Feed aggregator

We spoke with experts to determine the best healthy foods for cooking in your air fryer. They're also quick and easy to prep.

From the war in Ukraine, to the Middle East, and escalating tensions in the South China Sea, the threat of conflict is forcing governments and businesses to confront an uncomfortable truth that digital systems are not immune to geopolitical pressure.

At London Tech Week recently UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said that the way that war is being fought “has changed profoundly,” adding that technology and AI are now “hard wired” into national defense. It was a stark reminder that IT infrastructure management must now be viewed through a security lens and that businesses need to re-evaluate data management technologies and practices to ensure they are not left out in the cold.

Easier said than done. According to recent research from Civo, 83% of UK IT leaders say geopolitics threatens their ability to control data and 61% view sovereignty as a strategic priority, yet only 35% know exactly where their data resides. That’s not just a compliance gap. It’s a sign that infrastructure, policy and strategy are still out of sync.

Data sovereignty used to be a conversation for the policy teams and legal departments. Not anymore. Regulatory fragmentation, rising cyber risk, and increasingly complex data ecosystems are forcing organizations to treat sovereignty as a live operational concern. Whether it’s knowing who can access your AI training data or ensuring a healthcare provider meets national residency requirements, data sovereignty now defines what businesses can and cannot do.

The EU Data Act, the UK's evolving position (the UK is no longer bound by the EU Data Act but it remains closely aligned in practice to preserve data adequacy and ensure the continued free flow of data with the EU), and the increasing stringency of critical infrastructure policies, are starting to shape what enterprise resilience should look like.

As Lord Ricketts noted in the House of Lords in October last year, “the safe and effective exchange of data underpins our trade and economic links with the EU and co-operation between our law-enforcement bodies.” That trust depends on demonstrating a clear and enforceable approach to data control.

For many, public cloud services have created a false sense of flexibility. Moving fast is not the same as moving safely. Data localization, jurisdictional control, and security policy alignment are now critical to long-term strategy, not barriers to short-term scale. So where does that leave enterprise IT? Essentially, it leaves us with a choice - design for agility with control, or face disruption when the rules change.

Modern infrastructure needs to be sovereignty-aware

Sovereignty-aware infrastructure isn’t about isolation. It’s about knowing where your data is, who can access it, how it moves, and what policies govern it at each stage. That means visibility, auditability, and the ability to adjust without rebuilding every time a new compliance rule appears.

A hybrid multicloud approach gives organizations the flexibility while keeping data governance central. It’s not about locking into one cloud provider or building everything on-prem. It’s about policy-driven control across environments, managing workloads through the context of data.

For example, a financial services firm may need to keep customer transaction data within UK borders, but still wants to run analytics in the cloud. With the right architecture, workloads can move, but sensitive data stays governed. That’s sovereignty in practice, not theory.

Of course, generative AI introduces a new layer of complexity. Training models on private data, deploying inference at the edge, or simply sharing prompts between locations adds pressure to already stretched governance models.

And while many organizations have rushed to build or adopt AI tools, few have aligned these efforts with data residency or compliance. Sovereignty isn’t just about storage anymore. It’s about compute, access patterns, and understanding how third-party models interact with your data.

Building with sovereignty in mind

Edge and sovereign cloud capabilities will be essential here. But they only work if infrastructure teams are given the mandate and support to build with sovereignty in mind. That means cross-functional collaboration between legal, compliance, and IT. It also means choosing platforms that support location-aware deployment and policy enforcement from day one.

According to Nutanix’s recent public sector sovereignty research, 94% of public sector organizations are already using GenAI tools, yet 92% say they could do more to secure those workloads, and 81% say their infrastructure needs improvement to support sovereignty requirements. That says everything you need to know about the challenges facing both public and private organizations. Complexity has clouded judgement and capability.

And yes, customers want to know where their data is, of course they do. Partners also want to understand how it’s being used. With regulators increasingly expecting transparency, not just tick-box compliance, sovereignty, in this context, becomes a proxy for trust.

This is particularly important in sectors like healthcare, education, and government. But it’s not limited to them. Any business operating in or across regulated markets needs to demonstrate control. Not because it’s a checkbox, but because it’s now fundamental to continuity and reputation.

So where do you go from here?

First, get clear on where your data is and what laws apply. That’s not always simple. Next, review your infrastructure to see if it can support location-aware controls, hybrid deployment, and detailed auditing.

