Feed aggregator

A mass Russian drone and missile attack on Ukraine's capital, including a rare strike in the center of the city, early Thursday killed at least 10 people and wounded 48.

(Image credit: Efrem Lukatsky)

Picture the scene. The head of IT security at a major business has just managed their team through several weeks of grueling work in containment and recovery after the latest ransomware attack. Their critical systems are back online, but after constant crunch time and sleepless nights, the team is visibly fraying; morale is low, anxiety is high, and there is more than one empty desk where senior personnel have taken extended sick leave.

This kind of scenario rarely gets attention in the press, where the focus of cyberattacks is on profit and loss, the impact on customers and the bottom line. But serious attacks take their toll on security teams too, and the aftermath can persist for months, leaving the organization even more vulnerable to future threats.

True cyber resilience, then, cannot be measured solely by systems restored or data decrypted - it must also factor in the people whose well-being determines not just how swiftly an organization recovers but whether it can withstand the next digital onslaught.

The hidden internal impact of an attack

The impact of an attack is typically weighed by system downtime, lost business, and potential reputational, legal and regulatory damage. Successful cyber strategies are measured in terms of key metrics like mean time to detect and respond to incidents.

But when the smoke clears and systems are back online, the human cost to personnel dealing with the attack is rarely tallied in stakeholder reports.

A landmark RUSI and University of Kent study found that cybersecurity personnel frequently experience PTSD-like symptoms, from panic attacks to insomnia, long after a crisis has been resolved.

This results in a second wave of disruption as sick leave and diminished morale ripples through the department and goes on to impact the rest of the company. Burnt-out IT and security teams will struggle to keep up the company’s baseline security, further increasing its risk exposure.

One major financial services firm in the University of Kent’s study reflected that placing its exhausted engineers on gardening leave immediately after a ransomware crisis could have averted “months and months” of subsequent sickness absence and spared the organization the hidden costs of burnout.

In short, serious attacks like ransomware don’t just hold data hostage; they also trap people in a cycle of exhaustion and fear. If organizations treat staff wellbeing as an afterthought rather than a key element in the front-line defense, they risk allowing human capital to become the weakest link in their cyber-resilience strategy.

The growing cyber leadership crisis

While the personnel on the frontline of incident response and containment are suffering from stress and overwork, things are often even worse higher up the chain. CISOs and other senior security leaders are usually held ultimately accountable for any failure to prevent or contain a breach, and it’s a responsibility that weighs heavily.

Leaders may be held personally responsible for crises they may lack the budget, headcount or organizational clout to address. Adding to the strain, success in this field frequently remains invisible: a CISO and their team may stop hundreds of daily attack attempts without fanfare, yet a single breach can spell career-ending catastrophe.

Putting in extra hours to stay on top of this workload is standard practice and our research found that 98% of security leaders admit to routinely logging an extra nine hours a week on top of contracted time as they attempt to keep ahead, with 15% pushing beyond sixteen hours overtime.

Soberingly, over half of the respondents said they are actively exploring new roles. This would be a troubling statistic for any industry, but it’s especially damaging in the cybersecurity field grappling with a long-term skills drought. When an IT security leader leaves, they take years of hard-won experience and knowledge with them, leaving the company’s security on less stable footing.

Organizations must protect their security talent

If the individuals responsible for your defenses are exhausted, no firewall can effectively prevent the relentless tide of burnout. Enterprises must integrate human resilience into their incident-response framework, a process that commences well before an alert is triggered.

However, it need not be a resource-heavy exercise for the organization. For example, our research found that 65% of organizations already offer flexible hours and 62% enable hybrid or remote working as standard. Simple measures like this grant staff a sense of control and space to recharge.

On a larger scale, enterprises need to ensure they have a framework in place to protect security personnel, especially leadership roles where the heaviest burden falls. CISOs need to feel empowered on a strategic level with the tools and influence to properly protect the company, not left struggling to make do.

When an incident does occur, the aftermath and recovery phase should focus on forward-looking conversations about what happened and what can be improved for next time. This support is even more important as we see a growing trend towards personal accountability and legal liability when procedures for reporting are not followed.

Removing the stigma of security stress

Alongside specific security processes, there’s a strong psychological element here too. The high-stress nature of cybersecurity should be openly acknowledged and accommodated, not treated as a burden that CISOs should conceal. Conversations around mental health should be normalized, and companies should consider wellbeing checks to spot early warning signs of burn out.

Communication is a key part of this. During an incident, the security team should feel connected to the company they are protecting, not in isolation, and should have a reporting process for feeding back on challenges and concerns if they need additional support.

When an attack has been resolved, a team wellbeing check should be a standard part of the post-incident process. Not every team member will have the same resilience in the face of a stressful crisis, and not every incident will hit the same. Businesses must be aware of who is struggling and provide support to them as needed.

Resilience beyond recovery

Ransomware may be a security issue, but its true impact plays out in human terms: sleepless nights, frayed nerves, and the talent exodus that follows unaddressed burnout.

By incorporating people-first measures into your cyber-resilience strategy, you can ensure that your organization won’t be weakened from within after a breach. The true test of resilience shouldn’t be solely about restoring systems quickly; it should also assess how effectively you protect and preserve the individuals who defend them.

We list the best firewall for small business.

This article was produced as part of TechRadarPro's Expert Insights channel where we feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today. The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/news/submit-your-story-to-techradar-pro

As you can probably tell from my star rating, I'm completely split on My Life with the Walter Boys season 2. I've been around the block with this type of cozy TV show before – I'm a self-proclaimed Virgin River expert, Emily in Paris is my guilty pleasure, and I've even been sucked into watching Prime Video's The Summer I Turned Pretty season 3 this year. But if I think about these type of cozy dramas in a broader capacity, My Life with the Walter Boys season 2 would be flour if it was a spice.

Let me explain. Our core concept is a very simple one: privileged New York teen Jackie Howard (Nikki Rodriguez) moves to a ranch in rural Colorado to live with her mother's best friend, Katherine Walter (Sarah Rafferty), and her large family after a family tragedy. Based on the book series of the same name, we then follow the ups and downs of Jackie's new life as she settles in, dissecting all the complicated relationships forged along the way. It should be a recipe for Netflix success, but there's something missing here.

The Rotten Tomatoes score for My Life with the Walter Boys season 1 should give you an idea about its existing division. Critics like myself have absolutely slammed it, while 'normies' (that's a compliment, I promise) largely enjoy it, even though the fan score is still lower than rival shows. Why? I think the answer is because its quality across the board isn't up to muster, and that's also the case in season 2.

