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 digital battlefield is expanding and changing faster than ever before. Washington must confront mounting threats to critical networks and systems. But there’s one challenge that stands out above the rest: artificial intelligence. The nation’s cyber experts need to be ready to face this new reality.

The CyberCorps: Scholarship for Service program is a federal initiative that has done just that for 25 years, contributing nearly 5,000 cybersecurity professionals to the federal workforce. The program is a success story, but the Trump administration has put this program at risk by attempting to drastically cut its funding. Fortunately, Congress has intervened, and will continue to fund the program. The administration should follow Congress’ lead and support it in the future.

The CyberCorps program was developed as an equivalent to the Reserve Officers’ Training Corp (ROTC) for civilian cybersecurity professionals, awarding student participants full scholarships and stipends for their cybersecurity education in exchange for an obligation to serve the federal government after graduation. Participants also receive specialized instruction and summer internships in addition to their coursework, providing the federal government talented, security-vetted, and well-educated employees to defend the United States from cyberthreats. 

AI is changing cybersecurity, creating both new opportunities and new dangers. CyberCorps is adapting to stay ahead. The situation is driven by three clear trends: AI is expanding rapidly across all sectors, threat actors are using it for more advanced attacks, and the newest AI models can find software vulnerabilities quicker than ever before.

In a report released last month, Google researchers said they discovered a previously unknown security vulnerability developed by AI capable of initiating a large-scale cyberattack. Experts estimate that there is now a three-to-five month window in which adversaries will start to outpace organizations using AI-driven attack methods for discovering cyber vulnerabilities. Jen Easterly, the former Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency wrote last year that cybersecurity as we know it is becoming a relic of the past — and that AI is the path forward.

Cyber threats are advancing faster than ever, and our workforce must keep pace. CyberCorps is stepping up to meet the moment. This year, program participants must have an educational background in AI or plan to develop one. The new guidelines require expertise in two critical areas: using AI in cybersecurity operations and securing AI systems themselves. We need experts who can use AI to defend us and people who can protect AI tools from being weaponized. Program graduates will have both skillsets, equipped to handle today’s threats and adapt as they evolve.

To facilitate this effort, the CyberCorps program is supporting existing participant schools by providing AI training. CyberCorps is also allowing schools to dedicate a portion of the money they receive through program membership to creating their own AI training or providing training from other institutions for students and instructors. 

These changes accomplish two important things. They prepare participants as capable cyber professionals while addressing a workforce crisis the government can no longer ignore. The Pentagon alone estimates it needs 25,000 more cyber experts. By aligning the CyberCorps program with the Trump administration’s AI workforce priorities, the government is finally putting resources behind a solution that matters.

President Trump and the National Science Foundation deserve credit for such agile footwork in adapting to this challenge. But that clear recognition makes the current budget situation even more galling. The greater emphasis on AI in the CyberCorps program could support government expertise in AI for years to come, but only if the program is properly resourced.

The Trump administration’s 2026 budget request included a 65 percent cut in funding for CyberCorps at only $21.7 million, which Congress rectified by appropriating $63 million. Despite this clear congressional signal, the president’s 2027 budget again requested $21.7 million, a drastic cut. 

Again, Congress is stepping in to fix things. The congressional funding report for fiscal year 2027 recommends adding between $60 million and $70 million of funding to the program. The report also encourages the inclusion of “AI in activities funded by the program to maximize the learning potential in both fields” and advises an increase in the number of scholarships offered. To fully institute these recommendations, the program will require even more funding. Congress is right on target.

America needs strong cyber defenders ready for the AI era. CyberCorps must lead the federal government forward. With the right support, the program will deliver the cyber success our nation demands.

Rear Admiral (Ret.) Mark Montgomery is the senior director of the Center on Cyber and Technology Innovation at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies where Sophie McDowall is a research associate. 

The post CyberCorps is adapting to AI. The budget isn’t keeping up. 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.

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 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.

Two cybersecurity-focused members of Congress agreed Thursday that reductions to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency have done too much damage to an agency essential to defending civilian networks against foreign adversaries.

Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., and Rep. James Walkinshaw, D-Va., spoke during a panel at the National Cyber Innovation Forum. Despite representing different parties, and serving on different congressional committees, the two lawmakers offered closely aligned assessments of CISA’s role and the consequences of recent cuts.

Bacon, who is the chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Cyber, Information Technologies, and Innovation, framed the agency as central to protecting domestic networks. 

“What we really need is a strong CISA that helps protect our domestic networks, our energy grids and things like that,” he said, before adding that “unfortunately” the administration had moved in the opposite direction over the past year. 

He said officials had not appreciated the agency’s defensive value, telling the audience he did not think they recognized the “one-for-one output” CISA provides.

