When CISA issues an emergency directive, the message to every federal agency and every security team paying attention is to patch now. For CVE-2026-50751, a CVSS 9.3 authentication bypass in Check Point Remote Access VPN, that directive landed on June 21. despite exploitation beginning in early May. That, six-week active intrusion gap is not a footnote. It is the entire story.

The flaw itself is straightforward in the worst possible way. A logic error in the certificate-validation process, triggered when the deprecated IKEv1 key-exchange protocol is enabled, allows a remote attacker to establish a fully authenticated VPN session without a valid password. No phishing. No credential theft. No lateral movement required to reach the perimeter. The attacker walks through the front door, and the door logs it as a legitimate entry.

By the time Check Point disclosed the vulnerability on June 8, a Qilin ransomware affiliate had already used it to compromise a few dozen organizations worldwide. The post-access playbook was efficient, including Rclone for data exfiltration, the Tox protocol for command-and-control communication routed through disposable VPS infrastructure. Quiet, fast, and designed to complete the job before detection had a chance to matter.

The security product became the attack vector

There is a particular irony to CVE-2026-50751 that the industry needs to sit with. The device that was breached is not an unpatched workstation or a misconfigured cloud bucket. It is the VPN gateway, the product sold specifically to keep attackers outside the perimeter. The control designed to prevent unauthorized access became the mechanism of it.

This is not unique to Check Point, and it is not a criticism of any single vendor. It reflects a structural problem with perimeter-dependent security architecture. When the perimeter device is the trust anchor, compromising that device does not just breach the perimeter. It inherits the perimeter’s authority. Every downstream control, every identity verification, every behavior-based detection tool is now reasoning about a session it believes is legitimate, because the VPN said so.

That is the condition Qilin exploited. And patching the vulnerability, while absolutely necessary, does nothing to change the position of organizations that were breached during the May-June window. For them, the attacker is already operating as a trusted user. The CISA directive is not a remedy for those organizations. It is a message to everyone else.

Why the standard response falls short

The standard sequence after a disclosure like this is one we’ve all heard before—patch the affected systems, update detection signatures, review logs for indicators of compromise. While each of these steps is good practice, none of them solves the underlying problem.

Patching closes the door for future attackers, but it does not evict the ones already inside. Detection signatures help identify known post-exploitation behavior, but ransomware affiliates have demonstrated consistent operational discipline, using legitimate tools for exfiltration and standard protocols for command-and-control precisely because these approaches blend into normal traffic. Log review is valuable, but the attackers who exploited the vulnerability had weeks of access before anyone was looking.

The detect-and-respond model assumes that detection arrives before the damage is complete. Against a weaponized zero-day with a six-week head start, that assumption does not hold. By the time an alert fires, the data has moved. The ransomware is staged. The ransom clock has started.

Making the endpoint harder to exploit

The Check Point vulnerability forces a critical question: how do you stop payload execution when an attacker has already succeeded at authentication and bypassed every other defense?

It requires moving the defensive layer to the endpoint itself, at the point of execution, where the ransomware payload has to operate regardless of how access was obtained. Techniques that morph the runtime memory environment, transforming the structures that malware needs to find and use at execution time, stop the payload deterministically. The attacker can have authenticated credentials, a legitimate session, and weeks of undetected access. If the target environment does not look like what the payload expects, the payload fails.

This is not a replacement for patching. Organizations should apply the Check Point fix immediately, and they should treat any system with IKEv1 enabled during the May-June window as potentially compromised. But patching is the beginning, as the organizations that were inside the six-week exploitation window need a control that works after the perimeter is gone.

The lesson before the next directive

CISA will issue another emergency directive. There will be another authentication bypass, another perimeter device turned attack vector, another financially motivated threat actor with a head start measured in weeks. The patch-and-detect cycle will play out again, and organizations that had their exposure managed entirely at the perimeter will find themselves in the same position.

