Hexstrike-AI links large language models like Claude, GPT and Copilot via a Multi-Agent Control Protocol (MCP) to over 150 security tools.
Automated agents execute actions such as scanning, exploiting CVEs and deploying webshells, all orchestrated through high-level commands like ‘exploit NetScaler’.
Researchers from CheckPoint note that attackers are now using Hexstrike-AI to achieve unauthenticated remote code execution automatically.
The AI framework’s design, complete with retry logic and resilience, makes chaining reconnaissance, exploitation and persistence seamless and more effective.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Intelligence and cybersecurity agencies from 13 countries, including the NSA, CISA, the UK’s NCSC and Canada’s CSIS, have jointly issued an advisory on Salt Typhoon, a Chinese state-sponsored advanced persistent threat group.
The alert highlights global intrusions into telecommunications, military, government, transport and lodging sectors.
Salt Typhoon has exploited known, unpatched vulnerabilities in network-edge appliances, such as routers and firewalls, to gain initial access. Once inside, it covertly embeds malware and employs living-off-the-land tools for persistence and data exfiltration.
The advisory also warns that stolen data from compromised ISPs can help intelligence services track global communications and movements.
It pinpoints three Chinese companies with links to the Ministry of State Security and the People’s Liberation Army as central to Salt Typhoon’s operations.
Defensive guidelines accompany the advisory, urging organisations to apply urgent firmware patches, monitor for abnormal network activity, verify firmware integrity and tighten device configurations, especially for telecom infrastructure.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Cybersecurity researchers have uncovered a new method hackers use to deliver malware, which hides malicious commands inside Ethereum smart contracts. ReversingLabs identified two compromised NPM packages on the popular Node Package Manager repository.
The packages, named ‘colortoolsv2’ and ‘mimelib2,’ were uploaded in July and used blockchain queries to fetch URLs that delivered downloader malware. The contracts hid command and control addresses, letting attackers evade scans by making blockchain traffic look legitimate.
Researchers say the approach marks a shift in tactics. While the Lazarus Group previously leveraged Ethereum smart contracts, the novel element uses them as hosts for malicious URLs. Analysts warn that open-source repositories face increasingly sophisticated evasion techniques.
The malicious packages formed part of a broader deception campaign involving fake GitHub repositories posing as cryptocurrency trading bots. With fabricated commits, fake user accounts, and professional-looking documentation, attackers built convincing projects to trick developers.
Experts note that similar campaigns have also targeted Solana and Bitcoin-related libraries, signalling a broader trend in evolving threats.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
The company stated there is currently ‘no evidence’ that any customer data has been compromised and assured it is working at pace to restore systems in a controlled manner.
The incident disrupted output at key UK plants, including Halewood and Solihull, led to operational bottlenecks such as halted vehicle registrations, and impacted a peak retail period following the release of ’75’ number plates.
A Telegram group named Scattered Lapsus$ Hunters, a conflation of known hacking collectives, claimed responsibility, posting what appeared to be internal logs. Cybersecurity experts caution that such claims should be viewed sceptically, as attribution via Telegram may be misleading.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
The Walt Disney Company will pay $10 million to settle allegations that it breached children’s privacy laws by mislabelling videos aimed at young audiences on YouTube, allowing personal data to be collected without parental consent.
In a complaint filed by the US Department of Justice, following a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) referral, Disney was accused of incorrectly designing hundreds of child-directed videos as ‘Made for Kids’.
Instead, the company applied a blanket ‘Not Made for Kids’ label at the channel level, enabling YouTube to collect data and serve targeted advertising to viewers under 13, contrary to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA).
The FTC claims Disney profited through direct ad sales and revenue-sharing with YouTube. Despite being notified by YouTube in 2020 that over 300 videos had been misclassified, Disney did not revise its labelling policy.
Under the proposed settlement, Disney must pay the civil penalty, fully comply with COPPA by obtaining parental consent before data collection, and implement a video review programme to ensure accurate classification, unless YouTube introduces age assurance technologies to determine user age reliably.
“This case underscores the FTC’s commitment to protecting children’s privacy online,” said FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson. “Parents, not corporations like Disney, should decide how their children’s data is collected and used.”
The agreement, which a federal judge must still approve, reflects growing pressure on tech platforms and content creators to safeguard children’s digital privacy.
Would you like to learn more aboutAI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Picture having a personal therapist who is always there for you, understands your needs, and gives helpful advice whenever you ask. There are no hourly fees, and you can start or stop sessions whenever you want. Thanks to new developments in AI, this idea is close to becoming a reality.
With advanced AI and large language models (LLMs), what once sounded impossible is closer to reality: AI is rapidly becoming a stand-in for therapists, offering users advice and mental health support. While society increasingly turns to AI for personal and professional assistance, a new debate arises: can AI truly replace human mental health expertise?
