Customers have access to models that are continuously getting better with each new generation bringing larger context windows, stronger reasoning, and lower token costs. Getting the strongest AI-powered security will come from tools that combine the most relevant models with deep knowledge of a customer’s specific environment.

AWS Continuum for code vulnerabilities (Preview) is built to be that tool to help secure your code at machine speed. Today, we’re announcing our work with Anthropic and OpenAI that extends AWS Continuum directly into the developer workflows where code is being written: Anthropic Claude Code, OpenAI Codex, and Kiro. Developers can use these integrations to discover vulnerabilities, contextually prioritize, validate, and remediate, within their existing workflows.

AI models are advancing rapidly. Each generation brings new capabilities, and different models excel at different tasks. The latest frontier models can now identify vulnerabilities and reason through multi-step attack paths that would take a human security team weeks to trace manually.

This is a genuine breakthrough in detection, but it creates a new challenge for your security teams: more findings, more complexity, and the need to determine which ones matter most in your environment and how to address them. The next challenge customers face is building the correct harness and orchestration to turn these models into a single interface that goes from detection through remediation. This is what we set out to do when creating Continuum, which brings together many different models and uses the model that’s most effective for each part of the process.

We also partner with the Frontier Model Forum, an industry consortium developing shared safety standards, evaluation methods, and benchmarking to ensure we can evaluate these models effectively together. We’re also working with model providers on shared security performance benchmarking to make sure we’re using the best model for each task within Continuum and our other AWS security products.

An AI harness is the orchestration layer that wraps around a model to connect it to tools, guardrails, memory, and workflows, so it delivers outcomes. Think of the model as the engine and the harness as everything around it. You need both to have a high-performance car.

Harnesses are becoming increasingly complex. Teams are stitching together multiple models, agents that call agents, and dynamic workflows, and are dealing with constant change driven by innovations in models, agent frameworks, and tool integrations.

As a result of that complexity, customers are implementing shadow infrastructure to manage integration layers across models and tools. Every time the landscape shifts, security and governance controls potentially break, forcing teams to go back to revisit them and make updates.

These challenges extend beyond the model. They arise in the orchestration required to connect different models and developer environments with tools, context, controls, and workflows across a customer’s environment. At AWS, we see managing that complexity as heavy lifting that AWS should solve. We treat the harness as infrastructure and with the same rigor we apply to identity, discovery, policy enforcement, observability, and compliance of the core infrastructure at AWS.

AWS Continuum for code vulnerabilities discovers vulnerabilities, prioritizes them within the context of a customer’s business, validates them in a sandbox, and provides remediation at machine speed. Under the hood, Continuum is an agent-team loop architecture. A sophisticated harness that orchestrates all of it: selecting the right model, connecting to a customer environment, and delivering secure code that’s been validated in context. You never need to think about how the orchestration works, or what changed in the latest release.

We are working with Anthropic and OpenAI to bring Continuum into the developer workflows where code is being written.

Within Claude Code, Codex, and Kiro coding environments, on-demand vulnerability scans identify potential issues and send findings to Continuum. Continuum prioritizes them within the context of the customer’s AWS environment (configurations, AWS Identity and Access Management (IAM) policies, network topology, and exposure surfaces) and validates them in a sandbox. It then returns prioritized, contextual intelligence back to the coding assistant, which adjusts its recommendations accordingly.

This collapses what was traditionally a multi-step, multi-team process (write, scan, triage, prioritize, fix, rescan) into a single outcome: the code suggestion itself. Two modes, one outcome:

• For existing code: Use Continuum for code vulnerabilities from AWS to discover, prioritize, validate, and remediate across your environment.
• For greenfield code: Use the Continuum plugin within Codex, Claude Code, or Kiro to get security-validated suggestions in your development environment.

Early design partners are already seeing results.

“AWS Continuum connects source code with enterprise knowledge, allowing teams to accurately pinpoint security vulnerabilities and verify that flagged issues are truly meaningful. This shortens what really matters: timeline to fix serious vulnerabilities.” – Mike Johnson, CISO, Rivian

• AWS Continuum for code vulnerabilities is available in preview through AWS. Sign up to request access at AWS Continuum.
• Continuum integrated into Claude Code, Codex, and Kiro workflows are coming soon.

If you have feedback about this post, submit comments in the Comments section below.

Noteworthy stories that might have slipped under the radar: parcel delivery company OnTrac hacked, Adobe patches, UK Department for Education loses 607,000 records.

The post In Other News: OpenAI Open Source Tool, AWS Links Hacks to North Korea, Mythos Crypto Research appeared first on SecurityWeek.

The internet giant has built an agent harness to find vulnerabilities across Chrome’s codebase.

The post Google AI Uncovers 13-Year-Old Chrome Flaw Amid Record Patching Pace appeared first on SecurityWeek.

When the AI Act comes into force, AI companies will be required to make clear to consumers with labels or digital watermarks that chatbots or imagery are generated with AI.

The post EU to Crack Down on AI Deepfakes, Illicit Imagery and Hacking With New Team in Brussels appeared first on SecurityWeek.

A security company’s systems were hacked after it installed a malicious Python package deployed by Claude. 

The post Prompted by OpenAI Disclosure, Anthropic Finds Its Own Models Hacked 3 Organizations appeared first on SecurityWeek.

What OpenAI’s and Anthropic’s testing incidents really teach defenders  In the past two weeks, two of the world’s leading AI labs have disclosed the same unsettling result. During their own safety testing, their most capable models reached real companies’ systems. First OpenAI, whose models broke into Hugging Face. Then Anthropic, whose models reached three more organizations.  Read the disclosures closely. Two facts carry the weight.  First, the safeguards were not defeated. They were switched off by design. OpenAI ran the models with reduced cyber refusals and safety classifiers disabled, to measure raw capability on a cyber benchmark. A model doing […]

The post AI Escaped a Sandbox. That is Not What Should Worry You appeared first on Check Point Blog.

AI coding agents are part of the developer toolchain. Tools like Kiro and Claude Code generate features, tests, and code refactors from natural-language prompts. A single agent can open dozens of pull requests (PRs) across your repositories in an afternoon. That productivity comes with a trade-off: agents optimize for task completion at machine speed with no understanding of your organization’s risk.

Through protocols like the Model Context Protocol (MCP), agents also reach beyond the integrated development environment (IDE) to call APIs, query databases, and modify infrastructure and even entire environments, expanding the scope of resources your application security team defends.

This post lays out an application security (AppSec) control framework for AI coding agents. Two pillars organize the framework: author-time controls shape what the agent produces in the IDE; build-time controls verify and gate what reaches production. Your existing secure software development lifecycle (SDLC) controls still apply and are critical to a defense-in-depth security strategy. The framework shows where to layer additional guardrails so AppSec scales with agent-driven development. The framework is tool-agnostic and cloud-agnostic. Throughout, we use AWS services—Kiro in the IDE and AWS CodePipeline in the build—as a running example that you can adapt to your own toolchain.

Each of the following risks includes a treatment summary. The control framework section later in this post provides implementation details. The risks are ordered by severity with the highest impact risks first.

Agents read untrusted content, such as issue descriptions, web pages, MCP responses, and README files in third-party packages. Text from outside parties can redirect the agent to disclose secrets, open unauthorized PRs, or invoke tools without user consent. This risk, known as prompt injection, is the top risk in the OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications. Any agent that reads content from outside parties is exposed, with or without MCP, so connecting tools widens the scope of impact.

Treatment: Treat non-developer input as untrusted. A large language model (LLM) can’t reliably separate instructions from data in a single context window, so architect for it: keep the agent that orchestrates trusted actions separate from the one exposed to untrusted content and grant the exposed agent only read-only, least-privilege access. Require human approval for irreversible actions. Use version-control steering files to prevent silent tampering.

Agents optimize for getting work done. Left unchecked, the code they generate can default to wildcard identity and access management policies, open security groups, and unencrypted storage, or embed sensitive values in code rather than referencing a secrets manager. Most coding agents now include safety mechanisms that make these outcomes less likely, but they remain imperfect, so you still need controls to account for the possibility.

Treatment: Security requirements in a steering document, plus policy-as-code scanning (Checkov, cfn-nag) in the IDE and pipeline. See Context as a security control.

