News

The reality for many organizations is that their employees are already being deceived. So, probably are their customers, their investors, and their board.

For years, the warnings have focused on the impact of deepfakes, such as fake CEOs on video calls, cloned voices authorizing payments, and fraudulent emails.

The tactics themselves are not new, but over the past few years, AI has made them cheaper to produce, harder to spot, and far more convincing within the ordinary flow of business.

It’s this trend that means that the principle of Zero Trust is becoming as relevant to how information is treated as it has been to access.

In cybersecurity, Zero Trust starts from a simple assumption: no user, device, application or request should be trusted by default.

In the age of AI-generated misinformation, businesses need to apply that same mindset to the information that moves throughout their organization.

Employees, customers, investors and partners are all making decisions based on what they see, read and hear. If that information is false, manipulated or stripped of context, the consequences can move quickly from confusion to commercial damage. Which is why misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation need to be treated as business risks.

Misinformation – the false content that spreads without deliberate intent – has always been an issue. Disinformation, constructed specifically to deceive, is now easier to manufacture at scale than ever before. And malinformation – true information, often deliberately stripped of context and weaponized – might be the most insidious of the three. A competitor, a criminal group, or an activist campaign no longer needs to breach a network to cause serious damage. They can influence those associated and concerned with an organization simply by shaping what those people see and believe.

What makes this particularly difficult for businesses is that it mirrors something individuals are already struggling with. In an environment saturated with AI-generated content, the habits that people must employ to protect themselves – pause before reacting, questioning the source, verifying before acting – are the same habits that organizations must build into how they operate.

Essentially, the instinct to trust has become a vulnerability. And addressing that requires something closer to a structural response than an awareness campaign.

This is where Zero Trust becomes the strategy. Traditionally, organizations have thought about Zero Trust through the lens of least privilege, ensuring that the right users have access to the right applications, and nothing more. But in an AI-driven information environment, that principle needs to evolve. Businesses can no longer focus just on who is requesting access. They also need to interrogate what information is being used, what action is being taken, and whether the intent behind the action can be trusted.

The next stage is going beyond authentication and investigating authenticity, and asking questions such as “Is this information verified?”, “Is this image real or AI-generated?”, and “Has this content been edited?”. Zero Trust gives businesses a framework for answering those questions. It forces organizations to verify before they act, limit exposure where they can, and reduce the risk of false, manipulated, or decontextualised information moving unchecked through the business.

Standards bodies such as the C2PA (Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity) show the direction that this is heading: a future where provenance and integrity are embedded in digital content itself, the same way a padlock in a browser indicates that the connection is secure. Essentially trust won’t be something that businesses need to check for, rather it will be something that travels with the information as provenance feeds verifications. Every piece of content therefore becomes a signal in a continuous trust decision.

The need to trust intent has become even more pressing as AI agents enter the workplace. These agents will increasingly operate like another person working alongside us, mirroring our behaviors, such as reading documents, interpreting data, making decisions, and acting. The difference, however, is that these non-human identities are moving at machine speed, where human-speed verification has no hope of keeping up.

That means AI agents must be governed through a Zero Trust model from the outset. An agent should not be trusted just because it sits inside the enterprise, has been approved by a user, or is connected to corporate systems. Its identity, permissions, behavior and outputs all need to be continuously validated. Just as importantly, agents should be governed by least privilege, the principle of least information, and least function, granting only the minimum access, data, and capability required for a specific task.

However, these agents create a trust challenge that identity management alone can’t solve. Businesses will need to know whether they are dealing with a human or a machine, whether an agent is behaving responsibly, and whether its actions reflect an organization’s values and boundaries. Effectively, businesses will need to adopt an operating constitution that agents are continuously measured against.

And in this AI era, enterprises must interrogate information, content, intent, behavior, and action in realtime and continuously as identity is generally just checked as front door access. However, given the scale of the task at hand, it will take AI to audit, flag, and govern as needed and keep the chain of trust intact.

The organizations that succeed will be those that treat trust as something to be engineered, rather than assumed. Misinformation, disinformation, malinformation are security, resilience, and leadership challenges, and AI is making them harder to ignore.

As technology continues to shape how information is created, shared, and acted upon, businesses need to build the same discipline around authenticity that they’ve always applied to access. That means verifying content, questioning intent, and limiting what AI systems can do to what they actually need to do.

Trust can no longer be the default setting. Instead, in today’s operating environment, it must be a decision that’s made continuously, at machine speed, across information, intent, behavior, and action. The good news is that the framework already exists in Zero Trust. What needs to change however is how organizations apply it, broadening the scope to include information, intent, behavior, and action.

We've reviewed, rated, and ranked the best internet security suites.

This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to 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/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit

The prospect of bringing more of Britain's critical national infrastructure into public ownership has prompted plenty of debate about investment, governance and accountability.

Far less attention has been paid to what it could mean for cybersecurity.

Regardless of where you stand politically, one thing is clear. Public ownership does not make cyber risk disappear.

If anything, it raises expectations that essential services will be more resilient, more coordinated and better prepared to withstand disruption.

