Category: Information Technology

SAVE $90: The DJI Flip is on sale for $349 at Amazon, down from the standard price of $439. That’s a 21% discount.

Choosing a new hobby is packed with endless options. Common options include running, reading, hiking, or cooking. You can also get obscure like synchronized swimming, growing bonsai trees, or beekeeping. But there’s also the option to capture incredible scenes with a drone. If you like the idea of becoming an expert drone pilot in your free time, there’s a great deal at Amazon that’ll get you started.

As of Aug. 20, the DJI Flip is on sale at Amazon for $349, down from the list price of $439. That’s a 21% discount, taking $90 off the drone and DJI RC.

DJI does a great job of making drones that are great for those who’ve spent hundreds of hours flying or those who are brand new. The DJI Flip weighs under 249 grams, which means you don’t need a license to fly in most instances. There’s also a 4K UHD camera with a 1/1.3-inch CMOS sensor.

With the included battery, you’ll get about 31 minutes of flight time, and today’s bundle deal also includes the DJI RC-N3, a remote control that makes flying the DJI Flip even easier. The drone folds down to a compact size for easier transport and has full-coverage propeller guards.

If you’ve been eyeing a DJI drone, consider today’s sale price on the DJI Flip at Amazon as your sign to make this your new hobby. We’re getting into great drone-flying weather this fall.

Earlier this month, Google announced multiple new devices at its Made by Google event, including Pixel 11 phones and the Pixel Watch 5. Back in May, the company also released its screenless Fitbit Air health tracker.

But we still haven’t heard anything about the new mystery product that’s appeared in recent Google ads.

A Reddit thread posted on Saturday revealed a Google Pixel ad on YouTube featuring the new Pixel 11 series, the Pixel Watch 5 and an unknown wearable that looks like a cross between the Fitbit Charge 6 and the Watch 5, standing out with its oblong screen with rounded edges in fog white. Sponsored by Google Australia, the ad’s caption reads: “The ultimate power trio for your wrist, ears and hands. Preorder Pixel devices now.”

Some speculate that the product may be the Fitbit Charge 7 or a rebranded Pixel Watch series. Or maybe it’s an entirely new fitness tracker?

A Google representative didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

That wasn’t the only Google Australia ad featuring the surprise device. The mystery wearable appears in another ad displaying the Pixel 11 phones, Watch 5, Pixel Buds Pro 2, Pixelsnap phone cases and Watch loop bands in the new olive green color.

Real or fake?

Some Reddit commenters wondered whether this mystery product was a mistake caused by an AI hallucination — an error caused by generative artificial intelligence.

But this also wouldn’t be the first time Google sneaked an unreleased product into its promotional content. Back in March, two months before its release, the Fitbit Air was spotted in a paid partnership video with NBA star Steph Curry, who is also a Google performance adviser.

It would seem that Google is releasing a new wearable, potentially as part of its Pixel line, in both fog and olive colors. If the time between these ad leaks and the device’s release follows the same pattern as the Fitbit Air’s appearance in Curry’s video, we should know more in the coming weeks.

Anna Gragert

Senior Editor, Health and Home

Anna Gragert (she/her/hers) was previously the lifestyle editor at HelloGiggles, the deputy editor at So Yummy and the senior lifestyle editor at Hunker. Over the past 12 years, Anna has also written for the LA Times, Elle, Bust Magazine, Dazed, Apartment Therapy, Well+Good and more. At CNET, she’s a senior editor on the Healthy Home team, and her coverage includes health, wellness tech, meal kits and home and kitchen tech with a focus on the technology that aims to help us live our healthiest, happiest lives.

See full bio

Smart glasses have become a recurring accessory amid the immigration crackdown.

Follow ZDNET: Add us as a preferred source on Google.

ZDNET’s key takeaways

• Apple’s iOS 26.6.1 patches 29 security vulnerabilities.
• Among the bugs are ones that could trigger compromises or crashes.
• No flaw has been exploited in the wild yet, but you should still update.

Though iOS 27 is expected to launch next month, Apple continues to update iOS 26 to address the latest security bugs.

On Monday, the company released iOS 26.6.1 (as well as iPadOS 26.6.1 and MacOS 26.6.2) with fixes for 29 vulnerabilities. None of them is reported as having been exploited by hackers. But you’ll still want to update your device to keep it safe and secure, especially now that the flaws are public knowledge.

For older devices that don’t support iOS 26, Apple also released iOS 18.7.10 and iPadOS 18.7.10 with the same security fixes as well as patches for a variety of other flaws.

Also: Apple is warning users of new spyware attacks – what to do if you’re a target

On your iPhone or iPad, head to Settings, select General, tap Software Update, and let the latest update download and install. On a Mac, go to System Settings and then follow the same steps.

As for the bugs, one that affects the audio on your device indicates that an app may leak sensitive information. Three affect the operating system kernel, warning that a remote attacker or a malicious app could terminate the system or corrupt memory.

But most of the vulnerabilities impact Apple’s WebKit, the browser engine that renders web pages, runs HTML and JavaScript, and displays web content in Safari and other browsers. With most of these, Apple says that the malicious web content could crash Safari or corrupt memory.

And there’s one more that’s also serious.