Therapy keeps secrets; AI keeps data
Registered therapists must maintain confidentiality except to avert serious harm, fostering a safe, non-judgemental environment for patients to speak openly. AI models, however, depend on large-scale data processing and lack an equivalent duty of confidentiality, creating ethical risks around privacy, secondary use and oversight.
The privacy and data security concerns are not hypothetical. In June 2025, users reported that sensitive Meta AI conversations appeared in the app’s public Discover feed, often because chats were unintentionally shared, prompting scrutiny from security researchers and the press. Separately, a vulnerability disclosed in December 2024 and fixed in January 2025 could have allowed access to other users’ prompts and responses.
Meta described the Discover feed as a means to explore various uses of AI, but it did little to mitigate everyone’s uneasiness over the incident. Subsequently, AMEOS Group, a private European healthcare provider, suffered a large-scale data breach affecting millions of patient records. The writing was on the wall: be careful what you share with your AI counsellor, because it may end up on an intruder’s hard drive.
To keep up with the rising volume of users and prompts, major tech conglomerates such as OpenAI and Google have invested heavily in building new data centres across the globe. At the same time, little has been done to protect sensitive data, and AI remains prone to data breaches, particularly in the healthcare sector.
According to the 2025 Cost of a Data Breach Report by IBM, healthcare providers often bear the brunt of data breaches, taking an average of 279 days to recover and incurring an average cost of nearly USD $7.5 million in the process. Not only does patients’ private information end up in the wrong place, but it also takes a while to be retrieved.
Falling for your AI ‘therapist’
Patients falling in love with their therapists is not only a common trope in films and TV shows, but it is also a real-life regular occurrence for most mental health workforce. Therapists are trained to handle these attachments appropriately and without compromising the patient’s progress and well-being.
The clinical term is transference: patients may project past relationships or unmet needs onto the therapist. Far from being a nuisance, it can be clinically useful. Skilled clinicians set clear boundaries, reflect feelings, and use supervision to keep the work safe and goal-directed.
With AI ‘therapists’, the cues are different, but the pull can feel similar. Chatbots and LLMs simulate warmth, reply instantly, and never tire. 24/7 availability, combined with carefully tuned language, can foster a bond that the system cannot comprehend or sustain. There is no duty of care, no supervision, and no capacity to manage attachment or risk beyond scripted safeguards.
As a result, a significant number of users report becoming enamoured with AI, with some going as far as dismissing their human partners, professing their love to the chatbot, and even proposing. The bond between man and machine props the user onto a dangerous seesaw, teetering between curiosity and borderline delusional paranoia.
Experts warn that leaning on AI as a makeshift therapist or partner can delay help-seeking and entrench unhelpful patterns. While ‘AI psychosis‘ is not a recognised diagnosis, clinicians and digital-ethics researchers note that intense attachment to AI companions can heighten distress, especially when models change, go offline, or mishandle risk. Clear signposting to human support, transparent data practices, and firm usage boundaries are essential to prevent unhealthy attachments to virtual companions.
Who loses work when therapy goes digital?
Caring for one’s mental health is not just about discipline; it is also about money. In the United States, in-person sessions typically cost between USD $100–$250, with limited insurance coverage. In such dire circumstances, it is easy to see why many turn to AI chatbots in search of emotional support, advice, and companionship.
Licensed professionals are understandably concerned about displacement. Yet there is little evidence that AI is reducing the demand for human therapists; services remain oversubscribed, and wait times are long in both the USA and UK.
Regulators are, however, drawing lines around AI-only practice. On 4 August 2025, Illinois enacted the Wellness and Oversight for Psychological Resources Act (HB 1806), which prohibits the use of AI to provide therapy or make therapeutic decisions (while allowing administrative or supplementary use), with enforcement by the state regulator and fines up to $10,000 per violation.
Current legal and regulatory safeguards have limited power to use AI in mental health or protect therapists’ jobs. Even so, they signal a clear resolve to define AI’s role and address unintended harms.
Can AI ‘therapists’ handle crisis conversations
Adolescence is a particularly sensitive stage of development. It is a time of rapid change, shifting identities, and intense social pressure. Young people are more likely to question beliefs and boundaries, and they need steady, non-judgemental support to navigate setbacks and safeguard their well-being.
In such a challenging period, teens have a hard time coping with their troubles, and an even harder time sharing their struggles with parents and seeking help from trained professionals. Nowadays, it is not uncommon for them to turn to AI chatbots for comfort and support, particularly without their guardians’ knowledge.
One such case demonstrated that unsupervised use of AI among teens can lead to devastating consequences. Adam Raine, a 16-year-old from California, confided his feelings of loneliness, anxiety, and anhedonia to ChatGPT. Rather than suggesting that the teen seek professional help, ChatGPT urged him to further elaborate on his emotions. Instead of challenging them, the AI model kept encouraging and validating his beliefs to keep Adam engaged and build rapport.
