Russian authorities used Cellebrite phone-cracking technology to break into a device belonging to a prominent domestic human rights activist they arrested and imprisoned, despite the company canceling its contract with the Russian government, according to a report published Thursday.

The University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab reached its conclusions after analyzing a phone belonging to Andrey Pivovarov and examining court documents he provided confirming the usage of Cellebrite’s UFED product.

Pivovarov was arrested in March 2021, sentenced in 2022 and released in 2024 as part of a prisoner exchange. Citizen Lab found evidence that authorities accessed his phone around June 2021 while the phone was in Russian government hands.

Investigators also said it appears Russian authorities might have used information it got from Pivoarov’s phone to surveil other regime opponents, combining information in the court documents with the later targeting of fellow dissident Anastasiya Burakova in a hacking campaign linked to Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB).

“The historic architecture of Cellebrite forensic systems means that much of the functionality in the UFED product has continued to operate long after updates cease,” Citizen Lab said in its report. “Furthermore, Cellebrite systems have historically featured an offline mode. Consequently, the way Cellebrite’s technology was designed appeared to make it difficult for the company to meaningfully cut off problematic customers.

“While Cellebrite has argued that its cancellations in Russia … went beyond what was legally required, this investigation contributes evidence that the contract cancellation did not immediately block Russia from leveraging Cellebrite’s tools for political persecution,” it continued.

Cellebrite provided a response to Citizen Lab’s report, saying that Cellebrite’s technology would be ineffective in Russia today.

“Any use of legacy Cellebrite hardware in Russia after March 2021 is entirely unauthorized,” Cellebrite spokesperson Victor Cooper told CyberScoop, echoing the Citizen Lab response. “The Cellebrite hardware previously sold, prior to March 2021, would now be incompatible with modern devices and would operate without our technical support, our consent or any legal sanction from Cellebrite. Rapid technology advances render legacy digital forensic hardware and software ineffective within a short period of time. Russia remains permanently on our restricted-customer list.”

The Russian Embassy in Washington, D.C. did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The post Russia uses Cellebrite to break into human rights activist’s phone, even after cancellation of contract appeared first on CyberScoop.

An attacker exploited a previously unknown and unpatched Cisco vulnerability earlier this year to infiltrate a communications service provider and gain the highest level of access possible, Mandiant said Wednesday.

Cisco has since patched the flaw, one of seven actively exploited zero-day vulnerabilities this year in its SD-WAN (software-defined wide area network) software used to manage internet traffic within organizations, typically those that are widely distributed, such as banks with numerous branches.

But Google-owned cybersecurity firm Mandiant said the attacker (or attackers) could have used its root-level access to obtain broad and undetected visibility into the internal traffic throughout the provider’s entire corporate network. In a caveat, Mandiant also said it could not fully assess how far the compromise actually went because of how cleverly the perpetrators hid their activity.

The attack illustrated hackers’ ongoing targeting of edge devices, Mandiant said. Attacks on such devices have been very common and involved in some of the most consequential breaches in recent years, prompting the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency to direct federal agencies to give them special attention this year.

“This campaign underscores the living off the edge paradigm, where threat actors prioritize the compromise of network appliances to bypass traditional security perimeters,” Mandiant wrote in a blog post. “As organizations increasingly adopt software-defined networking, the orchestrators managing these environments become primary targets. These devices offer a black box environment for threat actors: they often lack the telemetry required for deep forensic analysis, and their role as a central control plane provides a stealthy platform for persistent, wide-scale access to internal enterprise traffic.”

Mandiant didn’t attribute the attack to any specific group, citing the work the attacker did to cover their tracks and delete evidence. But it noted that “for state-sponsored actors, the ability to exploit zero-day vulnerabilities in these platforms remains a premier vector for long-term strategic intelligence collection.”

Kelli Vanderlee, senior manager for Google Threat Intelligence Group, told CyberScoop that “exploiting zero day vulnerabilities in edge devices and the extensive anti-forensic activities are consistent with previously documented cyber espionage threat actor behavior.”

The company also didn’t name the victim service provider.

The attacks on the service provider came in two waves. The first activity Mandiant observed from late 2025 to early 2026 exploited one of two then-unpatched vulnerabilities (CVE-2026-20127 or CVE-2026-20182), with the attacker making unauthorized “peering” connections to the victim’s SD-WAN Manager devices in a kind of digital handshake to verify identity and trust.

Once there, the attacker facilitated its access and used it to manipulate default account passwords in hopes of avoiding detection. Next, the attacker exploited the zero-day vulnerability (CVE-2026-20245) in Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN Manager, activity Mandiant observed in March, and created a rogue user account, “troot” that gave full root-level control.

“On June 4, 2026, Cisco published a security advisory about a privilege escalation vulnerability in Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN Manager,” a Cisco spokesperson said. “Cisco strongly recommends customers upgrade to a fixed software release as outlined in the advisory.”

Updated 6/24/26: to include Cisco comment.

The post Malicious hackers exploit Cisco zero-day for highest access level at communications service provider appeared first on CyberScoop.

In a novel maneuver for a disruption operation against cyber attackers, industry and law enforcement teamed up to conduct a court takedown of two widely-used criminal tools at once rather than individually, Microsoft said Tuesday.

The takedown simultaneously went after Amadey, a botnet that can serve as a malware delivery system, and StealC, an infostealer. Cybercriminals often use them in conjunction and they rely on the same infrastructure, Microsoft said.

“When multiple parts of an operation are disrupted together, attacks are harder to launch, scale, and recover from,” said Steven Masada, assistant general counsel for Microsoft’s Digital Crimes Unit. “The result: fewer disrupted services, fewer opportunities for cybercriminals to profit, and more friction when they try to rebuild. It’s no longer enough to go after threats one by one. We need to interrupt how the attacks are put together.”

Microsoft had been tracking Amadey with ESET, BitSight, Lumen and Mitsui Bussan Secure Directions. Meanwhile, Europol had been investigating StealC alongside law enforcement partners including Germany’s Federal Criminal Police Office and the Dutch and Danish National Police as well as IBM X-Force and Proofpoint.

They then joined forces and turned to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, used to help authorities go after organized crime, to disrupt more than 200 command-and-control servers. Microsoft said it gained insights from its artificial intelligence product Copilot that “allowed the legal team to treat both malware families as part of a single criminal conspiracy.”

Microsoft regularly leads court-authorized disruption operations, but the industry and law enforcement partnerships combined with AI to expand data collection and identify connections beyond what one company could normally do, it said.

Amadey and StealC were linked to more than 140,000 infected computers around the globe in the first week of May alone, the company said. StealC has ranked among the top infostealers for years since its emergence in 2023 and sells in underground forums as a malware-as-a-service. It’s typically used by Russia-linked groups.

Amadey dates back to 2018, and is also commonly employed by Russian groups, including in attacks on Ukraine.

Their interaction shows the assembly line-like structure of modern cybercrime, Microsoft said. Even if the cybercriminals behind both tools never coordinate, their tools are designed to work together, it said.

