The meetup slide advertised CSS26-MASSCC for free admission by October 8. The code is publicly documented on MassCyberCenter's events page, and MASSCC is MassCyberCenter itself, a division of the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative and a summit partner. CSS26-<PARTNER> is the organizer's standard partner-comp pattern; other live instances include CSS26-OS and CSS26-WICT.

Verified on 2026-09-17 by registering: the code produces a Standard Attendee order at 0.00 USD, payment status "No Fees", registration Confirmed. Eligibility screening passed without challenge.

The verification is dated and does not generalise forward. It was used 21 days before the advertised "by Oct. 8" deadline, and a partner comp is the kind of thing that runs to a quiet cap rather than to its stated date. Anyone trying it in October should expect to pay and be pleasantly surprised, not the reverse.

Until registering, this was unverifiable from outside, because the page renders identically for the real code and for a deliberately invalid control code; validation happens only after the form is submitted, which is either an absence of client-side validation or a deliberate refusal to confirm which partner codes exist. The published offer terms are non-transferable, new registrations only, no retroactive use, subject to eligibility review.

The eligibility terms are worth reading after registering rather than before, because they apply afterwards. Admission is restricted to active practitioners responsible for defending an enterprise; students, interns, educators, anyone not currently employed in IT, and anyone in a sales or marketing role are excluded. All registrations are subject to review, and the terms add that if the organizers cannot verify an identity from what was given at registration, attendance may be cancelled.

The sentence that matters for a comp registration: "these qualifications pertain to all attendees, including members of our partner organizations." A partner code buys the fee, not the seat. A confirmed registration is therefore a claim on a seat pending review, not an admission ticket, and the review happens on their schedule rather than at the door.

The closest thing on the agenda to agent identity and authorization. Its abstract is the argument in one line: agents now hold credentials, reach systems, and decide on behalf of the business, so apply one measurement approach to human and agent behaviour alike.

Whether a single measure over both is right is exactly the question trust boundaries as a typed category pushes against: a delegated agent identity and a human identity differ in what may be inferred when each misbehaves.

The most technically specific slot on the agenda. Names indirect prompt injection, system prompt leakage, and Model Context Protocol abuse directly, and proposes a control plane enforcing before, during and after the model runs. Adjacent to elenctic vibe code review on the authorship side and to the egress-proxy thread on the enforcement side.

AI-accelerated vulnerability discovery and supply-chain component gating. Worth recording that the abstract is pegged to a model release, opening with the claim that the arrival of Anthropic Mythos "fundamentally altered the cyber threat landscape." That is the vendor's framing, not a finding, and the pegging of a security posture to a named model version is itself the thing to watch.