❌

Reading view

Cyber Insurance Is No Longer Optional: In the Age of AI-Driven Threats, Can Your Business Afford the Risk of Being Unprotected?

By Kareena Bavisi, Chief of Staff | EC-Council
It comes down to one number: what your worst incident would cost, and how much of it the business can carry on its own. With a CISO, that’s usually a risk decision. Without one, cyber insurance may only be a compliance purchase.

Before deciding whether to buy cyber insurance, a business needs one number: what its worst incident would cost. When I spoke with Gregory Eskins, who leads Marsh’s Global Cyber Insurance Center, that was where he said a first-time buyer should start. He doesn’t assume every business should buy it. He starts with how much loss a business could absorb on its own, then asks whether the cost of covering the rest makes sense.

How a business gets to that answer depends on who is making the call. Organizations with a CISO tend to be engaged and aware of the risk, and many are on a journey toward resilience. Organizations without one, whether because they lack the resources or because insurance is a compliance requirement for them, face the same decision with less security expertise in the room.

What moves clients to act is usually an event. Cyber risk, Eskins told me, has always been “intellectually understood, I would say, by most organizations, but it’s not been felt personally.” When a real incident hits the news, clients ask about it and whether they’re covered, and AI is making the risk more real to them. That is a reactive way to make a decision about money and risk.

Two kinds of buyers

Start with organizations that have a CISO. They tend to be the engaged ones, and insurers pull them into the conversation because underwriting is technical. They understand the realities of their organizations best, and many are on a journey toward resilience.

Organizations without one are a different story. Some lack the resources for a CISO. Some buy cyber insurance mainly because they have to. That does not track neatly with size or sophistication, and there is nothing wrong with it. For some smaller organizations, insurance is a compliance tool, and, as Eskins shared, buyers generally still get a good product even without understanding everything in it.

The catch is what happens next. Without someone whose job is to keep the exposure in front of leadership, cyber risk tends to stay abstract until a headline makes it real. AI is part of the reason that is changing. As Eskins puts it, “it’s in the headlines all the time. Fear is a strong motivator.” That fear is pulling more organizations into the conversation. For a company with a CISO, it lands on a process already in motion. For one without, it tends to produce a reaction instead of a plan.

Start with your own number

A cyber insurance decision is two questions in sequence. How much loss can the business absorb? And what would it cost to hand off the rest? Plenty of buyers jump to the second one and start comparing quotes, which lets a renewal date or a questionnaire set the limit instead of the company’s own exposure.

The first question needs a worst case and a figure, and the figure matters because the range is wide. Eskins frames it as whether the loss is “a 5 million dollar risk or is that a 50 or $500 million risk?” Good security shrinks that number but never erases it. Some residual risk stays with the business, and that remainder is what the decision is about.

From there it comes down to tolerance. If the business can carry the remainder comfortably, declining coverage is a defensible call. If it can’t, the policy is worth pricing, and the comparison that counts is what covering the remainder costs against what leaving it uncovered could cost. That is why insurance is optional and the number is not. In Eskins’ words, “the question is not should you buy insurance for that, but what is your risk tolerance.”

Pricing the rest is the easier half. The next step is to find out whether coverage exists for that remainder and what it would cost “relative to the risk that you would be otherwise accepting.” In many cases, Eskins says, transferring that risk is “incredibly capital efficient.” Whether it is for your business comes down to quotes and policy language, so compare quotes and read the exclusions before deciding.

AI raises the cost of weak basics

AI has not created a whole new category of cyber risk. It has made weak fundamentals more expensive. Eskins is direct about it: “The foundations and fundamentals of strong cybersecurity still matter. In fact, they’re more important than ever.” Attackers now have tools that work at speed and scale, and a company with weak basics is at a serious disadvantage against them.

The worry is running ahead of the data. So far Marsh has not seen a dramatic increase in events overall, though attack speed and scale are expected to rise, and the firm is working with clients to help them get ahead of it.

What a security team should be ready to explain follows from that. A company deploying AI agents to automate workflows needs a clear account of identity and access, meaning what each agent can reach and why, with permissioning and segmentation behind it. That is incredibly important. Keeping that account current is the working core of AI governance: which agents are running, what each can touch, and who answers for it. Faster patching helps, but it can’t be the whole answer.

AI also cuts the other way. It amplifies familiar risks, and it mitigates them too. The question for a security team is whether it is using AI itself, for reconnaissance and threat hunting, to move at greater speed and scale.

