标签：#ssi

Netflix is moving toward the open-source Apache Flink Autoscaler for more than 30,000 streaming jobs across multiple AWS regions. The operator-level approach addresses limitations of Netflix’s cluster level autoscaler for complex, stateful pipelines. Netflix reports a 58% reduction in annualized Flink compute expenditure for one team, saving approximately $1.1 million annually. By Leela Kumili

I could not make myself log time in Jira. Not because it is hard. Because nothing happens afterwards. You type a number into a box, the box says nothing back, and by Thursday the habit is gone again. Every tool I tried fixed this by adding another box. So I built the missing half instead. Feed The Troll gives everyone on a team a pixel-art troll that gains XP from the work they already do in Jira, and turns sprint results into a village the whole project shares. It is on the Atlassian Marketplace now. This post skips the game itself. It is about five problems that turned out to be hard in ways I did not expect, each one a consequence of building the thing on Atlassian Forge, alone. What Forge gives you, and what it takes back Forge runs your code on Atlassian's infrastructure. There is no server of mine anywhere in the picture. That is the line on the listing page, and it was the single fact that shaped every decision underneath it. You get a Node 22 runtime, Forge SQL (TiDB under the hood) for storage, and Custom UI modules that reach the backend through @forge/bridge . You give up a backend you control, a cache you can reach, and outbound HTTP to anything you did not declare. The one that keeps mattering: any way to open the database at three in the morning and fix a single row by hand. The whole app declares six scopes. None of them are write scopes: read:board-scope:jira-software read:issue-details:jira read:jira-work read:jira-user read:sprint:jira-software storage:app That last line is the entire persistence layer. Twenty-one tables live behind it now, but only ten shipped with v1.0: trolls, XP events, daily activity, kudos, quests, inventory, team quests, villages, raids, project settings. Every table added since arrived the only way the platform makes comfortable, as a new migration appended to the list, never an edit to one already deployed. migrationRunner . enqueue ( ' v001_create_trolls ' , CREATE_TROLLS_TABLE ) // ... . enqueue ( ' v012_create_product_m

AI agents don’t use web browsers. They don’t click buttons, submit forms, or trigger standard HTTP requests that pass through your middleware stack. They execute logic via API calls, background queues, or CLI commands using tool definitions. When an LLM decides to "fetch the latest invoices," it usually calls a tool function. If that tool function just runs Invoice::all() , your AI agent just became a god-mode data leak. The fundamental problem with integrating LLMs into existing applications is that agents operate in a detached, stateless execution context . They don't have a session cookie. They don't inherently know who invoked them. If you rely on the system prompt to tell the LLM, "Only show John his own data," you are trusting a probabilistic text generator to enforce your security boundary. That is a production incident waiting to happen. To build a secure AI agent in Laravel, you must treat the LLM not as a user, but as a proxy for the user. The agent must inherit the exact Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) and Attribute-Based Access Control (ABAC) constraints of the human sitting behind the keyboard, and it must enforce those constraints at the database query level, not the prompt level. TL;DR AI agents bypass traditional web middleware because they execute logic through background tools and function calling. Never trust the LLM to filter its own results. Force filtering through Eloquent scopes and authorization gates. Pass the acting user's identity explicitly into the agent's execution context using Laravel's auth guards or custom context DTOs. For complex rules (hierarchies, multi-tenancy, ABAC), standard role packages fall short. Tools like hosseinhezami/laravel-permission-manager are required to evaluate deep permission trees inside agent tools. Audit every tool execution with the acting user's ID, not the system service account. 📋 Table of Contents 1. The "God-Mode Tool" Problem 2. Passing Identity Down the Execution Chain 3. Enforcing RBAC Inside LLM

The choice is usually made by whoever draws the first diagram, and then everybody lives with it for years. It is worth five minutes of thought, and the deciding question is not which tool is best but who will edit this thing next. Short answer. A visual editor such as draw.io for diagrams that non-engineers maintain. Mermaid or PlantUML when the diagram belongs with the code and should be reviewed like code. An attached SVG when the picture comes from a design tool and you need it to look exactly right. A screenshot when the diagram will genuinely never change again. The four options A diagramming app inside Confluence draw.io is the common choice, and it is free for small teams. The diagram is created and edited inside the page, links on shapes work, and anyone who can use a mouse can maintain it. This is the default answer for architecture maps, process flows and floor plans that live in the documentation and get corrected by whoever notices the mistake. The cost is lock-in of a mild kind: the diagram lives in the app's format, and moving to something else later means exporting and redrawing. Mermaid or PlantUML: diagrams as text Here the diagram is source code — a few lines describing nodes and arrows, rendered into a picture. The appeal is real: text goes into version control, diffs are readable, and a diagram can be generated by a script from the system it describes. Two things to know before choosing this. Confluence Cloud does not render Mermaid natively, so you need an app for it, and several of them exist including free ones. And the editing audience narrows sharply: a technical writer will not touch a diagram that has to be edited as syntax, so the diagram becomes the property of the engineers, whether you intended that or not. An SVG made somewhere else The diagram comes from Figma, Illustrator, Inkscape, Visio or an architecture tool, and lands on the page as an attachment. It looks exactly as designed, which is why people do it. The catch is documented

The family-focused AI assistant wants access to the details of your everyday life, but says it won’t use that data to train AI models or share it with others.

