Technology

Related News

The Race Is on to Keep AI Agents From Running Wild With Your Credit Cards

  • Lily Hay Newman
  • Published date: 2026-04-28 13:00:00

AI agents may soon be buying your stuff for you. The FIDO Alliance has teamed up with Google and Mastercard to try to ensure that shopping in the near future isn't a complete disaster.

Between malware, online impersonation, and account takeovers, there are enough digital security problems out there as it is. And with the rise of agentic AI, more activity is being carried out by age… [+3869 chars]

Tech's hyperscalers face Wall Street for first time since U.S. Iran war sent oil prices soaring

  • Jordan Novet, Jonathan Vanian
  • Published date: 2026-04-28 12:00:01

Wall Street is optimistic about big tech companies and their data center construction plans, despite a memory shortage and the Iran war.

The last time tech's hyperscalers addressed Wall Street, three months ago, they announced plans to collectively spend well over half a trillion dollars this year to build out their artificial intelli… [+11516 chars]

Singapore Military Fitness Tracker Risk

  • None
  • Published date: 2026-04-28 03:06:25

Singapore's military faces a new digital threat fitness trackers exposing troop routines inside bases. The Silicon Review reports on Strava heatmap risks

Singapore's military faces a new digital threat: fitness trackers exposing troop routines inside bases. The Silicon Review reports on Strava heatmap risks and "pattern-of-life" vulnerabilities. Sing… [+1986 chars]

Open is Not Costless: Reclaiming Sustainable Infrastructure

  • None
  • Published date: 2026-04-28 00:00:00

None

<p>The post <a href="https://www.sonatype.com/blog/open-is-not-costless-reclaiming-sustainable-infrastructure">Open is Not Costless: Reclaiming Sustainable Infrastructure</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.sonatype.com/blog">2024 Sonatype Blog</a>.</p><div class="hs-featured-image-wrapper"> <a href="https://www.sonatype.com/blog/open-is-not-costless-reclaiming-sustainable-infrastructure" title="" class="hs-featured-image-link"> <img decoding="async" src="https://www.sonatype.com/hubfs/Sonatype%20and%20Package%20Registry%20Leaders%20Unite%20to%20Address%20Open%20Source%20Sustainability%20Crisis.png" alt="Open is Not Costless: Reclaiming Sustainable Infrastructure" class="hs-featured-image" style="width:auto !important; max-width:50%; float:left; margin:0 15px 15px 0;"> </a> </div><p><span>For years, the software industry treated public package registries like a law of nature. They were simply there. Immutable, invisible, and somehow outside the normal rules of cost, capacity, and responsibility.</span></p><p><img decoding="async" src="https://track.hubspot.com/__ptq.gif?a=1958393&amp;k=14&amp;r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sonatype.com%2Fblog%2Fopen-is-not-costless-reclaiming-sustainable-infrastructure&amp;bu=https%253A%252F%252Fwww.sonatype.com%252Fblog&amp;bvt=rss" alt="" width="1" height="1" style="min-height:1px!important;width:1px!important;border-width:0!important;margin-top:0!important;margin-bottom:0!important;margin-right:0!important;margin-left:0!important;padding-top:0!important;padding-bottom:0!important;padding-right:0!important;padding-left:0!important; "></p><div class="spu-placeholder" style="display:none"></div><div class="addtoany_share_save_container addtoany_content addtoany_content_bottom"><div class="a2a_kit a2a_kit_size_20 addtoany_list" data-a2a-url="https://securityboulevard.com/2026/04/open-is-not-costless-reclaiming-sustainable-infrastructure/" data-a2a-title="Open is Not Costless: Reclaiming Sustainable Infrastructure"><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fopen-is-not-costless-reclaiming-sustainable-infrastructure%2F&amp;linkname=Open%20is%20Not%20Costless%3A%20Reclaiming%20Sustainable%20Infrastructure" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fopen-is-not-costless-reclaiming-sustainable-infrastructure%2F&amp;linkname=Open%20is%20Not%20Costless%3A%20Reclaiming%20Sustainable%20Infrastructure" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fopen-is-not-costless-reclaiming-sustainable-infrastructure%2F&amp;linkname=Open%20is%20Not%20Costless%3A%20Reclaiming%20Sustainable%20Infrastructure" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_reddit" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/reddit?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fopen-is-not-costless-reclaiming-sustainable-infrastructure%2F&amp;linkname=Open%20is%20Not%20Costless%3A%20Reclaiming%20Sustainable%20Infrastructure" title="Reddit" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fopen-is-not-costless-reclaiming-sustainable-infrastructure%2F&amp;linkname=Open%20is%20Not%20Costless%3A%20Reclaiming%20Sustainable%20Infrastructure" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share"></a></div></div><p class="syndicated-attribution">*** This is a Security Bloggers Network syndicated blog from <a href="https://www.sonatype.com/blog">2024 Sonatype Blog</a> authored by <a href="https://securityboulevard.com/author/0/" title="Read other posts by Brian Fox">Brian Fox</a>. Read the original post at: <a href="https://www.sonatype.com/blog/open-is-not-costless-reclaiming-sustainable-infrastructure">https://www.sonatype.com/blog/open-is-not-costless-reclaiming-sustainable-infrastructure</a> </p>

LLM Proxies vs. MCP Gateways: What’s the Difference?

  • None
  • Published date: 2026-04-28 00:00:00

None

<p>As enterprise adoption of generative AI accelerates, so does the number of new components showing up in architecture diagrams. Among the common are LLM proxies and MCP gateways. They are often grouped together because they both sit between applications and AI systems, and both introduce a level of abstraction that is intended to simplify development and use of agentic AI. However, these technologies are built to solve very different problems, and the distinction becomes increasingly important as organizations move beyond simple prompt-based use cases.</p><p>It is important to note that the industry is still figuring out exactly how these categories should be defined. Vendors and research analysts sometimes use similar terms to describe slightly different capabilities, and the boundaries between these technologies continue to shift as AI architectures evolve.</p><h2>What is an LLM Proxy?</h2><p>An LLM proxy is a lightweight intermediary that sits between one or more model providers such as OpenAI, Anthropic, or Google, and applications. Its primary role is to manage how requests are sent to models and how responses are returned. In practice, this means handling tasks like routing traffic across providers, tracking token usage, and managing API access. Teams often adopt LLM proxies early because they make it easier to experiment with multiple models or switch providers without rewriting application code.</p><p>Common capabilities include:</p><ul> <li>Token tracking and cost monitoring</li> <li>Routing requests across models or providers</li> <li>Failover and fallback handling</li> <li>API key abstraction</li> <li>Basic logging and observability</li> </ul><p>While useful, LLM proxies are intentionally narrow in scope. They are designed to manage traffic, not enforce policy. Security controls such as prompt filtering and prompt abuse prevention are typically handled by the model provider itself, not the proxy.</p><h2>What is an MCP Gateway?</h2><p>An MCP gateway addresses a different challenge. As AI systems evolve, models are no longer just generating responses. They are increasingly acting as agents that interact with tools, access data, and execute tasks across multiple systems. The Model Context Protocol, or MCP, provides a standardized way for models to request these actions. An MCP gateway acts as the control point for those interactions.</p><p>Instead of focusing on routing model traffic, an MCP gateway manages how agents discover tools, what they are allowed to do, and how multi-step tasks are executed. This introduces a level of structure and governance that is necessary once AI systems begin taking actions rather than just producing text.</p><p>Typical capabilities include:</p><ul> <li>Tool discovery and routing</li> <li>Access control and tool permissioning</li> <li>Multi-step workflow orchestration</li> </ul><p>These systems are designed for stateful interactions, where each step in a process may depend on previous context. For example, an agent might retrieve data from a database, process it, and then trigger an external API call. The gateway ensures each step is permitted, tracked, and executed correctly.</p><h2>Where They Overlap</h2><p>At a high level, both LLM proxies and MCP gateways serve as intermediaries. They reduce complexity for developers and provide a central point of visibility. Both can support multiple backends, whether those are model providers or external tools. However, the responsibilities of each system diverge quickly once you look at how they are used in real environments.</p><p>An LLM proxy is concerned with sending requests to models and returning responses. An MCP gateway is concerned with what happens after that response, particularly when an agent begins interacting with other systems. This difference becomes more pronounced as applications grow more complex. Managing requests is not the same as managing actions, and the risks associated with each are very different.</p><h2>Why This Matters</h2><p>Organizations are now building systems where models act as agents that can query databases, call APIs, and trigger workflows. These capabilities introduce new risks, including unauthorized actions, unintended data exposure, and a lack of visibility into how decisions are made. As a result, organizations need a way to control not just how models are accessed, but how they operate within a broader system. That includes governing tool usage, enforcing permissions, and maintaining visibility across multi-step interactions.</p><h2>Enter: The Cequence AI Gateway – The Enterprise Solution</h2><p>The Cequence AI Gateway is aptly named because it provides the centralized control plane organizations need to manage AI traffic across models and applications. At the same time, it reflects how the AI infrastructure landscape is evolving and Cequence’s vision for what organizations need to deploy agent AI workflows at scale. They need more than simple model routing or agent-to-tool communication; they need governance, security, visibility, and control across the entire environment.</p><p>By combining AI gateway capabilities with the kinds of secure system integrations that MCP architectures enable, the Cequence AI Gateway addresses the broader operational challenges organizations face as they scale AI. Rather than forcing customers to assemble multiple solutions, it provides a unified platform for managing how AI systems interact with models, applications, and enterprise services. We believe that ultimately the three types of infrastructure discussed here will converge into a single offering that does it all, more broadly addressing the security, governance, and control requirements that enterprises have when it comes to providing AI agents access to applications and data. The Cequence AI Gateway was built with that in mind.</p><p>The Cequence AI Gateway features include:</p><ul> <li>MCP server creation in minutes, no coding required</li> <li>Integrated end-to-end OAuth 2.1-compliant authentication and authorization</li> <li>Lease privilege access through a simple agent job description with <a href="https://www.cequence.ai/blog/ai/agent-personas-missing-agentic-security-layer/">Agent Personas</a></li> <li>Sensitive data protection to monitor, redact, or block the unintended exfiltration of sensitive data</li> <li>Built-in trusted MCP registry eliminates the risks of <a href="https://www.cequence.ai/blog/ai/hidden-dangers-of-untrusted-mcp-servers/">rogue MCP servers</a></li> <li>Monitoring and visibility into user, agent, and application interactions</li> <li>SaaS or on-premises deployment, discrete prototype/production modes, and other enterprise features the world’s largest organizations demand.</li> </ul><h2>Get Started with Cequence AI Gateway</h2><p>As AI adoption accelerates, organizations are discovering that the infrastructure needed to support it is still evolving. Terms like AI gateway, MCP gateway, and LLM proxy will likely continue to shift as the ecosystem matures. However, remaining constant is the need for secure, governed, and observable AI operations. The Cequence AI Gateway delivers that foundation, helping enterprises safely scale AI while maintaining control over how models, applications, and enterprise systems interact. <a href="https://www.cequence.ai/demo/ai-gateway/">Book a demo</a> with us today and let us show you how it works.</p><p>The post <a href="https://www.cequence.ai/blog/ai/mcp-gateway-vs-llm-proxy/">LLM Proxies vs. MCP Gateways: What’s the Difference?</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.cequence.ai/">Cequence Security</a>.</p><div class="spu-placeholder" style="display:none"></div><div class="addtoany_share_save_container addtoany_content addtoany_content_bottom"><div class="a2a_kit a2a_kit_size_20 addtoany_list" data-a2a-url="https://securityboulevard.com/2026/04/llm-proxies-vs-mcp-gateways-whats-the-difference/" data-a2a-title="LLM Proxies vs. MCP Gateways: What’s the Difference?"><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fllm-proxies-vs-mcp-gateways-whats-the-difference%2F&amp;linkname=LLM%20Proxies%20vs.%20MCP%20Gateways%3A%20What%E2%80%99s%20the%20Difference%3F" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fllm-proxies-vs-mcp-gateways-whats-the-difference%2F&amp;linkname=LLM%20Proxies%20vs.%20MCP%20Gateways%3A%20What%E2%80%99s%20the%20Difference%3F" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fllm-proxies-vs-mcp-gateways-whats-the-difference%2F&amp;linkname=LLM%20Proxies%20vs.%20MCP%20Gateways%3A%20What%E2%80%99s%20the%20Difference%3F" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_reddit" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/reddit?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fllm-proxies-vs-mcp-gateways-whats-the-difference%2F&amp;linkname=LLM%20Proxies%20vs.%20MCP%20Gateways%3A%20What%E2%80%99s%20the%20Difference%3F" title="Reddit" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fllm-proxies-vs-mcp-gateways-whats-the-difference%2F&amp;linkname=LLM%20Proxies%20vs.%20MCP%20Gateways%3A%20What%E2%80%99s%20the%20Difference%3F" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share"></a></div></div><p class="syndicated-attribution">*** This is a Security Bloggers Network syndicated blog from <a href="https://www.cequence.ai/">Cequence Security</a> authored by <a href="https://securityboulevard.com/author/0/" title="Read other posts by Jeff Harrell">Jeff Harrell</a>. Read the original post at: <a href="https://www.cequence.ai/blog/ai/mcp-gateway-vs-llm-proxy/">https://www.cequence.ai/blog/ai/mcp-gateway-vs-llm-proxy/</a> </p>

Furious scenes at WHCD party with journo thrown out before threatening to fight Trump hating Jim Acosta

  • mliss1578
  • Published date: 2026-04-27 13:47:47

When the Secret Service locked down a group of revelers inside a Substack party next to the White House Correspondents’ Dinner for hours, things quickly turned into “The Hunger Games.” Sources inside the Renwick Gallery of the Smithsonian American Art Museum …

When the Secret Service locked down a group of revelers inside a Substack party next to the White House Correspondents Dinner for hours, things quickly turned into “The Hunger Games.” Sources inside… [+6372 chars]

Why AI-Driven Reconnaissance Matters Today?

  • None
  • Published date: 2026-04-27 00:00:00

None

<p>AI is changing cybersecurity in different ways. One of the biggest changes shows up in penetration testing, especially in the first stage called reconnaissance. This is the stage where security testers collect information about a target before they test it. Today, <strong>AI-driven reconnaissance</strong> makes this step faster, easier, and more structured. Instead of spending long hours searching for data, testers now use AI systems that scan, collect, and sort information in a smart way. This changes how security teams work every day.</p><h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>What Reconnaissance Means in Penetration Testing</strong></h2><p>Reconnaissance means “finding information.” It happens before any attack simulation in a security test. <strong>Security testers try to learn things like:</strong></p><ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>Which domains belong to a company?</li> <li>What servers run in the background?</li> <li>Which apps and APIs stay active?</li> <li>What data leaks exist online?</li> <li>What systems look weak or open?</li> </ul><p>Earlier, testers did all of this by hand. They searched step by step and checked each result. Now, AI-based reconnaissance does most of this work in seconds, and humans focus on checking results instead of collecting them.</p><h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Why AI-Driven Reconnaissance Matters Today</strong></h2><p>Modern companies run very large digital systems. One company may use cloud apps, internal tools, and public services at the same time. This creates huge amounts of data. Manual work cannot handle this scale anymore.</p><p><strong>Statista</strong> reports that the AI cybersecurity market will grow from about <strong><em>$31 billion in 2024 to $134 billion by 2030</em></strong>. This shows how fast companies adopt AI-based reconnaissance tools.</p><p><strong>So the logic becomes simple:</strong></p><ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>More systems create more data</li> <li>More data needs faster scanning</li> <li>Faster scanning needs AI</li> </ul><p>That is where AI reconnaissance steps in and helps security teams keep up.</p><p><br> <br> </p><br><meta charset="UTF-8"><br><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><p> <!-- IMPORTANT: SEO control --><br> <meta name="robots" content="noindex, nofollow"></p><p> </p><title>Blog Form</title><br><div class="containers"> <!-- Left Section --> <div class="left-section"> <p class="heading-wrap">Book Your Free Cybersecurity Consultation Today!</p> <p> <img decoding="async" src="https://awareness.threatcop.ai/marketing/new_asset_blog_form.svg" alt="People working on cybersecurity" class="consultation-image"> </p></div> <p> <!-- Right Section --></p> <div class="right-section"> <div class="form-containers"> <form action="https://kratikal.com/thanks/thankyou-blog" method="get" onsubmit="return validateForm(this)"> <div class="form-group"> <label for="fullName">Full Name</label><br> <input type="text" required name="FullName" placeholder="Enter full name"> </div> <div class="form-group"> <label for="email">Email ID</label><br> <input type="email" required name="email" placeholder="your name @ example.com"> </div> <div class="form-group"> <label for="company">Company Name</label><br> <input type="text" required name="CompanyName" placeholder="Enter company name"> </div> <div class="form-group"> <label for="phone">Phone Number</label><br> <input type="number" required name="Phone" placeholder="Enter phone number"> </div> <p> <input type="hidden" name="BlogForm" value="BlogForm"><br> <button type="submit" class="submit-btnns" name="submit" value="I am interested!">I am interested!</button><br> </p></form> </div> </div> </div><p><!-- CSS Styles --></p><style> .containers{ display: flex; width: 100%; max-width: 800px; height: 500px; box-shadow: 0 0 10px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.1); border-radius: 4px; overflow: hidden; margin: 25px auto; } .left-section { width: 50%; background-color: #000; color: white; padding: 30px; display: flex; flex-direction: column; position: relative; overflow: hidden; } .left-section .heading-wrap { font-size: 24px; line-height: 40px; margin-bottom: 30px; z-index: 2; position: relative; color: white; } .consultation-image { position: absolute; bottom: 0; left: 0; width: 100%; height: 70%; object-fit: cover; object-position: center; } .right-section { width: 50%; background-color: white; padding: 30px; display: flex; flex-direction: column; justify-content: center; } .form-containers { width: 100%; } .form-group { margin-bottom: 20px; } label { display: block; color: #666; margin-bottom: 5px; font-size: 14px; } .right-section input { width: 88%; padding: 12px 15px; border: 1px solid #e0e0e0; border-radius: 8px; font-size: 16px; } .submit-btnns { width: 100%; padding: 15px; background: linear-gradient(to right, #e67e22, #d35400); border: none; border-radius: 8px; color: white; font-size: 18px; font-weight: bold; cursor: pointer; margin-top: 10px; } /* Responsive */ @media (max-width: 768px) { .containers { flex-direction: column; height: auto; } .left-section, .right-section { width: 100%; } .left-section { height: 400px; } .consultation-image { height: 60%; } } @media (max-width: 480px) { .left-section { padding: 20px; height: 350px; } .left-section .heading-wrap { font-size: 17px; line-height: 28px;width: 80%; } .right-section { padding: 20px; } .right-section input, .submit-btnns { padding: 10px; } } </style><p><!-- JS Validation --><br> <script> function validateForm(form) { const inputs = form.querySelectorAll("input[type=text], input[type=email], input[type=number]"); for (let i = 0; i < inputs.length; i++) { if (/[<>]/.test(inputs[i].value)) { alert("Tags and attributes are not allowed in form fields!"); return false; // prevent submission } } return true; // allow submission } </script><br> <script defer src="https://static.cloudflareinsights.com/beacon.min.js/v8c78df7c7c0f484497ecbca7046644da1771523124516" integrity="sha512-8DS7rgIrAmghBFwoOTujcf6D9rXvH8xm8JQ1Ja01h9QX8EzXldiszufYa4IFfKdLUKTTrnSFXLDkUEOTrZQ8Qg==" data-cf-beacon='{"version":"2024.11.0","token":"33edbdb5f462496f85e52978979b687b","server_timing":{"name":{"cfCacheStatus":true,"cfEdge":true,"cfExtPri":true,"cfL4":true,"cfOrigin":true,"cfSpeedBrain":true},"location_startswith":null}}' crossorigin="anonymous"></script> <script>(function(){function c(){var b=a.contentDocument||a.contentWindow.document;if(b){var d=b.createElement('script');d.innerHTML="window.__CF$cv$params={r:'9f379f5c387eae18',t:'MTc3NzM5NTYxOQ=='};var a=document.createElement('script');a.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js';document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(a);";b.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(d)}}if(document.body){var a=document.createElement('iframe');a.height=1;a.width=1;a.style.position='absolute';a.style.top=0;a.style.left=0;a.style.border='none';a.style.visibility='hidden';document.body.appendChild(a);if('loading'!==document.readyState)c();else if(window.addEventListener)document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',c);else{var e=document.onreadystatechange||function(){};document.onreadystatechange=function(b){e(b);'loading'!==document.readyState&&(document.onreadystatechange=e,c())}}}})();</script></p><h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>How AI-Driven Reconnaissance Works Step by Step</strong></h2><p>AI-based reconnaissance works like a smart assistant that never stops working. It collects data, studies it, and builds a clear picture of a target system.</p><h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Collects data from many place</strong>s</h3><p>The first step in AI-driven reconnaissance is data collection. AI pulls information from public and semi-public sources, such as:</p><ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>Domain records (DNS data)</li> <li>GitHub repositories</li> <li>Social media profiles</li> <li>Cloud storage systems</li> <li>Public websites and APIs</li> </ul><p>It does not stop after one scan. It keeps running and updates the data again and again.</p><h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Connects small detail</strong>s</h3><p>After collecting data, it starts linking small pieces of information.</p><p><strong>It looks for patterns like:</strong></p><ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>Same email used in different systems</li> <li>Hidden sub-domains linked to old projects</li> <li>Open login pages with no protection</li> <li>IP addresses that repeat across services</li> </ul><p>Humans often miss these links. AI does not. It connects them fast and shows a bigger picture.</p><h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Maps risks in one place</strong></h3><p>Next, AI-driven reconnaissance builds a clear map of possible risks. It highlights weak areas, so testers know where to focus.</p><ol start="3" class="wp-block-list"></ol><p><strong>This includes:</strong></p><ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>Open ports on servers</li> <li>Old software versions still in use</li> <li>Misconfigured cloud storage</li> <li>Exposed credentials or files</li> </ul><p>Instead of digging through raw data, testers now read this map and verify real issues.</p><h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Benefits of AI-Driven Reconnaissance</strong></h2><p>Reconnaissance driven by AI brings clear improvements to penetration testing. It does not replace humans. It supports them. <strong>One of the Big Four accounting firms</strong> explains that <strong><em>AI reduces manual workload and improves threat detection</em></strong> by handling repetitive security tasks. This helps security teams focus on real thinking work.</p><h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Here is what improves the most:</strong></h3><ul class="wp-block-list"> <li><strong>Faster work</strong>: AI-based reconnaissance scans huge systems in minutes. Tasks that took hours now finish quickly.</li> <li><strong>Wider coverage</strong>: It checks more sources than any human team can manage.</li> <li><strong>Better accuracy</strong>: It connects patterns across data that humans may miss.</li> <li><strong>Continuous updates</strong>: It keeps scanning all the time, not just once.</li> <li><strong>Less manual effort</strong>: Testers spend less time searching and more time analyzing.</li> </ul><h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>How AI-Driven Reconnaissance Changes the Role of Penetration Testers</strong></h2><p><a href="https://kratikal.com/blog/use-ai-driven-reconnaissance-to-identify-cyber-threats/"><strong><mark class="has-inline-color has-luminous-vivid-orange-color">AI-based reconnaissance</mark></strong></a> changes how testers work every day. They no longer spend most of their time gathering raw data. Instead, they focus on understanding and testing what AI finds.</p><h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Now penetration testers:</strong></h3><ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>Review AI-generated findings</li> <li>Confirm real vulnerabilities</li> <li>Plan attack paths step by step</li> <li>Explain risks in simple terms</li> </ul><h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Real Example of Reconnaissance</strong> Driven by AI</h2><p>Let’s take a simple example.  A company runs 500 domains across different cloud platforms.</p><h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Without AI:</strong></h3><ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>A tester checks each domain one by one</li> <li>The process takes days</li> <li>Human error can happen easily</li> </ul><h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>With AI-driven reconnaissance:</strong></h3><ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>AI finds all domains in minutes</li> <li>It scans them together</li> <li>It connects related systems</li> <li>It highlights weak spots in one report</li> </ul><p>Now the tester does not waste time searching. The tester focuses on checking real risks and planning next steps.</p><h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Limitations of AI-Driven Reconnaissance</strong></h2><p>Even though AI driven reconnaissance works well, it still has limits.</p><h4 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>It can:</strong></h4><ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>Miss the real-world context behind data</li> <li>Show false alerts or weak signals</li> <li>Struggle with unusual system designs</li> <li>Depend too much on the training data quality</li> </ul><p>This is why security teams still need humans. AI can collect and suggest, but humans must decide what matters.</p><h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Why Attackers Also Use AI-Driven Reconnaissance</strong></h2><p>AI does not stay on one side. Attackers also use it.</p><h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>They use reconnaissance to:</strong></h3><ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>Scan large targets quickly</li> <li>Find exposed systems</li> <li>Gather personal data for phishing</li> <li>Build attack plans faster</li> </ul><p>This creates a race between attackers and defenders. Both sides use similar tools. The difference comes from how they use the information.</p><h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Future of Reconnaissance </strong>Driven by AI</h2><p>Security teams can’t rely on manual reconnaissance anymore. Threats move fast, and gaps appear without warning. AI changes the game by helping teams spot risks early and act with clarity.</p><p>That’s where <a href="https://kratikal.com/blog/autosect-defining-all-your-pentesting-needs/"><strong><mark class="has-inline-color has-luminous-vivid-orange-color">AutoSecT</mark></strong></a> fits in. AutoSecT uses advanced machine learning, predictive analytics, and automation to improve your cloud security. It delivers real-time insights and helps you stay ahead of potential threats with clear, forward-looking protection.</p><p>AutoSecT handles the heavy lifting, speed, scale, and continuous checks. Your team stays focused on decisions that protect the business.</p><h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>How AutoSecT helps in transforming reconnaissance in penetration testing</strong></h3><ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>It cuts through noise to reveal real threats.</li> <li>It detects threats instantly.</li> <li>It anticipates risks early.</li> <li>It protects against advanced threats.</li> <li>It ensures full cloud visibility.</li> <li>It delivers fast, actionable insights.</li> <li>It automates compliance.</li> </ul><p>AutoSecT offers advantages such as less wasted time, fewer false alarms, and faster, more effective responses to real risks. AutoSecT, enhances cloud security through <a href="https://kratikal.com/autosect/ai-driven-reconnaissance"><strong><mark class="has-inline-color has-luminous-vivid-orange-color">AI-driven reconnaissance</mark></strong></a>. If you want stronger visibility and control over your cloud security, AutoSecT gives you that edge.</p><p><br> <br> </p><br><meta charset="UTF-8"><br><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><br><title>Cyber Security Squad – Newsletter Signup</title><link rel="stylesheet" href="https://kratikal.com/blog/why-ai-driven-reconnaissance-matters-today/styles.css"><link rel="preconnect" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/"><link rel="preconnect" href="https://fonts.gstatic.com/" crossorigin><link href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css2?family=Roboto:wght@400;500;700&amp;display=swap" rel="stylesheet"><style type="text/css"> /* Reset and base styles */</p> <p>.newsletterwrap .containerWrap { width: 100%; max-width: 800px; margin: 25px auto; }</p> <p>/* Card styles */ .newsletterwrap .signup-card { background-color: white; border-radius: 10px; overflow: hidden; box-shadow: 0 4px 12px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.1); border: 8px solid #e85d0f; }</p> <p>.newsletterwrap .content { padding: 30px; display: flex; justify-content: space-between; align-items: center; flex-wrap: wrap; }</p> <p>/* Text content */ .newsletterwrap .text-content { flex: 1; min-width: 250px; margin-right: 20px; }</p> <p>.newsletterwrap .main-heading { font-size: 26px; color: #333; font-weight: 900; margin-bottom: 0px; }</p> <p>.newsletterwrap .highlight { color: #e85d0f; font-weight: 500; margin-bottom: 15px; }</p> <p>.newsletterwrap .para { color: #666; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 10px; }</p> <p>.newsletterwrap .bold { font-weight: 700; }</p> <p>/* Logo */ .newsletterwrap .rightlogo { display: flex; flex-direction: column; align-items: center; margin-top: 10px; }</p> <p>.newsletterwrap .logo-icon { position: relative; width: 80px; height: 80px; margin-bottom: 10px; }</p> <p>.newsletterwrap .c-outer, .c-middle, .c-inner { position: absolute; border-radius: 50%; border: 6px solid #e85d0f; border-right-color: transparent; }</p> <p>.newsletterwrap .c-outer { width: 80px; height: 80px; top: 0; left: 0; }</p> <p>.newsletterwrap .c-middle { width: 60px; height: 60px; top: 10px; left: 10px; }</p> <p>.newsletterwrap .c-inner { width: 40px; height: 40px; top: 20px; left: 20px; }</p> <p>.newsletterwrap .logo-text { color: #e85d0f; font-weight: 700; font-size: 0.9rem; text-align: center; }</p> <p>/* Form */ .newsletterwrap .signup-form { display: flex; padding: 0 30px 30px; }</p> <p>.newsletterwrap input[type="email"] { flex: 1; padding: 12px 15px; border: 1px solid #ddd; border-radius: 4px 0 0 4px; font-size: 1rem; outline: none; }</p> <p>.newsletterwrap input[type="email"]:focus { border-color: #e85d0f; }</p> <p>.newsletterwrap .submitBtn { background-color: #e85d0f; color: white; border: none; padding: 12px 20px; border-radius: 0 4px 4px 0; font-size: 1rem; cursor: pointer; transition: background-color 0.3s; white-space: nowrap; }</p> <p>.newsletterwrap button:hover { background-color: #d45000; }</p> <p>/* Responsive styles */ @media (max-width: 768px) { .newsletterwrap .content { flex-direction: column; text-align: center; }</p> <p> .newsletterwrap .text-content { margin-right: 0; margin-bottom: 20px; }</p> <p> .newsletterwrap .rightlogo { margin-top: 20px; } }</p> <p>@media (max-width: 480px) { .newsletterwrap .signup-form { flex-direction: column; }</p> <p> .newsletterwrap input[type="email"] { border-radius: 4px; margin-bottom: 10px; }</p> <p> .newsletterwrap .submitBtn { border-radius: 4px; width: 100%; } } </style><p><br> </p><div class="containerWrap"> <div class="signup-card"> <div class="content"> <div class="text-content"> <h1 class="main-heading">Get in!</h1> <p class="para">Join our weekly <span style="color: #e75d10;">newsletter</span> and stay updated</p> </div> <div class="rightlogo"> <div class="logo-icon"> <div class="c-outer"></div> <div class="c-middle"></div> <div class="c-inner"></div> </div> <div class="logo-text">CYBER SECURITY SQUAD</div> </div> </div> <form class="signup-form" action="https://kratikal.com/thanks/thankyou-newsletter" method="get"> <input type="email" name="email" value="" placeholder="Email" required><br> <input type="submit" name="submit" value="I am interested!" class="submitBtn"><br> </form> </div> </div><p><br> </p><h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Conclusion</strong></h2><p>AI-driven reconnaissance has changed penetration testing in a strong way. It reduces manual work, improves speed, and gives better visibility into complex systems. But the main goal stays simple. Find security weaknesses before attackers find them. Now, it helps teams reach that goal faster and with more accuracy. It does not replace human testers. It supports them, guides them, and helps them see more than ever before.</p><h2 class="wp-block-heading">AI-Driven Reconnaissance FAQs</h2><div class="schema-how-to wp-block-yoast-how-to-block"> <p class="schema-how-to-description"> </p><ol class="schema-how-to-steps"> <li class="schema-how-to-step" id="how-to-step-1777266885341"><strong class="schema-how-to-step-name">What is AI-driven reconnaissance in cybersecurity?</strong> <p class="schema-how-to-step-text">It uses artificial intelligence to automatically collect, analyze, and connect digital footprint data like domains, IPs, APIs, and exposed assets to identify potential security risks faster.</p> </li> <li class="schema-how-to-step" id="how-to-step-1777266922288"><strong class="schema-how-to-step-name">How does AI improve penetration testing reconnaissance?</strong> <p class="schema-how-to-step-text">AI speeds up reconnaissance by scanning large environments quickly, linking hidden patterns, mapping attack surfaces, and reducing manual effort so penetration testers can focus on validating vulnerabilities.</p> </li> <li class="schema-how-to-step" id="how-to-step-1777266934370"><strong class="schema-how-to-step-name">Can AI replace human penetration testers?</strong> <p class="schema-how-to-step-text">No. AI supports reconnaissance by automating data gathering and analysis, but human testers are still essential for validating findings, understanding context, and planning real-world attack simulations.</p> </li> </ol> </div><p>The post <a href="https://kratikal.com/blog/why-ai-driven-reconnaissance-matters-today/">Why AI-Driven Reconnaissance Matters Today?</a> appeared first on <a href="https://kratikal.com/blog">Kratikal Blogs</a>.</p><div class="spu-placeholder" style="display:none"></div><div class="addtoany_share_save_container addtoany_content addtoany_content_bottom"><div class="a2a_kit a2a_kit_size_20 addtoany_list" data-a2a-url="https://securityboulevard.com/2026/04/why-ai-driven-reconnaissance-matters-today/" data-a2a-title="Why AI-Driven Reconnaissance Matters Today?"><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fwhy-ai-driven-reconnaissance-matters-today%2F&amp;linkname=Why%20AI-Driven%20Reconnaissance%20Matters%20Today%3F" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fwhy-ai-driven-reconnaissance-matters-today%2F&amp;linkname=Why%20AI-Driven%20Reconnaissance%20Matters%20Today%3F" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fwhy-ai-driven-reconnaissance-matters-today%2F&amp;linkname=Why%20AI-Driven%20Reconnaissance%20Matters%20Today%3F" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_reddit" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/reddit?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fwhy-ai-driven-reconnaissance-matters-today%2F&amp;linkname=Why%20AI-Driven%20Reconnaissance%20Matters%20Today%3F" title="Reddit" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fwhy-ai-driven-reconnaissance-matters-today%2F&amp;linkname=Why%20AI-Driven%20Reconnaissance%20Matters%20Today%3F" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share"></a></div></div><p class="syndicated-attribution">*** This is a Security Bloggers Network syndicated blog from <a href="https://kratikal.com/blog/">Kratikal Blogs</a> authored by <a href="https://securityboulevard.com/author/0/" title="Read other posts by Puja Saikia">Puja Saikia</a>. Read the original post at: <a href="https://kratikal.com/blog/why-ai-driven-reconnaissance-matters-today/">https://kratikal.com/blog/why-ai-driven-reconnaissance-matters-today/</a> </p>

