❌

Visualização normal

Antes de ontemCyber Threat Intel

IR trends Q3 2026: Actors impersonate IT help desks in vishing attacks as ransomware activity increases

29 de Outubro de 2026, 11:00
IR trends Q3 2026: Actors impersonate IT help desks in vishing attacks as ransomware activity increases

Phishing remained the leading initial access technique, appearing in slightly over one-third of all Cisco Talos Incident Response (Talos IR) engagements — a decrease from over 50 percent last quarter. In addition to traditional phishing links and attachments, we observed numerous threat actors conducting voice phishing (vishing) in tandem with IT desk impersonation to socially engineer the victim into allowing remote access via a legitimate remote monitoring and management (RMM) tool. Exploitation of public-facing applications was the next most common vector, accounting for one-third of Talos IR engagements. Threat actors predominantly targeted edge devices such as security gateways and remote network management interfaces. These are critical components within enterprise environments, often responsible for managing authentication, network traffic, or sensitive data. Compromising them can provide broad access to internal networks or user credentials. 

Ransomware and pre-ransomware incidents made up 27 percent of engagements in Q3 2026, an increase from a maximum of 20 percent seen in the previous four quarters. Talos responded to attacks involving prolific, technologically advanced, and well-established ransomware-as-a-service (RaaS) variants such as The Gentlemen, Qilin, and Rhysida, as well as Interlock, which operates as a closed group. Threat actors predominantly chose to disable endpoint detection and response (EDR) systems, often by exploiting vulnerable drivers or using Windows Defender Application Control (WDAC). Additionally, we observed the emerging ransomware variant VYPR, whose operator(s) tested a range of tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) instead of following a standard attack method or affiliate playbook.

Talos experts discuss some of the biggest trends from the quarter in this video

Sophisticated threat actors exploit public-facing application vulnerabilities for cyber espionage 

Talos IR continues to see prolonged cyber espionage intrusions targeting the telecommunications sector. Talos attributed most of these intrusions with high confidence to sophisticated threat actors involved in targeted attacks. The attackers in these intrusions routinely gain initial access by leveraging valid credentials and exploiting a known vulnerability (CVE-2023-20198) in publicly accessible web-based management interfaces—two of the most frequently observed initial access vectors this quarter. In one campaign, the threat actor deployed BadCandy, a malicious web shell implant known to be leveraged by Salt Typhoon, to maintain persistent and stealthy remote access. 

The adversaries continue to employ living-off-the-land (LOTL) tactics, leveraging legitimate network infrastructure features — such as VPN access, traffic mirroring, and management protocols — to establish backdoors, exfiltrate data, and conduct reconnaissance. Exploiting a vulnerability in the web-based management interface, they created privileged accounts, disabled logging to conceal their activity, and altered configurations to maintain persistence, blending their actions with normal administrative operations to evade detection.   

These intrusions revealed several security weaknesses in the victim environment, including reliance on password-only authentication without evidence of multi-factor authentication (MFA), use of legacy and weak management protocols (such as plaintext SNMP and outdated VPN encryption), and inadequate credential management practices. Attackers were able to create and abuse privileged accounts, disable logging, and manipulate configuration settings without encountering effective security barriers, enabling persistent and stealthy access. The absence of strong MFA and robust credential management are two of the most frequently observed security weaknesses this quarter. 

AI exploited as a weapon and a target 

Recent Talos IR investigations highlight the growing role of artificial intelligence (AI) in cybercriminal activity, both as a tool and a target. In one case, an internal threat actor who was hired under false credentials abused their privileged access to install AI-powered development tools, such as GitHub Copilot CLI and Anthropic Claude Code. While the investigation did not find evidence of malicious activity or data theft, the employee’s developer-level access — including cloning repositories, configuring plugins, and connecting to databases — could have enabled them to use AI tools to automate malicious actions within the organization. 

A second investigation revealed an attack chain in which a compromised macOS endpoint, infected via a trojanized application, was scripted to scrape credentials from the macOS keychain specifically associated with the Anthropic Claude Code AI assistant. This direct targeting of AI-related secrets highlights an emerging threat, where attackers seek to compromise not only traditional user and system credentials but also those tied to AI platforms, which may grant access to additional sensitive data and advanced automation capabilities.  

These incidents highlight the critical need for organizations to implement strong MFA and robust credential management practices, especially for AI platforms and development tools. 

Ransomware trends 

Ransomware and pre-ransomware incidents increased from a little over 20 percent last quarter to 27 percent in Q3, involving well-known threat groups like Interlock and the emerging ransomware VYPR. Frequently observed techniques involved deleting EDR systems and socially engineering victims into initiating remote management sessions.

Emerging ransomware variant: VYPR 

During a Talos IR engagement, we observed a ransomware variant called “VYPR” that we assess is relatively new and still operationally immature. This assessment is supported by the absence of an established data leak site (DLS), as none was referenced in the ransom note and associated DLS infrastructure was not created until after the engagement. The group also appeared to rely on older leaked Conti-derived source code with only minimal modifications, reflecting a relatively unsophisticated technical approach. Their operations further suggested experimentation rather than a refined playbook, as they took an unusually long time to exfiltrate and encrypt data while testing different exfiltration parameters and deploying multiple vulnerable drivers to disable EDR protections.  

The actor gained initial access through voice phishing (vishing); they tricked a user into initiating a Microsoft Quick Assist session, allowing remote access to the endpoint. While the exact social engineering technique was not confirmed in this case, threat actors frequently impersonate IT help desks during vishing calls to manipulate victims into establishing remote connections — a tactic observed in several other Q3 engagements.  

The actor was then able to utilize existing RMM software, which subsequently executed PowerShell commands to download and install a Microsoft Software Installer (MSI) package from a remote IP address. During the attack, the actor leveraged tools that are commonly observed during ransomware investigations, including MeshAgent, Rclone, PsExec, IP scan, and Microsoft Terminal Services Client (MSTSC). Notably, we saw exfiltration over multiple days, which is not commonly observed during ransomware investigations.   

EDR killers: Why evade detection when you can destroy it?  

We observed several instances where ransomware operators disabled EDR systems, prioritizing direct disruption of security controls. We observed Interlock ransomware actors making multiple attempts to impair endpoint detection EDR capabilities by trying to uninstall Cisco Secure Endpoint (CSE) on compromised systems and used tools such as PsExec.exe and taskkill.exe to terminate security services and integrity checkers, including cscm.exe and sfc.exe. Additionally, the adversary disabled Windows Defender real-time protection and cleared various event logs to reduce visibility and hinder forensic analysis. This is in line with previously observed Interlock activity, where they deployed a malicious WDAC policy to terminate EDR solutions. 

In the previously mentioned VYPR ransomware incident, the threat actor disabled EDR and antivirus (AV) by using Bring Your Own Vulnerable Driver (BYOVD) techniques to evade detection and execute the ransomware. BYOVD attacks take advantage of trusted but flawed drivers to gain kernel-level access, enabling threat actors to disable EDR mechanisms and carry out their operations unimpeded. While this technique is commonly observed in ransomware attacks, this actor deployed an unusually large number of vulnerable drivers in the environment, possibly to create redundancies and maximize their chances of success. 

