Across 90 days of AI-service honeypots, Wiz observed exploitation of LiteLLM MCP flaws, blind prompt injection that used out-of-band callbacks to confirm agent shell execution, and post-exploitation tailored to steal model-provider and proxy credentials from process memory. The activity targeted AI infrastructure as ordinary high-value cloud infrastructure.
Inside 90 days of attacks on AI infrastructure
Related research
More curated notes connected through Agent Security and Prompt Injection.
OWASP Top 10 for Agentic Applications for 2026
OWASP's community guide organizes agentic-system risk into ten categories, including goal hijacking, tool misuse, identity and privilege abuse, memory poisoning, insecure inter-agent communication, cascading failures, and rogue-agent behavior. It provides a shared taxonomy and mitigation starting point rather than a certification checklist or evidence that a deployed system is secure.
AI vulnerability research: measure reproducible findings and completed fixes
Microsoft’s FORGE account describes the work between a model’s vulnerability claim and a useful repair: reusable builds, duplicate removal, reachability checks, project-specific verification, reproducible triggers and regression tests. Structured rejection reasons help improve later searches. The useful operational measure is the flow of findings that survive verification and reach a fix, rather than the number of candidates generated. Reported successful-case costs exclude parts of screening, failed attempts and human work, so they are not the total cost of operating this pipeline.
Frontier training safety cases: connect evidence to enforced pause and rollback controls
OpenAI proposes training-run safety cases combining alignment evaluations, containment and monitoring with explicit operational ownership. Concrete measures include immutable transcripts, held-out incident tests, checks for evaluation gaming, response deadlines and fail-closed monitoring. Independent internal challenge, leadership vetoes and tracking downstream uses support stopping a run and reversing affected work. The article describes recommendations still being implemented, rather than audited proof that every safeguard already operates or that residual risk has been eliminated.