FBI, Indonesian Authorities Team to Take Down Site Ripping Off Users for Millions

  • Teri Robinson
  • Published date: 2026-04-27 00:00:00

None

<p><span data-contrast="auto">The FBI’s Atlanta Field Office joined forces with law enforcement authorities in Indonesia to put the kibosh on a phishing organization that stretched around the globe and to date has resulted in $20 million in attempted fraud. </span><span data-ccp-props='{"201341983":0,"335559739":0,"335559740":240}'> </span></p><p><span data-contrast="auto">The cybercriminals used the full-service </span><a href="https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/technology/tech-news/fbi-takes-down-website-that-stole-millions-from-internet-users-across-the-world/articleshow/130217625.cms" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span data-contrast="none">W3LL phishing kit</span></a><span data-contrast="auto"> to act as if they were legitimate login pages. When targets gave up their usernames and passwords, the kit would snag that information. And the miscreants would use them to access accounts.  In addition, the tool can also grab session data, offering a path around multifactor authentication. All for the bargain basement price of $500.</span><span data-ccp-props='{"201341983":0,"335559739":0,"335559740":240}'> </span></p><p><span data-contrast="none">“The true danger of many phishing schemes lies in their ability to grant attackers access to credentials, enabling them to masquerade as trusted insiders,” says Rex Booth, CISO at SailPoint.</span><span data-ccp-props='{"201341983":0,"335559739":0,"335559740":240}'> </span></p><p><span data-contrast="auto">And in a four-year period, up to 2023, the kit had a considerable number of takers on the W3LLSTORE marketplace, which ultimately resulted in the sale of more than 25,000 compromised accounts and more than 17,000 victims were targeted in the state of Georgia and globally, the Times of India reported. That store shuttered in 2023 but that didn’t stop the W3LL phishing kit from proliferating; it was simply rebranded and sold through encrypted messaging apps.</span><span data-ccp-props='{"201341983":0,"335559739":0,"335559740":240}'> </span></p><p><span data-contrast="auto">The kit’s developer, referred to by the FBI as “G.L.,” was picked up in Indonesia by authorities. The takedown represents the first time the FBI and Indonesian authorities have worked together in pursuit of cybercriminals. </span><span data-ccp-props='{"201341983":0,"335559739":0,"335559740":240}'> </span></p><p><span data-contrast="auto">AI has upped the phishing game. </span><span data-contrast="none">“Traditional phishing emails used to carry clear warning signs such as poor grammar, inconsistent branding, or unusual formatting,” says Nicole Carignan, senior vice president, security &amp; AI strategy, and Field CISO at Darktrace. </span><span data-ccp-props='{"201341983":0,"335557856":16777215,"335559739":0,"335559740":240}'> </span></p><p><span data-contrast="none">But these days, “AI has removed many of those indicators,” she says, explaining. That “attackers can generate highly polished, brand-consistent communications that closely mirror legitimate organizations, and even tailor messages using publicly available or previously compromised data.” </span><span data-ccp-props='{"201341983":0,"335557856":16777215,"335559739":0,"335559740":240}'> </span></p><p><span data-contrast="none">With AI, adversaries can “operate with greater speed and precision” and “campaigns can be created, tested, and refined in real time, producing large volumes of highly targeted messages that are far more likely to succeed,” Carignan says. </span><span data-ccp-props='{"201341983":0,"335557856":16777215,"335559739":0,"335559740":240}'> </span></p><p><span data-contrast="none">“As a result, phishing is no longer just a volume-based threat; it’s become a quality and personalization problem, making it increasingly difficult to detect with the human eye alone,” she adds. </span><span data-ccp-props='{"201341983":0,"335557856":16777215,"335559739":0,"335559740":240}'> </span></p><p><span data-contrast="none">Because AI makes phishing campaigns more sophisticated and harder to detect, Booth says, it’s “imperative for users to adopt robust identity security best practices, including changing passwords frequently and enabling multi-factor authentication, and for organizations to prioritize identity as the new control plane.”</span><span data-ccp-props='{"201341983":0,"335557856":16777215,"335559739":0,"335559740":240}'> </span></p><p><span data-contrast="none">Noting that “people are trained to obey authority, and deepfake and callback phishing attacks are designed to push people into bypassing normal checks,” Hoxhunt Co-founder and CEO Mika Aalto urges organizations “to normalize ‘see something, say something’ behavior and make verification frictionless. Behavioral monitoring tools can help flag unusual actions, but the real challenge is cultural: giving employees confidence that slowing down to verify is expected, supported, and reinforced through Human Risk Management practices.”</span><span data-ccp-props='{"201341983":0,"335557856":16777215,"335559739":0,"335559740":240}'> </span></p><p><span data-contrast="none">Since phishing has evolved beyond static text, “awareness must do the same,” Aalto says, because the “entire concept of ‘security awareness training’ is outdated if it stops at awareness.”</span><span data-ccp-props='{"201341983":0,"335557856":16777215,"335559739":0,"335559740":240}'> </span></p><p><span data-contrast="none">Aalto believes the next generation of defense is “behavioral, not informational” with defenders “moving from telling people what to do to shaping what</span><b><span data-contrast="none"> </span></b><span data-contrast="none">they actually do, in real time. We are building an innate set of security reflexes and instincts.” </span><span data-ccp-props='{"201341983":0,"335557856":16777215,"335559739":0,"335559740":240}'> </span></p><p><span data-contrast="none">Security pros believe that, unfortunately, the worst is yet to come, making speed an imperative. “We’ve been waiting for this offensive disruption from AI for a while now,” says Booth. “Attacks at scale and superhuman speed are the most obvious first step.”</span><span data-ccp-props='{"201341983":0,"335557856":16777215,"335559739":0,"335559740":240}'> </span></p><p><span data-contrast="none">At least for now, many campaigns “require human intervention to execute,” he says, stressing that the “scarier scenario is when adversary AI starts running rampant through your enterprise without the need for action by the victim.”</span><span data-ccp-props='{"201341983":0,"335557856":16777215,"335559739":0,"335559740":240}'> </span></p><div class="spu-placeholder" style="display:none"></div><div class="addtoany_share_save_container addtoany_content addtoany_content_bottom"><div class="a2a_kit a2a_kit_size_20 addtoany_list" data-a2a-url="https://securityboulevard.com/2026/04/fbi-indonesian-authorities-team-to-take-down-site-ripping-off-users-for-millions/" data-a2a-title="FBI, Indonesian Authorities Team to Take Down Site Ripping Off Users for Millions "><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Ffbi-indonesian-authorities-team-to-take-down-site-ripping-off-users-for-millions%2F&amp;linkname=FBI%2C%20Indonesian%20Authorities%20Team%20to%20Take%20Down%20Site%20Ripping%20Off%20Users%20for%20Millions%C2%A0" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Ffbi-indonesian-authorities-team-to-take-down-site-ripping-off-users-for-millions%2F&amp;linkname=FBI%2C%20Indonesian%20Authorities%20Team%20to%20Take%20Down%20Site%20Ripping%20Off%20Users%20for%20Millions%C2%A0" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Ffbi-indonesian-authorities-team-to-take-down-site-ripping-off-users-for-millions%2F&amp;linkname=FBI%2C%20Indonesian%20Authorities%20Team%20to%20Take%20Down%20Site%20Ripping%20Off%20Users%20for%20Millions%C2%A0" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_reddit" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/reddit?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Ffbi-indonesian-authorities-team-to-take-down-site-ripping-off-users-for-millions%2F&amp;linkname=FBI%2C%20Indonesian%20Authorities%20Team%20to%20Take%20Down%20Site%20Ripping%20Off%20Users%20for%20Millions%C2%A0" title="Reddit" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Ffbi-indonesian-authorities-team-to-take-down-site-ripping-off-users-for-millions%2F&amp;linkname=FBI%2C%20Indonesian%20Authorities%20Team%20to%20Take%20Down%20Site%20Ripping%20Off%20Users%20for%20Millions%C2%A0" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share"></a></div></div>

Short-Lived Credentials in Agentic Systems: A Practical Trade-off Guide

  • Dwayne McDaniel
  • Published date: 2026-04-27 00:00:00

None

<p>The post <a href="https://blog.gitguardian.com/short-lived-credentials-in-agentic-systems-a-practical-trade-off-guide/">Short-Lived Credentials in Agentic Systems: A Practical Trade-off Guide</a> appeared first on <a href="https://blog.gitguardian.com/">GitGuardian Blog – Take Control of Your Secrets Security</a>.</p><p><img decoding="async" src="https://storage.ghost.io/c/42/5d/425d266f-cf99-406e-9436-597a19bed011/content/images/2026/04/ai-short-lived.png" alt="Short-Lived Credentials in Agentic Systems: A Practical Trade-off Guide"></p><p>Agentic systems need short-lived credentials as a baseline security control. <a href="https://blog.gitguardian.com/ai-agents-authentication-how-autonomous-systems-prove-identity/"><u>That point is pretty clear</u></a>. The harder part is when teams move from architecture diagrams to production systems and discover how much operational machinery underpins that decision.</p><p>Security teams often frame credential lifetime as a clean principle. Short-lived good and long-lived bad. Production systems rarely live inside principles alone. In reality, they live inside retry logic, partial failures, identity providers, cloud platform quirks, third-party APIs, and on-call rotations. All this is made more difficult by the probabilistic nature of AI systems. </p><p>Agents behave differently from traditional services. A narrow service usually connects to a known set of systems and follows a fairly stable path. An agent can work across tools, call external APIs, carry context from one step to the next, and continue work after the original trigger is gone. The runtime path is less predictable, and the permission model has to account for that.</p><p>Authentication is one of the few reliable controls that bounds what an autonomous system can reach, modify, and retain access to over time. In agentic systems, an authentication choice directly shapes blast radius and revocability. </p><h3 id="the-real-decision-sits-inside-production-friction"><strong>The real decision sits inside production friction</strong></h3><p>Production teams are balancing real constraints. They have to consider token issuance, refresh timing, identity federation, vault availability, third-party APIs, local development, failure recovery, and the cost of debugging expired credentials mid-workflow. That is why the more useful question is "Where does short-lived access materially reduce blast radius, and where does the operational overhead need a more deliberate design?"</p><p>A good answer ties credential lifetime to agent behavior, privilege, and execution model. A mature answer adds continuous secret monitoring on top, because agents still leak credentials, retries still fail, and temporary exceptions have a way of becoming permanent.</p><h2 id="more-systems-more-context-more-places-to-leak-secrets"><strong>More Systems, More Context, More Places To Leak Secrets</strong></h2><p>Agentic systems tend to touch more systems than single-purpose services. They commonly need to authenticate to APIs, SaaS tools, internal platforms, cloud resources, data stores, and orchestration layers. They often carry temporary context, delegated permissions, and state across those steps. That broader surface expands the number of places where a token can escape.</p><p>Credentials can show up in logs, traces, prompts, tool arguments, memory stores, CI pipelines, deployment configs, notebooks, and local test environments. AI-assisted development adds more volume to all of those surfaces. The <a href="https://www.gitguardian.com/state-of-secrets-sprawl-report-2026?ref=blog.gitguardian.com"><u>GitGuardian State of Secrets Sprawl 2026 report showed 28.65 million hardcoded secrets added to public GitHub in 2025</u></a>, with leak rates in AI-assisted code running roughly double the broader GitHub baseline. </p><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card"><img decoding="async" src="https://storage.ghost.io/c/42/5d/425d266f-cf99-406e-9436-597a19bed011/content/images/2026/04/data-src-image-c4fe8cd5-d062-4d6f-97a8-ee9bfc4cc82b-1.png" class="kg-image" alt="Short-Lived Credentials in Agentic Systems: A Practical Trade-off Guide" loading="lazy" title="Screenshot 2026-04-24 at 12.00.49 PM.png" width="767" height="479" srcset="https://storage.ghost.io/c/42/5d/425d266f-cf99-406e-9436-597a19bed011/content/images/size/w600/2026/04/data-src-image-c4fe8cd5-d062-4d6f-97a8-ee9bfc4cc82b-1.png 600w, https://storage.ghost.io/c/42/5d/425d266f-cf99-406e-9436-597a19bed011/content/images/2026/04/data-src-image-c4fe8cd5-d062-4d6f-97a8-ee9bfc4cc82b-1.png 767w" sizes="auto, (min-width: 720px) 720px"></figure><p>That data fits the reality that many teams already feel. More generated code means more output to review, more automation artifacts to inspect, and more opportunities for sensitive data to land where it should never have been written in the first place.</p><h3 id="standing-permissions-become-more-dangerous-in-autonomous-workflows"><strong>Standing permissions become more dangerous in autonomous workflows</strong></h3><p>A long-lived credential attached to an agent carries a different kind of risk than the same credential attached to a predictable service. An agent can retry automatically, call adjacent tools, invent tools, pivot across systems, and continue acting after the original operator has moved on. A shared access token can also blur accountability across agents, environments, or tenants.</p><p>Credentials in an agentic system are standing permissions attached to software that can improvise and are extremely goal-oriented. <a href="https://blog.gitguardian.com/ai-agents-authentication-how-autonomous-systems-prove-identity/#:~:text=When%20AI%20agents%20act%2C%20authentication%20determines"><u>Authentication defines what an agent can reach</u></a>, how long it can keep reaching it, and how quickly a team can shut it down.</p><h2 id="what-short-lived-credentials-actually-buy-you"><strong>What Short-Lived Credentials Actually Buy You</strong></h2><p>TTL, or time to live, is the maximum period a credential remains valid. Shorter TTL reduces the maximum window of abuse after a leak. That is the core security gain, and it is easy to quantify.</p><p>A static key valid for 90 days stays useful for up to 7,776,000 seconds. A 15-minute token stays useful for 900 seconds. That is an 8,640x reduction in the maximum exposure window.</p><p>That number doesn't erase risk, but it does cap it. An attacker with a short-lived token has less time for lateral movement, repeated calls, persistence, and quiet misuse. Incident responders also benefit because expiry often does containment work even when formal revocation is slow, cached, or inconsistently enforced across systems. </p><p>Having the shortest feasible TTL is critical as breakout times, the time from initial access to lateral movement, have been falling each year. <a href="https://www.crowdstrike.com/en-us/blog/crowdstrike-2026-global-threat-report-findings/?ref=blog.gitguardian.com#:~:text=The%20fastest%20observed%20breakout%20time%3A%2027%20seconds"><u>breakout times have been witnessed at under a minute in some cases</u></a>.</p><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card"><a href="https://www.crowdstrike.com/en-us/blog/crowdstrike-2026-global-threat-report-findings/?ref=blog.gitguardian.com#:~:text=The%20fastest%20observed%20breakout%20time%3A%2027%20seconds"><img decoding="async" src="https://storage.ghost.io/c/42/5d/425d266f-cf99-406e-9436-597a19bed011/content/images/2026/04/data-src-image-f132c442-20a0-4d07-94d1-3befcbf15cee.png" class="kg-image" alt="Short-Lived Credentials in Agentic Systems: A Practical Trade-off Guide" loading="lazy" width="1920" height="1080" srcset="https://storage.ghost.io/c/42/5d/425d266f-cf99-406e-9436-597a19bed011/content/images/size/w600/2026/04/data-src-image-f132c442-20a0-4d07-94d1-3befcbf15cee.png 600w, https://storage.ghost.io/c/42/5d/425d266f-cf99-406e-9436-597a19bed011/content/images/size/w1000/2026/04/data-src-image-f132c442-20a0-4d07-94d1-3befcbf15cee.png 1000w, https://storage.ghost.io/c/42/5d/425d266f-cf99-406e-9436-597a19bed011/content/images/size/w1600/2026/04/data-src-image-f132c442-20a0-4d07-94d1-3befcbf15cee.png 1600w, https://storage.ghost.io/c/42/5d/425d266f-cf99-406e-9436-597a19bed011/content/images/2026/04/data-src-image-f132c442-20a0-4d07-94d1-3befcbf15cee.png 1920w" sizes="auto, (min-width: 720px) 720px"></a></figure><h3 id="short-lifetime-matters-most-when-privilege-is-high"><strong>Short lifetime matters most when privilege is high</strong></h3><p>The value of a short TTL rises with privilege, reach, and uncertainty. High-privilege tokens should have the shortest lifetime a system can support reliably. Credentials used across trust boundaries deserve the same discipline. The same goes for tokens accessible to LLM-adjacent components, external tool connectors, or stateful agent memory, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvYYz87KjqM&amp;ref=blog.gitguardian.com"><u>where leakage paths are harder to predict</u></a>.</p><p>The unit of issuance matters too. Per-task tokens usually beat agent-global tokens. Per-session delegated access usually beats long-running shared access. Per-agent identity is much easier to audit than a service account reused across every instance in a workflow.</p><p>Short-lived credentials reduce the size of an incident when a token is found and abused. They also improve attribution because each issued credential can be tied to a narrower slice of work.</p><h2 id="safe-ttl-depends-on-the-kind-of-agent"><strong>Safe TTL Depends on the Kind of Agent</strong></h2><p>Not all agents are the same, and this needs to be factored into any discussion of access and time-to-live. Here are a few different use cases that all fall under the broad umbrella of "Agentic AI." Note: all TTL suggestions are based on general best practices; only you and your team can make a governance plan that best fits your specific needs. <strong>Interactive user-facing agents</strong></p><p>User-facing copilots, internal assistants, and triage agents acting on behalf of a specific user usually fit best with a 5 to 15-minute TTL. Their access is tied closely to an active session. Silent refresh is often feasible. The security goal should be to quickly remove or reduce access when the user context ends.</p><h3 id="background-workflow-agents"><strong>Background workflow agents</strong></h3><p>Scheduled document processing, enrichment jobs, and routine operational workflows often need more runtime headroom. A 15 to 60-minute TTL is usually a practical range. These systems still benefit from workload identity and on-demand issuance, but they also need sufficient time to complete routine work without causing unnecessary renewal failures.</p><h3 id="long-running-autonomous-agents"><strong>Long-running autonomous agents</strong></h3><p>Multi-hour orchestration, remediation, and research workflows need a different pattern. A single broad credential that lives for hours creates too much concentrated risk. A better design segments access by stage, tool, or action class. Each step gets the narrowest possible credential for that slice of work. A 1 to 6-hour TTL may be operationally reasonable for some stages, but compartmentalization does more security work than the number alone.</p><h3 id="fallback-cases-and-explicit-exceptions"><strong>Fallback cases and explicit exceptions</strong></h3><p>Some third-party dependencies still only support static API keys. Some legacy systems are hard to retrofit. Some refresh paths are fragile enough that teams keep a longer-lived fallback credential in reserve. Those exceptions need strict ownership, narrow scope, review cycles, and strong monitoring. They should sit within an exception process, not within the normal architecture. </p><p>Safe TTL includes scope, issuer trust, revocation path, and observability, not just predicting reasonable reissuance intervals. </p><h2 id="why-dynamic-issuance-gets-hard-in-production"><strong>Why Dynamic Issuance Gets Hard in Production</strong></h2><p>Identity and runtime complexity pile up fast, and the operational friction is real. OAuth token exchange flows can be awkward in distributed systems. Workload identity federation varies across cloud providers. Vault and broker systems become important control planes that need their own availability and recovery story.</p><p>Runtime logic adds more complexity. Tokens need caching. Expiry windows need careful handling. Clock drift can create edge cases. A refresh failure in the middle of a workflow can leave behind partial writes, repeated actions, and difficult replay logic.</p><h3 id="developer-experience-shapes-the-security-outcome"><strong>Developer experience shapes the security outcome</strong></h3><p>Teams also feel this in day-to-day engineering. Local development becomes harder when credentials are minted dynamically. Staging environments need more supporting services. Debugging takes longer when the auth path includes brokers, temporary tokens, and policy evaluation. Application, platform, and security teams all need a shared operating model.</p><p>That pressure explains why static credentials keep showing up. Teams do not choose them because they enjoy the risk. They choose them because dynamic issuance moves a large share of the work into day-two operations.</p><h2 id="brokered-and-vaulted-access-and-ephemeral-credentials"><strong>Brokered and Vaulted Access and Ephemeral Credentials</strong></h2><p>A healthy pattern is straightforward: the workload proves its identity, and a broker, vault, or cloud identity plane verifies that identity against policy. Only then can the system issue scoped short-lived credentials for a specific task window. When the token expires, the workload has to authenticate again and pass policy again.</p><p>While in general, moving any keys to vaults is a strong first step towards reducing standing credential risk, it should not be the end goal. We should be moving towards <a href="https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2024/12/18/gitguardian-multi-vault-integration/?ref=blog.gitguardian.com"><u>vault-issued dynamic credentials</u></a>, cloud-native <a href="https://blog.gitguardian.com/aws-iam-outbound-identity-federation-with-gitguardian/"><u>IAM security tokens</u></a>, OAuth delegated access, <a href="https://blog.gitguardian.com/getting-started-with-spiffe/"><u>workload identity federation</u></a>, and sidecar or node-local broker designs. </p><h3 id="good-implementation-choices-narrow-the-blast-radius-further"><strong>Good implementation choices narrow the blast radius further</strong></h3><p>Per-task issuance beats broad agent-global issuance. Brief caching can help reliability, but the cache should never outlive the intended task boundary. Identity proof should be separate from permission grants so the scope can change without rewriting the trust model. Issuance events should be logged. Secrets themselves should never be logged.</p><p>That is the control plane story. But, it still leaves one practical question unanswered: "How do we know when the real world drifts away from the intended design?"</p><h2 id="ephemeral-credentials-reduce-exposure-gitguardian-finds-the-failures-around-them"><strong>Ephemeral Credentials Reduce Exposure. Gitguardian Finds The Failures Around Them.</strong></h2><p>Short-lived credentials solve one class of problem very well. They shrink the abuse window after a leak. But they do not prevent credentials from leaking, and they do not guarantee that every agent in a real environment uses ephemeral access as the architecture diagram suggests. This is where GitGuardian can help.</p><p>Agentic systems create more code, configs, prompts, logs, and automation artifacts. Every one of those surfaces can possibly contain a secret, a token, or a fallback credential that was never supposed to persist. Some will be short-lived and still live enough to matter. Some will be refresh tokens with a longer value. Some will be static keys created during a rushed integration and forgotten after the launch. </p><p>Some will sit outside the approved issuance path entirely.</p><p><a href="https://www.gitguardian.com/monitor-internal-repositories-for-secrets?ref=blog.gitguardian.com"><u>GitGuardian gives teams continuous visibility into that sprawl</u></a>. It catches exposed secrets in source code, collaboration flows, development pipelines, and operational artifacts before those credentials become a hidden standing risk. That function grows more valuable, not less, in environments that have already adopted short-lived credentials. Mature teams still need a way to find the exceptions, the leaks, and the shortcuts.</p><h3 id="the-heart-of-the-journey-is-operational-right-where-gitguardian-lives"><strong>The heart of the journey is operational, right where GitGuardian lives</strong></h3><p>The hardest part of a credential strategy is usually not the first policy decision, but maintaining that strategy under delivery pressure, platform variance, and human shortcuts. This is where GitGuardian can help security teams move from principle to enforcement.</p><p>GitGuardian helps teams detect whether their <a href="https://blog.gitguardian.com/nhi-governance-is-the-outcome-gitguardian-is-how-you-get-there/"><u>non-human identities have fallen outside their governance policies</u></a>. You need to know about leaked tokens during their active lifetime, forgotten fallback keys that linger after a migration. You need a clear way to identify secrets introduced by AI-assisted development and surface shadow credentials that bypass the official broker or vault flow. You can not shorten the path from exposure to response without this level of real-time insight. </p><p>In practical terms, GitGuardian becomes the feedback loop for your credential architecture. It tells you whether your move toward ephemeral access is actually reducing the number of secrets in code and config. It tells you whether engineering teams are still creating one-off exceptions. It tells you where the safety net needs tightening before a small shortcut becomes a durable blind spot.</p><h3 id="gitguardian-helps-teams-coordinate-migration-efforts"><strong>GitGuardian helps teams coordinate migration efforts</strong></h3><p>A shift toward short-lived credentials often needs buy-in from platform teams, developers, and engineering leadership. That buy-in comes more easily when the security team can show where current exposure actually lives.</p><p>GitGuardian helps produce that picture. It gives teams a way to <a href="https://blog.gitguardian.com/sre-playbook-a-guide-to-discover-and-catalog-non-human-identities-nhi/"><u>inventory existing identities, identify the highest-risk credentials, and prioritize migrations where the security gain is largest</u></a>. That changes the internal conversation. The move to ephemeral credentials becomes a measurable risk-reduction program rather than a generic security ask.</p><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card kg-card-hascaption"><img decoding="async" src="https://storage.ghost.io/c/42/5d/425d266f-cf99-406e-9436-597a19bed011/content/images/2026/04/data-src-image-8a402fc6-f7e7-4860-b9d3-ae72154714a7.png" class="kg-image" alt="Short-Lived Credentials in Agentic Systems: A Practical Trade-off Guide" loading="lazy" width="2000" height="1250" srcset="https://storage.ghost.io/c/42/5d/425d266f-cf99-406e-9436-597a19bed011/content/images/size/w600/2026/04/data-src-image-8a402fc6-f7e7-4860-b9d3-ae72154714a7.png 600w, https://storage.ghost.io/c/42/5d/425d266f-cf99-406e-9436-597a19bed011/content/images/size/w1000/2026/04/data-src-image-8a402fc6-f7e7-4860-b9d3-ae72154714a7.png 1000w, https://storage.ghost.io/c/42/5d/425d266f-cf99-406e-9436-597a19bed011/content/images/size/w1600/2026/04/data-src-image-8a402fc6-f7e7-4860-b9d3-ae72154714a7.png 1600w, https://storage.ghost.io/c/42/5d/425d266f-cf99-406e-9436-597a19bed011/content/images/2026/04/data-src-image-8a402fc6-f7e7-4860-b9d3-ae72154714a7.png 2000w" sizes="auto, (min-width: 720px) 720px"><figcaption><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">GitGuardian Workspace Identities list view</span></figcaption></figure><p>In agentic environments, the GitGuardian platform supports the transition away from static credentials, helps detect the real-world failures that still happen during that transition, and gives teams continuous visibility after the new model is in place.</p><h2 id="start-with-visibility-then-fix-the-highest-risk-paths"><strong>Start With Visibility, Then Fix The Highest-Risk Paths</strong></h2><p>To move towards better agentic access, you need to make a plan. </p><p>Begin by inventorying agent-to-system credentials across code, configs, pipelines, notebooks, and runtime integrations. Find the static keys with the highest privilege and widest reuse. Add continuous secret detection everywhere those artifacts live. </p><p>You need visibility before you can cleanly reduce standing risk.</p><h3 id="move-new-workflows-to-dynamic-identity"><strong>Move new workflows to dynamic identity</strong></h3><p>Use <a href="https://blog.gitguardian.com/how-to-get-there-spiffe/"><u>workload identity</u></a>, brokered short-lived tokens, or scoped delegated access for new agent workflows. Set TTL by agent class rather than by team preference. Instrument issuance and expiry events. Measure refresh failures and recovery paths.</p><h3 id="break-broad-permissions-into-stages"><strong>Break broad permissions into stages</strong></h3><p>As systems mature, split long-running workflows into stages with separate credentials. Remove shared credentials across agents and tenants. Drill revocation and rotation so the response becomes operational muscle memory. GitGuardian will catch the exceptions, leaks, and drift that architecture alone will miss.</p><h3 id="treat-long-lived-credentials-as-governed-exceptions"><strong>Treat long-lived credentials as governed exceptions</strong></h3><p>Reserve long-lived credentials for explicit cases with clear owners, narrow scope, regular review, and compensating controls. Exception paths have a habit of becoming permanent, and this is something teams must stay on top of. Continuous monitoring is what keeps an exception from quietly turning back into the default.</p><h2 id="the-best-strategy-is-measurable-and-hard-to-abuse"><strong>The Best Strategy Is Measurable and Hard to Abuse</strong></h2><p>Short-lived credentials should be the default for agentic systems because they sharply reduce exposure when a credential crosses its intended boundary. That is the right baseline. Production systems still have to carry the weight of token brokers, workload identity, refresh logic, and brittle third-party integrations.</p><p>If you are looking for a better path forward, we suggest tying TTL to agent behavior and privilege. Use dynamic issuance where it materially reduces blast radius. Segment long-running workflows. Keep long-lived credentials inside explicit exception handling. Then add continuous secret monitoring as the layer that sees what the model misses, catches what the rollout leaves behind, and shortens the distance from leak to response.</p><p>Ephemeral access changes the risk curve. GitGuardian helps teams prove they are actually moving along with it. <a href="https://www.gitguardian.com/book-a-demo?ref=blog.gitguardian.com" rel="noreferrer">We would love to help you get started</a> on your path to better agentic access management. </p><div class="spu-placeholder" style="display:none"></div><div class="addtoany_share_save_container addtoany_content addtoany_content_bottom"><div class="a2a_kit a2a_kit_size_20 addtoany_list" data-a2a-url="https://securityboulevard.com/2026/04/short-lived-credentials-in-agentic-systems-a-practical-trade-off-guide/" data-a2a-title="Short-Lived Credentials in Agentic Systems: A Practical Trade-off Guide"><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fshort-lived-credentials-in-agentic-systems-a-practical-trade-off-guide%2F&amp;linkname=Short-Lived%20Credentials%20in%20Agentic%20Systems%3A%20A%20Practical%20Trade-off%20Guide" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fshort-lived-credentials-in-agentic-systems-a-practical-trade-off-guide%2F&amp;linkname=Short-Lived%20Credentials%20in%20Agentic%20Systems%3A%20A%20Practical%20Trade-off%20Guide" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fshort-lived-credentials-in-agentic-systems-a-practical-trade-off-guide%2F&amp;linkname=Short-Lived%20Credentials%20in%20Agentic%20Systems%3A%20A%20Practical%20Trade-off%20Guide" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_reddit" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/reddit?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fshort-lived-credentials-in-agentic-systems-a-practical-trade-off-guide%2F&amp;linkname=Short-Lived%20Credentials%20in%20Agentic%20Systems%3A%20A%20Practical%20Trade-off%20Guide" title="Reddit" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fshort-lived-credentials-in-agentic-systems-a-practical-trade-off-guide%2F&amp;linkname=Short-Lived%20Credentials%20in%20Agentic%20Systems%3A%20A%20Practical%20Trade-off%20Guide" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share"></a></div></div><p class="syndicated-attribution">*** This is a Security Bloggers Network syndicated blog from <a href="https://blog.gitguardian.com/">GitGuardian Blog - Take Control of Your Secrets Security</a> authored by <a href="https://securityboulevard.com/author/0/" title="Read other posts by Dwayne McDaniel">Dwayne McDaniel</a>. Read the original post at: <a href="https://blog.gitguardian.com/short-lived-credentials-in-agentic-systems-a-practical-trade-off-guide/">https://blog.gitguardian.com/short-lived-credentials-in-agentic-systems-a-practical-trade-off-guide/</a> </p>

