DVIUS INTELLIGENCE

DVIUS AI represents a groundbreaking advancement in cybersecurity threat intelligence. Our proprietary machine learning algorithms analyze global threat data in real-time, identifying patterns and anomalies that traditional security systems often miss. The system processes billions of data points daily, leveraging deep neural networks to provide unprecedented visibility into evolving cyber threats. Recent deployments have demonstrated remarkable effectiveness with 99.7% accuracy in threat detection and a 68% reduction in false positives compared to conventional solutions. The autonomous response capabilities can contain threats within milliseconds, significantly reducing potential damage to enterprise systems. As cyber threats continue to evolve in sophistication, DVIUS AI's adaptive learning capabilities ensure continuous improvement in defensive strategies. The platform represents the future of intelligent, automated cybersecurity defense.

Mit einer ISO 27001-Zertifizierung weisen Unternehmen nach, dass sie ein wirksames Informationssicherheits-Managementsystems (ISMS) betreiben. Lesen Sie, weshalb der Zertifizierungsprozess häufig schief geht. Foto: mentalmind – shutterstock.comISO-Zertifizierungen, aber auch die Einführung eines Informationssicherheits-Managementsystems (ISMS) nach IT-Grundschutz, werden von vielen Unternehmen als Beweis für ihre Qualität und ihren professionellen Ansatz bei der Durchführung ihrer Geschäftstätigkeit angesehen. Obwohl das ein wichtiger Grundstein für jedes Unternehmen ist, läuft in einigen Fällen nicht immer alles wie geplant. Im Folgenden werden die häufigsten Fallstricke bei der ISO-/ISMS-Einführung und deren Zertifizierung sowie Lösungsansätze aufgeführt. 1. Fehlende Verbindlichkeit der Geschäftsleitung Allen voran geht die Geschäftsleitung. Egal, ob als Einzelperson oder zu mehreren. Einer der maßgeblichen Faktoren, der dazu führt, dass ISO-/ISMS-Einführungen in Unternehmen nicht funktionieren, ist das fehlende Commitment der Geschäftsführer. Diese muss die Bedeutung der ISO-/ISMS-Einführungen verstehen und sich aktiv für ihre Umsetzung und Aufrechterhaltung einsetzen. Ohne das Engagement der Geschäftsleitung ist es oft schwierig, alle Mitarbeiter für den Prozess zu gewinnen und sicherzustellen, dass die ISO-Standards oder auch die Standards nach IT-Grundschutz in den täglichen Geschäftsablauf integriert werden. Deshalb sollten Unternehmen auf jeden Fall klarstellen, wie wichtig das Thema ist – auch, wenn die Umsetzung mit hohem Aufwand und Unannehmlichkeiten verbunden sein kann. “Aufräumen” ist nicht immer schön. Das Ergebnis dafür aber umso lohnender. Wenn die Geschäftsleitung die ISO-/ISMS-Einführungen unterstützt und fördert, kann dies zu einem erfolgreichen Abschluss und einem besseren Unternehmensimage führen. 2. Dran vorbei statt mittendrin Einer der häufigsten Gründe, warum ISO-/ISMS-Einführungen in Unternehmen nicht funktionieren, ist, dass sie nicht tatsächlich in den täglichen Geschäftsablauf integriert werden. Viele betrachten die ISO-/ISMS-Einführungen als eine einmalige Aktivität, die einmal durchgeführt wurde, um das Zertifikat zu erhalten. Dabei achten sie jedoch nicht darauf, die geschaffenen Abläufe in ihre täglichen Geschäftspraktiken zu integrieren. Ohne eine tatsächliche Einbindung in den täglichen Geschäftsablauf wird das Zertifikat nutzlos und die Vorteile, die es bietet, werden nicht realisiert. Im schlimmsten Fall zahlen Organisationen sogar drauf, lassen dabei jedoch in jedem Fall wertvolles Entwicklungspotential liegen. Bei der Integration gilt es zu beachten, dass man sich nicht zu sehr in Details verliert. Die (arbeits-)lebensnahe Umsetzung des Managementsystems ist maßgeblich für dessen Erfolg. Anstatt komplizierte Prosa zu schreiben, tut es vielleicht auch eine Grafik. Frei nach dem Motto “Ein Bild sagt mehr als tausend Worte!”. Sind Abläufe leicht und intuitiv zu erfassen und klar umzusetzen, werden sie auch gelebt. Hier kann es auch hilfreich sein, Prozesse zu automatisieren. Auch der Blick von außen durch einen erfahrenen Berater kann von Vorteil sein. Lesetipp: Wie Sie sich auf ein SOC-2-Audit vorbereiten 3. Mitarbeiter nicht umfassend beteiligen Ein weiteres Problem, das bei ISO-/ISMS-Einführungen häufig vorkommt, ist die fehlende Beteiligung aller Mitarbeiter. Wenn nur ein kleiner Teil des Unternehmens für die Umsetzung der ISO-/ISMS-Einführungen verantwortlich ist, kann es zu einer Desynchronisation zwischen den Abteilungen kommen, die nicht Teil des Prozesses sind. Dies führt dazu, dass bestimmte Abteilungen nicht an den vorgesehenen Verfahren teilnehmen und dass die ISO-/ISMS-Einführungen letztendlich nicht funktioniert. Die Lösung hierzu? Erfahren Sie im nächsten Punkt. 4. Mitarbeiteridentifikation nicht fördern Ein weiterer Faktor, der die Funktionalität von ISO-/ISMS-Einführungen in Unternehmen erschwert, ist die fehlende Identifikation der Mitarbeitenden mit der Einführung und dem daraus resultierenden Managementsystem. Die Mitarbeiter müssen verstehen, warum die Einführung wichtig ist, wie sie in ihre täglichen Arbeitsabläufe integriert werden soll und wie das ihnen die Arbeit erleichtert. Ist das nicht der Fall, wird es schwierig , die Einführung umzusetzen und eine daraus etwaig resultierende Zertifizierung aufrechtzuerhalten. Eine Lösung dafür bilden zum Beispiel Schulungen und Weiterbildungsprogramme. Diese tragen dazu bei, dass die Mitarbeitenden frühzeitig in den Zertifizierungsprozess einbezogen werden. Dadurch wird sichergestellt, dass alle Mitarbeitenden die Bedeutung der Zertifizierung verstehen und wie diese in ihre täglichen Arbeitsabläufe integriert werden kann. Die Schulung und Einbindung der Mitarbeitenden stellt zudem sicher, dass das Managementsystem effektiv umgesetzt wird. Die Angestellten tragen dadurch aktiv zu dessen Verbesserung bei. 5. Vernachlässigen von Kompetenzbildung Schulungen für Mitarbeitende im Kontext der ISO-/ISMS-Einführungen sind in vielerlei Hinsicht wichtig. Fehlende Kompetenz bei den Verantwortlichen trägt oftmals dazu bei, dass Zertifizierungsvorhaben spätestens im Audit scheitern. Schulungen und das Bilden von Bewusstsein aller Mitarbeitenden für die Bedeutung der ISO-/ISMS-Einführungen und ihre Rolle bei der Umsetzung sind deshalb essentiell. Ein gut ausgebildetes Team findet gute und effiziente Lösungen für den Aufbau und die Umsetzung eines Managementsystems. So kann Bürokratisierung vermieden werden. Damit ist Kompetenzbildung von Anfang an ein entscheidender Faktor für den Erfolg einer ISO-/ISMS-Einführungen. 6. Umsetzen ohne Plan Ein weiteres Hindernis bei der Implementierung von ISO-/ISMS-Einführungen, ist das Fehlen eines klaren Plans zum Vorgehen. Viele Organisationen beginnen den Prozess ohne, dass sie eine genaue Vorstellung davon haben, was für eine ergolgreiche Einführung oder eine Zertifizierung benötigt wird. Dadurch verschwenden sie Zeit und Ressourcen. Ohne einen genauen Plan konzentrieren sich Firmen auf Bereiche, die nicht relevant sind oder die Anforderungen der ISO-/IT-Grundschutz Standards nicht erfüllen. Dauert die Umsetzung für den Aufbau eines Managementsystems zu lange, kann es außerdem dazu kommen, dass die reguläre Unternehmensentwicklung den Prozess selbst überflügelt und Arbeit mehrfach anfällt, um Änderungen zu folgen. Eine mögliche Lösung besteht darin, einen klaren Plan zu erstellen, der die Schritte zur Implementierung der Standards festlegt. Dieser Plan sollte die spezifischen Anforderungen der gewählten Standards, die benötigte Zeit und die Ressourcen für die Einführung/Zertifizierung, sowie die Verantwortlichkeiten und Aufgaben der beteiligten Mitarbeiter und Abteilungen berücksichtigen. Durch eine klare Definition einer Deadline für den primären Aufbau des Managementsystems können Unternehmen sicherstellen, dass sie sich auf die wichtigsten Bereiche konzentrieren. Somit sind sie in der Lage, Zeit und Ressourcen effektiver zu nutzen. Eine vorgelagerte Soll-Ist-Stand- oder GAP-Analyse ist dabei ein erprobtes Mittel, um Klarheit zu schaffen und die Basis für eine konkrete Planung zu erhalten. 7. Das passt schon so oder währt ehrlich doch länger? Wenn Unternehmen sich selbst belügen, funktioniert die ISO-/ISMS-Einführungen ebenfalls nicht. Oftmals werden Schwachstellen- und Risikoanalysen nicht objektiv betrachtet oder eigentlich relevante Themen schlicht nicht erfasst. So nach dem Motto: “Was der Auditor nicht weiß, macht ihn nicht heiß.” Dies führt dazu, dass Unternehmen ihre Risiken nur unzulänglich behandeln oder erst gar nicht wahrnehmen und somit die Wirksamkeit des Managementsystems beeinträchtigen. Der Aufschrei, wenn ein Risiko nach einer zuvor positiven Bewertung eintritt und immense Kosten zu dessen Behebung anfallen, ist im Nachhinein oft groß. Eine unehrliche Betrachtung sorgt dafür, dass die Implementierung der gewählten Standards oberflächlich und unvollständig erfolgt, was die Einführung und gegebenenfalls auch die Zertifizierung letztendlich sinnlos macht. Eine Lösung hierfür besteht darin, dass Unternehmen schonungslos ehrlich zu sich selbst sind und sich gegebenenfalls auch Hilfe zur Selbsthilfe holen. Ein unvoreingenommener und erfahrener Berater kann helfen, Risiken richtig einzuschätzen. Außerdem ist er in der Lage, potentielle Szenarien aufzeigen, die aufgrund von Betriebsblindheit sonst nicht gesehen werden. So kann das Unternehmen eine ehrliche Risikoanalyse durchführen und Schwachstellen im Unternehmen identifizieren, um eine effektive Implementierung der gewählten Standards zu gewährleisten. 8. Die Einführung/Zertifizierung als abgeschlossenen Prozess betrachten Ein weiteres häufiges Problem bei ISO-/ISMS-Einführungen ist das Fehlen eines kontinuierlichen Überwachungs- und Verbesserungsprozesses. Viele Unternehmen sehen die ISO-/ISMS-Einführungen als einen abgeschlossenen Prozess. Werden jedoch keine kontinuierlichen Bemühungen unternommen, um die Umsetzung der gewählten Standards aufrechtzuerhalten und zu verbessern, droht das Unternehmen schnell hinter den neuesten Trends und Anforderungen zurückzufallen. Im schlimmsten Fall kann es sogar passieren, dass das Unternehmen seine Zertifizierung verliert. Im Anschluß ist es entsprechend schwer, diese erneut zu erlangen. Um diese Probleme zu vermeiden, müssen Unternehmen die ISO-/ISMS-Einführungen als einen kontinuierlichen Prozess ansehen, der ständig überwacht und verbessert wird. Alle Mitarbeiter sollten in den Prozess einbezogen werden, um eine reibungslose Umsetzung und eine tatsächliche Integration in den täglichen Geschäftsablauf zu gewährleisten. Zudem ist es wichtig, dass regelmäßig Überprüfungen und Audits durchgeführt werden. Dadurch sorgen Organisationen dafür, dass sie immer den neuesten Standards entsprechen. 9. Einsatz von Billiglösungen Eine ISO-/ISMS-Einführung und Zertifizierung ist nichts für Unternehmen, die auf Billiglösungen aus sind. Viele Unternehmen versuchen, Kosten zu sparen, indem sie sich für günstigere Lösungen entscheiden oder versuchen, die Standards auf eigene Faust und ohne angemessene Ressourcen zu implementieren. Dies führt regelmäßig dazu, dass Unternehmen wichtige Bereiche übersehen oder mangelhafte Lösungen implementieren, die die Standards nicht vollständig erfüllen oder nur Mehrarbeit schaffen, ohne die eigentlich möglichen Vorteile eines Managementsystems zu erschließen. Es ist wichtig zu verstehen, dass die Implementierung von ISO/IT-Grundschutz-Standards ein wichtiger und langfristiger Prozess ist. Dieser erfordert eine angemessene Investition, um sicherzustellen, dass alle Anforderungen erfüllt werden und das Managementsystem effizient umgesetzt wird. Was bringt es, am Anfang zu sparen und dann auf Dauer mehr Kosten zu haben, um die Fehler in der Basis auszugleichen? Lösen lässt sich dieses Dilemma durch eine klare und ausführliche Bestandsaufnahme in Kombination mit einem Soll-Abgleich. Auf Basis eines klaren Bildes, was zu tun ist, lässt sich ein angemessenes Budget für die Implementierung der gewählten Standards bereitstellen und auf qualitativ hochwertige Lösungen setzen, die den Anforderungen entsprechen. So kommen auch langfristige Vorteile von Managementsystemen zum Tragen, wie eine verbesserte Effizienz, Qualität und Kundenzufriedenheit, was letztendlich zu höheren Umsätzen und Gewinnen führen kann. Ein angemessener Mehraufwand schon bei Implementierung des Systems rechnet sich also langfristig gesehen. (jm) Lesetipp: Gut zertifiziert ist halb gewonnen

