Researchers said INC ransomware, one of the most active ransomware groups globally, has been the main attacker exploiting a pair of SonicWall zero-days soon after they were disclosed last month.

The prolific ransomware-as-a-service operation wasn’t the first group to exploit the flaws, which were actively exploited for three weeks before the vendor disclosed and patched the defects July 14, but it has been the most assertive and concerning group to target and chain both vulnerabilities together for full access.

“Since public disclosure, INC ransomware has emerged as the most commonly named threat actor actively weaponizing this vulnerability chain,” Brett Deroche, director of incident response at Rapid7, told CyberScoop. “While Inc is the name driving the post-disclosure wave, we can’t attribute the full body of exploitation to INC specifically.”

SonicWall did not respond to a request for comment.

The SonicWall vulnerabilities — CVE-2026-15409 and CVE-2026-15410 — are the latest in a series of security issues confronting the vendor’s customers, including actively exploited zero-days, previously disclosed defects, and an attack last year that allowed a state-sponsored threat group to steal the firewall configurations of every SonicWall customer. 

Just last week, Huntress researchers spotted an attack spree that compromised 30 SonicWall customers in less than two days. 

Ransomware groups have taken a special interest in SonicWall. Ten of the 17 SonicWall defects added to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s known exploited vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog since late 2021 are known to be used in ransomware campaigns.

INC ransomware, which has claimed nearly 900 victims across 71 countries since it was first discovered three years ago, is just the latest financially-motivated group to target SonicWall customers. 

Researchers haven’t determined how many organizations have been impacted by the latest SonicWall zero-days, including attacks linked to INC ransomware. 

“Attribution here isn’t a single clean answer. The earliest exploitation we observed, beginning June 22, traced back to common hosted infrastructure, though those attacks were largely unsuccessful,” Deroche said. 

“INC’s confirmed activity that we’ve observed came after public disclosure, using different infrastructure and moving from initial access to ransomware deployment in short order. That’s a meaningfully different operational tempo and skill level than what we saw pre-disclosure,” he added. 

Deroche said Rapid7 has successfully prevented data theft and encryption in the majority of recent cases, yet noted ransomware was deployed in at least one case the security vendor observed.

Yet, there could be other attacks outside the purview of Rapid7’s telemetry. INC ransomware has listed multiple new alleged victims on its data leak site, including organizations and government agencies in Australia, the United States, the United Arab Emirates, Colombia and Switzerland, Resecurity said in a blog post Saturday.

The company said it has aided several victims with incident response, and learned multiple victims received emails and phone calls from alleged hackers who pressured them to engage in negotiations.

The post Prolific ransomware group behind SonicWall zero-day attacks appeared first on CyberScoop.

SonicWall customers are attempting to dodge another security challenge as attackers are exploiting a pair of zero-day vulnerabilities that have been confirmed by the vendor. 

The company publicly disclosed the vulnerabilities — CVE-2026-15409 and CVE-2026-15410 — in a security advisory Tuesday. SonicWall credited an employee with discovering the defects, but it hasn’t said when the discovery occurred or the earliest known instance of exploitation. 

Rapid7 researchers told CyberScoop both vulnerabilities were first exploited June 22. “From the cases that our team has observed, the goal is likely ransomware, though we have prevented the actors from achieving exfiltration and encryption,” said Seth Lazarus, senior manager of detection and response services at Rapid7.

Overlapping tactics, techniques and procedures from the attacks observed by Rapid7 indicate the same threat group or attacker discovered and exploited the zero-days, Lazarus added.

SonicWall did not answer questions about the impacts of these attacks thus far, and the company hasn’t attributed the attacks to a known group or described the attacker’s origins and motivations.

The vendor did, however, confirm to CyberScoop that both vulnerabilities have been chained together for exploitation. The vulnerabilities affecting SonicWall SMA1000 appliances, including a max-severity defect that allows attackers to make authenticated requests and a 7.2-rated vulnerability that allows authenticated command injection.

“When these two are chained, an attacker can go from zero access to a complete system compromise for the affected appliance,” said Landon Rice, senior exploit developer at VulnCheck.

Ben Harris, founder and CEO at watchTowr, said two characteristics of the vulnerabilities fuel a sense of dread. “Both were exploited as zero-days before fixes were available, and together they offer a plausible path to remote-code execution from the internet,” he said.

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency added both zero-days to its known exploited vulnerabilities catalog Tuesday. 