Strong security earns something steadier than a discount. Market conditions, mainly supply and demand, move price more than any single company’s controls can, but good cybersecurity and governance help a business “smooth out some of those ebbs and flows of volatility.”

What CISOs can do differently

The most useful step is also the cheapest: ask. “Do not be afraid to ask your underwriter questions,” Eskins says, about the policy itself and about the market. People on the other side are generally generous with the information they want to provide.

That openness reflects how the relationship has changed. Insurance used to be seen as a drain on the security budget, or, wrongly, as an indictment of the security program. Now, Eskins says, “it’s far more of a game of cooperation and collaboration.”

It also runs both ways. Marsh wants to hear what frustrates CISOs about claims or how a policy needs to evolve, and works on ways of dealing with it. Raising it, instead of absorbing it until the next renewal, is the other half of engagement.

The steps themselves are short: quantify the worst case, decide how much of it the business can carry, and ask the people who price the risk what it would take to cover the rest. None of it needs new spend or new tooling. In an organization without a CISO, the same steps fall to whoever owns the insurance decision.

Asking well takes fluency, and fluency is not evenly spread. Eskins told me CISOs have been great partners, asking lots of questions and wanting to learn. He also acknowledged that clients can find it harder to get educated on this, with products still evolving and a lot to digest, and he called helping them part of Marsh’s job. In my view, that points to a gap. Where a CISO is in the seat, that learning is usually underway. Where one is not, the person signing the policy may never have been taught how underwriters think or what moves a price. At bottom it is a communication gap: security teams and underwriters often describe the same risk in different terms. Training built around cyber insurance is starting to appear to bridge it, aimed at exactly that reader.

Decide before the headline does

Cyber risk will keep making the news, and each incident will keep sending clients to their brokers to ask whether they are covered. Organizations that wait for that moment decide under pressure. Organizations that have already priced their worst day, and asked an underwriter what covering the rest would cost, decide on their own terms.

Cyber insurance may be optional. Knowing what you can afford to lose is not.

Kareena Bavisi, Chief of Staff | EC-Council

Kareena Bavisi is a contributor to CISO MAG covering cybersecurity and AI, writing on how emerging technology is reshaping risk, governance, and the way enterprises defend themselves. Her work draws on conversations with security leaders, insurers, and technologists across the industry to surface the trends shaping the field. She is also Chief of Staff to the CEO and Founder at EC-Council, a global leader in cybersecurity certification and education.

The post Cyber Insurance Is No Longer Optional: In the Age of AI-Driven Threats, Can Your Business Afford the Risk of Being Unprotected? appeared first on CISO MAG | Cyber Security Magazine.

  •  

Why AI Governance Is Becoming Cyber Insurance’s Next MFA

By Kareena Bavisi, Chief of Staff to CEO at EC-Council
I set out to understand why companies still don’t think they’re adequately covered. What I found looks like a pattern the insurance industry has lived through once already: multi-factor authentication went from a nice-to-have to a near-universal underwriting expectation in a matter of years, and insurers that got burned by its absence started pricing around it, denying claims over it, walking away from risks that didn’t have it. AI governance is tracing the same path, earlier, but faster. It isn’t a formal requirement anywhere in the cyber insurance market yet. But the data in this piece says it’s headed there, and the companies that treat it as optional for too long are going to find that out the same way the MFA holdouts did.

Here’s a number that should worry any CISO building an AI governance program right now: 74% of professionals who evaluate, deploy, secure, or govern AI at their organizations believe they could pass an AI compliance audit today. Only 27% describe their governance program as fully mature. That’s according to Schellman’s State of AI Governance Report 2026, a survey of 525 U.S.-based practitioners, and it’s close to an exact echo of a number I’d already been sitting with: in Munich Re’s 2026 Global Cyber Risk and Insurance Survey, 89% of C-level respondents say they don’t consider their company adequately protected against cyberattacks, up from 81% in 2021, 83% in 2022, and 87% in 2024. Two different surveys, two different questions, the same shape: confidence and reality keep drifting apart, and whatever’s being done about it isn’t closing the gap.

Bob Parisi, Head of Cyber Solutions for North America at Munich Re, has spent nearly three decades underwriting cyber risk. I asked him why. His answer wasn’t about a missing product. It was about two groups of people who don’t speak the same language.

