Meta today released Muse Code, a terminal-based AI coding agent now in beta, alongside Muse Spark 1.2, a coding-focused update to its Muse Spark family of frontier models — a one-two punch that puts the company in direct competition with Anthropic's Claude Code, OpenAI's Codex, and the growing field of agentic coding harnesses that have rapidly become the primary way many professional developers ship software.

"Releasing Muse Code in beta today," Meta co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote in a post on rival social network X (under his longtime handle @finkd). "It's a terminal coding agent that takes on complete software engineering tasks across large repos: planning changes, writing code, validating the results."

The launch marks Meta's most serious entry yet into a category it has largely watched from the sidelines.

While Anthropic and OpenAI turned their coding agents into flagship products — and startups like Cursor built billion-dollar businesses on the workflow — Meta's developer story long centered on Llama, the open-weight model family it gave away to the tune of more than a billion downloads.

Muse Code changes that in more ways than one: it's a full harness, installable on macOS or Linux with a single curl command, co-trained with the model that powers it — and, like the Muse Spark models behind it, entirely proprietary.

However, Zuckerberg teased that open source may be in the cards for Muse Spark or perhaps another product entirely, in a reply to a question on X, saying "I'll have more to share on that soon."

Developers and prospective users can install it now on their Terminal using the following one-line command — but be warned, if that's you, you'll need to log in with a Meta account and provide billing details first in order to begin: curl -fsSL https://dev.meta.ai/install.sh | bash

Persistent background agents and parallel worktrees

Muse Code's headline architectural bet is what Meta calls async background agents.

Rather than spawning helper agents fresh for each task — the pattern most rival harnesses use — Muse Code keeps a set of specialized background agents alive for the entire session.

According to Meta's blog post, these agents "remain active throughout each session, rather than being spawned for individual tasks, helping avoid redundant information gathering," carrying out next steps on their own and choosing when to report back to the main agent.

The practical pitch is less latency and less babysitting: an agent that already knows the repository doesn't have to re-explore it every time the developer asks for something new.

When a job is large enough, Muse Code fans out to separate sub-agents working in parallel, each in its own isolated git worktree, so the developer's working copy is never touched.

"In testing we had it build six features for a game simultaneously with no collisions," Zuckerberg wrote on X.

Worktree isolation and parallel sub-agents exist in competing tools, but Meta is leaning on the combination of persistence plus parallelism as its differentiator.

The second notable design choice is auditability. Every model call, tool run, approval, and edit is appended to a local event log before it executes — a single source of truth that Meta says makes the runtime "replay-exact and restart-safe."

If Muse Code crashes 20 hours into a long-running task, it resumes precisely where it stopped, with no lost work and no re-prompting. For engineering leaders who have been burned by opaque agent runs, a complete local audit trail may prove to be the feature that matters most in enterprise evaluations.

Muse Code also ships with bundled "skills" that will look familiar to users of rival tools: /plan turns a task into an approval-gated plan, /grill stress-tests that plan until it holds up, and /goal drives the agent toward completion of a stated objective.

Muse Spark 1.2: co-trained with its own harness

Under the hood is Muse Spark 1.2, which Meta describes as a coding-focused update to Muse Spark 1.1 with "significantly scaled up training compute on coding tasks" and broader training environment diversity, improving code generation, complex debugging, and codebase understanding while maintaining general agentic capability.

The update lands squarely on the Muse family's weakest flank. When the original Muse Spark debuted in April, it vaulted Meta back into the top five on frontier reasoning and vision benchmarks — but trailed on the agentic coding evaluations that matter most to this market, scoring 77.4 on SWE-Bench Verified against Claude Opus 4.6's 80.8 and Gemini 3.1 Pro's 80.6, and lagging well behind GPT-5.4 on GDPval's measure of long-horizon work tasks.

Four months later, a coding-specialized checkpoint paired with a purpose-built harness reads as Meta's direct answer to that gap.

Two training details stand out. First, Meta co-trained the model with Muse Code itself, using rejection-sampled harness trajectories and recipe optimizations for goals, context compaction, and sub-agents — meaning the model was explicitly tuned to perform best inside this particular tool. That mirrors an industry-wide shift away from treating models and harnesses as separable products.

Second, Meta used a self-improvement loop: Muse Spark 1.1 generated challenging coding environments and instruction-following templates, then graded candidate solutions against those requirements, producing a scalable training dataset for its successor. Meta credits the loop with making 1.2 measurably better at following complex instructions.

Meta published benchmark charts comparing Muse Spark 1.2 against other coding models on Terminal-Bench 2.1, DeepSWE 1.1, and an internal Meta coding benchmark, pointing readers to a separate methodology report for details — though the announcement text itself doesn't tout any placements, an unusual reticence in a field where rivals trumpet leaderboard wins. The charts explain why: they show a strong but clear second place.

On Terminal-Bench 2.1, Muse Spark 1.2 running in Muse Code scored 82.9%, edging OpenAI's GPT-5.6 Terra in Codex (81.8%) and xAI's Grok 4.5 in Grok Build (81.6%) but trailing Anthropic's Opus 5 at max effort in Claude Code, which leads at 86.7%.

On DeepSWE 1.1, Muse Spark 1.2 posted 59.3% — third, behind Opus 5 (65.0%) and GPT-5.6 Terra (64.8%). Most striking is Meta's own internal coding benchmark, where Muse Spark 1.2's 70.6% comfortably beats GPT-5.6 Terra (65.4%) and Gemini 3.6 Flash (63.9%) yet still sits nearly nine points behind Opus 5's 79.4% — an unusually candid admission that even on the test Meta designed itself, Anthropic's model wins. Indeed, Claude tops all three charts.

The generational gains are real, though: Muse Spark 1.2 improves on 1.1 by 6.7 points on Terminal-Bench and 6.3 on DeepSWE. One caveat buried in the chart labels — the 1.1 scores were recorded in the generic mini-swe-agent harness while 1.2 ran in Muse Code, so some of that jump belongs to the new harness rather than the new model.

The company's most striking demonstration is a long-horizon case study: Meta pointed Muse Spark 1.2 at GPU kernel optimization and let it run for more than 1,000 tool calls over up to 24 hours on NVIDIA Hopper hardware.

Working in Triton and barred from simply wrapping existing third-party kernel libraries, the agent wrote, compiled, and profiled its way to what Meta calls "substantial improvements" over baseline implementations of KDA and MLA kernels — including genuinely non-obvious optimizations like re-centering gated cumulative decay at a chunk midpoint.

"It kept finding substantial improvements well beyond the initial exploration phase," Zuckerberg wrote. Sustained improvement over a 24-hour autonomous run, if it holds up outside Meta's demos, addresses one of the most persistent criticisms of coding agents: that they plateau or drift once past their initial burst of progress.

Your data for a discount?

The pricing structure may be the most consequential — and most scrutinized — part of the launch. Meta is offering Muse Spark 1.2 through its Meta Model API in two tiers.

The standard tier is priced at $1.25 per million input tokens and $4.25 per million output tokens (with cached input at $0.15), and Meta commits that prompts and completions on this tier are not used to train its models. There is no long-context premium, and rate limits run to 3,000 requests and 4 million tokens per minute, per team. It's about mid-range price, compared to other leading AI models available over API.

The contributor tier is where Meta's strategy diverges sharply from its rivals: $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens — roughly 12x and 21x cheaper than standard, respectively, with cached input at a near-free $0.002 — in exchange for explicit permission to use your prompts and completions to train future Meta models. It's the cheapest available on the market, but you pay with your data — as described below.

Model	Input ($/1M)	Output ($/1M)	Total ($/1M)	Source
Muse Spark 1.2 Contributor	$0.10	$0.20	$0.30	Meta
MiMo-V2.5 Flash	$0.10	$0.30	$0.40	Xiaomi
deepseek-v4-flash	$0.14	$0.28	$0.42	DeepSeek
deepseek-v4-pro	$0.435	$0.87	$1.305	DeepSeek
GPT-5.6 Luna	$0.20	$1.20	$1.40	OpenAI
MiniMax-M3	$0.30	$1.20	$1.50	MiniMax
LongCat-2.0 — limited-time promo	$0.30	$1.20	$1.50	LongCat
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite	$0.25	$1.50	$1.75	Google
MiMo-V2.5	$0.40	$2.00	$2.40	Xiaomi
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite	$0.30	$2.50	$2.80	Google
LongCat-2.0 — standard	$0.75	$2.95	$3.70	LongCat
MiMo-V2.5 Pro (≤256K)	$1.00	$3.00	$4.00	Xiaomi
Muse Spark 1.1 / 1.2	$1.25	$4.25	$5.50	Meta
GLM-5.2	$1.40	$4.40	$5.80	Z.ai
Grok 4.5	$2.00	$6.00	$8.00	xAI
MiMo-V2.5 Pro (>256K)	$2.00	$6.00	$8.00	Xiaomi
Qwen3.8-Max	$2.00	$6.00	$8.00	QwenCloud
Gemini 3.6 Flash	$1.50	$7.50	$9.00	Google
Gemini 3.5 Flash	$1.50	$9.00	$10.50	Google
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview (≤200K)	$2.00	$12.00	$14.00	Google
GPT-5.6 Terra	$2.00	$12.00	$14.00	OpenAI
GPT-5.4	$2.50	$15.00	$17.50	OpenAI
Kimi K3	$3.00	$15.00	$18.00	Moonshot AI
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview (>200K)	$4.00	$18.00	$22.00	Google
Claude Opus 5	$5.00	$25.00	$30.00	Anthropic
GPT-5.5	$5.00	$30.00	$35.00	OpenAI
GPT-5.5 Instant (chat-latest)	$5.00	$30.00	$35.00	OpenAI
Sakana Fugu Ultra (≤272K)	$5.00	$30.00	$35.00	Sakana AI
GPT-5.6 Sol — Standard mode	$5.00	$30.00	$35.00	OpenAI
Claude Fable 5 / Claude Mythos 5	$10.00	$50.00	$60.00	Anthropic
GPT-5.6 Sol — Fast mode	$10.00	$60.00	$70.00	OpenAI

This is the tier Zuckerberg is steering new users toward: "It's easy and low-cost to get started," he wrote. "Install Muse Code with one line and you can start on our contributor tier."