SonicWall encouraged customers to patch the vulnerabilities by upgrading to the latest software version, which it released upon disclosure, and shared some indicators of compromise to help customers hunt for potential malicious activity on their systems.

“Speed of response was a priority for us,” said Bret Fitzgerald, senior director of global communications at SonicWall. “Within days of becoming aware of the issue, our team had developed a script that we can run on behalf of affected customers to assist with resolution, and mitigation efforts are already underway.”

SonicWall and third-party researchers haven’t said how many SonicWall customers are impacted by the exploited vulnerabilities, but the vendor did say it already investigated multiple cases of active exploitation. 

Fitzgerald said the company monitors about one million sensors globally and “SMA1000 appliances represent a very small subset of that footprint, less than 5,000 units.”

SonicWall said support staff are also helping customers work through instances of suspicious activity, warning that patching alone is not sufficient. 

The vendor and its customers have been hit by a barrage of actively exploited zero-days and previously disclosed defects in SonicWall devices for years. In 2025, an undisclosed state-sponsored threat actor intruded the company’s cloud environment and stole firewall configurations of every SonicWall customer. 

Seventeen defects affecting the vendor’s products have been added to CISA’s known exploited vulnerabilities catalog since late 2021. Ten of those defects are known to be used in ransomware campaigns, according to CISA, including a wave of about 40 Akira ransomware attacks between mid-July and early August.

“As always,” Harris said, “when something is confirmed as already exploited in the wild, patching is the bare minimum, and breach should be assumed.”

The post SonicWall customers under threat as attackers exploit 2 zero-days appeared first on CyberScoop.

Microsoft reopened some wounds and has reignited debate over the past couple weeks about vulnerability disclosure and the sometimes adversarial dynamic it creates between security researchers and vendors. 

The latest controversy ensued when Microsoft threatened criminal legal action against a security researcher who publicly disclosed a series of zero-day vulnerabilities with proof-of-concept exploits. Microsoft insisted it received no details about the vulnerabilities prior to release, adding that the defects were not responsibly disclosed and put its customers at unnecessary risk.

The public dispute between Microsoft and the researcher known as “Nightmare Eclipse,” who couldn’t be identified or reached for comment, sparked dismay among some security professionals. Microsoft’s forceful response and the resulting backlash revived a friction point between vendors and researchers who find and report flaws in the software they sell.

“The fight is being argued as coordinated disclosure, but the grievance underneath is personal and specific in a way disclosure shouldn’t be, especially with a vendor that has been at it for so long,” Katie Moussouris, founder and CEO at Luta Security, told CyberScoop.

“Microsoft seemed to get emotional and shouldn’t have publicly said anything, but somehow felt justified in calling out a researcher and involved law enforcement in the same breath,” she said. “That puts them right back in the first stages of vulnerability disclosure grief: denial and anger.”

The former longtime Microsoft employee who ran outreach with the security community, created the company’s first bounty program and has given conference talks on the subject as far back as 2013, said the company doubled down on its lack of responsibility in the whole saga.

Microsoft declined to answer questions in the wake of the fallout.

Nightmare Eclipse hinted at a breakdown and impending battle with the vendor in a series of blog posts leading up to Microsoft’s missive about the vulnerabilities RedSun, UnDefend, BlueHammer, YellowKey, GreenPlasma, and MiniPlasma.

Attackers exploited three of the six vulnerabilities Nightmare Eclipse released before they were patched by Microsoft.

The researcher claimed Microsoft refused to communicate, didn’t pay or credit them for discovering and reporting some of the vulnerabilities, deleted the Microsoft Security Response Center account they used to disclose vulnerabilities and flagged their GitHub account for removal. 

“You are proving to everyone that you are actively escalating this conflict,” they wrote, before threatening Microsoft with a release in mid-July that “will make sure your bones are shattered that day.”

Vulnerability disclosure is a two-way street

The characteristics of proper vulnerability disclosure processes are nuanced and often framed in the eyes of the beholder.

Any successful dance between bug hunters and vendors comes down to meeting each other halfway, said Andrew Morris, founder and chief architect of GreyNoise. 

While vendors must fix software defects and prioritize security, Morris noted that irresponsible vulnerability disclosure harms both incident responders and potential victims. 

“Personally, I feel like this researcher is being extremely petty. It seems like they have an ax to grind,” he said.

“You’re not allowed to give somebody something and say it’s out of the kindness of your heart, and then be pissed when they don’t pay you for it.” 

But Morris also made clear that vendors bear responsibility for building trust with researchers.  