Then, consider where GenAI and future workloads are headed. Are you prepared to scale them without breaching sovereignty requirements? Can your teams adapt quickly as policies change?

Finally, treat sovereignty not as a constraint, but as a core part of your design strategy. The organizations that do this well won’t just be compliant, they’ll be more resilient, more transparent, and better prepared for what comes next.

Because in a world where data moves faster than policy, the ability to stay in control isn’t just good governance, it’s good business. And when geopolitics forces the issue, it might just be the nudge needed to get sovereignty right.

We list the best data migration tools to help manage your files.

This article was produced as part of TechRadarPro's Expert Insights channel where we feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today. The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/news/submit-your-story-to-techradar-pro

A mass Russian drone and missile attack on Ukraine's capital, including a rare strike in the center of the city, early Thursday killed at least 10 people and wounded 48.

(Image credit: Efrem Lukatsky)

Picture the scene. The head of IT security at a major business has just managed their team through several weeks of grueling work in containment and recovery after the latest ransomware attack. Their critical systems are back online, but after constant crunch time and sleepless nights, the team is visibly fraying; morale is low, anxiety is high, and there is more than one empty desk where senior personnel have taken extended sick leave.

This kind of scenario rarely gets attention in the press, where the focus of cyberattacks is on profit and loss, the impact on customers and the bottom line. But serious attacks take their toll on security teams too, and the aftermath can persist for months, leaving the organization even more vulnerable to future threats.

True cyber resilience, then, cannot be measured solely by systems restored or data decrypted - it must also factor in the people whose well-being determines not just how swiftly an organization recovers but whether it can withstand the next digital onslaught.

The hidden internal impact of an attack

The impact of an attack is typically weighed by system downtime, lost business, and potential reputational, legal and regulatory damage. Successful cyber strategies are measured in terms of key metrics like mean time to detect and respond to incidents.

But when the smoke clears and systems are back online, the human cost to personnel dealing with the attack is rarely tallied in stakeholder reports.

A landmark RUSI and University of Kent study found that cybersecurity personnel frequently experience PTSD-like symptoms, from panic attacks to insomnia, long after a crisis has been resolved.

This results in a second wave of disruption as sick leave and diminished morale ripples through the department and goes on to impact the rest of the company. Burnt-out IT and security teams will struggle to keep up the company’s baseline security, further increasing its risk exposure.

One major financial services firm in the University of Kent’s study reflected that placing its exhausted engineers on gardening leave immediately after a ransomware crisis could have averted “months and months” of subsequent sickness absence and spared the organization the hidden costs of burnout.

In short, serious attacks like ransomware don’t just hold data hostage; they also trap people in a cycle of exhaustion and fear. If organizations treat staff wellbeing as an afterthought rather than a key element in the front-line defense, they risk allowing human capital to become the weakest link in their cyber-resilience strategy.

The growing cyber leadership crisis

While the personnel on the frontline of incident response and containment are suffering from stress and overwork, things are often even worse higher up the chain. CISOs and other senior security leaders are usually held ultimately accountable for any failure to prevent or contain a breach, and it’s a responsibility that weighs heavily.

Leaders may be held personally responsible for crises they may lack the budget, headcount or organizational clout to address. Adding to the strain, success in this field frequently remains invisible: a CISO and their team may stop hundreds of daily attack attempts without fanfare, yet a single breach can spell career-ending catastrophe.

Putting in extra hours to stay on top of this workload is standard practice and our research found that 98% of security leaders admit to routinely logging an extra nine hours a week on top of contracted time as they attempt to keep ahead, with 15% pushing beyond sixteen hours overtime.

Soberingly, over half of the respondents said they are actively exploring new roles. This would be a troubling statistic for any industry, but it’s especially damaging in the cybersecurity field grappling with a long-term skills drought. When an IT security leader leaves, they take years of hard-won experience and knowledge with them, leaving the company’s security on less stable footing.

Organizations must protect their security talent

If the individuals responsible for your defenses are exhausted, no firewall can effectively prevent the relentless tide of burnout. Enterprises must integrate human resilience into their incident-response framework, a process that commences well before an alert is triggered.

However, it need not be a resource-heavy exercise for the organization. For example, our research found that 65% of organizations already offer flexible hours and 62% enable hybrid or remote working as standard. Simple measures like this grant staff a sense of control and space to recharge.

