Beyond Zapier: What Happens When Workflow Automation Becomes Obsolete?

By Skeeter Wesinger August 3, 2025

For years, tools like Zapier, LangChain, and Make (formerly Integromat) have served as the backbone of modern automation. They gave us a way to stitch together the sprawling ecosystem of SaaS tools, APIs, and data triggers that power everything from startups to enterprise platforms. They democratized automation, enabled lean teams to punch above their weight, and brought programmable logic to non-programmers.

But here’s the uncomfortable truth: their days are numbered.

These platforms weren’t designed to think—they were designed to follow instructions. They excel at task execution, but they fall short when the situation requires adaptation, judgment, or real-time negotiation between competing priorities. The problem isn’t what they do; it’s what they can’t do.

The Next Frontier: Intent-Driven Autonomy

The future doesn’t belong to systems that wait to be told what to do. It belongs to systems that understand goals, assess context, and coordinate actions without micromanagement. We’re entering the age of intent-driven autonomy, where AI agents don’t just execute; they plan, adapt, and negotiate across domains.

Imagine a world where your AI agent doesn’t wait for a Zap to send an email—it anticipates the follow-up based on urgency, sentiment, and your calendar. Where you don’t need to build a LangChain flow to summarize documents—your agent reads, tags, stores, and cross-references relevant data on its own. Where infrastructure no longer needs triggers because it has embedded agency—software that adjusts itself to real-world feedback without human intervention.

This is more than automation. This is cognition at the edge of software.

Why This Isn’t Hype

We’re already seeing signs. From autonomous GPT-based agents like AutoGPT and CrewAI to self-updating internal tools powered by vector databases and real-time embeddings, the scaffolding of tomorrow is under construction today. These agents won’t need workflows—they’ll need guardrails. They’ll speak natural language, interact across APIs, observe results, and self-correct. And instead of chaining actions together, they’ll pursue objectives.

Don’t Panic. But Do Prepare.

This doesn’t mean Zapier or LangChain failed. On the contrary, they paved the way. They taught us how to think modularly, how to connect tools, and how to make systems work for us. But as we move forward, we need to unlearn some habits and embrace the shift from rigid logic to adaptive intelligence.

The question for builders, founders, and technologists isn’t “What should I automate next?” It’s “What kind of agency am I ready to give my systems?”

Because the future isn’t about building better workflows. It’s about building systems that don’t need them.

Banking Without Prompts: Autonomous AI Agents and the Future of Finance

By Skeeter Wesinger

August 1, 2025

As artificial intelligence evolves beyond chatbots and scripted assistants, a new kind of intelligence is emerging—one that doesn’t wait to be asked, but rather understands what needs to happen next. In the world of finance, this evolution marks a profound shift. Autonomous AI agents are poised to redefine how we interact with our money, our banks, and even decentralized systems like Bitcoin. They will not simply respond to prompts. They will act on our behalf, coordinating, securing, optimizing, and executing financial operations with a level of contextual intelligence that eliminates friction and anticipates needs.

In traditional banking, autonomous agents will operate across the entire customer lifecycle. Instead of relying on users to initiate every action, these systems will recognize patterns, detect anomalies, and carry out tasks without requiring a single command. They will notice unusual account activity and intervene before fraud occurs. They will detect opportunities for savings, debt optimization, or loan restructuring and act accordingly, surfacing choices only when human approval is required. Agents will onboard new customers by retrieving identity credentials, verifying documents through secure biometric scans, and completing compliance steps in seconds—all in the background. On the back end, these agents will navigate regulatory checkpoints, reconcile ledgers, update Know Your Customer (KYC) files, and monitor compliance thresholds in real-time. They will not replace bankers—they will become the invisible machinery that supports them.

