Biotechnology doesn’t fall neatly into any one of the 16 government-designated critical infrastructure sectors that receive specialized and focused attention from feds, leading some lawmakers to worry that it’s not getting the protection from cyberattacks and other risks that it needs.

That’s why a bipartisan group of senators and representatives announced legislation Thursday that would place an emphasis at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency on defending biotechnology, biomanufacturing and biological data.

The Protecting Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing as Critical Infrastructure Act and the Protecting Biological Data Act are two separate bills with the same group of cosponsors. Both bills would weave biotech into the law that established the Department of Homeland Security.

The former would direct DHS to come up with plans to make sure biotech and biomanufacturing are protected as critical infrastructure, but not as a whole new sector. The plans would identify key biotech players, conduct outreach to them and develop steps to update the National Infrastructure Protection Plan this year to incorporate biotech sector input.

The latter would make sure that systems handling genomic sequences and sensitive biometric data are covered as critical infrastructure and integrated into the national cyber strategy, that CISA would work with biotech players on security steps like joint exercises and that the agency would get new personnel to handle biometric data security.

In the last two months, biotech giants Boston Scientific and Amgen have revealed that they suffered recent cyberattacks.

Sponsors of the measures include leaders and members of the National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology, a legislative advisory group.

“Biotechnology infrastructure and data are becoming vital to America’s economic and national security,” said Commission Chair Senator Todd Young, R-Ind. “Just as we are serious about where the sensitive data of Americans is stored and who can access it, we should be equally serious about protecting our biological data and infrastructure. Designating biotech as critical infrastructure is about recognizing its strategic importance and making sure the capabilities America will depend on tomorrow remain resilient and protected from foreign threats.”

Notably, however, the bills do not seek a separate critical infrastructure category for biotech to add to the 16. Currently, biotech cuts across a number of existing sectors, including the health, agricultural and industrial sectors.

Some industry groups and experts have lobbied for the inclusion of new critical infrastructure sectors, such as space or artificial intelligence.

“Protecting biomanufacturing infrastructure and the most sensitive biological data of Americans is essential for our national security,” said commissioner Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif. “These bipartisan bills will help ensure we are protecting this sector from physical and cyber threats while keeping America as the world leader in biotechnology.”

The bill’s sponsors in the House are Khanna, Stephanie Bice, R-Okla. and Scott Peters, D-Calif., and in the Senate the sponsors are Young and Maggie Hassan, D-N.H.

You can read the text of the bills below.

The post House and Senate members propose legislation for CISA to step up cyber defenses for biotech appeared first on CyberScoop.

A new Democratic bill in Congress would establish a federal Cybersecurity and AI Board of Investigations to provide independent government oversight of cyberattacks carried out by AI agents, following recent hacks by models run at companies like Anthropic, OpenAI, Meta and others.

The bill, introduced by Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., would attempt to establish a federal mechanism to investigate incidents where AI models escape sandbox environments and access live internet systems.

Currently, frontier AI companies like OpenAI and Anthropic largely control the investigation and public reporting of such incidents. Markey and other critics argue that these companies have too much control over investigations and reporting due to their financial and legal interests. 

“Despite the unprecedented depth and scale of recent AI-enabled cyberattacks, the public is learning critical details piecemeal,” Markey said in a statement. “Building stronger defenses requires a full accounting of what goes wrong, and we cannot depend on companies with little incentive to disclose their failures to give us one. We need the Cybersecurity and AI Board of Investigations to get to the bottom of major incidents and give companies and the government the critical information necessary to build resilience and better secure our economy and our country.”

Although frontier AI companies maintain external red-teaming programs and allow limited access to organizations like METR and Redwood Research, they control the scope, terms and time frames of those engagements.

The board, which would coordinate with the secretary of commerce, could subpoena witnesses and conduct “independent and impartial reviews and assessments” of AI agent-led hacks that impact federal information systems or critical infrastructure. 

It would be led by five members, appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate for five-year terms, with no more than three members from one political party.

The board would also investigate systemic vulnerabilities in the AI supply chain, so-called “near misses” where unauthorized agent-led hacks were “narrowly averted,” and gaps in federal regulatory oversight. It would have technical staff including engineers, malware analysts, and digital forensic experts.

The board would “operate independently from regulatory review and enforcement actions without assigning legal fault or liability for any review and assessment” it conducts, according to the bill.

OpenAI confirmed Wednesday its AI agents breached a statistics portal used by the Australian government’s social services agency, Services Australia. Though the breach happened in June, OpenAI learned of the incident in August. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the company did not notify him until Sept. 10, when it sent findings to a general government email inbox, according to the BBC.

The post New bill would create federal investigative body for AI-driven hacks  appeared first on CyberScoop.

Law enforcement has arrested two leaders of a Russian-owned phone hacking company used by Kremlin agencies who allegedly masked its foreign ownership from the U.S. Defense Department, Department of Homeland Security and others to win millions of dollars worth of contracts, the Justice Department announced Wednesday.

Lee Reiber of Boise, Idaho, the CEO of Oxygen Forensics (Oxygen US), was arrested in his home state and Oleg Davydov, one of five Russian nationals whom DOJ said actually controlled the company, was arrested in London, from where the department plans to seek his extradition. They face charges of conspiracy to commit wire fraud.

Publicly, Oxygen went to great lengths to present Reiber as the true leader of a company based in Alexandria, Va., asserting that the company was not controlled by Russian-based executives, according to a criminal complaint., While the company told government agencies it was U.S.-owned, Russian officials with the company repeatedly overruled him, the complaint alleges. 

Oxygen’s business aims were complicated in 2022 after the United States expanded sanctions against Russia following its invasion of Ukraine. That’s when the company installed Reiber as CEO and removed the owners from public corporate filings. An unnamed co-conspirator in the complaint nonetheless said that “fateful decisions will be made by” five shareholders, including Davydov. 

Since March 2022, Oxygen has sold its forensics software to the U.S. Secret Service, Homeland Security Investigations, the DHS inspector general and DOD. After the 2022 sanctions, Oxygen won more than $2 million in contracts and purchases from the Secret Service and its National Computer Forensics Institute. Reiber asserted U.S. ownership as recently as February of this year to the NCFI, according to the complaint.

Reiber knew the company had to conceal its true ownership, the complaint states. Oxygen and its competitors have quarreled in the media and in courts. Oxygen in 2023 faced accusations that Oxygen US and Oxygen Russia were both using software code reverse-engineered from Elcomsoft’s products. Oxygen Russia’s customers included the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB). 

“The accusation mattered to Reiber because answering it truthfully would have required disclosing that Oxygen US and Oxygen Russia sold the same software, developed by the same team, and were owned by the same people,” the complaint reads, citing email correspondence.

Knowing Oxygen’s actual ownership configuration would’ve changed the equation for the government agencies, according to the complaint.

“Procurement officials at the U.S. government customers have represented that they would not have awarded or renewed contracts for the forensic software had they known that OxygenUS was a Russian-owned company,” the complaint reads.

Natalia Krapiva, senior tech-legal counsel at Access Now, celebrated what she nonetheless called an overdue move from DOJ.

“For years, civil society warned that Oxygen Forensics was owned and built from Russia. Now the Justice Department confirmed it,” Krapiva told CyberScoop. “We applaud the U.S. government for taking this crucial step, but the fact that it took so long is both a national security and a human rights scandal.”

“The same technology that extracted data for U.S. investigations has been used inside Russia to jail journalists, activists, and peaceful dissenters. And it doesn’t stop at the U.S. border,” she continued. “We call on the U.S. and over 100 governments using this technology to immediately sever all ties to the company, implement sanctions, and conduct full investigation(s) of how Russian tech designed for the FSB spent all these years inside their sensitive law enforcement operations.”

Court-listed attorneys for Reiber listed in court documents didn’t respond to requests for comment. No attorney for Davydov could be located.