That expectation reflects the reality of the threat landscape. Energy providers, water companies, transport operators and healthcare organizations all sit at the center of complex digital ecosystems. Their ability to deliver essential services depends on thousands of suppliers, technology vendors and third parties.

When one organization is compromised, the effects can spread well beyond its own network. Resilience therefore depends on far more than protecting individual organizations. It depends on understanding and managing the relationships between them.

If the government is serious about strengthening national infrastructure, cybersecurity must become part of that conversation from day one. That means moving beyond isolated security programs and towards a model where organizations share intelligence, understand common risks and coordinate their response before disruption spreads.

Some of the defining cyber attacks of recent years have demonstrated that attackers are rarely interested in a single target. They look for opportunities to compromise one organization in order to reach many others.

The SolarWinds attack remains one of the clearest examples. By compromising trusted software updates, attackers gained access to thousands of organizations around the world. More recently, the ransomware attack on Synnovis disrupted pathology services across several NHS trusts, leading to cancelled operations, delayed appointments and widespread disruption to patient care.

Neither incident remained confined to the organization that was initially compromised. Both exposed the reality that critical infrastructure now depends on interconnected supply chains as much as physical assets.

That presents a challenge for every operator of critical national infrastructure. Security can no longer be viewed solely through the lens of protecting your own estate. Organizations also need visibility into the threats affecting suppliers, partners and the wider ecosystem. A vulnerability within a software provider or outsourced service can quickly become a problem for every organization that depends on it.

This is where many existing security programs begin to show their limitations. Organizations have invested heavily in detection technologies, vulnerability management platforms and threat intelligence feeds. They are collecting more information than ever before. Yet many still struggle to translate that information into confident operational decisions.

The cybersecurity industry has spent years focusing on visibility. The assumption has been that if organizations can discover every vulnerability, identify every asset and collect every threat feed, they will naturally become more secure.

The evidence suggests otherwise.

Filigran's recent State of Threat Management report found that organizations consume an average of fourteen different threat intelligence feeds, yet fewer than half have fully operationalized that intelligence across their security programs.

At the same time, 84% of respondents said the attacks they experience exploit risks that were already known but had not been prioritized. Almost every organization surveyed also reported difficulty determining whether identified exposures were genuinely exploitable.

Those findings illustrate a wider industry problem. The challenge is no longer discovering risk. It is deciding which risks deserve immediate attention.

Security teams are surrounded by alerts, vulnerability reports and intelligence updates. Every tool claims to identify another critical issue demanding urgent action. Without context, everything starts to look important. Analysts spend valuable time investigating vulnerabilities that may never be exploited while genuinely dangerous attack paths remain hidden among the noise.

That has consequences beyond operational efficiency. Every hour spent investigating a low priority issue is an hour that cannot be spent reducing real business risk. Organizations are not simply overwhelmed by the volume of information. They are overwhelmed by the number of decisions they are expected to make every day.

One reason this happens is that threat intelligence is still too often treated as a function of the Security Operations Centre. Intelligence is gathered, analyzed and used to help detect or investigate malicious activity once attackers have already reached the network.

Yet, threat intelligence has far greater value when it informs decisions much earlier in the security lifecycle.

Used effectively, it should help organizations understand which vulnerabilities are actively being targeted, which attack paths present the greatest business risk and which remediation activities will deliver the greatest reduction in exposure. Rather than treating every vulnerability as equally urgent, security teams can focus on the threats that genuinely matter to their environment.

This is also where Continuous Threat Exposure Management, or CTEM, has an important role to play. CTEM should not be viewed as another technology category or another security acronym. It provides a structured framework for connecting threat intelligence, exposure management, validation and remediation into a continuous process. Instead of relying on assumptions or theoretical risk scores, organizations can validate whether a vulnerability is genuinely exploitable before committing time and resources to fixing it.

Perhaps the biggest obstacle is not technical at all. Many organizations still operate with threat intelligence, vulnerability management, penetration testing and governance teams working independently, each with different priorities, processes and tooling. Breaking down those silos often delivers greater improvements than introducing another security platform.

If critical infrastructure is expected to become more resilient, collaboration has to become part of everyday operations rather than something that only happens during a major incident. That thinking is already beginning to take shape.

Earlier this month, the National Cyber Security Centre and GCHQ issued a call for industry, academia and critical infrastructure operators to help define Cyber Shield, a proposed national cyber defense capability designed to combine AI, shared intelligence and coordinated defense at national scale.

Significantly, the initiative recognizes that the government cannot build this capability alone. It will depend on close collaboration with the organizations responsible for protecting the UK's essential services.

Additionally, the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill provides an opportunity to strengthen that approach by encouraging greater consistency across essential sectors. Frameworks such as the National Cyber Security Centre's Cyber Assessment Framework already give organizations a common language for measuring resilience.

They become even more valuable when they encourage organizations to learn from one another instead of tackling similar challenges in isolation.

Open standards have an important role to play as well. The Dutch National Cyber Security Centre recently made STIX and TAXII 2.1 the mandatory standard for sharing cyber threat intelligence across government.