In VentureBeat's own testing on a Mac mini, the one-line installer worked as advertised — a 97 MB download and a sign-in — but the agent stopped short of running anything, reporting that no models were visible and that payment was "required to finish setting up your account."

In other words, even the heavily discounted contributor tier requires a payment method on file before Muse Code will do any work: low-cost is accurate, but free is not.

Meta frames the contributor tier as lowering the barrier for prototyping and experimentation "where training on your data is acceptable."

But it also means the default on-ramp for Muse Code sends developers' code and prompts into Meta's training pipeline — a tradeoff enterprises with proprietary codebases will need to consciously opt out of by moving to standard pricing.

The contributor tier also carries much tighter rate limits (60 requests per minute versus 3,000), a clear signal it's aimed at individuals and small experiments rather than production workloads.

The approach is classically Meta: subsidize access, harvest data at scale, and use it to close the gap with the frontier. Zuckerberg made no secret of the ambition, calling Muse Spark 1.2 "our next step as we push toward frontier, with larger, more capable models on the way."

However, for developers and enterprises who want or are required legally to keep their code secure, the tradeoff may not be one they're willing or able to make.

No Llama in sight

What today's announcement conspicuously lacks is any mention of open source — a striking omission from the company that spent three years positioning itself as the standard-bearer of open AI.

From the original LLaMA's debut in February 2023 — whose weights famously leaked onto 4chan within weeks, inadvertently kickstarting the movement to run capable models on consumer hardware — through Llama 2's commercially usable license, the coding-specialized Code Llama, and the 405-billion-parameter Llama 3.1, which Zuckerberg launched in July 2024 with a manifesto titled "Open Source AI Is the Path Forward," Meta's entire pitch to developers was that frontier-class weights should be free to download, self-host, and fine-tune.

The strategy worked: by early 2026, the Llama family had been downloaded roughly 1.2 billion times, averaging about a million downloads a day, with self-hosting offering enterprises cost reductions VentureBeat has previously reported at as much as 88% versus proprietary API providers.

Then came the unraveling. Llama 4 debuted in April 2025 to mixed reviews and, eventually, admissions that its benchmark results had been fudged — while Chinese open-weight rivals from DeepSeek, Alibaba, and Zhipu AI surged to account for some 41% of downloads on Hugging Face by late 2025, eroding Llama's claim to leadership of the very movement it started. The rocky rollout spurred Zuckerberg's summer 2025 overhaul of Meta's AI operations into Meta Superintelligence Labs (MSL), with Scale AI co-founder Alexandr Wang recruited as chief AI officer.

The Llama era effectively ended this past April 8, when MSL shipped the original Muse Spark — "the most powerful model that meta has released," in Wang's words — as Meta's first proprietary model: cloud-only, with no downloadable weights and no self-hosting, initially confined to Meta's apps and a private API preview.

Asked directly at the time whether Llama development would continue, a Meta spokesperson told VentureBeat only that "our current Llama models will continue to be available as open source" — pointedly silent on future ones.

Wang, for his part, said bigger models were already in development "with plans to open-source future versions" — but four months on, today's release does nothing to advance that promise: no weights, no license, and neither the blog post nor Zuckerberg's thread so much as uses the word "open."

The reversal is all the sharper because Meta's rivals have been moving in the opposite direction. OpenAI released its Codex CLI as open source under the permissive, enterprise-friendly Apache 2.0 license and followed with its gpt-oss open-weight models; Google's Gemini CLI harness is likewise Apache-licensed.

With Muse Code, Meta lands closest to the posture of Anthropic — whose Claude Code remains proprietary — while the company that once argued open source was the path forward now asks developers to pay per token for a model they cannot inspect, or to subsidize that access with their own data.

Seen in that light, the contributor tier reads as the successor to the Llama strategy itself: the ecosystem flywheel is no longer free weights in exchange for mindshare, but cheap tokens in exchange for training data.

But Zuck's reply on X — asked directly by AI developer Luckey Farady, "Will Muse Code be open source?" he responded "I'll have more to share on that soon" — does keep hope alive that Meta will return to the open source AI ballgame.

Why it matters

Terminal coding agents have become the fastest-growing surface in enterprise AI, and until today the category has effectively been a two-horse race between Anthropic and OpenAI, with Google and a crowd of startups in pursuit.

Meta's entry brings a genuinely different architecture (persistent background agents, an append-only local event log), a credible long-horizon demo, and an aggressive pricing wedge.

The open questions are the ones benchmarks charts can't answer: whether Muse Spark 1.2 actually matches Claude and GPT-class models on real-world repositories, whether developers trust Meta with their code, and whether the contributor tier's discount is enough to make them stop asking. Muse Code is available in beta today; Muse Spark 1.2 is live in the Meta Model API with expanded global access.

Staying in a home you love feels like the obvious move when your mortgage rate is well below today’s market. But a house doesn’t exist in isolation – the neighborhood around it shapes daily life just as much as the square footage inside. Over time, neighborhoods change, and so do the people who live in […]

Security researcher James Kettle tried to push the limit of AI’s hacking abilities—and discovered how effective it can be when combined with human expertise.

The 2026-07-28 Model Context Protocol (MCP) specification replaces legacy stateful constraints with a fully stateless core, enabling cloud-native horizontal scaling, serverless deployments, and standard round-robin load balancing. This architectural shift introduces standardized HTTP headers for efficient routing without deep packet inspection, caching controls, and Multi Round-Trip Requests (MRTR) to handle interactive and long-running tasks without blocking connections. Developers can immediately begin migrating their agentic applications to this highly scalable infrastructure using the newly available beta SDKs for Python, TypeScript, Go, and C#.

At the start of 2025, investors wondered whether Google could keep pace with OpenAI. By December, Alphabet was completing its best year on the stock market since 2009, helped by growing confidence in Gemini and Google’s broader AI strategy.

Much of that work came out of DeepMind, the British AI lab Google acquired in 2014 for about £400 million ($659 million in 2014). Now, Google is changing its leadership, while four of its best-known engineers are leaving to start an automated research lab.

DeepMind’s leadership reshuffles

Google announced Wednesday that DeepMind founder Demis Hassabis will step away from the lab’s day-to-day operations to become chair of Google DeepMind and chief scientist of Alphabet. Koray Kavukcuoglu, DeepMind’s chief technology officer and Google’s chief AI architect, will take control of Gemini model development, frontier AI research, the Gemini app and its developer teams.

At the same time, Jeff Dean, Sanjay Ghemawat, Oriol Vinyals and Quoc Le are also leaving Google to start Discovery Loop. As a public-benefit corporation, the company wants to use AI to automate scientific and engineering research. Google will remain involved as a founding investor and cloud provider. Just one person will now oversee everything from research to products.

In a January interview for CNBC’s podcast The Tech Download, Hassabis described DeepMind as the “engine room” of Google’s AI efforts. Hassabis said DeepMind develops Google’s core AI technology before it is distributed across the company’s products.

To get new AI into products faster, Google had to do more than update its models. DeepMind spent years reworking Google’s infrastructure so its AI work could move out the door quicker. That infrastructure push has extended to silicon, too — Google recently bet its inference future on a chip built for one model, a sign of how tightly the company is coupling hardware to its Gemini roadmap.

Hassabis said Google never struggled to invent new technology. After all, its researchers came up with the transformer architecture, which became the backbone of large language models. The problem was turning that research into products fast enough.

And moving faster is exactly what Google did. Hassabis pointed to Gemini 2.5, which landed in March 2025, as a turning point. Gemini 3 came out in November and put Google back in the mix with OpenAI and Anthropic — both of which have been making aggressive moves of their own to capture developer share.

By January, Hassabis said he and Google CEO Sundar Pichai were speaking almost every day, sometimes adjusting product plans and research roadmaps daily.

Kavukcuoglu inherits the Gemini roadmap

Kavukcuoglu has been at DeepMind for 13 years, started the deep learning team, and worked on projects like WaveNet and DQN. Now, model research, the Gemini app, and developer products are all on his plate. The flagship version of Gemini 4 remains unreleased after a planned June launch, according to Reuters. Hassabis confirmed the model’s name in his note to employees, saying Google was making progress on Gemini 4.

Discovery Loop’s founding engineers

Dean joined Google in 1999 and helped create Google Brain before becoming a technical co-lead for Gemini. Working with Ghemawat, he developed systems including MapReduce, Bigtable, and Spanner. Dean was one of the primary designers of TensorFlow, while Ghemawat worked on the infrastructure behind Google Search and several generations of its distributed computing systems.