The DOJ in its announcement specified that “The complaint does not allege that the software contained malicious code or that it was used to gain unauthorized access to any customer’s computer systems or data.”

The post Phone-hacking company that won U.S. security agency contracts hid Russian ownership, DOJ alleges appeared first on CyberScoop.

Two Senate committee leaders are introducing legislation to foster cybersecurity standards for the telecommunications sector nearly two years after the landmark Salt Typhoon campaign was made public.

First reported by CyberScoop, Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, the GOP chairman of the Commerce, Science and Technology panel, are introducing the Telecommunications Cybersecurity and Resilience Act.

“The Salt Typhoon intrusion was the worst telecom hack in our nation’s history and showed us just how vulnerable our critical infrastructure is, but it does not have to be that way,” Warner said. “If telecommunications companies adopt cybersecurity best practices, our networks can be more resilient. This bipartisan legislation is a good start in protecting our nation and strengthening the communications networks Americans rely on every day.”

Federal officials have repeatedly warned that Salt Typhoon — the Chinese group blamed for the massive and “indiscriminate” espionage campaign that hit major telecom carriers and siphoned data from presidential campaigns and candidates — remains a threat to this day.

Yet some cyber officials have worried that public apathy over the attacks has stifled momentum for telecom security rules. In one case the Trump administration has rolled them back.

The Warner-Cruz legislation takes the approach of trying to improve telecom security with voluntary measures jointly developed by government and industry.

“Foreign adversaries are increasingly targeting America’s communications networks. Securing them requires an approach that keeps pace with evolving threats,” Cruz said. “This sensible bill brings government and industry together to develop voluntary, telecom-specific cybersecurity best practices rather than adopting rigid federal mandates that quickly become outdated.”

Their bill would create a telecom cybersecurity working group within the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to bring together carriers, suppliers, experts and relevant government agencies. 

The working group would develop voluntary industry-wide best practices within 18 months of passage of the bill, which would be reviewed for updates every two years or after major incidents.

The best practices would “focus solely on identifying, responding to, mitigating, preventing, and remediating cybersecurity incidents and vulnerabilities,” according to the legislation, and would be in line with existing federal cybersecurity risk management frameworks.

The working group would also create a voluntary certification process through independent third-party assessors that companies could choose to use.

“What is missing” now, according to a summary of the bill, “is a common, telecom sector-specific set of best practices that brings that expertise together and can evolve as threats and technology change. Building on industry’s familiarity with security development and threat information sharing, this bill would bring stakeholders — government and private sector — together to develop and maintain effective techniques and practices to secure networks.”

The post Bipartisan Senate leaders introduce bill to bolster telecom cybersecurity in response to Salt Typhoon hacks appeared first on CyberScoop.

The foundation for modern society in America is under attack. State and local governments, entities that often oversee critical natural resources, schools, and hospital systems, are routinely targeted and breached by state-backed threat actors. Their budgets are simply too slim to provide the digital bulwarks required to fend off such attacks.

The problem is growing. In August, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency issued a joint advisory detailing an “active threat” against Siemens S7 series programmable logic controllers (PLCs), ruggedized industrial devices that read field sensors, execute control logic on a fixed cycle, and drive equipment like valves, motors, and pumps. Siemens S7 PLCs, widely used across industries, are under attack from malicious actors looking to sabotage American infrastructure vital to the functioning of sewers, hospitals, and other industrial operations.

In 2024, Russian-affiliated actors exploited a similar vulnerability, breaching the water system for a small town in Texas, causing the water tank to overflow. The town’s entire revenue in 2023 was $3.37 million, with no dedicated line item for cybersecurity. This was, in effect, a trial run. How and when the detection occurred was an education for the Russians.  

American state and local governments are unlikely to organically grow their budgets to the level needed to invest in software that can reliably secure their infrastructure. The U.S. government has a proven option here: clarify that existing tax code already supports increased, iterative purchases of necessary cybersecurity software.

State and local governments are increasingly responsible for cybersecurity, with the same, or even fewer, resources than they had in the past. A plurality of state chief information security officers reported stagnant or reduced cybersecurity budgets for 2026. The picture at the local level is often worse, where a single operator often owns asset inventory, patching, and incident response for an entire utility. The Center for Internet Security in 2024 found that, out of the thousands of local agencies it surveyed, about one-third were doing minimal to no cybersecurity activities. In Minnesota, specifically Braham, Plymouth, South St. Paul, and Maple Plain, threat actors used this to their advantage.

Braham in particular identified $22.98 million in water infrastructure needs, well over 10 times its annual city budget of $2.2 million. A state bond appropriation covered $10.22 million, but the money was earmarked for a wastewater treatment plant upgrade, water main replacement, and well replacement. None of these funds covered the cybersecurity infrastructure needed to secure a plant from a state-backed threat actor: no security software, no network monitoring, no cybersecurity staff. Last month, they were one of many cities and municipalities discovered to have been targeted by actors allegedly acting on behalf of Iran.

State-backed adversaries understand that most of America is like Braham. While Anthropic’s and OpenAI’s cybersecurity efforts are admirable, they are aimed at the upper echelons of the American economy, not the wider array of smaller organizations with similar cybersecurity profiles. 

State and local governments cannot defend against state-backed actors alone. Federal tax incentives for cybersecurity software investment offer a faster solution than creating new government programs. This approach gives these organizations the tools to harden infrastructure while avoiding bureaucratic delays.

Bonus depreciation under the One Big Beautiful Bill should cover cybersecurity software and hardware. Digital infrastructure should also qualify for full expensing. Without these tax incentives, critical infrastructure remains vulnerable. A new factory without cybersecurity is essentially undefended.

Clarity on whether the implementation of cybersecurity software could apply to Section 174A expenses would also be useful. An affirmative interpretation could unlock private sector cybersecurity solutions for businesses and infrastructure operators, particularly those in rural areas. A recent letter from Sen. Tom Cotton to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent asks for clarification of several aspects of tax law for such a purpose. 

There are discoveries and risks when deploying new cybersecurity tools. Organizations often don’t know the scope of their own inventory, and given the age of the equipment, bespoke software needs to be developed so customers can use the cybersecurity software. Pilot programs, iterative testing, and development are currently cost-prohibitive for many infrastructure operators. Affirmative interpretations could make this emergent threat into an opportunity to secure the infrastructure that Americans depend on every day.

An affirmative interpretation would benefit all Americans. State and local governments would protect themselves from state-backed threat actors. Firms would be more willing to invest in cybersecurity software, as the cybersecurity software market would grow significantly. Rapid investment is needed now, as AI today is being used to attack critical infrastructure.  

State and local governments now, more than ever, need cybersecurity software to face a world where they are on the front lines of cyberwarfare. The current administration needs to provide them with as much support as quickly as possible to ensure that American critical infrastructure is not reduced to scrap by enterprising malicious actors. 

The post How tax policy can stop threat actors from breaching US water systems appeared first on CyberScoop.

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency published a paper Wednesday that lays out its plan for improving the Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) program, a contract for which nearly ended last year before a last-minute reprieve.

The white paper outlines the components of a “Quality Era” for the program, widely used as the definitive clearinghouse for data on vulnerabilities in software and other products, even as the number of CVEs surges. 

“CISA remains committed to leading, growing and sustaining the CVE Program into the foreseeable future, just as we’ve done for more than 25 years without fail,” said Chris Butera, acting executive assistant director for cybersecurity. “Informed by CVE community feedback, this whitepaper communicates CISA’s effort to support and enable stronger participation and governance, a program-wide maturation effort.”

The CVE program has been in a “Growth Era,” according to CISA. Over 67,000 new CVEs have been published in 2026 as of last week, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology National Vulnerability Database program has seen a 263% increase in CVE submissions between 2020 and 2025. Artificial intelligence has furthered the rise.

“These pressures intensify quality challenges across the CVE ecosystem,” the white paper states. “While faster discovery and reporting can improve the value of vulnerability information when records are complete, consistent, timely, and actionable, the same acceleration can expose gaps in processes, tooling, coordination, and accountability — especially when the quality of the submissions is uneven.” 