“StealC is an infostealer that collects sensitive data from browsers, cryptocurrency wallets, messaging applications, email clients, and gaming platforms,” the company wrote in a separate blog post. “It is a malware-as-a-service (MaaS) offering that threat actors use to generate customized payloads and manage stolen data through a centralized web panel. Meanwhile, Amadey is a MaaS loader that threat actors use to deliver StealC and other malware. Modular, pay-as-you-go models like StealC and Amadey allow threat actors to use a single initial infection to quickly escalate into multiple other threats.”

The post In a first, a court takedown goes after two cybercrime tools at once appeared first on CyberScoop.

An epidemic of cyberattacks on open-source software has mounted in recent months, making clear how uniquely difficult it is to protect the publicly available code, from both a policy and a technical perspective, that serves as the foundation for so much of the digital world.

While open-source software security got a boost in attention under President Joe Biden — whose administration grappled with the fallout from the potentially catastrophic Log4j flaw that emerged in 2021 — a number of open-source experts say that government protection efforts have suffered setbacks under President Donald Trump. Many also say companies that heavily rely on open-source software, which is basically all of them, haven’t shouldered enough of the responsibility for safeguarding it.

“What we’re seeing is years of lack of investment sustainment in open-source software that is finally starting to catch up to us, where it seems like every week there’s a new supply chain compromise,” said Jack Cable, who held a role at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency where he worked on open-source security before departing under Trump.

The advancements of frontier artificial intelligence models stand to exacerbate the risk further, while simultaneously illustrating what makes defending open source difficult: Project Glasswing said shortly after its announcement that it had uncovered 6,202 high- or critical-severity vulnerabilities in a scan of more than 1,000 open-source projects, but that it had disclosed only 502 of them to open-source project maintainers and only 75 had been patched as of May 22 (albeit some due to typical patching lagtimes).

At the same time, there are questions about how much the government can help, even as overseas governments seek to focus on open-source security.

The evolution of open-source risk 

There are a series of factors contributing to the current threat to open-source software, experts say.

One is simply that attackers go to the area where they can get the highest return on their work. Compromising open-source software gives them the chance to get into the supply chain and exploit additional targets.

“Twenty years ago, open source was still fairly niche,” said Æva Black, who also worked on open-source security at CISA but left when Trump came back into power. “The potential blast radius if you managed to compromise open source was relatively small, because back then the world didn’t run on open source. Now almost everything runs on open source,” she said, from modern cars to satellites.

Another part is the nature of open-source software itself.

“It’s a symptom [of having] lots of open source [that] is a little bit under-maintained or not cared for enough, so that we spend too little effort and money and infrastructure on them,” said Daniel Stenberg, who is the creator and maintainer of cURL, a popular open-source project. “Lots of open source is being maintained by small teams, lots of volunteers, and I think that that’s a tough situation.”

That doesn’t mean the maintainers are to blame, Stenberg said. The companies that rely on open-source need to be diligent about using it, Black said.

“What we’re seeing in that realm right now is not new; it is more advanced and far more widespread,” she said. “The problem remains that companies who use open source — because open source is by far the most efficient way to collaborate on non-product value features — most companies are not implementing a responsible and safe utilization pathway.”

Open-source projects lack a systematic way to handle coordinated vulnerability disclosures, unlike companies or industry groups with formal processes, said Dan Lorenc, CEO and co-founder of Chainguard. Project maintainers sometimes aren’t reachable, and those who are available are flooded with reports, many of them unverified findings from AI tools that waste their time without adding value..

Of course, some of those vulnerability reports turn out to be legitimate. “Mythos and AI models have contributed to an uptick in the number of vulnerabilities and things that we’re able to find” in open-source software, said Alex Zenla, chief technology officer for the cybersecurity company Edera.

All of that leaves more room for companies, non-profits and world governments to improve open-source security.

A moment of momentum

While open-source software security isn’t a new issue, the 2021 discovery of the Log4j flaw sounded alarms within the cybersecurity community. Jen Easterly, then the director of CISA, called it “one of the most serious I’ve seen in my entire career, if not the most serious,” with the potential to affect hundreds of millions of devices given the ubiquitous nature of the popular open-source logging library.

A year later, the Cyber Safety Review Board released its report on the incident, concluding that swift action from industry and government averted a disaster. But the incident “called attention to security risks unique to the thinly-resourced, volunteer-based open source community,” it wrote. “This community is not adequately resourced to ensure that code is developed pursuant to industry-recognized secure coding practices and audited by experts.”

The U.S. government actions after included some steps focused specifically on open-source software such as creation of the Open-Source Software Security Initiative and hires of well-regarded open-source security experts at CISA such as Black, but also some steps that could be applied more generally and still help with open-source security, such as greater promotion of secure-by-design, memory-safe languages and software bills of materials (SBOMs).

Some of the Biden administration work on open-source security started before Log4j, such as provisions from an executive order he issued in 2021 that directed CISA along with the Office of Management and Budget and General Services Administration to issue guidance to agencies. 

The administration’s 2023 cybersecurity strategy also stepped into the long, thorny discussions over software liability, with a mention of open-source security: “Responsibility must be placed on the stakeholders most capable of taking action to prevent bad outcomes, not on the end-users that often bear the consequences of insecure software nor on the open-source developer of a component that is integrated into a commercial product.“ The Biden administration always indicated that addressing software liability would take a prolonged battle ahead.

Under Trump, many of the Biden administration’s efforts have languished. CISA’s splashy hires on open-source are gone, including Black, Tim Pepper and Anjana Rajan. Also departed are leading figures on secure-by-design and SBOMs, with CISA personnel cutbacks slicing deep. 

No one has seen any sign that the national cyber director-led Open-Source Software Security Initiative is active, with few participants remaining in government today. The Trump administration cyber strategy doesn’t mention open-source.

“The loss of open-source experts at CISA “is unfortunate, and it will be hard for the government to try to rebuild capacity, but I do think now more than ever CISA has a core role to play to secure open source software,” Cable said.

The pressure is mounting

It’s not that the issue is getting zero attention from those in a position to make a difference. Nick Andersen, the acting director of CISA, said last month that open-source security was an area of particular concern for him.

Andersen responded to concerns about CISA staffing levels on open-source security and spoke more broadly on the topic in a statement to CyberScoop.

“As artificial intelligence and other technologies have the power to transform how vulnerabilities are discovered and exploited, CISA recognizes that the open source software (OSS) that underpins much of the nation’s critical infrastructure will need to be hardened,” he said. “CISA actively collaborates with our partners on shared priorities, including OSS security, to ensure time and resources are spent where they matter the most.  We have an immensely talented team, but are also accelerating our hiring in critical areas, to strengthen the nation’s defenses against cyber threats.”

The Office of the National Cyber Director did not respond to requests for comment.

There’s been some activity on Capitol Hill, too. The Securing Open Source Software Act, which Cable worked on during a stint as a Senate staffer, would direct CISA and other agencies to take actions to mitigate open-source software security risks, but the legislation has stalled since its introduction in 2022. A portion of the bill, however, was included in the Department of Homeland Security funding law Trump signed in April, directing CISA to brief Congress on the value of establishing something like an open source program office, which some companies use to manage open source within a given firm.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton, R-Ark., has pushed the executive branch to improve its awareness of foreign adversaries playing roles in open-source software used by national security-focused agencies.