In the realm of Bitcoin and digital assets, the impact will be just as profound. Managing wallets, executing transactions, and securing assets in a decentralized environment is complex, and often inaccessible to non-experts. Autonomous agents will quietly manage these processes. They will optimize transaction fees based on current network conditions, initiate trades under preset thresholds, rotate keys to enhance security, and notify users only when intervention is required. In decentralized finance, agents will monitor liquidity positions, collateral ratios, and yield performance. When conditions change, the system will react without being told—reallocating, unwinding, or hedging positions across decentralized platforms. In multi-signature environments, agents coordinate signing sequences among stakeholders, manage the quorum, and execute proposals based on a shared set of rules, all without a central authority.

Crucially, these agents will act without compromising privacy. They will utilize zero-knowledge proofs to perform audits, verify compliance, or authenticate identity without disclosing personal data. They will operate at the edge when necessary, avoiding unnecessary cloud dependency, while still syncing securely across systems and jurisdictions. Whether in traditional banking, Bitcoin custody, or the emerging DeFi landscape, these agents will not just streamline finance—they will secure it, fortify it, and make it more resilient.

We are moving toward a world where finance no longer requires constant attention. The prompt—once essential—becomes redundant. You won’t need to ask for a balance, check your rates, or move funds manually. Your presence, your intent, and your context will be enough. The system will already know. It will already be working.

Contact: Skeeter Wesinger

Senior Research Fellow

Autonomous Systems Technology and Research

skeeter@skeeter.com

For inquiries, research partnerships, or technology licensing.

Scattered Spider Attacks Again
By Skeeter Wesinger
July 2, 2025

In yet another brazen display of cyber subterfuge, Scattered Spider, the slick, shape-shifting cyber gang with a knack for con artistry, has struck again—this time sinking its fangs into Qantas Airways, compromising data on as many as six million unsuspecting customers. It wasn’t some arcane bit of code that cracked the system. It was human weakness, exploited like a well-worn key.
The breach targeted a third-party customer service platform, proving once again that it’s not always your network that gets hacked—it’s your vendor’s.
A Familiar Pattern, a New Victim
Qantas now joins the growing list of high-profile victims stalked by Scattered Spider, a crew whose previous hits include MGM Resorts, Caesars, Hawaiian Airlines, and WestJet. Their calling card? Social engineering at scale—not brute force, but charm, guile, and just enough personal data to sound like they belong.
They impersonate. They coax. They wear your company’s name like a mask—and by the time IT realizes what’s happened, they’re already inside.
This time, they walked away with customer names, emails, phone numbers, birthdates, and frequent flyer numbers. No passwords or payment data were accessed—Qantas was quick to say—but that’s cold comfort in an age when a birthday and an email address is all that it takes to hijack your digital life.
“Trust, but Verify” is Dead, well, sort of.
As Qantas CEO Vanessa Hudson issued the standard apology—support lines are open, regulators are notified, the sky is still safe. But the real damage isn’t operational. It’s existential. Trust doesn’t come back easy, especially when it’s breached by a whisper, not a weapon.
“We used to worry about firewalls and phishing links,” one insider told me. “Now it’s your own help desk that opens the front door.”
Scattered Spider doesn’t hack computers. They hack people—call center agents, IT support staff, even security teams—using their own policies and training scripts against them. Their English is fluent. Their confidence is absolute. Their patience is weaponized.
The Breach Beneath the Breach
What’s truly alarming isn’t just that Scattered Spider got in. It’s how.
They exploited a third-party vendor, the soft underbelly of every corporate tech stack. While Qantas brags about airline safety and digital transformation, it was a remote call-center platform—likely underpaid, overworked, and under-secured—that cracked first.
We’ve heard this story before. Optus. Medibank. Latitude. The names change. The failures rhyme.
And the hackers? They have evolved.
The Next Call May Already Be Happening
Scattered Spider is a ghost in the wires—a gang of young, highly skilled social engineers, some rumored to be based in the U.S., operating like a twisted start-up. Their tools aren’t viruses—they’re LinkedIn, ZoomInfo, and your own onboarding documents.
What you can do is rethink your threat model. Because the enemy isn’t always a shadowy figure in a hoodie. Sometimes it’s a cheerful voice saying, “Hi, I’m calling from IT—can you verify your employee ID?”
By then, it’s already too late. Need to hire an expert? Call me.