The lesson here is not that Check Point failed or that VPNs are over. It is that any architecture where a single authentication bypass gives an attacker operating authority over the entire environment has a structural problem that no patch resolves. Closing the door is necessary. Making sure the ransomware cannot detonate even after the attacker is inside is the part the industry still has not solved at scale.

That is the conversation the CISA directive should be starting, and mostly is not.

The post Why patch directives only go so far appeared first on CyberScoop.

Attackers are actively exploiting a pair of critical Fortinet vulnerabilities in FortiSandbox, a security product customers use to identify and defend against emerging threats across their network, according to researchers.

Fortinet disclosed and patched the vulnerabilities — CVE-2026-39808 and CVE-2026-39813 — in April, but it hasn’t confirmed exploitation. The company did not respond to a request for comment. 

VulnCheck said it first observed exploitation of CVE-2026-39808, an OS-command injection vulnerability, on June 9. Researchers at threat intelligence firm Defused confirmed exploitation of the same defect June 11, and CVE-2026-39813, a path-traversal vulnerability, on June 15. 

Simo Kohonen, founder and CEO of Defused, said the firm observed 49 exploitation events from 11 distinct IPs against the pair of defects over a six-day period. Attackers are also attempting to exploit a third FortiSandox vulnerability, CVE-2026-25089, which Fortinet disclosed and patched June 9, he added.

Researchers haven’t determined how many Fortinet customers are directly impacted, yet post-exploitation activity thus far, which includes verification and reconnaissance, usually precedes a heavier wave of attacks, Kohonen said. 

Defused traced the malicious activity to 13 sources originating from nine countries, including China, South Korea, Taiwan, India, Singapore, Germany, the Netherlands, Canada and Bulgaria. 

“The spread and the share proof-of-concepts point to multiple independent operators on commodity infrastructure, not one campaign,” Kohonen told CyberScoop.

Researchers said they haven’t observed evidence attackers are chaining the vulnerabilities together, but the exploits are functioning with one another by bypassing authentication, escalating privileges and allowing attackers to execute arbitrary commands.

The exploits, which multiple research firms have observed in honeypots, mark the early stages of another potential wave of attacks targeting Fortinet customers.

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency has flagged 26 Fortinet vulnerabilities in its known exploited vulnerabilities catalog since 2021. As of Wednesday, the agency hasn’t added any of the new Fortinet defects to its catalog.

Researchers warn that the vulnerabilities affect a significant device in enterprise security architecture. 

“Sandbox appliances are typically trusted systems used to analyze suspicious content and support broader detection workflows, which means a compromise could provide attackers with elevated access within a security sensitive environment,” Chris Doyle, head of security and compliance at JupiterOne, said in an email. 

Kohonen added: “FortiSandbox is high-value because it ingests from and connects to other Fortinet devices.”

The post Attackers hit pair of critical Fortinet vulnerabilities the vendor disclosed in April appeared first on CyberScoop.

Microsoft addressed a whopping 206 vulnerabilities lurking in its vast portfolio of business products and foundational systems in this month’s Patch Tuesday update, marking the vendor’s largest monthly batch of security patches on record, according to researchers.

The massive assortment of vulnerabilities in Microsoft’s latest defect dump accentuates an alarming trend across technology — fears and warnings about a roaring flood of error-riddled software have materialized. And the disease is spreading. 

“It is extraordinary that Microsoft can produce so many patches in a single month, but it does raise concerns,” Dustin Childs, head of threat awareness at Trend Micro’s Zero Day Initiative, wrote in a blog post Tuesday.

Researchers consistently highlight the role artificial intelligence is playing in discovering more vulnerabilities and aiding in the development of patches and testing. Childs isn’t alone in wondering if this is the new normal and how that will impact defenders’ strategies for patch prioritization and deployment. 

“Pandora’s proverbial box has been opened, and as more advanced AI models become available, we expect the norm to continue upward across the board, not just for Patch Tuesday,” Satnam Narang, senior staff research engineer at Tenable, said in an email.

This vulnerability flood isn’t a one-off or rare event. Half of Microsoft’s Patch Tuesday updates through the first half of this year contained a volume of defects well into the triple digits. 

