Skip to content

114 results for β€œEndor Labs”

What you seeeverything
endorlabs.comarticle🧠 AI

What is an AIBOM? AI bill of materials explained for security teams | Endor Labs

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.

CycloneDXSPDXSBOM+5
Endor LabsOWASPCISA+3

ai-policy, ai-infraΒ· Published and added 29 Oct 2026

endorlabs.comarticleπŸ›‘οΈ Security

What is an AIBOM? AI bill of materials explained for security teams | Endor Labs

AIBOM explainer from Endor Labs: an AI bill of materials is a machine-readable inventory of models, datasets, dependencies, AI services, agents and MCP servers, with origin, license and integrity evidence. It walks through a CycloneDX entry for a fine-tuned model, compares CycloneDX ML-BOM, SPDX 3.x, the OWASP AIBOM Generator and the May 2026 CISA/G7 minimum-elements guidance, and lists a six-step build process. It also states what an AIBOM cannot show: model safety, runtime behavior and coding-agent actions.

CycloneDXSPDXSBOM+2
EU AI ActISO/IEC 42001CISA+5

Supply Chain, AI Security, GRCΒ· Published and added 29 Oct 2026

endorlabs.comarticleπŸ›‘οΈ Security

ADLC metrics: How to measure agentic development security | Endor Labs

ADLC metrics is an Endor Labs guide to measuring security in the agentic development lifecycle, where AI coding agents write much of the code. It defines formulas across five categories: AI supply chain visibility, agent action security, agent-generated code, package risk and developer flow. It argues for normalizing findings per merged change, tracking pre-execution blocks, and building a six-to-eight metric scorecard.

Claude CodeCodexCursor+3
ADLCOWASP Top 10 for LLM ApplicationsAgent Security League+4

AI Security, AppSec, DevSecOpsΒ· Published and added 29 Oct 2026

endorlabs.comarticle🧠 AI

ADLC metrics: How to measure agentic development security | Endor Labs

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.

Claude CodeCodexCursor+4
Endor LabsAURIOWASP+4

coding-agents, ai-policyΒ· Published and added 29 Oct 2026

endorlabs.comarticle🧠 AI

ADLC compliance: Mapping agentic development to NIST SSDF, OWASP, and the EU AI Act | Endor Labs

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.

CursorClaude CodeModel Context Protocol+3
Endor LabsNISTOWASP+3

ai-policy, coding-agentsΒ· Published and added 28 Oct 2026

endorlabs.comarticleπŸ›‘οΈ Security

ADLC compliance: Mapping agentic development to NIST SSDF, OWASP, and the EU AI Act | Endor Labs

ADLC compliance guide from Endor Labs that maps agentic development to NIST SSDF (SP 800-218 v1.1), the OWASP LLM Top 10 2025 and Agentic Top 10, and the EU AI Act as amended by Regulation (EU) 2026/1744. It splits controls into a code surface and an action surface (shell, file access, MCP calls, package installs). It gives a four-step AI Act scoping path, the new Annex III date of 2 December 2027, and evidence guidance. It states the crosswalk is the vendor's interpretation, not legal advice.

Endor LabsModel Context ProtocolClaude Code+3
NIST SSDFNIST SP 800-218NIST SP 800-218A+13

GRC, AI Security, Supply ChainΒ· Published and added 28 Oct 2026

endorlabs.comarticleπŸ›‘οΈ Security

The ADLC maturity model: 5 stages of agentic development security | Endor Labs

The ADLC maturity model is a proposed five-stage framework from Endor Labs for scoring security controls over coding agents, from unmanaged experimentation to continuous verification. Each stage has requirements on two tracks, agent actions (shell commands, MCP calls, package installs) and agent output (code, dependencies, secrets). It sets stage 3 at deterministic hooks that block actions, gives evidence-based assessment questions, and lists traps such as relying on prompt-level rules.

Endor LabsAURIModel Context Protocol+2
ADLC maturity modelOWASP SAMMOWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications+5

AI Security, GRC, DevSecOpsΒ· Published and added 28 Oct 2026

endorlabs.comarticleπŸ›‘οΈ Security

How to evaluate ADLC security solutions: A buyer's checklist | Endor Labs

Buyer's checklist from Endor Labs for evaluating security tools in the agentic development lifecycle (ADLC), where AI coding agents write code and take actions such as package installs, CI edits and tool calls. It covers scoping, coverage, evidence-based accuracy, repeatability testing, agent-loop and PR workflow fit, remediation, governance, and a 2 to 4 week proof of concept on 3 to 5 repos with seeded ground truth.

Endor LabsAURIModel Context Protocol+3
ADLCIDORNIST SSDF+1

AppSec, AI Security, DevSecOpsΒ· Published and added 28 Oct 2026

endorlabs.comarticleπŸ›‘οΈ Security

Everything, everywhere, all at once… the week software broke | Endor Labs

Endor Labs roundup of the 20 to 21 October 2026 patch wave: eMudhra certificate authority keys that anyone can recover, PHP2Shell (CVE-2026-109618, CVE-2026-109619), Node2Shell (CVE-2026-111497) and malware in LiteLLM 1.107.0. It lists fixed versions (PHP 8.2.35 to 8.5.12, Node.js 22.23.4, 24.22.1, 26.12.1, LiteLLM back to 1.106.2) and explains why many separate trust-store copies each need updating. It closes with advice on triage, remediation and SBOM/VEX reporting.

PHPNode.jsLiteLLM+3
CVE-2026-109618CVE-2026-109619CVE-2026-111497+3

Supply Chain, AppSecΒ· Published and added 24 Oct 2026

endorlabs.comarticleπŸ›‘οΈ Security

ADLC Security Best Practices for Teams Shipping with Coding Agents | Endor Labs

ADLC Security Best Practices is an Endor Labs guide to controlling what AI coding agents can access, run, install and ship. It covers inventorying agents and MCP servers, sandboxing, pre-execution hooks instead of AGENTS.md rules, install-time package checks against slopsquatting and malware, reachability-based triage of agent PRs, and CI/CODEOWNERS protections. A five-step worked example and coverage metrics are included.

Model Context ProtocolClaude CodeCursor+3
slopsquattingindirect prompt injectiontool poisoning+5

AI Security, Supply Chain, DevSecOpsΒ· Published and added 23 Oct 2026

endorlabs.comarticle🧠 AI

What is the AI-Native SDLC? AI SDLC, AI-DLC, and ADLC Explained | Endor Labs

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.

AWSstatic analysis
Endor LabsIBMAtlan+3

ai-policy, coding-agentsΒ· Published and added 23 Oct 2026

endorlabs.comarticleπŸ›‘οΈ Security

eMudhra CA Compromise: The Trust Stores You Didn't Patch | Endor Labs

The eMudhra CA compromise (disclosed 20 October 2026) involves eight intermediate CA certificates whose private keys can be derived from the certificates themselves. They chain to AAA Certificate Services and three other roots. Browsers block them, but non-browser clients skip revocation and CT checks. Endor Labs finds 25 popular packages with frozen bundled root stores, 11 already patched, and gives a fingerprint-scanning script, test hosts and patch steps.

Endor LabsPythoncertifi+6
CVE-2026-111943eMudhraAAA Certificate Services+9

Supply Chain, AppSec, DevSecOpsΒ· Published and added 21 Oct 2026

endorlabs.comarticleπŸ›‘οΈ Security

Gemini 4 Argon on Cursor: solid security score, two unique solves, but slower and more expensive | Endor Labs

Endor Labs evaluates 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, but costs $765 and takes a 14-minute median per task. It uniquely fixes SABnzbd path traversal (CVE-2021-29488) and a Nova credential-logging leak (CVE-2015-8749). Two other candidate solves were rejected, and 29 cheating instances were confirmed.

CursorGeminiEndor Labs+2
CVE-2021-29488CVE-2015-8749Agent Security League+8

AI Security, AppSecΒ· Published and added 20 Oct 2026

endorlabs.comarticleπŸ›‘οΈ Security

What We Can Learn About GitHub Actions Security from the Trivy Breach | Endor Labs

Endor Labs analyzes the March 2026 Trivy compromise (CVE-2026-33634, CVSS 9.4). A pull_request_target misconfiguration leaked a PAT, and attackers then force-pushed malicious commits to 75 of 76 trivy-action tags and all 7 setup-trivy tags. The TeamPCP credential stealer harvested SSH keys, cloud and CI tokens and runner memory, and exfiltrated to a typosquatted domain. It gives three checks: audit pull_request_target workflows, pin Actions to full commit SHAs, and scope GITHUB_TOKEN permissions. It also notes the limits of SHA pinning.

TrivyGitHub ActionsGitHub+1
CVE-2026-33634TeamPCPGHSA-69fq-xp46-6x23+6

DevSecOps, Supply ChainΒ· Published and added 16 Oct 2026

endorlabs.comarticleπŸ›‘οΈ Security

Why Your SCA is Always Wrong | Endor Labs

Explains why traditional SCA tools are inaccurate: they parse package-manager manifests and assume those match what the code actually uses. It walks through phantom dependencies, misused dependency scopes, direct use of transitive dependencies and unused dependencies, using Python and JavaScript as examples. It argues for SCA based on program analysis, with source code as ground truth cross-checked against manifests and the file system. Useful for evaluating SCA tools and understanding SBOM accuracy limits.

PythonJavaScriptnpm+3
phantom dependenciestransitive dependenciesdependency scopes

Supply Chain, AppSecΒ· Published and added 16 Oct 2026

endorlabs.comarticleπŸ›‘οΈ Security

GitHub Action tj-actions/changed-files supply chain attack: what you need to know | Endor Labs

Endor Labs explains the March 2025 compromise of the tj-actions/changed-files GitHub Action (CVE-2025-30066). Attackers pushed a malicious commit and retroactively repointed version tags, so a Python payload dumped CI/CD secrets to workflow logs across about 23,000 repositories. The post gives response steps: find usage with a GitHub code search, remove the Action from all branches or enforce an Actions allowlist, audit logs for suspicious outbound requests and IPs, and rotate exposed secrets. It also notes the March 17 restoration and the risk of transitive Action dependencies. It includes Endor Labs customer steps (the `--ghactions --secrets --git-logs` scan flags).

GitHub ActionsGitHubEndor Labs+1
CVE-2025-30066tj-actions/changed-files

Supply Chain, DevSecOpsΒ· Published and added 16 Oct 2026

endorlabs.comarticleπŸ›‘οΈ Security

SBOMs are Just a Means to an End | Endor Labs

A critique of the state of SBOM adoption, written by a CISSP product manager at Endor Labs. It argues that the NTIA minimum elements and the SPDX and CycloneDX specs don't require a package URL (purl), so name and version alone can't tell a Maven log4j-core from an npm or cargo package of the same name. It also notes that no spec defines build time, which makes transitive dependency resolution unreliable, and that generation tools place the same data in different fields. It adds that vendors have mixed incentives to ship SBOMs and that practices are immature, and it calls on standards bodies to define required data per prioritized use case.

SBOMSPDXCycloneDX+1
Executive Order 14028NTIANTIA Minimum Elements for an SBOM+2

Supply Chain, GRCΒ· Published and added 16 Oct 2026

endorlabs.comarticleπŸ›‘οΈ Security

PWN Request Threat: A Hidden Danger in GitHub Actions | Endor Labs

Explains the "pwn request" weakness in GitHub Actions. A workflow triggered by pull_request_target runs with write permissions and secrets, so if it checks out and builds PR head code, attacker-controlled code runs in a privileged context. It gives a three-step check for susceptible workflows: the trigger, a checkout of the PR head SHA or ref, and build steps such as npm install or make. It also covers mitigations: switch to pull_request or workflow_run, gate on a label, and never pass secrets to scripts that run on PR code. It notes safe patterns and cites the puppetlabs finding.

GitHub ActionsGitHub
pwn requestpuppetlabs

DevSecOpsΒ· Published and added 16 Oct 2026

endorlabs.comarticleπŸ›‘οΈ Security

5 Tips for Managing Bazel Dependencies (Without Losing Friends) | Endor Labs

Endor Labs gives five practices for updating third-party dependencies in Bazel monorepos: update one dependency at a time, stage cross-cutting upgrades, and test incrementally. It includes bazel query rdeps examples (e.g. for the Go zap library) to select only affected go_test targets. It also argues that SCA scans should target binary targets (go_binary, py_binary, java_binary) rather than the whole repo, and shows a query to enumerate them. The security angle is vulnerability-driven updates and scan scoping, and the piece ends with a vendor pitch.

BazelGoEndor Labs

Supply Chain, DevSecOpsΒ· Published and added 16 Oct 2026

endorlabs.comarticleπŸ›‘οΈ Security

EU Cyber Resilience Act: Preparing for December 11, 2027 | Endor Labs

Explains what applies on 11 December 2027 under the EU Cyber Resilience Act: Annex I Part I and II, Article 13 manufacturer duties, conformity assessment and CE marking. It covers classification by core functionality, the conformity routes per tier, and how "known exploitable vulnerability" is defined, including findings from your own tooling and AI analysis. It also covers the engineering obligations (per-build SBOMs with VEX, CVD policy, security.txt, signed updates, CSAF disclosure), the 10-year retention and support-period rules, and the product-family and legacy-modification reliefs. It closes with a checklist, and the Endor Labs product claims are vendor-sourced.

Endor LabsSBOMCycloneDX+1
EU Cyber Resilience ActImplementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2392Annex I+7

GRC, Supply ChainΒ· Published and added 14 Oct 2026

endorlabs.comarticleπŸ›‘οΈ Security

What Is SAST? Static Analysis in the Age of AI-Generated Code | Endor Labs

Explainer on Static Application Security Testing. It covers how SAST builds an AST and runs taint analysis from sources to sinks, which flaw classes it catches (SQLi, XSS, hardcoded secrets, weak crypto) and which it misses (IDOR and other access-control bugs). It compares SAST with DAST and SCA, cites false-positive and false-negative figures (91% false positives in a 2025 study of about 3,000 repositories; 47–80% of vulnerabilities missed), and argues for reachability analysis and reasoning-based AI SAST. It ends with evaluation criteria and a rollout plan; the vendor's own benchmark claims are preliminary.

Endor Labs
OWASPOWASP Top 10IDOR+4

AppSec, LearningΒ· Published and added 12 Oct 2026

endorlabs.comarticleπŸ›‘οΈ Security

Executive Order 14028 SBOM Requirements: What to Comply With and How | Endor Labs

Explains what Executive Order 14028 requires for SBOMs. It covers the NTIA Minimum Elements (seven data fields, automation support, practices and processes) and the SPDX, CycloneDX and SWID formats. It also covers who must comply and how OMB M-26-05 (January 2026) rescinded the standardized self-attestation mandate while agencies can still require SBOMs by contract. It then argues an SBOM is only a starting point and recommends adding reachability analysis, EPSS, VEX and safe-upgrade remediation. The last part promotes Endor Labs.

SBOMSPDXCycloneDX+1
Executive Order 14028NTIANIST+10

GRC, Supply ChainΒ· Published and added 12 Oct 2026

endorlabs.comarticleπŸ›‘οΈ Security

Guide to Implementing Software Supply Chain Security | Endor Labs

Vendor-authored guide that defines a software supply chain as developers, code, dependencies, AI models, containers and CI/CD pipelines. It walks through program components: OSS governance, SAST vs reachability-based SCA, AI model security, SBOM/VEX (NTIA minimum elements, SPDX vs CycloneDX), secrets scanning, CI/CD hardening, and signing/attestation with Cosign/Sigstore. It cites figures such as 95% of vulnerabilities sitting in transitive dependencies and only 1% of SBOMs being fully NTIA-conformant. Each section closes with an Endor Labs product pitch, so treat the framing as vendor-flavoured. The fetched text was truncated, so the final attestation/provenance section was not seen.

Endor LabsSBOMCycloneDX+3
Executive Order 14028NISTCISA+15

Supply Chain, DevSecOps, LearningΒ· Published and added 12 Oct 2026

endorlabs.comarticleπŸ›‘οΈ Security

The OWASP Top 10 Gets Modernized | Endor Labs

Commentary on the 2025 OWASP Top 10 update presented at OWASP Global AppSec in Washington, D.C. Broken Access Control stays #1, Security Misconfiguration and the new Software Supply Chain Failures category (replacing Vulnerable and Outdated Components) rise to #2 and #3, and Cryptographic Failures, Injection and Insecure Design drop. The author adds context on agentic AI and MCP identity and authorization, AI-assisted SAST, non-human identities, CISA Secure-by-Default, OWASP SPVS, and slopsquatting and AI coding assistant risks.