Scattered Spider: Impersonation, and Cybersecurity in the Age of Cloud Computing

By Skeeter Wesinger
June 29, 2025

In an era where companies have moved their infrastructure to the cloud and outsourced much of their IT, one old-fashioned tactic still defeats the most modern defenses: impersonation.
At the center of this threat is Scattered Spider, a cybercriminal collective that doesn’t exploit code—they exploit people. Their operations are quiet, persuasive, and dangerously effective. Instead of smashing through firewalls, they impersonate trusted employees—often convincingly enough to fool help desks, bypass multi-factor authentication, and gain access to critical systems without ever tripping an alarm.
This is the cybersecurity challenge of our time. Not ransomware. Not zero-days. But trust itself.
Who Is Scattered Spider?
Known to threat intelligence teams as UNC3944, Muddled Libra, or 0ktapus, Scattered Spider is an English-speaking group that has compromised some of the most security-aware companies in North America. Their breaches at MGM Resorts and Caesars Entertainment made headlines—not because they used sophisticated malware, but because they didn’t have to.
Their weapon of choice is the phone call. A help desk technician receives a request from someone claiming to be a senior executive who lost their device. The impersonator is articulate, knowledgeable, and urgent. They know internal jargon. They cite real names. Sometimes, they even use AI-generated voices.
And too often, it works. The attacker gets a password reset, reroutes MFA codes, and slips in undetected.
The Illusion of Familiarity
What makes these attackers so dangerous is their ability to sound familiar. They don’t just say the right things—they say them the right way. They mirror internal language. They speak with confidence. They understand hierarchy. They’re skilled impersonators, and they prey on a simple reflex: the desire to help.
In the past, we might have trusted our ears. “It sounded like them,” someone might say.
But in the age of AI, “sounding like them” is no longer proof of identity. It’s a liability.
When Cloud Isn’t the Cure
Many organizations have moved to cloud-based environments under the assumption that centralization and managed services will reduce their exposure. In some ways, they’re right: the cloud simplifies infrastructure and offloads security operations. But here’s the truth: you can’t outsource responsibility. The human layer remains—and that’s precisely where Scattered Spider operates.
They don’t need to breach Azure or AWS. They just need to impersonate someone with access to it.
It’s time we stop treating “trust but verify” as a cliché and start treating it as operational policy. Better yet: trust—but always verify. Every request. Every reset. Every exception.
Verification today means more than checking a box. It requires multi-channel authentication. It means never resetting MFA or passwords based solely on a phone call, no matter how credible the caller seems. It means locking down help desk protocols so impersonation doesn’t slip through the cracks.
Security teams must also monitor legitimate tools—like AnyDesk, TeamViewer, and ScreenConnect—that attackers often use once inside. These aren’t inherently malicious, but in the wrong hands, they’re devastating.
And above all, organizations must train their frontline personnel—especially support staff—to treat every identity request with healthy skepticism. If your instinct says something feels off, pause and verify through secure channels. Escalate. Slow down. Ask the questions attackers hope you won’t.
Scattered Spider doesn’t hack your servers. They hack your systems of trust. They bypass encryption by impersonating authority. And they exploit the one vulnerability no software can patch: assumption.
As we continue shifting toward remote work, outsourced IT, and cloud-based everything, the real threat isn’t technical—it’s personal. It’s the voice on the line. The urgent request. The person who “sounds right.”
In this world, cybersecurity isn’t just about what you build. It’s about what you believe—and what you’re willing to question.
Therefore, you have to train your teams. Harden your protocols. And remember in the age of the cloud, the most important firewall is still human.
Trust—but always verify!

In a classic phishing move: spoofing a legit security company like VadeSecure to make the email look trustworthy. Irony at its finest—phishers pretending to be the anti-phishing experts.

