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 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.

The Senate’s top Democrat called on the Department of Homeland Security Friday to work closely with state and local governments to defend against artificial intelligence-strengthened hacks. 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., wrote to DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin to make sure state, local, tribal and territorial (SLTT) governments aren’t left behind as AI models advance, posing new hacking threats.

“There is a race between cybersecurity defenders and AI-enabled hacking — and there’s no time to waste,” Schumer wrote.

“While the White House has reportedly begun hosting meetings about its internal security priorities following these frontier AI cyber breakthroughs, it is glaringly obvious that the Department of Homeland Security needs an updated plan for coordinating these efforts with [state, local, tribal and territorial] governments and implementing procedures to reduce the risk of disruptive cyberattacks enabled by frontier AI,” he stated.

Schumer said he was worried about the capabilities of DHS and its Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to carry out that coordination, given federal funding cuts to the Multistate Information Sharing and Analysis Center, and the lack of a Senate-confirmed CISA director for the duration of the second Trump administration.

Schumer wants a plan from DHS by July 1 on coordinating with state and local governments on a range of questions, such as how to identify top AI talent, carry out rapid patching and conduct risk assessments.

“AI is changing the cyber battlefield fast — and we cannot let hackers get there first,” Schumer said in comments accompanying the letter. “Hospitals, power grids, water systems, schools, elections, and emergency services cannot be left exposed while criminal gangs and state-backed hackers race to exploit new AI tools. DHS must immediately help states and localities find and fix vulnerabilities before Americans are hit with outages, disruptions, and attacks that could put lives and livelihoods at risk.”

CISA is using AI to help on the defensive side internally, agency officials recently said.

The post Sen. Schumer seeks DHS plan on AI cyber coordination with state, local governments appeared first on CyberScoop.

A pair of persistent and problematic threat groups affiliated with The Com are actively targeting organizations across multiple critical infrastructure sectors for rapid data theft and extortion attacks, according to CrowdStrike.

The financially-motivated attackers, which CrowdStrike tracks as Cordial Spider and Snarky Spider, have used voice-phishing and social engineering attacks to break into victims’ identity platforms and traverse SaaS environments since at least October 2025, the company said in a report Thursday, which it shared exclusively with CyberScoop prior to release. 

Adam Meyers, senior vice president of counter adversary operations at CrowdStrike, said the subgroups composed of native English speakers primarily target U.S.-based organizations in the academic, aviation, retail, hospitality, automotive, financial services, legal and technology sectors.

This “new wave of ecrime threat actors” are closely aligned with Scattered Spider and linked to other subsets of The Com, including SLSH and ShinyHunters, Meyers said. 

Because these attacks target identity systems and can expose data in other connected services beyond the initial breach point, it’s difficult to determine how many victims have been caught up in these campaigns. 

CrowdStrike’s warning closely follows research Palo Alto Networks’ Unit 42 and the Retail & Hospitality Information Sharing and Analysis Center shared last week about Cordial Spider’s string of attacks targeting organizations in the retail and hospitality industry, among others. 

Cordial and Snarky Spider have set lures via voice calls, text messages and emails directing targeting employees to phishing pages posing as their employer’s legitimate single sign-on page or primary identity provider, researchers said. 

These phishing pages, which capture credentials, session keys or tokens, depending on the workflow, provide attackers an entry point into systems, which they exploit for widespread access across victims’ entire SaaS ecosystems.

Attackers use these initial hooks to remove and establish multi-factor authentication devices, then delete emails and other alerts that would otherwise warn organizations of potential malicious activity, researchers said. 

The data theft for extortion campaigns share striking similarities, but CrowdStrike said the tactics, techniques and procedures for each subgroup are distinct. These variances include hours of operation, different phishing domain providers, preferred operating systems, data leak sites, and the tools or devices they used to register for multi-factor authentication. 

The domain for BlackFile, Cordial Spider’s data-leak site, was offline as of Wednesday, according to Meyers.