“If you actually care about being the first one to know about bugs in your software, not learning about it once harm has happened, or once somebody’s gotten popped, then you want to cultivate that trust with the security community,” Morris said. 

Microsoft said it recognizes that the relationship between security researchers and vendors is critical and, at times, fragile. 

“We deeply value the security community, and will continue to take your feedback seriously,” the company said in its post on X. 

Yet, the company remains steadfast in opposing the circumstances of Nightmare Eclipse’s disclosures, describing their actions as illegal, unjustifiable and irresponsible. 

“When an individual breaks the law and engages in malicious activity causing real harm to our customers, we will work with law enforcement as appropriate,” Microsoft said without naming the researcher by their moniker. “We continue to believe strongly in coordinated vulnerability disclosure as the foundation for protecting customers and improving our products. We know that, given the nature of this work, there will at times be misunderstandings. We remain committed to engaging in good faith and to providing a respectful and professional experience for all researchers, regardless of past interactions.”

The cost of pushback

Security researchers seek out defects for various reasons: bounty payouts, recognition, industry credibility, or simply the thrill of the hunt that comes with finding vulnerabilities and getting them fixed.

At its best, this process happens behind the scenes, with patches released and customers warned before exploitation occurs.

This collaborative approach has taken root and improved considerably, but there are still cases where researchers feel slighted. 

“The public has no idea what went on behind the scenes to judge why a researcher that previously coordinated finally had enough and decided to drop a zero-day [vulnerability],” Moussouris said. As such, she’s less inclined to criticize Nightmare Eclipse’s actions, adding that “they come off as someone who needs help.” 

Yet, trust breaks down between vulnerability researchers and vendors often. Earlier this week, security researcher Ammar Askar claimed his last interaction with Microsoft’s security team was so poor that he decided to publicly disclose any bugs he finds in VS Code going forward. He made good on that threat by dropping a vulnerability and exploit code for a defect that allows attackers to steal GitHub tokens. 

While actions like this can sabotage trust and drive a wedge between vendors and vulnerability researchers, recourse to a large extent is limited. Moussouris said most of the time, the legal and ethical boundaries are clear to those involved. Researchers can report bugs, withhold them, sell them, or publish them. “The one red line is crime: using a flaw to extort or attack people,” Moussouris said. 

“Threatening to publish on a set date is a threat to disclose, and disclosure is lawful. You can find the tone ugly. [Nightmare Eclipse] still broke no rule and violated no duty.” 

The timing couldn’t be worse 

Both sides are partly responsible for what happened, but Microsoft made things worse, Morris said. Threatening legal action and taking an aggressive approach have never worked. Building a good relationship between researchers and vendors requires open communication and trust. 

“I thought we were past this. It turns out that we are not,” he said. 

The Nightmare Eclipse incident comes at a fraught time in this space. Vendors and their customers are confronting a deluge of more vulnerabilities, and the rise of artificial intelligence models that discover them is exacerbating this challenge, leaving security experts alarmed about what’s coming.

The prospects for where vulnerabilities will be discovered and exploited next, and to what impact, are unknown and wildly unsettling. 

These signals imply that the classic, CVE-based system with responsibly disclosed processes is probably broken, Morris said. “There’s just so many CVEs. It’s like, is this even working anymore?”

For now and despite all its faults, coordinated vulnerability disclosure programs are widely viewed as the most sensible and scalable approach to this dilemma.

“Coordinated disclosure is what happens when a vendor gets lucky. Someone they did not hire hands them a real bug instead of using it or selling it. That puts the whole burden of keeping coordination alive on the vendor,” Moussouris said. “Silent patching with no CVE and calling out researchers who don’t follow your timeline for disclosure squanders the vendor’s luck.”  

She stressed the stakes: “I hope Microsoft and all vendors learn that coordinated vulnerability disclosure is a gift and a grace from the security researcher community to them, and public disclosure is still better than non-disclosure or crime.”

The alternatives to a deteriorating relationship could wreak havoc and leave every vendor and customer more susceptible to attack. 

“If vendors unlearn how to receive free intellectual property and labor from the security community in the form of vulnerability reports with gratitude, we’re headed for a world where nobody bothers to give vendors any heads up, or they move to a timed disclosure model that gives no grace,” Moussouris said.

She concluded with a direct message: “Product vendors wrote the vulnerable code, own the risk, and they owe it to their users to do everything in their power to reduce that risk.” That includes “keeping their grievances to themselves and learning from introspection on coordinated vulnerability disclosure gone wrong.”