My Life with the Walter Boys season 2 does the job, but that's not exactly positive

I don't wish to be a massive negative Nelly here. I completely believe TV shows like My Life with the Walter Boys season 2 serve a purpose, and their easy-going spirit and ethos is exactly what we need to tune out an increasingly difficult world. I typically use my mum as a gauge for the genre – if she watches a show without ironing at the same time, binges more than 2 episodes in one go and remembers its name, the show is a hit with its core demographic. Season 2 ticked all of these boxes, and she's already foaming at the mouth (metaphorically, sorry mum) for the green lit season 3.

In short, this means the people actively seeking out the mess that comes with trashy teen romance are getting exactly what they signed up for. But if you don't fit the bill, or you've had enough of the Netflix series hitting the same beats over and over again, season 2 doesn't do much to win you around. Jackie has inevitably arrived back in Colorado after returning to New York at the end of season 1, and her relationship issues have picked up right there they left off.

It goes without saying that romance and family remain at the core of My Life with the Walter Boys season 2, but this time, Jackie is almost acting like Belly (Lola Tung) in The Summer I Turned Pretty. Given how chaotic season 3 of the Prime Video show is going, that's a huge insult. The parallels between the two shows are now closer than ever (you can see this from the trailer above), but rest assured that Jackie isn't quite as bad... yet.

A knock-off The Summer I Turned Pretty isn't what we need this month

Jackie Howard (Nikki Rodriguez) in My Life with the Walter Boys. (Image credit: Netflix)

Now we've got my main grievances out of the way, let's dig a little deeper into the show's craft. Compared to rival shows, My Life with the Walter Boys season 2 looks slightly cheaper, which is probably a major part of why season 3 was renewed so early on. That wouldn't be an issue if the performances and execution of the storylines weren't so poorly done, at points feeling more like a high schooler's documentary film than a production on one of the best streaming services in the world.

We feel like we're going around in circles when it comes to Jackie's relationship with Alex (Ashby Gentry) and Cole (Noah LaLonde), with Danny (Connor Stanhope) and Erin's (Alisha Newton) only make our heads spin even further. We've even got a separate triangle going thanks to Zach (Carson MacCormac), Skylar (Jaylan Evans) and Nathan (Corey Fogelmanis), and that's all before we even get to George's (Marc Blucas) future plans for the ranch.

It does feel as though you need to study up before diving into season 2, and it can feel mind-boggling to keep up with all the changes, which simultaneously move incredibly slowly and like time is flashing past you at the speed of light. But by the time we get to the final few episodes, you know exactly what's going to happen. Without giving it away, My Life with the Walter Boys season 2 ends on a cataclysmic cliffhanger, but I could tell exactly what was going to happen about two episodes earlier. Still, it's a major shock to see it unfold, and will hopefully shift season 3 in a better direction. I'm sorry, Melanie Halsall, but a better direction is something that My Life with the Walter Boys sorely needs.

You might also like

• Netflix cancels what could’ve been the next Virgin River even though the series had more views than Ransom Canyon
• 3 Body Problem season 2 is underway as star reveals first days of filming: ‘The stuff they've got planned out is pretty epic’
• Netflix’s new streaming recommendation tool is about to make my astrology-obsessed friends unbearable

For many years, application security (AppSec) occupied a small technical niche within cybersecurity and was rarely seen as a critical boardroom-level priority. Today, though, we can see awareness shifting.

In recent research conducted by Checkmarx, nearly half of CISOs said they believe buyers now factor AppSec into purchasing decisions, showing its increased strategic weight in business operations.

Yet there’s still a stark disconnect between how AppSec is seen and how it’s put into practice. Just 39% of respondents felt that their business operations currently run on secured applications.

With AppSec now recognized as critical to business resilience, it often falls short in execution. To close the implementation gap, CISOs must lead a charge in rethinking governance, culture, and scale.

AppSec ownership is shifting but visibility is suffering

As software development cycles accelerate and architectures grow more complex, security responsibilities are moving closer to the code, and in nearly half of software-based companies, security oversight has moved outside the CISO’s office.

Instead, our research found that development or product teams are now just as likely to own AppSec decisions. This shift makes operational sense: embedding security earlier in the SDLC enables scalable protection without sacrificing delivery speed, but it can introduce visibility gaps across teams and pipelines.

Decentralizing AppSec typically introduces fragmentation. On average, organizations juggle more than 11 security tools, many of which are not integrated into a coherent workflow. Without central oversight, CISOs risk losing track of how security is being applied - or where it’s falling short. Inconsistent practices, “shadow security” workarounds, and gaps in coverage become more likely when security policies aren't uniformly applied.

This shift also alters the flow of influence within the company. Developers increasingly have veto power over tools that interrupt their workflows, which means security can take a back seat if the two teams aren’t able to collaborate effectively.

If AppSec is to scale effectively, governance must evolve along with it. That means enabling secure practices without enforcing bottlenecks and without losing visibility in the process. CISOs have a critical role to play here, ensuring that security is implemented smoothly as a set of guardrails rather than roadblocks.

DevSecOps maturity remains low

Despite the push for “shift left” practices and the proliferation of AppSec tools, most organizations lack maturity in their security integration. Of the CISOs in our research just 20% reported “high” or “very high” DevSecOps maturity. Meanwhile, 70% said that at least half of their applications still lack adequate security coverage. This is an alarmingly high figure when considering how important applications have become to most operations.

Part of the problem is that early-stage security integration doesn’t extend far enough. Many teams focus on scanning during development but neglect the runtime and deployment phases where vulnerabilities can still emerge. Others adopt tools without embedding them into daily workflows, leading to alert fatigue or missed risks.

A lack of training also compounds the issue. Developers are not typically trained in security practices and often lack the context or time to triage and fix security findings. This is made even more challenging when results are delivered through disconnected tools or outside their environment. The result is a culture of firefighting, responding to issues late in the lifecycle instead of designing resilient code from the start.

To close the maturity gap, organizations must adopt a layered approach: automated scanning at every stage, context-aware training, and close collaboration between platform engineering and AppSec teams. Maturity isn’t an issue of coverage, it’s about consistency, scalability, and trust between disciplines.

What CISOs must prioritize in 2025

CISOs are best placed to close the gap between strategy and execution in AppSec. Achieving this requires a new strategy built around four key factors: governance, collaboration, alignment and scalability.

Setting down governance

CISOs can no longer manage AppSec through centralized control alone. Instead, they must define a clear governance model for their teams, setting policies, KPIs and risk thresholds that can be embedded into automated workflows.

That means guiding platform teams to select tools that enforce policies programmatically, reducing the need for manual intervention. Security should be part of the pipeline, not a separate gate at the end of it.

Fostering collaboration

With ownership moving closer to developers, CISOs need to use their influence to establish a strong collaborative culture that works for everyone. Start by aligning KPIs across security and development teams to avoid competing incentives.