New research released Thursday by Rubrik Zero Labs finds that the AI wave, and in particular agentic AI, has created a “troubling gap between the expanding identity attack surface and organizations’ ability to recover from resulting compromises.” According to the report, Identity Crisis: Understanding & Building Resilience Against Identity-Driven Threats, the result is a surge of both non-human identities (NHIs) and agentic identities. Key findings revealed: 89% of organizations have “fully or partially incorporated AI agents into their identity infrastructure, and an additional 10% have plans to.” Of those polled, 58% estimate that, in the next 12 months, half or more of the cyberattacks they must deal with will be “driven by agentic AI.” Industry reports contend that NHIs now outnumber human users by 82-1. In addition, a release from Rubrik states, as organizations integrate agents into their workflows, the increase in NHIs will continue to outpace the growth of human identities,  and securing them “will become as essential — if not more so — as securing human identities.” Furthermore, authors of the report state, “as traditional network boundaries have dissolved amid cloud migrations, remote work adoption, and now agentic AI, identity is no longer merely a control layer. It has become the primary attack surface, which threat actors weaponize to gain access to IT environments and ‘live off of the land’ over the course of an attack.” The overwhelming majority of today’s breaches, they write, are predicated on exploiting trust and valid credentials rather than circumventing network defenses. ‘Under-the-radar crisis exists Kavitha Mariappan, chief transformation officer at Rubrik, said, “the rise of identity-driven attacks is changing the face of cyber defense. Managing identities in the era of AI has become a complex endeavor, especially with the labyrinth of NHIs. We have an under-the-radar crisis on our hands where a single compromised credential can grant full access to an organization’s most sensitive data.” She added, “comprehensive Identity Resilience is absolutely critical to cyber recovery in this new landscape.” The research was prompted, she said in an email to CSOonline, because “the cyber defense landscape has fundamentally changed, creating a significant gap between the expanding identity attack surface and an organization’s ability to recover [from an attack]. As traditional network boundaries have dissolved due to cloud migration, remote work, and the accelerating adoption of agentic AI, identity has become a primary vulnerability.” Threat actors “are overwhelmingly exploiting trusted and valid credentials to log in, not break in,” Mariappan explained. “These attacks are further complicated by the labyrinth of non-human identities, like API keys and AI agents, which are surging across the enterprise and are proving difficult to manage. Unlike with human identities, these NHIs can be difficult to revoke and often slip through the cracks, leading to poor lifecycle governance.” David Shipley, head of Canadian security awareness training provider firm Beauceron Security, said he agrees with the report’s findings for a key reason: “[While] phishing and social engineering overall are where attacks start, identity and access management (IAM) practices are where the fire gets roaring.” Organizations, he said, “need modern approaches to IAM and employee cyber education and engagement. The employee education doesn’t just help them spot and stop threats, you can help them understand why good IAM processing technology is required.” He pointed out, “[there is] a reason why identity and access management is the foundation of a security program. When it’s done poorly, the impacts reverberate throughout an organization during an attack.” Shipley said that he often tells clients, “IAM is the bottom of the cyber equivalent of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Where humans need food and shelter to survive, digital systems need strong IAM practices to survive.” “In our work around the world, we’ve seen that as organizations get larger and more complex, it’s far more likely they have huge issues in identity management,” he said. “This isn’t the kind of problem that technology alone can fix, regardless of the vendor. It takes understanding people, process, culture, and technology.” Agentic AI ‘like a stick of dynamite thrown into a fishpond’ For example, said Shipley, “it doesn’t matter what AI-powered IAM tool you have if you allow people to bypass processes to grant, remove, or change access because the process for approvals is [seen] as too slow or cumbersome.” The least favourite thing to find when you’re investigating a cyber incident, he said, “is no way to trace who did what because there’s nothing in the logs. The second worst is to find a bunch of identities that no one knows how they got there or how they had the access they did.”  Shipley described agentic AI as “basically a stick of dynamite thrown into a fishpond when it comes to identity, and the results look the same. If organizations can’t tell if a human or their agent performed a set of actions, they can’t properly understand if they have a software vulnerability, an issue with employee awareness or motivation on security, or even worse, an insider threat.” Worse yet, he said, “the whole concept of zero trust just got wiped out. Agents rely on huge amounts of trust and frankly, they haven’t earned it and have done everything they can possibly do to show they shouldn’t be trusted. From hallucinations to hijacking, this technology is not ready for prime time.” Thomas Randall, research lead at Info-Tech Research Group, added that most of the Rubrik Zero Labs report “validates what the industry already knows. For years, Info-Tech research has shown that identity is a prime attack surface, that zero trust/least privilege/continuous verification are best practices, and that security training is imperative.” Attack surface to drastically increase He said that two elements stood out to him: “First is bridging human and non-human identity under a single umbrella; typically, we might understand these under separate domains of IAM vs DevOps secrets management, respectively. The report’s point is that attackers don’t respect those org-chart boundaries, so security teams should think beyond those boundaries, too.” However, said Randall, “this framing overlooks that these identities are operationally different. While both authenticate and authorize, the tooling, telemetry, RACI, and risk models differ. A single ‘identity plane’ may be the goal conceptually, but practically, it’s hard to implement across those divergent ecosystems.” The second element is, he said, “the stark claim that non-human identities now outnumber human users by around 82:1. As organizations start developing more AI agents (especially if individuals have free rein to develop their own copilots or GPTs), the attack surface drastically increases.” Randall noted, “each copilot or GPT can hold API keys, OAuth tokens, or delegated permissions (for example, ‘read SharePoint docs, query CRM data, send emails.’). This is certainly where I think organizations need to be concerned: the gap between agentic AI rollout and AI governance grows increasingly wider.” Organizations, he said, “have to be disciplined in controlling agent creation, credentialing, and lifecycle management; otherwise, the attack surface potentially increases drastically.” Security leaders must understand that IAM tools alone won’t protect against or help them restore the integrity of their identity infrastructure in the event of a compromise, he added. In addition, said Mariappan, they must also understand that IAM tools alone won’t protect against or help them restore the integrity of their identity infrastructure in the event of a compromise. In fact, she said, “while 87% of IT and security leaders plan to change their IAM providers, 60% have already switched providers in the last three years, signaling the industry’s dissatisfaction with current solutions for tackling identity-based threats. Our research reveals that a comprehensive identity resilience strategy is needed for when, not if, an attack strikes.”

A Russian-speaking threat behind an ongoing, mass phishing campaign has registered more than 4,300 domain names since the start of the year. The activity, per Netcraft security researcher Andrew Brandt, is designed to target customers of the hospitality industry, specifically hotel guests who may have travel reservations with spam emails. The campaign is said to have begun in earnest around

Geräte mit End-of-Life-Software (EOL) stellen nach wie vor ein weit verbreitetes Sicherheitsproblem in Unternehmen dar. tookitook -shutterstock.com Laut einer Studie von Palo Alto Networks laufen 26 Prozent der Linux-Systeme und acht Prozent der Windows-Systeme mit veralteten Versionen. Die Ergebnisse basieren auf Telemetriedaten von 27 Millionen Geräten in den Netzwerken von 1.800 Unternehmen. Die Analyse offenbart zudem, dass 39 Prozent der in Netzwerkverzeichnissen registrierten IT-Geräte über keine aktive Endpoint-Protection-Lösung verfügen. Ein Drittel (32,5 Prozent) aller Geräte in Unternehmensnetzwerken wird außerhalb der IT-Kontrolle betrieben. Die fehlenden Sicherheitskontrollen ermöglichen es Angreifern, in ungeschützte Geräte einzudringen, ohne entdeckt zu werden. Außerdem sind fast vier von fünf (77 Prozent) der Unternehmensnetzwerke schlecht segmentiert –  Geräte mit geringer Sicherheit wie intelligente Kaffeemaschinen oder Drucker befinden sich im selben Netzwerksegment wie hochwertige Zielen, etwa Finanzserver. „In unseren Ergebnissen war besonders auffällig, dass Alltagsgeräte wie Überwachungskameras, smarte Sensoren oder private Laptops oft direkt mit sensiblen Systemen verbunden sind. Zudem weisen selbst von der IT verwaltete Geräte häufig Sicherheitslücken auf“, erklärt Qiang Huang, VP of Product Management für Cloud-basierte Sicherheitsdienste bei Palo Alto Networks, gegenüber CSO. „Fast die Hälfte dieser Verbindungen stammt von Hochrisikogeräten, bei deren Entwicklung Sicherheit keine Rolle spielte.“ Lücken bei der Sichtbarkeit Der Studie zufolge sind Visibility und Segmentierung nach wie vor die größten Schwachstellen vieler Unternehmensnetzwerke. Etwa ein Drittel der Unternehmensgeräte wird immer noch nicht verwaltet. Die meisten Netzwerke sind praktisch flach aufgebaut, sodass Angreifer sich nach dem Eindringen frei bewegen können. Schlimmer noch: Netzwerk-Edge-Geräte sind zunehmend von Zero-Day-Schwachstellen betroffen, die Experten auf grundlegende Sicherheitslücken zurückführen. „Fehlkonfigurationen in Firewalls, Routern und Switches haben wiederholt zu schwerwiegenden Sicherheitsverletzungen geführt, da diese Geräte oft über privilegierten Zugriff und umfassende Netzwerksichtbarkeit verfügen“, erklärt Bharat Mistry, Field CTO bei Trend Micro. „Ihre Präsenz an der Spitze der Schwachstellenliste unterstreicht die Notwendigkeit eines rigorosen Patch- und Konfigurationsmanagements.“ Router, Videokonferenzsysteme und IoT-Geräte befinden sich am Rand von Netzwerken. Sie sind oft nicht gemanaged, ungenügend gepatcht und laufen mit Standardzugangsdaten. „Wenn Unternehmen die Internet-Exposition reduzieren, Standard-Anmeldedaten abschaffen und Geräte priorisiert patcht, die sowohl exponiert als auch angreifbar sind, entziehen sie Angreifern eine Vielzahl von Möglichkeiten“, betont Rik Ferguson, VP of Security Intelligence bei Forescout. Ferguson fügt hinzu: „Man kann sich nicht auf die Abdeckung durch Agenten verlassen, daher benötigt man eine kontinuierliche, agentenlose Transparenz, ein vollständiges Software- und Firmware-Inventar, einschließlich EOL-Status und risikobasierter Kontrollen auf Segmentierungs- und Patch-Ebene.“ Weitere Studie mit ähnlichen Ergebnissen Ferguson bestätigt gegenüber CSO: „Die Ergebnisse von Palo Alto Networks stimmen in etwa mit unseren Beobachtungen in der Praxis überein, insbesondere bei Embedded-Linux-Systemen in Routern und Geräten, bei denen die Kernel-Versionen um Jahre hinterherhinken“. „Das Ergebnis ist eine große Angriffsfläche von über das Internet erreichbaren Geräten mit ungepatchten Schwachstellen und schwachen Standardeinstellungen.“ Laut dem aktuellen jährlichen Bericht von Forescout über die risikoreichsten Geräte machen Router und andere Netzwerkgeräte mehr als die Hälfte der Geräte mit den gefährlichsten Schwachstellen aus, wobei auch andere Kategorien wie Video-/Sprachsysteme eine wichtige Rolle spielen. Die Studie von Forescout, die auf Telemetriedaten von Unternehmensgeräten unter Verwendung der Device Cloud von Forescout und einer Multi-Faktor-Risikobewertungsmethode basiert, hebt auch hervor, dass das Risiko durch OT-Geräte rapide zunimmt. Zu den risikoreichsten Gerätetypen nach Domäne gehören laut ForeScout auf der IT-Seite Application Delivery Controller und Firewalls, im IoT-Bereich NVRs, NAS, VoIP und IP-Kameras und im OT-Bereich Universal Gateways und Gebäudemanagementsysteme. Herausforderungen bei der Behebung Matt Middleton-Leal, Managing Director für EMEA bei Qualys, ist der Meinung, dass Transparenz, die Behebung von Schwachstellen und die Netzwerksegmentierung intern als wichtiger behandelt werden müssen, wenn CISOs Unterstützung für Sicherheitsprojekte erhalten wollen. Die Herausforderung für Sicherheitsverantwortliche bestehe darin, dass Projekte zum Austausch unsicherer Geräte als weniger wichtig angesehen würden. Zudem würden ihnen Argumente fehlen, die beispielsweise für KI-bezogene Projekte gelten, die als „Spitzenreiter“ der Innovation angesehen werden. „Der Austausch von Altgeräten kann Zeit und Ressourcen für das Change Management kosten, ohne sichtbaren Nutzen für das Unternehmen zu bringen“, führt Middleton-Leal aus. Adam Seamons, Head of Information Security bei der GRC International Group, stimmt zu, dass der Austausch von Altsystemen selten eine Priorität für IT-Projekte in Unternehmen darstellt. „Der Austausch von Altsystemen ist teuer, riskant und steht selten ganz oben auf der Prioritätenliste, bis etwas kaputt geht.“ Seamons fügt hinzu: „Das Problem ist, dass jedes nicht gepatchte Gerät im Grunde genommen eine Einladung für Angreifer ist.“ Die Maßnahmen zur Behebung solcher Risiken können über den reinen Austausch der Hardware oder Migrationen hinausgehen. So können Upgrades zusätzliche Arbeiten an der Software erfordern, um mit neueren, sichereren Komponenten kompatibel zu sein. „Das ist oft der Grund, warum ältere Software-Assets nicht aktualisiert werden, denn die Nacharbeit und Änderungskontrolle ist eine erhebliche Investition, die sich wirtschaftlich kaum rechtfertigen lässt“, bemerkt Middleton-Leal von Qualys. „CISOs und Sicherheitsverantwortliche müssen ihre Teams durch diese Kostenabwägung führen. Dort, wo Software am Ende ihrer Lebensdauer nicht ersetzt werden kann, müssen kompensierende Kontrollen und Risikominderungsmaßnahmen entwickeln werden, um die Sicherheit der Software oder Assets dennoch zu gewährleisten“, fordert Middleton-Leal. (jm)

AI agents and coding copilots are shaking up how — and what — developers code. But they’re also rapidly expanding the attack surface of developer machines The latest example: Security researchers have shown how a rogue Model Context Protocol (MCP) server can inject malicious code into the built-in browser feature of Cursor, a popular AI-powered code editor. “We demonstrate how a single malicious MCP server can replace login pages inside Cursor’s internal browser with an attacker-controlled page that harvests credentials and sends them to a remote attacker,” researchers from AI cybersecurity firm Knostic.ai wrote in new research shared with CSO. “We also show how that same capability allows an attacker to fully compromise the victim’s workstation.” Originally developed by Anthropic to facilitate communication between large language models (LLMs) and external data sources or applications to improve workflow context, MCP has become a key component for developing AI agents that automate tasks by leveraging external tools. The protocol uses a client-server architecture, in which applications expose functionality to LLMs through an MCP server and AI agents or applications connect to those services through an MCP client. Integrated development environments (IDEs) such as Microsoft’s Visual Studio Code — and those based on it, like Cursor and Windsurf — natively support integration with MCP servers. To enhance security, most IDE vendors maintain repositories with vetted MCP servers, but IDE users can also deploy custom servers manually. Such servers can be found all over the internet, including GitHub. Earlier this year, researchers found hundreds of MCP servers in public GitHub repositories that had dangerous misconfigurations, including default exposure to untrusted networks and OS command injection paths. Attacking Cursor and other VS Code-based IDEs Cursor is essentially a fork of VS Code with code added to turn it into an AI-assisted coding tool, whereas VS Code gets its AI capabilities through extensions. Knostic researcher Dor Munis, who developed the MCP attack against Cursor, told CSO that unlike VS Code, which performs integrity checks of its own files, Cursor does not. As a result, any modification of its own code will not present the user with a warning. VS Code, and by extension Cursor and other VS Code forks, is built on Electron, a framework used to develop cross-platform applications with Node.js and the Blink browser engine from Chrome. Because of this, these applications employ a JavaScript interpreter. As IDEs, they also have file system access and elevated permissions to perform tasks. Knostic researchers recently published a proof-of-concept attack against Cursor implemented through a malicious extension that injected malicious JavaScript into the running IDE to execute actions and manipulate its user interface. Malicious extensions have also been found in the VSCode Marketplace and the OpenVSX registry, which Cursor also uses, including a self-propagating worm that harvests credentials from developer machines. Knostic’s newly unveiled attack is similar in concept, but delivered via a malicious MCP server, it expands the attack surface beyond extensions. “An MCP server should be treated exactly like VS Code extensions in terms of security,” Munis said. That’s because MCP servers are essentially downloaded to run on your computer, and inherit the permissions of the IDE you use, he explained. In his proof-of-concept attack, Munis shows that an MCP server can inject JavaScript code into the built-in browser that Cursor recently added to allow developers to visually test changes to their application code and to allow Cursor’s AI agent to automatically perform tasks that require browsing. Using this technique, Munis replaced the browser’s actively displayed page with a log-in prompt, like in a phishing scenario, but without the URL ever changing — in other words, injected code’s changes happen on the fly. Of course, the impact of such an attack would depend on what the victim is doing in the browser. Developers might be displaying sensitive data from the web app they’re working on, or they might be logged into a service. It’s worth noting that the internal browser saves authentication cookies for the session and those could also be targeted. The attack was developed to prove successful JavaScript code injection via an MCP server, but just like with the extension attack, it could be expanded to perform other malicious actions inside the Cursor IDE itself. Defenses Organizations must review and control, both through policy and access controls, the IDE extensions and MCP servers their developers use. They should do this just like they should be vetting application dependencies from package registries such as npm or PyPI to prevent the compromise of developer machines or inheriting vulnerabilities in their code. Attackers are increasingly using VS Code extensions as an attack vector to target developers and it’s only a matter of time before they’ll start abusing MCP servers more widely. “Try to find the project’s GitHub repo and review the code,” the Knostic team advised. “This is a program you install on your computer that can do anything. If there’s doubt about its credibility, DO NOT USE IT.” Using auto-run modes, in which agents are allowed to perform tasks automatically inside the IDE without a human approving the steps, also known as YOLO mode, should also be avoided. “Never blindly enable anything, especially MCP functionality,” the team warned. “Don’t assume that everything your AI agent generated is as you expected. Read through the code before you perform actions in the embedded browser.” In its MCP documentation, Cursor itself warns developers to: Verify an MCP server’s source and only install from trusted developers and repositories Check what data and APIs the server is supposed to access Use API keys with restricted permissions Audit the server’s code for critical integrations

