The Federal Communications Commission approved new rules Thursday that boost cybersecurity regulations for the nation’s emergency alert systems and update security rules for the nation’s undersea cables.

The new rule would overhaul two national emergency systems, the Emergency Alert System and Wireless Emergency Alerts, to better protect against hijacking attacks from malicious actors.

The EAS is a national public warning system that state and local authorities use to disseminate information related to weather events, AMBER alerts and other emergencies via radio and television broadcasting stations. The WEA handles much of the same messaging via text.

A compromise of either system by a foreign government, cybercriminal group or other rogue actor could be used to sow chaos and disinformation in calmer times, or impede coordination efforts in the face of a genuine emergency. Any vulnerability in systems like the Emergency Alert System “can have serious consequences,” said FCC Commissioner Olivia Trusty in a statement after the vote.

“That is why it has been appropriate for the Commission to conduct a comprehensive review of the EAS framework by focusing on the security of the system itself,” Trusty continued. “As cybersecurity threats continue to evolve, EAS participants must take appropriate steps to safeguard the infrastructure that supports the delivery of life-saving alerts.”

The new rules amount to basic – but still critical – cyber hygiene practices for users accessing and updating the EAS and WEA systems. They must use strong passwords, quickly install security patches from vendors and use firewalls to limit access to their equipment.

The rule also creates a new authentication ID system to verify alerts before they’re submitted and avoid duplicate or unauthorized alerts from spreading.

Another rule passed by the Commission Thursday provided the first comprehensive update to the FCC’s submarine cable regulations in decades, and moves to tighten cybersecurity requirements in some areas while loosening them in others.

It exempts some undersea cable providers from submitting to stringent national security licensing reviews needed to land and operate cables that touch U.S. territory.

The review, called “Team Telecom,” is an interagency body led by the Department of Justice’s Foreign Investment Review Section and other federal agencies that advise the FCC on the national security implications of their telecom policies.

The new rules would presumptively exempt applications for undersea cable licensees when the provider can self-certify to “high security standards” that are “structured to increase certainty, predictability, and faster timelines for the licensing process.”

“Currently, all submarine cable applications get referred to Team Telecom…the changes adopted would exempt applications from applicants that have operated cables without incident, can certify to the highest national security standards, and agree to ongoing oversight and monitoring,” the FCC said in a release.

Other parts of the rule give the FCC greater oversight of critical functions within undersea cable operations. Owners and operators of submarine line terminal equipment, who connect submarine cables to land-based facilities in the U.S., will be subject to a new licensing requirement.

The rule also moves to update safeguards meant to address vulnerabilities related to principal equipment, third-party service providers, and other areas of concern in the undersea cable supply chain.

The post FCC passes new cybersecurity rules for emergency systems, undersea cables appeared first on CyberScoop.

Russian authorities used Cellebrite phone-cracking technology to break into a device belonging to a prominent domestic human rights activist they arrested and imprisoned, despite the company canceling its contract with the Russian government, according to a report published Thursday.

The University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab reached its conclusions after analyzing a phone belonging to Andrey Pivovarov and examining court documents he provided confirming the usage of Cellebrite’s UFED product.

Pivovarov was arrested in March 2021, sentenced in 2022 and released in 2024 as part of a prisoner exchange. Citizen Lab found evidence that authorities accessed his phone around June 2021 while the phone was in Russian government hands.

Investigators also said it appears Russian authorities might have used information it got from Pivoarov’s phone to surveil other regime opponents, combining information in the court documents with the later targeting of fellow dissident Anastasiya Burakova in a hacking campaign linked to Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB).

“The historic architecture of Cellebrite forensic systems means that much of the functionality in the UFED product has continued to operate long after updates cease,” Citizen Lab said in its report. “Furthermore, Cellebrite systems have historically featured an offline mode. Consequently, the way Cellebrite’s technology was designed appeared to make it difficult for the company to meaningfully cut off problematic customers.

“While Cellebrite has argued that its cancellations in Russia … went beyond what was legally required, this investigation contributes evidence that the contract cancellation did not immediately block Russia from leveraging Cellebrite’s tools for political persecution,” it continued.

Cellebrite provided a response to Citizen Lab’s report, saying that Cellebrite’s technology would be ineffective in Russia today.

“Any use of legacy Cellebrite hardware in Russia after March 2021 is entirely unauthorized,” Cellebrite spokesperson Victor Cooper told CyberScoop, echoing the Citizen Lab response. “The Cellebrite hardware previously sold, prior to March 2021, would now be incompatible with modern devices and would operate without our technical support, our consent or any legal sanction from Cellebrite. Rapid technology advances render legacy digital forensic hardware and software ineffective within a short period of time. Russia remains permanently on our restricted-customer list.”

The Russian Embassy in Washington, D.C. did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The post Russia uses Cellebrite to break into human rights activist’s phone, even after cancellation of contract appeared first on CyberScoop.

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.

Intelligence agencies for the United States, Canada, UK, Australia and New Zealand are warning that advanced AI models capable of wreaking havoc in the cyber domain are “months away” from being publicly available.

In a joint statement, the Five Eyes alliance say they expect the kind of advanced hacking capabilities provided by frontier models like Anthropic’s Fable 5 and OpenAI’s Daybreak to become broadly available the public within the year, despite efforts by AI companies to withhold them or restrict their access.

“Frontier Al models are anticipated to exceed current industry expectations, fundamentally transforming both offensive and defensive cyber capabilities,” the agencies said. “The timeline is not years, it is months.”

The statement, which included signatures from NSA’s Director of the Cybersecurity Directorate David Imbordino and acting CISA Director Nick Andersen, does not specifically cite secret or classified sources or methods to reach this conclusion.

But much of the underlying justification provided by the intelligence agencies also aligns with what public cybersecurity and AI experts have been warning about for months.