Ungated code reaching production isn’t new, but AI agents amplify it. Machine-speed generation can propagate a flawed pattern across repositories before it’s identified.

Treatment: Branch protection rules requiring PR approval (a human-in-the-loop checkpoint), pre-commit hooks for security checks, and sandboxed agent runs that prevent direct pushes to protected branches. The right balance between human review and automated speed depends on the risk profile of the change. For many low-risk paths, automated checks alone might suffice, while higher-risk changes warrant a human checkpoint.

Agents don’t always distinguish current best practices from outdated patterns. They might recommend deprecated packages, reference library versions with new Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs), and hallucinate package names that don’t exist, which can introduce risks of dependency confusion issues.

Treatment: Software Composition Analysis (SCA) in the pipeline (for example, Amazon Inspector code scanning or Dependabot) to flag vulnerable or unexpected dependencies. For additional control, resolve against a scoped registry like AWS CodeArtifact. Even without a fully curated registry, lockfile validation and allow-listing critical packages reduce exposure.

Through MCP and tool integrations, agents query databases, call APIs, and modify infrastructure. Without constraints on which tools and data an agent can reach, a single misconfigured integration provides unintended access to sensitive resources.

Treatment: Scope MCP servers to least-privilege tools and resources, enforce authn or authz on external connections, and audit tool invocations. The control point is the configuration file. Review it the same way you review AWS Identity and Access Management (IAM) policies.

Agents produce plausible-looking output. Code that compiles, passes linting, and looks reasonable can still be functionally wrong: misusing APIs, introducing subtle logic errors, or implementing security-sensitive operations incorrectly. Code that passes continuous integration (CI) but is wrong slips through review; code that fails to build is caught immediately.

Treatment: Layer deterministic verification (static application security testing (SAST), unit tests) with non-deterministic review (LLM-assisted screening against the specification). Neither catches everything alone.

Given a bug-fix prompt, an agent might also refactor surrounding code, disable an unreliable test, or reorganize imports. Unrequested changes introduce regressions and complicate review.

Treatment: A reviewed specification document that defines what must change and what must not, paired with a targeted review of the proposed changes. See Specifications as scope boundaries.

The preceding risks share a common thread: agents produce output faster than humans can review it, and they lack context to self-correct.

The following framework addresses this gap. It organizes controls into two pillars: author-time (pre-generation and post-generation of code) and build-time (in the pipeline, before code reaches production). Author-time controls shape what the agent produces. Build-time controls verify it. Neither is sufficient alone; together they reduce the volume and severity of issues that reach human reviewers.

Deterministic mitigations [D] produce the same result every time. Linters, SAST scanners, secrets detection, and policy-as-code match patterns against rules and define security invariants: no critical findings, no hardcoded secrets, and no wildcard IAM policies. Use them when the condition can be expressed as a rule. Organizations already have these and must continue enforcing them.

Non-deterministic mitigations [ND] use model judgment. They include steering documents, LLM-as-judge review, specification compliance checks, and scope-creep detection, and they evaluate intent rather than patterns. They catch novel issues that rules miss, but are probabilistic. Use them when evaluation requires context or reasoning across files. This is the new layer that AI-generated code demands, because agents produce code that can pass every deterministic check yet remain functionally wrong.

Human review [H] provides the final layer for the risk-based decisions neither tool type can make. Apply it where judgment is needed, not everywhere: routing every change to a person invites consent fatigue, where reviewers approve by reflex and the control loses its value. The default reflex is to route everything back to a human, but that isn’t always the right response—reserve human judgment for the decisions that genuinely need it.

The framework organizes controls into two pillars. Author-time controls (Pillar 1) shape what the agent produces in the IDE, before code is generated and just after. Build-time controls (Pillar 2) verify and gate that output in the pipeline, before it reaches production. The controls within each pillar are tagged deterministic [D], non-deterministic [ND], or human [H].

Author-time controls work inside the IDE, where the developer and agent still hold full context. They shape the prompt and the generated output before it ever reaches a pull request. The following controls apply at this stage.

Context as a security control [ND]

Control statement: Encode security invariants as natural-language constraints in a steering document that every developer environment consumes at session start. Addresses R002.
Many AI coding agent risks share one root cause: the agent lacks the security context an experienced developer carries implicitly. Your security team sets the policies, such as Amazon Simple Storage Service (Amazon S3) buckets require encryption, API gateways require mutual TLS, and credentials must come from AWS Secrets Manager. Developers don’t always have these requirements available when they’re building. They build what works, not what’s compliant. An AI agent amplifies this gap because it defaults to whatever pattern dominated its training data, with no awareness of your organization’s security posture.

A key mitigation is steering. Security teams write these invariants once as natural-language guidance in a steering document, then distribute them as shareable resources that developers consume in their IDE. The agent loads the file at session start and treats the contents as standing requirements:

• IAM policies must follow least-privilege principles; no wildcard Amazon Resource Names (ARNs).
• No hardcoded credentials in source code; use a secrets manager.
• Security groups must not allow unrestricted inbound access.

This shifts security left, before code generation begins. Steering biases generation toward secure defaults; it doesn’t guarantee them. Treat it as a strong default, paired with the following deterministic gates that block non-compliant code from merging. Security teams define the rules once and every developer environment inherits them automatically. Steering reduces the volume of issues that reach the pipeline, though it doesn’t replace downstream scanning.

How to write effective steering rules: Keep each rule specific and testable, scope it to a concrete risk class, keep the rule set concise so the agent can hold it in context, and iterate from the issues your scanners and reviewers surface.

Specifications as scope boundaries [ND]

Control statement: Require a reviewed specification before code generation begins. Define what must change and what must not. Addresses R007.

Spec-driven workflows turn vague prompts into reviewable specifications before code is generated. This creates a human checkpoint at the design phase, where security decisions are made:

• Requirements use testable notation that’s auditable before the agent writes a line of code. For example, the Easy Approach to Requirements Syntax (EARS): WHEN [condition] THE SYSTEM SHALL [behavior].
• Tasks are ordered in implementation steps, each mapped back to a requirement.

For bug fixes, specifications add a critical element: unchanged behavior documentation. This is an explicit list of behaviors that must continue working, giving the agent a written boundary against scope creep.

In this model, the specification becomes the primary artifact, code is a derivative of it. Human review effort concentrates on whether the specification solves the right problem with the right constraints, not on reading implementation diffs line by line.

Controlled tool access using MCP [D + ND]

Control statement: Scope each MCP server to the minimum set of tools the agent needs, and give it a dedicated, scoped-down credential rather than the developer’s own. Maintain an allowlist of reviewed MCP servers. Addresses R005.

MCP servers act as controlled gateways between the agent, the external tools, and data:

• Dependency management – An MCP server fronting your private package registry resolves dependencies against curated packages, not the public internet. This is a deterministic constraint on supply chain risk.
• Infrastructure tooling – Visibility into current resource configurations prevents templates that conflict with existing infrastructure.
• Scoped permissions – Each MCP server exposes a defined set of tools and resources. You choose exactly what the agent can access, supporting least-privilege at the integration layer. You supply that credential through the agent’s configuration (in Kiro, the env block of .kiro/settings/mcp.json). Avoid autoApprove: ["*"], which removes the human approval prompt on every tool call.

IDE code scanning [D]

Control statement: Run real-time static analysis in the IDE so security issues surface while the developer (and agent) still have full context. Addresses R002, R006.

Real-time diagnostics catch syntax errors, type mismatches, and configuration issues as the developer types. A malformed IAM policy is flagged before the agent builds further on it. Security-focused extensions (ESLint security plugins, Checkov, SAST) layer on top for immediate feedback while code is fresh in context.

Hooks: Automated guardrails at the point of action [D + ND]

Control statement: Attach deterministic checks to file-save events and non-deterministic verification to task-completion events. Addresses R002, R007.

• Shell command hooks [D] – Triggered on file save, these run a linter, formatter, or security scanner and produce the same result every time. They enforce hard rules.
• AI-powered hooks [ND] – Triggered on task completion. These prompt the agent to verify that the implementation matches the specification and check for any untested edge cases or files that were modified outside the task’s scope.

