The Israeli businessman who helped create Pegasus, the notorious spyware linked to surveillance of journalists, politicians and human rights activists, is now building a multibillion-dollar company that promises to protect governments’ most sensitive information. Much of the money behind his new venture is coming from the United Arab Emirates.
Shalev Hulio, co-founder of the controversial Israeli surveillance company NSO Group, has returned to the international technology market with Dream, a cybersecurity and artificial intelligence company that has raised more than $400 million, predominantly through Emirati investment.
According to an investigation by the Financial Times, Dream has rapidly expanded its operations, reaching a valuation of $3 billion in June and establishing offices in Abu Dhabi and Vienna alongside its headquarters in Tel Aviv.
The company’s ambitions extend beyond conventional cybersecurity. Hulio wants governments to develop and operate their own artificial intelligence systems, capable of processing classified intelligence and sensitive national data without depending on American technology companies.
But the venture raises an uncomfortable question: Why are governments being asked to entrust their most sensitive information to a businessman whose previous company became internationally notorious for developing intrusive surveillance technology?
The question carries particular significance for the UAE, where substantial investment is helping finance the expansion of an Israeli company led by one of the most recognisable figures in the commercial spyware industry.
The Emirati Money Behind a New Israeli Technology Empire
Founded in 2022, Dream has grown into a major player in government cybersecurity within just a few years.
The company now employs approximately 350 people, operates from Tel Aviv, Vienna and Abu Dhabi, and has attracted more than $400 million in investment.
Among its financial backers are Bain Capital Ventures and Tau Capital, an Abu Dhabi-based investment firm backed by Sheikh Tahnoun bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the UAE’s National Security Adviser.
That connection places Emirati investment within an Israeli technology company whose founder played a central role in developing one of the world’s most controversial surveillance products.
The financial relationship also reflects a deeper intersection between national security, private technology companies and cross-border investment.
Dream is not simply selling software to private businesses. Its products are designed for governments, national cybersecurity operations and critical infrastructure.
Its growing presence in Abu Dhabi therefore introduces questions about the UAE’s expanding financial involvement in Israeli security technology, particularly given the longstanding controversy surrounding the commercial spyware industry.
However, the investment itself does not establish that Dream is conducting unlawful surveillance or that Emirati authorities are using its products for such purposes.
What is clear is that substantial Emirati capital is helping finance the international expansion of a company led by a former NSO executive.
From Pegasus to Artificial Intelligence: Hulio’s Reinvention
Hulio founded Dream in 2022 after meeting Sebastian Kurz, Austria’s former chancellor, who became his co-founder.
The company initially concentrated on providing cybersecurity services to governments before expanding into artificial intelligence tools designed to strengthen cyber defences and support the processing of government data.
Today, Hulio is promoting what he describes as sovereign artificial intelligence.
The concept involves governments developing and operating their own AI models rather than relying on external technology providers to manage sensitive national information.
In an interview with the Financial Times, Hulio argued that governments should retain direct control over the systems they depend upon.
“Every government should have its own model,” he said.
He warned that relying on external technology companies could leave governments vulnerable if a provider decided to discontinue the AI model on which they depended.
“You must control your AI yourself,” Hulio added.
His argument centres on technological independence, national security and the growing importance of artificial intelligence in government operations.
Instead of transferring confidential information to American cloud providers, Dream wants governments to operate specialised AI systems on infrastructure under their own control.
Hulio says such systems could assist with tasks including analysing classified intelligence and improving government procurement.
The commercial opportunity is substantial, but the model also places Dream in a sensitive position.
A company developing tools for classified government intelligence is operating in an environment where technical capabilities, institutional trust and accountability are closely connected.
And for Hulio, trust is precisely where his previous business history becomes impossible to ignore.
Three Products at the Centre of Dream’s Expansion
Dream has developed several platforms intended to serve different aspects of government cybersecurity and artificial intelligence operations.
Its Sphera product is marketed as a national-level cyber defence system, using AI-supported tools to protect government institutions and critical infrastructure against cyberattacks.
The company’s Hero platform uses artificial intelligence to identify software vulnerabilities and repair them autonomously.
In August, Dream announced that its researchers had identified what it described as the first fully autonomous cyberattack against a government target, conducted from beginning to end without direct human intervention.
The claim was presented by the company and illustrates the growing role it attributes to artificial intelligence in cybersecurity.
Dream’s third major product, Atlas, was launched in June.
The platform allows governments to develop customised artificial intelligence models and operate them on their own infrastructure without depending on external cloud service providers.
According to Hulio, the technology could support sensitive government functions, including classified intelligence analysis.
The products collectively position Dream as a supplier of technology intended for some of the most sensitive areas of state administration.
But while the company promotes independence from foreign cloud providers, its own commercial structure raises a separate issue: governments must still decide how much confidence to place in the companies developing their systems.
For Dream, that question is inseparable from the legacy of Pegasus.
The Pegasus Scandal That Still Follows Hulio
Before founding Dream, Hulio was one of the central figures behind NSO Group, the Israeli company responsible for developing Pegasus.
