Application Security | Breaking Cybersecurity News | The Hacker News

As organizations deploy AI coding agents across large monorepos and microservices environments, a fundamental problem emerges: the model may be capable of making the change, yet still lack the organizational context required to make the right change safely. A developer can ask an AI coding agent to deprecate an API field, update an authentication flow, or modify a service interface. The agent can inspect the code available on the developer's machine and search for references. What it may not know is that the field is consumed by four other services across separate repositories, that one of those services belongs to another team, or that the same field eventually carries sensitive data into a third party integration. This is not simply a context window problem. It is a code context problem: providing AI agents with accurate, current, organization wide evidence about how software actually behaves. One emerging approach is to generate that evidence directly from source code us...

Many AI systems depend on input signals that teams cannot fully inspect or explain. These opaque sources reduce visibility into the data paths that influence model behavior. Engineers lose provenance records, limiting the diagnosis of abnormal outputs. This complicates the work of security teams that need clear records of what influenced a model at any point in time. Verifiable search data offers a stable alternative. It gives teams an input they can examine, store, and reproduce in controlled conditions. Engineers can compare model behavior against information that was publicly accessible at the time a result was produced, rather than depend on hidden internal signals. This article outlines why verifiable search data gives AI and security teams the clarity required to maintain operational control. Why Traceability Matters in AI Systems Traceability lets teams follow an input from its origin through each processing step. When every stage can be inspected, engineers can review...

Artificial intelligence is everywhere now. From automated code completion to autonomous infrastructure management, AI tools and AI agents help DevOps speed up deployment cycles and change how development teams operate in general. At the same time, this rapid adoption of AI has created a reality that is hard for security teams to ignore: as with the growth of AI capability within the software development life cycle, the attack surface also grows. In 2025, there were 68 AI-related incidents recorded across major DevOps platforms according to the 2026 DevOps Threats Unwrapped Report . In the first half of 2026, the number of AI-related incidents visibly grew — research from GitProtect Lab tracked 84 AI-related incidents in six months alone. Thus, comparing the first half of 2026 to the same period in 2025 shows that AI-related incidents in development environments have nearly tripled. What do DevOps and DevSecOps say about AI incidents in general? According to GitProtect Lab 's surve...

Penetration testing is intended to help organizations identify weaknesses before attackers can exploit them. Once testing ends, findings must be documented, reviewed, formatted, delivered, assigned, tracked, remediated, and eventually retested. In many organizations, each of those steps happens in a different system and depends on a manual handoff. Testers work in one set of tools. Reports are assembled in Word or spreadsheets. Findings are delivered through PDFs. Security teams recreate them in ticketing systems. Engineering teams update remediation status somewhere else. Retesting is coordinated through email or meetings. By the time the right owner receives the information needed to act, days or weeks may have passed. At PlexTrac , we see this as one of the largest operational gaps in modern offensive security: organizations have invested in finding vulnerabilities, but the process surrounding the pentest has not kept pace. The next phase of pentest modernization is removin...

We had an enterprise customer tell us their entire AI footprint was Copilot. That was the whole answer. One tool, one line item, done. We ran the first scan. Copilot wasn't even close to number one. Claude was. OpenAI came in second. Copilot was third. Nobody on the security team knew because Claude doesn't show up the way a SaaS app used to show up. There's no single login screen, no single admin console, no one place to look. That's the part most security teams miss. Claude isn't one surface. It's six. The six places Claude actually runs Claude Enterprise and Connected Apps. This is the surface everyone pictures: employees typing into Claude, OAuth'd into Google Drive, GitHub, Slack, and Jira, asking Claude to act on what's inside. The audit log shows that a connection happened. It does not show what got pulled into the prompt or what came back out. A finance analyst can drop a quarter of board materials into a conversation in ten second...

Security is fundamentally about knowing what a system is supposed to do, then catching it when it does something else. For software with deterministic execution paths, that is a tractable problem. For AI agents, it is not. An agent does not follow a fixed code path. It reasons toward a goal, selects tools based on that reasoning, and adapts its next action based on what those tools return. The same input can produce a different sequence of actions depending on context, session history, and what an external tool happened to return. Behavior is the attack surface, and behavior changes. Traditional proxies and AI firewalls were built to inspect content: what a user sent, what a model returned. Intent security asks a different question: is this agent doing what it was built to do, in this context, for this user, right now? Answering that requires building a behavioral baseline for every agent and measuring deviation from it continuously. That is the problem Lasso was built to solve....