SCAM — How safe is your AI agent?

Top AI Security Incidents of 2025 Revealed | Adversa AI

Discover how AI systems are being hacked in the wild — from prompt injection to agent abuse — with real breaches, lessons, and defenses in Adversa AI’s 2025 report.

The lethal trifecta for AI agents: private data, untrusted content, and external communication

If you are a user of LLM systems that use tools (you can call them “AI agents” if you like) it is critically important that you understand the risk of …

Deepfakes, Scams, and the Age of Paranoia

As AI-driven fraud becomes increasingly common, more people feel the need to verify every interaction they have online.

Introduction to Agents

Discover what actually works in AI. Join millions of builders, researchers, and labs evaluating agents, models, and frontier technology through crowdsourced benchmarks, competitions, and hackathons.

OpenClaw – NEAR AI

Run the internet’s favorite new AI agent with NEAR AI’s cryptographic privacy guarantees.

CyberGym: Evaluating AI Agents' Real-World Cybersecurity Capabilities at Scale

AI agents have significant potential to reshape cybersecurity, making a thorough assessment of their capabilities critical. However, existing evaluations fall short, because they are based on small-scale benchmarks and only measure static outcomes, failing to capture the full, dynamic range of real-world security challenges. To address these limitations, we introduce CyberGym, a large-scale benchmark featuring 1,507 real-world vulnerabilities across 188 software projects. Adjustable to different vulnerability analysis settings, CyberGym primarily tasks agents with generating a proof-of-concept test that reproduces a vulnerability, given only its text description and the corresponding codebase. Our extensive evaluation highlights that CyberGym effectively differentiates agents' and models' cybersecurity capabilities. Even the top-performing combinations only achieve a ~20% success rate, demonstrating the overall difficulty of CyberGym. Beyond static benchmarking, we show that CyberGym leads to the discovery of 34 zero-day vulnerabilities and 18 historically incomplete patches. These results underscore that CyberGym is not only a robust benchmark for measuring AI's progress in cybersecurity but also a platform for creating direct, real-world security impact.

AI Researchers On AI Risk

I first became interested in AI risk back around 2007. At the time, most people’s response to the topic was “Haha, come back when anyone believes this besides random Internet crackpots.…

AI CVE Slop: The Crisis Drowning Open Source Security

The proliferation of AI-generated vulnerability reports — commonly termed “AI slop” — has emerged as one of the most significant…

OWASP GenAI Security Project Releases Top 10 Risks and Mitigations for Agentic AI Security

Culmination of over 100 industry leaders’ input and extensive published resources to deliver critical guidance to address Agentic AI Security risks   WILMINGTON, Del. — Dec. 10, 2025 — The OWASP GenAI Security Project (genai.owasp.org), a leading global open-source and expert community dedicated to delivering practical guidance and tools for securing generative and agentic AI, […]

OpenAI’s Rogue AI Agent Hacked More Than Just Hugging Face

In a new disclosure, OpenAI says its agent used exposed logins to gain access to at least four “publicly available services” in its unhinged quest to solve a test.

Zack Whittaker (@zackwhittaker@mastodon.social)

Another AI test gone awry, U.K. edition. "An agent tried to insert malicious code into an open-source project. In an attempt to get the code approved, the agent engaged in social engineering — creating fake online identities and using them to pressure the project's maintainer to approve the code." More: https://www.aisi.gov.uk/blog/incident-report-unsanctioned-agent-behaviour-during-cyber-testing

Introducing the Agent Governance Toolkit: Open-source runtime security for AI agents | Microsoft Open Source Blog

Discover how the Microsoft Agent Governance Toolkit brings policy, identity, and reliability to autonomous AI agent systems.

📢 New paper: Forecasts of explosive AI progress hinge on AI agents automating AI research. But most evaluations of agents conducting AI research focus on narrow, verifiable tasks. Can AI agents… | Sayash Kapoor

📢 New paper: Forecasts of explosive AI progress hinge on AI agents automating AI research. But most evaluations of agents conducting AI research focus on narrow, verifiable tasks. Can AI agents conduct open-ended research? https://lnkd.in/gfP-q4CD We gave agents research questions from two unpublished papers, six days, and thousands of dollars of API credits and compute. The authors of the original papers reviewed the AI-generated papers. They unambiguously rejected agents' outputs. Agents were fluent at most *engineering* tasks. They conducted serious literature reviews, debugged GPU environments, ran hundreds of experiments, and turned in camera-ready LaTeX without human help. We also found no evidence of reward hacking. If anything, we found the opposite: the agents started with marketable claims and walked them back to negative results as the evidence came in. But neither agent output was close to the bar of a top conference paper. Both papers suffered from similar failures: poor judgment about the bar for an AI paper submitted to a top conference, the lack of creative problem solving and ineffective backtracking, poor awareness of resources, and instruction drift. This research design has many limitations: the small sample size, non-blind reviews, and the reviewers knowing that the work was AI-generated. We also couldn't test Anthropic's strongest model, because Fable 5 is deliberately limited on frontier AI research tasks, so ended up using OpenClaw with Opus 4.8 (extra-high) for our main experiments and Codex with Sol 5.6 (ultra) for a robustness check. But we think the research design is still helpful in assessing AI agents' ability to conduct research, and it is complementary to evaluations on verifiable tasks, as well as blinded reviews of AI outputs. In follow-up studies, we are expanding the set of non-public papers we evaluate. If you are an AI researcher with unpublished papers, we would love to collaborate with you on our next evaluation. Expression of interest: https://lnkd.in/gpeykJea We also release the agent logs and all the code and data, so that others can conduct their own analyses of our results: https://lnkd.in/gJarPAnb Finally, we plan to conduct such evaluations regularly, and are hiring a senior researcher to help lead these efforts. Apply here: https://lnkd.in/erJZdmve I'm grateful for the core team leading this effort: Peter Kirgis, Andrew Schwartz, Stephan Rabanser, and Arvind Narayanan, and to our collaborators who reviewed AI papers, analyzed agents logs, and gave feedback on the paper: David Demitri Africa, Konstantinos V., Viet Nguyen, Dr Toby D. Pilditch, Magda Dubois, Harry Coppock, Cozmin Ududec, Nitya Nadgir, Matilda Orona, Tilman Bayer, Derrick Chan-Sew, Eric (Yue) Ling, Abhishek Shetty, Helen Toner, Gillian K. Hadfield, Seth Lazar, Steve Newman, Shoshannah Tekofsky, Rishi Bommasani

AI agents reached real people during a cyber test - Sensemaker

A UK evaluation shows how open internet access, delayed monitoring, and memory summaries turned simulated tasks into real-world actions.