Avoiding the "lethal trifecta" – access to private data, exposure to untrusted content, and an external communication path – is difficult enough when working with AI agents. But the use of connectors – integrations with third-party services like Gmail or Slack – expands the scope of concern in a way that makes it exceedingly difficult to reason about defensive due diligence. PromptArmor, an AI security biz, recently looked at how OpenAI's ChatGPT and Anthropic's Claude work with connectors. The results are not reassuring. Shankar Krishnan, co-founder of PromptArmor, told The Register in an email that enterprise adoption of connectors and the rate of change among connectors helped focus concern on the connector ecosystem. Connectors share some of the risks of MCP servers, upon which connectors are based. "For connectors, the risks are mostly about the type of tools, what they can do, where the data is going, and what is being done with the data," said Krishnan. Introduced about a year ago, connectors (for Claude or ChatGPT) have been going through a lot of changes recently. According to PromptArmor, 931 of 2,517 connectors (37 percent) changed over the six-week period from mid-May to the end of June. So any security assumptions based on declared capabilities may no longer be valid. PromptArmor found that 1,686 new tools were added to connectors that were already live, creating new ways for AI models to operate on user data and interact with third-party services. It also found that 1,127 tool descriptions were rewritten, potentially changing how and when an AI model decides to invoke a tool. And there are a variety of other changes, all of which potentially could raise data security concerns or invalidate governance assumptions. PromptArmor cited the Dropbox connector as an example, noting that at the start of the study it exposed eight tools and by the end of the study that number had risen to 24. It went from having three write-capable tools to 10, and from zero potentially destructive tools to four. Permission scopes changed and injected instructions for the model were added. If that weren't enough to worry about, connectors can behave like intrusive websites that run dozens of tracking scripts: connectors commonly send data to additional AI services. PromptArmor evaluated all 7,517 tools used by 487 Claude connectors and found that 189 of the connectors, or about 2 in 5, are likely to call additional AI services. "As an example, if your Claude agent activates Zoom's connector tool to search meetings with natural language, and passes in a query containing sensitive data, Zoom AI may send that data to any of its ten AI subprocessors in order to generate a response from one of eight different model families it uses," the security company said. "The issue is that most teams approving connectors are evaluating and considering the connector – unaware that the vendor is calling more AI services, adding new subprocessors and terms," explained Krishnan. "So someone concerned about AI risks who has evaluated Claude may not be aware of AI services that the connector is calling externally." Anthropic's connector documentation acknowledges that its security controls don't necessarily cover third-party data processing. "Connected services process data on their own infrastructure, under their own terms, which may be located outside the United States," the AI biz explains. "Settings that control where Claude's inference runs, like the US-only inference setting on Enterprise plans, don't change where third-party services operate." Krishnan said that connectors vastly expand the risk surface for attacks. "Bringing agents new sensitive data, new untrusted data, and new sensitive actions to take, the blast radius of an attack explodes," he said. "We recently highlighted a risk in Codex where even with one connector – email – the combination of sensitive and untrusted data enables exfiltration of legal and financial communications." ®

Notice more spam getting through that corporate email filter lately? Attackers are using a technique known as "text salting," which hides benign-looking words intended to confuse some AI-powered email filters, says cybersecurity firm Barracuda. The email security outfit said on Thursday that it had detected more than one million retail-themed phishing attacks using text salting since April. It’s not a new technique by any stretch and has been used to fool traditional secure email gateways for years, but Barracuda says it can also confuse machine-learning and LLM-based security tools. Text salting involves peppering (sorry) a malicious email with random, harmless-seeming words in order to fool an email scanning system into thinking there’s nothing off about the flavor of a message (sorry again), tricking the system into passing it to its recipient for consumption (I’ll stop with the food jokes here). Pour a pile of salty text on top of an email and a human reader would probably get suspicious, however, so attackers typically use one or more of three flavor variations (okay, I'm done – promise) to hide the additives from human readers, but not automated scanners, per Barracuda. Typical techniques include CSS cropping, which sets the visible window small enough that a human won't see the hidden filler text; text manipulation to move the salty copy outside the visible screen; and zero font techniques which insert misleading words between suspicious phishing copy that’s visible to a machine but not a human. The end result of each of those techniques is a message that reads less malicious, more gibberish to a machine, leading it to assume the email is fine, and which looks exactly as the attacker intended when viewed by a human. Modern email security systems have largely adapted to these techniques, with newer tools able to remove hidden text to see what a reader is supposed to see, sounding alarms when a lot of hidden stuff is inserted in an email, and the like. AI, however, hasn’t managed to follow suit, says Barracuda. “Text salting and related techniques can be used to confuse AI-driven content analysis engines by flooding the email with random terms that encourage the AI system into making an incorrect classification decision,” the company wrote in its report - just like those early 2000s SEGs. What a technological leap we’ve made! LLMs, Barracuda explained, are typically designed to process email text and source code plainly, with no understanding of whether text is visible or hidden from a user. They can be trained to do so, but that just means most tools probably aren’t doing that by default. So, what can enterprises do to stop the flow of salty spam to their employees? Barracuda recommends a layered approach to email security rather than relying solely on keyword detection, including checking sender reputation, authentication results, embedded URLs, HTML-rendering techniques, and differences between user-visible and hidden content. Ditching that AI spam filter might not be a bad idea, either. ®