China-Backed Groups are Using Massive Botnets in Espionage, Intrusion Campaigns

  • Jeffrey Burt
  • Published date: 2026-04-27 00:00:00

None

<p>China-nexus threat groups like <a href="https://securityboulevard.com/2024/03/cisa-nsa-others-outline-security-steps-against-volt-typhoon/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Volt Typhoon</a> and <a href="https://securityboulevard.com/2025/10/chinas-flax-typhoon-exploits-arcgis-app-for-year-long-persistence/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Flax Typhoon</a> over the past few years have built multiple large botnets from compromised consumer devices and are using them in their attacks for their cyber espionage efforts and intrusions into critical infrastructure environments, according to U.S. and security agencies from other countries.</p><p>In an <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa26-113a" target="_blank" rel="noopener">advisory</a> issued by CISA, the agencies said the China-linked actors are transitioning away from dedicated infrastructure to so-called “covert networks” comprising compromised small-office, home office (SOHO), Internet of Things (IoT), and smart devices that are constantly updated.</p><p>“The use of covert networks of compromised devices – also known as botnets – to facilitate malicious cyber activity is not new, but China-nexus cyber actors are now using them strategically, and at scale,” CISA wrote in the advisory, which also included security agencies from such countries as Australia, Germany, Japan, and Spain. “Covert networks are used to connect across the internet in a low-cost, low-risk, deniable way, disguising the origin and attribution of malicious activity.”</p><p>Indeed, such botnets have been used for years by financially motivated bad actors for a broad range of activities, from distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) and credential attacks to spam and phishing campaigns and malware distribution.</p><p>Now state-sponsored threat groups linked to China and its intelligence agencies are using them for every part of their operations, from running scans for reconnaissance and delivering and communicating with malware to exfiltrating stolen data.</p><h3>Evading Detection</h3><p>“They can also be used for general deniable internet browsing, allowing threat actors to research exploitation techniques, new TTPs [tactics, techniques and procedures], and their victims without attribution,” CISA wrote. “Some covert networks are also used by legitimate customers to browse the internet, making it challenging to attribute malicious activity.”</p><p>CISA noted that Volt Typhoon, which two years ago was found to have infiltrated the networks of critical infrastructure companies in such sectors as communications and energy, has used covert networks and that Flax Typhoon used a different botnet to run cyber espionage campaigns.</p><p>The covert networks are created and maintained by information security companies in China, according to the security agencies. They pointed to Raptor Train, a botnet controlled and managed by Chinese company Integrity Technology Group and comprising more than 200,000 infected devices. The FBI also said the company was involved in a <a href="https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/court-authorized-operation-disrupts-worldwide-botnet-used-peoples-republic-china-state" target="_blank" rel="noopener">computer-intrusion campaign</a> by Flax Typhoon.</p><h3>Edge Devices Targeted</h3><p>Most of the botnets are made up of SOHO network routers, but other vulnerable devices are included as well. CISA pointed to Raptor Train as an example, noting that along with the routers, it consisted of such IoT devices as web cameras and video recorders, along with firewalls and network-attached storage (NAS) devices. Another covert network, <a href="https://securityboulevard.com/2024/02/china-sponsored-hackers-lie-in-wait-to-attack-u-s-infrastructure/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">KV Botnet, used by Volt Typhoon</a>, primarily comprised vulnerable routers from Cisco and NetGear.</p><p>“The edge devices were vulnerable because they were ‘end of life’ – out of date and no longer receiving updates or security patches by their manufacturers,” CISA wrote.</p><p>The embrace by China-nexus groups for such botnets isn’t surprising, but organizations need to take note, said Bradley Smith, senior vice president and deputy CISO for security firm BeyondTrust.</p><p>“The shift CISA is describing, from individually procured infrastructure to externally provisioned networks of compromised devices, has been visible to practitioners tracking China-nexus operations at the network layer for years,” Smith said. “The scale and the degree of operational specialization behind it have changed.”</p><h3>Ensure IoT Device Security</h3><p>The fact that so many IoT devices are being compromised and used in the covert networks is a sign that enterprises are being lax in ensuring the security of the devices, which are widely used present in organizations, according to John Gallagher, vice president of Viakoo Labs, the research arm of security firm Viakoo, who added that the shift from using them to steal data to comprising operational technology environment is expanding.</p><p>“It would be trivializing the issue to view it as SOHO and consumer IoT devices; it’s all IoT devices, especially those used inside an enterprise,” Gallagher said. “That’s why this CISA advisory specifically called out best practices for large and ‘the largest’ organizations. The advantage operators of botnet armies gain from compromising enterprise routers, cameras, NAS drives, and other forms of IoT is that they are approved members of that network, and can use the privileges and credentials of the host organization to go undetected.”</p><p>He said that “threat actors aren’t just hacking your IoT cameras or routers to steal their data; they are using them as proxies to route attack traffic through a ‘clean’ IP address of a localized IoT device, and establish a position of control within the network. By hiding within an enterprise, they can bypass geographical IP filtering and behavior-based detection that usually flags traffic from foreign adversary nations.”</p><div class="spu-placeholder" style="display:none"></div><div class="addtoany_share_save_container addtoany_content addtoany_content_bottom"><div class="a2a_kit a2a_kit_size_20 addtoany_list" data-a2a-url="https://securityboulevard.com/2026/04/china-backed-groups-are-using-massive-botnets-in-espionage-intrusion-campaigns/" data-a2a-title="China-Backed Groups are Using Massive Botnets in Espionage, Intrusion Campaigns"><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fchina-backed-groups-are-using-massive-botnets-in-espionage-intrusion-campaigns%2F&amp;linkname=China-Backed%20Groups%20are%20Using%20Massive%20Botnets%20in%20Espionage%2C%20Intrusion%20Campaigns" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fchina-backed-groups-are-using-massive-botnets-in-espionage-intrusion-campaigns%2F&amp;linkname=China-Backed%20Groups%20are%20Using%20Massive%20Botnets%20in%20Espionage%2C%20Intrusion%20Campaigns" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fchina-backed-groups-are-using-massive-botnets-in-espionage-intrusion-campaigns%2F&amp;linkname=China-Backed%20Groups%20are%20Using%20Massive%20Botnets%20in%20Espionage%2C%20Intrusion%20Campaigns" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_reddit" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/reddit?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fchina-backed-groups-are-using-massive-botnets-in-espionage-intrusion-campaigns%2F&amp;linkname=China-Backed%20Groups%20are%20Using%20Massive%20Botnets%20in%20Espionage%2C%20Intrusion%20Campaigns" title="Reddit" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fchina-backed-groups-are-using-massive-botnets-in-espionage-intrusion-campaigns%2F&amp;linkname=China-Backed%20Groups%20are%20Using%20Massive%20Botnets%20in%20Espionage%2C%20Intrusion%20Campaigns" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share"></a></div></div>

Scaling Our Vision: Welcoming Tamar Nulman and Omri Arnon to the Legit Team

  • None
  • Published date: 2026-04-27 00:00:00

None

<p>The post <a href="https://www.legitsecurity.com/blog/scaling-our-vision-welcoming-tamar-nulman-and-omri-arnon-to-the-legit-team">Scaling Our Vision: Welcoming Tamar Nulman and Omri Arnon to the Legit Team</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.legitsecurity.com/blog">Legit Security Blog</a>.</p><h1> </h1><p><span style="color: #6c757d; font-size: 18px; background-color: transparent; font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, 'Noto Sans', sans-serif, 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji';"></span></p><p style="color: #1d1c1d; font-size: 20px;"><span style="color: #6c757d;"><strong><span style="line-height: 22.0083px;">Scaling Our Vision: Welcoming Tamar Nulman and Omri Arnon to the Legit Team</span></strong><span style="background-color: #c6c6c6; line-height: 22.0083px;"> </span></span></p><p><span style="line-height: 22.0083px;">As we continue to redefine the boundaries of Agentic Software Security, the strength of our mission is fundamentally driven by the strength of our people. Today, I am thrilled to welcome two world-class leaders to the Legit Security family: </span><strong><span style="line-height: 22.0083px;">Tamar Nulman</span></strong><span style="line-height: 22.0083px;">, our new </span><strong><span style="line-height: 22.0083px;">VP of HR</span></strong><span style="line-height: 22.0083px;">, and </span><strong><span style="line-height: 22.0083px;">Omri Arnon</span></strong><span style="line-height: 22.0083px;">, our </span><strong><span style="line-height: 22.0083px;">Head of Engineering</span></strong><span style="line-height: 22.0083px;">.</span><span style="background-color: #c6c6c6; line-height: 22.0083px;"> </span></p><p><span style="line-height: 22.0083px;">Their arrival marks a pivotal moment for us as we navigate an era of unprecedented change in the world of AI and cybersecurity.</span><span style="background-color: #c6c6c6; line-height: 22.0083px;"> </span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 20px;"><strong><u><span style="line-height: 22.0083px;">Exceptional Leaders for an Ambitious Mission</span></u></strong><span style="background-color: #c6c6c6; line-height: 22.0083px;"> </span></span></p><p style="font-size: 20px;"><strong><span style="line-height: 22.0083px;"><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/tamar-nulman-6062b643/">Tamar Nulman</a>, VP of HR</span></strong><span style="background-color: #c6c6c6; line-height: 22.0083px;"> </span></p><p><span style="line-height: 22.0083px;">Tamar joins us with a powerhouse background in scaling international organizations and fostering high-performance cultures. With leadership experience at MyHeritage and Microsoft, she deeply understands what it takes to support a global team during periods of hyper-growth. Tamar’s expertise in organizational development and talent strategy will be instrumental as we continue to attract the brightest minds in the industry to solve the world’s most complex security challenges.</span><span style="background-color: #c6c6c6; line-height: 22.0083px;"> </span></p><p style="font-size: 20px;"><strong><span style="line-height: 22.0083px;"><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/omriarnon/">Omri Arnon</a>, Head of Engineering</span></strong><span style="background-color: #c6c6c6; line-height: 22.0083px;"> </span></p><p><span style="line-height: 22.0083px;">Omri is a seasoned engineering leader with a phenomenal track record in the cybersecurity industry. He joins us after high-impact leadership roles at two of the most successful names in the space: Palo Alto Networks and SentinelOne. Omri brings a deep expertise in building and scaling complex, mission-critical security platforms. His technical vision and experience in driving engineering excellence at scale are exactly what Legit needs as we build the future of automated, intelligent security.</span><span style="background-color: #c6c6c6; line-height: 22.0083px;"> </span></p><p style="font-size: 20px;"><strong><span style="line-height: 22.0083px;">The Next Frontier: VibeGuard and Agentic AppSec</span></strong><span style="background-color: #c6c6c6; line-height: 22.0083px;"> </span></p><p><span style="line-height: 22.0083px;">The timing of these appointments is no coincidence. The “world of AI” is no longer a future prospect – It is our reality. We are witnessing a fundamental shift in how software is built, moving from traditional manual processes to </span><strong><span style="line-height: 22.0083px;">Agentic Engineering</span></strong><span style="line-height: 22.0083px;">.</span><span style="background-color: #c6c6c6; line-height: 22.0083px;"> </span></p><p><span style="line-height: 22.0083px;">This shift requires a new breed of security. We recently launched </span><strong><span style="line-height: 22.0083px;">VibeGuard</span></strong><span style="line-height: 22.0083px;">, aimed at securing AI-agent ecosystems, to address the unique risks posed by large language models and autonomous agents. As we pioneer the category of </span><strong><span style="line-height: 22.0083px;">Agentic AppSec</span></strong><span style="line-height: 22.0083px;">, we are moving beyond posture management toward security that is autonomous and intelligent as the code it protects.</span><span style="background-color: #c6c6c6; line-height: 22.0083px;"> </span></p><p style="font-size: 20px;"><strong><span style="line-height: 22.0083px;">Looking Ahead</span></strong><span style="background-color: #c6c6c6; line-height: 22.0083px;"> </span></p><p><span style="line-height: 22.0083px;">With Tamar’s leadership in building our “human” engine and Omri’s expertise in driving our “technical” engine, Legit Security is uniquely positioned to lead the charge in this AI-native era.</span><span style="background-color: #c6c6c6; line-height: 22.0083px;"> </span></p><p><span style="line-height: 22.0083px;">Please join me in giving a warm welcome to Tamar and Omri. We have a lot of work to do, and I couldn’t be more excited about the team we are building to do it.</span><span style="background-color: #c6c6c6; line-height: 22.0083px;"> </span></p><p><span style="line-height: 22.0083px;">Onward!</span><span style="background-color: #c6c6c6; line-height: 22.0083px;"> </span><span style="color: #6c757d;"></span></p><p> </p><p><img decoding="async" src="https://track.hubspot.com/__ptq.gif?a=20956152&amp;k=14&amp;r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.legitsecurity.com%2Fblog%2Fscaling-our-vision-welcoming-tamar-nulman-and-omri-arnon-to-the-legit-team&amp;bu=https%253A%252F%252Fwww.legitsecurity.com%252Fblog&amp;bvt=rss" alt="" width="1" height="1" style="min-height:1px!important;width:1px!important;border-width:0!important;margin-top:0!important;margin-bottom:0!important;margin-right:0!important;margin-left:0!important;padding-top:0!important;padding-bottom:0!important;padding-right:0!important;padding-left:0!important; "></p><div class="spu-placeholder" style="display:none"></div><div class="addtoany_share_save_container addtoany_content addtoany_content_bottom"><div class="a2a_kit a2a_kit_size_20 addtoany_list" data-a2a-url="https://securityboulevard.com/2026/04/scaling-our-vision-welcoming-tamar-nulman-and-omri-arnon-to-the-legit-team/" data-a2a-title="Scaling Our Vision: Welcoming Tamar Nulman and Omri Arnon to the Legit Team"><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fscaling-our-vision-welcoming-tamar-nulman-and-omri-arnon-to-the-legit-team%2F&amp;linkname=Scaling%20Our%20Vision%3A%20Welcoming%20Tamar%20Nulman%20and%20Omri%20Arnon%20to%20the%20Legit%20Team" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fscaling-our-vision-welcoming-tamar-nulman-and-omri-arnon-to-the-legit-team%2F&amp;linkname=Scaling%20Our%20Vision%3A%20Welcoming%20Tamar%20Nulman%20and%20Omri%20Arnon%20to%20the%20Legit%20Team" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fscaling-our-vision-welcoming-tamar-nulman-and-omri-arnon-to-the-legit-team%2F&amp;linkname=Scaling%20Our%20Vision%3A%20Welcoming%20Tamar%20Nulman%20and%20Omri%20Arnon%20to%20the%20Legit%20Team" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_reddit" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/reddit?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fscaling-our-vision-welcoming-tamar-nulman-and-omri-arnon-to-the-legit-team%2F&amp;linkname=Scaling%20Our%20Vision%3A%20Welcoming%20Tamar%20Nulman%20and%20Omri%20Arnon%20to%20the%20Legit%20Team" title="Reddit" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fscaling-our-vision-welcoming-tamar-nulman-and-omri-arnon-to-the-legit-team%2F&amp;linkname=Scaling%20Our%20Vision%3A%20Welcoming%20Tamar%20Nulman%20and%20Omri%20Arnon%20to%20the%20Legit%20Team" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share"></a></div></div><p class="syndicated-attribution">*** This is a Security Bloggers Network syndicated blog from <a href="https://www.legitsecurity.com/blog">Legit Security Blog</a> authored by <a href="https://securityboulevard.com/author/0/" title="Read other posts by Roni Fuchs">Roni Fuchs</a>. Read the original post at: <a href="https://www.legitsecurity.com/blog/scaling-our-vision-welcoming-tamar-nulman-and-omri-arnon-to-the-legit-team">https://www.legitsecurity.com/blog/scaling-our-vision-welcoming-tamar-nulman-and-omri-arnon-to-the-legit-team</a> </p>

DDoS Testing vs Protection: The Missing Layer in Your Defense

  • None
  • Published date: 2026-04-27 00:00:00

None

<p>The post <a href="https://www.red-button.net/ddos-testing-vs-ddos-protection/">DDoS Testing vs Protection: The Missing Layer in Your Defense</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.red-button.net/">Red Button</a>.</p><p> </p><h2><span style="font-weight: 400;">Key takeaways </span></h2><ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><b>DDoS protection </b><span style="font-weight: 400;">refers to the tools and architecture deployed to stop attacks (CDNs, WAFs, scrubbing centers, firewall rules) operating continuously in the traffic path</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><b>DDoS testing</b><span style="font-weight: 400;"> is a controlled simulation that validates whether those tools actually work under real-world attack conditions</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">68% of protection faults found in Red Button simulations were rated severe or critical in organizations that already had protection deployed</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Deployed protection that has never been tested under real attack conditions is a configuration, not security. Testing without protection in place is a simulation without purpose.</span></li> </ul><p><img fetchpriority="high" decoding="async" class="alignnone wp-image-9393 size-large" src="https://www.red-button.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/protection-vs-testing-diagram-1024x683.png" alt="DDoS Testing vs DDoS Protection" width="1024" height="683"></p><h2><span style="font-weight: 400;">What DDoS Protection Actually Does</span></h2><p><span style="font-weight: 400;">DDoS protection tools sit in the traffic path and apply rules, thresholds, and filters when an attack is detected, absorbing, redirecting, or dropping malicious traffic before it reaches the target infrastructure.</span></p><p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Protection stacks are typically built across multiple layers, such as:</span></p><ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><b>ISP CleanPipe </b><span style="font-weight: 400;">absorbs high-volume floods at the network edge</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><b>CDN and scrubbing centers </b><span style="font-weight: 400;">filter L3/L4 attacks such as UDP floods and SYN floods</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><b>Web Application Firewalls (WAF)</b><span style="font-weight: 400;"> operate at L7, inspecting HTTP/S traffic for application-layer abuse</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><b>Rate-limiting rules </b><span style="font-weight: 400;">cap request volumes from specific sources</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><b>Bot management</b><span style="font-weight: 400;"> separates legitimate automated traffic from attack infrastructure</span></li> </ul><p><span style="font-weight: 400;">The bigger issue is configuration</span><b>. </b><span style="font-weight: 400;">Protection tools ship with generic defaults: thresholds, rule sets, and filtering logic designed for broad applicability rather than any specific environment. To be effective, those defaults need to be adjusted to reflect an organization’s actual traffic baseline, application behavior, and infrastructure topology. </span></p><p><span style="font-weight: 400;">For example, a rate-limit threshold that works for one environment may be too permissive for another with different traffic volumes or API usage patterns. Ot, a WAF rule set that was accurate at deployment may no longer reflect the attack surface after an architecture change.</span></p><h2><span style="font-weight: 400;">What DDoS Testing Actually Does</span></h2><p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Where protection is passive, testing is deliberate. Instead of waiting for an attack to occur, a testing team deliberately generates real attack traffic against your live or pre-production environment to find out what your protection stack handles well, and where it breaks down.</span></p><p><span style="font-weight: 400;">The output of a test isn’t a simple pass or fail. It’s a prioritized vulnerability report, including findings ranked by severity, each with specific remediation guidance.</span></p><p><span style="font-weight: 400;">However,</span><b> the quality of that output depends heavily on methodology.</b><span style="font-weight: 400;"> Red Button typically uses a white-box approach, which means the testing team starts by learning the actual architecture: the specific tools deployed, how they’re configured, where traffic enters and exits, and what the normal baseline looks like. Attack vectors are then designed to stress the specific weak points of that environment, rather than running a generic battery of tests against an unknown target. </span></p><p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Since 2014, Red Button has run over 1,500 tests across a wide range of industries and infrastructure types. For the client, the process requires around five hours of involvement in total – enough to be thorough without disrupting normal operations.</span></p><h2><span style="font-weight: 400;">Why Having Protection Is Not the Same as Being Protected</span></h2><p><span style="font-weight: 400;">There’s an important distinction between having a DDoS protection tool deployed and actually being protected against DDoS attacks. The two aren’t the same thing, and the gap between them tends to show up in three specific areas.</span></p><h3><span style="font-weight: 400;">The Configuration Gap</span></h3><p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Protection tools don’t configure themselves. Rate-limit thresholds, WAF rules, and geo-blocking logic all need to be calibrated against an organization’s actual traffic baseline: what normal request volumes look like, where legitimate traffic originates, and how the application behaves under load. </span></p><p><span style="font-weight: 400;">When that calibration doesn’t happen, the tool operates on assumptions that may not hold.</span><a href="https://www.red-button.net/case-study/european-central-bank-identifies-gaps-in-its-ddos-protection-stack/" rel="noopener"><span style="font-weight: 400;"> The European Central Bank</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> experienced this directly: Cloudflare was deployed and running, but rate-limit thresholds had been configured too permissively. An HTTPS POST flood exceeded those thresholds without triggering any mitigation rules. The protection was in place; the configuration didn’t reflect the threat environment.</span></p><p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Addressing these kinds of configuration issues is part of what </span><a href="https://www.red-button.net/ddos-technology-hardening/" rel="noopener"><span style="font-weight: 400;">DDoS technology hardening</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> covers – the process of systematically reviewing and tightening the settings across each layer of the protection stack.</span></p><h3><span style="font-weight: 400;">The Coverage Gap</span></h3><p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Most protection stacks are validated against a limited set of attack vectors at deployment, typically the most common volumetric and protocol-based attacks. </span><a href="https://www.red-button.net/ddos-attack-types/"><span style="font-weight: 400;">DDoS attack types</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> that fall outside that initial scope are often assumed to be covered, even though they are not tested.</span></p><p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Red Button simulates over 100 attack vectors per engagement. First-time tests regularly surface:</span></p><ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Vectors the stack was never configured to handle</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Attack types the stack was designed for but misconfigured against</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Gaps introduced by architecture or infrastructure changes post-deployment</span></li> </ul><p><span style="font-weight: 400;">The </span><a href="https://www.red-button.net/case-study/validating-ddos-resilience-for-a-european-government-agency/" rel="noopener"><span style="font-weight: 400;">European government agency case study,</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> running an Azure DDoS Protection Plan illustrates the coverage problem clearly. The platform is designed for L3/L4 protection and handles volumetric attacks effectively within that scope. When tested against a TLS reconnection attack (which operates at a different layer), it produced no detection and no mitigation. The product was functioning correctly; it simply wasn’t designed to cover that attack category.</span></p><h3><span style="font-weight: 400;">The Shared Responsibility Gap</span></h3><p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Cloud-native protection products operate within a defined scope that doesn’t always extend to the customer’s full environment. </span><a href="https://aws.amazon.com/shield/" rel="noopener"><span style="font-weight: 400;">AWS Shield</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> and </span><a href="https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/products/ddos-protection/" rel="noopener"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Azure DDoS Protection</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">, for example, protect the provider’s infrastructure. What sits outside that boundary, for example, the customer’s origin server, application layer, or any infrastructure beyond the provider’s perimeter, requires separate consideration.</span></p><p><span style="font-weight: 400;">In an </span><a href="https://www.red-button.net/case-study/an-hr-companys-ddos-protection-gets-a-major-promotion/" rel="noopener"><span style="font-weight: 400;">HR company case study</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">, Red Button had deployed a host-based WAF on the same server as the application it was protecting. Under DDoS load, the WAF and the application drew from the same pool of CPU and memory resources. As attack traffic scaled up, both became unavailable simultaneously. The organization’s DRS score was 1.5 – significantly below the 4.5–5.0 baseline considered adequate for most industries.</span></p><h2><span style="font-weight: 400;">What the Data Shows</span></h2><p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Red Button has conducted over 1,500 DDoS simulations since 2014. The findings across that dataset point to a consistent and specific problem.</span></p><p><a href="https://www.red-button.net/68-of-companies-are-more-vulnerable-to-ddos-than-they-think/" rel="noopener"><span style="font-weight: 400;">68% of protection faults </span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">identified in those simulations were rated severe or critical. In the context of DDoS mitigation testing, severe means no detection and no mitigation, while critical means partial mitigation only. These weren’t organizations without protection. They had invested in it, deployed it, and in most cases assumed it was working.</span></p><p><span style="font-weight: 400;">The DRS numbers reinforce this. The average resiliency score recorded at the first simulation is around 3.0. For most industries, the recommended baseline is 4.5–5.0. That’s not a marginal gap; it represents meaningful exposure across attack vectors that existing protection either doesn’t reach or hasn’t been configured to handle.</span></p><p><span style="font-weight: 400;">What’s notable about this data is what it doesn’t show. It doesn’t show a pattern of tools malfunctioning or vendors delivering products that don’t work. The protection products themselves are generally functioning as their vendors designed them to. The gap lies elsewhere: in the space between a tool being installed and a tool being properly calibrated, scoped, and validated for the environment it’s meant to protect.</span></p><h2><span style="font-weight: 400;">How Testing and Protection Work Together</span></h2><p><span style="font-weight: 400;">The two disciplines are not alternatives to each other; DDoS protection validation is what connects them. Protection stops attacks; testing confirms the protection works.</span></p><table style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 56.4808%;"> <tbody> <tr> <td style="width: 14.5064%;"> </td> <td style="width: 20.2992%;"><b>DDoS Protection</b></td> <td style="width: 21.6751%;"><b>DDoS Testing</b></td> </tr> <tr> <td style="width: 14.5064%;"><b>Function</b></td> <td style="width: 20.2992%;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Stops attacks in real time</span></td> <td style="width: 21.6751%;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Validates that protection works</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td style="width: 14.5064%;"><b>What it requires</b></td> <td style="width: 20.2992%;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Tools, configuration, architecture</span></td> <td style="width: 21.6751%;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Simulation, expertise, methodology</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td style="width: 14.5064%;"><b>Output</b></td> <td style="width: 20.2992%;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Traffic filtering</span></td> <td style="width: 21.6751%;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Vulnerability report, recommendations</span></td> </tr> </tbody> </table><h2><span style="font-weight: 400;">When to Run a DDoS Test</span></h2><p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Knowing how to test DDoS protection effectively starts with understanding that there’s no single universal schedule for </span><a href="https://www.red-button.net/ddostesting/"><span style="font-weight: 400;">DDoS simulation testing</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">, but there are clear triggers that should prompt one. At a minimum, testing should be conducted annually because attack vectors evolve, and a simulation from 18 months ago reflects a threat landscape that no longer exists. Beyond that baseline, the following situations each warrant a test in their own right:</span></p><ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><b>After deploying a new protection tool or architecture.</b><span style="font-weight: 400;"> Initial deployment is when configuration gaps are most likely to exist and least likely to have been caught.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><b>After a cloud migration.</b><span style="font-weight: 400;"> Moving to AWS, Azure, a hybrid environment, or between providers changes the protection scope, the shared responsibility boundary, and the attack surface.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><b>After a significant architecture change. </b><span style="font-weight: 400;">A new CDN, WAF, or API layer alters how traffic flows through the environment and how the protection stack responds to it.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><b>Before a high-risk period.</b><span style="font-weight: 400;"> Product launches, peak trading seasons, and regulatory audits all represent windows where availability is critical and the cost of a successful attack is highest.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><b>After a real DDoS incident. </b><span style="font-weight: 400;">A post-incident test serves two purposes: understanding what failed and confirming that the remediation actually fixed it.</span></li> </ul><h2><span style="font-weight: 400;">What DDoS Testing Is Not</span></h2><p><span style="font-weight: 400;">DDoS protection testing is sometimes conflated with other security practices. The distinctions are worth being clear on.</span></p><p><b>It is not a penetration test. </b><span style="font-weight: 400;">Unlike penetration testing, which covers a broad attack surface, DDoS defense testing focuses exclusively on availability and resilience under traffic-based attacks. Red Button simulates over 100 DDoS-specific vectors; a typical penetration test might cover five to ten. The two practices address different threat categories and neither substitutes for the other. </span></p><p><b>It is not a vendor self-assessment. </b><span style="font-weight: 400;">CDN and cloud providers sometimes offer basic validation of their own layer as part of an onboarding or support process. That is not independent testing. It covers only the provider’s layer, under conditions the provider controls, and says nothing about how the full stack performs end-to-end.</span></p><p><b>It is not a one-time exercise.</b><span style="font-weight: 400;"> A single test produces an accurate picture of the environment at a specific point in time. Infrastructure changes, new attack vectors emerge, and configurations drift. A test from 2 years ago doesn’t reflect your environment today. For organizations that need continuous validation rather than periodic snapshots, </span><a href="https://www.red-button.net/prevent-ddos-attacks-with-ddos360/"><span style="font-weight: 400;">DDoS 360</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> is designed for that purpose.</span></p><p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Find out what your protection stack actually stops. </span><a href="https://www.red-button.net/contact/" rel="noopener"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Request a DDoS simulation test →</span></a></p><h2><span style="font-weight: 400;">FAQs</span></h2><h3><span style="font-weight: 400;">What’s the difference between DDoS testing and DDoS protection?</span></h3><p><span style="font-weight: 400;">DDoS protection blocks attacks in real time using tools like CDNs and WAFs, while DDoS testing simulates attacks to verify whether that protection actually works.</span></p><h3><span style="font-weight: 400;">Do I need DDoS testing if I already have protection in place?</span></h3><p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Yes. Deployed protection without testing may be misconfigured or incomplete, leaving critical gaps that only real attack simulations can reveal.</span></p><h3><span style="font-weight: 400;">How often should DDoS testing be performed?</span></h3><p><span style="font-weight: 400;">At least annually, and after major changes such as cloud migrations, new security tools, architecture updates, or before high-risk business periods.</span></p><h3><span style="font-weight: 400;">Can DDoS testing disrupt my live environment?</span></h3><p><span style="font-weight: 400;">When done correctly (e.g., controlled, white-box simulations), testing is designed to minimize disruption while safely identifying weaknesses.</span></p><h3><span style="font-weight: 400;">What does a DDoS test actually deliver?</span></h3><p><span style="font-weight: 400;">A DDoS test provides a prioritized vulnerability report, remediation guidance, and a resiliency score that measures how well your protection performs under attack.</span></p><div class="spu-placeholder" style="display:none"></div><div class="addtoany_share_save_container addtoany_content addtoany_content_bottom"><div class="a2a_kit a2a_kit_size_20 addtoany_list" data-a2a-url="https://securityboulevard.com/2026/04/ddos-testing-vs-protection-the-missing-layer-in-your-defense/" data-a2a-title="DDoS Testing vs Protection: The Missing Layer in Your Defense"><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fddos-testing-vs-protection-the-missing-layer-in-your-defense%2F&amp;linkname=DDoS%20Testing%20vs%20Protection%3A%20The%20Missing%20Layer%20in%20Your%20Defense" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fddos-testing-vs-protection-the-missing-layer-in-your-defense%2F&amp;linkname=DDoS%20Testing%20vs%20Protection%3A%20The%20Missing%20Layer%20in%20Your%20Defense" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fddos-testing-vs-protection-the-missing-layer-in-your-defense%2F&amp;linkname=DDoS%20Testing%20vs%20Protection%3A%20The%20Missing%20Layer%20in%20Your%20Defense" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_reddit" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/reddit?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fddos-testing-vs-protection-the-missing-layer-in-your-defense%2F&amp;linkname=DDoS%20Testing%20vs%20Protection%3A%20The%20Missing%20Layer%20in%20Your%20Defense" title="Reddit" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fddos-testing-vs-protection-the-missing-layer-in-your-defense%2F&amp;linkname=DDoS%20Testing%20vs%20Protection%3A%20The%20Missing%20Layer%20in%20Your%20Defense" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share"></a></div></div><p class="syndicated-attribution">*** This is a Security Bloggers Network syndicated blog from <a href="https://www.red-button.net/">Red Button</a> authored by <a href="https://securityboulevard.com/author/0/" title="Read other posts by Noam Katav">Noam Katav</a>. Read the original post at: <a href="https://www.red-button.net/ddos-testing-vs-ddos-protection/">https://www.red-button.net/ddos-testing-vs-ddos-protection/</a> </p>

