thinks that’s a bit harsh – who lets a kid write mission-critical code? It took Miller a day to restore data, while 20 other people twiddled their thumbs and waited for him to finish the job. “Hard lesson but it's stayed with me 40+ years!” Miller concluded. Have you written code that went awry? Or failed to supervise a junior? In either case, click here to send us an email so we can tell your tale on a future Monday. ®

Observability outfit Grafana Labs has revealed that an attacker accessed its GitHub repository and stole its codebase. In social media posts the company blamed the situation on an “unauthorized party” who was somehow able to obtain a token that offered access to its GitHub environment. The company thinks it has identified the source of the credential leak, and therefore “invalidated the compromised credentials and implemented additional security measures to further secure our environment against unauthorized access.” But that didn’t stop the attacker from threatening to release the company’s code unless Grafana paid a ransom. Grafana says it won’t pay. “Based on our operational experience and the published stance of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which notes that ‘paying a ransom doesn't guarantee you or your organization will get any data back’ and only ‘offers an incentive for others to get involved in this type of illegal activity,’ we have determined the appropriate path forward is to not pay the ransom,” the company wrote. It’s not clear if that stance is entirely principled, because plenty of Grafana’s products are already open source. The company’s posts suggest that the attacker accessed code that is not freely available. The Register has sought clarification about just what the attacker accessed, because if they lifted code that’s mostly already open source there’s little reason for Grafana to pay a ransom! Grafana’s decision not to pay may also be easier than it is for other victims of cybercrime because the company says it “determined that no customer data or personal information was accessed during this incident, and we have found no evidence of impact to customer systems or operations.” The company therefore appears confident that whatever code the attackers downloaded won’t make a material different to its business, or harm customers. The same couldn’t be said for educationware giant Canvas, which last week paid extortionists after they claimed to have stolen data describing over 275 million students and faculty. The Register will update this story if we receive additional information from Grafana Labs. ®

Today Linus Torvalds announced another Linux release candidate on the kernel mailing list. But he also highlighted "documentation updates" to address a new problem. "The continued flood of AI reports has basically made the security list almost entirely unmanageable, with enormous duplication due to different people finding the same things with the same tools." (The new documentation says the security team has found "bugs discovered this way systematically surface simultaneously across multiple researchers, often on the same day.") TORVALDS: People spend all their time just forwarding things to the right people or saying "that was already fixed a week/month ago" and pointing to the public discussion. Which is all entirely pointless churn, and we're making it clear that AI-detected bugs are pretty much by definition not secret, and treating them on some private list is a waste of time for everybody involved — and only makes that duplication worse because the reporters can't even see each other's reports. AI tools are great, but only if they actually help, rather than cause unnecessary pain and pointless make-believe work. Feel free to use them, but use them in a way that is productive and makes for a better experience. The documentation may be a bit less blunt than I am, but that's the core gist of it. The new documentation offers this overview. "It turns out that the majority of the bugs reported via the security team are just regular bugs that have been improperly qualified as security bugs due to a lack of awareness of the Linux kernel's threat model." "So just to make it really clear," Torvalds said at the end of his post. "If you found a bug using AI tools, the chances are somebody else found it too. "If you actually want to add value, read the documentation, create a patch too, and add some real value on *top* of what the AI did. Don't be the drive-by 'send a random report with no real understanding' kind of person. Ok?"