Walkinshaw, who is a member of the House Homeland Security Committee, echoed that view and tied it directly to the threat picture. 

Referring to Chinese-linked intrusion campaigns like Salt Typhoon, he said the United States is contending with adversaries “getting into critical infrastructure overseas and coming after big parts of our critical infrastructure industry here at home.” He said CISA’s information-sharing function and its relationships with utilities and local governments are part of what makes a centralized civilian defense workable.

Both lawmakers placed their concern in the context of a threat environment they described as escalating. Bacon ranked China as the leading cyber adversary to the United States, surpassing Russia, and said intrusions lay groundwork for further actions. “They’re in our energy grid,” he said. “On Day 1 of the war, they want to turn off our energy.” 

The case for a well-resourced CISA, the two lawmakers said, rests on the fact that most of the entities targeted by foreign actors cannot defend themselves on their own. Walkinshaw drew on his work during his time as a county supervisor in Fairfax County, Va., where he worked with Fairfax Water. He said that even as that utility was “one of the most sophisticated, well-funded water authorities in the country,” it struggled to keep pace with the volume and sophistication of attacks. Smaller utilities, towns and businesses, he said, have no realistic path to defending themselves against a nation-state.

Bacon agreed. He said small companies are “the heart of American innovation” but cannot be expected to stand up to adversaries operating with the resources of China, Russia, Iran or North Korea without federal support.

President Donald Trump’s fiscal 2027 budget would cut CISA by $707 million, according to a summary released last month, though a separate budget document points to a smaller reduction of $361 million. Either figure would leave the agency with slightly more than $2 billion in discretionary funding, down from the roughly $3 billion it had at the start of the administration.

It has been a turbulent time for CISA during the second Trump administration, in which the agency lost roughly a third of its personnel, shuttered entire divisions and operated without a Senate-confirmed director. Former officials, industry partners and lawmakers from both parties have described diminished coordination with state and local governments, weakened relationships with the private sector and growing concern about whether the agency retains the capacity to manage a major cyber crisis. 

In the model both lawmakers endorsed, they pushed for CISA to play more of a role after an intrusion, helping affected entities restore their networks while the FBI works to identify the source. Walkinshaw said advanced artificial intelligence expands the attack surface and makes that kind of centralized support more important.

 “The advanced AI technology means that more and smaller, maybe not as well-funded organizations across the globe, can launch sophisticated attacks,” he said, adding that the result is that “the defense” becomes “more complex.”

Looking ahead, Walkinshaw said restoring CISA’s capacity should be within reach of a divided Congress. 

“In terms of bipartisan areas of agreement here in Congress, restoring and expanding those capabilities and those partnerships right now should be a top priority,” he said.

The post Lawmakers from both parties say CISA cuts have gone too far appeared first on CyberScoop.

Federal Chief Information Officer Greg Barbaccia said Tuesday the government is approaching Anthropic’s Mythos model with measured expectations, acknowledging both its potential to strengthen federal cyber defenses and the significant uncertainties that remain about how it would perform in real-world conditions.

Barbaccia said his direct exposure to Mythos has been limited to evaluations and benchmarking tests, and that no federal agencies have deployed it yet. While he says the Office of the National Cyber Director is coordinating the government’s approach, his broader assessment of where AI-assisted cybersecurity is heading was direct.

“We’re going to get to a world soon where AI defense will be able to catch up,” Barbaccia told CyberScoop on Tuesday at the Workday Federal Forum, produced by Scoop News Group. “We must get to a point where the bots are finding the bots.”

Earlier this month, Barbaccia sent an email to cabinet agencies to inform them that the Office of Management and Budget has started laying the groundwork for a controlled rollout of the model to federal agencies.

His framing reflects a view that the same capabilities making Mythos a potential offensive threat are precisely what make it valuable as a defensive tool. Anthropic has said the model identified thousands of previously unknown, high-severity vulnerabilities across major operating systems and web browsers during testing, many of them decades old. The question for federal security teams is not whether those capabilities are real, but whether they translate from controlled laboratory settings to the complex, defended networks that government agencies actually run.

Barbaccia was candid about that gap. 

“I think it’ll uplevel people and make a novice cybersecurity offensive operator more efficient,” he told CyberScoop. “But the jury is still out on how effective it’ll be against real-world conditions, meaning a network that’s guarded by human defenders that has alerting and things like that. The evaluations I’ve seen have been laboratory learnings.”

That distinction matters for federal security teams weighing how to think about the model. Finding a vulnerability and successfully exploiting it in a defended environment are different problems. Barbaccia pointed to the CVE catalog, the government’s running list of known software flaws, as one area where the model’s speed could have practical value. A human analyst working through that catalog would take considerable time. A model like Mythos could move through it far faster. But speed alone does not determine whether a vulnerability poses an actual threat.