Short answer: for a server-rendered learning app, create a short-lived session only after the phone code is verified, keep refresh as a separate state transition, and make recovery a deliberate path rather than an accidental logout loop. The useful design artifact is an auditable session record tied to a learner, device context, and recovery status. I build RAG and agent features in Python, so I tend to move from a notebook test to a production boundary quickly. Authentication deserves a slower handoff. In an edtech app, a learner may lose a phone while a parent, teacher, or school administrator still needs a safe way to recover the account. The browser should receive only an opaque session cookie; the server owns the lifecycle and records why each transition happened. How should server-rendered login handle session creation, refresh, and logout? Treat the four actions as different state changes. Code verification proves possession of a phone channel. Session creation establishes a browser session. Verification checks whether that session is still active. Refresh extends a valid session under a stricter policy. Logout revokes one session, while an account-recovery event may need to revoke every session. That separation makes failure visible. A refresh request must not silently create a new account. A logout request must not be interpreted as proof that the phone number is still controlled. For a school district, the audit trail should answer: which learner was affected, which session changed, what policy allowed it, and when the change took place. The request flow is intentionally plain: The existing login form sends a verified learner identifier and a server-held code-verification result to the application backend. The backend calls the session creation boundary and stores the returned session identifier in a secure, HttpOnly cookie. Each protected request verifies that session before loading learner data. A still-valid session may refresh through the refresh bound

When a support agent is trying to recover an account after a suspicious login, JWKS verification and session verification define different trust boundaries for API requests. The distinction decides which recovery path the agent can offer and how much damage a stolen credential can do. Short answer: use JWKS verification for a stable, distributed signature boundary, and session verification when the request must reflect current session state; most customer-support systems need both, with an explicit recovery policy between them. 1. Separate the two trust boundaries before scoring a device JWKS verification checks a token signature with a public key set. The verifier never needs a copy of the issuer's private key, which keeps key material out of every API service. That is a good fit for a high-volume edge where the identity claim should remain stable while requests cross service boundaries. Session verification asks a different question: is this particular session still valid right now? Revocation, expiry, or a changed recovery decision can make a previously well-signed token unsuitable for a sensitive action. A valid signature is necessary, but it does not satisfy the business constraints by itself. That distinction is the invariant. Device-fingerprint risk scoring should not silently turn a cryptographic result into an account-recovery decision. Keep it explicit. 2. How should JWKS and session verification govern API requests? Start with the least surprising path. Verify the token signature at the request boundary, then apply issuer, audience, expiry, and device-risk rules. For password reset, email change, or an agent-assisted recovery, perform session verification as a second check when the policy requires current state. The operational catch is key rotation. A JWKS client needs a bounded cache, a refresh trigger for an unknown key identifier, and telemetry for fetch failures. In capacity planning, that means sizing the refresh path separately from ordinary reques

At least three of the first 32 Rassvet satellites likely suffered outright failures, and more may be in trouble.

This is interesting: The records describe a force-generation mechanism for several General Staff components, including the GRU, Main Operational Directorate, and 8th Directorate, which is associated with protected communications, cryptography, and information security. […] The reporting also linked a 2024 Department No. 4 graduate, Aleksei Kondrashov, to Military Unit 74455, widely known as Sandworm. That unit has been associated with destructive cyber activity against Ukraine and other targets, including the 2017 NotPetya attack. The reports do not establish that every listed graduate participated in a named operation; assignments should therefore be described as reported unit placements, not proof of individual operational involvement...

A preview of the September cohorts of the InfoQ Online Certification Programs, and the facilitators leading them: Luca Mezzalira, Michelle Brush, Zichuan Xiong, and Premanand Chandrasekaran. By Artenisa Chatziou

Amazon is facing a new lawsuit from the FTC and 22 states for allegedly secretly charging businesses more for advertising.

The U.S. is shutting out more foreign-made drones and robots. China’s scale means the global competition may simply move elsewhere.