While technical on the surface, the decision reflects a broader principle. When organizations exchange intelligence using common standards, they remove friction from collaboration and can respond to threats more quickly.

Technology alone will not deliver that outcome. Artificial intelligence, automation and modern security platforms can help organizations process more information and reduce manual effort, but they still depend on good intelligence, sound governance and trusted relationships.

For the simple reason that fast decisions only become good decisions when they are supported by the right context.

Whether more of Britain's critical national infrastructure ultimately moves into public ownership is only part of the story. Cyber attackers do not distinguish between public and private organizations. They target weak links, trusted suppliers and interconnected systems wherever they find them.

The organizations that will be best prepared for the years ahead will be those that treat resilience as a collective responsibility. They will operationalize threat intelligence before incidents occur, validate real-world risk rather than relying on assumptions, and collaborate across organizational boundaries as readily as attackers do.

Protecting critical infrastructure has never been solely about defending individual organizations. It is about strengthening the entire ecosystem that keeps essential services running. If the UK wants to build genuinely resilient national infrastructure, that is where the conversation needs to begin.

We've listed the best path management software.

This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to 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/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit

• We've heard countless rumors about camera-toting AirPods
• Now, a leaked video reportedly from MacOS build shows how they'd work
• Public opinion on this kind of tech is poor, and getting worse

We've been hearing countless rumors that Apple is working on AirPods with cameras — last news was that they could come in 2027 — and now we have an idea as to how they could work.

Website MacRumors has uncovered a video found in pre-release code for MacOS Tahoe 26.7, an upcoming update to Macs' operating system.

The video shows an AirPods-wearing man pick up a book and look at it, while a female voice says: "With visual intelligence, your world becomes saveable. See something you like? Just ask me to save it for later."

Here is your first look at AirPods with Cameras in action using Visual Intelligence.This video file came from macOS 26.7 RC pic.twitter.com/yo7RI4MCeuAugust 18, 2026

Finally, we have a way to remember things! How has humanity got to this point without that...

Visual Intelligence is an Apple feature, which uses an iPhone camera to see what's going on around you. And apparently, it's coming to AirPods, when they get cameras.

This video doesn't look like leaked marketing material for the new AirPods; the production value doesn't match other Apple material. It looks like it was shot on an iPhone, with exposure that's all over the place. But it could be a placeholder, or perhaps an internal video.

It's also unlikely that the AirPods used in the video are the new camera-toting ones; again, these are probably just placeholder buds. Instead, this news shows us what Apple thinks these new buds will do: act as extensions of AI tools like Visual Intelligence. And that might be their downfall.

Some journalists have written that always-watching smart tech, especially smart glasses, are facing a reckoning. That's no longer quite true: they've faced said reckoning, the great privacy revolt has reached its conclusion, and opinion now couldn't be sourer on this kind of surveillance gadget.

In the UK, smart glasses have been banned from courts, restaurants, theaters, and even the pub chain Wetherspoons (there's nowhere lower to go than being kicked out of a 'Spoons'). Their disparaging moniker, "pervert glasses", is now used more commonly than their actual name, and they're frowned upon even more in the court of social opinion than in actual courts.

Okay I hate to be that guy but… who’s asking for thisAugust 18, 2026

The reason for this low public opinion — well, one of many — is smart glasses' use of cameras. Since the user could be recording video or taking pictures, without anyone else knowing, they're a privacy nightmare. And since legislation can take an age to come into effect, it's easier just to socially ostracise people who might be recording you without your knowledge.

And so, AirPods coming with cameras would be a truly awful look, as it'd get them lumped in with smart glasses. Even if the buds don't actually let you capture footage, and only use their cameras for object recognition, the very presence of visible cameras will get them lumped in with smart glasses: "pervert earbuds".

And that's notwithstanding the real chance — as has been demonstrated with those glasses — of Apple's earbuds being appropriated by tech-savvy individuals, to somehow get the cameras working (despite the buds' presumed low-res quality that Apple doesn't mean for video capture).

As I've written in the past, these things aren't designed to take pictures. They are for analyzing your surroundings. https://t.co/r7IFNmsoE4 https://t.co/tjmS7w8tlJAugust 18, 2026

Disregarding the scant use cases of camera-toting smart glasses, camera-toting AirPods would launch amid a storm of negative attitudes to this kind of tech. It's a risk and could even be seen as a potential lose-lose situation for Apple: either release a product that's dead on arrival, or one that is popular but helps to distribute and normalize "pervert" tech.

Maybe the sentiment one X user posted, "I hate to be that guy but… who's asking for this?" sums it up nicely. It could be that at this point, we don't need these AirPods, guys. And perhaps Apple could instead put its R&D efforts towards earbuds with a competitive battery life…

For years, cybersecurity has become increasingly measurable. Security leaders can often tell you how long it takes to detect an intrusion, contain an attack and restore normal operation. Those figures have given boards a straightforward way to judge progress, offering reassurance that investment in security is delivering real improvements.

Metrics such as Mean Time to Detect (MTTD) and Mean Time to Respond (MTTR) have earned their place at the table. They both provide a clear picture of how effectively security teams perform when something goes wrong and have helped drive better incident response across the industry.