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Samsung found itself facing down controversy in South Korea last week, when the weather app pre-installed on many of its devices incorrectly labelled an island territory named Dokdo as part of North Korea. Dokdo is a group of volcanic islets that is the subject of a territorial dispute between South Korea, North Korea, and Japan. Netizens were therefore outraged by a champion of South Korean industry handing the islands to foes in North Korea. Mislabelling the map was therefore sufficiently controversial that Samsung quickly pushed an update to fix the error – and blamed data from The Weather Channel as the source of the mistake. While we’re talking about islands … The Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Kiribati, and the Republic of Nauru last week connected to the world over a submarine cable for the first time. The three Pacific island nations hooked up to the East Micronesia Cable System, which NEC Corporation built and last week handed over to telecoms companies in the three nations. The cable can carry 100Gbps to each country where it lands, and has capacity to reach 10 Tbps. The three nations are collectively home to around 100,000 people. The governments of Australia, Japan, and the USA funded construction of the cable as part of ongoing diplomatic efforts to woo Pacific nations at a time China is also active in the region. Bitdefender spots alleged Chinese attack on Azerbaijan Antivirus vendor Bitdefender last week published what it says is evidence of a China-backed “multi-wave intrusion targeting an Azerbaijani oil and gas company from late December 2025 through late February 2026.” Bitdefender linked the attacks to the resurgent FamousSparrow crew, which apparently deployed “an evolved DLL sideloading technique” to drop the Deed RAT and Terndoor backdoors. The company’s researchers think attackers targeted a vulnerable Microsoft Exchange server. Senior security researcher Victor Vrabie suggested the attack is a sign that Russia and China are both trying to gain a foothold in Azerbaijan’s energy infrastructure, to gain leverage over energy supplies to Europe. The central Asian nation is a major oil and gas producer, and exports much of its output through pipelines that reach Turkey and Georgia. The importance of those routes has grown thanks to slowing gas exports from the Middle East. China seemingly shuns Nvidia to focus on its own alternatives The United States has allowed several Chinese companies to acquire Nvidia’s H200 accelerators, but Beijing won’t let local buyers do the deed. That’s the washup of President Trump’s visit to China last week, during which US authorities reportedly issued licenses allowing Nvidia to sell its wares to Chinese tech companies including Alibaba, Tencent, ByteDance and JD.com. But President Trump later remarked that China has not allowed its tech companies to buy H200s “because they chose not to, they want to develop their own.” That’s perhaps the strongest signal yet that China has decided to decouple from foreign tech stacks. Bottom drops out of India’s smartphone market Analyst firm IDC last week reported that smartphone shipments in India slumped by 4.1 percent in the first quarter of 2026. IDC said that subdued result would have been worse had brands not decided to front-load channel inventory before the cost of smartphone rise due to the soaring cost of memory. The firm said the result “signals a structural turning point for one of the world’s largest smartphone markets” because device-makers who sell entry-level devices “face shrinking margins and reduced market viability as memory costs continue to rise.” When consumers who buy sub-US$100 phones do upgrade, they “are being pushed upmarket by necessity rather than aspiration” – meaning demand is muted and will likely remain so for quite some time. ®

America's Library of Congress "is preserving a little piece of Hell," jokes Engadget, "by inducting the soundtrack to the original Doom into the National Recording Registry." The album of demon-slaying tracks is joined by several other notable 2026 additions to the registry, like Weezer's self-titled debut album (colloquially known as "The Blue Album"), Taylor Swift's "1989," Beyonce's "Single Ladies (Put a Ring On It) and the original "Mambo No. 5." "Doom" was created by Bobby Prince, a freelance composer who worked on lots of id Software games, and also scored Doom's '90s rival Duke Nukem 3D. The soundtrack draws clear inspiration from metal bands, but also touches on techno and ambient music throughout its track list, making for an eclectic soundscape for tearing through enemies. That it all fits together is also impressive in its own right: All of the music for Doom was written before the game had completed levels to play through, according to Prince. The official announcement from the Library of Congress says Doom "brought a heavy metal energy to MS-DOS systems across the globe," while also pioneering first-person shooter videogames. "Key to Doom's popularity was the adrenaline-fueled soundtrack created by freelance video game music composer Bobby Prince. Prince, a lifelong musician and practicing lawyer, was fascinated by the MIDI technology that rose in prominence in the mid-1980s as a means for instrument control and composition... For "Doom," Prince took inspiration from a pile of CDs loaned by the game's chief designer, John Romero, including seminal works by Alice in Chains, Pantera and Metallica. Despite the limitations of the 1993-era sound card drivers, Prince composed the perfect riff-shredding accompaniment for the game's demon-slaying journey to hell and back. Taking advantage of his knowledge of MIDI, Prince even worked to ensure that the sound effects he created could cut through the music by assigning them to different MIDI frequencies.