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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vulnerability disclosure is a two-way street

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The cost of pushback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The timing couldn’t be worse 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Wednesday, Microsoft released two new red teaming tools — Rampart and Clarity — meant to help developers design more secure agentic software and assist incident responders in the face of ongoing breaches.

Rampart is built on top of PyRIT, an existing open automation framework Microsoft developed for red teaming generative AI systems. But while PyRIT scans already-built systems for security flaws, Rampart is made to continuously test code for vulnerabilities during the development process, encoding both adversarial and benign testing scenarios into the software development pipeline to flag exploitable bugs and dependencies.

Microsoft said Rampart was built to focus on cross-prompt injection attacks, where “an agent retrieves or processes potentially poisoned content from documents, emails, tickets, and other data sources that manipulate behavior indirectly.” It also confirms fixes or exploits work as intended through multiple rounds of testing, as opposed to tools that perform “single shot validation.”

The second tool, Clarity, can be run as a desktop app, a web interface or directly embedded into a coding agent to provide real time security engineering guidance to developers at the outset of a project. It can categorize and track different business objectives related to the code and highlight downstream security implications along with more secure by design alternatives.

Ram Shankar Siva Kumar, who founded Microsoft’s AI red team in 2019, told CyberScoop that the company has seen internal security benefits from using the tools, but believesRampart and Clarity’s growth depends on contributions from other developers outside the Microsoft ecosystem.

In the fast-moving world of AI, where vibe coding, rogue AI agents and a steady churn of new model releases create fresh security implications nearly every week, Siva Kumar said it was important to begin building foundational, AI-centric security processes into the software development pipeline.

“When you hear a lot of talk about AI safety and security, it seems to be a lot of philosophical debates,” he said. “You’ll see frameworks, you’ll see white papers, and I think we’re really past that time, now. We really need to start thinking of AI safety as an engineering discipline and trying to bring security where the developers are.”

Rampart’s potential utility to defenders goes beyond just securing software development pipelines. It can also be used during an active incident response to speed up or automate red teaming for hot fixes, patching and remediation.

Microsoft has used Rampart when investigating reported vulnerabilities in their own products. Siva Kumar said the tool was able to help condense a week’s worth of manual work —  replicating the vulnerability, identifying different variants of the same bug, then patching and re-testing those variants to ensure they’re no longer exploitable — into hours.

Clarity, meanwhile, acts as a security adviser for software projects, prompting developers to consider potential risks in their design decisions and their downstream security consequences. With the rise of AI-generated code and agents, and execution becoming cheaper, this kind of proactive guidance is increasingly important.

“You’re going to be able to create apps, create MCP servers to pull things out from the internet,” said Siva Kumar. “The question is, ‘should you be doing it?’ And Clarity is a step in that direction. It is asking, ‘hey, should you be doing this in the first place?’”

The post Meet Rampart and Clarity, Microsoft’s new red team combo AI agents appeared first on CyberScoop.

Attackers returned once again to a common target with a massive user base by exploiting a max-severity zero-day vulnerability affecting Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN Controller and Manager.

The threat group behind the “limited” number of attacks Cisco is aware of thus far are also linked to a series of previously disclosed vulnerabilities in the vendor’s firewalls and SD-WAN systems, the company said in a threat advisory Thursday.

The authentication bypass vulnerability — CVE-2026-20182 — has a CVSS rating of 10 and “behaves like a master key,” Douglas McKee, director of vulnerability intelligence at Rapid7, wrote in a blog post. 

“An attacker can present themselves to the controller as a trusted network router and, if the system accepts that claim without properly validating it, they can obtain the highest level of administrative access,” he added. “That is the cybersecurity version of a Jedi mind trick.”

Rapid7 discovered and reported the vulnerability to Cisco on March 9, and Cisco said it became aware of limited exploitation of the vulnerability earlier this month. The vendor disclosed and released a patch for the vulnerability Thursday, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency quickly added the defect to its known exploited vulnerabilities catalog.

Cisco did not explain what occurred during that two-month window. Yet, the disclosure and warning from researchers marks another challenge for Cisco customers that have confronted a flood of actively exploited vulnerabilities affecting the vendor’s network edge software since late February. 

Cisco isn’t the only security vendor facing an onslaught of attacks on its customers, but it is among the most heavily targeted. CISA has added seven vulnerabilities affecting Cisco SD-WANs and firewalls to its known exploited vulnerabilities catalog in less than three months.

