SEC Overhauls IPO Rules to Ease Post-Listing Fundraising and Reporting Burdens

The Securities and Exchange Commission proposed sweeping changes Tuesday that would let companies raise capital far more easily after their initial public offerings. The moves mark the most significant rewrite of public offering and reporting rules in more than two decades. They come as Chair Paul Atkins pushes an agenda to “Make IPOs Great Again.”

Two separate proposals target different pain points. One simplifies who qualifies as what kind of filer. The other expands access to shelf registrations and related flexibilities. Taken together, they would extend scaled disclosure benefits to roughly 81% of current public companies. New public firms would keep those accommodations for at least five years regardless of size.

Current rules force many freshly listed companies to wait 12 months before they can use a shelf registration to sell shares quickly. They also cap smaller floats in certain ways. The SEC wants to scrap much of that. Companies could file a shelf right after their IPO. They could sell from it over three years without separate registrations for each raise. The $75 million public float requirement for unlimited primary offerings would vanish.

Broader Access, Fewer Hurdles

The changes don’t stop at timing. The threshold that triggers large accelerated filer status would jump from $700 million to $2 billion in public float. Companies would need to exceed that mark for two consecutive years before facing the strictest audit and reporting demands. Even then, all new issuers get a 60-month grace period before large accelerated status kicks in. This IPO on-ramp builds on accommodations first created for emerging growth companies under the JOBS Act.

Smaller public companies would gain extra breathing room too. Those with less than $35 million in assets could file their annual report 30 days later and quarterly reports five days later than peers. Non-accelerated filers would generally escape the auditor attestation requirement on internal controls over financial reporting. Scaled disclosures on executive compensation and fewer years of financial statements would become standard for a much larger group.

But why now? Atkins pointed to a simple reality in his statement. Investors already enjoy easy access to every public company’s SEC filings online. The old distinctions, born in a paper-based era, no longer match today’s information environment. “The approach under the proposed amendments recognizes that investors can now easily access SEC filings for all public companies,” he wrote.

Industry groups cheered the announcement. The American Securities Association called it a step toward keeping more companies public longer. Yet critics pushed back. Better Markets warned the SEC was “needlessly increasing the risk of corporate misconduct.” Ben Schiffrin of the group told Reuters that public offerings have declined precisely because firms can raise unlimited capital in private markets without the scrutiny.

The SEC insists investor protections remain intact. Ineligible issuer concepts would still bar bad actors from using the new shortcuts. Foreign private issuers, blank-check companies and penny stocks would largely stay excluded from the broadest new benefits. State blue sky registration requirements would be preempted for all registered offerings, removing another layer of friction.

Market reaction on X reflected the split. Some posts hailed lower barriers for mid-sized and volatile firms, especially in sectors like crypto. Others questioned whether faster capital raises would simply lead to more dilution for existing shareholders. One analyst noted the proposals could prove particularly useful for companies burning cash on infrastructure yet sitting on strong user growth.

These ideas didn’t appear in a vacuum. They follow months of talks between the SEC, Nasdaq and NYSE about easing rules that push promising firms to stay private. A Reuters report from last year first detailed those conversations. The current package goes further than many expected. It doesn’t just tweak. It rewrites categories, merges benefits once reserved for the smallest players, and extends well-known seasoned issuer-style advantages to a wider tier of listed companies.

Details still matter. The proposals remain open for 60 days of public comment. Final rules could shift. Yet the direction is unmistakable. The SEC under Atkins seeks to make public markets competitive again with private ones. Fewer reporting burdens. Faster capital. Simpler categories. All aimed at companies that have already taken the plunge but still face heavy compliance costs in their early public years.

One proposal would let broker-dealers publish research on more issuers without current restrictions. Another modernizes how companies incorporate information by reference into Form S-1. Advertising rules for certain insurance products would loosen too. The cumulative effect could reshape how mid-cap and newly public firms think about their capital strategies.

Numbers tell part of the story. Today only about one in five public companies would still qualify as large accelerated filers under the new $2 billion threshold. Those firms, however, represent roughly 90% of total market capitalization. The bulk of listed companies would operate with lighter loads. For smaller names, that could mean meaningful savings on audit fees, legal work and management time.

Atkins framed the package as foundational. Future steps may include broader Reg S-K revisions. For now, the focus stays on post-IPO life. Companies fresh off a listing often need capital to scale operations, fund acquisitions or simply provide liquidity. Waiting a full year under current rules can mean missed opportunities when markets turn favorable. The proposed shelf changes aim to close that gap.

Whether this revives the IPO market remains an open question. Private capital still flows freely for many high-growth names. Yet for firms squeezed between venture expectations and public demands, these adjustments could tip the balance. They won’t eliminate all regulatory costs. They do reduce some of the most immediate ones.

The Yahoo Finance article first brought the proposals to wider attention on May 19. Its coverage highlighted the “make IPOs great again” framing and the direct benefits for companies with smaller floats. Subsequent reporting from CoinDesk noted particular advantages for crypto and other volatile businesses that might otherwise avoid public markets.

Implementation won’t happen overnight. Comments will pour in from issuers, investors, law firms and advocacy groups. The SEC will sift through them. Yet the proposals already signal a philosophical shift. Disclosure obligations should match company maturity and information availability, not rigid timelines set decades ago.

That shift carries risks. Less frequent or detailed reporting could leave gaps. Scaled back internal control audits might miss weaknesses. The agency argues modern data access and market discipline provide sufficient checks. Time and final rules will test that claim.