The problem is not that these metrics are wrong. They were designed for a different era, when technology changed more slowly, attack methods evolved over longer timescales and AI wasn't yet part of the equation.

Today's businesses are introducing new technologies at an extraordinary pace. AI is becoming embedded across organizations, cloud environments continue to expand and businesses are more interconnected than ever before. At the same time, attackers are constantly adapting their own techniques, taking advantage of new tactics and tools almost as quickly as they emerge.

CISO’s and boards need to dynamically review the changing threat landscape and risk posture and ask themselves whether the metrics relied on for years still tell us everything we need to know.

Every business wants to detect attacks sooner, contain them faster and recover with minimal disruption. That’s why MTTD and MTTR remain valuable operational measures. They tell us how effectively a security team performed once an incident was underway.

What they don't tell us is whether the business is becoming better prepared for what comes next, more resilient, more agile in recovery. That matters because cyber risk continues to evolve long after an incident has been contained.

The UK Government's Cyber Security Breaches Survey 2025/2026 found that 43% of UK businesses experienced a cyber breach or attack during the previous year.

This reinforces how security teams are operating in an environment where incidents are a regular reality, whether it's in their own environment, or that of one of their supply chain. Responding well is important, but resilience is shaped by everything that happens before incidents.

A business may recover quickly from an attack but still take months to review its security policies, reassess supplier risk or strengthen controls in response to what it has learned. By the time those changes are made, the threat landscape will have moved on.

Traditional metrics tell us how quickly a business responds to an incident. They don't tell us how quickly it learns from one, or how quickly it adapts.

If we're going to close that gap of preparedness, our metrics need to evolve as well. Resilience is no longer defined solely by how well a business responds to isolated incidents, but by how quickly it keeps pace with continuous change.

I believe organizations should start thinking about another benchmark alongside the ones we already know: Mean Time to Adapt (MTTA).

MTTA considers how long it takes to recognize a meaningful change in the threat landscape and turn that knowledge into action.

Sometimes that action will be technical. It could mean updating the rules security tools used to detect emerging attack techniques. Or it might involve tightening access to critical systems after a serious vulnerability is discovered. It may also be a proactive lessons learned view of an attack on another organization or sector to understand how vulnerable the organization would be.

In other cases, the response will be organizational rather than technical. It may involve reviewing governance, changing how cyber risk is reported to the board or refreshing employee awareness programs to reflect the latest tactics being used by attackers.

Either way, resilience depends on both. The strongest security programs combine technical improvements with organizational change, ensuring businesses can recognize change and act on it quickly.

That’s why closing this gap is not only a technology challenge. It relies on decision-making, leadership and a willingness to keep questioning whether existing assumptions still hold true. Businesses that adapt well rarely assume their current security program is finished. They expect it to evolve because the environment around them is evolving too.

That thinking is increasingly reflected across the wider industry. For example, the National Cyber Security Centre's Cyber Assessment Framework places governance, risk management and continual improvement at the heart of cyber resilience. It recognizes that security is an ongoing organizational capability, not a one-time achievement.

If preparedness and adaptation becomes a more meaningful measure of resilience, it will change the conversations taking place in the boardroom.

Most directors already receive regular updates covering incidents, phishing activity and response times. Those reports remain important, but they won’t always show how well the business is responding to change itself.

The discussion must now move beyond operational reporting and give greater prominence to MTTA. This would give boards a way to measure how quickly an organization responds to change, rather than simply how efficiently it handles incidents.

In practice, that means asking a different set of questions. How quickly does the business reassess risk when a significant new threat emerges? How long does it take for new intelligence to shape security policies? Have lessons from recent attacks fundamentally changed the way the organization operates, or have they simply been recorded and filed away?

By measuring adaptation, rather than response alone, organizations can answer these questions with greater confidence and build a broader picture of resilience.

And this isn't solely a question for security teams. It depends on leadership, governance and how prepared the wider business is to make decisions as risks continue to evolve.

MTTD and MTTR will remain valuable measures of operational performance. But if organizations want to understand how resilient they really are, they also need to know how quickly they adapt.

MTTA fills that gap. It won't replace today's cyber metrics, but it will enhance them by measuring a capability that is becoming increasingly important as technology, AI and cyber threats continue to evolve.

It’s now MTTA time to shine.

We've featured the best endpoint protection software.

This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to 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/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit

Software security was built around human development.

People wrote, reviewed and deployed code. Now machines are taking over.

In a recent paper, Anthropic reports that more than 80% of the code merged into its production codebase is authored by their AI model, Claude.

The same capabilities that make developers more productive are changing the economics of cyberattacks.

While adversaries still define the objective, machines can generate the payloads, test variants, adapt code to different environments and repeat the process at a velocity that security programs can’t match.

Most enterprise software security workflows assume there is time for review. Code is written, scanned, tested, approved and deployed. If something suspicious happens later, security teams investigate and respond.

That model breaks down when software moves from prompt to execution in minutes.