AI models capable of exploiting cybersecurity weaknesses are already available today through multiple channels: older commercial models, open-source versions, or foreign and black-market sources. And while newer models like Mythos are reportedly significantly more powerful for cybersecurity-related tasks, the breakneck pace of frontier model development often means that yesterday’s restricted frontier AI is tomorrow’s free, open-source AI.

Representative Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y., Chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, said the warning from intelligence agencies “underscores what the Committee has repeatedly heard through roundtables, briefings, and hearings with industry leaders: China is just months, if not now weeks, away from achieving frontier AI capabilities comparable to those of the United States.”

“This threat reinforces the urgency of ensuring that federal agencies and critical infrastructure operators can responsibly leverage advanced U.S. models, and receive the guidance and support necessary to do so, to find vulnerabilities before adversaries can exploit them,” said Garbarino in a statement.”

The agencies flag legacy systems, sluggish patching loops, unnecessary internet connectivity, weak identity and access controls, and a lack of pre-incident planning by organizations as key weaknesses that AI will excel at exploiting.

“The rapid pace of frontier AI development means cyber risk assumptions can become outdated in months, not years,” the agencies wrote. “We must act before and be prepared to adapt and withstand evolving threats.”

Since large language models burst onto the scene, open-source models have run about 6-8 months behind the largest frontier AI companies.

To give an idea of how quickly the field develops: the capabilities described in the Amazon threat intelligence report that convinced the Trump administration to place export controls on Fable 5 could already be accomplished through older models like Claude Opus and Claude Sonnet, as well as open-source Chinese models.

Anthropic shut down access to their Fable 5 and Mythos 5 models as a result, and despite releasing a statement that they believe the White House decision was a “misunderstanding” the dispute remains resolved.

Programs like Anthropic’s Project Glasswing and OpenAI’s Trusted Access for Cyber Program provide AI systems to organizations for cyberdefense.  The goal is to give defenders a head start in finding and fixing vulnerabilities before AI systems can exploit them routinely in the coming years.

However, for all the fear surrounding the new technology, the recommended guidance is largely the same as it has been for decades. Governments, businesses and leaders must stop treating the digital security of their work as an afterthought or compliance issue.

“Success will come from getting the basics right, acting quickly, and integrating cyber security into core business strategy,” the agencies wrote. “Those that do not will face growing operational and strategic disadvantage.”

06/23/2026: This story was updated to include comment from Rep. Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y.

The post Intel agencies: Frontier AI models will reshape cybersecurity faster than expected appeared first on CyberScoop.

Last Friday, the Trump administration sent a shock through the tech ecosystem when the Department of Commerce levied export controls on Anthropic’s new AI model Fable 5.

Anthropic has taken steps to limit the risks around the commercial sale of its Mythos model, including declining to release it publicly, funneling it to organizations for cyber defense and developing guardrails for Fable 5 that would default its answers to older, less powerful models around sensitive topics like cybersecurity and biological warfare.

But the Trump administration was reportedly alarmed by recent reports from Amazon and another cybersecurity researcher claiming to have jailbroken Fable 5 within days of its public release, and determined that if researchers in the U.S. could jailbreak the model, so could America’s foreign adversaries.

The Commerce Department’s decision spurred Anthropic to shut off the models for all users as they attempted to convince the White House to change course.

But some cybersecurity and AI experts have sharply disagreed with the White House’s actions, saying the research has not demonstrated that anyone has been able to circumvent Fable 5’s safeguards and access the kind of dangerous new capabilities that have worried officials.

Katie Moussouris, a well-known cybersecurity expert, said Monday that Anthropic provided her with a copy of third-party research on guardrail bypass techniques for Fable 5.

According to Moussouris, the researchers asked three Claude models – Fable 5, Mythos and Claude Opus – to review batches of known, vulnerable open source code for security issues. Fable 5 initially refused the request, but the researchers were able to use “a multistep and manual process” to get Fable 5 to turn the output into automated scripts that could test patches for the vulnerability.

Third-party research since Fable 5’s release has not found ways to bypass its safeguards around hacking. The capabilities researchers have demonstrated are foundational to what makes Fable 5 and other frontier models valuable for cybersecurity defense.

“Defenders need to be able to ask AI to fix the bugs in a file, explain why the fix matters, and write tests that confirm the patch works,” she wrote. “That is not a guardrail bypass. It is the most valuable thing an AI model can do for defensive security: executing the find, fix, and test loop defenders run every day.”

Moussouris previously provided technical expertise to the Waasenaar Agreement, a voluntary multilateral security agreement around controlling exports for both munitions and dual use technology that includes the U.S. and dozens of other countries.  Based on the research she’s seen, she called placing export restrictions on all foreign sales of Fable 5 “heavy handed” and “misguided.”

Some lawmakers who in favor of higher regulations and scrutiny on the national security implications of AI were nevertheless critical of the White House decision. Senator Mark Warner, D-Va., told CyberScoop in a statement that while “there may be circumstances where restrictions on the export of frontier AI models are warranted,” those decisions must be “grounded in a transparent, risk-based process with clear rules and consistent standards.”

The Trump administration’s approach, he argued, has been the opposite, and he called for Congress to pass a statutory framework for testing and approving frontier AI models based on transparency, predictability and fairness.

“This administration has repeatedly shown a willingness to weaken export controls designed to protect our national security and maintain our technological edge over adversaries, while also making no secret of its hostility toward Anthropic,” said Warner. “That raises serious questions about whether this effort is being driven by objective national security concerns or something else.”

Anthropic said it subjected Fable 5 to 1,000 hours of testing from internal and external red team, reporting that no universal jailbreaks were found that would remove those guardrails or allow the model to access Mythos for cyber and biology work.

Moussouris is far from alone. She is one of dozens of cybersecurity experts who signed an open letter Monday calling on the Trump administration to “Free Fable.”    

The researchers say that while Mythos-class models are “quite good” at identifying and exploiting vulnerabilities in software code, they “are not uniquely good” compared to other frontier models they use every day for cybersecurity defense.