CrowdStrike declined to put a range on the groups’ extortion demands, but Unit 42 previously said Cordial Spider, which is also tracked as CL-CRI-1116 and UNC6671, are typically in the seven-figure range.

Some victims that didn’t pay extortion demands have been subjected to DDoS attacks, and Snarky Spider has used more aggressive follow-on harassment tactics, including the swatting of victim organizations’ employees, Meyers said. 

CrowdStrike said Cordial and Snarky Spider also use residential proxy networks — including Mullvad, Oxylabs, NetNut, 9Proxy, Infatica and NSOCKS — to evade IP-based detection and blend in with typical traffic. 

Residential proxy networks, which rely on IP addresses assigned to real home users, can serve a legitimate purpose, but researchers have been warning that unethical or outright criminal operators are abusing these networks to build and support botnets, cybercrime campaigns, espionage and other malicious activity.

Cordial and Snarky Spider haven’t achieved the impact or technical capability of Scattered Spider, but the groups share many commonalities and objectives, Meyers said. 

“They’ve kind of taken their playbook and they’re using a lot of their techniques, but we haven’t really seen the technical sophistication demonstrated by them that we saw from Scattered Spider,” he said. “It’s kind of the new generation of Scattered Spider.”

The post Two new extortion crews are speedrunning the Scattered Spider playbook appeared first on CyberScoop.

One day AI may be capable of creating malware that threatens critical infrastructure.

But that day was not earlier this month, when reports surfaced of a new piece of malware seemingly configured to search for and sabotage Israeli water infrastructure, according to industrial cybersecurity firm Dragos. 

The malware, called ZionSiphon, was first identified by AI cybersecurity firm Darktrace, which said it was designed to target operational technology and industrial control system environments. The code scans the internet for IP addresses tied to water treatment and desalination plants owned or operated in Israel, with the goal of compromising them to sabotage the levels of chlorine and poison water supplies.

Strings in the malware’s binary code included the names of different components of the Israeli water sector, as well as politically-themed messaging, such as “In support of our brothers in Iran, Palestine, and Yemen against Zionist aggression.”

But a technical lead malware analyst at Dragos, Jimmy Wyles, called the malware nothing more than “hype,” claiming it poses no threat to water plants in Israel or anywhere else. 

For instance, whoever wrote the malware appears to have little knowledge of how operational technology works at Israeli water plants.

“The code is broken and shows little to no knowledge of dam desalination or ICS protocols,” wrote Wylie.

The developers also appeared to use AI to generate significant portions of the code, leading to hallucinations and errors. All the Windows-based process names and directory paths designed to confirm that a target was related to water desalination were filled with “fictional and likely LLM generated guesses.” The configuration files purportedly designed to manipulate chlorine levels were also fake and likely created using AI. 

Darktrace’s analysis notes that the malware sample they tested appears to be dysfunctional, citing an incorrect configuration in the code’s country targeting functions.

But Wylie wrote that the malware still would have been harmless to water treatment plants even when correctly configured, because the rest of the code was so riddled with “logic errors and invalid assumptions” that it would have been inoperable.

Similar maturity and logic issues were found in the malware’s USB infection and self-destruction capabilities. Wylie said Dragos was withholding additional technical analysis of the flaws plaguing ZionSiphon because they’re “not in the business of fixing malware for adversaries.”

The episode highlights an ongoing dispute around how much attention defenders – particularly those who work with operational technology – should give to more novel threats like AI-enabled hacking, versus more established tactics, techniques and procedures that have been successfully wielded by foreign hacking groups.

Operational technology – the systems that control or manipulate the machinery used in water facilities, electrical power plants and other industrial sectors – differs substantially from information technology environments. That presents challenges for both cybersecurity defenders and malicious hackers who often lack the industry-specific knowledge or skillset to design effective exploits.

To wit, Dragos claims there are publicly less than 10 malware samples capable of threatening industrial control systems. ZionSiphon is not one of them.

Wylie was critical of the way threat intelligence companies and media outlets initially framed the danger posed by the malware, saying it was overblown and likely diverted water sector cybersecurity resources away from more tangible threats, like Volt Typhoon, the Chinese-backed hacking group that U.S. intelligence officials say has burrowed deep into American critical infrastructure.