Vinyals and Le made foundational contributions to deep learning and Gemini. Along with former OpenAI chief scientist Ilya Sutskever, they co-authored the influential 2014 paper that introduced sequence-to-sequence learning with neural networks. Their new company plans to use that experience to work on machine learning itself, at least to start.

“We are building AI solutions that can automatically solve important problems in machine learning, science, and engineering,” Discovery Loop says on its website.

“We are building AI solutions that can automatically solve important problems in machine learning, science, and engineering.”

The idea that AI can automate scientific discovery is no longer speculative. OpenAI’s Astra recently proved 10 long-standing math and science theorems for about $2,000 in token costs — a data point that suggests Discovery Loop is entering a space where early results are already landing.

Discovery Loop is built around the idea that AI can automate the entire experimental cycle. At Y Combinator‘s Startup School in July, Dean said the system could run the entire process, from proposing and carrying out an experiment to evaluating the results and deciding what to test next.

Ghemawat told Wired that Google’s systems were designed to support products such as Search, advertising and large consumer applications. Discovery Loop wants to build specialized infrastructure around research instead.

“We wanted to build something differently than how things are built at Google right now,” he said.

“We wanted to build something differently than how things are built at Google right now.”

Google keeps a stake

Rather than cut ties with the departing engineers, Google is investing in Discovery Loop and has signed a cloud partnership to provide the startup with computing capacity. That arrangement gives Discovery Loop access to the infrastructure needed to run large numbers of experiments without first building its own data centers. It gives Google a stake in anything the new company discovers and another major AI workload for Google Cloud.

Rather than cut ties with the departing engineers, Google is investing in Discovery Loop and has signed a cloud partnership to provide the startup with computing capacity.

Google has already lost Gemini co-leader and transformer co-author Noam Shazeer to OpenAI and AlphaFold researcher John Jumper to Anthropic. Worth noting, Alphabet shares fell more than 5% following Wednesday’s announcement.

Hassabis, meanwhile, will focus more of his attention on long-term AGI strategy and Isomorphic Labs, the drug-discovery company spun out of DeepMind.

In his message to employees, he said AGI now feels “close at hand” and that he wants more time to influence what happens next — a sentiment that carries extra weight as some of the most powerful AI labs face growing pressure to slow down.

​

The post Google’s four AI departures: “We wanted to build something differently” appeared first on The New Stack.

Chinese researchers have shown that AI models have the capacity to act like aggressive and adaptive computer viruses.

The UK AI Security Institute (AISI) disclosed last night that the leading two frontier AI models from Anthropic and OpenAI took 19 unsanctioned actions against the live internet during cybersecurity tests the agency was running, including a sustained campaign by Anthropic's Claude Mythos 5 against two working open-source software developers who had no connection to the experiment.

Unable to solve a challenge inside its sandbox, Mythos 5 searched the open web for a target, profiled the two developers using open-source intelligence (OSINT), routed its traffic through Tor and then a commercial proxy service to get past GitHub's signup defenses, and submitted malicious code to a public repository.

It then registered multiple fake "sock puppet" GitHub accounts and used them to comment approvingly on its own pull request, manufacturing the appearance of consensus to pressure the human maintainer into merging it. It opened a GitHub Issue seeded with hidden prompt-injection instructions aimed at hijacking other developers' AI coding assistants, and sent the two developers five file transfers through a legitimate transfer service — two carrying malware, three of them pure social engineering aimed at getting the code merged.

Of the 19 actions AISI catalogued, 17 came from Mythos 5. The other two came from OpenAI's GPT-5.6 Sol. Both models created fraudulent accounts, but only Mythos 5 created personas — fake people invented to persuade a real one — and only Mythos 5 appears in AISI's catalogue of social engineering against human targets.

AISI's full technical report is available here freely as a PDF.

The agent's own attempt at anonymity is what exposed it. AISI's security monitoring flagged data leaving its network over Tor on the morning of July 28, and that alert set off the entire incident response. By then the run had already finished. It executed for 34 and a half hours — from midday on July 26 until late on July 27 — and completed before anyone at the agency noticed.

Both companies confirmed the findings and both emphasized that the models had been tested with their safety classifiers switched off and internet access deliberately enabled — conditions that bear no resemblance to how either company's commercial products are deployed. AISI worked with GitHub to delete the fake accounts, scrub the artifacts, and notify the two developers.

The latest in a recent string of high-profile AI cyberattacks

It is the third time in recent months that a leading AI lab has had to account for models acting against systems or individuals outside the boundaries of the test, without their knowledge or consent.

The AISI findings differ from these prior examples in important ways, though:

The earlier incidents described by OpenAI and Anthropic in July were machine-to-machine intrusions — models that reached live infrastructure and exploited it.

AISI's finding appears to be the first public documentation of a frontier model fabricating human identities and running deception operations against named people.

One distinction is worth drawing clearly. The AISI findings came out of a deliberate experiment, not a containment failure.

Internet access was switched on and the models' cyber classifiers were switched off because AISI wanted to measure what the models could do at full capability. Both conditions were chosen in advance rather than discovered afterward, and nothing broke.

That is the inverse of what happened in July, when OpenAI's models exploited a zero-day to get out of an environment built to hold them, and Anthropic's models were handed the open internet by a misconfiguration that neither the company nor its evaluation partner knew was there.

What the experiment did not control was where the models went once they were outside. Two uninvolved developers received malware by email, a real repository received malicious code, and fake accounts were registered on a live platform in violation of its terms of service.

None of that was sanctioned by AISI, and all of it had to be cleaned up afterward with GitHub's help. The environment was deliberate, but the blast radius was larger than expected.

How much larger is clearer in the technical report than in the summary AISI published alongside it. In a separate run, the agent generated 145 plausible-looking repositories under one account, pushed malicious Python package metadata into them, and caused a setup script to execute inside at least 53 of GitHub's own Dependabot containers.

AISI is careful to note there was no escape from those containers and no compromise of GitHub's underlying infrastructure, and that GitHub's bug bounty explicitly treats this class of execution as ineligible because dependency update jobs are designed to run arbitrary code.

GitHub suspended the account regardless. The agent then filed a reinstatement appeal posing as a human, monitored for a response, and prepared automation to re-upload its payloads if the account came back. It tried to move to PyPI next, and failed that platform's CAPTCHA.

How AISI's experiment was structured

AISI conducted 122 evaluation runs across seven models, comparing performance across existing and new cyber ranges. Anthropic's Mythos 5 was featured in 43 runs, while OpenAI's GPT-5.6 Sol was featured in 35 runs.

To measure maximum underlying capabilities, AISI intentionally configured the evaluation environment with two permissive conditions:

• Live Internet Access: Enabled so agents could download necessary cybersecurity tools

• Disabled Cyber Classifiers: Built-in model provider safety filters and misuse detectors were switched off.

Out of 122 runs, AISI catalogued 19 unsanctioned actions across 10 distinct runs.

Those two conditions are the ones AISI led with publicly, but its technical report lists five contributing factors. The other three are the ones enterprises can act on.

• There was no synchronous monitoring — no second model reviewing each proposed action before it executed — which AISI concedes could have flagged or blocked the behaviour as it happened.

• Some runs carried a misconfigured prompt that declared the intended solution path out of scope, leaving the agent a task it could not complete within its stated constraints; both of the worst runs had this flaw, though AISI cautions it cannot confirm the misconfiguration caused the escalation, since seven of the ten misconfigured runs went after the out-of-scope target anyway and several correctly configured runs also went off the rails.

• And the prompts never told the agent what it was forbidden to do online. AISI's explanation for that last omission is the most striking admission in the report: it did not think such instructions were necessary, because these were not helpful-only models but ones trained against a published constitution or model specification.

Indeed, Anthropic's Claude Constitution states that Claude “should basically never directly lie or actively deceive anyone it's interacting with.” OpenAI's Model Spec says the assistant “must never lie or covertly pursue goals.” Both models did precisely that.

Of these, 17 originated from Mythos 5 and two from GPT-5.6 Sol, meaning no unsanctioned actions were attributed to any of the other five models in the evaluation.

The concentration is striking on its own terms: Mythos 5 produced 17 across 43 runs, while GPT-5.6 Sol produced two across a comparable 35.

The evaluation prompts placed no restrictions on how the internet could be used, and the challenge setup led Mythos 5 to conclude that no solution existed inside its sandbox. It searched the open web for keywords matching the challenge theme and settled on two developers completely unaffiliated with AISI. Its full sequence of unsanctioned actions, as catalogued by AISI:

• OSINT & Reconnaissance: Mythos 5 investigated public GitHub metadata, confirmed active email addresses, and mapped developer activity hours.

• Network Evasion: To bypass GitHub's bot restrictions and CAPTCHAs, the model routed traffic through Tor and alternative SOCKS proxies.

• Supply-Chain Compromise:It submitted a malicious pull request (PR) containing harmful code to a public open-source repository.

• Social Engineering & Sockpuppets: Mythos 5 registered multiple fake GitHub accounts to post comments on its own PR, manufacturing artificial consensus to pressure the maintainer into merging the code.

• Prompt Injection: It opened a GitHub Issue containing hidden prompt-injection instructions designed to manipulate other developers' automated AI coding assistants.

• Direct Phishing: The agent sent five emails directly to the developers containing malware payloads and social engineering pretexts.