For example, despite OpenAI’s Daybreak model offering similar vulnerability discovery and patching capabilities. It was not included in the Commerce Department’s restrictions.

The researchers also note that Fable 5’s guardrails have been notoriously oversensitive compared to other frontier models used by red teamers, becoming “a source of humor in the cyber community on launch day” as IT and cyber workers reported online that they couldn’t get the model to perform basic defensive cybersecurity tasks.

The letter questions whether the issues found in the jailbreaking reports would even qualify as offensive capabilities, and note they can be reproduced in other commercial and open-source models, including GPT 5.5, Claude Opus, Claude Sonnet and Chinese models like Kimi 2.7.

“The justification for this unprecedented action was that Fable provides a unique ‘uplift’ of capabilities beyond other AI models, but AI has been finding bugs and generating working exploits at superhuman levels since last year,” they wrote.

The White House decision comes as AI companies face increasing backlash from a public that is now overwhelming calling for more robust government intervention.

A Johns Hopkins University poll in May found broad, bipartisan support for AI regulations, with 73% calling for bans on AI-generated images and video, 68% calling for labels on AI content, 75% wanting disclosure laws around when they interact with AI chatbots and 70% calling for “the right to interact with a human rather than an AI in medical, legal, educational and government settings.”

Another global survey of 18,000 people released this week found that the top four concerns most people have around AI all revolve around the tool’s ability to spread misinformation, create deepfakes to embarrass or hurt others, making it easier for criminals to hack into victim networks and helping terrorists create new weapons.

Senior reporter Tim Starks contributed reporting for this story.

The post Cybersecurity experts don’t think Anthropic’s Fable 5 presents a unique threat  appeared first on CyberScoop.

The Pentagon is focusing on integrating cyber into all its operations, and wants to make sure it integrates security into artificial intelligence usage from the outset, the Defense Department’s top cyber policy official said Tuesday.

Recent conflicts have made clear how important cyber is, said Katherine Sutton, assistant secretary for cyber policy and principal cyber adviser at DOD — especially when it’s paired with physical force.

Defense officials have noted that there’s been a cultural shift on the importance of cyber at the department since the war in Iran and the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro.

“Information is becoming more and more important on the battlefield, so having the ability to integrate space, cyber and other non-kinetic effects to be able to degrade that information advantage is something that’s going to be critical and foundational to any future conflicts going forward,” she said at the GDIT’s Emerge: Battlespace of the Future conference, hosted by Scoop News Group. “We have to fully pull cyber out of its silo, which means not just integrating the effects, but starting the integration from day one with operational planning … and built in from the beginning, and not something that we strap on as we’re going to execute.”

Brandon Pugh, principal cyber adviser for the Army, backed up that message at the same conference, saying that cyber “being considered in a silo is not where it’s most effective,” and is more effective “when we see cyber blending in the kinetic operations while still being an option in its own right.”

Army Secretary Dan Driscoll has made Pugh Army secretariat lead for all its defense critical infrastructure, both physical and cyber, which Pugh said emphasizes how the Army sees the two linked. The Army brought agencies together last month for an exercise to contemplate threat scenarios across domains.

By the same token, security needs to be interlaced with artificial intelligence, Sutton said. It’s a truism in the cybersecurity world that the internet wasn’t built with security in mind. As advanced AI models grow in usage at the Defense Department, Sutton said the Pentagon can’t make similar mistakes.

“As we adopt these new tools, we’re also creating a new threat landscape for adversaries to attack us and to exploit these new capabilities, so we need to start thinking about how we’re going to secure them,” she said. “One of the challenges we have often had with tools is we adopt them, and security is an afterthought, or we realize that we didn’t think about security from the front. I just don’t think we have that luxury with AI going forward.”

CORRECTED 6/3/2026: to clarify Pugh’s role on defense infrastructure within the Army.

The post DOD wants to integrate cyber in all operations, and integrate security into AI appeared first on CyberScoop.

The Trump administration issued a revised executive order Tuesday focused on artificial intelligence, offering a significantly pared-back vision for the federal government’s role vetting AI systems compared with a draft version that was spiked weeks ago.

The order keeps in place the administration’s largely voluntary framework for companies to engage with the federal government around testing new models before release, but appears to considerably weaken or loosen provisions that had been opposed by industry.

Under the order, AI companies would voluntarily provide the federal government access to frontier models before release, but now it will be for “up to” 30 days instead of the 90-day timeline included in previous drafts.

It also explicitly states that nothing in the program will be construed as mandatory or part of a federal licensing or permitting regime, and gives AI companies significant influence to help define what models would and would not be covered under for testing.

It also states that all federal testing and access to the models would be subject to “confidentiality, cybersecurity, insider-risk, and intellectual-property protection, use, and nondisclosure requirements.”

Section one of the order highlights the central friction that has plagued the Trump administration’s AI policy since assuming power: While the White House increasingly sees national security implications in the rapid release of frontier models from the private sector, it has also been one of the loudest critics of regulating the technology for fear it could harm American businesses.

“The United States continues to lead the world in Artificial Intelligence (AI) because of the enormous talent and innovation of our AI industry, and because we refuse to stifle this innovation with overly burdensome regulation,” the order reads.

That argument was bolstered in recent days as industry members and top advisers to Trump, like tech investor and AI czar David Sacks, lobbied against previous draft language, arguing it would put too much of a regulatory burden on U.S. businesses.

On X, Sacks called the revised EO, including changes reducing the government’s access from 90 days to up to 30 days “a game changer” because it would allow frontier labs to comply without delaying new model releases. He also said the discussions he’s had with the White House indicate that not all new model releases would be subject to even that level of scrutiny.

The White House characterization that the order is not a program for conducting oversight of all new AI models “is completely consistent with the discussions that I have participated in, where it was agreed that the EO is intended to apply only to models that represent a meaningful step-change in cyber capabilities (eg Mythos), not to incremental version numbers of existing models,” Sacks wrote.

