Find and fix more vulnerabilities with an AI pentest

Joined March 2026
NoScope's AI agent discovered an important vulnerability (CVE-2026-27771) in Gitea, one of the most widely used self-hosted Git platforms. The finding is now being discussed across @TheHackersNews and the broader security community. If Gitea is part of the stack, patch it now. More details: noscope.com/blog/gitea-insta…
🚨 Gitea flaw exposes private container images without authentication. thehackernews.com/2026/05/gi… CVE-2026-27771 affects all Gitea versions before 1.26.2 and likely impacts 30,000+ deployments worldwide. Attackers can pull private images without an account or password. Update now or enable REQUIRE_SIGNIN_VIEW as a temporary workaround.
2
7
1,980
GitLab integration is now live on NoScope🚀
25
We’re hosting a live webinar next Thursday, 22nd Oct at 9:00 AM EDT / 2:00 PM BST, on Hacking & Securing Apps Where Devs Ship AI Written Code. @springjben and @KevalJagani1 will cover the vulnerabilities AI tends to introduce, why it happens, and how to secure them. Register now, link in comment 👇
1
3
1
6
1,633
Jira integration is now live on NoScope. Every finding now syncs directly to the Jira dashboard, with severity, evidence and remediation steps attached to each ticket.
2
5
1,289
An AI agent’s next command could find a vulnerability or cause an outage. Before it runs, a guardrail has to make a decision: allow or block. We wanted to understand where decision models fit into that process. Can they catch harmful actions quickly enough to check an agent’s next step? We compared JEV with Grok 4.7 on 200 synthetic cases, repeated three times per model. That’s 1,200 checks covering data deletion, credential leaks, service disruption and actions outside the agreed scope. We measured three things: Accuracy: Grok made more accurate decisions on the checks it completed, although some requests timed out. Speed: JEV’s median response was 324 milliseconds, compared with 16.44 seconds for Grok. Cost: About $0.084 per 1,000 checks for JEV versus $3.79 for Grok, using published pricing and reported usage respectively. These are different calculations, not verified invoice totals. The examples show why context matters. In one case, a routine status check would replace authentication keys and sign users out. Both models caught the risk when given the application’s behavior. This is a research experiment with synthetic cases. It does not measure NoScope’s production guardrails. At NoScope, we combine the strengths of different approaches to stop harmful actions as effectively and efficiently as possible. Research like this helps us evaluate what each approach can contribute. Read Using JEV for Security Guardrails for the results, limitations and concrete examples: noscope.com/blog/jev-agent-g…
1
5
3
10
1,529
This is what "wide coverage" actually looks like 😉
1
2
140
With @trynoscope, you’ll soon be able to watch our AI pentester work in real time. See how the agent explores your web app, builds an attack graph, investigates potential vulnerabilities, and validates what it finds. You’ll have visibility into: • The agent’s reasoning and investigation • Every request it sends • The attack path it takes • Vulnerabilities it discovers and how it validates them • Attack classes including Recon, XSS, SSRF, IDOR, access control, and more AI pentesting shouldn’t be a black box. You should be able to see exactly what the agent did and how it found the vulnerability.
4
6
1
18
3,100
NoScope retweeted
TryHackMe.com was $10 NoScope.com was $35k
A recent YC startup spent 250k on a domain. I was slightly shocked. But when I asked how much they raised after YC, the answer was 6.5m. So 1/26 of their round. This is the time we live in; one shocking number counterbalances the other.
7
5
5
52
8,514
We asked a Gitea server for a token we had no business getting. It said 200 OK. Here's how NoScope's AI agent found a 4-year-old flaw that exposed private container images on ~30,000 servers 🧵
3
6
1
20
2,650
Why nobody found it for 4 years, part 2. A real permission check does exist. It's just on the first request in the sequence, and not on the 4 that follow. So a reviewer tracing that path finds a gate exactly where they expect one, and reasonably concludes reads are protected.
1
23
The bug is a missing permission check, which is the most ordinary finding in security. It survived 4 years because it sat one step away from a permission check that genuinely works. Full breakdown, request by request, down to the code: noscope.com/blog/how-noscope…
1
26
Every finding in NoScope now comes with a video attached to it. Instead of reading a report and guessing how a vulnerability actually plays out, you watch it get triggered, reproduced, and confirmed, step by step.
1
3
1
6
1,576
We're adding a badge for solving the NoScopeRCE room on TryHackMe. 2500+ people have solved it already, if you haven't, now's the time. Craft a sandbox escape payload using the returnClass binding, trigger it through the Extensions API, and chain it into a full reverse shell. No setup needed. Also see how NoScope autonomously found and validated CVE-2026-35482, and how to run it against a live target. Solve it, grab the badge, link in comments
1
4
17
3,366