Cybersecurity researchers have uncovered a malicious Chrome extension that poses as a legitimate Ethereum wallet but harbors functionality to exfiltrate users' seed phrases. The name of the extension is "Safery: Ethereum Wallet," with the threat actor describing it as a "secure wallet for managing Ethereum cryptocurrency with flexible settings." It was uploaded to the Chrome Web Store on

srcset="https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/endgame2025_buehne.png?quality=50&strip=all 1521w, https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/endgame2025_buehne.png?resize=300%2C168&quality=50&strip=all 300w, https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/endgame2025_buehne.png?resize=768%2C432&quality=50&strip=all 768w, https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/endgame2025_buehne.png?resize=1024%2C576&quality=50&strip=all 1024w, https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/endgame2025_buehne.png?resize=1238%2C697&quality=50&strip=all 1238w, https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/endgame2025_buehne.png?resize=150%2C84&quality=50&strip=all 150w, https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/endgame2025_buehne.png?resize=854%2C480&quality=50&strip=all 854w, https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/endgame2025_buehne.png?resize=640%2C360&quality=50&strip=all 640w, https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/endgame2025_buehne.png?resize=444%2C250&quality=50&strip=all 444w" width="1024" height="576" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px">Ermittler aus Deutschland sind gemeinsam mit internationalen Partnern erneut erfolgreich gegen Cyberkriminalität vorgegangen.Bundeskriminalamt Dank globaler Zusammenarbeit ist Ermittlern ein Schlag gegen die Verbreitung von Schadsoftware gelungen. Man habe “einen der gefährlichsten Stealer und einen der meistgenutzten Trojaner weltweit unschädlich gemacht”, teilten die Zentralstelle zur Bekämpfung der Internetkriminalität und das Bundeskriminalamt (BKA) mit.  Solche Systeme nisten sich unbemerkt auf einem Gerät ein und greifen sensible Daten wie Passwörter ab. Ziel war die Abschaltung der technischen Infrastruktur der Malware “Rhadamanthys”, an der den Angaben zufolge weltweit mehr als 1.000 Server beteiligt waren, davon über 180 in Deutschland. Zusätzlich wurden Maßnahmen gegen “VenomRAT” umgesetzt. An der “Operation Endgame” waren Strafverfolgungsbehörden aus den Niederlanden, Frankreich, Dänemark, Belgien und den USA beteiligt. Unterstützung kam von Australien, Kanada, Großbritannien sowie Europol und Eurojust.  650.000 Opfer Die Strafverfolgungsbehörden konnten nach eigenen Angaben kompromittierte Daten von über 650.000 Opfern sicherstellen. Sie seien über Informationsplattformen der Öffentlichkeit zum individuellen Abgleich bereitgestellt worden. In Griechenland gab es eine Festnahme. Elf Objekte wurden durchsucht, eins davon in Deutschland. Kryptowerte von über 200 Millionen US-Dollar wurden gesperrt.  In Deutschland werden die Ermittlungen unter anderem wegen des Verdachts der Erpressung im besonders schweren Fall sowie der Mitgliedschaft in einer kriminellen Vereinigung im Ausland geführt. (dpa/jm)

The Amazon Threat Intelligence team has now disclosed an advanced persistent threat (APT) campaign that exploited vulnerabilities in Citrix systems and Cisco’s Identity Service Engine (ISE), allowing hackers to breach critical identity infrastructure even before the flaws were made publicly known. According to Amazon’s findings, attackers had exploited “insufficient input validation” in a public API to inject a custom web shell disguised as a native Cisco ISE component, operating entirely in-memory, leveraging Java reflection and non-standard decoding routines to evade detection. The other flaw abused in the campaign, dubbed Citrix Bleed 2, affected Citrix NetScaler ADC and NetScaler Gateway devices to allow memory overread via a similar input validation issue. “This discovery highlights the trend of threat actors focusing on critical identity and network access control infrastructure—the systems enterprises rely on to enforce security policies and manage authentication across their networks,” CJ Moses, the CISO of Amazon Integrated Security, said in a blog post. Citrix wasn’t aware of the flaw being exploited as zero-days when they disclosed and patched them earlier this year. The Cisco ISE flaw, however, was flagged by the company as well as CISA for known exploitation attempts in the wild. Tooling and exploitation Amazon’s honeypot service “Madpot” first detected exploitation attempts against the Citrix vulnerability (CVE-2025-5777) prior to its public disclosure–suggesting weaponization in the wild. Further investigation revealed anomalous payloads targeting an undocumented endpoint in Cisco ISE, exploiting vulnerable deserialization logic to achieve pre-authentication remote-code execution (CVE-2025-20337). “What made this discovery particularly concerning was that exploitation was occurring in the wild before Cisco had assigned a CVE number or released comprehensive patches across all affected branches of Cisco ISE,” Moses said. “This patch-gap exploitation technique is a hallmark of sophisticated threat actors who closely monitor security updates and quickly weaponize vulnerabilities.“ Amazon did not immediately respond to CSO’s queries on why it’s sharing information about the zero-day exploits months after. After gaining access, the actor deployed a tailor-made web shell disguised as the “IdentityAuditAction” component of Cisco ISE. It ran entirely in memory, registered as an HTTP listener in the Tomcat server, used DES encryption with non-standard Base-64 encoding, and required specific HTTP headers for access. Implication for enterprise defense The attack challenges assumptions that identity management and network-access systems are inherently secure. The pre-authentication nature of these exploits, the blog noted, reveals that even well-configured and meticulously maintained systems can be affected. “The campaign underscored the evolving tactics of threat actors targeting critical enterprise infrastructure at the network edge,” Moses said. “The threat actor’s custom tooling demonstrated a deep understanding of enterprise Java applications, Tomcat internals, and the specific architectural nuances of the Cisco Identity Service Engine.” Amazon recommends organizations adopt a layered defence, which includes limiting access to privileged security appliance endpoints (firewall, proxies, access gateways), employing monitoring for unusual in-memory activity, and treating identity systems as high-risk zones subject to the same scrutiny as public-facing servers. The revelation fits into a broader pattern of attackers moving to remote-access and identity infrastructure, a trend that first came into focus during the Citrix Bleed wave in late 2023, when credential harvesting exploits against Citrix ADC and Gateway appliances fuelled widespread intrusions. Since then, more such campaigns have emerged, including one by Scattered Spider involving a help-desk hack enabling access to the C-suite’s identity infrastructure (Microsoft Entra ID/ Active Directory).

The Race for Every New CVE Based on multiple 2025 industry reports: roughly 50 to 61 percent of newly disclosed vulnerabilities saw exploit code weaponized within 48 hours. Using the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalog as a reference, hundreds of software flaws are now confirmed as actively targeted within days of public disclosure. Each new announcement now triggers a global race

Malware families like Rhadamanthys Stealer, Venom RAT, and the Elysium botnet have been disrupted as part of a coordinated law enforcement operation led by Europol and Eurojust. The activity, which is taking place between November 10 and 13, 2025, marks the latest phase of Operation Endgame, an ongoing operation designed to take down criminal infrastructures and combat ransomware enablers

Behind every click, there’s a risk waiting to be tested. A simple ad, email, or link can now hide something dangerous. Hackers are getting smarter, using new tools to sneak past filters and turn trusted systems against us. But security teams are fighting back. They’re building faster defenses, better ways to spot attacks, and stronger systems to keep people safe. It’s a constant race — every

The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) on Wednesday added a critical security flaw impacting WatchGuard Fireware to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog, based on evidence of active exploitation. The vulnerability in question is CVE-2025-9242 (CVSS score: 9.3), an out-of-bounds write vulnerability affecting Fireware OS 11.10.2 up to and including

Model Context Protocol allows AI agents to connect to data sources but the first iteration of this standard lacked serious security. Over the past few months, a multitude of vendors appeared to help solve the problem. Is the technology now ready for prime-time, or is it still too early to put into production? Some progress has been made on the core protocol side. In March, support was added for OAuth authentication, and in June, the protocol added support for third-party authentication servers such as Auth0, Okta, or a company’s own identity management system. The MCP standards body also launched an official MCP registry in September, in order to address the problem of malicious MCP servers masquerading as legitimate ones. But significant security gaps remain. For example, authentication is optional, and the systems are vulnerable to prompt injections, tool poisoning, token theft, cross-server attacks, message tampering and more. Companies looking to get ahead of the competition when it comes to building agentic AI systems have to do a lot of security heavy lifting to keep these tools from exposing all their corporate secrets and sensitive data. And, over the past few months, vendors have been stepping up. Today, the major AI platforms have added security infrastructure, as have core technology providers, existing cybersecurity vendors, and a fleet of emerging players. Challenges of different uses of MCP servers There are three main types of MCP server deployments, and each one has their own security challenges. When a company sets up an internal MCP server, on infrastructure they control, to access internal data or tools, to be used by AI agents that they also control. First, a low-risk use of this might be to allow employees to use AI agents to search through non-sensitive documents or databases, such as product descriptions. A higher-risk use case might be to allow access to customer data. Second, a company might allow their AI agents to access external data sources or tools via MCP servers. Here, one concern might be that the information the AI agents get back might include malicious instructions because either the server or the data source is compromised by an attacker. The third deployment type is that of an internal MCP server exposing a company’s data or tools to the outside world. Again, this could be a low-risk use case if the MCP server provides access to product descriptions or user manuals. But it could also be extremely risky if MCP servers that allow external partners to connect in and place orders, submit invoices, and change their payment addresses. There are ways to ease into MCP deployments, says Anh Hatzopoulos, co-founder and CEO at PepperMill, a no-code AI platform. For example, an MCP server that goes and gets public LinkedIn information is going to be safer than one that handles financial transactions, she says. “With moving money, I’m surprised that people are going hard at it right now, given the security problems with MCPs. But someone has to do it — and someone will discover those security problems.” In fact, for many tech companies, especially SaaS vendors, MCP servers are already a must-have. “They can’t wait,” says Peter Nebel, chief strategy officer at cloud consultancy AllCloud. “If they wait, their competition will be there before them and have the MCP advantage.” Companies that have already released official MCP servers for public use include PayPal, Notion, HubSpot, CloudFlare, Atlassian, Slack, and GitHub. There are also third-party providers building MCP servers. Zapier, for example, currently offers MCP connections to 8,000 different apps. If a vendor doesn’t offer their own, official MCP server, someone else might set up unofficial ones that use the vendor’s APIs. For example, there are already MCP servers out there for LinkedIn, Spotify, eBay, YouTube, AWS, Zillow, and many other platforms, some more trustworthy than others. Developers and power users are downloading them and using them to give their AI agents access to those platforms, but it’s not always obvious where some of these less-than-official MCP servers are coming from, who’s maintaining them, and what else they do under the covers. Pulse MCP lists over 6,000 servers. MCP marketplace MCP.so currently lists more than 16,000. And a GitHub search for “MCP server” produces more than 45,000 results. What to look for in an MCP security platform Whether a company connects their own agents to third-party MCP servers, their own MCP servers to third-party agents, or their own servers to their own agents, there’s going to be the potential for data leakage, prompt injections and other security threats. That means companies will need to check for authorizations and permissions, implement fine-grained access controls, and log everything, says AllCloud’s Nevel. Here are some other MCP security tools that vendors are offering today: MCP server detection: It’s easy for company employees to download and run their own MCP servers. These servers could boost their productivity or they could be a new attack vector. Some MCP security vendors are offering scanning services to help companies find all instances of shadow MCP servers in their environments. Runtime protection: AI agents communicate with MCP servers in plain English. That creates the potential for prompt injections, data leaks and other security issues. Many MCP security vendors offer tools to monitor all communications for these and similar problems. Authentication and access controls: The core MCP protocol now supports OAuth, but that’s just the start. For additional security, vendors offer zero trust and least privilege control frameworks. Logging and observability: Vendors can provide platforms to collect MCP logs, alert security teams about security events or policy violations, collect compliance data, or feed logs into existing security infrastructure. Vedors offering MCP security tools Below, we divide in three sections the list of vendors offering MCP security tools. Hyperscalers For companies all-in on a particular cloud platform, going with the MCP tools provided by that particular hyperscaler can be an easy way to get started. AWS launched its own agentic AI platform in July. Amazon Bedrock AgentCore includes a gateway that supports multiple protocols, including MCP, an identity management system and observability. In October, AWS followed this up with a set of guidelines for securing MCP servers with zero trust best practices. Microsoft announced a basic Azure MCP server in April, added support for the Azure Key Vault in May, announced MCP support in the Azure AI Foundry Agent Service in June, and announced Azure API Management support in August. Azure API Management means that MCP servers can have secure and governed access to resources, with observability and control. In October, Microsoft announced the Microsoft Agent Framework, which includes support for both MCP and the Agent2Agent protocol, protection against prompt injection, PII detection, and multi-agent observability to ensure that the systems are doing what they’re supposed to be doing. Google Cloud announced its MCP Toolbox for Databases in April with authentication and observability built in. In September, it released a reference architecture for securing MCP servers on the Google Cloud Platform, based around a centralized MCP proxy architecture. It uses the Google Identity Platform to validate identities and issue OAuth tokens, uses Model Armor to check messages for prompt injections, jailbreaks, or sensitive data, and a Secret Manager to store API keys, credentials, and sensitive configuration values. Its Artifact Registry can store MCP server images and scan them for vulnerabilities before they are deployed. Google also recommends using network-level security controls to isolate MCP servers and reduce the risk of lateral movement. Finally, Google’s Security Command Center can identify unauthorized access and data exfiltration attempts. Major technology providers Cloudflare: Cloudflare announced MCP Server Portals, which enable enterprises to centralize, secure, and observe every MCP connection. This feature is part of Cloudflare One, the company’s secure access service edge (SASE) platform. Palo Alto Networks: The company launched the Prisma AIRS MCP Server in June. It sits between the AI agent and the MCP server and detects malicious content in data, helping protect against prompt injection attacks, as well as web and DNS attacks. Another tool, MCP Security in Cortex Cloud WAAS, sits at the network boundary, and inspects MCP communications for malicious activity. SentinelOne: SentinelOne Singularity Platform offers visibility into the MCP interaction chain, as well as alerts and automated incident response, for both local and remote MCP servers. VMware: In August, parent company Broadcom announced that VMware Cloud Foundation will offer more security for agentic workflows, including MCP servers. Startups Acuvity: Acuvity secures MCP servers by hardening them with least-privilege execution, immutable runtimes, continuous vulnerability scanning, authentication, and threat detection. Akto: API security company Akto launched an MCP security solution in June, claiming to be the first dedicated security solution specifically built to protect MCP servers. It includes a discovery tool for finding the MCP servers deployed in corporate environments, security testing tools, and monitoring and threat detection. Invariant Labs: Their MCP-Scan is an open-source scanner that performs static analysis of MCP servers and does real-time monitoring to detect tool poisoning attacks, rug pulls, and prompt injection attacks. A commercial product, Invariant Guardrails, is a proxy that sits between AI agents and MCP servers and protects against project injections and other MCP security threats, and allows companies to impose rules such as prohibiting PII from going to external email addresses. Javelin: The company’s AI Security Fabric platform includes MCP security, such as functionality to scan for risky servers, or to block or require review of agent tools or data requests. In addition, MCP guardrails stop unsafe calls and poisoned inputs in real-time and prevent prompt injections and data leakage. Lasso Security: Open source MCP gateway that allows configuration and lifecycle management of MCP servers and sanitizes sensitive information in MCP messages. MCPTotal: Offers a hub to manage, run and monitor MCP servers in a secure, sandboxed environment, as well as a gateway to protect AI workflows interacting with both internal and external MCP servers, and a governance tool to monitor and enforce AI tool use policies. Noma: Recently launched AI Agent Security solution offers support for discovery of MCP connections, vulnerability scanning, access policy enforcement, real-time prompt guardrails, and audit trails. Obot: The Obot MCP gateway is an open-source platform to manage MCP servers, define security access policies, and track usage and compliance. Operant: Operant MCP Gateway automatically catalogs MCP tools, discovers AI agents, and tracks traffic between agents and servers to eliminate MCP blind spots. It can also identify threat vectors such as tool poisoning, jailbreaks and unauthorized access, prevent data leaks, and establish a centralized governance framework for agents and tools across the enterprise. Solo: The company’s Agent Gateway was overhauled in August to support MCP and A2A protocols and protects against malicious prompts and data leaks, enforces strong authentication, and centralizes logging and tracing for every interaction. Teleport: Its Secure MCP tool for its Infrastructure Identity Platform allows companies to unify how they govern human, machine, workload, device, and AI identities. MCP Security provides identity, access control, governance, and audit tools in a zero trust and least privilege environment.