“The current number of CVEs shipped by Microsoft this year exceeds the total number of CVEs shipped in all of 2018,” Childs wrote. 

Microsoft disclosed three vulnerabilities — CVE-2026-45586, CVE-2026-50507 and CVE-2026-49160 — that were publicly known at the time of release, but not yet exploited in the wild, according to the company. 

Yet, in an out-of-band update May 19, the vendor did disclose and release a patch for CVE-2026-41091, an actively exploited zero-day vulnerability affecting Microsoft Defender.

Microsoft disclosed one max-severity vulnerability — CVE-2026-48567, affecting Azure HorizonDB — and nine defects with critical CVSS ratings. The company designated 15 of the vulnerabilities it addressed this month 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 breaks Patch Tuesday record with 206 vulnerabilities appeared first on CyberScoop.

Cisco customers are confronting yet another actively exploited zero-day vulnerability affecting the vendor’s SD-WAN management software, reinforcing pressure on organizations that have experienced rare breaks from active threats this year.

The vulnerability — CVE-2026-20245 — marks the seventh actively exploited zero-day in Cisco SD-WANs this year.

Cisco said it first became aware of active exploitation of the latest defect in the network management software earlier this month. The company disclosed the vulnerability, which was first spotted by Mandiant, on Thursday and warned that a security patch is not yet available and there are no workarounds to mitigate the defect in the meantime.

“A patch for this vulnerability will be provided on a future date,” a company spokesperson said in a statement. 

Cisco did not attribute the attacks to any specific group, describe the objectives of those attacks or share how many organizations have already been impacted.

The validation error defect affecting the Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN Manager allows authenticated or local attackers to execute commands as root, resulting in command-injection attacks on an affected system, the company said.

Yet, the scope of potential impact may be limited because exploitation requires valid credentials or privileged access through other means. Cisco said exploitation of a pair of zero-days it disclosed earlier this year —  CVE-2026-20182 or CVE-2026-20127 — could allow attackers the access required to exploit the new vulnerability. 

The company said it is “not aware of successful exploitation by other means,” adding that it “observed limited cases where the exploitation of this bug resulted in a configuration change pushed to edge devices.”

Landon Rice, senior exploit developer at VulnCheck, said the need for existing privileges “makes an attacker heavily reliant on previous vulnerabilities, or a net-new initial access vector, in order to be able to reach the privilege escalation path.”

Cisco advised customers to upgrade to fixed software released in May as part of its response to CVE-2026-20182 as a protective measure. 

Absent a patch that would provide organizations more protection against the new vulnerability, Cisco provided some indicators of compromise but noted that those same log entries may occur during standard operations. The company encouraged customers that need help distinguishing between legitimate and malicious activity to contact Cisco Technical Assistance Centers.

Cisco isn’t the only security vendor facing an onslaught of attacks on its customers, but it is among the most heavily targeted. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency has added seven vulnerabilities affecting Cisco SD-WANs and firewalls to its known exploited vulnerabilities catalog this year, not including CVE-2026-20245, which has yet to be added to the catalog.

The post Cisco customers encounter another SD-WAN zero-day under attack appeared first on CyberScoop.

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.

Researchers and threat hunters are scrambling to respond to an actively exploited authentication-bypass vulnerability affecting Palo Alto Networks customers’ firewalls. 

The company initially tagged CVE-2026-0257 with a medium-severity rating when it disclosed the defect May 13, but quickly reassessed it as critical after Rapid7 observed and confirmed active exploitation in the wild. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency followed suit, and added the vulnerability to its known exploited vulnerabilities catalog Friday.

The escalated threat posed by the defect, which allows remote attackers to bypass security restrictions and establish a VPN connection to an affected firewall, showcases how quickly a seemingly mild vulnerability can turn into an urgent warning. 

“Palo Alto Networks is actively monitoring limited exploitation attempts targeting CVE-2026-0257 on unpatched PAN-OS devices where mitigations have not been applied,” a company spokesperson said in a statement. The company on Friday urged all customers to immediately apply the patch or follow its recommended steps for mitigation. 

