Hey, great read as always. It's sobering to realy see the pace of AI-powered threats so clearly laid out. Given this rapid shift, do you think a fundamental re-architecture of our digital security is inevitable, or can we still incrementally adapt existing frameworks? Your insights on the defense deficit are particularly sharp.
Thanks, Rainbow. Appreciate the kind words. Incremental works if you're willing to throw out sacred cows and admit your current stack is obsolete in specific areas. The prompt injection research proves that same-origin policies mean nothing when your AI assistant executes commands from untrusted webpages with your credentials, so you either ban agentic browsers entirely or accept data theft as a cost of doing business. The real question isn't architecture versus adaptation but whether your C-Suite and board will fund the speed and scope needed to close your capability gaps so you aren't one of the 76%, and before you're the cautionary tale in someone else's newsletter.
Rock, this is one of the most comprehensive AI security roundups I've seen. The CrowdStrike data on the 76% defense gap is alarming but not suprising - we're at that inflection point where AI offense has fundamentally outpaced human defense capabilities. What struck me most was the convergence: AI-powered ransomware returning to 2022 levels, nation-states weaponizing LLMs at scale, and prompt injection going from theoretical to weaponized within months. Your point about CodeMender is spot-on - we finally have AI working defensively at scale. The 72 upstreamed patches prove the concept. But I'm skeptical about adoption speed matching threat velocity. Great synthesis of the threat landscape. The "speed mismatch" framing captures the core problem perfectly.
Hey, great read as always. It's sobering to realy see the pace of AI-powered threats so clearly laid out. Given this rapid shift, do you think a fundamental re-architecture of our digital security is inevitable, or can we still incrementally adapt existing frameworks? Your insights on the defense deficit are particularly sharp.
Thanks, Rainbow. Appreciate the kind words. Incremental works if you're willing to throw out sacred cows and admit your current stack is obsolete in specific areas. The prompt injection research proves that same-origin policies mean nothing when your AI assistant executes commands from untrusted webpages with your credentials, so you either ban agentic browsers entirely or accept data theft as a cost of doing business. The real question isn't architecture versus adaptation but whether your C-Suite and board will fund the speed and scope needed to close your capability gaps so you aren't one of the 76%, and before you're the cautionary tale in someone else's newsletter.
Rock, this is one of the most comprehensive AI security roundups I've seen. The CrowdStrike data on the 76% defense gap is alarming but not suprising - we're at that inflection point where AI offense has fundamentally outpaced human defense capabilities. What struck me most was the convergence: AI-powered ransomware returning to 2022 levels, nation-states weaponizing LLMs at scale, and prompt injection going from theoretical to weaponized within months. Your point about CodeMender is spot-on - we finally have AI working defensively at scale. The 72 upstreamed patches prove the concept. But I'm skeptical about adoption speed matching threat velocity. Great synthesis of the threat landscape. The "speed mismatch" framing captures the core problem perfectly.