On a larger scale, enterprises need to ensure they have a framework in place to protect security personnel, especially leadership roles where the heaviest burden falls. CISOs need to feel empowered on a strategic level with the tools and influence to properly protect the company, not left struggling to make do.

When an incident does occur, the aftermath and recovery phase should focus on forward-looking conversations about what happened and what can be improved for next time. This support is even more important as we see a growing trend towards personal accountability and legal liability when procedures for reporting are not followed.

Removing the stigma of security stress

Alongside specific security processes, there’s a strong psychological element here too. The high-stress nature of cybersecurity should be openly acknowledged and accommodated, not treated as a burden that CISOs should conceal. Conversations around mental health should be normalized, and companies should consider wellbeing checks to spot early warning signs of burn out.

Communication is a key part of this. During an incident, the security team should feel connected to the company they are protecting, not in isolation, and should have a reporting process for feeding back on challenges and concerns if they need additional support.

When an attack has been resolved, a team wellbeing check should be a standard part of the post-incident process. Not every team member will have the same resilience in the face of a stressful crisis, and not every incident will hit the same. Businesses must be aware of who is struggling and provide support to them as needed.

Resilience beyond recovery

Ransomware may be a security issue, but its true impact plays out in human terms: sleepless nights, frayed nerves, and the talent exodus that follows unaddressed burnout.

By incorporating people-first measures into your cyber-resilience strategy, you can ensure that your organization won’t be weakened from within after a breach. The true test of resilience shouldn’t be solely about restoring systems quickly; it should also assess how effectively you protect and preserve the individuals who defend them.

We list the best firewall for small business.

This article was produced as part of TechRadarPro's Expert Insights channel where we feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today. The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/news/submit-your-story-to-techradar-pro

As you can probably tell from my star rating, I'm completely split on My Life with the Walter Boys season 2. I've been around the block with this type of cozy TV show before – I'm a self-proclaimed Virgin River expert, Emily in Paris is my guilty pleasure, and I've even been sucked into watching Prime Video's The Summer I Turned Pretty season 3 this year. But if I think about these type of cozy dramas in a broader capacity, My Life with the Walter Boys season 2 would be flour if it was a spice.

Let me explain. Our core concept is a very simple one: privileged New York teen Jackie Howard (Nikki Rodriguez) moves to a ranch in rural Colorado to live with her mother's best friend, Katherine Walter (Sarah Rafferty), and her large family after a family tragedy. Based on the book series of the same name, we then follow the ups and downs of Jackie's new life as she settles in, dissecting all the complicated relationships forged along the way. It should be a recipe for Netflix success, but there's something missing here.

The Rotten Tomatoes score for My Life with the Walter Boys season 1 should give you an idea about its existing division. Critics like myself have absolutely slammed it, while 'normies' (that's a compliment, I promise) largely enjoy it, even though the fan score is still lower than rival shows. Why? I think the answer is because its quality across the board isn't up to muster, and that's also the case in season 2.

My Life with the Walter Boys season 2 does the job, but that's not exactly positive

I don't wish to be a massive negative Nelly here. I completely believe TV shows like My Life with the Walter Boys season 2 serve a purpose, and their easy-going spirit and ethos is exactly what we need to tune out an increasingly difficult world. I typically use my mum as a gauge for the genre – if she watches a show without ironing at the same time, binges more than 2 episodes in one go and remembers its name, the show is a hit with its core demographic. Season 2 ticked all of these boxes, and she's already foaming at the mouth (metaphorically, sorry mum) for the green lit season 3.

In short, this means the people actively seeking out the mess that comes with trashy teen romance are getting exactly what they signed up for. But if you don't fit the bill, or you've had enough of the Netflix series hitting the same beats over and over again, season 2 doesn't do much to win you around. Jackie has inevitably arrived back in Colorado after returning to New York at the end of season 1, and her relationship issues have picked up right there they left off.

It goes without saying that romance and family remain at the core of My Life with the Walter Boys season 2, but this time, Jackie is almost acting like Belly (Lola Tung) in The Summer I Turned Pretty. Given how chaotic season 3 of the Prime Video show is going, that's a huge insult. The parallels between the two shows are now closer than ever (you can see this from the trailer above), but rest assured that Jackie isn't quite as bad... yet.