The vendor and Rapid7, which first observed exploitation May 17 in a customer environment, declined to say how many organizations are impacted thus far. Yet, Douglas McKee, director of vulnerability intelligence at Rapid7, warned: “We’ve continued to see new victims roll in, including a couple of customers hit within just an hour of each other during a second wave of activity” on May 21. 

Jake Knott, security researcher at watchTowr, told CyberScoop the vulnerability and resulting exploits follows a recurring trend wherein attackers target exposed network edge devices and rapidly identify, develop and weaponize exploits for initial access. 

“This is yet another authentication bypass on a device whose sole job is to guard the front door to an organization’s network,” he said. “What stands out is how simple it is — an attacker can forge a valid authentication cookie using nothing more than the appliance’s publicly available TLS certificate. The entire exploit is a single HTTP request.”

The vulnerability has a few requisites that limit exposure, specifically posing risk to some Palo Alto Networks customers running GlobalProtect portal or gateway configured to enable authentication override cookies. 

“The cookie encryption and decryption certificate must be reused with another feature, which potentially exposes the public key for that certificate,” said Caitlin Condon, vice president of security research at VulnCheck.

“It’s difficult to say how many deployments meet those criteria for exploitability, but Palo Alto Networks firewalls have a very large footprint, which means even uncommon configurations can present significant attack surface area,” she added.

Rapid7 said the same attacker or group is likely responsible for both waves of exploitation last month, but in many cases attackers are not establishing a full VPN connection or moving to other parts of the impacted network. 

The attackers are “highly opportunistic and clearly monitor the security research community,” McKee said. “Attackers are purposefully weaponizing medium-severity vulnerabilities, which are typically lower priority or blind spots for organizations.”

Multiple threat clusters are swarming to the opportunity and quickly adapting to published research.  Researchers have not attributed the malicious activity to any specific threat groups. 

“Their exact origins and long-term objectives remain unclear, as they currently seem focused purely on opportunistic initial access rather than targeted, long-term espionage,” McKee said. 

Palo Alto Networks said it discovered the vulnerability internally through its use of frontier AI tools. Yet, within days of its public disclosure, initial assessments were proven inadequate.

“This is a pattern we continue to see — the urgency only arrives after exploitation is underway,” Knott said. “Organizations that wait for confirmation of active exploitation before patching will consistently find themselves reacting too late.”

The post Attackers are exploiting Palo Alto Networks defect that initially flew under the radar 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.

OpenAI has unveiled Daybreak, a cybersecurity initiative that combines the company’s large language models with its Codex agentic framework to help organizations identify, patch, and validate software vulnerabilities across the development lifecycle.

The platform is built around three model tiers: GPT-5.5 for general-purpose use, GPT-5.5 with Trusted Access for Cyber for verified defensive security workflows, and GPT-5.5-Cyber, a more permissive variant intended for specialized use cases such as authorized red-teaming and penetration testing. Each tier carries different safeguard levels and access controls, with the most capable tier paired with stronger identity verification and account-level oversight.

“For cyber defense, it means seeing risk earlier, acting sooner, and helping make software resilient by design,” a company blog post reads. 

OpenAI did not respond to CyberScoop’s request for further comment. 

Daybreak arrives weeks after Anthropic unveiled Project Glasswing, built around Claude Mythos Preview, a cybersecurity-focused AI system Anthropic has described as capable of autonomously identifying software vulnerabilities at scale. Anthropic has kept access to Mythos tightly restricted, citing both safety concerns and national security considerations, and has not made the model commercially available.

A tiered approach to access

The structure of Daybreak reflects a deliberate effort to calibrate access against the risk these models present. The standard GPT-5.5 model is available for general enterprise and developer work. GPT-5.5 with Trusted Access for Cyber is aimed at security professionals engaged in defensive workflows, including vulnerability triage, malware analysis, detection engineering, and patch validation. GPT-5.5-Cyber, the highest-capability tier, is currently in preview and reserved for specialized workflows under controlled conditions.