For capital markets professionals, the message is clear. A new set of tools may soon become available for newly public companies. Shelf eligibility from day one. Delayed large accelerated status. Broader scaled disclosures. These aren’t minor tweaks. They reshape the cost-benefit equation of going and staying public. And in a market where private funding remains abundant, that equation matters more than ever.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/TEMVdHP

Colossal Biosciences Hatches Chicks From Artificial Eggs. Scientists Aren’t Impressed

Colossal Biosciences just announced a milestone. The Dallas biotech firm hatched 26 live chickens from a 3D-printed lattice that mimics an eggshell. No hen. No natural shell for most of development. The chicks now range from days to months old. They look ordinary. Yet this step feeds directly into the company’s larger ambition: bringing back extinct giants like the South Island moa.

Ben Lamm, Colossal’s CEO, framed the work as practical engineering. “We wanted to build something that nature has done a pretty good job of developing and make it better and scalable and even more efficient,” he said, according to Fortune. The firm had already produced mice with mammoth-like hair and wolf pups modeled on dire wolves. Now it turns to birds. The moa, a flightless New Zealand species that stood over 3 meters tall, laid eggs roughly 80 times the volume of a chicken’s. No living bird could incubate one. An artificial system might.

The Technical Claim

Colossal’s platform uses a printed lattice structure with a silicone membrane. Scientists transferred contents from fertilized chicken eggs into these constructs, added calcium, and incubated them. Real-time imaging tracked embryo growth. The system supplies oxygen without supplemental gas in later stages. Twenty-six chicks emerged healthy. The company calls it the first full end-to-end success from a fully artificial construct, per its press release.

But independent researchers push back. Vincent Lynch, an evolutionary biologist at the University at Buffalo, examined the details. “They might be able to use this technology to help them make a genetically modified bird, but that’s just a genetically modified bird. It’s not a moa,” he told the Associated Press. He added a sharper distinction: “That’s not an artificial egg because you’ve poured in all the other parts that make it an egg. It’s an artificial eggshell.”

Lynch’s critique lands on substance. Natural eggs contain temporary organs that nourish the embryo, manage waste and stabilize development. Colossal’s version supplies the shell and gas exchange but relies on the original egg’s internal material. Earlier experiments decades ago used plastic films or sacks to create transparent shells for developmental studies. Nicola Hemmings, who researches bird reproductive biology at the University of Sheffield, noted the precedent. “Producing a chick from an artificial vessel is not necessarily new,” she said.

Yet Colossal insists the advance matters. The lattice scales. It avoids the physical limits of surrogate birds. For the dodo or moa, whose genomes the company has sequenced and compared to living relatives, this platform could one day support edited primordial germ cells grown in chicken hosts before transfer. Recent coverage in Nature captured the caution from the field. Researchers there urged restraint even as they acknowledged potential conservation uses for endangered species.

Bioethicist Arthur Caplan at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine raised a different question. “The big challenge is, what environment is this animal going to live in?” The moa vanished centuries ago. New Zealand’s forests have changed. Predators, plants and climate differ. Releasing approximations of extinct megafauna carries ecological risk no lab test can fully predict.

Hemmings offered a blunter priority. “My personal interests lie more in preserving what we’ve got than trying to bring back what is already gone.” Her stance echoes a divide in conservation biology. Some see de-extinction as distraction. Others view the underlying tools—gene editing, synthetic gestation, high-fidelity genomes—as applicable to species still hanging on. Ben Novak at Revive & Restore, a nonprofit focused on passenger pigeon revival, told Nature the artificial egg could find immediate takers in zoos and breeding programs.

Colossal has moved fast. It raised hundreds of millions in venture capital. Its dire wolf pups, announced in 2025, drew both wonder and accusations of overstatement; critics noted the animals were genetically edited gray wolves, not true clones of the extinct Pleistocene predator. The chick announcement follows the same pattern. Public excitement spikes. Scientific skepticism follows.

And the skepticism has merit. Full de-extinction demands more than a bigger printed shell. It requires accurate reconstruction of ancient DNA, functional expression of extinct traits, viable germline transmission and, eventually, self-sustaining populations. Each layer compounds technical difficulty and ethical weight. So far Colossal has demonstrated edited mammals and now scalable avian incubation. Impressive. Not resurrection.

Still, the engineering deserves credit. Real-time imaging inside an artificial construct offers data hard to gather in opaque natural eggs. Scalability could lower costs for conservation breeding of rare cranes or parrots whose eggs suffer high mortality. If the platform works at moa scale without supplemental oxygen, as claimed, it removes one physical barrier that once seemed absolute.

Recent reporting adds texture. Gizmodo described the shell as titanium and bioengineered silicone in some components. Dallas Innovates highlighted the company’s local roots and the shell-less incubation platform’s potential for giant bird revival. NPR explored the dodo and moa targets directly, noting Colossal already prepares larger artificial eggs for those species.

Public reaction on X mixed awe with Jurassic Park jokes. One post asked whether society stands “on the verge of real Jurassic Park-style de-extinction.” Another summarized the 26 chicks as proof of concept but reminded followers that true moa revival remains distant. The conversation reveals the tension. Audiences love the spectacle. Experts fixate on the gaps.