Targeting 

Targeting of the financial industry increased from last quarter to comprise 18 percent of all engagements, tying with public administration as the most targeted sector. Although the financial industry remains a valuable target, Talos has not ranked it among the top three most impacted sectors since 2024. One possible reason is that organizations in finance can typically invest more in cybersecurity, unlike sectors such as public administration, which has consistently been among the top-targeted industries over the past year. Meanwhile, health care fell to third place after ranking as the most targeted industry for the previous two consecutive quarters.

IR trends Q3 2026: Actors impersonate IT help desks in vishing attacks as ransomware activity increases

Initial access 

While the number of engagements involving phishing as an initial access vector declined from last quarter, it remained the most common technique, appearing in 37 percent of Talos IR engagements. Exploitation of public-facing applications was the second most common initial access vector, accounting for 33 percent of engagements.

IR trends Q3 2026: Actors impersonate IT help desks in vishing attacks as ransomware activity increases

Recommendations for addressing top security weaknesses 

The most common security weaknesses observed this quarter were insufficient logging, improper credential and secret management, and absent or improperly implemented authentication and MFA. These trends closely mirror last quarter, when insufficient logging and authentication weaknesses were also prevalent.

IR trends Q3 2026: Actors impersonate IT help desks in vishing attacks as ransomware activity increases

Centralize logging and set retention requirements 

The leading security weakness was insufficient logging leading to visibility gaps, seen in over 40 percent of engagements this quarter. These gaps were in part due to the common threat actor practice of deleting logs, and in part due to insufficient log retention or configuration implemented by the customer. Talos IR recommends implementing a SIEM or centralized logging platform with a minimum of 90 days of retention, forwarding logs from servers, workstations, network infrastructure, cloud identity providers, and security appliances off-device so they survive log tampering and host rebuilds, and enabling process-creation, command-line, and cloud API (e.g., Microsoft Graph) auditing. Talos IR's Log Architecture Assessment service can identify gaps and provide a roadmap to a complete view of the environment. 

Tighten authentication and MFA controls 

Missing or insufficient authentication and MFA controls were the third most common security weakness this quarter, observed in 33 percent of engagements. The most prevalent issue was reliance on single-factor authentication, which allowed unauthorized access in several incidents. In many cases, legacy authentication protocols were still enabled, enabling adversaries to log in without any MFA requirements, and some environments failed to enforce MFA for high-privilege accounts. To reduce this risk, Talos IR recommends transitioning from push- and SMS-based MFA to phishing-resistant methods such as FIDO2/WebAuthn and hardware security keys. Organizations should also restrict self-service MFA enrollment by requiring helpdesk verification, block legacy authentication through Conditional Access, enforce number matching or verified push where phishing-resistant methods are not yet feasible, and condition access on device compliance and trusted infrastructure rather than geographic location alone.    

Safeguard credentials and secrets 

Improper credential and secret management was the second most common security weakness seen in 33 percent of engagements this quarter, reinforcing the importance of security awareness training and consistent security hygiene for every user. Observed security issues included unsafe storage and handling of credentials, such as saving passwords in browser stores, poor control mechanisms like permitting autofill for browser-stored credentials, and credential reuse and sharing. Effective secret management begins with a formal process that covers passwords, API keys, tokens, certificates, and other sensitive credentials. By requiring unique passwords for every account and encouraging the use of password managers, organizations reduce the risks associated with credential reuse and sharing. Storing secrets securely, with encryption and access restricted to only those who need them, further strengthens protection. When credentials are no longer necessary or are suspected to be compromised, they should be promptly revoked and replaced. Regular reviews of access to privileged credentials, combined with thorough logging, help detect unusual activity. Equipping staff with training on safe handling and clear reporting procedures ensures that accidental disclosures are addressed quickly and effectively.

IR trends Q3 2026: Actors impersonate IT help desks in vishing attacks as ransomware activity increases

Tales from the Frontlines: An exclusive briefing on Q3 incidents

On November 12, Talos incident responders will be hosting an exclusive, unrecorded 30-minute webinar to review the most high-impact incidents our customers faced in Q3. Designed for security professionals of all levels, this is a candid discussion of what happened, how we handled it, and what it means for your organization.

Registration is required to attend. Don't miss this chance to hear real-world stories from the frontlines of cyber defense, directly from the team who lived them.

MITRE ATT&CK appendix 

The table below represents MITRE ATT&CK techniques and tools observed in this quarter’s IR engagements, including relevant examples. Given that some techniques can fall under multiple tactics, we grouped them under the most relevant tactic based on the way they were leveraged. Please note that this is not an exhaustive list.

Key findings from the MITRE ATT&CK framework include:

  • The rise of phishing and the frequent use of valid accounts for initial access and lateral movement both highlight how attackers continue to rely on methods that have remained consistently effective year over year.
  • Attacker success consistently reflects basic weaknesses in enterprise security posture, with persistent exploitation of known vulnerabilities — especially in internet-facing applications — demonstrating that adversaries continually scan for and opportunistically target unpatched systems.
  • The most used techniques to maintain persistence were deploying web shells and creating scheduled tasks, demonstrating that attackers prioritize stealthy, reliable access by leveraging legitimate system components that blend in with normal operations. These techniques enable threat actors to maintain long-term control and quickly re-establish their presence even if some signs of compromise are removed.

Tactic 

Technique 

Example 

Initial Access (TA0001) 

T1190 Exploit Public-Facing Application 

Adversaries may exploit vulnerabilities in public-facing applications to gain unauthorized access to a network. 

 

T1566 Phishing (link, attachment, voice, service) 

Adversaries may rely on users clicking a malicious link or opening a malicious attachment to gain initial access, often using social engineering to increase success. 

 

T1078 Valid Accounts (Local, Domain, Cloud, SSH) 

Adversaries may obtain and abuse credentials of existing accounts to access systems within the network and execute their payload. 

 

T1133 External Remote Services 

Adversaries may leverage remote services such as VPN or RDP to gain entry into an environment using legitimate access mechanisms. 

Execution (TA0002) 

T1059 Command and Scripting Interpreter (PowerShell, Windows/Unix Shell, JavaScript, Python) 

Adversaries may use built-in scripting interpreters like PowerShell or bash to execute malicious code on victim systems. 

 

T1610 Deploy Container 

Adversaries may deploy malicious containers in cloud or on-premises environments to establish execution. 

Persistence (TA0003) 

T1505.003 Server Software Component: Web Shell 

Adversaries may install web shells on compromised servers to maintain persistent access via HTTP/S. 

 

T1543 Create or Modify System Process (Windows Service, Scheduled Task) 

Adversaries may create or modify system processes, such as scheduled tasks or services, to maintain persistence after initial compromise. 

 

T1136.001 Create Account: Local Account 

Adversaries may create new local accounts to establish persistence or elevate privileges within the environment. 

Defense Evasion (TA0005) 

T1036 Masquerading 

Adversaries may disguise malicious files or processes as legitimate system components to avoid detection. 