Cisco Talos researchers attributed the latest round of zero-day attacks to UAT-8616, the same attackers that exploited a pair of separate zero-days in Cisco’s network edge software for at least three years before the activity was discovered and reported in February. 

The company, which described the exploitation of the new zero-day as ongoing, once again declined to answer questions about the origins or motivations of UAT-8616. 

“We strongly recommend customers apply the available fixed software releases and follow the guidance provided in the advisories and Cisco Talos blog,” a spokesperson for the company said in a statement.

Cisco Talos researchers also warned that UAT-8616 and at least 10 other threat groups have chained together and achieved “widespread in-the-wild active exploitation of three vulnerabilities in unpatched Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN Infrastructure.” The company previously disclosed and released patches for the vulnerabilities — including CVE-2026-20122, CVE-2026-20128 and CVE-2026-20133 — in February. 

Rapid7 said it discovered the latest critical authentication bypass vulnerability when it was researching CVE-2026-20127, a previous zero-day the Five Eyes identified and confirmed as actively exploited by UAT-8616 in late 2025. Authorities and Cisco waited at least two months to disclose and patch the vulnerability, and share emergency mitigation guidance.

That campaign, which got underway at least three years prior, marked the second series of actively exploited zero-days in Cisco edge technology in less than a year. Both campaigns prompted CISA to issue emergency directives months after the attacks were first detected, and both attack sprees were underway for at least a year before they were discovered. 

The latest zero-day, which bypasses authentication in the same control-plane service as CVE-2026-20127,  requires no credentials or prior knowledge of the target environment for exploitation, Jonah Burgess, senior security researcher at Rapid7, told CyberScoop.

“Cisco confirmed it affects all deployment types, including on-premises, cloud, and FedRAMP environments. The SD-WAN Controller manages routing and policy for the entire overlay network, so a single compromised controller can potentially give an attacker influence over every branch, data center, and cloud edge connected to that fabric,” Burgess added.

His colleague at Rapid7, McKee, said attackers have become very good at turning weaknesses in central network infrastructure into high-impact operations. 

“Compromising one branch router is useful. Compromising the controller that manages the entire estate is a very different conversation. Now you are talking about the ability to reroute traffic, intercept communications, push malicious configuration, or simply break connectivity across the whole organization,” he wrote.

“That is the real paradox here,” McKee added. “The same architecture that gives defenders scale and simplicity can also give attackers a single point of catastrophic leverage.”

The post Cisco zero-day under ongoing attack by persistent threat group appeared first on CyberScoop.

Microsoft addressed another triple-digit batch of vulnerabilities cutting across its various enterprise products, components and underlying systems. Yet despite the high number of defects, the vendor reported no actively exploited zero-days in this month’s Patch Tuesday update.

Thirteen of the 137 vulnerabilities Microsoft disclosed were assigned critical CVSS ratings, including a pair of vulnerabilities affecting Azure — CVE-2026-33109 and CVE-2026-42823 — and CVE-2026-42898 in Microsoft Dynamics 365 with 9.9 CVSS scores. 

The company designated 13 vulnerabilities as more likely to be exploited, and 113 defects as less likely or unlikely to be exploited.

The high volume of vulnerabilities reflects a growing trend researchers have been anticipating as artificial intelligence models are deployed to find previously uncovered defects in code. 

While not all of these bugs were found by AI, it’s likely they had an AI-related component — even if it was just AI writing the submission,” Dustin Childs, head of threat awareness at Trend Micro’s Zero Day Initiative, wrote in a blog post Tuesday.

Childs was especially intrigued by CVE-2026-41096, which he described as a “nasty-looking bug” in Microsoft Windows DNS that allows unauthorized attackers to run code remotely. 

“No authentication or user interaction needed, and since the DNS Client runs on virtually every Windows machine, the attack surface is enormous. An attacker with a position to influence DNS responses could achieve unauthenticated remote-code execution across your enterprise,” he added. 

Childs also described CVE-2026-41089, a Windows Netlogon defect that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to run code, as the “highest-impact bug that requires immediate patching,” adding that a “compromised domain controller is a compromised domain.”

Jack Bicer, director of vulnerability research at Action1, called out CVE-2026-42898, the critical vulnerability affecting Microsoft Dynamics 365. 

“With no user interaction required, and the potential to impact systems beyond the vulnerable component’s original security scope, this vulnerability poses serious enterprise risk: an attacker with only basic access could turn a business application server into a remote execution platform,” he said in a blog post.

