Search/on technology
● Vendor

on technology

Known CVEs
0
Highest CVSS
—
In KEV
0
Vendor
meeting maker
Connections
24 relationships
Britain bets big on AI to defend against the threats AI is helping create
The UK government is throwing £130 million at AI-powered cyber defenses, including plans to deploy autonomous AI agents across critical infrastructure to hunt down security flaws before attackers get there first. The money is part of a wider £600 million-plus AI spending spree announced by the Treasury ahead of this week's Budget, with ministers also promising to tackle biological threats, bankroll British AI firms, and reduce the country's dependence on foreign technology. Of the cyber funding, £60 million will go towards a new National Cyber Shield that uses agentic AI to bolster Britain's defenses. That includes a £25 million challenge fund for UK cybersecurity firms and plans for a regulatory sandbox to test autonomous security tools across critical infrastructure, government and industry. Another £70 million will establish the National Exposure and Real-Time Vulnerability (NERV) Centre, using AI to sniff out vulnerabilities across Britain's infrastructure and wider economy. The announcement comes just days after the PHP2Shell security scare, which saw dozens of government websites taken offline after critical flaws were discovered in the widely used scripting language. Britain's National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) worked with OpenAI to coordinate disclosure of the PHP flaws and give affected vendors time to prepare fixes, after AI-assisted researchers uncovered the vulnerabilities. Whitehall has already been experimenting with AI-powered vulnerability hunting. AI minister Kanishka Narayan said last week that the technology had uncovered 500 previously unknown security flaws across significant parts of the public sector. It remains unclear how much freedom the new AI defenders will have to act without human intervention, or when they'll be deployed. Ciaran Martin, former head of the NCSC, welcomed the investment, pointing to the week's events as evidence that Britain needs to get its cyber defenses in order. "We need to padlock our systems, and harness AI for defense," he said. The Treasury is also handing another £120 million to the AI Security Institute (AISI), which tests advanced AI systems for dangerous capabilities and researches ways to keep them under control. Cybersecurity isn't the only threat keeping ministers busy. Another £165 million will fund a National AI Biosecurity Initiative, including £100 million for what the government claims will be the world's first dedicated AI Biosecurity Lab. The independent, non-profit lab will use frontier AI models to detect biological threats and accelerate the development of vaccines and treatments. OpenAI is contributing £100 million in compute and model credits, while Anthropic is offering up to £100 million in model credits, model access and technical support. Google DeepMind and British biotech firm Basecamp Research are also involved, while the remaining £65 million will go towards biosurveillance and medical countermeasures against dangerous pathogens. There's something for the homegrown AI industry, too. The government is adding £60 million to its Sovereign AI Fund to invest in British companies developing technologies including robotics and autonomous systems, plus another £60 million for AI research and development procurement. A further £18 million will fund an Advanced Chip Design Academy, intended to help Britain develop more of its own semiconductor expertise rather than relying quite so heavily on technology designed overseas. The package also includes £30 million for local AI partnerships, £15 million for an AI challenge prize initially focused on healthcare, and £23 million for research into AI's impact on jobs and the economy. Manchester will get a new NCSC AI Cyber Security Centre of Excellence to train government specialists. Additionally, ministers are setting aside £10 million a year to study how AI will reshape employment and industry, including the jobs it might make redundant. The government clearly has high hopes for AI. Whether the technology can live up to them without creating a fresh set of problems is another matter.®
theregister.comOct 26, 2026extracted
F5 speeds up virtual patching to counter AI-driven threats
F5 speeds up virtual patching to counter AI-driven threats F5 announced innovations to block frontier AI-driven threats in the data path and enable faster virtual patching, giving security leaders time to make intelligent risk-based decisions rather than reactive operational compromises. With new features such as anomaly detection and agentic threat intelligence, F5’s AI-powered web application firewall (WAF) is uniquely capable in delivering real-time protections because of its strategic position in customers’ infrastructure. Enhancements to F5 WAF for Distributed Cloud and virtual patching provide the precision needed to confidently block active exploits at the request level. “Frontier AI has collapsed the time between vulnerability discovery and active exploitation,” said Kunal Anand, CPO at F5. “The old model of waiting for code to be rewritten, tested, and redeployed cannot keep pace. F5 puts protection directly into the data path, where we can identify and block exploits in minutes. Virtual patching gives organizations something increasingly scarce in cybersecurity: time. Time to understand the risk, protect the business, and fix the underlying vulnerability without forcing teams into a permanent state of crisis.” F5 blocks exploits with runtime security, enabling customers to quickly deploy virtual patches. Introduced earlier this year, F5’s AI-powered WAF has already seen strong customer adoption. In internal F5 testing, the solution delivered 98% threat detection efficacy while reducing false positives to 1%, extending the F5 Application Delivery and Security Platform (ADSP) and giving teams confidence to convert scanner findings into enforced protection in minutes rather than weeks. F5 has enhanced its capabilities, adding anomaly detection and agentic threat intelligence to a WAF solution that evaluates requests inline using real-time machine learning classification and a neural network risk engine to assign a risk score to each request as it arrives. Scoring risk dynamically, rather than matching known signatures, allows the WAF to help defend against zero-day attempts, injection attacks, and polymorphic exploit chains that change shape on every attempt. In tailoring infrastructures for a post-Mythos world, F5 helps customers evolve their AI cybersecurity capabilities: Continually analyze traffic for attack signals Built directly into F5 WAF for Distributed Cloud, innovative anomaly detection is an intelligent, self-learning capability that continuously analyzes each application’s unique traffic patterns, establishing traffic norms and flagging meaningful deviations that could signal a pending attack. It builds per-application statistical baselines and, in real time, scores incoming requests against baselines to identify attacks and false positives. Anomaly detection provides security teams with more accurate protection for their apps without adding complexity. Prioritize potential exploits with agentic threat intelligence Security teams do not lack alerts. They lack context. New agentic threat intelligence capabilities, built on technology from the acquisition of Fletch, combine external intelligence on emerging and actively exploited threats with what F5 sees reaching customer applications. Teams get one view of which threats are real, which are relevant to their environment, and what to do about each one, with recommended mitigations that can be applied immediately as virtual patches. Enforce virtual patches in minutes Protection cannot wait for a code release. F5 also delivers automated virtual patching with F5 Distributed Cloud Web App Scanning (WAS). The solution identifies exposed vulnerabilities, unprotected APIs, and business logic flaws to trigger targeted virtual patches at runtime. For hybrid environments, these timely virtual patching capabilities also extend to F5 WAF for BIG-IP. Customers can apply existing signatures or write custom rules scoped to a specific CVE, attack path, method, header, or parameter across environments. Balance business risk with emerging threats False positives are the reason most WAFs sit in passive monitoring mode. F5 WAF for Distributed Cloud, through AI-powered risk-based scoring, reduces false positives to 1%, giving SecOps the confidence to start blocking risky traffic sooner without affecting application availability. Virtual patching using F5 WAF for Distributed Cloud then acts as a safety valve, holding protection in place while developers build, test, and release a permanent fix inside standard change controls. Extend remediation to the F5 estate While virtual patching holds the line in the request path, F5 Insight for ADSP accelerates patching of the underlying infrastructure. F5 Insight gives operations teams supported update and patching workflows across F5 hardware and software environments with readiness checks, taking advantage of F5’s updated hardened release cadence. Together, these capabilities mitigate exposure in minutes and remediate the fleet on a preferred schedule. New AI-powered WAF capabilities are available now on Distributed Cloud as part of the F5 ADSP. Virtual patching capabilities, along with the integration between F5 Distributed Cloud WAS and F5 WAF for BIG-IP, are also available now. Agentic threat intelligence and anomaly detection are rolling out to F5 WAF for Distributed Cloud customers, with broader availability continuing over the coming months.
helpnetsecurity.comSep 2, 2026extracted
Cloud operations become the next big role for agentic AI
Cloud operations become the next big role for agentic AI Companies are using agentic AI to manage growing application environments, automate routine tasks, and support decisions. Business and IT leaders increasingly see the technology as part of cloud application management, according to Unisys’ AI & Cloud Insights Report. To what extent do the following factors limit your organization’s ability to scale agentic AI safely? (Chart shows those answering “moderate/major limitation.”) (Source: Unisys) Most organizations remain in testing or early deployment. Nearly one quarter have started scaling agentic AI across business functions. Early uses center on employee productivity and cloud management. Spending plans show continued interest, with half of respondents planning higher investment during the next year. Successful deployment depends on preparation. Companies reported progress in identifying priority use cases, securing executive support, training employees, working with technology vendors, and setting governance rules. These efforts support broader agentic AI deployment across departments and workflows. “The organizations winning right now have figured out how to turn what they already have into outcomes their boards can see and measure. The technology itself matters less than the discipline to act on it,” said Mike Thomson, CEO and President at Unisys. The main concerns involve day-to-day control. Organizations cited limited visibility into the location of data and AI workloads, cloud security, provider concentration, and regulatory uncertainty. Business leaders reported higher concern across the measured risk categories. Concerns about trust and employment have declined. Fewer respondents linked agentic AI to job displacement, bias, hallucinations, or limited human empathy. Experience with the technology has moved attention toward deployment rules, workload oversight, and access controls. Infrastructure supports wider AI use Confidence in data architecture and automation has increased. Most business and IT leaders said they have the architecture and tools needed to support data-driven decisions. Nine in 10 organizations said they are using automation to streamline and optimize IT environments. Operational performance exceeded expectations at a smaller share of organizations than in the previous survey. A shortage of skilled workers and data management and integration remain the leading IT issues. Investment plans remain active across cloud infrastructure, cloud applications, automation, generative AI, and zero trust. Organizations are using more public and private cloud services. Edge, sovereign, and industry cloud environments have gained use in sectors with specific data, location, and compliance requirements. Expanding cloud environments add management demands. Each platform can introduce separate controls, data locations, service dependencies, and access rules. Companies need consistent oversight across these environments to support cloud operations and AI workloads. Application work stays focused on technology Application modernization efforts focus on technical upgrades and AI support. Enabling AI and automation ranks near the top of the stated objectives, followed by resilience, cost reduction, customer experience, and speed to market. Integration with existing systems remains the leading application strategy challenge. Legacy systems, technical debt, and ongoing optimization work also slow projects. Many companies are moving older applications to cloud environments and adapting them for cloud-native use. Keeping older systems in operation leaves services spread across legacy, cloud, and hybrid environments. This adds dependencies and makes application management harder. Retiring more legacy applications could help reduce that complexity. Security controls guide AI deployment Agentic AI gives software systems access to enterprise data, applications, and business processes, increasing the need for identity controls, access management, workload visibility, and defined limits on system authority. Nearly half of surveyed organizations experienced a cybersecurity breach during the prior year. They are using managed detection and response, identity governance, privileged access management, and continuous threat exposure management to support security operations. Cloud security capabilities influence the amount of autonomy organizations assign to AI systems. Data sovereignty requirements affect workload locations, with regional deployment serving as a common response. Security and governance controls are becoming part of AI planning from the start. These controls set rules for data access, system authority, workload placement, and accountability. Respondents expect these controls to limit agentic AI deployment in the near term. The same controls provide the operating boundaries needed for wider use across business functions.
helpnetsecurity.comJul 22, 2026extracted
Indian auto giant Bajaj Auto hit by ransomware incident
Indian auto giant Bajaj Auto hit by ransomware incident India's automotive giant Bajaj Auto disclosed on Tuesday that it had been hit by a ransomware attack affecting its operations and a technology-focused subsidiary. The company said in a regulatory filing that it became aware of the incident on Tuesday morning and had taken precautionary measures to contain its impact. It added that its technical team and cybersecurity experts responded immediately and that mitigation efforts had so far been "successful." Bajaj Auto did not disclose the identity of the threat actor behind the attack, whether any data was stolen or whether the attackers had issued a ransom demand. The company did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The incident affected systems at Bajaj Auto and Bajaj Auto Technology Limited, a subsidiary focused on technology development, engineering and research. Bajaj Auto is one of India's largest vehicle manufacturers, producing motorcycles, scooters and commercial vehicles. The company is also the world's largest manufacturer of three-wheelers, commonly known as auto-rickshaws. The disclosure comes amid a series of cyber incidents involving major Indian manufacturers. Earlier this week, Tata Electronics confirmed a cybersecurity incident after a cybercrime group published what it claimed were confidential documents stolen from the company. The authenticity of the purportedly leaked files has not been independently verified. The extortion group linked to that incident, known as World Leaks, has previously claimed attacks on organizations in the manufacturing, healthcare, technology, consumer services and energy sectors. While many of its alleged victims are based in the United States, the group has also targeted organizations in Europe, Canada and India. There is no indication so far that the ransomware attack on Bajaj Auto is connected to the Tata Electronics incident. Daryna Antoniuk is a reporter for Recorded Future News based in Ukraine. She writes about cybersecurity startups, cyberattacks in Eastern Europe and the state of the cyberwar between Ukraine and Russia. She previously was a tech reporter for Forbes Ukraine. Her work has also been published at Sifted, The Kyiv Independent and The Kyiv Post.
