-
Apple on Friday released security updates for iOS, iPadOS, macOS, tvOS, watchOS, visionOS, and its Safari web browser to address two security flaws that it said have been exploited in the wild, one of which is the same flaw that was patched by Google in Chrome earlier this week. The vulnerabilities are listed below – CVE-2025-43529 (CVSS score: N/A) – A use-after-free vulnerability in WebKit
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
-
The Oyster backdoor (also known as Broomstick) is targeting the financial world, using malicious search ads for PuTTY, Teams, and Google Meet.
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
-
·
Longstanding and deadly mechanical problems with the V-22 Osprey have gone unaddressed for years by the joint program office, and it may take a decade to complete recommended fixes, as risks continue to mount, a new pair of oversight reports revealed.Separate findings from the Government Accountability Office and Naval Air Systems Command, or NAVAIR, were released Friday. Both reports say the Joint Program Office that oversees the V-22 variants for the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy, failed to adequately assess and address mounting safety risks, even as service members died.
“Without refining the joint program’s process for identifying, analyzing, and responding to Osprey safety risks…program stakeholders cannot adequately mitigate risks that can contribute to death, injury, or loss of mission capability and resources,” the GAO report read.
One of the challenges the office faces in quickly making safety fixes, the separate NAVAIR report said, is that the three services have different mission sets, priorities, and risk tolerance.
Twenty service members have died in four tiltrotor aircraft crashes since 2022. Two major mechanical problems—a sudden surge in power following a clutch slip, known as a hard clutch engagement, and failures within the Osprey’s proprotor gearbox—were identified as causes in recent deadly crashes. But it will take until 2034 to implement full fixes for the latter issue, according to the Navy’s report.
“The cumulative risk posture of the V-22 platform has been growing since initial fielding,” the NAVAIR report read. “The program actively identified risks; however, due to limitations in material solutions, funding prioritization, and urgency, it has not promptly implemented material and non-material fixes to mitigate existing risks. As a result, risks continue to accumulate.”
NAVAIR findings
The V-22 Osprey has experienced 12 Class A mishaps within the last four years. Seven of those involved parts failures, the Navy’s probe showed—and the mechanical failures had already been identified as major problems in the past.
“These material risks were identified by the Program Office and included in the NAVAIR System Safety Risk Assessments (SSRA) database, but were not sufficiently mitigated or resolved in a timely manner, which resulted in catastrophic outcomes in 5 of the 12 mishaps as the risks were realized,” the NAVAIR report read.
The V-22 has the highest total number of unresolved catastrophic parts issues, known as systems safety risk assessments, among Navy rotor-wing aircraft, and second among all Navy aircraft: 28. The F-35 has the highest total number. Data included in the report showed that as of 2025, the tiltrotar aircraft has the oldest age of unresolved catastrophic system safety risk assessments across the Navy’s aircraft inventory, with an average of more than 10 years.
This may be in part because probes into V-22 operations and safety in 2001, 2009, and 2017 “lacked mechanisms for tracking implementation or accountability,” the report states, adding “this lack of follow-through resulted in minimal execution of prior action plans.”
The report highlighted human error and mistakes by aircrew and maintenance personnel” as a contributing factor in some mishaps. The report also said the V-22 “consistently had low readiness levels.” On average, between 2020 and 2024 the aircraft had a low mission-capable rate of just 50 percent for the Navy and the Air Force, and 60 percent for the Marines, meaning the V-22s weren’t ready for their missions at least half the time.
The report’s recommendations are wide-ranging and include increased maintenance inspections, implementing a V-22 mid-life upgrade program, strengthening joint program office reporting, and revaluation, by service, of the military’s required fleet size with “updated mission requirements and flight-hour utilization expectations,” the report read.
Despite the scathing findings, Vice Adm. John Dougherty, the NAVAIR commander, said the organization is still committed to flying and improving the aircraft.
“We are continuously evaluating procedural compliance to prevent mishaps as well as strengthening airworthiness controls to establish clear risk thresholds,” Dougherty said in a written statement. “Through ongoing analysis and targeted action, we remain committed to improving the V-22’s performance and safeguarding the warfighters who rely on this platform.”
GAO’s investigation
The GAO’s findings similarly sounded the alarm about the Osprey, with their report showing that serious V-22 mishaps “generally exceeded those of the Departments of the Navy and Air Force fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft fleets for fiscal year 2015 through fiscal year 2024.”
The Marine Corps and Air Force variants had the highest rates of the most serious accidents in 2023 and 2024, compared with the average serious accident rate for its V-22 variants for the previous eight years, the GAO report read.