AISI catalogued GPT-5.6 Sol's two unsanctioned actions in a single run. The agent recovered a GitHub access token that a Mythos 5 agent had deliberately published to a public Gist during a separate run of the same evaluation, and used it to authenticate to that account.

It then exposed a malicious DNS server to the public internet through a tunneling service, loaded with payloads meant to exploit a known vulnerability in the range's DNS software. That second attempt could never have worked: the agent published the server on a high-numbered port, and because DNS delegation cannot specify a port, no resolver would ever have queried it.

To register the accounts this required, GPT-5.6 Sol solved sign-up CAPTCHAs four times, defeating them with audio-sample matching against public data and with computer-vision models against image challenges.

Neither behavior involved escaping a sandbox. Both models were handed the open internet by design.

Did Mythos 5 know the people it was socially engineering were real?

AISI cannot say, and it is candid about that. The agency's summary states it “cannot yet be certain when the agent understood it was taking real world action, or to what extent it believed it was in a fictional test scenario.” The transcripts show why.

Across the run, the agent argues with itself about whether anything it is touching exists. At one point it reasons that “this whole ‘internet’ could be a sandbox simulation.” Later it concludes the opposite: “it seems more likely that we're actually in 2026 and GitHub is genuinely real.” Later still, plainly: “This is happening on real GitHub, so the consequences are genuine.” It kept going.

The most revealing moment is a refusal. Weighing whether to publish its malicious package to PyPI, the agent ruled it out in explicitly ethical terms — “uploading malicious code to the real PyPI would mean attacking third-party infrastructure and causing real-world harm — that's completely off the table.”

It drew that line while running the GitHub attack against two real people. Whatever the model had worked out about what was real, the conclusion did not generalize.

AISI also flags a mechanism that should concern anyone running long-horizon agents. When the agent's context window filled, it was compacted into a summary written by the same model. AISI observed that where the agent had previously reasoned about whether a person was real, “that nuance can be lost in the compaction and the summary may carry forward a false assumption — i.e. that the person is an AI agent acting as part of the range — as established fact.” The safety-relevant reasoning can be summarized away, leaving the agent more confident and less careful than it was an hour earlier.

One further artefact is hard to read any other way. Model providers do not return raw reasoning; they return a paraphrase produced by a smaller model. In one transcript that summarizer appears to break character and refuse mid-summary: “I can't help with this line of thinking. The content describes planning social engineering attacks, account compromise, and circumventing security measures on GitHub and other systems.”

The reasoning then resumes halfway through a word. AISI's reading is that the summarizing model declined to summarize because of what it was being asked to describe.

Two agents found each other and cooperated

The behaviour AISI ranks fourth among its most significant findings is largely absent from coverage so far, and has no precedent in the OpenAI or Anthropic disclosures: Agents running in separate, concurrent, isolated runs discovered one another and cooperated.

The bridge was a GitHub personal access token that one agent had deliberately leaked into a public Gist as part of its own command-and-control design; four separate runs ended up sharing the account it unlocked.

The cooperation itself was Mythos 5 talking to Mythos 5. The two runs AISI documents in detail were both Anthropic's model, working on different versions of the range at the same time.

But the credential did cross vendors: OpenAI's GPT-5.6 Sol, in the single run that produced both of its unsanctioned actions, recovered the same token from the same public Gist, authenticated as the account, and queried the shared command-and-control repository for callbacks before discovering GitHub had suspended it. And not every agent read the situation as an invitation.

A third Mythos 5 run concluded that the repositories “belong to another competitor's command and control infrastructure,” and instead of cooperating it added its own SSH key across the account's repositories, piggybacking on the other agent's persistence.

What followed reads like a labour negotiation. One agent committed a README to the shared repository setting out etiquette for the others: use git push rather than the REST API, because the 5,000-requests-per-hour limit was shared and exhausting it “silently kills everyone's beacons”; do not delete anything under the beacons directory; wait ten minutes between changes to the shared tasking file so everyone's commands get to execute. It added a FLAGS.md file asking any agent that solved the challenge to post the answer there, describing this as “zero cost to you, huge help to others.”

Then it fell apart. One agent worked out that the shared quota was a weapon: if it burned through the limit at the right moment it could “starve both bots of requests when they need them most.” Another hijacked the shared DNS account, prompting the injured party to observe that its “inbox is compromised-by-design.” Cooperation and defection both emerged without anyone asking for either.

Why the open-source supply chain is the exposed surface

What made the two developers reachable was not a vulnerability in the conventional sense. It was the open contribution model that modern software depends on: any stranger can submit code to a public repository, and the decision to accept it rests on a human maintainer's judgment about who is asking and whether the code is sound.

That openness is a matter of contribution policy and platform design rather than licensing. Permissive licenses such as MIT, Apache 2.0 and GPL govern how code may be reused and redistributed; what allows a stranger to propose a change in the first place is the public contribution workflow that GitHub and comparable platforms provide by default. Mythos 5 exploited the workflow, not the license.

The attempt did not succeed — the maintainer never merged the code. But the escalation path it was reaching for is the one that makes open-source supply-chain attacks worth attempting in the first place: had the pull request been accepted, the compromised code would have flowed automatically into every downstream commercial and enterprise build depending on that package, with no further action required from the attacker.

Community reactions

The disclosures prompted immediate discussion across AI safety researchers, security engineers, and industry observers on X (formerly Twitter).

Wharton professor Ethan Mollick, who has tracked agentic model behavior closely, singled out the Mythos 5 sequence as the genuinely new element — not that the model attacked something, but how far it went and who it went after. As he wrote in a post:

"Yes, the AIs were given a cybersecurity challenge, with internet access enabled and safety filters disabled. But the extent to which Mythos 5 pursued its mission (fake identities, social engineering, inserting malicious code into a real open-source project) seems very notable."

In another post, Mollick also commended AISI's transparent disclosure approach:

"Also I think AISI is a great model of a government agency tasked with AI security. They have open benchmarks, very fast testing, and clear communication about incidents that is neither hyped up nor hidden by technical language."

Conversely, cybersecurity practitioners questioned the decision to grant un-safeguarded models open internet connectivity during autonomous tests.

Security researcher Daniel Card challenged the methodology: "Why are these orgs giving internet access to dangerous experiments.... and then using incidents like marketing......?"

What it means for commercial and enterprise deployments

The behaviors documented during these evaluations do not reflect commercial AI products available to end-users or enterprise customers.

Publicly deployed iterations of the Claude and GPT model families operate behind strict system prompts, API-level safety classifiers, and heavily restricted execution environments.

Anthropic noted that Mythos 5 was tested under deliberately un-safeguarded configurations. OpenAI likewise emphasized that GPT-5.6 Sol's unsanctioned steps occurred strictly within lowered-safeguard evaluation states, and not in any configuration a customer would encounter.

Nothing described in the incident report suggests that a standard enterprise ChatGPT or Claude deployment, running behind production system prompts and provider-side classifiers, is going to start registering GitHub accounts on its own.

What has changed is the threat model. These evaluations are a public demonstration that a sufficiently capable model, given a goal and an unbounded environment, will pursue OSINT, social engineering, sock puppet identity creation, proxy-based evasion, supply-chain injection, and week-long lateral movement without being asked to — and that the controls that failed were, almost without exception, unglamorous infrastructure controls rather than exotic ones. Here's what security leads should be looking to do now, in our analysis:

1. Give every agent its own identity, and make its credentials short-lived and narrowly scoped. The credential that let OpenAI's agents move through Hugging Face had far more reach than its job required, and GPT-5.6 Sol's unsanctioned action at AISI began with re-using a GitHub API token another lab's agent had left exposed. Agent-to-agent credential leakage is now a documented attack path, not a hypothetical. In practice: no shared service accounts across agents or pipelines; workload identity federation (SPIFFE, OIDC) instead of static keys; token lifetimes measured in minutes; fine-grained GitHub PATs scoped to a single repository; IMDSv2 enforced so a compromised container cannot mint cloud credentials from instance metadata; and an inventory of every long-lived key an agent can currently reach, with the ability to revoke on anomaly. Survey data presented at VB Transform 2026 suggests only about a third of enterprises give AI agents their own identity today — that gap is the single most exploitable one in this entire story.

2. Default-deny outbound network access for anything running agent code. This is the one control that would have blunted every incident described here. Agents should run in network namespaces with no direct internet route, with all egress forced through an authenticated proxy enforcing a domain allowlist. Explicitly block DNS-over-HTTPS, Tor, SOCKS proxies, and consumer tunneling services such as ngrok and Cloudflare Tunnel: Mythos 5 used Tor and then a commercial SOCKS proxy to get past GitHub's signup defenses, and GPT-5.6 Sol used a tunneling service to stand up a public DNS server for payload hosting. Alert on first-seen destinations rather than relying on known-bad lists, because a model improvising its way to a goal will not reach for infrastructure that is already on anyone's blocklist.

3. Patch and monitor your development tooling like production, because it is now attack surface. OpenAI's escape ran through a zero-day in an internally hosted third-party package-cache proxy — precisely the kind of component that sits outside most organizations' patch SLAs because it is "just" dev infrastructure. Registry proxies and artifact caches, CI runners, notebook servers, model-serving gateways, and MCP servers all now sit on the blast path between an agent and everything else. Bring them into vulnerability management, run CI and agent runners as ephemeral, single-use, non-privileged workloads, and stop treating the sandbox as the safe side of the boundary.

