Security Boulevard

Originally published at How Energy Medicine Yoga Reached 57% Open Rates and Simplified BIMI Implementation with EasyDMARC by Sona Mirzoyan.

About the Customer Company: Energy Medicine Yoga Industry: ...

The post How Energy Medicine Yoga Reached 57% Open Rates and Simplified BIMI Implementation with EasyDMARC appeared first on EasyDMARC.

The post How Energy Medicine Yoga Reached 57% Open Rates and Simplified BIMI Implementation with EasyDMARC appeared first on Security Boulevard.

Confused by a Microsoft error code? Learn about system, update, HTTP, and Azure-related codes, what they mean, and how to fix them.

The post Microsoft Error Codes Explained: Types, Fixes, and Troubleshooting Guide appeared first on Security Boulevard.

Choosing between SAML, OIDC, and OAuth 2.0? Explore 12 critical differences to help your B2B engineering team select the right authentication protocol today.

The post SAML vs OIDC vs OAuth 2.0: 12 Differences Every B2B Engineering Team Should Know appeared first on Security Boulevard.

Confused by auth protocols? We break down the core differences between SAML, OIDC, and OAuth so you can choose the right standard for your B2B app. Read now.

The post SAML vs OIDC vs OAuth: The 60-Second B2B Playbook appeared first on Security Boulevard.

“Too small to target” is a dangerous cybersecurity myth, while "Where do I start?," is a legitimate cyber defense question.

Imagine leaving your office unlocked overnight—not because you don’t have anything valuable, but because you assume no one would bother breaking in.

The post A Cybersecurity Lifeline for Lean IT Teams: Introducing C.R.E.W. appeared first on Security Boulevard.

Learn how to use lattice-based signature schemes like CRYSTALS-Dilithium for securing Model Context Protocol (MCP) host authentication in a post-quantum world.

The post Lattice-based Signature Schemes for MCP Host Authentication appeared first on Security Boulevard.

Tyler Swinehart, Director of Global IT & Security at IRONSCALES, has been publishing the kind of LinkedIn pieces I wish more practitioners would write. No vendor angle. No positioning. Just "here's what I learned the hard way operating this thing in production, and here's what nobody told me until it was too late."

The post Two MDO field reports every IT security lead should read appeared first on Security Boulevard.

Author, Creator & Presenter: Dan Guido, CEO, Trail Of Bits

Our thanks to [un]prompted for publishing their Creators, Authors and Presenter’s outstanding [un]prompted 2026 AI Security Practitioner content on the Organizations' YouTube Channel.

Permalink

The post [un]prompted 2026 – 200 Bugs/Week/Engineer: How We Rebuilt Trail Of Bits Around Al appeared first on Security Boulevard.

Learn how AppSec teams build a repeatable zero-day response workflow.

The post From Panic to Playbook: Modernizing Zero‑Day Response in AppSec appeared first on Security Boulevard.

Reports from Iranian state media claim that U.S.-manufactured networking gear ceased functioning at critical moments during military strikes. The allegations, which cannot be independently verified, claim there were simultaneous failures across routers and switches produced by Cisco, Fortinet, Juniper Networks, and MikroTik during attacks on Iranian infrastructure. According to accounts published by the Iranian Fars..

The post Iran Alleges US Networking Gear Was Deliberately Disabled appeared first on Security Boulevard.

In the high-stakes world of cybersecurity, many organizations find themselves trapped in a "great dilemma": they are drowning in a relentless sea of alerts while simultaneously battling massive technical debt and tool sprawl. To address these critical challenges, Hurricane Labs, an elite Splunk partner recently hosted an in-depth webinar to explore how Splunk Enterprise [...]

The post Splunk Enterprise Security Unmasked Blog Recap appeared first on Hurricane Labs.

The post Splunk Enterprise Security Unmasked Blog Recap appeared first on Security Boulevard.

This is part 1 of a two-part series on agentic AI fraud defense. Since joining Arkose Labs, one of the first things I did was go deep on the threat data — what the attack patterns actually look like, how autonomous systems probe defenses, where classification breaks down and where it holds. That data has … Continued

The post The Attack Runs Itself: What Agentic AI Fraud Actually Looks Like appeared first on Security Boulevard.

When 500,000 Findings Hide 14 Real Threats Modern enterprises ingest vulnerability data from dozens of sources: endpoint detection and response platforms, vulnerability scanners, cloud security posture tools, container image scanners. A large organization can easily accumulate hundreds of thousands of individual findings. The standard response is to sort by CVSS score, filter for criticals, and […]

The post 500,000 Vulnerabilities, 14 That Matter: How Exploit Chain Analysis Cuts Through the Noise appeared first on Praetorian.

The post 500,000 Vulnerabilities, 14 That Matter: How Exploit Chain Analysis Cuts Through the Noise appeared first on Security Boulevard.