 

T1562.001 Impair Defenses: Disable/Modify Security Tools 

Adversaries may disable or modify security software and tools to avoid detection and facilitate continued operations. 

 

T1070 Indicator Removal (File Deletion, Clear Event Logs) 

Adversaries may remove or alter evidence of their activity by deleting files or clearing logs on compromised systems. 

 

T1027 Obfuscated Files or Information 

Adversaries may obfuscate files and information to prevent security tools from identifying malicious activity. 

 

T1218.011 System Binary Proxy Execution: Rundll32 

Adversaries may use legitimate system binaries such as rundll32 to proxy execution of malicious code. 

 

T1222 File and Directory Permissions Modification 

Adversaries may modify file or directory permissions to conceal their presence or maintain access. 

 

T1055 Process Injection 

Adversaries may inject malicious code into the address space of legitimate processes to evade detection. 

 

T1550 Use Alternate Authentication Material 

Adversaries may use alternate authentication material, such as SSH keys, to access accounts without using passwords. 

Discovery (TA0007) 

T1018 Remote System Discovery 

Adversaries may enumerate remote systems on a network to identify targets for lateral movement or data collection. 

 

T1082 System Information Discovery 

Adversaries may collect detailed information about the operating system and hardware to inform later actions. 

 

T1087 Account Discovery (Domain Account) 

Adversaries may query for user and group information to identify accounts of interest in the environment. 

 

T1046 Network Service Discovery 

Adversaries may scan for open ports and network services to identify potential entry points or targets. 

 

T1518.001 Security Software Discovery 

Adversaries may search for installed security software to tailor evasion techniques accordingly. 

 

T1016 System Network Configuration Discovery 

Adversaries may gather network configuration details to better understand the environment and plan next steps. 

Command and Control (TA0011) 

T1105 Ingress Tool Transfer 

Adversaries may transfer tools or payloads into an environment to facilitate further operations. 

 

T1071 Application Layer Protocol (Web, DNS) 

Adversaries may use common web or DNS protocols for command and control to blend in with normal network traffic. 

 

T1219 Remote Access Software 

Adversaries may use legitimate remote access software to maintain control over compromised systems. 

 

T1572 Protocol Tunneling 

Adversaries may tunnel command and control traffic through allowed protocols to bypass network defenses. 

 

T1090 Proxy 

Adversaries may route communications through proxy servers to obscure their origin and evade detection. 

Lateral Movement (TA0008) 

T1021.002 SMB/Windows Admin Shares 

Adversaries may use SMB and admin shares to move laterally between systems within the network. 

 

T1021.004 SSH 

Adversaries may use SSH with stolen credentials or keys to move laterally across systems. 

 

T1570 Lateral Tool Transfer 

Adversaries may transfer tools or files between systems to enable further compromise. 

 

T1047 Windows Management Instrumentation 

Adversaries may leverage WMI to execute code or commands remotely on Windows systems. 

Privilege Escalation (TA0004) 

T1098 Account Manipulation (Additional Cloud Roles) 

Adversaries may modify account permissions or roles to escalate privileges within cloud environments. 

Collection (TA0009) 

T1005 Data from Local System 

Adversaries may collect files and sensitive data from local systems for later exfiltration. 

 

T1039 Data from Network Shared Drive 

Adversaries may look for folders and drives shared on remote systems as a means of identifying sources of information to gather. 

 

T1560.001 Archive Collected Data via Utility 

Adversaries may compress or archive collected data to facilitate exfiltration. 

Credential Access (TA0006) 

T1110.003 Brute Force: Password Spraying 

Adversaries may attempt to gain access by systematically trying commonly used passwords against many accounts. 

 

T1556 Modify Authentication Process 

Adversaries may modify authentication processes to facilitate unauthorized access. 

 

T1649 Steal or Forge Authentication Certificates 

Adversaries may steal or forge authentication certificates to bypass authentication controls. 

 

T1558 Steal or Forge Kerberos Tickets 

Adversaries may forge or steal Kerberos tickets to access resources within the network. 

 

T1557 Adversary-in-the-Middle 

Adversaries may intercept communications to capture credentials in transit. 

Exfiltration (TA0010) 

T1567.002 Exfiltration to Cloud Storage 

Adversaries may exfiltrate collected data to cloud storage services outside the target network. 

 

T1041 Exfiltration Over C2 Channel 

Adversaries may transfer stolen data over established command and control channels. 

 

T1048 Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol 

Adversaries may exfiltrate data using alternative network protocols such as FTP or SFTP. 

Impact (TA0040) 

T1486 Data Encrypted for Impact 

Adversaries may encrypt files or entire systems to disrupt normal operations and demand ransom. 

 

T1490 Inhibit System Recovery 

Adversaries may delete backups or shadow copies to prevent recovery and maximize impact. 

Reconnaissance (TA0043) 

T1595.002 Active Scanning: Vulnerability Scanning 

Adversaries may actively scan for vulnerable systems and services as part of their reconnaissance. 

 

T1589.001 Gather Victim Identity Information: Credentials 

Adversaries may collect credential information from public sources to inform later attacks. 

Resource Development (TA0042) 

T1583 Acquire Infrastructure 

Adversaries may acquire infrastructure, such as servers or domains, to support their operations. 

 

T1584 Compromise Infrastructure 

Adversaries may compromise third-party infrastructure to use as a launch point for further activities. 

Software/Tool 

GoGRPC RAT 

Adversaries may deploy GoGRPC RAT, commonly observed as fly.exe, to remotely control compromised systems and execute commands via the GoGRPC protocol, enabling stealthy management and data collection. 

 

Node RAT 

Adversaries may leverage Node.js-based remote access tools to establish persistence, execute arbitrary code, and facilitate command and control through JavaScript runtimes on victim machines. 

 

BadCandy 

Adversaries may use BadCandy, a remote access trojan, to gain persistent remote control, exfiltrate data, and monitor victim activities, often leveraging encrypted communications to evade detection. 

 

Overlord RAT 

Adversaries may utilize Overlord RAT to remotely administer compromised hosts, execute commands, and transfer files, often blending C2 traffic with legitimate protocols to avoid network monitoring. 

 

SideSlipRAT 

Adversaries may deploy SideSlipRAT to maintain ongoing access to victim systems, execute malicious payloads, and collect sensitive information while using various evasion techniques to bypass defenses. 

 

Impacket SMBexec 

Adversaries may use Impacket’s SMBexec tool to execute commands remotely over SMB, allowing lateral movement and post-exploitation activities within Windows environments by leveraging valid credentials. 

Top 5 Initial Access Threat Vectors Observed by Unit 42 in September 2026

16 de Outubro de 2026, 14:47

Unit 42 details the top initial access vectors adversaries use to breach organizations, led by edge exploits, credential abuse and phishing

The post Top 5 Initial Access Threat Vectors Observed by Unit 42 in September 2026 appeared first on Unit 42.