Then invest in enablement: training tailored to different skill levels, just-in-time guidance, and workflows that stay inside the IDE. Security champions and mentor programs can speed up cultural change, embedding expertise where it matters most.

AppSec risk is business risk

We consistently find that too few CISOs are translating AppSec risks into business terms. While 62% report metrics to the board, only 25% frame those risks in terms of business impact, such as reputational damage, regulatory exposure or lost revenue.

Without this alignment, security will remain a siloed concern until it’s too late and a breach occurs. CISOs must strengthen the AppSec link to wider business goals, reinforcing its role in customer trust, product resilience and competitive differentiation.

Driving scalability with the right technology

Fragmented tooling is one of the biggest barriers to effective AppSec. Consolidating around a platform approach that spans legacy and modern environments enables consistency, reduces noise and enhances developer productivity.

Scalable models should use automation where possible, with human input where needed. That’s how you keep pipelines moving fast - without losing control or visibility over security.

Taking AppSec from bottleneck to enabler

AppSec’s evolution from technical concern to business priority is undeniable, but implementation still lags. As ownership shifts to development teams, the role of the CISO must also evolve to keep security front and centre.

The challenge is no longer about control, but coordination. Governance, culture and technology must all align to embed security where it counts without creating friction. CISOs who lead with vision, build developer trust and champion scalable solutions can transform AppSec from a potential bottleneck into a force multiplier for resilience, speed and long-term business value.

We feature the best DevOps tools.

This article was produced as part of TechRadarPro's Expert Insights channel where we feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today. The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/news/submit-your-story-to-techradar-pro

Let’s be clear: the UK is no longer preparing for hybrid threats; we’re already living through them. What happened at RAF Brize Norton wasn’t just a protest gone too far. It was an act of sabotage against operational military aircraft, carried out using scooters, paint, and basic hand tools.

The fact that it succeeded tells us everything we need to know about the state of our national security posture: fragmented, reactive, and dangerously misaligned with the threat landscape.

If we neglect the physical layer, we risk undermining all the effort, investment, and capability built into our digital resilience. Security must be holistic—from the perimeter fence to the network firewall, from the patrol route to the SOC dashboard.

And right now? That cohesion simply doesn’t exist.

Hybrid Threats Are No Longer Theoretical

Driven by geopolitical instability and evolving warfare tactics, hybrid threats, where physical and cyber attacks are combined, are becoming the norm.

Across the Middle East and Eastern Europe, digitally coordinated sabotage operations (like drone strikes on critical infrastructure) have exposed the weaknesses in siloed defenses. These aren’t one-off incidents; they’re deliberate, repeatable attack models.

And the UK is not immune. Intelligence sources point to repeated probing of our critical infrastructure, with Russia frequently suspected. Whether it's energy, transport, or defense, our infrastructure is now part of the battlefield.

Why Security Must Be Holistic

Securing critical infrastructure isn’t just a technical challenge, it’s a leadership one.

You wouldn’t install a high-end alarm system at home and then leave the front door wide open. But that’s exactly what many organizations are doing: investing millions in cybersecurity while physical security is neglected or under-tested.

Across defense, utilities, transport hubs, and data centers, the weakest links are often the most mundane: an unchecked fence, a blind CCTV angle, an unmanned gate. These gaps may seem small until they’re exploited.

The reality is stark: we are now in the grey zone, where adversaries operate below the threshold of open conflict, using disruption, ambiguity, and deniability to advance strategic goals.

Brize Norton: Exposing Systematic Failures

The breach at RAF Brize Norton was not complex or sophisticated; it succeeded because no one expected it.

Two individuals, using basic tools and repurposed fire extinguishers, accessed an active runway, disabled aircraft engines with paint, and left undetected. These aircraft support critical UK combat operations, including missions in Ukraine.

This wasn’t symbolic; it had real tactical impact. And it exposed systemic failures, not just in physical security, but in how cyber and physical defenses fail to align.

This is exactly what modern adversaries exploit: seams, blind spots, and bureaucratic silos.

Heathrow: Civil Infrastructure, Same Problem

Just weeks earlier, a fire at a 1960s-era substation shut down Heathrow, cancelling over 1,300 flights and stranding 300,000 passengers.

The cause remains under investigation, but the implications are clear: fragile systems, single points of failure, and national disruption caused by one overlooked asset.

Whether accidental or deliberate, this is the playbook for hybrid adversaries: exploit basic vulnerabilities to cause disproportionate impact.

Commercial Organizations Are Not Exempt

It’s a dangerous fallacy to assume that only critical national infrastructure is being targeted. Commercial organizations—from logistics and manufacturing firms to data centers, retail giants, and tech companies—are increasingly in the firing line. The same hybrid tactics being used against government and military targets are being adapted and deployed against the private sector, often with devastating results.

Why? Because attackers don’t care about sector boundaries. They care about impact, access, and leverage. A warehouse fire, a compromised fulfilment center, or a disabled payment gateway network can ripple into national disruption. These aren’t just economic losses; they’re strategic vulnerabilities.

Commercial supply chains are deeply intertwined with national resilience. A major cyber-physical incident at a privately owned port, a cloud provider, or a high-throughput distribution hub could disrupt the economy, erode public trust, or even compromise defense readiness.

Yet too many businesses still view security as a compliance checkbox rather than a strategic function. The result is a security architecture that assumes peace while operating in a contested domain.

To ignore this is to misread the modern threat landscape. Commercial entities must be just as prepared, because when disruption is the goal, anyone with critical throughput becomes a target.

What the UK Is Failing to Grasp

The critical misunderstanding across much of UK security leadership is this: these threats don’t operate in silos. So why do we defend them as if they do?

Many boards still treat cyber and physical security as entirely separate disciplines, with different teams, budgets, and reporting lines. That’s not resilience. That’s friction. And attackers thrive in that friction.

Here’s what’s driving the risk:

Fragmented defenses: Physical security teams don’t have visibility into digital threats, and vice versa.

Poor system segmentation: A cyber breach often leads straight to operational control. A physical breach often exposes the network.

Leadership indecision: Waiting for a regulation to act is like waiting for a break-in to install locks.

What Must Change Now

We don’t need more strategy documents. We need decisive, integrated action. Here’s where to start:

1.Unify Security Governance

Cyber and physical security must be led from a unified framework. Shared threat models. Shared reporting. Unified response protocols.

2.Design for Containment, Not Just Prevention

Breaches will happen. What matters is whether they cascade. Resilience requires segmentation, isolated backups, manual overrides, and tested recovery drills.

3.Treat OT as a Primary Attack Surface

Operational Technology (OT) and Industrial Control Systems (ICS) can no longer be afterthoughts. They must be logged, monitored, and secured like your most sensitive data environments.