therecord.mediaJun 24, 2026extracted
Dream Raises $260 Million at $3 Billion Valuation
Israeli cybersecurity startup Dream today announced raising $260 million in a new funding round that brings the company’s valuation to $3 billion. The company’s latest investment round was co-led by Bicycle Capital and Group 11, with additional support from Antler, Bain Capital Ventures, Tru Arrow Partners, and other investors. To date, the firm has raised over $410 million. Founded in 2023, Dream has offices in Tel Aviv, Vienna, and Abu Dhabi, and plans to use the fresh funds to accelerate the deployment of its platform across Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and the Americas. The company was founded by Shalev Hulio, former CEO and founder of the controversial spyware maker NSO Group; Sebastian Kurz, former Prime Minister of Austria; and cybersecurity expert and entrepreneur Gil Dolev, who serves as Dream’s CTO. The startup has built three sovereign AI and national cyber defense platforms: Sphere, which defends against nation-state cyber threats; Hero, an autonomous AI security researcher hunting for vulnerabilities and exposures; and Atlas, which connects fragmented national data. Sphere delivers a national cyber defense system that combines AI-driven detection and response with cyber intelligence, attack path analysis, digital twin technology, and exposure management. Hero autonomously searches for security defects and attack paths, and reasons like an attacker to prevent sophisticated cyber threats, continuously stress-testing defenses. Atlas, Dream’s sovereign AI platform, allows governments to transform national data into structured knowledge, deploy mission-specific AI agents and models, and gain actionable insights within secure environments they control. “Every nation has data. Few can protect it. Fewer can use it. Sovereign AI is the key. We built Dream to help governments secure their information, transform it into knowledge, and convert that knowledge into national capability. The future of a nation should never depend on technology it does not control,” said CEO Hulio. Related: Magnitude Emerges From Stealth Mode With $10 Million in Funding Related: Endpoint Security Startup Ent Emerges From Stealth With $100 Million Seed Round Related: NewCore Emerges From Stealth Mode With $66 Million in Funding
securityweek.comJun 18, 2026extracted
GCHQ Chief Urges Action as AI Reshapes Cyber Threats
UK businesses have been urged to treat cyber security with far greater urgency as artificial intelligence (AI) rapidly reshapes the threats facing the country and its allies. Anne Keast-Butler, director of GCHQ, the UK’s top intelligence agency, issued the warning during the agency's first annual lecture at Bletchley Park on May 27. In a rare public speech, she said the UK and its allies face a narrowing window to stay ahead on technology, and that the risk of miscalculation is as high as she has seen in three decades in national security. The intervention follows a similar message last month from Richard Horne, head of the UK's National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) who said that fast-moving AI developments and geopolitical tensions are causing "tumultuous uncertainty.” A Front-Line Role for Business Keast-Butler framed cybersecurity as a matter of national defense rather than an IT concern, telling businesses to act immediately rather than wait for guidance to mature. She argued that protecting systems now serves the "front-line defense of our nation, our economy and our way of life." The point was aimed squarely at boardrooms, with the Keast-Butler stressing that everyone from company directors to households has a part to play. Much of the danger, she said, stems from the speed of AI development. Vendors are releasing AI tools at a remarkable pace, and the resulting capabilities are being turned into weapons that operate just beneath the threshold of open warfare. Industry voices welcomed the framing. Patricia Titus, field CISO at Abnormal AI, said the move was the right one because the era of meeting automated attacks with human-paced defenses is over. "You cannot fight machine-speed attacks with human-speed defenses," Titus said. She added that resilience is now as much a leadership problem as a technical one, since AI-powered threats do not wait for the next budget cycle. Preparing for AI and Quantum To keep pace, GCHQ said it has drawn up plans for what officials describe as a world-first national cyber defense capability that builds agentic AI into machine-speed defense. According to briefing details, the system would use AI agents to detect and flag threats to critical national infrastructure, airlines and telecoms firms. It is expected to be operational within five years. The agency is also embedding frontier AI deeper into its own work to translate languages and surface intelligence faster. Not everyone was reassured by the timeline. Jon Abbott, CEO and co-founder of ThreatAware, said the five-year horizon was startling in an era when frontier models will find and exploit gaps at machine speed long before any shield is in place. The practical lesson for infrastructure operators and businesses, he argued, is to fix the basics rather than wait. "Your critical controls, EDR, web proxy and MFA, need zero gaps now, not in five years," Abbott said. Keast-Butler also pointed to quantum computing as the next disruption, warning that operational machines will eventually break the encryption that protects today's secrets. She repeated the NCSC's call for organizations to begin migrating to quantum-resistant cryptography within the timelines the it has set. She singled out Russia for scaling up daily hybrid activity against the UK and Europe, from undersea cables to cyberspace, alongside attempts to smuggle Western technology. China, she added, has become a technology superpower with advanced cyber and intelligence capabilities. For individuals, the director's advice was more immediate: switch from passwords to passkeys. For wider society, she said, the task is to hardwire security into new technology, protect supply chains and treat cyber resilience as a shared responsibility before any escalation arrives.
infosecurity-magazine.comMay 28, 2026extracted
Cyberattack Hits Canvas System Used by Thousands of Schools as Finals Loom
A system that thousands of schools and universities use was offline Thursday during a cyberattack, creating chaos as students tried to study for finals and underscoring education’s dependence on technology. The hacking group named ShinyHunters claimed responsibility for the breach at Canvas, said Luke Connolly, a threat analyst at the cybersecurity firm Emisoft. Instructure, the company behind Canvas, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment or questions about whether the system was taken down as a precaution or because the hackers knocked it offline. Canvas is used to manage grades, course notes, assignments, lecture videos and more. The hacking group posted online that nearly 9,000 schools worldwide were affected, with billions of private messages and other records accessed, Connolly said. Students quickly took to social media to ask if others were unable to access Canvas, with many panicking that they could no longer view course materials housed within the platform to study for their final exams. Screen shots Connolly provided showed that the group began threatening Sunday to leak the trove of data, giving deadlines of Thursday and May 12. Connolly said the later date indicates that discussions regarding extortion payments may be ongoing. Rich in digitized data, the nation’s schools are prime targets for far-flung criminal hackers, who are assiduously locating and scooping up sensitive files that not long ago were committed to paper in locked cabinets. Past attacks have hit Minneapolis Public Schools and the Los Angeles Unified School District. Instructure has not posted about the attack on its social media. Connolly said the Canvas attack is strikingly similar to a breach at PowerSchool, which also offers learning management tools. In that case a Massachusetts college student was charged. Connolly described ShinyHunters as a loose affiliation of teenagers and young adults based in the U.S. and the United Kingdom. The group also has been tied to a other attacks, including one aimed at Live Nation’s Ticketmaster subsidiary. Universities and school districts quickly began notifying students and parents. “This is being reported as a national-level cyber-security incident,” the director of information technology at the University of Iowa’s College of Public Health wrote in announcing that the school’s online system was down. “Hopefully we will have a resolution soon.” Virginia Tech acknowledged in a notice to students that the administration was aware of the effect on final exams and other end-of-semester activities. The University of New Mexico sent a similar message to the campus community, and the University of Florida urged students to stay alert for any phishing messages that appear to be from Canvas. Teachers say they are having to find workarounds to help students study for exams and submit final assignments. Damon Linker, a senior lecturer in the political science department at the University of Pennsylvania, said in a post on the social media platform X that his students had been relying on Canvas to access every reading from the semester and all of his lecture slides before their Monday final exams. The outage leaves students and faculty “dead in the water here in academia right now,” he said. The student newspaper at Harvard reported that the system there was down as well. Students at Johns Hopkins University simply got an error message when trying to view their final grades on the platform Thursday. And public school districts also sought to reassure parents, with officials in Spokane, Washington, writing that they aren’t “aware of any sensitive data contained in this breach.” Some schools, such as the University of Texas at San Antonio, announced they were pushing back finals scheduled for Friday in response to the outage.
securityweek.comMay 8, 2026extracted
Bitdefender extends GravityZone with continuous email threat protection
Bitdefender extends GravityZone with continuous email threat protection Bitdefender has launched GravityZone Extended Email Security, unifying email and endpoint protection in one platform. Built for organizations and MSPs, it uses an ICES approach to deliver continuous protection against modern email threats, including phishing, BEC, ransomware, impersonation, and insider attacks. “Email threats are growing more sophisticated and effective as total business email compromise-related payments crossed the $6 billion threshold in 2024,” according to Gartner. In a global survey of 1,200 IT and security professionals, 42% identified BEC as the greatest threat to their organization, while 66% reported an increase in these types of attacks. Legacy email security solutions often focus on pre-delivery filtering, leaving gaps once threats reach user inboxes. Siloed email and endpoint security tools further create blind spots attackers exploit, increasing dwell time and delaying detection. Bitdefender GravityZone Extended Email Security is a native email security solution that closes this gap by combining secure email gateway (SEG) filtering with API-based post-delivery protection. This dual-layer approach stops threats before delivery and continuously detects and remediates them after they reach inboxes, helping ensure complete protection across the email threat lifecycle. The solution builds on technology gained through Bitdefender’s acquisition of Mesh Security, further strengthening its email protection capabilities. Integrated into Bitdefender GravityZone, the company’s unified security, risk analytics, and compliance platform, GravityZone Extended Email Security extends protection from endpoint to inbox. It integrates seamlessly into existing environments, enabling rapid deployment and time to value. Key Benefits of GravityZone Extended Email Security include: Unified email and endpoint protection – GravityZone Extended Email Security uses artificial intelligence (AI) and real-time threat intelligence to stop phishing, BEC, impersonation, ransomware, and other advanced threats. Emails are inspected before delivery and continuously monitored after delivery, enabling automated quarantine and remediation to reduce dwell time and limit user exposure. Consolidates tools and reduces security team workload – The platform streamlines security management by unifying tools and automating detection and response across the email attack chain. Continuous monitoring and automated remediation reduce manual effort and improve response times. Improves efficiency and scales security operations – Built for modern environments and service delivery models, GravityZone Extended Email Security enables efficient, scalable security for businesses and MSPs. Centralized management, continuous policy enforcement, and streamlined workflows support multi-tenant environments and simplify security across distributed infrastructures. Flexible deployment across any environment – Organizations and MSPs can deploy the solution as a SEG across Microsoft 365, hybrid, and diverse environments, with API-based and combined deployment models supported for Microsoft 365. “Cybercriminals continue to rely on email as a primary attack vector, requiring organizations to adopt stronger, more integrated defenses that reduce risk without adding complexity,” said Andrei Florescu, president and GM of Bitdefender Business Solutions Group. “GravityZone Extended Email Security eliminates visibility and detection gaps across the full email attack chain, delivering powerful inbox protection before and after delivery to help organizations and MSPs stay ahead as attacks evolve.”