Cybersecurity researchers are calling attention to a large-scale spam campaign that has flooded the npm registry with thousands of fake packages since early 2024 as part of a likely financially motivated effort. "The packages were systematically published over an extended period, flooding the npm registry with junk packages that survived in the ecosystem for almost two years," Endor Labs

Google is asking to a US court for help in dismantling the infrastructure behind the Lighthouse phishing-as-a-service operation, the latest effort by a technology company to use the legal system to put a dent in cybercrime. Whether it will do more than that is an open question. In a blog Monday, Google’s general counsel Halimah DeLaine Prado said the court action is needed because the gang behind this scam exploits Google and other brands by illegally displaying their trademarks and services on fraudulent websites. “We found at least 107 website templates featuring Google’s branding on sign-in screens specifically designed to trick people into believing the sites are legitimate,” she wrote. Threat actors who buy access to the Lighthouse service send text messages to people, including employees of organizations, with branding appearing to come from a legitimate provider. They hope the branding is convincing enough to induce an unwary person to click a link and share information such as email credentials, banking information and more.  Many court orders sought Google’s action follows that of other technology companies, most notably Microsoft, as well as some countries, to dampen the efforts of threat actors through the courts. For example, in September, Microsoft got a court order allowing it to seize 338 websites associated with the distribution of RacoonO365, a phishing kit used to steal Microsoft 365 credentials. Since July 2024, RaccoonO365’s kits have been used to steal at least 5,000 Microsoft credentials from people in 94 countries, the company said. In January, Microsoft got a US court order allowing it to seize a website behind a foreign-based threat actor distributing tools for bypassing safety guardrails of generative AI services of several tech companies, including its own. The threat actor’s software exploited exposed customer credentials scraped from public websites. And in August, the US Justice Department announced coordinated actions against the BlackSuit (Royal) Ransomware group which included the takedown of four servers and nine domains, with the help of the FBI and international law enforcement agencies in the United Kingdom, Germany, Ireland, France, Canada, Ukraine, and Lithuania.  However, threat actors can be resilient. For example, in 2020 Microsoft, Symantec, ESET, communications provider NTT, and Lumen Technologies combined with others to get a US court order directing web hosting providers to take down the IT infrastructure distributing the Trickbot botnet. But according to researchers at Huntress, TrickBot is still being used by threat actors for remote access. The Google blog also said the company is urging the US Congress to adopt the Guarding Unprotected Aging Retirees from Deception (GUARD) Act, which would enable state and local law enforcement to utilize federal grant funding to investigate financial fraud and scams specifically targeting retirees; the Foreign Robocall Elimination Act, which would establish a taskforce focused on how to best block foreign-originated illegal robocalls before they ever reach American consumers; and the Scam Compound Accountability and Mobilization (SCAM) Act, which would develop a national strategy to counter scam compounds, enhance sanctions, and support survivors of human trafficking within these compounds. Scam compounds are physical installations where significant transnational criminal organizations carry out cyber-enabled fraud operations, frequently using the forced labor of victims of human trafficking Google refused a request for an interview to get more details about its announcement, explaining it had nothing more to say beyond DeLaine Prado’s blog. Will have ‘minimal impact’ Ed Dubrovsky, chief operating officer of incident response firm Cypher, is skeptical of the effectiveness of court action. Phishing-as-a-service operations don’t have to be on American soil, he explained, so court orders and legislation will likely have minimal impact on smishing or phishing attacks. “However,” he added, “I can understand that even small steps can lead to broader impact, and that might be why Google is taking these steps.” But this and similar court actions won’t change threat actor behavior or the need for IT departments to have controls to face cyber risks, he said. Kellman Meghu, principal security architect at Canadian incident response firm DeepCove Cybersecurity, believes Google and other tech firms around the world are looking to the courts and legislatures in part to stop scams, but also to protect themselves from being sued if they can shut down a criminal online service. “The reality now is that there is very little to no risk to running scams,” he told CSO in an email, “since the chance of suffering any ramifications is barely a reality. [Running a malicious online operation] gives attackers the chance to just keep trying things until eventually something works. Driving real legislation and legal impacts that can span borders would be very valuable to reduce this threat, if in fact they can build legislation that is effective, and could go a long way in reducing the risk of constant attempts to compromise users.” But global efforts to fight cybercrime can only be effective if tech companies around the world work with governments to share information on cyber crime, he added. However, he doubts many competitive technology suppliers would join an effort because they have a vested interest in saying that they are safer, better, faster than the competition, so they can sell more services. ‘Any reduction in scams would help IT departments’ Johannes Ullrich, dean of research at the SANS Institute, said Google has a huge problem with scammers paying for ads that direct victims to fraudulent websites and malware. “Any reduction in these scams would be a significant help to IT departments,” he said, “making it easier to defend networks against these scams.” The proposed US legislation doesn’t necessarily add any substantial new barriers for scammers, he added, but it would provide more funding for state and local law enforcement agencies that are often overwhelmed by complaints from victims of cybercrime. On the other hand, he argued that robocalls could be fought more effectively by telecommunication providers, without new legislation, and they have taken some steps to do so. The issue of scam compounds is likely not going to be significantly affected by any legislation, as they are too ephemeral and agile and would easily evade sanctions, he added. “Among the issues mentioned, the paid-for Google ads advertising malicious resources is by far the most significant problem for security teams,” Ullrich said. “Google must step up its game in blocking them, and finding legal ways to eradicate the origin may be more effective than the current ‘whack the mole’ tactic, which is not working.”

Forscher haben neue Methoden für Angriffe über ChatGPT aufgedeckt. PhotoGranary02 – shutterstock.com Forscher des Sicherheitsunternehmens Tenable haben sieben neue Möglichkeiten entdeckt, wie Angreifer ChatGPT dazu bringen können, private Informationen aus den Chat-Verläufen der Nutzer preiszugeben. Bei den meisten dieser Angriffe handelt es sich um indirekte Prompt Injections, die die Standard-Tools und -funktionen von ChatGPT ausnutzen. Etwa die Fähigkeit, den Kontext von Unterhaltungen langfristig zu speichern oder die Web-Suchfunktionen. „Die Schwachstellen im aktuellen GPT-5-Modell könnten es Angreifern ermöglichen, Nutzer ohne ihr Wissen zu kompromittieren. Dafür kommen diverse Anwendungsfälle in Frage, beispielsweise, eine Frage an ChatGPT zu stellen“, schrieben die Forscher in ihrem Bericht. Schadhafte Anweisungen – versteckt in Websites ChatGPT kann das Internet nach Informationen durchsuchen und vom Benutzer angegebene URLs aufrufen, um Inhalte auf Anfrage zu extrahieren. Diese werden jedoch nicht direkt an ChatGPT weitergeleitet. Stattdessen fließen sie in ein zwischengeschaltetes, eher limitiertes Large Language Model (LLM) namens SearchGPT, das die Inhalte für ChatGPT zusammenfasst. Die Verwendung eines sekundären Modells, das keinen direkten Zugriff auf die Konversationshistorie des Benutzers hat, scheint eine architektonische Entscheidung gewesen zu sein, die speziell darauf abzielt, die Auswirkungen potenzieller Prompt-Injection-Angriffe über Webinhalte zu begrenzen. Allerdings mussten die Forscher von Tenable feststellen, dass SearchGPT anfällig für Prompt Injections ist, wenn es Webseiten im Rahmen seiner Browsing- oder Suchfunktionen parst. Angreifer könnten beispielsweise schadhafte Anweisungen in Blog-Kommentaren platzieren oder eine maliziöse Website erstellen, die auf bestimmte Keywords hin optimiert ist, um im Suchmaschinen-Ranking möglichst weit oben zu stehen.  Wie die Forscher außerdem herausfanden, nutzt ChatGPT für seine Suchfunktion Microsofts Bing. Darüber hinaus könnten Cyberkriminelle laut Tenable auch schadhafte Prompts verstecken, indem sie eine cleane Version ihrer Webseite für Suchmaschinen und reguläre Besucher bereithalten, während den Web Crawlern von Open AI eine andere Version bereitgestellt wird. „KI-Anbieter verlassen sich bei der Auswahl vertrauenswürdiger Quellen auf Metriken wie SEO-Scores, die für die Sicherheit keine Relevanz haben“, kritisieren die Forscher. Indem sie den Prompt in maßgeschneiderten Webseiten versteckten, könnten Cyberkriminelle ihre Opfer ganz gezielt über spezifische soziale und politische Themen oder Trends ansprechen, so die Tenable-Experten. Weil der Kontext von SearchGPT und ChatGPT getrennt ist, hat erstgenanntes Modell keinen direkten Zugriff auf persönliche Daten von Benutzern. Dennoch haben die Forscher einen Weg gefunden, das Beziehungsgeflecht zwischen den beiden Modellen auszunutzen. Conversation Injection und heimliche Datenexfiltration Da ChatGPT den Output von SearchGPT erhält, nachdem dieses den Inhalt verarbeitet hat, fragten sich die Tenable-Forscher, was passieren würde, wenn bereits der Output von SearchGPT selbst eine Prompt Injection enthält. Also erstellten sie einen verketteten Angriff: Eine Webseite mit einem versteckten Prompt, die SearchGPT anweist, eine andere Prompt Injection bei ChatGPT durchzuführen. Das bezeichnen die Tenable-Experten als “Conversation Injection”. „Bei der Reaktion  auf den Prompt überprüft ChatGPT zwar den Konversationskontext und sieht sowie befolgt die injizierten Anweisungen, erkennt jedoch nicht, dass SearchGPT diese geschrieben hat”, so die Forscher. Im Wesentlichen füge sich ChatGPT so selbst eine Prompt Injection zu. Die allein bringt einem Angreifer jedoch wenig, wenn er keine Möglichkeit hat, die Antwort des Modells zu erhalten, die sensible Informationen enthält. Eine Methode hierfür besteht darin, die Fähigkeit von ChatGPT zu nutzen, Markdown-Textformatierungen über seine Schnittstelle zu rendern, wozu auch die Möglichkeit gehört, Remote-Bilder über URLs zu laden. Laut den Forschern könnten Angreifer ein Dictionary erstellen, das jeden Buchstaben des Alphabets einem eindeutigen Bild zuordnet, das auf ihrem Server gehostet wird. Anschließend könnten sie ChatGPT anweisen, eine Reihe von Bildern zu laden, die jedem Buchstaben in seiner Antwort entsprechen. Indem sie die Reihenfolge der Anfragen an URLs auf ihrem Webserver überwachen, könnten die Angreifer dann die Antwort von ChatGPT rekonstruieren. Dieser Ansatz stößt allerdings auf mehrere Hindernisse: Erstens ist er sichtbar – die Chat-Schnittstelle des Benutzers wird mit Bild-URLs überflutet. Zweitens leitet ChatGPT alle URLs, bevor sie in seine Antworten aufgenommen werden, an einen Endpoint namens url_safe weiter, der Sicherheitsprüfungen durchführt. Dieser Mechanismus soll verhindern, dass bösartige URLs versehentlich oder durch Prompt Injections zu den Benutzern gelangen. Eine der von url_safe durchgeführten Überprüfungen betrifft die Reputation der Domain. Dabei hat sich herausgestellt, dass bing.com auf der Whitelist steht und implizit als vertrauenswürdig eingestuft wird. Die Forscher stellten außerdem fest, dass jeder von Bing indexierte Weblink in einen eindeutigen Tracking-Link der Form bing.com/ck/a?[unique_id] eingebettet ist, wenn er in den Suchergebnissen angezeigt wird. Wenn Benutzer auf diese eindeutigen Bing-Tracking-URLs klicken, werden sie zu den entsprechenden Websites weitergeleitet. Die Security-Spezialisten kreierten deshalb ein Alphabet von URLs, das ChatGPT bereit war, in seine Antworten aufzunehmen. Dazu erstellten sie für jeden Buchstaben eine eindeutige Seite. Diese Seiten wurden in Bing indexiert, wodurch sie eindeutige Tracking-URLs erhielten. Die Tenable-Forscher entdeckten außerdem einen Fehler in der Art und Weise, wie ChatGPT Code-Blöcke in Markdown rendert: Alle Daten, die in derselben Zeile erscheinen wie der Start des Codeblocks werden nach dem ersten Wort nicht gerendert. Das lässt sich ausnutzen, um Inhalte zu verstecken – wie Bild-URLs. ChatGPT verfügt über ein zusätzliches Feature namens “Memories”, womit wichtige Informationen über verschiedene Sitzungen und Unterhaltungen mit demselben Benutzer hinweg gespeichert werden. Diese Funktion ist standardmäßig aktiviert und wird ausgelöst, wenn Benutzer ChatGPT ausdrücklich auffordern, sich etwas zu merken. Zudem startet sie automatisch, wenn das Modell Informationen für wichtig genug hält, um sie für später zu speichern. Die über “Memories” gespeicherten Informationen werden von ChatGPT bei der Erstellung seiner Antworten an Benutzer berücksichtigt. Sie bieten laut den Tenable-Experten Angreifern jedoch auch eine Möglichkeit, bösartige Prompt Injections zu speichern, damit diese in zukünftigen Unterhaltungen ausgeführt werden. “Prompt Injection ist ein bekanntes Problem bei der Funktionsweise von LLMs und wird wahrscheinlich in naher Zukunft nicht systematisch behoben werden können. KI-Anbieter sollten sicherstellen, dass alle ihre Sicherheitsmechanismen (wie url_safe) ordnungsgemäß funktionieren, um den potenziellen Schaden zu begrenzen“, schreiben die Forscher. Tenable hat seine Erkenntnisse an OpenAI gemeldet. Doch obwohl daraufhin einige Korrekturen implementiert wurden, funktionieren einige der entdeckten Techniken scheinbar weiterhin. (jm)

Google has filed a civil lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) against China-based hackers who are behind a massive Phishing-as-a-Service (PhaaS) platform called Lighthouse that has ensnared over 1 million users across 120 countries. The PhaaS kit is used to conduct large-scale SMS phishing attacks that exploit trusted brands like E-ZPass and USPS to

Amazon's threat intelligence team on Wednesday disclosed that it observed an advanced threat actor exploiting two then-zero-day security flaws in Cisco Identity Service Engine (ISE) and Citrix NetScaler ADC products as part of attacks designed to deliver custom malware. "This discovery highlights the trend of threat actors focusing on critical identity and network access control infrastructure –

Der Ticketshop des Miniatur Wunderland Hamburg wurde offenbar gehackt.JHVEPhoto – shutterstock.com Das Miniatur Wunderland Hamburg zählt zu den beliebtesten Sehenswürdigkeiten der Hansestadt und ist laut Guinness-Buch die weltweit größte Modelleisenbahn-Ausstellung. Wie Cybernews berichtet, informiert das Museum seine Besucher aktuell per E-Mail über einen Datenschutzvorfall. „Das Miniatur Wunderland wurde Opfer eines Cyberangriffs, durch den unberechtigte Dritte möglicherweise Zugriff auf Ihre Kreditkartendaten erlangt haben”, heißt es in der Mitteilung. „Wir gehen davon aus, dass die Bestellseite unseres Ticketshops kompromittiert wurde und die Kreditkartendaten daher nicht nur direkt an unseren Zahlungsdienstleister, sondern auch an einen separaten Server übertragen wurden.” Datenleck rund fünf Monate offen Dem Schreiben zufolge sind alle Besucher davon betroffen, die zwischen dem 6. Juni und 29. Oktober 2025 Online-Tickets gekauft haben. Das Miniatur Wunderland weist zudem darauf hin, dass die Täter dabei alle Kreditkarteninformationen wie Karteninhabername, Kartennummer, Sicherheitscode (CVV) und Gültigkeit einsehen konnten. „Wir können nicht ausschließen, dass die Daten missbraucht werden. Der Vorfall kann daher zu negativen Folgen für Sie führen, wie finanzielle Verluste durch unautorisierte Kartentransaktionen oder Identitätsdiebstahl”, warnen die Betreiber der Modelleisenbahnanlage. Nach Bekanntwerden des Vorfalls sei der betroffenen Server sofort isoliert worden, versichert das Museum. Weitere Details zu dem Angriff gibt es bisher nicht.