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Today former Google CEO Eric Schmidt "was booed multiple times," reports NBC News, "while discussing AI during a commencement speech at the University of Arizona." Schmidt had started by remembering how computer platforms "gave everyone a voice" but also "degraded the public square... They rewarded outrage. They amplified our worst instincts. They coarsen the way we speak to each other, and that way, and in the way that we treat each other, is in the essence of a society." But then Schmidt "drew a parallel between artificial intelligence and the transformative impact of the computer — and was immediately met with boos." "I know what many of you are feeling about that. I can hear you," Schmidt said, addressing the crowd as many continued to boo him. "There is a fear ... there is a fear in your generation that the future has already been written, that the machines are coming, that the jobs are evaporating, that the climate is breaking, that politics is fractured, and that you are inheriting a mess that you did not create, and I understand that fear." He went on to argue that the future remains unwritten and that the graduating class of 2026 has real power to shape how AI develops — a claim that drew further disapproval from parts of the audience... He closed by congratulating the class and offering them closing words. "The future is not yet finished. It is now your turn to shape it." 404 Media shared a video on YouTube of the crowd's booing — and what Schmidt said that provoked them: SCHMIDT: "If you don't care about science that's okay because AI is going to touch everything else as well. [Very loud booing] Whatever path you choose, AI will become part of how work is done..." "You can now assemble a team of AI agents to help you with the parts that you could never accomplish on your own. [Loud booing] When someone offers you a seat on the rocket ship, you do not ask which seat. You just get on... The rocket ship is here."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Linux kernel boss Linus Torvalds has declared the project’s security mailing list has become “almost entirely unmanageable” due to multiple researchers using AI to find bugs and then filling the list with duplicate reports. Torvalds used his weekly state of the kernel post to deliver release candidate four for Linux 7.1 and report “fairly normal” progress towards a full release. He then pointed kernelistas to the project’s documentation, which he wrote “might be worth highlighting” as “the continued flood of AI reports has basically made the security list almost entirely unmanageable, with enormous duplication due to different people finding the same things with the same tools.” “People spend all their time just forwarding things to the right people or saying ‘that was already fixed a week/month ago’ and pointing to the public discussion,” Torvalds complained. The Penguin Emperor believes that kind of chatter is “all entirely pointless churn” and isn’t productive because “AI detected bugs are pretty much by definition not secret, and treating them on some private list is a waste of time for everybody involved – and only makes that duplication worse because the reporters can't even see each other's reports.” He then offered an opinion on how best to use AI to improve software security. “AI tools are great, but only if they actually help, rather than cause unnecessary pain and pointless make-believe work,” he wrote. “Feel free to use them, but use them in a way that is productive and makes for a better experience.” “The documentation may be a bit less blunt than I am,” he added, “but that's the core gist of it.” “So just to make it really clear: If you found a bug using AI tools, the chances are somebody else found it too. If you actually want to add value, read the documentation, create a patch too, and add some real value on *top* of what the AI did. Don't be the drive-by ‘send a random report with no real understanding’ kind of person. OK?” Torvalds' remarks contrast with recent comments from fellow kernel maintainer Greg Kroah-Hartman, who recently told The Register that AI has become an increasingly useful tool for the FOSS community. ®

KETTLE Hopefully you haven't had reason to notice yet, but there's a rising problem with AI services on Google Cloud, AWS, and other platforms sticking their customers with bills in the tens of thousands of dollars. This week's episode of the Kettle focuses on two such stories that The Register published this week, one concerning Google and another involving AWS. In both cases, cloud customers using AI incurred massive bills without any prior notification from their provider and not a lot of help to resolve the matter with any sense of urgency. Tune in to this week's episode to hear host Brandon Vigliarolo chat with O'Ryan Johnson and Richard Speed about their stories, what's causing these massive bills, and how you can avoid a similar situation at your own organization. You can listen to The Kettle here, as well as on Spotify and Apple Music, or read the transcript of the latest episode below. It's been lightly edited for clarity. Brandon (00:01) Hello everyone and welcome back to another episode of The Register's Kettle podcast. I'm Reg reporter Brandon Vigliarolo, and this week I'm joined by my colleagues Richard Speed and Kettle newcomer O'Ryan Johnson to talk about a recent spike in cloud AI API abuse that's sticking customers with some massive charges. We're talking tens of thousands of dollars that Google is seeming to...try hard not to refund. Guys, thanks for coming on. O'Ryan Johnson (00:29) Great to be here. Brandon (00:30) And O' Ryan, welcome again to your first Kettle episode. Glad to have you here. So in this case, this one is primarily based