The order also puts the Department of Treasury at the head of a new interagency cybersecurity clearinghouse on AI, where the private sector, critical infrastructure operators and federal agencies voluntarily collaborate to coordinate and deconflict scanning for software vulnerabilities, discovery and validation and remediation activities, like patching.

Treasury, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, the NSA, the Office of the National Cyber Director and other agencies would also be responsible for developing classified benchmarks that would be used to identify or flag the kind of advanced cyber and hacking capabilities that agencies are interested in testing.  

Questions linger over implementation, politicization

Consisting of less than 1200 words, the directive is vague in many areas about exactly how implementation will work.

“On frontier capability access, vulnerability discovery for critical infrastructure, and sharing with trusted partners, many questions remain,” wrote American Enterprise Institute fellow Ryan Fedasiuk.

Senator Mark Warner, D-Va., said the order would help the White House “begin to grapple” with the threats that new frontier models and their hacking capabilities pose to critical infrastructure and praised certain provisions, like putting the NSA in charge of classified testing of new models. But he was also sharply critical of the administration’s about face on the need for federal scrutiny of emerging AI technologies.

“Once again, the Trump administration has belatedly discovered the need to redo something it hastily dismantled in its first year,” Warner said in a statement. “While this course correction – a rehash of proposals contained in the last administration’s 2023 executive order, bipartisan congressional legislation, and each of the last three years of intel authorization bills the Senate Intel Committee has passed – can begin to grapple with widespread impacts that new frontier models will have on our critical infrastructure, it can’t undo the years wasted on dismantling some of the most vital pillars of our nation’s cybersecurity response, including key information sharing initiatives and the federal agency established to protect the security of U.S. critical infrastructure.”

Warner also said he will be “watchful” for indications the administration may politicize any testing regime, for instance, such as using the partnerships “to pressure U.S. firms into making changes to their products or Terms of Service to suit partisan or legally questionable objectives of the president and his allies.”

The administration’s lighter touch approach around voluntary testing yielded approval from some experts who have traditionally been more in favor of regulation, but who also expressed similar worries about the downsides of putting the federal government in charge of vetting AI models.

Samir Jain of the Center for Democracy and Technology, said that while AI models pose real cybersecurity threats to critical services, the order “attempts to avoid the deeply concerning implications of a mandatory licensing regime for release of new models.”

“Testing and benchmarking programs are important to promote cybersecurity and address other risks,” Jain said in a statement. “However, the EO should not become a mechanism for the Administration to punish companies for political or other arbitrary reasons, and so we will be closely monitoring the details of its implementation as they emerge.”

You can read the full order on the White House’s website.

The post Trump administration releases scaled-back AI executive order appeared first on CyberScoop.

Advanced artificial intelligence models will “fundamentally change warfare as we know it,” a top cyber official at the Defense Department said Thursday, saying it represents “not evolutionary warfare, but revolutionary warfare.”

Paul Lyons, principal deputy assistant secretary for cyber policy, said the development of frontier AI models like Mythos amounted to a “watershed moment,” speaking at Rubrik’s  Federal Cyber Resilience Breakfast produced by FedScoop.

Such models will “change both offense and defensive posture within the Department of War to something that’s close to you for critical infrastructure,” he said. “This is the ability to hunt and speed across the domain and outside the fence line in critical dependencies with water, power, compute.”

The advent of the technology is forcing the department to address difficult questions, but it’s a great opportunity as well for the United States given that it’s being developed by American companies, Lyons said. It’s something his department is optimistic about, he said.

“To be blunt, we’re trying to figure out, what authorities do we need? How do you leverage that within both decisionmaking and employment?” he said. “We have the right people looking at the speed, scale and complexity of cyber and how it’s going to be affected through the advent of AI.”

The Pentagon labeled Mythos a “supply chain risk” after its creator, Anthropic, resisted commands from the department to use its Claude model in ways the firm opposed. The department has nonetheless been using Mythos to hunt for cyber vulnerabilities.

Lyons said that cyber warfare overall has become more mature, as recent conflicts have shown.

“We saw it in spades in Venezuela, where you can layer cyber to create conditions that are favorable to the warfighter, that lower risk to mission, lower risk to force that where paired with both no kinetic and kinetic effects, can increase lethality,” he said. “We see it in Iran today.”

President Donald Trump’s cyber strategy places an emphasis on taking the battle to the malicious hackers, something Lyons said was a vital approach.

“America’s posture in cyber defense has been largely a defensive posture,” he said. “That’s a losing strategy for America. America has to dominate the full spectrum of cyber operations.”

The post Pentagon cyber official calls advanced AI ‘revolutionary warfare’ appeared first on CyberScoop.

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency is urging critical infrastructure owners and operators to plan for delivering essential services under emergency conditions – potentially for months at a time.

The federal government’s top cybersecurity agency warned that state-sponsored hackers, particularly two Chinese groups known as Salt Typhoon and Volt Typhoon, continue to threaten critical sectors like electricity, water, and internet. 

The agency is now working with the private sector to protect operational technology – the systems that control the heavy machinery and equipment that powers most critical infrastructure – from attacks that enter through business IT systems or third-party vendor products.

The initiative  — known as CI Fortify – will include CISA conducting targeted technical assessments of critical infrastructure entities and aims to create plans that “allow for safe operations for weeks to months while isolated” from IT networks and third-party tools, according to the agency’s website.

Nick Andersen, CISA’s acting director, told reporters that the goal is “service delivery [that] can still reach critical infrastructure after the asset owner has disconnected with IT and OT, disconnected from third party vendors and service provider connections and disconnected from third party telecommunications equipment.”

Over the past two years, wars in Ukraine, Gaza, Iran and elsewhere have seen water plants, power substations, data centers and other critical infrastructure targeted by kinetic or cyberattacks.

