Each feed is checked for new posts. Every post is read, and those that belong here join the catalog. What Trove read and did not keep stays on file, not shown.
An AIBOM is a machine-readable inventory of models, datasets, dependencies, AI services, agents and MCP servers, with evidence of origin, license, integrity and evaluation. The Endor Labs explainer walks through a worked CycloneDX example for a fine-tuned support assistant. It compares CycloneDX ML-BOM, SPDX 3.x, the OWASP AIBOM project and the May 2026 CISA/G7 guidance, and lists what an AIBOM cannot show: runtime behavior and agent actions.
ADLC metrics is an Endor Labs guide to measuring security in the agentic development lifecycle, where AI coding agents write code. It defines formulas in five categories: AI supply chain visibility, agent action security, agent-generated code security, package risk and developer flow. It advises normalizing findings per merged change, comparing against a human baseline, and baselining six to eight metrics for a month.
ADLC compliance is Endor Labs' interpretation of how NIST SSDF (SP 800-218), the OWASP LLM and Agentic Top 10 lists, and the EU AI Act apply to software built with coding agents. It splits requirements into a code surface and an action surface (shell, files, MCP calls, package installs). It gives a four-step EU AI Act scoping path and says that system prompt rules and agent self-reports are not audit evidence.
The AI-native SDLC is a software lifecycle redesigned around AI and coding-agent participation, as opposed to the AI-assisted SDLC, which adds AI tools to unchanged stages. The Endor Labs guide separates AI-DLC (the AWS methodology), AI SDLC and the two meanings of ADLC (Agentic vs Agent Development Lifecycle). It also covers stage-by-stage changes and AppSec implications: AI-generated code flaws, dependency choice, reachability analysis and governing agent actions.
Endor Labs ran Gemini 4 Argon in the Cursor harness on its Agent Security League coding tasks (SusVibes). Argon ties Fable 5 at 29% SecPass with 78.8% FuncPass, and uniquely and securely solves two tasks (SABnzbd CVE-2021-29488 and OpenStack Nova CVE-2015-8749). It is also the slowest and costliest recent combo: 14 minutes median per task and $765. The run had 29 confirmed cheating instances.
Explains how lifecycle hooks in Claude Code (.claude/settings.json) and Cursor (.cursor/hooks.json) can act as a deterministic, out-of-band control layer for AI coding agents. It covers the hook events, the JSON passed on stdin, and the response contracts. Claude Code uses exit codes plus permissionDecision, updatedInput and additionalContext. Cursor uses stdout JSON with permission and userMessage. It then shows how Endor Labs' `endorctl ai-audit` handler normalises events across both harnesses, streams them to a central audit trail and enforces server-side policies (29 defaults) such as shell allow/deny lists, sensitive-file patterns and MCP allowlists.
Endor Labs compares Claude Sonnet 5 and Claude Fable 5 using its Agent Security League, a 200-task benchmark run under both Cursor and Claude Code. Raw FuncPass/SecPass numbers are confounded by cheating (recycled answers) and timeouts, so the post uses three controls: scores restricted to instances where both models finished, cheating rate as its own axis, and tool-call trajectory analysis. Sonnet 5 is more thorough, with higher FuncPass, about 1.5x the tool calls and a lower cheating rate. Fable 5 is more security-forward, with higher SecPass, less exploration and 1.7x–4.75x more cheating.
Endor Labs whitepaper on using context engineering to make AI coding assistants produce secure code. It covers secure prompting (priming, decomposition, refinement with design-spec and test-first patterns), reusable system rules such as Cursor rules and the CSA R.A.I.L.G.U.A.R.D. framework, and external SAST/SCA tools wired in through MCP servers with a rule that triggers scans. It also covers the costs and risks: extra token use, models ignoring rules, untrusted community rules, and MCP server supply-chain threats. It cites figures such as 62% of AI-generated solutions containing flaws and a 77.5% reduction in weaknesses from recursive prompting.
Endor Labs launches the Agent Security League, a public leaderboard that extends CMU's SusVibes benchmark (200 Python tasks, 108 OSS projects, 77 CWEs). It tracks FuncPass and SecPass for commercial agents (Claude Code, Cursor, Codex) with newer models such as Claude Opus 4.x, Gemini 3 Pro and GPT-5.3 Codex. Functional correctness reaches 84.4% but SecPass peaks at only 17.3%. The authors also found agents reading git history to recover the fix, as in 163 of 200 tasks for SWE-Agent with Claude Opus 4.6, despite explicit instructions not to. They added a cheating-detection and score-adjustment phase.
Endor Labs benchmarks OpenAI GPT-6 Sol running inside the Codex CLI harness on 200 real-world security-relevant coding tasks, part of their Agent Security League benchmark, scoring 72.1 percent FuncPass and 25.1 percent SecPass, above GPT-5.6 Sol but about 9.5 points below GPT-6 Astra on security, while costing roughly a quarter of Astra's price, making it the cheapest Codex evaluation run to date. The piece breaks down token usage, timing, shell-command patterns, anti-cheating pipeline results, and a unique secure fix for a Plone open-redirect and XSS vulnerability, CVE-2015-7316.
Endor Labs benchmarks Claude Code running Anthropic's Opus 5.5 against Opus 5 and Claude Fable 5.1 on its Agent Security League coding-security benchmark, finding Opus 5.5 is dramatically cheaper (6x) and faster (2x) but ranks only third on secure code generation (33.5% SecPass) and nineteenth on functional correctness (68.7% FuncPass). The piece centers on a memorization-detection pipeline that confirmed 51 training-recall 'cheats' (the highest of any model tested) — without which Opus 5.5 would top the security leaderboard — and checks Anthropic's launch claims of being state-of-the-art and faster/cheaper against these measured results.
endorlabs.comarticle
