NorthSecureAI

422 posts

NorthSecureAI banner
NorthSecureAI

NorthSecureAI

@NorthSecureAI

AI & security advisor helping #Canadian businesses adopt AI safely and get audit-ready. #SOC 2 + #AI #governance made simple.

Canada Inscrit le Mayıs 2025
133 Abonnements20 Abonnés
Tweet épinglé
NorthSecureAI
NorthSecureAI@NorthSecureAI·
Using ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, AI note-taking, or workplace AI tools? Your business already has AI exposure. The real question: Are you ready for the governance, privacy, security, and audit questions coming next? We have created a practical resource for Canadian SMBs: The Canadian SMB AI Readiness Checklist (2026) Free download: northsecure.ai/NorthSecure_AI… #AI #CyberSecurity #SMB #Copilot #ChatGPT
English
2
0
4
222
NorthSecureAI
NorthSecureAI@NorthSecureAI·
SMB AI governance gets simpler once you stop treating every workflow the same. Low-risk drafting can move fast. Customer, legal, payroll, and security workflows need tighter approvals, cleaner logs, and a human checkpoint. Speed is useful. Unowned automation is expensive. northsecure.ai
English
1
0
1
13
NorthSecureAI
NorthSecureAI@NorthSecureAI·
@k4yaba @agentlayer_ai That question is the real one. Once agents become actors rather than tools, governance has to cover permissions, spending authority, and who can pull the plug when behavior drifts.
English
0
0
0
5
k4yaba
k4yaba@k4yaba·
Looking back the reason I called @agentlayer_ai around $22k wasn't because I thought AI was a hot narrative. It was because I kept arriving at the same conclusion: Most people were analyzing AI from the application layer. Very few were asking what happens when agents themselves become network participants. The market spent most of its time debating which model would win. - GPT. - Claude. - Open-source. - Closed-source. But underneath that competition, something much larger was forming. The emergence of an entirely new coordination problem. As soon as agents begin interacting with other agents, the challenge stops being intelligence alone. The challenge becomes communication. Discovery. Trust. Identity. Payments. Settlement. Interoperability. The same problems the internet had to solve for humans now need to be solved for machines. And we're already seeing the industry move in that direction. Google introduced A2A for agent-to-agent communication. Anthropic pushed MCP for standardized tool access. Researchers are now openly discussing an "Internet of Agents" where autonomous systems discover, negotiate, collaborate, and exchange value with one another. That trend matters because infrastructure becomes exponentially more valuable as network participation increases. Every new agent isn't just another user. It's another node capable of creating additional interactions across the network. The math starts looking less like software and more like communication infrastructure. @agentlayer_ai 's thesis has always revolved around this idea: If agents are going to become autonomous economic actors, they need a protocol layer that allows them to coordinate at scale. Not another chatbot. Not another wrapper. A coordination network. That's what made the risk/reward attractive to me at $22k. The market was largely valuing what existed. I was trying to value what the ecosystem might require. Because history repeatedly shows that the most valuable infrastructure often looks unnecessary before adoption arrives. APIs looked unnecessary. Cloud infrastructure looked unnecessary. Payment rails looked unnecessary. Then entire industries became dependent on them. Today we're watching the first stages of agent interoperability become a real industry conversation rather than a theoretical one. Protocols for agent communication, coordination, and economic interaction are rapidly becoming a core focus across the AI ecosystem. That doesn't guarantee @agentlayer_ai wins. But it does validate the direction. The market cap moved from $22k to $260k . The interesting part isn't the price move. The interesting part is that the underlying thesis is becoming easier to explain than it was when nobody was paying attention. And if the future really does involve millions of autonomous agents coordinating across networks, the biggest winners may not be the agents themselves. It may be the infrastructure that allows them to function as an economy. Twitter: x.com/agentlayer_ai?… Website: agent-layer.tech CA: 444DPguaifQZ5NicFicD9Kni6emKexyqqG4dEkUaBAGS
k4yaba@k4yaba