The plan calls for advancing data quality across four key dimensions: transparent and effective program governance, broad and active participation across the global software community, data infrastructure that supports CVE operational functions and reliable CVE record content.

Some vulnerability experts have questioned whether other organizations should take over CISA’s stewardship, given budget cuts at the agency.

Butera invited further feedback from the CVE community on the white paper, which stems from an earlier strategy document on the future of the program.

Some CVE experts that CyberScoop spoke to were supportive of what CISA wants to achieve, but skeptical about elements of the white paper.

“We’ve been working around long-standing quality issues in CVE reports for decades. Incomplete or inconsistent records create real downstream work for the security tools, developers, and organizations trying to determine whether they’re actually affected and what to do next,” said Sonatype’s co-founder and chief technology officer Brian Fox. “So it’s good to see CISA acknowledge that quality has to extend beyond the record itself to governance, infrastructure, and participation across the ecosystem.”

But, he added, “I’ll believe we’ve entered a ‘Quality Era’ when we can see the improvement in the actual data and in the decisions that data enables.”

Tom Alrich, who leads the OWASP PURL Expansion Working Group that’s focused on establishing a protocol for creating Product URLs for commercial software, said CISA’s white paper ignores a particularly important and growing issue.

“I support everything mentioned. I also support the flag, motherhood and apple pie,” he said. “However, nothing in there is going to affect the CVE program’s most important problem: that a huge and growing percentage of new CVE records don’t contain a machine-readable software identifier.”

Caitlin Condon, VulnCheck’s vice president of security research, said that “CISA and the CVE program are well-positioned to both observe challenges in this space and to create (and enforce) standards that explicitly state what ‘quality’ means in CVE records.”

But she said the white paper was more the basis for a future framework than a full-fledged framework in itself.

“Many of the potential success metrics suggested in the document can be measured today, but simply aren’t shared publicly,” Condon said. “In future iterations on the framework, I’d hope to see more transparency on CVE metrics as they stand today, along with reasoning on why those metrics are the right ones (versus simply the things that are easiest to measure qualitatively or quantitatively).”

The post CISA outlines improvement plan for CVE program appeared first on CyberScoop.

Nearly nine out of 10 federal civilian executive branch agencies failed to meet last summer’s deadline to implement cloud security directives from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, a watchdog report published Wednesday found.

The conclusions from those results, according to the inspector general for the Department of Homeland Security: agencies “may encounter elevated security exposures that undermine the national cloud security posture and increase the likelihood of preventable cyberattacks and related threat,” and “CISA lacks the authority necessary to require full and timely implementation of Binding Operational Directives,” or BODs.

The latter is a question that has surfaced before about CISA directives, which the agency uses to pressure agencies into improving their cyber defenses. 

The IG took a look at the Secure Cloud Business Applications (SCuBA) project, created in response to the 2022 SolarWinds attack. It provides secure configuration baselines, settings and assessment tools to help agencies reduce the risk of breaches.

A December 2024 directive gave agencies a list of requirements to align with SCuBA, with a deadline of June 2025.

The IG found that 88 of 102 agencies, or 86%, didn’t implement all the mandatory SCuBA policies from BOD 25-01. As of February of this year, “compliance with BOD 25-01 had not improved. A total of 78 out of 102 (76%) [Federal Civilian Executive Branch] agencies were still not in compliance with implementing all mandatory SCuBA policies.”

“Some examples of baselines that FCEB agencies did not implement included blocking outdated authentication procedures, enforcing multifactor authentication, and implementing a policy to protect sensitive and personally identifiable information,” the IG report states. “Implementation of these baselines could mitigate vulnerabilities and threats from affecting the cloud business applications.”

That’s the result of CISA’s lack of power to enforce its BODs, which translates into greater risk, the IG concluded.

“Without defined enforcement oversight of SCuBA policy compliance, the Federal cloud security posture across the Federal enterprise is weakened,” the report states. “When agencies do not adopt required configurations or meet implementation deadlines, their cloud environments remain exposed to preventable threats.”

CISA didn’t respond to the report, according to the IG. 

The agency didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment from CyberScoop.

The post Watchdog finds most agencies failed to meet CISA cloud security orders, heightening risk of attack appeared first on CyberScoop.

The Pentagon’s top civilian cyber policy official said Tuesday her single priority is expanding the cyber options available to the president and the defense secretary, describing a gap between what commanders are asking for and what the force can deliver.

“I’m focused on one single priority, and that is building a more robust set of capabilities for the secretary and the president,” said Katie Sutton, assistant secretary of defense for cyber policy, at DefenseTalks, hosted by DefenseScoop. “The demand far exceeds the supply we have.”

Sutton traced the department’s posture to 2018, when the military gained authorities to run cyber operations as a traditional military activity. “In those last eight years, we’ve learned a lot, but I feel like the last year has really been the year that cyber has sort of entered the limelight,” she said. “We’ve built up the capabilities, we’ve built up our force, we have the operational experience.”

One particular instance of that limelight are previous reports from an operation in Venezuela to apprehend the country’s former president Nicolás Maduro. Various public statements, including those made by President Donald Trump, stated that power outages during the operation were the result of a cyberattack. Experts told CyberScoop in the aftermath that cyber ops may have been involved, but the visible physical attacks that were also part of the operation alone could plausibly explain the outages.

Sutton further described the shift as rooted in how cyber is used, “not just to counter other malicious cyber actors as a cyber-on-cyber tool, but actually as an integrated tool of cyber warfare.” 

Sutton put data at the center of that argument. “Data is fundamental to every battle that we fight going forward,” she said. “Being able to use our cyber tools to deny that to our adversaries as we go into a kinetic fight will ensure our mission success and provide greater safety for our troops.” 

She also described cyber as a tool leaders can use “below the level of armed conflict to provide options before having to move forward to our kinetic options.”

How AI fits in

Sutton also spoke about how she sees artificial intelligence being integrated into the military’s cyber operations, casting it as a natural fit. “Cyber is a digital domain; it’s all based on zeros and ones,” she said, further arguing the department needs to be “an AI-first organization.” 

However, she highlights AI-specific risks—like data poisoning and weakened guardrails—that demand the Pentagon adopt a fundamentally different approach to cyber operations.”

“We’ve spent a long time chasing cybersecurity and dealing with decisions that we made in moving quickly to creating an internet,” she said, adding that security came second in that era. “We’re going to need to fundamentally think about that differently from AI.”

The remarks were similar to Gen. Randall Reed, head of U.S. Transportation Command, who extended this concern to logistics, warning that the military’s predictable supply chains have become vulnerable to AI-enabled adversaries. 

At the conference, Reed suggested AI itself may be the solution, helping Transcom become less predictable and illustrating how military officials are leveraging the technology across multiple operational domains.

The post Pentagon cyber chief: The demand far exceeds supply appeared first on CyberScoop.

A 35-year-old Armenian national was sentenced to two years in prison for his involvement in a series of Ryuk ransomware attacks while living in Ukraine and Russia in 2019 and 2020, the Justice Department said Tuesday.

Karen Vardanyan was extradited from Ukraine to the United States last year and pleaded guilty to computer fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud and extortion in July. Vardanyan’s sentencing, which also calls for about $1.2 million in restitution to victims, matches terms of a plea agreement he reached with prosecutors.

Vardanyan and his co-conspirators’ victims include a Michigan-based company that paid a ransom of nearly $1.2 million in January 2020, a Watsonville, Oregon-based technology company that was attacked in December 2019 and a Texas-based school breached in February 2020, according to court records.

“Like Vardanyan, many cybercriminals are not masterminds of a complex ransomware or extortion scheme but nonetheless play an integral part in the success of these crimes,” read a memo signed by U.S. attorneys in the District of Oregon.