helpnetsecurity.comApr 15, 2026extracted
We Are At War
Rising geopolitical tensions are reflected (or in some cases preceded) by cyber operations, while technology itself has become politicized. Let’s admit it: we are in the middle of it. Introduction: One tech power to rule them all is a thing of the past The relative safety, peace and prosperity that much of the world has enjoyed since 1945 was not accidental. It emerged from the ashes of two world wars and the deliberate construction of a new global order. The United States of America set the terms of this new world. The long peace under Pax Americana provided a stable foundation, but that foundation is shifting. Europe’s deep strategic dependence on the U.S.’s technological and cybersecurity capabilities, from intelligence and infrastructure to frameworks and funding, is now being tested. Those tectonic geopolitical changes are undermining trust, threatening the state of safety, and compelling European organizations to rethink digital architectures and approaches at every level. All technology is considered political and is involved as a weapon, a target, or a lever in geopolitical conflict. As a political entity increases its reliance on technology platforms, it increases its exposure to technical power projection, enabling cyber and psychological operations, misinformation campaigns, and other forms of power projection. Welcome to the jungle (again) The contemporary threat landscape is not a simple product of the whims or choices of criminal hackers and other threat actors. Instead, there is a diversity of actors - both benign and malicious - that have an influence. Those actors operate within a context that is, in turn, defined by the complex interactions between yet another set of systemic forces. To understand the threat landscape, we must therefore consider all the systemic factors that shape it, as well as the actors that operate within it. In our research efforts, we keep assessing how political, economic, social, and technological factors influence operations and risks. State Actors and Critical Infrastructure Night Dragon (mid-2000s onward): A China-linked campaign against energy and defense firms globally illustrated the move from opportunistic hacking to long-dwell, state-sponsored industrial espionage [1]. Volt Typhoon Botnet Disruption (Jan 2024): The U.S. government announced a court-authorized operation to dismantle a botnet of compromised routers used by the Chinese state-sponsored group Volt Typhoon in pre-positioning within U.S. critical infrastructure [2]. Salt Typhoon Telecom Breaches (Oct 2024): A global compromise of major telecom networks, attributed to the Chinese-linked group Salt Typhoon, exposed how state actors could access the communications of government officials and a multitude of civilians [3]. U.S. Advisory on Critical Infrastructure Targeting (Feb 2024): The U.S. and allied agencies issue a joint advisory declaring that Volt Typhoon had compromised IT networks across communications, energy, transport, and water sectors, marking a milestone in recognizing state cyber power as a strategic threat [4]. State-linked cyber operations have remained active with a primary focus on intelligence collection and occasional disruptive actions used for signaling, amid a backdrop of information operations that vary widely in scale and intensity [5]. Attack methods are concentrating on identity and the edge [6]. Recent reporting also describes stealthy backdoors placed on appliances and virtualization platforms to maintain access for many months without noisy malware [7]. In parallel, rapid exploitation of 0-day and n-day vulnerabilities in perimeter appliances remains common, and supplier and service-provider pathways continue to feature prominently in incident trends [8]. Security Navigator 2026 is Here - Download Now The newly released Security Navigator 2026 offers critical insights into current digital threats, documenting 139,373 incidents and 19,053 confirmed breaches. More than just a report, it serves as a guide to navigating a safer digital landscape. What's Inside? 📈 In-Depth Analysis: Statistics from CyberSOC, Vulnerabilitiy scanning, Pentesting, CERT, Cy-X and Ransomware observations from Dark Net surveillance. 🔮 Future-Ready: Equip yourself with security predictions and stories from the field. 🧠 Stories from security practitioners across the world. 👁️ Security deep-dives: Get briefed on emerging trends related to Generative AI, Operational Technology and post-quantum cryptography. Stay one step ahead in cybersecurity. Your essential guide awaits! Targeting remains concentrated on government and telecommunications, with repeated activity against defense-linked networks [9]. High-tech sectors, notably semiconductors, also saw focused campaigns in 2025 [10]. The seam between enterprise IT and OT in industrial environments remains a concern, with pivots into plant and field systems where monitoring is limited and safety constraints slow response. Open reporting also indicates continued use of commercial spyware by government clients, with fresh forensic cases against journalists in 2025 [11]. This state-linked picture is only part of the landscape. Non-state actors, as well as criminals and hacktivists, increasingly operate alongside or in the wake of state campaigns. Hacktivists: From Cyberspace Vigilantes To State-Aligned Bullies 7 April 2025: Attackers seized control of the Bremanger dam in Norway, opened floodgates, and released 500 litres of water per second for four hours. Later attributed to Russian hackers by Norway’s security service [12]. 7 May 2025: The National Cyber Security Center (UK) reports that the pro-Russian hacktivist group NoName057(16) had claimed a three-day DDoS campaign against several UK public sector websites [13]. 17 June 2025: Predatory Sparrow claims to have destroyed data at the Iranian state-owned Bank Sepah, causing outages for customers [14] 16 July 2025: Europol announces that the global “Operation Eastwood” disrupted the infrastructure of NoName057(16), marking a coordinated law-enforcement action against a hacktivist network [15]. 14 August 2025: Norway’s intelligence service publicly attributes the dam intrusion and rising threat of pro-Russian cyber actors to the event. [16] 29 October 2025: The Canadian Center for Cyber Security alerts that hacktivist groups had breached water, energy, and agricultural OT/ICS systems in Canada, manipulating water pressure, temperature, and humidity levels [17]. As we’ve previously reported [18], hacktivism has entered its “establishment” era. Once a form of digital protest directed against institutions of power, it has evolved into a complex ecosystem of state-aligned and ideologically driven actors that often serve as informal extensions of geopolitical influence. The term “hacktivism” itself today conceals more than it reveals. It no longer refers simply to fringe collectives with political messages, but to distributed, collaborative movements capable of real-world disruption and widespread cognitive manipulation. We increasingly see boundaries between hackers, activists, and state actors dissolving. Groups such as NoName057(16) and Killnet operate independently, but in support of their host states, attacking adversarial governments and institutions while maintaining plausible deniability for their state beneficiaries. Recent events illustrate the implications of this shift. Distributed-denial-of-service operations remain the most visible form of hacktivism, yet the targets and intent are changing. Campaigns by pro-Russian groups in 2025 disrupted British public services and European infrastructure, not for ransom or data theft but to broadcast political narratives and erode confidence in institutions [19]. In Norway, attackers remotely manipulated a valve at the Bremanger dam, prompting fears of cyber-physical escalation [20]. Around the same time, a Russian-aligned group claimed access to a water-utility system (though that later proved to be a security honeypot) [21]. More recently, Canadian authorities have reported that hacktivist groups breached critical infrastructure, including water, energy and agricultural sites [22]. The attacks involved tampering with pressure valves at a water facility, manipulating an automated tank gauge at an oil and gas company and exploiting temperature and humidity levels at a grain silo on a farm. The symbolism of these incidents is as potent as the technical impact, demonstrating reach into critical systems, even when the damage is contained, and catalyzes exactly the kind of panicked narratives the actors desire. The risk is twofold. First, the risk of serious cyber-physical attacks is growing. While most hacktivist incidents remain low impact, the “addiction” of hacktivist groups to increased visibility and impact suggests they will continue to seek bigger and bolder opportunities. The growing familiarity of such groups with industrial and operational technology increases the likelihood of genuine harm. Attacks that were once digital graffiti could, by accident or intent, evolve into events with physical consequences. Second, the convergence of criminal, ideological, and state interests creates a synergy between information operations and infrastructure attacks. The target is no longer a single system but the public mind: to exhaust trust, polarize societies, and reshape narratives. Cyber Extortion Is Still the Big Gorilla 20 March 2024: The Bundeskriminalamt (BKA, German Federal Criminal Police), together with Frankfurt’s ZIT cyber-unit, conducted a takedown of the darknet marketplace “Nemesis Market”, seizing infrastructure in Germany and Lithuania [23]. 30 May 2024: Authorities participating in Operation ENDGAME announce arrests of four suspects in Ukraine and Armenia, the takedown of internet servers and control of domains tied to botnets [24]. December 2024: The Cl0p ransomware gang launched a major campaign exploiting a zero-day vulnerability in Cleo managed file-transfer software, leading to hundreds of victims [25]. 14 January 2025: The UK Home Office publishes a consultation paper proposing a targeted ban on ransomware payments by all UK public sector bodies and critical national infrastructure and introducing mandatory incident-reporting for ransomware events [26]. 19-22 May 2025: In the latest phase of Operation ENDGAME, law-enforcement agencies dismantle servers, neutralize domains, and issue arrest warrants for 20 suspects [27]. June 2025: A follow-up to Operation ENDGAME results in additional actions and detentions targeting successor groups and affiliates of initial-access ecosystems [28]. 22 July 2025: The UK government announces its formal intention to ban public bodies from paying ransoms, and to legislate for mandatory reporting of incidents and payments [29]. 11 August 2025: The US Department of Justice announces a coordinated disruption of the ransomware group BlackSuit (Royal), involving multiple countries [30]. Cyber extortion attacks have expanded to nearly every region and every size of business. Where large firms in developed economies previously dominated statistics, victims this year include firms in countries added to our extortion datasets for the first time. The entry costs for attackers have plummeted thanks to the commoditization of malware-as-a-service, initial access brokers, and cryptocurrency-enabled monetization. A single vulnerability in commonly used software can yield hundreds or thousands of victims overnight, as seen when Cl0p exploited another file-transfer platform to trigger the largest wave of victims we’ve ever recorded [31]. Our data shows not only more victims, but also more actors. The victims-per-actor ratio has increased, suggesting that extortion groups are operating at a greater scale and with greater reuse of infrastructure. We observe three key trends: Despite years of focus and substantial investment in defensive controls, the number of victims continues to rise [32]. Ransomware and extortion attacks now represent a dominant share of cyber incidents, often accounting for more than a third of losses and exhibiting growth measured in multiples since the late 2010s [33]. The techniques used by threat actors are, in many cases, well-known, straightforward, and theoretically avoidable [34]. Phishing, stolen credentials, unpatched systems, and misconfigured file-transfer appliances feature prominently in breach post-mortems. Yet these attacks persist and succeed, even when the theoretical controls exist. This points to a deeper problem than individual technical weakness. The ecosystem behind these attacks is evolving rapidly. Our reporting shows that the cyber extortion ecosystem has matured into a decentralized, professionalized network of affiliates, service-providers, and facilitators, using the lowest cost, highest leverage vectors available. While we found that law enforcement and governments are responding more assertively, they must overcome jurisdictional fragmentation, safe-haven states, and an adversary that shifts shape and label constantly. The fact that many of the techniques used in Cy-X compromises are “familiar, predictable and defeatable”, yet somehow remain effective, requires urgent reflection. The recent breach at a major aerospace company - in which attackers accessed a server with old credentials, stole data, and followed up with a second ransomware team on the same system - illustrates how basic processes can fail at multiple layers [35]. If we know how to patch, how to secure credential access, how to maintain offline backups, and how to train staff, then why do firms keep falling victim? The explanation may consider three broad theories. Firstly, many organizations simply adopt security technologies or controls that are inexpensive, unwieldy, or poorly aligned with their context. The tools may be present in theory, but fail in practice. Secondly, maybe the adoption rate of basic cyber-hygiene practices remains patchy, especially among smaller firms and in developing economies. This leaves a wide attack surface still to be exploited. Finally, we may have placed too much faith in preventing breaches when today’s environment also demands robust detection, response, and recovery capabilities. Several major jurisdictions now participate regularly in multinational takedowns, arrests, and indictments. However, despite the increased volume of actions, the Cy-X ecosystem remains resilient. Some states tolerate or even shield domestic cyber-criminals, creating safe havens that thwart global efforts [36]. The net effect is that law enforcement action alone, while necessary, cannot tip the balance without significantly improved coordination, sustained pressure, and the elimination of safe havens. A wholly new form of collaboration is required that is more reminiscent of a wartime society, in which a mutual adversary and shared goals surface a unique and authentic form of public-private partnership. Cyber extortion is not a niche threat that will fade. It is a systemic challenge that will continue to grow unless we change how we think, defend, respond and collaborate. We have the technical knowledge and the policy tools. The challenge is to achieve collective execution at scale, global coordination, and the political will to treat this threat as the societal hazard it has become. Conclusion: Hacktivists, Criminals, and Everything in Between Hacktivism and the cyber landscape in general arguably reflect the political moment now more than ever before. It mirrors a world where conflict is constant, boundaries are porous, and narratives are as contested as territory. For security leaders, this is no longer a technical nuisance to be filtered or patched away. It is a strategic threat that must be met with shared awareness, cross-sector coordination, and a recognition that cybersecurity is inseparable from societal security. Clearly, every organization must assume it is a target and prepare accordingly. Prevention remains essential, but so too does resilience through detection, incident response and recovery. Table-top exercises, live-fire rehearsal of recovery from backup systems and transparent post-breach introspection must become standard business practice. But businesses cannot individually repel these implacable adversaries. Defending against all classes of threats requires more than technical resilience, it demands a societal approach. Companies and governments must acknowledge that the target is often collective cohesion and confidence. Keeping a website online during a DDoS attack does not sufficiently address the wider objective of undermining civic or institutional legitimacy. Collaboration between public and private sectors must therefore extend beyond incident response into coordinated communication, education, and cognitive defense. The challenge is not only to secure systems but to preserve the coherence of the societies that depend on them. This opinion piece was brought to you by Charl van der Walt, Head of Security Research at Orange Cyberdefense and uses excerpts and sources from the Security Navigator 2026. If you want to explore some of these topics in more depth, head over to the Navigator page and download your copy of the full report. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Dragon_Operation [2] https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/us-government-disrupts-botnet-peoples-republic-china-used-conceal-hacking-critical [3] https://www.reuters.com/technology/cybersecurity/us-adds-9th-telcom-list-companies-hacked-by-chinese-backed-salt-typhoon-2024-12-27/ [4] https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa24-038a [5] https://therecord.media/ukraine-takes-steps-dedicated-cyber-force [6] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/blog/2025/02/13/storm-2372-conducts-device-code-phishing-campaign/ [7] https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/threat-intelligence/brickstorm-espionage-campaign [8] https://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/m-trends-2025-en.pdf [9] https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa25-239a [10] https://www.proofpoint.com/us/blog/threat-insight/phish-china-aligned-espionage-actors-ramp-up-taiwan-semiconductor-targeting [11] https://securitylab.amnesty.org/latest/2025/03/journalists-targeted-with-pegasus-spyware/ [12] https://www.reuters.com/technology/norway-spy-chief-blames-russian-hackers-dam-sabotage-april-2025-08-13/ [13] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/may/07/pro-russian-hackers-claim-to-have-targeted-several-uk-websites [14] https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/suspected-israeli-hackers-claim-destroy-data-irans-bank-sepah-2025-06-17/ [15] https://www.europol.europa.eu/media-press/newsroom/news/global-operation-targets-noname05716-pro-russian-cybercrime-network [16] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/14/russian-hackers-control-norwegian-dam-norway [17] https://www.cyber.gc.ca/en/alerts-advisories/al25-016-internet-accessible-industrial-control-systems-ics-abused-hacktivists [18] https://www.orangecyberdefense.com/global/white-papers/security-navigator-2025 [19] https://www.thehackacademy.com/news/pro-russian-hacktivists-launch-ddos-blitz-on-uk-councils-and-agencies-but-impact-remains-limited/ [20] https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/pro-russian-hackers-blamed-for-water-dam-sabotage-in-norway/ [21] https://www.forescout.com/blog/anatomy-of-a-hacktivist-attack-russian-aligned-group-targets-otics/ [22] https://www.cyber.gc.ca/en/alerts-advisories/al25-016-internet-accessible-industrial-control-systems-ics-abused-hacktivists [23] https://www.bka.de/DE/Presse/Listenseite_Pressemitteilungen/2024/Presse2024/240321_PM_Nemesis_Market.html [24] https://thehackernews.com/2025/05/300-servers-and-35m-seized-as-europol.html [25] https://thehackernews.com/2024/12/cleo-file-transfer-vulnerability-under.html [26] https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/news/your-say-proposals-to-counter-ransomware [27] https://www.europol.europa.eu/media-press/newsroom/news/operation-endgame-strikes-again-ransomware-kill-chain-broken-its-source [28] https://eucrim.eu/news/operation-endgame-targets-initial-access-malware/ [29] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-to-lead-crackdown-on-cyber-criminals-with-ransomware-measures [30] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-coordinated-disruption-actions-against-blacksuit-royal [31] https://blog.checkpoint.com/research/the-state-of-ransomware-in-the-first-quarter-of-2025-a-126-increase-in-ransomware-yoy/ [32] https://reports.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_Cybersecurity_Outlook_2025.pdf [33] https://www.cyentia.com/iris-ransomware/ [34] https://www.cyentia.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/IRIS_Ransomware.pdf [35] https://www.bankinfosecurity.com/more-collins-aerospace-hacking-fallout-a-29848 [36] https://assets.recordedfuture.com/insikt-report-pdfs/2025/cta-ru-2025-1022.pdf Note: This article was expertly written and contributed by Charl an der Walt, Head of Security Research at Orange Cyberdefense.