The annual defense policy bill in the House calls on the Defense Department’s chief information officer to report to Congress on a plan to secure open-source software supply chains, saying lawmakers are “concerned that the Department lacks sufficient visibility into the origins, maintenance, and security of OSS applications and software dependencies.”

That defense authorization bill language is “really beneficial, and I think it signals acknowledgement of this changing of culture” around open-source security risks, said Hayden Smith, founder of HuntedLabs, whose company won a contract with the Space Development Agency on supply chain security — agency work that the defense bill singled out.

“The report language is the first time the Hill is trying to get a true handle on foreign influence in open source code where they have oversight,” he said, saying it was a “piece of the puzzle” along with Cotton’s letter and a memo from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth last year about foreign influence in the Pentagon supply chain. “It’s good and would trickle down into everyone who provides software to the department.”

Zenla, though, believes trying to isolate China from open-source systems isn’t in and of itself a good idea. 

“I don’t think that that makes a lot of sense, because they’re actually pretty good things that people contribute to open source,” she said. “Not everyone is malicious, and what are we going to do, spy on every single open source maintainer?” It’s more about doing things like making sure that highly-classified systems are set up in a separate way, she said.

Europe is also taking action to secure open-source software that the United States doesn’t seem ready or willing to do right now. Germany, for instance, devotes grants to the security of open-source projects, although Stenberg pointed out that sometimes money doesn’t equate to maintainers being able to fix flaws more quickly, depending on the project’s size.

The Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) adopted by the Council of the European Union in 2024 could offer another road on open-source security. The CRA requires those who use open-source software products as part of any commercial activity to take certain security measures. 

Black said that when she was at CISA, there were discussions between the agency and European counterparts about finding compatible ideas on open-source security, but that momentum died with the Trump administration.

But “Europe kept rolling, and now has in place a new legal framework that is set to really reshape open-source security for potentially the whole world, but certainly for anyone who wants to work with Europe on open source,” she said.

Lorenc recently wrote that “open source isn’t governable.” He said an organization like a neutral nonprofit, possibly using some government funding, should take responsibility for things like coordinating vulnerability disclosure into one pipeline. He also said there needs to be one authority in charge of “forking” — that is, taking a project and assigning stewardship elsewhere — when a maintainer isn’t responsive to vulnerabilities. 

There are differing opinions on how much past government warnings, advisories and guidance have helped. Smith gave some credit to government agencies that “have all responded to open source attacks using the means they have.”

Stenberg said that “I don’t think they make any big dent at all in the big scheme of things.” They might get some attention initially, “then two years later we all forgot about them, and they actually didn’t change much.”

Ideally, everyone could get on the same page, Zenla said. “The best way to do this is if people actually collaborated on a global scale on some sort of regulation around this, but that seems nearly impossible at the current moment,” she said. (The United Nations’ Open Source Week runs all this week.)

But if there’s an upside to the spate of attacks on open-source software, it’s the energy it gives to how better to secure it, Lorenc said, invoking the political saying to never let a good crisis go to waste.

“Everyone knows the industry has to change,” he said. “This is a really good crisis, and the right things are happening in the right places, and organizations are rethinking their culture around software development, and they know what they have to do. It’s just something that’s never been top of the priority list for the last 10 years. Now it is, and they’re doing it, and it’s, ‘Can we do it fast enough?’”

The post Open-source security is posing challenges governments can’t easily solve appeared first on CyberScoop.

The Justice Department on Tuesday said it has seized infrastructure tied to what officials called one of the world’s most prolific criminal marketplaces, used to commit cyber scams and other crimes.

The seized cloud computing account hosted backend infrastructure used by subsidiaries of the Huione Group, a Cambodia-based corporate conglomerate.

At the same time, the Treasury Department announced fresh sanctions and more against Huione and affiliated companies. The administration actions Tuesday add to disruption efforts from last fall against pieces of the same network.

The Trump administration has placed an emphasis on combating transnational cybercrime and other kinds of scams and fraud.

The seized cloud computing account was used to operate Huione Guarantee, also known as Haowang Guarantee, according to Tuesday’s DOJ announcement.

“The Huione Group used this cloud computing account as part of a technological backbone that allowed billions in fraud proceeds to be transferred, moved, and concealed — much of it stolen through Southeast Asian scam centers,” said Tysen Duva, assistant attorney general of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. “Seizures of these marketplaces is critical in the fight against fraud that affects so many Americans, and to stop avenues for criminal proceeds to be laundered.”

U.S. officials allege that Huione Guarantee operated Telegram channels with discussions about illicit goods and services, including the sale of stolen credit card and sensitive personal information, malware-enabled thefts, human trafficking schemes and the laundering of money from romance and investment scams. Huione Guarantee also allegedly offered escrow services for criminals such as money launderers for cryptocurrency.

Treasury took two steps Tuesday to build on its move in October to sever Huione Group from the U.S. financial system. One was to tack H-Pay Service onto its rule for Huione Group as a successor entity. And it slapped nine people and 26 entities linked to Prince Group with sanctions.

“Huione Group served as a critical node for laundering proceeds of cyber heists and virtual currency investment scams and was used by the Prince Group to transfer and consolidate scam-derived assets,” Treasury’s announcement states.

Also last October, the Justice Department said it seized bitcoin valued at $15 billion from the chairman of the Prince Group, Chen Zhi, and indicted him over alleged cryptocurrency crimes and other schemes. 

An alleged key figure in Chen’s criminal network has been arrested in Cambodia and extradited to China.

The post Justice Department seizes infrastructure used by cyber scam and criminal marketplace appeared first on CyberScoop.

Members of Congress responded with skepticism and caution Tuesday to the Trump administration’s decision to impose export controls on Anthropic’s newest AI models.

The Friday order, which Anthropic said forced it to disable its Fable 5 and Mythos 5 artificial intelligence models, was prompted by what the administration said were national security concerns that a large number of cybersecurity professionals have dismissed as ill-founded.

Several Hill Democrats told CyberScoop they were concerned that the administration’s decision was driven by other considerations. Notably, the administration has feuded with Anthropic over use of its models for domestic surveillance and fully autonomous weapons.

Sen. Angus King, a Maine independent who caucuses with Democrats, said he would need to be convinced it was a legitimate national security order and hadn’t yet seen a full justification.

“What they did was pretty extreme, and I’d want to see what the basis was, as opposed to all the other issues that are swirling around in cybersecurity,” he said. “I’m a little skeptical because of their otherwise announced antipathy to this company.”

Leaders of the House Homeland Security Committee had contrasting takes, with Chairman Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y., offering a two-pronged response and the top Democrat on the panel, Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, panning the order.

“The administration is right to treat advanced AI cyber capabilities as a national security issue, especially when foreign adversaries and cybercriminals are actively looking for ways to weaponize these tools,” Garbarino said in a statement. “At the same time, we need to make sure our response does not unintentionally disadvantage American companies, allied partners, or critical infrastructure defenders who need access to the best secure tools available in order to protect our networks here at home.”

The United States, not China, needs to set standards for trusted AI, Garbarino said.

But Thompson said the order adds evidence to the appearance that the Trump administration doesn’t “have a coherent plan for mitigating the cybersecurity risks” of frontier AI models, he told CyberScoop in a statement.