Why PoP Count Isn’t the Real Measure of Application Security Performance

  • None
  • Published date: 2026-04-26 00:00:00

None

<p>When evaluating cloud security platforms, one question comes up again and again:</p><p><strong>“How many Points of Presence do you have?”</strong></p><p>At first glance, the logic seems sound. More locations should mean lower latency, faster response times, and better protection. The assumption is simple: if security is delivered at the edge, then more edge locations must automatically translate into stronger application security.</p><p>That assumption, however, is largely inherited from the content delivery world — and it does not hold up when applied to real‑time application and API protection.</p><p><strong>The Common Assumption: More PoPs Means Better Security</strong></p><p>In content delivery networks (CDNs), PoP count is a meaningful metric. Static content benefits directly from being cached as close as possible to end users. The more locations you have, the more likely content can be served locally, reducing latency and improving page load times.</p><p>Application security operates under a very different set of constraints.</p><p>Web Application and API Protection (WAAP) platforms are not simply delivering content. They must inspect every request, enforce security policies, analyze behavior, detect abuse, and mitigate attacks in real time — all while maintaining visibility across global traffic flows.</p><p>In this context, <strong>proximity alone is not the primary driver of security effectiveness</strong>.</p><p><strong>Not All PoPs Are Created Equal</strong></p><p>A Point of Presence is a physical location where traffic is processed — but PoPs vary widely in capability.</p><p>Some platforms emphasize deploying a very large number of small, highly distributed PoPs optimized for caching and proximity. Others prioritize fewer, high‑capacity PoPs placed at major internet exchange points and backbone hubs.</p><p>These high‑connectivity locations sit directly on global networks, allowing traffic to reach them efficiently from broad geographic regions. In practice, users are often only a few milliseconds away from a well‑connected PoP, even if it is not located in the same city or country.</p><p>For security workloads, <strong>network connectivity, inspection depth, and capacity matter far more than raw geographic density</strong>.</p><p><strong>Anycast Routing Changes the Equation</strong></p><p>Modern security platforms rely on Anycast routing, which automatically directs traffic to the optimal PoP based on real‑time network conditions rather than simple physical distance.</p><p>With Anycast routing:</p><ul> <li>Traffic follows the most efficient network path</li> <li>Performance remains consistent even during outages</li> <li>Failover happens automatically without user intervention</li> </ul><p>A well‑architected Anycast network can deliver predictable performance and resilience without requiring a PoP in every location where users reside.</p><p><strong>Security Is Not the Same as Content Delivery</strong></p><p>The most important distinction to understand is this:</p><p><strong>CDNs scale by distributing copies of static content.<br> Security platforms scale by performing stateful inspection and coordinated decision‑making on live traffic.</strong></p><p>Security inspection is computationally intensive and context‑dependent. Every request must be evaluated against behavioral models, threat intelligence, and policy logic. This work is fundamentally different from serving cached files.</p><p>As PoP counts increase, security platforms must make architectural trade‑offs around:</p><ul> <li>How much inspection can be performed locally</li> <li>How much capacity is available per location</li> <li>How security intelligence is synchronized globally</li> <li>How attacks spanning regions are detected and mitigated</li> </ul><p>These trade‑offs define security outcomes far more than the number of locations alone.</p><p><strong>What “Security in Every PoP” Really Means</strong></p><p>Some modern platforms advertise that they run security services in every PoP, enabling them to deliver cached content and secure application traffic in the same location.</p><p>This approach offers clear advantages for <strong>latency‑sensitive use cases</strong> and environments where performance and security must be tightly coupled at the edge.</p><p>However, delivering security everywhere requires security capabilities to be <strong>highly distributed and lightweight by design</strong>. As PoP counts grow into the hundreds or thousands, platforms must balance:</p><ul> <li>Inspection depth versus per‑location footprint</li> <li>Local decision‑making versus global coordination</li> <li>Uniformity of protection versus operational complexity</li> </ul><p>In practice, “security in every PoP” often prioritizes <strong>speed and proximity</strong> over <strong>inspection depth, per‑location capacity, and attack absorption strength</strong>. While this model performs well under normal traffic conditions, it does not inherently guarantee stronger protection during large, sustained, or highly coordinated attacks.</p><p><strong>Concentrated Capacity vs. Distributed Presence</strong></p><p>Highly distributed security architectures excel at minimizing latency and handling everyday traffic efficiently.</p><p>Security‑first architectures, by contrast, are designed to concentrate <strong>capacity, intelligence, and mitigation power</strong> at strategically connected locations.</p><p>This concentration enables:</p><ul> <li>Immediate absorption of large volumetric attacks without traffic redirection</li> <li>Deep, stateful inspection even under extreme load</li> <li>Faster detection of coordinated attack patterns</li> <li>Predictable performance during worst‑case scenarios</li> </ul><p>For application and API security, the most critical moments are not normal operations, but peak attack conditions. It is during these moments that <strong>per‑PoP capacity and global visibility matter more than sheer geographic density</strong>.</p><p><strong>When PoP Density Does Matter</strong></p><p>PoP count does play an important role in specific scenarios:</p><ul> <li>Global delivery of static content</li> <li>Ultra‑low‑latency applications such as gaming or live streaming</li> <li>Environments heavily reliant on edge caching</li> </ul><p>Many enterprises address this by separating concerns — using one platform optimized for content delivery and another purpose‑built for inline application and API security.</p><p><strong>Architecture Over Optics</strong></p><p>PoP count makes for an impressive slide, but it does not tell the full story.</p><p>The true measure of an application security platform lies in its <strong>network design, routing intelligence, inspection depth, per‑location capacity, and ability to perform under attack</strong> — not in how many dots appear on a map.</p><p>Some platforms optimize for being everywhere.<br> Others optimize for being strong where it matters most.</p><p><strong>PoP count measures proximity.<br> Security performance measures resilience.</strong></p><p>In application security, architecture — not optics — determines outcomes.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The post <a href="https://www.imperva.com/blog/why-pop-count-isnt-the-real-measure-of-application-security-performance/">Why PoP Count Isn’t the Real Measure of Application Security Performance</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.imperva.com/blog">Blog</a>.</p><div class="spu-placeholder" style="display:none"></div><div class="addtoany_share_save_container addtoany_content addtoany_content_bottom"><div class="a2a_kit a2a_kit_size_20 addtoany_list" data-a2a-url="https://securityboulevard.com/2026/04/why-pop-count-isnt-the-real-measure-of-application-security-performance/" data-a2a-title="Why PoP Count Isn’t the Real Measure of Application Security Performance"><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fwhy-pop-count-isnt-the-real-measure-of-application-security-performance%2F&amp;linkname=Why%20PoP%20Count%20Isn%E2%80%99t%20the%20Real%20Measure%20of%20Application%20Security%20Performance" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fwhy-pop-count-isnt-the-real-measure-of-application-security-performance%2F&amp;linkname=Why%20PoP%20Count%20Isn%E2%80%99t%20the%20Real%20Measure%20of%20Application%20Security%20Performance" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fwhy-pop-count-isnt-the-real-measure-of-application-security-performance%2F&amp;linkname=Why%20PoP%20Count%20Isn%E2%80%99t%20the%20Real%20Measure%20of%20Application%20Security%20Performance" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_reddit" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/reddit?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fwhy-pop-count-isnt-the-real-measure-of-application-security-performance%2F&amp;linkname=Why%20PoP%20Count%20Isn%E2%80%99t%20the%20Real%20Measure%20of%20Application%20Security%20Performance" title="Reddit" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fwhy-pop-count-isnt-the-real-measure-of-application-security-performance%2F&amp;linkname=Why%20PoP%20Count%20Isn%E2%80%99t%20the%20Real%20Measure%20of%20Application%20Security%20Performance" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share"></a></div></div><p class="syndicated-attribution">*** This is a Security Bloggers Network syndicated blog from <a href="https://www.imperva.com/blog/">Blog</a> authored by <a href="https://securityboulevard.com/author/0/" title="Read other posts by Tim Ayling">Tim Ayling</a>. Read the original post at: <a href="https://www.imperva.com/blog/why-pop-count-isnt-the-real-measure-of-application-security-performance/">https://www.imperva.com/blog/why-pop-count-isnt-the-real-measure-of-application-security-performance/</a> </p>

Quantum-Resistant Identity and Access Management for MCP Resources

  • None
  • Published date: 2026-04-26 00:00:00

None

<p>The post <a href="https://www.gopher.security/blog/quantum-resistant-identity-access-management-mcp-resources">Quantum-Resistant Identity and Access Management for MCP Resources</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.gopher.security/blog">Read the Gopher Security's Quantum Safety Blog</a>.</p><h2>Why manual threat modeling just dont work anymore</h2><p>Ever tried to draw a map of your house while the walls were literally moving? That is basically what manual threat modeling feels like in modern dev cycles—you finish the diagram and it is already a relic.</p><p>The old way of sitting in a room with a whiteboard just dont cut it anymore. We are dealing with hundreds of electronic control units (ecus) and messy v2x connections that change faster than we can document them. </p><ul> <li><strong>Manual Threat Analysis and Risk Assessment (TARA) is too slow</strong>: By the time an expert identifies a risk, the dev team has pushed three new updates.</li> <li><strong>Compound effects get missed</strong>: Humans are great at seeing big bugs, but we often miss how two tiny, "low-risk" glitches can chain together into a total system takeover.</li> <li><strong>Subjectivity issues</strong>: You give the same api to two different teams and youll get two totally different threat models based on who had more coffee that morning.</li> </ul><p>According to a 2025 study on <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/16/6/449">automotive security automation</a>, traditional tara methodologies are predominantly manual processes that just exhibit massive limitations in scalability. </p><p><img decoding="async" src="https://cdn.pseo.one/6870bf387e1ac1cb2a38f9d6/6870e834c5fe7d369be3104c/graph-based-automated-attack-path-analysis/mermaid-diagram-1.svg" alt="Diagram 1"></p><p>Honestly, relying on manual reviews for a "computer on wheels" is asking for trouble. Next, lets look at how we actually map these paths.</p><h2>The basics of graph-based security models</h2><p>Think of a graph-based security model like a giant, digital spiderweb. Instead of just looking at a list of bugs, we map out how every ECU, sensor, and server actually talks to each other.</p><p>In this setup, we use <strong>nodes</strong> to represent the "things" in your system—like a gateway or a headlamp unit—and <strong>edges</strong> to show the causal relations between malicious events. Essentially, if an attacker hits node A, the edge shows exactly where they can go next.</p><ul> <li><strong>Digraphs for detail</strong>: We usually represent these as a <strong>digraph</strong> (directed graph) because attack paths aren't two-way streets; an attacker moves from a compromised wifi chip toward the internal CAN bus, not usually the other way.</li> <li><strong>Monotonicity simplifies things</strong>: We often assume <strong>monotonicity</strong>, which is a fancy way of saying once an attacker gains a privilege, they don't lose it. It makes searching for the attacker's goal much faster because we don't have to track them "un-learning" a password.</li> <li><strong>EFSM for complexity</strong>: For automotive, we use extended finite state machines (efsm) to show not just the hardware, but the privilege levels—like going from "read-only" to "full control."</li> </ul><p><img decoding="async" src="https://cdn.pseo.one/6870bf387e1ac1cb2a38f9d6/6870e834c5fe7d369be3104c/graph-based-automated-attack-path-analysis/mermaid-diagram-2.svg" alt="Diagram 2"></p><blockquote> <p>A 2025 study on automotive security automation shows that using these models helps identify "compound effects" where two low-risk glitches chain into a total takeover.</p> </blockquote><p>Honestly, it's just much more realistic than a static spreadsheet. Next, we'll see how to actually build these graphs without losing our minds.</p><h2>Building the automated engine with Neo4j and EFSM</h2><p>So, you got all your nodes and edges, but how do you actually make the computer "think" like a hacker? That is where we bring in the heavy hitters: neo4j for the storage and extended finite state machines (efsm) to handle the logic.</p><p>A regular state machine is too simple for a "computer on wheels." We use efsm because it lets us add variables and guards—basically rules that say "you can't do X unless you've already done Y."</p><ul> <li><strong>Privilege as a State</strong>: We don't just map the ECU; we map the attacker's level of control—like <code>read-only</code>, <code>execute</code>, or <code>fullcontrol</code>.</li> <li><strong>Transitions are Exploits</strong>: Every arrow in your graph is a potential threat from a catalog like un r155 (the UN regulation for vehicle cybersecurity).</li> <li><strong>Neo4j is perfect here</strong>: It treats relationships as first-class citizens. You can write a <strong>cypher</strong> query to find the "cheapest" or "fastest" way to the brakes in milliseconds.</li> </ul><pre><code class="language-cypher">// Find the shortest attack path to a critical asset MATCH (start:ExternalInterface), (target:Asset {name: 'Brakes'}), path = shortestPath((start)-[:LEADS_TO*]-&gt;(target)) RETURN path </code></pre><p>Doing this by hand is a nightmare, so tools like <strong>AppAxon</strong> are popping up to handle the ai-driven threat modeling. It basically runs continuous red-teaming, catching new attack paths every time a dev pushes code to the api. </p><blockquote> <p>A 2025 study on automotive security automation (as mentioned earlier) notes that automating these paths reduces the "analytical complexity" that usually kills manual tara.</p> </blockquote><h2>Implementing the GAPP (Graph-based Automated Path Prediction) methodology</h2><p>So you’ve got this massive, digital spiderweb of nodes. Now what? You gotta make it actually do something useful—like telling you which fire to put out first. Honestly, just staring at a graph with 30,000 paths is a great way to ruin your afternoon.</p><p>In real life, we use the GAPP methodology to turn that mess into a prioritized list. It’s basically a three-step dance:</p><ul> <li><strong>Data Crunching</strong>: We map vulnerabilities to specific states. If an api has a "buffer overflow" threat, it only connects to nodes with <code>execute</code> privileges.</li> <li><strong>Path Traversal</strong>: We use algorithms like A* because they’re smarter than just wandering around. It looks for the "shortest" path to your most sensitive assets, like the brakes or personal data.</li> <li><strong>Scoring with affmax</strong>: This is the secret sauce. <strong>affmax</strong> (Attack Feasibility Maximum) is a logic where we find the most restrictive or difficult step in a chain. If one part of the hack requires a literal genius and a year of time, that "bottleneck" means the whole path is rated "low feasibility," even if the other steps are easy.</li> </ul><p>We don't treat every asset the same. A 2024 article by <a href="https://medium.com/@RocketMeUpCybersecurity/attack-path-mapping-using-automated-knowledge-graphs-enhancing-cyber-defense-strategies-83dabd7a294a">RocketMe Up Cybersecurity</a> explains that using automated knowledge graphs lets you prioritize patching based on how close a bug is to a "critical node." </p><p>Basically, a "low" risk bug on a gateway might be way more dangerous than a "high" risk bug on a dome light. Here is a look at how we calculate that feasibility using the affmax bottleneck logic:</p><p><img decoding="async" src="https://cdn.pseo.one/6870bf387e1ac1cb2a38f9d6/6870e834c5fe7d369be3104c/graph-based-automated-attack-path-analysis/mermaid-diagram-3.svg" alt="Diagram 3"></p><p>It’s way more realistic than just guessing. Next, we'll look at the final results of these models.</p><h2>The future of ai-driven defense strategies</h2><p>So, where does this leave us? For instance, in a recent analysis, a single headlamp unit was found to be part of over 32,500 potential attack paths—looking at that makes it pretty clear that the old-school manual way is dead.</p><p>The future of ai-driven defense is basically about graphs that don't just sit there—they learn and adapt as your network changes.</p><ul> <li><strong>Self-adaptive graphs</strong>: Imagine a system where your neo4j backend pulls live threat intelligence. If a new zero-day hits a specific api in the finance or healthcare sector, the graph updates itself to show if your system is suddenly "reachable."</li> <li><strong>Moving toward zero trust</strong>: Defense won't be a one-time check. Constant graph validation means the ai is always huntin for unauthorized lateral movement across ecus or cloud servers.</li> <li><strong>Solving path explosion</strong>: As previously discussed, we have too many paths. Future ai will use smarter heuristics—like the A* algorithm—to filter out the noise and only show what actually matters to a real hacker.</li> </ul><p><img decoding="async" src="https://cdn.pseo.one/6870bf387e1ac1cb2a38f9d6/6870e834c5fe7d369be3104c/graph-based-automated-attack-path-analysis/mermaid-diagram-4.svg" alt="Diagram 4"></p><p>We're moving from "guessing the risk" to predictive simulations. It's about being ready before the walls start moving again.</p><div class="spu-placeholder" style="display:none"></div><div class="addtoany_share_save_container addtoany_content addtoany_content_bottom"><div class="a2a_kit a2a_kit_size_20 addtoany_list" data-a2a-url="https://securityboulevard.com/2026/04/quantum-resistant-identity-and-access-management-for-mcp-resources/" data-a2a-title="Quantum-Resistant Identity and Access Management for MCP Resources"><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fquantum-resistant-identity-and-access-management-for-mcp-resources%2F&amp;linkname=Quantum-Resistant%20Identity%20and%20Access%20Management%20for%20MCP%20Resources" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fquantum-resistant-identity-and-access-management-for-mcp-resources%2F&amp;linkname=Quantum-Resistant%20Identity%20and%20Access%20Management%20for%20MCP%20Resources" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fquantum-resistant-identity-and-access-management-for-mcp-resources%2F&amp;linkname=Quantum-Resistant%20Identity%20and%20Access%20Management%20for%20MCP%20Resources" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_reddit" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/reddit?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fquantum-resistant-identity-and-access-management-for-mcp-resources%2F&amp;linkname=Quantum-Resistant%20Identity%20and%20Access%20Management%20for%20MCP%20Resources" title="Reddit" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fquantum-resistant-identity-and-access-management-for-mcp-resources%2F&amp;linkname=Quantum-Resistant%20Identity%20and%20Access%20Management%20for%20MCP%20Resources" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share"></a></div></div><p class="syndicated-attribution">*** This is a Security Bloggers Network syndicated blog from <a href="https://www.gopher.security/blog">Read the Gopher Security&amp;#039;s Quantum Safety Blog</a> authored by <a href="https://securityboulevard.com/author/0/" title="Read other posts by Read the Gopher Security's Quantum Safety Blog">Read the Gopher Security's Quantum Safety Blog</a>. Read the original post at: <a href="https://www.gopher.security/blog/quantum-resistant-identity-access-management-mcp-resources">https://www.gopher.security/blog/quantum-resistant-identity-access-management-mcp-resources</a> </p>

The Great Stay: Why Tech Talent Is Choosing Stability Over Salary

  • None
  • Published date: 2026-04-26 00:00:00

None

<p>The post <a href="https://www.govtech.com/blogs/lohrmann-on-cybersecurity/the-great-stay-why-tech-talent-is-choosing-stability-over-salary">The Great Stay: Why Tech Talent Is Choosing Stability Over Salary</a> appeared first on Lohrmann on Cybersecurity.</p><p><main id="readArticle" class="Page-main" data-module="" data-padding="none" morss_own_score="4.2961275626423685" morss_score="11.966238850400716"></main></p><p><a href="https://www.govtech.com/blogs/lohrmann-on-cybersecurity">Lohrmann on Cybersecurity</a></p><h1>The Great Stay: Why Tech Talent Is Choosing Stability Over Salary</h1><h2>How mass layoffs and economic anxiety have upended the talent war, turning “job hugging” into the public sector’s greatest opportunity to fill open tech positions.</h2><div>April 26, 2026 • </div><p><a href="https://www.govtech.com/authors/dan-lohrmann.html"><span>Dan Lohrmann</span></a></p><figure> <p><img decoding="async" src="https://erepublic.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/844c7f9/2147483647/strip/true/crop/6691x3489+0+496/resize/840x438!/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ferepublic-brightspot.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com%2F54%2Fea%2Ff459aa6a47cc958cc75a1efd22e9%2Fadobestock-280148445.jpeg"></p> <div>Adobe Stock/Pixel-Shot</div> </figure><div class="Page-articleBody RichTextBody" morss_own_score="4.463054187192118" morss_score="113.96305418719211"> <p> This past week has brought a series of more high-profile companies cutting jobs. First, <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/23/microsoft-plans-first-voluntary-retirement-program-for-us-employees.html">Microsoft announced plans</a> for its first-ever voluntary employee buyout for up to 7 percent of its U.S. workforce.</p></div><div>Next, <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/23/meta-will-cut-10percent-of-workforce-as-it-pushes-more-into-ai.html">Meta announced it will cut 10 percent of its workforce</a>. CNBC reports that “Meta will initiate the job cuts on May 20, and is discarding all plans to hire people to fill 6,000 roles that are currently open, according to a memo sent to employees, reported on by <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-04-23/meta-tells-staff-it-will-cut-10-of-jobs-in-push-for-efficiency">Bloomberg</a>.”</div><div>Meanwhile, <a href="https://www.dailymail.com/yourmoney/article-15760475/nike-axes-jobs-layoffs.html">Nike axed 1,400 jobs</a> after a brutal sales drop: “The latest layoffs — which are understood to fall heavily on its technology division — come as the sportswear behemoth pushes ahead with a major overhaul aimed at sharpening its competitive edge.” </div><div>Plus, many governments cut jobs in 2025, and the cuts are continuing in 2026 across the country. <h3>WHAT’S CHANGED?</h3> </div><div>For more than a decade, technology teams have struggled to attract and retain top talent, especially in areas such as cybersecurity. Panels at tech conferences and cyber summits nationwide have consistently raised this challenge as one of the top cultural issues that CxOs in state and local governments face. In some situations, leaving vital positions unfilled has not been uncommon. <p>But currently, with more tech layoffs announced almost weekly, most government leaders have more good applicants than jobs to offer. Recent developments, especially over the past nine months, have changed this “attract/retain talent” paradigm. Consider these media headlines:</p> <p><b>CNBC</b>: <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/18/job-hugging-job-hopping.html">‘Job hugging’ has replaced job-hopping, consultants say, as workers cling to current roles</a> — “The so-called great resignation <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2024/12/23/why-the-great-resignation-became-the-great-stay-labor-economists.html">has become</a> the ‘great stay.’ But experts say workers aren’t just staying — they’re ‘job hugging.’”</p> <p><b>Benzinga:</b> <a href="https://www.benzinga.com/news/topics/26/04/51965397/the-great-standstill-american-workers-stay-put-as-job-switching-appetite-hits-five-year-low-amid-uncertainty">The Great Standstill: American Workers Stay Put As Job Switching Appetite Hits Five-Year Low Amid Uncertainty</a> — “Job satisfaction has fallen to a record low in the United States, according to the New York Federal Reserve’s SCE Labor Market Survey released on Tuesday, with workers reporting the weakest appetite for switching employers since 2021.</p></div><div>“The share of workers expecting to move to a new employer fell to 9.7%, the lowest in five years. Satisfaction with wage compensation and promotion opportunities both hit their lowest levels since the survey began in 2014.</div><div>“The number actively searching for a job also slipped, declining to 22.5% from 23.8% in November 2025, with the steepest pullback among workers under 45 and women.” <p><b>Marketplace: </b><a href="https://www.marketplace.org/story/2026/02/23/why-workers-are-staying-put-in-this-labor-market">Switching jobs for a significantly higher salary is so 2022. Welcome to the Great Stay</a> — “You may remember that strange phase of the labor market after the pandemic that got dubbed <a href="https://www.marketplace.org/story/2021/10/20/the-great-resignation-is-leading-workers-down-new-career-paths">The Great Resignation</a> — when employers were hiring like mad, and lots of workers were leaving for better-paying jobs.</p></div><div>“They had good reason. According to data from the payroll company ADP (where occasional Marketplace collaborator Nela Richardson is chief economist) back in the first half of 2022, your annual salary went up 8% more if you left your job than if you stayed. </div><div>“Those days are long gone. Now ADP reports that increase has fallen below 2%. Some are calling this phase of the labor market The Great Stay.” <p><b>Economist Impact:</b> <a href="https://tracking.us.nylas.com/l/8b75969b0e074cb8b6698a0b4aec3f33/0/9c9ce13a4328cae2f22df295735904c77c2a005dd11cd91b60d3572f0720332c?cache_buster=1775467300">America’s workforce is frozen by economic anxiety</a> — “The most striking takeaway is that the average American worker now expects to delay retirement by nearly four years due to economic volatility. For lower-income workers, that gap jumps to six years. Even for Gen Z, many of whom have only just entered the workforce, retirement insecurity is setting in, with younger workers already expecting a five year delay.</p></div><div>Key findings include: <ul> <li><b>Safety over salary</b>: 62% of workers now prioritize long-term job security over better pay or benefits elsewhere.</li> <li><b>Mobility stalled:</b> 30% have entirely abandoned job searches in the last five years.</li> <li><b>Raiding tomorrow to stay afloat today: </b>35% have taken hardship withdrawals from retirement accounts to cover current costs. 30% have also cut back on retirement savings.</li> <li><b>Life on pause: </b>Three quarters have postponed buying a home or car, with millennials most affected (82%). One in four have postponed having children.</li> <li><b>The sector split</b>: Financial services workers are bracing for the longest retirement delay (5.1 years), while government employees expect the shortest (2.9 years). ”</li> </ul> <p></p> <h3>WHAT’S CAUSING THIS TREND?</h3> </div><div>There are several factors contributing to these trends. Here are a few other stories to consider: <p><b>eWeek: </b><a href="https://www.eweek.com/news/ai-changing-cybersecurity-jobs-skills-shift/">AI Is Exposing a Skills Gap in Cybersecurity Hiring</a><b><i> — “</i></b>Artificial intelligence is rapidly transforming cybersecurity roles, but not in the way many expected.  Rather than just eliminating jobs, AI is redefining how cybersecurity professionals work, shifting the focus from manual task execution to higher-level decision-making and analysis. But it’s also exposing gaps in organizational hiring. The work of security professionals ‘becomes less about processing and more about applying strong judgment, logic, and reasoning,’ Maruf Ahmed, CEO of Dexian, said in an email to eSecurityPlanet.”</p> <p><b>Pew Research</b>: <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/03/13/federal-workforce-shrank-10-in-trumps-first-year-back-in-office/">Federal workforce shrank 10% in Trump’s first year back in office</a> — “The federal workforce shrank by 10.3% in 2025, or a net of nearly 238,000 workers, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of recently published government data.</p></div><div>“A total of 348,219 people quit, retired, were laid off or otherwise left federal employment last year — an 80.8% increase from 2024. At the same time, 116,912 people started working for the federal government – a 55.6% <i>decrease</i> from the year before.” <p><b>Washington State Standard</b>: <a href="https://washingtonstatestandard.com/2026/01/19/an-icy-reception-for-gov-bob-fergusons-proposed-budget-cuts/">An icy reception for Gov. Bob Ferguson’s proposed budget cuts</a> — “Advocates for schools, public universities, and climate programs are among those unhappy with the raft of cuts the governor relies on to close a $2.3 billion shortfall.”</p> <p><b>Government Technology</b>: <a href="https://www.govtech.com/blogs/lohrmann-on-cybersecurity/no-retirement-no-problem-rethinking-workforce-planning">No Retirement? No Problem: Rethinking Workforce Planning</a> — “For decades, governments nationwide have predicted a coming tidal wave of retirements will cripple critical government services. But recent surveys say otherwise.” <br> <br><b>Bizwomen</b>: <a href="https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/bizwomen/news/latest-news/2026/03/women-economic-concern-great-stay.html">Women face deeper economic concern as ‘Great Stay’ reshapes workforce</a> — “As the U.S. enters 2026, American workers — especially women — are retreating from risk and prioritizing stability over advancement, reflecting a workforce shaped more by caution than ambition.</p></div><div>“<a href="https://www.myperfectresume.com/career-center/careers/basics/the-great-stay-2026">A new national survey</a> from MyPerfectResume, The Great Stay: 2026 State of the Labor Market, finds that persistent fears of layoffs, burnout and economic instability are influencing how workers approach their careers. Women, in particular, are entering the year with significantly higher levels of economic concern than their male counterparts.</div><div>“More than half of women (55.4%) believe the labor market will worsen in 2026 compared to 42.7% of men, a nearly 13-point pessimism gap. Women also are substantially more likely to worry about a recession, with 42.5% saying they are very concerned compared to 35.9% of men.” <h3>FINAL THOUGHTS</h3> </div><div>So what can be done to help the “job huggers” overcome their anxiety and prepare for the future? Last August, <a href="https://www.govtech.com/blogs/lohrmann-on-cybersecurity/troubling-tech-career-trends-from-quiet-cracking-to-ai-anxiety">I explored the “quiet cracking” (job anxiety) trend</a> in more detail.</div><div>For now, I still like the popular line that AI will not take your job, but people trained on AI will have an advantage against those who don’t. I covered some specific recommendations on <a href="https://www.govtech.com/blogs/lohrmann-on-cybersecurity/can-you-future-proof-your-life-in-the-age-of-ai-book-review">AI training and career planning in this book review</a>. Another piece which I highly recommend on this topic (especially for employers) <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/joshuacopeland_ai-unpopularopinion-unpopularopinionguy-activity-7452688697784905728-Nwei?utm_source=share&amp;utm_medium=member_desktop&amp;rcm=ACoAAAAWvWUBividW3-ao-0USZQ_tAsxCS7Uk1I">comes from Joshua Copeland on LinkedIn</a>.</div><p><a href="https://www.govtech.com/tag/workforce-and-people">Workforce and People</a></p><p><a href="https://www.govtech.com/authors/dan-lohrmann.html"></a></p><p><img decoding="async" src="https://erepublic.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/7be6234/2147483647/strip/true/crop/343x343+77+0/resize/100x100!/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ferepublic-brightspot.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com%2Faa%2Fbe%2F66bbbc539526800857dd96f3c9d5%2Flohrman.jpg"></p><p></p><p><a href="https://www.govtech.com/authors/dan-lohrmann.html">Dan Lohrmann</a></p><div> Daniel J. Lohrmann is an internationally recognized cybersecurity leader, technologist, keynote speaker and author. </div><p><a href="https://www.govtech.com/authors/dan-lohrmann.html">See More Stories by Dan Lohrmann</a></p><p></p><div class="spu-placeholder" style="display:none"></div><div class="addtoany_share_save_container addtoany_content addtoany_content_bottom"><div class="a2a_kit a2a_kit_size_20 addtoany_list" data-a2a-url="https://securityboulevard.com/2026/04/the-great-stay-why-tech-talent-is-choosing-stability-over-salary/" data-a2a-title="The Great Stay: Why Tech Talent Is Choosing Stability Over Salary"><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fthe-great-stay-why-tech-talent-is-choosing-stability-over-salary%2F&amp;linkname=The%20Great%20Stay%3A%20Why%20Tech%20Talent%20Is%20Choosing%20Stability%20Over%20Salary" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fthe-great-stay-why-tech-talent-is-choosing-stability-over-salary%2F&amp;linkname=The%20Great%20Stay%3A%20Why%20Tech%20Talent%20Is%20Choosing%20Stability%20Over%20Salary" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fthe-great-stay-why-tech-talent-is-choosing-stability-over-salary%2F&amp;linkname=The%20Great%20Stay%3A%20Why%20Tech%20Talent%20Is%20Choosing%20Stability%20Over%20Salary" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_reddit" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/reddit?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fthe-great-stay-why-tech-talent-is-choosing-stability-over-salary%2F&amp;linkname=The%20Great%20Stay%3A%20Why%20Tech%20Talent%20Is%20Choosing%20Stability%20Over%20Salary" title="Reddit" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fthe-great-stay-why-tech-talent-is-choosing-stability-over-salary%2F&amp;linkname=The%20Great%20Stay%3A%20Why%20Tech%20Talent%20Is%20Choosing%20Stability%20Over%20Salary" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share"></a></div></div><p class="syndicated-attribution">*** This is a Security Bloggers Network syndicated blog from <a href="">Lohrmann on Cybersecurity</a> authored by <a href="https://securityboulevard.com/author/0/" title="Read other posts by Lohrmann on Cybersecurity">Lohrmann on Cybersecurity</a>. Read the original post at: <a href="https://www.govtech.com/blogs/lohrmann-on-cybersecurity/the-great-stay-why-tech-talent-is-choosing-stability-over-salary">https://www.govtech.com/blogs/lohrmann-on-cybersecurity/the-great-stay-why-tech-talent-is-choosing-stability-over-salary</a> </p>

The 'affair mode' phone settings that all cheaters use: I knew my partner was up to something... here's how I cracked his secret code and uncovered all his dirty antics

  • Kim Komando
  • Published date: 2026-04-25 17:15:35

Cheaters are increasingly using an array of sneaky tech tricks to hide their tracks. Here's how to spot the hidden clues and uncover all their secrets...