on an exclusive you published this week about compromised Google Cloud API keys. And from what I read, it seems like cyber criminals are using those keys to run all the AI inference they want on most expensive models that Google has without paying a dime. So walk me through what exactly this story's about. O'Ryan Johnson (00:33) So there were a couple parts of this. One is the API abuse. But then there was this policy by Google that kind of threw gasoline on the fire. So if you're a developer and you've created an API key for your projects, if your project uses Maps, you'll create an API key. And for years, the advice from Google was put that API key on the front end of that, make it public so that when users are using your site, it links back to your project. The problem was a couple years ago, they allowed those API keys, if they were configured correctly, to also access Gemini. And a lot of folks who were early adopters of AI went in and said, okay, I want to use Gemini with my project. And not really connecting the dots that their API key on the front end that was publicly available would now also allow anybody to inference Google's Gemini platform. And it wasn't a big deal, I think, for a lot of years because I don't think the platform was really that amazing. Brandon (02:01) Yeah, because you said this is a three year old change, right? O'Ryan Johnson (02:22) But recently...Nano Banana and the Veo 3 models came out. And that's when I think we started to see a lot of this. This great security company named Truffle wrote something about this in February saying, look, be careful because if you've put your API key out according to Google's instructions, and if you've also been working with Gemini models, there's a chance that you may have inadvertently opened up your API key to anybody to be able to inference [Veo] and NanoBanana to their heart's content. Brandon (02:40) And specifically a Maps API key, right? Okay, O'Ryan Johnson (02:51) Correct. Which again was, was Google had told everybody for quite a while was safe. And so, what happened kind of inevitably is folks were bad actors were in fact using that for for those purposes So you'd have these you know sort of like horror stories of waking up in the morning and seeing your Google account Which you maybe you never spent more than fifty dollars a month, all of a sudden you have a $3,000 bill, $5,000 bill. I talked to a guy who got a notification from his credit card company that "Hey, we're basically we're shutting off your account because you spent too much," and he's like "What the hell is going on?" And as he's in there trying to figure it out he sees the bill keeps going up.... Brandon (03:26) ...I think you mentioned basically that where this is, how you figure this out, is kind of buried, right? It's hard to find, right? So as he's looking, trying to frantically figure out what's happening, more charges are being added. I couldn't imagine waking up in the morning to that kind of scenario. O'Ryan Johnson (03:36) It's a rough, rough way to start the day. It's really tough. Brandon (03:50) So that's the first part, right? So what's the second part then? O'Ryan Johnson (03:52) So, right, that's the first part. The second part is that, you know, this happened to people who had spending caps in place. And Google has only recently put spending caps in place, but they're really loose caps. I talked to a developer in Australia who said, "Look, I put a $250 spending cap in place. And when I woke up, I had a $10,000 bill." ...And he said, "When I was going to going through afterwards, I looked and I said my spending tier was at the $100,000 limit. And I said, how does it happen?" Well, if you look like Google was actually very upfront about this. In March, they put out a blog and said, "Hey, we're going to help you out. If you've only got a $250 spending cap, if you spent $1,000 in the lifetime of your account and you've been a Google member for 30 days or more, a Google Cloud developer for 30 days or more, you can spend $100,000." Brandon (04:47) And there's no notification to the user accounts that this is being done? O'Ryan Johnson (04:50) Except for the emails that say this is how much you owe us, which is all after the fact. Brandon (04:57) And if you're less than 30 days, right, it's moving to tier two is, I think, what's the cap on that? O'Ryan Johnson (05:01) Two thousand dollars. Brandon (05:04) But even then, it's spend a hundred bucks in the lifetime of your account? O'Ryan Johnson (05:06) A hundred dollars and be three days old, and Google will give you a $2,000 cap to spend. Those are the most generous terms – you guys have been around IT for years, what distributor would ever give you terms like that like if you went to TD Synnex or if you went to Ingram Micro and said, "Hey, I'm 30 days old and I've spent $1,000. I would like $100,000 in credit with you." They would laugh . Brandon (05:13) They would laugh you out of the office and then maybe close your account. O'Ryan Johnson (05:37) Yeah, even the best distributor in the world is not going to give you those terms, but Google's opened that up. And then of course the problem is trying to get that money ... trying to get your account restored. like in two of the cases, the money had already been spent. So the credit cards, one was $17,000, one was $10,000. The money was already out of their account and they have this project. If they charge it back, they're afraid that Google's going to shut down their project and delete it. If they stick with the bill, then they're stuck with this debt that is obviously outside the bounds of any budget that they had set for their Google Cloud project. Brandon (06:12) Yeah, for a small developer that can be devastating. O'Ryan Johnson (06:15) Right. Right. So Google, though, we do have an update