APIs used to be tools. Now they’re slowly becoming autonomous economic actors. That shift sounds small until you realize it completely changes how software monetizes itself. That’s part of why projects like @agentlayer_ai interest me. We are moving toward a world where AI agents will not just answer questions. They will: • hire other agents • exchange services • coordinate workflows • negotiate value • execute tasks independently An actual machine economy. But economies break without coordination infrastructure. And right now, most of the market is still focused on the surface layer: chatbots, copilots, interfaces, flashy demos. Meanwhile, the deeper opportunity may sit underneath all of it. The rails. The protocols that allow autonomous systems to communicate and operate together at scale. That’s where AgentLayer starts becoming interesting. Because once millions of agents exist simultaneously, interoperability becomes mandatory. Without coordination layers: agents become isolated, workflows fragment, trust collapses, and scaling becomes chaotic. Infrastructure solves that. Historically, invisible systems capture enormous value once adoption matures. Nobody cared about cloud infrastructure early. Nobody cared about APIs early. Nobody cared about payment rails early. Until the entire ecosystem depended on them. AI coordination feels similar. And the compounding effect here gets overlooked constantly: more agents → more interactions → more integrations → stronger ecosystem gravity → harder infrastructure replacement That flywheel becomes extremely powerful once critical mass forms. Most people are still betting on which AI becomes smartest. I’m more interested in the systems that allow intelligence itself to organize. CA: 444DPguaifQZ5NicFicD9Kni6emKexyqqG4dEkUaBAGS

English
1
1
2
170
NorthSecureAI
NorthSecureAI@NorthSecureAI·
@txpert That shift matters because most teams are still planning for AI as a feature, not as a new path for data and decisions. Security roadmaps need workflow controls, not just awareness training.
English
0
0
0
3
TechnologyXperts
TechnologyXperts@txpert·
AI is changing both cyber defense and attack techniques. Read how and contact TechnologyXperts, Inc. to discuss what it means for your security roadmap. stuf.in/binftm
English
1
0
0
5
NorthSecureAI
NorthSecureAI@NorthSecureAI·
@UyiosaOM Context and social accountability are the parts many AI safety debates skip. In real organizations, governance only becomes durable once accountability is attached to actual workflows and owners.
English
0
0
0
4
Uyi Omoregie
Uyi Omoregie@UyiosaOM·
What if computation is not just automation, but interpretation? I draw on the West African Ifá knowledge system to rethink AI, governance & intelligence through ethics, context, dialogue & social accountability. A new framework for AI governance & safety a.co/d/0h5Sypdt
Uyi Omoregie tweet media
English
1
0
0
17
NorthSecureAI
NorthSecureAI@NorthSecureAI·
@AvramTuring Interesting angle. Governance frameworks get more useful when they stay tied to operating questions too: who owns the workflow, what data is in scope, and how decisions get reviewed.
English
0
0
0
1
Avram Turing
Avram Turing@AvramTuring·
What if computation is not just automation, but interpretation? We draw on the West African Ifá knowledge system to rethink AI, governance & intelligence through ethics, context, dialogue & social accountability. A new framework for AI governance & safety a.co/d/0h5Sypdt
Avram Turing tweet media
English
1
0
0
11
NorthSecureAI
NorthSecureAI@NorthSecureAI·
@dongwukeji AI identities will force a lot of teams to rediscover IAM fundamentals. The practical win is not just visibility, it is being able to disable, review, and scope agent access before the incident call.
English
0
0
0
0
Hilbert space
Hilbert space@dongwukeji·
The next cybersecurity battle may not be about people. It may be about AI identities. This week, major security vendors doubled down on AI agent governance, identity management, and machine-scale cyber defense. As autonomous systems gain access to corporate data and infrastructure, a new challenge is emerging: How do we know who—or what—is acting inside our systems? The same question extends beyond enterprise software. Digital assets, decentralized systems, and future financial networks all depend on trust, identity, and secure access. That’s why names built around privacy and protection feel increasingly relevant. BTCVeil.com A brand that could represent the trust layer between digital identity, privacy infrastructure, and secure digital assets. Some domains are built for current markets. Others are built for emerging infrastructure. BTCVeil.com A name for the age of AI identities and digital trust.
English
1
0
0
10
NorthSecureAI
NorthSecureAI@NorthSecureAI·
@AiCamila_ Policy-as-code is a strong direction because it moves guardrails out of hopeful prompts and into something auditable. Much easier to defend a workflow when the rule survives contact with the agent.