4.Train for Real-World, Blended Threats

Exercises must mirror reality: power loss during a cyberattack, disinformation campaigns during a physical breach. Complexity is the new normal. Ensure your teams are ready.

5.Conduct Regular Physical Penetration Testing

Just as networks are stress-tested through red teaming, physical sites must be tested through controlled breaches.

These exercises reveal blind spots in perimeter security, access control, and response protocols, and turn “security theatre” into actual resilience.

6.Act Without Waiting for Mandates

If Brize Norton didn’t drive change, what will? The next incident may come at a greater cost. Waiting for regulatory change is a dereliction of leadership.

Hybrid threats are real. The UK is already a target. Our critical infrastructure, both military and civilian, as well as commercial, is being tested.

Brize Norton and Heathrow are not anomalies. They are indicators of systemic failure: a lack of joined-up thinking, a failure to treat physical and cyber risk as inseparable.

If we don’t act now and build holistic defenses from the fence to the firewall, we are set to learn the next lesson at a much higher cost.

The best internet security suites and the best antivirus software.

This article was produced as part of TechRadarPro's Expert Insights channel where we feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today. The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/news/submit-your-story-to-techradar-pro

Denmark's foreign minister summoned the top U.S. diplomat in the country for talks after the main national broadcaster reported that at least three people with connections to President Donald Trump have been carrying out covert influence operations in Greenland.

(Image credit: Kwiyeon Ha)

I spent a year wrestling with MagSafe cases on my Google Pixel 9, from misaligned rings to hot, flaky charging. That’s why Pixelsnap (native magnets plus Qi2) is the only Pixel 10 feature I care about.

While my colleagues wax lyrical about camera and AI upgrades, I’m just here reliving a year with the Pixel 9. I’ve always envied Apple’s MagSafe wizardry, but adding compatibility with third-party cases is an exercise in frustration.

Sure, the overly rigid dust- and smudge-prone case I ordered from Google alongside my Pixel 9 last year works just fine. But of the eight others from less exacting brands, seven misaligned the magnetic ring and charging failed or limped along while getting uncomfortably hot.

My magnetic car mount barely held, my favorite accessories went flying and even Google’s own non-magnetic bedside charger was fussy about case thickness and alignment.

Robust, reliable magnetic wireless fast charging in the car was surprisingly hard to achieve with the Pixel 9 (Image credit: Lindsay Handmer)

I found workarounds for most issues, but my white whale was tougher: MagSafe wireless charging in my car that could keep up with navigation and music streaming.

After months of trial, error and too many Amazon returns, I finally found a combination that worked. It’s good, but not great, and needs to hog an air vent in summer to avoid overheating.

So as far as I’m concerned, Pixelsnap is the headline Google act this year and everything else is just nice to have.

Finally, there's better charging and the freedom to do without a magnetic case! Or, for people like me (who tussle with gravity a lot), the relief of knowing that even if using a case, proper alignment is now baked into the design.

Pixelsnap 101

Pixelsnap wireless charger with stand (Image credit: John Velasco)

Not sure what I'm on about? You can read more about all the new features in our Pixel 10 review or check out our deeper dive on the new tech, but I've included the key Pixelsnap points below.

• Pixelsnap is on the Pixel 10, Pixel 10 Pro, Pixel 10 Pro XL and Pixel 10 Pro Fold.
• Uses built-in magnets, plus Qi2 for MagSafe-compatible wireless charging and accessories.
• Automatic alignment, faster charging, stronger hold.
• Charge speeds: 15W or up to 25W on the Pixel 10 Pro XL.
• Backward compatibility with most MagSafe chargers and accessories.

So what’s the bad news?

Pixelsnap is a big step up, but it’s not perfect. While not a feature I used too often, Google has removed wireless power sharing to make the new magnetic setup work.

Pixelsnap wireless charging speeds aren't consistent either – it maxes out at 25W on the Pixel 10 Pro XL, but the rest of the lineup is limited to a slower 15W.

MagSafe cross-compatibility is a huge win, but the magnetic accessory landscape is still messy, and older non-Qi2 chargers won’t hit full speed, so you’ll likely need to upgrade.

Not to mention, Qi2 is still hard to find. Case in point: I collect power banks like Pokémon for our best portable chargers guide and comparatively few models currently support 15W or 25W charging on the Pixel 10.

Now, while Pixelsnap is what I care about most, for everyone else, it might not be the standout reason to upgrade to the Pixel 10. But it does remove one of my biggest annoyances with the Pixel lineup, and for that I'm grateful.

Have a MagSafe-compatible or Qi2 setup that just works? Drop the model in the comments and I’ll add it to my test list.

You might also like...

• The Pixel 10 Pro and Pro XL have bonus AI features I didn't expect to love
• I'm a die-hard iPhone fan, but these 5 things from the Pixel 10 launch made me jealous
• Google Pixel 10 vs Google Pixel 9: all the biggest differences

Perplexity enhanced its AI-powered Comet browser with a new $5 monthly subscription service called Comet Plus, which, at first glance, seems like Perplexity looked out at the bleak, ad-choked wasteland of modern digital publishing and decided it could offer something better to consumers and publishers. It's a simple pitch. With Comet Plus, you get AI access to premium news content, such as Gannett and Der Spiegel, with 80 percent of subscriber fees paid directly to those publishers.

And Perplexity is paying publishers in three ways: when people visit a story from the browser, when their content is cited in a search answer, and when an AI agent uses their content to complete a task for you. The idea is that if content is valuable to us in that context, publishers should be paid for that value, and consumers should get something special.

But I'm skeptical this model serves either the people creating the premium content or Comet Plus users. It feels like Comet Plus feeds the paywalled journalism into the AI sausage grinder just like any other content. Perhaps it's paying the farmer a fairer share instead of taking it outright. However, despite the inclusion of links and payment for people visiting the articles, it's hard to believe most people will consume the article and not just the digested result from the AI. Distilled answers engineered for brevity and speed and stripped of voice, structure, and context. All the things that made the writing worth paywalling to begin with. And it almost certainly won’t encourage people to read the original work. In fact, it arguably gives them less reason to do so. People who prioritize efficiency and prefer bullet points to narratives might use the AI browser assistant to synthesize the top five articles on a subject instead of reading all five original sources, for instance. That’s great for task completion. Terrible for the authors whose works are buried somewhere in the output.

This is not some nostalgic plea to support writers regardless of quality. However, I won't pretend that this model addresses concerns about how AI treats work published online or the people who write it (and that's before considering how AI has rendered the em-dash and some of my other favorite style choices unusable, leading to unfair accusations).

Comet Plus

Comet Plus at least tries to address the problem, but it's a thin veneer of respectability that ignores the mess underneath. Perplexity argues that this is a fairer model than the current click-and-ads approach. I don’t disagree. But if you genuinely want to rebuild it in a way that helps writers, then you have to design for visibility, not just monetization. And if you want people to care about human-written articles, stripping articles of context for simplistic short sentences won't help.