Colossal’s leadership shows no signs of slowing. Lamm has said the firm did not want to wait until moa-ready before tackling birth engineering. That choice makes sense from a product development view. Solve the small problems first. Iterate. Scale. Yet it invites criticism that announcements outpace substantive leaps toward genuine revival.

The chicks themselves offer the clearest data point. They hatched. They live. The system functions. Whether that system can ever produce a functional proxy for a 3-meter flightless bird with an entirely different developmental timeline is another matter. Scientists will watch the next iterations closely. So will investors. And so will anyone who remembers the original warning from a 1993 film: life finds a way. The question now is whether humanity should help it do so.

One fact remains undisputed. The technology Colossal demonstrated this week did not exist in public view a year ago. Its refinement will shape debates over conservation priorities, synthetic biology limits and the very definition of extinction for years ahead. Short of creating a moa, the firm has already altered the conversation.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/NQYAyCE

CISA Contractor’s GitHub Blunder Exposes AWS GovCloud Keys and Internal Blueprints

A contractor working for the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency left highly privileged credentials to AWS GovCloud accounts sitting in plain sight on a public GitHub repository. The exposure went on for months. Security researchers who found it called the incident one of the worst government leaks they had seen.

The repository, named Private-CISA, contained far more than stray keys. It held plaintext passwords for dozens of internal CISA systems. Files detailed exactly how the agency builds, tests and deploys its software. Logs, tokens and other sensitive assets sat alongside them. And the administrative credentials to three AWS GovCloud servers? They stayed valid for two full days after researchers alerted authorities.

Guillaume Valadon, a researcher at GitGuardian, spotted the material on May 15. He reached out to the repository owner. No response came. So he contacted KrebsOnSecurity. The account and its contents vanished from public view soon after. KrebsOnSecurity reported the full details the following Monday.

The contractor worked for Nightwing, a government contractor based in Dulles, Virginia. He used an email address tied to CISA as well as a personal one. The GitHub account itself dated back to September 2018. The problematic repository launched on November 13, 2025. Commits arrived regularly from that point forward. This was no one-off upload. It served as a working scratchpad. A way to move files between a work laptop and a home computer.

That habit produced staggering oversights. The repository disabled GitHub’s built-in feature meant to block secrets from public repos. Passwords appeared in a CSV file with names as obvious as each platform followed by the current year. Backups lived directly in the Git history. Valadon could hardly believe what he saw. “Passwords stored in plain text in a csv, backups in git, explicit commands to disable GitHub secrets detection feature… I honestly believed that it was all fake before analyzing the content deeper. This is indeed the worst leak that I’ve witnessed in my career.”

Philippe Caturegli, founder of Seralys, examined the material at the request of KrebsOnSecurity. He confirmed the AWS keys worked. They granted administrative access to three separate GovCloud accounts. Those environments exist specifically to hold sensitive government data under strict controls. “That would be a prime place to move laterally,” Caturegli said. He pictured an attacker slipping a backdoor into software packages. Every new build would spread the compromise across CISA systems.

Caturegli also pieced together the contractor’s likely routine. Regular commits stretching back to late 2025 suggested routine synchronization between devices. “This would be an embarrassing leak for any company, but it’s even more so in this case because it’s CISA.”

The agency itself operates under strain. It has lost nearly a third of its workforce since the start of the second Trump administration. Early retirements, buyouts and resignations have left it running with reduced staff and budget. A CISA spokesperson acknowledged the exposure. “Currently, there is no indication that any sensitive data was compromised as a result of this incident,” the statement read. “While we hold our team members to the highest standards of integrity and operational awareness, we are working to ensure additional safeguards are implemented to prevent future occurrences.” The agency directed further questions about the contractor to Nightwing. The company declined to comment and pointed back to CISA.

News of the breach spread quickly on X. Multiple accounts shared the KrebsOnSecurity story within hours of publication. Some posts highlighted the continued validity of the keys. Others noted the plaintext passwords and the artifactory credentials that could have let an intruder poison CISA’s internal code repository.

This event arrives against a backdrop of repeated cloud credential exposures. Researchers have documented thousands of similar mistakes across private industry and government alike. Yet the CISA case stands out. The agency exists to guide others on proper security practices. Its own contractor handed adversaries a roadmap to sensitive federal systems.

The files went beyond credentials. They mapped internal processes in detail. An attacker could study deployment pipelines. Identify weak points in the build chain. Craft attacks that blend into normal CISA operations. Lateral movement becomes simpler when you understand the target’s own logic.

AWS GovCloud adds another dimension. The platform enforces stricter compliance than standard AWS regions. Federal customers rely on its isolation. Administrative keys there open doors that should stay bolted. The fact those keys survived 48 hours after notification raises fresh questions about detection and response speed.

GitGuardian’s discovery method relied on routine scanning of public repositories for secrets. Many organizations now run similar tools. The fact that a CISA-linked repo escaped notice for months shows gaps remain. Contractors, personal devices and synchronization habits create persistent risks.

Security teams have long warned about these patterns. Plaintext storage. Disabled guardrails. Reuse of repositories for convenience. Each element appears in countless breach reports. Their convergence inside a federal cybersecurity agency carries extra sting.

CISA says it is adding safeguards. Rotation of the exposed credentials happened. Investigations continue. Yet the episode underscores a truth many inside government already know. Human error still defeats the most sophisticated technical controls. Especially when budgets shrink and experienced staff depart.