“Unfortunately, high rewards and a relatively low risk of detection are basic features of cybercrime. The only way to affect the cost-benefit analysis of these crimes is to impose meaningful sentences on those who are caught,” the U.S. attorneys added.

Prosecutors previously accused Vardanyan and his co-conspirators — Ukrainian nationals Oleg Nikolayevich Lyulyava and Andrii Leonydovich Prykhodchenko, and Armenian national Levon Georgiyovych Avetisyan — of illegally accessing computer networks to deploy Ryuk ransomware on hundreds of compromised servers and workstations between March 2019 and September 2020.

Ryuk ransomware was prevalent in 2019 and 2020, infecting thousands of victims globally across the private sector, state and local municipalities, local school districts and critical infrastructure, including a wave of attacks on U.S. hospitals.

Victims of Ryuk ransomware attacks include Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center, Universal Health Services, Electronic Warfare Associates, a North Carolina water utility and multiple U.S. news outlets.

Justice Department officials said Vardanyan and his co-conspirators received about 1,160 bitcoins — valued at more than $15 million at the time — in ransom payments from victim companies.

Prosecutors said they found no evidence Vardanyan was still engaged in criminal activity at the time of his arrest. Vardanyan’s incarceration will be followed by three years of supervised release, and his conviction will have immigration consequences resulting in removal from the United States after serving his sentence.

The post Ryuk ransomware operator sentenced to 2 years in prison appeared first on CyberScoop.

OpenAI and the Ukrainian government have agreed to a partnership that will provide AI tools and subsidized computing resources to better protect the nation’s critical infrastructure from cyberattacks.

The agreement, announced Wednesday at OpenAI’s New York office, will provide Ukrainian cybersecurity officials with access to advanced AI models designed for cybersecurity work through the company’s Daybreak program. OpenAI said it is also pledging over $1 billion in subsidized tokens to support the initiative.

During a panel discussion Dmytro Kushneruk, consul general of Ukraine in San Francisco, outlined how the tools would be used for cybersecurity automation, including functions such as incident response, threat triaging, login analysis, inventorying systems, code analysis and validating vulnerabilities.

In nearly all cases, Kushneruk said the primary benefit was carrying out those functions at machine speed. But this speed is meant to complement, not replace, Ukrainians’ human expertise.

In regard to incident response Kushneruk said humans must view “thousands and thousands of these logs and they have to find what’s really important, that’s why AI can give capable defenders really much greater advantage and leverage.” 

“This is why the object is not to replace the cyber defender with AI, but to make sure the cyber defender acts faster,” he added.

Kushneruk said that for Ukraine, the partnership “is really not about protecting computers, it is about actually keeping our country running.”

Ukraine faces approximately 6,000 cyberattacks per year, or about 15 per day, according to Kushneruk. Over the past twelve years, the country’s critical infrastructure, including electricity and water systems, has endured sustained attacks from Russia in the form of cyberattacks and physical strikes.

Since Russia’s 2022 invasion, Ukraine’s critical infrastructure has been under constant threat. While missiles remain the primary concern, Kushneruk said Ukraine has been preparing to protect vital services since Russian GRU hackers shut down the country’s power grid in 2015. 

He added that while the country was “maybe not so much prepared” to deal with the fallout in 2015, it improved over time, including the resilience displayed in 2025 when trains kept running after Russian hackers attacked Ukraine’s railway system.

Some national security experts and congressional committees have explicitly cited the resilience of Ukrainian critical infrastructure as a model for U.S. industry.

Naz Durakoğlu, minority staff director of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said there is “pretty much across the board” agreement between the parties in favor of similar adoption of defensive AI tools by U.S. critical infrastructure operators, though issues like regulation remain sticking points.

“This is something that’s already happening, and frankly, it’s just kind of a basic duty of government to make sure that when you turn the tap on, water comes out, the electricity doesn’t go out, and hospitals keep running and treating patients,” said Durakoğlu. “So there is a broad understanding that this is a major issue, and I will say seeing what Ukraine has to go through day-to-day is also a huge wake-up call to our members on a bipartisan basis.”

OpenAI has publicly pushed for its product, and AI at-large, to be used to solve these types of problems. Company president and co-founder Greg Brockman signed an open letter released earlier this year calling for “collective action” and widespread use of AI models to find and fix vulnerabilities before the rest of the world,  including foreign governments and cybercriminals, got access to the same capabilities.

According to Politico, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman met with U.S. power companies in July to discuss using AI to protect the nation’s electrical grids.

On Wednesday, OpenAI’s national security policy head, Sasha Baker, said the company felt “urgency” to try to strike similar agreements with other governments and industries.

“There’s this period of time where we’re really rushing to get [these tools] in the hands of critical infrastructure operators, of governments around the world, of people who want to patch systems, defend their networks, remediate vulnerabilities because we know as these tools proliferate out there in the ecosystems, there are going to be bad guys out there that also try to use them,” said Baker. “So, we have this window of time to take action and we’re really motivated by the idea that we need to act with some urgency.”

The post OpenAI, Ukraine partner on ‘Daybreak’ program to protect power grids and water systems  appeared first on CyberScoop.

America leads the world in artificial intelligence. As it should. But tech leaders keep warning, with alarming frequency, that we are at risk of losing control.

President Donald Trump has called for an AI czar and an “AI Force.” The details remain unclear, but the announcement underscores something fundamental. A technology this consequential demands clear leadership, accountability and action inside the U.S. government. The question now is what that leadership should do.

That question became more urgent last week when Google disclosed that its Gemini AI model gained unauthorized access to three real companies during testing. The incidents follow similar disclosures involving models from Anthropic, OpenAI and Meta. While there has been a lot of discussion on if AI is spinning beyond human control, what these episodes factually demonstrate that powerful AI systems can take consequential actions developers never anticipated or designed for.

The answer isn’t to retreat from AI leadership. It’s to lead—and simultaneously build the safeguards we need to stay in control. The promise of AI is enormous. It is already expanding access to information, improving productivity and creating opportunities across the economy. But so are the stakes, especially for the digital systems underlying everything we rely on as a society: energy, water, telecommunications, transportation, finance and more.

Take energy as an example: many U.S. utilities are using AI tools and predictive analytics to give plant personnel early warning of equipment problems. Yet AI agents with authority to change equipment settings or take systems offline could themselves fail, exceed their intended authority or be manipulated by adversaries. In extreme cases, the lack of control doesn’t just mean the power goes out, it means we’ve lost the ability to get the lights, heat and telecom systems back online.

At Auburn University’s McCrary Institute, we focus on cybersecurity threats to our nation’s critical infrastructure. Experience has taught us that warnings accomplish little unless someone has the authority, resources and responsibility to act. The time to act is now.

Whether that responsibility ultimately sits with an AI czar, an “AI Force,” existing agencies, or some combination of the three matters less than the mission. A new title or organization will accomplish little without clear objectives, authorities and accountability.

We propose an AI Assurance Compact – a framework for action among the makers of AI models, government, and the owners and operators of our nation’s most critical digital systems. The goal is to ensure that America leads the development of AI while ensuring that we can credibly manage its power and risk.

This compact is built around three principles: capability, that ensures the U.S. remains AI dominant; control, through constant testing and clear accountability; and continuity that ensures essential services can stay operational and recover when AI fails, is compromised, or must be disconnected.

When demonstrated risks outpace available safeguards, frontier development should be deliberately paced, including temporary limits or pauses where risks cannot be adequately controlled.

To their credit, leading American developers have responded to emerging risks with transparency, stronger safeguards and, in some cases, pauses or limits on development and access. But we cannot assume that voluntary restraint alone will protect the public interest or America’s strategic advantage. The country’s competitive landscape demands systemic discipline.

Nor can we assume the next warning will come from an American company. If a Chinese frontier developer reaches a dangerous capability first, American security cannot count on predictable warnings, transparency or restraint.

America’s strategic competitors are all-in on AI. Anthropic reported malicious actors using AI in cyber operations, surveillance and weapons-related work. Keeping a human in the loop is not sufficient when that human intends to attack us.