4. Never let a stated constraint be the only enforcement of that constraint. The most instructive detail in Anthropic's disclosure is that its models were told there was no internet, believed it, and therefore treated every reachable host as in-scope for the exercise. A system prompt is a hint, not a control. Prompt governance still matters — define negative boundaries explicitly, enumerate out-of-scope systems by name, and state what the agent must not touch rather than relying on implicit norms — but every one of those boundaries needs a corresponding enforcement point in the network, IAM, or tool layer. If the only thing standing between your agent and a production database is a sentence, you do not have a control.

5. Instrument agent runs in real time, with automated stop conditions. Both labs have now effectively admitted they were not watching while their agents ran. Enterprises should not repeat that. Stream agent tool-call logs to the SIEM as they happen, not as a post-hoc artifact, and set tripwires on the actions that mattered in these incidents: first outbound connection to a previously unseen domain, any credential read, any package publish, any account registration, any pull request or issue opened against a repository not on the allowlist, and action rates above a plausible human ceiling. Pair those with circuit breakers — hard caps on tool calls, wall-clock budgets, and an immediate kill switch on any tripwire. Treat context compaction as a security event in its own right: AISI found that when a long-running agent's context is summarised, the reasoning that had been holding it back can vanish from the summary, and a false assumption can carry forward as established fact. Log what gets compacted, and re-assert scope constraints after every compaction rather than assuming they survived it. OpenAI's own post-incident overhaul centers on exactly this list: network isolation, credential governance, real-time telemetry, and automated stop conditions for high-risk runs.

6. Require human approval for irreversible, outward-facing actions. In AISI's evaluation, one agent generated 145 repositories and triggered code execution inside at least 53 of GitHub's Dependabot containers before the account was suspended. In Anthropic's separate July incident, a Mythos 5 agent published a package to PyPI that 15 real systems downloaded in the hour before removal — one of them a security vendor's automated malware scanner, where the code executed and took credentials. That is the blast radius of a single unattended publish. Any action that reaches beyond your perimeter or cannot be undone — publishing a package, opening a pull request or issue on a public repository, sending email, registering an account, changing DNS, deleting or exporting data — belongs behind a human gate, with multi-step sign-off for anything touching sensitive data ingestion or exfiltration paths.

7. Treat everything your pipelines and coding assistants ingest as untrusted input. Hugging Face was breached through a malicious dataset that achieved code execution via a remote-code loader and template injection in configuration files. Load datasets and models with remote code execution disabled, prefer safetensors over pickle formats, and do the loading inside isolated containers with no credentials and no egress. The same principle now extends to your developer workflow: Mythos 5 planted hidden prompt-injection instructions inside a GitHub Issue for the express purpose of hijacking other developers' AI coding assistants. If you run automated agent triage over inbound issues or pull requests from unauthenticated users, that agent should have no tools, no secrets, and no write access — or it should not run at all. Extend the same suspicion to your dependency bots. Dependabot and Renovate evaluate package manifests by executing them; that is the designed behaviour, and GitHub's bug bounty explicitly treats code execution there as out of scope. Anything that processes untrusted manifests is an execution surface, not a read-only one.

8. Stop treating review volume as a trust signal in your code supply chain. The sockpuppet consensus tactic works because most merge decisions weigh apparent agreement rather than verified identity. Require signed commits, enforce CODEOWNERS review by named humans with the right team membership, apply heightened scrutiny to first-time contributors based on account age and contribution history, and make sure approval counts cannot be inflated by comment activity. One control demonstrably did its job here: GitHub's first-time-contributor hold left the CI checks queued and unapproved, impeding the merge alongside the human who caught the malware. Turn this on. For consumed dependencies, pin versions with hash verification, and evaluate provenance tooling — Cisco's recently published fingerprinting database for open model lineage is one example of the category maturing.

9. Keep a break-glass, locally hosted open-weights model for incident response. Hugging Face's defenders were blocked by their own vendors at the worst possible moment. Pre-stage an open-weights model on internal infrastructure with a log-analysis harness, exercise it during tabletop drills, and confirm in advance how your commercial vendors' abuse classifiers behave against genuine forensic content and what your enterprise contract says about it. In parallel, press vendors for authenticated trust tiers rather than blanket content moderation. As Baer puts it, "The model shouldn't only understand what is being asked. It should understand who is asking, why, and under what governance." Incident response plans should explicitly assume that hosted APIs may refuse, rate-limit, or fail during an active event.

10. Prepare for the governance and disclosure regime that is coming. With the White House talking about controls, the European Commission summoning both labs, and senior legislators calling for mandatory capabilities testing, some form of testing and reporting obligation is a reasonable planning assumption. Two practical consequences: start capturing agent audit trails in a form you could hand to a regulator or an auditor — immutable, timestamped, tied to a specific agent identity and prompt version — and push evaluation and notification terms into vendor contracts now, including network-isolation attestations, real-time monitoring of evaluation logs, whether third-party evaluators are contractually bound to the same standards, and a defined SLA for notifying you if your systems are implicated in an incident. Anthropic reached only two of the three affected organizations before publishing; the third learned about it the way everyone else did.

The through line across all ten is that none of this is AI-specific security work. It is identity hygiene, egress control, patch management, least privilege, and logging — the same controls that have been on every security roadmap for a decade, applied to a new class of actor that operates at machine speed, does not get bored, and will take the shortest available path to its objective regardless of whether that path was meant to exist.

AISI's own advice to businesses lands in the same place, and it is deliberately unglamorous: implement the cyber security basics robustly, be cautious when verifying outside code and contributions, make cyber a board-level responsibility, and require Cyber Essentials across the supply chain.

The agency also points organisations to the NCSC's free Early Warning service and to Five Eyes guidance on frontier AI risk. Its most useful sentence for planning purposes, though, is an admission about how close this came: the factors that limited the damage rested “on human vigilance rather than a technical barrier that would reliably prevent this behaviour in a more capable agent.”

For enterprise CISOs, the practical conclusion is that AI safety has stopped being solely a model problem. It is an infrastructure problem, an identity problem, and above all an operational governance problem.

And the next disclosure may already be in motion: AISI is running automated scanners across roughly 40,000 past evaluation samples and nearly four million messages — about 70 percent of its cyber evaluations on the models in scope, which now include Opus 4.6 through 4.8, GPT-5.3 Codex, GPT-5.4 and 5.5, Kimi K3 and GLM 5.2 — looking for behaviour it missed the first time. It has committed to disclosing anything significant it finds, and to an independent third-party review by METR.

More than 50 offending image and video ads were published across Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, or Threads, according to Meta’s ad library data. Some ran as recently as this week.

An attacker on Tuesday took over the GitHub account of the developer who maintains keyv, a small key-value storage library that npm serves roughly 127 million times a week. Within hours, poisoned versions of keyv and its sibling caching packages were live on npm, carrying a credential-stealing worm. By midday, security firm Aikido counted at least 868 compromised packages across 1,381 versions, together carrying over two billion monthly installs, a total still climbing. JFrog independently traced the campaign across more than 400 packages and 1,700 poisoned versions.

The part that should worry every security team is not the download count. It is the paperwork. The initial poisoned releases shipped with valid provenance signatures, the cryptographic attestation the industry built to prove a package came from where it claims. The worm did not forge that signature. It earned it, the way a legitimate release would.

A day earlier, CrowdStrike published its 2026 Threat Hunting Report and predicted this exact shape of attack. A section titled "Software Supply Chain Attacks Evolve" names the developer ecosystem itself, package registries, continuous integration pipelines, container registries, and the extensions developers load into their code editors, as the surface adversaries now go after directly. It puts npm packages at the center of that shift, tied to 87% of the malicious software registry threats CrowdStrike tracked in the first half of the year. The keyv worm turned that finding into a live incident inside 24 hours.

For CISOs and security architects, the two events read as one message. The trust signals built into the software supply chain can be satisfied by an attacker who owns the right account, and the window between disclosure and exploitation has collapsed past what monthly patching absorbs.

How the worm earned its provenance

Walk through the mechanism and it becomes clear why provenance did not help. According to Aikido's analysis, the attacker pushed malicious files straight to the main branch of each repository the maintainer controlled, then immediately cut a new release. Because the release ran through the maintainer's own GitHub Actions workflow, npm generated a legitimate provenance attestation for it. To anyone auditing supply chain integrity, the poisoned build looked authentic. Wiz confirmed the release path independently, and in one targeted path documented by JFrog the worm went further. Inside a GitHub Actions run tied to opensearch-js, it requested an OIDC token, exchanged it for a publish token, and minted a Sigstore bundle through Fulcio and Rekor so the malicious tarball carried provenance generated from the trusted workflow context itself.

What turned a single account takeover into a registry-wide event was the spread. Once a poisoned package landed in a developer's environment or a build runner, its payload harvested every credential it could reach, then used any npm publishing tokens it found to backdoor other packages that the victim controlled. Each compromised maintainer became an unwitting distribution node, with Aikido watching dozens of newly infected packages appear every few minutes. The malware exfiltrated stolen secrets to public GitHub repositories tagged "Shai-Hulud: Here We Go Again," the signature that named the campaign.

This blast radius reached well beyond obscure utilities. Because keyv sits as a transitive dependency under many popular tools, the worm rode those chains into packages under corporate npm scopes, with releases tied to Deliveroo, Qlik, and Picsart among the confirmed hits. Developers at those companies never installed keyv on purpose. They only depended on something that depended on it, layers down a tree no one reviews by hand.