“There’s a difference between something that is exploitable in a 4-nanosecond window during a BIOS boot versus what’s the reality of that being exploited in the real world,” he said. “We have to understand, just like you could secure your entire threat surface, where are the crown jewels? And how do you protect something, and make sure the protection you’re deploying is worthwhile what you’re protecting.”

That kind of thinking is familiar to federal network defenders, who operate under resource constraints and must triage which vulnerabilities to address first. What Mythos potentially changes is the speed at which that triage can happen, and the depth at which vulnerabilities can be identified before an adversary finds them.

Barbaccia said the CIO Council, which coordinates technology policy across civilian agencies, is still in the early stages of understanding what the model could mean for enterprise security environments. “Everybody’s just curious to learn a lot more,” he said.

Agencies have tried on their own to obtain access to Anthropic’s model. The Department of the Treasury has asked for access, according to reports. CISA, the agency responsible for securing, monitoring, and defending civilian agency networks, has not been granted access.

The post Federal CIO cautious on Anthropic’s Mythos despite planned rollout appeared first on CyberScoop.

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency has informed participants of the federal government’s Scholarship for Service program that it has canceled this year’s summer internship programs due to the current funding issues at the Department of Homeland Security. 

Emails from CISA obtained by CyberScoop recently informed applicants that the agency will not bring any CyberCorps: Scholarship for Service interns onboard this summer due to the impacts of the federal funding lapse and the current administrative situation at DHS. For some applicants, agency representatives acknowledged that the cancellations represent a second consecutive year of disrupted placement efforts.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) leads and manages the program, in coordination with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and DHS. The program covers tuition and provides stipends for students specializing in cybersecurity and artificial intelligence. In exchange, graduates must complete an internship and subsequently work in federal service for a period equal to the duration of their scholarship. 

An OPM official told CyberScoop the agency is “actively in contact with all Federal cabinet agencies on this topic, and are confident that we will place nearly all eligible Scholarship for Service participants within the next couple months.”

An NSF spokesperson declined to comment.  CISA did not respond to CyberScoop’s request for comment. 

The sudden closure of agency pipelines highlights how federal job seekers are currently navigating a paralyzed hiring environment, exacerbated by budget turmoil at DHS and proposed workforce reductions under the Trump administration. The White House’s fiscal 2027 budget would slash CISA’s budget by $707 million, according to a summary released earlier this month, which would deeply chop down an agency that already took a big hit in President Donald Trump’s first year.

Sources told CyberScoop Tuesday that CISA has been reaching out to internship applicants who had participated in a virtual job fair held in February, where they were told that the agency would have 100 internship roles available. However, applicants were warned that the agency would not be able to hire anyone until the agency was funded. 

Program participants expressed regret to CyberScoop last November over taking part in an initiative that binds them to an employer currently unable to hire them. Program administrators have reportedly advised students to get creative in their job searches, a directive that caused frustration among participants who rely on standard federal placement pipelines.

In response to the growing backlog of unplaced graduates, OPM announced plans to collaborate with the National Science Foundation on a mass deferment. OPM Director Scott Kupor stated that the deferment will be implemented after the government shutdown resolves, providing graduates additional time to secure qualifying positions.

The structural breakdown of the CyberCorps pipeline presents long-term challenges for the federal government’s ability to recruit technical talent. The United States currently faces an estimated 500,000 open cybersecurity positions. The scholarship program was historically viewed as a reliable mechanism to bypass private-sector wage competition and secure early-career talent for the federal government.

Lawmakers are currently battling over bills that would end the DHS shutdown. 

Tim Starks contributed to this story. 

The post CISA cancels summer internships for cyber scholarship students amid DHS funding lapse appeared first on CyberScoop.

President Donald Trump’s fiscal 2027 budget would slash the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s total by $707 million, according to a summary released Friday, which would deeply chop down an agency that already took a big hit in Trump’s first year.

Another budget document suggests a smaller — but still substantial — hit of $361 million, with the discrepancy possibly due to the comparison points amid budget uncertainty for CISA’s parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security. DHS and CISA did not immediately respond to a request for clarification.

“At the time the Budget was prepared, the 2026 appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security was not enacted, and funding provided by the last continuing resolution it had been operating under (Continuing Appropriations Act, 2026, division A of Public Law 119-37, as amended by division H of Public Law 119-75) had lapsed,” the budget summary notes. “References to 2026 spending in the text and tables for programs and activities normally provided for in the full-year appropriations bill reflect the annualized level provided by the last continuing resolution.”

By either measurement, the proposed budget would cut deeply into an agency that started the Trump administration at roughly $3 billion, and would be substantially below that if Congress enacts the latest blueprint. The budget appendix says CISA would end up with slightly more than $2 billion in discretionary funding under Trump’s plan. For fiscal 2026, appropriators sought to mitigate some of Trump’s proposed CISA reductions.