“AI regulations should rely on standards and procedures that provide confidence to the public that decisions are based on the evidence and not on politics,” he said. “Instead, the Trump administration has adopted an ad hoc approach where decisions are made by political appointees in the White House rather than experts and where companies are left guessing on how to comply.”

Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, had also previously highlighted the administration’s quarrel with Anthropic in response to the order in a statement to CyberScoop.

Behind the scenes, the administration and Anthropic were reportedly continuing to try to forge a truce Tuesday. More broadly, the administration’s AI executive order had a rocky rollout as the administration swung back-and-forth on how involved the government should be.

Some lawmakers deferred on commenting Tuesday, such as Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Rand Paul, R-Ky., who told CyberScoop he didn’t have anything to say on the order.

Others said they were still seeking information from the administration.

“I have not had the opportunity to get a brief specifically as to the logic, the reasoning behind it, and so forth,” said Sen. Mike Rounds, the South Dakota Republican who chairs the Armed Services Subcommittee on Cybersecurity. “So I’m going to withhold judgment until I get an opportunity to get the rest of the story, so to speak.”

The post Lawmakers leery about Trump administration’s Anthropic order appeared first on CyberScoop.

A policy paper published Tuesday advocates for software bills of materials (SBOMs) for artificial intelligence as a mechanism for reducing cyber risk and improving transparency, and seeks to give lawmakers, federal agencies and others a roadmap on how to proceed.

The SBOM, commonly described as an inventory of software ingredients, emerged in the 2010s and has expanded beyond software to include hardware and AI.

But the paper from the Institute for Security and Technology, which CyberScoop is the first to report on, argues that AIBOMS require foundational work before they can be widely implemented.  This comes as some companies are already offering AIBOM services and other organizations are actively shaping AIBOM policy.

“What we’re worried about is we would end up in a ‘fire, ready, aim’ situation where everyone was doing it, but we were all doing slightly different things,” said a co-author of the paper, Allan Friedman, who has worked on SBOMs in multiple U.S. government roles. “If we don’t have a shared vision, it becomes a lot harder to have a coherent policy. It becomes a lot harder to have common tools and interoperable data and it becomes a lot harder to use the data that we’re tracking to actually deliver on the promise of supply chain transparency.”

The idea for the paper sprung from discussions with Hill aides and Pentagon staffers, Friedman said, and people like them are the target audience as well.

A key premise is that AIBOM policy needs to explore the topic from two sides.

“How do you solve the chicken-and-egg issue, where no one’s providing the data, so no one’s asking for it, and no one’s asking for it, so no one’s providing it?” Friedman told CyberScoop. “The answer is, you have to go from both supply and demand.”

On the supply side, “An AIBOM should capture relevant details about the models and datasets used for training, fine-tuning, evaluation, validation, testing, retrieval, grounding, augmentation, or other model development or operational purposes,” the paper suggests.

“The demand side begins with some form of forcing function or requirement that organizations understand what is in the products they manufacture and sell,” it states, with one such requirement potentially being an industry mandate to require the tracking of system components — for example, like the “lightweight” standards used in the payment card industry on data security that isn’t overly exact about how components should be tracked.

But it could also include government regulations or contracting conditions, Friedman argues with his Institute for Security and Technology colleague Nick Leiserson. (The scope of government directives on AI is a topic of considerable debate on Capitol Hill and within the Trump administration right now.)

Friedman said the paper isn’t meant to be the be-all, end-all, and acknowledged the prior work of organizations like the Open Worldwide Application Security Project (OWASP) and Linux Foundation.

“We’re not saying this is a brand new topic, nor are we saying that AIBOM will solve all AI security issues,” he said. “I’ve been fighting this fight for SBOM for a decade. You know, SBOM will not pick up your dry cleaning.”

And as AI continues to evolve rapidly, that means papers like the one published Tuesday are just at the beginning of the discussion, Friedman said.

The post A case for how to shape ‘ingredient lists’ for AI models appeared first on CyberScoop.

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency on Wednesday ordered federal agencies to prioritize vulnerabilities based on four criteria, as part of push to “patch smarter, not harder.”

Federal agencies should emphasize patches for vulnerabilities that affect a publicly exposed asset, allow an attacker to fully automate exploitation, give attackers the ability to take over control of a system or relate to evidence of active, real-world exploitation, CISA declared.

CISA acting director Nick Andersen previewed the binding operational directive (BOD) Tuesday, framing it as a rethinking of vulnerability management more broadly.

“This Directive provides clear definitions, timelines and criteria that enhances transparency, predictability and agencies’ resource planning to execute more effective vulnerability remediation,” Andersen said in a statement. “CISA is leading and collaborating with federal civilian agencies to stay ahead of our adversaries as tactics, technologies and vulnerabilities change.”

BOD 26-04 sets forth timelines for how quickly agencies must fix a vulnerability based on how many of the four criteria it meets. If it meets all four, for example, agencies need to fix it within three days and carry out a “forensic triage” to assess whether their systems were compromised. 

More generally, agencies must immediately update their vulnerability management policies, including establishing a process for ongoing remediation of known, exploited vulnerabilities (KEVs) on CISA’s “must-patch” list. Within 60 days, agencies need to update their processes for remediating common vulnerabilities, and within 180 days, agencies must meet the order’s remediation timelines.

The directive is motivated in part by how artificial intelligence is shifting the window from vulnerability discovery to weaponization, and CISA said it reflects priorities in an executive order on AI that President Donald Trump signed last week.

BODs aren’t mandatory for anyone outside of federal agencies, but CISA encourages the private sector to embrace them. CISA officials said in a blog post about the need to “patch smarter, not harder” that “defenders are already struggling to keep up.”

“Artificial intelligence is assisting both researchers and adversaries in identifying flaws in software, vastly increasing the pace at which new vulnerabilities are discovered,” wrote Chris Butera, acting executive assistant director for cybersecurity, and Jonathan Spring , senior technical adviser. “Per Verizon’s 2026 Data Breach Investigations Report, only 26% of vulnerabilities on CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) Catalog were fully remediated by organizations in 2025, a drop from the previous year’s 38%. The median time for full resolution rose to 43 days.”

The move from weeks to days for agencies to patch the most urgent vulnerabilities is something CISA has discussed with some agencies to see if it’s doable, Butera told reporters Wednesday. At one large agency CISA analyzed, just 1% of vulnerabilities fell into the 3-day window, while 60% could be deferred to the next system upgrade.

“We’ve engaged with a few federal agencies ahead of this directive and tried to socialize some of these new time frames,” he said. “We really believe we should be able to free up some time to patch the most urgent vulnerabilities faster, while allowing for more regular patch cycles for some of the lower risk vulnerabilities.”

Patrick Garrity, a security researcher at VulnCheck, said the CISA directive joins similar guidance out of India and the United Kingdom.

“It’s clear the momentum is growing and pushing in the right direction,” he told CyberScoop. “The new directive aligns exactly with the approach we’ve been taking with customers for years, leveraging exploit intelligence to focus on the subset of vulnerabilities that enterprises, governments and vendors really need to address. While it’s mandated for federal organizations, it’s something the private sector should pay attention to as well.”

Tod Beardsley, vice president of security research at runZero and former KEV section chief at CISA, wrote on LinkedIn that there are several noteworthy potential impacts of the BOD, among them that he thinks three-day deadlines will end up being frequent.