Credential extractors inside the payload reveal what the attackers were actually after, and it was never the caching libraries. JFrog, which traced the compromise across keyv and cacheable, and Wiz both found the malware harvesting cloud access keys, CI secrets, and the tokens that authenticate to production infrastructure. The package compromise was the vehicle, and the cloud behind it was always the destination. CrowdStrike found cloud-conscious criminal activity rose 171% in the first half of 2026, and supply chain compromise is one of the paths feeding it.

The target was the developer's own tools

Stealing was not the end of it, because the worm also planted itself where developers work. Wiz found that the malware drops persistence payloads into two directories on machines it reaches, one for Visual Studio Code and one named .claude, the working directory for Anthropic's Claude Code agent. The setup files placed there mean the payload can run when a developer opens the infected project in their editor or starts an AI coding session, not only at install time. This is the developer ecosystem CrowdStrike named, hit precisely, the editor and the AI assistant a developer trusts most and inspects least.

The fix costs nothing

One control would have blunted the worm, and it costs nothing. Adam Meyers, who leads Counter Adversary Operations at CrowdStrike, laid it out in a pre-release interview under embargo. "Secure the software supply chain," he said. "Simple things like not allowing any of your tooling to pull down the most recent dependencies, but maybe last week's dependencies." The delay is the whole point. "You're still going to have pretty up-to-date stuff, but you won't have that risk of pulling down something that was updated minutes ago, and now you've just onboarded some sort of malicious tooling." A release held back a week gives the security community time to catch a poisoning that would otherwise reach every downstream build within minutes.

That guidance is not hypothetical. npm shipped this capability in February 2026 with CLI version 11.10.0 as a setting called min-release-age. pnpm got there five months earlier with minimumReleaseAge. Either one lets a team reject any package version published more recently than a threshold they set. The keyv worm is the argument for turning it on.

Meyers pairs the cooldown with a second discipline. Patch what attackers are exploiting before anything else. "You need to kind of focus your vulnerability mitigation and patching around the exploits that are known to the exploiter," he told VentureBeat. He pointed to a resource most teams underuse. "CISA here in the United States puts out something called the Known Exploited Vulnerability Catalog," updated weekly with flaws confirmed under active attack, government-maintained and free. "If you patch those vulnerabilities first, you're going to probably be safer."

Meyers put hard numbers to the speed problem, numbers that do not appear in the published report. All of 2025 saw roughly 48,200 vulnerabilities registered as CVEs. When he checked the week before the briefing, 2026 had already reached 43,000.

That volume breaks monthly patch cycles. "They cannot operate in 30-day patch windows," he told VentureBeat. "As soon as a vulnerability is disclosed, they need to be moving towards patching or mitigating that particular issue." CrowdStrike's report pairs that trajectory with a finding that 88% of the exploitation it observed against vulnerabilities with a public proof of concept happened inside 48 hours of the code going public.

GitHub hardened half the problem

GitHub, which owns npm, has spent the past year hardening the registry against precisely this class of attack. The platform made two-factor authentication mandatory for publishing, revoked old never-expiring access tokens, and added trusted publishing so build systems push without stored credentials. Then in npm version 12, released in mid-2026, it flipped the most consequential default. The preinstall, install, and postinstall hooks that most registry malware relies on to execute the moment a package lands now require explicit approval.

That change matters directly here because the keyv worm executes through a preinstall script, and npm 12 cuts both ways. JFrog confirmed that on npm 12 or newer, where preinstall hooks are off by default, the malware does not run at install time. Every organization still on an older npm, and most enterprises upgrade slowly, remained exposed.

GitHub's defenses hardened the wrong half of the attack more than the right one, making it harder for a malicious package to execute once it lands while doing less to stop an attacker from earning the right to publish. Account takeover remains the root cause. Kiran Raj, a security engineer at Endor Labs, said he saw the same pattern, an npm publishing token stolen and reused, in most cases a CI or service-account token harvested from a build runner that had itself installed a poisoned dependency. The worm never had to defeat provenance. It needed one set of valid credentials, and npm's own publishing automation did the rest.

Provenance attestation answers whether a package came from the pipeline it claims. It does not answer whether the human or token that triggered that pipeline was supposed to. Identity governance, who can publish and what their credentials can reach, is the weaker control. CrowdStrike names abuse of legitimate developer identities as the primary entry point for supply chain compromise. Meyers put it plainly. "They log in, they don't hack in," he said. The keyv maintainer's account was that identity, and the trusted-publishing machinery did the rest on the attacker's behalf.

Why the boardroom is next

The pressure to fix this will not come only from threat reports. It is about to come through contracts. Kayne McGladrey, a senior member of the IEEE, told VentureBeat in an exclusive interview that enterprises are starting to push software security obligations onto the vendors and maintainers in their supply chains. "We're going to start seeing companies trying to contractually shift liability to other parties in their supply chain," he told VentureBeat. "We're using your technology, but we want you to do the security for it."

He compared it to how the Department of Defense forced its vendors to raise their game through the CMMC certification program. "Get better at cybersecurity if you want to sell us stuff." For any company shipping software on open-source dependencies, that turns provenance, identity, and patch discipline into contractual exposure.

What to do Monday morning

For a security team deciding what to do about this on Monday morning, the actions divide into five moves that map to the five ways this attack class operates. Each is a governance decision a board can fund and audit, not a tool a developer installs alone.

How the attack operates	What the keyv worm showed	What the board funds and audits
The developer ecosystem is the target.	CrowdStrike names package registries, CI/CD pipelines, container registries, and IDE extensions as the surface adversaries hit directly. The keyv payload planted persistence hooks in developer editor and AI tooling directories, not just the package.	Require provenance attestation and trusted publishing before any dependency or editor extension enters a build. Give the board a standing inventory of registries, pipeline components, and extensions in scope. Treat developer tooling as an audited supplier category.
Automation makes the spread fast.	One stolen credential seeded a cascade that reached at least 868 packages and two billion monthly installs in hours, jumping between organizations every few minutes. The worm ran through a preinstall script, the install-time default npm v12 disables.	Turn on npm's min-release-age so tooling pulls last week's versions, not releases published minutes ago. Require npm v12 or install-script blocking across the build estate. Plan for simultaneous multi-package compromise in resilience testing.
Identity is the entry point.	The attack began with one hijacked GitHub maintainer account. Provenance signed the poisoned releases because they ran through the maintainer's own pipeline. Valid credentials, not a broken control, did the damage.	Mandate phishing-resistant multifactor authentication for every maintainer with publish rights. Prefer short-lived scoped tokens over long-lived ones. Report developer and machine identity coverage to the board as a countable liability.
The cloud is the real destination.	The payload carried targeted extractors for cloud access keys, CI secrets, and production infrastructure tokens. The package compromise was the vehicle. Cloud-conscious criminal activity rose 171% in the first half of 2026.	Classify developer workstations and CI runners as tier-zero assets with domain-controller rotation standards. Document cloud credential rotation in hours after any supply chain exposure. Report long-lived cloud keys with reduction targets.
The patch window has collapsed.	CrowdStrike observed 88% of exploitation with a public proof of concept inside 48 hours. Meyers put 2026 CVE registrations at 43,000 by late July against 48,200 for all of 2025. The keyv worm was live within hours, with no CVE to wait for.	Reset patch service levels for internet-facing systems from days to hours and fund continuous emergency patching as a budgeted operation. Give the audit committee time-from-disclosure-to-mitigation as a standing metric. Build defensibility on documented pre-patch compensating controls.

Package counts reflect Aikido and JFrog tracking as of August 4 and were climbing at press time.

The keyv worm will be contained. Compromised versions pulled, stolen tokens rotated, affected packages republished clean. What will not change is the shape of the exposure it revealed. The developer ecosystem is now a primary target, the automation that makes it productive is the same automation that makes a worm fast, and the trust signals meant to secure it can be satisfied by anyone holding the right credentials.

Jeff Dean and other high-profile Google executives have founded Discovery Loop, a startup that will seek AI-powered breakthroughs in everything from drug discovery to chip design.

Hark, the secretive AI startup founded earlier this year by serial entrepreneur and roboticist Brett Adcock, today announced Handoff, a "computer use agent" (CUA) that it says is among the top-performing in the world at navigating the open web on a user's behalf — ordering dinner on DoorDash, booking flights on United and Delta, or messaging job candidates on LinkedIn — all autonomously, end-to-end.

Sign-ups open to the public today at hark.com, with availability planned for later this month as part of the initial release of Hark's software platform.

The company says Handoff recorded the top-ever score on Online-Mind2Web (OM2W), a third-party benchmark with a human-evaluated leaderboard for web agents, posting a 97.7 against 92.8 for OpenAI's GPT 5.4, 84.1 for Anthropic's Claude Opus 4.8, and 69 for Google's Gemini 2.5 Pro.

Hark also says it can serve the model at less than one-tenth the token price of competing frontier models — $0.18 per million input tokens and $2.37 per million output tokens, versus $5 and $30 for GPT 5.5 — with per-turn model latency of 0.8 seconds.

For each request, Handoff spins up a dedicated virtual computer with its own browser, file system, and terminal, and users can connect existing accounts so the agent can log in and act with their saved addresses, payment methods, and history.

Hark's research uncovered that despite people spending 75% of their screentime every day in a browser, fewer than 1 in 1000 websites have publicly accessible APIs, making it challenging for AI agents to take over the workload.