“Compromise of Dynamics 365 infrastructure can expose customer records, operational workflows, financial information, and integrated business systems. Since CRM environments often connect with identity services, databases, and enterprise applications, successful exploitation could lead to broader organizational compromise and operational disruption,” Bicer added.

The full list of vulnerabilities addressed this month is available in Microsoft’s Security Response Center.

The post Microsoft addresses 137 vulnerabilities in May’s Patch Tuesday, including 13 rated critical appeared first on CyberScoop.

Attackers are actively exploiting a Linux vulnerability in the wild, and researchers warn that the fallout could be broad — anyone with authenticated local access can leverage it to gain total control of a system. 

But the story behind CVE-2026-31431 is almost as interesting as the bug itself. Theori, the company that discovered the bug, leaned heavily on AI to find and initially disclose it. The result is a case study that  underscores the challenges that occur when the relentless hunt for defects collides with marketing impulses and inflated AI-generated language that was long on bluster but lacked technical details. 

Theori dubbed the high-severity vulnerability “Copy Fail” with a vanity domain containing AI-generated content, and warned that every mainstream Linux kernel built since 2017 is in scope of potential exploitation resulting in root access. 

Theori’s AI-powered penetration testing platform, Xint, discovered the local privilege-escalation flaw in a Linux kernel module and reported it to the Linux kernel security team March 23. Major Linux distributions affected by the vulnerability had issued patches prior to Theori’s disclosure, which it published alongside a proof-of-concept exploit. 

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency added CVE-2026-31431 to its known exploited vulnerabilities catalog Friday.

Researchers have yet to determine how many organizations have been impacted by the flaw, but they noted that critical requirements for exploitation, specifically local access achieved through a separate exploit or pathway to unauthorized access, should limit potential exposure.

“The attacker would need to have already established a foothold on the target system either through some means of legitimate access or another exploit,” Spencer McIntyre, secure researcher at Rapid7, told CyberScoop. “That’s a large limiting factor since this vulnerability would therefore need to be paired with another.”

Theori’s disclosure turned heads among other vulnerability researchers who noted the defect’s broad potential impact, but also for lacking details about the proof-of-concept exploit. 

“The exploit is real, there is something to worry about, but understandably, teams now have to do additional validation to know how to parse the extreme AI FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) from [Theori’s] blog post,” Caitlin Condon, vice president of security research at VulnCheck, told CyberScoop. 

“It’s not helpful that the blog is AI slop, because it detracts from technical reality,” she added. 

Theori acknowledges it used AI to discover and describe the vulnerability, explaining that it’s focusing on finding and fixing a large amount of defects. 

“We used AI to help craft the disclosure site and the blog post to help speed things up, but all material was thoroughly reviewed by our internal teams for accuracy,” said Tim Becker, senior security researcher at Theori. 

Theori is intentionally withholding additional details until the patch is broadly applied, he added.

“We stand by our technical description of the vulnerability. Helping downstream users to understand the impact of a security bug has always been a challenge for security researchers,” Becker said. “Copy Fail allows for trivial privilege escalation on most desktop and server Linux distributions. It also has implications for containerization including Kubernetes.”

Other researchers have drawn similar conclusions, noting that exploitation can be automated and doesn’t require specialization. 

Meanwhile, hundreds of additional proof-of-concept exploits have surfaced since the vulnerability was disclosed five days ago. “As expected, the majority of these appear to be copycat AI PoCs that do nothing but add banners or different colors to the command-line interface. Many new PoCs are simply ports of the original AI PoC to a different programming language,” Condon said. 

“Organizations should exercise caution when running untested research artifacts, including AI-generated exploit code that isn’t fully explained,” she added. 

Becker said Theori is aware of the burden defenders confront, and insists the company’s reports contain enough information for organizations to quickly triage and validate its findings.

The post ‘Copy Fail’ is a real Linux security crisis wrapped in AI slop appeared first on CyberScoop.

The federal agency tasked with analyzing security vulnerabilities is overwhelmed as it and other authorities struggle to keep pace with a flood of defects that grows every year. The National Institute of Standards and Technology announced Wednesday that it has capitulated to that deluge and narrowed the priorities for its National Vulnerability Database.

NIST said it will only prioritize analysis for CVEs that appear in the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s known exploited vulnerabilities catalog, software used in the federal government and critical software defined under Executive Order 14028.