“Those responsible for protecting water treatment facilities and other critical infrastructure have finite time and attention,” Wylie wrote. “Spending either on ZionSiphon means spending less on threat groups like [Volt Typhoon], which have a demonstrated history of intrusions into those environments and are a far more pressing concern.”

The post Dragos: Despite AI use, new malware targeting water plants is ‘hype’ appeared first on CyberScoop.

National Cyber Director Sean Cairncross expects more executive orders coming from the White House as part of implementing the national cybersecurity strategy, he said Wednesday.

Staffers on Capitol Hill and others in the cyber world have been awaiting the implementation guidance the Trump administration had proclaimed would come to accompany the strategy  published last month.

Asked at a Semafor event about whether that would include executive orders, Cairncross answered, “I think that that’s the case.”

The administration released an executive order on fraud the same day it released its cyber strategy on March 6. Some of that order touched on cybercrime.

“This is rolling forward actively, and you should expect that there will be more execution and action in line with our strategic goals,” he said.

Cairncross cited another administration activity that fit into the strategy, such as the first conviction last week under the Take It Down Act, a law First Lady Melania Trump advocated for that seeks to combat non-consensual AI-generated sexually explicit images, violent threats and cyberstalking.

He declined to preview any future implementation plans, and said he expected they would be coming “relatively soon.”

A centerpiece of the administration strategy is confronting adversaries to make sure they suffer consequences for their hacking of United States targets.

Cairncross wouldn’t say explicitly if Trump, in his visit to Beijing next month, would address Chinese hacking.

“When we start to see things like prepositioning on critical infrastructure, that is something that needs to be addressed,” he said. Pressed on whether that meant cyber would be on the agenda during the visit, Caincross said, “I would expect that the safety and security of the American people will be first and foremost, as it always is for the president.”

Cairncross touted American ingenuity for producing an artificial intelligence model like Anthropic’s Claude Mythos, rather than it developing under U.S. cyber rivals like China or Russia. He acknowledged reports about the administration holding meetings about the cyber risks and benefits of something like Mythos — “the model right now that everyone’s talking about” — adding that the administration is looking to balance the dangers and positive capabilities of AI in cyberspace.

“I would say from the White House perspective, we are working very closely with industry,” Cairncross said. “We’ve been in close collaboration with the model companies across the interagency to make sure that we are evaluating and doing this.”

The post Executive orders likely ahead in next steps for national cyber strategy appeared first on CyberScoop.

The fallout and potential exposure from Iran’s state-backed targeting of U.S. critical infrastructure extends to more than 5,200 internet-connected devices, researchers at Censys said in a threat intelligence brief Wednesday. 

 Of the programmable logic controllers manufactured by Rockwell Automation/Allen-Bradley that Censys identified as  potentially exposed to Iranian government attackers, nearly 3,900, or about 3 out of every 4, are based in the United States. 

The cybersecurity firm identified the devices based on details multiple federal agencies shared in a joint alert Tuesday, and published additional indicators of compromise, including operator IPs and other threat hunting queries.

Federal authorities earlier this week warned that Iranian government attackers have exploited devices that control industrial automation processes and disrupted multiple sectors during the past month. Some victims also experienced financial losses as a result of the attacks, officials said. 

The operational technology devices are deployed across the energy sector, water and wastewater systems, and U.S. government services and facilities. 

Censys scans spotted 5,219 internet-exposed Rockwell Automation/Allen-Bradley PLC hosts shortly after the joint alert was issued by the FBI, National Security Agency, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, Environmental Protection Agency, Energy Department and U.S. Cyber Command. 

Researchers at Censys determined most of the exposed devices are connected via cellular systems, posing a significant risk to remote field deployments. Nearly half of the devices globally are connected to Verizon’s wireless network and 13% are connected to AT&T’s infrastructure.

“These devices are almost certainly field-deployed in physical infrastructure (pump stations, substations, municipal facilities) with cellular modems as their sole internet path,” Censys researchers wrote in the report. 