thehackernews.comMar 27, 2026extracted
Imprivata enhances NHS access security with passwordless controls
Imprivata enhances NHS access security with passwordless controls Imprivata has introduced new capabilities designed to help NHS organisations and UK healthcare providers meet the unique demands of the UK’s evolving compliance, cybersecurity, data protection landscape, including the Cyber Assessment Framework (CAF)-aligned Data Security and Protection Toolkit (DSPT) and Care Identity Service (Spine) Authentication. Imprivata Enterprise Access Management (EAM) offers context-aware passwordless authentication, high-assurance identity verification, and AI-powered behavioral analytics, expanding the company’s leading solutions for improving workflow productivity while meeting the unique demands of the UK’s evolving compliance, cybersecurity, and data protection landscape. “Providers and Trusts across the NHS system continue to rely on Imprivata to deliver solutions that remove workflow friction while bolstering security. As UK healthcare organisations face evolving compliance and operational challenges, our expanded EAM platform will help them meet these new requirements while ensuring clinicians have fast, seamless access to the resources they need to care for patients,” said Fran Rosch, CEO of Imprivata. “Imprivata EAM delivers these workflow, security, and compliance benefits from a single, comprehensive platform, which also helps reduce cost and drive meaningful return on technology investment, which is critical as budgets continue to tighten,” Rosch continued. Addressing UK-Specific identity and access challenges UK health and care systems are under increasing pressure to adopt modern, standards-based approaches to identity, authentication, and access control, while demonstrating compliance to national assurance frameworks such as the CAF-aligned DSPT and NHS England Spine Authentication, a standards-based identity authentication service. These and other initiatives underscore the need for strong authentication and access management practices across NHS organisations. The new EAM functionality delivers tailored capabilities that support NHS identity and cyber security priorities: CAF-aligned DSPT & identity assurance: Advanced access management and passwordless authentication help NHS organisations strengthen identity assurance, reduce reliance on shared credentials, and demonstrate multi-factor authentication (MFA) controls required under regional requirements such as the CAF-aligned DSPT. This includes detailed reporting and audit trails to support toolkit submission and independent assessment evidence. Seamless passwordless experience: Clinicians and care staff benefit from friction-free, secure login methods that reduce login fatigue, increase productivity, and align with NHS workforce needs. These options support the wide range of authenticators and help drive adoption of secure access without compromising user experience. Role-based access and audit-ready controls: Built-in role and attribute-aware policies ensure that authenticated users are granted precisely the access they need, helping NHS organisations demonstrate cyber framework compliant access control and accountability while reducing the surface for misuse or lateral movement. Imprivata EAM addresses these challenges by delivering a unified access management platform to support all enterprise users and workflows while also enabling a seamless, consistent user experience. The platform supports a wide variety of authenticator options and combinations to give users the flexibility to meet their specific requirements and preferences. Platform capabilities include: Advanced passwordless authentication, including support for integrated face authentication technology to improve security while simplifying access for users High-assurance identity verification to enable secure onboarding, help desk authentication, and self-service password reset Risk signaling and behavioral analytics to determine and respond to potential security threats associated with users accessing corporate resources Secure access for VPN-less remote access built on Zero Trust principles to provide a seamless experience for users outside the network Operational analytics that provide near real-time workflow and access data to drive more informed, strategic decisions
helpnetsecurity.comMar 17, 2026extracted
A hard truth in Munich: Cyber defense runs through Silicon Valley
A hard truth in Munich: Cyber defense runs through Silicon Valley MUNICH, Germany — At the Munich Cyber Security Conference on Thursday, amid the usual talk of deterrence and digital battlefields, something quieter, and more revealing, slipped into the room. The next arena of political conflict, the speakers suggested, won’t be defined by borders or territory. It will be written in code. And much of that code isn’t controlled by governments at all — it belongs to American companies. Onstage were two men who have spent their careers thinking about power in its most muscular forms: Paul Nakasone, the former head of U.S. Cyber Command and the National Security Agency, and Dag Baehr of Germany’s foreign intelligence service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst. Although the panel was billed as a discussion about cyber as the “future arena of political conflicts,” it quickly became something more candid: an admission that traditional ideas of national sovereignty are running up against a simple reality — increasingly, governments depend on technology they neither invented nor control. “We’re at a structural inflection point, I would say, because most of the technologies in the near future, even in the present, are not owned by government agencies,” Mr. Baehr told the gathering. Intelligence services, he noted, are constrained by bureaucracy, funding cycles and limited scale. “Most of the technology stacks, whether I like it or not, are owned by the US… and you have to come to terms with that particular, very simple fact,” he said. The remark was striking not because it was controversial, but because it was obvious. The global cloud infrastructure that underpins digital life, the artificial intelligence systems racing ahead of regulators, and the quantum research that promises to upend encryption standards are largely developed and controlled by American firms. Governments do not own the platforms where data flows. They do not control the networks where malicious code travels. And increasingly, they do not have the same visibility into global traffic that large technology companies like Amazon, Microsoft and Google possess. Nakasone acknowledged that the imbalance exists but he tried to frame it as an opportunity — and a necessity. “Working together doesn’t just mean governments and armies and militaries working together,” he said. “It also means working with the private sector, working with academia, working with others that are… every single day, operating in cyberspace.” Things private companies see There are things, he added, that private companies see that governments do not — sometimes because intelligence agencies lack the legal authorities to collect that information themselves. “Wouldn’t it be nice to understand what’s going on and have them say, this is what we’re seeing as well?” he asked. For European officials who have long spoken of “digital sovereignty” — the desire to keep data and infrastructure under domestic control — the implication was clear. Decoupling from American technology may be politically attractive but it may not be strategically feasible. “As we look at artificial intelligence and quantum computing, like it or not, you’re going to be working with American companies,” Mr. Nakasone said. “The idea of decoupling technology and decoupling information sharing is something I am very concerned about.” If sovereignty in the 20th century meant territorial control, sovereignty in the 21st may mean negotiating influence over systems you do not own. The conversation in Munich comes as the Trump administration signals a sharp turn in American cyberstrategy. The administration has outlined its plans for closer collaboration with private companies, including assistance with offensive cyber operations. A bigger private role The government can already hire companies to help build cyber tools. But the Trump administration’s latest proposal would give private firms a much bigger role in carrying out cyber operations themselves. That would blur the line between what the government does and what companies do — and raise difficult questions about who is responsible, who is in charge, and what happens if something goes wrong. The issue is likely to come up again as President Trump’s nominee to lead U.S. Cyber Command and the National Security Agency, Lt. Gen. Joshua M. Rudd speeds toward confirmation. His leadership would come at a moment when the boundary between Silicon Valley and Fort Meade appears thinner than ever. On Tuesday, the Senate Intelligence Committee took a procedural step that underscores just how unsettled the cyber landscape has become. Lawmakers voted 14–3 to advance Rudd, sending his nomination to the full Senate. Baehr, of Germany’s foreign intelligence service, warned that Western democracies are not adapting quickly enough to technological change and said he was “always puzzled that we don’t talk timelines very much.” In cyberconflict, time is not an abstraction. Speed is leverage. Delay is exposure. Deterrence itself is changing shape. “Part of deterrence is creating ambiguity,” Baehr said. “I would say it is not desirable having red lines discussed in public, especially when those red lines only apply to your own actions. So, if you publicly state what you’re not doing, it’s not very deterrent.” Yet for all the talk of ambiguity, one fact was stated plainly: the infrastructure that underpins the modern battlefield — cloud platforms, software stacks, artificial intelligence systems — is largely in private hands. For U.S. allies, that reality cuts two ways. American companies offer reach, scale and technical sophistication that few governments could hope to replicate. But reliance on them also creates a new kind of vulnerability — a dependency that sits uneasily alongside calls for digital sovereignty. The message in Munich was less ideological than practical. Cooperation with American technology firms is not, the speakers implied, simply a choice. It is a condition of operating in the digital age. Sovereignty, in this telling, may no longer mean standing apart. It may mean shaping systems you do not own — and securing a voice in the rooms where the companies that run the networks decide what is seen, and what is not. Dina Temple-Raston is the Host and Managing Editor of the Click Here podcast as well as a senior correspondent at Recorded Future News. She previously served on NPR’s Investigations team focusing on breaking news stories and national security, technology, and social justice and hosted and created the award-winning Audible Podcast “What Were You Thinking.”
therecord.mediaFeb 12, 2026extracted
Executives say cybersecurity has outgrown the IT department
Executives say cybersecurity has outgrown the IT department Cybersecurity has moved from a technical problem to a boardroom concern tied to survival. A global Rimini Street study of senior executives shows security risk shaping decisions on technology, talent, and long term planning across industries that keep economies running. Cyber risk tops the threat list Security threats rank as the most pressing external risk facing organizations. 54% of respondents list cybersecurity threats as their top concern, ahead of supply chain disruption, regulatory shifts, and economic downturns. This view holds steady across regions and industries, indicating that security exposure is treated as a shared business condition. Financial services leaders place regulatory change and cybersecurity at the top of their risk priorities, while telecom and energy executives rank cyber threats first. These sectors rely on continuous system availability and interconnected digital supply chains, which increases sensitivity to outages and data loss. Executives report taking structured steps to prepare for disruption. Business continuity planning ranks among the most common actions, cited by 45% of respondents. Risk frameworks and formal registers follow, along with scenario planning and alternative sourcing strategies. Security planning now sits within broader enterprise risk management instead of remaining isolated within IT teams. Outsourcing becomes a security strategy Many organizations now rely on external partners to manage parts of their security workload. 43% of respondents already outsource cybersecurity services, and another 46% say they are considering it in the near future. This pattern reflects pressure on internal teams and ongoing difficulty hiring and retaining specialized security staff. Security outsourcing appears most often in regulated and infrastructure heavy sectors. Financial services firms list cybersecurity among their most outsourced IT services, alongside infrastructure management and application support. Telecom operators report similar approaches driven by the need to protect large scale communications networks. Executives describe outsourcing as a way to stabilize security operations while internal teams focus on strategic initiatives. The findings suggest organizations use external security support to maintain continuity under staffing and budget constraints. Talent shortages widen security gaps The survey shows widespread concern about access to skilled IT staff. Executives report that talent shortages interfere with their ability to execute technology plans, and many link these gaps to increased security exposure. Staffing constraints leave technical weaknesses harder to detect and address. Workload pressure adds to the risk. Leaders describe teams stretched thin by ongoing system maintenance, which reduces time available for security monitoring and incident response. Routine upkeep continues to consume attention that could otherwise support defensive improvements. Cost pressure compounds the challenge. Executives cite higher expenses tied to hiring, turnover, and delayed projects, all of which affect security operations. In sectors with elevated risk, security teams protect expanding environments with limited staffing, increasing strain across the organization. Security influences technology priorities Cybersecurity influences how leaders assess new technology investments. Security capabilities rank high among desired features, with executives linking these investments to financial impact, reputational protection, and regulatory accountability. CISOs often evaluate technology decisions through a financial lens. Security spending carries expectations of measurable business value, including reduced incident costs, improved resilience, and lower exposure to downstream financial risk. Return expectations for security investments extend over multiple years. Security programs now receive evaluation alongside other enterprise initiatives, with leadership applying similar standards for value realization and accountability. Vendor pressure adds to risk concerns Many executives express frustration with software vendor constraints that affect security planning. 35% cite vendor lock in and forced upgrades as a source of pressure. Limited flexibility can delay patching, complicate integrations, and divert budgets away from security priorities. This frustration appears strongly in telecom, manufacturing, and energy sectors, where long lived systems support critical operations. Leaders report reassessing vendor relationships as part of their risk strategy, seeking greater control over update schedules and security configurations. The findings indicate a preference for security planning aligned with business needs instead of external roadmaps. Leaders associate inflexible software models with increased operational risk during periods of rapid threat change. “Executives want the freedom to modernize and innovate on their own terms, breaking free from vendor-driven upgrade cycles that consume budget without delivering proportional value. By stabilizing and maximizing the ERP foundation already in place, organizations can redirect time and resources toward strategic AI-driven initiatives that generate more meaningful results,” said Rimini Street’s Global CIO, Joe Locandro. Industry exposure varies but patterns hold Security concerns cut across sectors, though emphasis differs. Financial services firms prioritize regulatory compliance alongside cybersecurity, reflecting regulatory oversight and customer expectations. Telecom companies focus on network security and service continuity due to exposure to large scale disruptions. Energy and utilities executives emphasize cybersecurity as their primary external threat, paired with supply chain risk. These organizations rely on operational technology environments where cyber incidents can affect physical infrastructure. Across sectors, leaders combine internal controls, external support, risk frameworks, and continuity planning. This approach reflects recognition that cyber risk affects technology, operations, and trust at the same time.
