The U.S. government cyber agency warns that hackers have figured out a way to exploit the popular PHP software, used in 70% of the web's software.

"I do think that spending is going to be pretty top of mind," said Loren Duggan.

© AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

Homeland Security has pulled DeepSeek from federal civilian systems, and Beijing says Washington is stretching the idea of national security.

NIST, CISA and NSA share ten voluntary practices for preparing for, detecting, responding to, recovering from, and reporting rogue AI agent incidents.

The post US Agencies Detail Incident Response Practices for Rogue AI Agents appeared first on SecurityWeek.

DHS has ordered DeepSeek removed from federal civilian IT systems over security concerns. Learn what the restrictions mean for agencies and technology vendors.

The post DHS Orders DeepSeek Removed from Federal IT Systems Over Security Risks appeared first on TechRepublic.

DHS has ordered DeepSeek removed from federal civilian IT systems over security concerns. Learn what the restrictions mean for agencies and technology vendors.

The post DHS Orders DeepSeek Removed from Federal IT Systems Over Security Risks appeared first on TechRepublic.

Longtime Slashdot reader fahrbot-bot shares a report from ProPublica: A few months into President Donald Trump's second term, political appointees at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) wanted Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) to secretly acquire a voting machine and hack it. The appointees wanted the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to procure the machine, examine it and report back the findings so they could be given to the White House, according to two former administration officials with knowledge of the request. The proposition was shocking to CISA's career staffers, according to one of the former officials. CISA typically worked to thwart hackers. Moreover, the agency had been directed not to alert the voting machine company if it uncovered flaws, contrary to its standard practices. The request made the CISA employees fear they were being asked to take part in political interference. "My thought was they could keep it in their back pocket to invalidate any [election] results they don't like," one of the former officials said. "This goes against everything CISA represents." [Or, perhaps do something worse?] The CISA employees repeatedly told the political appointees that their request was impossible, in part because the agents capable of pulling off such an operation had just been laid off by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) initiative. The appointees eventually stopped pressing CISA. Though not acted on, the request shows how the Trump administration has tried to use the agency for its own ends while draining it of resources for one of its critical missions: protecting the nation's voting systems.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

For more than a year, The New York Times followed recipients of a universal basic income program who received $1,330 a month for an entire year. There were benefits, but also the everyday challenges of being poor, and turning their life around "did not turn out to be quite that simple." Across Silicon Valley, experimental guaranteed income programs have quietly taken off. Google began funding six different initiatives in 2022 as part of a $50 million donation to nonprofits in the San Francisco Bay Area, saying basic income could be a novel way to prevent homelessness in one of the nation's most expensive locations. Each program has hundreds of participants who receive around $1,000 a month, and academics study the results. State and federal tax laws limit the lengths of the programs and the payment amounts. The studies have found that most basic income programs improve short-term employment and mental health while reducing food insecurity. But while data from these efforts has been closely tracked, less is known about the individual journeys of participants... The Times ultimately shadowed three people... All of the program participants, including the ones The Times followed, were previously homeless and transitioning off a housing stipend that paid for a portion of their rent, and many received the payments on top of other social assistance like food stamps. The Times's findings mirrored the academic studies. For all three recipients, the instant benefits of basic income were clear: They had breathing room for groceries, rent and other expenses. But the success of the payments in another area — giving people more free time and opportunity in the long term — was mixed. "It's a lot to ask of someone to get their life together in 12 months, when a lot of these issues are structural or systemic," said Jennifer Loving, who runs Destination: Home, a nonprofit that administers basic income programs in Silicon Valley. "And the world around them isn't getting cheaper." One recipient began going to community college — but resorted to taking one class at a time while single parenting — and using their monthly payments to help support relatives. In fact, the article notes that a recent study of 3,000 universal basic income participants found that money spent supporting friends and family increased 26%, "the most of any category. That was more than the increases for food (6%) and child care (11%)." Another recipient used the time to get help at a community college to find a higher-paying job. And one recipient died — but his mother used what he'd saved to help put his brother through a drug rehab program.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

AI can boost productivity, but fact-checking its outputs can tax employees. Here’s what can help, says Maximus’ David Chou.

