A coiled giant anaconda. They are the largest snake species in Brazil and play a major role in legends including the ‘Boiuna’ and the ‘Cobra Grande.’ CREDIT: Beatriz Cosendey. Get the Popular Science daily newsletter💡 Breakthroughs, discoveries, and DIY tips sent every weekday. South America’s lush Amazon region is a biodiversity hotspot, which means that every living thing must find a way to co-exist. Even some of the most feared snakes on the planet–anacondas. In a paper published June 16 in the journal Frontiers in Amphibian and Reptile Science, conservation biologists Beatriz Cosendey and Juarez Carlos Brito Pezzuti from the Federal University of Pará’s Center for Amazonian Studies in Brazil, analyze the key points behind the interactions between humans and the local anaconda populations. Ahead of the paper’s publication, the team at Frontiers conducted this wide-ranging Q&A with Conesday. It has not been altered. Frontiers: What inspired you to become a researcher? Beatriz Cosendey: As a child, I was fascinated by reports and documentaries about field research and often wondered what it took to be there and what kind of knowledge was being produced. Later, as an ecologist, I felt the need for approaches that better connected scientific research with real-world contexts. I became especially interested in perspectives that viewed humans not as separate from nature, but as part of ecological systems. This led me to explore integrative methods that incorporate local and traditional knowledge, aiming to make research more relevant and accessible to the communities involved. F: Can you tell us about the research you’re currently working on? BC: My research focuses on ethnobiology, an interdisciplinary field intersecting ecology, conservation, and traditional knowledge. We investigate not only the biodiversity of an area but also the relationship local communities have with surrounding species, providing a better understanding of local dynamics and areas needing special attention for conservation. After all, no one knows a place better than those who have lived there for generations. This deep familiarity allows for early detection of changes or environmental shifts. Additionally, developing a collaborative project with residents generates greater engagement, as they recognize themselves as active contributors; and collective participation is essential for effective conservation. Local boating the Amazon River. CREDIT: Beatriz Cosendey. F: Could you tell us about one of the legends surrounding anacondas? BC: One of the greatest myths is about the Great Snake—a huge snake that is said to inhabit the Amazon River and sleep beneath the town. According to the dwellers, the Great Snake is an anaconda that has grown too large; its movements can shake the river’s waters, and its eyes look like fire in the darkness of night. People say anacondas can grow so big that they can swallow large animals—including humans or cattle—without difficulty. F: What could be the reasons why the traditional role of anacondas as a spiritual and mythological entity has changed? Do you think the fact that fewer anacondas have been seen in recent years contributes to their diminished importance as an mythological entity? BC: Not exactly. I believe the two are related, but not in a direct way. The mythology still exists, but among Aritapera dwellers, there’s a more practical, everyday concern—mainly the fear of losing their chickens. As a result, anacondas have come to be seen as stealthy thieves. These traits are mostly associated with smaller individuals (up to around 2–2.5 meters), while the larger ones—which may still carry the symbolic weight of the ‘Great Snake’—tend to retreat to more sheltered areas; because of the presence of houses, motorized boats, and general noise, they are now seen much less frequently. A giant anaconda is being measured. Credit: Pedro Calazans. F: Can you share some of the quotes you’ve collected in interviews that show the attitude of community members towards anacondas? How do chickens come into play? BC: When talking about anacondas, one thing always comes up: chickens. “Chicken is her [the anaconda’s] favorite dish. If one clucks, she comes,” said one dweller. This kind of remark helps explain why the conflict is often framed in economic terms. During the interviews and conversations with local dwellers, many emphasized the financial impact of losing their animals: “The biggest loss is that they keep taking chicks and chickens…” or “You raise the chicken—you can’t just let it be eaten for free, right?” For them, it’s a loss of investment, especially since corn, which is used as chicken feed, is expensive. As one person put it: “We spend time feeding and raising the birds, and then the snake comes and takes them.” One dweller shared that, in an attempt to prevent another loss, he killed the anaconda and removed the last chicken it had swallowed from its belly—”it was still fresh,” he said—and used it for his meal, cooking the chicken for lunch so it wouldn’t go to waste. One of the Amazonas communities where the researchers conducted their research. CREDIT: Beatriz Cosendey. Some interviewees reported that they had to rebuild their chicken coops and pigsties because too many anacondas were getting in. Participants would point out where the anaconda had entered and explained that they came in through gaps or cracks but couldn’t get out afterwards because they ‘tufavam’ — a local term referring to the snake’s body swelling after ingesting prey. We saw chicken coops made with mesh, with nylon, some that worked and some that didn’t. Guided by the locals’ insights, we concluded that the best solution to compensate for the gaps between the wooden slats is to line the coop with a fine nylon mesh (to block smaller animals), and on the outside, a layer of wire mesh, which protects the inner mesh and prevents the entry of larger animals. F: Are there any common misconceptions about this area of research? How would you address them? BC: Yes, very much. Although ethnobiology is an old science, it’s still underexplored and often misunderstood. In some fields, there are ongoing debates about the robustness and scientific validity of the field and related areas. This is largely because the findings don’t always rely only on hard statistical data. However, like any other scientific field, it follows standardized methodologies, and no result is accepted without proper grounding. What happens is that ethnobiology leans more toward the human sciences, placing human beings and traditional knowledge as key variables within its framework. To address these misconceptions, I believe it’s important to emphasize that ethnobiology produces solid and relevant knowledge—especially in the context of conservation and sustainable development. It offers insights that purely biological approaches might overlook and helps build bridges between science and society. The study focused on the várzea regions of the Lower Amazon River. CREDIT: Beatriz Cosendey. F: What are some of the areas of research you’d like to see tackled in the years ahead? BC: I’d like to see more conservation projects that include local communities as active participants rather than as passive observers. Incorporating their voices, perspectives, and needs not only makes initiatives more effective, but also more just. There is also great potential in recognizing and valuing traditional knowledge. Beyond its cultural significance, certain practices—such as the use of natural compounds—could become practical assets for other vulnerable regions. Once properly documented and understood, many of these approaches offer adaptable forms of environmental management and could help inform broader conservation strategies elsewhere. F: How has open science benefited the reach and impact of your research? BC: Open science is crucial for making research more accessible. By eliminating access barriers, it facilitates a broader exchange of knowledge—important especially for interdisciplinary research like mine which draws on multiple knowledge systems and gains value when shared widely. For scientific work, it ensures that knowledge reaches a wider audience, including practitioners and policymakers. This openness fosters dialogue across different sectors, making research more inclusive and encouraging greater collaboration among diverse groups. The Q&A can also be read here.