helpnetsecurity.comDec 30, 2025extracted
Automation forces a reset in security strategy
Automation forces a reset in security strategy Enterprise security teams are working under the assumption that disruption is constant. A global study by Trellix shows that resilience has moved from a long term goal to a structural requirement for CISOs. Infrastructure design, operational integration, and the use of AI shape how organizations prepare for ongoing pressure from threats and regulation. Hybrid infrastructure settles in as standard practice Hybrid infrastructure, which combines cloud, on premises, and isolated systems, has become the standard approach for continuity and risk management. Nearly all respondents agreed that this model strengthens resilience compared with relying on a single environment. Security leaders described hybrid infrastructure as a way to maintain operations during incidents while retaining control over sensitive workloads. Business continuity emerged as the primary driver, followed by cybersecurity and supply chain stability. Workloads are distributed across environments in a balanced way, reflecting long term design decisions. CISOs said hybrid models are essential for meeting data residency and compliance requirements. Regulatory frameworks are shaping where data is stored and processed, particularly for organizations operating across borders. Infrastructure decisions carry lasting regulatory implications, placing security leaders closer to enterprise planning discussions. Managing hybrid systems adds strain The study shows that hybrid environments introduce operational pressure alongside their benefits. CISOs pointed to recurring issues such as limited visibility across environments, identity management challenges, and delays in investigating threats that span multiple platforms. Integration between operational technology and IT security also remains difficult for many teams. Despite these challenges, organizations are not reducing complexity. Investment plans for the coming year focus on strengthening security controls within hybrid environments. Cybersecurity ranked as the top investment area, followed by cloud expansion and OT and IT convergence. OT and IT security move closer together Operational technology plays a central role in enterprise risk. Only a minority of organizations have unified OT and IT security under one function, though most CISOs view convergence as necessary for protecting critical infrastructure. Respondents linked convergence to practical outcomes. Improved collaboration between security, IT, and operations teams was the most cited benefit. Better visibility across environments and stronger protection against targeted attacks on industrial systems followed closely. These gains reflect a broader effort to manage digital and physical risks under shared oversight. CISOs reported limited executive understanding of OT security requirements and recovery planning. These gaps affect how controls are applied and how incidents are handled when operational systems are involved. The findings suggest that convergence depends as much on organizational alignment as on technology. “OT and IT security convergence is highly complex due to differing priorities, risk profiles, and operational needs,” said Michael Green, CISO, Trellix. “Success requires CISOs to be intentional: 1) develop a strategic approach for the unique integration challenges, and 2) secure leadership alignment and buy-in. While not an easy undertaking, when done correctly, true OT-IT convergence can significantly improve an organization’s cyber resilience.” Threats accelerate with automation Security leaders are tracking a rise in attacks that use automation and AI to adapt during execution. A large majority of CISOs described AI driven and autonomous attacks as a major risk. These threats ranked above phishing campaigns enhanced by AI, attacks on operational technology, and exploits targeting cloud environments. This pressure is driving reassessment across security programs. Nearly all respondents said emerging threats are forcing changes to cybersecurity and infrastructure priorities. Ransomware, autonomous attacks, and infrastructure focused campaigns surfaced as areas where defenses require improvement. CISOs pointed to visibility across hybrid environments as a requirement for detecting and containing threats earlier. Intelligence sharing, workforce development, and leadership support also ranked highly, pointing to gaps beyond tooling. AI becomes part of daily defense work Defenders are using AI to respond to automation on the offensive side. CISOs said they are confident AI enabled security tools can defend against autonomous attacks. On average, a quarter of security budgets is allocated to AI based capabilities. These tools support threat analysis, intelligence collection, and incident response. Organizations operating hybrid environments reported fewer obstacles when deploying AI, particularly around integration. Cost and complexity remain common challenges, along with concerns about compliance and supply chain exposure.
helpnetsecurity.comDec 29, 2025extracted
Week in review: Windows kernel flaw patched, suspected Fortinet FortiWeb zero-day exploited
Week in review: Windows kernel flaw patched, suspected Fortinet FortiWeb zero-day exploited Here’s an overview of some of last week’s most interesting news, articles, interviews and videos: Adopting a counterintelligence mindset in luxury logistics In this Help Net Security interview, Andrea Succi, Group CISO at Ferrari Group, discusses how cybersecurity is integrated into every aspect of the logistics industry. He explains why protecting data can be as critical as securing physical assets and how a layered defense approach helps safeguard both. Succi adds that awareness, collaboration, and resilience keep client trust and operations consistent. Wi-Fi signals may hold the key to touchless access control Imagine walking into a secure building where the door unlocks the moment your hand hovers near it. No keycards, no PINs, no fingerprints. Instead, the system identifies you by the way your palm distorts the surrounding Wi-Fi signal. That is the idea behind a new study from researchers at the Aeronautics Institute of Technology (ITA) in Brazil. To get funding, CISOs are mastering the language of money In this Help Net Security interview, Chris Wheeler, CISO at Resilience, talks about how CISOs are managing changing cybersecurity budgets. While overall spending is up, many say the increases don’t match their most pressing needs. Wheeler explains how organizations are reallocating funds, measuring ROI, and linking cybersecurity plans to business goals. When every day is threat assessment day In this Help Net Security interview, Paul J. Mocarski, VP & CISO at Sammons Financial Group, discusses how insurance carriers are adapting their cybersecurity strategies. He explains how ongoing threat assessments, AI-driven automation, and third-party risk management help maintain readiness. Healthcare security is broken because its systems can’t talk to each other In this Help Net Security interview, Cameron Kracke, CISO at Prime Therapeutics, discusses how the healthcare ecosystem can achieve cohesive security visibility. With hospitals, clinics, telehealth, and cloud partners all in the mix, maintaining visibility remains a complex task. Kracke shares how interoperability, collaboration, and strategic investment can strengthen resilience across the healthcare security landscape. Why your security strategy is failing before it even starts In this Help Net Security interview, Adnan Ahmed, CISO at Ornua, discusses how organizations can build a cybersecurity strategy that aligns with business goals. He explains why many companies stumble by focusing on technology before understanding risk and shares how embedding cybersecurity across the business helps build resilience. Attackers exploited another Gladinet Triofox vulnerability (CVE-2025-12480) Attackers have exploited yet another vulnerability (CVE-2025-12480) in the Gladinet Triofox secure file sharing and remote access platform, Mandiant revealed on Monday. CISA: Patch Samsung flaw exploited to deliver spyware (CVE-2025-21042) CISA has added CVE-2025-21042, a vulnerability affecting Samsung mobile devices, to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog, and has ordered US federal civilian agencies to address it by the start of December. Patch Tuesday: Microsoft fixes actively exploited Windows kernel vulnerability (CVE-2025-62215) Microsoft has delivered a rather light load of patches for November 2025 Patch Tuesday: some 60+ vulnerabilities have received a fix, among them an actively exploited Windows Kernel flaw (CVE-2025-62215). UK’s new Cyber Security and Resilience Bill targets weak links in critical services The UK government has introduced the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill, a major piece of legislation designed to boost the country’s protection against cyber threats. The new law aims to strengthen the digital defenses of essential public services and update the ageing Network and Information Systems (NIS) Regulations 2018, the UK’s only cross-sector cyber security law. Rhadamanthys infostealer operation disrupted by law enforcement The rumors were true: Operation Endgame, a joint effort between law enforcement and judicial authorities of several European countries, Australia, Canada, the UK and the US, has disrupted the infrastructure supporting the operation of the Rhadamanthys infostealer. “Patched” but still exposed: US federal agencies must remediate Cisco flaws (again) CISA has ordered US federal agencies to fully address two actively exploited vulnerabilities (CVE-2025-20333, CVE-2025-20362) in Cisco Adaptive Security Appliances (ASA) and Firepower firewalls. Fake spam filter alerts are hitting inboxes A new phishing campaign is attempting to trick users into believing they’ve missed important emails, security researchers are warning. The bogus email alerts look like they are coming from the recipient’s email domain, and falsely claim that due to a “Secure Message system” upgrade, important messages have been blocked. A suspected Fortinet FortiWeb zero-day is actively exploited, researchers warn A suspected (but currently unidentified) zero-day vulnerability in Fortinet FortiWeb is being exploited by unauthenticated attackers to create new admin accounts on vulnerable, internet-facing devices. Chinese cyber spies used Claude AI to automate 90% of their attack campaign, Anthropic claims “Analysis of operational tempo, request volumes, and activity patterns confirms the AI executed approximately 80 to 90 percent of all tactical work independently, with humans serving in strategic supervisory roles,” Anthropic said. Shadow AI risk: Navigating the growing threat of ungoverned AI adoption AI is transforming how businesses operate, but it’s also creating new, often hidden risks. As employees and business units eagerly embrace and experiment with AI solutions, many organizations are losing control over where and how AI is being used. A new threat is emerging: shadow AI. This unsanctioned use of AI tools without oversight from IT or security teams has quickly become a top concern for CISOs. How to adopt AI security tools without losing control In this Help Net Security video, Josh Harguess, CTO of Fire Mountain Labs, explains how to evaluate, deploy, and govern AI-driven security tools. He talks about the growing role of AI in security operations and the new kinds of risks it brings. sqlmap: Open-source SQL injection and database takeover tool Finding and exploiting SQL injection vulnerabilities is one of the oldest and most common steps in web application testing. sqlmap streamlines this process. It is an open-source penetration testing tool that automates the detection and exploitation of SQL injection flaws and can take over database servers when configured to do so. CISOs are cracking under pressure Cybersecurity leaders are hitting their limit. A new report from Nagomi Security shows that most CISOs are stretched thin, dealing with nonstop incidents, too many tools, and growing pressure from their boards. The pressures are so intense that many say they are burned out and thinking about walking away. How far can police push privacy before it breaks Police use drones, body cameras, and license plate readers as part of their daily work. Supporters say these tools make communities safer. Critics see something different, a system that collects too much data and opens the door to abuse. When surveillance expands without public oversight, civil liberties start to slip away, especially for people who already face bias and discrimination. ProxyBridge: Open-source proxy routing for Windows applications ProxyBridge is a lightweight, open-source tool that lets Windows users route network traffic from specific applications through SOCKS5 or HTTP proxies. It can redirect both TCP and UDP traffic and gives users the option to route, block, or allow connections on a per-application basis. Autonomous AI could challenge how we define criminal behavior Whether we ever build AI that thinks like a person is still uncertain. What seems more realistic is a future with more independent machines. These systems already work across many industries and digital environments. Alongside human-to-human and human-to-machine contact, communication between machines is growing fast. Criminology should start to look at what this shift means for crime and social control. Google adds Emerging Threats Center to speed detection and response When a new vulnerability hits the news, security teams often scramble to find out if they are at risk. The process of answering that question can take days or weeks, involving manual research, rule-writing, and testing. Google Security Operations wants to close that window with its new Emerging Threats Center, designed to help teams understand their exposure and detection coverage in near real time. Sprout: Open-source bootloader built for speed and security Sprout is an open-source bootloader that delivers sub-second boot times and uses a clean, data-driven configuration format that works across operating systems. Wanna bet? Scammers are playing the odds better than you are Placing a bet has never been this easy, and that’s the problem. The convenience of online gambling is the same thing scammers are cashing in on. Whether it’s a fake app, a “can’t-miss” tipster, or a rigged casino, the game is stacked against you. Los Alamos researchers warn AI may upend national security For decades, the United States has built its defense posture around predictable timelines for technological progress. That assumption no longer holds, according to researchers at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Their paper argues that AI is advancing so quickly that the current defense system cannot adapt in time. Protecting mobile privacy in real time with predictive adversarial defense Mobile sensors are everywhere, quietly recording how users move, tilt, or hold their phones. The same data that powers step counters and activity trackers can also expose personal details such as gender, age, or even identity. A new study introduces a method designed to stop that information from being inferred in the first place, without interrupting the phone’s normal functions. AI is rewriting how software is built and secured AI has become part of everyday software development, shaping how code is written and how fast products reach users. A new report from Cycode, The 2026 State of Product Security for the AI Era, explores how deeply AI now runs through development pipelines and how security teams are trying to manage the risks that come with it. Hidden risks in the financial sector’s supply chain When a cyber attack hits a major bank or trading platform, attention usually turns to the institution. But new research suggests the real danger may lie elsewhere. BitSight researchers found that many of the technology providers serving the financial sector have weaker cybersecurity performance than the institutions they support. GNU Coreutils 9.9 brings fixes and updates across essential tools GNU Coreutils is the backbone of many enterprise Linux environments. It provides the basic file, shell, and text utilities that every GNU-based system depends on. The latest release, version 9.9, refines these tools with fixes and performance improvements. What the latest data reveals about hard drive reliability What really counts as a hard drive failure? That’s the question at the center of Backblaze’s Q3 2025 Drive Stats report, which tracks the performance of 328,348 hard drives across its global data centers. The latest findings build on more than a decade of data that has made Backblaze one of the most transparent sources on drive reliability for IT teams, researchers, and data professionals. AI is forcing boards to rethink how they govern security Boards are spending more time on cybersecurity but still struggle to show how investments improve business performance. The focus has shifted from whether to fund protection to how to measure its return and ensure it supports growth. The browser is eating your security stack Employees log into SaaS platforms, upload files, use AI tools, and manage customer data from a single tab. While the browser has become the enterprise’s main workspace, it remains largely outside the reach of security controls. According to the 2025 Browser Security Report by LayerX, that blind spot has turned into a major risk surface for data loss, identity theft, and AI misuse. Automation can’t fix broken security basics Most enterprises continue to fall short on basic practices such as patching, access control, and vendor oversight, according to Swimlane’s Cracks in the Foundation: Why Basic Security Still Fails report. Leadership often focuses on broad resilience goals while the day-to-day work that supports them remains inconsistent and underfunded. What happens when employees take control of AI Executives may debate AI strategy, but many of the advances are happening at the employee level. A recent Moveworks study shows that AI adoption is being led from the ground up, with employees, not senior leaders, driving the change. Download: Strengthening Identity Security whitepaper Identity threats are escalating. Attackers increasingly exploit compromised credentials, often undetected by organizations, and use social engineering to gain access. Most companies lack visibility into service account activity and don’t have the tools to detect identity-led threats. Cybersecurity jobs available right now: November 11, 2025 We’ve scoured the market to bring you a selection of roles that span various skill levels within the cybersecurity field. Check out this weekly selection of cybersecurity jobs available right now. New infosec products of the week: November 14, 2025 Here’s a look at the most interesting products from the past week, featuring releases from Action1, Avast, Cyware, Firewalla, and Nokod Security.