The federal agency’s goal with the change is to achieve long-term sustainability and stabilize the NVD program, which has encountered previous challenges, notably a funding lapse in early 2024 that forced NIST to temporarily stop providing key metadata for many vulnerabilities in the database.

The agency still hasn’t cleared a backlog of unenriched CVEs that built up during that pause and grew since then. 

NIST said it analyzed nearly 42,000 vulnerabilities last year, adding that CVE submissions surged 263% from 2020 to 2025. “We don’t expect this trend to let up anytime soon. Submissions during the first three months of 2026 are nearly one-third higher than the same period last year,” the agency said in a blog post announcing the change. 

Indeed, vulnerabilities are increasing across the board. For instance, Microsoft addressed 165 vulnerabilities Tuesday, its second-largest monthly batch of defects on record.

NIST said CVEs that don’t fit its more narrow criteria will still be listed in the NVD, but they won’t be automatically enriched with additional details. 

“This will allow us to focus on CVEs with the greatest potential for widespread impact,” the agency said. “While CVEs that do not meet these criteria may have a significant impact on affected systems, they generally do not present the same level of systemic risk as those in the prioritized categories.”

Researchers and threat hunters who analyze vulnerabilities for CVE Numbering Authorities (CNA) and vendors that publish their own assessments view NIST’s new approach as inevitable.

“They had to do something. NIST was woefully behind on classifying CVEs and would likely never have caught up,” Dustin Childs, head of threat awareness at Trend Micro’s Zero Day Initiative, told CyberScoop.

“I’m not sure if it was a herculean task or a sisyphean one, but either way, they were set up for failure under their previous system. This change allows them to prioritize their work,” he added.

NIST’s new approach will impact the vulnerability research community at large, but also put more private companies and organizations in a position to gain more authority as defenders seek out more alternative sources.

Caitlin Condon, vice president of security research at VulnCheck, previously told CyberScoop that prioritization remains a problem, with too many defenders paying attention to vulnerabilities that aren’t worth their time. 

Of the more than 40,000 newly published vulnerabilities that VulnCheck cataloged last year, only 1% of those defects, just 422, were exploited in the wild. 

NIST is also trying to reduce other duplicitous efforts with its new approach, effectively leaning even more on CNAs. CVEs that are submitted with a severity rating will no longer receive a separate CVSS score from NIST, the agency said. 

While the agency remains the ultimate authority providing a government-backed catalog of vulnerability assessments, it acknowledged these changes will affect its users.

“This risk-based approach is necessary to manage the current surge in CVE submissions while we work to align our efforts with the needs of the NVD community,” the agency said. “By evolving the NVD to meet today’s challenges, we can ensure that the database remains a reliable, sustainable and publicly available source of information about cybersecurity vulnerabilities.”

The post NIST narrows scope of CVE analysis to keep up with rising tide of vulnerabilities appeared first on CyberScoop.

Microsoft addressed 165 vulnerabilities affecting its various products and underlying systems, including one actively exploited vulnerability in Microsoft Office SharePoint, in this month’s Patch Tuesday update. 

“By my count, this is the second-largest monthly release in Microsoft’s history,” Dustin Childs, head of threat awareness at Trend Micro’s Zero Day Initiative, wrote in a blog post Tuesday.

Microsoft didn’t explain why its monthly batch of patches grew so large this month, but Childs noted that many vulnerability programs are experiencing a significant increase in submissions found by artificial intelligence tools. “For us, our incoming rate has essentially tripled, making triage a challenge, to say the least,” he added. 

The zero-day vulnerability — CVE-2026-32201 — has a CVSS rating of 6.5 and allows attackers to view sensitive information and make changes to disclosed information. Microsoft said the improper input validation defect in Microsoft Office SharePoint allows unauthenticated attackers to perform spoofing over a network.

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency added the zero-day to its known exploited vulnerabilities catalog shortly after Microsoft’s disclosure. 

Microsoft also addressed a high-severity vulnerability — CVE-2026-33825 — that was publicly known at the time of release. The vendor said the defect in Microsoft Defender is more likely to be exploited and could allow unauthorized attackers to elevate privileges locally.

“What starts as a foothold can quickly become full system domination,” Jack Bicer, director of vulnerability research at Action1, said in a blog post about the vulnerability. 

“Once exploited, it allows full control over endpoints, enabling data exfiltration, disabling security tools and lateral movement across networks,” Bicer said.

Proof-of-concept exploit code for the defect is publicly available, which increases the likelihood of exploitation in the wild, he added.