  • ✇Cisco Talos Blog
  • IR Trends Q2 2026: Phishing and weaponized remote management tools drive attack chains Lexi DiScola
    Phishing was the primary means of gaining initial access this quarter, appearing in over half of all Cisco Talos Incident Response (Talos IR) engagements – an increase from approximately a third of engagements last quarter. Attackers continued to innovate their delivery methods to evade defenses, deploying QR code-embedded PDFs to bypass traditional email gateways and hosting links on trusted cloud platforms. We also saw a spike in authentication abuse this quarter — observed in 65 percent of en
     

IR Trends Q2 2026: Phishing and weaponized remote management tools drive attack chains

28 de Julho de 2026, 07:00
IR Trends Q2 2026: Phishing and weaponized remote management tools drive attack chains

Phishing was the primary means of gaining initial access this quarter, appearing in over half of all Cisco Talos Incident Response (Talos IR) engagements – an increase from approximately a third of engagements last quarter. Attackers continued to innovate their delivery methods to evade defenses, deploying QR code-embedded PDFs to bypass traditional email gateways and hosting links on trusted cloud platforms. We also saw a spike in authentication abuse this quarter — observed in 65 percent of engagements compared to 35 percent last quarter — with attackers frequently bypassing or defeating multi-factor authentication (MFA) using adversary-in-the-middle (AitM) proxies, session-token theft, MFA fatigue attacks, and self-enrolled devices, amongst other methods.  

Ransomware incidents made up over 20 percent of engagements this quarter, similar to just under 20 percent last quarter. Talos IR responded to Sinobi ransomware for the first time, as well as previously seen variants Nitrogen and Warlock. We observed ransomware operators leveraging legitimate remote monitoring and management (RMM) tools, such as trojanized MeshAgent binary and Zoho Assist, for stealthy access, requiring defenders to prioritize behavior-based monitoring and strict control over administrative binaries.

In the latest Talos Threat Perspective episode, we explore these trends, and highlight where defenders have the best opportunities to detect attackers:

QR phishing campaign leverages trusted infrastructure to target Australian organizations     

Starting in April, we observed a persistent QR code phishing campaign targeting primarily Australian organizations that leverages compromised Microsoft 365 accounts to harvest credentials and propagate the attack via internal contact lists. The campaign, which remained ongoing as of late June 2026, employs auto-generated, victim-tailored PDF documents containing QR codes that direct to adversary-controlled M365 credential harvesting pages. If credentials are successfully captured, the adversary attempts access to the victim’s Microsoft account and conducts various post-compromise actions including creating email inbox rules for defense evasion, leveraging SharePoint to host malicious documents, and sending additional internal and external phishing emails to continue the compromise chain. 

We assess with high confidence that the threat actor, who we have dubbed UAT-11764, will almost certainly continue leveraging this QR code phishing operation, using each newly compromised mailbox's contact lists to expand its reach and sustain the campaign's momentum. By weaponizing existing, trusted infrastructure like SharePoint and M365, UAT-11764 can bypass many standard email security gateways. As such, network defenders should implement policies that block or flag emails containing QR codes within PDF attachments, enforce phishing-resistant MFA on M365 accounts, and monitor for suspicious inbox rule creation and anomalous SharePoint file staging as indicators of post-compromise activity. 

ARToken platform provides toolkit for Microsoft 365 account compromise 

Talos uncovered a phishing-as-a-service (PhaaS) operator platform, ARToken, in an engagement this quarter that is closely linked to the EvilTokens platform. According to our analysis, the ARToken panel exposes 80+ API endpoints for device code phishing, primary refresh token (PRT) persistence, email access, business email compromise (BEC) operations, and SharePoint exfiltration — all accessible to operators through a React-based dashboard. Our investigation into the platform found phishing lures that impersonate trusted vendors and abuse legitimate Microsoft services, allowing attackers to bypass MFA through the OAuth device authorization flow rather than stealing passwords. 

ARToken extends beyond a typical phishing kit by providing affiliates with a comprehensive post-compromise toolkit. We observed capabilities including automated token management, persistent access through PRTs, OneDrive and SharePoint administration, geo-dynamic templates, inbox rule manipulation, cross-account keyword monitoring, and collaborative token sharing. We also identified advanced anti-analysis techniques, including layered evasion mechanisms and encrypted client-side payloads, highlighting the increasing sophistication of modern PhaaS platforms and reinforcing the need for organizations to monitor device code authentication, enforce Conditional Access policies, and strengthen defenses against token-based attacks.  

Ransomware trends 

Ransomware and pre-ransomware incidents made up over 20 percent of engagements this quarter, relatively similar to just under 20 percent last quarter. As previously mentioned, Talos IR responded to Sinobi ransomware for the first time, as well as previously seen variants Nitrogen and Warlock. We observed operators from these groups leveraging tools not previously identified in public reporting, including a trojanized MeshAgent binary and Zoho Assist for remote access.

Sinobi ransomware operators weaponize MeshAgent for covert backdoor access

We responded to a Sinobi ransomware engagement for the first time in April; while this ransomware-as-a-service (RaaS) operation emerged nearly a year ago, there has been minimal public reporting on the actors’ operations.  

Notably, we observed the threat actors use a trojanized MeshAgent binary as their primary C2 mechanism during this engagement, a tactic that has not been previously associated with the group in public reporting. MeshAgent is the open-source agent component of the MeshCentral remote management platform. Here, the actor weaponized it into a covert durable backdoor installed as a SYSTEM-level auto-start service, communicating over encrypted WebSocket (WSS) to an attacker-controlled server. This approach allowed the actor to blend malicious traffic with legitimate remote management activity and maintain undetected access for approximately three days before ransomware deployment. 

Following C2 establishment, the actor moved laterally through the network using RDP and WinRM, leveraging a service account with a weak, easily cracked password obtained from the domain credential store, ntds.dit. The actor ultimately deployed the ransomware across the entire domain using a malicious Group Policy Object (GPO) logon script. The incident resulted in the encryption of systems with the .SINOBI file extension, alongside observed data exfiltration staging activity conducted via rclone.exe.

IR Trends Q2 2026: Phishing and weaponized remote management tools drive attack chains

Looking forward, Sinobi operators will likely continue weaponizing legitimate tools like MeshAgent because these binaries blend into standard administrative traffic and bypass many traditional signature-based alerts. The use of GPO-based deployment scripts suggests an understanding of enterprise architecture, and operators will likely continue to exploit centralized management features to ensure rapid, domain-wide encryption. Defenders should prioritize monitoring of administrative tools and implement strict application allowlisting to prevent unauthorized binaries from running as services. Further, proactive hunting for unauthorized MeshAgent instances and auditing service account permissions may help in identifying and disrupting Sinobi activity before encryption. 

Warlock actors deploy Zoho Assist to attempt remote access without active user sessions

In one engagement, we observed Warlock ransomware operators (also known as Storm-2603) deploying an installer for the RMM tool Zoho Assist Unattended Agent, which is designed to allow administrative remote control of an endpoint without a user logged in. The tool, which we have not previously seen attributed to Warlock, enables the attackers to maintain persistent, stealthy, and unrestricted control, significantly increasing the potential malicious impact of an incident.  