The post Nightmare Eclipse incident shows the researcher-vendor fights may never fully go away appeared first on CyberScoop.

Attackers are hitting Ivanti customers yet again — circling back to a common target and consistently susceptible vendor in the network edge space — by exploiting a zero-day vulnerability in one of the company’s most besieged products. 

Ivanti warned customers that attackers have successfully exploited CVE-2026-6973, an improper input validation defect in Ivanti Endpoint Manager Mobile (EPMM) that allows authenticated users with administrative privileges to run code remotely. The company alerted customers to the threat in a security advisory Thursday while also disclosing four additional high-severity vulnerabilities in the same product.

“At the time of disclosure, Ivanti is aware of very limited exploitation in the wild of CVE-2026-6973, which requires authenticated administrative access to implement,” a spokesperson for Ivanti said in a statement.

Ivanti did not say when the first instance of exploitation occurred, or precisely how many customers have already been impacted.

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency added the zero-day to its known exploited vulnerabilities catalog within hours of Ivanti’s disclosure.

The company released patches for all five vulnerabilities Thursday, including the four additional defects — CVE-2026-5787, CVE-2026-5788, CVE-2026-6973 and CVE-2026-7821 — which it said haven’t been exploited in the wild.

“Ivanti discovered these vulnerabilities in recent weeks through internal detection processes which are supported by advanced AI, customer collaboration, and responsible disclosure,” the company spokesperson said. One of the defects was discovered and responsibly reported to Ivanti by a former employee.

The company suggested at least one of the root causes for the latest zero-day may be traced to lingering risk posed by a pair of separate, critical zero-days — CVE-2026-1281 and CVE-2026-1340 — that were exploited starting in late January. The fallout from those exploited vulnerabilities in Ivanti EPMM spread to nearly 100 victims, including The Netherlands’ Dutch Data Protection Authority and the Council for the Judiciary, by early February.

The latest Ivanti EPMM zero-day “requires authenticated administrative access to exploit, which is why customers who followed Ivanti’s recommendation in January to rotate EPMM credentials are at significantly reduced risk. Customers unaffected by the prior vulnerability are also at a much lower risk,” the company spokesperson said.

Caitlin Condon, vice president of security research at VulnCheck, said the administrative privileges required to exploit CVE-2026-6973 indicates it was possibly exploited as part of an attack chain relying on another method for initial access. 

“No attribution was shared on threat actor exploitation of CVE-2026-6973, but two other 2026 CVEs in Ivanti EPMM — CVE-2026-1281 and CVE-2026-1340 — have been exploited by a range of threat actors, including China- and Iran-attributed groups,” Condon told CyberScoop. 

“Those vulnerabilities notably were code-injection vulnerabilities that were remotely exploitable without authentication, unlike CVE-2026-6973,” she added. “Both CVE-2026-1281 and CVE-2026-1340 appear to have been fixed in today’s Ivanti release. Comparatively, these earlier vulns were of higher initial concern than today’s fresh zero-day vulnerability, which requires admin authentication.”

Attacks involving Ivanti defects are a recurring problem for the vendor’s customers and security practitioners at large, including many vulnerabilities that attackers exploited before the company caught or fixed the errors. 

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency has flagged 34 Ivanti defects on its known exploited vulnerabilities catalog since late 2021. At least 22 defects across Ivanti products have been exploited in the past two years, including five vulnerabilities in Ivanti EPMM in the last year.

During an interview with CyberScoop in March at the RSAC Conference, Ivanti Chief Security Officer Daniel Spicer said the company’s transparency partly explains the high number of vulnerabilities reported and disclosed in its products. 

“My position here at Ivanti is it doesn’t do our customers any good to be quiet about this,” he said, describing the company’s communication stance with the public, CISA and global partners as “very aggressive.”

That’s not always the case with other vendors, Spicer said. “I don’t know that transparency is a core tenant of all other organizations.”

The company, which serves many government agencies and critical infrastructure operators, also routinely notes that highly skilled and resourced attackers, including those backed by nation-states, are often responsible for these waves of attacks on its customers.

Ivanti maintains that it’s trying to consistently improve the security of its products. “Through continued investment in its product security program, including the use of advanced AI paired with human verification, Ivanti is strengthening its ability to identify, remediate, and disclose issues quickly, helping customers stay ahead of an increasingly compressed threat landscape,” the spokesperson said.

The way Spicer put it in March: “We want to make sure that people understand that we are trying to do the right thing.”

The post Ivanti customers confront yet another actively exploited zero-day appeared first on CyberScoop.