Andersen said the agency has already begun engaging with some companies to pilot the assessments and expects that work to ramp up considerably as CISA hires additional staff in the coming months.

He declined to name the entities involved in the pilot program, but said they will focus on organizations that support national security, defense, public health and safety and economic continuity. He added that CISA’s assessments will vary from sector to sector depending on their unique needs.

“Water isn’t necessarily designed to prioritize specific customer needs outside of recovery periods, while energy and transportation have more immediate tradeoffs for selecting one load or one set of cargo over another,” Andersen said as an example.

One pillar of CISA’s strategy is isolation: essentially turning off all third-party and business network connections to an OT network when facing an emergency or unknown vulnerability.

Organizations also need to develop an internal plan for what acceptable service levels look like under those conditions and reach understandings with their critical customers, like U.S. military installations and lifeline services.

The second pillar, recovery, involves best practices for organizations: backing up files, documenting systems and having manual backups for operations when normal computer systems are down.

In conversations with cybersecurity specialists who focus on critical infrastructure and operational technology, it is widely assumed that China is not the only nation to have broadly compromised Americans critical infrastructure. That hacking groups tied to other nations have almost surely noticed and exploited the same basic vulnerabilities and hygiene issues found by the Typhoons.

Agencies like the FBI and Federal Communications Commission have touted efforts to purge Chinese hackers and work voluntarily with telecoms to harden their network security. But U.S. national security officials and cybersecurity defenders have consistently said both Salt Typhoon and Volt Typhoon remain active threats to U.S. critical infrastructure.

The post CISA wants critical infrastructure to operate ‘weeks to months’ in isolation during conflict appeared first on CyberScoop.

A Chinese national allegedly involved in a massive, pandemic-era attack spree that compromised nearly 13,000 U.S. organizations was extradited from Italy to the United States and formally charged in federal court, the Justice Department said Monday.

Xu Zewei and his co-conspirators are accused of exploiting a string of zero-day vulnerabilities in Microsoft Exchange Server to steal research on COVID-19 vaccines, treatment and testing during the initial wave and subsequent height of the pandemic.

His alleged crimes, directed by China’s intelligence services, were part of a broader espionage campaign known as HAFNIUM, which targeted infectious disease experts, law firms, universities, defense contractors and policy think tanks, according to an indictment filed against Xu and Zhang Yu, who remains at large. 

The China state-sponsored threat group behind those attacks against Microsoft customers, and many other vendors’ customers since, is now more widely known as Silk Typhoon.

“Xu will now answer for his alleged role in HAFNIUM, a group responsible for a vast intrusion campaign directed by China’s Ministry of State Security that compromised more than 12,700 U.S. organizations,” Brett Leatherman, assistant director of the FBI’s Cyber Division, said in a statement.

“He is one of many contractors the Chinese government uses to obscure its hand in cyber operations, and others who do the same face the same risk,” he added.

Xu allegedly committed the attacks while working for Shanghai Powerock Network, one of many companies that conducted attacks for China’s various intelligence services, according to court records.

Italian authorities arrested Xu at the United States’ request in Milan in July. His capture underscores a window of opportunity U.S. officials and allies can take when nation-state attackers travel to countries that cooperate with the United States.

Italy extradited Xu to the United States Saturday but didn’t release his extradition orders until Monday, Simona Candido, his attorney in Italy, told CyberScoop.

Officials said Monday marked Xu’s first appearance in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. He is currently being held at a federal prison in Houston.

“We have pursued this moment across years and continents, and the message this office sends today is the same one we sent when we first unsealed this indictment: we will work to protect the American people,” John G.E. Marck, acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Texas, said in a statement.

Xu allegedly worked under the direction of China’s Ministry of State Security’s Shanghai State Security Bureau to break into U.S. organizations’ networks, steal data and implant webshells for persistent remote access. Officials also accuse Xu of stealing information regarding U.S. policymakers and government agencies from a global law firm with offices in Washington. 

Microsoft first warned customers about the HAFNIUM campaign in March 2021. The FBI and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency followed soon after with a joint advisory about the widespread compromise of Microsoft Exchange Server. 

“Today’s law enforcement action demonstrates the real-world consequences of this state-led activity, which is fueled by a vast network of private companies operating under the direction of the Chinese government,” Aaron Shraberg, senior team lead of global intelligence at Flashpoint, told CyberScoop.

“Extraditing these individuals from countries in coordination with international law enforcement demonstrates a united stance on these actions, and the importance of bringing real-world consequences to China’s notorious targeting of not just the American people and their businesses, but individuals globally as well,” Shraberg added.

Xu is charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud; two counts of wire fraud; conspiracy to cause damage to and obtain information by unauthorized access to protected computers, to commit wire fraud, and to commit identity theft; two counts of obtaining information by unauthorized access to protected computers; two counts of intentional damage to a protected computer; and aggravated identity theft. 

The 34-year-old faces up to 62 years in prison for his alleged crimes.

The post Chinese national extradited to US for pandemic-era Silk Typhoon attacks 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.

The Department of Commerce is putting together a catalog of AI tools that will be given special export status by the federal government to be sold abroad.

The department issued a call for proposals to participating companies in the Federal Register, looking to create a “menu of priority AI export packages that the U.S. Government will promote to allies and partners around the world.”

The companies and technologies included “will be presented by U.S. Government representatives as a standing, full-stack American AI export package and may receive priority government advocacy, export licensing review and processing, interagency coordination, and financing referrals, subject to applicable law,” the department said in a Federal Register notice Friday.

The export package was mandated through President Donald Trump’s AI executive order last year, which described the export packages as part of a larger effort to “ensure that American AI technologies, standards, and governance models are adopted worldwide” and “secure our continued technological dominance.”