A knock-off The Summer I Turned Pretty isn't what we need this month

Jackie Howard (Nikki Rodriguez) in My Life with the Walter Boys. (Image credit: Netflix)

Now we've got my main grievances out of the way, let's dig a little deeper into the show's craft. Compared to rival shows, My Life with the Walter Boys season 2 looks slightly cheaper, which is probably a major part of why season 3 was renewed so early on. That wouldn't be an issue if the performances and execution of the storylines weren't so poorly done, at points feeling more like a high schooler's documentary film than a production on one of the best streaming services in the world.

We feel like we're going around in circles when it comes to Jackie's relationship with Alex (Ashby Gentry) and Cole (Noah LaLonde), with Danny (Connor Stanhope) and Erin's (Alisha Newton) only make our heads spin even further. We've even got a separate triangle going thanks to Zach (Carson MacCormac), Skylar (Jaylan Evans) and Nathan (Corey Fogelmanis), and that's all before we even get to George's (Marc Blucas) future plans for the ranch.

It does feel as though you need to study up before diving into season 2, and it can feel mind-boggling to keep up with all the changes, which simultaneously move incredibly slowly and like time is flashing past you at the speed of light. But by the time we get to the final few episodes, you know exactly what's going to happen. Without giving it away, My Life with the Walter Boys season 2 ends on a cataclysmic cliffhanger, but I could tell exactly what was going to happen about two episodes earlier. Still, it's a major shock to see it unfold, and will hopefully shift season 3 in a better direction. I'm sorry, Melanie Halsall, but a better direction is something that My Life with the Walter Boys sorely needs.

You might also like

• Netflix cancels what could’ve been the next Virgin River even though the series had more views than Ransom Canyon
• 3 Body Problem season 2 is underway as star reveals first days of filming: ‘The stuff they've got planned out is pretty epic’
• Netflix’s new streaming recommendation tool is about to make my astrology-obsessed friends unbearable

For many years, application security (AppSec) occupied a small technical niche within cybersecurity and was rarely seen as a critical boardroom-level priority. Today, though, we can see awareness shifting.

In recent research conducted by Checkmarx, nearly half of CISOs said they believe buyers now factor AppSec into purchasing decisions, showing its increased strategic weight in business operations.

Yet there’s still a stark disconnect between how AppSec is seen and how it’s put into practice. Just 39% of respondents felt that their business operations currently run on secured applications.

With AppSec now recognized as critical to business resilience, it often falls short in execution. To close the implementation gap, CISOs must lead a charge in rethinking governance, culture, and scale.

AppSec ownership is shifting but visibility is suffering

As software development cycles accelerate and architectures grow more complex, security responsibilities are moving closer to the code, and in nearly half of software-based companies, security oversight has moved outside the CISO’s office.

Instead, our research found that development or product teams are now just as likely to own AppSec decisions. This shift makes operational sense: embedding security earlier in the SDLC enables scalable protection without sacrificing delivery speed, but it can introduce visibility gaps across teams and pipelines.

Decentralizing AppSec typically introduces fragmentation. On average, organizations juggle more than 11 security tools, many of which are not integrated into a coherent workflow. Without central oversight, CISOs risk losing track of how security is being applied - or where it’s falling short. Inconsistent practices, “shadow security” workarounds, and gaps in coverage become more likely when security policies aren't uniformly applied.

This shift also alters the flow of influence within the company. Developers increasingly have veto power over tools that interrupt their workflows, which means security can take a back seat if the two teams aren’t able to collaborate effectively.

If AppSec is to scale effectively, governance must evolve along with it. That means enabling secure practices without enforcing bottlenecks and without losing visibility in the process. CISOs have a critical role to play here, ensuring that security is implemented smoothly as a set of guardrails rather than roadblocks.

DevSecOps maturity remains low

Despite the push for “shift left” practices and the proliferation of AppSec tools, most organizations lack maturity in their security integration. Of the CISOs in our research just 20% reported “high” or “very high” DevSecOps maturity. Meanwhile, 70% said that at least half of their applications still lack adequate security coverage. This is an alarmingly high figure when considering how important applications have become to most operations.

Part of the problem is that early-stage security integration doesn’t extend far enough. Many teams focus on scanning during development but neglect the runtime and deployment phases where vulnerabilities can still emerge. Others adopt tools without embedding them into daily workflows, leading to alert fatigue or missed risks.

