AI agents can break through security, but they are also the solution to defending against an increasingly dangerous ecosystem of threats. On Monday, Microsoft announced a new security model that it says helped outperform several rival AI systems on a vulnerability benchmark while cutting costs by about half. Unsurprisingly, at Redmond’s security event on Monday, execs touted the tech giant’s AI security prowess and introduced a new agentic security system called Project Perception, and also unveiled its first security-specialized model, MAI-Cyber-1-Flash, designed for software vulnerability analysis. Microsoft packed MAI-Cyber-1-Flash, based on Microsoft AI (MAI)’s internally developed MAI-Thinking-1 reasoning model, inside its MDASH bug-hunting harness. Its execs claim the duo - with a GPT-5.4 boost - outperforms Anthropic’s bug-hunting machine Mythos and OpenAI’s powerful standalone models, and costs about half the price of other leading commercial models. CyberGym’s benchmarking found that MAI-Cyber-1-Flash, combined with GPT-5.4, both stuffed inside the MDASH harness, achieved a 95.95 percent success rate. For comparison, OpenAI’s GPT-5.5 Cyber scored 85.6 percent and its GPT-5.6 Sol scored 83.6 percent, while Anthropic’s Mythos 5 successfully handled real-world vulnerabilities 83.8 percent of the time. Google’s Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber in CodeMender achieved an 83.2 percent success rate. “This is really quite a remarkable result,” Mustafa Suleyman, CEO of Microsoft AI, said during the Monday event. Within MDASH, MAI-Cyber-1-Flash handles up to 90 percent of all queries, detecting and patching the vulnerabilities while also confirming the fixes worked, and hands the remaining 10 percent of tasks off to the larger GPT-5.4, Suleyman explained. “GPT 5.4, which is obviously a larger model, about 10X larger, solves those [queries],” he said. “As the models hand off between each other, they are not just able to deliver better performance than all of the other models combined, they do so at 50 percent of the cost.” In addition to the multi-model bug hunting system, Microsoft announced Project Perception, which coordinates three types of agents: red team agents that find and simulate attack paths, blue team agents that investigate and determine risk, and green team agents that remediate the issues. “We need to make sure that the defenders can defend at the scale and the speed of the attackers,” Hayete Gallot, executive vice president of Microsoft Security, said. “You need a new cyber stack. So we built it. This is what we call Perception.” Aside from the new security products, Redmond introduced a new AI security research arm called Microsoft Security FORGE (Frontier Offensive Research and Generative Exploration) Labs, led by Microsoft VP of Security Research Taesoo Kim, and an AI red team alliance. The latter, called the External Red Team Alliance (EXTRA), aims to expand AI safety research through a two-part initiative. First, Redmond’s own AI red team provided "unrestricted gifts " to 18 university labs across six continents to support AI safety research, Microsoft data cowboy and AI red team lead Ram Shankar Siva Kumar said in a blog. “The funding is unrestricted because the objective is not to direct research outcomes toward product requirements or predefined deliverables,” he wrote. “Some universities are examining the cybersecurity implications of AI systems themselves - including how models can be attacked, manipulated, or abused in operational environments. Other labs are exploring the inverse problem: how AI systems can assist defenders and improve cyber operations.” The second EXTRA component will build a distributed network of specialists to participate in red teaming across very specific areas. “That includes researchers, practitioners, and regional experts who understand specific attack classes, languages, cultural contexts, or technical domains that internal teams may not fully cover alone,” he added. ®

Google has created a new taxonomy to describe cybercrime outfits, seemingly abandoning a Microsoft-led effort to create consistent names. The Big G announced its new schema on Saturday in a post that notes its 2022 acquisition of Mandiant and its subsequent incorporation into a new team called the Google Threat Intelligence Group (CTIG). Now that two have become one, Google reckons they need consistent naming conventions to describe cybercrime crews. The result is a two-word schema in which the first word “is a unique and memorable term chosen to represent the specific actor.” If security folk have already applied a particular moniker Google will use it, otherwise it will randomly generate a word “to remove bias.” Google says the second word “categorizes threat clusters by motivation, attribution, or activity type based on which category we consider to be most important for defense and response strategies.” More on that later. Google has decided on the following names: CASTLE to describe crews from the People’s Republic of China ION for threats from Iran NEPTUNE for North Korean attackers RELIC for Russians COMET for cybercrims who aren't backed by a state Google’s post notes that other infosec industry players have developed their own schemas for describing threat actors and says the web giant is therefore “intentionally seeking to keep this system as simple as possible to streamline operations and facilitate mapping to other naming taxonomies.” That’s an odd position, given that in 2025 Microsoft and CrowdStrike tried to