Industry observers will watch closely for follow-up disclosures. Any evidence of actual exploitation could shift this story from embarrassing lapse to active compromise. For now, the public record stops at the exposed repository and the swift takedown once outsiders rang the alarm.

Even without confirmed breach of sensitive information, the damage sits in lost trust. Federal partners and private sector organizations look to CISA for leadership. A contractor’s personal GitHub habits just delivered a visible reminder that vigilance must extend to every endpoint. Every sync. Every commit.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/k0aGXiN

Mac Infostealers Turn to AppleScript and Trusted Brands as Attacks Grow Sharper

Security researchers have uncovered a new macOS infostealer that slips past defenses by pretending to be routine Apple security software. Called SHub Reaper, the malware represents the latest evolution in a two-year campaign built around the SHub Stealer family. It no longer relies on crude fake installers or obvious Terminal tricks. Instead it weaves itself into familiar system processes. And it does so with striking precision.

The discovery comes at a moment when macOS threats have accelerated. Reports from the past several months show infostealers expanding from Windows roots into Apple systems. Microsoft detailed how such campaigns now use social engineering and native tool abuse across platforms. Microsoft’s analysis from early May traces similar ClickFix-style tactics that Reaper builds upon. The pattern is clear. Attackers study Apple’s latest protections and adjust quickly.

Reaper starts its work on malicious websites that quietly profile visitors. These pages gather system details, WebGL fingerprints, VPN usage signs, browser extensions and hints of virtual machines or analysis environments. They scan for installed password managers such as 1Password, Bitwarden and LastPass. Crypto wallet extensions like MetaMask and Phantom draw special interest. Anti-analysis tricks follow. The sites interfere with developer tools, capture F12 keystrokes and trigger endless debugger loops. Some even switch to a Russian “Access Denied” page once they smell trouble.

Once a target engages, the delivery shifts to the applescript:// URL scheme. This opens Apple’s Script Editor and prompts the user to click Run. Here the deception sharpens. A fake XProtectRemediator security update window appears. Behind it the malicious AppleScript executes. Attackers pad the script with fake installer text and ASCII art. The dangerous commands stay hidden below the visible edge of the window. Victims see what looks like a normal Apple process. They rarely suspect anything.

But the theft runs deep. Reaper targets browsers including Chrome, Firefox, Brave, Edge, Opera, Vivaldi, Arc and Orion. It grabs data from crypto wallets such as Exodus, Atomic Wallet, Ledger Live, Electrum and Trezor Suite. macOS Keychain entries, Telegram sessions, browser extensions and developer files all fall into its net. An AMOS-style document stealer adds another layer. It combs Desktop and Documents folders for Word files, spreadsheets, JSON data, wallet backups and remote desktop configurations. Files larger than certain thresholds are skipped. PNG images over 6 MB stay behind. The total haul caps at 150 MB before compression and chunked upload to command-and-control servers.

Wallet applications face direct sabotage. The malware kills active wallet processes, swaps their internal app.asar resources with attacker-controlled versions, removes quarantine attributes and applies ad hoc code signing. The modified apps keep running. Funds can vanish later. After data collection the victim sees a fake compatibility error. Suspicion fades. The password prompt that appeared earlier has already delivered admin credentials.

Persistence marks Reaper’s biggest advance over prior SHub variants. The malware drops a LaunchAgent disguised inside a fake GoogleUpdate.app bundle. It registers as com.google.keystone.agent.plist. This mimics Google’s legitimate Keystone update service and runs every 60 seconds. From there remote servers feed new commands, execute additional payloads under the current user and clean up temporary files. What began as a one-time theft now becomes a lasting foothold. Future modules or remote access become possible.

SentinelOne first detailed these tactics in its report on the campaign. The firm noted how Reaper expands on earlier SHub methods that used fake installers and ClickFix social engineering. Those older attacks pushed victims to paste commands into Terminal. Apple responded in macOS Tahoe 26.4 with new warnings for suspicious paste operations. Reaper sidesteps that by routing through Script Editor. Different stages rotate disguises. Early lures mimic WeChat or Miro installers from typo-squatted domains that resemble Microsoft infrastructure. Later stages pose as Apple updates. Persistence hides in Google-branded directories. The malware borrows trust from three major technology brands in one chain.

This approach exploits how users and security tools perceive normal activity. AppleScript and shell scripts blend into everyday macOS behavior. Traditional file-based scanning like XProtect struggles to flag them. Monitoring for unusual osascript processes, unexpected LaunchAgents or Script Editor network traffic offers better signals. Yet many organizations and home users lack such visibility. The result is a stealthier threat that scales.

Broader industry data supports the trend. Jamf’s Security 360 report for 2026 shows Trojan detections on Macs jumping sharply. Infostealers now dominate many threat lists. Related families such as Atomic Stealer, also known as AMOS, DigitStealer and MacSync continue to evolve. A 9to5Mac report from April described additional undetected macOS samples that evade major antivirus engines. The shift toward Go, Rust and modular designs makes cross-platform operation easier. Attackers no longer treat macOS as an afterthought.

Microsoft has warned repeatedly about this expansion. Its February analysis highlighted campaigns delivering DigitStealer, MacSync and AMOS through malvertising, fake DMGs and ClickFix prompts. The firm urged monitoring for suspicious Terminal flows involving curl, Base64 decoding, osascript or JavaScript for Automation. Reaper fits neatly into that pattern while adding its own refinements. The malware’s use of fingerprinting and anti-analysis shows growing operational maturity.