AI-generated code can become a script, dependency, automation job or infrastructure change almost immediately. While development agents can modify files, resolve packages and run commands.

Human reviewers are no longer in the loop.

Attackers can use the same mechanics to generate exploits, test evasion techniques and adjust payload behavior for different targets. This creates more variation with fewer stable indicators for defenders to recognize.

While AI-assisted analysis can improve triage, it still often produces probability, not policy. At machine speed, “probably suspicious” is not good enough.

Human attackers are not disappearing. But more of the attack chain is becoming machine-executed.

AI can automate reconnaissance, accelerate vulnerability discovery, generate exploit code, rewrite payloads and adapt command sequences to the target environment. But most defensive measures are designed around human constraints: reused infrastructure, shortcuts and trackable patterns. These don’t apply to machine attacks.

A machine-generated payload may not match a known signature or have an established reputation. It may be created, used briefly and discarded. But AI malware must still interact with the target environment to achieve its objective. Its behavior cannot conceal its intent, since it must access resources and change the environment in ways that advance the attack.

What malicious code is capable of doing is the more durable security signal.

Software supply chain security has improved, but much of it still validates the artifact’s properties before execution rather than governing execution itself.

SBOMs, signing and provenance give security teams greater confidence in a code's composition, origin and build history. But knowing where software came from does not reveal what it will do when it runs.

Software can pass each of those checks and still create risk. Even an artifact produced through a legitimate build process may violate policy at runtime, while an AI-generated script may complete its intended task in a way that exposes data or systems. As a result, a clean dependency list is not proof of safe behavior.

Detection and response remain essential, but they intervene after risk has entered the environment. By the time suspicious behavior is visible, software may have accessed secrets, changed system state, opened network connections or created persistence.

AI compresses that window. Code can be generated, modified and deployed faster than humans can review it. Waiting for post-execution evidence gives attackers too much room to operate.

We need to shift the decision point left. Instead of asking, “Can we contain this software if it behaves badly?” the question should be, “Should this behavior be permitted to execute in the first place?”

That does not mean replacing existing controls, but rather changing where the decisive security gate sits.

Zero Trust changed enterprise security by rejecting implicit trust. Users, devices, sessions and access requests are not trusted simply because they appear familiar. They must be verified against policy.

Software execution needs the same level of verification.

Code should not be trusted solely because it came from a known repository, was signed by a recognized publisher, passed through a build pipeline or has not been seen exhibiting malicious behavior before. Those are useful indicators, but they are not conclusive.

Zero Trust for Code addresses this problem. Before software runs, its expected behavior should be evaluated against policy. If the behavior is acceptable, execution can proceed. If not, the artifact should be blocked, restricted, isolated or escalated for review.

Organizations can start by mapping every path through which code enters the environment or executes with meaningful privilege. This includes formal development channels such as repositories, open-source packages, containers and CI/CD pipelines, as well as email attachments, downloaded files, macros, browser extensions, endpoint installers, third-party integrations and scripts introduced through AI or automation tools.

Then identify where those paths rely on inherited trust. If execution is allowed because software came from an approved source, was signed, passed through a build process or has no malicious history, the control is incomplete. Behavior still has to be evaluated before the artifact is allowed to run.

As AI takes on more of the work of creating legitimate and malicious code, enterprises can no longer assume that code which clears existing checks should be allowed to run. Execution must become a deliberate security decision.

We've listed the best internet security suites for PCs, Macs and mobile devices.

This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to 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/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit

Inkjet printers
Ink tank printers
Laser printers

Whether you're looking for a cheap printer for back-to-school or upgrading your office setup, now is a great time to buy. I'm tracking all the best printer deals on some of our top-performing inkjet, ink tank, and laser printers.

For most home, dorm room, and home office use, I recommend ink tank printers. They work the same as inkjet models, sspraying liquid ink on the page, but the bottled ink refills are much cheaper than cartridges, and companies like Epson, HP, and Canon tend to include free ink in the box to save you even more money.

For business use, a laser printer is the best pick for fast, high-volume document printing where the text is sharp and detailed. However, some higher-grade ink tank printers come close for small businesses. You'll find my favorite printer deals below, including some of the best home printers and best ink tank printers we've tested.

The Canon MegaTank G3270 is our top pick budget ink tank printer for most people. View Deal

EcoTank ET-4800: was $299.99 now $199.99
This entry-level ink tank features everything most home users, students, and remote workers need, including print, scan, copy, and fax, and ADF. View Deal

Color Laserjet Pro 4201dw Wireless Printer: was $699 now $529
This HP laser printer impressed us during tests, with up to 35ppm print speeds in both black and color delivering rich text documents. It also includes automatic two-sided printing.View Deal

• Best Buy: Save on printers, ink, and toners
• Walmart: Deals on HP, Epson, Canon and more
• Newegg: Savings on printers, scanners, and printing supplies
• Brother: Printer deals for the home, office, and business
• Canon: Discount inkjet and ink tank printers
• Epson: Over 40% off Epson printers
• HP: Weekly deals on home and office printers