Still, Rebecca Heyse, an Air Force Special Operations Command spokesperson, said the component has “complete confidence in the aircraft and the crews and maintainers that operate and fix them.”
Similar to the NAVAIR report, GAO investigators identified a long history of unresolved maintenance problems. V-22 program officials did not regularly share hazard and accident reporting, aircraft knowledge and emergency procedures, or common maintenance data related to the aircraft among the service branches to promote safety, according to the report.
“GAO found that the median age for 28 unresolved serious and medium system risks was about nine years, and over half (17 of 28) had been unresolved for between six and 14 years,” the report read.
While some problems had been fixed, investigators said,, more serious problems with the airframe remain.
“For example, program stakeholders, which include the Osprey Joint Program Office and military services that operate the aircraft, had closed 45 risk assessments at the time of our review, but had not fully responded to 34 known system-related risks related to the potential failure of airframe and engine components,” the GAO report read.
Like the NAVAIR report, the GAO findings pointed to flaws within the V-22’s joint program office. Overall, the GAO recommended the Defense Department refine its process for comprehensively responding to all Osprey safety risks, determine a revised oversight structure, better share safety data, and regularly review and revise its maintenance procedures.
The future of vertical lift
Military families who lost loved ones in V-22 crashes, and lawmakers, have been demanding accountability for the Osprey program since the string of deadly crashes.
The 33-page NAVAIR report was first commissioned in September 2023. The GAO’s report, requested by the House Subcommittee on Readiness, follows outrage from members of Congress earlier this year related to delays in getting key safety data.
Amber Sax's husband, Marine Corps Capt. John J. Sax, died in a 2022 Osprey crash in California which killed all five Marines aboard. That crash was caused by a hard clutch engagement, a problem the Marine Corps had known about for more than a decade.
“Their findings confirm what we already know: More needs to be done, and more needed to be done,” Sax said in response to the GAO report. “It’s clear in the report that these risks were not properly assessed, and that failure cost my husband his life. I’m grateful these issues are finally being brought forward, but the work can’t stop here. They owe it to our family, and to every person flying in this airframe. These V-22s can carry more than 20 people in the back. That responsibility is enormous, and they need to do better.”
This year, several defense contractors have pitched prototypes for unmanned tiltrotor aircraft to support future military missions that platforms like the Osprey may have taken on.
In October, the prime contractor unveiled its design for its CxR aircraft which seeks to place unmanned vertical-takeoff-and-landing aircraft alongside helicopters in combat and cargo operations. That same month, Sikorsky announced NOMAD, its offering of a rotor blown wing vertical take-off and landing drone.
]]>¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
-
The Trump administration sent shockwaves across the Atlantic last week with its new National Security Strategy. The strategy’s dismissal of the threat from Russia and harsh criticisms of Europe and NATO led the German chancellor to describe elements of the strategy as “unacceptable,” and to call for Europe to become “much more independent of the United States in security policy.” Meanwhile, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said the strategy was “largely consistent” with Moscow’s vision—never a good sign.
Thankfully, bipartisan majorities of Americans and their representatives in Congress remain clear-eyed about the threat from Moscow and believe supporting NATO and Ukraine serves American interests.
Consider the contrasting views on Russia, NATO, and Ukraine.
To its credit, the new NSS acknowledges that Europe remains strategically “vital to the United States” and that “Transatlantic trade remains one of the pillars of the global economy and of American prosperity.” Yet unlike the first Trump administration’s National Security Strategy of 2017, which said Russia was seeking to “shape a world antithetical to U.S. values and interests,” the new one fails even to identify Russia as a U.S. adversary. Worse still, the strategy says that the leading problems facing Europe are cultural issues and “civilizational erasure”; the continent’s adversarial relations with Russia, it says, are largely the fault of NATO’s expansion and Europe’s “lack of self-confidence.”
Those are talking points Putin loves. They also seem dissonant with the U.S. intelligence community’s 2025 Worldwide Threat Assessment, which described Russia as an “enduring potential threat to U.S. power, presence, and global interests” that is one of several countries “challenging U.S. interests in the world by attacking or threatening others in their regions.”
Putin doesn’t like NATO expansion because he knows that when a country joins the alliance, it becomes more costly to bully, coerce, or invade. NATO is not an offensive threat to Russia; Moscow long left its borders with alliance members relatively free of fortifications. Putin resents democracies that arm themselves to thwart his imperial ambitions. Predators prefer vulnerable prey.