Here’s what’s likely going on:

  • vadesecure.com is being spoofed—the return address is faked to show their domain, but the email didn’t actually come from Vade’s servers.

  • Or the phishers are using a lookalike domain (e.g., vadesecure-support.com or vadesecure-mail.com) to trick people not paying close attention.

If you still have the email:

  • You can check the email headers to see the real “from” server (look for Return-Path and Received lines).

  • If the SPF/DKIM/DMARC checks fail in the headers, that’s confirmation it’s spoofed.

  • You can also report it to VadeSecure directly at: abuse@vadesecure.com

By Skeeter Wesinger

March 26, 2025

DeepSeek, a rising CCP AI company, was under siege. The company’s official statement, issued in careful, bureaucratic phrasing, spoke of an orchestrated “distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack” aimed at crippling its systems. A grave and urgent matter, to be sure. Yet, for those who had followed the firm’s meteoric rise, there was reason for skepticism

DeepSeek had, until this moment, presented itself as a leader in artificial intelligence, one of the few entities capable of standing alongside Western firms in the increasingly cutthroat race for dominance in machine learning. It was a firm backed, either openly or in whispered speculation, by the unseen hand of the Chinese state. The company’s servers, housed in mainland China, were reportedly fueled by NVIDIA H800 GPUs, their interconnections optimized through NVLink and InfiniBand. A formidable setup, at least on paper

But then came the curious measures. Whole swaths of IP addresses, particularly from the United States, were unceremoniously blocked. The platform’s registration doors were slammed shut. And in the vague, elliptical style of official Chinese pronouncements, the public was assured that these were emergency steps to preserve service stability. What the company did not say—what they could not say—was that these actions bore all the hallmarks of a hasty retreat, rather than a tactical defense

For a true DDoS attack—one launched by sophisticated adversaries—there were measures to mitigate it. Content delivery networks. Traffic filtering. Rate-limiting techniques refined over decades by those who had fought in the trenches of cybersecurity. Yet DeepSeek’s response was not one of resilience, but of restriction. They were not filtering the bad actors; they were sealing themselves off from the world

A theory began to take shape among industry watchers. If DeepSeek had overestimated its own technological prowess, if its infrastructure was ill-prepared for rapid growth, the sudden influx of new users might have looked, to their own internal systems, like an attack. And if the company was not merely a commercial enterprise but an entity with deeper ties—perhaps to sectors of the Chinese government—it would not do to admit such failings publicly. To confess that their AI could not scale, that their systems could not bear the weight of global interest, would be an unpardonable humiliation.

The consequences of such a revelation would be severe. The markets had already felt the tremors of cyberattacks; the global economy had bled $1.5 trillion due to disruptions of this nature. If DeepSeek, a firm hailed as the vanguard of China’s AI ambitions, was faltering under its own weight, the financial and political repercussions would extend far beyond the walls of its server farms. The illusion of invulnerability had to be maintained

Thus, the narrative of a “DDoS attack” was not merely convenient—it was necessary. It allowed DeepSeek to take drastic action while obscuring the truth. Blocking foreign IPs? A countermeasure against cyber threats. Suspending new users? A precaution against infiltration. A firm whose technological backbone was more fragile than its reputation suggested had suddenly found an excuse to withdraw from scrutiny under the guise of self-defense

It is in such moments that history leaves its telltale fingerprints. The annals of technological development are filled with entities that stumbled not due to sabotage, but due to their own shortcomings, concealed under layers of propaganda and misdirection. One wonders if, years from now, when the documents are unsealed and the real story emerges, historians will look back at DeepSeek’s so-called DDoS crisis not as an act of foreign aggression—but as a moment of revelation, when the cracks in the edifice became too great to hide

