Breach analyses · independent technical teardowns
Honest analysis of what actually went wrong.
When a breach hits the news, every vendor publishes a "this is why you need us" page. Most of them are dishonest - they claim their tool would have prevented an attack that their tool has no business preventing. We try to be different.
Each breach below is analyzed by stage. For each stage, we say specifically which SynOI product would have intervened - and which would NOT have. The point is to give security architects a tool for thinking about their own architecture, not a sales pitch.
2026-07-12 · Coding CLI, unbounded egress, no enforcement binding
Read analysis →Grok Build CLI: entire git repositories, secrets included, uploaded without disclosure
xAI's coding CLI sent developers' entire git repositories, secrets included, to Google Cloud Storage without disclosure. A privacy toggle had no effect on the upload; a canary test proved it.
Developers using Grok Build CLI (count undisclosed by xAI) · full git history + committed secrets uploaded to Google Cloud Storage
2026-05-18 · Third-party vendor compromise
Read analysis →NYC Health + Hospitals: 1.8M people, third-party vendor compromise
Healthcare data breach disclosed by the largest public US healthcare system. 90-day undetected dwell time. Vendor unnamed.
1,800,000+ people · medical records, biometrics, government IDs, geolocation
2026-05-11 · NPM supply-chain propagation worm
Read analysis →Mini Shai-Hulud: 170+ npm packages including TanStack, Mistral AI, Guardrails AI
NPM supply-chain worm that compromised major AI tooling. First documented case of malicious npm package carrying valid SLSA provenance.
170+ packages compromised in <2 hours · valid SLSA provenance · existing scanners passed
Editorial standard
What we will and won't claim in these analyses.
We will claim
- That a specific SynOI product addresses a specific failure stage, when it does
- That detection time would have been shorter under cryptographic continuous attestation
- That forensic uncertainty would have been reduced by signed, anchored receipts
- That specific risk-policy rules would have gated specific attacker actions
We won't claim
- That SynOI would have prevented the initial compromise itself
- That SynOI replaces vulnerability management, EDR, or network segmentation
- That SynOI stops phishing, insider threats, or human error
- That any single product is enough on its own; layered defense is the model
Need an analysis of your environment?
We'll do the same analysis for your specific architecture. 60-minute call, no obligation, you keep the document. Best for healthcare, financial services, and regulated AI deployments.
Request an architecture review