The UK government has introduced a new legislation to harden national cyber defenses across critical infrastructure, imposing turnover-based penalties and granting ministers emergency powers to intervene during major cyber incidents. The Cyber Security and Resilience Bill, unveiled Tuesday, would require organizations in healthcare, energy, water, transport, and digital services to meet mandatory security standards and report significant cyber incidents within 24 hours. Companies that fail to comply could face daily fines of up to $132,000 (£100,000) or penalties tied to annual turnover, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) said in a statement. The bill, expected to receive Royal Assent in 2026, updates the UK’s Network and Information Systems Regulations (NIS) 2018, expanding coverage to include managed service providers (MSPs), data centers, and key suppliers for the first time. It supports the government’s Plan for Change strategy aimed at strengthening national resilience while driving economic growth, the statement added. Turnover-linked penalties and a behavioural shift The bill marks a turning point in how the UK enforces cybersecurity compliance. “The penalties change behaviour in a way flat fines never could,” said Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst and CEO at Greyhound Research. “For large operators, every breach now carries a cost proportionate to their market reach. That link between impact and liability forces investment before the incident, not after it.” The legislation introduced significantly tougher enforcement powers than those found in the EU’s NIS2 Directive or GDPR, said Madelein van der Hout, senior analyst at Forrester. “The bill sets a precedent for stricter cybersecurity enforcement by combining turnover-based penalties with emergency government powers.” The proposal followed a series of damaging cyber incidents that exposed vulnerabilities in UK infrastructure. In 2024, hackers compromised a Ministry of Defence payroll system via a contractor, exposing data of 270,000 armed services members. The Synnovis ransomware attack on an NHS pathology provider disrupted more than 11,000 medical appointments, costing roughly $43 million (£32.7 million). The British Library breach in late 2023 caused losses of up to $9 million (£7 million), and recent attacks on Marks & Spencer and Jaguar Land Rover have renewed pressure on policymakers to act. An independent study cited by DSIT estimated that cyberattacks cost the UK economy about $19.4 billion (£14.7 billion) each year or about 0.5% of the GDP. MSPs and data centers under scrutiny For the first time, medium and large managed service providers (MSPs) would fall within the scope of cybersecurity regulation. They must report significant incidents promptly to both government and customers, maintain detailed response plans, and demonstrate readiness to handle cascading impacts, the statement added. Hout said the new framework will “reshape the MSP sector,” creating stronger detection and faster response cycles. “For enterprise clients, it promises earlier alerts and greater assurance that their providers adhere to minimum security standards.” The bill’s 24-hour reporting mandate will pressure MSPs and digital service providers to upgrade operations. “Many organisations will find their processes too slow and fragmented to meet that clock,” Gogia warned. Shivraj Borade, senior analyst at Everest Group, added that the rule will prompt MSPs to “invest in SOC maturity, rapid triage, and legal alignment,” which will fundamentally alter pricing and client relationships. The legislation also shifted accountability between enterprises and their service partners. “For the first time, we place more responsibility with the MSSP where it normally lies with the enterprise,” said Hout. “It raises expectations for both parties: MSSPs will carry greater legal accountability, and enterprises must perform tighter due diligence.” According to the bill, data centers will also come under direct regulatory oversight for the first time, joining a broader group of operators responsible for managing power flow to smart devices and electric vehicle chargers. Organizations in scope must notify regulators and the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) within 24 hours of a significant cyber incident and submit a full report within 72 hours. Emergency powers and expanded oversight Under the bill, the technology secretary would gain authority to direct regulators and organizations, including NHS trusts and utilities, to take “specific, proportionate steps” to prevent or mitigate cyberattacks where national security is threatened. These interventions could include enhanced monitoring or temporary network isolation. “The emergency powers recognize that cyber incidents evolve faster than committees can respond,” Gogia said. “Allowing the government to instruct critical sectors during live threats makes the system capable of acting in minutes, not weeks.” Regulators would also be empowered to designate critical suppliers, such as diagnostics providers or chemical manufacturers, to ensure they meet baseline cybersecurity standards.

A malicious npm package named “@acitons/artifact” was found impersonating the legitimate “@actions/artifact” module, directly targeting the CI/CD pipelines within GitHub Actions workflows. According to Veracode findings, the package was uploaded on November 7 and was designed to trigger during the build process of GitHub-owned repositories. Once executed inside a CI/CD runner, the payload captures any tokens available to that build environment and then uses those credentials to publish malicious artifacts–effectively impersonating GitHub itself. “This incident isn’t just about a malicious npm package, it is about the blind trust many organizations place in the modern supply chain,” said Randolph Barr, CISO at Cequence Security. “Most organizations focus their controls on runtime environments, yet the CI/CD pipeline often runs with higher privilege than any developer. A single typosquatted dependency can silently execute code during a build, access repository tokens, and impersonate an organization, just as this attack attempted to do with GitHub’s own repositories.“ The malicious package picked up over 260k downloads before detection, and a total of six versions were uploaded–none detectable by “any popular anti-virus” products, Veracode researchers noted in a blog post. GitHub says that the packages were uploaded internally as part of its red teaming efforts. “The packages referenced in Veracode’s blog were part of a tightly controlled exercise conducted by GitHub’s Red Team,” a GitHub spokesperson told CSO. “GitHub takes security seriously and regularly tests its security posture through rigorous, realistic Red Team exercises to ensure resilience against current threat actor techniques. At no point were GitHub systems or data at risk.” Hijacking the GitHub Actions build process On the surface, @acitons/artifact package looked normal with its metadata describing it as “actions artifact lib,” and its homepage and repository URLs closely mirroring those of the legitimate GitHub project. But embedded inside was a post-install hook that downloaded and executed an obfuscated shell script named “harness.” Veracode’s analysis showed that this script, compiled with a shell-script compiler tool, contained a time-based kill switch set to deactivate after November 6, 2025–likely to evade detection after a brief active window. Once invoked, the harness would fetch a JavaScript file (“verify.js” meant to check whether the build environment belonged to GitHub and, if so, exfiltrate GitHub Action tokens. These tokens could then be misused to impersonate GitHub and publish malicious releases. “Typosquatting is a well-known and growing threat vector in software supply chains whereby attackers publish packages with similar names as legitimate ones and then wait for a mistake to happen, bringing the victim to their repository to install malicious code by mistake,” explained Boris Cipot, Senior Security Engineer at Black Duck. “This attack strategy is designed to exploit typos and to leverage the automated nature of CI/CD pipelines.” Cipot added that the use of a post-install hook and a short-lived obfuscated payload shows a deliberate attempt to blend in with normal build activity. Lessons in defense Barr pointed out that higher privileges in CI/CD pipelines make them an ideal target. Attackers who compromise a build runner can inject code at the source, sign releases with legitimate credentials, or push authentic-looking artifacts. Mitigations, Cipot recommended, would include short-lived, scoped tokens with regular secret rotations. Automated scanning for suspicious packages using tools like Socket.dev or Phylum might also help stay ahead of the threat. Other ways to verify package authenticity include checksum validation and emerging standards like Sigstore, he added. Jason Soroko, senior fellow at Sectigo, advises an immediate response for teams potentially affected. “Search source code, lockfiles, caches, and registries for @acitons and 8jfiesaf83 then quarantine any runners that fetched them,” he said. “Rotate all tokens and review artifacts and package publish history for the period from October 29 to November 6, 2025.”

Every day, security teams face the same problem—too many risks, too many alerts, and not enough time. You fix one issue, and three more show up. It feels like you’re always one step behind. But what if there was a smarter way to stay ahead—without adding more work or stress? Join The Hacker News and Bitdefender for a free cybersecurity webinar to learn about a new approach called Dynamic Attack

Active Directory remains the authentication backbone for over 90% of Fortune 1000 companies. AD's importance has grown as companies adopt hybrid and cloud infrastructure, but so has its complexity. Every application, user, and device traces back to AD for authentication and authorization, making it the ultimate target. For attackers, it represents the holy grail: compromise Active

To keep up with a quickly changing threat environment, organizations are reassessing how they assess risk. They no longer view them only as a once-a-year exercise. They recognize their value as important tools for making informed decisions. While many still confuse gap analysis with risk assessment, the difference is important. A gap analysis measures how well a company follows a specific set of controls, often linked to frameworks like ISO or NIST. A risk assessment, on the other hand, can be customized to look at any threat. This allows security leaders to focus their assessments where they are most needed. I had just started a new role as a CISO and quickly realized that access control was a big issue. Every user in every system seemed to have admin privileges. I decided to assess every critical system for the threat of unauthorized access and tailored the assessment by focusing on that threat. We asked questions like: “What types of data does your system store?” (for impact calculation) “How many users have administrative permissions?” “Can granular user access be assigned based on need?” (RBAC) “What authentication methods are used?” “Are there audit logs?” Combine the access control assessment results with a well-written report that assigns the risk to the business owner, and I had an effective tool for bringing awareness and change to the organization around managing access. Beyond frameworks: Why static models fall short Cybersecurity frameworks provide necessary structure, but they are largely static and cannot substitute for real-time risk processes. Most compliance frameworks require an annual risk assessment because they often lag behind in covering rapidly evolving threats. Relying only on framework-based assessments risks overlooking important issues. This includes matters that go beyond static controls, such as AI adoption, cloud service updates and third-party dependencies. These gaps highlight the importance of combining a solid compliance stance while regularly tailoring assessments to current realities. Frameworks are updated on multi-year cycles, while threats evolve daily. Organizations must focus on what really matters: key business assets, changing technologies and real-world operations. Focused risk assessments: Less is more Traditional framework reviews can involve hundreds of controls and questions, which may be appropriate for large compliance engagements but are often impractical for smaller teams or fast-moving environments. A focused risk assessment, by contrast, can be built around 20–40 targeted questions. These assessments concentrate on high-probability, high-impact threats and the few controls that materially reduce risk. In one real-world example, I designed a 26-question assessment that helped a mid-sized organization zero in on its most pressing vulnerabilities. The result was a clear, actionable roadmap that delivered immediate value without the overhead of a full framework review. This method is particularly beneficial when resources are scarce for organizations. By narrowing the scope, teams are able to rapidly identify and solve the highest priority risks, providing a good foundation for further action like targeted remediation or complete framework alignment. Frequency over formality One of the most overlooked aspects of risk assessments is cadence. While gap analyses are sometimes done yearly or to prepare for large-scale audits, risk assessments need to be continuous or performed on a regular schedule. Threats do not respect calendar cycles. Major changes, including new technologies, mergers, regulatory changes or implementing AI, need to trigger reassessments. Integrating risk assessments into regular governance practices, such as quarterly reviews of high-risk assets, evaluations after significant changes and annual assessments, helps organizations stay ahead of evolving threats. Moving to a dynamic approach to risk management from a static one is essential for developing long-term strength. Designing an effective risk assessment A modern risk assessment begins with business context. What are the critical assets, processes and outcomes that must be protected? From there, organizations can identify the most likely threat paths and the controls that reduce those risks. Rather than cataloging every control in a framework, the focus should be on threat-and-control alignment. For example, if ransomware is a major concern, the assessment should focus on controls related to backups, restores, authentication and user awareness. Many organizations regularly back up their data, but they often neglect to test their restoration process. This leaves them at risk when it really counts. In this context, relying solely on backups provides a false sense of security; the real value lies in the ability to restore. A good assessment can uncover these issues and put focus on their priority. Emerging vectors such as AI, cloud misconfigurations and software vulnerabilities should be explicitly included. These areas often fall outside traditional frameworks but represent significant risk. To assess AI risk for example, ask these questions: “How do you use AI?” “What data does your AI have access to?” “Do you make business decisions using AI?” “Is AI used for automation?” With these simple questions, you can uncover hidden exposures, which are especially critical when sensitive data is involved or decision-making is automated. A simple, repeatable scoring model that rates likelihood and impact helps turn findings into remediation priorities. Consistency across assessments enables trend analysis and supports executive decision-making. Executive-grade outputs Risk assessments should culminate in outputs that business leaders can act on. This includes a concise risk heat map, a prioritized remediation roadmap and clear asks, such as budget, ownership and timelines. These deliverables convert technical findings into strategic decisions. They also help build trust with stakeholders, especially in organizations that may be new to formal risk management. Target for smaller teams Targeted risk assessments can be viewed as a low-cost, fundamental option. They are best suited to companies that have limited budget or are not prepared for a full review of the framework. With reduced scope, shorter turnaround and transparent business value, such assessments enable rapid establishment of trust, delivering prioritized outcomes. They help to create a roadmap for deeper engagement and make cybersecurity accessible to smaller teams. By starting small, organizations can build credibility and expand into broader programs, such as continuous monitoring, remediation or full framework alignment. A pragmatic mindset Risk assessments are not just checkboxes. They are tools for making decisions. The best programs are aligned with the business, focused, consistent and made to change over time. For many organizations, a short, focused assessment gives executives the evidence they need to justify budgets and demonstrate due diligence. It delivers immediate value and creates a pathway to sustained risk management. This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.Want to join?

Microsoft on Tuesday released patches for 63 new security vulnerabilities identified in its software, including one that has come under active exploitation in the wild. Of the 63 flaws, four are rated Critical and 59 are rated Important in severity. Twenty-nine of these vulnerabilities are related to privilege escalation, followed by 16 remote code execution, 11 information disclosure, three

