Loading story…
Organizations adopting generative AI are being warned that productivity-driven use cases—especially AI-assisted software development (“vibe coding”)—introduce distinct security risks that require explicit governance and controls. As developers increasingly rely on external GenAI assistants (e.g., GitHub Copilot, ChatGPT) to generate and refactor code via natural-language prompts, risk concentrates around how data is shared with the AI service, how generated code is validated, and how organizations maintain accountability for outputs that can change rapidly through iterative prompting.
Security leaders are also being cautioned that AI programs carry significant “hidden” operational costs that don’t show up in initial licensing or cloud estimates. Testing of AI-enabled systems indicates that ongoing effort is required after deployment due to model/output drift and misalignment with business intent, driving recurring work such as prompt rewrites, guardrail tuning, and incident triage tied to AI outputs. In parallel, experimentation and proof-of-concept activity can quietly consume engineering time, security review cycles, and infrastructure, meaning AI ownership costs tend to spread across teams and grow as usage moves from pilot to production.
Track how attackers are adapting to this technology.
1 event from the most recent confirmed update back to the earliest known activity.
Initial story creation
Follow how adversaries are adapting to this technology, and where it touches your stack today.
2 references tracked. Mallory keeps watching after this page renders.
Map indicators from this story to your assets and identify affected systems in minutes.
Every observed campaign, victim, and pivot linked to actors named in this story.
Malware, exploits, and IOCs connected to the activity described here.
YARA, Sigma, and Snort rules deployed to your SIEM as soon as they’re published.
Get matching new stories delivered to your team as they break — not the next morning.
Ask questions about this story and take action on the answers.
Other stories Mallory is tracking that overlap on entities, sources, or topic labels.
The widespread adoption of generative AI (GenAI) tools in software development has significantly increased productivity, enabling developers to document, write, and optimize code at unprecedented speeds. According to a 2023 McKinsey study, organizations have rapidly integrated AI into their development workflows, with 83% using AI for code creation and 57% relying on AI-powered coding tools as a standard practice. However, this surge in AI-assisted coding has introduced new security risks, as traditional security models focused on perimeter or infrastructure controls do not adequately protect the data and code generated by these tools. Studies have revealed that nearly half of code snippets produced by popular AI models contain vulnerabilities, underscoring the prevalence of insecure code generation. High-profile incidents, such as Samsung's 2023 ban on ChatGPT following a sensitive code leak, highlight the real-world consequences of insufficient safeguards when using GenAI in development environments. The responsibility for securing data and code remains with developers, even as cloud providers secure the underlying infrastructure. The rapid pace of AI-generated code has outstripped the ability of traditional secure coding training to keep up, shifting the focus from training human programmers to ensuring that AI systems themselves are capable of secure coding. Industry experts note that AI is currently less effective at producing secure code than human programmers, with multiple studies and reports from sources like Schneier on Security, Veracode, and SC Media confirming this trend. The volume of vulnerabilities continues to rise, with over 47,000 publicly known vulnerabilities expected in a single year and at least 130 new vulnerabilities reported daily. This ongoing wave of vulnerabilities leads to constant exploitation and patching, further emphasizing the need for secure coding practices at the AI level. While AI has delivered substantial productivity gains—developers report 30% to 40% increases—these benefits are undermined by the security shortcomings of AI-generated code. The industry is now at a crossroads, where the imperative is to teach AI systems to code securely, rather than relying solely on human oversight or post-development security reviews. Integrating security into the AI coding process and providing developers with tools that embed data protection are seen as essential steps to address these emerging challenges. The shift towards AI-driven development necessitates a reevaluation of security strategies, focusing on proactive measures that align with the realities of modern software engineering. Without such changes, organizations risk exposing themselves to significant security threats stemming from the very tools designed to enhance their productivity.
Jun 29, 2026
The rapid adoption of AI-powered code generation tools such as GitHub Copilot, ChatGPT, and Amazon CodeWhisperer has fundamentally changed the software development landscape, introducing new security challenges for enterprise application security teams. Unlike traditional human-written code, AI-generated code often lacks clear provenance, making it difficult to verify its origin or ensure compliance with organizational security policies. This shift has led to the emergence of 'shadow code'—machine-generated code that may bypass standard security reviews and evade detection by traditional static and dynamic analysis tools, increasing the risk of invisible vulnerabilities in production systems. Generative AI models can introduce unique threats, including the creation of 'hallucinated' packages—references to non-existent or malicious libraries that may be inadvertently included in enterprise applications. Additionally, the language-based nature of large language models (LLMs) opens new attack surfaces, such as prompt injection and jailbreaking, where malicious inputs can manipulate model behavior or bypass safety constraints. As organizations accelerate the integration of AI into development workflows, application security programs must adapt to address these novel risks and build trust in the security of AI-powered software.
Jun 29, 2026
Enterprises are rapidly integrating **agentic AI** assistants with high-privilege connections to ticketing systems, source code repositories, chat platforms, and cloud dashboards, enabling actions such as opening pull requests, querying internal databases, and triggering automated workflows with limited human oversight. Reporting citing Cisco’s *State of AI Security 2026* indicates many organizations are moving forward with these deployments despite low security readiness, expanding exposure across model interfaces, tool integrations, and the broader supply chain. Multiple sources highlight that attacker techniques against AI systems are maturing, particularly **prompt injection/jailbreaks** and multi-turn attacks that exploit session state, memory, and tool-calling to drive unsafe actions or data leakage. Separately, adversaries are using generative AI for **deepfake-enabled social engineering** (including video/voice impersonation to bypass identity verification and authorize sensitive actions) and for scalable brand impersonation via malicious ad campaigns; one widely cited example involved Arup, where a deepfake video call led to authorization of a fraudulent HK$200 million transfer. Overall, the material is primarily risk and threat reporting (not a single incident), emphasizing that AI systems’ contextual behavior and privileged integrations create new control gaps that traditional security testing and defenses may not detect.
Jun 29, 2026