The Compact would prompt action by:

Requiring ongoing, embedded independent evaluation at frontier labs, covering training pipelines, internal use and deployment. Evaluators need employee-comparable access to relevant systems and evidence, protected reporting channels and freedom to publish safety findings, with narrow confidentiality safeguards. High-consequence systems should pass independent review before release, with renewed scrutiny after material changes. NIST can establish common criteria with sector agencies. Requirements should follow risk, regardless of a model’s origin or whether its weights are open or closed.

Establish enforceable checkpoints when capabilities materially exceed demonstrated safeguards. Developers should present a credible safety case before proceeding with high-consequence activities; uncertainty cannot automatically count as permission. Where risks cannot be adequately controlled, designated authorities must be able to require limits or temporary suspension until independently reviewed evidence supports proceeding.

Require rapid reporting of serious incidents to appropriate government authorities and affected organizations, along with preservation of evidence. Providers should share actionable warnings with one another and affected defenders so an actor removed from one service cannot simply continue elsewhere unnoticed.

AI in essential services needs rigorous guardrails before deployment. Operators need evidence specific to the task and operating environment, enforceable limits on authority, notice of material changes and tested fallback arrangements. Government, independent labs and operators should test failures across interconnected systems. Smaller operators need shared testing, technical assistance and recovery expertise—not another unfunded mandate. A backup plan should count only when it works under stress.

Finally, whatever structure the White House ultimately chooses should execute on the Compact’s principles by driving implementation, setting deadlines and ensuring that infrastructure operators and public-interest representatives have a seat at the table.

Internationally, the United States should explore crisis-communication mechanisms with other major AI powers, including strategic competitors, to reduce the risk that a serious AI-related incident escalates through miscalculation. If that ultimately means some version of a “red phone” for AI, so be it. Such mechanisms should reduce the risk of unintended escalation without creating new constraints on legitimate national security activities. America’s domestic safeguards and defensive investments cannot depend on agreement abroad.

No framework, or new government office, can guarantee control of whatever AI becomes. But clear leadership, accountability and tested safeguards can improve our ability to manage the risks.

America cannot win the AI race only to lose control of the systems on which our country depends. The President has called for action. The mission now should be clear. Preserve America’s AI advantage, maintain control and ensure that our essential systems continue to operate when technology fails, is compromised or must be disconnected.

Our nation’s most critical systems are already benefiting from the power of AI. They should. But pulling the plug on AI cannot mean pulling the plug on the community.

Frank Cilluffo is director of Auburn University’s McCrary Institute for Cyber & Critical Infrastructure Security and served as a special assistant to President George W. Bush following September 11. Nick Sellers is the institute’s associate director and chief operating officer and a former senior executive at Alabama Power and Southern Company.

The post The president has called for AI leadership. Here’s the mission. appeared first on CyberScoop.

The FBI is investigating an attack on its own systems after ShinyHunters claimed responsibility for the incident, putting the prolific cybercrime group in the most direct conflict yet with agents responsible for investigating data extortion attacks.

The Monday breach, first reported by 404 Media, allowed ShinyHunters to temporarily deface the FBI jobs site. The group claimed it stole “very sensitive data on almost all FBI agents and individuals who filed an application with the FBI for a job,” in a lengthy post on its data-leak site.

“The FBI is aware of claims regarding unauthorized activity affecting FBIjobs.gov and is currently investigating,” a spokesperson for the agency said in a statement.

An alert on the FBI jobs site notes that apply.fbijobs.gov and the Special Agent Application Portal are currently unavailable.

The attack marks a sobering escalation by ShinyHunters, a notorious group that previously targeted major cloud platforms, healthcare organizations, universities, technology companies, retailers and education service providers. Previous victims of ShinyHunters this year include Instructure, Salesforce, Snowflake and McKesson.

“The ShinyHunters ransomware group appears to be actively trying to put a target on their back,” Cynthia Kaiser, senior vice president at Halcyon’s ransomware research center, told CyberScoop. 

ShinyHunters claims it targeted the FBI in response to a public service announcement it says contains false allegations about the group. The FBI issued the PSA following ShinyHunters’ May attack on Instructure, the company behind Canvas, a widely used central hub for K-12 and university coursework, exams and communication. 

The group responded with its own “PSA” on its data-leak site, insisting it is not affiliated with The Com, has never conducted swatting attacks or claimed it had sensitive or compromising information, including embarrassing photos or videos, to extort victims. 

The PSA was addressed to Brett Leatherman, assistant director of the FBI’s cyber division, and FBI Director Kash Patel. 

“While ShinyHunters has in the past been hyperbolic about the criticality of the data they’ve accessed, the group has established itself as a legitimate threat,” Flashpoint analysts told CyberScoop. 

“This attack benefits ShinyHunters by bolstering their reputation as a credible threat,” the analysts added. “In the group’s statement on their leak site regarding the breach, they portray the FBI’s PSA as an “attempt to ‘disrupt’ our operations and hinder clients’ trust in our organization hoping nobody pays us.”

The threat group typically uses social engineering, abuses weaknesses in identity systems or exploits vulnerabilities to gain access to cloud-hosted environments containing troves of sensitive or proprietary data, which it threatens to leak if the victim doesn’t pay a ransom.

ShinyHunters doesn’t appear to be seeking a payoff in this case, but rather a bid to coerce the FBI into amending or removing the May PSA. The group didn’t make any direct threat in the data-leak site post to release the stolen data, but it set a deadline of one week for action.

That coercive approach toward the FBI could backfire, according to experts. 

“Ransomware groups are largely successful because they operate like businesses,” said Kaiser, a former deputy assistant in the FBI’s cyber division. “Targeting other criminal groups or law enforcement — especially in ways intended to publicly shame — demonstrates a lack of discipline that historically has led to takedowns, takeovers or defections.”

The post ShinyHunters claims attack on FBI exposes almost all agents appeared first on CyberScoop.

A House Democrat tapped to lead his party’s efforts on artificial intelligence has introduced legislation that would establish a test program within the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to give critical infrastructure operators free access to frontier AI models to protect their systems.

Rep. Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J., introduced the AI Cyber Defense Act Monday, inspired by the series of cyberattacks on water facilities in recent months. “If we don’t get ahead of it, it can mean a disaster for our families,” he said at a news conference when he first announced the measure and others tackling water cybersecurity.

Gottheimer holds a couple of posts relevant to the legislation: He’s one of three co-chairs of the House Democratic Commission on Artificial Intelligence, and the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee’s cyber subcommittee. He also has bipartisan support for the bill, with co-sponsors Reps. Don Bacon, R-Neb., Zach Nunn, R-Iowa, Hillary Scholten, D-Mich., and Greg Landsman, D-Ohio.

The bill directs the Department of Homeland Security, through CISA, to create a program “through which owners and operators of critical infrastructure that participate in the Program are able to securely utilize artificial intelligence procured through the Secretary and technical assistance provided by the Secretary to protect against, detect, test for, and remediate vulnerabilities in the cybersecurity of such critical infrastructure.”

AI-tinged, water-focused cybersecurity pilot programs are all the rage lately. The introduction of Gottheimer’s legislation is adjacent to, but different from, a test program that the Office of the National Cyber Director recently announced in Texas.

One criticism of that program is that private sector companies offered their cyber and AI services through it on a purely voluntary basis, with no significant budget to bolster the pilot. Gottheimer’s bill would authorize $100 million for the pilot program from 2027 to 2031 before it ends, although appropriators would have to follow through on providing the actual dollars. The Trump administration has significantly cut CISA funding in its second term.

“Right now federal funding for critical infrastructure has an uncertain future and many of our local communities just don’t have the resources they need to pay for AI tokens to do the patching they need,” Gottheimer said when he introduced the bill. “It’s expensive to bring the AI in to analyze your system and find those vulnerabilities.”