“I remain dubious that a three day deadline spread across more than a hundred agencies is an achievable patch cadence today, but we’ll all find out together,” he said.

Updated 6/10/26: Includes Chris Butera comments on timelines, and comments from Patrick Garrity and Tod Beardsley.

The post CISA directive orders agencies to prioritize vulnerability patching in a new way appeared first on CyberScoop.

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency wants to fundamentally reevaluate how it prioritizes risks and vulnerabilities, both for privately-owned critical infrastructure and within the federal government, acting director Nick Andersen said Tuesday.

The plans include a binding operational directive for federal agencies set to be published Wednesday and getting more specific with critical infrastructure owners and operators about which assets they need to protect most and how, Andersen said while speaking at an event hosted by Axonius in Washington, D.C. and talking with reporters afterwards.

The binding operational directive looks to revise how federal agencies do vulnerability management, he said. “Overall, our approach to date has been ‘A patch is released, apply this patch as quickly as you can,’” he said.

“We’re really asking people to take more of a focus on risk associated with each vulnerability. Is it with an asset that is internet-exposed? Does it align to a KEV entry?” he said, referring to CISA’s list of known exploited vulnerabilities. “Is it automatable in its exploitation? Really, we need to be able to highlight that some patches just aren’t as important as others, and plugging the holes for some vulnerabilities is simply not as important as others.”

Andersen said he has made setting the right priorities the focus of his tenure.

“We have to be okay with saying there are some systems that are less important than others, there are some elements of critical infrastructure that are less important than others,” he said. “Those things are very easy for us to rationalize [for] physical crises, but we need to start wrapping our minds around how we’re going to do that during cyber crises.”

Andersen said artificial intelligence-enhanced threats have fueled the directive in part, based on “a recognition that we’re a different dynamic environment with the shorter timeline to weaponization and exploitation,” but the discussions on the directive have been going on for months, before the splashy announcements about frontier AI models and the risks they might deepen. Wednesday’s directive is unrelated to the AI-focused executive order released by the Trump administration last week.

The idea of prioritizing certain potential hacking targets over others isn’t a new one in critical infrastructure, with concepts like “Section 9” designations under a 2013 executive order for entities whom an attack upon could have catastrophic effects; “systemically important critical infrastructure” designations, as recommended by the Cyberspace Solarium Commission; or the creation of the National Risk Management Center established during President Donald Trump’s first term but now the subject of proposed budget cuts.

Andersen said past concepts haven’t worked well, citing Section 9 designations as an example.

“We would sit here and say, ‘Congratulations, you’re with this company, and you’re a Section 9 entity, isn’t that fantastic?’” he said. “That’s really not the level of fidelity that we have to be able to get to to have a real measurable conversation about risk. I need to be able to go to a company and say, ‘Here’s the specific function you’re supporting that makes you more critical. Let’s have a conversation about the specific assets that support that function, and how do we get to a measurable level of resilience for those assets?’”

Those discussions need to get down to a “fine grain,” Andersen said.

“If I’ve got a major bank that I’m talking to, is it as important to me that the bank’s process that supports the bulk payment system is resilient, or is it just as important to me that the branch location two blocks away is continuing to operate?” he said. “Those things just are apples and oranges, even though it’s the same entity that might be affected.”

CISA’s capabilities under the Trump administration have drawn considerable scrutiny, given deep budget cuts at the agency, with more planned. The administration is now making moves to hire back personnel.

Andersen said the agency is working to hire 329 people, and will have job offers out to 182 of them by the end of June. He said the emphasis of the first tranche of hires under the hiring sprint is operational capabilities, meaning areas like emergency communications, infrastructure security and regional personnel.

The agency also has had some of its work hampered by the government shutdowns, such as the delay in plans for town-hall meetings about implementation of the Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act of 2022, which will require key owners and operators to report major incidents within 72 hours.

Andersen said he couldn’t set a date for finalization of regulations related to the law — which had already been delayed prior to any funding lapses — with those town halls now scheduled to begin next week.

“We could have a lot of comments that come to us and really radically change our way of thinking about what the need is here,” he said. “But our focus is just on what’s the original congressional intent behind CIRCIA. what is the greatest need that we’re going to be able to serve, and how it’s going to be able to further the mission that we have for the nation.”

The post CISA is rethinking how it prioritizes risks and vulnerabilities for feds, private sector appeared first on CyberScoop.

Meta said Monday that it caught a spearphishing campaign linked to spyware maker NSO Group despite a court injunction, prompting the tech giant to file a contempt-of-court complaint.

The company won a civil case last year against NSO Group barring it from targeting WhatsApp users and securing $168 million in damages, although NSO Group has been appealing the ruling.

But Meta says NSO Group, makers of the Pegasus spyware, isn’t honoring the permanent injunction.

“We successfully disrupted NSO-linked social engineering attempts, after investigating user reports,” it said in a blog post. “They tried to trick people into clicking on malicious links to drive them to external websites outside of WhatsApp, similar to previously reported 1-click phishing campaigns linked to NSO. We also caught them creating test accounts and groups on WhatsApp, which we took down.”

Meta said the campaign resembled spyware infections that hit journalists and activists in Jordan from 2019 to 2023.

NSO Group didn’t respond to requests for comment about Meta’s accusations.

One top researcher who tracks spyware said NSO Group’s actions are an argument for keeping them on the U.S. sanctions “entity” list that the company has fought to be removed from since its designation in 2021.

“NSO’s own actions make the strongest argument for why they should stay on the Entity list,” John Scott-Railton, senior researcher at the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab, wrote on social media. “And reaffirm that the decision to put them there was the right one.”

Meta made the same argument.

“When a malicious company on the US government’s Entity List continues to defy US courts, existing restrictions must remain firmly in place,” it said in its blog post. “Easing them would undermine US national security and put American companies and billions of people worldwide who depend on secure communications at risk.”

Lawmakers have sought information on the federal government’s prospective use of NSO Group tech and other kinds of spyware, despite a blacklist, given close ties between the company’s new executive chairman and President Donald Trump.

The post Meta accuses NSO Group of defying spyware injunction, files contempt of court complaint appeared first on CyberScoop.

House Democrats criticized a draft Republican Department of Homeland Security spending bill Thursday that they said would cut funding for the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency by $250 million.

Republicans said the bill provides $2.4 billion for CISA, and that among its focuses are “improving cybersecurity resilience,” in the words of House Appropriations Chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla.

But Democrats decried it as a funding reduction. The panel’s subcommittee on homeland security is set to vote on the bill Friday.

The fiscal 2027 funding measure “dramatically cuts funding for cybersecurity and infrastructure protection despite an increasing number of sophisticated attacks from foreign adversaries against U.S. businesses, health care systems, utilities, schools, and state and local governments,” Democrats said in a fact sheet.

They also said it limits DHS’s ability to counter foreign propaganda seeking to undermine U.S. democracy, and to protect states against foreign groups during the elections.

The second Trump administration has sought deep cuts in CISA’s personnel numbers and budget in both fiscal 2026 and 2027, drawing concerns from both sides of the aisle.

Congress last year sought to implement some, but not all, of Trump’s proposed cuts for the agency, advancing legislation to set its budget at $2.6 billion.