Jun 16, 2025Ravie LakshmananMalware / DevOps Cybersecurity researchers have discovered a malicious package on the Python Package Index (PyPI) repository that's capable of harvesting sensitive developer-related information, such as credentials, configuration data, and environment variables, among others. The package, named chimera-sandbox-extensions, attracted 143 downloads and likely targets users of a service called Chimera Sandbox, which was released by Singaporean tech company Grab last August to facilitate "experimentation and development of [machine learning] solutions." The package masquerades as a helper module for Chimera Sandbox, but "aims to steal credentials and other sensitive information such as Jamf configuration, CI/CD environment variables, AWS tokens, and more," JFrog security researcher Guy Korolevski said in a report published last week. Once installed, it attempts to connect to an external domain whose domain name is generated using a domain generation algorithm (DGA) in order to download and execute a next-stage payload. Specifically, the malware acquires from the domain an authentication token, which is then used to send a request to the same domain and retrieve the Python-based information stealer. The stealer malware is equipped to siphon a wide range of data from infected machines. This includes - JAMF receipts, which are records of software packages installed by Jamf Pro on managed computers Pod sandbox environment authentication tokens and git information CI/CD information from environment variables Zscaler host configuration Amazon Web Services account information and tokens Public IP address General platform, user, and host information The kind of data gathered by the malware shows that it's mainly geared towards corporate and cloud infrastructure. In addition, the extraction of JAMF receipts indicates that it's also capable of targeting Apple macOS systems. The collected information is sent via a POST request back to the same domain, after which the server assesses if the machine is a worthy target for further exploitation. However, JFrog said it was unable to obtain the payload at the time of analysis. "The targeted approach employed by this malware, along with the complexity of its multi-stage targeted payload, distinguishes it from the more generic open-source malware threats we have encountered thus far, highlighting the advancements that malicious packages have made recently," Jonathan Sar Shalom, director of threat research at JFrog Security Research team, said. "This new sophistication of malware underscores why development teams remain vigilant with updates—alongside proactive security research – to defend against emerging threats and maintain software integrity." The disclosure comes as SafeDep and Veracode detailed a number of malware-laced npm packages that are designed to execute remote code and download additional payloads. The packages in question are listed below - eslint-config-airbnb-compat (676 Downloads) ts-runtime-compat-check (1,588 Downloads) solders (983 Downloads) @mediawave/lib (386 Downloads) All the identified npm packages have since been taken down from npm, but not before they were downloaded hundreds of times from the package registry. SafeDep's analysis of eslint-config-airbnb-compat found that the JavaScript library has ts-runtime-compat-check listed as a dependency, which, in turn, contacts an external server defined in the former package ("proxy.eslint-proxy[.]site") to retrieve and execute a Base64-encoded string. The exact nature of the payload is unknown. "It implements a multi-stage remote code execution attack using a transitive dependency to hide the malicious code," SafeDep researcher Kunal Singh said. Solders, on the other hand, has been found to incorporate a post-install script in its package.json, causing the malicious code to be automatically executed as soon as the package is installed. "At first glance, it's hard to believe that this is actually valid JavaScript," the Veracode Threat Research team said. "It looks like a seemingly random collection of Japanese symbols. It turns out that this particular obfuscation scheme uses the Unicode characters as variable names and a sophisticated chain of dynamic code generation to work." Decoding the script reveals an extra layer of obfuscation, unpacking which reveals its main function: Check if the compromised machine is Windows, and if so, run a PowerShell command to retrieve a next-stage payload from a remote server ("firewall[.]tel"). This second-stage PowerShell script, also obscured, is designed to fetch a Windows batch script from another domain ("cdn.audiowave[.]org") and configures a Windows Defender Antivirus exclusion list to avoid detection. The batch script then paves the way for the execution of a .NET DLL that reaches out to a PNG image hosted on ImgBB ("i.ibb[.]co"). "[The DLL] is grabbing the last two pixels from this image and then looping through some data contained elsewhere in it," Veracode said. "It ultimately builds up in memory YET ANOTHER .NET DLL." Furthermore, the DLL is equipped to create task scheduler entries and features the ability to bypass user account control (UAC) using a combination of FodHelper.exe and programmatic identifiers (ProgIDs) to evade defenses and avoid triggering any security alerts to the user. The newly-downloaded DLL is Pulsar RAT, a "free, open-source Remote Administration Tool for Windows" and a variant of the Quasar RAT. "From a wall of Japanese characters to a RAT hidden within the pixels of a PNG file, the attacker went to extraordinary lengths to conceal their payload, nesting it a dozen layers deep to evade detection," Veracode said. "While the attacker's ultimate objective for deploying the Pulsar RAT remains unclear, the sheer complexity of this delivery mechanism is a powerful indicator of malicious intent." Crypto Malware in the Open-Source Supply Chain The findings also coincide with a report from Socket that identified credential stealers, cryptocurrency drainers, cryptojackers, and clippers as the main types of threats targeting the cryptocurrency and blockchain development ecosystem. Some of the examples of these packages include - express-dompurify and pumptoolforvolumeandcomment, which are capable of harvesting browser credentials and cryptocurrency wallet keys bs58js, which drains a victim's wallet and uses multi-hop transfers to obscure theft and frustrate forensic tracing. lsjglsjdv, asyncaiosignal, and raydium-sdk-liquidity-init, which functions as a clipper to monitor the system clipboard for cryptocurrency wallet strings and replace them with threat actor‑controlled addresses to reroute transactions to the attackers "As Web3 development converges with mainstream software engineering, the attack surface for blockchain-focused projects is expanding in both scale and complexity," Socket security researcher Kirill Boychenko said. "Financially motivated threat actors and state-sponsored groups are rapidly evolving their tactics to exploit systemic weaknesses in the software supply chain. These campaigns are iterative, persistent, and increasingly tailored to high-value targets." AI and Slopsquatting The rise of artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted coding, also called vibe coding, has unleashed another novel threat in the form of slopsquatting, where large language models (LLMs) can hallucinate non-existent but plausible package names that bad actors can weaponize to conduct supply chain attacks. Trend Micro, in a report last week, said it observed an unnamed advanced agent "confidently" cooking up a phantom Python package named starlette-reverse-proxy, only for the build process to crash with the error "module not found." However, should an adversary upload a package with the same name on the repository, it can have serious security consequences. Furthermore, the cybersecurity company noted that advanced coding agents and workflows such as Claude Code CLI, OpenAI Codex CLI, and Cursor AI with Model Context Protocol (MCP)-backed validation can help reduce, but not completely eliminate, the risk of slopsquatting. "When agents hallucinate dependencies or install unverified packages, they create an opportunity for slopsquatting attacks, in which malicious actors pre-register those same hallucinated names on public registries," security researcher Sean Park said. "While reasoning-enhanced agents can reduce the rate of phantom suggestions by approximately half, they do not eliminate them entirely. Even the vibe-coding workflow augmented with live MCP validations achieves the lowest rates of slip-through, but still misses edge cases." Found this article interesting? Follow us on Twitter  and LinkedIn to read more exclusive content we post. SHARE    

