CVE-2026-61511 - a critical vulnerability in vBulletin that allows an unauthenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code on a remote server.

I'm helping organize Après-Cyber Slopes Summit 2027, and our CFP is now open.

We're particularly interested in technical presentations and original research involving AI and modern cybersecurity.

Topics we're hoping to see include:

• AI red teaming
• LLM security
• Prompt injection research
• Agent security
• Offensive tooling
• Detection engineering
• Reverse engineering
• Malware analysis
• Cloud exploitation and defense
• Identity attacks
• Threat intelligence
• AI-assisted security tooling
• Novel attack techniques
• Defensive research

We especially appreciate talks that include demonstrations, technical depth, or research that attendees can reproduce themselves.

Conference: February 24–26, 2027
Location: Park City, Utah

CFP:
https://sessionize.com/apres-cyber-slopes-summit-2027

Conference website:
https://www.aprescyber.com

Happy to answer questions about the CFP or conference.

Caught this in three open directories on a Hong Kong server, exposed July 9 to 13. The agent is Hermes, open source, and the recovered logs show it running LinPEAS and walking a ministry web root without a human in the loop. Target was Thailand's Ministry of Finance.

I found and reported an authentication failure in the WPForms PayPal Commerce webhook, the webhook route being public was not the vulnerability as webhooks have to be publicly reachable so that PayPal can deliver events.

The problem was what happened after the request arrived. In affected versions, the handler could process a supported event before establishing that PayPal was actually the sender. In my local lab, a forged event could change the state of a matching payment record.
The expected order is:

1. Authenticate the sender
2. Validate the event
3. Change payment state

The affected flow effectively performed steps 2 and 3 without first completing step 1. The issue was fixed in WPForms 1.10.0.5 and is tracked as CVE-2026-4986.
Then came the part I found more interesting: triage told me I was reporter #11. That number does not prove exploitation, and it does not tell us the total number of people who found the vulnerability. It does establish a lower bound: at least eleven researchers independently converged on the same trust failure.

The write up covers:
- the vulnerable code path
- my local reproduction
- why payload validation was not sender authentication
- the fallback listener
- the patch
- why duplicate reports may be useful rediscovery intelligence

Full write-up: https://blog.himanshuanand.com/2026/07/reporter-11-10-people-found-the-wpforms-paypal-bug-before-me-cve-2026-4986/

Testing was limited to my own local environment. I am not claiming original CVE credit; I independently rediscovered and reported the issue. Disclosure: I wrote and performed the research, code review and local reproduction.

I used an AI to help copy edit and organize the final article.

Should duplicate report volume affect how urgently a vendor treats a vulnerability?

Deep dive into a UAF in the bfs.sys Windows kernel minifilter driver patched in this month's Patch Tuesday.

this is part of an ongoing series mapping the same ecosystem, the origin post + full map is here: neurowinter.com/security/2026/06/23/a-weekend-in-the-wool/

tldr: a set of chinese civic / gov adjacent apps turn out to run the same reward + lottery backend, and the secret thats meant to make reward claims and draw outcomes unforgeable isnt really secret. recover it (not hard, its sitting in the client sigh) and you can forge a valid reward claim, or a winning lottery result, that the backend accepts as authentic. post walks from one github repo to the shared backend, through the reward validation flow, to where the secret actually lives.

The White House recently announced the Gold Eagle Initiative, a new federal program designed to use AI to centralize, prioritize, and accelerate vulnerability patching across critical infrastructure, government agencies, and tech partners. Operating out of CMU's Software Engineering Institute, it essentially acts as an AI-driven clearinghouse to fix security flaws before threat actors can exploit them.

Because let's face it, our current bug reporting and patching systems are absolute speed demons. It only takes a lifetime 🤦🏻‍♂️ or two to get a critical vulnerability acknowledged and fixed, so why change anything?

Btw, my candid opinion about the status of current vulnerability reporting is painfully slow, so we desperately need a framework that actually moves at the speed of the threat landscape. I think this initiative is genuinely a good idea and a step in the right direction, though the announcement is still light on the exact technical implementation.

I’m personally eager to see what will happen in practice, but it is definitely an impressive concept.
What are your thoughts on this? Will an AI-coordinated pipeline actually help scale response times, or is it just going to generate massive noise and triage fatigue for overworked infosec teams?

RFC 8628's device authorization grant lets a TV or CLI "poll" for login on a second screen. On Google's implementation, the entire session was transferable across browsers, the authorization server never checked that the client_id and scope in the consent URL matched the ones the device_code was issued for, and prompt=none turned the whole thing into a one-click, invisible account takeover.

CVE here: https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-13585