Build-time controls run in the pipeline after code is committed and before it reaches production. They verify and gate what the agent produced, catching what author-time controls did not. The following controls apply at this stage.

Layered security scanning [D]

Control statement: Run secrets detection, static analysis, dependency scanning, and infrastructure-as-code scanning in sequence. Fail the build on any critical finding. Addresses R002, R003, R004.

1. Secrets detection runs first because it’s cheapest and addresses a high-severity class of issue. It scans for hardcoded API keys, database connection strings, and credentials that AI agents might inadvertently include.
2. SAST scans source code for injection issues, insecure deserialization, and resource leaks. Custom rules can target AI-specific anti-patterns including overly broad exception handling, deprecated APIs, placeholder credentials, dynamic code execution through eval().
3. Software Composition Analysis (SCA) identifies known CVEs in dependencies. This is critical for AI-generated code, which might reference deprecated packages or hallucinate package names that open you to dependency confusion issues.
4. Infrastructure as code (IaC) scanning validates AWS CloudFormation, Terraform, and AWS Cloud Development Kit (AWS CDK) templates against security policies before deployment. Catches overly permissive IAM roles, unencrypted storage, and public-facing resources the agent created.

Each stage halts the pipeline on failure. Results export to a standard format (Static Analysis Results Interchange Format (SARIF)) for compliance auditing and flow downstream to human reviewers. The open source Automated Security Helper (ASH) bundles secrets, SAST, SCA, and IaC scanners behind one command that you can run locally and in AWS CodeBuild, emitting SARIF for the gates that follow.

Quality gates [D]

Control statement: Define pass/fail thresholds for each scan type. Block deployment on any critical or high-severity finding. Addresses R003.

Quality gates convert scan results into go/no-go decisions. Define thresholds for each severity: block on critical findings, require justification for highs, and track mediums. The gate is deterministic: if a threshold is breached, the pipeline stops. Exceptions require documented approval.

Differentiate blocking compared to advisory modes: hard failures on main, advisory on feature branches. Avoid gates becoming a friction that teams route around.

AI-assisted review [ND]

Control statement: Use an LLM reviewer to pre-screen every pull request for specification compliance, scope creep, and security anti-patterns before human review. Addresses R001, R006, R007.

• Specification compliance – Does the implementation match the requirements document?
• Scope verification – Were files modified outside the task’s stated scope?
• Security pattern review – Are there logic errors, misused APIs, or insecure patterns that pass SAST but violate intent?

This pre-screening focuses human reviewer attention on genuine risks rather than formatting or obvious issues. On AWS, AWS Security Agent (code review in preview at publication) checks pull requests against AWS-managed and custom security requirements. The reviewer screens and surfaces findings; the merge decision stays with a human.

A critical principle: the agent that wrote the code should not be the agent that reviews it. A separate session helps avoid self-confirmation bias, but a separate session alone doesn’t always avoid the generator’s blind spots, because two sessions of the same model can share them. Where practical, use a different model for review so the reviewer is less likely to inherit the same systematic weaknesses.

Human-in-the-loop review [ND + H]

Control statement: Require human approval on most pull requests, especially those touching security-sensitive or high-blast-radius code. Lower-risk changes might be eligible for agent-assisted or fully automated approval as tooling matures. Provide reviewers with scan results, LLM pre-screening output, and specification context to enable fast, informed decisions. Addresses R003.

Scale review depth to the risk of the change. Low-risk or boilerplate changes can take a lighter-touch review, while security-sensitive or novel-logic changes warrant mandatory deep review and a second reviewer.

Scanners catch known patterns but can’t judge whether code implements the intended business logic. Human review also serves to calibrate trust: teams build intuition about where agents excel (boilerplate, test writing) and where they’ve tended to struggle (novel business logic, security-sensitive operations), recognizing that this frontier shifts as models improve.

Place two approval gates: after security scans (reviewer focuses on correctness and business logic, with scan results as context) and before production deployment (final sign-off after integration testing). Treat human review as a secondary control, not a guarantee: reviewers are themselves non-deterministic and can miss issues, so human review layers on top of the deterministic gates rather than replacing them.

The framework is tool-agnostic, but AWS gives you building blocks for each pillar. The following services map directly to the controls described previously: Kiro for author-time guardrails, and CodeBuild and CodePipeline for build-time gates.

Kiro maps to Pillar 1: It puts the author-time controls in the IDE, where the developer and agent still share full context. Each feature in the following list implements one of those controls, configured in-repo under .kiro/ so the guardrails are version-controlled and shared across the team rather than set per developer.

• Steering documents – Markdown files in .kiro/steering/ load into the agent’s context at session start. Conditional inclusion using fileMatch (for example, ["**/*.tf"]) loads IaC-specific rules only when relevant.
• Specification-driven workflows – Three-phase specifications (requirements in EARS, design, and tasks) with review checkpoints. Bug-fix specifications capture unchanged behavior explicitly.
• Agent hooks – Triggered on file save, tool invocation, or task completion. Shell hooks run deterministic checks (linters, tests); Ask Kiro hooks run AI prompts for non-deterministic review. For example, a security pre-commit scanner hook can flag hardcoded credentials when the agent finishes a task.
• Property-based testing – Guided by a specification or hook, Kiro can generate property-based tests (for example, using the hypothesis library) that exercise hundreds of randomized inputs, probing edge cases a hand-written test suite would miss.
• MCP integrations – Connect Kiro to private package registries, internal docs, issue trackers, and infrastructure tooling, creating the controlled tool access pattern.

For enterprise environments, Kiro supports AWS IAM Identity Center for single sign-on and provides IP indemnity coverage for subscribers. Check the Kiro documentation for current Region availability.

CodeBuild runs each scanning tool (checking for secrets, SAST, SCA, and IaC) as a build action. A non-zero exit code fails the action, and the stage halts or rolls back according to its OnFailure setting. Findings export as SARIF to Amazon S3 for compliance, and CodePipeline action variables pass results to downstream approval actions.

• CodeBuild exit codes halt the pipeline on scan failures
• AWS Lambda invoke actions evaluate scan results against configurable thresholds and return pass/fail decisions
• Manual approval actions halt the pipeline, send Amazon Simple Notification Service (Amazon SNS) notifications, and link to review artifacts; decisions and reviewer identity are logged for audit

The following table consolidates the framework into a single view that includes each stage of the SDLC and the deterministic [D] and non-deterministic [ND] controls that apply there. Every stage carries both, a reminder that neither control type is sufficient on its own.

This post laid out a framework for adopting AI coding agents at machine speed without letting unreviewed risk reach production. It layers guardrails at two points:

• Author-time controls – Steering, specs, and scoped tools shape what the agent generates in the IDE.
• Build-time controls – Scanning, quality gates, and layered review verify it before it reaches production.

No single layer is enough: deterministic gates enforce hard rules, non-deterministic review catches what they miss, and human judgment is reserved for the decisions that need it. Together, they let AppSec scale with agent-driven development.

Where to start this week:

1. Start with steering and specs – Encode security requirements as steering and use specifications for new features. Highest impact, lowest effort. For a ready-made starting set, the open source Project CodeGuard (a Coalition for Secure AI project under OASIS Open, of which Amazon is a contributing member) publishes reusable steering rules for common risk classes—hardcoded credentials, IaC misconfiguration, supply chain, and MCP security—that you can adapt to your AWS environment.
2. Add deterministic pipeline gates – Integrate SAST, SCA, and secrets detection. Table-stakes regardless of AI usage.
3. Calibrate and iterate – Review what controls catch, adjust steering for recurring issues, and expand agent autonomy as trust builds.
4. Accountability – Developers remain accountable for the security of what they ship. AI agents accelerate development; they don’t transfer ownership.

More information:

• Kiro documentation
• AWS CodePipeline User Guide
• AWS Agentic AI Security Scoping Matrix

If you have feedback about this post, submit comments in the Comments section below.

Your phone rings, you pick up and say hello. On the other end: total silence. No one answers, and the call abruptly disconnects. If you don’t already use spam call blockers, you’ve almost certainly run into this situation before.

In most cases, these are scam calls. Today, we explain why these calls happen, what the callers want from you, and how to protect yourself. Most importantly, we’ll look at whether you even need to bother protecting yourself against them in the first place.