Microsoft disclosed two critical vulnerabilities this month — CVE-2026-33824 affecting Windows IKE Extension and CVE-2026-26149 affecting Microsoft Power Apps — but designated both of the defects as less likely to be exploited.

More than three-quarters of the vulnerabilities disclosed this month are less likely to be exploited, according to Microsoft. Meanwhile, the company designated 19 vulnerabilities as more likely to be exploited.

The full list of vulnerabilities addressed this month is available in Microsoft’s Security Response Center.

The post Microsoft drops its second-largest monthly batch of defects on record appeared first on CyberScoop.

Cisco customers have confronted a flood of actively exploited vulnerabilities affecting the vendor’s network edge software since late February, and researchers say that five of the nine vulnerabilities Cisco disclosed in its firewalls and SD-WAN systems over the past three weeks have already been exploited in the wild. 

Attackers exploited a pair of these defects — zero-day vulnerabilities in Cisco SD-WANs — for at least three years before the vendor and authorities discovered and issued warnings about the threat. Cisco disclosed an additional five SD-WAN vulnerabilities that same day, and three of those defects have since been confirmed actively exploited as well.

Weaknesses lurking in Cisco security products don’t end there. Amazon Threat Intelligence on Wednesday said one of the two max-severity defects Cisco reported in its firewall management software earlier this month has been actively exploited by Interlock ransomware since Jan. 26, more than a month before those vulnerabilities were publicly disclosed.

Some organizations, officials and members of the security community at large have missed widening risks as more of the defects come under attack. The flurry of Cisco SD-WAN and firewall vulnerabilities includes defects with low CVSS ratings, zero-days and others that were determined actively exploited after disclosure.

“These are not random bugs in low-value software. These are management-plane and control-plane weaknesses in devices at the network edge, which often function as trust anchors in enterprise environments,” Douglas McKee, director of vulnerability intelligence at Rapid7, told CyberScoop.

“If you compromise SD-WAN or firewall management, you’re landing on policy, visibility, routing, segmentation, and, in many cases, administrative trust over a large swath of the environment,” he added. “Attackers know that and, when they find a pre-auth path into those systems, especially one that can be chained to root, that’s about as attractive as it gets.”

The full slate of recently disclosed Cisco vulnerabilities affecting these systems include:

• SD-WAN vulnerabilities: CVE-2026-20127, CVE-2022-20775, CVE-2026-20122, CVE-2026-20126, CVE-2026-20128, CVE-2026-20129 and CVE-2026-20133
• Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center software vulnerabilities: CVE-2026-20079 and CVE-2026-20131

Researchers from multiple firms and Cisco have observed or been notified of active exploitation of CVE-2026-20127, CVE-2022-20775, CVE-2026-20122, CVE-2026-20128 and CVE-2026-20131.

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency has only added two of the defects — CVE-2022-20775 and CVE-2026-20127 — to its known exploited vulnerabilities catalog thus far. The agency, which last week added new hunting and reporting requirements to an emergency directive it issued for the defects in late February, did not answer questions about the updated order or explain why other actively exploited Cisco vulnerabilities haven’t been added to the catalog. The agency has been operating under a funding shutdown since February.

Interlock ransomware hits Cisco firewalls

The ongoing ransomware campaign Amazon Threat Intelligence spotted involving CVE-2026-20131 confirmed “Interlock had a zero-day in their hands, giving them a week’s head start to compromise organizations before defenders even knew to look,” researchers said Wednesday.

Interlock’s observed attack path and operations are extensive, including post-compromise reconnaissance scripts, custom remote access trojans, a webshell and legitimate tool abuse. Amazon did not identify specific victims, and said the group threatens organizations with data encryption, regulatory fines and compliance valuations.

“Interlock has historically targeted specific sectors where operational disruption creates maximum pressure for payment,” Amazon Threat Intelligence researchers said in the blog post. These sectors include education, engineering, architecture, construction, manufacturing, industrial, health care and government entities. 

4 Cisco SD-WAN defects under attack

The swarm of vulnerabilities in Cisco SD-WANs poses additional risk for customers. Cisco Talos previously attributed long-running attacks involving CVE-2026-20127 and CVE-2022-20775 to UAT-8616, but it’s unclear if the same threat group is responsible for all of the Cisco SD-WAN exploits. 

“Other threat groups are likely to pick up public research in order to weaponize or adapt it opportunistically, so we may see follow-on attempts by additional threat actors, including low-skilled attackers,” Caitlin Condon, vice president of security research at VulnCheck, told CyberScoop.