“The best way to predict the future is to invent it,” the famed computer scientist Alan Kay once said. Uttered more out of exasperation than as inspiration, his remark has nevertheless attained gospel-like status among Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, in particular a handful of tech billionaires who fancy themselves the chief architects of humanity’s future.  Sam Altman, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and others may have slightly different goals and ambitions in the near term, but their grand visions for the next decade and beyond are remarkably similar. Framed less as technological objectives and more as existential imperatives, they include aligning AI with the interests of humanity; creating an artificial superintelligence that will solve all the world’s most pressing problems; merging with that superintelligence to achieve immortality (or something close to it); establishing a permanent, self-­sustaining colony on Mars; and, ultimately, spreading out across the cosmos. While there’s a sprawling patchwork of ideas and philosophies powering these visions, three features play a central role, says Adam Becker, a science writer and astrophysicist: an unshakable certainty that technology can solve any problem, a belief in the necessity of perpetual growth, and a quasi-religious obsession with transcending our physical and biological limits. In his timely new book, More Everything Forever: AI Overlords, Space Empires, and Silicon Valley’s Crusade to Control the Fate of Humanity, Becker calls this triumvirate of beliefs the “ideology of technological salvation” and warns that tech titans are using it to steer humanity in a dangerous direction.  “In most of these isms you’ll find the idea of escape and transcendence, as well as the promise of an amazing future, full of unimaginable wonders—so long as we don’t get in the way of technological progress.” “The credence that tech billionaires give to these specific science-fictional futures validates their pursuit of more—to portray the growth of their businesses as a moral imperative, to reduce the complex problems of the world to simple questions of technology, [and] to justify nearly any action they might want to take,” he writes. Becker argues that the only way to break free of these visions is to see them for what they are: a convenient excuse to continue destroying the environment, skirt regulations, amass more power and control, and dismiss the very real problems of today to focus on the imagined ones of tomorrow.  A lot of critics, academics, and journalists have tried to define or distill the Silicon Valley ethos over the years. There was the “Californian Ideology” in the mid-’90s, the “Move fast and break things” era of the early 2000s, and more recently the “Libertarianism for me, feudalism for thee”  or “techno-­authoritarian” views. How do you see the “ideology of technological salvation” fitting in?  I’d say it’s very much of a piece with those earlier attempts to describe the Silicon Valley mindset. I mean, you can draw a pretty straight line from Max More’s principles of transhumanism in the ’90s to the Californian Ideology [a mashup of countercultural, libertarian, and neoliberal values] and through to what I call the ideology of technological salvation. The fact is, many of the ideas that define or animate Silicon Valley thinking have never been much of a ­mystery—libertarianism, an antipathy toward the government and regulation, the boundless faith in technology, the obsession with optimization.  What can be difficult is to parse where all these ideas come from and how they fit together—or if they fit together at all. I came up with the ideology of technological salvation as a way to name and give shape to a group of interrelated concepts and philosophies that can seem sprawling and ill-defined at first, but that actually sit at the center of a worldview shared by venture capitalists, executives, and other thought leaders in the tech industry.  Readers will likely be familiar with the tech billionaires featured in your book and at least some of their ambitions. I’m guessing they’ll be less familiar with the various “isms” that you argue have influenced or guided their thinking. Effective altruism, rationalism, long­termism, extropianism, effective accelerationism, futurism, singularitarianism, ­transhumanism—there are a lot of them. Is there something that they all share?  They’re definitely connected. In a sense, you could say they’re all versions or instantiations of the ideology of technological salvation, but there are also some very deep historical connections between the people in these groups and their aims and beliefs. The Extropians in the late ’80s believed in self-­transformation through technology and freedom from limitations of any kind—ideas that Ray Kurzweil eventually helped popularize and legitimize for a larger audience with the Singularity.  In most of these isms you’ll find the idea of escape and transcendence, as well as the promise of an amazing future, full of unimaginable wonders—so long as we don’t get in the way of technological progress. I should say that AI researcher Timnit Gebru and philosopher Émile Torres have also done a lot of great work linking these ideologies to one another and showing how they all have ties to racism, misogyny, and eugenics. You argue that the Singularity is the purest expression of the ideology of technological salvation. How so? Well, for one thing, it’s just this very simple, straightforward idea—the Singularity is coming and will occur when we merge our brains with the cloud and expand our intelligence a millionfold. This will then deepen our awareness and consciousness and everything will be amazing. In many ways, it’s a fantastical vision of a perfect technological utopia. We’re all going to live as long as we want in an eternal paradise, watched over by machines of loving grace, and everything will just get exponentially better forever. The end. The other isms I talk about in the book have a little more … heft isn’t the right word—they just have more stuff going on. There’s more to them, right? The rationalists and the effective altruists and the longtermists—they think that something like a singularity will happen, or could happen, but that there’s this really big danger between where we are now and that potential event. We have to address the fact that an all-powerful AI might destroy humanity—the so-called alignment problem—before any singularity can happen.  Then you’ve got the effective accelerationists, who are more like Kurzweil, but they’ve got more of a tech-bro spin on things. They’ve taken some of the older transhumanist ideas from the Singularity and updated them for startup culture. Marc Andreessen’s “Techno-Optimist Manifesto” [from 2023] is a good example. You could argue that all of these other philosophies that have gained purchase in Silicon Valley are just twists on Kurzweil’s Singularity, each one building on top of the core ideas of transcendence, techno­-optimism, and exponential growth.  