Apple itself has tightened controls. Gatekeeper, notarization requirements and the Tahoe 26.4 Terminal warnings all aim to raise the bar. Yet social engineering remains the weak point. Users still click Run in Script Editor when prompted by what looks like an urgent security update. They enter passwords when asked. Fake error messages reassure them. The human element gives these campaigns their reach.

Experts advise sticking to official download sources. Avoid unsolicited links, ad-driven installer pages and claims that a manual security fix requires opening Script Editor. Check URLs carefully. Watch for unexpected password prompts paired with vague errors. Advanced users can review LaunchAgents in their Library folders and monitor for suspicious AppleScript activity. Simple habits still matter most.

Reaper does not rewrite the rules of macOS security. It exploits existing gaps with care and patience. Its success signals that threat actors now invest time studying Apple’s updates and user workflows. They test anti-analysis measures. They refine persistence. They rotate brands to stay under the radar. The days when macOS malware meant obvious Trojans appear to be fading. A more calculated, script-driven style is taking hold.

Security teams and individual users face a choice. They can treat every unexpected update prompt as suspect. Or they can hope their defenses catch what file scanners miss. The evidence from recent months suggests the first option carries less risk. Because once Reaper or its successors gain persistence, the data they seek is already on its way out the door.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/cRiMCn3

Post-SaaS Reckoning: How AI Shockwaves Reshape Software Valuations and Debt Markets

Software stocks cratered early this year. More than one trillion dollars in market value disappeared in a matter of weeks. Traders coined a blunt phrase for the bloodbath. They called it the SaaS apocalypse.

Yet the dust has begun to settle. Secondary loan prices have climbed back. Repricing activity for certain borrowers has resumed. And industry voices now describe a more measured transition. The market, according to a recent Yahoo Finance report, has entered a post-SaaS-pocalypse thaw. Not every credit benefits. But the selective recovery reveals how investors now separate durable platforms from vulnerable point solutions.

The trouble started in February. Advances in AI tools, particularly from Anthropic, triggered a sharp sell-off. Free plug-ins promised to automate business processes that once required dedicated software licenses. Enterprise buyers paused. Public valuations plunged. Hundreds of billions vanished almost overnight. The North American Tech Software Index dropped roughly 30 percent from its mid-September peak, PwC analysts noted in late February.

Private markets felt the aftershocks too. Private equity vintages from 2021 and 2022 faced markdowns. Limited partners demanded clearer proof of lasting value. Some pulled capital from private credit funds worried about software exposure. The term SaaS apocalypse spread from trading floors to boardrooms.

But the narrative was always too simple. AI agents excel at processing information. They still need reliable access to decades of mission-critical data. “The reality is more nuanced than either extreme,” wrote Jon Markham in Forbes. “AI agents are only as useful as the data they can access and work with. Think of it this way: an AI assistant is brilliant at processing information, but it still needs a filing cabinet.”

Those filing cabinets sit inside established enterprise systems. Moving that data proves expensive, slow, and risky. Companies therefore prefer to bring AI capabilities to where the data already lives. The result? Incumbents with deep workflow integration and proprietary context gain rather than lose.

Steve Banker explored this dynamic further in the same Forbes piece. He initially saw workflow applications at risk. AI-assisted development lets teams prototype in hours instead of months. The buy-versus-build equation appeared to tilt. Yet hidden costs quickly surface. Architecture, reliability, integration, compliance, and long-term maintenance consume the bulk of effort. “Where most internal builds fail is not in version one, it’s everything that comes after,” Chuck Fuerst told Banker.

Maintenance demands ongoing work on evolving APIs, regulatory shifts, data privacy rules, and edge cases. Software vendors maintain dedicated teams for exactly these tasks. Enterprises hesitate to bet their core operations on homemade tools that may break at scale. They extend existing platforms instead.

This nuance explains why the panic has cooled. ServiceNow executives declared the worst behind them. The company identified a $30 billion opportunity in AI-driven workflows. Josh Bersin highlighted the claim in early May analysis. Sentiment improved. Loan markets reflected the shift.

By mid-May, the leveraged loan index weighted average bid recovered to 95.40. That matched mid-February levels and erased a 123-basis-point drop from the early March low. Repricing volume jumped. Seven speculative-grade borrowers filed spread-lowering amendments on May 11 alone. The month-to-date total reached $17.2 billion. It surpassed the combined activity from February, March, and April.

Yet the thaw remains uneven. Double-B rated borrowers dominate. Their share of loans priced at par or above climbed back to 76 percent for double-B-minus credits by May 11. That matches January peaks. B-plus and B-flat names also gained ground. Single-B credits and those with heavy tech or AI-disruption exposure lag. Sponsor-backed single-B borrowers stay largely on the sidelines.

Investors now draw sharper lines. They reward companies with sticky data moats, regulatory entrenchment, and workflow gravity. They penalize seat-based tools that AI agents can replicate. PwC consultants advise private equity teams to focus diligence on defensibility beyond code. Domain depth, proprietary context, and mission-critical ties to financial or regulatory outcomes matter most.

Pricing models face pressure too. Traditional per-seat arrangements lose appeal when one AI agent performs the work of three analysts. Forward-looking firms experiment with outcome-based or value-based fees. Gross revenue retention gains favor over net figures as a truer test of durability.