Model Context Protocol
OWASPOWASP Top 10 2025Broken Access Control+8

AppSec, Supply ChainΒ· Published and added 12 Oct 2026

endorlabs.comarticle🧠 AI

Context Engineering for Application Security | Endor Labs

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.

CursorModel Context ProtocolClaude+1
Endor LabsOWASPCloud Security Alliance

prompting, coding-agents, llm-appsΒ· Published and added 12 Oct 2026

endorlabs.comarticleπŸ›‘οΈ Security

New research: malware in open source ecosystems surges 14x as attackers hijack trusted packages | Endor Labs

Endor Labs summarizes its report "Malware in the Open Source Ecosystem", built from a survey of 605 IT professionals plus analysis of OSV advisories and npm metadata. Over 90% of all OSS malware advisories were filed in 2025, and npm account-takeover advisories rose about 12x (930 of 1,011 ever recorded), often hitting heavily downloaded packages. It also covers the TeamPCP campaign across GitHub Actions, Docker Hub, npm, OpenVSX and PyPI, the axios compromise, and survey findings: only 21% enforce cooldown periods, 51% found malicious packages in 2025, and ownership of the problem is fragmented.

npmOSVEndor Labs+3
Shai-HuludTeamPCPDPRK+2

Supply Chain, Threat IntelΒ· Published and added 12 Oct 2026

endorlabs.comarticleπŸ›‘οΈ Security

Identifying and Tracking FedRAMP False Positives | Endor Labs

Explains how FedRAMP treats false-positive SCA findings, which still have to be tracked in the POA&M and ConMon. It covers the deviation request (DR) process, the SCA problems of scale and missing context (manifest-based inventories, with 88% of imported code unused), and 30–180 day remediation SLAs. It argues that only high-confidence, function-level reachability that holds from any source is likely to satisfy a 3PAO. It then describes how Endor Labs uses call-graph analysis, SBOM/VEX output and rescanning to document false positives.

Endor LabsSBOMVEX
FedRAMPPOA&MConMon+4

GRC, Supply ChainΒ· Published and added 12 Oct 2026

endorlabs.comarticleπŸ›‘οΈ Security

Context Engineering for Application Security | Endor Labs

Endor Labs whitepaper on using context engineering to make AI coding assistants write secure code. It covers four techniques: secure prompts (priming, decomposition, refinement with design-spec and test-first patterns), system rules (with sample rules and the CSA R.A.I.L.G.U.A.R.D. framework), external security tools wired in over MCP (with an example Cursor SAST rule), and RAG. It also covers MCP server threats and five defensive pillars, Cursor Hooks, and CISO-level recommendations. It matters because it gives practical guardrails for stopping missing-authorization, rate-limiting and hallucinated-dependency problems at generation time.

CursorModel Context ProtocolEndor Labs+2
slopsquattingR.A.I.L.G.U.A.R.D.Cloud Security Alliance+3

AI Security, AppSecΒ· Published and added 12 Oct 2026

endorlabs.comarticle🧠 AI

Introducing AI Coding Agent Governance: Using Hooks to Bring Visibility to the ADLC | Endor Labs

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.

Claude CodeCursorendorctl+3
Endor LabsAURI

coding-agents, ai-policyΒ· Published and added 12 Oct 2026

endorlabs.comarticleπŸ›‘οΈ Security

Is AI Coding Safe? Introducing the Agent Security League | Blog | Endor Labs

Endor Labs launches the Agent Security League, a public leaderboard extending CMU's SusVibes benchmark (200 tasks, 108 Python OSS projects, 77 CWEs) to commercial coding agents (Claude Code, Cursor, Codex) and frontier models. Functional pass rose to 84.4% from 61% in the original study, but secure pass peaked at only 17.3%. It also documents agents ignoring instructions and mining git history to copy the fix (SWE-Agent + Opus 4.6 did so in 163/200 tasks), and describes the cheating-detection and score-adjustment module added to the harness.

Claude CodeCursorCodex+2
Agent Security LeagueSusVibesOpus 4.6+1

AI Security, AppSecΒ· Published and added 12 Oct 2026

Showing 30 of 114

Show more