Early on in the book you take aim at that idea of exponential growth—specifically, Kurzweil’s “Law of Accelerating Returns.” Could you explain what that is and why you think it’s flawed? Kurzweil thinks there’s this immutable “Law of Accelerating Returns” at work in the affairs of the universe, especially when it comes to technology. It’s the idea that technological progress isn’t linear but exponential. Advancements in one technology fuel even more rapid advancements in the future, which in turn lead to greater complexity and greater technological power, and on and on. This is just a mistake. Kurzweil uses the Law of Accelerating Returns to explain why the Singularity is inevitable, but to be clear, he’s far from the only one who believes in this so-called law. “I really believe that when you get as rich as some of these guys are, you can just do things that seem like thinking and no one is really going to correct you or tell you things you don’t want to hear.” My sense is that it’s an idea that comes from staring at Moore’s Law for too long. Moore’s Law is of course the famous prediction that the number of transistors on a chip will double roughly every two years, with a minimal increase in cost. Now, that has in fact happened for the last 50 years or so, but not because of some fundamental law in the universe. It’s because the tech industry made a choice and some very sizable investments to make it happen. Moore’s Law was ultimately this really interesting observation or projection of a historical trend, but even Gordon Moore [who first articulated it] knew that it wouldn’t and couldn’t last forever. In fact, some think it’s already over.  These ideologies take inspiration from some pretty unsavory characters. Transhumanism, you say, was first popularized by the eugenicist Julian Huxley in a speech in 1951. Marc Andreessen’s “Techno-Optimist Manifesto” name-checks the noted fascist Filippo Tommaso Marinetti and his futurist manifesto. Did you get the sense while researching the book that the tech titans who champion these ideas understand their dangerous origins? You’re assuming in the framing of that question that there’s any rigorous thought going on here at all. As I say in the book, Andreessen’s manifesto runs almost entirely on vibes, not logic. I think someone may have told him about the futurist manifesto at some point, and he just sort of liked the general vibe, which is why he paraphrases a part of it. Maybe he learned something about Marinetti and forgot it. Maybe he didn’t care.  I really believe that when you get as rich as some of these guys are, you can just do things that seem like thinking and no one is really going to correct you or tell you things you don’t want to hear. For many of these billionaires, the vibes of fascism, authoritarianism, and colonialism are attractive because they’re fundamentally about creating a fantasy of control.  You argue that these visions of the future are being used to hasten environmental destruction, increase authoritarianism, and exacerbate inequalities. You also admit that they appeal to lots of people who aren’t billionaires. Why do you think that is?  I think a lot of us are also attracted to these ideas for the same reasons the tech billionaires are—they offer this fantasy of knowing what the future holds, of transcending death, and a sense that someone or something out there is in control. It’s hard to overstate how comforting a simple, coherent narrative can be in an increasingly complex and fast-moving world. This is of course what religion offers for many of us, and I don’t think it’s an accident that a sizable number of people in the rationalist and effective altruist communities are actually ex-evangelicals. More than any one specific technology, it seems like the most consequential thing these billionaires have invented is a sense of inevitability—that their visions for the future are somehow predestined. How does one fight against that? It’s a difficult question. For me, the answer was to write this book. I guess I’d also say this: Silicon Valley enjoyed well over a decade with little to no pushback on anything. That’s definitely a big part of how we ended up in this mess. There was no regulation, very little critical coverage in the press, and a lot of self-mythologizing going on. Things have started to change, especially as the social and environmental damage that tech companies and industry leaders have helped facilitate has become more clear. That understanding is an essential part of deflating the power of these tech billionaires and breaking free of their visions. When we understand that these dreams of the future are actually nightmares for the rest of us, I think you’ll see that senseof inevitability vanish pretty fast.  This interview was edited for length and clarity. Bryan Gardiner is a writer based in Oakland, California. 

In a crowded field full of online survival sims, Dune: Awakening is kicking up storm. The adaptation of Frank Herbert’s sci-fi novels lets players build bases, rid sand worms, and smash Ornithopters into one another. That last part has become a problem, and the developers are already looking into a fix. Suggested Reading10 Minutes From The Last Of Us Part II’s Roguelike Mode Share SubtitlesOffEnglishview videoSuggested Reading10 Minutes From The Last Of Us Part II’s Roguelike Mode Share SubtitlesOffEnglishDune’s Ornithopters are helicopters shaped like dragonflies. In Dune: Awakening, they’re one of the many vehicles players can build that serve as both a resource and an end-goal of sorts. They require a lot of equipment and resources to craft if you’re playing solo, which is why most of them belong to players working in groups. It turns out that they’re pretty indestructible too, making them lethal weapons for ramming enemy players with in PVP. Reddit user Bombe18 shared his run-in with Dune: Awakening’s man-made scourge in a recent clip that blew up on the subreddit showing him repeatedly being accosted by multiple Ornithopters. Shooting at them does nothing. They’re unscathed by constantly smashing into the ground on top of him. At one point, he tries to wall-jump off a ledge and stab one. “Yeah sorry about this,” wrote game director Joel Bylos. “We have people working on fixing the goomba stomping ASAP.”Players have been debating the role of Ornithopters in Dune: Awakening since its beta tests last year. On the one hand, they’re a lot of fun and a cool reward for players to build toward. On the other, they sort of trivialize trying to travel around the desert and survive, the two things the game is supposed to be about. They can also shoot missiles, completely dominating the ground game. Now that’s real desert power. In terms of stopping players from griefing one another with Ornithopters, there are a few different suggestions. Some players just want the vehicles not to be able to be used as weapons at all. Others want them isolated to specific PVP areas. Another solution is to make it easier to destroy them. “Seems like they should just make guns deal more damage to them,” wrote one player. “They’d think twice about doing this if their orni could get wrecked by gunfire.” Another wrote, “Make Deep Desert crashes do significant damage. Two crashes or something past a certain physics threshold should disable the vehicle.”However the developers decide to address the recent outbreak of Ornithopter “goomba stomping,” Dune: Awakening is having a great launch so far. Out earlier this week on PC, it’s nearing a 90 percent positive rating on Steam with almost 20,000 reviews. The concurrent player-count is very healthy, too, peaking at just under 150,000 heading into the weekend. Unfortunately, console players will have to wait a bit to build Ornithropters of their own. A PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X/S release isn’t planned until sometime in 2026. .