Almost everywhere, being a CISO means dealing with limited budgets, competing priorities, tools that don’t quite fit the problem and myriad other constraints. Most security leaders adapt, and work within those boundaries to protect their organizations as best they can. But for a few, adaptation and making do with what’s available isn’t enough. The limitations are not just a problem to get around, but an opportunity to build something new. The motivations for making the jump can vary. For some it is closing security gaps they’ve battled for years, for others it’s about escaping corporate inertia, or proving that security can drive business value. What unites them is the desire to create rather than just defend. Paul Hadjy, Joe Silva, Chris Pierson, and Michael Coates are four security leaders who made that transition. Here’s what they built and what they learned in the process. srcset="https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/paul-hadjy-portrait-16x9-1.jpg?quality=50&strip=all 3200w, https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/paul-hadjy-portrait-16x9-1.jpg?resize=300%2C168&quality=50&strip=all 300w, https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/paul-hadjy-portrait-16x9-1.jpg?resize=768%2C432&quality=50&strip=all 768w, https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/paul-hadjy-portrait-16x9-1.jpg?resize=1024%2C576&quality=50&strip=all 1024w, https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/paul-hadjy-portrait-16x9-1.jpg?resize=1536%2C864&quality=50&strip=all 1536w, https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/paul-hadjy-portrait-16x9-1.jpg?resize=2048%2C1152&quality=50&strip=all 2048w, https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/paul-hadjy-portrait-16x9-1.jpg?resize=1240%2C697&quality=50&strip=all 1240w, https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/paul-hadjy-portrait-16x9-1.jpg?resize=150%2C84&quality=50&strip=all 150w, https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/paul-hadjy-portrait-16x9-1.jpg?resize=854%2C480&quality=50&strip=all 854w, https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/paul-hadjy-portrait-16x9-1.jpg?resize=640%2C360&quality=50&strip=all 640w, https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/paul-hadjy-portrait-16x9-1.jpg?resize=444%2C250&quality=50&strip=all 444w" width="1024" height="576" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px">Paul Hadjy Paul Hadjy: The chaos of being a founder was worth it Back in 2016, when Paul Hadjy was working in Asia as a senior security leader, he noticed few vendors were focused on cloud security. Much like the early days in the US, governments and enterprises were hesitant to embrace the cloud. “I had been working in Asia for a couple of years when I joined a company that, like many others, was struggling to find vendors and solutions to address their public cloud security needs,” he recalls. “There were very few products or service providers focused on this area, and I saw a major opportunity to build a company dedicated to solving that problem,” who previously served in security roles at Grab in Singapore, Palantir Technologies and Arete Associates. That opportunity became Horangi, a cloud security company Hadjy founded to fix frustrations he carried as a CISO. “As a senior security leader, it was often difficult to secure the resources and executive support needed to address pressing challenges,” he says. “When I started my own company, I wanted to ensure that security would never be treated as an afterthought.” From the outset, Hadjy made security a core part of Horangi’s culture. Everyone shared responsibility, and every individual was treated as a potential target. Security, he emphasized, wasn’t only about protection, it was also about building customer trust. “In many businesses, security is still not viewed as a sales enabler, which was a constant frustration for me,” Hadjy says. At Horangi, he flipped that thinking and grounded the business in the belief that visible, robust security practices could create the trust needed to drive revenue. “We recognized early that demonstrating strong security practices builds trust, especially with enterprise customers. Protecting both company and customer data provides confidence and ultimately becomes a competitive advantage.” Lessons learned from a CISO building a cloud security business The transition from CISO to founder required a new mindset. The toughest mental shift wasn’t about technology or markets. Rather, it was about ruthless prioritization. Limited resources forced constant trade-offs, and Horangi often had to invent its own ways to overcome them. In 2016, with SaaS still emerging, the company for instance had to rely on its own platform and custom processes, built by its engineering and services teams, to secure its environment. “That experience reinforced the importance of adaptability and innovation when building from the ground up.” There were moments as an entrepreneur when things looked bleak, Hadjy concedes. And more than once, Horangi nearly ran out of money, with runway shrinking to just a couple of months. Those experiences forced painful cost cuts while fundraising under pressure. “Resilience and the ability to build pain tolerance through lessons learned ultimately pushed us forward,” he says. “Those moments tested us, but they also taught us how to stay disciplined and focused under pressure.” Vindication came in 2023 when Bitdefender acquired Horangi. Hadjy found in Bitdefender a “security-first” culture that confirmed his belief that trust built through security could become a business differentiator. Looking back, Hadjy admits the early chaos of launching a startup while stressful and isolating was also deeply rewarding. Still, he says, at times being a CISO felt even more challenging than being a founder. “Everyone has an opinion…The difficulty is that while they might be right at a project level, they often don’t have the full picture at the company level,” he says. The founder journey taught him to navigate competing perspectives, make tough calls, and stay focused on the bigger picture. “The journey was filled with challenges, but it also gave me invaluable lessons and the chance to work with incredible people,” Hadjy says. “While it wasn’t easy, the experience was transformative, and for me, the chaos of being a founder was absolutely worth it.” srcset="https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/joe-silva-portrait-16x9-1.jpg?quality=50&strip=all 3200w, https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/joe-silva-portrait-16x9-1.jpg?resize=300%2C168&quality=50&strip=all 300w, https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/joe-silva-portrait-16x9-1.jpg?resize=768%2C432&quality=50&strip=all 768w, https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/joe-silva-portrait-16x9-1.jpg?resize=1024%2C576&quality=50&strip=all 1024w, https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/joe-silva-portrait-16x9-1.jpg?resize=1536%2C864&quality=50&strip=all 1536w, https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/joe-silva-portrait-16x9-1.jpg?resize=2048%2C1152&quality=50&strip=all 2048w, https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/joe-silva-portrait-16x9-1.jpg?resize=1240%2C697&quality=50&strip=all 1240w, https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/joe-silva-portrait-16x9-1.jpg?resize=150%2C84&quality=50&strip=all 150w, https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/joe-silva-portrait-16x9-1.jpg?resize=854%2C480&quality=50&strip=all 854w, https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/joe-silva-portrait-16x9-1.jpg?resize=640%2C360&quality=50&strip=all 640w, https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/joe-silva-portrait-16x9-1.jpg?resize=444%2C250&quality=50&strip=all 444w" width="1024" height="576" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px">Joe Silva Joe Silva: Breaking the Groundhog Day cycle For Joe Silva, the decision to transition from cyber defense to company building wasn’t sparked by a single defining moment. Rather it stemmed from his experience of being a CISO at different organizations and constantly having to deal with the same issue and challenges again and again. The same dissonance, across organizations, between the vulnerability posture that leadership wanted and what they were willing to pay to achieve it. “There was no one specific incident,” recalls Silva of his decision to launch vulnerability management firm Spektion. “But it was definitely prompted by a “Groundhog Day” feeling.” It was that sense of déjà vu, that having to endlessly balance risk posture against cost that sparked the desire to try a new path, says Silva whose previous roles included being CISO at JLL and Transunion. Silva’s frustrations as a CISO weren’t just philosophical, they were structural. Too often, Silva recalls, CISOs had to push vulnerability management onto their peers in technology because they don’t have the tools at their disposal to manage the risk directly. Launched in 2024, Spektion provides a cloud-based runtime vulnerability management platform that helps organizations spot and prioritize software risk, especially in third-party and software supply-chain components. “Spektion’s focus on a better way to proactively manage vulnerability risk was certainly shaped by my experiences, both in dealing with third-party software related breaches and providing security leaders with more agency to manage vulnerability risk,” Silva says. “We saw the opportunity to make managing vulnerability risk less of a political challenge and more of an engineering challenge.” It’s a market segment that Silva acknowledges some might perceive as “legacy” and “unsexy”. Startups tend to pursue flashy, future-facing problems while ignoring persistent, real-world ones, like software vulnerability management that security leaders and teams have to grapple with daily, he says. Right from the outset, Silva made sure that accountability was a core part of Spektion’s culture and operations. Many early employees came from enterprise security backgrounds, where they had observed firsthand how a lack of clear accountability often prevented organizations from achieving their desired cybersecurity goals. “As a leader, every action you take shapes the culture and you need to be conscious of that without acting with artifice.” Alongside accountability, Silva instilled another principle he had lived by as a CISO: “If you’re getting incrementally better, you are losing. You cannot keep up, let alone gain ground, vis-à-vis cyber threats,” he says. “If you allow yourself to be satisfied with just making some progress day over day, you’re overall falling behind.” The freedom of starting a business Moving from defending an organization to building one demanded a completely different mindset. “When you join a company, there’s an existing culture,” he explains. “When you start a company, you aren’t stepping into a culture, and you can’t just materialize one from thin air.” Every decision, every hire, every action you take needs to help shape the culture. Founding a company also unlocked some unexpected freedoms. Among the biggest was the ability to do things without self-censoring or worrying about what you might have to break, he notes. “When you start a company anew, you need to constantly remind yourself that you can just do things…it’s incredibly liberating.” Silva doesn’t completely rule out returning to being a CISO someday. But for now, he is enjoying his new role thoroughly. “Being a founder and CEO, while by no means easy, is the best job I ever had,” Silva says. “I feel like we are on offense everyday planning, building, and delivering solutions. I can’t imagine going back to playing defense right now.” srcset="https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/chris-pierson-portrait-16x9-1.jpg?quality=50&strip=all 3200w, https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/chris-pierson-portrait-16x9-1.jpg?resize=300%2C168&quality=50&strip=all 300w, https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/chris-pierson-portrait-16x9-1.jpg?resize=768%2C432&quality=50&strip=all 768w, https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/chris-pierson-portrait-16x9-1.jpg?resize=1024%2C576&quality=50&strip=all 1024w, https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/chris-pierson-portrait-16x9-1.jpg?resize=1536%2C864&quality=50&strip=all 1536w, https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/chris-pierson-portrait-16x9-1.jpg?resize=2048%2C1152&quality=50&strip=all 2048w, https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/chris-pierson-portrait-16x9-1.jpg?resize=1240%2C697&quality=50&strip=all 1240w, https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/chris-pierson-portrait-16x9-1.jpg?resize=150%2C84&quality=50&strip=all 150w, https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/chris-pierson-portrait-16x9-1.jpg?resize=854%2C480&quality=50&strip=all 854w, https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/chris-pierson-portrait-16x9-1.jpg?resize=640%2C360&quality=50&strip=all 640w, https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/chris-pierson-portrait-16x9-1.jpg?resize=444%2C250&quality=50&strip=all 444w" width="1024" height="576" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px">Chris Pierson Chris Pierson: Protecting digital lives beyond the firewall Chris Pierson’s goal when launching BlackCloak in 2018 was to close a gap he’d seen widen between the protections companies invested in and the near-total lack of security around the personal lives of their top executives. Attackers, he noticed, were no longer stopping at corporate firewalls. They were increasingly going after high-value executives, board members, and venture capitalists in their personal lives. Motivations included financial theft, reputational attacks, intellectual property theft, and often using a compromised home device or network to ride back into the corporate environment. “For over a decade before starting BlackCloak, I had seen cybercriminals and nation states attack high-value targets in their personal lives,” says Pierson, a former Royal Bank of Scotland chief privacy officer and two-time fintech CISO. Adversaries had recognized that breaching a heavily defended corporate network was far more difficult than targeting executives through their poorly protected home environments. But while the threat was startlingly clear, the tools for addressing it were fragmented: a VPN here, an identity theft monitoring service there. “Nothing was built to go head-to-head with these threat actors,” Pierson recalls. That realization became the spark for BlackCloak, a company that offers a suite of digital executive protection services for leaders and their families. Its services include online privacy protection, personal device security, home network security, and rapid incident response to mitigate threats like cyberattacks, identity theft, and financial fraud. Pierson’s approach to building BlackCloak drew on a career that was anything but linear. “Over the years I’ve had many roles, from a programmer to cybersecurity and privacy law expert, a chief privacy officer, general counsel, chief information security officer, and more,” he says. “Along the way I developed a theme of trying to help the good guys defeat the bad guys, nation states, and cybercriminals.” Whether responding to data breaches, implementing privacy control frameworks, anti-money laundering controls, identity theft red flag rules, or cybersecurity programs, everything fit a common theme: preventing harm. It was the combination of these disparate experiences that Pierson leveraged when building and leading his team at BlackCloak. One principle that Pierson has focused on embedding into BlackCloak’s culture is designing programs that fit the business. Another is the understanding that privacy and security cannot be separated. Privacy is so foundational at BlackCloak that three of its nine executives hold IAPP certifications, with some certified for nearly two decades. “Privacy is at our core,” Pierson says. “Saying you love privacy or it’s a core tenet is different than showing that it always has been a north star.” The things he learned he enjoyed Transitioning from CISO to CEO required adjustment. As a security and privacy leader, Pierson relished day-to-day collaboration and problem-solving. “It was incredibly fulfilling to dig into building the right controls with input from product, engineering, and others,” he says. “I really relished the ability to over-communicate what we were doing, why we were doing it, and set up the communication lines ahead of time.” Seeing projects he led sail through assurance and due diligence reviews was especially rewarding because it validated the effort behind them. There’s less of that now. The smaller, invitation-only events he once attended with peers are off-limits, and program-building is less hands-on. “As a CEO of a cybersecurity company I sometimes miss some of those larger projects and program building activities,” he says. His focus now is to “continue to channel the voice of the CISO in what my team and I are doing.” srcset="https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/michael-coates-portrait-16x9-1.jpg?quality=50&strip=all 3200w, https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/michael-coates-portrait-16x9-1.jpg?resize=300%2C168&quality=50&strip=all 300w, https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/michael-coates-portrait-16x9-1.jpg?resize=768%2C432&quality=50&strip=all 768w, https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/michael-coates-portrait-16x9-1.jpg?resize=1024%2C576&quality=50&strip=all 1024w, https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/michael-coates-portrait-16x9-1.jpg?resize=1536%2C864&quality=50&strip=all 1536w, https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/michael-coates-portrait-16x9-1.jpg?resize=2048%2C1152&quality=50&strip=all 2048w, https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/michael-coates-portrait-16x9-1.jpg?resize=1240%2C697&quality=50&strip=all 1240w, https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/michael-coates-portrait-16x9-1.jpg?resize=150%2C84&quality=50&strip=all 150w, https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/michael-coates-portrait-16x9-1.jpg?resize=854%2C480&quality=50&strip=all 854w, https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/michael-coates-portrait-16x9-1.jpg?resize=640%2C360&quality=50&strip=all 640w, https://b2b-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/michael-coates-portrait-16x9-1.jpg?resize=444%2C250&quality=50&strip=all 444w" width="1024" height="576" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px">Michael Coates Michael Coates: From Twitter CISO to Venture Capitalist During his four years as chief information security officer at Twitter between 2014 and 2018, Michael Coates became deeply immersed in San Francisco’s startup ecosystem. His role gave him a front-row seat to the rapidly evolving security landscape and exposed him to both the promise and the vulnerabilities of modern technology. It was this perspective that eventually sparked a desire to build something of his own. The technology space Coates settled on addressed a pressing gap. At the time, organizations were increasingly adopting cloud collaboration platforms such as Google Drive and Box, often without considering the risks of inadvertent data exposure. Enterprises had little visibility into what employees were sharing, with whom, or whether sensitive documents were accidentally exposed to unauthorized users. From his vantage point at Twitter, Coates saw that companies lacked effective ways to monitor file-sharing activity, enforce proper access controls, or detect when confidential data was accidentally made public. What organizations needed, he realized, was a platform that could provide real-time visibility into document sharing, security permissions, and sensitive data exposure. In 2018, Coates left Twitter to launch Altitude Networks. The company built a platform that connected directly to cloud collaboration tools via their APIs, scanning and analyzing every document, sharing permission, and security control in real time. The technology could instantly flag when sensitive data was being shared inappropriately and surface potential security issues before they escalated into breaches. It was the start of what would become the cloud security posture management (CSPM) market. “There was a gap in the market, and I knew it was the right problem to solve at the right time,” Coates says of his decision to focus on cloud security. His instincts proved correct. Early traction came quickly: the Democratic National Committee (DNC) signed on as a customer, followed by major movie studios, cryptocurrency firms, and healthcare companies. These early wins validated that Altitude’s technology was addressing a critical problem for CISOs. “What we built wasn’t just a nice-to-have feature,” Coates notes. “It helped CISOs distinguish between the critical risks that needed attention and the things that could wait.” The challenges of transitioning from CISO to CEO and a new business The transition from CISO to startup CEO brought new challenges. “As a CISO, the focus is comprehensive coverage. As a founder, you face constant trade-offs — go deeper in one area or cover more ground?” Coates tells. As an example, early on, his team wrestled with a fundamental decision over which cloud collaboration platform to support first. Should they start with the platform they knew best or the one with the largest potential user base? While faster adoption was tempting, the real priority was to build a scalable, robust solution that could grow effectively over time. Coates’ CISO background shaped not only his approach to security but also the culture he built at Altitude. “Being a CISO made us less bombastic, less prone to exaggeration,” he reflects. “Our culture was grounded in truth, not embellishment.” The company was SOC 2 compliant from day one. Developers received secure code training immediately. The architecture was designed from the start with users in mind. In 2022, Altitude was acquired by CoinList. Coates stayed on through the transition, and later launched SevenHill Ventures, a venture fund built on insights from his experience as both a founder and a CISO. The fund focuses on helping entrepreneurs navigate the challenges of building venture-backed companies, providing practical guidance and operational support. His first fund returned 2.5 times the capital invested to its partners. Reflecting on the emotional reality of entrepreneurship, Coates is candid. “One day everything is amazing, you’re on top of the world. The next day you’re not, and nothing has actually changed.” A founder’s reality is waking at 4 a.m. worrying about payroll, legal issues, and being the chief problem solver, he says wryly. CISOs considering the leap would do well to leverage their current position to prepare, to rekindle relationships with peers, and have early conversations with potential customers and investors. “Your background gives you an edge, but stepping into a startup is a completely different world. You have to leverage what you know and build new relationships fast,” Coates says. But in the end, the effort is worth it. “Innovation is messy and imperfect, but it’s the minds taking leaps that make the impossible possible.”