Quality went from 0.81 to 0.78. Someone had edited a prompt that week. Obvious culprit, obvious investigation. Nobody had measured that re-running the same prompt scores 0.77-0.84 across seeds. 0.78 was never a regression. It was Tuesday. The number was real. The comparison was not, because nobody measured the instrument before trusting it. So now I do this in order, and the order is the whole point: Calibrate the judge. Can it separate a known-good answer from a known-bad one? A judge returning 3/4 for everything gives you a rock-steady dashboard that would stay green if the agent returned Lorem Ipsum. Measure the noise floor. Run each case across several seeds. That spread is the resolution of your instrument. Then gate. A delta smaller than the noise floor is not a small regression. It is no information at all. A gate that fires on noise gets marked flaky and gets continue-on-error added within a month. Then you have no gate. How many of your eval numbers have a measured error bar? Calibrate the judge, measure the noise floor, then gate in that order. Github Repo: https://lnkd.in/dbfwtsM6

Amazon recently announced Kiro Crew, an open-source system for running multiple Kiro coding agents across sessions, tools, and tasks. The new workspace lets developers assign asynchronous coding tasks to AI agents, allowing work such as incident investigation, ticket triage, migrations, and PR monitoring to continue without active supervision. By Renato Losio

Garden Irrigation System Summary MY project to make a bespoke irrigation system for my home garden, which comes in at under £10 per zone including the actual water delivery method, and is made with relatively easily sourced components. I am a mechanical engineer by training, but not an electrician so interested in hearing pointers on how to make it better. Some of the component and tool links below are AliExpress affiliate links. If you buy through them I earn a small commission at no extra cost to you. Everything listed is what I actually bought and used, or the closest equivalent I could find. This helps me fund some more ambitious but hopefully useful builds in the future. Intro So I have a vegetable patch and some flowers in the garden; it became a bit of a job during the hot days of summer to water the plants in the evening. I didn’t especially mind it but given my love of AI and tech, alongside recent experiments with Home Assistant, I thought there must be a 2026 version of this job. I tried a Wi-Fi-controlled tap, but quickly realised the flow rate was low - due to a small aperture size, and also scaling up with this type of solution to 6 + zones would quickly get expensive and leave me dependent on battery-powered solutions - also not a big win. So as I had begun experimenting with creating my own devices with dev boards etc, I figured, “how hard can it be” and in honesty it wasn’t, just took a bit of trial and error. This guide will be focused on how i would build it today, not all the steps that got me to here. My philosophy Standardised equipment/ components as much as possible Speed of delivery = speed of experimentation Modular where possible Anything can be achieved at any cost, but some of the fun is building something from very little Components Note all water pipes for this project are ½ inch and so connector etc are for that, this corresponds to a ¾ in threaded connector for attaching to pipes Standard UK Hose (½ inch) ¾ inch Threaded Tap Push Fit

The glasses, called Legato Frames, integrate the company’s patented hearing-assistance technology into the arms of eyewear frames.

AI coding agent Cursor has launched Origin, a git based code hosting platform embedded inside its AI-powered editor, positioning it as an alternative to GitHub for teams that already work in Cursor. Origin is rolling out in early beta on Pro, Teams and Enterprise plans, and lives inside a new Codebase tab within the Cursor application. By Matt Saunders

We built a plugin for the GitHub Accessibility Scanner to make sure your alt text is actually accessible. Here's how it works. The post Your alt text passes automated checks. That doesn’t mean it’s any good. appeared first on The GitHub Blog .

If you run a team on Jira or Confluence, the deal changed on 17 August and the change was opt-out. From that date, by Atlassian’s own account, the content your team writes into its Cloud products — Confluence pages, Jira tickets, the descriptions and comments where the actual work lives — is used by default to train Rovo, Atlassian’s AI assistant. You were not asked to opt in. You were, at best, given a switch and left to find it. Answer first, because the detail matters more than the outrage: there are two settings, and they are not equal. One governs your in-app data — the text itself. The other governs metadata — the derived signals about that text. On the Free, Standard and Premium plans you can turn off the content, but the metadata switch is greyed out; Atlassian’s support page reads, flatly, “You can’t change this setting.” The full off switch, the one that also stops metadata contribution, is available only on Enterprise. Privacy, in other words, is now a plan tier. What actually changed, with the switches named Atlassian’s data-contribution documentation lays out a matrix that is worth reading slowly, because the defaults are doing the heavy lifting. In-app data contribution defaults to on for Free and Standard customers and off for Premium and Enterprise. Every tier can toggle that one. Metadata contribution is a different story: it is on across the board and can only be switched off by Enterprise. So the customer contributing the most by default — content and metadata, both on, no ability to fully stop it — is the one on the cheapest plan who never opened the settings page. The categories are broad. In-app data, per Atlassian’s materials, covers Confluence page titles and body text, Jira work-item titles, descriptions and comments, and custom status and workflow names. Metadata covers the derived layer: readability scores, task classifications (that a ticket is “sales work,” say), story points, sprint end dates, SLA values, and semantic-similarity measure

Some Americans fear the FTC may be thinking about personalized pricing all wrong.