OpenAI has framed the access controls as a response to the dual-use nature of the underlying technology. The same AI capabilities that allow defenders to understand relationships across codebases, identify subtle vulnerabilities, and accelerate remediation could be misused, the company acknowledged. The platform pairs expanded capability with what OpenAI describes as trust, verification, proportional safeguards, and accountability.

“We don’t think it’s practical or appropriate to centrally decide who gets to defend themselves,” the company said in a prior blog post related to the Trusted Access for Cyber program. “Instead, we aim to enable as many legitimate defenders as possible, with access grounded in verification, trust signals, and accountability.”

Industry partners and government discussions

Several major technology and cybersecurity companies are already working within the Trusted Access for Cyber framework, including Cisco, Oracle, CrowdStrike, Palo Alto Networks, Cloudflare, Fortinet, Akamai, and Zscaler.

Anthony Grieco, Cisco’s chief security and trust officer, described the technology as a “force multiplier for defenders,” noting that models like GPT-5.5 are changing the pace of security operations, from incident investigation to proactive exposure reduction. He added that the value of the technology lies not in the model alone but in the enterprise framework built around it.

At the federal level, the Trump administration is weighing how Anthropic’s Mythos will be used to protect government networks, with Federal CIO Greg Barbaccia telling CyberScoop last month he sees its potential to strengthen federal cyber defenses and the significant uncertainties that remain about how it would perform in real-world conditions.

Elsewhere, the European Commission is in discussions with OpenAI about potential access to its advanced AI models for identifying cybersecurity vulnerabilities. 

Other industry experts told CyberScoop that while these models are very good at finding vulnerabilities, that’s only part of the puzzle when it comes to an enterprise security plan. 

“The question that determines breach impact is not how fast you find the vulnerability. It’s how far a compromised identity can move before anyone knows it’s compromised,” said Doug Merritt, chairman & CEO, Aviatrix, a cloud security company. “That’s an infrastructure problem — what is each workload allowed to reach, on every path, independent of whether the breach has been detected? No patching tool answers that. Containment does.”

Jared Atkinson, CTO of SpecterOps, an identity management company, says defenders need to focus on what attackers can reach once inside, while still working to identify vulnerabilities faster.

“AI will accelerate portions of offensive security operations, but it does not fundamentally change the underlying problem defenders face. Most organizations still struggle to see and manage the attack paths that connect initial access to critical systems and data,” he said. “As these tools mature, visibility into identity exposure and post-compromise attack paths becomes increasingly urgent.”

A widening competition

The competitive cybersecurity dynamic between Anthropic and OpenAI has been building for months. OpenAI publicly announced the Trusted Access for Cyber program before Anthropic’s Glasswing rollout and has since expanded it to thousands of individuals and organizations. In April, the company released GPT-5.4 Cyber, a model variant specifically optimized for cybersecurity tasks, including testing and vulnerability research, governed by Know-Your-Customer and identity verification requirements.

Cybersecurity experts in the United States and United Kingdom have described Claude Mythos as a meaningful improvement over previous frontier models in identifying cybersecurity vulnerabilities, though debate continues over its practical impact on information security. GPT-5.4 Cyber has similarly been fine-tuned for testing and vulnerability research, with OpenAI indicating it intends to make iterative improvements as the program matures.

OpenAI’s stated intent is to expand access to Daybreak’s most capable models over time, working alongside industry and government partners as it deploys what it describes as “increasingly more cyber-capable models” through an iterative deployment approach. The company has indicated it is cautious about exercising too much centralized control over which sectors or industries participate in the program.

CEO Sam Altman framed the initiative in broad terms. “AI is already good and about to get super good at cybersecurity,” he wrote on X. “We’d like to start working with as many companies as possible now to help them continuously secure themselves.”

The post Daybreak is OpenAI’s answer to the AI arms race in cybersecurity 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.

Google researchers found a zero-day exploit developed by artificial intelligence and alerted the susceptible vendor to the imminent threat before a well-known cybercrime group initiated a mass-exploitation campaign, the company said in a report released Monday.