The 2027 budget summary recycles identical language from the 2026 budget summary, and makes references to ending programs that CISA has already shuttered.

“The Budget refocuses CISA on its core mission — Federal network defense and enhancing the security and resilience of critical infrastructure — while eliminating weaponization and waste,” the summary states in both the 2026 and 2027 documents.

It makes references to getting rid of things that have already been cut, like “external engagement offices such as council management, stakeholder engagement, and international affairs.” It talks about ending programs focused on censorship, something CISA under the Biden administration said it never had, and on “so-called” misinformation, which CISA said it ended during the former president’s term.

Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson, the top Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee, criticized the budget proposal for CISA.

“Like the President’s cyber strategy, the President’s CISA budget reflects his utter lack of understanding of the urgency of the cyber threats we face and how to mobilize the government to help confront them,” he said in a statement to CyberScoop. “As of 2023, CISA was spending $2 million on countering information operations, an effort initially launched at the behest of Congressional Republicans during the first Trump Administration.

“There is nothing that justifies a reckless $700 million cut to CISA, particularly at a time of heightened tensions with Iran and an increasingly aggressive China,” he continued. “I am committed to working with my colleagues to push back against these cuts and ensure we can protect government and critical infrastructure networks.”

The post Trump budget proposal would cut hundreds of millions more from CISA appeared first on CyberScoop.

Washington has rediscovered consequences. Just not consistently.

The March 6 executive order rests on a simple, correct idea: cyber-enabled fraud persists because it is profitable, scalable, and too often tolerated. So the government’s answer is to raise the cost. More coordination. More disruption. More prosecutions. More diplomatic pressure on the states that shelter these operations.

Good.

But weeks ago, an OMB Memo rescinded earlier federal software supply chain memos issued during the Biden administration. In practice, that pulled back from the prior attestation-centered model and made tools like the Secure Software Development Attestation Form and SBOM requests optional rather than durable expectations.

Put plainly, we are getting tougher on the people exploiting digital systems while getting softer on the conditions that make those systems so easy to exploit.

The executive order gets something important right. Cyber-enabled fraud is not a collection of random online annoyances. It is an industrialized form of predation: ransomware, phishing, impersonation, sextortion, and financial fraud that’s run as repeatable business models, often transnational and sometimes protected by permissive states. The order responds with a more centralized federal posture built around disruption, coordination, intelligence sharing, prosecution, resilience, and international pressure.

That is directionally correct. Criminal ecosystems do not retreat because we publish better guidance. They retreat when the cost of doing business rises.

But then we arrive at software.

The critique of the old federal assurance regime is not entirely wrong. Compliance can become theater. Bureaucracies are very good at turning legitimate security goals into rituals of form collection and checkbox management. Some skepticism was warranted. OMB says as much explicitly, arguing the prior model became burdensome and prioritized compliance over genuine security investment.

Still, the failure of bad compliance is not proof that accountability itself was the problem.

That is where the logic breaks. The administration is clearly willing to believe that criminal actors respond to deterrence. It is willing to use prosecutions, sanctions, visa restrictions, and coordinated pressure downstream. But upstream, where insecure technology shapes the terrain those criminals exploit, the theory suddenly changes. There, we are told to trust discretion. Local judgment. Flexible, risk-based decisions.

Sometimes that is wisdom. Often it is just a more elegant way of saying no one wants a hard requirement.

This is also why my own position has not changed. In a post I wrote in 2024, I argued that the industry did not need softer expectations or another round of polite encouragement. It needed more concrete action and consequences strong enough to change incentives. The problem was never that we were demanding too much accountability. The problem was that insecure software remained too cheap to ship.

That is the deeper issue. Cybercrime at scale does not thrive only because criminals exist. It thrives because the environment rewards them. Weak identity systems, brittle software, sprawling dependency chains, poor visibility, and diffuse accountability all make predation cheaper. The people who ship avoidable risk rarely absorb the full cost of it. Everyone else does.

So these two policy moves, taken together, reveal something uncomfortable. The government seems to believe in consequences for cybercriminals, but not quite in consequences for insecure production. It wants deterrence for the scammer, but discretion for the supplier.

A coherent cyber strategy would do both. It would aggressively disrupt criminal networks and also create meaningful pressure for secure-by-design production and procurement. It would recognize that punishing attackers matters, but so does changing the terrain that keeps making attack profitable.

The administration is right about one thing: cybercrime will not shrink until the costs of predation rise.

The unanswered question is why that logic should stop at the edge of the scam center.

Brian Fox is the co-founder and CTO of Sonatype.

The post If consequences matter, they should apply to vendors, too appeared first on CyberScoop.