“The American AI Exports Program delivers on President Trump’s directive to ensure that American AI systems – built on trusted hardware, secure data, and world-leading innovation – are deployed at scale around the world,” Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick said in a statement earlier this month. “By promoting full-stack American solutions, we are strengthening our economic and national security, deepening ties with allies and partners, and ensuring that the future of AI is led by the United States.”

The executive order called for certain technologies to be included in the package, including AI models and systems but also computer chips, data center storage, cloud services and networking services, along with unspecified “measures” to ensure security and cybersecurity of AI systems.

The Commerce notice envisions offering multiple packages of AI technology from “standing teams of AI companies organized to offer a complete American AI technology stack to foreign markets on an ongoing basis.” There is no limit on the number of companies that participate in a consortium, and Commerce said there isn’t “any particular legal structure” required.

While the proposal at several points refers to these packages as “American AI,” the notice does specify that foreign companies can participate.

In fact, for certain categories like hardware, the total level of U.S.-made content only needs to be 51% or greater. Member companies providing data, software, cybersecurity or application layer services can’t be incorporated or primarily based in countries like China or Russia, where national security laws may compel them to work with foreign governments or hand over sensitive data.

The potential business would be broad, covering foreign public and private sector buyers in global, regional, and country-specific markets. It also includes the potential formation of separate, “on demand” packages of companies and products meant for “specific foreign opportunities.”

But the notice also states that final decisions will be made on the basis of “national interest” by principals at the Departments of Commerce, State, Defense and Energy, as well as the White House Office of Science, Technology and Policy.

Commerce does not intend to formally rank proposals or use fixed scoring formulas to approve packages of technology for the export program, and the language in the notice appears to give wide latitude to federal decisionmakers to determine whether a particular proposal meets the “national interest” threshold.

“A proposal that undertakes reasonable efforts to satisfy the 51 percent hardware U.S.-content presumption is not automatically entitled to designation, and a proposal that does not satisfy that presumption is not automatically disqualified,” the notice said. 

The post Commerce setting up new AI export regime to push adoption of ‘American AI’ abroad 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.

An apparent hack-for-hire campaign from a group with suspected Indian government connections targeted Middle Eastern and North African journalists and activists using spyware, three collaborating organizations said in reports published Wednesday.

The attacks shared infrastructure that pointed to the advanced persistent threat group known as Bitter, which most frequently targets government, military, diplomatic and critical infrastructure sectors across South Asia, according to conclusions from researchers at Access Now, Lookout and SMEX.

Each group took on a different piece of the puzzle:

• Access Now got calls on its helpline that led it to examine a spearphishing campaign in 2023 and 2024. It contacted Lookout for technical support about the malware it encountered.
• Lookout attributed the malware to Bitter, concluding it was a likely hack-for-hire campaign, using the Android ProSpy spyware.
• SMEX dived into a spearphishing campaign targeting a prominent Lebanese journalist last year, collaborating with Access Now to discover shared infrastructure between the campaigns.

One of the victims, independent Egyptian journalist Mostafa Al-A’sar, said he contacted Access Now after receiving a suspicious link from someone he’d been talking to about a job position. He was skeptical because his phone had been targeted before, when he was arrested in Egypt in 2018.

The lesson for journalists and civil society groups is that cybersecurity “is not a luxury,” he said.

“I feel like I’m threatened,” Al-A’sar said, and even though he was living in exile, he feels like “they are still following me. I also felt worried about my family, about my friends, about my sources.”

The combined research found a wider campaign than just the original victims.

“Our joint findings expose an espionage campaign that has been operational since at least 2022 until present day primarily targeting civil society members and potentially government officials in the Middle East,” Lookout wrote. “The operation features a combination of targeted spearphishing delivered through fake social media accounts and messaging applications leveraging persistent social engineering efforts, which may result in the delivery of Android spyware depending on the target’s device.”

The Committee to Protect Journalists condemned the campaign.

“Spying on journalists is often the first step in a broader pattern of intimidation, threats, and attacks,” said the group’s regional director, Sara Qudah. “These actions endanger not only journalists’ personal safety, but also their sources and their ability to do their work. Authorities in the region must stop weaponizing technology and financial resources to surveil journalists.”

Access Now said it didn’t have enough information to attribute who was behind the attacks it identified.

ESET first published research on the ProSpy malware last year, after finding it targeting residents of the United Arab Emirates.

The post Hack-for-hire spyware campaign targets journalists in Middle East, North Africa 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.

Medtech company Stryker says it’s back to being “fully operational,” three weeks after it became the most prominent victim to date of Iranian hackers, who said they attacked the Michigan-based company in retaliation over the conflict with the United States and Israel.

A March 11 wiper attack from the pro-Palestinian, Iranian government-connected group Handala damaged the company’s order processing, manufacturing and shipping. More recently, Handala claimed to compromise the data of FBI Director Kash Patel, although the FBI said no government information was taken.

“Production is moving rapidly toward peak capacity with discipline and stability, supported by restored commercial, ordering and distribution systems,” the company wrote in an update on its website Wednesday. “Overall product supply remains healthy, with strong availability across most product lines, as we continue to meet customer demand and support patient care.”

Stryker said it continues to work with outside cyber experts, government agencies and industry partners on its investigation and recovery.

“Patient care remains our highest priority, with a continued focus on supporting healthcare providers and the patients they serve,” it said. “This remains a 24/7 effort and the first priority of our entire organization.”

Iranian hackers have been busy since the U.S.-Israel strikes began, but have claimed few successes in the United States. Handala boasted this week about an attack on St. Joseph County, Indiana, where officials said they were investigating a hack of its external fax service.

This week, Handala also claimed to have penetrated the systems of Israel’s air defense systems and leaked documents about it. But Handala also has been accused of overselling its deeds.

The FBI seized some websites associated with Handala last month, and the State Department has offered a reward for information on the hacking group.

The post Medtech giant Stryker says it’s back up after Iranian cyberattack appeared first on CyberScoop.