No matter what Comet Plus might claim, it makes the same mistake every AI platform has made since 2022 in treating original work as a raw material to be mined, not an experience to be preserved. The cold truth is this: most people will never know whose work their AI assistant just summarized. They won’t know the name of the Pulitzer winner or brilliant, if tired, freelancer cogitating on the future of publishing. They might get the facts, but they’ll miss the point, even if they pay $5 a month to do so.

You might also like

• AI web browsers are the new trend, but will ChatGPT and Perplexity Chrome competitors turn out to be a fad?
• Perplexity AI's Comet browser will streak across the web this month
• Perplexity's voice assistant offers a Siri alternative for iPhones

Squarespace website builder review

Squarespace is a top website builder known for its elegant designs and robust features. With over 100 premium, mobile-optimized templates, it’s a favorite for creatives and businesses seeking visually stunning, professional websites.

Pros

• Beautiful, customizable templates
• AI website builder included
• Unlimited products on all plans
• 24/7 expert support
• All-in-one platform approach

Cons

• Higher starting price
• No free plan available
• Limited third-party integrations
• Steeper learning curve

GoDaddy website builder review

GoDaddy Website Builder is a popular choice for beginners, offering a user-friendly interface and quick setup. With many templates and marketing tools, it’s designed to help small businesses and entrepreneurs create functional websites with ease.

Pros

• Lower starting price
• Free plan available
• Simple drag-and-drop editor
• Fast setup process
• Strong marketing tools

Cons

• Basic template designs
• Limited customization options
• Commerce features cost extra
• Less design flexibility

Squarespace and GoDaddy are both reliable website builders for beginners in 2025. They help businesses establish an online presence quickly, with limited creative freedom but a much quicker set up time. Each platform also offers hosting, templates, and other tools.

That said, there are some differences. Squarespace emphasizes just a little bit more on creative control. It's no WordPress or Webflow, but you still get really aesthetic templates and more flexible customization tools. GoDaddy prioritizes simplicity and affordability above all. So you only get basic customization tools in the site editor, but a whole lot more additional add-ons and integrations that can help small businesses with different online tasks.

We've tested both platforms multiple times. This guide will help you choose based on your comfort level, functional requirements, and creative focus.

Squarespace vs GoDaddy: A detailed breakdown

Feature

Squarespace

GoDaddy

Starting price

$16/month

$9.99/month

Free plan

No

Yes (limited)

Templates

100+ award-winning designs

Basic customizable themes

Editor type

Fluid Engine drag-and-drop with pixel precision

Simple click-and-drag interface

AI website builder

Blueprint AI with personalized content

Basic AI creation via questionnaire

E-commerce

Built-in on all plans with unlimited products

Available on higher-tier Commerce plans only

Payment methods

Credit cards, PayPal, Apple Pay, Afterpay, ACH

Credit cards, PayPal, Apple Pay, Google Pay

SEO tools

Built-in with AI SEO report and optimization

Standard SEO features, advanced requires add-on

Email marketing

Integrated with AI-assisted writing

Built-in basic email marketing

Mobile optimization

Automatic responsive design

Mobile-friendly templates

Customer support

24/7 award-winning support

24/7 support

Domain included

Free for first year on annual plans

$0.01 for first year with 3-year plan

Analytics

In-depth traffic and commerce analytics

Basic analytics with GoDaddy InSight score

Social integrations

Instagram, Facebook selling and marketing

Facebook, Instagram, Yelp, Google My Business

Blog features

Robust CMS with AI writing tools

Basic blogging with email updates

App market

Extensive third-party extensions

Limited integrations

Squarespace vs GoDaddy: Features

Squarespace packs a solid feature set that spans beyond basic website building. You get built-in e-commerce capabilities on every plan. That means unlimited products right from the start. The platform's AI tools include Blueprint for site creation and Design Intelligence for brand consistency. Recent updates also brought enhanced AI content support with tone adjustment and audience targeting.

GoDaddy takes a different approach with features. Its Airo AI handles product listings, pricing recommendations, and social content creation. The platform includes email marketing on all plans, from 100 emails monthly on Basic to 100,000 on Commerce. GoDaddy Studio creates branded videos and social ads using AI. However, advanced e-commerce features require plan upgrades.

Both platforms offer mobile optimization and SEO tools. Squarespace provides more sophisticated analytics and reporting. GoDaddy focuses on marketing automation and social media integrations. The key difference: Squarespace includes premium features across all tiers. GoDaddy uses a freemium model with paid add-ons.

Winner: Squarespace offers more features out of the box, making it better for users who want everything included. GoDaddy suits those who prefer starting basic and adding features later.

Squarespace vs GoDaddy: Ease of use

A lot of independent testing shows Squarespace as the easiest builder to use in 2025. Drag-and-drop editing offers pixel-perfect placement. Its section-based approach keeps sites structured and professional. Plus, Blueprint AI generates complete websites in under four minutes. However, the platform still has a steeper learning curve for advanced use than some competitors.

GoDaddy prioritizes simplicity above all else. The setup takes minutes with AI-guided questionnaires. You answer basic questions and get a ready-to-edit site. The interface works well for total beginners. But this really limits customization options. Once your site is built, making major changes becomes very challenging.

Both platforms offer decent editors. Squarespace provides more control but requires longer to master. GoDaddy gets you online faster but with less flexibility. For design-conscious users, Squarespace's section-based system prevents layout mistakes. GoDaddy's rigid structure helps maintain consistency but frustrates creative users.

Mobile editing differs significantly between the two. Squarespace offers responsive design that works across devices. GoDaddy provides basic mobile optimization but less fine-tuning options for power users.

Winner: GoDaddy wins for absolute beginners who need to get online immediately. Squarespace takes the crown for users willing to invest a little more time learning a more powerful system.

Squarespace vs GoDaddy: Integrations

Squarespace offers a curated selection of integrations focused on quality over quantity. Popular options include Google Maps, PayPal, MailChimp, and social media platforms. The platform connects seamlessly with creative tools like Flickr and SoundCloud. However, the app market remains limited compared to other builders. Third-party extensions like Spark Plugin add customization options.

GoDaddy provides essential integrations for small businesses. You get Facebook, Instagram, Google My Business, and Yelp connections. The platform integrates with major marketplaces like Amazon, eBay, and Etsy. Email marketing tools connect with popular services. But advanced integrations require higher-tier plans or separate subscriptions.

Their integration philosophy differs a lot. Squarespace maintains tight control to ensure stability and design consistency. This means fewer options but better reliability. GoDaddy opens more third-party connections but with varying quality levels.

