cURL developer Daniel Stenberg has seen Anthropic’s Mythos, a model the AI biz has suggested is too capable at finding security holes to release publicly, scan his popular open source project. But after the system turned up just a single vulnerability, he concluded the hype around Mythos was “primarily marketing” rather than a major AI security breakthrough. Stenberg explained in a Monday blog post that he was promised access to Anthropic’s Mythos model - sort of - through the AI biz’s Project Glasswing program. Part of Glasswing involves giving high-profile open source projects access via the Linux Foundation, but while Stenberg signed up to try Mythos, he said he never actually received direct access to the model. Instead, someone else with access ran Mythos against curl’s codebase and later sent him a report. “It’s not that I would have a lot of time to explore lots of different prompts and doing deep dive adventures anyway,” Stenberg explained. “Getting the tool to generate a first proper scan and analysis would be great, whoever did it.” That scan, which analyzed curl’s git repository at a recent master-branch commit, was sent back to him earlier this month, and it found just five things that it claimed were “confirmed security vulnerabilities” in cURL. Saying he had expected an extensive list of vulnerabilities, Stenberg wrote that the report “felt like nothing,” and that feeling was further validated by a review of Mythos’ findings. “Once my curl security team fellows and I had poked on this short list for a number of hours and dug into the details, we had trimmed the list down and were left with one confirmed vulnerability,” Stenberg said, bringing us back to the aforementioned number. As for the other four, three turned out to be false positives that pointed out cURL shortcomings already noted in API documentation, while the team deemed the fourth to be just a simple bug. “The single confirmed vulnerability is going to end up a severity low CVE planned to get published in sync with our pending next curl release 8.21.0 in late June,” the cURL meister noted. “The flaw is not going to make anyone grasp for breath.” That said, Mythos did find several other non-security bugs that Stenberg said the team is working on fixing, and he notes that their description and explanation were well done. Mythos can do good work, in other words, but it’s not a ground-breaking, game-changing AI model like Anthropic has claimed. “My personal conclusion can however not end up with anything else than that the big hype around this model so far was primarily marketing,” Stenberg said in the blog post. “I see no evidence that this setup finds issues to any particular higher or more advanced degree than the other tools have done before Mythos.” cURL code is no stranger to AI To say cURL has become widely used in its nearly three decades of existence would be an understatement. Its wide reach has meant that its team has been running it through all sorts of static code analyzers and fuzz testing it since well before the dawn of the AI age. With AI’s rise, the cURL team has adapted, meaning Mythos is hardly the first AI to get its fingers on cURL’s codebase. “These tools and the analyses they have done have triggered somewhere between two and three hundred bugfixes merged in curl through-out the recent 8-10 months or so,” Stenberg said of tools like AISLE, Zeropath, and OpenAI Codex Security that’ve tested cURL code. “A bunch of the findings these AI tools reported were confirmed vulnerabilities and have been published as CVEs. Probably a dozen or more.” Stenberg’s experience with AI testing cURL, in other words, makes it a great candidate to see how effective Mythos can really be at finding more than the average AI. As Stenberg noted elsewhere in his blog post, Mythos isn’t doing anything particularly novel when it comes to security discoveries: It might be a bit better at finding things than previous models, but “it is not better to a degree that seems to make a significant dent in code analyzing,” the cURL author noted. Stenberg isn’t an AI doomer when it comes to its ability to improve software design, though. Yes, he may have closed the cURL bug bounty earlier this year due to an influx of sloppy, useless bug reports, but he also noted a few months prior to the bounty closure that some security researchers assisted by AI have made valuable reports. “AI powered code analyzers are significantly better at finding security flaws and mistakes in source code than any traditional code analyzers did in the past,” Stenberg said, adding an important qualifier for the Mythos moment: “All modern AI models are good at this now.” Mythos isn’t any more creative than its creators Both older AI models and security-focused tools like Mythos have a common limitation, as far as Stenberg is concerned: They’re only as good at finding security vulnerabilities as the humans who programmed them. “AI tools find the usual and established kind of errors we already know about. It just finds new instances of them,” Stenberg said. “We have not seen any AI so far report a vulnerability that would somehow be of a novel kind or something totally new.” As for Mythos, Stenberg remains unimpressed, calling it "an amazingly successful marketing stunt for sure" in his blog post. In an email to The Register, Stenberg admitted that it’d be possible for AI models to actually discover new, novel types of vulnerabilities, but he’s still not convinced that they can go beyond what humans are capable of finding, given that they’re limited by our understanding of how software vulnerabilities work. At the end of the day, Stenberg explained, when we talk about security, we’re only talking about code. “Source code is text and it feels like maybe we already know about most ways we can do security problems in it,” he pondered in his email. In other words, like the valuable AI-assisted reports made to the cURL bug bounty program before its closure due to a flood of AI garbage, making valuable use of systems like Mythos is going to require humans to get creative. Sorry, no foisting your critical thinking onto a bot. “Human researchers have always used tools when they look for security problems,” Stenberg told us. “Adding AIs to the mix gives the humans even more powerful tools to use, more ways to find problems. I expect that many security bugs going forward will be found by humans coming up with new ways and angles of prompting the AIs.” Stenberg said that he hopes he’ll actually get his hands on Mythos so he can experiment with its capabilities, but he doesn’t seem to be holding out hope the promised access will materialize. “I have been promised access and for all I know I will eventually get it,” Stenberg told us. “I just don't know when.” ®