A Chinese cyberespionage group has shifted its gaze back to Europe after years of focusing on other parts of the world, Proofpoint research published Wednesday found.

The surge began in mid-2025, with a bevy of issues bubbling up between China and Europe, the company said. Proofpoint labels the government-linked group TA416, but other companies track it as Twill Typhoon, Mustang Panda or other names.

“This renewed focus most heavily targeted individuals or mailboxes associated with diplomatic missions and delegations to NATO and the EU,” Proofpoint’s Mark Kelly and Georgi Mladenov wrote. “TA416’s return to European government targeting occurred during heightened EU–China tensions over trade, the Russia–Ukraine war, and rare earths exports, and commenced immediately following the 25th EU–China summit.”

Separately, the same group took up targeting the Middle East in March after the start of the conflict in Iran, something it had never been spotted doing before, Proofpoint found.

“This aligns with a trend observed by Proofpoint of some state-aligned threat actors shifting targeting toward Middle Eastern government and diplomatic entities in the aftermath of the war,” the firm said. “This likely reflects an effort to gather regional intelligence on the status, trajectory, and broader geopolitical implications of the conflict.”

TA416 was active in Europe in 2022 and 2023, coinciding with the onset of the Ukraine-Russia war, but stepped away from the continent afterward, according to the researchers. Its focus turned to Southeast Asia, Taiwan and Mongolia for a couple years.

The group’s focus on Europe through early 2026 used a variety of web bug and malware delivery methods, including setting up reconnaissance by dangling lures about Europe sending troops to Greenland. It also included phishing emails about humanitarian concerns, interview requests and collaboration proposals, Proofpoint said.

“During this period, TA416 repeatedly altered its initial infection chains while maintaining a consistent goal of loading the group’s customized PlugX backdoor via DLL sideloading triads,” the researchers wrote.

Proofpoint’s is not the only report of late about Chinese cyberespionage groups targeting Europe, with another focused on LinkedIn solicitations to NATO and European institutions.

The post European-Chinese geopolitical issues drive renewed cyberespionage campaign appeared first on CyberScoop.

Iranian hackers claimed Friday to have compromised the personal data of FBI Director Kash Patel, and the bureau confirmed that it knew of the targeting of Patel’s personal email.

The government-connected hacking group, Handala, previously claimed credit for hacking medical device maker Stryker, a boast that threat researchers considered credible.

“All personal and confidential email of Kash Patel, including emails, conversations, documents, and even classified files, is now available for public download,” Handala — also known as Handala Hack — said.

The group said it did so in response to the FBI seizing its domains and the U.S. government offering a $10 million reward for information on members of the group.

The FBI noted that Handala frequently targets government officials, and challenged elements of Handala’s claims, such as that it had brought the FBI’s systems “to its knees,” rather than Patel’s own email.

“The FBI is aware of malicious actors targeting Director Patel’s personal email information, and we have taken all necessary steps to mitigate potential risks associated with this activity,” the FBI said in response to questions from CyberScoop. “The information in question is historical in nature and involves no government information.”

The activist group Distributed Denial of Secrets published what it said was Patel’s email cache.

The FBI pointed to the State Department’s reward program seeking information on members of Handala.

“Consistent with President Trump’s Cyber Strategy for America, the FBI will continue to pursue the actors responsible, support victims, and share actionable intelligence in defense of networks,” it said. “We encourage anyone who experiences a cyber breach, or has information related to malicious cyber activity, to contact their local FBI field office.”

The post Iranian hackers, Handala, claim to compromise FBI Director Kash Patel’s personal data appeared first on CyberScoop.

SAN FRANCISCO — Four former National Security Agency directors shared varying concerns about a lack of earnest and widespread response to growing threats in cyberspace during a discussion at the RSAC 2026 Conference on Tuesday.

Accelerating threats posed by artificial intelligence, China and cybercriminals at large are testing the country’s resolve and determination to foster meaningful public-private collaboration, the former commanders of U.S. Cyber Command said. 

While the four-star military officials remain confident in the country’s resources and people committed to defending the nation from cyberattacks, they voiced unease about challenges that could upend technological dominance and diminish a collective response to serious intrusions. 

“I think we’ve become numb to it,” retired Gen. Paul Nakasone said. “We continue to see these different intrusions, and intrusions have gotten to a size that the scale is just incredible to me.”

The nation and industry aren’t keeping up with adversaries amid a brain drain across the U.S. government,  the founding director of Vanderbilt University’s Institute of National Security said. 

“We’ve lost ground with regards to our outreach to the private sector” within the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, the Joint Cyber Defense Collaborative and NSA’s Cybersecurity Collaboration Center, Nakasone said. 

Retired U.S. Navy Admiral Mike Rogers also criticized the U.S. government for areas of inaction and decay. “I see a government that’s unwilling to expend political capital to really drive fundamental change in cyber, and it’s a reflection of the fact that politically we are so divided, and as a society we are so divided,” he said. 

“We’re the largest economy in the world. We don’t have a single federal privacy framework. We don’t have a single major piece of cyber legislation,” Rogers added. “That frustrates the hell out of me.”

Retired Gen. Keith Alexander, the first chief of U.S. Cyber Command, said the key players remain committed and are working as hard as ever to combat cyber threats. Yet, he’s concerned about what the nation is doing to confront China and all the ways it could inflict harm, particularly in the realm of AI.

“We will be challenged in this area. We will fight in this area, and it will be both the government and you all helping to protect this country to ensure that we live through it,” Alexander said.

The U.S. government’s collaborative efforts with private companies provides an incredible intelligence advantage, said retired Gen. Tim Haugh. But, he warned, China has replicated similar capabilities and pre-positioned itself inside critical infrastructure networks.

Under his leadership, Haugh said he tried to encourage debate among policymakers to consider more offensive responses to China’s malicious cyber activities, particularly actions that might be equivalent to effects that would occur in armed conflict. 