While the activity in this particular did not lead to encryption, it was consistent with a successful Warlock ransomware attack Talos observed in May. To counter this threat, organizations must shift from signature-based detection to behavior-based monitoring, focusing on the specific tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) utilized by Storm-2603, such as the abuse of legitimate administrative tools and rapid movement within the network.

Targeting 

For the second quarter in a row, health care led as the most targeted industry vertical accounting for 17 percent of all engagements, with public administration and manufacturing following at 14 percent each. A shared characteristic of these top-targeted sectors is a critical lack of downtime tolerance. The vast majority of targeted health care organizations were entities that directly support clinical operations and/or diagnostic services, where service interruption can result in operational and patient-care consequences. Almost all targeted public administration organizations were local governments, which provide essential public services, while the targeted manufacturing entities represented high-value targets within the industrial supply chain, where potential disruptions could create cascading effects across the downstream technology and energy sectors.

IR Trends Q2 2026: Phishing and weaponized remote management tools drive attack chains

Initial access 

As mentioned, phishing was the top means of gaining initial access this quarter, accounting for over half of engagements where initial access could be determined — an increase from 35 percent last quarter. Many phishing engagements included MFA-bypass techniques, such as OAuth device-code phishing and AiTM frameworks, allowing adversaries to intercept session tokens. Other observed means of achieving initial access included exploitation of public-facing applications and drive-by compromise.

IR Trends Q2 2026: Phishing and weaponized remote management tools drive attack chains

Recommendations for addressing top security weaknesses

IR Trends Q2 2026: Phishing and weaponized remote management tools drive attack chains

Implement properly configured, phishing-resistant MFA and tighten authentication controls 

Authentication abuse was the most prevalent security weakness this quarter, observed in 65 percent of engagements — up sharply from 35 percent last quarter. Adversaries consistently defeated or bypassed MFA using AitM proxies and session-token theft, MFA fatigue attacks, registration of attacker-controlled devices for authentication, and legacy authentication protocols that circumvent MFA altogether. To reduce this risk, Talos IR recommends transitioning from push- and SMS-based MFA to phishing-resistant methods such as FIDO2/WebAuthn and hardware security keys. Organizations should also restrict self-service MFA enrollment by requiring helpdesk verification, block legacy authentication through Conditional Access, enforce number matching or verified push where phishing-resistant methods are not yet feasible, and condition access on device compliance and trusted infrastructure rather than geographic location alone.   

Configure centralized logging with adequate retention across the environment 

Insufficient logging and visibility was the second most common weakness, observed in 42 percent of engagements compared to 18 percent last quarter. Deficiencies included domain controller security logs retained for only a few hours, host event logs truncated or overwritten before capture, absent NetFlow that prevented reconstruction of external authentication and exfiltration, on-device-only logs that adversaries deleted to evade detection, and short cloud-telemetry retention that did not extend back to the true initial-access date. In several engagements these gaps prevented definitive determination of the initial access vector or the scope of data exfiltration. Talos IR recommends implementing a SIEM or centralized logging platform with a minimum of 90 days of retention, forwarding logs from servers, workstations, network infrastructure, cloud identity providers, and security appliances off-device so they survive log tampering and host rebuilds, and enabling process-creation, command-line, and cloud API (e.g., Microsoft Graph) auditing. Talos IR's Log Architecture Assessment service can identify gaps and provide a roadmap to a complete view of the environment. 

Conduct robust patch management and reduce exposed infrastructure 

Vulnerable, exposed, or unpatched internet-facing infrastructure was the third most common weakness, observed in 31 percent of engagements, similar to last quarter’s 25 percent.  A variety of different vulnerabilities were targeted including ToolShell, an older Telerik UI deserialization flaw, and SD-WAN and perimeter-VPN appliance CVEs. Internet-exposed services were also subjected to SQL-injection and denial-of-service activity. Talos IR recommends identifying and prioritizing the patching or decommissioning of all end-of-life and externally exposed systems, isolating systems that cannot be immediately upgraded, restricting management plane and remote access services behind a VPN or trusted source, deploying a Web Application Firewall (WAF) with rules for known exploitation patterns, and establishing a vulnerability management process capable of rapidly identifying and patching exposed assets — particularly given the accelerating reduction in time between vulnerability disclosure and exploitation. 

Enforce strict outbound email thresholds to disrupt attack propagation 

Finally, unlimited outbound email thresholds were a notable security weakness this quarter, enabling threat actors to propagate malicious activity in almost 15 percent of engagements. Though not as prevalent as the above weaknesses, it was more frequently observed than in previous quarters and warrants mention. For example, in one engagement, a user clicked on a malicious phishing email that led to credential theft and account compromise. Shortly after the threat actors gained access to the user’s mailbox, they sent over 6,600 phishing and spam emails to continue the attack chain. The failure to contain the compromise via outbound rate limiting significantly amplifies the damage of a single compromised credential; implementing these controls is a low-effort, high-impact mitigation strategy that effectively disrupts the attack chain. 

Top-observed MITRE ATT&CK techniques  

The table below represents the MITRE ATT&CK techniques observed in this quarter’s Talos IR engagement. Given that some techniques can fall under multiple tactics, we grouped them under the most relevant tactic in which they were leveraged. Please note this is not an exhaustive list.  

Key findings from the MITRE ATT&CK framework include:  

  • Consistent with phishing being a top threat this quarter, email hiding rules was the most observed tactic for persistence while internal spearphishing was most seen for lateral movement. 
  • Use of valid accounts was frequently observed for both privilege escalation and persistence, highlighting how identity abuse remains a key theme across engagements.  
  • Actors also relied on legitimate tools and web protocols to challenge detection, abusing native email features and cloud APIs, relying on standard web protocols for C2, and using valid administrative credentials for RDP and SSH.

Tactic  

Technique  

Example  

Reconnaissance (TA0043) 

T1598 Phishing for Information 

Adversaries may send phishing messages to elicit sensitive information that can be used during targeting. Phishing for information is an attempt to trick targets into divulging information, frequently credentials or other actionable information. 

 

T1595 Active Scanning 

Adversaries may execute active reconnaissance scans to gather information that can be used during targeting. 

 

T1593 Search Open Websites/Domains 

Adversaries may search open websites and domains to gather information about a victim that can be used during targeting. 

 

T1589 Gather Victim Identity Information 

Adversaries may gather information about the victim's identity that can be used during targeting. 

Initial Access (TA0001) 

T1566 Phishing 

Adversaries may send phishing messages to gain access to victim systems. 

 

T1190 Exploit Public-Facing Application 

Adversaries may exploit a vulnerability to gain access to a target system. 

 

 T1078 Valid Accounts 

Adversaries may use compromised credentials to access valid accounts during their attack. 

Execution (TA0002)  

T1204.001 User Execution: Malicious Link 

An adversary may rely upon a user clicking a malicious link in order to gain execution. Users may be subjected to social engineering to get them to click on a link that will lead to code execution. 

 

T1078 Valid Accounts   

Adversaries may obtain and abuse credentials of existing accounts to access systems within the network and execute their payload. 