coming today. Google has refunded the two people we talked about and looked in their account. It looks like they're kind of going after this with more accounts too, based on what I've talked to with Google, they're going to look at a lot more of these issues...This didn't come to me in a vacuum. I mean, this this was on these posts have been kind of flooding Reddit. If you go to the Google Cloud subreddit there, you you pretty much don't go, there's two or three a day that are popping up saying, "Hey, my gosh, I've got $10,000. I got $7,000 in bills. Like I only ever spent, you know, $50 with these folks. How am I getting these bills?" Brandon (06:57) Right, so it's kind of a two-part story here. The automatic tier upgrades are obviously a problem, but are all these cases that you're seeing, are they tied back to the Truffle notice? I mean, these are all Maps API keys? O'Ryan Johnson (07:02) Not all of them. Some people say like, "Look, I never put my API key out publicly." And I talked to a guy yesterday who said, "Look, my API key has been hidden from everybody. I think I got brute forced." ....I don't possibility or the probability of being able to brute force an API key, they're huge, long chains of numbers and texts. Probably not impossible...But this guy, his bill was $127,000, which is just a huge, huge amount. Brandon (07:40) God that is so that is so much money that's ridiculous. Ten thousand dollars is bad enough add another zero to that and oh my God. O'Ryan Johnson (07:51) That's rough. Fortunately, he caught it before...That bill only exists with Google. Fortunately, the good side is, it's not in his credit card. So he doesn't have to try to pay that back. The bad news is, his Google project is looking at a possible deletion if he can't convince Google that, "Look, this wasn't me, this was really somebody else who brute-forced my API." Brandon (08:15) I'm guessing proving that is pretty difficult. O'Ryan Johnson (08:17) Well it's difficult, what makes it difficult is he no longer has access to the logs because he hasn't paid the account, so now he has to rely on somebody at Google to go through those logs and make his case for him. Brandon (08:34) When there's $100,000 on the line. O'Ryan Johnson (08:36) When there's 127 on the line. That's a gamble. That's a gamble. Brandon (08:43) So this is bad enough, but as I understand, Richard, Google's not the only company being a bit shifty with their AI billing. You wrote a story this week about an AWS customer who was billed $30,000 despite supposedly having a setting enabled to prevent this. So what's this all about? Richard Speed (08:50) It's kind of almost a cautionary tale in some ways. Again, we've talked about Google, there's also, this is AWS. And this is a user who was using AWS Bedrock. He wanted to take Claude Opus out for a spin, try it out. He had some startup credits fired by Activate. All great. Now he was using a tool called the AWS Cost Anomaly Detection Tool. What that does, that actually sends you alerts if you're doing some odd things and your account is incurring additional costs, and as well as using AI machine learning, you can also set some custom thresholds... "If I spend more than this then stop or shout at me or whatever Brandon (09:39) Yeah, cut me off. Yeah. Richard Speed (09:45) So he thought, "Great, I've got that, what could possibly go wrong?" And so he began to use his AWS Bedrock and no alerts were fired, all was good until about a month after he began using it he got a bill for $30,000 or $38,000 through where he was expecting hundreds. And the reason being was that AWS Bedrock apparently bills through AWS Marketplace, and that is not compatible with the cost anomaly detection. Brandon (10:06) So Marketplace is where you can pick up third party integrations for AWS, right? Richard Speed (10:17) Right, and that's where AWS Bedrock was being billed, was basically invoiced through. And to be completely fair to AWS, that is documented. It is in the documentation, "This will happen." So, hence the cautionary tale aspect. But again, I've had a few people say, actually it's pretty unintuitive, this. You kind of would assume it's being caught and it wasn't caught. And so this is gone through. Now, unfortunately, at the moment, I don't think there is the happy ending about a refund. If and when I get more information, I willupdate. But the cautionary tale aspect is, I've heard from somebody else who said, yeah, similar sorts of things can happen. So I tend to go through directly through the AI provider. In this case, it's Anthropic. And there again, you can put limits in place. And those limits did save this particular person from a $50,000 mistake. And he only ended up paying $50 because he'd accidentally turned on a thing which enabled a lot more invoicing to happen, and of course it was stopped before it got out control. Brandon (11:25) I'm assuming a lot of customers, with the way they have their architectures and their infrastructure set up and their various providers, I mean, is it going to be simple for a lot of businesses to say, I'm going to skip AWS and go straight to the AI company itself? I mean, that seems like it might work in some cases, right? But a lot of people are going to be trying to integrate these. And so they're going to have to go through things. So does Cost Anomaly Detection function only with first-party Amazon products then basically? Anything in the Marketplace that you're pulling from a third-party provider doesn't get included in this? Richard Speed (11:59) Yeah, I believe so. Yeah, it's just through AWS services except for Marketplace stuff. But there are other checks and things in place in AWS. It's just in this instance, the expectation was if I'm using Cost Anomaly Detection, it should stop me running up a massive invoice or