UPDATED BWH Hotels is informing customers about a third-party data breach that gave cybercriminals access to six months' worth of data. The notification email stated that BWH Hotels, which owns the WorldHotels, Best Western Hotels & Resorts, and Sure Hotels brands, identified the intrusion on April 22, but the affected data goes back to October 14, 2025. BWH Hotels CTO Bill Ryan, who penned the notification email, said names, email addresses, telephone numbers, and/or home addresses belonging to "certain guests" were accessed by an unauthorized third party. The intruders also accessed reservation details, such as reservation numbers, dates of stay, and any special requests. It confirmed that the attack targeted one of its "web applications that houses certain guest reservation data." No payment or bank details were involved. The Register asked BWH Hotels whether the intrusion began in October and went undetected until April, or whether a later breach exposed data dating back to October. We also asked if this was related to information we were sent in March about BWH Hotel customer booking data being stolen and used for phishing campaigns. At the time, the company neither confirmed nor denied the information seen by The Register. BWH Hotels did not immediately respond to our request for comment on Monday. "Upon discovering the incident, we immediately took the application offline and revoked the unauthorized access," said Ryan. "We have engaged leading external cybersecurity experts to support our incident response efforts and to assist with the further strengthening of existing safeguards." "We advise guests to be extra vigilant when viewing any unexpected or suspicious communications about hotel stays. If you receive a suspicious communication such as an unexpected email, text, WhatsApp message, or telephone call that asks for payment, codes, logins, or 'verification,' even if they reference a BWH Hotels property or an upcoming reservation, do not engage. Navigate to sites directly rather than clicking links." ® Updated to add at 1542 UTC, May 12 BWH Hotels ignored all The Register's questions, but provided the following statement: "BWH® Hotels recently notified certain guests of unauthorized activity involving one of its guest reservation applications that contains limited guest contact information and reservation details. Importantly, payment or financial information was not stored in the affected system and therefore was not affected in this incident. Once the unauthorized activity was discovered, we immediately took the application offline and revoked the unauthorized access. We have also taken and will continue to take technical and organizational safeguards to further protect guest information. We have notified the appropriate regulatory agencies. BWH Hotels takes the security and privacy of guest information very seriously and apologizes for any inconvenience or concern this incident may have caused."

OPINION There are three little words to make the heart beat faster in anyone who knows what they mean: critical infrastructure resilience. If you run that infrastructure or a country dependent on it, you need energy, communication and transport to be impregnable to cyber attacks. This is doubly so if that country is five minutes by incoming missile from an implacable hyper-competent enemy sworn to invade you. One that is building and equipping its military as fast as it can with this one thing in mind. One with the most invasive and brazen state hacking machinery on the planet. Thus it was a very bad day indeed when Taiwan’s entire bullet train system was disabled for nearly an hour by an unknown attacker. It got even worse when that attacker turned out not to be the implacable and hyper-resourced state actor over the Taiwan Strait, but a university student with a yen for radio and some kit he bought online. On the one hand, it’s good to see the good repair of the grand tradition of young hackers causing havoc from their bedrooms. On the other, WTRF? The information released by the Taiwanese authorities is scant on details, but enough to be pretty sure what actually happened. It’s bad news not just for Taiwan but for more than 100 countries that also use the TETRA two-way radio standard involved, often for emergency services. In many cases, it was the default replacement for unencrypted FM two-way radios, adding encryption, flexibility and network security. These were state of the art when TETRA was developed in the 1980s and 1990s — and work as well in 2026 as you might expect. Oops. There have been upgrades and, especially after the 2023 vulnerability disclosures, an accelerated program of making things better. A lot of the installed base globally is old, lacks over-the-air updates for security, and in any case spending money on new radios is normally at the bottom of the list for any state or public service organizations. Things have to get really bad first. Perhaps they just have. (North America is the only region where TETRA is uncommon, as it isn’t approved for public service use. This was either acute foresight or the fact that the TE in TETRA, now officially TErrestrial, used to stand for Trans-Europe. The American system, P.25, has never, however, been renamed Freedom Frequencies. Now on with the show) The network vulnerabilities are one side of the story. Our doughty hacker is the other. Reportedly, he didn’t have any TETRA hardware, but a laptop connected to a radio and an ‘SDR filter’. The latter makes little sense, it is far more likely that he had a software defined radio (SDR) called a HackRF. There are plenty of other devices that could have been used, but the HackRF is the weapon of choice for the gung-ho radio nut. SDR is a technique that has completely changed the rules of how to radio. All radios before it had to be entirely or mostly analog, with precision hardware dedicated to whatever job each radio had to do. This hardware could also be looked at as an analog computer, as it can be modelled as a set of mathematical transformations on the received signal. Analog computers have their place, just not in the 21st century. SDR is radio as digital computer. At heart, it has three components: an analog to digital converter to turn the incoming signal to a stream of numbers, very fast processing to do the radio math, and a digital to analogue converter to play the results. What you get is triply terrific. Digital processing is perfect, analog processing adds noise and distortion. Nothing is fixed, everything can be re-engineered with new code. And it can be hog-whimperingly cheap. HackRF is all those things and more. It can be configured as a portable touch-screen device. It transmits and receives from DC to daylight. You can pick one up for less than the price of a mid-range mobile. It is open source. It works with all manner of SDR creation tools, utilities and radio packages. There are infinite legitimate uses. Most excitingly, you can download apps for it that do everything, most especially the kind of thing that will introduce you with surprisingly rapidity to a wide range of new friends with no sense of humor and love letters that look suspiciously like arrest warrants. Think of it as speed dating but with more guns and less no thank yous, GPS spoofing, aviation and marine location transponders, satellite comms, data eavesdropping and injection - take your pick. You’ll need it to unlock the cell door. It is the data detection and injection that seems to have been the downfall of all concerned. A handset had its transmission decoded, and the result was retransmitted into the system as if it were that original radio. Whether the decoded data already had the General Alarm set, or whether the data had to be modified before retransmission, is not yet known. Doesn’t matter. It’s called a replay attack, and it has and is mostly used in stand-alone devices called code grabbers to unlock and steal expensive cars with wireless keys. Some countries, including Canada and the UK, have banned code grabbers, but this has failed on two counts. Code grabbers are small gadgets that can be bought online from China, and good luck policing that. Also, thieves are notably indifferent to laws. That notwithstanding, the UK is thinking of extending the ban to other classes of naughty wireless, and would doubtless like to do the same with HackRF, at least as of last week. Of course, they can’t be banned. SDRs can’t be banned as a class, especially open source ones made out of standard chips and open code. They are general purpose computers, albeit with specialisms. It doesn’t matter if you’re dismayed or delighted that things like HackRF exist, that genie is out of the bottle. What is truly dismaying is that replay attacks are a solved problem, trivially so. Choose a big keyspace, randomize and never repeat keys. That one is on lazy car makers and, apparently, the world of TETRA. Fixing that class of lazy, outdated security vulnerability will be very expensive. Embedded systems are like that, especially old ones. Not fixing this will be a gamble with infinite downside, in a world where electronic warfare systems that used to cost hundreds of millions now pour out of Ali Express for a few bucks. HackRF is to Tetra like Crocodile Dundee’s knife is to the mugger’s. Critical infrastructure resilience. Just three little words, but if you say them you better mean it. And it won’t be cheap. ®