An ultra-cheap home printer, the Canon Pixma TR4720 is an inkjet that has more features than you might expect for the price. It can print, copy, scan, and fax, boasts an automatic document feeder, and even lets you automatically print double-sided. View Deal

Envy 6155e Wireless All-In-One Color Inkjet Printer: was $159.99 now $99.99
This wireless all-in-one printer includes a three-month Instant Ink trial. Automatic two-sided printing, scanning, copying, borderless photo support, and AI-enhanced page formatting.View Deal

Pixma TR8620a all-in-one inkjet printer: was $215.99 now $199.99
Canon's Pixma TR8620a is an all-in-one printer that's packed with features. Sure, it prints, scans, copies and sends faxes, but it also includes auto-double-sided printing, automatic document feeder, and and relatively quick print speeds compared to other budget printers around this price. View Deal

Canon’s professional-grade printer uses ten long-life pigment inks to turn out striking photos on A3+ paper and banners. As we found out during our review, the Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-310 is an expensive and feature-light print-only inkjet with all the emphasis on print quality, which is superb. View Deal

MegaTank G3270: was $248.99 now $159
Our top budget ink tank, this MegaTank model from Canon delivers high-volume, low-cost printing. You'll find a few features missing to keep the price low - but if you don't need auto-double-sided printing or a touchscreen interface, that won't be an issue. Ideal for a home, dorm room, or home office setup.

Read our full reviewView Deal

EcoTank ET-2400 Supertank Color Printer: was $189.99 now $169.99
This all-in-one inkjet printer prints, scans and copies while offering Wi-Fi and USB connectivity for flexible setup. Its refillable ink tank system replaces traditional cartridges, and the compact design includes a 100-sheet rear paper tray, flatbed scanner and support for everyday home and small office printing.View Deal

The HP Smart Tank 6001 adds automatic two-sided printing to its print, scan, and copy capabilities, while the refillable ink tank system and up to three years of included ink make it a practical choice for busy households.View Deal

EcoTank ET-4800 Wireless All-in-One: was $299.99 now $199.99
Refillable EcoTank ink system with up to 2 years of ink included in the box, automatic document feeder (ADF) for multi-page scans and copies, fax capability, and both wireless and Ethernet connectivity. Print, scan, and copy handled through the Epson Smart Panel app.View Deal

Smart Tank 7001: was $429.99 now $289.89
HP’s refillable inkjet is a neat but basic all-in-one desktop design with self-healing wi-fi, Bluetooth and auto-duplex mode, and excellent all-round print quality as revealed by our in-depth review. View Deal

EcoTank ET-8550: was $749.99 now $671
This wide-format all-in-one combines six-color cartridge-free printing, 13 x 19-inch media support, scanning, copying, automatic duplex printing, speeds up to 16ppm, mobile controls, and refillable high-capacity ink tanks.

In the UK: now £629 (was £780)View Deal

EcoTank ET-15000: was $700 now $450
This 4-in-1 ink tank printer lets you print in tabloid (A3+) at low costs. Extra features include a 250-sheet tray capacity, duplex printing, and a 35-sheet ADF. View Deal

Pixma G6020 ink tank printer: was $323.99 now $249
The Canon Pixma G6020 can print, copy, and scan, while features include an auto-document feeder, 250-sheet front tray, and 100-sheet rear tray. At up to 13ipm (color), it’s not got super-fast print speeds, but will be enough for the home, home office, or casual small business use. View Deal

imageCLASS LBP6030w Monochrome Wireless Laser Printer: was $140.99 now $87.99
This budget laser printer from Canon includes an automatic document feeder and a compact design that makes it very suitable for home office use. View Deal

LaserJet M209dw Wireless Printer: was $199 now $159
The HP LaserJet M209dw is monochrome laser printer designed for small business and home office use. Top features here include an automatic document feeder and auto-duplex for printing on both sides without manually turning over the paper. 30ppm single-sided printing is decently quick, too. View Deal

Laserjet Pro 4001dn Printer: was $449 now $289
A fast monochrome laser printer with speeds up to 42ppm, automatic duplex printing, 1200dpi output, Gigabit Ethernet, AirPrint support, and a recommended monthly volume of 750 to 4,000 pages for busy home offices and businesses.

Read our full reviewView Deal

imageCLASS MF465dw laser printer: was $540.99 now $317.24
This fast all-in-one laser printer handles printing, scanning, copying, and faxing in a single compact machine. It produces up to 42 pages per minute and includes automatic two-sided printing.View Deal

Color Laserjet Pro 4201dw Wireless Printer: was $699 now $529
A color laser printer delivering up to 35ppm in both black and color, with automatic duplex printing, 512MB memory, ImageREt 2400 technology, a 4-line LCD, and support for busy offices printing up to 4,000 pages monthly. In his review of this model, our printer editor Jim rated it even higher than the 4001dn, stating: "I love this laser printer’s rich black text, and hate the retro dial."View Deal