Cheaters are becoming more technologically savvy than ever, turning to hidden phone settings, disappearing messages and location tricks to conceal their tracks. Experts warn that modern smartphones … [+10948 chars]

How Transnational Repression Tests European Democracies

  • Hossein Amjadi
  • Published date: 2026-04-25 11:53:37

The contemporary rise of transnational repression has exposed a structural paradox in liberal democracies. Authoritarian regimes increasingly exert coercive influence within democratic countries, even though they lack formal political authority there. Protect…

The contemporary rise of transnational repression has exposed a structural paradox in liberal democracies. Authoritarian regimes increasingly exert coercive influence within democratic countries, eve… [+4767 chars]

Supplier assurance for UK SMEs: a practical guide to checking third parties without overcomplicating itSupplier assurance for UK SMEs: a practical guide to checking third parties without overcomplicating it

  • None
  • Published date: 2026-04-25 00:00:00

None

<p><!-- content style : start --></p><style type="text/css" data-name="kubio-style"></style><p><!-- content style : end --></p><h1>Supplier assurance for UK SMEs: a practical guide to checking third parties without overcomplicating it</h1><p>Most UK SMEs rely on suppliers in some way. That might be payroll software, a managed IT provider, a marketing agency, a logistics partner, or a cloud service that holds customer data. The more your business depends on third parties, the more important it becomes to understand how those suppliers manage security.</p><p>That is where supplier assurance comes in. In simple terms, it is the process of checking whether a supplier can protect the information, systems, and services you rely on. Done well, it helps you make better decisions, reduce avoidable risk, and avoid unpleasant surprises later. Done badly, it turns into a long questionnaire exercise that nobody keeps up to date.</p><p>For SMEs, the aim is not to build a heavyweight procurement function. It is to take a proportionate, repeatable approach that matches the level of risk each supplier creates.</p><h2>What supplier assurance means in practice</h2><h3>How it differs from supplier management</h3><p>Supplier management is the broader business activity of selecting, onboarding, paying, reviewing, and renewing suppliers. Supplier assurance is the security part of that picture. It asks a narrower question: can this supplier be trusted to handle the data, access, or service they provide in a way that fits your risk appetite?</p><p>That distinction matters because a supplier can be commercially good value and still present a security concern. Equally, a supplier may not need a deep review if they only provide a low-risk service with no access to sensitive information.</p><h3>Why SMEs need a proportionate approach</h3><p>Many SMEs do not have a dedicated third-party risk team, and that is normal. The challenge is to avoid two extremes. The first is doing nothing until a problem appears. The second is asking every supplier for the same level of detail, regardless of risk. Neither approach is efficient.</p><p>A proportionate model keeps the process simple. You focus effort where it matters most, such as suppliers with access to personal data, finance systems, customer platforms, or business-critical services. Lower-risk suppliers can be checked more lightly.</p><h2>Start with a simple supplier risk view</h2><h3>Which suppliers matter most</h3><p>Begin by listing the suppliers that support important business activities. A useful starting point is to ask three questions about each one:</p><ul> <li>Do they access your data?</li> <li>Do they connect to your systems?</li> <li>Would the business struggle if they failed or were unavailable?</li> </ul><p>If the answer to any of those is yes, the supplier deserves more attention. Suppliers that handle personal data, payment information, confidential documents, or privileged access should usually sit higher on the list.</p><h3>How to group suppliers by impact and access</h3><p>A simple three-tier model is often enough for SMEs:</p><ul> <li><strong>High risk</strong>: suppliers with sensitive data, system access, or critical business impact.</li> <li><strong>Medium risk</strong>: suppliers with limited data access or important but not critical services.</li> <li><strong>Low risk</strong>: suppliers with little or no access to sensitive information and limited business impact.</li> </ul><p>This is not about creating perfect categories. It is about helping you decide how much checking is reasonable. A cloud provider hosting customer records will need more scrutiny than a stationery supplier.</p><h2>What to ask suppliers for</h2><h3>Core evidence that is usually worth requesting</h3><p>Evidence should support the level of risk. For many SMEs, the following items are a sensible starting point for higher-risk suppliers:</p><ul> <li>A short description of their security controls</li> <li>Their incident reporting process</li> <li>Details of who can access your data and how that access is controlled</li> <li>Information about data retention and deletion</li> <li>Business continuity arrangements for important services</li> <li>Any relevant independent assurance they already hold</li> </ul><p>If a supplier stores or processes personal data, you may also want to understand where the data is held, whether subcontractors are used, and how they are managed.</p><h3>How to avoid asking for more than you need</h3><p>It is easy to overdo supplier questionnaires. Long forms can create friction, delay onboarding, and produce poor-quality answers. A better approach is to ask only for information that helps you make a decision.</p><p>For lower-risk suppliers, a short set of questions may be enough. For higher-risk suppliers, ask for more detail, but keep the questions focused. If you cannot explain why a question matters, it probably does not belong in the process.</p><h2>Ways to assess assurance without creating friction</h2><h3>Questionnaires, contracts, and evidence reviews</h3><p>Supplier assurance works best when it combines a few simple methods rather than relying on one tool alone. A short questionnaire can help you gather consistent information. Contract terms can set expectations around security, incident reporting, and data handling. Evidence reviews can then confirm whether the supplier’s answers are credible.</p><p>For SMEs, the goal is not to audit every supplier in depth. It is to understand enough to make a sensible decision. If a supplier’s answers are vague, inconsistent, or unsupported, that is a useful signal in itself.</p><h3>Using existing certifications and reports carefully</h3><p>Many suppliers will point to certifications, audit reports, or external assessments. These can be helpful, but they should be treated as part of the picture rather than a complete answer. A certificate or report may show that a supplier has been through a formal process, but it does not automatically prove that every control is effective for your use case.</p><p>Look at whether the scope is relevant. For example, does the assurance cover the service you are buying, the location where it is delivered, and the systems that touch your data? If not, you may need to ask follow-up questions.</p><p>It is also sensible to check the date. Assurance evidence can go stale quickly if the supplier changes systems, locations, or subcontractors.</p><h2>Common gaps SMEs should watch for</h2><h3>Weak access controls and shared accounts</h3><p>One of the most common issues in supplier relationships is poor control over access. If a supplier uses shared accounts, weak passwords, or unclear approval processes, it becomes harder to know who can see or change your information.</p><p>For suppliers with system access, ask how accounts are created, reviewed, and removed. You do not need a technical deep dive, but you do need confidence that access is limited to the right people and removed when no longer needed.</p><h3>Poor incident reporting and unclear responsibilities</h3><p>Another common gap is uncertainty about what happens when something goes wrong. If a supplier suffers a security incident, do they know when and how to tell you? Do they have a named contact? Do they understand what information you need from them?</p><p>Clear incident reporting matters because delays can make it harder to assess impact and respond properly. It is also worth checking who is responsible for what if the supplier uses subcontractors or shared platforms.</p><h2>How to build supplier assurance into day-to-day work</h2><h3>Onboarding, renewal, and periodic review</h3><p>Supplier assurance should not be a one-off task. It works best when it is built into normal business processes.</p><p>At onboarding, check the supplier before they get access to data or systems. At renewal, review whether anything has changed. Periodically, revisit higher-risk suppliers to confirm that the original assumptions still hold.</p><p>This does not need to be complicated. Even a simple annual review for key suppliers can make a meaningful difference, especially if your business changes quickly.</p><h3>Keeping records that support consistent decisions</h3><p>Good records help you make consistent decisions and avoid repeating the same work. Keep a short note of the supplier’s risk level, the evidence reviewed, any concerns raised, and the decision made. If you agree actions with the supplier, record those too.</p><p>This creates a useful trail for internal continuity. It also helps if the person managing the supplier changes, because the next person can see why the supplier was approved and what needs to be revisited.</p><h2>When to escalate concerns</h2><h3>Signs a supplier may need closer review</h3><p>Some warning signs suggest you should pause and look more closely. These include:</p><ul> <li>Unclear answers to basic security questions</li> <li>Reluctance to explain how data is protected</li> <li>No defined incident reporting process</li> <li>Evidence that does not match the service being provided</li> <li>Frequent changes in ownership, subcontractors, or delivery model</li> </ul><p>None of these automatically mean you should stop using the supplier. They do mean you should understand the risk before proceeding.</p><h3>Practical alternatives if a supplier cannot meet expectations</h3><p>If a supplier cannot meet your preferred standard, you still have options. You might reduce the data they receive, limit their system access, add contractual controls, increase monitoring, or choose a different supplier if the risk is too high.</p><p>The right answer depends on the business need. In some cases, the best control is simply to share less information. In others, you may decide the service is too important to accept the gap.</p><h2>A sensible starting point for smaller organisations</h2><h3>Minimum viable supplier assurance process</h3><p>If you are starting from scratch, keep it simple. A minimum viable process for an SME could look like this:</p><ul> <li>List your key suppliers</li> <li>Classify them by risk and access</li> <li>Ask a short set of focused questions for higher-risk suppliers</li> <li>Review available evidence</li> <li>Record the decision and any follow-up actions</li> <li>Revisit the supplier at renewal or on a set schedule</li> </ul><p>That is enough to create structure without creating unnecessary overhead.</p><h3>How to improve it over time</h3><p>Once the basics are in place, improve gradually. You might refine your questionnaire, add clearer contract wording, or create a simple checklist for onboarding. You could also align supplier assurance with wider information security work, such as access management, data protection, and business continuity.</p><p>The most effective programmes are usually the ones people can actually maintain. A modest process that is used consistently is far better than an ambitious one that falls apart after a few months.</p><p>For UK SMEs, supplier assurance is really about making informed choices. You do not need to inspect every supplier in the same way. You do need a repeatable method for understanding where third-party risk sits, what evidence matters, and when to ask more questions. That approach helps protect the business without slowing it down.</p><p>If you would like help shaping a proportionate supplier assurance approach as part of a wider information security programme, a practical review can be a useful next step.</p><p><a href="https://clearpathsecurity.co.uk/contact-page/">Speak to a consultant</a></p><p>The post <a href="https://clearpathsecurity.co.uk/supplier-assurance-for-uk-smes-a-practical-guide-to-checking-third-parties-without-overcomplicating-it/">Supplier assurance for UK SMEs: a practical guide to checking third parties without overcomplicating it</a> appeared first on <a href="https://clearpathsecurity.co.uk/">Clear Path Security Ltd</a>.</p><div class="spu-placeholder" style="display:none"></div><div class="addtoany_share_save_container addtoany_content addtoany_content_bottom"><div class="a2a_kit a2a_kit_size_20 addtoany_list" data-a2a-url="https://securityboulevard.com/2026/04/supplier-assurance-for-uk-smes-a-practical-guide-to-checking-third-parties-without-overcomplicating-it/" data-a2a-title="Supplier assurance for UK SMEs: a practical guide to checking third parties without overcomplicating it"><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fsupplier-assurance-for-uk-smes-a-practical-guide-to-checking-third-parties-without-overcomplicating-it%2F&amp;linkname=Supplier%20assurance%20for%20UK%20SMEs%3A%20a%20practical%20guide%20to%20checking%20third%20parties%20without%20overcomplicating%20it" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fsupplier-assurance-for-uk-smes-a-practical-guide-to-checking-third-parties-without-overcomplicating-it%2F&amp;linkname=Supplier%20assurance%20for%20UK%20SMEs%3A%20a%20practical%20guide%20to%20checking%20third%20parties%20without%20overcomplicating%20it" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fsupplier-assurance-for-uk-smes-a-practical-guide-to-checking-third-parties-without-overcomplicating-it%2F&amp;linkname=Supplier%20assurance%20for%20UK%20SMEs%3A%20a%20practical%20guide%20to%20checking%20third%20parties%20without%20overcomplicating%20it" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_reddit" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/reddit?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fsupplier-assurance-for-uk-smes-a-practical-guide-to-checking-third-parties-without-overcomplicating-it%2F&amp;linkname=Supplier%20assurance%20for%20UK%20SMEs%3A%20a%20practical%20guide%20to%20checking%20third%20parties%20without%20overcomplicating%20it" title="Reddit" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fsupplier-assurance-for-uk-smes-a-practical-guide-to-checking-third-parties-without-overcomplicating-it%2F&amp;linkname=Supplier%20assurance%20for%20UK%20SMEs%3A%20a%20practical%20guide%20to%20checking%20third%20parties%20without%20overcomplicating%20it" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share"></a></div></div><p class="syndicated-attribution">*** This is a Security Bloggers Network syndicated blog from <a href="https://clearpathsecurity.co.uk/">Clear Path Security Ltd</a> authored by <a href="https://securityboulevard.com/author/0/" title="Read other posts by Clear Path Security Ltd">Clear Path Security Ltd</a>. Read the original post at: <a href="https://clearpathsecurity.co.uk/supplier-assurance-for-uk-smes-a-practical-guide-to-checking-third-parties-without-overcomplicating-it/">https://clearpathsecurity.co.uk/supplier-assurance-for-uk-smes-a-practical-guide-to-checking-third-parties-without-overcomplicating-it/</a> </p><p><!-- content style : start --></p><style type="text/css" data-name="kubio-style"></style><p><!-- content style : end --></p><h1>Supplier assurance for UK SMEs: a practical guide to checking third parties without overcomplicating it</h1><p>Most UK SMEs rely on suppliers in some way. That might be payroll software, a managed IT provider, a marketing agency, a logistics partner, or a cloud service that holds customer data. The more your business depends on third parties, the more important it becomes to understand how those suppliers manage security.</p><p>That is where supplier assurance comes in. In simple terms, it is the process of checking whether a supplier can protect the information, systems, and services you rely on. Done well, it helps you make better decisions, reduce avoidable risk, and avoid unpleasant surprises later. Done badly, it turns into a long questionnaire exercise that nobody keeps up to date.</p><p>For SMEs, the aim is not to build a heavyweight procurement function. It is to take a proportionate, repeatable approach that matches the level of risk each supplier creates.</p><h2>What supplier assurance means in practice</h2><h3>How it differs from supplier management</h3><p>Supplier management is the broader business activity of selecting, onboarding, paying, reviewing, and renewing suppliers. Supplier assurance is the security part of that picture. It asks a narrower question: can this supplier be trusted to handle the data, access, or service they provide in a way that fits your risk appetite?</p><p>That distinction matters because a supplier can be commercially good value and still present a security concern. Equally, a supplier may not need a deep review if they only provide a low-risk service with no access to sensitive information.</p><h3>Why SMEs need a proportionate approach</h3><p>Many SMEs do not have a dedicated third-party risk team, and that is normal. The challenge is to avoid two extremes. The first is doing nothing until a problem appears. The second is asking every supplier for the same level of detail, regardless of risk. Neither approach is efficient.</p><p>A proportionate model keeps the process simple. You focus effort where it matters most, such as suppliers with access to personal data, finance systems, customer platforms, or business-critical services. Lower-risk suppliers can be checked more lightly.</p><h2>Start with a simple supplier risk view</h2><h3>Which suppliers matter most</h3><p>Begin by listing the suppliers that support important business activities. A useful starting point is to ask three questions about each one:</p><ul> <li>Do they access your data?</li> <li>Do they connect to your systems?</li> <li>Would the business struggle if they failed or were unavailable?</li> </ul><p>If the answer to any of those is yes, the supplier deserves more attention. Suppliers that handle personal data, payment information, confidential documents, or privileged access should usually sit higher on the list.</p><h3>How to group suppliers by impact and access</h3><p>A simple three-tier model is often enough for SMEs:</p><ul> <li><strong>High risk</strong>: suppliers with sensitive data, system access, or critical business impact.</li> <li><strong>Medium risk</strong>: suppliers with limited data access or important but not critical services.</li> <li><strong>Low risk</strong>: suppliers with little or no access to sensitive information and limited business impact.</li> </ul><p>This is not about creating perfect categories. It is about helping you decide how much checking is reasonable. A cloud provider hosting customer records will need more scrutiny than a stationery supplier.</p><h2>What to ask suppliers for</h2><h3>Core evidence that is usually worth requesting</h3><p>Evidence should support the level of risk. For many SMEs, the following items are a sensible starting point for higher-risk suppliers:</p><ul> <li>A short description of their security controls</li> <li>Their incident reporting process</li> <li>Details of who can access your data and how that access is controlled</li> <li>Information about data retention and deletion</li> <li>Business continuity arrangements for important services</li> <li>Any relevant independent assurance they already hold</li> </ul><p>If a supplier stores or processes personal data, you may also want to understand where the data is held, whether subcontractors are used, and how they are managed.</p><h3>How to avoid asking for more than you need</h3><p>It is easy to overdo supplier questionnaires. Long forms can create friction, delay onboarding, and produce poor-quality answers. A better approach is to ask only for information that helps you make a decision.</p><p>For lower-risk suppliers, a short set of questions may be enough. For higher-risk suppliers, ask for more detail, but keep the questions focused. If you cannot explain why a question matters, it probably does not belong in the process.</p><h2>Ways to assess assurance without creating friction</h2><h3>Questionnaires, contracts, and evidence reviews</h3><p>Supplier assurance works best when it combines a few simple methods rather than relying on one tool alone. A short questionnaire can help you gather consistent information. Contract terms can set expectations around security, incident reporting, and data handling. Evidence reviews can then confirm whether the supplier’s answers are credible.</p><p>For SMEs, the goal is not to audit every supplier in depth. It is to understand enough to make a sensible decision. If a supplier’s answers are vague, inconsistent, or unsupported, that is a useful signal in itself.</p><h3>Using existing certifications and reports carefully</h3><p>Many suppliers will point to certifications, audit reports, or external assessments. These can be helpful, but they should be treated as part of the picture rather than a complete answer. A certificate or report may show that a supplier has been through a formal process, but it does not automatically prove that every control is effective for your use case.</p><p>Look at whether the scope is relevant. For example, does the assurance cover the service you are buying, the location where it is delivered, and the systems that touch your data? If not, you may need to ask follow-up questions.</p><p>It is also sensible to check the date. Assurance evidence can go stale quickly if the supplier changes systems, locations, or subcontractors.</p><h2>Common gaps SMEs should watch for</h2><h3>Weak access controls and shared accounts</h3><p>One of the most common issues in supplier relationships is poor control over access. If a supplier uses shared accounts, weak passwords, or unclear approval processes, it becomes harder to know who can see or change your information.</p><p>For suppliers with system access, ask how accounts are created, reviewed, and removed. You do not need a technical deep dive, but you do need confidence that access is limited to the right people and removed when no longer needed.</p><h3>Poor incident reporting and unclear responsibilities</h3><p>Another common gap is uncertainty about what happens when something goes wrong. If a supplier suffers a security incident, do they know when and how to tell you? Do they have a named contact? Do they understand what information you need from them?</p><p>Clear incident reporting matters because delays can make it harder to assess impact and respond properly. It is also worth checking who is responsible for what if the supplier uses subcontractors or shared platforms.</p><h2>How to build supplier assurance into day-to-day work</h2><h3>Onboarding, renewal, and periodic review</h3><p>Supplier assurance should not be a one-off task. It works best when it is built into normal business processes.</p><p>At onboarding, check the supplier before they get access to data or systems. At renewal, review whether anything has changed. Periodically, revisit higher-risk suppliers to confirm that the original assumptions still hold.</p><p>This does not need to be complicated. Even a simple annual review for key suppliers can make a meaningful difference, especially if your business changes quickly.</p><h3>Keeping records that support consistent decisions</h3><p>Good records help you make consistent decisions and avoid repeating the same work. Keep a short note of the supplier’s risk level, the evidence reviewed, any concerns raised, and the decision made. If you agree actions with the supplier, record those too.</p><p>This creates a useful trail for internal continuity. It also helps if the person managing the supplier changes, because the next person can see why the supplier was approved and what needs to be revisited.</p><h2>When to escalate concerns</h2><h3>Signs a supplier may need closer review</h3><p>Some warning signs suggest you should pause and look more closely. These include:</p><ul> <li>Unclear answers to basic security questions</li> <li>Reluctance to explain how data is protected</li> <li>No defined incident reporting process</li> <li>Evidence that does not match the service being provided</li> <li>Frequent changes in ownership, subcontractors, or delivery model</li> </ul><p>None of these automatically mean you should stop using the supplier. They do mean you should understand the risk before proceeding.</p><h3>Practical alternatives if a supplier cannot meet expectations</h3><p>If a supplier cannot meet your preferred standard, you still have options. You might reduce the data they receive, limit their system access, add contractual controls, increase monitoring, or choose a different supplier if the risk is too high.</p><p>The right answer depends on the business need. In some cases, the best control is simply to share less information. In others, you may decide the service is too important to accept the gap.</p><h2>A sensible starting point for smaller organisations</h2><h3>Minimum viable supplier assurance process</h3><p>If you are starting from scratch, keep it simple. A minimum viable process for an SME could look like this:</p><ul> <li>List your key suppliers</li> <li>Classify them by risk and access</li> <li>Ask a short set of focused questions for higher-risk suppliers</li> <li>Review available evidence</li> <li>Record the decision and any follow-up actions</li> <li>Revisit the supplier at renewal or on a set schedule</li> </ul><p>That is enough to create structure without creating unnecessary overhead.</p><h3>How to improve it over time</h3><p>Once the basics are in place, improve gradually. You might refine your questionnaire, add clearer contract wording, or create a simple checklist for onboarding. You could also align supplier assurance with wider information security work, such as access management, data protection, and business continuity.</p><p>The most effective programmes are usually the ones people can actually maintain. A modest process that is used consistently is far better than an ambitious one that falls apart after a few months.</p><p>For UK SMEs, supplier assurance is really about making informed choices. You do not need to inspect every supplier in the same way. You do need a repeatable method for understanding where third-party risk sits, what evidence matters, and when to ask more questions. That approach helps protect the business without slowing it down.</p><p>If you would like help shaping a proportionate supplier assurance approach as part of a wider information security programme, a practical review can be a useful next step.</p><p><a href="https://clearpathsecurity.co.uk/contact-page/">Speak to a consultant</a></p><p>The post <a href="https://clearpathsecurity.co.uk/supplier-assurance-for-uk-smes-a-practical-guide-to-checking-third-parties-without-overcomplicating-it/">Supplier assurance for UK SMEs: a practical guide to checking third parties without overcomplicating it</a> appeared first on <a href="https://clearpathsecurity.co.uk/">Clear Path Security Ltd</a>.</p><div class="spu-placeholder" style="display:none"></div><div class="addtoany_share_save_container addtoany_content addtoany_content_bottom"><div class="a2a_kit a2a_kit_size_20 addtoany_list" data-a2a-url="https://securityboulevard.com/2026/04/supplier-assurance-for-uk-smes-a-practical-guide-to-checking-third-parties-without-overcomplicating-it/" data-a2a-title="Supplier assurance for UK SMEs: a practical guide to checking third parties without overcomplicating it"><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fsupplier-assurance-for-uk-smes-a-practical-guide-to-checking-third-parties-without-overcomplicating-it%2F&amp;linkname=Supplier%20assurance%20for%20UK%20SMEs%3A%20a%20practical%20guide%20to%20checking%20third%20parties%20without%20overcomplicating%20it" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fsupplier-assurance-for-uk-smes-a-practical-guide-to-checking-third-parties-without-overcomplicating-it%2F&amp;linkname=Supplier%20assurance%20for%20UK%20SMEs%3A%20a%20practical%20guide%20to%20checking%20third%20parties%20without%20overcomplicating%20it" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fsupplier-assurance-for-uk-smes-a-practical-guide-to-checking-third-parties-without-overcomplicating-it%2F&amp;linkname=Supplier%20assurance%20for%20UK%20SMEs%3A%20a%20practical%20guide%20to%20checking%20third%20parties%20without%20overcomplicating%20it" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_reddit" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/reddit?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fsupplier-assurance-for-uk-smes-a-practical-guide-to-checking-third-parties-without-overcomplicating-it%2F&amp;linkname=Supplier%20assurance%20for%20UK%20SMEs%3A%20a%20practical%20guide%20to%20checking%20third%20parties%20without%20overcomplicating%20it" title="Reddit" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fsupplier-assurance-for-uk-smes-a-practical-guide-to-checking-third-parties-without-overcomplicating-it%2F&amp;linkname=Supplier%20assurance%20for%20UK%20SMEs%3A%20a%20practical%20guide%20to%20checking%20third%20parties%20without%20overcomplicating%20it" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share"></a></div></div><p class="syndicated-attribution">*** This is a Security Bloggers Network syndicated blog from <a href="https://clearpathsecurity.co.uk/">Clear Path Security Ltd</a> authored by <a href="https://securityboulevard.com/author/0/" title="Read other posts by Clear Path Security Ltd">Clear Path Security Ltd</a>. Read the original post at: <a href="https://clearpathsecurity.co.uk/supplier-assurance-for-uk-smes-a-practical-guide-to-checking-third-parties-without-overcomplicating-it/">https://clearpathsecurity.co.uk/supplier-assurance-for-uk-smes-a-practical-guide-to-checking-third-parties-without-overcomplicating-it/</a> </p>

Introducing Proactive Hardening and Attack Surface Reduction (PHASR) for Linux and macOS

  • None
  • Published date: 2026-04-25 00:00:00

None

<p>The post <a href="https://businessinsights.bitdefender.com/attack-surface-reduction-linux-mac-os-phasr">Introducing Proactive Hardening and Attack Surface Reduction (PHASR) for Linux and macOS</a> appeared first on <a href="https://businessinsights.bitdefender.com">Business Insights</a>.</p><div class="hs-featured-image-wrapper"> <a href="https://businessinsights.bitdefender.com/attack-surface-reduction-linux-mac-os-phasr?hsLang=en-us" title="" class="hs-featured-image-link"> <img decoding="async" src="https://businessinsights.bitdefender.com/hubfs/PHASR%20blog_V1-1.png" alt="Introducing Proactive Hardening and Attack Surface Reduction (PHASR) for Linux and macOS" class="hs-featured-image" style="width:auto !important; max-width:50%; float:left; margin:0 15px 15px 0;"> </a> </div><p><span style="line-height: 19.425px;">As Linux dominates cloud-native infrastructure and macOS becomes the standard for high-value targets in development and executive leadership, the attack surface is no longer Windows-centric. Modern attack playbooks weaponize </span><a href="https://techzone.bitdefender.com/en/tech-explainers/living-of-the-land-attacks.html"><u><span style="color: #0563c1; line-height: 19.425px;">Living off the Land (LOTL)</span></u></a><span style="line-height: 19.425px;"> binaries–pre-installed, legitimate system tools–to blend malicious activity with normal operations and bypass standard detection telemetry.</span></p><p><img decoding="async" src="https://track-eu1.hubspot.com/__ptq.gif?a=341979&amp;k=14&amp;r=https%3A%2F%2Fbusinessinsights.bitdefender.com%2Fattack-surface-reduction-linux-mac-os-phasr&amp;bu=https%253A%252F%252Fbusinessinsights.bitdefender.com&amp;bvt=rss" alt="" width="1" height="1" style="min-height:1px!important;width:1px!important;border-width:0!important;margin-top:0!important;margin-bottom:0!important;margin-right:0!important;margin-left:0!important;padding-top:0!important;padding-bottom:0!important;padding-right:0!important;padding-left:0!important; "></p><div class="spu-placeholder" style="display:none"></div><div class="addtoany_share_save_container addtoany_content addtoany_content_bottom"><div class="a2a_kit a2a_kit_size_20 addtoany_list" data-a2a-url="https://securityboulevard.com/2026/04/introducing-proactive-hardening-and-attack-surface-reduction-phasr-for-linux-and-macos/" data-a2a-title="Introducing Proactive Hardening and Attack Surface Reduction (PHASR) for Linux and macOS"><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fintroducing-proactive-hardening-and-attack-surface-reduction-phasr-for-linux-and-macos%2F&amp;linkname=Introducing%20Proactive%20Hardening%20and%20Attack%20Surface%20Reduction%20%28PHASR%29%20for%20Linux%20and%20macOS" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fintroducing-proactive-hardening-and-attack-surface-reduction-phasr-for-linux-and-macos%2F&amp;linkname=Introducing%20Proactive%20Hardening%20and%20Attack%20Surface%20Reduction%20%28PHASR%29%20for%20Linux%20and%20macOS" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fintroducing-proactive-hardening-and-attack-surface-reduction-phasr-for-linux-and-macos%2F&amp;linkname=Introducing%20Proactive%20Hardening%20and%20Attack%20Surface%20Reduction%20%28PHASR%29%20for%20Linux%20and%20macOS" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_reddit" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/reddit?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fintroducing-proactive-hardening-and-attack-surface-reduction-phasr-for-linux-and-macos%2F&amp;linkname=Introducing%20Proactive%20Hardening%20and%20Attack%20Surface%20Reduction%20%28PHASR%29%20for%20Linux%20and%20macOS" title="Reddit" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fintroducing-proactive-hardening-and-attack-surface-reduction-phasr-for-linux-and-macos%2F&amp;linkname=Introducing%20Proactive%20Hardening%20and%20Attack%20Surface%20Reduction%20%28PHASR%29%20for%20Linux%20and%20macOS" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share"></a></div></div><p class="syndicated-attribution">*** This is a Security Bloggers Network syndicated blog from <a href="https://businessinsights.bitdefender.com">Business Insights</a> authored by <a href="https://securityboulevard.com/author/0/" title="Read other posts by Grzegorz Nocoń">Grzegorz Nocoń</a>. Read the original post at: <a href="https://businessinsights.bitdefender.com/attack-surface-reduction-linux-mac-os-phasr">https://businessinsights.bitdefender.com/attack-surface-reduction-linux-mac-os-phasr</a> </p>

Best of the Worst: Five Attacks That Looked Broken (and Worked)Best of the Worst: Five Attacks That Looked Broken (and Worked)