A lack of training also compounds the issue. Developers are not typically trained in security practices and often lack the context or time to triage and fix security findings. This is made even more challenging when results are delivered through disconnected tools or outside their environment. The result is a culture of firefighting, responding to issues late in the lifecycle instead of designing resilient code from the start.

To close the maturity gap, organizations must adopt a layered approach: automated scanning at every stage, context-aware training, and close collaboration between platform engineering and AppSec teams. Maturity isn’t an issue of coverage, it’s about consistency, scalability, and trust between disciplines.

What CISOs must prioritize in 2025

CISOs are best placed to close the gap between strategy and execution in AppSec. Achieving this requires a new strategy built around four key factors: governance, collaboration, alignment and scalability.

Setting down governance

CISOs can no longer manage AppSec through centralized control alone. Instead, they must define a clear governance model for their teams, setting policies, KPIs and risk thresholds that can be embedded into automated workflows.

That means guiding platform teams to select tools that enforce policies programmatically, reducing the need for manual intervention. Security should be part of the pipeline, not a separate gate at the end of it.

Fostering collaboration

With ownership moving closer to developers, CISOs need to use their influence to establish a strong collaborative culture that works for everyone. Start by aligning KPIs across security and development teams to avoid competing incentives.

Then invest in enablement: training tailored to different skill levels, just-in-time guidance, and workflows that stay inside the IDE. Security champions and mentor programs can speed up cultural change, embedding expertise where it matters most.

AppSec risk is business risk

We consistently find that too few CISOs are translating AppSec risks into business terms. While 62% report metrics to the board, only 25% frame those risks in terms of business impact, such as reputational damage, regulatory exposure or lost revenue.

Without this alignment, security will remain a siloed concern until it’s too late and a breach occurs. CISOs must strengthen the AppSec link to wider business goals, reinforcing its role in customer trust, product resilience and competitive differentiation.

Driving scalability with the right technology

Fragmented tooling is one of the biggest barriers to effective AppSec. Consolidating around a platform approach that spans legacy and modern environments enables consistency, reduces noise and enhances developer productivity.

Scalable models should use automation where possible, with human input where needed. That’s how you keep pipelines moving fast - without losing control or visibility over security.

Taking AppSec from bottleneck to enabler

AppSec’s evolution from technical concern to business priority is undeniable, but implementation still lags. As ownership shifts to development teams, the role of the CISO must also evolve to keep security front and centre.

The challenge is no longer about control, but coordination. Governance, culture and technology must all align to embed security where it counts without creating friction. CISOs who lead with vision, build developer trust and champion scalable solutions can transform AppSec from a potential bottleneck into a force multiplier for resilience, speed and long-term business value.

We feature the best DevOps tools.

This article was produced as part of TechRadarPro's Expert Insights channel where we feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today. The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/news/submit-your-story-to-techradar-pro

Let’s be clear: the UK is no longer preparing for hybrid threats; we’re already living through them. What happened at RAF Brize Norton wasn’t just a protest gone too far. It was an act of sabotage against operational military aircraft, carried out using scooters, paint, and basic hand tools.

The fact that it succeeded tells us everything we need to know about the state of our national security posture: fragmented, reactive, and dangerously misaligned with the threat landscape.

If we neglect the physical layer, we risk undermining all the effort, investment, and capability built into our digital resilience. Security must be holistic—from the perimeter fence to the network firewall, from the patrol route to the SOC dashboard.

And right now? That cohesion simply doesn’t exist.

Hybrid Threats Are No Longer Theoretical

Driven by geopolitical instability and evolving warfare tactics, hybrid threats, where physical and cyber attacks are combined, are becoming the norm.

Across the Middle East and Eastern Europe, digitally coordinated sabotage operations (like drone strikes on critical infrastructure) have exposed the weaknesses in siloed defenses. These aren’t one-off incidents; they’re deliberate, repeatable attack models.

And the UK is not immune. Intelligence sources point to repeated probing of our critical infrastructure, with Russia frequently suspected. Whether it's energy, transport, or defense, our infrastructure is now part of the battlefield.

Why Security Must Be Holistic

Securing critical infrastructure isn’t just a technical challenge, it’s a leadership one.

You wouldn’t install a high-end alarm system at home and then leave the front door wide open. But that’s exactly what many organizations are doing: investing millions in cybersecurity while physical security is neglected or under-tested.