Color imageCLASS LBP646Cdw Wireless Laser Printer: was $378.99 now $229.99
The Canon Color imageCLASS LBP646Cdw is a wireless color laser printer with a fair 26ppm print speed in both mono and color. Features here include two-sided printing, a 250-sheet tray capacity, and a small footprint for small business or home office use. View Deal

imageCLASS LBP122dw laser printer: was $194.99 now $129.99
The Canon imageCLASS LBP122dw is a no-frills wireless mono laser printer that's compact enough for home and small office environments. Despite the price, there's a few great features here, including automatic double-sided printing and fairly quick mono print speeds. View Deal

• The Sonos app on iOS now works with Live Activities and Dynamic Island
• Controls remain on screen for 15 minutes after playback stops
• Album art and full Watch/CarPlay support will arrive soon

Sonos has updated its iPhone app to support Live Activities and the Dynamic Island. Posting on the r/sonos subreddit, Liz from Sonos says that "We’re excited to finally bring back Sonos control from the iOS lock screen, but in an all-new way with iOS Live Activities. We know this is a much requested, anticipated, and needed feature, and we can’t wait for you to try it out."

The feature is off by default but you can enable it in the latest version of the app by going into Account > App Preferences > Live Activity.

Once you've enabled the feature, simply start playback and close the app. The Live Activity will show the current speaker group or room you last played audio on, and it gives you volume and transport controls. Those controls will be visible when your phone is locked, but you'll need to use Face ID, Touch ID or a passcode to unlock the device to change playback.

To make the Live Activity go away, just swipe it off the screen.

Some features haven't been implemented yet. Sonos' app doesn't yet support album art in the Live Activity, although Liz says that "alternative ways to enhance the lock screen experience are being explored."

Live Activities are also used by the Apple Watch and with CarPlay, but Sonos hasn't implemented the feature for those platforms yet. That means the Live Activity will appear on your Apple Watch or on your Car's displays, but the on-screen controls won't do anything.

If you'd rather not use the Sonos app to control your audio, for example because you use Direct Control from a compatible service, AirPlay or Bluetooth) Sonos says that "you can still use the local playback controls that appear on screen or the Live Activity. You can choose which you prefer to use."

Live Activities were introduced in iOS 16.2, and Sonos's version is rolling out just weeks before the next version of iOS, iOS 27, drops. The feature will work just as well in the next iOS, and Sonos says that while there's no news to share right now "the teams have been exploring the new capabilities [iOS 27] has in Beta."

Try our TV size and model finder! You tell it how far you sit from your TV, we'll tell you what size to buy based on viewing angle advice from image quality experts, and we'll recommend our three top TVs at that size for different prices.

• Fans have descended on Sony's new 'It Happens on PS5' ad featuring Grand Theft Auto 6
• They're protesting the decision to end physical disc production in January 2028
• The ad campaign also highlights other upcoming games like Marvel's Wolverine and God of War Laufey

PlayStation fans still angry with Sony's plan to end physical game disc production have brigaded yet another video comment section, this time a PS5 ad featuring Grand Theft Auto 6.

Sony has just launched the 'It Happens on PS5' physical ad campaign across the world, which highlights "the biggest moments of play" featuring games such as Marvel’s Wolverine, 007 First Light, and God of War Laufey.

"Today, we’re launching a new It Happens on PS5 hero advert highlighting what’s available on PS5 as well as what’s ahead for players in the coming months," the accompanying PS blog reads.

"The advert invites players to discover what PS5 makes possible, taking viewers on a fast-paced journey through bold and unexpected moments, featuring larger-than-life scenes, from Giannis Antetokounmpo’s elite basketball skills that get the streets bouncing to a high-speed jet ski chase."

GTA 6 is also featured ahead of the game's November 19 launch, and while some fans are feeling the excitement, many are continuing to voice their disappointment with Sony and its decision to kill game discs in January 2028.

After previously swarming the comment section of the most recent Marvel's Wolverine cinematic trailer, as well as several other PlayStation videos, fans have now descended on the 'It Happens on PS5' ad to make their thoughts known.

"Discs used to happen on PS5," the top comment reads, as another user wrote, "It happens that there used to be discs."

If you continue scrolling through the comments, it's difficult to pinpoint any positive mention of the ad, with the majority either urging Sony to backtrack on its decision or criticising the company.

"I used to buy PS products for more than 30 years. It won't happen again," a fan said.

Despite the ongoing pushback, and after remaining silent on the matter for weeks, Sony CFO Lin Tao recently addressed the situation during the company's Q1 2026 earnings announcement, confirming that it is "cautiously" moving forward with its decision (via IGN).

While we know upcoming games like Marvel's Wolverine and God of War Laufey will have physical discs at launch, GTA 6's physical edition won't, and will instead offer a digital code in a box, which has also added to the controversy.

Take-Two Interactive CEO Strauss Zelnick recently explained the reasoning for this decision, saying, "Our business is well over 90% digitally distributed. It's already a digital business."

I reviewed Nioh 3 back in January of this year, and it quickly cemented itself as one of the best soulslike games in my eyes.

Changes it made to the series' formula, including a clear distinction between Samurai and Ninja styles, as well as a shift to vast explorable open maps, really helped it to stand out from the pack.