The extent to which enterprise networks are sprawling, half-visible, and full of PC and servers running obsolete versions of operating systems and vulnerable IoT devices has been laid bare by new research. Twenty-six percent of Linux systems and 8% of Windows systems are running on end-of-life (EOL) versions of operating systems, according to research from Palo Alto Networks. Palo Alto’s Device Security Threat Report, based on telemetry data from 27 million devices on the networks of 1,800 enterprises, also found that 39% of IT devices registered in network directories lack active endpoint security protections. A third (32.5%) of all devices in corporate networks operate outside IT control. The absence of security controls enables attackers to hack into unprotected devices without risking detection. Almost four of five (77%) corporate networks were poorly segmented, setups where low-security devices such as smart coffee makers or printers and high-value targets like financial servers sit on the same network segment. “What stood out in our findings is how often everyday devices — like office cameras, smart sensors, or personal laptops — are directly linked to sensitive systems, and how often even IT managed devices have security gaps,” Qiang Huang, VP of product management for cloud delivered security services at Palo Alto Networks, tells CSO. “Nearly half of those connections come from high-risk devices that were never built with security in mind.” Visibility gaps Visibility and segmentation remain the weakest points of many enterprise networks. Around a third of enterprise devices are still unmanaged, and most networks are effectively flat, enabling attackers to move freely once they get in. Worse yet network edge devices are increasingly afflicted with zero-day vulnerabilities experts blame on basic security bugs. “Misconfigurations in firewalls, routers, and switches have repeatedly led to major breaches, as these devices often have privileged access and broad network visibility,” says Bharat Mistry, field CTO at Trend Micro. “Their presence at the top of the vulnerability list highlights the need for rigorous patching and configuration management.” Routers, video conferencing systems, and IoT gear sit on the edge of networks, often unmanaged, poorly patched and running with default credentials. “If you reduce internet exposure, kill default credentials, and prioritize fixes for devices that are both exposed and exploitable, you take away a huge amount of low-effort attacker opportunity,” says Rik Ferguson, VP of security intelligence at Forescout. Ferguson adds: “You can’t rely on agent coverage, so you need continuous, agentless visibility, software/firmware inventory, including EOL and risk-based controls at segmentation and patching levels.” Risky business Forescout’s Ferguson tells CSO that Palo Alto’s numbers align with Forescout’s telemetry across global enterprise networks. “Their [Palo Alto’s] finding that 26% of Linux systems and 8% of Windows systems are end-of-life is directionally consistent with what we observe in the field, especially for embedded Linux in routers and appliances, where kernel versions lag for years,” Ferguson says. “The result is a large attack surface of internet-reachable devices with unpatched flaws and weak defaults.” According to Forescout’s latest annual Riskiest Devices report, routers and other network gear account for more than half of devices with the most dangerous vulnerabilities, with other categories such as video/voice systems also prominent. Forescout’s study — which is based on telemetry from enterprise devices using Forescout’s Device Cloud and a multi-factor risk scoring methodology — also highlights that the risk posed by operational technology (OT) is growing fast. The riskiest device types by domain, according to ForeScout, include application delivery controllers and firewalls, on the IT side; NVRs, NAS, VoIP, and IP cameras in IoT; and universal gateways and building management systems in OT. Remediation challenges Matt Middleton-Leal, managing director for EMEA at Qualys, says that visibility, vulnerability remediation, and network segmentation need to be treated as more important internally if CISOs want to get support for security remediation projects. “There are two issues here: how to get complete visibility of all your IT assets, and why end-of-life software or hardware still exists within the business,” Middleton-Leal says. “For CISOs, dealing with these issues involves working with the business around risk.” The challenge for security leaders is that insecure equipment replacement projects are viewed as lower priorities and lack the business case as, for example, AI-related projects that are viewed as the “cutting edge” of innovation. “Replacing end-of-life assets can require time and change management resources that cost money, but they don’t deliver enough of a return to the business,” Middleton-Leal says. Adam Seamons, head of information security at GRC International Group, agreed that replacing legacy systems is rarely an enterprise IT project priority. “The persistence of end-of-life Windows and Linux systems isn’t laziness; it’s reality,” Seamons says. “Replacing legacy systems is expensive, risky, and rarely top of the priority list until something breaks.” Seamons adds: “The problem is that every unpatched device is basically a welcome mat for attackers.” Remediation work may extend beyond straight hardware replacement or migration because upgrades may involve additional work around refactoring software to work with newer, more secure components. “That is often why those older software assets don’t get updated, because the rework and change control is a substantial investment for relatively little return,” Qualys’ Middleton-Leal notes. “CISOs and security leaders have to guide their teams through these costs, and where end-of-life software can’t be replaced, design the compensating controls and risk mitigation approach that keeps software or assets secure,” Middleton-Leal says.

Mit Hilfe von NDR, EDR und XDR können Unternehmen Cyberbedrohungen in ihrem Netzwerk aufspüren. Foto: alphaspirit.it – shutterstock.comDie ständig wachsende Zahl von Abkürzungen in der IT-Sicherheit macht es schwierig, den Überblick zu behalten und einzelne Technologien zu vergleichen. Ein Beispiel sind die drei eng verwandten Technologien zur Bedrohungserkennung: Network Detection and Response (NDR), Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) und Extended Detection and Response (XDR). Jede von ihnen bietet eine umfassende Lösung zur Erkennung von und Reaktion auf verschiedene Cyberangriffe. Obwohl sie auf ähnlichen Ansätzen beruhen, gibt es dennoch einige Unterschiede. EDR identifiziert spürbare Veränderungen auf der Endpunktebene EDR, die älteste der drei Erkennungstechnologien, ist eine Sicherheitslösung, die Endpunkte überwacht, um Angriffe auf sie zu entschärfen. Endpunkte sind Netzwerkgeräte wie PCs, Dateiserver, Smartphones und Internet-of-Things-Geräte (IoT), die eine Verbindung zum Netzwerk herstellen, um zu kommunizieren. Mit Hilfe eines Software-Agenten werden EDR-Malware und verdächtige Aktivitäten inventarisiert, die auf dem Endpunkt erkannt werden, wie zum Beispiel Änderungen der Registrierung und Manipulation von Schlüsseldateien. Da Netzwerkumgebungen im Laufe der Zeit immer komplexer und Bedrohungsakteure und Malware immer ausgefeilter werden, steht EDR vor folgenden Herausforderungen: Erforderliche EDR-Agenten können nicht auf allen Geräten oder in allen Umgebungen eingesetzt werden, was Lücken in der Sichtbarkeit hinterlässt und die Tür für Angriffe öffnet. Einige gängige Anwendungen können EDR umgehen. Beispielsweise hat Microsoft SQL Server administrativen Zugriff auf das zugrunde liegende Windows-Betriebssystem, ohne dass eine der oben genannten EDR-überwachten Umgebungen verwendet wird, wodurch ein Angreifer die Endpunkt-Erkennung umgehen kann. Malware und Angreifer werden immer raffinierter und sind in der Lage, Anti-Malware-Software auf dem Endpunkt zu erkennen oder Beweise für eine Kompromittierung des Endpunkts ganz zu verbergen. EDR ist zwar ein notwendiger Bestandteil einer modernen Cybersicherheitsstrategie, kann aber nicht allein für eine umfassende Cybersicherheit eingesetzt werden. XDR bietet einen ganzheitlichen Schutz Viele halten XDR fälschlicherweise für ein Produkt oder die Weiterentwicklung von EDR. XDR ist jedoch eine Strategie, die aus einer Kombination von sicherheitsrelevanten Telemetriedaten in Verbindung mit High-Fidelity-Detektionen besteht, um eine schnellere und effektivere Reaktion auf Vorfälle zu ermöglichen. Es gibt verschiedene Arten von XDR. Es gibt eine proprietäre XDR-Strategie, die sich auf einen einzigen Anbieter oder eine “All-in-One”-Plattform konzentriert, die Telemetriedaten von den verschiedenen Produkten eines Anbieters bereitstellt, zum Beispiel von dessen Firewalls, EDR, NDR und so weiter. Darüber hinaus gibt es eine offene XDR-Strategie, die aus mehreren Anbietern oder “Best-of-Breed”-Technologien oder -Tools besteht. Dabei werden die Telemetriedaten von verschiedenen Produkttypen (etwa Firewall, Intrusion Detection System [IDS], EDR und NDR) und Anbietern bereitgestellt. Viele Unternehmen glauben, dass eine EDR-zentrierte XDR-Strategie ausreicht, aber das führt zu einem problematischen blinden Fleck. Wenn der Überblick über den EDR-Agenten verloren wird, gibt es keine andere Möglichkeit, eine potenzielle kritische Sicherheitsverletzung zu finden oder zu untersuchen. Mit dieser auf einen einzigen Punkt fokussierten Telemetrie-Strategie brauchen Angreifer nur eine Technologie oder eine Verteidigung zu umgehen, um in das Netzwerk einzudringen. Cybersicherheitsverantwortliche müssen Veränderungen in der Netzwerkaktivität erkennen und diese mit Endpunkt- und Cloud-Daten vergleichen. Hier können NDR-Lösungen den notwendigen Kontext liefern, um sich auf potenzielle Cyberbedrohungen zu konzentrieren. Lesetipp: Die 11 besten XDR-Tools NDR erkennt Bedrohungen auf Paketebene und reagiert in Echtzeit Im Gegensatz zu EDR- oder XDR-Lösungen konzentriert sich NDR auf die Analyse von Paketdaten im Netzwerkverkehr, um potenzielle Cyberbedrohungen zu erkennen, und nicht auf Endpunkte oder andere Datenströme. Durch die Kombination von NDR mit anderen Lösungen wie Log-Analyse-Tools über Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) und EDR können Unternehmen blinde Flecken in ihren Netzwerken entschärfen. Zusammen erhöhen NDR-Lösungen die Sicherheitsfunktionen, indem sie Netzwerkkontext bereitstellen und Reaktionen auf Bedrohungen automatisieren, was eine bessere Zusammenarbeit zwischen Netzwerk- und IT-Sicherheitsteams und eine schnellere Schadensbegrenzung ermöglicht. Im Zusammenhang mit NDR ist es jedoch wichtig, die Fähigkeiten von Advanced Plattformen zu unterscheiden, die Funktionen bieten, welche moderne Cybersicherheits-Stacks enthalten sollten. Bei der Bewertung verschiedener NDRs muss beispielsweise sichergestellt werden, dass sie eine zuverlässige Forensik mit langfristiger Datenspeicherung bieten. Zudem ist es entscheidend, dass sie sich nicht auf NetFlow-basierte Daten verlassen. Diese werden nämlich nicht in allen Umgebungen unterstützt und bieten Möglichkeiten für raffinierte Angriffe, die auf Tunneling beruhen. Advanced NDR Systeme sollten sogar eine retrospektive Betrachtung des Netzwerkverkehrs ermöglichen, um das Verhalten von Bedrohungen vor, während und nach Angriffen zu untersuchen. Wenn also ein Indikator für eine Kompromittierung (Indicator of Compromise, IOC) entdeckt wird, können Sicherheitsteams die Kommunikation der kompromittierten Hosts untersuchen, laterale Bewegungen feststellen und ermitteln, ob eine Datenverletzung stattgefunden hat. EDR, XDR, NDR: Gemeinsam sind sie stark Zusammenfassend lässt sich sagen, dass EDRs darauf ausgelegt sind, Angriffe auf Endgeräte über angeschlossene Computer und Server zu überwachen und zu entschärfen. Allerdings nur dort, wo Agenten bereitgestellt werden können. Daher funktioniert EDR beispielsweise nicht in einigen Cloud-basierten Hosting-Umgebungen. Im Gegensatz dazu bieten XDRs einen einheitlicheren Plattformansatz für die Überwachung von Geräten und Datenströmen, verfügen aber oft nicht über den Netzwerkkontext, den NDRs durch Echtzeit-Paketüberwachung bieten. Die meisten großen Unternehmen benötigen heute eine umfassendere Lösung, die Netzwerk- und Endpunktdaten mit anderen Sicherheitslösungen kombiniert, um einen robusteren Echtzeitüberblick über die sich ständig verändernde Bedrohungslandschaft zu erhalten. Advanced NDR Lösungen liefern hier ein hohes Maß an Netzwerkintelligenz und ergänzen den restlichen Security-Stack wirkungsvoll. Auch lässt sich eine Advanced NDR Lösung neben SIEM-, auch in SOAR (Security Orchestration, Automation and Response) oder Firewall Plattformen integrieren, um eine sofortige Blockierung am Netzwerk-Perimeter zu veranlassen. Schließlich ist es unmöglich, seine Spuren im Netzwerk zu verwischen, und Cyberangriffe werden immer raffinierter. Im Zusammenspiel bieten diese Systeme einen vollständigen Überblick über das Verhalten von Angreifern und Indikatoren für eine Gefährdung. Advanced NDR leistet einen wichtigen Beitrag in der gesamten Cybersicherheitsstrategie und hilft das Betriebsrisiko zu minimieren. (jm)