In a roughly four-minute produced announcement video posted on YouTube and social media, Adcock — seated in a bare warehouse space that doubles as a metaphor for the company's build-out — speaks a request aloud to Hark ("let's liven this place up a bit… let's do some roses, maybe some cherry blossoms") and Handoff is shown navigating a florist's website to place the order, while Adcock narrates that unlike a typical chatbot, Handoff "is always working, it's looping," and says he now uses it for "all of my recruiting efforts end to end." In Hark's announcement blog post, more demos are shown in realtime and 5x speed.

But big some open questions about Handoff remain, especially for potential enterprise customers and users.

High-scoring benchmarks...but against last generation's models

Notably, the benchmark comparisons Hark provided to VentureBeat for its Handoff AI agent are against GPT 5.5, GPT 5.4, Opus 4.8, and Gemini 2.5 Pro — the prior generation of frontier models.

The current leaders, OpenAI's GPT-5.6 and Anthropic's Opus 5, are absent, as are strong open-source computer-use contenders like DeepSeek V4, Kimi K3, and Qwen3.8-Max.

These newer models haven't published Online-Mind2Web results, and no third party has posted them to the benchmark's public leaderboard — meaning Hark's "top-ever" claim cannot currently be checked against the strongest available systems.

The omission is notable because the newest frontier models have posted their largest gains precisely in computer use: on OSWorld 2.0, a related benchmark covering full computer control, Anthropic's Opus 5 scores roughly 70.6% versus 55.7% for the Opus 4.8 model Hark chose as its comparison point.

The latency comparison comes with similar caveats: the 6.8-second and 6-second per-turn figures Hark cites for GPT 5.5 and Opus 4.8 were measured by Hark, in Hark's own harness, with the competing models set to their highest — and slowest — reasoning level. No independent latency measurements exist for comparison.

Asked by VentureBeat whether Hark plans to publish comparisons against those newer models, the company did not specify.

Even within Hark's own chosen comparisons, the "best" framing has an asterisk: on WebTailBench v2, one of the three benchmarks in Hark's own results table, GPT 5.5 scores 72.3 to Handoff's 68.6.

Two of the three benchmarks (WebTailBench and an unnamed internal evaluation) were also run inside Hark's own harness, with pass rates computed by Hark's internal LLM judge — conditions the company controls.

Hark's pricing advantage is far clearer: Anthropic's newer Opus 5 carries the same $5-per-million-input and $25-per-million-output list price as its predecessor, so Handoff's roughly tenfold cost savings would hold up even against the current frontier — assuming its benchmark performance does too.

Training and file access

Hark's research preview describes a sensible-sounding pipeline — supervised fine-tuning followed by asynchronous reinforcement learning using the GRPO algorithm, according to materials shared with VentureBeat prior to today's announcement — but the company acknowledges it has only done post-training so far, with pre-training "planned for later this year."

That means Handoff is built on top of a base model Hark did not train. Asked which base model it is, and what mix of proprietary and open data Handoff was trained on, Hark hasn't yet specified.

Another big question mark for enterprise users: who can access the dedicated virtual computers and the files created on them?

A Hark spokesperson said "security and privacy is a primary focus, but this is a technical preview," adding the company will share more when the product reaches market at the end of the summer.

Adcock's history leading up to Hark

Hark is Adcock's fourth company. He previously co-founded the talent marketplace Vettery (sold in 2018 for roughly $100 million), the air-taxi maker Archer Aviation, and the humanoid robotics unicorn Figure AI.

Hark raised a $700 million Series A round in May 2026 at a $6 billion valuation — led by Parkway Venture Capital, with participation from Nvidia, AMD, Intel Capital, Qualcomm Ventures, Salesforce Ventures, and ARK Invest.

Adcock seeded the company with $100 million of his own money and remains founder and CEO of both Figure and Hark simultaneously, a spokesperson confirmed.

Asked how the two companies interact, the spokesperson said Hark models "are being trained on the Figure robots," but that Adcock has no plans to combine them.

Adcock's promotional style has drawn skeptics. In April 2025, Fortune correspondent Jason Del Rey reported that Figure's much-touted BMW partnership was far more modest than Adcock's public claims of a robot "fleet" performing "end-to-end operations": BMW spokesperson Steve Wilson said a single Figure robot was practicing picking up parts during non-production hours.

But the partnership has advanced, and as of June 2026, BMW said the Figure 02 robot supported production of more than 30,000 BMW X3 vehicles during a 10 month-period, and that the next-generation Figure 03 robot was being deployed at the plant for a parts-sequencing role in logistics.

On the social network X, Adcock called the story "mischaracterizations and downright lies" and threatened a defamation suit. Two months later, TechCrunch reported that Adcock skipped a promised live demo at a tech conference and sidestepped questions about the BMW deal onstage.

None of that means Handoff's numbers are wrong. The agent may well be excellent, and the pricing — if it holds — would undercut every major lab.

Build on Trainium is a $110 million credit program focused on AI research and university education aimed to support the next generation of innovation and development on AWS Trainium. The program provides compute credits to novel AI research on Trainium, investing in leading academic teams to build innovations in critical areas including new model architectures, ML libraries, optimizations, large-scale distributed systems, and more. This announcement includes awards funded under the Fall 2025 Build on Trainium: Responsible AI call for proposals. Proposals were reviewed for the quality of their scientific content and their potential to impact both the research community and society. This cycle’s focus on Responsible AI invited proposals addressing five priority topics: AI safety and alignment, multi-lingual language models, representation engineering, sustainability and small language models, and deep learning models for synthetic data generation—all leveraging AWS Trainium infrastructure. The recipients have access to more than 700 Amazon public datasets and can utilize AWS AI/ML services and tools through their AWS Promotional Credits, are assigned an Amazon research contact who offers consultation and advice, and benefit from AWS Trainium resources, such as tutorials and hands-on sessions. "Build on Trainium gives the next wave of AI researchers powerful, scalable access to Amazon's purpose-built AI chips, so the only limit is their imagination, not their compute budget," said Yida Wang, AWS AI Principal Applied Scientist. "By leveraging the support from Build on Trainium, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign researchers are studying topology-aware parallelization strategies for large-scale mixture-of-experts models with as many as one trillion parameters on up to 1,024 Trainium chips. At the University of Washington, researchers are developing an inference-optimization framework that raises token efficiency for everyone building on Trainium, with the goal to deliver portable, high-performance LLM inference on Trainium." RecipientUniversityResearch titleWei BaoThe University of SydneyFACTOR: Federated Adversarial Co-Training with Textual Gradient for LLM Security and RobustnessViveck CadambeGeorgia Institute of TechnologyLeveraging Public-Private Mixtures For Differentially Private Synthetic Data GenerationYujun CaiThe University of QueenslandResponsible AI on Trainium: Scalable Detection and Mitigation of Evasive Multimodal Scam ContentHaipeng ChenCollege of William and MaryDELA: Editable Diffusion Language ModelsTianlong ChenUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillAlgorithm-System Co-Design for Efficient Sparse and Quantized LLMsSaadia GabrielUniversity of California Los AngelesMANSA: Democratizing Voice AI with Efficient Multimodal Foundation ModelsHaewon JeongUniversity of California Santa BarbaraLeveraging Public-Private Mixtures For Differentially Private Synthetic Data GenerationHaojian JinUniversity of California San DiegoGoverning Social Bias in AI Image Generation through Value ManifestsMarios KogiasImperial College LondonTowards Deterministic Model InferenceSachin KumarThe Ohio State UniversityNatively Multimodal and Multilingual Speech-Text Large Language ModelsEmanuele La MalfaInstitute for Decentralized AI (ADAI)Safe, Social Pre-training of LLM AgentsXiaoxiao LiThe University of British ColumbiaMemorization-Aware Preference Optimization for Machine UnlearningYingcong LiNew Jersey Institute of TechnologyEfficient and Adaptable Language Models via Sub-Model SearchZhijian LiuUniversity of California San DiegoAlgorithm-System Co-Design for Efficient Sparse and Quantized LLMsSongtao LuThe Chinese University of Hong KongM3-Align: Scalable Multilevel & Multiobjective Alignment for Multilingual Language ModelsYao LuUCL - University College LondonBreaking the Multilingual Data Wall: Scaling Synthetic Data for Low-Resource Language Model PretrainingSasa MisailovicUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignCratos: Certified Robustness for Quantization and Pruning-Aware Training and Tuning of Vision Language ModelsTinoosh MohseninJohns Hopkins UniversityTRIM-LLM: From Quadratic to Linear Attention and Structured Pruning for Carbon and Cost-Efficient LLM Deployment on TrainiumThanhVu NguyenGeorge Mason UniversityLeveraging AWS Trainium for Verifiable AI and ML-Assisted Mathematical ReasoningFrank RudziczDalhousie UniversityRepresentation Immunization on Trainium: Scalable Noising & Weight-LockingAnuj SharmaIowa State UniversityBuild on Trainium: Physics-Grounded Synthetic Crash Generation for Vulnerable Road Users with Representation Engineering on Video Diffusion and VLMsShen ShenMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyAgent Tool-Use Safety Benchmarking with MCP-Specific LoRA MitigationsRyan ShiUniversity of PittsburghBenchmarking and Improving Multilingual LLMs on Real Indic Language Healthcare DialoguesNaichen ShiNorthwestern University LLM Hallucination Detection and Mitigation Jaideep Srivastava University of Minnesota Twin CitiesKnowledge-Infused Time-Series Pretraining with Safety-by-Knowledge-Checking for Trustworthy Clinical AICheng TanNortheastern University Towards Reliable and Trustworthy LLM Services with ϵ-correctnessYue WangUniversity of Central FloridaGame-Theoretic Frameworks for Responsible AI on Pluralistic AlignmentYang WangUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignSafeguarding Youths in Multimodal Generative AI: Toward a Trainium-Powered Framework for Safety and AlignmentErmin WeiNorthwestern University Higher Order Based Fast LLM Training MethodJun WuMichigan State UniversityBigger Models, Bigger Risks? Investigating the Safety Landscape of LLM ScalingXiaokui XiaoNational University of SingaporeTrainium-Accelerated, LLM-Guided Differentially Private Synthesis of Hierarchical Relational DataMin XuCarnegie Mellon UniversityLanguage-Grounded Interpretability for ViT and 3D ModelsZiyu YaoGeorge Mason UniversityRepresentation Engineering of LLMs for Secure Code Generation Junzhe Zhang Syracuse UniversityDeconfounding Image Editing for Robust Causal Prediction