In their fact sheet, Republicans said they were reallocating $100 million from past appropriations to fund CISA’s core missions.

They acknowledged some cutbacks, saying that the bill “Includes strategic reductions to redundant, unauthorized, or duplicative contracts, positions, and programs.”

Despite the cutbacks at CISA over the last year and a half, officials have talked about wanting to hire additional personnel. The fiscal 2027 bill includes “$31 million to hire mission critical positions to counter threats from foreign adversaries, such as China,” according to the GOP.

The GOP also highlighted other cyber funds in the DHS bill. DHS’s management director would get $11.3 million for “enhanced cybersecurity protections,” while the Homeland Security Investigations division of Immigration and Customs Enforcement would get $5 million for the Cyber Crime Center.

Neither panel Republicans nor Democrats responded to requests for comment seeking more detailed numbers for the fiscal 2027 bill.

The post Hill Dems hammer GOP for $250M CISA budget cut appeared first on CyberScoop.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin told Congress Wednesday that the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency would ideally have 2,800 personnel, up from approximately 2,200 now and down from 3,400 before the second Trump administration began.

President Donald Trump has pushed to dramatically reduce personnel numbers at the agency, something that has drawn criticism from both Democrats and Republicans on the Hill. Trump has proposed hundreds of millions more in cuts for fiscal 2027.

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y., asked Mullin at a hearing Wednesday about further proposed CISA budget cuts, saying he was “concerned” about personnel numbers and funding for education programs and whether the fiscal 2027 blueprint would “negatively impact those efforts.”

Mullin said DHS funding lapses have made the department rethink CISA, although the deep CISA personnel reductions predate the recent spate of government shutdowns. 

“We had to readjust the way we’re looking at CISA and better lean on public partnerships,” he said. The agency can work well with 2,800 people “If we can actually have the partnerships we need with states and be able to use the grants, the monies that [we] saved with CISA to be able to invest with local and state municipalities. … We’re not going to fail on the mission we have in front of us.”

CISA personnel figures are in a constant state of flux. The CISA staff figure of 2,200 Mullin gave is down even from December. In March, acting director Nick Andersen said CISA was looking to hire 300 people.

There’s been no proposal from the Trump administration to-date to take funds formerly allocated to CISA and shift them to state governments for cybersecurity. State officials have said CISA budget cuts have made their jobs harder, and most experts have said the Trump administration’s approach to shift cyber responsibilities to states is badly misguided.

Congress has yet to permanently reauthorize the State and Local Cybersecurity Grant Program that expired last year before it got a temporary extension and is due to expire again in September.

CISA has gone without a Senate-confirmed director for the entirety of the second Trump administration. Mullin said “we’ve got a person soon to be nominated that will be running CISA that has the ability to recruit and focus on the authorities we have.”

Mullin said CISA has “unique” authorities that haven’t “been completely utilized.” 

“We want CISA to be the leader in cybersecurity,” he said. “They should be and they will be.”

A House Appropriations subcommittee is set to consider a DHS funding bill Friday.

The post DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin pinpoints optimal CISA staffing levels appeared first on CyberScoop.

The Pentagon is focusing on integrating cyber into all its operations, and wants to make sure it integrates security into artificial intelligence usage from the outset, the Defense Department’s top cyber policy official said Tuesday.

Recent conflicts have made clear how important cyber is, said Katherine Sutton, assistant secretary for cyber policy and principal cyber adviser at DOD — especially when it’s paired with physical force.

Defense officials have noted that there’s been a cultural shift on the importance of cyber at the department since the war in Iran and the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro.

“Information is becoming more and more important on the battlefield, so having the ability to integrate space, cyber and other non-kinetic effects to be able to degrade that information advantage is something that’s going to be critical and foundational to any future conflicts going forward,” she said at the GDIT’s Emerge: Battlespace of the Future conference, hosted by Scoop News Group. “We have to fully pull cyber out of its silo, which means not just integrating the effects, but starting the integration from day one with operational planning … and built in from the beginning, and not something that we strap on as we’re going to execute.”

Brandon Pugh, principal cyber adviser for the Army, backed up that message at the same conference, saying that cyber “being considered in a silo is not where it’s most effective,” and is more effective “when we see cyber blending in the kinetic operations while still being an option in its own right.”

Army Secretary Dan Driscoll has made Pugh Army secretariat lead for all its defense critical infrastructure, both physical and cyber, which Pugh said emphasizes how the Army sees the two linked. The Army brought agencies together last month for an exercise to contemplate threat scenarios across domains.

By the same token, security needs to be interlaced with artificial intelligence, Sutton said. It’s a truism in the cybersecurity world that the internet wasn’t built with security in mind. As advanced AI models grow in usage at the Defense Department, Sutton said the Pentagon can’t make similar mistakes.

“As we adopt these new tools, we’re also creating a new threat landscape for adversaries to attack us and to exploit these new capabilities, so we need to start thinking about how we’re going to secure them,” she said. “One of the challenges we have often had with tools is we adopt them, and security is an afterthought, or we realize that we didn’t think about security from the front. I just don’t think we have that luxury with AI going forward.”

CORRECTED 6/3/2026: to clarify Pugh’s role on defense infrastructure within the Army.

The post DOD wants to integrate cyber in all operations, and integrate security into AI appeared first on CyberScoop.

A House subcommittee will hold an open hearing next week on how frontier artificial intelligence models are shaping the cybersecurity landscape, for good and for ill.

The June 4 hearing will be the second the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Protection has held that was focused at least in part on the subject, following a similar hearing held in December. But unlike at that joint subcommittee hearing, where members also examined other emerging technologies, AI takes center stage next week.

It caps a series of closed-door meetings of the Homeland panel where members and staff have been evaluating the intersection of AI and cyber. CyberScoop is first to report details on the hearing.

The witnesses will be Sandra Joyce, vice president of Google Threat Intelligence; Chris Meserole, executive director of the Frontier Model Forum; Jack Cable, a former top official at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and now chief executive officer and co-founder of Corridor Security; and Matthew Guariglia, senior policy analyst at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

“Communist China is moving aggressively to control the technologies that will define the future of economic and military power, and few technologies are more consequential than artificial intelligence,” subcommittee chairman Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., said in a written statement. “Adversaries are already working to steal American AI capabilities, weaponize AI-enabled tools, infiltrate critical systems and undermine our national security.”

“AI is the America First mission of the future, and it is becoming our number one offensive and defensive weapon against cyber terrorists,” he continued. “I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on how we can stay ahead of AI-enabled cyber threats, protect the services Americans rely on and win this AI arms race.”

The hearing is the latest response from Capitol Hill to the spate of news about the capabilities of advanced AI models to uncover cyber vulnerabilities. Earlier this month, for instance, lawmakers wrote to National Cyber Director Sean Cairncross asking for a plan to deal with the potential surge in vulnerability discovery stemming from such models.

Last week, the Trump administration postponed a draft AI executive order. It’s something lawmakers are likely to ask about at next week’s hearing.

The post House panel poised to hold hearing centered on AI impact on cyber appeared first on CyberScoop.

OpenAI on Wednesday hailed its plans to safeguard information and aid cybersecurity defenders in the 2026 midterm elections, including work to combat deepfakes and other forms of artificial intelligence misuse. 