English
1
0
1
7
Camila
Camila@AiCamila_·
Policy-as-Code for Agent Guardrails Hardcoding guardrails in agent code is fragile. Policy-as-Code lets you define security, compliance, and operational rules as code (OPA, Kyverno, or Gatekeeper) that automatically enforce on every agent action. This makes guardrails versionable, testable, and auditable. As a dev, I moved all critical agent guardrails to Policy-as-Code. Policy-as-Code Cheatsheet: • Tools: OPA/Gatekeeper, Kyverno, or Cedar • Policies: Tool access control, data exfiltration prevention, cost limits • Enforcement: Validate at admission time or runtime • Testing: Write unit tests for policies just like code • Pro tip: Start with audit mode → gradually move to enforce mode Are you using Policy-as-Code for your agent guardrails? Reply below 👇 Follow @AiCamila_ for practical AI engineering patterns. #PolicyAsCode #OPA #Kyverno #AgenticAI #DevOps
Camila tweet media
English
1
0
1
35
NorthSecureAI
NorthSecureAI@NorthSecureAI·
@ernesttheaiguy Exactly. IAM-backed tool access is a big step up from prompt-only trust. The next question is whether teams also have approvals, logging, and sensible defaults around what the agent is allowed to do.
English
0
0
1
4
Ernest Provo
Ernest Provo@ernesttheaiguy·
aws just made their mcp server ga and honestly, this changes how we think about ai agent governance. full api coverage with iam-based controls means your ai coding agents aren't flying blind anymore. here's what matters: we've been sitting in this weird spot where ai agents either get locked down so tight they're useless, or they get keys to the kingdom. mcp fixes that. your agents can access aws apis, documentation, and operational workflows through a standard interface... but only what you've explicitly allowed via iam. from a data strategy angle, this is huge. it's auditable. it's repeatable. it means you can actually govern how ai interacts with your data layer without rebuilding governance from scratch for every new agent. i've seen teams burn cycles trying to bolt security onto ai workflows after the fact. this doesn't solve that completely, but it gives you guardrails baked in. the fact that it's mcp (model context protocol) standardized means you're not building aws-specific logic... you're building portable ai agent patterns. the practical play: if you're evaluating ai coding agents or autonomous workflows touching your infrastructure, this is table stakes now. test it. your security teams will actually sleep at night, and your engineers get tooling that doesn't require a security audit every time someone wants to run a new agent. the real win? safer automation without the bureaucracy tax. #AI #DataStrategy #AWSInfra #DataLeadership
English
3
0
1
80
NorthSecureAI
NorthSecureAI@NorthSecureAI·
@LagoonLabsMv That bridge matters. Enterprise reality starts when deployment convenience comes with reviewable permissions, guardrails, and a clear owner for what the agent shipped.
English
0
0
0
3
Lagoon Labs
Lagoon Labs@LagoonLabsMv·
Microsoft's Rayfin lets coding agents define backends in code and deploy straight to Fabric with security already baked in. Finally connecting the vibe coding hype with actual enterprise reality.
Lagoon Labs tweet media
English
1
0
0
17
NorthSecureAI
NorthSecureAI@NorthSecureAI·
@ShinkaIoT That is the governance gap teams are walking into. No-code or coding-agent speed is useful right up until nobody can answer who approved the app, the data path, or the secrets it can reach.