Plus: Meta officially kills encrypted Instagram DMs, the Trump administration targets “violent left wing extremists,” leaked documents reveal Russia's school for elite hackers, and more.

There’s a mysterious framework worming its way through exposed cloud instances removing all traces of TeamPCP infections, but it’s not benevolent by a long shot: Whoever is behind this bit of malware may be cleaning up who came before, but only so they can take their place. Discovered by security outfit SentinelOne’s SentinelLabs researchers and dubbed PCPJack for its habit of stealing previously compromised systems from TeamPCP, the worm was first spotted in late April hiding among a Kubernetes-focused VirusTotal hunting rule. It stood out from known cloud hacktools, said SentinelLabs, because the first action it always takes is to eliminate tools associated with TeamPCP attacks. The script didn’t stop there, though. “We initially considered that this toolset could be a researcher removing TeamPCP’s infections,” SentielLabs said. “Analysis of the later-stage payloads indicates otherwise.” “Analyzing this script led us to discover a full framework dedicated to cloud credential harvesting and propagating onto other systems, both internal and external to the victim’s environment,” SentinelLabs continued. In other words, this thing will harvest credentials from everywhere it can get its hands on, and then find new, unsecured cloud environment targets to spread itself to. TeamPCP came onto the scene late last year, and since then has made a name for itself primarily by undertaking a successful compromise of the Trivy vulnerability scanner. That act spread credential-harvesting malware which attackers then used to pivot to more valuable targets, and became one of the most notable supply chain attacks in recent memory. Unlike TeamPCP’s campaign, which relied on the spread of compromised software by human actors, this one spreads on its own accord. Infections start when already-infected systems look for exposed services, including Docker, Kubernetes, Redis, MongoDB, and RayML, as well as exposed web applications. Once it finds a vulnerable environment, it runs a shell script on the target system that sets up an environment to download additional payloads and searches for TeamPCP processes and artifacts to kill. That part of the infection downloads the worm itself, along with modules to enable lateral movement, parse credentials and encrypt them for exfiltration, and for scanning the web for new environments to infect. From there, the worm goes to work with the second module in its kit that conducts the actual credential thefts. This portion of the infection targets environment variables, config files, SSH keys, Docker secrets, Kubernetes tokens, and credentials from a list of finance, enterprise, messaging, and cloud service targets so long that we recommend taking a look at it here, or just assuming whatever you’re using is probably being targeted. SentinelLabs noted that the lack of a cryptominer in the malware package is unusual, and said the particular services it targeted suggests its goal is either conduct its own spam campaigns and financial fraud with the stolen data, or to make the data it harvests available to those planning similar crimes. The worm's practice of removing TeamPCP files could be opportunistic, or could mean there’s drama going on in the cybercrime world. “We have no evidence to suggest whether this toolset represents someone associated with the group or familiar with their activities,” SentinelLabs noted. “However, the first toolset’s focus on disabling and replacing TeamPCP’s services implies a direct focus on the threat actor’s activities rather than pure cloud attack opportunism.” Because this is a worm relying on unsecured cloud and web app instances ripe for targeting, mitigation recommendations are pretty simple: Keep your cloud platforms secure, and ensure authentication is required even for instances of things like Docker and Kubernetes that aren’t exposed to the internet. ®

A fresh Linux privilege escalation bug dubbed "Dirty Frag" has dropped into the wild with no patches, no CVE, and a public exploit that hands attackers root access across major distributions. Security researcher Hyunwoo Kim disclosed the local privilege escalation flaw on Friday after what he said was a broken embargo forced the issue into the open. Kim described Dirty Frag as a "universal LPE" affecting "all major distributions" and warned that it delivers the same kind of immediate root access as the recent CopyFail mess – only this time, defenders do not even have patches to throw at the problem. "As with the previous Copy Fail vulnerability, Dirty Frag likewise allows immediate root privilege escalation on all major distributions," Kim said. "Because the responsible disclosure schedule and embargo have been broken, no patches exist for any distribution." Dirty Frag works by chaining together two separate Linux kernel flaws. One sits in the xfrm-ESP subsystem and dates back to a January 2017 kernel commit, according to Kim, while the second vulnerability affects RxRPC functionality introduced in 2023. Together, the two bugs allegedly let unprivileged local users overwrite protected files in memory and claw their way to root. A long list of distributions in the firing line, according to Kim, including Ubuntu, Red Hat Enterprise Linux, CentOS Stream, Fedora, AlmaLinux, and openSUSE Tumbleweed. Separately, researchers appear to have independently reverse-engineered part of the bug chain from a publicly visible kernel fix commit before the embargo expired, adding to the disclosure mess already surrounding the flaw. One GitHub project titled "Copy Fail 2: Electric Boogaloo" claims to weaponize the ESP/xfrm side of the issue separately from Kim's full Dirty Frag chain. Kim said maintainers signed off on the disclosure of the flaw after somebody else dumped exploit details online first, collapsing the embargo before patches were finished. So now the exploit is public, the fixes are not, and Linux admins get another long week. The disclosure comes as the industry is still dealing with the fallout from CopyFail, another Linux privilege escalation bug that recently landed in CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog after attackers started cashing in on it in the wild. But Dirty Frag makes the recent CopyFail chaos look relatively organized. There's still no CVE, no coordinated patch rollout, and not much in the way of mitigation. Kim published a temporary workaround that disables affected ESP and RxRPC modules before clearing the system page cache. Useful, perhaps, although "turn bits of the kernel off and hope for the best" is not usually the sort of guidance admins enjoy seeing. ®