Critical infrastructure owners and operators could apply for the pilot program, which the bill directs to give priority to nonprofit, publicly owned, rural and small-sized organizations.

“The same technology that can help a small town’s IT guy find and patch a gap in cybersecurity can also help a hostile government find a hundred more it hasn’t even discovered yet,” Gottheimer said when he announced the bill. “AI didn’t create this threat, but it’s accelerated it, and our defenses have to keep up.”

The post After water attacks, Capitol Hill offers its own proposal for an AI-cyber test program appeared first on CyberScoop.

Volexity researchers spotted another state-aligned Chinese threat group exploiting a triple-link chain of zero-day vulnerabilities across multiple campaigns, the company said in a blog post Monday.

The threat group it tracks as UTA0565 exploited the vulnerabilities in Chrome and Microsoft between Sept. 3 and 4 before the defects were disclosed or patched, researchers said.

The timing of the malicious activity mirrors other spikes threat hunters observed and attributed to multiple Chinese espionage threat groups. Yet, Volexity noted UTA0565’s campaigns differed from those attacks by using multiple fake websites to deceive victims.

Volexity shared phishing emails UTA0565 sent to Asian government entities urging them to publicly support imprisoned Hong Kong activist Chow Hang-tung. The group spoofed domains impersonating the Center for American Progress and China Digital Times in other phishing emails.

While UTA0565 showcased a variance in tactics, it used the same components researchers observed in previous instances of the exploit kit across multiple Chinese threat groups.

“This seemingly widespread adoption across multiple threat actors suggests a coordinated effort within the Chinese computer network exploitation community, where the core kit was likely shared, customized, and weaponized by multiple groups,” Volexity wrote in the blog post. “The activity reported so far reflects only two organizations’ observations; the full scope and impact are likely far broader.”

The vulnerabilities include: CVE-2026-85046 and CVE-2026-87491, remote-code execution defects in the JavaScript engine for Chromium-based browsers; and CVE-2026-85880, a privilege-escalation zero-day that Microsoft disclosed Sept. 8 in Windows Advanced Local Procedure Call. 

Proofpoint, which previously observed multiple state-aligned threat groups chaining the vulnerabilities together in attacks since last August, said a limited group of organizations were exposed to all three vulnerabilities in a short window. 

Proofpoint previously attributed attacks involving the zero-days to APT31, UNK_LateNight, UNK_DoubleCheck and UNK_QuietRacket. At the time it warned that attackers of other origins and motivations could strike soon as well.

Volexity said UTA0565 used a payload from a previously undocumented malware family it tracks as “CLEANGULP.” Researchers also found several domains likely used by UTA0565 in similar campaigns targeting media organizations, halal restaurant search websites and corporate training organizations. 

“UTA0565’s use of the zero-day vulnerabilities shows technical and operational improvements over other campaigns observed by Volexity, both in the mechanics of the exploitation and the presentation to end users,” researchers wrote. “Using real content from legitimate websites as decoy material continues to be an effective way to reduce user suspicion.”

The post Volexity spots another China-aligned threat group exploiting Chrome and Microsoft defects appeared first on CyberScoop.

President Donald Trump continued to defend his administration’s hands-off approach to AI regulation in the wake of hacks carried out by U.S. commercial frontier models that have rattled policymakers and industry veterans and spurred calls for more regulatory oversight.

In a Truth Social post Monday, Trump dismissed worries from critics that “AI is going to kill us,” comparing them to complaints from environmentalists about climate change, which he also alleged was a false narrative. He also posited that nothing may matter more than future U.S. dominance of the technology over geopolitical rivals like China.

“Whoever wins AI, WINS!” Trump posted. “We are leading now over China, and everyone else, and I’m going to keep it that way! I’m not going to stifle Growth, of something that will be bigger than the Industrial Revolution, or the internet, itself.”

Trump has previously suggested that good leadership is the only regulation the U.S. needs for artificial intelligence. He later claimed the Department of Justice was ready to “rein things in” if companies overstepped, but offered no specifics on enforcement, legal authority, or where he would draw that line.

“We will be careful, and that’s why we have the Department of Justice, and other Law Enforcement bodies, that will rein things in if we have to, but I will only encourage AI or, SI (SUPER INTELLIGENCE)!” Trump concluded.

Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent recently told Congress that private lawsuits could force AI companies to institute better security, saying it’s clear what the government “shouldn’t do on safety is to give these labs a liability exemption, which is what they are asking for.”

“The best way to guarantee safety is that the creators are liable for what they build and generate,” Bessent said.

Beyond existential fears, critics also argue that inadequate regulation or cybersecurity controls in current AI systems make them impossible to fully control or monitor.

Recently, former President Barack Obama criticized the argument from Trump administration officials that the free market will naturally push industry toward self-regulation and that “these companies will solve the safety issues because they have every incentive to do so.”

“If it turns out to be dangerous, people will just sue them and they’ll be worried about financial liability,” Obama said last week in remarks at Colgate University in New York. “That’s not how we treat airlines or drug companies or food companies.”

The Trump administration issued an executive order earlier this year that set up a voluntary testing regime for some commercial frontier models, largely at private industry’s discretion. That order was significantly delayed and altered by AI industry boosters to ensure that governmental review did not cause companies to postpone their release timelines for new models.

That agreement did not last long before fast-moving events caused the administration to strike another, non-public agreement with frontier AI companies like OpenAI, Anthropic and others governing pre-release testing for models.

But the Trump administration has consistently argued that regulation will harm, not help, U.S. innovation and global competitiveness, and the threat of China frequently looms large in those discussions.

Experts believe China’s AI models are behind U.S. models at the top of the market, where OpenAI and Anthropic have consistently pushed the frontier limits of model capabilities. But Chinese lower and “middle class” models are often cheaper, more efficient and can even outperform more powerful models because users can dedicate exponentially more tokens for their tasks.

The U.S. government has accused Chinese AI companies of conducting widespread, “systematic” distillation of U.S. frontier models, with the implicit encouragement of Beijing.

In defending the administration’s approach, David Sacks, co-chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science & Technology and a top adviser on AI issues, specifically cited the threat from China and other countries that he claimed would not be subject to similar restrictions.

“We’re not the only country that has advanced AI labs, and as the president declared…we have to win this AI race,” Sacks told Politico in May, later adding “I think that’s the first thing to recognize is that if somehow we slow down or stop AI development, it doesn’t mean that AI progress is going to stop. It just means it’s going to happen in other countries and specifically China.”

Some observers have alleged that despite their larger differences, top leaders in the U.S. and China may view AI similarly at the strategic level, specfically that increased adoption – and risks – of AI are inevitable.

Ronan Murphy, director of the tech policy program at the Center for European Policy Analysis, posited that while there may not be a formal agreement between the two countries, “they share views both in Beijing and in Washington, particularly in the White House, of: you have to allow this to happen.”

“Clearly there’s a call for regulation from many quarters of AI in the U.S. and elsewhere, but in the White House – and we heard David Sacks talking about it [recently] – It’s ‘let them cook,’ and the Chinese approach seems to be the same,” said Murphy in a press briefing. “So there might be consensus at that level, if nothing else.”

The post Citing China, President Trump doubles down on hands-off approach to AI regulation appeared first on CyberScoop.

Microsoft, along with a group of industry partners, disrupted EvilTokens, a short-lived but highly consequential cybercrime platform that investigators linked to more than 12,000 compromised Microsoft customer email inboxes across more than 10,000 organizations globally, the company said Tuesday.

Acting on federal court order Sept. 15, Microsoft and partners seized 50 websites the phishing-as-a-service used for operations and disabled more than 175 domains linked to EvilTokens’ supporting infrastructure. 

EvilTokens, launched in February 2026, was “a powerful cybercrime platform that used AI at every step of the attack chain — from compromising email accounts to designing intricate roadmaps for financial fraud and scams,” Steven Masada, associate general counsel and general manager of Microsoft’s Digital Crimes Unit, wrote in a blog post.