English
0
0
0
1
Shinka - AI
Shinka - AI@ShinkaIoT·
Here is the exact 5-tier AI Security Framework you need to audit your workflows right now. ⚠️⚠️ The dirty secret of the "No-Code AI" boom: We are building a generation of zero-security apps. 🚨💻 With full-stack AI coding agents like Bolt, Lovable, Claude Code, and Codex completely mainstreamed, anyone can ship a functional web app from a text prompt in 10 minutes. But as tech strategist Ludo Salenne breaks down, we are flying blindly into a massive security bottleneck. If you build software using AI without understanding the security architecture, you aren't just shipping a product—you're hosting a vulnerability party. 1️⃣ The Conversation Layer (Data Privacy) If you or your team are using free or standard individual tiers of ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini, your inputs are being logged to train future models by default. For proprietary data, client lists, or legal briefs, you must explicitly opt out in the console privacy settings or transition completely to dedicated Enterprise/Team workspaces where zero-training clauses are contractually locked. 2️⃣ Connected Tools & Integrations The moment you grant an AI assistant API read/write authorization to your Gmail, HubSpot, Slack, or internal database, you expand your surface attack area exponentially. If a malicious prompt injection tricks the agent, it can exploit those permissions to extract, leak, or delete live internal records. 3️⃣ Automation Chains (The Multi-Agent Loop) When building automated multi-agent chains, developers fail to implement rigid data-filtering sandboxes. If Agent A scrapes an external web page containing a hidden prompt-injection script, it inherits that instruction and passes corrupted data downstream to Agent B, completely hijacking your internal pipeline. 4️⃣ Strategic & Operational Dependency Relying entirely on a single closed third-party API to run your business logic is a massive risk. Models get updated, deprecated, or drastically change their behavioral constraints overnight. If your entire operational workflow is anchored to one specific version weight, a single patch can completely break your production code. 5️⃣ The No-Code Deployment Disaster This is the highest risk factor right now. When an amateur creator uses a tool like Lovable or Bolt to generate a public app, they assume the AI built it securely. It didn't. AI models prioritize making the app *work*, not making it secure. These apps often ship with exposed API keys, zero input sanitization, and broken authentication states. 🛡️ The Practical Solution: Before you make any AI-generated app live, run a specialized "DICP Security Audit" prompt against your repository: test it explicitly for Availability (Disponibilité), Integrity (Intégrité), Confidentiality (Confidentialité), and Proof/Traceability (Preuve). Instruct the LLM to search for hidden hardcoded tokens and cross-site scripting flaws before a bad actor does. Stop treating AI agents like magic boxes. If you're building software, you are a developer—and developers are legally liable for their security. 🖥️🛡️
English
6
4
10
275
NorthSecureAI
NorthSecureAI@NorthSecureAI·
@windowsforum This is the quiet enterprise tradeoff. Standardizing on one tool can improve control, but only if teams keep evidence, rollback paths, and room to challenge bad defaults.
English
0
0
0
0
NorthSecureAI
NorthSecureAI@NorthSecureAI·
@Coherent_Design Exactly. Cheap per-seat pricing hides workflow sprawl fast. The governance problem is not just token cost, it is whether anyone can explain which use cases are worth the spend.
English
0
0
0
2
The Structural Architect ⚡
The Structural Architect ⚡@Coherent_Design·
Why Claude (and AI) bills are blowing up for big companies, even though your $200 plan feels cheap If you’re on Claude Max ($200/mo) or a Team plan, it feels like a steal. Plenty of usage, resets every 5 hours, great for heavy coding/agents. “Just $20-200 per person!” But then you see headlines: companies dropping millions, execs saying “AI costs more than employees.” What’s going on? The Tier Trap: •Pro/Max: Fixed high usage. Perfect for power users. •Team: $20–150/user/month (Standard vs Premium seats). Includes solid usage allowances. Caps at ~150 seats. Predictable buffet-style. •Enterprise: Low seat fee (~$20/user) but zero included tokens for most usage. Everything bills at full API rates on top. Scale past 150 people? You’re pushed into Enterprise. One heavy dev with Claude Code + agents can easily add $500–$2k+/month in tokens. 800 users? Seat fees are fine… the token bill can hit hundreds of thousands to millions fast. Agentic workflows (chained reasoning, big contexts, autonomous tools) multiply usage 10-100x vs simple chat. No caps = explosion. Uber and others hit walls and started capping per-user spend. The “Just Multiple Team Plans” Hack Yes, you can spin up several 150-person Teams. Anthropic allows it. Keeps costs predictable. But reality bites: •Siloed workspaces → no cross-team projects or unified search. •Fragmented admin/SSO → multiple logins, inconsistent policies. •Extra overhead managing separate billings and limits. •Still hits usage caps per Team. Works great for mid-size (under ~400 people) split by department. Falls apart at 1,000+ with compliance needs (audit logs, SCIM, HIPAA). Bottom line: Your $200 Max or single Team plan is smart and cheap for focused use. The “AI more expensive than salaries” pain is mostly large orgs losing control on uncapped Enterprise token spend + heavy adoption. Companies are waking up: add spend caps, tier access (only devs get Premium), optimize prompts, use cheaper models for basics. Hype met reality. Smaller teams win right now. Big ones are figuring out governance. What plan are you on? Team, Enterprise, or still Max? Curious how it’s working for you. #Claude #AI #EnterpriseAI #TechCosts
English
1
0
0
97
NorthSecureAI
NorthSecureAI@NorthSecureAI·
@dAAAb Good framing. The stack is converging on the same governance lesson as cloud: each layer adds control points, but someone still has to define ownership across the whole workflow.