running up a massive bill using AWS Bedrock. In this case, it didn't. It was completely silent as the thousands and thousands and thousands began to rack up on the account. Brandon (12:05) And even, I think you wrote, even when his credits ran out. Like, he ran out of credits and switched to cash billing and there was no notice. Richard Speed (12:29) Exactly. It suddenly went from from credits to cash billing again with no notification or warning. It just happened. And so again, his account began to incur these charges. And so he didn't realize until the invoice came through. "Oh, my goodness me. How terrifying is this?" As as Ryan said, it's quite a shock when when you're used to a small amount per month and then suddenly a massive invoice comes through. O'Ryan Johnson (12:53) One thing that is kind of universal across this that one of these users pointed out, is that the most frustrating part is that they have the information. They can see what you're doing in your account and they don't stop it. All this information that we're talking about, whether it's your usage, whether it's your billing, all that stuff is within the four walls of, whether it's Google or AWS and they, whether it's intentionally or unintentionally – we live in this era where everybody talks about immaculate orchestration across all their environments, right? Like, I mean, if you're in SaaS, that's all you hear is about how amazing and perfect their SaaS products are. And we just don't see that in practice. You don't see that orchestration, and you certainly don't see it if it can ever give the user an advantage, or if it can ever give the user the ability to control how much they spend. Like if a user could shut off – if there was a notification that came in and said, "Hey, did you know that you're on Veo right now and you're generating videos? Would you like to shut that off?" Think about your credit card company. If I go one county over and I spend $10 at a Target, I'll get an alert from my card company. "Hey, are you sure?" Are you telling me, Google and AWS, that you can't do that? Like, don't give me that. I mean, this reminds me like when the banks in the US had overdraft fees, they used to – they could see how much money you had in your account. They would gladly let you spend much more than that so that they could fine you for every transaction. And so it was very similar. You'd open up your bank account and see like, I'm $800 in debt. So that was eventually determined to be, hey, that's an aggressive, that's not a good policy. We shouldn't allow people to do that. And I just wonder if, I wonder if there's gonna be some sort of trade regulation that kicks in on this. Brandon (14:26) I mean, it almost feels like there has to be. What we have in these two stories this week is multiple cloud platforms making their AI billing usage or usage billing so convoluted that a non-trivial number of customers are seeing their bill skyrocket, whether both due to cybercrime or simply the fact that Cost Anomaly Detection on AWS isn't very well-defined on the Marketplace, right? You're seeing multiple companies this is happening to, right? Again, O'Ryan, you kind of went right to the, the conspiracy theory, but that's where my mind goes too, this seems really convenient. Google's move in March. All these kinds of things are very well timed to ensure that companies that are adopting AI are being left with this ambiguous billing situation. Richard Speed (15:35) I mean, if only there was a tool that could spot strange patterns in data and frames. I mean, what would that look like? [Laughter.] Brandon (15:43) Yeah, I don't know. ⁓ There's no way, there's no way that ⁓ Google and AWS don't see this usage or can't monitor it. Can't pop a large language model on there to keep an eye out for ⁓ unusual billing and notify people. Like you said, if you never use [Veo] or never use NanoBanana and all of a sudden your account's racking up thousands of dollars of charges on it, Google should probably say, "Hey, is this you?" Right? Like, you know, that would be, I would hope that would happen. Right? You know, it's like you said, right? Your bank, Target will know, or your credit card company will notify if you spend things a county over. Right? If I try to log into a video game online from a different IP address, it locks me out and makes me me approve it. Right? Like this is not a complicated technology here. O'Ryan Johnson (16:32) No, think about the user agreements that we have like with all of our subscriptions like you know like Netflix. If my kid tries to log into my Netflix from where they live, they can't, and I get these notifications from Netflix, "Hey do you want to add somebody on your account?" Like don't tell me that you can't do that, Google. And Google actually says that they hat between the usage and the spend, they're better than AWS when it comes to being able to spot this. But it's like, it's still something like 28 days to be able to reconcile usage with spend. And that just does not make any amount of sense. Brandon (17:16) It takes Google 28 days? O'Ryan Johnson (17:18) They're pushing people into these products. They're pushing, they want you to use these products. They want developers to, they want to be able to say, we have X number of developers who are using this. We have X number of spend. All of those hijacked API keys are inevitably helping marketing for Gemini. Just through sheer usage numbers, through sheer revenue and dollar spend, that drives a narrative that they can then, you on the quarterly earnings call say, "Hey, look at all these people using our product. Look at all the spend on [Veo]. Look at all the spend on Banana." come on, you guys, you got to make it fair for the rest of us, man. Brandon (17:59) I'm just gonna toss it allegedly in there before