About 1,000 cybercriminals used EvilTokens over the course of its operation, a Microsoft spokesperson told CyberScoop.

The service was centered on an AI-style chatbot that cybercriminals used to analyze victims’ inboxes, identify trusted relationships, payment authorizations and other sensitive details that could facilitate fraud.

“AI was not simply helping attackers write more convincing messages. It helped them decide who to target, who to impersonate, and how to most effectively exploit the relationship to extract as much money as possible,” Masada wrote. 

EvilTokens was one of the most widely used phishing-as-a-service platforms prior to its takedown. It facilitated business-email compromise campaigns by stealing session tokens that allowed cybercriminals to sift through a victim’s inbox and maintain persistent access.

“We cannot estimate the total fraud attributable to all EvilTokens activity. However, we were able to correlate at least 13 complaints filed with the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center to EvilTokens-linked activity, representing approximately $1.7 million in reported losses,” a Microsoft spokesperson said. “Because many incidents go unreported and not all victims can be definitively linked to specific campaigns, we believe this is a conservative estimate.”

Victims of EvilTokens were largely concentrated in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, India and France, according to Microsoft. SpyCloud, which supported the takedown, identified compromised email domains spanning 79 countries.

Microsoft said it also identified two men behind EvilTokens — Felix Utomi and Waidi Segun Adams — and attributes the development and support of the platform to Storm-2992, a threat actor unaffiliated with any other known cybercrime groups.

The United Kingdom’s Metropolitan Police acted on that information Sept. 18 when it served warrants in the greater London area, arrested the men accused of making articles for use in fraud and money laundering and seized their digital devices.

The Metropolitan Police said it received information from Microsoft about EvilTokens’ administrators in August. Utomi and Adams were released on bail as the investigation continues. 

“The two primary operators identified in our investigation were residing in the U.K.,” a spokesperson for Microsoft told CyberScoop. “While our investigation focused on those individuals, we believe others may have supported the operation in various capacities.”

Microsoft’s legal filing in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia refers to five additional unidentified people allegedly acting as support personnel and users.

Microsoft and others involved in the EvilTokens takedown, including Health-ISAC, Cloudflare, OpenAI, Shadowserver and TRM Labs, didn’t fully quantify how much fraud the service enabled, but it gained popularity quickly among cybercriminals and was lucrative for its operators.

Coinbase, which also aided the investigation into EvilTokens, said it traced about $1.1 million in revenue for EvilTokens from its paying customers. The virtual currency company’s threat researchers found more than 1,000 deposits to EvilTokens from more than 700 distinct addresses through June 2026. 

Operators sold access to the service through Telegram for a $1,500 initiation fee and a recurring $500 subscription. EvilTokens significantly lowered the barrier to entry for cybercriminals by including specialized tools for identity attacks, cloud systems, social engineering and financial fraud in a single interface.

The service allowed cybercriminals to map organizational structure and permissions in Microsoft Graph, which enabled lateral movement, researchers said. With active tokens gained through a collection of highly-targeted phishing lures, cybercriminals consistently bypassed multi-factor authentication, email gateways and endpoint security tools.

Microsoft said the platform’s creators developed portions of the platform with AI and it uncovered capabilities from multiple AI models. 

“It packaged much of the criminal process into a commercially run service, complete with subscription pricing, customer support, management dashboards and tools designed to move customers from account access toward financial exploitation,” Masada added.

The companies and organizations involved in the globally-coordinated takedown identified and notified potential victims, shared indicators of compromise and shared intelligence with law enforcement about EvilToken’s operators and some of its customers.

Experts advised organizations and employees to treat unsolicited device codes as a red flag, assume compromised accounts are fully cataloged in minutes, and independently verify requests to change payment information or redirect funds.

“The infrastructure supporting EvilTokens has been disrupted, but the model it demonstrated will not disappear with it,” Masada warned.

The post Microsoft and partners disrupt EvilTokens, a comprehensive cybercrime service for financial fraud appeared first on CyberScoop.

Nearly two of every 10 U.S. water and wastewater organizations have identity data actively exposed from infostealers harvesting their credentials, according to research published Tuesday.

The study from identity risk firm SpyCloud follows months of reports about a wave of cyberattacks hitting targets in the sector, which U.S. government officials suspect are tied to Iran.

The company built a database of 66,845 Environmental Protection Agency-registered systems, examined internet domains and ultimately analyzed 10,000 organizations, finding that 1,787 showed active infostealer exposure.

In one case, a single infected device at a smart meter technology provider that SpyCloud didn’t name contained saved logins linked to roughly 167 different U.S. utility metering tenants — meaning that one exposure opened the door to many more. 

That “cascading supply chain exposure” was one of the biggest findings of the report that SpyCloud shared exclusively with CyberScoop, said Jason Lancaster, chief investigations officer at the cyber firm, along with the quantitative approach” to measure exposure overall.

“We talk about it a lot,” Lancaster said of the exponential risk that one exposure can present. “There’s examples here and there, but that was a standout example of, here’s a tangible thing that is an exposure right now.”

Generally, “Infostealer exposure means the attacker isn’t guessing anymore, they’ve got legitimate points of entry,” Lancaster said. “In the investigations I’ve worked, that log data usually contains stolen session cookies, credentials, and autofill info pulled straight off the infected device. That’s enough to walk right past [multifactor authentication] by hijacking an already-authenticated session, log into corporate email or VPNs without raising a single alert, and sit there quietly for weeks while they map out the network.”

Still, the study had limitations. It doesn’t address what apparently led to the cyberattacks that unfolded in Minnesota and elsewhere this summer: internet-exposed programmable logic controllers.

It’s “important to note that our research did not focus on OT devices which run the most critical processes within these utilities, and any exposure we cite herein should not be interpreted as exposure of specific OT devices,” the report said. It did, however, find that 258 of the 1,787 organizations with active infostealer exposure carried credentials to operational technology or remote-access systems.

Some of the report’s conclusions were about the limitations of the data itself.

“Exposure concentrated in larger operators and in the vendor supply chain; small utilities were largely underrepresented,” SpyCloud said. “That’s a pattern in the data, not a claim that every water system nationwide carries this risk — and it measures identity exposure, not confirmed intrusion.”

It’s the first study of its kind that SpyCloud has done for a specific industry, so the company doesn’t have comparisons to other industries, Lancaster said. SpyCloud has begun a responsible disclosure process for those affected within its report, he said, beginning with a briefing for the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.

“It’s important to remember, infostealer logs aren’t the end of an incident — they are often the beginning,” Lancaster said. “Access brokers sell these logs specifically because ransomware crews and other fraudsters want exactly this kind of entry point. So, the real question isn’t whether the exposure is dangerous. It’s how much time you have before someone weaponizes that stolen data against you.”

The post Another worry for water systems: infostealer exposure appeared first on CyberScoop.

A group of leading House Democrats introduced legislation Monday requiring the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to conduct an assessment of its workforce to determine whether it’s up to the task after the exit of around 1,000 employees during President Donald Trump’s second term.

The concept of a force structure assessment is more common in military branches, including one that Congress previously ordered for Cyber Command. The CISA Force Structure Assessment Act would order the agency to carry out a review of whether the agency still has the necessary personnel, training and certifications after budget cuts and other Trump-era departures.

“America’s cyber defenses are only as strong as the people behind them,” Rep. James Walkinshaw, the Virginia Democrat serving as lead sponsor of the bill, said in a news release. “As cyber threats grow more sophisticated and technologies like artificial intelligence and quantum computing reshape the threat landscape, Congress needs a clear accounting of whether CISA has the workforce, skills, and resources required to keep Americans safe and enable mission delivery. This legislation will identify critical gaps and give Congress concrete information to address them.”

Also sponsoring the bill are the top Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee, Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, and the top Democrat on its cybersecurity subcommittee, Delia Ramirez, D-Ill.