  • None
  • Published date: 2026-04-25 00:00:00

None

<p>The post <a href="https://ironscales.com/blog/best-of-the-worst-april-25-2026">Best of the Worst: Five Attacks That Looked Broken (and Worked)</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ironscales.com/blog">Blog</a>.</p><h3>I skipped last week’s roundup. Holiday weekend, family stuff, the usual. So this is a <span style="font-style: italic;">two-week-ish</span> view of what we’ve published in the <a href="https://ironscales.com/threat-intelligence?filter=">Threat Intelligence</a> series since Edition 03 dropped on April 13.</h3><p>Quick context for new readers. Every week, I pull a handful of real phishing attacks we caught, sit with them for a bit, and try to find the thread connecting them. Last edition was about precision: surgical attacks built for a specific recipient before the send. The kind of attack that took reconnaissance and patience.</p><p>This edition is the opposite story.</p><p>The five attacks below were sloppy work.</p><p>Several had quality-control failures the attackers themselves should have caught before launch. One had two letters transposed inside the word Missouri. One had Mustache template variables sitting in the email body as raw text. One pasted “adobe.com” into a directory path of an obviously malicious domain.</p><p>They all reached inboxes anyway.</p><p>This is the part of the threat picture that doesn’t make conference keynotes. Plenty of inbox-resident phishing this month came from operators running cheap, fast, broken kits. They do not care if the kit is broken (because the gateway will deliver it for them).</p><h2>5 Attacks. One Embarrassing Floor.</h2><p>In <a href="https://ironscales.com/threat-intelligence/exposed-phishing-kit-template-variables-mailbox-full-urgency">When the Phishing Kit Ships Early: Exposed Template Variables Reveal Attack Infrastructure</a>, the operator forgot to populate the kit. The email body referenced a <code style="background-color: #f9f9f9; padding: 0.2em 0.6em; border: 1px solid #e0e0e0; border-radius: 6px; font-family: monospace; font-size: 0.95em; color: #333333;">CPL_Agreement_ #</code>, the kind of Mustache or Jinja2 syntax a templating engine is supposed to fill in before send. The single embedded link in the message pointed to <code style="background-color: #f9f9f9; padding: 0.2em 0.6em; border: 1px solid #e0e0e0; border-radius: 6px; font-family: monospace; font-size: 0.95em; color: #333333;">hxxp://vm/</code>, <span style="background-color: transparent;">a phishing kit’s local development placeholder, exposed to the inbox because someone hit deploy without a final QA pass. The compromised sending account’s authentication carried it in. The subject line read “[Action required] Your_Mail_Box_Is_Full,” underscores and all. Microsoft delivered it.</span></p><p>In <a href="https://ironscales.com/threat-intelligence/typosquat-reply-to-invoice-payment-diversion-missouri">One Missing Letter, One Stolen Payment: A Reply-To Typosquat That Beat the Spam Score</a>, the attacker registered <code style="background-color: #f9f9f9; padding: 0.2em 0.6em; border: 1px solid #e0e0e0; border-radius: 6px; font-family: monospace; font-size: 0.95em; color: #333333;">leadsavingsofmissuori.com</code> as a typosquat of the real vendor domain. The “o” and “u” inside Missouri are transposed (Missuori instead of Missouri). One character pair, swapped, the entire technical investment required to intercept a payment conversation. Microsoft’s Spam Confidence Level rated the message SCL=8 (high spam confidence), and one of the embedded links was internally flagged as malicious. <span style="font-weight: bold;">The message landed in the inbox anyway because the recipient’s organization had a transport rule whitelisting payment-related senders. </span>The whitelist override beat the explicit malicious-URL signal coming from the same Microsoft stack that was scoring it.</p><p>In <a href="https://ironscales.com/threat-intelligence/url-path-deception-adobe-brand-embedded-attacker-domain">The URL That Put adobe.com in the Wrong Place</a>, the attacker pasted <code style="background-color: #f9f9f9; padding: 0.2em 0.6em; border: 1px solid #e0e0e0; border-radius: 6px; font-family: monospace; font-size: 0.95em; color: #333333;">adobe.com</code> into the directory path of a fishy domain (<code style="background-color: #f9f9f9; padding: 0.2em 0.6em; border: 1px solid #e0e0e0; border-radius: 6px; font-family: monospace; font-size: 0.95em; color: #333333;">reviewdocpdfreader[.]com/docprivatepremiumfile/allfile/adobe.com/</code>). It is the URL-deception equivalent of putting a “Police” sticker on the side of a non-police vehicle. This is not a new trick. It still got past the perimeter, because the URL parser saw a legitimate substring and apparently called it close enough.</p><p>In <a href="https://ironscales.com/threat-intelligence/adobe-sign-esignature-redirect-chain-fameklinik-credential-harvest">Sign Here, Get Phished: Inside an Adobe Sign Lure With a Multi-Hop Redirect to Credential Theft</a>, the kit operators could not even keep the brand voice consistent inside their own email. The CTA buttons alternated between “Adobe” and “AdobeSign” depending on the paragraph. That is the visible seam from a template stitched together out of two earlier kits without anyone proofreading the result. Themis caught the redirect chain on first-time-sender behavioral signals. The point is that the kit was visibly cobbled, and three commercial gateways still cleared it.</p><p>What these four share is a lack of QA.</p><p>…and the kits were sloppy before they shipped.</p><p>…and the gateways shipped them forward anyway.</p><h2>Featured Attack: The Hungarian Bank From Nepal</h2><p>A K&amp;H Bank phishing email arrived in inboxes from a Nepali domain. K&amp;H Bank is real, headquartered in Budapest, the second-largest commercial bank in Hungary. The sending domain was <code style="background-color: #f9f9f9; padding: 0.2em 0.6em; border: 1px solid #e0e0e0; border-radius: 6px; font-family: monospace; font-size: 0.95em; color: #333333;">rstonline[.]com[.]np</code>. No relationship to Hungary, no relationship to banking, no credible resemblance to any K&amp;H property.</p><p>Read the <a href="https://ironscales.com/threat-intelligence/international-bank-impersonation-nepal-domain-hungarian-mojibake">full incident breakdown here</a>.</p><p>The kit hotlinked the real <code style="background-color: #f9f9f9; padding: 0.2em 0.6em; border: 1px solid #e0e0e0; border-radius: 6px; font-family: monospace; font-size: 0.95em; color: #333333;">kh.hu</code> favicon, which is the only thing in the message that actually looked Hungarian. The body text was supposed to be in Hungarian. It was not, exactly. The phrase “Fontos információ” (Hungarian for “important information”) rendered as “Fontos informaciA3” because the kit was authored on a system that handled the character encoding wrong, and the fix never happened. Any actual Hungarian speaker reading this email would notice immediately. Most non-Hungarian readers would also notice that the text looks wrong, because mojibake reads as garbage in any language.</p><p>The terminal link did not point to a K&amp;H lookalike or to anything resembling a banking domain. It pointed to <code style="background-color: #f9f9f9; padding: 0.2em 0.6em; border: 1px solid #e0e0e0; border-radius: 6px; font-family: monospace; font-size: 0.95em; color: #333333;">ecstechs[.]net</code>, an unrelated business hosting domain. The chain inside the message did not even attempt to maintain the impersonation consistently from header to body to call-to-action.</p><blockquote style="border-left: 8px solid #00336d; padding: 0.5em 1em; background: linear-gradient(to right, #e6f2ff 0%, #ffffff 100%); margin: 1.5em 0;"> <p style="font-size: 1.1em; color: #222; margin: 0;">I have to sit with this one for a minute. The kit author is in one country. The sending infrastructure is in a second country. The bank being impersonated is in a third country. The character-encoding library used to build the body is wrong for the target language. The CTA points to a domain that has no relationship to the brand being impersonated. Five separate quality failures, layered, in a single message. And it cleared authentication well enough to land in inboxes. The attacker did not need to do better, because the gateway was not asking for better.</p> </blockquote><p>DKIM was valid against the attacker’s own configured selector. SPF returned no policy at all. Microsoft’s compauth scoring still let the message through, because compauth weighting in Exchange Online treats “no SPF policy published” as inconclusive rather than failed. <a href="https://ironscales.com/platform">Our Adaptive AI</a> flagged the message on cross-language anomalies and a sender domain history that had nothing in common with the impersonated brand. Three commercial gateways did not.</p><p>If the attacker had spent another twenty minutes proofreading their own kit, they could have shipped a much more convincing attack. They did not need to. The bar to clear was a triple-acronym authentication check that was already half-passing on the strength of a DKIM signature the attacker generated themselves.</p><p><em>See Your Risk: <a href="https://secure.ironscales.com/email-security-gateway-missed-attacks-calculator">Find out how many threats like this your current security stack is missing</a></em></p><h2>What Defenders Should Take From This Week</h2><p>A few concrete takeaways:</p><ol> <li><strong>Audit your transport rules.</strong> The Missouri typosquat case landed because an organization-level allow-rule overrode a high-spam-confidence verdict that the platform itself had flagged. If you have payment-related allow-rules in Exchange or Google Workspace, those rules are an attack surface. Document them, audit them quarterly, and pair them with secondary detection (behavioral or deep-content) instead of treating “allow” as terminal.</li> <li><strong>Look for kit tells in the body.</strong> Unresolved template variables (<code style="background-color: #f9f9f9; padding: 0.2em 0.6em; border: 1px solid #e0e0e0; border-radius: 6px; font-family: monospace; font-size: 0.95em; color: #333333;"></code>, <code style="background-color: #f9f9f9; padding: 0.2em 0.6em; border: 1px solid #e0e0e0; border-radius: 6px; font-family: monospace; font-size: 0.95em; color: #333333;">${...}</code>, <code style="background-color: #f9f9f9; padding: 0.2em 0.6em; border: 1px solid #e0e0e0; border-radius: 6px; font-family: monospace; font-size: 0.95em; color: #333333;">&lt;%...%&gt;</code>), placeholder URLs (<code style="background-color: #f9f9f9; padding: 0.2em 0.6em; border: 1px solid #e0e0e0; border-radius: 6px; font-family: monospace; font-size: 0.95em; color: #333333;">hxxp://</code>, <code style="background-color: #f9f9f9; padding: 0.2em 0.6em; border: 1px solid #e0e0e0; border-radius: 6px; font-family: monospace; font-size: 0.95em; color: #333333;">localhost</code>, <code style="background-color: #f9f9f9; padding: 0.2em 0.6em; border: 1px solid #e0e0e0; border-radius: 6px; font-family: monospace; font-size: 0.95em; color: #333333;">127.0.0.1</code>, <code style="background-color: #f9f9f9; padding: 0.2em 0.6em; border: 1px solid #e0e0e0; border-radius: 6px; font-family: monospace; font-size: 0.95em; color: #333333;">vm/</code>), brand inconsistencies inside a single message, and character-encoding errors are all visible to a content scanner that bothers to look. They are also visible to a trained user.</li> <li><strong>Stop trusting URL substrings.</strong> A URL with <code style="background-color: #f9f9f9; padding: 0.2em 0.6em; border: 1px solid #e0e0e0; border-radius: 6px; font-family: monospace; font-size: 0.95em; color: #333333;">adobe.com</code> in the path is not an Adobe URL. Any URL parser that grants reputation based on substring presence rather than registered hostname is broken. Verify the eTLD+1.</li> <li><strong>DKIM-pass is not endorsement.</strong> The K&amp;H Bank case had a valid DKIM signature against a selector the attacker configured. DKIM verifies that the signing key controls the message. It does not verify that the signing key belongs to the impersonated brand. Pair DKIM checks with brand-impersonation detection.</li> <li><strong>Budget your assumption of attacker effort.</strong> A meaningful share of inbox-resident phishing this month did not require sophistication, recon, or operator skill. The market floor for “attack good enough to deliver” is low. Build detection assuming a sloppy adversary delivering volume, alongside the tooling you have for the surgical operator from last week’s roundup.</li> </ol><h3>See You Next Friday</h3><p>Attack of the Day publishes daily in the <a href="https://ironscales.com/threat-intelligence?filter=">Threat Intelligence</a> section. Next week: probably another roundup, on time this time, with whatever pattern emerges from the next seven posts. If the pattern is “the floor went lower again,” I will say so.</p><p><img decoding="async" src="https://track.hubspot.com/__ptq.gif?a=20641927&amp;k=14&amp;r=https%3A%2F%2Fironscales.com%2Fblog%2Fbest-of-the-worst-april-25-2026&amp;bu=https%253A%252F%252Fironscales.com%252Fblog&amp;bvt=rss" alt="" width="1" height="1" style="min-height:1px!important;width:1px!important;border-width:0!important;margin-top:0!important;margin-bottom:0!important;margin-right:0!important;margin-left:0!important;padding-top:0!important;padding-bottom:0!important;padding-right:0!important;padding-left:0!important; "></p><div class="spu-placeholder" style="display:none"></div><div class="addtoany_share_save_container addtoany_content addtoany_content_bottom"><div class="a2a_kit a2a_kit_size_20 addtoany_list" data-a2a-url="https://securityboulevard.com/2026/04/best-of-the-worst-five-attacks-that-looked-broken-and-worked/" data-a2a-title="Best of the Worst: Five Attacks That Looked Broken (and Worked)"><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fbest-of-the-worst-five-attacks-that-looked-broken-and-worked%2F&amp;linkname=Best%20of%20the%20Worst%3A%20Five%20Attacks%20That%20Looked%20Broken%20%28and%20Worked%29" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fbest-of-the-worst-five-attacks-that-looked-broken-and-worked%2F&amp;linkname=Best%20of%20the%20Worst%3A%20Five%20Attacks%20That%20Looked%20Broken%20%28and%20Worked%29" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fbest-of-the-worst-five-attacks-that-looked-broken-and-worked%2F&amp;linkname=Best%20of%20the%20Worst%3A%20Five%20Attacks%20That%20Looked%20Broken%20%28and%20Worked%29" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_reddit" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/reddit?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fbest-of-the-worst-five-attacks-that-looked-broken-and-worked%2F&amp;linkname=Best%20of%20the%20Worst%3A%20Five%20Attacks%20That%20Looked%20Broken%20%28and%20Worked%29" title="Reddit" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fbest-of-the-worst-five-attacks-that-looked-broken-and-worked%2F&amp;linkname=Best%20of%20the%20Worst%3A%20Five%20Attacks%20That%20Looked%20Broken%20%28and%20Worked%29" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share"></a></div></div><p class="syndicated-attribution">*** This is a Security Bloggers Network syndicated blog from <a href="https://ironscales.com/blog">Blog</a> authored by <a href="https://securityboulevard.com/author/0/" title="Read other posts by Audian Paxson">Audian Paxson</a>. Read the original post at: <a href="https://ironscales.com/blog/best-of-the-worst-april-25-2026">https://ironscales.com/blog/best-of-the-worst-april-25-2026</a> </p><p>The post <a href="https://ironscales.com/blog/best-of-the-worst-april-25-2026">Best of the Worst: Five Attacks That Looked Broken (and Worked)</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ironscales.com/blog">Blog</a>.</p><h3>I skipped last week’s roundup. Holiday weekend, family stuff, the usual. So this is a <span style="font-style: italic;">two-week-ish</span> view of what we’ve published in the <a href="https://ironscales.com/threat-intelligence?filter=">Threat Intelligence</a> series since Edition 03 dropped on April 13.</h3><p>Quick context for new readers. Every week, I pull a handful of real phishing attacks we caught, sit with them for a bit, and try to find the thread connecting them. Last edition was about precision: surgical attacks built for a specific recipient before the send. The kind of attack that took reconnaissance and patience.</p><p>This edition is the opposite story.</p><p>The five attacks below were sloppy work.</p><p>Several had quality-control failures the attackers themselves should have caught before launch. One had two letters transposed inside the word Missouri. One had Mustache template variables sitting in the email body as raw text. One pasted “adobe.com” into a directory path of an obviously malicious domain.</p><p>They all reached inboxes anyway.</p><p>This is the part of the threat picture that doesn’t make conference keynotes. Plenty of inbox-resident phishing this month came from operators running cheap, fast, broken kits. They do not care if the kit is broken (because the gateway will deliver it for them).</p><h2>5 Attacks. One Embarrassing Floor.</h2><p>In <a href="https://ironscales.com/threat-intelligence/exposed-phishing-kit-template-variables-mailbox-full-urgency">When the Phishing Kit Ships Early: Exposed Template Variables Reveal Attack Infrastructure</a>, the operator forgot to populate the kit. The email body referenced a <code style="background-color: #f9f9f9; padding: 0.2em 0.6em; border: 1px solid #e0e0e0; border-radius: 6px; font-family: monospace; font-size: 0.95em; color: #333333;">CPL_Agreement_ #</code>, the kind of Mustache or Jinja2 syntax a templating engine is supposed to fill in before send. The single embedded link in the message pointed to <code style="background-color: #f9f9f9; padding: 0.2em 0.6em; border: 1px solid #e0e0e0; border-radius: 6px; font-family: monospace; font-size: 0.95em; color: #333333;">hxxp://vm/</code>, <span style="background-color: transparent;">a phishing kit’s local development placeholder, exposed to the inbox because someone hit deploy without a final QA pass. The compromised sending account’s authentication carried it in. The subject line read “[Action required] Your_Mail_Box_Is_Full,” underscores and all. Microsoft delivered it.</span></p><p>In <a href="https://ironscales.com/threat-intelligence/typosquat-reply-to-invoice-payment-diversion-missouri">One Missing Letter, One Stolen Payment: A Reply-To Typosquat That Beat the Spam Score</a>, the attacker registered <code style="background-color: #f9f9f9; padding: 0.2em 0.6em; border: 1px solid #e0e0e0; border-radius: 6px; font-family: monospace; font-size: 0.95em; color: #333333;">leadsavingsofmissuori.com</code> as a typosquat of the real vendor domain. The “o” and “u” inside Missouri are transposed (Missuori instead of Missouri). One character pair, swapped, the entire technical investment required to intercept a payment conversation. Microsoft’s Spam Confidence Level rated the message SCL=8 (high spam confidence), and one of the embedded links was internally flagged as malicious. <span style="font-weight: bold;">The message landed in the inbox anyway because the recipient’s organization had a transport rule whitelisting payment-related senders. </span>The whitelist override beat the explicit malicious-URL signal coming from the same Microsoft stack that was scoring it.</p><p>In <a href="https://ironscales.com/threat-intelligence/url-path-deception-adobe-brand-embedded-attacker-domain">The URL That Put adobe.com in the Wrong Place</a>, the attacker pasted <code style="background-color: #f9f9f9; padding: 0.2em 0.6em; border: 1px solid #e0e0e0; border-radius: 6px; font-family: monospace; font-size: 0.95em; color: #333333;">adobe.com</code> into the directory path of a fishy domain (<code style="background-color: #f9f9f9; padding: 0.2em 0.6em; border: 1px solid #e0e0e0; border-radius: 6px; font-family: monospace; font-size: 0.95em; color: #333333;">reviewdocpdfreader[.]com/docprivatepremiumfile/allfile/adobe.com/</code>). It is the URL-deception equivalent of putting a “Police” sticker on the side of a non-police vehicle. This is not a new trick. It still got past the perimeter, because the URL parser saw a legitimate substring and apparently called it close enough.</p><p>In <a href="https://ironscales.com/threat-intelligence/adobe-sign-esignature-redirect-chain-fameklinik-credential-harvest">Sign Here, Get Phished: Inside an Adobe Sign Lure With a Multi-Hop Redirect to Credential Theft</a>, the kit operators could not even keep the brand voice consistent inside their own email. The CTA buttons alternated between “Adobe” and “AdobeSign” depending on the paragraph. That is the visible seam from a template stitched together out of two earlier kits without anyone proofreading the result. Themis caught the redirect chain on first-time-sender behavioral signals. The point is that the kit was visibly cobbled, and three commercial gateways still cleared it.</p><p>What these four share is a lack of QA.</p><p>…and the kits were sloppy before they shipped.</p><p>…and the gateways shipped them forward anyway.</p><h2>Featured Attack: The Hungarian Bank From Nepal</h2><p>A K&amp;H Bank phishing email arrived in inboxes from a Nepali domain. K&amp;H Bank is real, headquartered in Budapest, the second-largest commercial bank in Hungary. The sending domain was <code style="background-color: #f9f9f9; padding: 0.2em 0.6em; border: 1px solid #e0e0e0; border-radius: 6px; font-family: monospace; font-size: 0.95em; color: #333333;">rstonline[.]com[.]np</code>. No relationship to Hungary, no relationship to banking, no credible resemblance to any K&amp;H property.</p><p>Read the <a href="https://ironscales.com/threat-intelligence/international-bank-impersonation-nepal-domain-hungarian-mojibake">full incident breakdown here</a>.</p><p>The kit hotlinked the real <code style="background-color: #f9f9f9; padding: 0.2em 0.6em; border: 1px solid #e0e0e0; border-radius: 6px; font-family: monospace; font-size: 0.95em; color: #333333;">kh.hu</code> favicon, which is the only thing in the message that actually looked Hungarian. The body text was supposed to be in Hungarian. It was not, exactly. The phrase “Fontos információ” (Hungarian for “important information”) rendered as “Fontos informaciA3” because the kit was authored on a system that handled the character encoding wrong, and the fix never happened. Any actual Hungarian speaker reading this email would notice immediately. Most non-Hungarian readers would also notice that the text looks wrong, because mojibake reads as garbage in any language.</p><p>The terminal link did not point to a K&amp;H lookalike or to anything resembling a banking domain. It pointed to <code style="background-color: #f9f9f9; padding: 0.2em 0.6em; border: 1px solid #e0e0e0; border-radius: 6px; font-family: monospace; font-size: 0.95em; color: #333333;">ecstechs[.]net</code>, an unrelated business hosting domain. The chain inside the message did not even attempt to maintain the impersonation consistently from header to body to call-to-action.</p><blockquote style="border-left: 8px solid #00336d; padding: 0.5em 1em; background: linear-gradient(to right, #e6f2ff 0%, #ffffff 100%); margin: 1.5em 0;"> <p style="font-size: 1.1em; color: #222; margin: 0;">I have to sit with this one for a minute. The kit author is in one country. The sending infrastructure is in a second country. The bank being impersonated is in a third country. The character-encoding library used to build the body is wrong for the target language. The CTA points to a domain that has no relationship to the brand being impersonated. Five separate quality failures, layered, in a single message. And it cleared authentication well enough to land in inboxes. The attacker did not need to do better, because the gateway was not asking for better.</p> </blockquote><p>DKIM was valid against the attacker’s own configured selector. SPF returned no policy at all. Microsoft’s compauth scoring still let the message through, because compauth weighting in Exchange Online treats “no SPF policy published” as inconclusive rather than failed. <a href="https://ironscales.com/platform">Our Adaptive AI</a> flagged the message on cross-language anomalies and a sender domain history that had nothing in common with the impersonated brand. Three commercial gateways did not.</p><p>If the attacker had spent another twenty minutes proofreading their own kit, they could have shipped a much more convincing attack. They did not need to. The bar to clear was a triple-acronym authentication check that was already half-passing on the strength of a DKIM signature the attacker generated themselves.</p><p><em>See Your Risk: <a href="https://secure.ironscales.com/email-security-gateway-missed-attacks-calculator">Find out how many threats like this your current security stack is missing</a></em></p><h2>What Defenders Should Take From This Week</h2><p>A few concrete takeaways:</p><ol> <li><strong>Audit your transport rules.</strong> The Missouri typosquat case landed because an organization-level allow-rule overrode a high-spam-confidence verdict that the platform itself had flagged. If you have payment-related allow-rules in Exchange or Google Workspace, those rules are an attack surface. Document them, audit them quarterly, and pair them with secondary detection (behavioral or deep-content) instead of treating “allow” as terminal.</li> <li><strong>Look for kit tells in the body.</strong> Unresolved template variables (<code style="background-color: #f9f9f9; padding: 0.2em 0.6em; border: 1px solid #e0e0e0; border-radius: 6px; font-family: monospace; font-size: 0.95em; color: #333333;"></code>, <code style="background-color: #f9f9f9; padding: 0.2em 0.6em; border: 1px solid #e0e0e0; border-radius: 6px; font-family: monospace; font-size: 0.95em; color: #333333;">${...}</code>, <code style="background-color: #f9f9f9; padding: 0.2em 0.6em; border: 1px solid #e0e0e0; border-radius: 6px; font-family: monospace; font-size: 0.95em; color: #333333;">&lt;%...%&gt;</code>), placeholder URLs (<code style="background-color: #f9f9f9; padding: 0.2em 0.6em; border: 1px solid #e0e0e0; border-radius: 6px; font-family: monospace; font-size: 0.95em; color: #333333;">hxxp://</code>, <code style="background-color: #f9f9f9; padding: 0.2em 0.6em; border: 1px solid #e0e0e0; border-radius: 6px; font-family: monospace; font-size: 0.95em; color: #333333;">localhost</code>, <code style="background-color: #f9f9f9; padding: 0.2em 0.6em; border: 1px solid #e0e0e0; border-radius: 6px; font-family: monospace; font-size: 0.95em; color: #333333;">127.0.0.1</code>, <code style="background-color: #f9f9f9; padding: 0.2em 0.6em; border: 1px solid #e0e0e0; border-radius: 6px; font-family: monospace; font-size: 0.95em; color: #333333;">vm/</code>), brand inconsistencies inside a single message, and character-encoding errors are all visible to a content scanner that bothers to look. They are also visible to a trained user.</li> <li><strong>Stop trusting URL substrings.</strong> A URL with <code style="background-color: #f9f9f9; padding: 0.2em 0.6em; border: 1px solid #e0e0e0; border-radius: 6px; font-family: monospace; font-size: 0.95em; color: #333333;">adobe.com</code> in the path is not an Adobe URL. Any URL parser that grants reputation based on substring presence rather than registered hostname is broken. Verify the eTLD+1.</li> <li><strong>DKIM-pass is not endorsement.</strong> The K&amp;H Bank case had a valid DKIM signature against a selector the attacker configured. DKIM verifies that the signing key controls the message. It does not verify that the signing key belongs to the impersonated brand. Pair DKIM checks with brand-impersonation detection.</li> <li><strong>Budget your assumption of attacker effort.</strong> A meaningful share of inbox-resident phishing this month did not require sophistication, recon, or operator skill. The market floor for “attack good enough to deliver” is low. Build detection assuming a sloppy adversary delivering volume, alongside the tooling you have for the surgical operator from last week’s roundup.</li> </ol><h3>See You Next Friday</h3><p>Attack of the Day publishes daily in the <a href="https://ironscales.com/threat-intelligence?filter=">Threat Intelligence</a> section. Next week: probably another roundup, on time this time, with whatever pattern emerges from the next seven posts. If the pattern is “the floor went lower again,” I will say so.</p><p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" src="https://track.hubspot.com/__ptq.gif?a=20641927&amp;k=14&amp;r=https%3A%2F%2Fironscales.com%2Fblog%2Fbest-of-the-worst-april-25-2026&amp;bu=https%253A%252F%252Fironscales.com%252Fblog&amp;bvt=rss" alt="" width="1" height="1" style="min-height:1px!important;width:1px!important;border-width:0!important;margin-top:0!important;margin-bottom:0!important;margin-right:0!important;margin-left:0!important;padding-top:0!important;padding-bottom:0!important;padding-right:0!important;padding-left:0!important; "></p><div class="spu-placeholder" style="display:none"></div><div class="addtoany_share_save_container addtoany_content addtoany_content_bottom"><div class="a2a_kit a2a_kit_size_20 addtoany_list" data-a2a-url="https://securityboulevard.com/2026/04/best-of-the-worst-five-attacks-that-looked-broken-and-worked/" data-a2a-title="Best of the Worst: Five Attacks That Looked Broken (and Worked)"><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fbest-of-the-worst-five-attacks-that-looked-broken-and-worked%2F&amp;linkname=Best%20of%20the%20Worst%3A%20Five%20Attacks%20That%20Looked%20Broken%20%28and%20Worked%29" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fbest-of-the-worst-five-attacks-that-looked-broken-and-worked%2F&amp;linkname=Best%20of%20the%20Worst%3A%20Five%20Attacks%20That%20Looked%20Broken%20%28and%20Worked%29" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fbest-of-the-worst-five-attacks-that-looked-broken-and-worked%2F&amp;linkname=Best%20of%20the%20Worst%3A%20Five%20Attacks%20That%20Looked%20Broken%20%28and%20Worked%29" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_reddit" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/reddit?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fbest-of-the-worst-five-attacks-that-looked-broken-and-worked%2F&amp;linkname=Best%20of%20the%20Worst%3A%20Five%20Attacks%20That%20Looked%20Broken%20%28and%20Worked%29" title="Reddit" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Fbest-of-the-worst-five-attacks-that-looked-broken-and-worked%2F&amp;linkname=Best%20of%20the%20Worst%3A%20Five%20Attacks%20That%20Looked%20Broken%20%28and%20Worked%29" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share"></a></div></div><p class="syndicated-attribution">*** This is a Security Bloggers Network syndicated blog from <a href="https://ironscales.com/blog">Blog</a> authored by <a href="https://securityboulevard.com/author/0/" title="Read other posts by Audian Paxson">Audian Paxson</a>. Read the original post at: <a href="https://ironscales.com/blog/best-of-the-worst-april-25-2026">https://ironscales.com/blog/best-of-the-worst-april-25-2026</a> </p>

