Surprisingly, artificial intelligence alters how companies build their internal systems. Yet warnings emerge - not about flawed code, but ...
Polish law enforcement authorities have arrested four suspected members of an organized cybercrime group accused of orchestrating intricate SIM-swapping attacks that allegedly enabled the theft of millions of dollars in cryptocurrency from victims. The coordinated operation was led by Poland's Central Bureau for Combating Cybercrime (CBZC) with operational assistance from the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), highlighting the cross-border nature of the investigation.
According to investigators, the group combined technical intrusions with social engineering techniques to compromise organizations working alongside telecommunications providers. By infiltrating partner infrastructure and gaining unauthorized access to employee email accounts, the suspects allegedly obtained sensitive information that enabled them to perform fraudulent SIM-swapping attacks.
A SIM-swap attack involves transferring a victim's mobile phone number to a SIM card controlled by an attacker. Once the transfer is completed, the attacker can intercept SMS messages, one-time verification codes, password reset requests, and other communications that rely on the victim's phone number for authentication.
Authorities allege that after taking control of victims' mobile numbers, the cybercriminals intercepted SMS-based authentication messages and email communications before using that access to seize control of cryptocurrency exchange accounts. The attackers then transferred digital assets from compromised accounts before attempting to conceal the proceeds through an extensive laundering operation.
Investigators estimate that the criminal scheme generated millions of U.S. dollars in stolen cryptocurrency. The illicit proceeds were allegedly moved through a distributed financial network consisting of multiple domestic and international bank accounts, international payment platforms, and multi-currency digital wallets in an effort to obscure the origin of the funds. Polish authorities estimate that the total amount laundered exceeded tens of millions of Polish złoty, equivalent to at least approximately US$5 million based on current exchange rates.
In a statement describing the operation, CBZC said the suspects relied on specialized software together with social engineering techniques to gain unauthorized access to infrastructure belonging to organizations cooperating with telecommunications operators, as well as employee email accounts. Investigators said the information obtained during those compromises enabled the illegal cloning and takeover of victims' phone numbers through SIM-swapping attacks.
Authorities further stated that the suspects allegedly treated the criminal enterprise as a continuous source of income, repeatedly moving stolen assets across numerous financial accounts and cryptocurrency wallets located in multiple jurisdictions to complicate financial tracing efforts.
All four suspects have been placed in pre-trial detention. They face allegations including participation in an organized criminal organization, unauthorized access to information systems to facilitate theft, and money laundering. If convicted, the offenses carry penalties of up to 25 years' imprisonment under Polish law.
While Polish authorities have not publicly identified the individuals arrested because of the ongoing international investigation, blockchain investigator ZachXBT claimed that one of the detainees is Wojtek Kulisz, also known online by the alias "Merry." The identification was reportedly based on items visible in official footage released during the police operation. Authorities have not independently confirmed that claim.
Investigators have also declined to disclose which cryptocurrency exchanges were affected or identify the victims, citing the continuing international investigation. Law enforcement agencies say efforts to identify additional victims, trace stolen assets, and pursue further investigative leads remain ongoing.
The case stresses the urgency of the risks associated with SMS-based authentication. Security professionals have long advised cryptocurrency investors and organizations to replace SMS-based two-factor authentication with authenticator applications or hardware security keys whenever possible, as SIM-swapping attacks remain an effective method for bypassing text message verification when attackers successfully compromise telecommunications systems or manipulate carrier processes.
CISOs today are no longer measured solely by the effectiveness of an organization's cyber defenses. With the increase of cyber threats, the acceleration of offensive capabilities with artificial intelligence, and increasing regulatory scrutiny, the role of enterprise-wide risk management, strategic decision making, and executive accountability has increased.
The rapid evolution of the security industry, however, exposes a critical imbalance. Although companies increasingly rely on Chief Information Security Officers to safeguard their business operations, sensitive data, and corporate resilience, many security leaders are still lacking board-level support, clearly defined governance frameworks, or an universally accepted ethical framework.
With the rise of data breaches and the growing concern about AI-enabled cyber threats, the question is not whether CISOs are equipped to deal with technical security challenges, but whether the profession itself requires a code of ethics that guides high-impact decisions that extend beyond cybersecurity in order to guide high-impact decisions.
In addition to managing firewalls, security tools, and incident response operations, the CISO position has evolved far beyond managing firewalls and security tools to encompass a strategic role that encompasses more than ethical accountability. It is the chief information security officer's responsibility to design, implement, and enforce enterprise-wide security policies as well as ensuring the organization's long-term business strategy remains infused with cybersecurity.
A CISO is responsible for overseeing the implementation of security technologies and workforce awareness programs to reduce the risk of data breaches and system compromise, in addition to fostering a security-first culture that strengthens organizational resilience and facilitates compliance with a growing range of regulatory and industry guidelines.