Across defense, utilities, transport hubs, and data centers, the weakest links are often the most mundane: an unchecked fence, a blind CCTV angle, an unmanned gate. These gaps may seem small until they’re exploited.

The reality is stark: we are now in the grey zone, where adversaries operate below the threshold of open conflict, using disruption, ambiguity, and deniability to advance strategic goals.

Brize Norton: Exposing Systematic Failures

The breach at RAF Brize Norton was not complex or sophisticated; it succeeded because no one expected it.

Two individuals, using basic tools and repurposed fire extinguishers, accessed an active runway, disabled aircraft engines with paint, and left undetected. These aircraft support critical UK combat operations, including missions in Ukraine.

This wasn’t symbolic; it had real tactical impact. And it exposed systemic failures, not just in physical security, but in how cyber and physical defenses fail to align.

This is exactly what modern adversaries exploit: seams, blind spots, and bureaucratic silos.

Heathrow: Civil Infrastructure, Same Problem

Just weeks earlier, a fire at a 1960s-era substation shut down Heathrow, cancelling over 1,300 flights and stranding 300,000 passengers.

The cause remains under investigation, but the implications are clear: fragile systems, single points of failure, and national disruption caused by one overlooked asset.

Whether accidental or deliberate, this is the playbook for hybrid adversaries: exploit basic vulnerabilities to cause disproportionate impact.

Commercial Organizations Are Not Exempt

It’s a dangerous fallacy to assume that only critical national infrastructure is being targeted. Commercial organizations—from logistics and manufacturing firms to data centers, retail giants, and tech companies—are increasingly in the firing line. The same hybrid tactics being used against government and military targets are being adapted and deployed against the private sector, often with devastating results.

Why? Because attackers don’t care about sector boundaries. They care about impact, access, and leverage. A warehouse fire, a compromised fulfilment center, or a disabled payment gateway network can ripple into national disruption. These aren’t just economic losses; they’re strategic vulnerabilities.

Commercial supply chains are deeply intertwined with national resilience. A major cyber-physical incident at a privately owned port, a cloud provider, or a high-throughput distribution hub could disrupt the economy, erode public trust, or even compromise defense readiness.

Yet too many businesses still view security as a compliance checkbox rather than a strategic function. The result is a security architecture that assumes peace while operating in a contested domain.

To ignore this is to misread the modern threat landscape. Commercial entities must be just as prepared, because when disruption is the goal, anyone with critical throughput becomes a target.

What the UK Is Failing to Grasp

The critical misunderstanding across much of UK security leadership is this: these threats don’t operate in silos. So why do we defend them as if they do?

Many boards still treat cyber and physical security as entirely separate disciplines, with different teams, budgets, and reporting lines. That’s not resilience. That’s friction. And attackers thrive in that friction.

Here’s what’s driving the risk:

Fragmented defenses: Physical security teams don’t have visibility into digital threats, and vice versa.

Poor system segmentation: A cyber breach often leads straight to operational control. A physical breach often exposes the network.

Leadership indecision: Waiting for a regulation to act is like waiting for a break-in to install locks.

What Must Change Now

We don’t need more strategy documents. We need decisive, integrated action. Here’s where to start:

1.Unify Security Governance

Cyber and physical security must be led from a unified framework. Shared threat models. Shared reporting. Unified response protocols.

2.Design for Containment, Not Just Prevention

Breaches will happen. What matters is whether they cascade. Resilience requires segmentation, isolated backups, manual overrides, and tested recovery drills.

3.Treat OT as a Primary Attack Surface

Operational Technology (OT) and Industrial Control Systems (ICS) can no longer be afterthoughts. They must be logged, monitored, and secured like your most sensitive data environments.

4.Train for Real-World, Blended Threats

Exercises must mirror reality: power loss during a cyberattack, disinformation campaigns during a physical breach. Complexity is the new normal. Ensure your teams are ready.

5.Conduct Regular Physical Penetration Testing

Just as networks are stress-tested through red teaming, physical sites must be tested through controlled breaches.

These exercises reveal blind spots in perimeter security, access control, and response protocols, and turn “security theatre” into actual resilience.

6.Act Without Waiting for Mandates

If Brize Norton didn’t drive change, what will? The next incident may come at a greater cost. Waiting for regulatory change is a dereliction of leadership.