© https://federalnewsnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/AI-images-TS-3.png

A cyber incident affecting contractor BAE Systems has knocked out the Bankruptcy Noticing Center, halting notices nationwide for a week.

The post BAE Systems Security Incident Stalls Notices From US Bankruptcy Courts appeared first on SecurityWeek.

"Even if Congress isn't taking action immediately, I think that this is a a trend and a pattern that we could see a lot of discussion about," said Loren Duggan.

© AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

Jennifer Chronis, the vice president of US public sector sales at Snowflake, said trusting your data is key in the battle against fraud, waste and abuse.

© Federal News Network

Flax Typhoon and other APTs used MicroScan and FishHub to scan and hack US and foreign critical infrastructure.

The post US Disrupts Chinese State-Sponsored Hacking Tools appeared first on SecurityWeek.

Bitcoin was created as a financial network that does not depend on a government or central bank.

But there is an interesting twist emerging in the crypto market.

What happens when governments themselves become some of the largest Bitcoin holders?

The question is no longer purely theoretical. Governments around the world already hold Bitcoin, acquired through seizures, forfeitures, mining, donations, and in some cases direct purchases. The United States alone is currently estimated to hold 328,372 BTC, according to BitcoinTreasuries.

That makes government ownership a much bigger market question than it was a few years ago.

What Makes Someone a Bitcoin Whale?

In simple terms, a Bitcoin whale is an entity that controls a large amount of BTC.

There is no official number that makes someone a whale. The term is generally used for large holders whose buying or selling activity could potentially influence market liquidity or sentiment.

But being a whale does not mean controlling Bitcoin itself.

A government can own thousands of Bitcoin without being able to change the rules of the network by itself. Bitcoin’s issuance follows a predefined schedule, with the supply designed to approach a maximum of 21 million coins.

So there is an important difference:

Owning Bitcoin is not the same as controlling Bitcoin.

That distinction becomes especially important when the owner is a government.

How Do Governments Get Bitcoin?

Government Bitcoin does not always come from buying it on an exchange.

A large portion of sovereign holdings has historically come from law-enforcement seizures and forfeiture proceedings.

For example, cryptocurrency can become government property after being seized in criminal investigations and eventually forfeited through the legal process.

Some countries have taken a different approach.

El Salvador became known for purchasing Bitcoin directly, while Bhutan has accumulated Bitcoin through mining. Other government holdings have resulted from seizures or other circumstances.

This means that two countries could each report a large Bitcoin balance while having completely different reasons for holding it.

And that matters when trying to understand what those coins might do next.

A Large Bitcoin Balance Doesn’t Mean a Large Amount Is for Sale

This is where the whale comparison becomes interesting.

Imagine a large investor owns 100,000 BTC.

The market may watch that wallet closely because selling even a portion of the holdings could add significant supply to the market.

Now imagine the holder is a government that has no immediate intention of selling.

The same coins still exist.

But their expected market availability may be very different.

That is why government Bitcoin holdings can influence sentiment even when no transaction takes place.

Investors may ask:

• Will the government sell?
• Will it hold for years?
• Can the coins be moved?
• Are the assets legally available to sell?
• Could the government acquire even more?

The answers can matter almost as much as the size of the wallet itself.

What If Governments Start Accumulating Instead of Selling?

This could become the bigger story.

For years, the relationship between governments and seized Bitcoin was relatively straightforward: confiscate the assets, follow the legal process, and potentially sell them.

A strategy focused on long-term accumulation changes that dynamic.

Bitcoin has a limited supply and a predictable issuance schedule.

If governments begin treating BTC as a long-term reserve asset, some coins could effectively move from potentially available market supply into long-term government custody.

That does not automatically mean Bitcoin’s price must rise.

Price still depends on demand, liquidity, investor behavior, macroeconomic conditions and many other factors.

But government accumulation could change the way investors think about Bitcoin’s available supply.

It could also create a feedback effect.

If one government starts treating Bitcoin as a strategic asset, other governments may begin asking whether they should hold some too.

The U.S. Is an Important Case Study

The United States provides one of the clearest examples of this transition.