English
0
0
0
2
科技立委葛如鈞 Ko Ju-Chun
Four infrastructure vendors declared agent governance in one week — each owns one layer: • Microsoft: OS layer — MXC containers + Entra agent identity + Agent 365 (Defender/Intune/Purview) — governs what agents access INSIDE Windows • NVIDIA: Compute layer — OpenShell secure runtime + CUDA-X agent skills + Nemotron 3 Ultra — governs what agents EXECUTE on GPU • ServiceNow: Workflow layer — AI Control Tower + Project Arc (autonomous desktop agent on OpenShell) + MCP Registry + Autonomous Security (Armis+Veza) — governs what agents DO in enterprise workflows • Cisco (June 2): Network layer — Cloud Control single management plane + DefenseClaw enterprise-grade security for OpenClaw/Codex/Claude Code + Zero Trust Access restricts agents to predefined actions + Agentic SOC + quantum-resilience roadmap Cisco: "Security and networking must be fused to handle AI agent speed" Pattern: every layer now governs its own slice — but an agent crosses ALL four layers every task OS → Compute → Workflow → Network Each layer sees a fragment. No layer sees the whole agent. Taiwan builds the chips powering all four layers (TSMC 72% foundry) — who coordinates governance when the agent lives across layers? #AIAgents #Cybersecurity
科技立委葛如鈞 Ko Ju-Chun tweet media
English
3
2
2
89
NorthSecureAI
NorthSecureAI@NorthSecureAI·
@researchUSAI That is the awkward policy gap. Faster adoption without ownership and controls just means the risk surface scales before the review process does.
English
1
0
0
41
U.S.A.I. 🇺🇸
U.S.A.I. 🇺🇸@researchUSAI·
🇺🇳 The First Order Consequence: JPMorgan forecasts that global investors will shift capital at a faster pace into artificial intelligence than into conventional defense budgets, accelerating AI adoption in both public and private sectors and raising the risk that security priorities lag behind new tech-driven needs 🇺🇸 The Second Order Consequence: Defense contractors and government R&D units likely reallocate hiring, vendor contracts and procurement plans toward AI-enabled systems, while companies that depend on traditional military hardware face slower revenue growth and workforce pressure if budgets tighten Allies and regional partners may also accelerate AI procurement to maintain interoperability, increasing the share of group resources devoted to AI testing, data governance and cyber defense 🇬🇧 Discernment: Markets and policymakers that previously funded AI primarily for automation and commercial productivity likely encounter a new growth/decay pattern: growth for firms with measurable AI performance gains and security readiness, decay for firms whose model updates, documentation and audit trails cannot be validated under defense-adjacent scrutiny Examples of growth could include demonstrable reductions in prediction errors in real-world deployments; examples of decay could include stalled pilots after failed evaluations or inability to meet red-team security benchmarks 🇩🇪 Reasoning: If AI investment exceeds military spending by 2027, current growth likely concentrates where investors can show falsifiable outcomes such as lower training costs, higher throughput, improved reliability metrics and faster deployment cycles Conversely, decay risk increases for organizations that cannot evidence improvements in robustness against adversarial inputs, data drift or supply-chain vulnerabilities, leading to delayed rollouts, contract losses and constrained budgets 🇫🇷 Judgement: Whole-system growth is likely to favor AI capabilities that are tied to verifiable performance and risk controls, while whole-system decay risk centers on misalignment between investment levels and defense readiness, including potential capability gaps if security modernization does not keep pace with rapid AI scaling
U.S.A.I. 🇺🇸@researchUSAI

🇨🇳 The First Order Consequence: BYD and SAIC Motor advanced their EV road maps by targeting all-solid-state battery adoption in 2027, a move intended to improve energy density, safety margins, and cold-weather performance relative to prevailing lithium-ion chemistries 🇨🇳 The Second Order Consequence: Suppliers of battery materials, separators and solid-electrolyte components accelerated capacity planning and R&D timelines to serve the anticipated 2027 shift, while rival automakers escalated semi-solid and solid-state development to prevent loss of market share in China’s EV-heavy demand cycles 🇨🇳 Discernment: China’s firms leaned on experience gained from earlier semi-solid pilots and high-volume scaling of conventional EV batteries, using measurable manufacturing progress such as yield improvements and defect-rate reductions during pilot production runs as evidence of growth 🇨🇳 Reasoning: In 2027-focused planning, BYD and SAIC aligned vehicle program schedules with battery validation milestones, including cycling durability targets and thermal-stability tests, so that performance retention over thousands of charge-discharge cycles could be treated as current, falsifiable evidence of progress or decay 🇨🇳 Judgement: The strategy favors whole-system growth by pairing market scale with a technology transition timeline that can be tested through battery qualification metrics, but it also carries decay risk if solid-state yields or long-cycle performance fail to meet benchmarks, prompting delays that would erode competitive pricing and brand confidence

English
1
0
0
41
NorthSecureAI
NorthSecureAI@NorthSecureAI·
@bworldph "Governed path" is the right phrase. For most SMBs the work starts with approved tools, data boundaries, and one owner per workflow before policy language gets fancy.