The potential attack surface is also amplified by additional services exposed in other ports on these devices, a discovery that Censys warned could allow attackers to gain direct paths to operations beyond PLC exploitation. 

Researchers fingerprinted MicroLogix and CompactLogix models exposed to the latest threat campaign and published a list of the 15 most-exposed products. Many of the most prominent devices are running end-of-life software, a compounding risk that could allow attackers to prioritize unpatched devices upon scanning, according to Censys.

The attacks date back to at least March, following the U.S. and Israel’s war against Iran, and were underway as other Iranian government-backed attackers claimed other victims, including Stryker and local governments.

The post Iranian attacks on US critical infrastructure puts 3,900 devices in crosshairs appeared first on CyberScoop.

Iranian government hackers are launching disruptive cyberattacks on American energy and water infrastructure, U.S. government agencies “urgently” warned Tuesday.

The hackers are taking aim at devices and systems that control industrial processes, and have harmed victims in the last month following the onset of U.S.-Israel strikes against Iran, according to the joint alert from the FBI, National Security Agency, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, Environmental Protection Agency, Energy Department and Cyber Command.

“Iran-affiliated advanced persistent threat (APT) actors are conducting exploitation activity targeting internet-facing operational technology (OT) devices, including programmable logic controllers (PLCs) manufactured by Rockwell Automation/Allen-Bradley,” the alert states. “This activity has led to PLC disruptions across several U.S. critical infrastructure sectors through malicious interactions with the project file and manipulation of data on human machine interface (HMI) and supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) displays.”

U.S. government agencies have warned before about Iranian hackers going after similar targets with those similar methods. The first such warning came after an Iranian government-linked group took credit for attacking a Pennsylvania water facility in late 2023.

Since March of this year, however, the agencies said they have seen new victims emerge from an advanced persistent threat group tied to Iran.

“The authoring agencies identified (through engagements with victim organizations) an Iranian-affiliated APT-group that disrupted the function of PLCs,” the alert reads. “These PLCs were deployed across multiple U.S. critical infrastructure sectors (including Government Services and Facilities, WWS, and Energy sectors) within a wide variety of industrial automation processes. Some of the victims experienced operational disruption and financial loss.”

The earlier campaign compromised at least 75 devices, the alert states.

The latest disruptions include “maliciously interacting with project files, and manipulating data displayed on HMI and SCADA displays,” according to the agencies’ warning.

After the U.S.-Israel conflict with Iran began, Tehran-connected hackers claimed victims including major medtech company Stryker, local governments and more.

The FBI warned last month that Iranian hackers were deploying malware over the Telegram app, although that campaign also predated the current Iran conflict.

The post Iranian hackers launching disruptive attacks at U.S. energy, water targets, feds warn appeared first on CyberScoop.

National Cyber Director Sean Cairncross said Tuesday that the Trump administration isn’t aspiring to enlist the private sector to conduct offensive cyber operations, but instead to help the government by keeping them abreast of the threats they’re facing.

The recently-released national cyber strategy talks about incentivizing companies to disrupt the networks of adversaries.

“I’m not talking about the private sector, industry or companies engaging in a cyber offensive campaign,” Cairncross said at an event hosted by Auburn University’s McCrary Institute. “What I’m talking about are the technical capabilities, the ability of our private sector to illuminate the battlefield from what they’re seeing, to inform and share information so that the USG [U.S. government] can respond to get ahead of things.”

The idea of enabling U.S. companies to undertake disruptive or offensive campaigns against malicious hackers, or to at least aid in U.S. government offensive operations, has regained currency in some GOP circles in recent years. Some companies have shown an interest in doing so, especially if laws are changed to make it more viable.

That trend coincides with growing calls from Trump administration officials — and now the release of the cybersecurity strategy — to go on the offense against hackers, although Cairncross emphasized again that the strategy pillar to “shape adversary behavior” isn’t just about conducting cyber offensive campaigns, but to use other government mechanisms to put pressure on hackers, be they legal or diplomatic.

