Tech
Are AI agents a blessing or a curse for cyber security? | Computer Weekly
Artificial intelligence (AI) and AI agents are seemingly everywhere. Be it with conference show floors or television adverts featuring celebrities, suppliers are keen to showcase the technology, which they tell us will help make our day-to-day lives much easier. But what exactly is an AI agent?
Fundamentally, AI agents – also known as agentic AI models – are generative AI (GenAI) and large language models (LLMs) used to automate tasks and workflows.
For example, need to book a room for a meeting at a particular office at a specific time for a certain number of people? Simply ask the agent to do so and it will act, plan and execute on your behalf, identifying a suitable room and time, then sending the calendar invite out to your colleagues on your behalf.
Or perhaps you’re booking a holiday. You can detail where you want to go, how you want to get there, add in any special requirements and ask the AI agent for suggestions that it will duly examine, parse and detail in seconds – saving you both time and effort.
“We’re going to be very dependent on AI agents in the very near future – everybody’s going to have an agent for different things,” says Etay Maor, chief security strategist at network security company Cato Networks. “It’s super convenient and we’re going to see this all over the place.
“The flip side of that is the attackers are going to be looking heavily into it, too,” he adds.
Unforeseen consequences
When new technology appears, even if it’s developed with the best of intentions, it’s almost inevitable that criminals will seek to exploit it.
We saw it with the rise of the internet and cyber fraud, we saw it with the shift to cloud-based hybrid working, and we’ve seen it with the rise of AI and LLMs, which cyber criminals quickly jumped on to write more convincing phishing emails. Now, cyber criminals are exploring how to weaponise AI agents and autonomous systems, too.
“They want to generate exploits,” says Yuval Zacharia, who until recently was R&D director at cyber security firm Hunters, and is now a co-founder at a startup in stealth mode. “That’s a complex mission involving code analysis and reverse engineering that you need to do to understand the codebase then exploit it. And that’s exactly the task that agentic AI is good at – you can divide a complex problem into different components, each with specific tools to execute it.”
Cyber security consultancy Reversec has published a wide range of research on how GenAI and AI agents can be exploited by malicious hackers, often by taking advantage of how new the technology is, meaning security measures may not fully be in place – especially if those developing AI tools want to ensure their product is released ahead of the competition.
For example, attackers can exploit prompt injection vulnerabilities to hijack browser agents with the aim of stealing data or other unauthorised actions. Or, alternatively, Reversec has demonstrated how an AI agent can be manipulated through prompt injection attacks to encourage outputs to include phishing links, social engineering and other ways of stealing information.
“Attackers can use jailbreaking or prompt injection attacks,” says Donato Capitella, principal security consultant at Reversec. “Now, you give an LLM agency – all of a sudden this is not just generic attacks, but it can act on your behalf: it can read and send emails, it can do video calls.
“An attacker sends you an email, and if an LLM is reading parts of that mailbox, all of a sudden, the email contains instructions that confuse the LLM, and now the LLM will steal information and send information to the attacker.”
Agentic AI is designed to help users, but as AI agents become more common and more sophisticated, that’s also going to open the door to attackers looking to exploit them to aid with their own goals – especially if legitimate tools aren’t secured correctly.
“If I’m a criminal and I know you’re using an AI agent which helps you with managing files on your network, for me, that’s a way into the network to deploy ransomware,” says Maor. “Maybe you’ll have an AI agent which can leave voice messages for you: Your voice? Now it’s identity fraud. Emails are business email compromise (BEC) attacks.
“The fact is a lot of these agents are going to have a lot of capabilities with the things they can do, and not too many guardrails, so criminals will be focusing on it,” he warns, adding that “there’s a continuous lowering of the bar of what it takes to do bad things”.
Fighting agentic AI with agentic AI
Ultimately, this means agentic AI-based attacks is something else chief information security officers (CISOs) and cyber security teams need to consider on top of every other challenge they currently face. Perhaps one answer to this is for defenders to take advantage of the automation provided by AI agents, too.