Additional elements of the force structure assessmewould include a review of the security of federal IT systems and support for state and local governments; the risks posed by AI, quantum computing and other cutting edge technologies; CISA’s threat-hunting and incident response capabilities; support for critical infrastructure and operating technology, including CISA’s role as a sector risk management agency for a number of industry sectors; the operation of the Joint Cyber Defense Collaborative; and international cooperation.

Some lawmakers and other observers have worried those areas have been greatly impacted by staffing cuts, ultimately hurting CISA’s ability to carry out its core functions.

Ramirez dinged GOP lawmakers for “a lack of interest in safeguarding our nation’s cybersecurity and our residents’ civil rights and privacy” in going along with the CISA cuts and other developments at the Department of Homeland Security.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have voiced concern about the scope of cuts at CISA, but Republicans have approved some of them while pushing back on others. CISA itself is currently seeking to hire hundreds of new personnel, even as its latest budget blueprint calls for yet more funding reductions.

“With Iran targeting our critical infrastructure and frontier AI models creating new cyber risks, we must ensure we have a cybersecurity workforce to counter these growing threats,” Thompson said. “After Trump has spent the past two years targeting and slashing CISA’s workforce, we need the agency to assess if it has [the] right personnel in place to fulfill its mission.”

National Cyber Director Sean Cairncross has discussed White House plans to develop a cybersecurity academy meant to consolidate and enhance existing federal cyber training and education programs, with the aim of addressing cyber workforce shortages. His office has reportedly drafted an executive order that would establish that academy.

The post Dems seek top-to-bottom assessment of CISA workforce appeared first on CyberScoop.

Another core member of the hacker subset of The Com involved in a spree of extortion attacks from at least 2021 to 2023 pleaded guilty to federal charges, according to court records released Tuesday.

Ahmed Hossam Eldin Elbadawy, a 24-year-old from Texas, pleaded guilty exactly one year ago to wire fraud conspiracy and aggravated identity theft. His guilty plea wasn’t shared publicly until prosecutors filed an order of forfeiture this week seeking proceeds from Elbadawy’s criminal activities. 

Elbadawy and his co-conspirators — Noah Michael Urban, a Florida man sentenced to 10 years in prison last year, and Tyler Robert Buchanan, a Scottish man who pleaded guilty to multiple cybercrimes in April and awaits sentencing — were part of an aggressive subset of The Com coined Scattered Spider. 

The financially-motivated crew obtained credentials via social engineering and stole sensitive company data to identify high net worth employees with virtual currency accounts containing millions of dollars, according to an indictment filed against Elbadawy and his co-conspirators in late 2024. 

Federal authorities filed charges against five individuals with links to the Scattered Spider cybercrime outfit, including Elbadawy, Urban, Buchanan, Evans Onyeaka Osiebo and Joel Martin Evans in 2024.

Elbadawy’s victims included large businesses in the entertainment, telecom, technology, business process outsourcing, IT, cloud and virtual currency sectors, officials said. Prosecutors linked Elbadawy and his co-conspirators to at least 12 victim companies in the indictment, including three businesses located in Southern California where he awaits sentencing. 

Authorities detailed 29 victims who were compromised by Elbadawy and his co-conspirators. The crew stole virtual currency from wallets controlled by many of those victims. The most high-value thefts included virtual currency worth nearly $6.35 million in September 2021, $571,000 in June 2022 and nearly $1.7 million in December 2022. 

Prosecutors are seeking significant property and asset forfeiture from Elbadawy, including Bitcoin valued at more than $14.19 million, Ethereum valued at more than $3.4 million and nearly $63,000 in cash. Officials also requested the forfeiture of a lifted golf cart, three luxury vehicles, a painting of Muhammad Ali, luxury watches, gold jewelry, a vast collection of designer bags and 150 pairs of shoes.

The terms of Elbadawy’s plea agreement haven’t been released. 

While early leaders of Scattered Spider have been arrested or sentenced for their crimes, others have filled those roles with even more exceptional impact.

The Com has grown to thousands of members, typically between 11 and 25 years old, splintered into three primary subsets the FBI describes as Hacker Com, In Real Life Com and Extortion Com.

Criminal acts committed by these multiple, interconnected networks include swatting, extortion and sextortion of minors, production and distribution of child sexual abuse material, violent crime and various other cybercrimes.

You can read the indictment against Elbadawy and some of his co-conspirators below.

The post Early Scattered Spider member pleads guilty to cybercrime spree appeared first on CyberScoop.

Researchers said they used Anthropic’s Claude and OpenAI’s Codex to identify a damaging flaw embedded in a popular software decoding tool that could leave major internet platforms, enterprise services, and web frameworks vulnerable to data theft and remote access.

The vulnerability, nicknamed HEIF Heist, refers to the malware’s ability to trigger memory corruption errors in affected software, allowing the attacker to pilfer sensitive data from its victims. In a report published Thursday, the researchers laid out the potential damage an attacker could cause, including gaining access to internal OpenAI repositories, leaking user files, access tokens, and other sensitive data for online services like Amazon Web Services, and gaining remote code execution privileges across a range of online services, including Meta’s core product suite, GitHub Enterprise servers and open-source internet forum Discourse.

“Even when Remote Code Execution isn’t immediately achievable, the attack primitives may still allow arbitrary heap disclosure, letting an attacker ‘heist’ in-memory data such as other users’ data and environment variables,” wrote Hacktron researchers Harsh Jaiswal, Mohan SRK, Rahul Maini and Sudhanshu Rajbhar.

The researchers relied heavily on AI systems, including frontier models from OpenAI and Anthropic, to conduct their research. Attribution for the research is described as being “led” by the Hacktron human researchers “assisted by Hacktron Harness, GPT-5.6 Sol, and Opus 5.”

According to the research, the attack exploited the way that code parsing tools in many popular software decoders — specifically libheif and libde265, used to parse C and C++ software — process certain image files.

By uploading HEIF, HEIC and AVIF image files corrupted with malicious code, the attacker could bypass most of the victim’s application layer defenses, in many cases achieving remote code execution privileges for accounts or products tied to major AI and tech brands.   

While the latest version of libheif has been patched, the researchers said “any deployment lacking the latest upstream security patches is potentially vulnerable.”

In one incident detailed in a Sept. 13 blog, Jaiswal, Maini, and Hacktron researcher Mohan Pedhapati described how chaining two vulnerabilities, including an image parser flaw, could compromise OpenAI employee accounts.

With access to the compromised accounts, researchers could reach OpenAI’s internal repositories. As a proof of concept, they opened a pull request in the company’s “monorepo,” a centralized library where code is shared across projects, using the employee’s Codex credentials. 

According to a timeline provided by the researchers, the flaw was discovered on July 25 and patched within days. They said the entire attack, from discovering the initial vulnerability to gaining access to the repositories, took less than 72 hours. OpenAI paid them a bug bounty of $6,500 for their work.

Given that AI models are increasingly integrated into enterprise and personal networks, an attacker exploiting HEIF Heist could have accessed far more than just OpenAI’s systems and data.

“Until two months ago, a user or OpenAI employee logging into OpenAI’s own help forum could have had their ChatGPT and Codex accounts taken over,” the researchers wrote. “Since people can connect various services to Codex and ChatGPT, the scope of what we could theoretically access was huge, including GitHub, Slack and emails.”

CyberScoop has reached out to OpenAI for comment on the research and additional information.

At the same time, the researchers said the attack paths they found were not particularly easy or efficient to exploit.

“Exploitation requires fingerprinting the target version and tailoring the payload images,” the blog stated. “Some of our RCE attempts landed only after thousands of image uploads. That said, an AI agentic approach with a frontier model like GPT-5.6 Sol cut exploit development time down to roughly 1 to 3 days from initial probe to remote RCE. A motivated attacker can convert a vulnerable upload endpoint into RCE or an info leak.”

The post Researchers use AI to find widespread software decoder flaw  appeared first on CyberScoop.