Who are ShinyHunters? Learn how this group exploits SaaS, credentials, and identity-based access—and how to prevent modern data breaches.

The post ShinyHunters: SaaS Breaches & Identity Risks (2026) appeared first on Security Boulevard.

Seceon earns a 4.6 out of 5.0 overall rating from 82 verified customer reviews, with 90% of reviewers willing to recommend the platform, reflecting strong real-world satisfaction across the global services and financial sectors WESTFORD, Mass., April 21, 2026 /PRNewswire/ — Seceon Inc., a leading provider of AI-driven cybersecurity solutions for enterprises and managed security service providers (MSSPs),

The post Seceon Recognized in the 2026 Gartner® “Voice of the Customer” Report for Security Information and Event Management appeared first on Seceon Inc.

The post Seceon Recognized in the 2026 Gartner® “Voice of the Customer” Report for Security Information and Event Management appeared first on Security Boulevard.

Author, Creator & Presenter: Rob T. Lee, Glenn Thorpe, Dan Hubbard & Sergej Epp

Our thanks to [un]prompted for publishing their Creators, Authors and Presenter’s outstanding [un]prompted 2026 AI Security Practitioner content on the Organizations' YouTube Channel.

Permalink

The post [un]prompted 2026 – Rob T. Lee, Glenn Thorpe, Dan Hubbard & Sergej Epp – Vibe Coded (Micro-Talks) appeared first on Security Boulevard.

