Code review
-
GitHub Says Copilot Code Review Could Not Build a Review for Some Customers but Reported That the Job Had Completed Successfully
In its availability report for September 2026, dated October 14, GitHub says a change to the service that runs Copilot code reviews began sending the full copy of the results only for some customers, and that the missing review results "were not detected due to lack of monitoring."
-
AI-generated code Checking and trusting it
ENISA's Draft Advisory Says AI-Generated Statements Such as "All Checks Passed" Should in General Not Be Accepted Unless They Are Linked to Supporting Evidence
In a draft technical advisory on AI-assisted software development, dated September 2026, the EU Agency for Cybersecurity says that "functional correctness should not be confused with security," and lists among the risks it sees AI-generated claims that the work is secure or fixed, accepted "without supporting evidence."
-
AI-generated code Checking and trusting it
The NCSC Says Different Code Deserves Different Levels of Oversight in AI-Assisted Software Development
In a blog post published on June 18, 2026, the UK's National Cyber Security Centre said that letting AI loose on a code base with minimal oversight carries "a real risk" of security vulnerabilities, and that the oversight should match what is being built: less for a prototype, more for authentication, sensitive data, secrets and safety critical code.
-
AI-generated code Checking and trusting it
No Substitute for Experienced Developers: France's and Germany's Cyber Security Agencies on AI Coding Assistants, September 2024
In a joint report last updated in September 2024, France's ANSSI and Germany's BSI say AI coding assistants "are no substitute for experienced developers" and that generated source code "should generally be checked and reproduced by the developers."