Platform reviewed: PC
Available on: PS5, Xbox Series X|S, PC
Release date: August 19, 2026

Now the game's first of two major expansions, Hell Rising, has arrived. It's not as expansive as Elden Ring: Shadow of the Erdtree or Lies of P: Overture (it took me around 8-10 hours to complete all main missions and a handful of side quests), but it is more Nioh 3 in the best way possible.

Long story short, if you enjoyed Nioh 3 and played it all the way to completion, you'll find a lot more to love about Hell Rising. You can expect all-new enemy types, challenging boss encounters, a new weapon archetype, as well as a sprinkling of added skills, ninjutsu, and onmyo magic.

You will need to be caught up in order to properly access the DLC, though. Hell Rising requires you to have beaten the base game, and you'll want to be rocking a competent endgame build to face its higher difficulty and level recommendations. Enemies hit harder than ever, and bosses are among the toughest in Nioh 3 as a whole. So be sure to kit yourself in Divine tier gear (ideally with your preferred set bonuses) before jumping in.

Nioh 3: Hell Rising takes place in 1651 during Japan's short-lived Keian era.

After being appointed Shogun at the end of the base game, protagonist Takechiyo learns of a resurgence of the Crucible and the demonic forces brought on by it. So, they travel to the Keian era with their spirit allies in order to quell the threat for good.

It's a simple setup, but I enjoyed Hell Rising's narrative. New allies join the fight alongside Takechiyo, including Yagyu Jubei and Rodrigo—a swordsman and politician hailing from Spain. New cutscenes typically bookend major boss fights, and I must say a late-game twist has beautifully set up the upcoming second expansion (a release date for which has yet to be revealed).

Area variety is really impressive in Nioh 3: Hell Rising. You'll traverse water-logged villages, skirt around an active volcano, as well as invade a laboratory staffed by foreign alchemists looking to harness yokai power for themselves. Levels have a surprising amount of verticality, too, helping the new map to feel suitably dense.

You do have kind of a test to pass in order to access the DLC proper, and that comes in the form of Yagyu Jubei.

He's essentially the gatekeeper boss for Hell Rising; the game's way of checking if you're truly ready for the challenges ahead. I actually found him to be among the hardest of the new bosses. He's fast, and commands wind and water elemental attacks. Oh, he's also really good at dodging through your ninjutsu techniques, so building up status effects on him is a challenge in and of itself.

Before the fight, though, the DLC almost immediately introduces you to the new Hoko and Shield weapon archetype. I think they're a fantastic addition to Nioh 3's roster of armaments, and there are versions for both Samurai and Ninja styles.

Your gameplan with the Hoko and Shield is to time your strong attacks (and certain Martial Art skills) to negate incoming enemy attacks. They're a more defensive weapon by nature, and its skill tree includes abilities to both engage and disengage enemies at a distance, as well as ranged attacks such as tossing the shield in various ways. It's a high-risk, high-reward weapon type that I ended up using for a decent chunk of the DLC's runtime.

I loved my time with Nioh 3: Hell Rising, and I'm now eagerly anticipating the second expansion and all the additions and new bosses that brings. I do have a couple of issues with Hell Rising, though, that I hope get addressed in future content.

For one, bosses from the base game get reused quite frequently. You'll see many of the base game's yokai bosses at least once in Hell Rising (one particularly annoying one actually appeared twice).

I found it a shame because the DLC's new bosses are all wonderful, engaging challenges. Recycling these older bosses with no noticeable changes felt like padding, and weren't much of a challenge beyond their larger health pools and higher attack power.

There were also some particularly mean enemy ambushes late on in the DLC, particularly in the Crucible zone that acts as its capstone. You'll be shoved into tight corridors and tiny rooms fairly frequently here, as mobs of yokai swarm in. It was the only time during the DLC that I felt the game was being just a touch unfair.

You loved Nioh 3
Yes, this one's fairly obvious, but I think Hell Rising is currently the pinnacle of what Nioh 3 has to offer. If you loved the base game and you're simply wanting more, you'll get a lot out of this first expansion.

You're excited for more build variety options
The Hoko and Shield weapon, along with all-new ninjutsu, onmyo magic, and yokai Soul Cores, all expand your options when it comes to building a Samurai or Ninja (or both!) kit that best suits your playstyle. Better yet, you can take it all back into the base game if you're keen to replay it on the higher Shogun's Journey difficulty.

You were hoping for a meatier package
At 8-10 hours, Hell Rising is a relatively bite-sized expansion. It's still excellent at this length, but if you're wanting something more sizable, I'd recommend waiting until the second expansion comes out so you can play both back to back.

Nioh 3: Hell Rising's accessibility features remain the same as they were in the base game. For more information, check out our full Nioh 3 review in order to get a brief overview of what's on offer.

Nioh 3: Hell Rising took me approximately 8-10 hours to finish on my first playthrough of it. That included all main missions and bosses, exploring most of the new map, and completing a handful of side quests.

I played the expansion on PC, carrying my base game character from my original Nioh 3 review into the DLC. I played through Hell Rising with the Valve Steam Controller (2026), and used my RIG 900 Max HS gaming headset for more immersive audio.

First reviewed August 2026