IRDAI 2026 Cybersecurity Guidelines for Insurance Companies

  • None
  • Published date: 2026-04-25 00:00:00

None

<p>The <strong>Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI)</strong> has introduced significant amendments to its cybersecurity guidelines in 2026, marking a shift from static compliance to <strong>continuous cyber resilience</strong>.</p><p>For insurers, <strong>IRDAI compliance</strong> is no longer just about implementing baseline controls. The updated framework demands <strong>stronger governance, tighter oversight, real-time monitoring, and accountability across business functions</strong>.</p><p>This blog breaks down the key changes in the <strong>IRDAI cybersecurity guidelines</strong>, compared to previous guidelines, along with a practical checklist to help insurers stay compliant.</p><h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Key Changes in IRDAI 2026 Cybersecurity Guidelines</strong></h2><p>The 2026 amendments introduced by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India under the <strong>IRDAI guidelines for insurance companies 2026</strong> are not just incremental updates; they redefine how insurers approach governance, accountability, and security operations.</p><p>Below is a <strong>structured comparison of what has changed vs what’s new</strong>, based directly on the official Annexure.</p><h3 class="wp-block-heading">1) <strong>Applicability for Foreign Reinsurance Branches (FRBs)</strong></h3><h4 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>What Changed</strong></h4><figure class="wp-block-table"> <table class="has-fixed-layout"> <tbody> <tr> <td><strong>Earlier Guidelines</strong></td> <td><strong>2026 Update</strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td>No structured flexibility</td> <td>The ” Comply or Explain” approach was introduced</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Committees required at all levels</td> <td>Committees are not mandatory at the branch level if governance is handled centrally</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </figure><h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Impact</strong></h3><p>This introduces <strong>regulatory flexibility</strong>, while still maintaining supervisory oversight.</p><h3 class="wp-block-heading">2) <strong>Governance Frequency &amp; Oversight</strong></h3><h4 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>What Changed</strong></h4><figure class="wp-block-table"> <table class="has-fixed-layout"> <tbody> <tr> <td><strong>Earlier</strong></td> <td><strong>2026 Update </strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td>ISRMC Meetings </td> <td>Mandatory quarterly meetings </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </figure><h4 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Impact</strong></h4><p>This ensures <strong>continuous monitoring of cybersecurity risks</strong>, rather than periodic reviews.</p><h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>3) Board of Directors: Expanded Responsibilities</strong></h3><h4 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>What Changed</strong></h4><figure class="wp-block-table"> <table class="has-fixed-layout"> <tbody> <tr> <td><strong>Earlier </strong></td> <td><strong>2026 Update</strong> </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Limited cybersecurity oversight </td> <td>Defined Responsibilities added</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </figure><h4 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>New Responsibilities </strong></h4><ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>Allocate an <strong>adequate cybersecurity budget</strong> aligned with risk appetite</li> <li>Review <strong>non-conformities from audit reports</strong></li> <li>Ensure <strong>closure of gaps within 12 months</strong></li> </ul><h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Impact</strong></h3><p>Cybersecurity is now a <strong>board-level accountability</strong>, strengthening<mark class="has-inline-color has-luminous-vivid-orange-color"> </mark><a href="https://kratikal.com/irdai-compliance-audit"><mark class="has-inline-color has-luminous-vivid-orange-color">IRDAI compliance</mark></a><mark class="has-inline-color has-luminous-vivid-orange-color"><a href="https://kratikal.com/irdai-compliance-audit"> </a></mark>maturity.</p><h3 class="wp-block-heading">4) <strong>CISO Role: Independence &amp; Strategic Expansion</strong></h3><h4 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>What Changed</strong></h4><figure class="wp-block-table"> <table class="has-fixed-layout"> <tbody> <tr> <td><strong>Earlier </strong></td> <td><strong>2026 Update </strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td>CISO role aligned with IT</td> <td>CISO must be independent of IT Head</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Limited Scope</td> <td>Expanded operational and governance responsibilities</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </figure><h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>New Additions</strong></h3><ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>No business targets for CISO</li> <li>Mandatory participation in Board and ISRMC briefings</li> <li>Permanent invitee to IT Steering Committee</li> <li>Responsible for <strong>scenario-based incident response planning</strong></li> <li>Must ensure compliance with <strong>CERT-In guidelines</strong></li> </ul><h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Impact</strong></h3><p>The CISO role is now <strong>strategic, independent, and central to IRDAI compliance</strong>.</p><h3 class="wp-block-heading">5) <strong>CTO Role: Stronger Alignment with Security</strong></h3><h4 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>What Changed</strong></h4><figure class="wp-block-table"> <table class="has-fixed-layout"> <tbody> <tr> <td><strong>Earlier </strong></td> <td><strong>2026 Update</strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Focus on IT implementation</td> <td>Closer alignment with CISO and security standards</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </figure><h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>New Responsibilities</strong></h3><ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>Support security implementation in consultation with CISO</li> <li>Ensure IT systems align with defined security standards</li> <li>Remediate vulnerabilities identified through audits</li> </ul><h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Impact</strong></h3><p>Improves <strong>coordination between IT and security functions</strong>.</p><h3 class="wp-block-heading">6) <strong>Removal of CITSO Role</strong></h3><h4 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>What Changed</strong></h4><figure class="wp-block-table"> <table class="has-fixed-layout"> <tbody> <tr> <td><strong>Earlier </strong></td> <td><strong>2026 Update</strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Dedicated CITSO role existed</td> <td>Role Removed</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </figure><h4 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Impact</strong></h4><p>Responsibilities are now <strong>absorbed into CISO/CTO roles</strong>, simplifying governance structure.</p><h3 class="wp-block-heading">7) <strong>Business-Level Accountability Introduced</strong></h3><h4 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>What Changed</strong></h4><figure class="wp-block-table"> <table class="has-fixed-layout"> <tbody> <tr> <td><strong>Earlier </strong></td> <td><strong>2026 Update</strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Security responsibility limited to IT</td> <td>Functional heads now accountable</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </figure><h4 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>New Responsibilities</strong></h4><ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>Enforce cybersecurity policies within teams</li> <li>Collaborate with CISO on risk management</li> <li>Report incidents promptly</li> </ul><h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Impact</strong></h3><p>Cybersecurity becomes an <strong>organization-wide responsibility</strong>.</p><h3 class="wp-block-heading">8) <strong>IT Steering Committee (New Addition)</strong></h3><h4 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>What Changed</strong></h4><figure class="wp-block-table"> <table class="has-fixed-layout"> <tbody> <tr> <td><strong>Earlier </strong></td> <td><strong>2026 Update</strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td>No IT Steering Committee</td> <td>Mandatory ITSC introduced</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </figure><h4 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Key Responsibilities</strong></h4><ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>Align IT strategy with business and compliance needs</li> <li>Ensure regulatory compliance in IT architecture</li> <li>Oversee SLAs, procurement, and cloud decisions</li> <li>Monitor <strong>business continuity and disaster recovery</strong></li> </ul><h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Impact</strong></h3><p>Brings <strong>structured governance over IT and cybersecurity decisions</strong></p><h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>9) Control Management Committee (CMC) Removed</strong></h3><h4 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>What Changed</strong></h4><figure class="wp-block-table"> <table class="has-fixed-layout"> <tbody> <tr> <td><strong>Earlier </strong></td> <td><strong>2026 Update</strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Dedicated CMC existed</td> <td>CMC removed</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </figure><h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Impact</strong></h3><p>Responsibilities are now <strong>merged into the Risk Management Committee (RMC)</strong>, simplifying governance layers.</p><h3 class="wp-block-heading">10) <strong>Independent External Experts Added</strong></h3><h4 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>What Changed</strong></h4><figure class="wp-block-table"> <table class="has-fixed-layout"> <tbody> <tr> <td><strong>Earlier </strong></td> <td><strong>2026 Update</strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td>No Requirement</td> <td>External cybersecurity experts mandatory in RMC</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </figure><h4 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Impact</strong></h4><p>Enhances <strong>decision-making with specialized cybersecurity expertise</strong>.</p><h3 class="wp-block-heading">11) <strong>Exception Management Framework Introduced</strong></h3><h4 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>What Changed</strong></h4><figure class="wp-block-table"> <table class="has-fixed-layout"> <tbody> <tr> <td><strong>Earlier </strong></td> <td><strong>2026 Update</strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td>No structured framework</td> <td>Defined approval hierarchy and timelines</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </figure><h4 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>New Structure</strong></h4><ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>Up to 3 months → CISO approval</li> <li>3–12 months → RMC approval</li> <li>Beyond 12 months → Board approval</li> <li>Mandatory <strong>risk documentation and reassessment</strong></li> </ul><h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Impact</strong></h3><p>Ensures <strong>controlled and accountable exception handling</strong>.</p><h3 class="wp-block-heading">12) <strong>Compliance &amp; Audit Enhancements</strong></h3><h4 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>What Changed</strong></h4><figure class="wp-block-table"> <table class="has-fixed-layout"> <tbody> <tr> <td>Alignment with the DPDP Act introduced </td> <td><strong>2026 Update</strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Annual submissions</td> <td>Submission within 30 days of audit completion</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Limited regulatory Linkage </td> <td>Alignment with the <a href="https://kratikal.com/blog/understanding-indias-dpdp-act-a-complete-overview/"><mark class="has-inline-color has-luminous-vivid-orange-color">DPDP Act</mark></a> introduced </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </figure><h4 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Impact</strong></h4><p>Drives <strong>faster reporting and stronger data protection compliance</strong>.</p><h3 class="wp-block-heading">13) <strong>Security Controls: New Technical Requirements</strong></h3><h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Key Additions</strong></h3><ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>Infrastructure Segregation across group entities</li> <li>Grey/White-box penetration testing every 6 months</li> <li>Testing environments must mirror production systems</li> <li>Cryptographic asset inventory (post-quantum readiness)</li> <li>Strict vendor outsourcing approvals</li> <li>Mandatory MeitY-empaneled cloud providers</li> <li>Data deletion requirements for cloud exit</li> <li>Immutable backups and resilient systems</li> </ul><h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Impact</strong></h3><p>These controls significantly enhance the <strong>technical depth and future readiness</strong> of IRDAI compliance.</p><p><br> <br> </p><br><meta charset="UTF-8"><br><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><p> <!-- IMPORTANT: SEO control --><br> <meta name="robots" content="noindex, nofollow"></p><p> </p><title>Blog Form</title><br><div class="containers"> <!-- Left Section --> <div class="left-section"> <p class="heading-wrap">Book Your Free Cybersecurity Consultation Today!</p> <p> <img decoding="async" src="https://awareness.threatcop.ai/marketing/new_asset_blog_form.svg" alt="People working on cybersecurity" class="consultation-image"> </p></div> <p> <!-- Right Section --></p> <div class="right-section"> <div class="form-containers"> <form action="https://kratikal.com/thanks/thankyou-blog" method="get" onsubmit="return validateForm(this)"> <div class="form-group"> <label for="fullName">Full Name</label><br> <input type="text" required name="FullName" placeholder="Enter full name"> </div> <div class="form-group"> <label for="email">Email ID</label><br> <input type="email" required name="email" placeholder="your name @ example.com"> </div> <div class="form-group"> <label for="company">Company Name</label><br> <input type="text" required name="CompanyName" placeholder="Enter company name"> </div> <div class="form-group"> <label for="phone">Phone Number</label><br> <input type="number" required name="Phone" placeholder="Enter phone number"> </div> <p> <input type="hidden" name="BlogForm" value="BlogForm"><br> <button type="submit" class="submit-btnns" name="submit" value="I am interested!">I am interested!</button><br> </p></form> </div> </div> </div><p><!-- CSS Styles --></p><style> .containers{ display: flex; width: 100%; max-width: 800px; height: 500px; box-shadow: 0 0 10px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.1); border-radius: 4px; overflow: hidden; margin: 25px auto; } .left-section { width: 50%; background-color: #000; color: white; padding: 30px; display: flex; flex-direction: column; position: relative; overflow: hidden; } .left-section .heading-wrap { font-size: 24px; line-height: 40px; margin-bottom: 30px; z-index: 2; position: relative; color: white; } .consultation-image { position: absolute; bottom: 0; left: 0; width: 100%; height: 70%; object-fit: cover; object-position: center; } .right-section { width: 50%; background-color: white; padding: 30px; display: flex; flex-direction: column; justify-content: center; } .form-containers { width: 100%; } .form-group { margin-bottom: 20px; } label { display: block; color: #666; margin-bottom: 5px; font-size: 14px; } .right-section input { width: 88%; padding: 12px 15px; border: 1px solid #e0e0e0; border-radius: 8px; font-size: 16px; } .submit-btnns { width: 100%; padding: 15px; background: linear-gradient(to right, #e67e22, #d35400); border: none; border-radius: 8px; color: white; font-size: 18px; font-weight: bold; cursor: pointer; margin-top: 10px; } /* Responsive */ @media (max-width: 768px) { .containers { flex-direction: column; height: auto; } .left-section, .right-section { width: 100%; } .left-section { height: 400px; } .consultation-image { height: 60%; } } @media (max-width: 480px) { .left-section { padding: 20px; height: 350px; } .left-section .heading-wrap { font-size: 17px; line-height: 28px;width: 80%; } .right-section { padding: 20px; } .right-section input, .submit-btnns { padding: 10px; } } </style><p><!-- JS Validation --><br> <script> function validateForm(form) { const inputs = form.querySelectorAll("input[type=text], input[type=email], input[type=number]"); for (let i = 0; i < inputs.length; i++) { if (/[<>]/.test(inputs[i].value)) { alert("Tags and attributes are not allowed in form fields!"); return false; // prevent submission } } return true; // allow submission } </script><br> <script defer src="https://static.cloudflareinsights.com/beacon.min.js/v8c78df7c7c0f484497ecbca7046644da1771523124516" integrity="sha512-8DS7rgIrAmghBFwoOTujcf6D9rXvH8xm8JQ1Ja01h9QX8EzXldiszufYa4IFfKdLUKTTrnSFXLDkUEOTrZQ8Qg==" data-cf-beacon='{"version":"2024.11.0","token":"33edbdb5f462496f85e52978979b687b","server_timing":{"name":{"cfCacheStatus":true,"cfEdge":true,"cfExtPri":true,"cfL4":true,"cfOrigin":true,"cfSpeedBrain":true},"location_startswith":null}}' crossorigin="anonymous"></script> <script>(function(){function c(){var b=a.contentDocument||a.contentWindow.document;if(b){var d=b.createElement('script');d.innerHTML="window.__CF$cv$params={r:'9f1e37954c32a24d',t:'MTc3NzEyOTIyNA=='};var a=document.createElement('script');a.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js';document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(a);";b.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(d)}}if(document.body){var a=document.createElement('iframe');a.height=1;a.width=1;a.style.position='absolute';a.style.top=0;a.style.left=0;a.style.border='none';a.style.visibility='hidden';document.body.appendChild(a);if('loading'!==document.readyState)c();else if(window.addEventListener)document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',c);else{var e=document.onreadystatechange||function(){};document.onreadystatechange=function(b){e(b);'loading'!==document.readyState&&(document.onreadystatechange=e,c())}}}})();</script></p><h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>IRDAI Compliance Checklist for Insurers (2026)</strong></h3><p>To simplify implementation, here’s a practical checklist:</p><h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Governance</strong></h3><ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>Ensure quarterly ISRMC and ITSC meetings</li> <li>Strengthen board-level cybersecurity oversight</li> <li>Appoint independent cybersecurity experts</li> </ul><h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Leadership</strong></h3><ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>Establish an independent CISO role</li> <li>Define clear responsibilities for the CTO and business heads</li> </ul><h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Security Operations</strong></h3><ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>Implement scenario-based incident response plans</li> <li>Conduct biannual penetration testing (CERT-In auditors)</li> <li>Enable continuous monitoring and detection</li> </ul><h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Cloud &amp; Third-Party Risk</strong></h3><ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>Use MeitY-empaneled cloud providers</li> <li>Enforce strict vendor contracts and NDAs</li> <li>Control sub-outsourcing risks</li> </ul><h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Advanced Security</strong></h3><ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>Maintain cryptographic asset inventory</li> <li>Deploy immutable backups</li> <li>Ensure system resilience and failover</li> </ul><h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Compliance &amp; Audit</strong></h3><ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>Complete annual audits within defined timelines</li> <li>Align with DPDP Act requirements</li> <li>Implement the “comply or explain” framework</li> </ul><h3 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Exception Management</strong></h3><ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>Follow the structured approval hierarchy</li> <li>Document all risks and approvals</li> <li>Reassess long-term exceptions</li> </ul><p><br> <br> </p><br><meta charset="UTF-8"><br><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><br><title>Cyber Security Squad – Newsletter Signup</title><link rel="stylesheet" href="https://kratikal.com/blog/irdai-2026-cybersecurity-guidelines-for-insurance-companies/styles.css"><link rel="preconnect" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/"><link rel="preconnect" href="https://fonts.gstatic.com/" crossorigin><link href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css2?family=Roboto:wght@400;500;700&amp;display=swap" rel="stylesheet"><style type="text/css"> /* Reset and base styles */</p> <p>.newsletterwrap .containerWrap { width: 100%; max-width: 800px; margin: 25px auto; }</p> <p>/* Card styles */ .newsletterwrap .signup-card { background-color: white; border-radius: 10px; overflow: hidden; box-shadow: 0 4px 12px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.1); border: 8px solid #e85d0f; }</p> <p>.newsletterwrap .content { padding: 30px; display: flex; justify-content: space-between; align-items: center; flex-wrap: wrap; }</p> <p>/* Text content */ .newsletterwrap .text-content { flex: 1; min-width: 250px; margin-right: 20px; }</p> <p>.newsletterwrap .main-heading { font-size: 26px; color: #333; font-weight: 900; margin-bottom: 0px; }</p> <p>.newsletterwrap .highlight { color: #e85d0f; font-weight: 500; margin-bottom: 15px; }</p> <p>.newsletterwrap .para { color: #666; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 10px; }</p> <p>.newsletterwrap .bold { font-weight: 700; }</p> <p>/* Logo */ .newsletterwrap .rightlogo { display: flex; flex-direction: column; align-items: center; margin-top: 10px; }</p> <p>.newsletterwrap .logo-icon { position: relative; width: 80px; height: 80px; margin-bottom: 10px; }</p> <p>.newsletterwrap .c-outer, .c-middle, .c-inner { position: absolute; border-radius: 50%; border: 6px solid #e85d0f; border-right-color: transparent; }</p> <p>.newsletterwrap .c-outer { width: 80px; height: 80px; top: 0; left: 0; }</p> <p>.newsletterwrap .c-middle { width: 60px; height: 60px; top: 10px; left: 10px; }</p> <p>.newsletterwrap .c-inner { width: 40px; height: 40px; top: 20px; left: 20px; }</p> <p>.newsletterwrap .logo-text { color: #e85d0f; font-weight: 700; font-size: 0.9rem; text-align: center; }</p> <p>/* Form */ .newsletterwrap .signup-form { display: flex; padding: 0 30px 30px; }</p> <p>.newsletterwrap input[type="email"] { flex: 1; padding: 12px 15px; border: 1px solid #ddd; border-radius: 4px 0 0 4px; font-size: 1rem; outline: none; }</p> <p>.newsletterwrap input[type="email"]:focus { border-color: #e85d0f; }</p> <p>.newsletterwrap .submitBtn { background-color: #e85d0f; color: white; border: none; padding: 12px 20px; border-radius: 0 4px 4px 0; font-size: 1rem; cursor: pointer; transition: background-color 0.3s; white-space: nowrap; }</p> <p>.newsletterwrap button:hover { background-color: #d45000; }</p> <p>/* Responsive styles */ @media (max-width: 768px) { .newsletterwrap .content { flex-direction: column; text-align: center; }</p> <p> .newsletterwrap .text-content { margin-right: 0; margin-bottom: 20px; }</p> <p> .newsletterwrap .rightlogo { margin-top: 20px; } }</p> <p>@media (max-width: 480px) { .newsletterwrap .signup-form { flex-direction: column; }</p> <p> .newsletterwrap input[type="email"] { border-radius: 4px; margin-bottom: 10px; }</p> <p> .newsletterwrap .submitBtn { border-radius: 4px; width: 100%; } } </style><p><br> </p><div class="containerWrap"> <div class="signup-card"> <div class="content"> <div class="text-content"> <h1 class="main-heading">Get in!</h1> <p class="para">Join our weekly <span style="color: #e75d10;">newsletter</span> and stay updated</p> </div> <div class="rightlogo"> <div class="logo-icon"> <div class="c-outer"></div> <div class="c-middle"></div> <div class="c-inner"></div> </div> <div class="logo-text">CYBER SECURITY SQUAD</div> </div> </div> <form class="signup-form" action="https://kratikal.com/thanks/thankyou-newsletter" method="get"> <input type="email" name="email" value="" placeholder="Email" required><br> <input type="submit" name="submit" value="I am interested!" class="submitBtn"><br> </form> </div> </div><p><br> </p><h3 class="wp-block-heading">Conclusion </h3><p>The IRDAI guidelines 2026 clearly signal a shift from <strong>static, checklist-driven compliance to a dynamic, risk-based security approach</strong>.</p><p>For insurers, <a href="https://kratikal.com/blog/what-is-irdai-compliance-guidelines-for-the-insurer/"><mark class="has-inline-color has-luminous-vivid-orange-color"><strong>IRDAI compliance</strong> </mark></a>is no longer limited to implementing controls once a year; it now requires <strong>continuous governance, cross-functional accountability, and real-time visibility into cyber risks</strong>. From strengthening board oversight and redefining the CISO’s role to introducing advanced controls like cryptographic readiness and stricter third-party governance, the updates reflect the realities of today’s threat landscape. Organizations that proactively align with these changes will not only meet regulatory expectations but also build <strong>resilient, future-ready security frameworks</strong>. On the other hand, those treating compliance as a one-time activity risk falling behind, both in security maturity and regulatory readiness.</p><h3 class="wp-block-heading">FAQs</h3><div class="schema-how-to wp-block-yoast-how-to-block"> <p class="schema-how-to-description"> </p><ol class="schema-how-to-steps"> <li class="schema-how-to-step" id="how-to-step-1777011045277"><strong class="schema-how-to-step-name"><strong>What is the key objective of IRDAI compliance in 2026?</strong></strong> <p class="schema-how-to-step-text">The primary objective of IRDAI compliance is to ensure that insurers adopt a risk-based, proactive cybersecurity approach that protects policyholder data. It also aims to strengthen operational resilience and align security practices with evolving cyber threats.</p> </li> <li class="schema-how-to-step" id="how-to-step-1777014277560"><strong class="schema-how-to-step-name"><strong>How has the role of the CISO changed in the 2026 guidelines?</strong></strong> <p class="schema-how-to-step-text">The CISO role has become more <strong>independent and strategic</strong>. The CISO must not report to the IT Head, cannot have business targets, and is responsible for incident response planning, board reporting, and compliance with CERT-In guidelines.</p> </li> <li class="schema-how-to-step" id="how-to-step-1777014289483"><strong class="schema-how-to-step-name"><strong>What is the role of the IT Steering Committee (ITSC)?</strong></strong> <p class="schema-how-to-step-text">The ITSC is a newly introduced body responsible for aligning IT strategy with business and regulatory requirements, overseeing IT architecture, and ensuring cybersecurity integration in all technology decisions.</p> </li> </ol> </div><p>The post <a href="https://kratikal.com/blog/irdai-2026-cybersecurity-guidelines-for-insurance-companies/">IRDAI 2026 Cybersecurity Guidelines for Insurance Companies</a> appeared first on <a href="https://kratikal.com/blog">Kratikal Blogs</a>.</p><div class="spu-placeholder" style="display:none"></div><div class="addtoany_share_save_container addtoany_content addtoany_content_bottom"><div class="a2a_kit a2a_kit_size_20 addtoany_list" data-a2a-url="https://securityboulevard.com/2026/04/irdai-2026-cybersecurity-guidelines-for-insurance-companies/" data-a2a-title="IRDAI 2026 Cybersecurity Guidelines for Insurance Companies"><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Firdai-2026-cybersecurity-guidelines-for-insurance-companies%2F&amp;linkname=IRDAI%202026%20Cybersecurity%20Guidelines%20for%20Insurance%20Companies" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Firdai-2026-cybersecurity-guidelines-for-insurance-companies%2F&amp;linkname=IRDAI%202026%20Cybersecurity%20Guidelines%20for%20Insurance%20Companies" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Firdai-2026-cybersecurity-guidelines-for-insurance-companies%2F&amp;linkname=IRDAI%202026%20Cybersecurity%20Guidelines%20for%20Insurance%20Companies" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_reddit" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/reddit?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Firdai-2026-cybersecurity-guidelines-for-insurance-companies%2F&amp;linkname=IRDAI%202026%20Cybersecurity%20Guidelines%20for%20Insurance%20Companies" title="Reddit" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2Firdai-2026-cybersecurity-guidelines-for-insurance-companies%2F&amp;linkname=IRDAI%202026%20Cybersecurity%20Guidelines%20for%20Insurance%20Companies" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share"></a></div></div><p class="syndicated-attribution">*** This is a Security Bloggers Network syndicated blog from <a href="https://kratikal.com/blog/">Kratikal Blogs</a> authored by <a href="https://securityboulevard.com/author/0/" title="Read other posts by Shikha Dhingra">Shikha Dhingra</a>. Read the original post at: <a href="https://kratikal.com/blog/irdai-2026-cybersecurity-guidelines-for-insurance-companies/">https://kratikal.com/blog/irdai-2026-cybersecurity-guidelines-for-insurance-companies/</a> </p>

13 Hidden Costs of Password-Based Authentication (With Real ROI Math)

  • None
  • Published date: 2026-04-25 00:00:00

None

<p>The post <a href="https://mojoauth.com/blog/13-hidden-costs-of-password-based-authentication-with-real-roi-math">13 Hidden Costs of Password-Based Authentication (With Real ROI Math)</a> appeared first on <a href="https://mojoauth.com/blog">MojoAuth Blog – Passwordless Authentication &amp; Identity Solutions</a>.</p><p>Passwords aren't free. Most organizations treat authentication as a fixed cost of doing business, something that lives in the IT budget and doesn't get interrogated at the CFO level. That's a mistake. When you add up password resets, support overhead, SMS delivery fees, breach exposure, compliance fines, and conversion losses, the annual cost of maintaining a password-based authentication system is almost always larger than the cost of replacing it. This article puts hard numbers on each line item and gives you a simple formula to calculate what passwords are actually costing your business right now.</p><h2>Key Takeaways</h2><ul> <li> <p>A single password reset costs an average of $70 in fully loaded IT labor, according to Forrester Research. At 10,000 resets per year, that's $700,000 before anything else is counted.</p> </li> <li> <p>IBM's 2024 Cost of a Data Breach report puts the average breach at $4.88 million, with credential-based attacks being the leading initial attack vector.</p> </li> <li> <p>SMS OTP delivery fees alone can reach $50,000 to $100,000+ annually at 500,000 monthly active users.</p> </li> <li> <p>Passwordless authentication (FIDO2 passkeys, biometric-bound credentials) eliminates or dramatically reduces the majority of these cost categories simultaneously.</p> </li> <li> <p>The ROI math on going passwordless typically closes within 12 to 18 months, often much faster for high-volume consumer platforms.</p> </li> </ul><h2>Why Password Costs Are So Hard to See</h2><p>Password costs don't show up on one budget line. They're distributed across IT support, engineering, security, legal, marketing (churn), and revenue (conversion). Each department sees their slice and assumes someone else is tracking the total. Almost nobody is.</p><p>The finance team sees the support contract. The security team sees the breach risk. The product team sees the conversion drop. The CFO sees none of it as a unified number. That's exactly why the business case for passwordless is so hard to make internally, not because the math doesn't work, but because the costs are invisible in the aggregate.</p><p>What follows is a CFO-level breakdown of all 13 cost categories, with the numbers to back them up.</p><hr><h2>The 13 Real Costs of Password-Based Authentication</h2><h3>1. $70 Per Password Reset (And You're Doing Thousands of Them)</h3><p>Forrester Research's widely cited benchmark puts the fully loaded cost of a single password reset at $70. That figure includes the labor cost of a help desk agent handling the ticket, the time the employee spends locked out and unproductive, and the overhead of the identity verification process that precedes the reset.</p><p>For a company with 5,000 employees, industry estimates suggest that between 20% and 50% of help desk tickets are password-related. If your team handles 500 resets per month, that's $420,000 per year in reset costs alone. If you're running a consumer platform with millions of users, the number scales proportionally and becomes one of the largest line items in your support budget.</p><p>It sounds like a small problem until you do the multiplication.</p><h3>2. $4.88 Million Average Cost of a Credential-Linked Data Breach</h3><p>IBM's 2024 Cost of a Data Breach Report found that the global average cost of a data breach has reached $4.88 million. Credential compromise, including stolen credentials, phishing, and brute force, remains the most common initial attack vector, accounting for roughly 16% of breaches analyzed.</p><p>That $4.88 million figure covers detection and escalation, notification costs, post-breach response, and long-term business impact including customer churn and reputational damage. For regulated industries like healthcare and financial services, the average is considerably higher. Healthcare breaches averaged $9.77 million in the same report.</p><p>What's important for the business case is that this isn't a tail risk. If your organization runs password-based authentication and your users reuse credentials (which they do, at rates exceeding 60% according to multiple surveys), a credential-based breach is not a question of if but when.</p><h3>3. 25% User Abandonment at Password-Based Registration</h3><p>Every authentication friction point costs you conversions, and password-based registration is one of the highest-friction onboarding experiences in consumer software. Research from Baymard Institute and various product analytics firms consistently shows that password creation requirements, email verification steps, and "confirm your password" fields contribute to abandonment rates of 25% or higher at registration.</p><p>If you're acquiring 10,000 new users per month and losing 25% of them at the registration screen, you're losing 2,500 potential customers every month to a UX problem that is entirely self-inflicted. At even a modest average customer lifetime value of $200, that's $500,000 in lost lifetime revenue per month from one friction point.</p><p>Passwordless registration flows using passkeys or magic links consistently reduce abandonment by 20% to 40% in documented implementations because there's no password to create, confirm, or forget.</p><h3>4. 10 to 15% Conversion Drop Per Added Authentication Step</h3><p>Authentication doesn't only affect registration. Every time a returning user hits a login screen, you're applying friction to a revenue-generating action. E-commerce platforms, fintech apps, travel booking systems, and subscription services all measure login conversion rates because a user who can't or won't log in is a user who can't buy.</p><p>Studies on checkout conversion consistently show that each additional authentication step (entering a password, completing a CAPTCHA, confirming an SMS code) reduces conversion by 10% to 15%. In high-intent, high-ticket environments like airline booking or financial transactions, that drop directly translates to lost revenue.</p><p>A travel platform doing $50 million in annual revenue with a 2-step authentication flow that converts at 72% instead of 85% is leaving over $6 million per year on the table. See <a href="https://mojoauth.com/blog/how-authentication-friction-affects-conversion-rates-the-data-behind-frictionless-login">how passwordless authentication improves conversion rates</a> in high-ticket B2C environments.</p><h3>5. Up to 40% of Support Tickets Are Authentication-Related</h3><p>Gartner estimates that between 20% and 50% of all help desk calls are password-related. MojoAuth's own customer data puts the figure closer to 40% for enterprise deployments before passwordless is implemented. These aren't complex issues. They're repetitive, low-skill tasks (password resets, account unlocks, MFA re-enrollment) that consume a disproportionate share of your support team's time.</p><p>A support team of 10 people with an average fully loaded cost of $65,000 per year represents a $650,000 annual line item. If 40% of their time is spent on authentication tickets, that's $260,000 per year in support capacity consumed by a problem that passwordless authentication largely eliminates. That money can be redeployed to higher-value work or returned as margin improvement.</p><h3>6. Infrastructure Costs From Bot Traffic During Credential Stuffing</h3><p>Credential stuffing attacks generate enormous volumes of automated traffic against login endpoints. Bots testing millions of username-and-password combinations against your API don't just create a security risk. They create an infrastructure cost. Your servers process those requests. Your CDN delivers those responses. Your database handles those queries. You pay for all of it.</p><p>Organizations that have instrumented their login infrastructure report that bot traffic can represent 50% to 90% of total authentication requests during active credential stuffing campaigns. At cloud infrastructure pricing, that can add tens of thousands of dollars in monthly compute and bandwidth costs that appear in your AWS or Azure bill without any obvious label saying "caused by credential stuffing."</p><p>Anti-bot tooling (CAPTCHA, rate limiting, WAF rules) adds further cost and maintenance overhead. Passwordless authentication removes the attack surface entirely. If there's no password endpoint to stuff, the bot traffic has no target.</p><h3>7. Compliance Fines Tied to Weak Authentication</h3><p>Regulatory bodies across the globe are increasingly treating inadequate authentication as a compliance failure, not just a security oversight. The precedents are now well established:</p><p>The UK Information Commissioner's Office fined 23andMe £2.31 million in 2025 explicitly for failing to implement adequate protections against credential stuffing, including multi-factor authentication. The FTC pursued action against Dunkin' Donuts over its handling of credential stuffing attacks on its loyalty program. GDPR fines for data breaches enabled by weak authentication have exceeded €1 billion in aggregate since 2018.</p><p>For a CFO building a business case, the compliance angle is compelling because it converts a probabilistic security risk into a quantifiable expected cost. If your industry has a 5% annual probability of a credential-related incident and the average regulatory fine in your jurisdiction is $2 million, the expected annual compliance cost of not upgrading authentication is $100,000 per year, before the breach remediation costs are counted.</p><h3>8. Engineering Talent Attrition From Rebuilding Broken Auth Stacks</h3><p>This one doesn't appear in any analyst report, but it's real and it's expensive. Password-based authentication stacks require constant maintenance: password hashing algorithm upgrades, forced rotation policies, breach detection integrations, session management, CAPTCHA updates, and bot mitigation rule tuning. It's unglamorous, repetitive work that senior engineers hate.</p><p>Replacing a departing senior engineer costs between 50% and 200% of their annual salary in recruiting, onboarding, and lost productivity. If your authentication maintenance work is contributing to attrition among even one or two engineers per year, the talent cost alone can exceed the cost of implementing a passwordless solution.</p><p>The secondary cost is opportunity cost. Engineering hours spent maintaining a password system are hours not spent building product features that generate revenue. Every sprint devoted to password complexity rules and session expiry logic is a sprint not devoted to your roadmap.</p><h3>9. Cyber-Insurance Premium Surcharges for Password-Only Systems</h3><p>The cyber-insurance market has changed materially over the past three years. Underwriters now routinely audit authentication practices as part of policy renewals, and organizations that cannot demonstrate phishing-resistant MFA or passwordless authentication face premium surcharges of 20% to 40% compared to organizations with stronger controls.</p><p>At a $500,000 annual cyber-insurance premium, a 30% surcharge for inadequate authentication controls costs $150,000 per year. That surcharge is, in effect, a tax on not having implemented better authentication. For organizations with higher premiums (financial services, healthcare, critical infrastructure), the numbers scale accordingly.</p><p>Some underwriters have begun excluding credential stuffing and account takeover losses from policies that don't meet minimum authentication standards. That's not a surcharge. That's a complete gap in coverage.</p><h3>10. Lost Revenue From Account Lockouts in High-Ticket B2C</h3><p>Account lockout policies are a standard brute force mitigation. Lock the account after five failed login attempts and you stop automated password attacks. You also lock out legitimate users who've forgotten their passwords, are typing on an unfamiliar device, or have had their account flagged erroneously.</p><p>In high-intent, time-sensitive verticals, an account lockout is a lost sale. A traveler who can't log in to complete a flight booking during a limited fare window doesn't call support. They book with a competitor. A fintech customer locked out during a market move doesn't wait 24 hours for account recovery. They use a different app.</p><p>Conservative estimates from e-commerce and travel analytics firms suggest that account lockout abandonment costs high-ticket B2C platforms between 1% and 3% of authenticated session revenue annually. On a $100 million revenue base, that range is $1 million to $3 million per year.</p><h3>11. Customer Churn After Account Takeover Incidents</h3><p>When a customer's account is taken over, the financial harm doesn't end with the immediate fraud loss. The customer relationship is almost certainly damaged, and a significant portion of affected customers don't come back. Research from Ping Identity found that 44% of consumers would stop using a company's services after a security incident, and that figure rises to over 60% for incidents where financial data was involved.</p><p>Account takeover churn is also contagious. Customers who experience ATO tell people. Public ATO incidents generate negative press and social media coverage that depress new user acquisition for months. The DraftKings credential stuffing incident in 2022, where approximately $300,000 was drained from customer accounts, generated press coverage that almost certainly cost the company more in reputational damage than the direct fraud losses.</p><p>At an average customer lifetime value of $500 and an ATO incident affecting 1,000 customers with a 44% churn rate, the churn cost alone is $220,000 per incident, before legal, remediation, or PR costs.</p><h3>12. SMS OTP Delivery Fees Scaling to $50,000 to $100,000+ Annually</h3><p>This is one of the most overlooked and most predictable costs in the authentication budget. SMS-based one-time passwords are sent via third-party messaging APIs (Twilio, Vonage, AWS SNS), and the cost is per-message. In the United States, SMS delivery costs typically run between $0.0075 and $0.01 per message. Internationally, rates are higher, sometimes significantly so.</p><p>At 500,000 monthly active users with a 70% SMS OTP trigger rate (logins that require a code), that's 350,000 messages per month. At $0.0085 per message, that's approximately $2,975 per month, or around $35,700 per year at domestic rates. Add international traffic, failed delivery retries, and the common practice of sending a second code when users complain the first didn't arrive, and real-world costs routinely land at $50,000 to $100,000 annually for mid-sized platforms.</p><p>At 5 million MAU, the same math produces SMS delivery costs approaching $350,000 to $1 million per year. These fees appear in cloud billing or vendor invoices as operational costs. They're real cash out the door, every month, for a security mechanism that NIST has deprecated and that SIM swapping can defeat in minutes. See <a href="https://mojoauth.com/blog/complete-guide-to-passkeys-implementation-benefits-best-practices">how replacing SMS OTP with passkeys eliminates this cost category entirely</a>.</p><h3>13. Legal and PR Response Costs for Credential-Related Breaches</h3><p>When a credential-based breach occurs, the financial exposure doesn't stop at the breach itself. The incident response process generates substantial costs that are rarely fully anticipated in pre-breach risk models:</p><p>Legal costs include outside counsel for breach notification compliance, regulatory communications, and litigation defense. A mid-sized breach can generate $500,000 to $2 million in legal fees before any settlement is reached. Mandatory breach notification under GDPR, CCPA, and sector-specific regulations (HIPAA, PCI-DSS) involves significant operational effort including identifying affected users, drafting notifications, and managing regulator inquiries.</p><p>PR and crisis communications costs for a public breach typically range from $50,000 to $500,000 depending on the scale and media coverage of the incident. Executive time consumed by board-level incident briefings, regulator meetings, and customer communications is a real cost even if it doesn't appear on an invoice.</p><p>IBM's 2024 data shows that the average time to identify and contain a breach is 258 days. The extended detection window is itself a cost multiplier, every day of undetected access increases the scope of the breach and the cost of remediation.</p><hr><h2>The Annual Password Tax: A Simple ROI Worksheet</h2><p>Here's a formula you can fill in with your own numbers to calculate what passwords are actually costing your organization per year. We call it the Annual Password Tax.</p><p><strong>Annual Password Tax Formula:</strong></p><pre><code>(Monthly password resets × 12 × $70) + (Annual breach probability × average breach cost) + (Lost registrations × monthly acquisition × 12 × average LTV) + (Annual support headcount × $65,000 × 40%) + (Monthly SMS messages × 12 × $0.0085) + (Annual cyber-insurance premium × 30% surcharge estimate) + (ATO-related churn: affected accounts × average LTV × 44%) = Your Annual Password Tax </code></pre><p><strong>Example Calculation for a Mid-Market SaaS Platform:</strong></p><ul> <li> <p>800 monthly resets × 12 × $70 = $672,000</p> </li> <li> <p>10% breach probability × $4.88M average = $488,000 expected annual cost</p> </li> <li> <p>2,000 lost registrations per month × 12 × $150 LTV = $3,600,000</p> </li> <li> <p>5 support staff × $65,000 × 40% = $130,000</p> </li> <li> <p>200,000 monthly SMS × 12 × $0.0085 = $20,400</p> </li> <li> <p>$200,000 insurance premium × 30% = $60,000</p> </li> <li> <p>500 ATO victims × $150 LTV × 44% = $33,000</p> </li> </ul><p><strong>Total Annual Password Tax: approximately $5,003,400</strong></p><p>For many mid-market platforms, the math produces a number in the range of $2 million to $8 million per year. The cost of implementing a passwordless authentication solution? Typically a fraction of that, with ROI that closes within 12 to 18 months in most documented deployments.</p><hr><h2>How Passwordless Authentication Addresses Each Cost Category</h2><p>Passwordless authentication using FIDO2 passkeys doesn't improve these numbers marginally. It eliminates several of them entirely and dramatically reduces the rest.</p><p>Password resets drop to near zero because there is no password to reset. A user who gets a new device re-enrolls a passkey through a recovery flow that doesn't require a help desk agent. Support ticket volumes tied to authentication fall by 30% to 50% in documented enterprise deployments.</p><p>Credential stuffing attack traffic disappears as an infrastructure cost because there is no password endpoint. No password, no stuffing, no bot traffic to absorb.</p><p>SMS OTP costs go to zero if SMS is removed from the authentication flow entirely. The savings in year one often cover a significant portion of the implementation cost.</p><p>Conversion rates at registration and login improve because biometric authentication (face ID, fingerprint) is faster than typing a password and completing an OTP challenge. Documented improvements range from 20% to 50% reduction in authentication-related abandonment.</p><p>Compliance posture improves because FIDO2 passkeys meet the "phishing-resistant MFA" standard required by NIST SP 800-63B, which regulators including the ICO, CISA, and various sector bodies are actively referencing in enforcement actions.</p><hr><h2>Frequently Asked Questions</h2><h3>How Much Does a Password Reset Actually Cost?</h3><p>The Forrester Research benchmark puts the fully loaded cost of a single enterprise password reset at $70. This includes help desk agent labor, the productivity loss of the employee during the lockout period, and identity verification overhead. Consumer-facing resets at scale have lower per-unit costs but multiply across larger user bases. Organizations routinely find that password reset costs alone justify a significant portion of the investment in passwordless infrastructure.</p><h3>What Percentage of IT Support Tickets Are Password-Related?</h3><p>Industry estimates from Gartner and other analysts range from 20% to 50%, with many enterprise IT teams reporting figures closer to 40% when all authentication-related tickets are counted (password resets, MFA re-enrollment, account unlocks, SSO troubleshooting). This makes authentication management one of the largest single categories of IT support volume, consuming skilled labor on highly repetitive, low-complexity tasks.</p><h3>How Do SMS OTP Costs Scale With User Volume?</h3><p>SMS delivery costs through providers like Twilio and Vonage typically range from $0.0075 to $0.01 per message in the US market. At 500,000 monthly active users with a 70% SMS trigger rate, that produces approximately $35,000 to $50,000 annually at domestic rates. International rates are often 3x to 10x higher. Platforms with significant international user bases, or with high login frequency (daily active users in fintech or e-commerce), can see SMS authentication costs exceed $500,000 annually before any volume discounts.</p><h3>What Is the ROI Timeline for Switching to Passwordless Authentication?</h3><p>Most enterprise implementations see positive ROI within 12 to 18 months. High-volume consumer platforms with significant SMS OTP spend or measurable conversion losses to authentication friction often see ROI within 6 to 9 months. The primary drivers of faster ROI are: high password reset volumes, significant SMS delivery spend, measurable conversion drop at registration or login, and active credential stuffing attack traffic generating infrastructure overhead.</p><h3>Does Passwordless Authentication Reduce Cyber-Insurance Premiums?</h3><p>Yes, in most cases. Underwriters increasingly treat phishing-resistant MFA, including FIDO2 passkeys, as a positive control that reduces premium risk. Organizations that can demonstrate FIDO2 deployment for privileged and customer-facing accounts typically qualify for lower risk classifications during renewal. The specific premium impact varies by underwriter and policy structure, but reductions of 15% to 30% are reported in the market for organizations that move from password-only or SMS MFA to phishing-resistant authentication.</p><h3>How Does Account Takeover Churn Affect Customer Lifetime Value Calculations?</h3><p>Account takeover incidents create two distinct churn signals: direct churn from affected customers who leave after experiencing fraud, and indirect churn from customers who hear about the incident and choose not to join or who reduce engagement. Ping Identity research found that 44% of consumers stop using a service after a security incident. For a product with a $500 average customer lifetime value, an ATO incident affecting 5,000 accounts produces a churn-related revenue loss of approximately $1.1 million from direct departures alone, before legal, remediation, or PR costs are included.</p><hr><h2>Final Thoughts</h2><p>The business case for passwordless authentication isn't really about security. It's about stopping a slow, invisible bleed across support, infrastructure, compliance, revenue, and insurance budgets that most organizations have never measured as a single number. When you do the math, passwords are almost always the most expensive authentication system available. to run these numbers against your own data and build a CFO-ready business case for going passwordless.</p><div class="spu-placeholder" style="display:none"></div><div class="addtoany_share_save_container addtoany_content addtoany_content_bottom"><div class="a2a_kit a2a_kit_size_20 addtoany_list" data-a2a-url="https://securityboulevard.com/2026/04/13-hidden-costs-of-password-based-authentication-with-real-roi-math/" data-a2a-title="13 Hidden Costs of Password-Based Authentication (With Real ROI Math)"><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2F13-hidden-costs-of-password-based-authentication-with-real-roi-math%2F&amp;linkname=13%20Hidden%20Costs%20of%20Password-Based%20Authentication%20%28With%20Real%20ROI%20Math%29" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2F13-hidden-costs-of-password-based-authentication-with-real-roi-math%2F&amp;linkname=13%20Hidden%20Costs%20of%20Password-Based%20Authentication%20%28With%20Real%20ROI%20Math%29" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2F13-hidden-costs-of-password-based-authentication-with-real-roi-math%2F&amp;linkname=13%20Hidden%20Costs%20of%20Password-Based%20Authentication%20%28With%20Real%20ROI%20Math%29" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_reddit" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/reddit?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2F13-hidden-costs-of-password-based-authentication-with-real-roi-math%2F&amp;linkname=13%20Hidden%20Costs%20of%20Password-Based%20Authentication%20%28With%20Real%20ROI%20Math%29" title="Reddit" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2F13-hidden-costs-of-password-based-authentication-with-real-roi-math%2F&amp;linkname=13%20Hidden%20Costs%20of%20Password-Based%20Authentication%20%28With%20Real%20ROI%20Math%29" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share"></a></div></div><p class="syndicated-attribution">*** This is a Security Bloggers Network syndicated blog from <a href="https://mojoauth.com/blog">MojoAuth Blog - Passwordless Authentication &amp;amp; Identity Solutions</a> authored by <a href="https://securityboulevard.com/author/0/" title="Read other posts by MojoAuth Blog - Passwordless Authentication &amp; Identity Solutions">MojoAuth Blog - Passwordless Authentication &amp; Identity Solutions</a>. Read the original post at: <a href="https://mojoauth.com/blog/13-hidden-costs-of-password-based-authentication-with-real-roi-math">https://mojoauth.com/blog/13-hidden-costs-of-password-based-authentication-with-real-roi-math</a> </p>