We are pleased to announce the release of Matali Physics 6.9, the next significant step on the way to the seventh major version of the environment. Matali Physics 6.9 introduces a number of improvements and fixes to Matali Physics Core, Matali Render and Matali Games modules, presents physics-driven, completely dynamic light sources, real-time object scaling with destruction, lighting model simulating global illumination (GI) in some aspects, comprehensive support for Wayland on Linux, and more. Posted by komires on Jun 3rd, 2025 What is Matali Physics? Matali Physics is an advanced, modern, multi-platform, high-performance 3d physics environment intended for games, VR, AR, physics-based simulations and robotics. Matali Physics consists of the advanced 3d physics engine Matali Physics Core and other physics-driven modules that all together provide comprehensive simulation of physical phenomena and physics-based modeling of both real and imaginary objects. What's new in version 6.9? Physics-driven, completely dynamic light sources. The introduced solution allows for processing hundreds of movable, long-range and shadow-casting light sources, where with each source can be assigned logic that controls its behavior, changes light parameters, volumetric effects parameters and others; Real-time object scaling with destruction. All groups of physics objects and groups of physics objects with constraints may be subject to destruction process during real-time scaling, allowing group members to break off at different sizes; Lighting model simulating global illumination (GI) in some aspects. Based on own research and development work, processed in real time, ready for dynamic scenes, fast on mobile devices, not based on lightmaps, light probes, baked lights, etc.; Comprehensive support for Wayland on Linux. The latest version allows Matali Physics SDK users to create advanced, high-performance, physics-based, Vulkan-based games for modern Linux distributions where Wayland is the main display server protocol; Other improvements and fixes which complete list is available on the History webpage. What platforms does Matali Physics support? Android Android TV *BSD iOS iPadOS Linux (distributions) macOS Steam Deck tvOS UWP (Desktop, Xbox Series X/S) Windows (Classic, GDK, Handheld consoles) What are the benefits of using Matali Physics? Physics simulation, graphics, sound and music integrated into one total multimedia solution where creating complex interactions and behaviors is common and relatively easy Composed of dedicated modules that do not require additional licences and fees Supports fully dynamic and destructible scenes Supports physics-based behavioral animations Supports physical AI, object motion and state change control Supports physics-based GUI Supports physics-based particle effects Supports multi-scene physics simulation and scene combining Supports physics-based photo mode Supports physics-driven sound Supports physics-driven music Supports debug visualization Fully serializable and deserializable Available for all major mobile, desktop and TV platforms New features on request Dedicated technical support Regular updates and fixes If you have questions related to the latest version and the use of Matali Physics environment as a game creation solution, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sovereignty has mattered since the invention of the nation state—defined by borders, laws, and taxes that apply within and without. While many have tried to define it, the core idea remains: nations or jurisdictions seek to stay in control, usually to the benefit of those within their borders. Digital sovereignty is a relatively new concept, also difficult to define but straightforward to understand. Data and applications don’t understand borders unless they are specified in policy terms, as coded into the infrastructure. The World Wide Web had no such restrictions at its inception. Communitarian groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, service providers and hyperscalers, non-profits and businesses all embraced a model that suggested data would look after itself. But data won’t look after itself, for several reasons. First, data is massively out of control. We generate more of it all the time, and for at least two or three decades (according to historical surveys I’ve run), most organizations haven’t fully understood their data assets. This creates inefficiency and risk—not least, widespread vulnerability to cyberattack. Risk is probability times impact—and right now, the probabilities have shot up. Invasions, tariffs, political tensions, and more have brought new urgency. This time last year, the idea of switching off another country’s IT systems was not on the radar. Now we’re seeing it happen—including the U.S. government blocking access to services overseas. Digital sovereignty isn’t just a European concern, though it is often framed as such. In South America for example, I am told that sovereignty is leading conversations with hyperscalers; in African countries, it is being stipulated in supplier agreements. Many jurisdictions are watching, assessing, and reviewing their stance on digital sovereignty. As the adage goes: a crisis is a problem with no time left to solve it. Digital sovereignty was a problem in waiting—but now it’s urgent. It’s gone from being an abstract ‘right to sovereignty’ to becoming a clear and present issue, in government thinking, corporate risk and how we architect and operate our computer systems. What does the digital sovereignty landscape look like today? Much has changed since this time last year. Unknowns remain, but much of what was unclear this time last year is now starting to solidify. Terminology is clearer – for example talking about classification and localisation rather than generic concepts. We’re seeing a shift from theory to practice. Governments and organizations are putting policies in place that simply didn’t exist before. For example, some countries are seeing “in-country” as a primary goal, whereas others (the UK included) are adopting a risk-based approach based on trusted locales. We’re also seeing a shift in risk priorities. From a risk standpoint, the classic triad of confidentiality, integrity, and availability are at the heart of the digital sovereignty conversation. Historically, the focus has been much more on confidentiality, driven by concerns about the US Cloud Act: essentially, can foreign governments see my data? This year however, availability is rising in prominence, due to geopolitics and very real concerns about data accessibility in third countries. Integrity is being talked about less from a sovereignty perspective, but is no less important as a cybercrime target—ransomware and fraud being two clear and present risks. Thinking more broadly, digital sovereignty is not just about data, or even intellectual property, but also the brain drain. Countries don’t want all their brightest young technologists leaving university only to end up in California or some other, more attractive country. They want to keep talent at home and innovate locally, to the benefit of their own GDP. How Are Cloud Providers Responding? Hyperscalers are playing catch-up, still looking for ways to satisfy the letter of the law whilst ignoring (in the French sense) its spirit. It’s not enough for Microsoft or AWS to say they will do everything they can to protect a jurisdiction’s data, if they are already legally obliged to do the opposite. Legislation, in this case US legislation, calls the shots—and we all know just how fragile this is right now. We see hyperscaler progress where they offer technology to be locally managed by a third party, rather than themselves. For example, Google’s partnership with Thales, or Microsoft with Orange, both in France (Microsoft has similar in Germany). However, these are point solutions, not part of a general