Meta has quietly pulled the plug on encrypted Instagram DMs, meaning private messages on one of the world’s biggest social networks are no longer especially private. The change took effect today, according to a revised Meta post first published in 2022. In a statement to The Register, Meta said the feature saw limited adoption and pointed users toward WhatsApp instead. "Very few people were opting in to end-to-end encrypted messaging in DMs, so we're removing this option from Instagram in the coming months," the spokesperson said. "Anyone who wants to keep messaging with end-to-end encryption can easily do that on WhatsApp." It’s quite the reversal for a corporation that spent years telling everyone that encryption was the future of online communications, even as governments pushed back against the company’s wider rollout plans. Much of that pressure centered on child protection. Campaigners and agencies, including the NSPCC UK’s National Crime Agency, argued wider encryption would make it harder to detect grooming, child abuse material, and other criminal activity taking place over private messaging services. Privacy advocates, however, say Meta has just blown a hole in one of the few genuinely private corners of the platform. The Center for Democracy & Technology said it had urged Meta to reverse the decision, alongside members of the Global Encryption Coalition Steering Committee. “Without default encryption, millions of Instagram users are left exposed to surveillance, interception, and misuse of their private communications,” the group said. “These risks fall hardest on people who rely on secure messaging for their safety, including journalists, human rights defenders, and survivors of abuse.” Swiss privacy outfit Proton also questioned what exactly happens to existing chats once encryption disappears. Because properly implemented E2EE prevents platforms from reading message contents, the company noted that Meta has not clarified whether previously encrypted conversations will remain inaccessible, get deleted, or become readable. “For Instagram, dropping E2EE is just an example of how little regard Meta has for the privacy and safety of its community,” Proton said in a blog post. Meta has become increasingly aggressive about monetizing and analyzing user interactions. Last year, the company confirmed that interactions with Meta AI tools, including those inside private conversations, could be used for ad targeting. The company has not publicly said whether ordinary Instagram messages could eventually feed into similar systems now that encryption is gone. ®

If you have ever checked your child’s grades online, submitted a college paper through a school portal, downloaded homework assignments, or received messages from a teacher through a classroom app, there is a good chance you have used Canvas, a nationwide learning management system that was just in a massive data breach. 

This is exactly the moment McAfee+ Advanced was built for. With our built-in Scam Detector to flag risky links, QR codes, and deepfakes; Identity Monitoring that alerts you when your data appears where it shouldn’t; and Personal Data Cleanup that removes your information from the dark web and data brokers, McAfee+ Advanced is an all-in-one solution for protection after a data breach.

Now let’s get into what you need to know about this breach: 

Who Is Behind the Canvas Breach? 

The ransomware group ShinyHunters is claiming responsibility for the attack. The group alleges it stole roughly 275 million records tied to nearly 9,000 schools and educational institutions worldwide. 

How Did the Canvas Cyberattack Happen? 

Instructure, the company behind Canvas, confirmed a cyber incident affecting its cloud-hosted environment. The attackers later posted claims about the breach on their leak site, where ransomware groups pressure organizations into paying by threatening to release stolen data publicly. 

What Information Was Stolen in the Canvas Breach? 

The stolen data reportedly includes: 

• Student names  
• Teacher and staff names  
• Email addresses  
• Student IDs  
• Course and enrollment information  
• School-related records  

ShinyHunters claims the breach exposed roughly 275 million records and more than 231 million unique email addresses. 

How Could the Canvas Data Breach Impact Families and Students? 

Even if financial information was not exposed, this kind of data can still be extremely valuable to scammers. Criminals can use real school names, real classes, teacher names, and student information to create highly convincing phishing emails, fake school alerts, scholarship scams, tuition scams, or password reset messages. 

A scam message referencing your child’s actual school or assignment is much harder to spot as fake. 

This is a real message from Canvas from a community college professor after yours truly took an anthropology class for fun during the pandemic. It’s full of links to apply for programs and reach out to professors. It has exact details about courses I’ve taken.  

While this correspondence is real, it’s exactly the type of messaging that scammers could fake and replicate, replacing real links with fake “paid” opportunities to pursue degrees.  

Now think of the millions of messages and specific scenarios scammers have access to, to create dubious and convincing scams. That’s why protecting yourself after a breach is key.  

What To Do Right Now 

Here are some actions you can take immediately ot protect yourself after this breach:

• Change you or your child’s Canvas password immediately, and update any other accounts where they reuse that password 
• Turn on multi-factor authentication (2FA) on parent and student accounts wherever the school permits it — Instructure’s own post-incident guidance specifically called out enforcing MFA as a recommended precaution 
• Ask your school what identity protection is being offered if sensitive data was involved 
• Consider placing a credit freeze on your or your child’s file to block new accounts from being opened in their name 
• Avoid clicking links in any messages that reference the breach, go directly to the official site instead 

---

And that, my friends, is issue number one in this week’s This Week in Scams. Let’s get into what else is on our radar in cybersecurity and scam news. 

---

Fake Amazon Recall Texts Are Targeting Shoppers  

Your phone buzzes. It’s a text from an unknown number, but the message looks official. 

“Dear Amazon Customer, we are writing to inform you that an item from your March 2026 order has been identified for recall.” There’s an order number. A link at the top of the message. A note about quality standards and a refund waiting for you. 

It looks real. It has the Amazon logo, the branded formatting, even a reference to the “Amazon Customer Safety Team.” The only thing it doesn’t have? Any connection to Amazon at all. 