9 Identity-Based Threats Redefining Cybersecurity in 2026 (Beyond Credential Stuffing)

  • None
  • Published date: 2026-04-25 00:00:00

None

<p>The post <a href="https://mojoauth.com/blog/9-identity-based-threats-redefining-cybersecurity-beyond-credential-stuffing">9 Identity-Based Threats Redefining Cybersecurity in 2026 (Beyond Credential Stuffing)</a> appeared first on <a href="https://mojoauth.com/blog">MojoAuth Blog – Passwordless Authentication &amp; Identity Solutions</a>.</p><p>The identity threat landscape in 2026 looks nothing like it did three years ago. Attackers are no longer just recycling breach lists. They're deploying AI-generated voices to bypass bank call centers, using autonomous AI agents to silently escalate privileges, and hoarding encrypted data today to decrypt it after quantum computers arrive. If your security architecture is still optimized for 2023's playbook, you're defending the wrong perimeter. This guide breaks down the nine identity threats that are reshaping what "secure authentication" actually means right now.</p><h2>Key Takeaways</h2><ul> <li> <p>Credential stuffing is yesterday's threat. The 2026 attack surface includes AI agents, deepfake voices, and quantum-era data harvesting.</p> </li> <li> <p>MFA fatigue attacks rose 217% year-over-year according to the 2025 Verizon DBIR, making push-notification MFA a liability in high-risk environments.</p> </li> <li> <p>Deepfake-generated audio and video can now bypass voice biometric systems used by financial institutions, with a 900% year-over-year increase in deepfake file volume reported in 2024.</p> </li> <li> <p>Legacy authentication (passwords, SMS OTP, push-based MFA) fails against most of these threats by design, not by accident.</p> </li> <li> <p>Phishing-resistant, passwordless, zero-store authentication neutralizes the majority of the attack vectors below at the identity layer.</p> </li> </ul><h2>Why the 2026 Identity Threat Matrix Is Different</h2><p>Most of the threats that dominated security conversations from 2018 to 2023 shared one dependency: the password. Credential stuffing, password spraying, brute force, even basic phishing were all, at their core, attempts to obtain or guess a shared secret that granted access.</p><p>The 2026 threat matrix has moved past that. Attackers now target the verification layer itself, not just the credentials that feed it. They're cloning voices to pass authentication challenges, training AI models to mimic writing styles for spear phishing, and exploiting the implicit trust that AI agents receive when operating inside enterprise systems. Some threats don't even require real-time access. "Harvest now, decrypt later" attacks store your encrypted data for a future in which quantum computing makes today's encryption trivial to break.</p><p>The enterprises that are already in trouble are the ones treating these as emerging risks to monitor rather than active threats to defend against. They're not emerging. They're here.</p><hr><h2>The 9 Identity Threats Your Security Architecture Needs to Address in 2026</h2><h3>1. Agentic AI Identity Hijacking</h3><p>Agentic AI systems are software that doesn't just answer questions but takes actions: browsing the web, writing and executing code, sending emails, interacting with APIs, and managing workflows on behalf of users. Enterprises are deploying these systems rapidly, and the identity and access management implications are significant.</p><p>The problem is that AI agents typically operate with the permissions of the user or service account that spawned them. If an agent is compromised or manipulated through a prompt injection attack, it can take actions with whatever access level the identity layer has granted it, often without any human review in the loop. OWASP's Agentic Applications Top 10, published in 2025, identifies excessive agency and identity confusion as top-tier risks in these deployments.</p><p>A real-world example: an attacker embeds a malicious instruction in a document that an AI assistant reads and processes. The instruction directs the agent to exfiltrate data via an API call. The agent executes it. No login event. No stolen credential. No brute force attempt. The identity layer was never directly attacked because it didn't need to be.</p><p><strong>Why legacy auth fails:</strong> Traditional authentication was designed for humans making deliberate login decisions. AI agents operate continuously, often with long-lived session tokens that don't trigger re-authentication. There's no challenge to respond to.</p><p><strong>How passwordless, zero-store auth helps:</strong> Short-lived, cryptographically bound tokens with strict scope constraints limit what a compromised agent can do.</p><hr><h3>2. Deepfake Voice Phishing Bypassing Bank Authentication</h3><p>Voice biometrics have been deployed widely by financial institutions as a "something you are" factor. The logic was sound: your voice is unique, difficult to forge, and convenient for phone-based authentication. That logic is now under severe pressure.</p><p>Deepfake audio generation has reached a point where a few seconds of publicly available audio (a YouTube video, a podcast appearance, a TikTok clip) is enough to train a voice clone convincing enough to fool voice authentication systems. Security researchers reported a 900% year-over-year increase in deepfake file volume in 2024. Attackers are using these clones in vishing (voice phishing) campaigns that target bank authentication systems, HR departments for payroll fraud, and executives for wire transfer authorization.</p><p>In 2024, a finance worker in Hong Kong was manipulated into transferring $25 million after a video call that included AI-generated deepfake versions of his company's CFO and other executives. The attack wasn't a login-screen exploit. It was an identity verification failure.</p><p><strong>Why legacy auth fails:</strong> Voice biometrics and knowledge-based authentication ("what's your mother's maiden name?") were built for an era where producing a convincing impersonation required significant skill and resources. Neither condition applies now.</p><p><strong>How passwordless, zero-store auth helps:</strong> Device-bound FIDO2 passkeys authenticate a cryptographic key tied to a specific hardware device, not a biometric sample that can be cloned from public data. See how <a href="https://mojoauth.com/blog/passwordless-authentication-options">MojoAuth's phishing-resistant authentication</a> works against deepfake-based account takeover.</p><hr><h3>3. Push-Notification MFA Fatigue Attacks</h3><p>MFA fatigue (also called MFA bombing or push spam) is not a new concept, but its scale has reached a point where it needs to be treated as a primary threat vector rather than an edge case. The 2025 Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report documented a 217% year-over-year increase in MFA fatigue attacks. Lapsus$, the threat actor group responsible for breaches at Microsoft, Okta, Nvidia, and Uber, used this technique as a primary entry method.</p><p>The attack is simple. Attackers obtain a valid username and password (from a breach list, phishing, or purchase on the dark web). They attempt to log in repeatedly, triggering a stream of push notifications to the target's authenticator app. Most users, receiving a flood of unexpected approval prompts at 2 a.m., eventually tap "Approve" just to make it stop. Uber's 2022 breach followed exactly this pattern.</p><p>The attack requires no technical sophistication. It requires only patience, a valid credential, and the statistical certainty that some percentage of users will approve a prompt they didn't initiate.</p><p><strong>Why legacy auth fails:</strong> Push-based MFA was designed to add friction against attackers who don't have valid credentials. It provides almost no protection when the attacker does have valid credentials and is using social pressure as the second factor.</p><p><strong>How passwordless, zero-store auth helps:</strong> If there's no password to submit, there's no login attempt to trigger a push notification. Passwordless flows that use biometric-bound passkeys eliminate the first factor that makes MFA fatigue possible. No credential, no prompt, no fatigue.</p><hr><h3>4. AI-Generated Spear Phishing That's Indistinguishable From Legitimate</h3><p>Traditional spear phishing required genuine human effort: research the target, write a convincing email, mimic the writing style of a trusted colleague. That work took hours per target, which naturally limited the scale of sophisticated campaigns.</p><p>AI changed the economics completely. With access to a target's LinkedIn profile, public email communications, and company announcements, an LLM can generate hundreds of highly personalized, contextually accurate phishing emails in minutes. These messages reference real projects, use correct internal terminology, and replicate writing patterns well enough to pass a human review. STAT: <a href="https://www.brside.com/blog/ai-generated-phishing-vs-human-attacks-2025-risk-analysis">AI-generated phishing success rates vs. traditional phishing</a>.</p><p>What makes this a 2026 identity threat specifically is the downstream target. AI spear phishing is no longer primarily aimed at credential theft via fake login pages. It's increasingly used to initiate business email compromise (BEC), manipulate OAuth consent flows, and extract session tokens from enterprise tools. The credential is often just the first step toward a longer-term identity persistence play.</p><p><strong>Why legacy auth fails:</strong> Email filters and user training were calibrated against phishing messages that contained detectable signals: odd formatting, generic greetings, slightly wrong sender domains. AI-generated phishing routinely passes those checks.</p><p><strong>How passwordless, zero-store auth helps:</strong> FIDO2 passkeys are origin-bound. Even if a user is deceived into visiting a convincing fake login page, the passkey will not respond because the domain doesn't match the registered origin. The phishing-resistant property is structural, not dependent on the user spotting the deception.</p><hr><h3>5. MCP Token Misuse and Model Context Protocol Exploitation</h3><p>Model Context Protocol (MCP) is a relatively new standard that allows AI models to connect to external tools, data sources, and APIs through a structured interface. It's gaining rapid adoption in enterprise AI deployments. It's also an emerging identity attack surface that most security teams haven't addressed yet.</p><p>MCP servers issue tokens that allow AI models to take actions on connected systems. If an attacker can inject malicious instructions into a data source that an MCP server reads (a document, a database entry, a web page), they can potentially manipulate the AI model into using its legitimate access tokens to take unauthorized actions. This is a form of prompt injection at the infrastructure level, and the identity implications are significant because the actions taken use valid, authorized credentials.</p><p>The threat is compounded by the fact that MCP is evolving quickly and security standards for token scope, expiry, and audit logging are not yet consistent across implementations. Security architects building AI-integrated workflows right now are largely operating without established best practice guidance on MCP access control.</p><p><strong>Why legacy auth fails:</strong> Access control frameworks designed for human users accessing defined resources don't map cleanly to AI models that dynamically discover and interact with connected services.</p><p><strong>How passwordless, zero-store auth helps:</strong> Strict token scoping, short-lived credentials, and zero-standing-privilege architectures reduce the blast radius of an MCP token compromise. how <a href="https://mojoauth.com/blog/zero-trust-otp-authentication-identity-security">MojoAuth supports zero-trust identity</a> for AI-integrated enterprise environments.</p><hr><h3>6. SIM Swapping and SMS OTP Interception</h3><p>SIM swapping has been a known threat for years, but it remains devastatingly effective in 2026 because SMS-based OTP is still widely deployed as an MFA method, especially by consumer platforms, banks, and government services.</p><p>In a SIM swap attack, the attacker contacts a mobile carrier, impersonates the target using personal information obtained from social media or data broker sites, and convinces the carrier to transfer the target's phone number to a SIM card the attacker controls. Once the number is transferred, any SMS-delivered OTP goes to the attacker. Combined with a valid username and password, this provides full account access.</p><p>The FTC received over 15,000 SIM swap complaints in the United States in 2023 alone. High-profile targets have included cryptocurrency investors (where SIM swaps have resulted in individual losses exceeding $24 million in single incidents), executives, and political figures. The social engineering used to execute these attacks is increasingly sophisticated, with attackers bribing carrier employees directly rather than relying on phone-based impersonation.</p><p><strong>Why legacy auth fails:</strong> SMS OTP was never cryptographically secure. The channel is controlled by telecommunications infrastructure that has social engineering vulnerabilities by design (customer service exists to help people who've lost access to their accounts).</p><p><strong>How passwordless, zero-store auth helps:</strong> FIDO2 authentication doesn't use the phone network at all. A passkey stored in a device's secure enclave cannot be intercepted via a SIM swap because SMS is never part of the flow.</p><hr><h3>7. Session Hijacking via Adversary-in-the-Middle Proxy Attacks</h3><p>Adversary-in-the-Middle (AitM) attacks using reverse proxy phishing kits represent a meaningful evolution beyond traditional phishing. Tools like Evilginx, Modlishka, and Muraena allow attackers to proxy a legitimate website in real time, intercepting not just credentials but session cookies issued after a successful login, including after MFA completion.</p><p>Here's how it works: the user visits what appears to be their normal login page (a convincing replica served through an attacker-controlled proxy). They enter their credentials and complete their MFA challenge. The proxy forwards everything to the real site and relays the real site's responses back to the user. The user is logged in normally and notices nothing. Meanwhile, the attacker has harvested both the credentials and the authenticated session cookie. They replay that cookie in their own browser and have full access for however long the session remains valid.</p><p>This technique was used in the 2022 Twilio breach and has since appeared in campaigns targeting Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, and major financial institutions. Standard MFA, including TOTP and push notifications, provides no protection because authentication completes successfully from the real server's perspective.</p><p><strong>Why legacy auth fails:</strong> Session cookies are the prize here, not credentials. Any authentication method that terminates at the browser level and issues a transferable session token is vulnerable to this class of attack.</p><p><strong>How passwordless, zero-store auth helps:</strong> FIDO2 passkeys are origin-bound and challenge-response based. The cryptographic challenge issued by the real server cannot be signed by a client connected to a proxy on a different domain. AitM proxies cannot intercept a response that the passkey simply won't generate for a mismatched origin.</p><hr><h3>8. Synthetic Identity Fraud at Scale</h3><p>Synthetic identity fraud is the creation of entirely fictional identities using combinations of real and fabricated personal information. A synthetic identity might use a real Social Security number (often one that belongs to a child, a recent immigrant, or a deceased person who isn't actively monitoring their credit) combined with a fabricated name, address, and date of birth.</p><p>Generative AI has dramatically accelerated the creation and deployment of synthetic identities. AI tools can generate photorealistic ID documents, produce consistent backstories, and create believable digital footprints across social media and professional networks. Synthetic identities are used to open fraudulent financial accounts, access services, and in enterprise contexts, to bypass identity verification during onboarding.</p><p>The financial services sector estimated losses to synthetic identity fraud at approximately $6 billion annually in the United States as of 2023, and that number has grown as AI tooling has become more accessible. The attack is particularly hard to detect because a synthetic identity has no real victim filing fraud reports. The fraud surfaces only when the identity defaults on obligations or triggers pattern-matching systems.</p><p><strong>Why legacy auth fails:</strong> Identity verification methods that rely on document matching, knowledge-based authentication, or credit bureau checks are all addressable by well-constructed synthetic identities. AI-generated documents can fool manual review. Fabricated SSN histories can pass credit checks if the number has no existing history.</p><p><strong>How passwordless, zero-store auth helps:</strong> Device-bound passkeys establish that a specific cryptographic key on a specific hardware device is associated with an account. This doesn't prevent a synthetic identity from being created, but it makes account takeover by a different actor much harder and creates a hardware-rooted audit trail that forensic analysis can use. Pairing passkeys with strong onboarding identity verification is the recommended approach.</p><hr><h3>9. "Harvest Now, Decrypt Later" Data Hoarding for Quantum Attacks</h3><p>This is the threat that feels most distant but may prove the most consequential. Nation-state actors are actively intercepting and storing encrypted communications and data today with the explicit intention of decrypting that data once sufficiently powerful quantum computers become available. The strategy is often called "harvest now, decrypt later" or HNDL.</p><p>The cryptographic algorithms that protect the vast majority of internet traffic today (RSA, ECC, and Diffie-Hellman key exchange) are vulnerable to Shor's algorithm running on a cryptographically relevant quantum computer (CRQC). The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) finalized its first post-quantum cryptography standards in 2024 specifically because the timeline for CRQC capability is estimated at 5-15 years, close enough that data with long-term sensitivity needs to be protected now.</p><p>For identity systems specifically, the concern is authentication tokens, session keys, and private key material that is being harvested today. An authentication flow that looks secure in 2026 may retroactively become an entry point once the data can be decrypted. Government agencies, financial institutions, healthcare systems, and any organization handling data that needs to remain confidential for more than a decade should be evaluating their exposure to this threat.</p><p><strong>Why legacy auth fails:</strong> RSA and ECC-based authentication, which underpins the vast majority of current TLS and FIDO2 implementations, is quantum-vulnerable. This doesn't mean FIDO2 is broken today. It means organizations need to plan the migration to post-quantum cryptographic primitives.</p><p><strong>How post-quantum, passwordless auth helps:</strong> MojoAuth has aligned its roadmap with NIST's post-quantum cryptography standards, including CRYSTALS-Kyber for key encapsulation and CRYSTALS-Dilithium for digital signatures.</p><hr><h2>What the Pattern Across All 9 Threats Tells You</h2><p>Read through these nine attacks carefully and a common theme appears. None of them are primarily about obtaining a password. They're about bypassing, exploiting, or making irrelevant the entire verification layer that sits between an attacker and access.</p><p>Deepfakes attack the biometric verification channel. MCP token misuse attacks the trust granted to authenticated AI sessions. AitM proxies attack the session layer after authentication completes. HNDL attacks the cryptographic assumptions that authentication is built on. These are not incremental upgrades to credential stuffing. They are attacks on fundamentally different layers.</p><p>The implication for security architects is that "stronger passwords" and even "more MFA" are insufficient responses. The question is not how to make the password layer harder to crack. The question is how to make the identity layer structurally resistant to the classes of attack that don't involve cracking passwords at all.</p><p>Phishing-resistant authentication (FIDO2 passkeys, hardware security keys, device-bound credentials) removes the largest attack surfaces: the shareable secret, the interceptable OTP, the fakeable biometric. Post-quantum cryptography closes the long-term horizon risk. Zero-store architecture, where no replayable credential is stored server-side, eliminates the value of breach data entirely.</p><p>That's not a product pitch. It's an architectural description of what "secure identity" needs to mean in 2026.</p><hr><h2>Frequently Asked Questions</h2><h3>What Are the Most Dangerous Identity Threats in 2026?</h3><p>The most dangerous identity threats in 2026 are those that bypass authentication rather than break it. Adversary-in-the-Middle proxy attacks can intercept authenticated sessions even after MFA completes. Agentic AI hijacking exploits the trust granted to AI systems operating with enterprise credentials. Deepfake voice attacks bypass biometric verification used by financial institutions. "Harvest now, decrypt later" operations pose a long-term existential risk to any data encrypted with quantum-vulnerable algorithms.</p><h3>How Does MFA Fatigue Work and Why Is It So Effective?</h3><p>MFA fatigue exploits the push-notification mechanic in authenticator apps. An attacker with a valid username and password repeatedly triggers login attempts, sending a continuous stream of approval requests to the target's phone. The attack relies on the human tendency to eventually approve a prompt simply to stop the interruption, especially during off-hours. The 2025 Verizon DBIR reported a 217% year-over-year increase in this technique. The solution is to move away from push-based MFA entirely in favor of FIDO2 passkeys, which remove the credential that triggers the prompts.</p><h3>What Is "Harvest Now, Decrypt Later" and Should My Organization Care?</h3><p>HNDL refers to nation-state actors intercepting and storing currently encrypted data with plans to decrypt it once quantum computers are powerful enough to break today's public-key cryptography. NIST published its first post-quantum cryptography standards in 2024, explicitly acknowledging that data with long-term sensitivity needs post-quantum protection now. If your organization handles financial records, healthcare data, legal communications, or any information that must remain confidential for more than a decade, you should be evaluating your exposure and planning the migration to post-quantum cryptographic standards.</p><h3>How Do FIDO2 Passkeys Protect Against AitM Proxy Attacks?</h3><p>FIDO2 passkeys are origin-bound, meaning the cryptographic signing process is tied to the specific domain the passkey was registered with. When a user connects to an AitM proxy, the challenge the proxy relays comes from a mismatched origin. The passkey refuses to sign it. This makes the attack structurally impossible regardless of how convincing the proxy site looks to the user. It's an architectural protection, not a behavioral one. The user doesn't need to spot the deception; the protocol handles it.</p><h3>What Is the Difference Between a Deepfake Phishing Attack and Traditional Phishing?</h3><p>Traditional phishing uses text-based deception: fake emails, fake login pages, fake urgency. The target interacts with a static artifact. Deepfake phishing uses AI-generated audio or video to impersonate a real, trusted person in a dynamic interaction, a phone call, a video conference, or a voice authentication challenge. The $25 million Hong Kong wire transfer fraud in 2024 involved deepfake video representations of real company executives in a live call. Traditional phishing training doesn't prepare users for this because the attacker is mimicking a real person the user trusts.</p><h3>Is SMS-Based OTP Still Acceptable as a Second Factor?</h3><p>Not in high-risk environments. NIST deprecated SMS-based OTP as an authentication method in Special Publication 800-63B due to its vulnerability to SIM swapping, SS7 interception, and social engineering of carrier customer service. For consumer platforms with lower risk profiles, SMS OTP may still be a pragmatic option when combined with other controls. For any system handling financial data, healthcare records, privileged access, or enterprise identity, SMS OTP should be replaced with FIDO2 hardware-bound authentication as quickly as operationally feasible.</p><hr><h2>Final Thoughts</h2><p>The nine threats above aren't predictions. They're active attack patterns that security teams are responding to right now, in 2026. The good news is that a single architectural shift, moving from password-based and legacy MFA authentication to phishing-resistant, device-bound, zero-store identity, addresses the majority of the attack surface across all nine categories.</p><div class="spu-placeholder" style="display:none"></div><div class="addtoany_share_save_container addtoany_content addtoany_content_bottom"><div class="a2a_kit a2a_kit_size_20 addtoany_list" data-a2a-url="https://securityboulevard.com/2026/04/9-identity-based-threats-redefining-cybersecurity-in-2026-beyond-credential-stuffing/" data-a2a-title="9 Identity-Based Threats Redefining Cybersecurity in 2026 (Beyond Credential Stuffing)"><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2F9-identity-based-threats-redefining-cybersecurity-in-2026-beyond-credential-stuffing%2F&amp;linkname=9%20Identity-Based%20Threats%20Redefining%20Cybersecurity%20in%202026%20%28Beyond%20Credential%20Stuffing%29" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2F9-identity-based-threats-redefining-cybersecurity-in-2026-beyond-credential-stuffing%2F&amp;linkname=9%20Identity-Based%20Threats%20Redefining%20Cybersecurity%20in%202026%20%28Beyond%20Credential%20Stuffing%29" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2F9-identity-based-threats-redefining-cybersecurity-in-2026-beyond-credential-stuffing%2F&amp;linkname=9%20Identity-Based%20Threats%20Redefining%20Cybersecurity%20in%202026%20%28Beyond%20Credential%20Stuffing%29" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_reddit" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/reddit?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2F9-identity-based-threats-redefining-cybersecurity-in-2026-beyond-credential-stuffing%2F&amp;linkname=9%20Identity-Based%20Threats%20Redefining%20Cybersecurity%20in%202026%20%28Beyond%20Credential%20Stuffing%29" title="Reddit" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurityboulevard.com%2F2026%2F04%2F9-identity-based-threats-redefining-cybersecurity-in-2026-beyond-credential-stuffing%2F&amp;linkname=9%20Identity-Based%20Threats%20Redefining%20Cybersecurity%20in%202026%20%28Beyond%20Credential%20Stuffing%29" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share"></a></div></div><p class="syndicated-attribution">*** This is a Security Bloggers Network syndicated blog from <a href="https://mojoauth.com/blog">MojoAuth Blog - Passwordless Authentication &amp;amp; Identity Solutions</a> authored by <a href="https://securityboulevard.com/author/0/" title="Read other posts by MojoAuth Blog - Passwordless Authentication &amp; Identity Solutions">MojoAuth Blog - Passwordless Authentication &amp; Identity Solutions</a>. Read the original post at: <a href="https://mojoauth.com/blog/9-identity-based-threats-redefining-cybersecurity-beyond-credential-stuffing">https://mojoauth.com/blog/9-identity-based-threats-redefining-cybersecurity-beyond-credential-stuffing</a> </p>

Cyber patrols, AI risk studies planned for schools, minister says

  • hurriyetdailynews.com
  • Published date: 2026-04-24 11:50:23

Education Minister Yusuf Tekin on April 24 announced the details of a comprehensive seven-tier school security reform following recent attacks, introducing an artificial intelligence–driven system designed to detect risks early and cyber patrols.

ANKARA Education Minister Yusuf Tekin on April 24 announced the details of a comprehensive seven-tier schoolsecurity reform following recent attacks, introducing an artificial intelligencedriven sys… [+1964 chars]

Seven new justice divisions formed with cold case unit revisiting 20 years of crime

  • hurriyetdailynews.com
  • Published date: 2026-04-24 09:24:32

The Justice Ministry has established seven new specialized departments, including a unit dedicated to investigating unsolved crimes, in a move aimed at strengthening institutional capacity and restoring public confidence in the judiciary.

ANKARA The Justice Ministry has established seven new specialized departments, including a unit dedicated to investigating unsolved crimes, in a move aimed at strengthening institutional capacity an… [+2349 chars]