A literacy problem, not a product problem

“Dealing with financial risk transfer is not something a CISO deals with every day,” he told me. The reverse is just as true: underwriters are pricing a technical risk they don’t observe directly, working from what a company represents about itself once a year, usually through a broker-scheduled call. “ We typically engage with them once a year when they fill out the application,” he said. Where that changes, he told me, is in companies where the CISO, CFO, and chief privacy officer are already talking to each other internally, those are the ones that end up buying coverage closer to their real exposure.

His own company’s data backs that up. Asked what’s holding back better cyber defense, Munich Re’s survey found the top two answers were both about people, not tools: “low security awareness among employees” (40%) and a lack of skilled personnel (31%), both ahead of budget. The disconnect Parisi described anecdotally is the top-ranked problem in his own company’s data.

That disconnect is what got me thinking about how to close it, and it’s why companies like the Cyber Insurance Academy exist. The talent gap behind it is well documented: insurers report more than 400,000 open positions across lines of coverage, cyber underwriting pay runs well above a typical broker’s, and the shortage persists anyway, because, as Gallagher’s Joey Sylvester has put it, “there are a very limited number of individuals specializing in this class of business” who can keep up with both the insurance market and the cybersecurity industry at once. That’s the same disconnect Munich Re’s own survey flagged as the top two defense challenges: low security awareness and a shortage of skilled people, not budget. Closing it takes skilled people who’ve actually sat through the training, courses like the CCIS, built to give security and insurance professionals enough of each other’s language that the once-a-year application conversation reflects real exposure, instead of two sides talking past each other.

What MFA can tell us about where AI governance is headed

This is where I think the Schellman number matters more than it looks on its own. AI governance right now sits roughly where multi-factor authentication sat two or three years ago, something insurers were starting to care about, but not yet something they’d decline a policy over. That’s changed fast. Brokers who place cyber coverage say MFA has gone from a minor underwriting factor to close to a hard requirement in the span of about two years. Insurers that once quoted risks without MFA, sometimes with a small premium loading, have largely stopped offering that option. Integrity’s Colin Fox says only a handful of insurers will still write a policy without it, describing it as “quite a rarity these days” in comments to Insurance Business UK.

AI, in Parisi’s words, is “first and foremost” in what Munich Re is watching right now. “It takes up a lot of the oxygen in the room in any discussion around cyber risk,” he told me. That’s not a formal policy change, but pricing is where MFA’s history is instructive. The pattern with MFA wasn’t that insurers added a new exclusion, it was that a control quietly moved from a nice-to-have to a baseline expectation, and companies that couldn’t demonstrate it found their options narrowing. Endpoint detection and response looks to be following the same track; brokers describe it as already close to mandatory for companies seeking higher coverage limits.

AI governance looks like it’s on the same curve, just earlier. 71% of C-level respondents in Munich Re’s survey now call AI significantly relevant to their business, up from 62% two years ago, overtaking cloud computing as the most-flagged technology. That’s the kind of inflection point MFA passed through before it hardened into a requirement.

What underwriters are actually scoring

No single AI tool moves the needle on its own. Deploying a specific product doesn’t earn a company a flat discount on premium. What underwriters are actually pricing, Parisi explained, is maturity, whether a company can show it’s using AI deliberately rather than just enthusiastically, and he pointed to three signals in particular.

  • Overexuberance. A security team that has rushed to deploy AI everywhere without building the process to manage it first.
  • Denial. A company that insists it isn’t using AI at all. Parisi’s read is that it’s there whether leadership acknowledges it or not.
  • Disciplined adoption. A company that treats AI as genuinely new, testing it deliberately and rolling it into production only once it’s confident the rollout strengthens the organization rather than exposing it.

“Knowledge is power,” he told me. “Anything that helps a company better understand its risk, and articulate how it’s managing and mitigating that risk, will be viewed very positively by our underwriters.” That kind of structured, documented governance work, something a company can actually point to, is exactly what reads as a green flag to him. AI governance, in particular, is shaping up as its own discipline, distinct from general security literacy, and the organizations building that competency deliberately, rather than picking it up as they go, are the ones standing out.

That same logic, structured proof of risk maturity that underwriters can actually price, is my own case for why EC-Council’s CRAGE certification and its underlying Adopt, Defend and Govern (ADG) framework exist. ADG, developed with input from 23 advisory members across the industry, and CRAGE under it train practitioners to produce exactly the kind of documented risk articulation that reads as a green flag to an underwriter, translating AI governance maturity into terms a cyber insurer can price.

Schellman’s own numbers back this up from a different angle: companies with mature AI governance programs have AI agents running in production at more than three times the rate of companies with developing programs, 78% versus 22%. The gap isn’t just about compliance paperwork. Mature governance correlates with companies that are actually further along in deploying the technology with confidence.