Persistence (TA0003) 

T1564.008 Hide Artifacts: Email Hiding Rules 

Adversaries may use email rules to hide inbound emails in a compromised user's mailbox. Many email clients allow users to create inbox rules for various email functions, including moving emails to other folders, marking emails as read, or deleting emails. 

 

T1663 Remote Access Software 

Adversaries may use legitimate remote access software, such as VNC, TeamViewer, AirDroid, AirMirror, etc., to establish an interactive command and control channel to target mobile devices. 

 

T1053 Scheduled Task/Job   

Adversaries may abuse task scheduling functionality to facilitate initial or recurring execution of malicious code. 

 

T1133 External Remote Services 

Adversaries may leverage external-facing remote services to initially access and/or persist within a network. Remote services such as VPNs, Citrix, and other access mechanisms allow users to connect to internal enterprise network resources from external locations. 

 

T1078 Valid Accounts 

The adversary may compromise a valid account to move through the network to additional systems. 

Defense Impairment (TA0112)  

T1687 Exploitation for Defense Impairment 

Adversaries may exploit vulnerabilities in security software, infrastructure, or defensive components to degrade, disable, or otherwise continue to impair their ability to prevent, detect, or respond to malicious activity. 

 

T1078 Valid Accounts 

Adversaries may obtain and abuse credentials of existing accounts as a means of gaining Initial Access, Persistence, Privilege Escalation, or Defense Evasion. 

 

T1484 Domain or Tenant Policy Modification 

Adversaries may modify the configuration settings of a domain or identity tenant to evade defenses and/or escalate privileges in centrally managed environments. 

Stealth (TA0005) 

T1564.008 Hide Artifacts: Email Hiding Rules 

Adversaries may use email rules to hide inbound or outbound emails in a compromised user's mailbox. 

 

T1070 Indicator Removal   

Adversaries may delete or modify artifacts generated within systems to remove evidence of their presence or hinder defenses. 

Credential Access (TA0006)  

T1111 Multi-Factor Authentication Interception   

Adversaries may target MFA mechanisms, (i.e., smart cards, token generators, etc.) to gain access to credentials that can be used to access systems, services, and network resources. 

 

T1621 Multi-factor Authentication Request Generation 

Adversaries may attempt to bypass MFA mechanisms and gain access to accounts by generating MFA requests sent to users. 

 

T1110.003 Brute Force: Password spraying 

Adversaries may use a single or small list of commonly used passwords against many different accounts to attempt to acquire valid account credentials. 

Discovery (TA0007) 

T1018 Remote System Discovery 

Adversaries may attempt to get a listing of other systems by IP address, hostname, or other logical identifier on a network that may be used for Lateral Movement from the current system. 

 

T1083 File and Directory Discovery   

Adversaries may enumerate files and directories or may search in specific locations of a host or network share for certain information within a file system. 

 

T1087 Account Discovery   

Adversaries may attempt to get a listing of valid accounts, usernames, or email addresses on a system or within a compromised environment. 

 

T1082 System Information Discovery 

An adversary may attempt to get detailed information about the operating system and hardware, including version, patches, hotfixes, service packs, and architecture. 

 

T1526 Cloud Service Discovery 

An adversary may attempt to enumerate the cloud services running on a system after gaining access. 

Lateral Movement (TA0008)  

T1021.001 Remote Services: Remote Desktop Protocol 

Adversaries may use Valid Accounts to log into a computer using the Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP). The adversary may then perform actions as the logged-on user. 

 

T1534 Internal Spearphishing 

After they already have access to accounts or systems within the environment, adversaries may use internal spearphishing to gain access to additional information or compromise other users within the same organization. 

 

T1021.004 Remote Services: SSH 

Adversaries may use Valid Accounts to log into remote machines using SSH. The adversary may then perform actions as the logged-on user. 

Command and Control (TA0011)  

T1219 Remote Access Software 

An adversary may use legitimate remote access tools to establish an interactive command and control channel within a network. 

 

T1071.001 Application Layer Protocol: Web Protocols   

Adversaries may communicate using application layer protocols associated with web traffic to avoid detection/network filtering by blending in with existing traffic. 

 

T1102 Web Service 

Adversaries may use an existing, legitimate external Web service as a means for relaying data to/from a compromised system. 

 

T1572 Protocol Tunneling 

Adversaries may tunnel network communications to and from a victim system within a separate protocol to avoid detection/network filtering and/or enable access to otherwise unreachable systems. 

Exfiltration (TA0010)  

T1567 Exfiltration Over Web Service 

Adversaries may use an existing, legitimate external Web service to exfiltrate data rather than their primary command and control channel. 

 

T1048 Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol 

Adversaries may exfiltrate data over a different protocol than the command and control channel. 

Impact (TA0040)  

T1486 Data Encrypted for Impact 

Adversaries may use ransomware to encrypt data on a target system.   

  • ✇Security Intelligence
  • Cybersecurity trends: IBM’s predictions for 2025 Sue Poremba
    Cybersecurity concerns in 2024 can be summed up in two letters: AI (or five letters if you narrow it down to gen AI). Organizations are still in the early stages of understanding the risks and rewards of this technology. For all the good it can do to improve data protection, keep up with compliance regulations and enable faster threat detection, threat actors are also using AI to accelerate their social engineering attacks and sabotage AI models with malware. AI might have gotten the lion’s sha
     

Cybersecurity trends: IBM’s predictions for 2025

9 de Janeiro de 2025, 11:00

Cybersecurity concerns in 2024 can be summed up in two letters: AI (or five letters if you narrow it down to gen AI). Organizations are still in the early stages of understanding the risks and rewards of this technology. For all the good it can do to improve data protection, keep up with compliance regulations and enable faster threat detection, threat actors are also using AI to accelerate their social engineering attacks and sabotage AI models with malware.

AI might have gotten the lion’s share of attention in 2024, but it wasn’t the only cyber threat organizations had to deal with. Credential theft continues to be problematic, with a 71% year-over-year increase in attacks using compromised credentials. The skills shortage continues, costing companies an additional $1.76 million in a data breach aftermath. And as more companies rely on the cloud, it shouldn’t be surprising that there has been a spike in cloud intrusions.

But there have been positive steps in cybersecurity over the past year. CISA’s Secure by Design program signed on more than 250 software manufacturers to improve their cybersecurity hygiene. CISA also introduced its Cyber Incident Reporting Portal to improve the way organizations share cyber information.

Last year’s cybersecurity predictions focused heavily on AI and its impact on how security teams will operate in the future. This year’s predictions also emphasize AI, showing that cybersecurity may have reached a point where security and AI are interdependent on each other, for both good and bad.

Here are this year’s predictions.

Shadow AI is everywhere (Akiba Saeedi, Vice President, IBM Security Product Management)

Shadow AI will prove to be more common — and risky — than we thought. Businesses have more and more generative AI models deployed across their systems each day, sometimes without their knowledge. In 2025, enterprises will truly see the scope of “shadow AI” – unsanctioned AI models used by staff that aren’t properly governed. Shadow AI presents a major risk to data security, and businesses that successfully confront this issue in 2025 will use a mix of clear governance policies, comprehensive workforce training and diligent detection and response.