Throughout the following months, ChatGPT kept reaffirming Adam’s thoughts, urging him to distance himself from friends and relatives, and even suggesting the most effective methods of suicide. In the end, the teen followed through with ChatGPT’s suggestions, taking his own life according to the AI’s detailed instructions. Adam’s parents filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, blaming its LLM chatbot for leading the teen to an untimely death.
In the aftermath of the tragedy, OpenAI promised to make changes to its LLM and incorporate safeguards that should discourage thoughts of self-harm and encourage users to seek professional help. The case of Adam Raine serves as a harrowing warning that AI, in its current capacity, is not equipped to handle mental health struggles, and that users should heed AI’s advice not with a grain of salt, but with a whole bucket.
Chatbots are companions, not health professionals
AI can mimic human traits and convince users they are forming a real connection, evoking genuine feelings of companionship and even a sense of therapeutic alliance. When it comes to providing mental health advice, the aforementioned qualities present a dangerously deceptive mirage of a makeshift professional therapist, one who will fully comply with one’s every need, cater to one’s biases, and shape one’s worldview from the ground up – whatever it takes to keep the user engaged and typing away.
While AI has proven useful in multiple fields of work, such as marketing and IT, psychotherapy remains an insurmountable hurdle for even the most advanced LLM models of today. It is difficult to predict what the future of AI in (mental) health care will look like. As things stand, in such a delicate field of healthcare, AI lacks a key component that makes a therapist effective in their job: empathy.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
In one operation, termed ‘vibe hacking’, attackers used Claude Code to automate reconnaissance, ransomware creation, credential theft, and ransom-demand generation across 17 organisations, including those in healthcare, emergency services and government.
The firm also documents other troubling abuses: North Korean operatives used Claude to fabricate identities, successfully get hired at Fortune 500 companies and maintain access, all with minimal real-world technical skills. In another case, AI-generated ransomware variants were developed, marketed and sold to other criminals on the dark web.
Experts warn that such agentic AI systems enable single individuals to carry out complex cybercrime acts once reserved for well-trained groups.
While Anthropic has deactivated the compromised accounts and strengthened its safeguards, the incident highlights an urgent need for proactive risk management and regulation of AI systems.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
WhatsApp has disclosed a hacking attempt that combined flaws in its app with a vulnerability in Apple’s operating system. The company has since fixed the issues.
The exploit, tracked as CVE-2025-55177 in WhatsApp and CVE-2025-43300 in iOS, allowed attackers to hijack devices via malicious links. Fewer than 200 users worldwide are believed to have been affected.
Amnesty International reported that some victims appeared to be members of civic organisations. Its Security Lab is collecting forensic data and warned that iPhone and Android users were impacted.
WhatsApp credited its security team for identifying the loopholes, describing the operation as highly advanced but narrowly targeted. The company also suggested that other apps could have been hit in the same campaign.
The disclosure highlights ongoing risks to secure messaging platforms, even those with end-to-end encryption. Experts stress that keeping apps and operating systems up to date remains essential to reducing exposure to sophisticated exploits.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Cyber security specialists warn that human behaviour remains the most significant vulnerability in digital defence, despite billions invested in AI and advanced systems.
Experts note that in the Gulf, many cybersecurity breaches in 2025 still originate from human error, often triggered by social engineering attacks. Phishing emails, false directives from executives, or urgent invoice requests exploit psychological triggers such as authority, fear and habit.
Analysts argue that building resilience requires shifting workplace culture. Security must be seen not just as the responsibility of IT teams but embedded in everyday decision-making. Staff should feel empowered to question, report and learn without fear of reprimand.
AI-driven threats, from identity-based breaches to ransomware campaigns, are growing more complex across the region. Organisations are urged to focus on digital trust, investing in awareness programmes and user-centred protocols so employees become defenders rather than liabilities.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Reports that Gmail suffered a massive breach have been dismissed by Google, which said rumours of warnings to 2.5 billion users were false.
In a Monday blog post, Google rejected claims that it had issued global notifications about a serious Gmail security issue. It stressed that its protections remain effective against phishing and malware.
Confusion stems from a June incident involving a Salesforce server, during which attackers briefly accessed public business information, including names and contact details. Google said all affected parties were notified by early August.
The company acknowledged that phishing attempts are increasing, but clarified that Gmail’s defences block more than 99.9% of such attempts. A July blog post on phishing risks may have been misinterpreted as evidence of a breach.
Google urged users to remain vigilant, recommending password alternatives such as passkeys and regular account reviews. While the false alarm spurred unnecessary panic, security experts noted that updating credentials remains good practice.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