Apr 20, 2026 - Alan Fagan - Most conversations about the EU AI Act focus on August 2026, when obligations for high-risk AI systems become fully enforceable. But Article 5 is already live. The Act’s eight prohibited practices became enforceable in February 2025. Fines of up to €35 million or 7% of global annual turnover apply now. And the infrastructure to act on violations is in place.
For AI providers operating in or serving the EU market, understanding Article 5 is critical.
The EU AI Act takes a risk-based approach to AI governance. The practices represent the EU's judgement that certain applications of AI are incompatible with fundamental rights and democratic values, and the European Commission reinforced that position in the guidelines it published on 4 February 2025, two days after the prohibitions.
The guidelines break each prohibition into cumulative conditions and provide practical examples of what falls in scope and what does not. They are the clearest signal available of how regulators will interpret borderline cases.
The penalty structure reflects the seriousness with which the EU treats these provisions. At up to €35 million or 7% of global annual turnover, violations of Article 5 carry steeper fines than any other category of non-compliance in the Act.
The Eight Prohibitions
1. Subliminal and Manipulative Techniques
AI systems that deploy techniques operating below conscious awareness, or that exploit psychological vulnerabilities, biases, or weaknesses in decision-making to distort behaviour and cause significant harm, are banned.
The prohibition is targeted at systems designed to circumvent rational agency. It does not cover normal personalisation, recommendation engines, or advertising that simply presents persuasive content. The key conditions are that the technique must be subliminal or manipulative, and that it must cause or be reasonably likely to cause significant harm.
In practice, the compliance question for providers is whether their optimisation objectives could drive the system toward manipulative behaviour as a side effect. A recommender system trained purely on engagement maximisation can, over time, evolve into something that exploits psychological patterns in ways that meet the prohibition's conditions. 2. Exploiting Vulnerabilities
AI systems that exploit vulnerabilities arising from a person's age, disability, or socioeconomic circumstances to distort behaviour in ways that cause harm are banned.
The practical example that clarifies this prohibition is an AI advertising tool that identifies users showing signs of financial hardship, through search behaviour, location data, or device signals, and targets them with offers specifically designed to exploit that vulnerability. The Commission's guidelines explicitly name this kind of system as a violation.
This prohibition has direct implications for any AI system operating in consumer finance, healthcare, or social services, where users may be in vulnerable circumstances by definition. The question is not whether the system serves those users, but whether it is designed to exploit their circumstances rather than serve their interests.
3. Social Scoring
General-purpose social scoring of individuals or groups based on social behaviour or personal characteristics, leading to detrimental treatment in contexts unrelated to where the data was collected, is banned when conducted by or on behalf of public authorities.
This is the provision most directly aimed at preventing the kind of surveillance infrastructure that has emerged in certain authoritarian contexts. It applies to public authorities, but it also catches systems that aggregate data across domains in ways that create de facto social profiles affecting access to services, employment, or civic participation.
4. Predictive Policing Based on Profiling
AI systems that assess the likelihood of an individual committing a criminal offence solely on the basis of profiling or personality traits, absent objective and verifiable facts directly linked to criminal activity, are prohibited.
A retail security system that analyses CCTV footage to detect actual suspicious behaviour, such as someone concealing merchandise, is permitted because it reacts to observable actions. A system that flags customers as high risk based on demographic profiling, is not.
5. Untargeted Facial Recognition Scraping
Building or expanding facial recognition databases through untargeted scraping of facial images from the internet or CCTV footage is banned absolutely.
This provision addresses the data acquisition practices used by a number of controversial biometric surveillance providers in recent years. Several of these companies built large-scale facial recognition datasets by scraping billions of images from social media platforms and public web sources without consent. That practice is now illegal in the EU.
6. Emotion Inference in Workplaces and Educational Settings
A range of specialist vendors such as IBM, Microsoft, and Amazon have offered emotion detection capabilities through their cloud platforms and APIs. The global emotion AI market was valued at approximately $7.5 billion in 2024. Many of these tools were being actively evaluated or deployed in employee monitoring, productivity assessment, and remote meeting analysis contexts.
Since February 2025, deploying AI systems that infer the emotional states of individuals in workplaces or educational environments is prohibited in the EU. However, context is determinative. The same AI capability can be permitted in one setting and prohibited in another. Affect recognition technology used for driver safety monitoring in an automotive context has a different regulatory status from the identical technology embedded in an employer's video call analysis platform.
7. Biometric Categorisation by Sensitive Characteristics
AI systems that use biometric data to categorise individuals based on race, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, sex life, or sexual orientation are prohibited.
The narrow exceptions cover the labelling or filtering of biometric datasets that are lawfully acquired, and law enforcement categorisation under strictly controlled conditions.
This prohibition catches systems that providers may not have characterised as biometric categorisation in their original design. Any model that takes facial, voice, or physiological inputs and produces outputs that correlate needs to be assessed carefully against this provision, regardless of the stated purpose.
8. Real-Time Remote Biometric Identification in Public Spaces
The real-time use of remote biometric identification systems in public spaces for law enforcement purposes is prohibited, with narrow exceptions.
Deployment requires a prior fundamental rights impact assessment under Article 27, judicial or independent administrative authorisation before use, and registration in the EU database. In genuine emergencies, use can begin before registration, but registration must follow immediately and the relevant authority must be notified.
This prohibition does not apply to private actors in non-law-enforcement contexts, but it sets a clear precedent for the EU's approach to real-time biometric surveillance in public life.
The Compliance Challenge
Understanding the prohibitions is only the first step. The challenge for providers is ensuring that their systems do not violate prohibitions through optimisation, fine-tuning, or integration with other services.
The European Commission states that deployers bear responsibility for how they use systems, regardless of what the provider's terms of service say. But the design, training, and integration choices that providers make set the boundaries within which deployers operate. Providers who build systems capable of prohibited practices, even if they prohibit those uses, are not fully insulated from regulatory attention if those capabilities are reasonably foreseeable.
Developers need to monitor how systems actually behave in deployment, not just design intent. The Enforcement Reality
Prohibited practices under Article 5 of the AI Act became enforceable on 2 August 2025. No formal enforcement actions have been publicly announced to date, but the architecture is in place and complaints from affected individuals or organisations can trigger investigations at any time.
The enforcement landscape varies by member state. Ireland's proposed implementation assigns prohibited practice enforcement to the Central Bank for financial services, the Workplace Relations Commission for employment contexts, and the Data Protection Commission for others. This means a single organisation with AI systems operating across multiple domains could face scrutiny from more than one authority simultaneously.
What This Means for AI Providers
Article 5 compliance requires ongoing technical visibility into how your systems behave, what data they process, and what outputs they produce. FireTail gives AI providers continuous monitoring and visibility across their deployed systems, capturing the inputs and outputs that compliance evidence requires, detecting patterns that approach prohibited practice thresholds, and generating the audit trail. When the enforcement window closes, that evidence is what separates organisations that were prepared from those that were not.
The prohibited practices provisions are live. The enforcement infrastructure is in place. The guidelines from the Commission have clarified how regulators will interpret the boundaries. The time to build the technical controls that demonstrate compliance is now.

The post Article 5 and the EU AI Act’s Absolute Red Lines – FireTail Blog appeared first on Security Boulevard.

via the comic artistry and dry wit of Randall Munroe, creator of XKCD

Permalink

The post Randall Munroe’s XKCD ‘Subduction Retrieval’ appeared first on Security Boulevard.

The post Life in the Swimlane with Jonathan Badal, Sr. Business Development Representative appeared first on AI Security Automation.

The post Life in the Swimlane with Jonathan Badal, Sr. Business Development Representative appeared first on Security Boulevard.

Public key infrastructure — the authentication and encryption framework that has held digital commerce together through every chaotic leap forward in technology — is facing a double whammy.

Related: Achieveing AI security won’t be easy

Autonomous AI agents are flooding … (more…)

The post Fireside Chat: PKI has carried digital trust through every tech advance—now comes the hardest one first appeared on The Last Watchdog.

The post Fireside Chat: PKI has carried digital trust through every tech advance—now comes the hardest one appeared first on Security Boulevard.