Also, the DeepSeek app has been removed from both Apple’s App Store and Google’s Play Store in Italy. This action occurred after Italy’s data protection authority, known as the Garante, requested information from DeepSeek regarding its handling of personal data. Users attempting to access the app in Italy received messages indicating that it was “currently not available in the country or area you are in” on Apple’s App Store and that the download “was not supported” on Google’s platform. As reported by REUTERS.CO

Regarding Ireland, the Irish Data Protection Commission has also reached out to DeepSeek, seeking details about how it processes data related to Irish users. However, as of now, there is no confirmation that the app has been removed from app stores in Ireland. As reported by THEGUARDIAN.COM

Currently there is no publicly available information indicating that DeepSeek has specifically blocked access from Apple, Google, or individual reporters’ servers. It’s possible that access issues could be related to the broader measures DeepSeek has implemented in response to recent events, but without specific details, it’s difficult to determine the exact cause.

For now, the truth remains elusive, hidden behind digital firewalls and the careful hand of censorship. But as in all such cases, history is patient. It waits for those who will dig deeper, who will look beyond the official statements and ask: Was it an attack? Or was it something else entirely?

Story By Skeeter Wesinger

January 30, 2025

 

The recent emergence of an animated representation of John McAfee as a Web3 AI agent is a notable example of how artificial intelligence and blockchain technologies are converging to create digital personas. This development involves creating a digital entity that emulates McAfee’s persona, utilizing AI to interact within decentralized platforms.
In the context of Web3, AI agents are autonomous programs designed to perform specific tasks within blockchain ecosystems. They can facilitate transactions, manage data, and even engage with users in a human-like manner. The integration of AI agents into Web3 platforms has been gaining momentum, with projections estimating over 1 million AI agents operating within blockchain networks by 2025.

John McAfee
Creating an AI agent modeled after John McAfee could serve various purposes, such as promoting cybersecurity awareness, providing insights based on McAfee’s philosophies, or even as a form of digital memorialization. However, the involvement of hackers in this process raises concerns about authenticity, consent, and potential misuse.
The animation aspect refers to using AI to generate dynamic, lifelike representations of individuals. Advancements in AI have made it possible to create highly realistic animations that can mimic a person’s voice, facial expressions, and mannerisms. While this technology has legitimate applications, it also poses risks, such as creating deepfakes—fabricated media that can be used to deceive or manipulate.
In summary, the animated portrayal of John McAfee as a Web3 AI agent exemplifies the intersection of AI and blockchain technologies in creating digital personas. While this showcases technological innovation, it also underscores the importance of ethical considerations and the need for safeguards against potential misuse.
As John McAfee was reported deceased on June 23, 2021, while being held in a Spanish prison. Authorities stated that his death was by suicide, occurring shortly after a court approved his extradition to the United States on tax evasion charges. Despite this, his death has been surrounded by considerable speculation and controversy, fueled by McAfee’s outspoken nature and previous statements suggesting he would not take his own life under such circumstances.
The emergence of a “Web3 AI agent” bearing his likeness is likely an effort by developers or individuals to capitalize on McAfee’s notoriety and reputation as a cybersecurity pioneer. By leveraging blockchain and artificial intelligence technologies, this project has recreated a digital persona that reflects his character, albeit in a purely synthetic and algorithm-driven form. While this may serve as a form of homage or a conceptual experiment in Web3 development, ethical concerns regarding consent and authenticity are significant, mainly since McAfee is no longer alive to authorize or refute the use of his likeness.
While John McAfee is indeed deceased, his name and persona resonate within the tech and cybersecurity communities, making them a focal point for projects and narratives that intersect with his legacy. This raises broader questions about digital rights, posthumous representations, and the ethical boundaries of technology. Stay tuned.

Skeeter Wesinger
January 24, 2025

Recent investigations have raised concerns about certain Chinese-made smart devices, including air fryers, collecting excessive user data without clear justification. A report by the UK consumer group Which? found that smart air fryers from brands like Xiaomi and Aigostar request permissions to access users’ precise locations and record audio via their associated smartphone apps. Additionally, these devices may transmit personal data to servers in China and connect to advertising trackers from platforms such as Facebook and TikTok’s ad network, Pangle.

