<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Microsoft on Butterswords | Where Words &gt;= Swords</title><link>https://butterswords.com/tags/microsoft/</link><description>Recent content in Microsoft on Butterswords | Where Words &gt;= Swords</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Jun 2026 10:03:56 -0700</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://butterswords.com/tags/microsoft/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Microsft Aegis Smumit June 9, 2026</title><link>https://butterswords.com/blog/msft-aegis-summit-jun2026/</link><pubDate>Sat, 20 Jun 2026 10:03:56 -0700</pubDate><guid>https://butterswords.com/blog/msft-aegis-summit-jun2026/</guid><description>&lt;div class="bg-tlgray-200/40 border-l-4 border-blue-600 px-6 py-4 mb-8"&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;BLUF:&lt;/strong&gt; Safety and Security share many things. It is not enough, however, to allude to the historical attributes of either when proposing "novel" approaches for AI.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h2 id="background"&gt;Background&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A friend of mine shared a call for participants at the &lt;a href="https://microsoft.eventsair.com/msft9/register/Site/Register"&gt;Microsoft Applied AI Safety &amp;amp; Security Summit&lt;/a&gt;. It felt like an excellent opportunity to see what the creators of &lt;a href="https://github.com/microsoft/PyRIT"&gt;PyRIT&lt;/a&gt; are up to in 2026. The agenda had a few interesting presentations and the case study felt like it might be worth experiencing, to see if their way of looking at risks differed from what I have done in the past.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>