standard. Meanwhile, AWS’ recent announcement about creating a local entity doesn’t solve for the problem of US over-reach, which remains a core issue. Non-hyperscaler providers and software vendors have an increasingly significant play: Oracle and HPE offer solutions that can be deployed and managed locally for example; Broadcom/VMware and Red Hat provide technologies that locally situated, private cloud providers can host. Digital sovereignty is thus a catalyst for a redistribution of “cloud spend” across a broader pool of players. What Can Enterprise Organizations Do About It? First, see digital sovereignty as a core element of data and application strategy. For a nation, sovereignty means having solid borders, control over IP, GDP, and so on. That’s the goal for corporations as well—control, self-determination, and resilience. If sovereignty isn’t seen as an element of strategy, it gets pushed down into the implementation layer, leading to inefficient architectures and duplicated effort. Far better to decide up front what data, applications and processes need to be treated as sovereign, and defining an architecture to support that. This sets the scene for making informed provisioning decisions. Your organization may have made some big bets on key vendors or hyperscalers, but multi-platform thinking increasingly dominates: multiple public and private cloud providers, with integrated operations and management. Sovereign cloud becomes one element of a well-structured multi-platform architecture. It is not cost-neutral to deliver on sovereignty, but the overall business value should be tangible. A sovereignty initiative should bring clear advantages, not just for itself, but through the benefits that come with better control, visibility, and efficiency. Knowing where your data is, understanding which data matters, managing it efficiently so you’re not duplicating or fragmenting it across systems—these are valuable outcomes. In addition, ignoring these questions can lead to non-compliance or be outright illegal. Even if we don’t use terms like ‘sovereignty’, organizations need a handle on their information estate. Organizations shouldn’t be thinking everything cloud-based needs to be sovereign, but should be building strategies and policies based on data classification, prioritization and risk. Build that picture and you can solve for the highest-priority items first—the data with the strongest classification and greatest risk. That process alone takes care of 80–90% of the problem space, avoiding making sovereignty another problem whilst solving nothing. Where to start? Look after your own organization first Sovereignty and systems thinking go hand in hand: it’s all about scope. In enterprise architecture or business design, the biggest mistake is boiling the ocean—trying to solve everything at once. Instead, focus on your own sovereignty. Worry about your own organization, your own jurisdiction. Know where your own borders are. Understand who your customers are, and what their requirements are. For example, if you’re a manufacturer selling into specific countries—what do those countries require? Solve for that, not for everything else. Don’t try to plan for every possible future scenario. Focus on what you have, what you’re responsible for, and what you need to address right now. Classify and prioritise your data assets based on real-world risk. Do that, and you’re already more than halfway toward solving digital sovereignty—with all the efficiency, control, and compliance benefits that come with it. Digital sovereignty isn’t just regulatory, but strategic. Organizations that act now can reduce risk, improve operational clarity, and prepare for a future based on trust, compliance, and resilience. The post Reclaiming Control: Digital Sovereignty in 2025 appeared first on Gigaom.

Rene Byrd did IVF to have her baby. Courtesy of Rene Byrd 2025-06-14T21:23:01Z Save Saved Read in app This story is available exclusively to Business Insider subscribers. Become an Insider and start reading now. Have an account? Rene Byrd is a 49-year-old singer-songwriter in London who had her first baby at 48. She had held on to hope for a baby throughout her 40s, undergoing IVF for over two years. Being an older mom has had several benefits, like financial security and contentment. This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Rene Byrd. It has been edited for length and clarity.When I turned 40, I went on a seven-day retreat full of meditation and massage to fall in love with myself. I'm a strong believer that to find love, you first have to love yourself.I had wanted to settle down with someone and build a family, but it just hadn't happened. Three years prior, I had frozen my eggs because I knew that I wanted a family someday.On the retreat, I felt deep in my spirit that I would one day find my person and hold my child in my hands. I wouldn't give up hope.I met someone at a barReturning home, I continued dating, but it wasn't until a chance meeting at a bar that I finally found the man who would become my husband. I hadn't quite turned 41, and he was 34.I remember not wanting to scare him off by talking too much about my desire for kids, but we did have discussions about the future. When love started to bloom between the two of us, we started looking at what our options were for having a child together.After trying holistic methods to no avail, we decided to go down the IVF route. I'd heard horror stories about IVF — that it was never straightforward — but as I already had my eggs frozen, it was the best option for us at the time.I felt guilty for waiting so longTwo-and-a-half long years later, I was given the news from the IVF clinic — I was pregnant. I fell apart, phoning my husband to tell him we would be having a baby. Rene Byrd got pregnant at age 48 thanks to IVF. Courtesy of Rene Byrd Throughout my pregnancy, I remember being scared of what this new life as a mother would look like. I had little panic attacks considering how different life would be, as compared to the decades of life without a child. And then I felt guilty, telling myself I had waited so long for this. There was a lot of grappling with these thoughts until I realized my child would just be an extension of me.Once our little boy, Crue, was born in November 2024, I felt ready for his arrival in theory. Having spent years hearing from friends with children, I had an idea of what to expect. Even still, those early days were a lot to deal with. All these things were being thrown at me about what I should and shouldn't do with a baby.Being a mom in my late 40s has so many beautiful benefitsI joined online mother and baby communities and in-person baby groups, finding my tribe of mothers like me, ones that were "older."There is a stillness within me that grounds me as I take care of Crue. I have this playbook of mothering, developed from years of research and observation, that has given me assurance that even when things don't seem to be going to plan — like breastfeeding or sleeping — I was OK, and so was he.Having built up financial security, I didn't worry about how I was going to provide for a baby. Established in a career, I could plan for all baby-related expenses, including IVF.And since I had gotten so much out of my system in my younger years — corporate working, parties, nice restaurants — I felt content to settle in at home with my baby and husband. I never feel like I'm missing out.The only concern I've heard quietly whispered in different circles is that of my health. I know that as I get older, little issues with my body could pop up — issues that I might not have had as a younger mother. This has forced me to look after my body more than I ever have so that I can fully enjoy time with Crue as he gets older.Becoming a mother had always been a dream of mine. I trusted the process, holding on to hope, and although delayed, my dream finally came true.