Private equity dealmakers have grown more selective. Software still represents an attractive asset class. AI simply accelerates the gap between winners and laggards. Vertical solutions in healthcare, financial services, and cybersecurity often hold up better. Complex integration requirements and compliance burdens create natural barriers.

Free cash flow at the strongest SaaS businesses sits at record levels. EBITDA margins have rebounded since 2022. These fundamentals support selective buying. But 2021-era multiples no longer apply. Residual value in 2036 depends on how well companies embed AI into their core platforms rather than bolt it on.

The market has moved past the initial shock. Panic selling gave way to disciplined analysis. Companies that own the data layer and the workflow layer stand to benefit as AI agents proliferate. Those offering narrow, easily automated features face continued pressure.

And the repricing window? It favors the prepared. Higher-rated credits with limited disruption risk now access cheaper debt. Others wait. The post-apocalypse environment rewards clarity of strategy over hype. Software hasn’t died. Its economics have simply grown more demanding.

Buyers and lenders alike now ask tougher questions. Does this system embed itself so deeply that replacement costs dwarf any AI alternative? Can the vendor demonstrate measurable outcome improvements rather than feature lists? Answers separate survivors from casualties.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/B23FCUV

First Proven COVID Prevention Pill Emerges Years After Pandemic Peak

Years after vaccines and treatments reshaped the fight against COVID-19, a simple pill has cleared a barrier that long seemed out of reach. For the first time, an oral antiviral has shown it can stop the virus from taking hold in people exposed at home. The advance comes from ensitrelvir. Developed by Japan’s Shionogi, the drug just earned fresh validation in a major trial whose results appeared this week.

The findings land at a curious moment. COVID circulates at lower levels than in 2020 or 2021. Yet it still sends vulnerable people to hospitals. Older adults. Those with weakened immune systems. Families caring for high-risk relatives. For them, a reliable preventive pill could change daily decisions about exposure. No more waiting to see what happens after contact.

The trial, known as SCORPIO-PEP, enrolled more than 2,000 household contacts who tested negative after a family member developed symptoms. Participants started a five-day course of ensitrelvir or placebo within 72 hours. By day 10, just 2.9 percent of those on the drug developed symptomatic, confirmed COVID-19. The placebo group saw 9 percent fall ill. That works out to a 67 percent reduction in risk, according to data published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Among people with at least one risk factor for severe disease — about 37 percent of the study population — the protection looked even stronger. Risk dropped 76 percent. No one in either arm required hospitalization. Side effects stayed comparable to placebo. Notably absent were the dysgeusia complaints often reported with Paxlovid. And, as Nature reported on the results, confirmed infections of any kind fell from 21.5 percent in the placebo group to 14 percent with ensitrelvir.

Frederick G. Hayden, an emeritus professor at the University of Virginia School of Medicine and co-author of the study, didn’t mince words. “This is the first clinical trial of an oral antiviral drug to show significant protection against COVID-19,” he said. Hayden added that if approved by regulators, the drug “would be an important addition to current preventive strategies.” As a 78-year-old with comorbidities himself, he went further. He would use it after a known exposure.

The contrast with earlier efforts stands out. Pfizer’s nirmatrelvir, the main component in Paxlovid, targets the same viral main protease enzyme. Yet in household prevention trials it fell short of statistical significance, cutting infections by roughly 30 percent at best. Paxlovid excels at treating early infection in high-risk patients. Prevention proved trickier. Ensitrelvir appears to have cleared that bar. Japan already approved it for post-exposure use in March based on these data. The pill, sold there as Xocova, had previously won approval as a treatment in Japan and Singapore.

But. Success here doesn’t erase broader challenges. The trial focused on household contacts. Real-world use would require rapid testing and prompt prescribing within that 72-hour window. Access, cost, and awareness will determine whether the drug reaches those who need it most. And the pandemic has moved on. Many healthy adults now view COVID as manageable. For transplant patients on immunosuppressants or elderly residents in care facilities, the calculation differs.

Earlier coverage captured the uncertainty before these results. Gizmodo noted in its reporting that no pill had yet proven preventive power. Researchers had hints from animal studies. Human data remained elusive until now. The new trial closes that gap. Shionogi submitted the prevention indication to the FDA last year. A decision could come as soon as June 16, 2026.

Other antivirals continue to evolve the options. Paxlovid retains strong real-world evidence for reducing hospitalization and death in high-risk outpatients. A large 2025 analysis of more than 700,000 patients found it lowered those risks by 39 percent and 61 percent respectively, even among vaccinated individuals. Yet its drug interactions complicate use for some patients. Molnupiravir offers an alternative but with a narrower role. Remdesivir requires infusion. An effective oral preventive fills a distinct niche.

Experts caution against expecting miracles. Viral evolution continues. Future variants could test the drug’s potency. Resistance remains a theoretical concern for any protease inhibitor, though trial data so far show no red flags. Long-term studies will track rarer side effects once wider use begins. Still, the absence of increased adverse events in SCORPIO-PEP offers reassurance.

So what changes? For clinicians treating high-risk families, this data provides a concrete tool. A grandmother lives with her working-age children. One develops symptoms. Rather than isolate or hope for the best, the household can start ensitrelvir quickly. Protection isn’t absolute. Two to three percent still broke through. But the odds shift noticeably. That matters when stakes run high.

The timing feels both late and timely. Late because the acute emergency has passed. Timely because seasonal waves persist. Hospitals still see surges. And the next coronavirus threat may not wait decades. Broad-spectrum antivirals that work across variants or even related viruses could prove valuable insurance. Ensitrelvir hits a conserved protease target. That mechanism fuels optimism it might hold up.