This is a fake Amazon recall scam, and it is making the rounds right now. The goal is to get you to click that link, which takes you to a site designed to harvest your login credentials, payment information, or both.  

If you get a text like this, do not click the link. Go directly to amazon.com in your browser, log in, and check your orders and messages from there. Amazon does not initiate recall or refund processes through unsolicited texts with outside links. 

What Is a Fake Amazon Recall Scam And How Does It Work? 

A fake Amazon recall scam is a text message or email in which criminals impersonate Amazon to convince you that one of your recent orders has been flagged for a product recall. The message directs you to an external link leading to a phishing site designed to steal your Amazon credentials, credit card details, or personal information. 

Red Flags To Watch For 

• The text comes from an unknown number, not a short code or verified sender 
• The link goes to a domain that is not amazon.com 
• The message asks you to complete a refund through an external link 
• Small typos or awkward phrasing appear in what looks like official communication 
• The greeting says “Dear Amazon Customer” rather than your actual name 

What To Do If You Get One 

• Do not click the link 
• Go to amazon.com directly and check your orders and account notifications 
• Report the text to Amazon at stop-spoofing@amazon.com 
• Block the number 

Where McAfee Steps In (So You Don’t Have to Guess)  

Scams today are layered.  A fake email leads to stolen credentials. A breach leads to targeted phishing. And those follow-ups are getting harder to spot.  

With McAfee+ Advanced, multiple layers work together so you’re not left figuring it out after the damage is done: 

• Identity Monitoring alerts you if your personal info shows up where it should not, so you can act fast  
• Personal Data Cleanup helps remove your information from sites selling it. 
• Scam Detector flags suspicious texts, emails, links, QR codes, and even deepfake videos before you engage  
• Safe Browsing helps block risky sites, even if you do accidentally click  
• Device Security helps detect malicious apps or downloads  
• Secure VPN keeps your data private, especially on public Wi-Fi    

McAfee Safety Tips This Week 

Our advice based on this week’s scams and stories: 

• If your child’s school uses Canvas, update their password now and enable multi-factor authentication if available 
• Consider a credit freeze for your child’s identity, especially if sensitive identifiers were part of the breach 
• Never click links in unsolicited texts about refunds, recalls, or account issues — go directly to the official site instead 
• Treat any message that references your recent orders or personal account details with extra skepticism, even if it looks legitimate 
• Use Scam Detector to check suspicious links before engaging, and stay alert in the weeks and months after a breach, not just the first few days 

And we’ll be back next week with more scams and cybersecurity news making headlines. 

The post How to Protect Yourself After the Canvas Education Data Breach + Fake Amazon Recall Texts appeared first on McAfee Blog.

Students around the world have an excuse to bunk off after hacking crew ShinyHunters did something nasty to educational SaaS Canvas. Canvas is widely used by schools and universities to communicate with students, publish and store course material, and collect assignments. An outfit called Instructure develops the software and an entry on its Status Page dated May 2 features Chief Information Security Officer Steve Proud stating the org "recently experienced a cybersecurity incident perpetrated by a criminal threat actor." "We are actively investigating this incident with the help of outside forensics experts. We are working quickly to understand the extent of the incident and actively taking steps to minimize its impact," he added. Numerous posts report that attempts to log into Canvas earlier this week failed, but did produce a notice from an entity claiming to be the notorious hacking crew ShinyHunters, who claimed the outage was only possible due to lax patching. The crew also claimed to have stolen data from institutions that use Canvas and threatened to leak it unless a "settlement" is reached by May 12. Canvas has thousands of customers, meaning any confirmed breach could have wide impact. As of Thursday evening US time, Canvas says its wares are now available "for most users" and won't offer further comment. A student of The Register's acquaintance – OK, one of my kids – shared an email advising that his uni has prevented access to Canvas while it tries to understand the situation and the risk of data leakage. We've seen multiple universities posting notices about the incident that say more or less the same thing. Most also warn students of heightened phishing risk and urge caution. Several also advise that as they require students to lodge assignments in Canvas, students can assume they have an extension on deadlines. Your correspondent's offspring does not mind this one little bit. This is an evolving story. The Register will update it as more information becomes available. ®

Meta appears to have decided Britain's Online Safety Act would be much easier to swallow if Ofcom stopped counting all the money the social media giant makes everywhere else. The Facebook and Instagram owner has launched a legal challenge against the UK comms regulator, arguing that the way Ofcom calculates fees and potential penalties under the Online Safety Act is fundamentally wrong because it relies on global turnover rather than UK-specific revenue. The law allows Ofcom to fine companies for up to 10 percent of their qualifying worldwide revenue, or £18 million, whichever is higher. For Meta, which brought in about $201 billion last year, that means the numbers stop sounding like regulatory penalties and start sounding like national infrastructure projects. Meta is now seeking a judicial review in the High Court over how Ofcom defines "qualifying worldwide revenue." The dispute boils down to three complaints. First, Meta argues that Ofcom should only consider UK revenue tied to regulated services, not the company’s global income. Second, it objects to rules that treat multiple services under the same corporate umbrella as jointly liable, potentially exposing the wider organization to larger penalties. Third, it is challenging how Ofcom aggregates revenue across services rather than assessing them individually. An Ofcom spokesperson told The Register: "Meta have initiated a judicial review in relation to online safety fees and penalties. Under the Online Safety Act, these are to be set with reference to a provider's 'Qualifying Worldwide Revenue', which we have defined based on a plain reading of the law. "Disappointingly, Meta are objecting to the payment of fees, and any penalties that could be levied on companies in future, that are calculated on this basis. We will robustly defend our reasoning and decisions." A Meta spokesperson told The Register: "We are committed to cooperating constructively with Ofcom as it enforces the Online Safety Act. However, we and others in the tech industry believe its decisions on the methodology to calculate fees and potential fines are disproportionate. We believe fees and penalties should be based on the services being regulated in the countries they're being regulated in. This would still allow Ofcom to impose the largest fines in UK corporate history." The case marks the latest flare-up between Silicon Valley and Britain over the Online Safety Act, which has already triggered complaints from US politicians, free speech campaigners, and tech firms unhappy about the scale of Ofcom’s new powers. The regulator has not been shy about flexing them either. It has already threatened action against Elon Musk's X over sexually explicit AI-generated images linked to Grok and, in March, issued its first fine under the regime against 4chan. Meta appears to have looked at where that enforcement road leads and decided now was the time to argue about the math. ®

With the launch of the first 16 satellites, Russia begins construction of a network for satellite internet that aims to cover the entire country by 2030. But getting there won’t be easy.