An organization's security posture must first be evaluated, existing controls evaluated, capability gaps identified, and risks prioritized to develop a security roadmap aligned with business objectives. These responsibilities require a combination of cybersecurity expertise, executive leadership, and strategic decision-making to accomplish.
The modern CISO must have extensive knowledge of risks, threat detection, and response, as well as compliance standards such as GDPR, NIST, and SOC 2. They must also be equipped to manage security teams, budgets, and enterprise resources simultaneously. Board members and executive leadership must also be able to translate complex cyber risks into business-focused insights in order to facilitate informed decision-making and facilitate cross-functional collaboration capable of adapting to an increasingly sophisticated threat landscape, which is equally critical.
According to recent findings, these challenges in governance translate into measurable risks in the operating environment. In the Voice of the CISO survey, conducted during the first quarter of 2025, 1,600 chief information security officers were surveyed across 16 countries by organizations with over 1,000 employees.
According to nearly two-thirds of respondents, their organizations have suffered a material loss of sensitive information within the past year—a sharp increase over 46% reported in the previous survey. As a consequence, three quarters of CISOs are concerned that their organizations will be susceptible to material cyberattacks in the next 12 months. As a result of increased regulatory oversight and the demand for greater transparency, security leaders are increasingly willing to disclose security incidents as a result of these rising figures, indicating more than an increase in threat activity.
Patrick Joyce, Global Resident CISO at Proofpoint, observed that CISOs are increasingly open about cyber risk exposure as a result of evolving governance expectations. The majority of respondents stated that they were confident in their organizations' cybersecurity culture, however six out of ten stated that they were not adequately prepared to handle a major cyber-attack.
A significant proportion of CISOs indicated that they would consider paying a ransomware demand in order to recover critical data or restore business operations, highlighting the difficulty of making ethical decisions during crisis response. The findings also emphasize the complex balance between business continuity, risk management, and ethical decisions.
A formal code of ethics for CISOs is gaining renewed relevance in light of this background. It is argued that technical expertise alone is no longer sufficient to fulfill the role of Chief Information Security Officer, which involves high-impact decisions affecting national infrastructure, business continuity, compliance with regulatory requirements, and public trust frequently. This framework is deliberately concise, incorporating four mandatory canons that describe the profession's fundamental ethical obligations rather than replacing individual professional judgment.
By providing advisory guidance, the framework aims to assist security leaders in navigating complex situations in which competing responsibilities are often not clear on a technical or legal level. The code's preamble emphasizes that the CISO's primary responsibility is to protect society, organizational stakeholders, and critical infrastructure, making compliance with the code a mandatory assignment.
According to the four core principles, cybersecurity professionals are expected to protect society and essential infrastructure, act with honesty, integrity, and stewardship, serve their organizations competently and diligently, and actively strengthen and safeguard the cybersecurity profession as a whole.
A practical objective complements these mandatory canons, which encourage cybersecurity research, education, mentoring of future practitioners, and the preservation of professional certification values, while discouraging conduct that could adversely affect public confidence or security. There are many ways a professional can undermine ethical credibility, such as creating unnecessary fear or uncertainty, providing false reassurance, promoting poor security practices, exposing inadequately secured systems to a public network, or participating in professional associations that compromise ethical standards.
A further requirement of the framework is that compliance with the preamble and four canons be enforced, and any conflicts between ethical obligations are resolved in accordance with the order in which the canons are defined. This ensures that security professionals have a structured hierarchy for resolving complex ethical dilemmas without creating conflicting obligations.
CISOs continue to assume increasingly extensive legal, operational, and ethical responsibilities, and industry experts emphasize that personal crisis management strategies should also be developed to protect security executives along with the organizations they serve.
A comprehensive incident response plan should not only prepare for technical incident response, but also consider professional, legal, financial, and reputational risks that may arise following an investigation by the government or a major cyber incident. It is important to maintain comprehensive documentation of security decisions, risk assessments, mitigation strategies, and executive communications, including instances where recommendations for security measures are declined by senior management or the board.
By maintaining an auditable record of both approved and rejected security recommendations, companies can demonstrate due diligence, compliance with regulations, and informed decision making when faced with legal scrutiny.
A CISO's security strategies must align with changing compliance obligations as they evolve in cybersecurity legislation, disclosure requirements, and regulatory frameworks by engaging in continuous professional development and consulting with legal counsel regularly.
In addition, experts recommend that executives take out professional liability insurance specifically designed for executive cybersecurity roles, as standard corporate policies may not cover CISOs who have not been appointed as officers or directors by the organization, potentially leaving them personally liable for the consequences. As an added safeguard, a documented ethical decision-making framework will be developed that will serve as a consistent reference when dealing with incidents involving conflicting legal obligations, executive pressures, or sensitive disclosure decisions.