The government can go about shaping the “risk calculus” “in a more agile fashion” with private sector help, he said.

There’s an enormous amount of capability on the private sector side, and now we have a spear from the United States government… we are looking for real partnership,” Cairncross said.

One way the U.S. government has sought to bring the fight to cyber adversaries is the FBI’s “joint sequenced operations,” used to degrade their capabilities. Speaking at the same event, the head of the bureau’s cyber division said the private sector was key to those operations as well.

“Every one of the joint sequenced operations that the FBI conducts to remove that capacity and capability that I talked about — from the Russians, from the Chinese, from the Iranians and others — happens because a victim came forward and engaged the FBI,” said Brett Leatherman.

“One takeaway for everybody here is ‘What is your game plan in the event of a breach to engage your local FBI field office?’” he asked. “I would proffer there’s very little liability in doing so, and we’re happy to have conversations with your outside or inside counsel, but there’s a tremendous amount to be gained by doing that.”

The post Trump administration isn’t pushing companies to conduct cyber offense, national cyber director says appeared first on CyberScoop.

The Trump administration is plotting an interagency body to confront malign hackers, pilot programs to secure critical infrastructure across states and other steps tied to its freshly-released cyber strategy, National Cyber Director Sean Cairncross said Monday.

The “interagency cell” will bring together agencies like the Justice Department, the Department of State, the FBI and the Pentagon, which will make it clear that going on cyber offense isn’t just about attacking enemies in cyberspace, Cairncross said.

“Sure, that’s part of it, but that’s not all of it,” he said at an event hosted by USTelecom. It will include diplomatic efforts, arrests and more, he said. “As President Trump has made clear, he expects results, and he’s empowered the team under him to go get them.”

A series of pilot programs will be catered to specific critical infrastructure industries in specific states, such as water in Texas and beef in South Dakota, Cairncross said. Different sectors operate at more or less mature levels, he said.

“One of the things that we are working to do is to align those sectors and prioritize those sectors in a way that makes sense,” he said.

Cairncross said the administration wants to share information with industry better, and will be looking as well at revising regulations in some instances. One of those instances is the Securities and Exchange Commission’s 2023 incident disclosure rule, which drew some of the most vehement industry opposition under the Biden administration’s’ pursuit of cyber regulations. The idea is to make sure they “make sense for industry,” Cairncross said.

But the administration also will have things it seeks from the private sector. That will include bringing together CEOs and sending the message to them that “you need to dedicate some real resources,” he said.

Cairncross has spoken before about wanting to establish an academy to address education and training in a nation with persistent cybersecurity job openings, but there’s more attached to it, he said.

The effort, which Cairncross said the administration would release details on soon, will also include a foundry (which “will be able to scale with private capital new innovation, and deploy it more quickly”) and an accelerator (“so when there’s preceded financing on on projects to really ramp that up and be able to scale as well and overcome some of the procurement hurdles that are often based in in this space”).

Cairncross said at a second event Monday that another forthcoming step was a law enforcement pilot program to better share information with state and local governments.

“We’re looking for ways to streamline information sharing from the USG side,” Cairncross said at a Billington Cybersecurity event, using the acronym for “U.S. government.” “Often, ‘how’ we know things is extremely sensitive, ‘what’ we know is less so,” he said. The goal is “to figure out how to communicate that in a helpful, actionable way.”

Updated, 3/9/26: to include comments about law enforcement pilot program.

The post Sean Cairncross lays out what’s coming next for Trump’s cyber strategy appeared first on CyberScoop.

Flights canceled. Emergency rooms shut down. Centuries-old companies shuttered.

Ransomware and other similar cyberattacks have become so routine that even those serious human and economic consequences are often overlooked or easily forgotten.

This lack of focus is dangerous.

As former leaders of FBI and CISA cyber units, we’ve seen cybercrime ripple through communities – disrupting critical services, destroying jobs, and sometimes costing lives. Today’s ransomware numbers tell a stark story. The Department of Homeland Security reported more than 5,600 publicly-disclosed ransomware attacks worldwide in 2024, nearly half of them in the United States. The FBI found that ransomware incidents increased nearly nine percent year over year, with almost half targeting critical infrastructure. Attacks on these organizations pose the greatest threat to national security and public safety.