The averted disaster probably isn’t the first time attackers used AI to build a zero-day, but it is the first time Google Threat Intelligence Group found compelling evidence that this long-predicted and worrying escalation in vulnerability-exploit development is underway.

“We finally uncovered some evidence this is happening,” John Hultquist, chief analyst at GTIG, told CyberScoop. “This is probably the tip of the iceberg and it’s certainly not going to be the last.”

Google declined to identify the specific vulnerability, which has been patched, or name the “popular open-source, web-based administration tool” it affected. It did, however, note that the defect impacted a Python script that allows attackers to bypass two-factor authentication for the service.

Researchers also withheld details about how they discovered the zero-day exploit or the cybercrime group that was preparing to use it for a large-scale attack spree.

The threat group has a “strong record of high-profile incidents and mass exploitation,” Hultquist said, suggesting the attackers are prominent and well-known among cybersecurity practitioners. 

GTIG is fairly confident the threat group was using AI in a meaningful way throughout the entire process, but it has yet to determine if the technology also discovered the vulnerability it ultimately developed into an exploit.

Whichever AI model the attackers used — Google is confident it wasn’t Gemini or Anthropic’s Mythos — left artifacts throughout the exploit code that are inconsistent with human developers. This evidence, which included documentation strings in Python, highly annotated code and a hallucinated but non-existent CVSS score, tipped Google off to the fact AI was heavily involved, Hultquist said. 

GTIG has been warning about and expecting AI-developed exploits to hit systems in the wild, especially after its Big Sleep AI agent found a zero-day vulnerability in late 2024.

“I think the watershed moment was two years ago when we proved this was possible,” Hultquist said, adding that there are probably several other AI developed zero-days in play now. 

Yet, to him, the discovery of a zero-day exploit developed by AI is less concerning than what this single instance forebodes even further.

“The game’s already begun and we expect the capability trajectory is pretty sharp,” Hultquist said. “We do expect that this will be a much bigger problem, that there will be more devastating zero-day attacks done over this, especially as capabilities grow.”

The post Google spotted an AI-developed zero-day before attackers could use it appeared first on CyberScoop.

Attackers are actively exploiting a zero-day vulnerability affecting some Palo Alto Networks’ customers’ firewalls, the security vendor said in an advisory Tuesday.

The critical memory corruption vulnerability — CVE-2026-0300 — affects the authentication portal of PAN-OS, and allows unauthenticated attackers to run  code with root privileges on the vendor’s PA-Series and VM-Series firewalls, the company said.

Palo Alto Networks did not say when or how it became aware of active exploitation, nor when the earliest known exploitation occurred. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency added the defect to its known exploited vulnerabilities catalog Wednesday.

The company hasn’t released a patch for the vulnerability or described the scope and objective of confirmed attacks.

“This vulnerability is specific to a limited number of customers with their User-ID Authentication Portal (Captive Portal) exposed to the public internet or untrusted IP addresses. We have observed limited exploitation of this issue and are working to release software fixes, with the first updates expected to be available on May 13,” a Palo Alto Networks spokesperson told CyberScoop.

The company said firewalls exposed to the buffer-overflow vulnerability, which has a CVSS rating of 9.3, are broadly exposed in real-world deployments, and it described the attack complexity as low.

Shadowserver scans found more than 5,800 publicly exposed VM-Series firewalls running PAN-OS as of Tuesday, yet it’s unknown how many of those instances have restricted authentication access to trusted internal IP addresses or disabled the feature altogether.

“We have provided clear mitigation guidance to our customers to secure their environments immediately. This issue does not impact Cloud NGFW or Panorama appliances. We remain committed to a transparent, security-first approach to protect our global customer base,” Palo Alto Networks’ spokesperson added.

Benjamin Harris, CEO and founder of watchTowr, noted that Palo Alto Networks proactively alerted customers to the zero-day, a step that allowed defenders to take action on potentially exposed instances. 