These findings suggest that the data collected could be shared with third parties for marketing purposes, often without sufficient transparency or user consent. The UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) plans to introduce new guidelines in spring 2025 to enhance data transparency and protection for consumers.

In response to these concerns, Xiaomi stated that it adheres to all UK data protection laws and does not sell personal information to third parties. The company also mentioned that certain app permissions, such as audio recording, are not applicable to their smart air fryer, which does not operate through voice commands.

These revelations highlight the importance of consumers being vigilant about the data permissions they grant to smart devices and the potential privacy implications associated with their use. While companies like Huawei and others are facing scrutiny over data privacy concerns, they have consistently defended their practices by emphasizing their adherence to local and international regulations. General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): In the EU, Huawei highlights compliance with GDPR standards, which are among the most stringent globally. Huawei asserts adherence to national laws and specific security frameworks.

By Skeeter Wesinger

December 16, 2024

In response, U.S. officials have urged the public to switch to encrypted messaging services such as Signal and WhatsApp. These platforms offer the only reliable defense against unauthorized access to private communications. Meanwhile, the FBI and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) are working alongside affected companies to contain the breach, fortify networks, and prevent future incursions. Yet, this incident raises a troubling question: Are we witnessing the dawn of a new era in cyber conflict, where the lines between espionage and outright warfare blur beyond recognition?

The Salt Typhoon attack is more than a wake-up call—it’s a stark reminder that robust cybersecurity measures are no longer optional. The consequences of this breach extend far beyond the immediate damage, rippling through geopolitics and economics in ways that could reshape global power dynamics.

One might wonder, “What could the PRC achieve with fragments of seemingly innocuous data?” The answer lies in artificial intelligence. With its vast technological resources, China could use AI to transform this scattered information into a strategic treasure trove—a detailed map of U.S. telecommunications infrastructure, user behavior, and exploitable vulnerabilities.

AI could analyze metadata from call records to uncover social networks, frequent contacts, and key communication hubs. Even unencrypted text messages, often dismissed as trivial, could reveal personal and professional insights. Metadata, enriched with location stamps, offers the ability to track movements and map behavioral patterns over time.

By merging this data with publicly available information—social media profiles, public records, and more—AI could create enriched profiles, cross-referencing datasets to identify trends, anomalies, and relationships. Entire organizational structures could be unearthed, revealing critical roles and influential figures in government and industry.

AI’s capabilities go further. Sentiment analysis could gauge public opinion and detect dissatisfaction with remarkable precision. Machine learning models could anticipate vulnerabilities and identify high-value targets, while graph-based algorithms could map communication networks, pinpointing leaders and insiders for potential exploitation.

The implications are both vast and chilling. Armed with such insights, the PRC could target individuals in sensitive positions, exploiting personal vulnerabilities for recruitment or coercion. It could chart the layout of critical infrastructure, identifying nodes for future sabotage. Even regulatory agencies and subcontractors could be analyzed, creating leverage points for broader influence.

This is the terrifying reality of Salt Typhoon: a cyberattack that strikes not just at data but at the very trust and integrity of a nation’s systems. It is a silent assault on the confidence in infrastructure, security, and the resilience of a connected society. Such a breach should alarm lawmakers and citizens alike, as the true implications of an attack of this magnitude are difficult to grasp.

The PRC, with its calculated precision, has demonstrated how advanced AI and exhaustive data analysis can be weaponized to gain an edge in cyber and information warfare. What appear today as isolated breaches could coalesce into a strategic advantage of staggering proportions. The stakes are clear: the potential to reshape the global balance of power, not through military might, but through the quiet, pervasive influence of digital dominance.

By Skeeter Wesinger

December 5, 2024

 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/salt-typhoon-cyberattack-threatens-global-stability-skeeter-wesinger-iwoye