helpnetsecurity.comNov 16, 2025extracted
Why your security strategy is failing before it even starts
Why your security strategy is failing before it even starts In this Help Net Security interview, Adnan Ahmed, CISO at Ornua, discusses how organizations can build a cybersecurity strategy that aligns with business goals. He explains why many companies stumble by focusing on technology before understanding risk and shares how embedding cybersecurity across the business helps build resilience. Ahmed also outlines how a mature roadmap should integrate zero trust principles, operational resilience, and a security culture across both IT and OT environments. When you think about cybersecurity strategy today, what do most organizations get wrong from the start? The biggest mistake I see among organizations is initiating cybersecurity efforts with technology rather than prioritizing risk and business alignment. Cybersecurity is often mischaracterized as a technical issue, when in reality it’s a business risk management function. Failure to establish this connection early often results in fragmented decision-making and limited executive engagement. Effective cybersecurity strategies should be embedded into business objectives from the outset. This requires identifying the business’s critical assets, assessing potential threats and motivations, and evaluating the impact of assets becoming compromised. Too often, CISOs jump straight into acquiring cybersecurity tools without addressing these questions. Another common gap is people and culture. Human error remains the leading vector for cyberattacks, yet organizations disproportionately allocate resources to technology while neglecting employee awareness and training. I always say security starts at home, when employees understand how to protect themselves and their families, they bring that mindset to work. Compliance, while a necessity, is another element to proactively consider. Meeting regulatory requirements is important, but compliance doesn’t equal resilience. Attackers don’t care if you ticked all the boxes, they simply look for vulnerabilities and will exploit them. In industries such as food manufacturing, that Ornua operates in, overlooking OT and ICS security introduces substantial risk. A comprehensive defense-in-depth approach must encompass both IT and OT. Finally, don’t forget third-party risk and incident response. With the rise of supply chain attacks, companies must evaluate vendor security posture. Incident response plans must be operationally tested and include provisions for business continuity and disaster recovery. It’s critical that when an incident happens, the plan must be tested, not just written. In short, start with risk, build culture, secure operational technology, manage vendors, and prepare for the worst. Success depends on cross-functional collaboration, adherence to zero trust principles, and a culture that sees security as a business enabler, not a barrier. Has your own thinking about strategy shifted over time, and if so, what drove that change? Yes, my thinking has evolved over the years. When I first started, the focus was on safeguarding IT systems and reducing risk in isolation. It wasn’t tied to broader business objectives, and that was a gap I didn’t appreciate at the time. Two things changed that for me. First, the threat landscape shifted dramatically. Cybersecurity attacks today target OT and ICS. In food manufacturing, those systems run production lines, refrigeration, and safety processes. A cyber incident in these areas extends beyond data loss, it can disrupt production and even compromise food safety, introducing a far more complex level of risk. Second, it became evident to me that cybersecurity cannot operate in isolation. It must support and enable business operations and growth. Today, my approach is risk-based and aligned with our business prioritizes, while still built on zero trust principles. We focus on resilience, not just compliance, and OT security is a core pillar of that strategy. Ultimately, protecting those environments is critical to keeping the business running and ensuring our consumers are safe. What’s the most effective way for security leaders to connect cybersecurity strategy with core business goals? In my experience, the most effective way to align cybersecurity with business goals is to speak the language of the business. Too often, security leaders jump straight into technical jargon, firewalls, patching, MFA, encryption but that is not what executives are focused on. They care about keeping the business running, protecting revenue, and maintaining reputation. It’s important to position cybersecurity as a business enabler, not a cost. For example, instead of saying “we need MFA”, explain how MFA helps reduce fraud risk and protects customer trust, which directly impacts brand value. I also link security metrics to business KPIs, things like uptime for production systems or assessing the cybersecurity posture of suppliers to strengthen supply chain resilience and meet regulatory requirements. At the end of the day, it’s about how security protects what matters most: operations, revenue, and reputation. When you apply that understanding, cybersecurity becomes part of the business conversation, not just an IT project. Which emerging threats do you believe are underestimated right now, and how should teams prepare? One of the most underestimated threats in cybersecurity right now is the convergence of IT and OT environments. In industries like food manufacturing, attackers aren’t just targeting corporate networks anymore, they are going after operational technology and industrial control systems. A ransomware attack that halts production or disrupts refrigeration isn’t just inconvenient, it can be financially devastating with serious safety implications. Another area that’s often overlooked is supply chain risk. We are seeing attackers exploit third-party vendors and software updates because they know those paths usually have weaker controls while reaching many organizations at once. On top of that, AI-powered attacks are evolving fast through deepfakes, voice phishing, and highly convincing social engineering campaigns are becoming harder to spot. In my view, OT and supply chain attacks are the silent killers. Most teams underestimate them until production stops or trust is broken. The time to act is now: adopt zero trust across both IT and OT, strengthen vendor risk management, and build resilience into every layer of the business. If you were advising a CISO building a three-year roadmap today, what would be your top three priorities? I would focus on three core priorities that make a difference. Begin by identifying and prioritizing your organization’s most critical assets, including OT and ICS environments, and supply chain dependencies. Security investments should be aligned to these risks. Too often, strategies begin with buying tools instead of assessing risk, and that’s a mistake. Zero trust principles must be applied across both IT and OT environments. In sectors such as food manufacturing, protecting OT is just as important as protecting data. Core capabilities such as assets visibility, network segmentation, secure remote access, authentication, and continuous monitoring must be treated as essential components. While regulatory compliance is necessary, it is insufficient in the face of actual cyber incidents, compliance won’t save you when something goes wrong. Organizations must develop and routinely test incident response plans, ensure business continuity measures, and foster a security culture. Technology will fail at some point, and the ability to detect, respond to, and recover quickly is what keeps the business running. In short, an effective cybersecurity strategy should start with risk alignment, incorporate zero trust principles across IT and OT, and emphasize resilience beyond regulatory compliance. Cybersecurity is not just a defensive measure, it is fundamental to sustaining business operations.
helpnetsecurity.comNov 14, 2025extracted
Everyone’s adopting AI, few are managing the risk
Everyone’s adopting AI, few are managing the risk AI is spreading across enterprise risk functions, but confidence in those systems remains uneven, according to AuditBoard. More than half of organizations report implementing AI-specific tools, and many are training teams in machine learning skills. Yet, few feel prepared for the governance requirements that will come with new AI regulations. AI experimentation increased in May and June 2025, then dropped in July as acceptance rates fell and decision times lengthened. That volatility shows how many teams are eager to test new tools but lack governance structures that build lasting trust in their results. The middle maturity trap Across industries, many organizations are caught in what AuditBoard calls the “middle maturity trap.” Teams are active, frameworks are updated, and risks are logged, but progress fades after early success. When boards include risk oversight as a standing agenda item and align on shared performance goals, activity becomes consistent and forward-looking. When governance and ownership are unclear, adoption slows and collaboration fades. Control maturity depends on governance Controls translate policy into daily practice, but adoption speed and reliability often lag. In May 2025, teams acted quickly on suggested controls. By June, response times slowed, and July showed only partial recovery. Many boards still treat risk oversight as an occasional topic. About half of enterprises do not include it as a regular agenda item. Leaders who tie control adoption to governance structures maintain consistent progress, while others rely on last-minute compliance. As expectations expand across AI, cybersecurity, and environmental reporting, the ability to adopt controls will shape resilience. Frameworks expand, depth still lacking Many enterprises are adopting or updating risk frameworks, but implementation depth varies. The typical organization maps its controls to several frameworks, while leading firms embed thousands of requirements into daily operations. The report warns that “surface compliance” is common. Breadth without depth leaves gaps that only appear during audits or disruptions. Mature programs treat frameworks as living systems that evolve with business and regulatory change. Collaboration remains fragile Collaboration among audit, risk, compliance, and information security teams is often inconsistent. In July 2025, telemetry showed a brief rise in cross-functional activity, followed by a drop. Teams tend to coordinate only during audits or regulatory events. Leaders make collaboration routine through joint meetings and shared performance goals. Enterprises that build collaboration into workflows identify and resolve risks faster. Those relying on ad hoc coordination face duplicated work and slower responses. Risk logging remains a weak spot The discipline of logging risks and tracking issues is still uneven. In many cases, teams create action plans without recording a related risk first, showing a reactive habit rather than structured management. Organizations that assess risks several times a year perform better. Continuous monitoring improves visibility and strengthens remediation. Until risk capture becomes a steady management habit, enterprises will struggle to anticipate problems early. Governance defines maturity AuditBoard groups its findings into five dimensions: AI and automation, control maturity, frameworks and coverage, collaboration, and risk and issue discipline. Governance ties the entire system together, setting the structure that makes collaboration, control adoption, and risk discipline sustainable. Enterprises that define ownership and maintain regular reviews make steady progress. They link audit, risk, compliance, and information security under shared goals rather than separate structures. For organizations still navigating the middle maturity trap, the path forward is to strengthen governance clarity, execution discipline, and integration. As AI reshapes risk and regulation grows more complex, consistency will separate mature programs from reactive ones. From oversight to foresight The findings show that many organizations are investing heavily in risk management and AI, but maturity depends less on technology and more on integration. Advanced organizations use governance to connect teams and turn data into foresight. AuditBoard’s research suggests that as AI becomes more embedded in enterprise systems, risk leaders will need to move beyond activity and focus on consistency. Those that do will be better positioned to anticipate change and turn risk management into a strategic advantage. “Our data shows that enterprises are eager to experiment and invest, but the intent is not translating into reliable execution. The key difference between leaders and laggards is not budget, but the discipline to embed governance, ownership, and cadence across all risk dimensions,” said Happy Wang, Chief Product and Technology Officer at AuditBoard. Airia: Easily build and deploy secure, intelligent workflows
helpnetsecurity.comOct 17, 2025extracted
AI in the 2026 Midterm Elections
AI in the 2026 Midterm Elections We are nearly one year out from the 2026 midterm elections, and it’s far too early to predict the outcomes. But it’s a safe bet that artificial intelligence technologies will once again be a major storyline. The widespread fear that AI would be used to manipulate the 2024 US election seems rather quaint in a year where the president posts AI-generated images of himself as the pope on official White House accounts. But AI is a lot more than an information manipulator. It’s also emerging as a politicized issue. Political first-movers are adopting the technology, and that’s opening a gap across party lines. We expect this gap to widen, resulting in AI being predominantly used by one political side in the 2026 elections. To the extent that AI’s promise to automate and improve the effectiveness of political tasks like personalized messaging, persuasion, and campaign strategy is even partially realized, this could generate a systematic advantage. Right now, Republicans look poised to exploit the technology in the 2026 midterms. The Trump White House has aggressively adopted AI-generated memes in its online messaging strategy. The administration has also used executive orders and federal buying power to influence the development and encoded values of AI technologies away from “woke” ideology. Going further, Trump ally Elon Musk has shaped his own AI company’s Grok models in his own ideological image. These actions appear to be part of a larger, ongoing Big Tech industry realignment towards the political will, and perhaps also the values, of the Republican party. Democrats, as the party out of power, are in a largely reactive posture on AI. A large bloc of Congressional Democrats responded to Trump administration actions in April by arguing against their adoption of AI in government. Their letter to the Trump administration’s Office of Management and Budget provided detailed criticisms and questions about DOGE’s behaviors and called for a halt to DOGE’s use of AI, but also said that they “support implementation of AI technologies in a manner that complies with existing” laws. It was a perfectly reasonable, if nuanced, position, and illustrates how the actions of one party can dictate the political positioning of the opposing party. These shifts are driven more by political dynamics than by ideology. Big Tech CEOs’ deference to the Trump administration seems largely an effort to curry favor, while Silicon Valley continues to be represented by tech-forward Democrat Ro Khanna. And a June Pew Research poll shows nearly identical levels of concern by Democrats and Republicans about the increasing use of AI in America. There are, arguably, natural positions each party would be expected to take on AI. An April House subcommittee hearing on AI trends in innovation and competition revealed much about that equilibrium. Following the lead of the Trump administration, Republicans cast doubt on any regulation of the AI industry. Democrats, meanwhile, emphasized consumer protection and resisting a concentration of corporate power. Notwithstanding the fluctuating dominance of the corporate wing of the Democratic party and the volatile populism of Trump, this reflects the parties’ historical positions on technology. While Republicans focus on cozying up to tech plutocrats and removing the barriers around their business models, Democrats could revive the 2020 messaging of candidates like Andrew Yang and Elizabeth Warren. They could paint an alternative vision of the future where Big Tech companies’ profits and billionaires’ wealth are taxed and redistributed to young people facing an affordability crisis for housing, healthcare, and other essentials. Moreover, Democrats could use the technology to demonstrably show a commitment to participatory democracy. They could use AI-driven collaborative policymaking tools like Decidim, Pol.Is, and Go Vocal to collect voter input on a massive scale and align their platform to the public interest. It’s surprising how little these kinds of sensemaking tools are being adopted by candidates and parties today. Instead of using AI to capture and learn from constituent input, candidates more often seem to think of AI as just another broadcast technology—good only for getting their likeness and message in front of people. A case in point: British Member of Parliament Mark Sewards, presumably acting in good faith, recently attracted scorn after releasing a vacuous AI avatar of himself to his constituents. Where the political polarization of AI goes next will probably depend on unpredictable future events and how partisans opportunistically seize on them. A recent European political controversy over AI illustrates how this can happen. Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson, a member of the country’s Moderate party, acknowledged in an August interview that he uses AI tools to get a “second opinion” on policy issues. The attacks from political opponents were scathing. Kristersson had earlier this year advocated for the EU to pause its trailblazing new law regulating AI and pulled an AI tool from his campaign website after it was abused to generate images of him appearing to solicit an endorsement from Hitler. Although arguably much more consequential, neither of those stories grabbed global headlines in the way the Prime Minister’s admission that he himself uses tools like ChatGPT did. Age dynamics may govern how AI’s impacts on the midterms unfold. One of the prevailing trends that swung the 2024 election to Trump seems to have been the rightward migration of young voters, particularly white men. So far, YouGov’s political tracking poll does not suggest a huge shift in young voters’ Congressional voting intent since the 2022 midterms. Embracing—or distancing themselves from—AI might be one way the parties seek to wrest control of this young voting bloc. While the Pew poll revealed that large fractions of Americans of all ages are generally concerned about AI, younger Americans are much more likely to say they regularly interact with, and hear a lot about, AI, and are comfortable with the level of control they have over AI in their lives. A Democratic party desperate to regain relevance for and approval from young voters might turn to AI as both a tool and a topic for engaging them. Voters and politicians alike should recognize that AI is no longer just an outside influence on elections. It’s not an uncontrollable natural disaster raining deepfakes down on a sheltering electorate. It’s more like a fire: a force that political actors can harness and manipulate for both mechanical and symbolic purposes. A party willing to intervene in the world of corporate AI and shape the future of the technology should recognize the legitimate fears and opportunities it presents, and offer solutions that both address and leverage AI. This essay was written with Nathan E. Sanders, and originally appeared in Time.