Who’s calling?

It’s not just scammers on the line — robots, legitimate call center operators, and ordinary folks make these calls too. Let’s break down each type of caller — ordered from best-case to worst-case scenario for your security.

Actual person

The most harmless scenario is that an actual person called you, but their microphone is acting up. Maybe they accidentally muted themselves with their ear, or their smartphone connected to a Bluetooth headset, speaker, or car system that isn’t capturing their voice. Carrier glitches can also mute one side of a call. The caller might have no idea there’s a problem — as far as they know, they are speaking, but no one can hear them. In cases like this, you usually recognize the incoming phone number.

If the call comes from an unknown number, there’s still no need to panic — though the list of those who might be calling gets much longer.

One legitimate possibility is a call center agent who simply didn’t pick up or connect their headset in time. Call center systems are designed to dial numbers faster than agents can wrap up their calls. The system tried to route the call to a human, but no reps were available. That’s why you sometimes have to wait a few seconds before hearing a single word, or why you might hear ringing tones as if you were the one making the call.

Robot or AI

Silence on the line is a common sign of robocalls. Robots test whether a phone number is active and, if it is, pass it along to a human — meaning a real sales rep (or scammer) will call you back in the next few days. It’s worth noting that scammers aren’t the only ones making these pinging calls. Legitimate call centers use the exact same tools to reduce the workload on their live agents.

An AI agent could also be behind the silent call. To the person answering, there’s no practical difference: the call looks identical to one made by a standard bot. However, AI can do more than just auto-dial numbers — it can analyze your response and use that data to decide whether your number is active and ready to be handed off to a live person for follow-up.

Unwanted caller

Now we get to the real threat. Perhaps one of the most dangerous and unpleasant sources of silent phone calls is a scammer. A quick, silent call like this can actually be the groundwork for a long, elaborate attack with cover stories about loans, government agencies, other fraudsters, even law enforcement.

Debt collectors might also be calling and staying quiet. Your number could end up on their radar if you, your family, or close contacts have outstanding debts. In these cases, a silent call is often used as a tactic for psychological pressure.

A similar technique is used in stalking. While silent calls cause no direct harm on their own, they can be leveraged to induce anxiety, create a feeling of being constantly watched, and cause ongoing emotional distress.

Why do they call and stay silent?

When you pick up, you likely respond out of habit with a quick “Hello?” or “Hi there.” That’s all it takes for the other party to gather a wealth of data. While this information used to be difficult to process, the rise of artificial intelligence has made the task significantly easier. Let’s look at what someone can learn about you from just one spoken word:

• Region, accent, and location. Scammers are sophisticated and cunning. Their tactics are often tailored by region — targeting residents of specific countries or even regions within them. This is especially relevant in places like India or South Africa, which have 22 and 11 official languages, respectively.
• Approximate age and gender. While a human listener might easily confuse a teenager’s voice with a young woman’s or misjudge someone’s age entirely, AI is far better at picking up on subtle vocal nuances. Knowing your age and gender helps scammers refine their playbook for future social engineering attacks.
• Times you’re available. If you answer the phone in the morning, afternoon, or late at night, attackers can schedule their follow-up call during the exact time window when you’re most likely to pick up.
• Likelihood of a successful attack. AI can automatically assess the potential value of a target. For instance, if someone answers quickly, speaks calmly, and doesn’t immediately hang up on unknown numbers, they’ll likely be assigned a higher priority for follow-up calls by live scam operators.

Back to the “why do they call and stay silent”, the main reason is to harvest biometric data. Just a few seconds of recorded audio can help cybercriminals create a voice deepfake. While one or two words might not yield a convincing clone on their own, attackers can stitch together recordings from multiple silent calls to build a believable replica.

This technology is already being used in real-world scams. Impersonating a relative, colleague, or boss, fraudsters can urgently ask you to send them money, to share a two-factor authentication code for government services, or to complete some other seemingly innocuous request. The more realistic the deepfake sounds, the harder it is to spot the scam — especially when backed by a convincing backstory.

What to do if you get a silent call?

If you answer a call, say a few words, and hang up, there’s no need to panic. However, that brief interaction can confirm to attackers that your number is active and that you’ll answer calls from unknown numbers. As a result, your phone number could end up on target lists for future spam or scam campaigns. That said, it’s important to remember that a single silent call poses no immediate security threat.

Here are a few tips to help you stay calm and avoid falling for scam tactics if those silent calls are becoming a problem:

• Don’t answer calls from unknown or hidden numbers. Here’s a helpful tip: if someone genuinely needs to reach you, they’ll find another way to do so, or keep calling from the exact same number at various times. Scammers almost always dial from different numbers, while automated bots operate on a rigid schedule — like calling every day at precisely 8:05 AM.
• Don’t rush to call back. Scammers often count on proactive victims who are curious enough to return calls from unfamiliar numbers. On top of that, calling back could end up costing you money if it’s a premium-rate number.
• Don’t speak first. Wait for the caller to greet you before starting a conversation. If you hear muffled noise or complete silence on the line, hang up and save yourself the hassle — it’s likely a scam.
• Block unknown numbers — even after the call. If you picked up and realized the call could be risky, it’s best to block the number right away. You can use the built-in features on most modern smartphones to do this.
• Don’t share your number everywhere. Phishing sites, fly-by-night web pages, and sketchy giveaways often exist solely to collect your personal data. When filling out forms online, it doesn’t hurt to use a burner or secondary number.
• Get a second phone number. Separate your daily life between two numbers. Use your main line strictly for family, friends, and work contacts, and reserve the secondary line for deliveries, online marketplaces, and general web sign-ups.

Further reading on scammers and deepfakes:

• They’re reading you like a book: scammers’ favorite tricks
• How to recognize a deepfake: attack of the clones
• The great messaging heist targeting your wallet
• You’re in for a big payout again
• Scareware: fake threats, real risks

Amazon is sharing new findings about how a threat actor linked to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) is targeting open source software libraries, the shared building blocks that companies around the world use to develop applications. Amazon Threat Intelligence has linked several recent compromises of popular Node Package Manager (NPM) libraries to the same DPRK-linked threat actor, a connection that hasn’t been publicly reported until now. The analysis also describes how generative AI is already changing what malicious software packages look like and how threat actors are beginning to probe AI-based code systems. We’re sharing this research to help the open source community and security teams better identify and address these types of events.

These developments come 2 years after the XZ Utils backdoor, which demonstrated how a patient attacker can compromise critical open source software by exploiting the trust and limited time of volunteer maintainers. Open source software underpins much of the internet’s infrastructure: operating systems, web servers, encryption libraries, and the application frameworks that businesses rely on daily. When an attacker compromises a widely used open source package, every organization that depends on that package is potentially affected. Since then, Amazon Threat Intelligence has observed the volume and sophistication of software supply chain attacks increase, driven in large part by DPRK‑linked threat actors and cybercriminal groups.

In this post, Amazon Threat Intelligence and the Amazon Inspector team share new details about recent campaigns against popular NPM packages, including evidence that the compromises of the axios, debug, chalk, and typo-crypto libraries were carried out by the same DPRK-linked threat actor tracked by the security community as SAPPHIRE SLEET, STARDUST CHOLLIMA, BlueNoroff, CageyChameleon, and Alluring Pisces. We also outline how the techniques used to compromise open source repositories are evolving, why these changes matter for organizations that depend on open source software, and what Amazon Web Services (AWS) is doing to help customers detect and respond to these threats.

In March 2025, the DPRK-linked threat actor compromised the typo-crypto package. In September 2025, the same threat actor compromised the debug and chalk NPM packages. In March 2026, the same operational playbook appeared in a compromise of the axios package, one of the most widely used JavaScript libraries with more than 100 million weekly downloads. In each case with debug, chalk, and axios, the threat actor gained access by socially engineering a trusted maintainer of the package, then published a software update containing malicious code. Any organization that automatically pulled the latest version of these packages received the compromised update.