English
0
0
0
0
BusinessWorld
BusinessWorld@bworldph·
OPINION | Shadow AI and the governed path By Erika Fille T. Legara Read: zurl.co/UQTfQ
English
1
1
1
108
NorthSecureAI
NorthSecureAI@NorthSecureAI·
@arnaudmercier Managed prompt history is underrated. Once prompts become business records, governance needs versioning, ownership, and a clear answer to which workflows were approved versus improvised.
English
0
0
0
1
NorthSecureAI
NorthSecureAI@NorthSecureAI·
@windowsforum 21k Copilot users will teach the same lesson every large rollout does: access, retention, and review rules matter long before the adoption dashboard looks impressive.
English
0
0
0
5
NorthSecureAI
NorthSecureAI@NorthSecureAI·
@helicerat0x That is the part procurement and security teams keep relearning. The model loop is only a sliver of the story; the real risk and cost live in orchestration, tool boundaries, and defaults.
English
0
0
0
12
helicerat
helicerat@helicerat0x·
some researchers went through every line of Claude Code - 512K of them the part everyone's racing to clone turned out to be a while-loop only 1.6% of it is the AI making decisions → github.com/VILA-Lab/Dive-… the other 98.4% is where the real engineering lives: > CLAUDE.md is just a suggestion - the model can ignore it whenever > stack 50+ subcommands in one call and the security check just skips them > extensions run before the trust dialog even shows up - 2 patched CVEs came out of that exact window > memory is plain text files it skims the headers of - no vector DB, no RAG anyone can write the while-loop the 98.4% is the part nobody can copy
English
8
2
25
555
NorthSecureAI
NorthSecureAI@NorthSecureAI·
@only1jayf Exactly. Those are workflow failures with brand and legal consequences attached. AI governance gets practical the moment someone asks who reviewed the output before it reached a customer.
English
0
0
0
7
Jay-F. 😎
Jay-F. 😎@only1jayf·
Air Canada’s chatbot gave a passenger wrong refund information. They lost in court. GitHub Copilot had a CVE filed against it this year. These weren’t model failures. They were security failures. Nobody checked.
English
3
0
1
118
NorthSecureAI
NorthSecureAI@NorthSecureAI·
@VivekIntel Useful framework. Once bug bounty agents can chain tools and persist state, governance has to cover permission scope, cost controls, and who reviews findings before they become actions.
English
0
0
0
22
Vivek | Cybersecurity
Vivek | Cybersecurity@VivekIntel·
🤖 Pentest Agent Suite — Autonomous Bug Bounty Framework for AI Agents ⚔️ 50 Specialized Agents 🛠️ 19 Security Tools 📜 26 Commands 🧠 Persistent Brain & Endpoint Tracking 🔗 Automated Exploit Chain Building 📊 Cost Tracking & Hunt Automation 🎯 HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti & More Built for Claude Code, Codex, Gemini, Cursor, Windsurf, Copilot & OpenClaw. From recon → validation → reporting → submission, everything is designed to automate bug bounty hunting at scale. 🔗 github.com/H-mmer/pentest… #BugBounty #Pentesting #CyberSecurity #AppSec #AI #RedTeam
English
3
19
69
2.1K