The bottom line

Parisi’s advice from the underwriting side was simple: stop treating the insurer conversation as a compliance form, and start treating it like a board conversation. “Think of the cyber insurers as if you were talking to your board of directors, because that’s really the perspective we’re looking at this from,” he told me. “We don’t want to know which edition of the software you’re using. We want to know you have the right processes and protocols for making sure that software is updated and deployed, and an understanding of what the potential financial loss is if it goes wrong.”

Put the two patterns side by side, and AI governance is not going to stay optional. MFA went from a footnote to a wall in about two years once insurers decided it was a real predictor of loss, and the Schellman numbers suggest the market is already sorting companies into those who can prove maturity and those who can’t. The 89% of executives who don’t feel protected today have a narrowing window to close that gap before it closes on them, and closing it looks a lot like what this piece has been circling the whole way through: literacy on one side of the table, documented maturity on the other.

Kareena Bavisi, Chief of Staff | EC-Council

Kareena Bavisi is a contributor to CISO MAG covering cybersecurity and AI, writing on how emerging technology is reshaping risk, governance, and the way enterprises defend themselves. Her work draws on conversations with security leaders, insurers, and technologists across the industry to surface the trends shaping the field. She is also Chief of Staff to the CEO and Founder at EC-Council, a global leader in cybersecurity certification and education.

The post Why AI Governance Is Becoming Cyber Insurance’s Next MFA appeared first on CISO MAG | Cyber Security Magazine.

  •  

UK’s state investments agency hit by data breach

Security lapse leaves sensitive information and contact details of 51 government officials exposed for 40 hours

The public body in charge of the UK’s state investments has been pushed to improve its internal security after a data breach left “high-level management information” publicly accessible for nearly two days.

UK Government Investments (UKGI), the agency that manages the taxpayers’ interest in a swathe of companies including Channel 4 and the Post Office, said the security failure also left more than 50 government officials’ personal details exposed for nearly 40 hours.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Marina Demidiuk/Alamy

© Photograph: Marina Demidiuk/Alamy

© Photograph: Marina Demidiuk/Alamy

  •  

Hackers steal sensitive data from UK Department for Education and police

Details of parents and staff, including email addresses and phone numbers, are among data taken by cybercriminals

The Department for Education and a police database have been targeted by a cyber-attack, exposing more than 740,000 pieces of data.

Details of government officials, senior school leaders, university staff, police officers and members of the public have been taken by hackers.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Dave Hunt/AAP

© Photograph: Dave Hunt/AAP

© Photograph: Dave Hunt/AAP

  •  

Personal and banking details among customer data stolen in Origin Energy hack

Hackers access Australian customers’ names, addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers and some bank account details, company says

Origin Energy customers’ addresses, phone numbers and partial bank account data have been accessed in a hack, the company has confirmed.

The firm has 4.8m customer accounts in Australia, providing electricity, fossil gas, LPG and internet services to homes and businesses.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Jason Reed/Reuters

© Photograph: Jason Reed/Reuters

© Photograph: Jason Reed/Reuters

  •  

‘Keys to the kingdom’: hackers who gained access to heart of London transport network jailed

Thalha Jubair, 20, and Owen Flowers, 19, sentenced to five and a half years each for cyber-attack that cost Transport for London £39m

The data of millions of commuters was stolen, Londoners were left out of pocket and 27,000 Transport for London staff were forced to reset their passwords.

Over four days in 2024 a pair of teenage hackers had London’s transport network at their mercy. Thalha Jubair and Owen Flowers had burrowed into the heart of Transport for London’s IT systems and held the “keys to the kingdom”.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: William Barton/Alamy

© Photograph: William Barton/Alamy

© Photograph: William Barton/Alamy

  •  

Australian patients’ medical records could be sold on dark web after clinics’ data breach

‘Malicious actor’ obtains sensitive data including Medicare numbers, treatment details and pathology results in cyber-attack on Partnered Health

Australians’ medical records and patient information could be sold on the hidden market, an expert has warned, after a cyber-attack at one of the nation’s biggest healthcare providers.