Thousands of schools around the US were paralyzed on Thursday after education tech firm Instructure shut down access to its Canvas platform following a breach by hackers going by the name ShinyHunters.

Chrome users were caught off guard by a 4-GB Google AI model baked into Chrome, sparking privacy concerns. The good news: You can easily uninstall it. The bad? You might not want to.

How come it’s still possible to ‘secure’ an online account with a six-digit string?

Mozilla fixed 423 Firefox security bugs in April, a repair rate more than five times higher than the 76 fixes issued in March and almost 20 times higher than its 21.5 monthly average last year. The browser maker previously said Anthropic's ballyhooed Mythos Preview model found 271 of these in Firefox 150. Now, a trio of technical types has come forward to provide a bit more detail about what Mythos (and its less storied sibling Opus 4.6) actually found. But they also highlight something that may matter more than the model: the agentic harness – the middleware mediating between AI and the end user. Brian Grinstead, Firefox distinguished engineer, Christian Holler, Firefox tech lead, and Frederik Braun, head of the Firefox security team, observe that over the past few months, AI-generated security reports have gone from slop to rather more tasty. They attribute the transformation to better models and development of better ways of harnessing those models – steering them in a way that increases the ratio of signal to noise. But they also appear to be aware that there's some skepticism in the security community about Mythos. So they've decided to publicize selected wins in an effort to encourage others to jump aboard the AI bug remediation train. "Ordinarily we keep detailed bug reports private for several months after shipping fixes and issuing security advisories, largely as a precaution to protect any users who, for whatever reason, were slow to update to the latest version of Firefox," they said. "Given the extraordinary level of interest in this topic and the urgency of action needed throughout the software ecosystem, we’ve made the calculated decision to unhide a small sample of the reports behind the fixes we recently shipped." The post links to a dozen Firefox bugs with varying degrees of severity. The list includes, for example, a 20-year-old heap use-after-free bug (high severity) that a web page could trigger using the XSLTProcessor DOM API without any user interaction. Many of these bugs are sandbox escapes, they note, which are difficult to find using techniques like fuzzing. AI analysis, they say, helps provide broader security coverage. And they add that it has helped validate prior browser hardening work designed to prevent prototype pollution attacks – audit logs showed AI models making unsuccessful exploitation attempts using this technique. Following Anthropic's announcement of Project Glasswing – a program for companies to gain early access to Mythos because it's touted as too dangerous for public release – security experts expressed skepticism. For example, Davi Ottenheimer, president of security consultancy flyingpenguin, wrote in an April 13 blog post, "The supposedly huge Anthropic 'step change' appears to be little more than a rounding error. The threat narrative so far appears to be ALL marketing and no real results. The Glasswing consortium is regulatory capture dressed up poorly as restraint." He subsequently ran a test in which he strapped Anthropic's lesser models Sonnet 4.6 and Haiku 4.5 into a harness called Wirken with an auditing skill called Lyrik. The result was eight findings in two minutes at a cost of about $0.75, Ottenheimer claims, noting that two of the eight matched bugs Mythos had identified. Other security folk have also reported that bug hunting and exploit development can be quite productive with off-the-shelf models like Opus 4.6, which among other virtues costs about 5x less than Mythos. In an email to The Register, Ottenheimer said, "There's a fundamental philosophical failure in the Mozilla post. A reading and a measurement are not the same thing. I don't see a measurement, but they seem to want us to believe we're looking at one. "When they give us the 'behind the scenes math' it's circular, a trick. 'Mythos found 271 bugs' is what Mythos found, not what other tools could not find against the same code. Why leave it as an assumption if it can be proven?" Ottenheimer said Mozilla advocates that every project adopt a similar approach without proving the merits of that approach. "It's like saying if you don't drink Coca-Cola, you can't run a mile under six minutes, because that's what a guy sponsored by Coca-Cola just did," he said. "The bar moves on rhetoric, marketing, not proper evidence. That is the capture crew again." He notes that the merits of Mythos might be more convincing if Mozilla had reported they couldn't do this work without Mythos. And since they're not saying that, he suggests, it's worth asking why there's no transparent comparison of Mythos to other models. He points to Mozilla's admission that Opus 4.6 was already identifying "an impressive amount of previously unknown vulnerabilities." "Mozilla never quantifies what Opus 4.6 [did] before saying what Mythos added," he said. "So 271 attributed to Mythos doesn't fit the analysis. And there's a deeper reveal when they say 'we dramatically improved our techniques for harnessing these models.' The improvement may be entirely in the harness, not as much in the model. This maps to my own experience. A nail gun has advantages over the hammer, yet without being in the right hands the outputs are as bad or worse." ®