The surveillance software became internationally controversial after being linked to the monitoring of politicians, journalists and human rights defenders.
Pegasus was not an ordinary commercial cybersecurity product.
It was designed as sophisticated surveillance software capable of compromising mobile devices, making it a powerful instrument for intelligence gathering.
Its reported use against individuals outside legitimate criminal investigations sparked widespread criticism and raised serious concerns about the international market for commercial spyware.
In 2020, the then United Nations Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression called for stronger measures to prevent Pegasus from being used as an instrument of surveillance and repression.
The controversy deepened as evidence emerged about the methods used to compromise targeted devices.
In 2019, the Financial Times revealed that NSO had exploited a vulnerability in WhatsApp to install Pegasus on iPhones and Android devices.
The revelations intensified scrutiny of the Israeli company’s activities and its relationships with government customers.
In November 2021, the US government placed NSO Group on its trade blacklist.
The company subsequently lost a landmark lawsuit brought by WhatsApp over the hacking operations.
Together, these developments established a record of serious controversy surrounding NSO and the international sale of surveillance capabilities.
Yet Hulio does not regard his involvement in that industry as a liability. He sees it as a commercial advantage.
‘My Past Is a Tremendous Advantage’
Despite the criticism surrounding Pegasus, Hulio has shown no regret over his previous career at NSO Group.
Instead, he argues that his experience developing and selling security technology to governments gives Dream an advantage in establishing relationships with state institutions.
Hulio maintains that NSO’s previous products helped prevent terrorist attacks and save lives.
Those claims form part of his defence of the company’s legacy.
Speaking to the Financial Times, he made clear that he does not view his history as something that should undermine his new venture.
“I see my past as a tremendous advantage,” Hulio said.
His position reveals a central tension in Dream’s commercial strategy.
The company is presenting itself as a provider of defensive technology designed to protect government information.
At the same time, its founder is explicitly relying on the experience, relationships and reputation he developed while operating in the commercial surveillance industry.
For governments considering Dream’s products, that background presents competing considerations.
Hulio’s familiarity with national security institutions may provide valuable experience in cybersecurity and intelligence technology.
However, NSO’s controversial history also raises questions about the safeguards, accountability and oversight associated with companies operating in this sector.
These concerns become more important when the technology being marketed is intended to process classified government information.
Why the UAE Connection Raises Further Questions
Dream’s expansion comes amid broader criticism of the UAE’s use of Israeli-developed surveillance and intelligence technologies.
Previous investigations and controversies have raised concerns about the potential use of commercial spyware to monitor political opponents, activists and journalists.
Such allegations have generated wider debate over privacy protections, government accountability and international oversight of surveillance technology exports.
Against that background, the financial involvement of an Abu Dhabi-based investment firm backed by the UAE’s National Security Adviser is particularly noteworthy.
It connects Emirati capital to a rapidly expanding Israeli cybersecurity company led by a businessman whose previous venture was at the centre of international surveillance controversies.
That does not demonstrate that Dream’s current products have been misused.
Nor does it establish that the company is developing another version of Pegasus.
The available information instead shows that Hulio has moved into a different technology market while maintaining his focus on government security customers.
Nevertheless, the combination of his previous experience, Dream’s government-focused products and substantial Emirati investment invites scrutiny of the relationships developing around the company.
The question is not simply whether Dream’s technology can protect sensitive information.
It is also how governments will ensure appropriate oversight when purchasing security and intelligence-related systems from private companies with complex international financial relationships.
Dream Won’t Name Its Government Clients
Despite its rapid international expansion, Dream has declined to disclose the identities of the governments purchasing its technology.
The company says it has sold cybersecurity tools to more than a dozen countries, including customers in Europe and Asia as well as two countries in the Middle East.
Hulio has also confirmed that Dream’s sovereign AI product has been deployed in two countries.
He did not identify them.
The absence of publicly disclosed customer identities limits independent scrutiny of where the company’s technology is operating and how it is being used.
While confidentiality is common in government security contracts, it also complicates efforts to assess the implications of technology transfers involving sensitive national systems.
Dream’s products are intended to protect critical infrastructure, identify vulnerabilities and support intelligence-related functions.
Their deployment therefore involves technologies with considerable national security significance.
Hulio acknowledges that relationships with governments depend on confidence.
He has argued that supplying such institutions requires trust and reassurance.
But those assurances are being made by the former head of a company whose surveillance technology attracted international criticism, regulatory action and legal consequences.
The contrast is difficult to overlook.
The businessman whose previous company became notorious for helping governments penetrate mobile devices is now promoting a new business built around helping governments protect their own data.
With more than $400 million raised, a $3 billion valuation, substantial Emirati financial backing and an expanding international customer base, Dream has already established itself as a significant participant in the government cybersecurity market.
Whether its new technology and business practices can overcome the questions associated with Pegasus remains a matter of scrutiny, particularly as Hulio’s company expands its presence in Abu Dhabi and strengthens its relationships with governments seeking greater control over their national data.