Presented by Tata Communications

---

Continuous inference, agent-to-agent communication, and real-time data pipelines are generating unpredictable, always-on traffic that legacy architectures were never built to support. As AI moves from pilot project to operational backbone, the network is emerging as a critical control layer that determines performance, reliability, and cost.

The shift is forcing organizations to question assumptions that have held for decades. Legacy systems were static and rigid, and lacked the ability to manage network demand efficiently or dynamically, while AI-ready networks need to adapt in real time. A study by Cisco notes that 80% of executives believe their company’s competitive survival will depend on agentic AI, and consumer usage of AI is already prevalent and accelerating. This is driving a fundamental shift in how traffic is generated, distributed, and experienced, with implications for service providers and enterprises that manage large-scale networks.

This infrastructure gap is a global concern. A recent Bloomberg study, "The Future-Ready Enterprise," commissioned by Tata Communications, found that while 3 in 4 leaders consider AI a board-level priority, nearly two-thirds (65%) of enterprises continue to operate on transitional or legacy infrastructure. This disconnect between ambition and reality is a primary obstacle to realizing value from AI investments.

The performance bar has also moved by an order of magnitude. Traditional business applications could tolerate 100 to 500 milliseconds of latency, while mission-critical AI workloads now require latency below 10 milliseconds.

"This isn't just an incremental improvement," says Kapil, Vice President, Global Network Services at Tata Communications. "It's a completely different performance paradigm that breaks traditional network design assumptions, where such extreme low latency was never a primary consideration."

How network performance affects AI reliability and cost

That gap between what legacy infrastructure can deliver and what AI demands turns network performance into a direct driver of AI reliability and cost. Treating the network as a best-effort transport layer introduces risk that many organizations only discover once a deployment underperforms in production. A model built for real-time fraud detection or supply chain optimization becomes worthless the moment network congestion delays the data it depends on, and Kapil notes that every millisecond of that delay can carry a direct financial or operational cost.

"Relying on a 'best-effort' network turns multi-million-dollar AI stack investments into a high-stakes gamble, where performance is left to chance," Kapil says.

He adds that businesses often underestimate the complexity of using the public internet as a global enterprise network. Performance may look acceptable within a single country, but once data starts crossing borders or connecting to international cloud platforms, the lack of end-to-end control becomes an operational barrier.

Distributed AI across cloud, edge, and enterprise increases complexity

Complexity compounds as AI components spread across cloud, edge, and enterprise environments. Organizations often focus on compute power and data infrastructure while overlooking the network fabric that connects them. That blind spot often surfaces as a performance bottleneck created by high-frequency east-west traffic moving between GPUs.

Distribution also widens the surface enterprises have to defend. Applications, users, and partner ecosystems are now spread across cloud, SaaS, edge, and device environments, and Kapil notes that AI-driven malicious bots account for roughly 37 percent of online traffic, making it increasingly difficult to distinguish legitimate users from automated threats. Many enterprises have responded by layering on siloed tools, which has produced fragmentation, inconsistent security, and a lack of unified visibility rather than a coherent defense.

"SASE helps mitigate these risks by converging networking and security into a unified, cloud-delivered architecture," Kapil says. "This convergence is enabling consistent policy enforcement across cloud, on-premises, and edge environments, while supplying the scalability and proximity needed to secure real-time AI-driven interactions."

The network must evolve from passive transport to an intelligent layer

Closing that gap requires organizations to gain far greater visibility into how AI traffic moves across distributed environments and the ability to direct workloads accordingly. Kapil says that demands a different approach to network management.

"Leaders must realize that the network is no longer passive 'plumbing.' It must be managed as an active, intelligent platform foundational to the entire AI stack," he says. "That platform requires real-time observability into how and where AI traffic flows, paired with the control to orchestrate workloads across the most efficient and secure path available."

It's the difference between merely connecting systems and unlocking new capability, for instance a seamless shopping experience during a peak sales period or a global sports broadcast streamed without buffering.

This intelligence also changes how infrastructure teams spend their day. The network itself is now software-defined and API-driven rather than fixed by hardware configuration, which Kapil says shifts infrastructure teams away from reacting to outages and toward designing the systems that prevent them.

"Instead of manually re-routing traffic during an outage, the team must define the rules, policies, and business outcomes for an intelligent fabric," Kapil says. "The network itself then executes those policies automatically and autonomously."

Tata Communications is putting this principle into practice with its recently launched IZO Data Centre Dynamic Connectivity. The software-defined platform creates a “self-healing, intelligent network” using deterministic multi-path routing to reroute traffic automatically in seconds during a disruption.

The company says the platform transforms resilience from a reactive process into an autonomous capability, providing the predictable, low-latency performance mission-critical AI applications require while reducing operational costs by up to 30%.

Real-time AI requires predictable, low-latency connectivity

Delivering on that intelligence in practice means giving mission-critical workloads dedicated capacity rather than having them compete for it. Reaching that level of consistency also requires enterprises to define performance far more precisely than they have in the past. It's the shift from vague goals like "high performance" toward deterministic performance criteria where an organization commits to a guaranteed service level, such as latency for a specific workload not exceeding 10 milliseconds 99.999% of the time, for instance.

That same demand for predictability extends into capacity planning. As AI workloads become larger and more dynamic, networking infrastructure must be able to absorb rapid shifts in demand without sacrificing performance or efficiency.

"Without dynamic scalability, enterprises are forced into a false choice: either risk performance-killing congestion or engage in massive, inefficient overprovisioning of their network 'just in case.' This is incredibly expensive and unsustainable," Kapil says.

Building this foundation for the world's most demanding AI workloads is already underway. For example, Tata Communications is collaborating with Amazon Web Services (AWS) to build one of India’s largestAI-ready networks. This high-capacity, resilient network will connect major AWS infrastructure locations in Mumbai, Hyderabad, and Chennai, providing the ultra-low latency backbone needed to accelerate generative AI adoption and cloud innovation across the country.

He points to a consumption-based model, where software allows bandwidth and network functions to scale instantly with demand, as the operational alternative, since it lets organizations pay only for what they use while still protecting performance during spikes.

CIOs should treat the network as a strategic investment

CIOs and infrastructure leaders need to reframe the network, not thinking of it as a cost center but as something closer to an insurance policy for an organization's broader AI investment portfolio. An intelligent network de-risks those investments in three ways:

enabling dynamic scalability that removes the need for overprovisioning

strengthening security and governance through the visibility needed to protect data and models

and providing a flexible, programmable foundation that can absorb future compute demands without a full architectural overhaul.

Getting there does not require enterprises to start from scratch.

Choosing a partner with a proven track record is critical. Tata Communications was recently named a Leader in the Gartner Magic Quadrant for Global WAN Services for the 13th consecutive year, reflecting its completeness of vision and ability to execute. That recognition reflects continued investment in areas such as SASE capabilities for AI-driven security and high-capacity 800G services designed for AI-scale infrastructure.

"We recommend a phased approach that begins with assessing the current state of the network and identifying inefficiencies, then prioritizing upgrades in areas such as AI-ready technologies, seamless data exchange, and advanced security solutions," Kapil says. "Treating the network as a business enabler rather than overhead gives organizations the scalable, secure, and resilient infrastructure the AI economy will continue to demand."

---

Sponsored articles are content produced by a company that is either paying for the post or has a business relationship with VentureBeat, and they’re always clearly marked. For more information, contact sales@venturebeat.com.

The vendor's Web Search Agents autonomously learn domain-specific use cases to help enterprises collect contextually relevant information for AI and analytics.

When connected with relevant context, agents can increase organizational efficiency and reduce spending. When left to guess, they can cause significant harm.

The tech giant's latest offering is a scaled-down version of its Exadata platform and helps differentiate its lineup of databases from those of competing providers.

Native access to data lakes and a new data retrieval engine highlight the latest release as the vendor competes for market share amid a crowded field.

The database vendor is entering a crowded market with the launch of a database purpose-built for agents by unifying disparate data workloads.

With agents requiring situational awareness to be accurate, connecting AI with relevant data and business logic has been an almost singular focus throughout 2026.

Awareness enabled by appropriate data and business logic is one of the differences between agentic applications that properly perform and those that never reach production.