The announcement builds on commitments from major tech companies in 2024, including OpenAI, to protect elections from AI-infused election interference — efforts that some thought weren’t enough. Government agencies, non-governmental institutes and others have increasingly warned about AI’s ability to have a negative impact on elections even as they advertise its potential for good.

OpenAI’s plan has five planks: spreading reliable information about voting and election results, helping with cybersecurity, watermarking deepfakes, enforcing policies that ban users from deploying its tools for election interference, and weeding out political bias in its models.

OpenAI highlighted that it has made its Codex Security agentic framework and Trusted Access for Cyber framework available to election officials, and was briefing the National Association of Secretaries of State and the National Association of State Election Directors on its tools.

“This is an important moment for cyber defenders across industries, and we believe AI plays a critical role in hardening digital infrastructure — including systems that support elections,” the company said. “OpenAI is committed to building resilience across the infrastructure stack, including in ways that support election execution.”

Some elements of OpenAI’s plans aren’t new so much as it’s taking pieces from other announcements and putting them together in one, such as reiterating last week’s partnership with SynthID to add watermarks to images generated with ChatGPT to assist in evaluating whether something is real or a deepfake.

One new element of Wednesday’s announcement is that OpenAI has struck a partnership with the Associated Press on sharing election data.

One election security expert welcomed the OpenAI announcement.

“Given the prevalence and amplification of disinformation about our elections, sometimes coming from leaders in high office, it’s always a good thing when platforms and services embrace their obligation to deliver accurate information to users,” David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research, told CyberScoop. “It appears OpenAI is doing that with this announcement. I hope other platforms embrace this responsibility as well.”

The post OpenAI heralds cybersecurity, election interference safeguard plans for 2026 midterms appeared first on CyberScoop.

Artificial intelligence is an “unstoppable force” that allows tech to be “weaponized just below the threshold of traditional warfare,” including in cyberspace, the head of a U.K. intelligence, security and cybersecurity agency said Wednesday.

We live in a world “where the latest frontier AI is rapidly unearthing fault lines in technologies our society relies on every single day,” said Anne Keast-Butler, director of the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) spy agency. “The ground beneath our feet is shifting, and shifting fast. Which means cybersecurity has never been more important.”

She added; “we need to reimagine cybersecurity in the AI world.”

Keast-Butler said her agency has spent the last few months developing defensive capabilities that are integrated with agentic AI, and embedding it into its operations “responsibly and ethically.”

Her speech offered the view of one of the world’s cyber superpowers about how AI is evolving both cyber offense and defense. The GCHQ is the largest of the U.K.’s spy agencies and home to the National Cyber Security Centre.

The U.K.’s AI Security Institute recently reported on how advanced AI models have surpassed prior benchmarks for autonomously uncovering vulnerabilities. At the same time, government officials in Europe, the United States and elsewhere have warned about how AI will exacerbate cyber risks.

Keast-Butler said Wednesday that “warfare is being reconfigured; increasingly data-driven, AI-enabled, and automated in conflicts from Ukraine to Iran.”

Overall, “AI is an unstoppable force with great opportunity. But it’s also a force with risks,” she said. “As AI gains increased autonomy, we all have an intergenerational duty to harness and secure it for good; to protect our national security, our economy and our way of life.”

She warned about China’s arrival as a tech superpower, which includes its sophisticated cyber capabilities. She said China recognizes the value of AI combined with the availability of massive amounts of data.

And Russia is upping its use of hybrid warfare against both Ukraine and the U.K., Keast-Butler said, with both cyber and physical forces.

The post UK spy chief labels AI ‘unstoppable force’ with offensive, defensive ramifications for cyberspace appeared first on CyberScoop.

The White House has updated rules for federal agencies to keep logs of significant cyber activities in their networks, touting it as a measure to cut back on red tape and focus on how cybersecurity risks have evolved.

The Office of Management and Budget memorandum, released Friday, replaces a 2021 memo signed by then-President Joe Biden. It continues revisions that President Donald Trump has made to federal cybersecurity guidance under his predecessor.

The new memo, M-26-14, nods at the intentions of the earlier memo, M-21-31, saying that “Implementation of that memorandum improved foundational capabilities across agencies” to establish standards for logging and improve agencies’ record-keeping for the purposes of detecting and responding to cyberattacks.

“However, some requirements, such as the retention of vast quantities of logging data without clear utility, proved neither operationally feasible nor cost-effective for most agencies,” last week’s updated memo states. “To address these inefficiencies and the evolving cyber threat environment, this memorandum directs agencies to employ a risk-based, prioritized logging approach.”

There have been calls for the idea of updating the 2021 memo, and one observer praised the new version to CyberScoop. Another analyst, however, questioned how much harm the Trump administration might do by rescinding the earlier memo before having all of the new memo’s directives in place.

One directive is for the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to develop a “logging reference architecture” within 90 days that prioritizes the objectives of conducting continuous event monitoring and enabling investigations of forensic analysis after a known or suspected compromise.

Agencies would have another 90 days to submit a logging plan that adheres to those principles. The memo also establishes a new model for measuring agency progress in implementation. Multiple government watchdogs have concluded that agencies weren’t meeting the prior memo’s benchmarks.

The new memo “sharpens focus on real-time threat detection and the ability to investigate and recover after a cyber attack,” John Harmon, regional vice president of cyber solutions at Elastic, told CyberScoop. “It gives agencies the flexibility to build logging architectures that fit their specific mission.”

Harmon also praised the memo’s recognition of artificial intelligence risks to cybersecurity, and the revised maturity model.

But Nick Leiserson, senior vice president for policy at the Institute for Security and Technology think tank, said the timing of the replacement memo and the rescinding of the previous memo will give agencies a reason not to budget and prioritize logging for a period of time that adds up to six months or more.

“Moving from that to nothing is not ideal, and that’s essentially what this is doing,” Leiserson, who served in the Biden administration’s Office of the National Cyber Director, told CyberScoop. “This is saying ‘We’re rescinding 21-31 right now’ You won’t have any new guidance for at least 90 days, when CISA publishes this logging reference architecture, and it’s not clear to me why you would disaggregate that and not have the two of those things come out at the same time.”

The post White House charts new course for federal agencies and cybersecurity logging appeared first on CyberScoop.

Securing some of the open-source technology that serves as the backbone for all modern digital infrastructure is going to require some “hard decisions” amid a wave of malware attacks, the leader of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency said Thursday.

“The open-source community is one that I’m particularly worried about when we start to think about rapid escalation of vulnerability discovery,” acting director Nick Andersen said, referencing a cartoon about how key technologies that underpin the internet are often maintained by a single person. 

In one recent attack, a hacker hijacked an account of a single open-source project maintainer to  publish malicious updates for axios, popular with software developers, raising the potential for attacks that could spread more widely. TeamPCP, a suspected North Korean hacking group, has been on a sweeping spree of open-source attacks.

“There’s tremendous opportunity here to re-architect areas … to make investments in areas where we know that we’ve been lacking, and to just force some hard security decisions to be made… where people thought that their risk profile was different than what it is,” Andersen said.  “We see the escalation in terms of speed, scale and velocity of vulnerability discovery to weaponization and exploitation.”