How explicit does the maker of a footgun need to be about the product's potential to shoot you in the foot? That's essentially the question security firm Adversa AI is asking with the disclosure of a one-click remote code execution attack via an MCP server in Claude Code, Gemini CLI, Cursor CLI, and Copilot CLI. The TrustFall proof-of-concept attack demonstrates how a cloned code repository can include two JSON files (.mcp.json and .claude/settings.json) that open the door to an attacker-controlled Model Context Protocol (MCP) server. MCP servers make tools, configuration data, schemas, and documentation available in a standard format to AI models via JSON. The vulnerability arises from inconsistent restrictions governing the scope of settings: Anthropic blocks some dangerous settings at the project level (e.g. bypassPermissions) but not others (e.g. enableAllProjectMcpServers and enabledMcpjsonServers). The JSON files simply enable those settings. "The moment a developer presses Enter on Claude Code's generic 'Yes, I trust this folder' dialog, the server spawns as an unsandboxed Node.js process with the user's full privileges — no per-server consent, no tool call from Claude required," Adversa AI explains in its PoC repo. The likely result is a compromised system. The PoC demonstrated in this video. It worked on Claude Code CLI v2.1.114, as of May 2. Other agent CLIs are also said to be affected, but specific PoCs have not been published. "It's the third CVE in Claude Code in six months from the same root cause (project-scoped settings as injection vector)," Alex Polyakov, co-founder of Adversa AI, told The Register in an email. "Each gets patched in isolation but the underlying class hasn't been finally fixed. Most developers don't know these settings exist, let alone that a cloned repo can set them silently." Anthropic, according to the security biz, contends that the user's trust decision moves the issue outside its threat model. CVE-2025-59536 was considered a vulnerability because it triggered automatically when a user started up Claude Code in a malicious directory. TrustFall, however, is considered out of scope because the user has been presented with a dialog box and made a trust decision. Adversa argues that the decision is not being made with informed consent, citing a prior, more explicit warning notice that was removed in v2.1 of the Claude Code CLI. "The pre-v2.1 dialog explicitly warned that .mcp.json could execute code and offered three options including 'proceed with MCP servers disabled,'" writes Adversa's Sergey Malenkovich. "That informed-consent UX was removed. The current dialog defaults to 'Yes, I trust this folder' with no MCP-specific language, no enumeration of which executables will spawn, and no opt-out for MCP while keeping the rest of the trust grant." Then there's the zero-click variant to consider for CI/CD pipelines that implement Claude Code. When Claude Code is invoked in CI/CD, that happens via SDK rather than the interactive CLI. So there's no terminal prompt. Malenkovich argues that Anthropic should make three changes. First, block enableAllProjectMcpServers, enabledMcpjsonServers, and permissions.allow from any settings file inside a project. The idea is that a malicious server should not be able to approve its own servers. Second, implement a dedicated MCP consent dialog that defaults to "deny." And third, require interactive consent per server rather than for all servers. Anthropic did not respond to a request for comment. ®

It’s World Password Day, and there’s really no better way to celebrate than with news that a majority of supposedly secure password hashes can be cracked with a single GPU in less than an hour, some in less than a minute. Using a dataset of more than 231 million unique passwords sourced from dark web leaks - including 38 million added since its previous study - and hashing them with MD5, researchers at security firm Kaspersky found that, using a single Nvidia RTX 5090 graphics card, 60 percent of passwords could be cracked in less than an hour, and a full 48 percent in under 60 seconds. Sure, that’s not exactly your run-of-the-mill desktop graphics processor given its price, but it highlights an important point: It takes surprisingly little to crack the average password hash. Aspiring cybercriminals don’t even really need their own 5090, Kaspersky notes, as they can easily rent one from a cloud provider and crack hashes for a few bucks. The bottom line is that passwords protected only by fast hashing algorithms such as MD5 are no longer safe if attackers obtain them in a data breach. “One hour is all an attacker needs to crack three out of every five passwords they’ve found in a leak,” Kaspersky noted. Much of the reason password hashes have become so easy to crack is password predictability. Per Kaspersky, its analysis of more than 200 million exposed passwords revealed common patterns that attackers can use to optimize cracking algorithms, significantly reducing the time needed to guess the character combinations that grant access to target accounts. In case you’re wondering whether there’s a trend to compare this to, Kaspersky ran a prior iteration of this study in 2024, and bad news: Passwords are actually a bit easier to crack in 2026 than they were a couple of years ago. Not by much, mind you - only a few percent - but it’s still a move in the wrong direction. “Attackers owe this boost in speed to graphics processors, which grow more powerful every year,” Kaspersky explained. “Unfortunately, passwords remain as weak as ever.” How about a World Let’s-Stop-Relying-On Passwords Day? News of the death of the password has, unfortunately, been greatly exaggerated in the past couple of decades, yet most of us still rely on them multiple times a day. It likely won’t surprise El Reg readers to learn that us vultures are inundated with pitches for events like World Password Day, and most of them received this year had the same takeaway: We really need to get a move on with ditching passwords, or, at the very least, rethinking our security paradigms. Chris Gunner, a CISO-for-hire at managed service provider giant Thrive, told us in emailed comments that there’s no reason to ditch passwords entirely, but they need to be just one part of a broader identity-based security strategy. “Even a strong password can be undermined if the wider identity and access environment is not properly managed,” Gunner said. Passwords should be paired with a second factor, preferably biometric, said Gunner, because it’s the most difficult for hackers to bypass. “MFA controls should then be joined by identity governance and endpoint protection so gaps between systems are reduced,” Gunner added, recommending that a broader zero trust model be established as well, restricting lateral movement possibilities via a compromised account. Senior IEEE member and University of Nottingham cybersecurity professor Steven Furnell said that World Password Day messaging shouldn’t stop at telling people to improve their personal security posture either. Passwords aren’t going anywhere for a long while, Furnell explained in an email, and inconsistent adoption of new security technologies will mean users will be left at risk as certain providers fail to adapt. “Many sites and services still don’t offer passkey support, so users will find themselves with a mixed login experience,” Furnell explained. “While some might argue that it’s the user’s responsibility to protect themselves properly, they need to know how to do it.” The professor noted that, in many cases, users aren’t told how to create a good modern password, and in other cases, sites simply don’t enforce adequate password requirements to make passwords secure, to the degree that they can be made so. “This World Password Day, the main message ought not to be to the users, who often have no choice but to use passwords anyway, but to the sites and providers that are requiring them to do so,” Furnell told us. You heard the man - time to upgrade that user security stack. No matter how safe you think those passwords might be, with their complex requirements and proper hashed storage, it probably won’t take too long for someone to break in, making it an organizational responsibility to ensure there’s yet another locked door behind the first one. ®

Scam messages are getting smarter and faster. 