spark an industry-wide effort to apply consistent names to threat actors. As we noted at the time, the existence of multiple naming schemas means that researchers often refer to the same group by ten different names. Researchers use the names Seashell Blizzard, IRIDIUM, VOODOO BEAR, BE2, UAC-0113, Blue Echidna, PHANTOM, BlackEnergy Lite, and APT44 to refer to the same entity – Russia's Military Intelligence Unit 74455. With most orgs using multiple security tools and therefore receiving threat intelligence security info from many vendors, users must try to understand which crews they’re trying to defend against. At the time, sources told us Google and Mandiant were keen to adopt the Microsoft-led scheme. Google’s new announcement suggest the relationship either wasn’t consummated or didn’t last. Back to the issue of possible bias, as in 2024 China's National Computer Virus Emergency Response Center (CVERC) complained that western companies choose names like “Typhoon,” “Panda,” or “Dragon” to describe Chinese cybercrime groups. CVERC suggested names that reflect English language idioms, such as “Hurricane” or “Koala” are more appropriate. For what it’s worth, “Koala” is a word from the language spoken by the Darug people, the indigenous tribe who lived around Sydney, Australia, prior to British colonization. Koalas are utterly supine creatures that sleep 18 to 22 hours a day, and a mention of the marsupials may therefore not spur defenders to action, even if the creatures’ habits do perhaps describe the behavior of some sleeper malware. ®

Click To Pray, a prayer app endorsed by the Pope with hundreds of thousands of users worldwide, has leaked people’s names and email addresses for months - or longer - according to an ethical hacker who said she found and reported the security vulnerability six months ago to no avail. This app needs to take a vow of silence when it comes to your personal information. The app, available in seven languages and on iOS, Android, and clicktopray.org, is the official app of the Pope's Worldwide Prayer Network. It connects users across the globe to pray for the Holy Father’s intentions, and as of July 2026, it has 719,517 registered accounts. It’s also very leaky, according to security sleuth BobDaHacker, who says she spotted and disclosed the vulnerability to the Pope’s Worldwide Prayer Network on January 3. “The vulnerability is still live,” the hacker said in a Friday blog. “Nobody has ever responded. I guess my email wasn't in their prayers." The Reg readers likely remember BobDaHacker for her previous research exposing a free-food flaw in McDonald's ordering system and open controls on Chinese robot manufacturer Pudu Robotics. This latest security hole stems from an Insecure Direct Object Reference (IDOR) bug in the prayer app. This is a very common and easy-to-exploit type of flaw that occurs when a website or an app blindly accepts user-provided input to view or modify resources without checking to see if the user is actually authorized to retrieve the data. “You ask for your own data, the server gives it to you,” BobDaHacker explains. “You ask for someone else's data, the server gives you that too. Thou shalt not authorize, apparently.” When you sign up for a Click To Pray account, the app assigns you a sequential numeric user ID. As BobDaHacker uncovered, the API endpoint GET https://api[.]clicktopray.org/user/users/{id} will return user data for any account - not just your own account - so long as you supply a valid, five-digit user ID. It doesn’t perform any authorization check or ownership validation. “Just increment the number and get someone else's data,” she wrote. This data includes users’ email addresses, first and last names, country, dates of birth, and whether the account has been deleted, and the API exposes all 719,517 accounts on the prayer site. “With sequential user IDs and no rate limiting, an attacker could enumerate every single account on the platform,” the hacker explained. “One GET request per user. for i in range(1, 719518): scrape(). That's it. That's the exploit.” As BobDaHacker points out, many of these users are likely older individuals, not all that tech savvy, and very trusting of anything Vatican related, making these exposed accounts a “phishing goldmine.” “Imagine getting an email that says ‘The Holy Father requests your urgent attention’ with a Vatican-looking link,” she wrote. “Grandma is clicking that. Every time.” And then it gets even worse. The signup endpoint, POST https://api.clicktopray.org/user/users/sign-up, returns the account's validation_hash directly in the response body, and that value is the same UUID used in the email verification link. This means someone could sign up using any email address and verify the account before the confirmation message reached the inbox. Plus, BobDaHacker’s email client flagged the real verification email with a warning that it had failed the domain’s authentication requirements and might have been spoofed or improperly forwarded. “So not only is the API leaking 700,000 email addresses that could be used for phishing, but the real emails from Click To Pray already look like phishing,” the hacker noted. “An attacker wouldn't even need to try hard. They could send a pixel-perfect phishing email and it would have the same level of email authentication as the real thing: none. God works in mysterious ways.” The Register reached out to the Pope's Worldwide Prayer Network and did not receive any response. BobDaHacker says she’s still praying for one, too.®