“In a bad situation, that is the best they can do immediately. However, that also alerts everyone to the existence of a vulnerability,” he told CyberScoop.

Despite the risk, Harris said watchTowr expects attacks linked to the zero-day exploit to be “very limited.” 

Palo Alto Networks and its impacted customers remain the only parties to have observed exploitation in the wild, but researchers warn that will likely change soon. 

“It’s likely rules will also start to fire in third-party organizations and honeypots shortly,” Caitlin Condon, vice president of security research at VulnCheck, told CyberScoop. 

“Management interfaces, login pages, and authentication portals have been common adversary targets for both opportunistic and targeted campaigns in recent years,” she added. “With researcher and community eyes on the vulnerability, it’s likely that we’ll see public exploits and broader exploitation quickly, provided the issue isn’t prohibitively difficult to exploit.”

Palo Alto Networks has yet to attribute the attacks to any known threat group, publish indicators or compromise, nor disclose the type of organizations that have been targeted and impacted. 

Researchers are hunting for malicious activity and advise customers to apply patches upon release.

The post A critical Palo Alto PAN-OS zero-day is being exploited in the wild 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.

A severe authentication bypass vulnerability in cPanel, one of the most widely deployed web hosting control panel platforms on the internet, is being actively exploited in the wild, according to security researchers and hosting providers.

The vulnerability, tracked as CVE-2026-41940, affects all supported versions of cPanel and WebHost Manager (WHM) released after version 11.40, as well as WP Squared, a WordPress hosting management panel built on the cPanel platform. Internet scans conducted by security firm Rapid7 using the Shodan search engine identified approximately 1.5 million cPanel instances exposed online, though the precise number of vulnerable systems remains unknown.

cPanel released a patch Tuesday. By that point, exploitation had already been underway. KnownHost, a hosting provider that relies on cPanel, said earlier this week that successful exploits had been observed in the wild prior to any fix being made available. 

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency added the CVE to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) list Thursday. 

Cybersecurity firm watchTowr provided technical details in a blog posted Wednesday: The flaw stems from improper handling of user input during the login process. When a user attempts to log in, cPanel writes data from the request into a server-side session file before verifying the user’s identity. An attacker can exploit this by embedding hidden line breaks into the password field of a login request — characters cPanel fails to strip out — allowing arbitrary data to be injected directly into that file.

Through a secondary step, also involving a deliberately malformed request, the injected data gets promoted into the session’s active cache, where cPanel reads it as legitimate. Once that happens, the system sees the session as already authenticated and skips password verification entirely, granting access without ever checking the user’s actual credentials.

cPanel has published a detection script designed to scan session files for indicators of compromise, including sessions that contain injected authentication timestamps, pre-authentication sessions with authenticated attributes, and password fields containing embedded newlines. WatchTowr separately released a “Detection Artifact Generator” that administrators can use to verify whether their instances remain vulnerable.

Namecheap, a major domain registrar and hosting provider, took the step of temporarily blocking connections to cPanel and WHM ports 2083 and 2087 ahead of patch availability, citing the need to protect customers while an official fix was pending. The company began applying the patch after cPanel’s release earlier this week.

cPanel’s patched releases address the issue across seven version branches, from 11.110.0 through 11.136.0, as well as WP Squared version 11.136.1. The company’s advisory notes that the fix ensures potentially dangerous input is scrubbed automatically within the core session-saving process, rather than depending on each individual part of the codebase to do so separately. The patch also adds handling for cases where a per-session encryption key is missing, a condition the original code failed to account for and that attackers were able to exploit to bypass password encoding entirely.

The CVE has been given a 9.8 on the CVSS scale. 

The post cPanel’s authentication bypass bug is being exploited in the wild, CISA warns 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.

Researchers and threat hunters are scrambling to contain a maximum-severity defect in Ubiquiti’s UniFi Network Application that attackers could exploit to take over user accounts by accessing and manipulating files.

The path-traversal vulnerability — CVE-2026-22557 — affects software used to manage UniFi networking devices, including access points, gateways and switches. The vendor disclosed and released patches for the defect in a security advisory Wednesday.