Identity’s transformation (Wes Gyure, Executive Director, IBM Security Product Management)

How enterprises think about identity will continue to transform in the wake of hybrid cloud and app modernization initiatives. Recognizing that identity has become the new security perimeter, enterprises will continue their shift to an Identity-First strategy, managing and securing access to applications and critical data, including gen AI models. In 2025, a fundamental component of this strategy is to build an effective identity fabric, a product-agnostic integrated set of identity tools and services. When done right, this will be a welcome relief to security professionals, taming the chaos and risk caused by a proliferation of multicloud environments and scattered identity solutions.

Explore cybersecurity services

Everyone must work together to manage threats (Sam Hector, Global Strategy Leader, IBM Security)

Cybersecurity teams will no longer be able to effectively manage threats in isolation. Threats from generative AI and hybrid cloud adoption are rapidly evolving. Meanwhile, the risk quantum computing poses to modern standards of public-key encryption will become unavoidable. Given the maturation of new quantum-safe cryptography standards, there will be a drive to discover encrypted assets and accelerate the modernization of cryptography management. Next year, successful organizations will be those where executives and diverse teams jointly develop and enforce cybersecurity strategies, embedding security into the organizational culture.

Prepare for post-quantum cryptography standards (Ray Harishankar, IBM Fellow, IBM Quantum Safe)

As organizations begin the transition to post-quantum cryptography over the next year, agility will be crucial to ensure systems are prepared for continued transformation, particularly as the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) continues to expand its toolbox of post-quantum cryptography standards. NIST’s initial post-quantum cryptography standards were a signal to the world that the time is now to start the journey to becoming quantum-safe. But equally important is the need for crypto agility, ensuring that systems can rapidly adapt to new cryptographic mechanisms and algorithms in response to changing threats, technological advances and vulnerabilities. Ideally, automation will streamline and accelerate the process.

Data will become a vital part of AI security (Suja Viswesan, vice president of Security Software Development, IBM)

Data and AI security will become an essential ingredient of trustworthy AI. “Trustworthy AI” is often interpreted as AI that is transparent, fair and privacy-protecting. These are critical characteristics. But if AI and the data powering it aren’t also secure, then all other characteristics are compromised. In 2025, as businesses, governments and individuals interact with AI more often and with higher stakes, data and AI security will be viewed as an even more important part of the trustworthy AI recipe.

Organizations will continue learning the juxtaposition of AI’s benefits and threats (Mark Hughes, Global Managing Partner, Cybersecurity Services, IBM)

As AI matures from proof-of-concept to wide-scale deployment, enterprises reap the benefits of productivity and efficiency gains, including automating security and compliance tasks to protect their data and assets. But organizations need to be aware of AI being used as a new tool or conduit for threat actors to breach long-standing security processes and protocols. Businesses need to adopt security frameworks, best practice recommendations and guardrails for AI and adapt quickly — to address both the benefits and risks associated with rapid AI advancements.

Greater understanding of AI-assisted versus AI-powered threats (Troy Bettencourt, Global Partner and Head of IBM X-Force)

Protect against AI-assisted threats; plan for AI-powered threats. There is a distinction between AI-powered and AI-assisted threats, including how organizations should think about their proactive security posture. AI-powered attacks, like deepfake video scams, have been limited to date; today’s threats remain primarily AI-assisted — meaning AI can help threat actors create variants of existing malware or a better phishing email lure. To address current AI-assisted threats, organizations should prioritize implementing end-to-end security for their own AI solutions, including protecting user interfaces, APIs, language models and machine learning operations, while remaining mindful of strategies to defend against future AI-powered attacks.

There’s a very clear message from these predictions that understanding how AI can help and hurt an organization is vital to ensuring your company and its assets are protected in 2025 and beyond.

The post Cybersecurity trends: IBM’s predictions for 2025 appeared first on Security Intelligence.

  • ✇Security Intelligence
  • 2024 trends: Were they accurate? Jennifer Gregory
    The new year always kicks off with a flood of prediction articles; then, 12 months later, our newsfeed is filled with wrap-up articles. But we are often left to wonder if experts got it right in January about how the year would unfold. As we close out 2024, let’s take a moment to go back and see if the crystal balls were working about how the year would play out in cybersecurity. Here are five trends that were often predicted for 2024. 1. The use of artificial intelligence in cybersecurity will
     

2024 trends: Were they accurate?

23 de Dezembro de 2024, 14:00

The new year always kicks off with a flood of prediction articles; then, 12 months later, our newsfeed is filled with wrap-up articles. But we are often left to wonder if experts got it right in January about how the year would unfold. As we close out 2024, let’s take a moment to go back and see if the crystal balls were working about how the year would play out in cybersecurity.

Here are five trends that were often predicted for 2024.

1. The use of artificial intelligence in cybersecurity will increase

As the year began, there was no doubt that artificial intelligence (AI) would be a main character in the year’s events — and that was right on the money. Many organizations began to use or continue using AI in their cybersecurity operations in a wide range of ways. For example, Microsoft’s internal response teams use a large language model to manage requests and tickets based on how they were handled previously, saving 20 hours per person each week.

As the world turned its attention over the summer to the Paris Olympics, the team responsible for keeping the Paris Olympics data, apps, systems and even physical buildings protected turned to AI. While 140 cyberattacks were linked to the Olympics, the teams’ efforts resulted in no disruption of the competitions.

Throughout the entire life cycle of the games, from before the opening ceremony to after the torch left Paris, cybersecurity teams used AI to secure critical information systems, protect sensitive data and raise awareness within the games’ ecosystem. Additionally, algorithmic video surveillance based in AI scanned video to detect abandoned bags, the presence of weapons, unusual crowd movements and fires.

2. Organizations will see more AI-based threats and attacks

Unfortunately, experts were right about cyber criminals also turning to AI technology to more effectively conduct attacks. Threat actors are using AI in a wide range of ways for data breaches and cyberattacks, including improved reconnaissance, better target profiling and lowering expertise required for conducting an attack. Because AI can automate many processes required for an attack, such as vulnerability scanning, exploitation and data exfiltration processes, more cyber criminals now have the skills for even more damaging attacks.

“Since the release of gen AI, attackers are increasingly employing tools along with large language models to carry out large-scale social engineering attacks, and Gartner predicts that by 2027, 17% of total cyberattacks/data leaks will involve generative AI,” wrote Gartner in an August 2024 press release.

IBM distinguished engineer Jeff Crume has no doubt that the trend of cyber criminals using AI for attacks will continue in 2025. He says that cyber professionals do a better job of authentication because attackers are finding it easier to log in than to hack in. While looking for bad grammar and spelling errors now works to spot phishing attacks, he expects that this will no longer work as AI-based phishing attacks hit mass distribution.