Partnered Health revealed 21 clinics across several cities including Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra were affected when a “malicious actor” accessed its data on 23 June.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Dominic Lipinski/PA

© Photograph: Dominic Lipinski/PA

© Photograph: Dominic Lipinski/PA

  •  

AI models capable of devastating attacks on governments and business months away, rare Five Eyes statement warns

Signal agencies in Australia, the US, the UK, New Zealand and Canada sound alarm after Trump blocks foreign nationals from Anthropic’s Fable AI model

Powerful AI models capable of devastating new cyber attacks on governments and businesses are mere months away, intelligence agencies for the Five Eyes have warned in a rare joint statement, urging leaders to “act now”.

The surprising public intervention by signals agencies for Australia, the US, the UK, New Zealand and Canada comes after the Trump administration earlier this month decided to block “foreign nationals” from using a much-hyped AI model built by tech company Anthropic, called Fable.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Andre M Chang/ZUMA Press Wire/Shutterstock

© Photograph: Andre M Chang/ZUMA Press Wire/Shutterstock

© Photograph: Andre M Chang/ZUMA Press Wire/Shutterstock

  •  

Spyware firm targeted WhatsApp users in defiance of US court order, Meta says

Tech company says it ‘caught and disrupted’ NSO Group’s attempts to access accounts in Jordan and Lebanon

A spyware firm has been targeting WhatsApp users with malicious links in contravention of a US court order forbidding it from doing so, Meta has said.

In a post, Meta said WhatsApp had “caught and disrupted spear phishing attempts” by NSO Group, which a spokesperson said targeted a handful of users in Jordan and Lebanon. It had also caught the group creating “test accounts and groups” on WhatsApp.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Martin Meissner/AP

© Photograph: Martin Meissner/AP

© Photograph: Martin Meissner/AP

  •  

Report ‘phone hack’ to police or I will do it for you, Labour chair tells Farage

Anna Turley gives Reform leader 24 hours to report Russian hacking claim in ‘public and national interest’

The Labour chair has given Nigel Farage 24 hours to report to security services the claim that his phone was hacked by Russia-linked actors or the party will do it for him.

In a letter to the Reform UK leader, Anna Turley said it was “in the public and national interest” to ensure that a suspected overseas hack of a senior politician’s phone by a hostile state was properly investigated.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Ryan Jenkinson/Getty Images

© Photograph: Ryan Jenkinson/Getty Images

© Photograph: Ryan Jenkinson/Getty Images

  •  

Nigel Farage’s Russian hack claim ‘without any merit’, former NCSC chief says

Ciaran Martin says Reform UK leader’s allegation over Guardian report on £5m gift ‘entirely unsubstantiated’

Nigel Farage’s claim that a Russian hack was behind a Guardian report on the £5m gift he received from a crypto billionaire has been described as “without any merit” by a former head of the National Cyber Security Centre.

Ciaran Martin, founding chief executive of the agency, which is part of GCHQ, said Farage’s allegation, if true, would have major implications for UK policy towards Russia but that the Reform UK leader had yet to provide “a shred of evidence”.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Jack Taylor/Reuters

© Photograph: Jack Taylor/Reuters

© Photograph: Jack Taylor/Reuters

  •  

Canvas hack: is it ever a good idea to pay a ransom, and what happens to the data?

Businesses are advised against paying – but many are prepared to deal to protect users’ privacy

After a week of outages, hundreds of millions of students’ data stolen, delayed assignment due dates and school login pages being defaced by hackers, the US tech firm Instructure – which operates the education platform Canvas, used by education providers worldwide – announced it had “reached an agreement with the unauthorised actor” behind the ransomware attack.

Experts read the careful language as a sign that a ransom has been paid. The company has not confirmed this.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Boonchai Wedmakawand/Getty Images

© Photograph: Boonchai Wedmakawand/Getty Images

© Photograph: Boonchai Wedmakawand/Getty Images

  •  

Developer withdraws plans for Perth datacentre after fierce community opposition

Three-storey GreenSquare datacentre in Hazelmere was to power cloud computing and the acceleration of AI

A 15,000 sq metre datacentre near Perth will no longer go ahead after the developer withdrew plans amid community opposition over its impact on culturally significant sites.

The three-storey, 120-megawatt GreenSquare datacentre in the town of Hazelmere had been intended to power cloud computing and the acceleration of artificial intelligence, but faced fierce community backlash – as is increasingly common with such developments.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Trillion Trees

© Photograph: Trillion Trees

© Photograph: Trillion Trees

  •  

Palantir’s access to identifiable NHS England patient data is ‘dangerous’, MPs say

Health service has given US tech firm ‘unlimited access’ to certain data to build integrated platform, according to reports

MPs have warned that an NHS decision to grant Palantir access to identifiable patient information in its plan to use AI to improve the health service is “dangerous” and will fuel public fears that data privacy is not being prioritised.