Despite this trend, we’re cautiously optimistic about the administration’s new National Cyber Strategy. It focuses on protecting critical infrastructure and stopping ransomware and cybercrime—threats it correctly elevates to top-tier national security threats.

But success requires sustained action across government and industry. Adversaries are evolving faster than defenses: ransomware attacks now average $2.73 million per incident, driving annual losses into the billions. Attackers have compressed their operations from weeks to hours, disabling Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) tools and leaving defenders almost no time to stop an attack.

Basic cyber hygiene still matters. But it’s no longer sufficient. Attackers steal valid credentials, exploit known vulnerabilities, disable tools, and move laterally at machine speed, now accelerated by AI. They need a stunningly low level of technical expertise to do so, and AI tools are increasing the speed and scale of their actions.

Our defenses must keep pace with evolving threats. Protecting national security requires immediate action. Automating cyber threat information sharing offers clear benefits, but government agencies need significant structural and technological upgrades before they can effectively share data. This requires sustained investment and oversight.

The government does not have to do this alone. Industry and academia possess tools that could mean the difference between progress and revisiting this same conversation four, eight, or twelve years from now. Forums like CISA’s Joint Cyber Defense Collaborative (JCDC), the National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force (NCIJTF), and NSA’s Cyber Collaboration Center (CCC) have demonstrated that information fusion and joint operational planning can work. But overlapping missions and unclear playbooks leave companies guessing what to share, when to share it, and with whom. These forums and underlying collaboration mechanisms must be resourced, deconflicted, and made predictable.

Despite the noble efforts of government agencies to share behind-the-scenes and interact with industry with one voice, the current structure remains fragile and dependent on personal relationships. We simply cannot afford this fragility or inefficiency, particularly in an era of constrained government cyber resources and escalating threats.

Effective protection of critical infrastructure requires focused collaboration. The administration’s strategy rightly emphasizes this, but narrowing this focus will not be easy. For years, the government has tried to cover sixteen sectors and hundreds of thousands of entities equally—an impossible task. Equal attention for all is unrealistic. Looking back, we wish we had prioritized more strategically during our time in government.

Prioritization is politically difficult, but operationally necessary. When everything is critical, nothing truly is. For the most important critical infrastructure, we must focus on resilience—ensuring systems can withstand attacks and recover quickly—rather than assuming we can prevent every breach.

The government can take concrete steps now to disrupt the ransomware ecosystem. Ransomware has cost American lives; designating certain ransomware actors and their enablers as Foreign Terrorist Organizations could unlock more powerful sanctions, diplomatic action, and intelligence operations. Sensible regulation holding cryptocurrency exchanges accountable for knowingly laundering ransomware proceeds could weaken criminal business models while strengthening legitimate digital asset markets in the U.S. and allied nations.

The technology and cybersecurity industry has responsibilities, as well. Industry must share actionable intelligence where legally permitted, pressure-test government programs with candid feedback, and support reauthorization of the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015.

We all must do our part. Every day that passes without us confronting these critical questions is a gift to our adversaries. This will only be exacerbated by advancements in AI. We are hopeful that the release of this administration’s National Cyber Strategy will spark much-needed debate and decisions about the role of the government and industry in advancing our nation’s cybersecurity and resilience.

Cynthia Kaiser is senior vice president of Halcyon’s Ransomware Research Center. She was formerly Deputy Director of the FBI’s cyber division.

Matt Hartman serves as chief strategy officer at Merlin Group, where he is focused on identifying, accelerating, and scaling the delivery of transformative cyber technologies to the public sector and critical industries. Prior to this role, Matt spent the last five years serving as the senior career cybersecurity official at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) within the Department of Homeland Security.

The post We’ve seen ransomware cost American lives. Here’s what it will actually take to stop it. appeared first on CyberScoop.