Fortinet admins have two more reasons to clear their calendars after CISA confirmed a pair of critical FortiSandbox bugs are being actively exploited. The two bugs, tracked as CVE-2026-39808 and CVE-2026-25089, both carry CVSS scores of 9.1 and affect FortiSandbox, FortiSandbox Cloud, and FortiSandbox PaaS. According to Fortinet, they are OS command injection flaws that allow unauthenticated attackers to execute arbitrary commands via specially crafted HTTP requests, requiring neither valid credentials nor user interaction. Fortinet released fixes for CVE-2026-39808 in April and CVE-2026-25089 in June, warning in advisories published at the time that successful exploitation could lead to remote code execution via low-complexity attacks. Fortinet has not publicly confirmed that either flaw is being exploited in the wild, but CISA has now added both bugs to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog. Inclusion in the catalog means CISA has evidence that the vulnerabilities are being actively exploited, although the agency rarely attributes attacks or discloses how widespread they are. For federal civilian agencies, bugs landing in KEV come with homework. Binding Operational Directive 26-04 requires them to patch within CISA's deadlines or pull the plug on vulnerable products if they can't be adequately secured. Fortinet has not updated its advisories to mark either flaw as exploited and did not respond to The Register's questions. CISA isn't the only one reporting attackers poking at these vulnerabilities. Security firm Defused said it had observed exploitation attempts against both flaws this week alongside another FortiSandbox vulnerability, CVE-2026-39813. Not every exploit appears to be doing its job, though, as Defused described the one targeting CVE-2026-25089 as "vibecoded" and likely broken, adding that it has yet to see a working public exploit. CISA also used Thursday's KEV update to flag another fresh concern: Microsoft's newly patched SharePoint Server bug, CVE-2026-58644. The critical deserialization vulnerability, rated 9.8, allows authenticated attackers with Site Owner privileges to execute arbitrary code remotely against vulnerable SharePoint servers. Microsoft warned that the bug can be exploited remotely over the internet with relatively little effort, making it one to patch sooner rather than later. ®

Picture this. Someone gets hold of your Android phone and, despite not knowing your PIN, they can use Gemini from the lock screen to send SMS or WhatsApp messages as you. This is a real bug and Google says a fix is coming as soon as this week. Since May, The Register has received multiple reports of users bypassing device authentication on Android 16 devices that enable Gemini access from the lock screen. These are distinct from the similar Gemini-based Android lock screen bypass bugs that have made the rounds since September 2025. One of the bugs reported to us allowed unauthenticated users with physical access to an Android device to enable functionality such as phone, texts, and WhatsApp via Gemini on the lock screen using a specific multi-touch gesture. When device owners revoke Gemini’s access to certain apps, like Messages, and someone later tries to send an SMS via Gemini on the lock screen, the chatbot will prompt the user to open the relevant app. Selecting "Continue" prompts the user to enter the correct PIN to access messages. However, when “Continue” is pressed simultaneously with Gemini’s “Add attachment” button, the device will then allow unauthenticated users to send that SMS via Gemini, without needing to enter a PIN. From there, users can enable Gemini’s access to other apps, which were previously disconnected from Gemini in the user’s Settings, by invoking the relevant prompt. For example, to allow Gemini access to WhatsApp, users can enter “@WhatsApp” in the Gemini text window. No PIN needed. You can then check this has worked by going back into user Settings, after entering a correct PIN, and it will show that WhatsApp is connected to Gemini without completing the expected authentication step. Exploiting the flaw requires physical access to a device. In most circumstances, we steer clear of giving this type of vulnerability too much airtime since it is often difficult to pull off in real-world scenarios. If Windows, for example, had a make-me-admin bug that required the attacker, for whatever reason, to have physical access to the keyboard connected to the Windows machine, then the owner of said machine has bigger problems than the vulnerability itself. However, given the state of phone theft crime, especially in the UK, and the potential to send convincing SMS messages as part of fake kidnapping scams, to name one possibility, we think this one deserves some attention. A Google spokesperson told us this is a known bug and it has already implemented a fix that was scheduled for a full deployment this week. They also said the bug is not Pixel-specific, after some claimed that they could not reproduce it on Samsung devices, but fell short of specifying which manufacturers, models, or versions are vulnerable. ®