For e-commerce, both platforms handle payment processors well. Squarespace supports more payment methods natively. GoDaddy focuses on marketplace integrations for broader product distribution.

Winner: Neither platform is that great at integrations. Squarespace offers better-curated options for creative professionals. GoDaddy provides more business-focused integrations for traditional commerce needs.

Squarespace vs GoDaddy: Security

Squarespace and GoDaddy both give you essential security features for peace of mind. SSL certificates come standard, so every site runs safely over HTTPS. Both platforms support PCI compliance, which is critical if you’re selling online—your customer data stays protected. They also offer two-factor authentication, making it harder for hackers to get in.

GoDaddy does score an extra point for its automated routine backups. You don’t have to remember to save your work or worry about losing changes. This is perfect for anyone who wants more redundancy. Squarespace offers basic backup options, but not as frequent or reliable as GoDaddy. Both builders update your site automatically, though, shielding you from vulnerabilities and threats.

In direct comparison, GoDaddy’s overall security score is higher, mostly thanks to those regular backups and a slightly broader set of protective tools. Squarespace still keeps things strong and simple, so it’s secure enough for most business users.

Winner: GoDaddy edges out Squarespace thanks to better backup routines and a slightly more robust security suite. It’s the better choice if you want maximum protection without fuss.

Squarespace vs GoDaddy: Support

Support is priority #1, especially if you’re new to websites. Squarespace offers 24/7 help through live chat and email. Response times are solid and the team knows their stuff. You also get a rich knowledge base with guides and tutorials for DIY learning. Sadly, there's no phone support option.

GoDaddy gives you round-the-clock support, with phone access included. If you prefer talking to someone, this is a big advantage. They also offer live chat and have lots of self-help resources and guides available. Feedback from users suggests GoDaddy’s support is fast and friendly, especially for setting up domains and basic sites.

For more specialized help, Squarespace has better design advice and creative troubleshooting. GoDaddy is unbeatable for issues around domains and web hosting, especially if you prefer speaking to agents on the phone.

Winner: GoDaddy wins for anyone who wants phone support and fast setup help. Squarespace appeals to users who favor email and live chat, especially those who need more advanced creative support.

Squarespace vs GoDaddy: Pricing and plans

GoDaddy is the easy pick for budget-conscious users. You can start with a free basic website and scale up only if you need more features. Paid plans start at $9.99/month, which includes ecommerce, marketing, and other upgrades as you go. Extras like email, domain management, and premium security cost more, but you don’t have to pay for features you’ll never use.

Squarespace does not offer a free plan, just a trial. Monthly plans begin at $16, but you get access to all core templates and features from day one. Every account includes hosting, unlimited bandwidth, and e-commerce, with no hidden fees or surprise upgrades. The main tradeoff is price. You’ll pay more, but you get everything upfront.

GoDaddy uses an à la carte system: start cheap, pay more as your needs grow. Squarespace is “all-inclusive”: higher entry fee, but full power from the start. Annual plans on both platforms include a free custom domain for the first year, giving your site a professional look as soon as you launch.

Winner: GoDaddy is the clear choice for users who want the lowest possible price or prefer a pay-as-you-grow model. Squarespace is best for those happy to invest a bit more for immediate access to every design and feature.

Squarespace vs GoDaddy: Final verdict

Squarespace takes the crown for most users in 2025. It offers superior design templates, comprehensive features from day one, and better creative control. The platform excels for creative professionals, service businesses, and anyone who wants a polished, professional website without compromises. You'll pay more upfront, but get everything included.

GoDaddy works best for budget-conscious beginners who need something online quickly. Its free plan and low starting prices make it accessible to everyone. The AI setup process gets you launched in minutes. However, you'll hit limitations fast if your needs grow beyond basic websites.

Squarespace vs GoDaddy: FAQsCan I transfer my website from GoDaddy to Squarespace?

You can move between platforms, but it's not automatic. Squarespace doesn't offer direct migration tools from GoDaddy. You'll need to rebuild your site using Squarespace's templates and manually transfer content like text, images, and product listings. The process takes time but gives you a chance to improve your design.

GoDaddy also lacks automated import tools from Squarespace. Moving from Squarespace to GoDaddy means starting fresh with GoDaddy's simpler templates. You'll lose some design sophistication but gain cost savings. Both platforms let you export content, but expect some manual work regardless of direction.

Which platform is better for SEO?

Both platforms include basic SEO tools, but Squarespace offers more advanced options than GoDaddy. You get built-in SEO guidance, AI-powered content suggestions, and better control over meta tags and URLs. Squarespace templates are also cleaner and load faster for search engines.

GoDaddy provides standard SEO features like custom titles and descriptions. However, advanced SEO tools require paid add-ons through their Marketing subscription. For serious SEO efforts, Squarespace gives you more control out of the box. GoDaddy works fine for basic local business SEO needs.

Do I need coding skills to use either platform?

Neither platform requires coding knowledge. Both offer drag-and-drop editors that work visually. That said, Squarespace provides more design flexibility without code than GoDaddy. Its learning curve is slightly steeper but still manageable.

Which platform offers better value for e-commerce businesses?

Squarespace includes unlimited products and full e-commerce features on every plan. You get inventory management, multiple payment options, and detailed analytics from the start. Its cost pays for itself if you're serious about online selling.

GoDaddy requires upgrading to Commerce plans for proper e-commerce features. Basic plans limit your selling capabilities significantly. However, GoDaddy integrates well with marketplaces like Amazon and eBay, which can boost sales.

What happens to my website if I stop paying for the service?

Both platforms will take your website offline if you stop paying. Squarespace gives you a grace period to reactivate, but your site becomes inaccessible to visitors during downtime. You can export some content, but lose the design and functionality.

GoDaddy also disables websites for non-payment, though they may keep your domain active briefly. Neither platform offers permanent free hosting, so budget for ongoing monthly costs with either choice.

Here are the answers for The New York Times Mini Crossword for Aug. 28.

Here are hints and the answers for the NYT Connections: Sports Edition puzzle for Aug. 28, No. 339

• Corsair just launched a new 14.5-inch touchscreen display, the Xeneon Edge
• It's built for multitasking as a secondary screen for desktop PC users
• It's available now on Corsair's online store, $250 / £219.99 / around AU$385.99

Multitasking is a prominent factor for many PC users, and one that can easily be achieved with dual monitor setups using some of the best monitors on the market, but it can take up a significant amount of desk space. Fortunately, Corsair has provided a one-stop solution.

As reported by TweakTown, Corsair has launched the Xeneon Edge, a 14.5-inch touchscreen display with a 2560x720 resolution, designed for multitasking with easy system monitoring, access to web browsers, and apps like Discord (serving as a second screen), as well as its iCUE software, which provides functionality similar to Elgato's Stream Deck.