Zacharia believes so – she even built an agentic AI-powered threat-hunting tool in her spare time.
“It was about a side-project I did in my spare time at the weekends – I’m really geeky,” she says. “It was about exploring the world of AI agents because I thought it was cool.”
Cyber attacks are constantly evolving, and rapid response to emerging threats can be incredibly difficult, especially in an area where AI agents could be maliciously deployed to uncover new exploits en masse. That means identifying security threats, let alone assessing the impact and applying the mitigations can take a lot of time – especially if cyber security staff are doing it manually.
“What I was trying to do was automate this with AI agents,” says Zacharia. “The architecture built on top of multiple AI agents aim to identify emerging threats and prioritise according to business context, data enrichment and things that you care about, then they create hunting and viability queries that will help you turn those into actionable insights.”
That data enrichment comes from multiple sources. They include social media trends, CVEs, Patch Tuesday notifications, CISA alerts and other malware advisories.
The AI prioritises this information according to severity, with the AI agents acting upon that information to help perform tasks – for example, by downloading critical security updates – while also helping to relieve some of the burden on overworked cyber security staff.
“Cyber security teams have a lot on their hands, a lot of things to do,” says Zacharia. “They’re overwhelmed by the alerts they keep getting from all the security tools that they have. That means threat hunting in general, specifically for emergent threats, is always second priority.”
She points to incidents like Log4j, a critical zero-day vulnerability in widely used software that was almost immediately exploited by sophisticated threat actors upon disclosure.
“Think how much damage this could cause in your organisation if you’re not finding these on time,” says Zacharia. “And that’s exactly the point,” she adds, referring to how agentic AI can help to swiftly identify and remedy cyber security vulnerabilities and issues.
Streamlining the SOC with agentic AI
Zacharia’s far from alone in believing agentic AI could be of great benefit to cyber security teams.
“Think of a SOC [security operations centre] analyst sitting in front of an incident and he or she needs to start investigating it,” says Maor. “They start with looking at the technical data, to see if they’ve seen something like it in the past.”
What he’s describing is the important – but time-consuming – work SOC analysts do everyday. Maor believes adding agentic AI tools to the process can streamline their work, ultimately making them more effective at detecting cyber threats.
“An AI model can examine the incident and then detail similar incidents, immediately suggesting an investigation is needed,” he says. “There’s also the predictive model that tells the analyst what they don’t need to investigate. This cuts down the grunt work that needs to be done – sometimes hours, sometimes days of work – in order to reach something of value, which is nice.”
But while it can provide support, it’s important to note that agentic AI isn’t a silver bullet that is going to eliminate cyber security threats. Yes, it’s designed to make the task of monitoring threat intelligence or applying security updates easier and more efficient, but people remain key to information security, too. People are needed to work in SOCs, and information security staff are still required to help employees across the rest of the organisation remain alert and secure to cyber threats.
Especially as AI continues to evolve and improve, and attackers will continue to look to exploit it – and it’s up to the defenders to counter them.
“It’s a cat and mouse situation,” says Zacharia. “Both sides are adopting AI. But as an attacker, you only need one way to sneak in. As a defender, you have to protect the entire castle. Attackers will always have the advantage, that’s the game we’re playing. But I do think that both sides are getting better and better.”
Tech
Anthropic Supply-Chain-Risk Designation Halted by Judge
Anthropic won a preliminary injunction barring the US Department of Defense from labeling it a supply-chain risk, potentially clearing the way for customers to resume working with the company. The ruling on Thursday by Rita Lin, a federal district judge in San Francisco, is a symbolic setback for the Pentagon and a significant boost for the generative AI company as it tries to preserve its business and reputation.
“Defendants’ designation of Anthropic as a ‘supply chain risk’ is likely both contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious,” Lin wrote in justifying the temporary relief. “The Department of War provides no legitimate basis to infer from Anthropic’s forthright insistence on usage restrictions that it might become a saboteur.”
Anthropic and the Pentagon did not immediately respond to requests to comment on the ruling.