While the axios compromise has been publicly attributed to this DPRK-linked threat actor, the typo-crypto, debug, and chalk incidents haven’t previously been connected to it. Amazon Threat Intelligence identified shared tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) across these supply-chain campaigns, including trojanized NPM packages, use of post-install hooks (scripts that run automatically when a package is installed), and code reuse. Based on analysis of command-and-control (C2) indicators and TTPs, Amazon Threat Intelligence assesses with medium confidence that these campaigns are attributable to the DPRK-linked threat actor tracked as SAPPHIRE SLEET, STARDUST CHOLLIMA, BlueNoroff, CageyChameleon, and Alluring Pisces. This is the first time these compromises have been publicly tied to this DPRK-linked threat actor.

Amazon Threat Intelligence assesses this as part of a financially motivated pattern: by compromising a small number of highly popular packages, the group gains potential access to thousands of downstream environments simultaneously. For a financially motivated threat actor, this approach is far more efficient than targeting organizations one at a time.

The aggregate impact of these incidents underscores the efficiency of targeting share dependencies. As reported by Wiz Research, roughly 1 in 10 cloud environments were affected by the debug and chalk supply chain event within a two‑hour window.

During routine analysis of indicators and TTPs related to the axios threat actor, Amazon Threat Intelligence identified a connection to a domain registered in 2025, prompting a full investigation into its historical activity. That investigation uncovered that the same DPRK-linked threat actor had committed a trojanized file to the typo-crypto NPM package in March 2025. The malicious file, core.js, masquerades as the legitimate core-js NPM package within the typo-crypto repository.

Based on the limited number of observed downloads, Amazon Threat Intelligence assesses that this campaign was small scale and likely served as a testing ground for the more visible supply chain operations that followed in late 2025 and 2026. The group appears to have been refining supply chain techniques more than a year before the larger campaigns that drew public attention. Amazon Inspector reported this malware to the Open Source Vulnerabilities (OSV) database, where it’s now tracked as MAL‑2026‑3400, so that the broader security community can benefit from these findings.

The trojanized file executes when it receives a hash input beginning with the value 0098273. When triggered, it downloads a second-stage payload from a hardcoded C2 server, then executes the payload based on the victim’s operating system, with behavior tailored for Windows, macOS, or Linux. The malware implements file-based persistence with payload rotation and uses multi-layer obfuscation, combining base64‑encoded text with an XOR cipher keyed to 01042025.

Associated indicators of compromise include:

• Domain: npmjs[.]store
• IP address: 216[.]74[.]123[.]126
• NPM package: typo-crypto (SHA256: 24604384b0e748ada07923630b3d037489e696284a98c4409fb9b6763565571f)
• Trojanized file: core.js (SHA256: 2014d09c7ded74d89c885b5f11693865224116f1b25df9330e61fe528f419d73)

Amazon Threat Intelligence assesses that the group was experimenting with techniques that later appeared in the higher-impact campaigns against axios, debug, and chalk. Although the observed download volume was low, the tradecraft aligns with what we later observed in attacks on more popular packages.

Over the past year, Amazon Threat Intelligence and Amazon Inspector have observed threat actors changing the techniques they use to target open source libraries. These changes matter because open source packages remain attractive targets: they’re widely trusted, automatically updated in many environments, and maintained by communities that welcome new contributors. The following patterns describe how attackers are adapting their methods to evade modern defenses. Each is designed to exploit the gap between the moment a dependency is inspected and the moment it actually executes. A year ago, we looked for malicious packages. Today, we look for malicious behaviors split across packages that appear harmless on their own.

Amazon Inspector has observed attackers increasingly splitting a single malicious workflow across several ordinary-looking packages. One package stores an encrypted blob disguised as configuration. A second ships the decryption logic. A third, often published later, fetches and executes the payload.

Viewed on its own, each package looks benign. There are no install hooks that stand out, no obvious evaluation of untrusted input, no network calls that look suspicious. The malicious behavior only appears when the components are used together in the intended sequence. This approach is designed to defeat scanners that evaluate packages one by one instead of reasoning about how they interact in a real dependency graph.

We’re also observing threat actors taking a long view of trust accumulation. Instead of publishing obvious malware and waiting for downloads, they publish something genuinely useful and maintain it. They behave like real maintainers for weeks or months, shipping features, fixing bugs, and gaining dependents.

The same patience shows up on the human side. In some cases, the goal isn’t to launch a new package at all, but to become a contributor to an existing project. That’s the through line from XZ Utils backdoor to the debug, chalk, and axios maintainer compromises. In each case, the adversary treated legitimacy as an asset to be spent once, at the moment of maximum access.

In many recent cases, a library is clean on the public registry yet still dangerous, because its real behavior depends on resources the attacker controls elsewhere. These can include guard or license scripts fetched from an external repository at runtime, configuration files that gate certain behaviors, or remote endpoints consulted at startup.

As long as those external resources remain benign, code reviews pass and automated scans return clean results. When an attacker flips the content or arms an endpoint that previously returned a placeholder, every installed copy can become malicious at once, without any new package release. A package that shows no malicious behavior today isn’t the same as a package that’s is safe by design.

Where attackers used to rely on simple obfuscation such as minification or single-layer base64 encoding, we now observe multi-stage payloads that use stronger cryptographic techniques. Examples include AES‑GCM encrypted blobs gated by passphrases, RC4-style string arrays with per-call keys, layered XOR over base64, and native loaders that hold the next stage as an encrypted field decrypted only in memory.

The common design choice is that the decryption key is never stored in the package itself. It’s derived from runtime context, fetched from a server at execution time, or supplied as a license key. That means even an analyst with full source access can’t reliably decrypt the payload statically. Stage one looks like a simple decryptor; the malicious content remains ciphertext until it runs on a real target with the real key.

As defenders have scaled automated analysis in cloud sandboxes, attackers have made their code more environment aware. The payload decides whether it’s being analyzed before it acts. We see execution gated behind real package install lifecycles, single-use environment variables, and checks for signals of a genuine developer or build environment. These include interactive terminals, realistic usernames and hostnames, domain membership, plausible uptime, local file history, specific operating systems, and cloud metadata that helps distinguish analysis infrastructure from normal workloads.

Some delivery servers also tailor what they serve based on the client. A benign decoy goes to generic browser-like requests, while the live payload only appears for the exact user agent used by the malware. The result is that a clean verdict from a cloud sandbox often tells you more about how convincing your environment looks than how safe the package is.

Generative AI is changing what attackers can produce and what defenders can rely on. Adversaries can generate novel code and content at scale. Historically, many malicious packages were caught because they looked wrong, with broken language, thin documentation, obvious copy-paste, or a telltale function reused across samples. Generative AI erases many of those signals.

Attackers can now produce thousands of lines of coherent, idiomatic, well-commented code, complete with convincing documentation, plausible commit histories, and synthetic maintainer identities, wrapped around a backdoor. Because each variant can be mutated, renamed, restructured, and re-encrypted, there is no single stable signature to match. Pattern-based detection loses ground against malware that looks one of a kind in every deployment.

AI is also creating new initial access vectors. One emerging technique is slopsquatting, where attackers register package names that exist only because an AI coding assistant hallucinated them. When a developer or an autonomous coding agent asks for help and the model confidently recommends a nonexistent package, an attacker can pre-register that name and wait. The next person who follows the recommendation might receive malware, despite not mistyping anything or visiting a malicious site, because the AI effectively delivered the bad dependency for them. As organizations move toward agents that install dependencies with limited human review, this path looks less like a curiosity and more like a scalable delivery channel.

Most significantly, AI changes the calculus for defensive automation. Attackers are no longer just writing malware for humans to miss. They’re writing malware for AI reviewers to approve. As organizations rely on AI systems to review code and triage packages, those AI systems themselves become part of the attack surface. We expect that indirect prompt injection, a technique where hidden instructions manipulate an AI system into taking unintended actions, will increasingly be embedded in malicious packages to fool AI-based code scanners. These instructions can be hidden in source comments, README files, docstrings, or test fixtures, and crafted to convince an automated system to mark malicious code as safe, skip a specific file, or perform an unintended action during analysis. The same content the malware needs to function can carry a second, separate message aimed at the machine that inspects it.