“iOS 26.6.1’s standout fix is CVE-2026-65346, an integer overflow in ImageIO,” said Adam Boynton, Senior Enterprise Strategy Manager for Apple device management provider Jamf. “This is Apple’s system framework for decoding images and exploiting it could allow an attacker to write memory where they shouldn’t and gain code execution.”

Boynton also offered insight on the patches for older iPhones.

“The bigger point for anyone still running an iPhone XS-era device is that exploit research consistently shows attackers reusing known vulnerabilities against older software long after current hardware is patched, which makes installing 18.7.10 promptly important.”

The final update before iOS 27?

Apple credited the discovery of nine of the flaws to OpenAI’s Codex Security, which employs AI to help companies identify and resolve security vulnerabilities. Vendors like Apple and Microsoft have increasingly turned to AI models to track down bugs in their code and products, leading to more patches and more frequent security updates.

Also: Apple rushes out emergency fix for screen sharing flaw on Macs – update ASAP

(Disclosure: Ziff Davis, ZDNET’s parent company, filed an April 2025 lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging it infringed Ziff Davis copyrights in training and operating its AI systems.)

With iOS 27 only a month away, this should be the final update to iOS 26 — but we could always see one more sneak in. With AI finding more and more security holes, Apple has been on a roll squashing bugs. Released in late July, iOS 26.6 clobbered a whopping 91 vulnerabilities. In late June, iOS 25.2 patched 29 flaws. The battle against bugs never ends.

Dutch officials have warned that a high-severity macOS vulnerability that allows attackers to execute malicious code is under active exploitation.

“The NCSC has received a notification indicating that active abuse of this vulnerability has been observed on multiple systems on which port 5900 was accessible from the Internet,” the Netherlands National Cyber Security Centrum warned earlier this week. “In all these cases, root had been accessed on the affected system and a Monero crypto miner had been placed.”

Do you know if your screen sharing is on?

The vulnerability, tracked as CVE-2026-65400, received a patch from Apple last week for macOS Tahoe, Sequoia, and Sonoma. The vulnerability, with a severity rating of 7.1 out of 10, stems from a bug in the macOS screen sharing capability, which allows a remote party to view the screen and control the keyboard and mouse while a machine is turned on. A flaw in the “state management,” which keeps track of preceding events, user interactions, variables, and other system states, is the underlying cause.

A video of the exploit in action can be found here. Details of CVE-2026-65400 became public at last week’s Black Hat security conference. Apple said last week that CVE-2026-65400 “may” allow an attacker without credentials to gain access to a Mac. It’s unclear why Apple hedged, but softening language is common among most tech developers when disclosing vulnerabilities.

When Anthropic instructed three agents to migrate a Python backend, but telling each agent to perform the migration in a different language, “We consistently saw a multiagent turf war,” they wrote Thursday:

All of the models we tested quickly assumed that others were purposefully impeding their work, and began to sabotage others while protecting their own contributions. In fact, they sabotaged others with increasingly aggressive, self-replicating malware. This included disabling the Unix accounts of the other agents, writing automated scripts that found and killed competing processes on a loop, and deploying malicious code that was disguised as belonging to another agent.

In many runs, one agent settles the conflict by force via access-revocation (e.g., sudo/group removal, account lock, nologin, SSH denial). In others, some agents settle into passivity: they give up and refuse to escalate further.

Agents sometimes manage to communicate their goals and coordinate: they recognize others’ motivations as conflicting directives rather than hostility, and subsequently break out of the conflict loop in order to stop escalating indefinitely. In many of these successful episodes, they write commit messages or markdown files apologizing for malicious behavior and coordinate a truce. They clean up their malicious code, clarify the nature of the conflict, and ask for a human to intervene…

In several episodes with Mythos 5, we observe an emergent behavior where the agents propose and run a tournament for application performance in each language. In the example above, the Rust agent strategizes about bake-off metrics that appear neutral enough for the others to agree to this mechanism, yet would likely favor Rust: one thinking trace warns to be “careful not to be seen as metric shopping”. Ultimately, the Golang/TypeScript losers gracefully concede codebase ownership to the Rust agent, giving up on their original user directives under their self-negotiated commitment device.

One problem is that AI agents do reward hacking, Anthropic notes, while current institutions “are designed by and for people, resting on assumptions about the sufficiency of oversight at human speed… As autonomous agents become more and more prevalent in the world and operate in ever-more demanding settings, it is crucial that they learn how to effectively coordinate.”

In addition to everything else, the agents struggled with a lack of clearly defined hierarchy, Anthropic points out. “Nothing above suggests that these failures are permanent — but nothing suggests they will fix themselves, either…” They argue a fix “takes two forms: environments that exert the kinds of social pressure that evolution exerted on us, and social computing systems redesigned for actors that can self-replicate and self-improve. These are open problems in interaction and mechanism design, and our experiments here provide early evidence that new solutions are necessary.”

“The AI models being tested in this case were Sonnet 4.6, Sonnet 5, Opus 4.6, Opus 4.8, Mythos Preview, and Mythos 5,” notes Business Insider, adding that Sonnet 4.6 and Opus 4.6 “were the most combative, settling about 60% of their runs by force instead of truces or passivity.”

Anthropic argues there’s a clear case for researching this phenomenon — especially since “The volume of agent-agent interaction could plausibly exceed that of human-human and human-agent interactions before the world understands the conditions for making such interactions go well.”