“As of this morning, we have not observed any public proof-of-concept exploits or confirmed reports of exploitation in the wild,” Matthew Guidry, senior product detection engineer at Censys, told CyberScoop.

“However, because this is a path-traversal vulnerability, the technical complexity for an attacker is typically lower than memory-corruption or buffer-overflow bugs,” he added. “Given that the CVSS 10 rating implies low attack complexity, we anticipate that once the specific vulnerable endpoint is identified, exploitation will be trivial to automate.”

Censys sensors observed nearly 88,000 UniFi Network Application hosts publicly exposed to the internet as of Friday morning. The software doesn’t expose what version it’s running, so scans cannot distinguish between vulnerable and patched instances.

Roughly one-third of the exposed instances of UniFi Network Application are located in the United States. 

As a defender, when you see a CVSS 10 for a product you immediately recognize and know is everywhere, you probably get a bit anxious,” Guidry said. “You also know it’s remotely exploitable, requires no authentication, and needs no user interaction, because it wouldn’t be a 10 if it wasn’t. Ubiquiti is a name you hear frequently, and many of those devices are sitting directly on the internet.”

Ubiquiti advises UniFi Network Application users to update to the latest software versions, which also addressed a second vulnerability — CVE-2026-22558 — that attackers could exploit to escalate privileges.

The post Ubiquiti defect poses account takeover risk for UniFi Networking Application users appeared first on CyberScoop.

A maximum-severity vulnerability in pac4j, an open-source library integrated into hundreds of software packages and repositories, poses a significant security threat, but has thus far received scant attention.

The defect in the Java security engine, which handles authentication across multiple frameworks, has not been exploited in the wild since code review firm CodeAnt AI published a proof-of-concept exploit last week. The company discovered the vulnerability and privately reported it to pac4j’s maintainer, which disclosed the defect and released patches for affected versions of the library within two days.

Some researchers told CyberScoop they are concerned about the vulnerability — CVE-2026-29000 — because it affects a widely deployed Java security engine that attackers can exploit with relative ease.

“A threat actor only needs to access a server’s public RSA key to attempt exploitation,” researchers at Arctic Wolf Labs said in an email. 

These public keys, which are shared openly, are used to encrypt data and enable identity authentication. Attackers can trigger the defect and bypass authentication by forging a JSON Web Token (JWT) or deploy raw JSON claims via JSON Web Encryption (JWE) in pac4j-jwt to break into a system with the highest privileges.

“It is currently too early into the lifecycle of this vulnerability to tell if it will materialize into a major threat but the fact that it is a vulnerability in a library makes it more challenging to assess the potential risk,” researchers at Arctic Wolf Labs said. “Downstream consumers of the library may end up needing to issue their own advisories, as we’ve seen with other similar vulnerabilities in the past.”

Amartya Jha, co-founder and CEO at CodeAnt AI, warned that anyone with basic JWT knowledge can achieve exploitation. The vulnerability is a “logic flaw that no pattern-matching scanner or rule-based static application security testing tool would surface, because there’s no single line of code that’s wrong.”

The downstream security risk, as is often the case with open-source software, is widespread. The authentication module for pac4j is integrated into multiple frameworks, including Spring Security, Play Framework, Vert.x, Javalin and others, Jha said.

Many organizations may not realize they depend on pac4j-jwt because it’s not always declared in build files, he added. CodeAnt said it has contacted hundreds of maintainers in the past week to warn them that their packages and repositories are impacted by the vulnerability, which has a CVSS rating of 10.

Researchers haven’t observed any additional PoC exploit code, but they noted the exploit path is easy to reproduce. 

“The conditions for exploitation are favorable,” Jha said. “It’s pre-authentication, requires no secrets, the PoC is public, and the attack surface includes any internet-facing application or API gateway using the affected configuration. The window between public PoC and patch adoption is where the risk is highest.”

The post Critical defect in Java security engine poses serious downstream security risks appeared first on CyberScoop.