Hybrid threats are real. The UK is already a target. Our critical infrastructure, both military and civilian, as well as commercial, is being tested.

Brize Norton and Heathrow are not anomalies. They are indicators of systemic failure: a lack of joined-up thinking, a failure to treat physical and cyber risk as inseparable.

If we don’t act now and build holistic defenses from the fence to the firewall, we are set to learn the next lesson at a much higher cost.

The best internet security suites and the best antivirus software.

This article was produced as part of TechRadarPro's Expert Insights channel where we feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today. The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/news/submit-your-story-to-techradar-pro

Denmark's foreign minister summoned the top U.S. diplomat in the country for talks after the main national broadcaster reported that at least three people with connections to President Donald Trump have been carrying out covert influence operations in Greenland.

(Image credit: Kwiyeon Ha)

I spent a year wrestling with MagSafe cases on my Google Pixel 9, from misaligned rings to hot, flaky charging. That’s why Pixelsnap (native magnets plus Qi2) is the only Pixel 10 feature I care about.

While my colleagues wax lyrical about camera and AI upgrades, I’m just here reliving a year with the Pixel 9. I’ve always envied Apple’s MagSafe wizardry, but adding compatibility with third-party cases is an exercise in frustration.

Sure, the overly rigid dust- and smudge-prone case I ordered from Google alongside my Pixel 9 last year works just fine. But of the eight others from less exacting brands, seven misaligned the magnetic ring and charging failed or limped along while getting uncomfortably hot.

My magnetic car mount barely held, my favorite accessories went flying and even Google’s own non-magnetic bedside charger was fussy about case thickness and alignment.

Robust, reliable magnetic wireless fast charging in the car was surprisingly hard to achieve with the Pixel 9 (Image credit: Lindsay Handmer)

I found workarounds for most issues, but my white whale was tougher: MagSafe wireless charging in my car that could keep up with navigation and music streaming.

After months of trial, error and too many Amazon returns, I finally found a combination that worked. It’s good, but not great, and needs to hog an air vent in summer to avoid overheating.

So as far as I’m concerned, Pixelsnap is the headline Google act this year and everything else is just nice to have.

Finally, there's better charging and the freedom to do without a magnetic case! Or, for people like me (who tussle with gravity a lot), the relief of knowing that even if using a case, proper alignment is now baked into the design.

Pixelsnap 101

Pixelsnap wireless charger with stand (Image credit: John Velasco)

Not sure what I'm on about? You can read more about all the new features in our Pixel 10 review or check out our deeper dive on the new tech, but I've included the key Pixelsnap points below.

• Pixelsnap is on the Pixel 10, Pixel 10 Pro, Pixel 10 Pro XL and Pixel 10 Pro Fold.
• Uses built-in magnets, plus Qi2 for MagSafe-compatible wireless charging and accessories.
• Automatic alignment, faster charging, stronger hold.
• Charge speeds: 15W or up to 25W on the Pixel 10 Pro XL.
• Backward compatibility with most MagSafe chargers and accessories.

So what’s the bad news?

Pixelsnap is a big step up, but it’s not perfect. While not a feature I used too often, Google has removed wireless power sharing to make the new magnetic setup work.

Pixelsnap wireless charging speeds aren't consistent either – it maxes out at 25W on the Pixel 10 Pro XL, but the rest of the lineup is limited to a slower 15W.

MagSafe cross-compatibility is a huge win, but the magnetic accessory landscape is still messy, and older non-Qi2 chargers won’t hit full speed, so you’ll likely need to upgrade.

Not to mention, Qi2 is still hard to find. Case in point: I collect power banks like Pokémon for our best portable chargers guide and comparatively few models currently support 15W or 25W charging on the Pixel 10.

Now, while Pixelsnap is what I care about most, for everyone else, it might not be the standout reason to upgrade to the Pixel 10. But it does remove one of my biggest annoyances with the Pixel lineup, and for that I'm grateful.

Have a MagSafe-compatible or Qi2 setup that just works? Drop the model in the comments and I’ll add it to my test list.

You might also like...

• The Pixel 10 Pro and Pro XL have bonus AI features I didn't expect to love
• I'm a die-hard iPhone fan, but these 5 things from the Pixel 10 launch made me jealous
• Google Pixel 10 vs Google Pixel 9: all the biggest differences