A zero day elevation of privilege Windows kernel flaw in servers, controllers, and desktops is being actively exploited and needs to be patched immediately. That’s the advice of Satnam Narang, senior staff research engineer at Tenable, on one of the two biggest vulnerabilities that needs to be addressed from among the 63 holes identified by Microsoft in today’s November Patch Tuesday releases. Separately, SAP today released four HotNews Notes and two HighPriority Notes among its 26 new and updated security patches. One patch deletes the SQL Anywhere Monitor because of hard-coded credentials. Also today, Adobe released eight updates, while Mozilla released three. Windows kernel flaw The most urgent of the Microsoft holes to be addressed is CVE-2025-62215 (the Windows kernel vulnerability),” Narang told CSO in an email. “While there is a substantial prerequisite to exploit the bug, Microsoft confirmed active exploitation is underway. The consequences cannot be ignored, as elevation of privilege vulnerabilities are the keys to opening other doors within the organization. This is how attackers go from initial foothold to full-blown breach.” And, Mike Walters, president of Action1, points out, this vulnerability impacts servers and domain controllers as much as desktops. Chris Goettl, vice president of product management at Ivanti, notes that this vulnerability affects all currently supported Windows OS editions plus the Windows 10 machines covered by the ESU (Extended Security Updates) program, “which means running Windows 10 past the end-of life (EOL) is not a hypothetical risk.”  Ben McCarthy, lead cyber security engineer at Immersive, explained how this hole can be exploited. An attacker with low-privilege local access can run a specially crafted application that repeatedly attempts to trigger a race condition. The goal is to get multiple threads to interact with a shared kernel resource in an unsynchronized way, confusing the kernel’s memory management and causing it to free the same memory block twice. This successful “double free” corrupts the kernel heap, allowing the attacker to overwrite memory and hijack the system’s execution flow. Microsoft says while the attack complexity to exploit this hole is high — successful exploitation requires an attacker to win a race condition — the privileges required are low. And the prize is great: An attacker who successfully exploited this vulnerability could gain SYSTEM privileges. Those in the Windows ESU program should note that, according to Nick Carroll, cyber incident response manager at Nightwing, some users have been reporting issues enrolling in the Extended Security Update program. Microsoft has recently released an out-of-band update to address issues when users try to enroll in the Windows 10 Consumer Extended Security Update program, he said. Admins planning to participate in the program should make sure to update and install KB5071959 to address the enrollment issues. After that is installed, users should be able to install other updates such as today’s KB5068781, which is the latest update to Windows 10. Flaw in Visual Studio Copilot Extension The second major vulnerability is CVE-2025-62222, a remote code execution flaw in Microsoft Visual Studio Code Copilot Chat Extension.  While it is rated as less likely to be exploited, Narang said, it “underscores a growing interest in finding bugs in generative AI or agentic AI, which encompasses large language models, whether foundational models or open source models, and the AI-assisted code editing tools.” Researchers at Cisco Systems said exploitation is not trivial for this vulnerability, as it requires multiple steps: prompt injection, Copilot Agent interaction, and triggering a build. Cisco notes that Microsoft assessed that the attack complexity is “high”, and that exploitation is “less likely”.   CSOs should already be addressing emerging AI risks with governance and policy enforcement, added Narang. “If Shadow AI and unchecked sanctioned AI usage run rampant through their organization, CSOs must modify their strategy to govern this emerging, complex attack surface before it’s too late.” Kerberos vulnerability Among the fixes released is one for CVE-2025-60704, a Kerboros delegation vulnerability in Active Directory dubbed CheckSum by researchers at Silverfort, who discovered it. If exploited, an attacker could impersonate an authenticated user, escalate privileges and stay hidden. Because Kerberos is a way to enable applications to authenticate securely on behalf of users, abuse of it can be dangerous, Silverfort says in an explanation of this vulnerability. Using a man-in-the-middle technique, the flaw allows researchers to impersonate arbitrary users and ultimately gain control over the entire domain. “Any organization using Active Directory with the Kerberos delegation capability turned on is impacted,” says Silverfort. “This means thousands of companies around the world are affected by this vulnerability.” Microsoft Graphics Component flaw Tyler Reguly, associate director of R&D at Fortra, was drawn to CVE-2025-60724, one of several vulnerabilities rated critical in severity. It’s a heap-based buffer overflow in Microsoft Graphics Component that could allow an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network. He notes that Microsoft says, “in the worst-case scenario, an attacker could trigger this vulnerability on web services by uploading documents containing a specially crafted metafile without user interaction.”    “If I’m a CISO, then CVE-2025-60724 has me worried this month,” he told CSO. “We have a vulnerability that Microsoft and CVSS agree is critical and an attack vector that requires no user interaction and no privileges, just the ability to upload a file. We know nothing about the file type, the technologies that are impacted (other than GDI+ in the title), or the services impacted. Do I need to worry about my SharePoint infrastructure? What about third-party software – my wiki or my bug tracker? This is definitely one that feels a little spooky without a lot of extra details being provided.” Cisco explains the vulnerability can be triggered by convincing a victim open a document that contains a specially crafted metafile.   “In the worst-case scenario,” its researchers write, “an attacker could trigger this vulnerability on web services by uploading documents containing a specially crafted metafile without user interaction. An attacker doesn’t require any privileges on the systems hosting the web services. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability could cause RCE or information disclosure on web services that are parsing documents that contain a specially crafted metafile, without the involvement of a victim user.” SAP patches The patches released by SAP today include some Notes that are updates to previously related fixes. That includes two HotNews patches. But there are new two patches, rated high priority by Onapsis, dealing with SAP Commerce Cloud (with a CVSS score of 7.5) and SAP CommonCryptoLib (also with a score of 7.5). One of the notes, #3666261, has a CVSS score of 10. It deals with an insecure key and secret management vulnerability in SQL Anywhere Monitor with hard-coded credentials. SQL Anywhere Monitor is a browser-based administration tool that gives admins information about the health and availability of SQL Anywhere databases, MobiLink servers, and MobiLink server farms. It can also provide information about the availability of web servers, proxy servers, and host computers; The patch removes SQL Anywhere Monitor completely, say researchers at Onapsis. As a temporary workaround, SAP recommends that admins stop using this tool and delete any instances of SQL Anywhere Monitor database. Another note to pay attention to, #3668705 (CVE-2025-42887) patches a code injection vulnerability in SAP Solution Manager. Due to missing input sanitization in a remote-enabled function module, authenticated attackers are able to inject malicious code into the system. Rated with a CVSS score of 9.9, this vulnerability is patched by adding an input check that rejects most of the non-alphanumeric characters. “CVE-2025-42887 is particularly dangerous because it allows an attacker to inject code from a low-privileged user, which leads to a full SAP compromise and all data contained in the SAP system,” notes  Joris van de Vis, director of security research at SecurityBridge.  Onapsis CTO Juan Pablo Perez-Etchegoyen also says admins need to deal quickly with Note #3633049. “Despite this being a CVSS 7.5,” he said in an email to CSO, “it is a memory corruption potentially exploitable remotely pre-authentication, and these types of vulnerability tend to be very critical because of their nature and potential for denial of service and system compromise.”  However, with many of these vulnerabilities, patching alone is not enough: architecture, exposure, segmentation, and monitoring still matter, advises Mike Walters of Action1. “CSOs need to involve not just patching teams, but also service owners (print, scan, document sharing, remote access), network/security teams (for segmentation and exposure control), and logging/monitoring teams (for post-patch verification),” he said.  

Threat hunters have uncovered similarities between a banking malware called Coyote and a newly disclosed malicious program dubbed Maverick that has been propagated via WhatsApp. According to a report from CyberProof, both malware strains are written in .NET, target Brazilian users and banks, and feature identical functionality to decrypt, targeting banking URLs and monitor banking applications.

The malware known as GootLoader has resurfaced yet again after a brief spike in activity earlier this March, according to new findings from Huntress. The cybersecurity company said it observed three GootLoader infections since October 27, 2025, out of which two resulted in hands-on keyboard intrusions with domain controller compromise taking place within 17 hours of initial infection. "

North Korea-linked threat actors have found a novel way to weaponize Google’s own security ecosystem, using it to wipe espionage data from victim phones remotely. According to findings by Genians Security Center (GSC), the attackers leveraged the Android device-tracing and management service “Find Hub” to remotely wipe data on Android phones and tablets. “While Find Hub is intended to safeguard Android devices, this is the first confirmed case in which a state-sponsored threat actor obtained remote control by compromising Google accounts, then used the service to perform location tracking and remote wipe,” GSC researchers said in a blog post. “This development demonstrates a realistic risk that the feature can be abused within APT campaigns.” GSC has attributed these activities to the KONNI APT group, known to be associated with the Kimsuky or APT37 groups. The campaign was further bolstered by social engineering via the popular Korean messenger KaKaoTalk, where victims were sent malicious apps disguised as psychological “stress-relief” programs. From the lost phone feature to a wipe bomb GSC found that the attackers compromised legitimate Google accounts to take full advantage of Find Hub’s remote-management functionality. Once logged in, they could track location and execute wipe commands on Android devices, effectively deleting personal data and disabling the device’s normal alert channels. “A notable finding is that immediately after confirming through Find Hub’s location query that the victim was outside, the threat actor executed a remote reset command on the victim’s devices,” the researchers added. “The remote reset halted normal device operation, blocking notification and message alerts from messenger applications and effectively cutting off the account owner’s awareness channel, thereby delaying detection and response.” By cutting the device off, the attacker creates a silent window for further propagation and control. The blog explained that initial access was obtained through spear-phishing emails impersonating South Korea’s National Tax Service (NTS). Victims received an email with an attachment that, once executed, installed malicious scripts (Autolt-based) or dropped a RAT to steal Google credentials. “To prevent the unauthorized abuse of remote wipe features through compromised Google accounts, service providers should review and implement real-time security verification measures, such as additional authentication processes that confirm the legitimate device owner,” researchers recommended. The social engineering link The threat continues beyond device wiping, with attackers distributing malware by compromising KakaoTalk accounts of trusted contacts.GSC found that malicious files disguised as “stress-relief programs” were sent to close contacts via the messenger. “Among the victims was a professional psychological counselor who supports North Korean defector youths during resettlement by addressing psychological difficulties and providing services such as career guidance, educational counseling, and mentoring to help stabilize their well-being,” researchers added. While one attack vector used device neutralization to disable alerts, the other launched the malware distribution via compromised chat accounts. GSC called this mix unprecedented among known state-sponsored APT actors and that it shows the attacker’s “tactical maturity and advanced evasion strategy”. Reinforcing verification of files received via messenger platforms before opening and execution, and using clear warning prompts to help users avoid downloading or running malicious files, might help against this vector, the blog noted. The Genians findings, like the recent ClayRat and Badbox 2.0 campaigns, highlight a growing trend of attackers exploiting trusted apps and built-in services instead of relying on complex zero-day exploits.

AI-enabled supply chain attacks jumped 156% last year. Discover why traditional defenses are failing and what CISOs must do now to protect their organizations. Download the full CISO’s expert guide to AI Supply chain attacks here.  TL;DR AI-enabled supply chain attacks are exploding in scale and sophistication - Malicious package uploads to open-source repositories jumped 156% in

Cybersecurity researchers have discovered a malicious npm package named "@acitons/artifact" that typosquats the legitimate "@actions/artifact" package with the intent to target GitHub-owned repositories. "We think the intent was to have this script execute during a build of a GitHub-owned repository, exfiltrate the tokens available to the build environment, and then use those tokens to publish

Cybersecurity researchers have disclosed details of a new Android remote access trojan (RAT) called Fantasy Hub that's sold on Russian-speaking Telegram channels under a Malware-as-a-Service (MaaS) model. According to its seller, the malware enables device control and espionage, allowing threat actors to collect SMS messages, contacts, call logs, images, and videos, as well as intercept, reply,

Two cybersecurity laws that lapsed during the government shutdown moved closer to restoration on Monday after the Senate voted 60-40 to advance legislation extending them through January 2026. The continuing resolution would restore the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 and the Federal Cybersecurity Enhancement Act, which expired on October 1 when Congress failed to pass a spending bill before the fiscal year deadline. The measure required additional procedural votes in the Senate this week before moving to the House for approval and then to President Trump’s desk. The lapse stripped companies of the legal protections that had encouraged voluntary sharing of cyber-threat indicators with federal agencies and other organizations. Without liability shields, antitrust exemptions, or Freedom of Information Act protections, many firms faced new legal exposure and slowed information exchange. Security experts warned the interruption risked slowing threat-intelligence flows at a time of rising nation-state and ransomware activity. “After a record-breaking shutdown, we can now see the light at the end of the tunnel,” Senator Kevin Cramer said in a statement following Sunday’s procedural vote. What the bill restores The continuing resolution temporarily extended both cybersecurity statutes.  Section 141 of the bill extends CISA 2015’s sunset date through January 2026, stating: “Section 111(a) of the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 (6 U.S.C. 1510(a)) shall be applied by substituting the date specified in section 106 of this Act for ‘September 30, 2025.” The legislation reinstated the legal and procedural safeguards that allow companies to share threat data with the government, and it renews authorization for CISA to provide network-security services, including the EINSTEIN intrusion-detection system, to civilian agencies under the Federal Cybersecurity Enhancement Act. The short-term extension, however, sets up another expiration in two months, leaving open whether Congress will pursue a full reauthorization or opt for another stopgap. Kevin Kirkwood, CISO at Exabeam, said the brief lapse presents an opportunity to reconsider how the threat-sharing framework operates. “At its core, CISA aimed to foster collaboration between the private sector and government by encouraging voluntary sharing of threat intelligence—something that absolutely matters in today’s threat landscape,” he said. “The problem isn’t with the sharing, it’s with the inevitable bloat that comes when federal agencies expand their footprint under the banner of cybersecurity coordination,” Kirkwood added. “This is the moment to rethink what version 2.0 should look like. We need a leaner, more focused model that preserves the flow of intelligence but resists the gravitational pull of centralized bureaucracy.” What the lapse meant for enterprises The expiration of CISA 2015 eliminated legal protections for sharing threat information, disrupting the real-time intelligence exchanges that had become routine over the past decade. Without its statutory shields, organizations faced potential liability for monitoring networks, sharing defensive measures, and coordinating responses with peers and federal agencies. The law had explicitly authorized private entities to take defensive measures against cyberattacks, monitor their own and customers’ networks with consent, and exchange indicators to strengthen detection and response. It also protected shared data from public disclosure under FOIA and shielded participating companies from antitrust claims tied to joint defense activities. Companies that previously shared threat data automatically needed lawyers to review each exchange, determining what laws might be violated and whether existing agreements covered the information transfer. The expiration of the Federal Cybersecurity Enhancement Act also ended statutory authority for CISA to operate the EINSTEIN program and other network-security services for civilian agencies, adding operational strain across government networks. Broader provisions and workforce impact Beyond restoring the cybersecurity laws, the continuing resolution included measures to protect federal employees affected by the shutdown. The bill will “protect federal workers from baseless firings, reinstate those who have been wrongfully terminated during the shutdown, and ensure federal workers receive back pay,” Senator Tim Kaine said in a statement, adding that the provisions were critical for earning his support. CISA’s workforce shrank by nearly a third during the shutdown through buyouts, deferred resignations, and layoffs, falling from roughly 3,300 to about 2,200 employees. Divisions, including Stakeholder Engagement and Infrastructure Security, were hit hardest. The new workforce protections could reverse some of those losses once the bill becomes law. The continuing resolution extended current government funding levels through January 2026, according to Cramer’s office. Eight Democrats joined Republicans to advance the bill. Suppose the resolution clears both chambers as expected. In that case, Congress will face another funding deadline early next year — and with it, another test of how well Washington can balance political gridlock with national cyber resilience.

A new type of authentication coercion attack exploits an obscure and rarely monitored remote procedure call (RPC) interface. The post You Thought It Was Over? Authentication Coercion Keeps Evolving appeared first on Unit 42.

Google's Mandiant Threat Defense on Monday said it discovered n-day exploitation of a now-patched security flaw in Gladinet's Triofox file-sharing and remote access platform. The critical vulnerability, tracked as CVE-2025-12480 (CVSS score: 9.1), allows an attacker to bypass authentication and access the configuration pages, resulting in the upload and execution of arbitrary payloads.  The

The North Korea-affiliated threat actor known as Konni (aka Earth Imp, Opal Sleet, Osmium, TA406, and Vedalia) has been attributed to a new set of attacks targeting both Android and Windows devices for data theft and remote control. "Attackers impersonated psychological counselors and North Korean human rights activists, distributing malware disguised as stress-relief programs," the Genians

Cyber threats didn’t slow down last week—and attackers are getting smarter. We’re seeing malware hidden in virtual machines, side-channel leaks exposing AI chats, and spyware quietly targeting Android devices in the wild. But that’s just the surface. From sleeper logic bombs to a fresh alliance between major threat groups, this week’s roundup highlights a clear shift: cybercrime is evolving fast

According to the new Browser Security Report 2025, security leaders are discovering that most identity, SaaS, and AI-related risks converge in a single place, the user’s browser. Yet traditional controls like DLP, EDR, and SSE still operate one layer too low. What’s emerging isn’t just a blindspot. It’s a parallel threat surface: unmanaged extensions acting like supply chain implants, GenAI

Cybersecurity researchers have called attention to a massive phishing campaign targeting the hospitality industry that lures hotel managers to ClickFix-style pages and harvest their credentials by deploying malware like PureRAT. "The attacker's modus operandi involved using a compromised email account to send malicious messages to multiple hotel establishments," Sekoia said. "This campaign

Cybersecurity researchers have disclosed a new set of three extensions associated with the GlassWorm campaign, indicating continued attempts on part of threat actors to target the Visual Studio Code (VS Code) ecosystem. The extensions in question, which are still available for download, are listed below - ai-driven-dev.ai-driven-dev (3,402 downloads) adhamu.history-in-sublime-merge (4,057

Microsoft has disclosed details of a novel side-channel attack targeting remote language models that could enable a passive adversary with capabilities to observe network traffic to glean details about model conversation topics despite encryption protections under certain circumstances. This leakage of data exchanged between humans and streaming-mode language models could pose serious risks to

A now-patched security flaw in Samsung Galaxy Android devices was exploited as a zero-day to deliver a "commercial-grade" Android spyware dubbed LANDFALL in targeted attacks in the Middle East. The activity involved the exploitation of CVE-2025-21042 (CVSS score: 8.8), an out-of-bounds write flaw in the "libimagecodec.quram.so" component that could allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary

A China-linked threat actor has been attributed to a cyber attack targeting an U.S. non-profit organization with an aim to establish long-term persistence, as part of broader activity aimed at U.S. entities that are linked to or involved in policy issues. The organization, according to a report from Broadcom's Symantec and Carbon Black teams, is "active in attempting to influence U.S. government

A set of nine malicious NuGet packages has been identified as capable of dropping time-delayed payloads to sabotage database operations and corrupt industrial control systems. According to software supply chain security company Socket, the packages were published in 2023 and 2024 by a user named "shanhai666" and are designed to run malicious code after specific trigger dates in August 2027 and

Commercial-grade LANDFALL spyware exploits CVE-2025-21042 in Samsung Android’s image processing library. The spyware was embedded in malicious DNG files. The post LANDFALL: New Commercial-Grade Android Spyware in Exploit Chain Targeting Samsung Devices appeared first on Unit 42.