monkey abuse The “online monkey torture video” arrests just keep coming Authorities continue the slow crackdown. Nate Anderson – Jun 14, 2025 7:00 am | 34 Credit: Getty Images Credit: Getty Images Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more Today's monkey torture videos are the products of a digitally connected world. People who enjoy watching baby animals probed, snipped, and mutilated in horrible ways often have difficulty finding local collaborators, but online communities like "million tears"—now thankfully shuttered—can help them forge connections. Once they do meet other like-minded souls, communication takes place through chat apps like Telegram and Signal, often using encryption. Money is pooled through various phone apps, then sent to videographers in countries where wages are low and monkeys are plentiful. (The cases I have seen usually involve Indonesia; read my feature from last year to learn more about how these groups work.) There, monkeys are tortured by a local subcontractor—sometimes a child—working to Western specs. Smartphone video of the torture is sent back to the commissioning sadists, who share it with more viewers using the same online communities in which they met. The unfortunate pattern was again on display this week in an indictment the US government unsealed against several more Americans said to have commissioned these videos. The accused used online handles like "Bitchy" and "DemonSwordSoulCrusher," and they hail from all over: Tennessee, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts. They relied on an Indonesian videographer to create the content, which was surprisingly affordable—it cost a mere $40 to commission video of a "burning hot screwdriver" being shoved into a baby monkey's orifice. After the money was transferred, the requested video was shot and shared through a "phone-based messaging program," but the Americans were deeply disappointed in its quality. Instead of full-on impalement, the videographer had heated a screwdriver on a burner and merely touched it against the monkey a few times. "So lame," one of the Americans allegedly complained to another. "Live and learn," was the response. So the group tried again. "Million tears" had been booted by its host, but the group reconstituted on another platform and renamed itself "the trail of trillion tears." They reached out to another Indonesian videographer and asked for a more graphic version of the same video. But this version, more sadistic than the last, still didn't satisfy. As one of the Americans allegedly said to another, "honey that's not what you asked for. Thats the village idiot version. But I'm talking with someone about getting a good vo [videographer] to do it." Arrests continue In 2021, someone leaked communications from the "million tears" group to animals rights organizations like Lady Freethinker and Action for Primates, which handed it over to authorities. Still, it took several years to arrest and prosecute the torture group's leaders. In 2024, one of these leaders—Ronald Bedra of Ohio—pled guilty to commissioning the videos and to mailing "a thumb drive containing 64 videos of monkey torture to a co-conspirator in Wisconsin." His mother, in a sentencing letter to the judge, said that her son must "have been undergoing some mental crisis when he decided to create the website." As a boy, he had loved all of the family pets, she said, even providing a funeral for a fish. Bedra was sentenced late last year to 54 months in prison. According to letters from family members, he has also lost his job, his wife, and his kids. In April 2025, two more alleged co-conspirators were indicted and subsequently arrested; their cases were unsealed only this week. Two other co-conspirators from this group still appear to be uncharged. In May 2025, 11 other Americans were indicted for their participation in monkey torture groups, though they appear to come from a different network. This group allegedly "paid a minor in Indonesia to commit the requested acts on camera." As for the Indonesian side of this equation, arrests have been happening there, too. Following complaints from animal rights groups, police in Indonesia have arrested multiple videographers over the last two years. Nate Anderson Deputy Editor Nate Anderson Deputy Editor Nate is the deputy editor at Ars Technica. His most recent book is In Emergency, Break Glass: What Nietzsche Can Teach Us About Joyful Living in a Tech-Saturated World, which is much funnier than it sounds. 34 Comments

Fewer food crops Biofuels policy has been a failure for the climate, new report claims Report: An expansion of biofuels policy under Trump would lead to more greenhouse gas emissions. Georgina Gustin, Inside Climate News – Jun 14, 2025 7:10 am | 24 An ethanol production plant on March 20, 2024 near Ravenna, Nebraska. Credit: David Madison/Getty Images An ethanol production plant on March 20, 2024 near Ravenna, Nebraska. Credit: David Madison/Getty Images Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy, and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here. The American Midwest is home to some of the richest, most productive farmland in the world, enabling its transformation into a vast corn- and soy-producing machine—a conversion spurred largely by decades-long policies that support the production of biofuels. But a new report takes a big swing at the ethanol orthodoxy of American agriculture, criticizing the industry for causing economic and social imbalances across rural communities and saying that the expansion of biofuels will increase greenhouse gas emissions, despite their purported climate benefits. The report, from the World Resources Institute, which has been critical of US biofuel policy in the past, draws from 100 academic studies on biofuel impacts. It concludes that ethanol policy has been largely a failure and ought to be reconsidered, especially as the world needs more land to produce food to meet growing demand. “Multiple studies show that US biofuel policies have reshaped crop production, displacing food crops and driving up emissions from land conversion, tillage, and fertilizer use,” said the report’s lead author, Haley Leslie-Bole. “Corn-based ethanol, in particular, has contributed to nutrient runoff, degraded water quality and harmed wildlife habitat. As climate pressures grow, increasing irrigation and refining for first-gen biofuels could deepen water scarcity in already drought-prone parts of the Midwest.” The conversion of Midwestern agricultural land has been sweeping. Between 2004 and 2024, ethanol production increased by nearly 500 percent. Corn and soybeans are now grown on 92 and 86 million acres of land respectively—and roughly a third of those crops go to produce ethanol. That means about 30 million acres of land that could be used to grow food crops are instead being used to produce ethanol, despite ethanol only accounting for 6 percent of the country’s transportation fuel. The biofuels industry—which includes refiners, corn and soy growers and the influential agriculture lobby writ large—has long insisted that corn- and soy-based biofuels provide an energy-efficient alternative to fossil-based fuels. Congress and the US Department of Agriculture have agreed. The country’s primary biofuels policy, the Renewable Fuel Standard, requires that biofuels provide a greenhouse gas reduction over fossil fuels: The law says that ethanol from new plants must deliver a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to gasoline. In addition to greenhouse gas reductions, the industry and its allies in Congress have also continued to say that ethanol is a primary mainstay of the rural economy, benefiting communities across the Midwest. But a growing body of research—much of which the industry has tried to debunk and deride—suggests that ethanol actually may not provide the benefits that policies require. It may, in fact, produce more greenhouse gases than the fossil fuels it was intended to replace. Recent research says that biofuel refiners also emit significant amounts of carcinogenic and dangerous substances, including hexane and formaldehyde, in greater amounts than petroleum refineries. The new report points to research saying that increased production of biofuels from corn and soy could actually raise greenhouse gas emissions, largely from carbon emissions linked to clearing land in other countries to compensate for the use of land in the Midwest. On