CISA has been working with industry and others “to modify our approach to vulnerability management, modify our approach to coordinated vulnerability disclosure, modify our approach to remediation, with the explicit understanding that we’re just not going to be able to keep up using traditional mechanisms,” Andersen said, speaking at the National Cyber Innovation Forum in Washington, D.C.

The government and private sector can work together to identify the biggest threats and then give them the right level of attention, he said. On the federal government side, that means working to get a full picture of the extent of reliance on open-source technologies.

Overall, the United States has put off too many necessary security improvements, Andersen said.

“Whether you look at the private sector or you look at our governments and public sector networks and systems that we’re supporting, there’s just a tremendous amount of technical debt that’s out there,” he said. We’ve not made the right level of investment required in order to be able to readily secure ourselves for the future.”

The post CISA chief frets about open-source vulnerabilities, delayed security improvements appeared first on CyberScoop.

Congress wants answers from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency about the reported public exposure of sensitive agency credential data on GitHub in an incident that the security researcher who discovered it called one of the worst leaks he’s ever seen.

Other security professionals also voiced concern Tuesday about the leak and the potential for abuse by any malicious parties who got a hold of the information.

Security firm GitGuardian said it discovered a public GitHub repository last week that exposed credentials for privileged AWS GovCloud accounts and internal CISA systems dating back to November. The repository, apparently maintained by a contractor, was named “Private-CISA.” 

Krebs on Security first reported the incident.

“My main fear … is that a state actor will get the data and might be able to do bad stuff,” GitGuardian security researcher Guillaume Valadon told CyberScoop that he thought to himself upon discovering the leak, after concluding it was real; he initially thought it looked fake.

State-based attackers who obtained the credentials “might be able to gain persistence,” Valadon said, “so for me it’s even worse than an attacker destroying everything, having someone in a governmental system — it’s really, really bad.”

A House Homeland Security Committee aide said the panel is seeking a staff-level briefing from CISA on the matter.

Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson, the top Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee, and Delia Ramirez, the top Democrat on the panel’s cyber subcommittee, had separately demanded a briefing Tuesday in a letter to CISA’s acting director, Nick Andersen. 

They said they wanted to learn “how this serious security lapse occurred, any potential security consequences, remediation activities, corrective actions related to the contractor personnel involved, and efforts to monitor for and prevent similar activity from occurring in the future.”

Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H., also sent a letter Tuesday to Andersen, seeking a classified briefing to answer questions about which systems were exposed, what forensic work CISA did to evaluate potential damage and what corrective action it has taken.

“This reported incident raises serious questions about how such a security lapse could occur at the very agency charged with helping to prevent cyber breaches,” Hassan wrote in the missive first reported by Axios, particularly “regarding CISA’s internal policies and procedures at a time of significant cybersecurity threats against U.S. critical infrastructure.”

Both letters pointed to personnel and budget cutbacks at the agency as a potential contributor to the incident.

CISA said it was looking into what happened.

“The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency is aware of the reported exposure and is continuing to investigate the situation,” a spokesperson said. “Currently, there is no indication that any sensitive data was compromised as a result of this incident. While we hold our team members to the highest standards of integrity and operational awareness, we are working to ensure additional safeguards are implemented to prevent future occurrences.” 

The repository was reportedly maintained by a contractor at Nightwing. A Nightwing spokesperson referred questions to CISA.

The kind of exposure that happened for CISA “is an unfortunately painful, but common and repeated, if not relentless, way that we see organizations inadvertently leak very sensitive credentials to the wider web,” said Ben Harris, founder of WatchTowr, a company that helps organizations detect such exposures.

Harris told CyberScoop he didn’t want to speculate on what attackers who obtained the credentials might be able to do with it, but he said that it would be “terrifying” if the contractor was transferring information from work to home, as one researcher theorized.

Dave Mitchell, senior director of threat intelligence at Infoblox, told CyberScoop the incident showed the importance of teams having controls and audits in place across their repositories.

“Of all the things that keep me up at night, misconfigurations in GitHub are a recurring nightmare. It’s critical for so many organizations — all it takes is one accidental upload or misconfiguration and you’ve signed yourself up for a major incident,” he said in a written statement. “No need for a threat actor to use advanced techniques to compromise you if the keys are already sitting on the counter.”

Travis Rosiek, public sector chief technology officer at Rubrik, noted that the timing of the issue aligned with the government shutdown that only recently resolved for DHS. He said the incident showed the federal government needs to prioritize resilience.

“A persistent shortage of cybersecurity talent, combined with funding lapses, high workforce turnover, and an increasingly complex threat landscape, created the perfect storm for this scenario,” he said in a written statement to CyberScoop. “No organization is immune, and we must ensure that the federal government, which is responsible for helping protect the nation’s critical infrastructure and enhancing our cybersecurity posture, remains fully operational 24-7, 365 days a year.”

Without minimizing the severity of the incident, some researchers who have looked at the leak said there are mitigating circumstances that make elements of it defensible or, at least, understandable.

CISA acted very swiftly to remove the repository, Valadon said, once he alerted them to the leak.

And even if CISA has the right policies in place, human error still can make it difficult to entirely avoid incidents like this, Harris said.

“The reality is this happens every single day to different organizations, including cybersecurity companies,” he said, noting it would be different if it was a pattern. “This is not exclusive to CISA. I don’t really think it reflects well if we saw this every single day with CISA. … It’s not ideal that it’s even happened once, but the reality is that cybersecurity is people, process, technology.”

CISA has had other security incidents in the past, including recently. The former acting director of the agency endured criticism for uploading sensitive contract data to ChatGPT last year. In 2024 the agency notified Congress of a breach of a chemical plant security tool.

Updated 5/20/26: to include more information on a House Homeland Security Committee briefing request.

The post CISA credential leak raises alarms, and Capitol Hill demands answers appeared first on CyberScoop.

Sean Plankey, most recently the nominee for director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, is joining defense technology company UFORCE as its U.S. chief executive officer.

The London-based company created out of nine Ukrainian-based firms announced Plankey’s move Monday less than a month after he withdrew his nomination amid difficulties overcoming objections from senators who had placed a hold on it.

Plankey’s a cyber veteran of the first Trump administration but also had been serving as senior adviser on the Coast Guard at the Homeland Security Department, retiring from the Coast Guard this year.

UFORCE makes combat drones for air, land and sea and plans to have its first U.S.-made unmanned surface vessels hitting the water by this summer. The startup reportedly brought its valuation to $1 billion earlier this year.

“The United States and its allies are looking for defense technology partners that can move

quickly, innovate continuously and deliver systems already proven across theaters of combat,” Plankey said in a statement. “UFORCE is uniquely positioned to meet that demand and we will do that by manufacturing these capabilities in America.”

Said Oleg Rogynskyy, co-founder and CEO of UFORCE: “Sean’s decision to join UFORCE reflects the strength of our platform and the growing recognition that the future of autonomous defense will be shaped by companies able to combine real combat validation with scalable Western deployment,” 

CISA has gone without a permanent director for the entirety of the second Trump administration, and the president has yet to put forward a nominee for the position since Plankey’s withdrawal last month.

Former Oklahoma senator Markwayne Mullin took over as DHS secretary in late March.

The post Former CISA nominee Sean Plankey named US CEO of defense startup appeared first on CyberScoop.