We’re investing across Amazon Threat Intelligence and Amazon Inspector to help customers adapt to this shifting landscape of software supply chain risk. Amazon remains committed to helping protect the security of our customers and the internet by actively hunting for and mitigating threats from sophisticated threat actors. We will continue working with Amazon teams, industry partners, and the security community to share intelligence and mitigate threats. Upon discovering this campaign, Amazon Threat Intelligence worked with Amazon Inspector so the malicious package was tracked, mitigated, and shared with the community through the OSV database. Additionally, the observed indicators were shared with Amazon GuardDuty to alert our customers of this activity.

Amazon Inspector uses these insights to refine our detection logic, broaden coverage across registries, and prioritize signals that reflect the tradecraft shifts described in this post, and is collaborating with industry partners such as package registries and Open Source Security Foundation (OpenSSF) to share findings.

We’re also investing in helping open source maintainers better secure their projects. In 2026, AWS joined the Linux Foundation and other industry leaders to launch Akrites, a collaborative initiative to defend critical open source software against AI-enabled cyber threats. AWS has also jointly invested $12.5 million alongside other organizations to defend the open source ecosystem from AI-driven attacks. These efforts reflect a broader commitment: the security of open source software is a shared responsibility, and defending it requires sustained investment from the organizations that depend on it.

Our goal is to help customers understand where their environments rely on open source components, identify suspicious behavior early, and respond quickly when the software supply chain is used as an entry point.

August 11, 20206: This post was updated to clarify that the social engineering of a trusted maintainer applied to the debug, chalk, and axios compromises specifically. The underlying attribution and findings remain unchanged.

AI infrastructure introduces new security risks that traditional data center designs were never built to handle.

The post AI Data Centers Are Being Built Faster Than They Can Be Secured appeared first on SecurityWeek.

Security Hub is our foundation for full-stack enterprise security across clouds. It centralizes your security operations and turns raw signals into prioritized insights, so your team spends its time managing real risk instead of stitching tools together. Today that foundation grows in two directions our customers asked for most. We are adding purpose-built protection for AI workloads, and security monitoring for Microsoft Azure. Both are steps toward a bigger idea, that your best security tools should get smarter by working together.

These expansions came directly from customers, and they reflect where security is heading, not where it has been. The old promise of security tooling was a place to collect everything in one view. Collecting findings was never the hard part. The hard part is understanding them, connecting them, and acting before an attacker does, and doing it at the speed attacks now move. The programs that win from here will be the ones that see across their whole estate and respond fast, not the ones with the most dashboards. That is what we are building toward, and these launches are steps on that path.

Multicloud security management for Microsoft Azure

Customers across industries have made Security Hub a core part of how they run security on AWS. Most of them have run in more than one cloud for years, and they have been clear with us that they want Security Hub to also cover the rest of their estate. Today we do that for Microsoft Azure, with more clouds following quickly.

Security Hub now discovers Azure Virtual Machines, container images, Function Apps, and identities, then evaluates them for misconfigurations, internet exposure, and software vulnerabilities, with posture checks against the CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark. Azure findings are prioritized next to your AWS findings using the same finding format, automation, and response workflows, so your team works from one understanding of risk across your entire estate. Azure resources are priced at the same rates as equivalent AWS resources with no additional fees, and there’s an independent 30-day free trial. To learn more, see the What’s New post.

This is not actually our first move beyond AWS. Earlier this year we introduced Security Hub Extended, bringing best-in-class partner solutions across nine security categories into the same experience you already use. Those partner solutions protect endpoints, identities, email, browsers, and data wherever they run, across any cloud, on-premises, and everywhere your enterprise operates. Extended was already our first multicloud and multi-workload step. Today we broaden what our own native capabilities cover, and the two lines of work now advance together.

Protecting AI workloads

Every customer I talk to is building with AI. Generative AI on Amazon Bedrock, model training on SageMaker, agents orchestrating workflows through AgentCore. These workloads are reaching production faster than most security programs can keep up, and teams often don’t yet have the tools to monitor model invocations, track agent behavior, or even know what AI assets exist across the organization. One security leader told me his team only caught a compromised service account, one that had been invoking a foundation model thousands of times, because finance questioned the bill. They found a security incident through an accounting review. The visibility gap is real, and it is already expensive.

This summer we start closing it with three launches. Two are GuardDuty capabilities for threat detection and investigation, and a third is a new Security Hub AI inventory.

GuardDuty AI Protection (generally available)

Amazon GuardDuty AI Protection delivers threat detection purpose-built for Bedrock and SageMaker. It detects anomalous model invocations, cost harvesting attacks where adversaries abuse stolen credentials to run inference at your expense, and prompt injection attempts through integration with Bedrock Guardrails.

Cost harvesting is accelerating. When credentials are compromised, attackers increasingly use them to invoke foundation models. Inference is expensive, demand is high, and stolen access converts straight to value without deploying any infrastructure. GuardDuty analyzes CloudTrail data events, learns what normal invocation looks like at scale, and flags the deviations that signal compromise or abuse. This is detection that only works at AWS scale, because you have to see the signal across millions of workloads to know what normal is. GuardDuty AI Protection is now available to all GuardDuty customers with a 30-day free trial.

GuardDuty AI-powered investigations (preview)

AI-powered investigations take on the manual investigation work that drives alert fatigue and slows response. The capability automatically analyzes GuardDuty findings and the accounts around them to separate true threats from benign activity.

It examines finding context, related activity from the last 90 days, affected resources, and threat indicators, using knowledge graphs and threat intelligence to complete in minutes what used to take hours. Each investigation returns a disposition assessment with confidence scoring, MITRE ATT&CK® classification, supporting evidence, and clear recommendations to suppress, contain, or remediate. Your team focuses on genuine threats, whether across a single account or an entire AWS Organization, and mean time to resolution drops. GuardDuty AI-powered investigations is available in preview in 10 AWS Regions.

Security Hub AI inventory (generally available)

You can’t secure what you don’t know exists. Security Hub now provides an AI inventory, a continuously updated, organization-wide view of your AI assets and their security posture. As teams deploy models, agents, and pipelines, security often can’t see what’s running, and without connecting those assets to active threats and misconfigurations, it’s difficult to know what to secure first.

Security Hub AI inventory discovers and catalogs AI workloads across your AWS environment two ways. For managed services, it inventories AWS Config resources across Bedrock, SageMaker, and AgentCore. For self-hosted and external workloads, it finds models running on EC2, ECS, and EKS through runtime analysis, and identifies the external model endpoints your workloads make calls to. It maps each asset to the infrastructure beneath it, including compute, networking, IAM roles, and data stores, and correlates it with security signals such as GuardDuty findings. So when GuardDuty AI Protection flags an anomalous invocation, AI inventory immediately shows you which infrastructure is involved, what’s connected to it, and where it belongs in your priority order.

AI assets multiply fast. A developer spins up a Bedrock agent for a proof of concept. A data science team stands up a SageMaker endpoint for internal testing. Another team wires in an external model API through a Lambda function. Multiply that across hundreds or thousands of accounts and you can quickly lose track. AI inventory gives you that view across every account in your organization, available in your Security Hub Essentials plan at no additional cost.

A different approach to full-stack security

These launches share something worth pausing on. You didn’t procure AI protection as a separate product, and you won’t stand up separate operations for Azure. You add them to the Security Hub you already run, and they show up in your prioritized view of risk. That same idea is what Security Hub Extended extends to the rest of the security estate.

Security Hub Extended now has 21 curated partners across nine categories: 7AI, Britive, CrowdStrike, Idira (CyberArk), Cyera, Island, LayerX, Native Security, Noma, Okta, Oligo, Opti, Proofpoint, SailPoint, SentinelOne, Splunk, Sublime, Upwind, Varonis, Zenity, and Zscaler. These are best-in-class solutions across endpoint, identity, email, network, data, browser, cloud, AI, and security operations. None of them are here by default. Each one earned its place by committing to a shared view of where enterprise security is going, and by investing alongside us to build it. Curation is the point. A recommendation only means something if it can be turned down.

The commercial benefits of Extended are real today. Pay-as-you-go pricing, a single AWS bill, EDP eligibility, and no long-term commitments. But the work we’re most excited about goes further, and it’s not about procurement at all. Findings from every participating solution are emitted in the Open Cybersecurity Schema Framework (OCSF) and aggregated in Security Hub, and we’re building toward a single correlation across all of them, so a signal from an endpoint solution, an identity solution, and a cloud solution combine into one exposure and one attack path instead of three disconnected alerts. We’re working to reduce the deployment and onboarding effort between subscribing and seeing value. And we’re building the exchange that lets partner findings enrich each other, so the best-in-class tools you already trust become more than the sum of their parts. That is the differentiated future we’re investing in, and we’re building it in the open, guided by what customers ask for next. To learn more about Extended, see the What’s New post.