Regulatory pathways in the United States will test how regulators weigh prevention data from a post-peak era. The FDA has maintained emergency use authorizations and approvals for treatments. Extending that to prevention requires clear benefit in the current risk environment. Japan’s decision to approve first reflects its experience with the drug as therapy and perhaps greater openness to incremental gains.

Researchers involved in the trial emphasize integration with existing tools. Vaccination remains foundational. Masks and ventilation still help in high-risk settings. Yet oral post-exposure prophylaxis adds a layer that doesn’t depend on behavior change alone. Take the pill. Reduce the chance of illness. Simple in concept. Complex in rollout.

Frederick Hayden and his colleagues designed SCORPIO-PEP to answer a precise question. Can an oral antiviral prevent symptomatic disease after close exposure? The answer arrived clearly. Positive. Statistically robust. Reproducible across subgroups. The publication in the New England Journal of Medicine lends weight. Independent experts will scrutinize the full dataset. Early reactions on platforms like X highlight both excitement and lingering skepticism about any new COVID intervention.

One thread runs through the coverage. This isn’t about returning to 2020. It’s about protecting the shrinking but still real population for whom the virus poses outsized danger. Care home residents. Cancer patients in treatment. People with long COVID histories wary of reinfection. For them, an additional option counts.

Shionogi plans further discussions with global regulators. Real-world evidence studies may follow approval. Pricing and distribution strategies will influence uptake. If the pill reaches pharmacies at reasonable cost with straightforward prescribing, adoption could follow. If entangled in insurance hurdles or limited to specialists, impact narrows.

The trial also tracked secondary outcomes. Lower viral transmission hints at possible community benefits. Fewer breakthrough cases mean less spread within households. That ripple effect could amplify value. Yet the primary endpoint focused on individual protection. That focus keeps expectations grounded.

Look back to the original Gizmodo piece from years earlier. It framed the quest for a preventive pill as unfinished business. Today that business has advanced. Not every exposed person will need or want the drug. But for those who do, evidence now supports a choice that didn’t exist before. A five-day course. Once daily. Oral. Effective.

Questions remain. Durability of protection beyond the trial period. Performance against currently circulating strains. Cost-effectiveness calculations in low-incidence periods. Interactions with common medications. These will occupy researchers and policymakers next. The foundational result, however, stands. An oral antiviral can prevent COVID-19 after exposure. The door has opened.

And with it comes renewed attention to antiviral development more broadly. Other candidates target different viral proteins. Some aim for pan-coronavirus activity. The success of ensitrelvir could spur investment. Or it could highlight how difficult true breakthroughs remain. Either way, the data mark a milestone. One worth recognizing for what it delivers today rather than what it might have achieved in 2021.

High-risk individuals and their doctors now have trial results to discuss. Regulators have clear efficacy numbers to review. The rest of us can note the progress. A pill that prevents. Finally.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/r3uqbep

Canadian Privacy Clash: VPN Pioneer Windscribe and Signal Draw a Line Against Surveillance Bill

Windscribe pays a lot in taxes to Ottawa. The Toronto-based VPN provider built its business on a strict no-logs policy that has withstood court tests. Now that policy stands in direct conflict with proposed federal legislation. So the company says it will move its headquarters if the law passes unchanged.

Signal reached the same conclusion first. The encrypted messaging service, which prides itself on end-to-end encryption that even its own engineers cannot break, warned it would exit the Canadian market rather than weaken its core protections. Windscribe quickly echoed that stance. The two companies, though different in scale and focus, have drawn a sharp boundary.

At issue is Bill C-22, introduced in March 2026 and now under committee review. The legislation, formally titled the Lawful Access Act, would require telecoms, internet firms and other electronic service providers to retain user metadata for up to a year. It would also compel companies to make technical changes enabling police and intelligence agencies to access data more readily. The Globe and Mail first reported Signal’s position after Vice President of Strategy and Global Affairs Udbhav Tiwari spoke plainly.

“We would rather pull out of the country than be compelled to compromise on the privacy promises we have made to our users,” Tiwari said. He added that the bill could force the introduction of vulnerabilities. “Bill C-22 could potentially allow hackers to exploit these very vulnerabilities engineered into electronic systems, with private messaging services serving as an ideal target for foreign adversaries.”

End-to-end encryption, he noted, cannot coexist with exceptional access. Any route to it creates risk. Provisions that deliberately engineer weaknesses into systems like Signal represent a grave threat to privacy everywhere.

Windscribe’s reaction came via X. The company stated it would not lag far behind. “In its current state, VPNs would almost certainly require us to log identifying user data,” the post read. Then came the sharper language. “Signal isn’t headquartered in Canada so they can just shut off Canadian servers, but our HQ is. We pay an ungodly amount of taxes to this corrupt government, and in return they want to destroy the entire essence of our service to basically spy on its own citizens. Not happening. We’ll move HQ and take our taxes elsewhere.”

The message landed with force. And it wasn’t alone.

Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree has pushed back. He described the bill as encryption-neutral during a Commons committee hearing. A spokesperson later told reporters the government is not requiring companies to install surveillance capabilities. Assertions to the contrary are false, the spokesperson said. Yet Apple, Meta and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce have issued similar warnings. So have two chairs of U.S. congressional committees.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation called the measure a repackaged version of last year’s failed Bill C-2. That earlier proposal collapsed under privacy backlash. Bill C-22 keeps the core elements with only modest adjustments. It demands metadata retention for a full year. Metadata can reveal who communicates with whom, approximate locations and timing patterns even when message content stays hidden. The bill also grants the Minister of Public Safety authority to order companies to build access mechanisms. These orders come with a condition. They must not create a systemic vulnerability. The definitions of both systemic vulnerability and encryption remain vague enough to invite broad interpretation.

“Surveillance of encrypted communications is fundamentally a systemic vulnerability,” the EFF wrote in its analysis. “When you build these systems, hackers will come.” The organization highlighted risks of expanded information sharing with foreign governments, including the United States. EFF detailed how the legislation could conscript private companies into extended government surveillance roles with insufficient safeguards.

Meta’s head of public policy in Canada, Rachel Curran, testified before the committee. She warned the bill could require companies to break, weaken or circumvent encryption or zero-knowledge architectures. It might even force installation of government spyware directly on systems. Apple has taken a comparable position. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce raised concerns about weakened encryption and deterred investment.

Two U.S. House committee chairs sent a letter to Canadian officials in early May. They expressed worry that the bill would expand surveillance powers in ways that create cross-border risks to American security and data privacy. The letter highlighted potential compulsion of American companies to build backdoors. Such changes could introduce vulnerabilities exploitable by hackers, adversaries and cybercriminals. Paubox covered the letter and its implications for cybersecurity norms.

Windscribe brings a distinct perspective. Founded in Toronto in 2016, the company maintains a lean operation focused on practical privacy tools. Its no-logs policy faced a real test in 2025 when Greek authorities sought user data. Courts found nothing to hand over. The company had logged nothing. That outcome reinforced its public claims. Relocating headquarters would allow it to preserve that architecture outside Canadian legal reach. Shutting down local operations entirely remains an option but moving the HQ offers a cleaner separation.

Observers note this isn’t the first time Canada has tried such measures. Successive governments have returned to lawful access ideas over more than a decade. Each attempt met resistance. Previous versions stalled. Bill C-22 follows a familiar pattern yet arrives amid heightened global tension over encryption. The United Kingdom’s demands on Apple for access to encrypted iCloud data led the company to withdraw a security feature rather than comply. Signal itself once warned it would exit Sweden over comparable proposals. That threat contributed to long delays in the Swedish bill.

So the threats carry weight. Companies aren’t bluffing when they say compliance would destroy their product. For Signal, any mandated access mechanism would mean ceasing to offer the service users chose. For a VPN like Windscribe, mandatory logging of identifying data would erase the anonymity that defines its value. Users seeking to protect their traffic from surveillance or censorship would lose a trusted Canadian option.

Parliamentary committee hearings continue. Amendments remain possible. Yet the government’s responses so far suggest little appetite for major changes. Officials repeatedly insist critics misunderstand the bill. They point to its aim of updating outdated laws to combat modern crime and national security threats. Digital networks have evolved. Law enforcement tools have not kept pace, ministers argue.

But the pushback grows louder. Cybersecurity experts, human rights groups and now multiple technology providers line up against the current text. Michael Geist, a leading technology law professor, compared the government’s handling to its approach on the Online News Act. Dismissal of expert concerns, he wrote, follows a troubling playbook. His detailed critique appeared on his site and Substack just days ago. Michael Geist’s analysis traces how warnings from Signal, Apple, Meta, U.S. lawmakers and cybersecurity advisors have all been waved aside.

Canadians could face a practical outcome. Secure services might simply become unavailable. Or available only in weakened form. VPN users might turn to providers based elsewhere. Messaging apps that refuse to comply could disappear from Canadian app stores or servers. The bill’s broad language on electronic service providers leaves room for regulators to include many categories later. Messaging platforms, operating systems and apps could fall under future definitions.

Windscribe’s CEO Yegor Sak has spoken before about the company’s commitment. In past statements he made clear that if Canadian jurisdiction prevents upholding the privacy policy, the company will not remain based in Canada. The recent X posts align with that long-held view.

The situation carries irony. Canada positions itself as a defender of democratic values and digital rights on the world stage. Yet this legislation risks isolating the country in technology policy. Allies to the south already voice alarm over potential spillover effects. European debates on chat control and scanning proposals face similar criticism. The pattern repeats. Governments want visibility into encrypted channels. Providers say visibility cannot come without breaking the encryption that makes those channels safe.

TechRadar first connected the Windscribe response directly to Signal’s statement in coverage published today. The article noted the company’s Greek court validation and the logistical differences between the two firms. TechRadar reported that committee hearings began May 7 and the bill remains in review.

Whether lawmakers will heed the warnings or proceed with only cosmetic tweaks will shape the outcome. History suggests confrontation. Companies have shown they will follow through. Signal delayed features or limited availability in other jurisdictions rather than compromise. Apple litigated in the UK. Windscribe, with its headquarters on the line, now signals the same resolve.

The stakes extend beyond one country. Each backdoor created anywhere weakens security everywhere. Each metadata store becomes a target. The companies say they see no path to compliance that preserves their promises. So they prepare to leave. The Canadian government insists they are mistaken. The coming weeks in committee may decide which side holds.

But one fact already stands clear. Privacy-focused services will not quietly accept mandates that undermine their foundations. Windscribe and Signal have made that plain.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/fkjzoml