The Department of Defense, which under Trump calls itself the Department of War, has relied on Anthropic’s Claude AI tools for writing sensitive documents and analyzing classified data over the past couple of years. But this month, it began pulling the plug on Claude after determining that Anthropic could not be trusted. Pentagon officials cited numerous instances in which Anthropic allegedly placed or sought to put usage restrictions on its technology that the Trump administration found unnecessary.
The administration ultimately issued several directives, including designating the company a supply-chain risk, which have had the effect of slowly halting Claude usage across the federal government and hurting Anthropic’s sales and public reputation. The company filed two lawsuits challenging the sanctions as unconstitutional. In a hearing on Tuesday, Lin said the government had appeared to illegally “cripple” and “punish” Anthropic.
Lin’s ruling on Thursday “restores the status quo” to February 27, before the directives were issued. “It does not bar any defendant from taking any lawful action that would have been available to it” on that date, she wrote. “For example, this order does not require the Department of War to use Anthropic’s products or services and does not prevent the Department of War from transitioning to other artificial intelligence providers, so long as those actions are consistent with applicable regulations, statutes, and constitutional provisions.”
The ruling suggests the Pentagon and other federal agencies are still free to cancel deals with Anthropic and ask contractors that integrate Claude into their own tools to stop doing so, but without citing the supply-chain-risk designation as the basis.
The immediate impact is unclear because Lin’s order won’t take effect for a week. And a federal appeals court in Washington, DC, has yet to rule on the second lawsuit Anthropic filed, which focuses on a different law under which the company was also barred from providing software to the military.
But Anthropic could use Lin’s ruling to demonstrate to some customers concerned about working with an industry pariah that the law may be on its side in the long run. Lin has not set a schedule to make a final ruling.
Tech
How Trump’s Plot to Grab Iran’s Nuclear Fuel Would Actually Work
President Donald Trump and top defense officials are reportedly weighing whether to send ground troops to Iran in order to retrieve the country’s highly enriched uranium. However, the administration has shared little information about which troops would be deployed, how they would retrieve the nuclear material, or where the material would go next.
“People are going to have to go and get it,” secretary of state Marco Rubio said at a congressional briefing earlier this month, referring to the possible operation.
There are some indications that an operation is close on the horizon. On Tuesday, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Pentagon has imminent plans to deploy 3,000 brigade combat troops to the Middle East. (At the time of writing, the order has not been made.) The troops would come from the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division, which specializes in “joint forcible entry operations.” On Wednesday, Iran’s government rejected Trump’s 15-point plan to end the war, and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said that the president “is prepared to unleash hell” in Iran if a peace deal is not reached—a plan some lawmakers have reportedly expressed concern about.
Drawing from publicly available intelligence and their own experience, two experts outlined the likely contours of a ground operation targeting nuclear sites. They tell WIRED that any version of a ground operation would be incredibly complicated and pose a huge risk to the lives of American troops.
“I personally think a ground operation using special forces supported by a larger force is extremely, extremely risky and ultimately infeasible,” Spencer Faragasso, a senior research fellow at the Institute for Science and International Security, tells WIRED.
Nuclear Ambitions
Any version of the operation would likely take several weeks and involve simultaneous actions at multiple target locations that aren’t in close proximity to each other, the experts say. Jonathan Hackett, a former operations specialist for the Marines and the Defense Intelligence Agency, tells WIRED that as many as 10 locations could be targeted: the Isfahan, Arak, and Darkhovin research reactors; the Natanz, Fordow, and Parchin enrichment facilities; the Saghand, Chine, and Yazd mines; and the Bushehr power plant.
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Isfahan likely has the majority of the country’s 60 percent highly enriched uranium, which may be able to support a self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction, though weapon-grade material generally consists of 90 percent enriched uranium. Hackett says that the other two enrichment facilities may also have 60 percent highly enriched uranium, and that the power plant and all three research reactors may have 20 percent enriched uranium. Faragasso emphasizes that any such supplies deserve careful attention.