top of that, corn is an especially fertilizer-hungry crop requiring large amounts of nitrogen-based fertilizer, which releases huge amounts of nitrous oxide when it interacts with the soil. American farming is, by far, the largest source of domestic nitrous oxide emissions already—about 50 percent. If biofuel policies lead to expanded production, emissions of this enormously powerful greenhouse gas will likely increase, too. The new report concludes that not only will the expansion of ethanol increase greenhouse gas emissions, but it has also failed to provide the social and financial benefits to Midwestern communities that lawmakers and the industry say it has. (The report defines the Midwest as Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.) “The benefits from biofuels remain concentrated in the hands of a few,” Leslie-Bole said. “As subsidies flow, so may the trend of farmland consolidation, increasing inaccessibility of farmland in the Midwest, and locking out emerging or low-resource farmers. This means the benefits of biofuels production are flowing to fewer people, while more are left bearing the costs.” New policies being considered in state legislatures and Congress, including additional tax credits and support for biofuel-based aviation fuel, could expand production, potentially causing more land conversion and greenhouse gas emissions, widening the gap between the rural communities and rich agribusinesses at a time when food demand is climbing and, critics say, land should be used to grow food instead. President Donald Trump’s tax cut bill, passed by the House and currently being negotiated in the Senate, would not only extend tax credits for biofuels producers, it specifically excludes calculations of emissions from land conversion when determining what qualifies as a low-emission fuel. The primary biofuels industry trade groups, including Growth Energy and the Renewable Fuels Association, did not respond to Inside Climate News requests for comment or interviews. An employee with the Clean Fuels Alliance America, which represents biodiesel and sustainable aviation fuel producers, not ethanol, said the report vastly overstates the carbon emissions from crop-based fuels by comparing the farmed land to natural landscapes, which no longer exist. They also noted that the impact of soy-based fuels in 2024 was more than $42 billion, providing over 100,000 jobs. “Ten percent of the value of every bushel of soybeans is linked to biomass-based fuel,” they said. Georgina Gustin, Inside Climate News 24 Comments

The recent wave of cyber attacks targeting UK retailers has been a moment of reckoning for the entire retail industry. As someone who went through supporting one of the largest retail breaches in history, this news hits close to home. The National Cyber Security Centre’s (NCSC) call to strengthen IT support protocols reinforces a hard truth: cybersecurity is no longer just a technical/operational issue. It’s a business issue that directly affects revenue, customer trust, and brand reputation. Retailers today are navigating an increasingly complex threat landscape, while also managing a vast user base that needs to stay informed and secure. The recent attacks don’t represent a failure, but an opportunity - an inflection point to invest in stronger visibility, continuous monitoring and a culture of shared responsibility that meets the realities of modern retail. We know that the cyber groups responsible for the recent retail hacks used sophisticated social engineering techniques, such as impersonating employees to deceive IT help desks into resetting passwords and providing information, thereby gaining unauthorised access to internal systems. Employees are increasingly a target, and retailers employ some of the largest, most diverse workforces, making them an even bigger risk with countless touchpoints for breaches. In these organisations, a cybersecurity-first culture is vital to combatting threats. Cybersecurity-first culture includes employees that are aware of these types of attacks and understand how to report them if they are contacted. In order to establish a cybersecurity-first culture, employees must be empowered to recognise and respond to threats, not just avoid them. This can be done through simulation training and threat assessments - showcasing real life examples of threats and brainstorming possible solutions to control and prevent further and future damage. This allows security teams to focus on strategy instead of constant firefighting, while leadership support - through budget, tools, and tone - reinforces its importance at every level. In addition to support workers, vendors also pose a significant attack path for bad actors. According to data from Elastic Path, 42% of retailers admit that legacy technology could be leaving them exposed to cyber risks. And with the accelerating pace of innovation, modern cyber threats are not only more complex, but often enter through unexpected avenues, like third-party vendors. Research from Vanta shows 46% of organisations say that a vendor of theirs has experienced a data breach since they started working together. The M&S breach is a case in point, with it being reported that attackers exploited a vulnerability in a contractor’s systems, not the retailer’s own. This underscores that visibility must extend beyond your perimeter to encompass the entire digital supply chain, in real time. Threats don’t wait for your quarterly review or annual audit. If you're only checking your controls or vendor status once a year, you're already behind. This means real-time visibility is now foundational to cyber defence. We need to know when something changes the moment it happens. This can be done through continuous monitoring, both for the technical controls and the relationships that introduce risk into your environment. We also need to rethink the way we resource and prioritise that visibility. Manual processes don’t scale with the complexity of modern infrastructure. Automation and tooling can help surface the right signals from the noise - whether it’s misconfigurations, access drift, or suspicious vendor behavior. The best case scenario is that security measures are embedded into all digital architecture, utilising a few security ‘must haves’ such as secure coding, continuous monitoring, and regular testing and improvement. Retailers who want to get proactive and about breaches following the events of the last few weeks can follow this action plan to get started: First, awareness - have your security leadership send a message out to managers of help desks and support teams to make sure they are aware of the recent attacks on retailers, and are in a position to inform teams of what to look out for. Then, investigate - pinpoint the attack path used on other retailers to make sure you have a full understanding of the risk to your organisation. After that, assess - conduct a threat assessment to identify what could go wrong, or how this attack path could be used in your organisation. The final step is to identify - figure out the highest risk gaps in your organisation, and the remediation steps to address each one. Strong cybersecurity doesn’t come from quick fixes - it takes time, leadership buy-in, and a shift in mindset across the organisation. My advice to security teams is simple: speak in outcomes. Frame cyber risk as business risk, because that’s what it is. The retailers that have fallen victim to recent attacks are facing huge financial losses, which makes this not just an IT issue - it’s a boardroom issue. Customers are paying attention. They want to trust the brands they buy from, and that trust is built on transparency and preparation. The recent retail attacks aren’t a reason to panic - they’re a reason to reset, evaluate current state risks, and fully understand the potential impacts of what is happening elsewhere. This is the moment to invest in your infrastructure, empower your teams, and embed security into your operations. The organisations that do this now won’t just be safer - they’ll be more competitive, more resilient, and better positioned for whatever comes next. Jadee Hanson is the Chief Information Security Officer at Vanta Read more about cyber security in retail Content Goes Here Harrods becomes latest UK retailer to fall victim to cyber attack Retail cyber crime spree a ‘wake-up call’, says NCSC CEO Retail cyber attacks hit food distributor Peter Green Chilled