Google comes after us, right? You know. We don't know for sure that this is what they're planning, but it sure seems, the ducks do line up, right? So guys, are you familiar? Do you know, are any other cloud platforms...are there similar issues on Azure, on other platforms? Have you heard anything? Or does this seem to be mainly confined right now to Google and AWS? Richard Speed (18:11) There have been some issues on Azure. I read a piece, oh crikey, several weeks, maybe even months ago now, regarding a similar thing to what's happened with AWS with a user who had, he hadn't realized that his startup credits didn't count towards AI usage. And then he found himself hit with a massive invoice because again, Microsoft just quietly said, "Yeah, sure. You want that service? No problem. Here you go. Use it." And so he used it and then the huge invoice came through. I think... I think it's important to point out that these companies, they're not doing anything wrong legally. Ethically, I'm with O'Ryan, they should be warning you to say, "Hey, you know, you're spending way more now than you ever used to before. These services that you've never used before, are you sure you want to be doing that? Are you sure about that?" Brandon (18:51) I was talking to my wife about Google before we started the podcast, right? Because when we were talking about the topic for this week, and I think Matt, our editor in chief said, "AI overage charges." I was like, "What? This is going to be a boring episode." And then I got to actually reading these stories and I'm like, "Oh my God, this is really interesting." My wife's like, "Surely this is illegal." I'm like, "I don't know, if it's in the terms of service, right? You know? Yeah." O'Ryan Johnson (19:23) It's like the South Park episode. Richard Speed (xx:xx) I think another aspect of this is there's a perception that AI services are inexpensive and you won't run up these massive costs. One thing I've come across a few times are companies saying, "Hey, we can increase the productivity of our staff enormously because we can roll out these AI tools and our employees can use them and they'll be massively more productive and it'll be great." They're forgetting that of course there is a cost to that. And I think what we're seeing here are people hitting these costs. So I think that the message has got to be, you need to be – I mean, until these companies actually put in warnings to say, know, perhaps make it very clear how much this stuff is really costing, I think you need to be aware that this isn't a free service, you know, it's going to be paid for somehow. Brandon (xx:xx) I guess that's kind of the big warning to businesses, right? Or AI users, anyone who's using AI in the cloud in general, It's like these things are not free. Yeah, sure, you can use ChatGPT for free if you're, you know, some random person logging into the website. But if you want to go enterprise with this or use it in any kind of business capacity, it's going to cost you money and potentially a lot of it. So Richard, you said that it looks like the AWS user might be a little bit hosed on getting a refund. Do you know is Amazon – did you talk to Amazon for the story? Do they have any intention to change the marketplace versus non-marketplace CAD policy? Richard Speed (xx:xx) They did respond, and at the moment there's no plans to change it. O'Ryan Johnson (xx:xx) Google is also, they're sticking by their automatic tier upgrades. They like the flexibility that it gives to developers. Flexibility, of course, meaning that developers can spend a lot more than they initially wanted to, or agreed to. Brandon (xx:xx) It's a very one-sided flexibility, really, when you think about it. O'Ryan Johnson (xx:xx) In fairness, we are kind of helping at least notify people that this could happen. This is something that is really happening to people and their bills really do become five-figure, in some cases six-figure bills at the end of the month through no intention of their own. Brandon (xx:xx) Yeah, so I guess basically the big, yeah, like we said, the big takeaway for business AI customers is to just really watch that billing, be sure that whatever system you have in place to prevent overages is actually doing its job, and hide those API keys. Well, like we said, guess this is just a cautionary tale, you know, to watch that billing. So if this keeps happening, we are definitely going to be talking about it and writing about it again. And we hope that you will tune in on a future episode of The Kettle to find out more. ®

160 miles north of New York City, a man was convicted of manslaughter "with the help of license plate reader technology," reports a local news station. In the small town of Troy (population: 51,000), the mayor described the cameras as "a critical tool" in that investigation. But locals and city officials "have raised concerns about who can access the data collected locally, along with data security, privacy invasions and use by federal authorities, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, reports WNYT: When Troy's contract came up for renewal, Mayor Carmella Mantello wanted to keep paying Flock and the council paused payments. The mayor then issued a public safety emergency declaration to keep the license plate readers active. The council has filed a lawsuit to overturn that..."If this illegal emergency order is left unchallenged, we give this mayor and any future mayor regardless of their political party or ideology, unchecked authority to issue an emergency declaration whenever they disagree with the council on any issue," [said Troy council president Sue Steele]. "The technology that's in place today is not the technology of six years ago," council president Steele told another local news station. "We have AI, we have rapidly