The establishment of strong working relationships with legal, finance, public relations, and corporate communications teams is essential to the coordination of incident response, which ensures that regulatory notifications, public disclosures, and stakeholder communication remains both legally compliant and ethically sound during times of crisis.
In the age of cybersecurity, enterprise resilience and national digital security continue to be shaped by it, which means that CISOs are increasingly responsible for more than just technical oversight. Effective cyber leadership requires strong governance, ethical accountability, transparent risk communication, and executive support.
The organizations that empower security leaders with clear ethical frameworks, documented decision-making processes, and cross-functional collaboration will have better chances of navigating an increasingly complex threat landscape while maintaining trust, regulatory compliance, and long-term operational efficiency.
Anthropic has accused Chinese technology conglomerate Alibaba and its AI research division, Qwen, of carrying out a large-scale effort to extract capabilities from its Claude family of artificial intelligence models, describing the incident as the most extensive distillation operation the company has encountered.
The allegations were detailed in a June 10 letter sent to U.S. Senate Banking Committee Chair Tim Scott and Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren. In the correspondence, Anthropic claimed that operators linked to Alibaba and Qwen systematically interacted with Claude in an attempt to capture and reproduce some of the model's most advanced capabilities.
According to the company, the activity occurred between April 22 and June 5, 2026. During that period, Anthropic says it recorded more than 28.8 million exchanges associated with the operation. The requests were allegedly distributed across nearly 25,000 fraudulent accounts, enabling the actors to conduct high-volume interactions with the platform while obscuring the true source of the activity.
Anthropic stated that the campaign was not focused on general-purpose chatbot functions. Instead, it allegedly targeted capabilities considered among the most valuable within the Claude ecosystem, including software engineering tasks and advanced agentic reasoning. These functions form a critical component of the company's Mythos Preview model, one of Anthropic's most sophisticated AI systems designed to perform complex reasoning and autonomous task execution.
At the center of the allegations is a technique known as adversarial distillation. In machine learning, distillation generally refers to the process of training a model using outputs generated by another system. While the approach itself is commonly used within the AI industry, Anthropic argues that the method becomes problematic when it relies on unauthorized access to proprietary models.
According to the company, the actors behind the campaign repeatedly queried Claude and collected its responses at scale. Those outputs could then be used as training material for another AI system, allowing developers to reproduce aspects of Claude's behavior without investing the time, computational resources, and research expenditure typically required to build a frontier model from the ground up.
Anthropic warned lawmakers that such activity enables organizations to appropriate years of research and development through large-scale extraction campaigns. The company argued that these operations are designed to gather capabilities developed by leading U.S. AI laboratories and incorporate them into competing systems without bearing the costs associated with original model development.
Beyond intellectual property concerns, Anthropic also raised questions about safety. The company noted that models trained through adversarial distillation may replicate useful capabilities while failing to inherit the safeguards, alignment mechanisms, and risk controls embedded within the original system. As a result, the practice could create AI models that retain advanced functionality but operate with fewer protections against misuse.
The allegations against Alibaba follow earlier claims made by Anthropic regarding unauthorized access attempts linked to Chinese AI developers. In February 2026, the company disclosed that DeepSeek, the startup whose low-cost AI models attracted global attention in 2025, was among several organizations accused of attempting to improperly obtain Claude outputs. Anthropic now characterizes these incidents as part of a broader pattern of repeated efforts to extract capabilities from leading U.S. AI systems.
The dispute emerges amid growing government scrutiny of advanced AI technologies. Earlier this month, Anthropic revealed that it had received guidance from the Trump administration requiring the company to restrict access to its newest AI models, including Fable 5 and Mythos 5. Under the directive, access would be limited to U.S. persons, preventing non-U.S. citizens, including some employees, from interacting with the latest systems.
The issue is also beginning to influence policy discussions on Capitol Hill. Senators Bill Hagerty and Andy Kim are reportedly preparing legislation that would authorize sanctions or other penalties against Chinese organizations found to have improperly obtained outputs from U.S. AI models for the purpose of training competing systems. The proposal reflects growing concern among lawmakers that frontier AI capabilities have become both strategic economic assets and matters of national security.
Alibaba has not publicly responded to the allegations.
The dispute surfaces a new battleground in the global AI race. As companies invest billions of dollars to develop increasingly capable models, concerns are shifting beyond traditional cybersecurity threats toward the protection of model knowledge itself. For AI developers, the challenge is no longer limited to securing infrastructure and data. It increasingly involves preventing the large-scale extraction of capabilities that can be repurposed to accelerate the development of rival systems.
With governments, technology companies, and regulators paying closer attention to model security, the Anthropic-Alibaba dispute may become an early test case for how the industry addresses unauthorized AI capability harvesting and the growing geopolitical competition surrounding advanced artificial intelligence.