Explore cybersecurity services

3. An increase in deepfakes and deceptions

While experts correctly predicted that deepfakes would become more of a threat in 2024, it’s likely no one expected the scale of arguably the most shocking deepfake story of the year. At the beginning of 2024, attackers created a deepfake video call that led to an employee giving the cyber criminals $25 million, which showed the power and damage that deepfakes can cause. But the World Economic Forum expects that the trend will only increase, even declaring that over the next two years, AI-fueled disinformation will be the number one threat in the world.

Throughout the year, other deepfake incidents made headlines. Quantum AI, an AI company, was suspected by the Securities and Exchange Commission of using AI to generate deepfakes on social media to deceive the public that Elon Musk developed the company’s technology. Even the well-received Paris Olympics were not immune to deepfakes, with Russian Group Storm-1679 suspected of creating AI content to discredit the International Olympic Committee. As the year closed out, German citizens saw an increase in AI-based propaganda regarding the upcoming German elections in 2025, including text, images and video.

4. A growing impact of quantum computing on cybersecurity

Ray Harishankar, IBM Fellow, IBM Quantum Safe, predicted that in 2024, “harvest now, decrypt later” attacks would become more common. As the year moved forward, quantum computing became an increasingly top concern, especially the harvest-now attacks. In July, the Office of Management and Budget released the Report on Post-Quantum Cryptography, which urged organizations to prepare their systems and processes for advancements in quantum computing.

During the fall of 2024, the predictions of the quantum’s impact became even more urgent, as symmetric cryptography would be unsafe by 2029, with even asymmetric cryptography fully breakable by quantum technology by 2034.

“That does not mean, however, that the risks are five years away. The prospect of harvest-now, decrypt-later attacks is already a concern, making the post-quantum cryptography transition an urgent priority,” wrote Gartner.

 5. Recession of ransomware attacks

John Dwyer, former Head of Research at IBM X-Force, predicted we might face a ransomware recession as more companies pledged not to pay the ransom. While we wish we could declare this came true, the jury is still out, and likely, we won’t know for sure until all the data is collected from 2024.

However, Wired declared in the summer of 2024 that “ransomware showed no signs of slowing down in 2024 — despite increasing police crackdowns.” In December, Heather Wishart-Smith wrote in her Forbes article The Persistent Ransomware Threat: 2024 Trends and High-Profile Attacks about the increasing dual extortion technique of cyber criminals as an increasing trend in 2024.

All in all, the experts were largely on target with their 2024 predictions. And in the next few weeks, we will start the prediction game all over again as we wonder what’s in the cards for cybersecurity in 2025.

The post 2024 trends: Were they accurate? appeared first on Security Intelligence.

  • ✇Security Intelligence
  • 2024 roundup: Top data breach stories and industry trends Josh Nadeau
    With 2025 on the horizon, it’s important to reflect on the developments and various setbacks that happened in cybersecurity this past year. While there have been many improvements in security technologies and growing awareness of emerging cybersecurity threats, 2024 was also a hard reminder that the ongoing fight against cyber criminals is far from over. We’ve summarized this past year’s top five data breach stories and industry trends, with key takeaways from each that organizations should not
     

2024 roundup: Top data breach stories and industry trends

19 de Dezembro de 2024, 11:00

With 2025 on the horizon, it’s important to reflect on the developments and various setbacks that happened in cybersecurity this past year. While there have been many improvements in security technologies and growing awareness of emerging cybersecurity threats, 2024 was also a hard reminder that the ongoing fight against cyber criminals is far from over.

We’ve summarized this past year’s top five data breach stories and industry trends, with key takeaways from each that organizations should note going into the following year.

Billions of US citizens have private data exposed

On April 8, 2024, one of the largest personal data breaches took place, leading to nearly 3 billion US citizens having their information leaked on the dark web. Even more shocking was that all of this information came from only one source — National Public Data, a background check and fraud prevention service located in Coral Springs, Florida.

The stolen information collected contained names, social security numbers, home addresses and known relatives, and was listed on the dark web for sale for $3.5 million. Many of the victims were still unaware of the breach several months later, leading to several class action lawsuits filed by a dozen U.S. states. National Public Data has since then filed for bankruptcy.

Third-party breaches impact top 48 energy companies

A SecurityScorecard report revealed this year that 90% of the world’s top energy companies experienced data breaches that stemmed from third-party breaches. Many of these attacks were a direct result of increased reliance on cloud services and third-party integration to manage networked systems.

It was confirmed that out of the 264 individual breaches linked to third-party compromises, the MOVEit vulnerability was one of the major reasons for the issues. With critical infrastructure organizations playing a significant role in the health and well-being of citizens, these types of breaches continue to threaten public safety. The energy sector as a whole has since begun implementing stricter vendor assessments, continuous system and threat monitoring solutions and more secure data transfer protocols.

Read the Cost of a Data Breach Report

Financial firms face the highest data breach costs since the pandemic

According to the IBM Cost of a Data Breach 2024 report, the financial sector has seen a surge in data breach costs since the pandemic, reaching an average of $6.08 million per incident. While various attack types account for this increase, IT failures and simple human error account for a significant portion of the problem.

While certain improvements have been made in threat detection and containment timelines, many financial firms still have an uphill battle to climb. Larger-scale financial service breaches are now estimated to reach hundreds of millions of dollars in damages, leading many organizations to invest more in comprehensive identity and access management (IAM) solutions, AI-powered security solutions and dedicated incident response teams.

Average data breach cost increases 10% year-over-year

The global average cost of data breaches jumped 10% year-over-year between 2023 and 2024, with the latest figure reaching an alarming $4.88 million. The number represented by this average is driven by a number of factors, including lost business revenues, recovery costs and regulatory fines.

Complicating this ongoing trend, 40% of breaches recorded now involve data spread across multiple public and cloud environments and on-premises systems. These larger digital footprints average over $5 million in recovery costs with an average containment timeline of 283 days. Encouragingly, organizations that leverage AI-driven security workflows are experiencing a significantly lower average of $2.2 million per breach, pointing to a positive trend in next-generation security measures.

50% of data breaches tied to security staffing shortages

The cybersecurity skills gap widened over the last few years, with 50% of organizations experiencing data breaches reporting that they stemmed from staffing shortages. Skills shortages are specific to a wide range of critical areas, including cloud security and incident response, data analysis and compliance expertise. Another growing need for these impacted organizations is proficiency in security information and event management (SIEM) tools and active threat hunting.

In an ongoing effort to fill the key personnel gaps, it’s now recommended that organizations put a stronger focus on upskilling their existing workforce. Modern businesses can also leverage professional soft skills such as good communication and adaptability to help supplement and strengthen their security teams.

Moving into 2025

The past year has shown that while modern cybersecurity tools and solutions provide protection against a broader range of threats, very few industries and organizations are immune to cyber crime’s evolving nature.

As we move into 2025, enterprises should prioritize a proactive approach to cybersecurity planning. This includes optimizing their access restriction policies when operating with both in-house and remote teams, working to address any critical staffing shortages, and creating a stronger culture of security awareness within their organization.

The post 2024 roundup: Top data breach stories and industry trends appeared first on Security Intelligence.

❌
❌