Researchers said vulnerabilities are often disclosed in clusters after a meaningful defect is identified in a specific product, such as Cisco’s SD-WAN systems.

Cisco declined to answer questions and said customers can find the latest information on its security advisories page.

Condon and McKee both noted that Cisco has been responsive in releasing software fixes, threat-hunting intelligence and, in the case of the SD-WAN zero-days, coordinated government guidance. 

“This is what a good crisis response is supposed to look like once exploitation is identified,” McKee said. 

“The harder question is whether the industry is getting early-enough visibility into the defects in edge-management software that sophisticated actors are clearly prioritizing,” he added. “Are our organizations equipped with the right people and tools to perform this level of exposure management?”

The expanding exploits Cisco customers are combating on firewalls and SD-WANs is a reminder that organizations shouldn’t deprioritize less notorious vulnerabilities or those with lower CVSS scores, Condon said. 

“Several of the exploited vulnerabilities in this tranche of Cisco SD-WAN bugs don’t have critical CVSS scores, meaning teams using CVSS as a prioritization mechanism might miss medium- or high-scored flaws that still have real-world adversary utility,” she added.

The attacks also collectively reflect a persistent pattern of attackers targeting network edge systems from multiple vendors, including Cisco.

“Attackers continue to treat network edge and management infrastructure as prime real estate, and when defenders see pre-authentication, management-plane flaws with evidence of pre-disclosure exploitation, they need to assume compromise, not just exposure,” McKee said. 

“Attackers are investing time and capability into finding and operationalizing previously unknown defects in Cisco edge and management infrastructure because the payoff is enormous,” he added. “These platforms give you a privileged position, broad visibility, and a path to durable access inside high-value organizations. That’s exactly why they keep getting hit.”

The post Cisco’s latest vulnerability spree has a more troubling pattern underneath appeared first on CyberScoop.

Microsoft addressed 83 vulnerabilities that cut across its broad portfolio of enterprise software and underlying services in its latest security update. The company’s Patch Tuesday release contained no actively exploited zero-day vulnerabilities and six defects it described as more likely to be exploited. 

The vendor’s batch of patches marks the first monthly update without an actively exploited zero-day in six months.

The “lack of bugs under active attack is a nice change from last month,” when Microsoft reported six actively exploited vulnerabilities, Dustin Childs, head of threat awareness at Trend Micro’s Zero Day Initiative, said in a blog post Tuesday. 

Two vulnerabilities addressed this month — CVE-2026-21262 and CVE-2026-26127 — were listed as publicly known at the time of release. “These bugs are more bark than bite,” said Satnam Narang, senior staff research engineer at Tenable. 

More than half of the defects in this month’s update can trigger escalated privileges, and six of those vulnerabilities — CVE-2026-23668, CVE-2026-24289, CVE-2026-24291, CVE-2026-24294, CVE-2026-25187 and CVE-2026-26132 — were rated as more likely to be exploited, Narang added.

An information-disclosure defect in Microsoft Excel — CVE-2026-26144 — showcases an attack scenario that’s likely to occur more often, according to Childs. “An attacker could use it to cause the Copilot Agent to exfiltrate data off the target,” essentially making it a zero-click operation, he wrote.

Researchers also focused on a pair of defects in Microsoft Office with CVSS ratings of 8.4 — CVE-2026-26110 and CVE-2026-26113 — that attackers can trigger to execute arbitrary code. The preview plane in Microsoft Office can serve as the attack vector for both vulnerabilities.

“Remote-code execution vulnerabilities in Office applications pose significant risks for organizations, as documents are widely shared via email, file shares, and collaboration platforms,” Mike Walters, president and co-founder of Action1, said in an email. 

“If exploited, attackers could gain control of user systems, deploy ransomware, steal corporate data, or move laterally across internal networks,” he added. “Even a single malicious document could compromise an endpoint and give attackers a foothold inside the organization.”

The full list of vulnerabilities addressed this month is available in Microsoft’s Security Response Center.

The post Microsoft’s monthly Patch Tuesday is first in 6 months with no actively exploited zero-days appeared first on CyberScoop.

David Fletcher // Reporting is a penetration testing topic that doesn’t have a whole lot of popularity. People have a hard time being inspired to write about the technical details of […]

The post How to Not Suck at Reporting (or How to Write Great Pentesting Reports) appeared first on Black Hills Information Security, Inc..