Accelerating forward

Step back and the shape of it is clear. Security Hub reaches across cloud providers, starting with Azure and expanding from there. It reaches across workload types with purpose-built AI protection and inventory. And it reaches across security categories through Extended and its curated partners. What began as a way to bring order to AWS security findings has become how more enterprises run full-stack security.

Detection and visibility are the foundation. What we build on top of them is a security experience that connects signals across every source you trust and helps you respond faster. It’s still Day 1, and Security Hub will keep extending as your environment, and the threats you face, continue to change.

If you have feedback about this post, submit comments in the Comments section below.

You can now connect your agents to the AWS MCP Server using the same credentials and sign-in methods that you already use for connecting to the AWS Management Console or AWS Command Line Interface (AWS CLI) through a familiar browser-based experience powered by industry-standard OAuth. This new sign-in path supports AWS Identity and Access Management (IAM) federation, AWS IAM Identity Center, and root or IAM users.

In addition, AWS is introducing several new security and governance tools, including: new global condition keys for OAuth, token introspection and revocation, dynamic client registration, new AWS CloudTrail elements, and a new API for headless OAuth connectivity. All of this is compatible with your existing IAM configuration including permissions, roles, and federated access.

In this post, you’ll learn how to connect your agents to the AWS MCP Server, understand how AWS Sign-In authorizes agent access, and manage access using new security and governance capabilities.

How to connect an agent to the AWS MCP Server

This walkthrough uses Claude Code, but the same steps apply to any agent that supports Model Context Protocol (MCP) such as Kiro, Codex, and Gemini. See Setting up the AWS MCP Server for how to connect the AWS MCP Server to an agent.

Prerequisite permissions

To connect an agent to the AWS MCP Server, you’ll need the IAM permissions required for OAuth-based sign-in. The following AWS CLI command adds a managed policy with required permissions to your IAM role (remember to replace <MyRole> with your IAM role):

aws iam attach-role-policy \
  --role-name <MyRole> \
  --policy-arn arn:aws:iam::aws:policy/AWSMCPSignInOAuthAccessPolicy

Step 1: Configure the AWS MCP Server on your agent

Run the following command to add the AWS MCP Server endpoint to your agent’s configuration as shown in Figure 1:

claude mcp add --transport http aws-mcp https://aws-mcp.us-east-1.api.aws/mcp

Figure 1: Adding the AWS MCP Server endpoint to Claude Code

Step 2: Review the authorization request

The first time your agent needs to access the AWS MCP Server, it opens a browser and redirects you to an AWS Sign-In page, shown in Figure 2. Authenticate as you would on AWS console or AWS CLI, review the authorization request, and approve access. You should receive an Authorization successful message.

Figure 2: Review authorization request

Note that if you already have an active AWS Sign-In session (e.g., because you previously signed in to the console earlier in the day), you can reuse that session without needing to sign in again.

Step 3: Start using AWS tools

After connecting your agent to the AWS MCP Server, you can begin invoking tools provided by the server. To verify that Claude Code is connected to the AWS MCP Server, start Claude Code and run the following command:

/mcp

The command displays the configured MCP servers and confirms that the AWS MCP Server is connected and ready to use with your AWS credentials.

Figure 3 shows an example of a successful connection to the AWS MCP Server.

Figure 3: Verifying the AWS MCP Server connection in Claude Code

After the connection is established, you can ask Claude Code to invoke tools provided by the AWS MCP Server. For example, enter the following prompt:

Deploy a sample serverless web application into my development AWS account

Claude Code uses the AWS MCP Server to identify the active AWS account, confirm the target account, and describe the deployment it plans to perform before invoking AWS services on your behalf.

Figure 4 shows Claude Code confirming the active AWS account and outlining the resources that will be deployed.

Figure 4: Using Claude Code to deploy a sample serverless application through the AWS MCP Server

Authorization models and how they work

AWS Sign-In supports two authorization models for connecting agents to the AWS MCP Server:

• Interactive authorization for developers’ AI agents using browser based authentication
• Non-interactive (headless) authorization for applications and AI agents that already have AWS credentials and don’t have access to a browser

Note that authorizing an agent allows it to access the AWS MCP Server on your behalf. It doesn’t grant the agent additional AWS permissions. Every request is still evaluated using your existing IAM policies, SCPs, RCPs, permission boundaries, and other organizational controls.

Interactive access

In the interactive case, the agent first discovers the AWS Sign-In OAuth server and then registers itself as an OAuth client using Dynamic Client Registration (DCR). It then redirects you to an AWS Sign-In page where you authenticate and authorize access (step 2 in the preceding section). After successful authorization, AWS Sign-In then issues short-lived access tokens and refresh tokens that authorize the agent to access the AWS MCP Server on your behalf. AWS Sign-In automatically manages token issuance and token refresh, enabling authorized agents to continue accessing the AWS MCP Server without requiring you to repeatedly sign in.

The interactive authorization model supports three distinct sign-in methods: native AWS IAM credentials for individual developers, managed access through AWS IAM Identity Center for enterprises, and seamless federated access via third-party providers like Okta and Ping Identity for larger organizations.

OAuth server metadata and DCR

Before an agent can request authorization, it must discover the AWS Sign-In OAuth endpoints and register itself as an OAuth client. AWS Sign-In supports OAuth metadata discovery and DCR, allowing supported agents to configure themselves automatically without requiring developers to manually provision OAuth client IDs and client secrets. When an agent connects to the AWS MCP Server for the first time, it retrieves the AWS MCP Server’s protected resource metadata (RFC 9728) and the AWS Sign-In OAuth metadata (RFC 8414). The agent then uses (RFC 7591) to register with AWS Sign-In, obtain a client ID, and initiate the standard OAuth authorization code flow.

AWS Sign-In supports OAuth discovery and DCR for agents running on local workstations and supported hosted environments. For the current list of supported agents and environments, see Supported redirect URIs for the AWS MCP Server.

Non-interactive access to the AWS MCP Server

Non-interactive (headless) authorization is for agents and applications that run without a browser or human in the loop, and thus don’t require interactive sign-in. This allows agents that already have AWS credentials to obtain OAuth access tokens and connect to the AWS MCP Server. The following is an example of how to obtain an access token.

aws signin create-oauth2-token-with-iam \ 
--grant-type client_credentials \ 
--resource aws-mcp.amazonaws.com \  
--region us-east-1 
{ 
"accessToken": "ASOA****************************************...", 
"tokenType": "Bearer", 
"expiresIn": 3600 
}

In the non-interactive case, AWS Sign-In implements the OAuth client credentials grant using AWS security credentials instead of a static client secret. Applications authenticate to the AWS Sign-In token endpoint using SigV4 creds, and AWS Sign-In returns a short-lived OAuth access token that can be used to access the AWS MCP Server.

Please note you may have to update the SDK and AWS CLI, please refer to CLI guide.

Managing OAuth access

AWS Sign-In extends the existing IAM authorization model with capabilities for governing OAuth access to the AWS MCP Server. Administrators can use familiar IAM policies together with new OAuth-specific controls.

Granting OAuth permissions

OAuth access is governed using IAM policies and requires the following IAM actions:

• signin:AuthorizeOAuth2Access – Allows users to sign in interactively using the OAuth authorization code flow
• signin:CreateOAuth2Token – Allows applications to obtain OAuth access tokens by exchanging authorization codes, refresh tokens, or using client credentials

When an application requests access, AWS Sign-In creates an OAuth authorization grant between the agent and the AWS MCP Server. This grant is represented as an IAM resource, which the preceding AWS Sign-In actions are authorized against.

arn:aws:signin:us-east-1:012345678910:service-principal/aws-mcp.amazonaws.com

OAuth authorization grants are represented as an IAM resource enabling administrators to use standard IAM policy constructs, including global condition keys, together with OAuth-specific condition keys to control how authorization grants are created and used.