schneier.comOct 6, 2025extracted
As fraud surges, UK prepares to replace its broken reporting service
As fraud surges, UK prepares to replace its broken reporting service Britain’s replacement service for its failed national reporting center for fraud and financially motivated cybercrime, Action Fraud, is to be named Report Fraud when it is publicly launched later this year, according to multiple sources. The new system is intended to win back public trust over law enforcement’s approach to what has become the most common crime across the country, with estimated costs to the economy of billions of pounds every year, alongside hundreds of victims losing their life savings. Official statistics show incidents grew 31% in the year ending this March, despite the fear that more than 80% of frauds go unreported. Although the public-facing portal for Report Fraud has faced multiple delays in going live, its back-end crime and intelligence system, based on Palantir’s Foundry platform — which has not previously been reported — has been operational since last November, according to City of London Police. The delays have been driven by caution against launching an imperfect service. Nik Adams, the deputy commissioner leading the project, told MPs previously: “Given the history of Action Fraud, we want to absolutely get right the new system before we launch it, because nothing [would be] worse ... [than] if people lose confidence in it from the outset.” Unlike its predecessor, Report Fraud has been designed so that it will collect evidence for police investigations. The likely millions of reports of fraud that will be submitted to it are beyond what can be manually assessed by police officers, so the Foundry platform will automatically analyze and compare the range of evidence people contribute, allowing the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau (NFIB) to spot patterns and send intelligence packages for further investigation. Jonathan Frost, who formerly worked at the NFIB for more than a decade and is now a director at fraud prevention business BioCatch, praised Report Fraud “for the fact that, from day one, this has had an analytical aspect to it.” Frost said the “fundamentals of aggregating fraud complaints is solid, no question,” but that “the problem comes when you have to formulate a strategy regarding what that data tells you. The proof of the pudding will be in the translation of the aggregate data into a strategy to address a significant serious and organised crime threat.” A spokesperson for City of London Police said a “fully integrated approach has been developed, including intelligence collection, research and analysis, and intelligence development” to align with intelligence standards used across British law enforcement. “The new service can ingest, analyse and publish information faster and at scale, to help UK police forces better prepare for the ever-evolving fraud and cyber crime threat. It encompasses a greater number of data partners, allowing for more accurate and insightful intelligence products,” added the spokesperson. The inclusion of data from partner organizations, potentially from financial services and online platforms monitoring fraud campaigns, is considered critical. Frost explained that the challenge in tackling fraud was that “when push comes to shove, the real opportunity for citizens to be protected sits with tech, telco and financial services.” “There are only two ways out of this: reduce the financial gains made by criminals — reduce their incentives — and also to push up their costs,” said Frost. “And the two domains in which you can push up their costs are telco and tech, by creating lots of friction for them and stopping them getting access to victims.” “The real question for Report Fraud,” he said, “is how it’s going to support, encourage and require other parts in that kill chain to do their part.” The City of London Police spokesperson said Report Fraud's intelligence production capability aims to deliver “targeted and timely advice, including information on the latest threats” enabling the whole ecosystem to ”block and disrupt crime through providing real-time information to those organisations who can deter and disrupt fraudulent websites, bank accounts, and other activities which we know are enabling criminality.” Action Fraud’s replacement had been raised as part of the government’s Fraud Strategy in 2023, and a new expanded strategy is expected to be launched later this year. Including capital expenditure and running costs until 2030, it is expected to cost more than £212 million ($283 million). It comes as the British government has introduced new duties on technology companies to protect their users from fraud which came into effect this March. Alexander Martin is the UK Editor for Recorded Future News. He was previously a technology reporter for Sky News and a fellow at the European Cyber Conflict Research Initiative, now Virtual Routes. He can be reached securely using Signal on: AlexanderMartin.79
therecord.mediaSep 26, 2025extracted
Three in four European companies are hooked on US tech
PARTNER CONTENT What happens when your company's future depends on a service controlled by another country that loves trade fights, tariffs, and industrial-scale surveillance? That's the risk for European businesses relying on American providers; a single political move can disrupt operations overnight. Remember the Schrems II case ruling? That legal earthquake invalidated the EU-US Privacy Shield, leaving European businesses scrambling to explain to regulators why their customer data was still vacationing on a Californian server farm. Here's a shocker for the GDPR crowd: The US CLOUD Act grants American authorities access to your data, even when stored in Europe, creating a direct conflict with EU laws. Meanwhile, the "free market" in the European cybersecurity industry is starting to look a lot like "subject to the mood swings of US sanctions, trade wars, and occasional 'oops, we killed your cloud' moments." According to recent stats, three out of four (74 percent) of European companies are still hooked on American B2B providers, ignoring the inevitable legal and financial risks. This dependency on US cybersecurity providers exposes European businesses to unprecedented risks in an era where EU cybersecurity regulations demand local control and data sovereignty. Hidden costs of US cybersecurity dependency for european businesses The real cost of US-based solutions goes far beyond invoices and subscription fees. It isn't just measured in euros, dollars, or whatever crypto Elon Musk is shilling this week. It's measured in regulatory challenges, geopolitical instability, and sleepless nights for your CISO. Regulatory exposure: The US CLOUD Act and GDPR are fundamentally at odds. While GDPR demands strict data privacy for EU citizens, the CLOUD Act empowers US authorities to demand access, regardless of where data resides. NIS2 and the Cyber Resilience Act raise the stakes even higher, exposing European companies to fines and legal jeopardy. Geopolitical instability: US sanctions can act as a kill switch. US authorities can cut off your cloud access instantly, turning export controls into operational chaos. The CLOUD Act allows American officials to access EU data, even when GDPR says no way. Economic coercion: Tech access is increasingly weaponized in trade wars. The infamous "Google tax" disputes and $123B digital services deficit highlight just how dependent Europe is on American platforms. Mass surveillance: NSA surveillance programs have demonstrated how US cloud services can become conduits for espionage, undermining both corporate and national security. European cybersecurity innovation: building digital sovereignty Europe is taking the initiative and setting new standards. Instead of patching vulnerabilities, European leaders and regulators are constructing a robust digital ecosystem from the ground up. This isn't just political rhetoric; 92 percent of IT leaders now see sovereignty as key to operational resilience. With every regulation passed, every startup funded, and every sovereign cloud launched, European position as a global cybersecurity powerhouse strengthens. This shift is visible in the numbers: Market growth: The European cybersecurity market is expected to hit $76.21 billion in 2025 and $194.43 billion by 2033. IT spending: According to Gartner's latest forecast, IT spending in Europe will reach $1.28 trillion in 2025, up 8.7 percent from 2024. By the end of 2024, European IT spendings are expected to total $1.18 trillion. Startup investment: Investment in European cybersecurity startups has surged, with over $50 million raised for open-source threat intelligence platforms in France alone. Top 10 European cybersecurity companies: GDPR-compliant alternatives Below, you'll find the top 10 European cybersecurity alternatives, each offering full compliance, data residency, and business continuity: WithSecure Elements (Finland) Specializes in extended detection and response (XDR), endpoint protection, cloud security, and collaboration protection. US alternatives: CrowdStrike Falcon, Microsoft Defender, and SentinelOne Oodrive (France) A leading European provider of secure cloud services, focusing on data storage, electronic signatures, and document management for enterprises and regulated industries. US alternatives: Box, Dropbox Business, DocuSign Proton (Switzerland) Proton provides privacy-first email, VPN, and cloud storage, leveraging Swiss data protection laws and end-to-end encryption for individuals and businesses. US alternatives: Gmail, Outlook, Google Drive Darktrace (UK) An established European innovator using AI to detect threats, secure networks, and protect email, delivering autonomous cyber defense for critical sectors. US alternatives: Vectra AI, ExtraHop, Abnormal Security Cyberr (Luxembourg) Cyberr tackles the cybersecurity talent gap with an AI-powered recruitment platform for matching skilled professionals to critical roles. US alternatives: CyberSN, Dice, eFinancialCareers Dattak (France) A European SaaS solution integrating cyber insurance, managed detection and response, and vulnerability management, offering proactive protection for businesses of any size. US alternative: Coalition, At-Bay, Cowbell Cyber Dream on Technology (France) Dream On Technology offers a SaaS platform for crisis management and incident response, powered by an AI assistant for SMEs and mid-sized businesses. US alternative: Balbix, Immersive Labs, Cyberbit Eye Security (Netherlands) Eye Security delivers comprehensive cybersecurity, MDR, insurance, and incident response tailored for small and medium-sized businesses. US alternative: Arctic Wolf, Rapid7, CrowdStrike Filigran (France) Filigran specializes in open-source cyber threat intelligence, crisis management, and attack simulation platforms for enterprises and security teams. US alternative: MISP, Recorded Future, ThreatConnect Passwork (Spain) Leading European solution for enterprise password management and privileged access, trusted by financial, healthcare, government, and industrial organizations to secure sensitive data and ensure compliance. US alternative: LastPass, 1Password, Bitwarden Why European cybersecurity solutions win Compliance with EU regulations European cybersecurity market leaders ensure strict adherence to GDPR, with data stored in Europe and privacy-first solutions. They meet requirements of NIS2 for critical infrastructure, DORA for financial sector resilience, the EU Cybersecurity Act for certification, and eIDAS for digital identification standards. Technological independence Data is hosted in European data centers, outside US jurisdiction. Sovereign cloud infrastructure gives you full control, protecting your business from sanctions and ensuring continuity even during geopolitical tensions. Tailored for European business Local support in your language and regional expertise make integration with European security frameworks seamless. Business advantages Stable pricing in euros removes currency fluctuation risks, transparent taxation ensures EU compliance, and ESG alignment helps meet European sustainability standards. Migration plan from US solutions Stage 1: Dependency audit (1–2 months) Start by identifying every US cybersecurity solution lurking in your infrastructure. Assess how vulnerable you are to sanctions or a surprise "kill switch" moment. Don't forget to check where your setup flunks GDPR and NIS2. Stage 2: Selection of European alternatives (1 month) Next, put European cybersecurity solutions to the test. See which ones actually work with your current systems instead of just looking good in glossy brochures. Map out your migration plan, preferably one that doesn't involve crossing your fingers and hoping for the best. Stage 3: Pilot implementation (2–3 months) Deploy your chosen platforms in a test environment. Train your team so they don't treat new tools like alien technology. Make sure GDPR compliance actually works. Stage 4: Full migration (3–6 months) Finally, move everything over in stages, saying goodbye to American solutions with minimal drama. Achieve technological independence and enjoy watching the next round of sanctions from a safe distance. Real-life scenarios Automotive manufacturer: Imagine a carmaker grappling with the risk of trade sanctions against American cloud solutions. In this case, migrating to a European tech stack, such as WithSecure Elements for security, Passwork for password management, and Darktrace for AI-driven threat detection, provides full independence from US tech giants and ensures GDPR compliance. Bank: Consider a bank confronted by the CLOUD Act, which enables US authorities to demand access to client data stored with American providers. By switching to Oodrive for secure storage, Eviden MSS for managed security, and Filigran for threat intelligence, the bank can safeguard banking secrecy and protect sensitive customer information from foreign intervention. Energy company: Picture an energy company worried about the activation of a "kill switch" in imported technology, threatening the stability of critical infrastructure. Adopting WithSecure Elements for security, Dream On Technology for incident response, and Passwork for password management delivers energy safety without American risks. Regain control Digital sovereignty is a business imperative. European cybersecurity alternatives offer the technical excellence, regulatory compliance, and strategic independence that modern businesses demand. The choice is stark: either continue building on a geopolitical fault line or invest in European cybersecurity solutions that put your data sovereignty first. The next move is yours — and Europe's digital future depends on it. Contributed by Passwork.