The U.S. government’s estimated holdings are largely connected to assets obtained through law-enforcement actions rather than a simple history of open-market purchases. BitcoinTreasuries currently lists 328,372 BTC, equivalent to about 1.56% of Bitcoin’s maximum supply.

But even that number needs context.

A government tracker balance is not necessarily the same thing as an audited reserve balance. Different Bitcoin holdings can have different legal statuses, and some assets may still be connected to forfeiture proceedings or other restrictions.

The U.S. Strategic Bitcoin Reserve itself was established through an executive order that directed Treasury to administer custodial accounts and provided that qualifying government Bitcoin placed into the reserve should not be sold.

The details surrounding those holdings, their legal status and the possibility of future acquisition are explored in more depth in the Coinpedia Research Report on the U.S. Strategic Bitcoin Reserve.

That distinction is important because simply saying “the U.S. owns 328,372 BTC” leaves out much of the story.

Could Other Governments Follow?

This may be the most interesting question.

Governments have many reasons to hold traditional reserves such as gold and foreign currencies.

Bitcoin is still a relatively new addition to that conversation.

If more governments decide that Bitcoin deserves a place on their balance sheets, the market could gradually see a new type of buyer.

Instead of only individuals, companies, ETFs and investment funds competing for Bitcoin, governments could become another long-term holder class.

That could also change Bitcoin’s political and financial role.

A country holding Bitcoin is not necessarily trying to replace its national currency with BTC. It may simply view Bitcoin as another scarce digital asset that could have strategic value.

But There Is a Risk Too

Government accumulation is not automatically positive.

Large government holdings create questions about custody, transparency and political decision-making.

Who controls the private keys?

Who decides whether Bitcoin can be moved?

What happens after a change in government?

What happens if a government suddenly needs liquidity?

These questions become more important as the holdings grow.

A private whale can already create market uncertainty.

A sovereign whale could create an entirely different kind of uncertainty because its decisions may be driven by law, national policy or geopolitical events rather than ordinary investment logic.

The Bigger Picture

Bitcoin was designed to operate without a central authority.

Yet the asset itself can still be owned by centralized institutions.

That is not a contradiction. Bitcoin’s network rules apply regardless of who owns the coins.

The more interesting issue is what happens when governments become significant long-term holders.

If that trend continues, Bitcoin could gradually move from being viewed only as a decentralized digital asset to also being treated as a sovereign reserve asset.

That would be a major shift.

The real question may not be whether governments can become Bitcoin whales.

They already can.

The bigger question is what they do once they become one.

---

Could Governments Become Bitcoin Whales? What That Means for the Market was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Zhang Yu was charged alongside Xu Zewei, who was extradited from Italy to the US in April 2026.

The post US Seeks Alleged Chinese Hafnium Hacker With $10 Million Reward appeared first on SecurityWeek.

SEC Consult has published technical details on vulnerabilities mentioned in a complaint filed by several US states.

The post TP-Link Faces State Lawsuits and New Scrutiny Over ISP Router Flaws appeared first on SecurityWeek.

More than 730 cyber breaches affected over 270 million Americans last year, costing an average of $10 million per breach.

The post Senate Passes Bipartisan Bill to Strengthen Healthcare Cybersecurity appeared first on SecurityWeek.

The announcement comes after Trump hosted top executives of AI companies at the White House last week.

The post Trump Names National Intelligence Director Jay Clayton to Lead a New Federal AI Task Force appeared first on SecurityWeek.

Cybercriminals used to hacking home routers and security cameras have found another Internet-connected device to add to their botnets: your car, according to research published by Kaspersky Lab.

The post Malware Takes the Wheel: Kaspersky Finds First Car Head Unit-Specific Attack appeared first on The Security Ledger with Paul F. Roberts.

Phishing played a part in more than half of all incident response engagements undertaken by Talos, Cisco's threat research organization, during the second quarter of 2026, with healthcare organizations and manufacturing firms among the top targets.

The post Talos: Attackers Refine Phishing Playbook To Target Critical Infrastructure appeared first on The Security Ledger with Paul F. Roberts.