It's now available on Corsair's online store for $250 / £219.99 / approximately AU$385.99. While I think that's a hefty price tag to pay for a secondary display, the benefits of keeping tabs open on activities on a small display are too great for me to ignore.

The Xeneon Edge can be mounted on the side panel of your PC case or simply placed under your primary monitor. System and game information, Discord notifications, wallpapers, and other iCUE software widgets can be used, freeing your main display from clutter.

The same can be done with a dual monitor setup, but desktop space becomes a concern, and it's not exactly ideal to leave your game window to address other tasks. With the Xeneon Edge, it can all be done with one touch, and it seems like this should work without interfering with controls while you're in-game.

Analysis: yes there are cheaper alternatives, but I'd rather trust Corsair

(Image credit: Corsair)

There's no denying that the $250 / £219.99 / around AU$385.99 is a bit of a sting, and it'd be easier to buy a cheaper alternative on AliExpress. Even so, I'd rather go with a more reliable brand, and Corsair is the prime example of that.

The Xeneon Edge is a niche product for some, but considering how often I'm keeping track of other notifications and videos simultaneously, it's the perfect secondary screen to purchase.

I've gradually grown tired of 32:9 super ultrawide displays, as they take up significant amounts of desk space, and the performance hit going from the 3440x1440 resolution to 5120x1440 is noticeable – and to me, the Xeneon Edge answers both space concerns and eliminates visual clutter, so it's a no-brainer.

You might also like...

• Early Asus ROG Xbox Ally X benchmark suggests excellent power efficiency and cooling – but I'm still not sold on the handheld
• Watch out, Nvidia: AMD's FSR 4 tech offers a big leap for PC games – but there's a catch
• Asus unveils ridiculously fast 720Hz gaming monitor – but it’s the Tandem OLED tech I’m interested in

• Yet another leak has emerged about AMD's next-gen GPUs
• It shows a powerful flagship, one that could potentially rival the RTX 5090
• Other models include a mid-ranger, along with two lower-end offerings

Another rumor has outlined AMD's apparent plans for its next-gen range of graphics cards, again indicating that Team Red intends to compete at the high-end this time around.

Of course, that's an area that RDNA 4 skipped, with its top offering being the upper-mid-range RX 9070 XT; however, there have long been rumors that AMD isn't going to shy away from producing a beefy GPU with RDNA 5. Or UDNA, as it may alternatively be called, which I'll return to shortly.

Wccftech reports that well-known GPU leaker Kepler spilled the beans on the Anandtech forums in an ongoing, rambling discussion thread (which was started late last year, in fact).

Kepler believes that the flagship RDNA 5 GPU will have 96 Compute Units (CUs), and that the range will drop down with the next tier having 40 CUs, followed by 24 CUs and 12 CUs, respectively, for the lower-end graphics cards.

As Wccftech further notes, this is tentatively backed up by ZhangZhonghao, a regular leaker posting on the Chiphell forums in China, who theorizes there will be an 'extra-large' GPU - in other words, a flagship high-end model - followed by medium (mid-range), small, and tiny graphics cards.

(Image credit: Shutterstock / DC Studio)Analysis: how long is a rendering pipeline?

Obviously, season this heavily, as even if this is true - based on the leaked diagram Kepler shares (and the backup theory from Chiphell) - it could just be AMD's current thinking, which may change down the line.

So, how powerful might an RDNA 5 graphics card with 96 Compute Units be? As it's less than a previous rumor indicated, which was 154 CUs. However, this is a bit of a 'how long is a piece of string' question as there's a whole load of variables involved, including how much difference the new architecture makes to the overall performance of AMD's next-gen GPUs, and how much cache is used (with some big increases potentially in the cards there, Kepler notes elsewhere).

However, all rumors suggest that AMD is making significant changes to the next generation of its Radeon graphics cards, which is why they might adopt the UDNA architecture rather than RDNA 5. The 'U' of UDNA refers to a 'unified' architecture, as this would supposedly represent the joining of RDNA (gaming) and CDNA (data center) architectures, all under one umbrella - a huge move.

So, in some ways, it makes sense that AMD would be planning a power move in terms of a proper flagship graphics card, given such a major shift in its GPU landscape. And so it's easy to believe that the intention will be to compete with the top-end of Nvidia's GeForce range.

Generally speaking, then, trying to pin down the spec of the possible RX 10090 XT (the logical progression for naming, although I think the flagship will be called something entirely different) at this point is a waste of time. That spec is likely to be fluid and changing, anyway, as we are some way off the realization of AMD's next-gen Radeon products (which are slated to arrive late in 2026, if not 2027).

All we need to know is that it's looking increasingly like AMD is going to offer a compelling rival to the RTX 5090 (as previous performance estimations have broadly suggested).

Although it is conceivable that Nvidia may have an RTX 6090, or equivalent, on the table by the time the next-gen Radeon flagship turns up, Team Red should beat its rival to the punch based on current chatter from the grapevine. And indeed, maybe this could spur Nvidia into making an RTX 5090 Super, but I'm getting carried away with the wild speculation (and besides, such a GPU would cut into the supply of chips that Team Green could use for much more profitable AI graphics cards).

Suffice it to say that AMD is looking towards producing a very powerful GPU with its next-gen range, one that'll please enthusiast gamers with plenty of money to spend - and Nvidia will have to sit up and take notice of that, should these rumors pan out. Especially if AMD can undercut with pricing, which shouldn't be too big an ask given how much Nvidia demands for its top dog GeForce graphics card.

You might also like

• The best AMD graphics card in 2025: top GPUs from Team Red
• The GPU market is an absolute mess right now, and I don't blame console players for staying away
• Top gaming PCs: great rigs for serious PC gaming

Here are hints and answers for the NYT Strands puzzle for Aug. 28, No. 543

Here are some hints and the answers for the NYT Connections puzzle for Aug. 28, #809.

"Susan Monarez is no longer director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention," the Department of Health and Human Services wrote in a social media post. Her lawyers said she had neither resigned nor been told she was fired.

(Image credit: J. Scott Applewhite)

Here are hints and the answer for today's Wordle for Aug. 28, No. 1,531

Apple is reportedly in discussion with Google to add Gemini to Private Cloud Compute, ready to power Siri with Apple Intelligence.

The news came from top insider Mark Gurman, who said, "A few weeks ago, Apple approached the search giant about making a version of its Gemini AI models."

Gurman even said Google was developing this custom model right now with Apple's involvement, pointing towards the potential for a Google Gemini-powered, Apple Intelligence-branded Siri.

As TechRadar's Senior AI Writer, I test out all of the best AI models, and Google Gemini is up there with my favorite chatbots on the market.

Apple's AI strategy has been underwhelming, to say the least, but reports of the Cupertino-based firm bringing in Google to superpower Apple Intelligence could be the best thing to happen to the iPhone in years.