Hackett says that eight of the 10 sites—with the exception of Isfahan, which is likely intact underground, and “Pickaxe Mountain,” a relatively new enrichment facility near Natanz—were mostly or partially buried after last June’s air raids. Just before the war, Faragasso says, Iran backfilled the tunnel entrances to the Isfahan facility with dirt.
The riskiest version of a ground operation would involve American troops physically retrieving nuclear material. Hackett says that this material would be stored in the form of uranium hexafluoride gas inside “large cement vats.” Faragasso adds that it’s unclear how many of these vats may have been broken or damaged. At damaged sites, troops would have to bring excavators and heavy equipment capable of moving immense amounts of dirt to retrieve them
A comparatively less risky version of the operation would still necessitate ground troops, according to Hackett. However, it would primarily use air strikes to entomb nuclear material inside of their facilities. Ensuring that nuclear material is inaccessible in the short to medium term, Faragasso says, would entail destroying the entrances to underground facilities and ideally collapsing the facilities’ underground roofs.
Softening the Area
Hackett tells WIRED that based on his experience and all publicly available information, Trump’s negotiations with Iran are “probably a ruse” that buys time to move troops into place.
Hackett says that an operation would most likely begin with aerial bombardments in the areas surrounding the target sites. These bombers, he says, would likely be from the 82nd Airborne Division or the 11th or 31st Marine Expeditionary Units (MEU). The 11th MEU, a “rapid-response” force, and the 31st MEU, the only Marine unit continuously deployed abroad in strategic areas, have reportedly both been deployed to the Middle East.
Tech
Amazon’s Spring Sale Is So-So, but Cadence Capsules Are a Bright Spot
The WIRED Reviews Team has been covering Amazon’s Big Spring Sale since it began at on Wednesday, and the overall deals have been … not great, honestly. So far, we’ve found decent markdowns on vacuums, smart bird feeders, and even an air fryer we love, but I just saw that Cadence Capsules, those colorful magnetic containers you may have seen on your social media pages, are 20 percent off. (For reference, the last time I saw them on sale, they were a measly 9 percent off.)
If you’re not familiar, they allow you to decant your full-sized personal care products you use at home—from shampoo and sunscreen to serums and pills—into a labeled, modular system of hexagonal containers that are leak-proof, dishwasher safe, and stick together magnetically in your bag or on a countertop. No more jumbled, travel-sized toiletries and leaky, mismatched bottles and tubes.
Cadence Capsules have garnered some grumbling online for being overly heavy or leaking, but I’ve been using them regularly for about a year—I discuss decanting your daily-use products in my guide to How to Pack Your Beauty Routine for Travel—and haven’t experienced any leaks. They do add weight if you’re trying to travel super-light, and because they’re magnetic, they will also stick to other metal items in your toiletry bag, like bobby pins or other hair accessories. This can be annoying, especially if you’re already feeling chaotic or in a hurry.
Otherwise, Capsules are modular, convenient, and make you feel supremely organized—magnetic, interchangeable inserts for the lids come with permanent labels like “shampoo,” “conditioner,” “cleanser,” and “moisturizer.” Maybe you love this; maybe you don’t. But at least if you buy on Amazon, you can choose which label genre you get (Haircare, Bodycare, Skincare, Daily Routine). If this just isn’t your jam, the Cadence website offers a set of seven that allows you to customize the color and lid label of each Capsule, but that set is not currently on sale.
-
Fashion1 week agoSales at US apparel, clothing accessories stores up 4% YoY in Jan 2026
-
Entertainment1 week agoVal Kilmer revived 1 year after death through AI
-
Fashion1 week agoUS’ G-III Apparel’s FY26 sales fall 7% to $2.96 bn
-
Business1 week agoBrits cashing in jewellery as gold price hits record high
-
Sports1 week agoMarch Madness 2026 – How to watch in SA, start time, schedule, TV channel for NCAA championship basketball tournament
-
Fashion6 days agoChina’s textile & apparel exports surge 17% to $50 bn in Jan-Feb 2026
-
Business1 week agoVideo: The Effects of High Oil Prices
-
Business6 days agoFlipkart group CFO to leave co amid IPO plans – The Times of India