According to McAfee’s 2026 State of the Scamiverse report, Americans now spend 114 hours a year trying to figure out what’s real and what’s fake online. That’s nearly three full workweeks lost to second-guessing messages, alerts, and links. 

And when scams do succeed, they move quickly. The typical scam unfolds in about 38 minutes, leaving little room for hesitation. 

That creates a gap: People want to check before they act, but the tools haven’t always met them in that moment. 

ChatGPT + McAfee is designed to close that gap, bringing scam detection directly to a platform people are already using to ask questions and make decisions. 

And it’s available to anyone. You don’t have to be a McAfee subscriber. 

This isn’t just detection. It’s guidance in the exact moment you’re deciding what to do.  

Instead of guessing, you can paste a message or drop in a screenshot and get a clear explanation of what’s risky, and what to do next, powered by McAfee’s threat intelligence. 

What You Can Do with ChatGPT + McAfee 

With this integration, checking something suspicious becomes as simple as asking a question. 

Paste a message. Drop in a link. Upload a screenshot. 

McAfee analyzes it and explains what’s going on clearly and in context. 

Here’s how it works: 

Feature	What it does	How it protects you
Link safety check	Paste a suspicious URL and get a reputational analysis based on McAfee threat intelligence	Scam links are often designed to look legitimate. A quick check helps avoid phishing and malware
Message analysis	Submit texts, emails, or social messages for evaluation	Many scams now rely on urgency and tone. Analysis helps surface subtle red flags
Screenshot uploads	Upload screenshots of messages, emails, or posts for review	Scams don’t always come as clean text. This makes it easier to check what you’re actually seeing
Clear explanations	Get a breakdown of why something is flagged as risky or safe	Not just a warning—an explanation that helps you recognize patterns next time
Guided next steps	Receive recommendations on what to do next	Helps prevent escalation, especially in moments of uncertainty

It’s a quick, accessible way to get answers in the moment. But it’s just one part of a broader system designed to protect you more comprehensively. 

Add the app to your ChatGPT account here. 

Built on McAfee’s Threat Intelligence 

Behind the scenes, ChatGPT + McAfee is powered by the same intelligence that fuels McAfee’s broader scam protection ecosystem. 

When you submit something for review: 

• Links are checked against known threat signals  
• Messages are analyzed for scam patterns and language cues  
• Results are translated into clear, human-readable explanations  

The goal isn’t just to flag risk. It’s to help you understand it. 

A New Way to Stay Ahead of Scams 

Scams aren’t slowing down. If anything, they’re becoming more convincing, more personalized, and harder to detect. 

That’s where ChatGPT + McAfee comes in. But this is only one part of a much bigger system designed to protect you before, during, and after a scam attempt. 

With McAfee+ Advanced, multiple layers work together so you’re not left figuring it out after the damage is done: 

• Identity Monitoring alerts you if your personal info shows up where it should not, so you can act fast  
• Personal Data Cleanup helps remove your information from sites selling it. 
• Scam Detector flags suspicious texts, emails, links, QR codes, and even deepfake videos before you engage  
• Safe Browsing helps block risky sites, even if you do accidentally click  
• Device Security helps detect malicious apps or downloads  
• Secure VPN keeps your data private, especially on public Wi-Fi    

The ChatGPT experience gives you a fast, intuitive way to check something in the moment. 

McAfee+ Advanced makes sure you’re protected across everything else.

The post Now Available: Use ChatGPT with McAfee to Spot Scams Faster appeared first on McAfee Blog.

Companies like Lovable, Base44, Replit, and Netlify use AI to let anyone build a web app in seconds—and in thousands of cases, spill highly sensitive data onto the public internet.

PWNED Welcome back to PWNED, the weekly column where we turn a white hot spotlight onto the cracks and crevices in company security and write about those who have let their guard down, often in the name of convenience, incompetence, or just plain laziness. Today’s tale of woe concerns the need to secure a network and the dangers of an insecure password. Our story comes courtesy of Roger Grimes, CISO advisor at security firm KnowBe4. He recounts a time when he had to get into a client’s network but didn’t have the credentials. Grimes was installing accounting software for a client and, as a result, needed to take the network down for a day. To make sure that he didn’t disturb any work, he decided to log into the system on a Saturday. Unfortunately, he was missing the admin password he needed to uninstall old software and add the new app. Since it was the weekend, no one was answering their work phones to give him the information he needed, and there was a good chance he would have to delay the upgrade until the following weekend. Grimes could have given up right there, but he had an idea. Why not try to figure out what the password was? The situation reminded him of a movie. “You know, the scene where the hacker is sitting at the terminal trying to log on, but the victim refuses to give up credentials. So the hacker starts typing random passwords out of thin air,” he said. “And wouldn’t you know it? They correctly guess the password at the last possible moment.” After trying numerous passwords, the advisor thought about a famous movie he had just watched: Citizen Kane. He decided to try “rosebud,” and voilà. (This vulture can identify with the Orson Welles focus, having just watched The Third Man this week.) It’s a good thing that it was Grimes, a legit contractor, guessing passwords instead of some miscreant. Picking a password from a movie plotline is a bad idea and, in this case, made even worse by the lack of numbers, capital letters, or symbols in the password. If you’re picking out a password, you might be better off generating a strong password that’s a string of random numbers and letters and then having it remembered by a password manager. Then, for the password manager itself, consider a passphrase that contains capital letters, symbols, and numbers such as “Shoe-Please6-Wrapped-Carbon-Wear” so you can try to remember it. You might also use a passphrase for your admin password – you can generate a random one using Keeper’s Passphrase Generator. Have a story about someone leaving a gaping hole in their network? Share it with us at pwned@sitpub.com. Anonymity available upon request. ®