changing and advancing technology. So that begs the need for regulations to protect certain data." The American Civil Liberties Union warns that Flock will use AI to let law enforcement search its trove of videos. But "Listen, if it was infringing on people's rights, people's liberties, we'd be the first to get rid of it. We have safeguards in place," [mayor] Mantello responded. Mantello noted that data captured by Troy's Flock cameras is only being shared with other local municipalities. Steele said the data had been shared nationally until she and other elected officials raised concerns. "As far as sharing with local law enforcement, that's necessary in the normal course of investigations. The concern is what Flock does with this data: sharing it with ICE, for instance, and other nefarious outlets," Steele said. As the debate continues over the small city's 26 Flock cameras, a columnist in Albany wrote that "it's a good thing. We should be asking questions about the growing surveillance state. We should be debating whether this is the future we want." As the American Civil Liberties Union noted, [Flock] has quietly built a broad mass-surveillance infrastructure, with cameras installed in 5,000 communities around the country, and is continually expanding how that network is used. Did we ask for that? Did we vote for it? Not really. The cameras have been installed in municipality after municipality, mostly with little discussion or controversy, which makes us like the proverbial frogs who didn't notice the water getting warmer until it was boiling. Suddenly, surveillance cameras are everywhere; we're always being watched... [T]he City Council's Democratic majority is considering legislation that, among other steps, would require that data collected by the cameras be generally deleted after 48 hours and that the city be more transparent about how the cameras are used. The controversy and pushback continues to draw local coverage. The mayor complains the proposed rules restricts the cameras "almost exclusively to cases involving individuals with outstanding felony arrest warrants or situations where officers can determine in advance that an incident will result in a felony charge... This is beyond reckless." But the Albany columnist still argues many of America's Flock cameras are unnecessary and are "being installed just because... It's worth considering where this might lead and whether the future we're installing is the future we want."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Forbes describes it as "definitely already out there, and under active exploitation according to the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, urging all organizations to prioritize timely remediation as the attack vector poses a significant risk." "We have issued CVE-2026-42897 to address a spoofing vulnerability affecting Exchange Outlook Web Access (OWA)," Microsoft told SecurityWeek. "We recommend customers enable EEMS to be better protected, and to follow our guidance available here." Microsoft this week patched 137 vulnerabilities with its Patch Tuesday updates and the cybersecurity industry was surprised to see that the latest updates did not address any zero-days. However, a zero-day was disclosed just 48 hours later, on May 14... described as a spoofing and XSS issue affecting Exchange Server Subscription Edition, 2016, and 2019. "Improper neutralization of input during web page generation ('cross-site scripting') in Microsoft Exchange Server allows an unauthorized attacker to perform spoofing over a network," Microsoft said in its advisory. The company noted that the vulnerability affects Exchange Outlook Web Access (OWA) and an attacker can exploit it by sending a specially crafted email to the targeted user. "If the user opens the email in Outlook Web Access and certain interaction conditions are met, arbitrary JavaScript can be executed in the browser context," Microsoft explained. CSO Online shares more details. "Admins should note there are known issues once the mitigation is applied either manually or automatically through the EM Service." - OWA Print Calendar functionality might not work. As a workaround, copy the data or screenshot the calendar you want to print, or use Outlook Desktop client. - Inline images might not display correctly in the recipient's OWA reading pane. As a workaround, send images as email attachments or use Outlook Desktop client... - Admins may get a message saying "Mitigation invalid for this Exchange version." in mitigation details. This issue is cosmetic and the mitigation does apply successfully if the status is shown as "Applied". Microsoft is investigating how to address this glitch. Forbes notes "It's been something of a rough few days for Microsoft Exchange on the security vulnerability front," since this week also saw a zero-day demonstrated at the Pwn2Own Berlin hacking event, "which has been responsibly disclosed and not released into the wild." The Berlin event got off to a flying start on May 14 as Windows 11 was hit by no less than three zero-day exploits. On day two, hacking teams were no less successful, chaining together three new vulnerabilities in Microsoft Exchange in order to achieve the holy grail of SYSTEM-level remote code execution. Such was the level of this achievement that Orange Tsai from the DEVCORE Research Team was rewarded with a $200,000 bounty payment in return for immediately handing over all the technical details to the event organizers. "This is, in fact, good news," Forbes writes, since "full details of the vulnerabilities underlying the exploits, along with the technical nature of the exploit code itself, will be handed over to Microsoft, which will then have 90 days to provide a fix before any details are made public."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.