NHS England has allowed staff from the US tech firm and other contractors to access patient data before it has been pseudonymised, despite internal fears of a “risk of loss of public confidence”, the Financial Times reported.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: David Levene/The Guardian

© Photograph: David Levene/The Guardian

© Photograph: David Levene/The Guardian

  •  

Private health records of half a million Britons offered for sale on Chinese website

Technology minister tells Commons ‘de-identified’ information from UK Biobank advertised for sale on Alibaba

The confidential health records of half a million British volunteers have been offered for sale on Chinese website Alibaba, the UK government has confirmed.

The “de-identified” data, belonging to participants in the UK Biobank project, was found for sale on three separate listings last week. Ian Murray, the technology minister, told the Commons on Thursday that, after working with the Chinese government and Alibaba, the records had now been removed. It is not believed any sales were made.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Dave Guttridge/UK Biobank/PA

© Photograph: Dave Guttridge/UK Biobank/PA

© Photograph: Dave Guttridge/UK Biobank/PA

  •  

Rental platform unnecessarily collected the data of millions of Australians, privacy commissioner finds

2Apply’s over-collection of personal information adds to the power of the real estate industry in the competitive rental market, Carly Kind says

An online rental platform has been urged to stop collecting users’ personal information after the Australian privacy commissioner found the gathering of “excessive” data compounded the vulnerability of tenants amid the housing crisis.

RentTech platforms are increasingly used by real estate agents in Australia for people applying for rental properties to submit applications and supporting documentation. The Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute has identified 57 different rent platforms operating in Australia.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Cavan Images/Alamy

© Photograph: Cavan Images/Alamy

© Photograph: Cavan Images/Alamy

  •  

Almost half a million Lloyds customers had personal data exposed in IT glitch

Letter from group published by MPs blames 12 March glitch on software update to its mobile banking apps

Lloyds Banking Group exposed the personal data of nearly 500,000 customers in an IT glitch that left people’s payments, account details and national insurance numbers visible to other users, a committee of MPs has revealed.

A letter from Lloyds, published by MPs on the Treasury select committee on Friday, blamed the glitch on a software defect introduced during an IT update to its Lloyds, Halifax and Bank of Scotland mobile banking apps overnight into 12 March.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: David Burton/Alamy

© Photograph: David Burton/Alamy

© Photograph: David Burton/Alamy

  •  

Google warns quantum computers could hack encrypted systems by 2029

Banks, governments and tech providers urged to upgrade security because current systems will soon be obsolete

Banks, governments and technology providers need to be prepared for quantum computer hackers capable of breaking most existing encryption systems by 2029, Google has warned.

The tech company said in a blogpost that quantum computers would pose a “significant threat to current cryptographic standards” before the end of the decade and urged other companies to follow its lead.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Reuters

© Photograph: Reuters

© Photograph: Reuters

  •  

Crossbench MPs pressure Labor over gas export tax – as it happened

This blog is now closed

The pollies have been asked this morning whether people should consider working from home to save fuel, as conflict escalates in the Middle East.

Tehran has said it will “irreversibly destroy” essential infrastructure across the Middle East, including vital water systems, if the US follows through on Donald Trump’s threat to “obliterate” Iran’s power plants unless the strait of Hormuz is fully opened within two days.

This is like Covid style restrictions I think that are potentially being floated. I would not support that in any way, and I don’t think businesses would do so either …

If people can work from home and they want to and it works for their employers, fine, I think that’s terrific, but it doesn’t help small businesses. It certainly doesn’t help the truckers and the fishers and the farmers and the manufacturers and the miners that are relying on fuel supply.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP

© Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP

© Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP

  •  

‘Exploit every vulnerability’: rogue AI agents published passwords and overrode anti-virus software

Exclusive: Lab tests discover ‘new form of insider risk’ with artificial intelligence agents engaging in autonomous, even ‘aggressive’ behaviours

Robert Booth UK technology editor

Rogue artificial intelligence agents have worked together to smuggle sensitive information out of supposedly secure systems, in the latest sign cyber-defences may be overwhelmed by unforeseen scheming by AIs.

With companies increasingly asking AI agents to carry out complex tasks in internal systems, the behaviour has sparked concerns that supposedly helpful technology could pose a serious inside threat.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Andrey Kryuchkov/Alamy

© Photograph: Andrey Kryuchkov/Alamy

© Photograph: Andrey Kryuchkov/Alamy

  •  
❌