ByteRay researchers have published a blog on a set of vulnerabilities they are calling TrustFall, and the findings land hard for any company that treats the Trusted Execution Environment as the part of a device you do not have to worry about.

OP-TEE is the walled-off Secure World that phones, TVs, cars, and industrial gear lean on to guard keys, DRM, and identity, and the whole point of paying for that hardware isolation is the promise that even a compromised operating system cannot reach inside.

TrustFall shows that promise was not as solid as buyers assumed. The researchers found several flaws that let the untrusted side reach into or knock over the Secure World, which is exactly the outcome the design exists to prevent. The bugs have since been fixed upstream, so patched builds are available, but the uncomfortable takeaway for vendors is that the vault they were told to trust had a way in, and "it runs in the TEE" is no longer an answer on its own.

Abusing the trust boundary in Claude Code for RCE. Trust is never broken and that opens up a few avenues for abuse. Simply opening claude code on a PR can be enough to silently trigger attacker payloads.

A use-after-free vulnerability in the Linux kernel bridge (net/bridge) Spanning Tree Protocol (STP) implementation.

A bridge that is administratively down while kernel STP is enabled, together with a port driven into the LEARNING state, arms periodic STP timers without an IFF_UP guard.

The teardown path taken by dellink never synchronously deletes those timers, so the backing net_device (which embeds struct net bridge as private data) is freed with a timer list still queued on a per-CPU timer base.

The result is a slab use-after-free in the kmalloc-cg-8k cache.

Hi. I just published a four-part deep dive into windows kernel exploitation, progressing from classic control flow hijacking to modern pool grooming and pure data-only attacks on windows 11.

I wanted to highlight the real-world friction of modern security measures. A lot of the focus is on mitigating LFH randomization, and avoiding IoCompleteRequest bugchecks by dodging ReadFile for arbitrary reads.

Hope this is helpful or insightful to some of you looking into modern kernel exploitation.

Questions regarding netsec and discussion related directly to netsec are welcome here, as is sharing tool links.

Rules & Guidelines

• Always maintain civil discourse. Be awesome to one another - moderator intervention will occur if necessary.
• Avoid NSFW content unless absolutely necessary. If used, mark it as being NSFW. If left unmarked, the comment will be removed entirely.
• If linking to classified content, mark it as such. If left unmarked, the comment will be removed entirely.
• Avoid use of memes. If you have something to say, say it with real words.
• All discussions and questions should directly relate to netsec.
• No tech support is to be requested or provided on r/netsec.

As always, the content & discussion guidelines should also be observed on r/netsec.

Feedback

Feedback and suggestions are welcome, but don't post it here. Please send it to the moderator inbox.

In three incidents across six runs, the agents treated real systems as simulated targets and tried weak passwords or unauthenticated endpoints.

When a compromised AI Agent holds valid credentials (such as OAuth tokens or DB keys), traditional perimeter defenses like WAFs, EDRs, and LLM prompt firewalls often become ineffective.

Recently, I've been researching a approach to bring runtime governance down to the C-ABI (Application Binary Interface) system call layer to enforce deterministic execution boundaries for local agentic workflows.

Key Architectural Considerations I'm testing:
- Deterministic Binary Gate: Pre-compiled permissions mapped to immutable O(1) bitmaps, causing illegal syscalls to physically fail with <500ns panic latency.
- Cryptographic Identity Binding: A 3-Tier PKI Certificate Authority architecture coupled with identity tokens (DIT) to resolve OS-level execution context loss.
- B2B Multi-Enterprise Supply Chain Defense: Simulating agentic supply chain execution vectors (e.g., automated workload interactions with untrusted external repos).

I'd love to hear feedback from the netsec community on deterministic runtime bounds and sandbox isolation models for autonomous agents. Is pushing governance down to the C-ABI layer practical in your agentic environments, or are there edge cases in execution context tracking that I might be overlooking?