To be clear, the biggest problem facing European security is Putin’s war of naked aggression and imperial conquest.
In a famous 1983 speech on the Soviet Union to the National Association of Evangelicals, Ronald Reagan warned against labeling both sides in the Cold War “equally at fault,” cautioned against ignoring “the facts of history and the aggressive impulses” of Moscow, and called the Soviet Union “an evil empire.”
Thankfully, like Reagan, most Americans see Moscow clearly. The latest 2025 Reagan National Defense Survey, released this month, found that 79 percent of Americans view Russia as an “enemy,” while 70 percent of respondents said they distrust Russia to honor any peace agreement with Ukraine. That is smart given Moscow’s history.
The realistic views of Americans regarding Russia are reflected in the latest version of the National Defense Authorization Act negotiated by bipartisan leaders of the Senate and House armed services committees and passed on Wednesday by the U.S. House of Representatives. The legislation would require detailed reports on Russian military capabilities, hybrid warfare, and cooperation with other U.S. adversaries, as well as on American deterrence and military force posture in Eastern Europe.
It is worth remembering that in June, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine told Congress, that Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea “are pursuing unprecedented levels of cooperation” to threaten U.S. interests around the world.
The contrast between the administration and the American public and Congress is also evident when it comes to Ukraine. The administration has resisted imposing sufficient consequences on Putin for the war he started, pursued at times a “peace at any cost” approach, and placed more pressure on Kyiv than Moscow. At times, it has stood reality on its head, insisting that the invaded democracy provoked the authoritarian invader.
By contrast, the Reagan survey found that 62 percent of Americans want Ukraine to prevail over Russia, and 64 percent support sending U.S. weapons to Ukraine. Sixty-nine percent of respondents went so far as to say they support an Article 5-style collective security guarantee for Ukraine, while roughly three-quarters support a European-led security force backed by U.S. airpower.
Reflecting this American support for Ukraine, the NDAA would extend and authorize more funding for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. It also requires the Defense Department to notify Congress within 48 hours of any pause, restriction, or termination of intelligence support to Ukraine, which the administration temporarily cut off last spring. The NDAA also extends the prohibition on the recognition of Russian sovereignty over Ukrainian territory, which the administration has considered.
Similarly, differences can be seen when it comes to NATO. Whereas the first Trump administration’s NSS identified Russia’s desire to “weaken the credibility of America’s commitment to Europe,” the 2025 NSS does that all on its own by describing the viability of NATO as “an open question.” To make matters worse, the administration has added damaging action to this damaging rhetoric, reducing U.S. military force posture in Eastern Europe and reportedly planning to cut security assistance funding for frontline NATO states. Unsurprisingly, this weakening of American deterrence in Europe has been paired with Russian incursions into NATO airspace.
Yet again, the NDAA demonstrates that Congress remains committed to the NATO alliance. The legislation authorizes continued U.S. security assistance funding in Eastern Europe and seeks to block the administration from further reducing the U.S. military force posture in Europe and to maintain American military leadership of NATO.
That also reflects the thinking of Americans. The Reagan survey found that 68 percent of Americans hold a favorable view of NATO, while 76 percent said they would support a U.S. military response if a NATO ally were attacked. Likewise, 59 percent opposed withdrawing from NATO, while an additional 18 percent opposed withdrawal after learning about increased defense-spending commitments from allies.
Good strategies and sound policy start with an objective assessment of interests and the leading and most likely threats to those interests. If the administration cannot even name Russia as the instigator of the largest war in Europe since World War II and the leading threat to security and stability in Europe, that does not bode well for the protection of American interests there.
The Trump administration would be wise to listen to the American public and Congress and reconsider its approach to American interests in Europe. That would include coordinating with NATO allies for more European orders of American-made weapons for Ukraine through the Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List program, restarting direct U.S. military aid to Kyiv, imposing stronger sanctions on the Kremlin, and halting any further cuts to U.S. military force posture and security assistance in Eastern Europe.
But these steps are only likely if the Trump administration rediscovers some of Ronald Reagan’s ability to distinguish friend from foe.
Cameron McMillan is a senior research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Center on Military and Political Power, where Bradley Bowman is senior director. Bradley also served on the advisory board for the 2025 Reagan National Defense Survey.
]]>¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
-
Guest:
- Paul Scharre, executive vice president at the Center for a New American Security and author of several books, including “Four Battlegrounds: Power in the Age of Artificial Intelligence,” and “Army of None: Autonomous Weapons and the Future of War.”
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶


