Habr•July 23, 2026•🇷🇺Translated from Russian

AI in Cybersecurity: Where It Delivers Real Value and Where It Remains Marketing Hype

The cybersecurity industry faces a severe talent shortage, making it increasingly difficult to hire experienced SOC analysts, incident responders, and threat hunters. At the same time, businesses seek greater efficiency and lower costs, while vendors promote their products as highly innovative. These pressures create unrealistic expectations that simply purchasing an AI-labeled solution will resolve major security problems.

What Counts as AI in Information Security Today

Vendors often blur distinctions between technologies by labeling everything as AI. Classical correlation rules in SIEM systems trigger on predefined conditions, such as a user logging in at night, gaining administrative rights, and exfiltrating data. These contain no artificial intelligence, only engineering. Machine learning systems build behavioral models from historical data and flag deviations, yet they require extensive calibration and still produce high volumes of false positives. Generative AI and large language models can draft queries, summarize incidents, and explain detection rules, but they lack business context.

Where Marketing Claims Outpace Reality

One common promise is that AI will automatically discover unknown attacks. Solutions such as UEBA, NDR, and XDR do detect anomalies, for example when an accountant suddenly accesses servers via VPN at 3 a.m. and runs PowerShell. However, the system identifies deviation, not confirmed malice, so analysts must still validate each alert. Another claim is fully automatic investigation of complex incidents. While tools can assemble timelines, they cannot assess which systems are business-critical or predict operational impact without human input.

Assertions that AI will replace SOC analysts also fall short. Modern platforms can group events, suppress some false positives, and generate report drafts, yet they cannot answer questions about client impact, backup availability, or financial consequences. Similarly, generative models can produce plausible security strategies, but they ignore budget limits, corporate culture, and specific regulatory constraints, resulting in generic templates rather than actionable plans.

Areas Where AI Delivers Measurable Value

In anti-fraud systems used by financial institutions such as Alfa-Bank, machine learning has moved beyond simple threshold rules. Modern models analyze click patterns, typing speed, device behavior, and transaction context simultaneously. They can block a transaction made by a pensioner in one city minutes after a high-value purchase from a newly installed app in another country. Behavioral analytics platforms also excel at spotting insider threats by comparing current activity against an individual’s historical profile.

Generative AI assists analysts by translating complex detection logic into plain language and automatically building queries against large datasets. Correlation engines in contemporary SIEM and XDR platforms process millions of daily events and surface relationships spanning days or weeks that no human could review manually.

How to Separate Real AI from Marketing Labels

Organizations should demand concrete metrics from vendors, including false-positive rates, time required to validate each alert, and the percentage of incidents actually detected. Understanding which underlying technology—rules, machine learning, or generative models—is being used remains essential before committing significant budgets to solutions that may deliver only conventional correlation under a new label.

Related articles

Habr•AI Security

TenetBench Benchmark Tests LLMs for Compliance with Professional Ethical Codes

Researchers from the Institute of Information Security Issues at ISP RAS and the Institute of Cybersecurity and Information Protection at RANEPA have developed TenetBench, a benchmark designed to evaluate how well large language models adhere to specific norms in professional codes of ethics. The benchmark generates realistic work-related prompts that may conflict with rules from documents such as the Code of Professional Ethics for Advocates or journalistic standards on undisclosed advertising. Each test case pairs a conflicting request with a neutral counterpart to measure whether models refuse, warn, or still provide prohibited content. Evaluation separates task completion, norm violation detection, and presence of explicit refusals using an LLM-as-a-Judge approach validated against human annotators. The full dataset contains 3,433 prompt pairs derived from 15 professional codes, with a public subset of 2,235 pairs from 10 documents. Human validation confirmed 99.5% of generated examples as fully plausible work scenarios.

AntiMalware•AI Security

Solar to Showcase Solar AI Firewall for Business Protection Against AI Risks at SOC Forum 2026

GK Solar will present its new Solar AI Firewall solution at SOC Forum 2026 to help organizations control interactions with AI services and prevent confidential data leaks through employee prompts. The product addresses growing risks from staff sending corporate data to neural networks and AI agents gaining access to internal systems. The forum takes place on 27-28 October in Moscow's Lomonosov cluster, with the official launch of Solar AI Firewall scheduled during the event. Solar will also highlight practical risks of AI adoption, including data transmission to external services, use of public models by employees, and new attack surfaces in corporate infrastructure. The solution will be demonstrated as part of an integrated ecosystem for access, network, and data protection. In addition, the company plans to introduce JSOC ONE, a new line of Solar JSOC services tailored for mid-sized businesses that require 24/7 monitoring without building their own SOC.

Habr•AI Security

Researcher Runs 100 Abliterated AI Agents Against His Own Accounts, Achieves Five Successful Breaches

A security researcher deployed roughly 100 autonomous AI agents based on abliterated open-source models to attempt unauthorized access to his online accounts over a five-hour period. The agents successfully compromised three accounts by exploiting vulnerabilities in legacy personal projects and two additional accounts through password reuse and credential stuffing. They also conducted 16 social engineering attempts, harvested and cross-verified personal data from public sources, and generated phishing pages targeting the researcher's Substack and Hacker News presence. Despite these successes, the agents failed to discover any zero-day vulnerabilities in third-party software or gain access to Tier-0 accounts such as Gmail, 1Password, or banking services. The experiment relied on abliterated versions of GLM-5.3 and DeepSeek V4 Flash models running on cloud GPUs, orchestrated via Codex CLI inside Docker containers with access to Railway infrastructure. Total compute cost reached approximately $210, equating to roughly $40 per successful account compromise. The researcher concluded that inexpensive swarms of such agents could soon enable low-skill attackers to systematically map and exploit an individual's entire online footprint.

Habr•AI Security

How Censorship in Closed AI Models Reshapes Science: Hugging Face Releases Open Carbon-X DNA Model

Hugging Face CEO Clement Delangue announced the release of Carbon-X, an open 14.8 billion parameter language model designed for reading, analyzing, and generating DNA sequences. The announcement highlighted how shallow guardrails in closed commercial models blocked even proofreading a tweet discussing the topic. Commenters and researchers pointed out that these input/output filters lack context awareness, blocking legitimate scientific queries while motivated adversaries bypass them through rephrasing. Carbon-X was built on Qwen3-14B with a hybrid BPE and 6-mer tokenizer, domain mid-training on 302 billion tokens, and safety achieved through data curation rather than runtime censorship. The model achieves performance comparable to closed frontier systems at roughly 1/1800th the inference cost for large-scale genomic tasks. The case underscores growing asymmetry between closed corporate AI labs building wet labs and independent researchers restricted by superficial safety layers.