Governing OAuth access

AWS Sign-In introduces OAuth-specific condition keys that allow administrators to govern how agents obtain OAuth authorization. The following examples demonstrate common governance patterns.

To restrict OAuth authorization to localhost:

In addition to accessing the AWS MCP Server with agents on your local workstation, AWS supports signing into the AWS MCP Server on select hosted providers through dynamic client registration. Click here to view the list of supported remote providers. Many organizations want to allow developers to authorize agents running on their local workstations while preventing OAuth tokens from being delivered to untrusted redirect URIs or using unsupported authorization flows. The following policy allows only the OAuth authorization code and refresh token flows for the AWS MCP server and restricts token delivery tolocalhost.

{
  "Version": "2012-10-17",
  "Statement": [
    {
      "Effect": "Allow",
      "Action": [
        "signin:AuthorizeOAuth2Access",
        "signin:CreateOAuth2Token"
      ],
      "Resource": "arn:aws:signin:*:*:service-principal/aws-mcp.amazonaws.com",
      "Condition": {
        "StringLike": {
          "signin:OAuthRedirectUri": "http://localhost:*"
        },
        "StringEquals": {
          "signin:OAuthGrantType": [
            "authorization_code",
            "refresh_token"
          ]
        }
      }
    }
  ]
}

To deny access for a specific OAuth session

Use the aws:SignInSessionArn global condition key to deny authorization associated with a specific sign-in session. This allows administrators to contain a suspicious or compromised authorization session without affecting other active sessions.

{
  "Version": "2012-10-17",
  "Statement": [
    {
      "Effect": "Deny",
      "Action": [
        "*"
      ],
      "Resource": "*",
      "Condition": {
        "ArnEquals": {
          "aws:SignInSessionArn": "arn:aws:signin:us-east-1:111122223333:session/abc123-example-session-id"
        }
      }
    }
  ]
}

These examples demonstrate common governance patterns. Additional IAM and SCP examples are available in the AWS Sign-In condition keys reference.

Revoking OAuth tokens

AWS Sign-In provides OAuth token introspection and token revocation APIs that allow administrators to build custom tools for token validation and revocation. Access to these APIs is controlled through the signin:IntrospectOAuth2Token and signin:RevokeOAuth2Token permissions. IAM principals with permissions are allowed to introspect and revoke tokens for the same account.

The introspection API can be used to determine whether a token is active and obtain information about the associated authorization. The revocation API allows administrators and security tools to revoke individual refresh tokens without affecting other active sessions. For example, if an organization needs to invalidate access for a specific OAuth authorization, account admins can revoke the associated refresh token without affecting other active sessions.

Monitoring OAuth activity

OAuth-related activities are recorded in AWS CloudTrail, including authorization requests, token issuance, token revocation, and token introspection events. CloudTrail logs also capture details such as the OAuth client, target the AWS MCP Server, redirect URI, authorization flow, and associated sign-in session. In addition, AWS API calls made using OAuth access tokens include the associated aws:SignInSessionArn context, allowing organizations to correlate API activity with the originating OAuth sign-in session.

This allows security teams to monitor OAuth usage, investigate authorization activity, detect anomalous behavior, and integrate OAuth events into existing auditing, compliance, and incident response workflows alongside other AWS activity.

Here’s a CloudTrail sample for an AuthorizeOAuth2Access event:

{
    "eventVersion": "1.11",
    "userIdentity": {
        "type": "AssumedRole",
        "principalId": "AROATJHQDX737YZP****:testuser",
        "arn": "arn:aws:sts::111111111111:assumed-role/Admin/testuser",
        "accountId": "111111111111",
        "sessionContext": {
            "sessionIssuer": {
                "type": "Role",
                "principalId": "AROA2IRT4N5U4RDHM2LG4",
                "arn": "arn:aws:iam::111111111111:role/Admin",
                "accountId": "111111111111",
                "userName": "Admin"
            },
            "attributes": {
                "creationDate": "2026-06-09T05:06:39Z",
                "mfaAuthenticated": "false"
            }
        }
    },
    "eventTime": "2026-06-09T05:09:00Z",
    "eventSource": "signin.amazonaws.com",
    "eventName": "AuthorizeOAuth2Access",
    "awsRegion": "us-west-2",
    "sourceIPAddress": "192.0.0.2",
    "userAgent": "Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/149.0.0.0 Safari/537.36",
    "requestParameters": {
        "resource": "https://aws-mcp.us-west-2.api.aws/mcp",
        "redirect_uri": "http://127.0.0.1:60432/oauth/callback",
        "code_challenge_method": "S256",
        "client_id": "arn:aws:signin:us-west-2::external-client/dcr/609544da-aasa-49a4-ab11-c2r457fa999"
    },
    "responseElements": null,
    "additionalEventData": {
        "success": "true"
    },
    "requestID": "4fb4ff7b-6yu7-9090-78i9-9c0088a65134",
    "eventID": "bb05b222-31ec-4237-b8e7-8eb26d4fd48b",
    "readOnly": true,
    "eventType": "AwsApiCall",
    "managementEvent": true,
    "recipientAccountId": "111111111111",
    "eventCategory": "Management",
    "tlsDetails": {
        "tlsVersion": "TLSv1.3",
        "cipherSuite": "TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256",
        "clientProvidedHostHeader": "us-west-2.oauth.signin.aws"
    }
}

Here’s a CloudTrail sample for a CreateOAuth2Token event:

{
    "eventVersion": "1.11",
    "userIdentity": {
        "type": "AssumedRole",
        "principalId": "AROATJHQDX737YZP7****:testuser",
        "arn": "arn:aws:sts::111111111111:assumed-role/Admin/testuser",
        "accountId": "111111111111",
        "sessionContext": {
            "sessionIssuer": {
                "type": "Role",
                "principalId": "AROA2IRT4N5U4RDHM****",
                "arn": "arn:aws:iam::111111111111:role/Admin",
                "accountId": "111111111111",
                "userName": "Admin"
            },
            "attributes": {
                "creationDate": "2026-06-09T05:06:39Z",
                "mfaAuthenticated": "false"
            },
            "signInSessionArn":"arn:aws:signin:us-west-2:111111111111:session/daff060f-7871-5tg6-67yu-a07bbdabe61a"
            
        }
    },
    "eventTime": "2026-06-09T05:10:04Z",
    "eventSource": "signin.amazonaws.com",
    "eventName": "CreateOAuth2Token",
    "awsRegion": "us-west-2",
    "sourceIPAddress": "192.0.0.2",
    "userAgent": "curl/8.7.1",
    "requestParameters": {
        "resource": "https://aws-mcp.us-west-2.api.aws/mcp",
        "client_id": "arn:aws:signin:us-west-2::external-client/dcr/609544da-b3dd-49a4-ab11-c2e98d7fa999"
    },
    "responseElements": null,
    "additionalEventData": {
        "signInSessionArn": "arn:aws:signin:us-west-2:111111111111:session/daff060f-7871-5tg6-67yu-a07bbdabe61a",
        "grant_type": "refresh_token",
        "success": "true"
    },
    "requestID": "44d6d7ce-e4r5-4cbf-0909-bfb8a8295a76",
    "eventID": "f79cc63f-b383-4e3c-a1e5-97c7db1ab833",
    "readOnly": true,
    "eventType": "AwsApiCall",
    "managementEvent": true,
    "recipientAccountId": "111111111111",
    "eventCategory": "Management",
    "tlsDetails": {
        "tlsVersion": "TLSv1.3",
        "cipherSuite": "TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256",
        "clientProvidedHostHeader": "us-west-2.oauth.signin.aws"
    }
}

Additional audit events and logging details for calls made using OAuth access tokens to the AWS MCP Server can be found in Logging AWS MCP Server API calls using AWS CloudTrail.

Conclusion

AWS Sign-In support for OAuth enables you to securely connect to the AWS MCP Server using industry-standard authorization. This release simplifies application and agent integration with AWS while supporting your existing IAM setup, governance, and auditing capabilities.

To learn more, see Sign-In with OAuth 2.0 in the AWS Sign-In User Guide and Setting up the AWS MCP Server in the Agent Toolkit for AWS User Guide.

If you have feedback about this post, submit comments in the Comments section below.