go.theregister.comSep 25, 2025extracted
LLMs can boost cybersecurity decisions, but not for everyone
LLMs can boost cybersecurity decisions, but not for everyone LLMs are moving fast from experimentation to daily use in cybersecurity. Teams are starting to use them to sort through threat intelligence, guide incident response, and help analysts handle repetitive work. But adding AI into the decision-making process brings new questions: When do these tools actually improve performance, and when might they create blind spots? A new study takes a closer look at this problem. By observing how people make decisions with and without LLM support, the researchers found that while these systems can improve accuracy, they can also lead to over-reliance and reduced independent thinking. Testing how humans and AI work together The researchers wanted to know how LLMs affect the way people make decisions in security-critical situations. They looked at how these tools change accuracy, independence, and reliance on technology. The team ran two focus groups. One group worked on security tasks without AI support. The other group used an LLM to help. Participants were master’s students with backgrounds in cybersecurity. The tasks were based on CompTIA Security+ concepts and covered areas like phishing detection, password management, and incident response. The researchers also measured each participant’s resilience using a psychological scale. Resilience in this context means a person’s ability to adapt, problem-solve, and stay steady under stress. AI helps with routine work, but not complex decisions The group with LLM support was more accurate on routine tasks. They were better at spotting phishing attempts and ranking password strength. LLM users also gave more consistent ratings of security policies and chose more targeted responses to incidents. However, the study also found limits to these benefits. In harder tasks, LLM users sometimes followed incorrect model suggestions. For example, when matching defense strategies to complex threats like advanced persistent threats or zero-day exploits, their answers were less reliable. This shows that LLMs can sound confident while being wrong. Bar Lanyado, Lead Researcher at Lasso Security, told Help Net Security that organizations should take deliberate steps to prevent blind trust in LLMs. “To mitigate automation misinformation and bias, organizations should establish a human-in-the-loop structure, where LLM outputs are treated as hypotheses that require analyst validation against logs, captures, or other ground truth before taking any action,” he explained. “Teams should always confirm that suggested outputs exist in terms of packages, check repository activity and security vulnerabilities, and run scans before adoption. Governance policies such as allow lists, dependency approval workflows gating help enforce discipline and reduce blind trust in LLM recommendations.” Resilience makes a big difference Resilience played a major role in the results. High-resilience individuals performed well with or without LLM support, and they were better at using AI guidance without becoming over-reliant on it. Low-resilience participants did not gain as much from LLMs. In some cases, their performance did not improve or even declined. This creates a risk of uneven outcomes. Teams could see gaps widen between those who can critically evaluate AI suggestions and those who cannot. Over time, this may lead to over-reliance on models, reduced independent thinking, and a loss of diversity in how problems are approached. According to Lanyado, security leaders need to plan for these differences when building teams and training programs. “Not every organization and/or employee interacts with automation in the same way, and differences in team readiness can widen security risks,” he said. To address this, he recommends four key steps: Implement baseline training on LLM failure modes. Teams should understand common model errors, hallucinations, outdated knowledge, and prompt injection risks to reduce blind trust in outputs. Build resilience through red teaming and simulation. Conduct tabletop or red team–blue team exercises with intentionally misleading LLM outputs to teach teams to verify rather than accept suggestions. Pair teams. Less experienced or lower-resilience teams should work with those skilled in analysis and questioning model recommendations. Enable continuous feedback loops. Encourage teams to document when LLM outputs helped or misled them to build a culture of reflection and safe usage. Designing systems that work for everyone The findings suggest that organizations cannot assume adding an LLM will raise everyone’s performance equally. Without design, these tools could make some team members more effective while leaving others behind. The researchers recommend designing AI systems that adapt to the user. High-resilience individuals may benefit from open-ended suggestions. Lower-resilience users might need guidance, confidence indicators, or prompts that encourage them to consider alternative viewpoints. Another issue is automation bias, where people trust AI recommendations too much. Teams can reduce this by creating processes that require human review and by training staff to challenge model outputs, a point echoed by Lanyado’s recommendations for governance and verification practices.
helpnetsecurity.comSep 19, 2025extracted
How to reduce the digital footprint of kids and teens | Kaspersky official blog
The internet is now a second home for most kids and teens. Many get their first device in elementary or middle school, while modern education basically runs on technology. Cybercriminals know this, and they can trick kids into revealing personal details, send harmful links, lure them into unsafe chats, or even drain their parents’ bank accounts. That’s why cybersecurity needs to become a part of everyday life at home. Our guide to reducing your kids’ digital footprint will give you a firm grasp of the risks, and create a safe online environment — while avoiding blanket bans or grudging grievances. What to watch out for First, let’s identify the digital “hot spots” where your attention as a parent matters most: Group chats for schools or universities on unsecured messaging apps Voice chats in video games Oversharing on social platforms Searching on the web and across global social networks Using AI tools and generating content safely General safe-use practices for devices and public networks The best way to protect your kids isn’t through strict controls — it’s through honest conversation. Sure, you can block websites, introduce a phone curfew, and hover over your child every time they use Gemini. But this risks losing their trust: you could end up looking like a villain standing in the way of their freedom. Heavy-handed restrictions always invite attempts to get around them. It’s far better to build understanding, and explaining why the rules exist in the first place. Here are some practical steps to help your child stay out of trouble and keep their digital footprint under control. Watch what you post For Gen Z and Gen Alpha, sharing life online is second nature. But oversharing — being too open online — often opens the door to hacking and even offline risks. Remind your child never to share their last name, date of birth, school name, or city when signing up for services. Explain the risk: attackers could use that data to find them and build false trust — for example, greeting them by name and posing as a classmate’s relative. Turn off geolocation in posts and stories by default. If a post needs a location, only publish it after your child has left that place. Also be careful with places your child visits regularly, and avoid sharing travel plans. The “gold standard” is to teach your child to remove geotags from photos they upload. Why this matters — and how to do it — we covered in our post Metadata: Uncovering what’s hidden inside. Another taboo is sharing personal info — and in some cases even school uniforms. If the school has a distinctive look, photos or videos of clothing (whether sports or regular) can still give away too much. Reinforce the first rule of the internet: what goes online, stays online. Everything they post can have consequences — from damaged reputations to data in scammers’ hands. If your child simply wants to share their experiences, suggest starting a blog. We cover how to do this safely here: How to help your kid become a blogger without ever worrying about their safety. Be careful with the links you click You probably know what phishing is — but your child may not. Explain that any links they get sent need scanning by a reliable anti-phishing tool for smartphones and computers. Too-good-to-be-true offers, surprise prizes, and other “incredible deals” should always raise suspicion — and be shown to you before following the link. We’ve covered phishing schemes in detail, for example, in our post How scammers attack young gamers; use the examples there to show your child what can happen if links aren’t checked. Be careful with who you play with online Caught up in a multiplayer game with voice chat, teens may let their tongues run wild. The gaming world has become a prime space for grooming — when adults build trust with teens for harmful purposes. So set a clear boundary with your child: voice chat should stick to gameplay only. If someone tries to steer things into personal topics, it’s safer to end the conversation — and if they persist, block them. Avoid public Wi-Fi Explain that using public Wi-Fi networks is inherently unsafe: attackers can easily intercept logins, passwords, messages, and other sensitive data. Whenever possible, it’s best to stick to mobile data. If connecting to unsecured Wi-Fi is the only way to stay online, protect the connection with a trusted VPN service. That way your child’s data won’t leak. Watch what you download Android smartphones are tempting targets for scammers of all stripes. Although malicious apps exist for iPhones too, it’s still easier to sneak onto Android. Teach your child that malicious files can take many forms. They may arrive through messengers or email disguised as photos or documents — even forwarded “homework assignments” — and can also hide behind links in their favorite Discord channels. By default, all attachments should be treated with caution and scanned automatically with a reliable antivirus. Use AI wisely — and think for yourself Unsupervised chatbot use isn’t just an ethical or psychological issue — it’s a security risk. Recently, Google indexed tens of thousands of ChatGPT conversations, making them accessible internet-wide. Explain to your child not to treat AI as a best friend for pouring out their soul. AI tools often collect large amounts of personal data — everything your child types, asks, or uploads in the chat. Make it clear they also shouldn’t share real names, school information, photos, or private details with AI. And emphasize that chatbots are tools and helpers — not “wizards” that can think for them. Explain that AI can’t think, so any “facts” offered must be double-checked. Help with content filters and parental controls Start by enabling parental controls on all devices your child uses: smartphones, tablets, computers — even smart TVs. Most operating systems offer built-in features to block explicit websites, restrict certain apps, and filter search results. On streaming platforms, enable “Restricted” or “Kids” mode to prevent access to adult content. For more fine-tuned control, your best option is Kaspersky Safe Kids, which filters content in real time, allows you to set screen-time limits, and monitors installed apps. It detects and blocks unwanted content that standard filters might miss — especially in browsers — and even shows your child’s physical location and phone battery level. Watch and discuss together The most effective filter isn’t a program — it’s you. Make time to watch shows, surf the web, and play games together with your child. This will help you understand what’s going on in their life and create a space to discuss values, feelings, and real-life situations. To further minimize your child’s digital footprint and reduce the risks of cyberattacks and cyberbullying, use: Unique passwords and a handy tool to manage them. A digital ecosystem to protect your entire family built on Kaspersky Premium. A full-featured parental control suite — Kaspersky Safe Kids. Speaking of which, a free one-year subscription to Kaspersky Safe Kids is included with Kaspersky Premium. For more advice on keeping your kids safe online, explore our Digital Schoolbag: A Parent’s Guide for the School Year. Further reading on threats targeting children and teens online:
kaspersky.comSep 5, 2025extracted
Russians hacked US courts, say investigators
Russia is after secret files in the US court system, according to reports this week—and its hackers appear to have reached at least some of them. Last week, news broke of a successful cyberattack against the decades-old US court filing system. Called Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF), courts use the system to file and maintain documentation for legal cases around the country, which in turn can be accessed through a public portal called PACER. The attack happened as early ago as the first week of July, and possibly before that. Now, investigators say that Russia is at least partly responsible for the hack, which they described in the New York Times as a multi-year effort to compromise the system. What would Russian hackers be looking for? Many court documents are accessible via PACER for a small fee (or via other sites such as CourtListener for free). But CM/ECF also hosts many sensitive, sealed documents that are not available to the general public. These would be a treasure trove to those with criminal and/or nation-state connections. Indeed, the targeted documents were those with overseas ties, according to the NYT report, which said that the attack has targeted at least eight district courts. Chief judges there were asked to move sensitive cases out of CM/ECF. At least one judge, for the Eastern District of New York, issued an order forbidding sealed documents to be directly uploaded there. Experts have already warned that court files are the crown jewels for cyber attackers. “Experience has shown that the Judiciary is a high-value target for malicious actors and cyber criminals seeking to misappropriate confidential information and disrupt the judicial process in the United States,” said Michael Y. Scudder Jr., chair of the Committee on IT of the Judicial Conference on Courts, testifying to Congress in June this year. He mentioned that in 2024 alone, the judiciary’s security team blocked 200 million harmful events from reaching local court networks, adding that attacks were becoming more sophisticated over time. This isn’t the first time that attackers have made it through the filing system’s defenses. In 2021, CM/ECF suffered a major cybersecurity breach, as reported by the Judiciary at the time, later revealed to have involved three hostile foreign actors, per Politico. The Judiciary is also in the process of modernizing the filing system, Scudder said. That would mean replacing CM/ECF, which was first introduced in the mid-nineties. PACER is also up for replacement. However, a replacement has been on the cards since at least 2022, when the Judiciary discussed its refresh plans. The US government runs on technology systems, having moved away from paper. But those systems are often in dire need of modernization. In July, the US Government Accountability Office released an update to a 2019 audit of government IT systems. Of the ten critical legacy systems most in need of modernization back then, only three have been addressed as of this February. Some of the oldest legacy systems, operated by the Department of Defense and the Treasury, date back to before Neil Armstrong first walked on the moon. From reporting threats to removing them. Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. Keep threats off your devices by downloading Malwarebytes today.
malwarebytes.comAug 13, 2025extracted