Here are five reasons why I really hope Apple adds Google Gemini to Siri.

1. Gemini Live is best in class

(Image credit: Future)

AI voice assistants are everywhere these days, yet we're still waiting for Apple to truly supercharge Siri with Apple Intelligence.

While OpenAI's ChatGPT Advanced Voice Mode is good, it falls short of Google's Gemini Live, which I believe is the best AI-powered voice assistant on smartphones at the moment.

I like Gemini Live so much, in fact, that I've assigned the voice assistant to my iPhone 16 Pro Max's Action button, using it frequently instead of activating Siri on my device.

If Apple is looking to power Siri through an AI model from another tech giant, then Gemini Live is proof that Google is the perfect partner to do so.

Apple has a ready-made Siri replacement staring it in the face, and all it needs is some swanky branding and compliance with Apple's strict privacy vision.

2. Gemini reads your email and calendar already

(Image credit: Getty Images)

One of the best ways to use Gemini at the moment is by asking it questions based on your other Google services, such as Gmail and Google Calendar.

Adding Gemini into Siri would allow iPhone users to ask questions about these incredibly popular services, taking us one step closer towards the AI personal assistant everyone hopes for.

Considering the AI model is already able to tap into Google services, you'd expect it to be relatively easy for Apple and Google to offer similar abilities with Apple's most popular apps, such as Mail, Notes, and Calendar.

When Apple revealed Apple Intelligence last year, Siri was able to listen to your requests and implement them across iOS. Gemini basically does that on Android already, so why not allow it to do the same on iPhone?

3. A smooth transition

The AI options available are endless, so having some parity between iPhone and Android would actually be a great thing for smartphone users.

Think about it, Gemini powers the AI in the best flagship Android devices like the Samsung S25 and the Google Pixel 10. But what if a similar experience was bundled into every iPhone, just with a little bit more Apple polish?

I'd love to use Gemini as my go-to AI assistant on my iPhone, and quite frankly, I already do. However, having it built into Siri would make it feel even more at home on iPhone, and best yet, for consumers, it means the switch to Android or vice versa, from an AI perspective, would be incredibly smooth.

4. It's ready to go

I don't know about you, but I'm bored of waiting for a new version of Siri that's capable of what I want from a voice assistant.

And quite frankly, the thought of purchasing an iPhone 17 without any Siri improvements makes me feel a bit sour towards the upcoming iPhone.

Gemini works, and it's already good to go, so adding implementation into Siri and powering Apple's voice assistant with Google's hard work would mean an intelligent Siri sooner rather than later.

Currently, I have no hope for an AI-powered Siri by the end of the year, and quite honestly, that's a real disappointment, considering I bought the iPhone 16 Pro Max with the promise of "AI for the rest of us."

If Apple opted to use Gemini, we could get the AI Siri we've wanted for what feels like an eternity very soon, and that's only a good thing for Apple users who are getting impatient waiting for a voice assistant that knows what year it is.

5. There's already a fruitful partnership

(Image credit: Shutterstock)

Google and Apple have been working together for a very long time, with Google Search as the default search engine on Safari.

That relationship could be in jeopardy with a multi-billion-dollar antitrust case soon to be decided in the US. Following that lawsuit, there could be a big shift in iPhone's moving forward, and it might require new agreements between the two companies.

Could AI and Gemini be at the forefront of the discussions? Gurman says the companies haven't discussed this matter yet, but he believes that "if Apple and Google come to an agreement, it would be the basis of a new arrangement around search as well."

Apple might choose to steer clear of using a Gemini AI model to power Apple Intelligence, but considering what we've seen so far, I hope Tim Cook and co are at least contemplating it.

You might also like

• I tried Google's new AI mode powered by Gemini, and it might be the end of Search as we know it
• Google previews AI Mode for search, taking on the likes of ChatGPT search and Perplexity
• Google Gemini's new model is the brainstorming AI partner you've been looking for

• Exabeam report claims AI is driving insider threats, that are now outpacing external cyberattacks
• Most firms have insider programs, but lack advanced behavioral analytics needed for early detection
• Generative AI agents create faster, stealthier risks that traditional defenses cannot easily catch

How organizations view insider risk is changing, according to a new report from Exabeam which claims insider threats have overtaken external attacks to become the number one security concern, and it’s mostly down to AI.

Nearly two thirds (64%) of respondents said they now see insiders, whether malicious or compromised, as a bigger danger than outside actors - and Generative AI is behind a rise in faster and stealthier attacks that are far harder to detect.

“Insiders aren’t just people anymore," warned Exabeam Chief AI and Product Officer, Steve Wilson. "They’re AI agents logging in with valid credentials, spoofing trusted voices, and making moves at machine speed. The question isn’t just who has access - it’s whether you can spot when that access is being abused.”

AI-enhanced phishing and social engineering

Over half of organizations reported an increase in insider incidents in the past year, with most expecting that growth to continue.

Government, manufacturing, and healthcare are among the sectors bracing for sharper rises, while Asia-Pacific and Japan are anticipating the biggest regional increases.

The Middle East region is the outlier here, with nearly one-third of organizations expecting a decline, something Exabeam suggests could be down to either stronger defenses or an underestimation of new AI risks.

AI-enhanced phishing and social engineering are now among the top insider tactics, able to adapt in real time and mimic trusted communications at scale.

Unauthorized use of generative AI makes the challenge facing firms even harder, with three-quarters of organizations reporting unapproved activity.

Technology, government, and financial services show the highest levels of concern.

Despite widespread adoption of AI in security tooling, insider threat programs remain a mixed bag, as Exabeam found while 88% of organizations have such programs in place, only 44% actually make use of user and entity behavior analytics.

“AI has added a layer of speed and subtlety to insider activity that traditional defenses weren’t built to detect,” said Kevin Kirkwood, CISO, Exabeam. “Security teams are deploying AI to detect these evolving threats, but without strong governance or clear oversight, it’s a race they’re struggling to win. This paradigm shift requires a fundamentally new approach to insider threat defense.”

Exabeam's report noted its findings "point to a clear and consistent challenge” in which “organizations are aware of insider threats, but most lack the visibility and cross-functional alignment needed to address them effectively.”

“As AI becomes more embedded in enterprise workflows, the emergence of AI agents adds a new layer of complexity. These agents are not inherently malicious, but their ability to act independently introduces risks that traditional controls may miss. To keep pace, organizations must evolve their insider threat strategies”, the report concludes.

You might also like

• This is the best encryption software available today
• Insider risk on the rise as survey finds 50% of employees have too much privileged access
• Underestimating the dangers within: mitigating the insider cyber threat

AI models are doing a lot more thinking, keeping developers thirsty for computing power.