The Hacker News | Expert Insights

Cybersecurity teams have no shortage of threat data: New vulnerabilities are disclosed, malware is discovered, attack campaigns are analyzed, and manufacturers, CERTs, and security agencies continuously publish indicators of compromise (IoCs), security advisories, and other technical information. For operators of critical infrastructure, however, collecting this information is not even the most challenging part. Security teams still need to determine whether a threat is relevant to their environment, which assets may be affected, and what the observed activity actually means in the context of an operational network. In the energy sector, that requires knowledge extending beyond enterprise security and into the protocols, equipment, and processes that keep power systems operating. A suspicious packet in an office network is one thing. Understanding whether communication between an engineering workstation and a protection device using IEC 61850 represents expected maintenance activi...

Many AI systems depend on input signals that teams cannot fully inspect or explain. These opaque sources reduce visibility into the data paths that influence model behavior. Engineers lose provenance records, limiting the diagnosis of abnormal outputs. This complicates the work of security teams that need clear records of what influenced a model at any point in time. Verifiable search data offers a stable alternative. It gives teams an input they can examine, store, and reproduce in controlled conditions. Engineers can compare model behavior against information that was publicly accessible at the time a result was produced, rather than depend on hidden internal signals. This article outlines why verifiable search data gives AI and security teams the clarity required to maintain operational control. Why Traceability Matters in AI Systems Traceability lets teams follow an input from its origin through each processing step. When every stage can be inspected, engineers can review...

Artificial intelligence is everywhere now. From automated code completion to autonomous infrastructure management, AI tools and AI agents help DevOps speed up deployment cycles and change how development teams operate in general. At the same time, this rapid adoption of AI has created a reality that is hard for security teams to ignore: as with the growth of AI capability within the software development life cycle, the attack surface also grows. In 2025, there were 68 AI-related incidents recorded across major DevOps platforms according to the 2026 DevOps Threats Unwrapped Report . In the first half of 2026, the number of AI-related incidents visibly grew — research from GitProtect Lab tracked 84 AI-related incidents in six months alone. Thus, comparing the first half of 2026 to the same period in 2025 shows that AI-related incidents in development environments have nearly tripled. What do DevOps and DevSecOps say about AI incidents in general? According to GitProtect Lab ’s surve...

Penetration testing is intended to help organizations identify weaknesses before attackers can exploit them. Once testing ends, findings must be documented, reviewed, formatted, delivered, assigned, tracked, remediated, and eventually retested. In many organizations, each of those steps happens in a different system and depends on a manual handoff. Testers work in one set of tools. Reports are assembled in Word or spreadsheets. Findings are delivered through PDFs. Security teams recreate them in ticketing systems. Engineering teams update remediation status somewhere else. Retesting is coordinated through email or meetings. By the time the right owner receives the information needed to act, days or weeks may have passed. At PlexTrac , we see this as one of the largest operational gaps in modern offensive security: organizations have invested in finding vulnerabilities, but the process surrounding the pentest has not kept pace. The next phase of pentest modernization is removin...

Identity is the attack surface now. Most identity governance and administration (IGA) programs still run on manual certifications, static role models, and quarterly reviews that go stale the day someone signs off on them. That's not a compliance inconvenience for a CISO. It's a structural gap. Attackers don't wait for the next recertification cycle, so identity risk detection can't either. Autonomous identity governance turns IGA from a periodic, human-driven exercise into something that runs continuously, watching real usage, learning what normal looks like, and acting on deviations before they turn into incidents. That autonomy applies across every identity and entitlement placed under governance, continuously reassessing access as usage, roles, and risk signals change. Three things are colliding to force this shift. Identity sprawl across cloud and SaaS environments has grown past what manual reviews can realistically handle, service accounts and non-human identi...

A security leader at a global finance company told us recently that his team discovered three times more AI tools running in their environment than IT had approved. Nobody had smuggled them in. Employees had simply pointed agents at their work, and the agents brought their own tools with them. That conversation is not unusual. It is the conversation. Over the past year, in customer discussions across finance, healthcare, manufacturing, and government, the same four struggles come up so consistently that we have started treating them as the shape of the problem itself. Every company effectively hired a second workforce this year, human workers and agentic workers side by side, and the agentic workers never went through onboarding. No handbook, no scoped credentials, no acceptable-use policy they can actually read. Here is what teams are struggling with, what our research says about why, and what closing each gap actually requires. Struggle one: "I can't tell you what age...