Frustration and mounting concern was palpable as the former NSA and U.S. Cyber Command bosses held court on stage together for the first time this week. 

“We’re starting to accept this, in some ways, as the price of living in the digital age. And we have not yet had a level of trauma that has driven fundamental behavioral change,” Rogers said. “We haven’t had thousands die. I hope we never do, don’t get me wrong, but it seems like we just haven’t had a level of pain that’s fundamentally shifted the calculus.”

The post Former NSA chiefs worry American offensive edge in cybersecurity is slipping appeared first on CyberScoop.

The Federal Communications Commission’s move to ban foreign-made routers touches on a real threat, but critics say the agency rule is overly broad, practically unworkable and doesn’t meaningfully address weaknesses in router security that have led to major breaches on American governments and businesses.

Under the Secure Equipment Act and Secure Networks Act, the FCC may ban foreign technology manufacturers if they are deemed a national security risk. But the federal government has almost always opted to narrowly target specific foreign companies with known or problematic connections to foreign adversaries, like Chinese telecom Huawei or Russian antivirus firm Kaspersky Labs.

The restrictions announced Monday, however, simply ban all routers “produced in a foreign country” except those granted conditional approval by the departments of Defense or Homeland Security.

The order imposes a sweeping and immediate halt to the purchase of non-American routers and Wi-Fi services for government agencies and businesses, along with unanswered questions about where to buy next and what to do with the foreign devices already embedded in their networks.

In justifying the decision, FCC Chair Brendan Carr cited a March 20 White House-led interagency report that concluded foreign-made routers pose “unacceptable” risks to U.S. national security. 

“Following President Trump’s leadership, the FCC will continue [to do] our part in making sure that U.S. cyberspace, critical infrastructure, and supply chains are safe and secure,” Carr said. 

U.S. policymakers have worried about the potential cybersecurity risks of relying on technology and equipment from countries like China or Russia, where local laws compel domestic companies to cooperate in national security investigations and hand over sensitive data. 

In 2024, members of Congress called for the Department of Commerce to investigate Chinese Wi-Fi and router makers like TP-Link, alleging the company’s “unusual degree of vulnerabilities and required compliance with [Chinese] law” amounted to an unacceptable national security risk.

Last year, five House Republican committee chairs urged Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to use the department’s authority “to eliminate products and services created by China and other foreign adversaries from domestic supply chains that are shown to have the potential to introduce security vulnerabilities.” An attached list of industries “needing immediate action” included routers and Wi-Fi, while mentioning TP-Link and Huawei as “Chinese or Chinese-controlled” entities.

While router insecurity is a major problem, it’s worth noting that American-made products are far from immune to foreign hacking. Major Chinese hacking campaigns, such as Salt Typhoon, succeeded not because of backdoors in Chinese-made tech but through the exploitation of known, previously reported vulnerabilities in U.S. and Western products.  

One former U.S. intelligence leader told CyberScoop that country of origin matters more when you’re dealing with an adversary like China, which has national security and vulnerability disclosure laws that require Chinese router companies to disclose cybersecurity vulnerabilities to the government first.

But it’s not just Chinese routers, or those made by America’s direct rivals, that concern intelligence officials.

Even in a global, digitally connected world, proximity still matters. Foreign countries can more easily disrupt or infect the supply chain of neighboring or bordering countries that may rely on similar parts, components or internet infrastructure.

“Attackers have so many options with what can be done with router access. [It’s] even easier if you have the country that runs and accesses them in your backyard,” said the official, who requested anonymity to speak candidly.

Investors may be drawing similar conclusions. Notably, stocks for Asian router companies fell following the FCC announcement, while U.S. company NetGear, which does not rely on Chinese supply chains, saw its shares jump 12%.  

A new point of leverage

The broad nature of the order — along with the ability to dole out exemptions to specific companies at will — effectively resets the regulatory relationship between foreign router companies and the U.S. government. Under it, each company with manufacturing operations in China or overseas would have to petition the FCC for an exemption to the rule.

The ambiguity behind what, specifically, a company would need to do to obtain an exemption could open the process up to potential abuse or political patronage, experts said.

A former FCC official told CyberScoop they were puzzled by the move, and questioned whether it was related to national security or if it would even pass legal muster in the courts.

Instead of adding targeted companies with foreign ties or a history of cybersecurity vulnerabilities to the list of banned providers — as the government has done and successfully defended in court in the past — the FCC instead sought to ban all foreign-made routers around the globe. That represents a potentially significant disruptive action to take in an environment where many businesses and governments today use TP-Link and other foreign companies for their internet needs. 

The net effect is “actually creating a new federal program of conditional approvals” for foreign router companies, the FCC alum said, one that is so broad it would take a massive combined federal effort to effectively remove bad actors from the foreign supply chain.

“I have a hard time believing that this administration — given what we’ve seen at CISA and other agencies and the mass departures — will actually roll out a sophisticated and tailored program to adequately address this kind of huge swing of an entire base of consumer products,” said the official, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly.

The official pointed to an attempt earlier this year by the FCC to ban imports of foreign drone components, saying there were similar “big swing” parallels to the legal rationale here. The drone ban is currently being challenged in court, and the official said they expect the FCC’s router order to be subject to similar lawsuits from companies.

Earlier this month, Carr also proposed new regulations that would place English language requirements on offshore call centers and asked the public for insight on potential policies to “encourage” companies to set up U.S.-based call centers, “including limits on call volume from overseas call centers.”

Carr said the FCC was also “opening up a new front in our efforts to block illegal robocalls from abroad by examining the targeted use of tariffs or bonds.”

The former FCC official said Carr’s prioritization on novel application of tariff authorities while discussing the implementation of two laws — the TRACED Act and the Truth In Caller ID Act — that are unrelated to trade makes it impossible to disentangle the agency’s genuine national security concerns from the Trump administration’s broader attempts to gain leverage over foreign companies in their trade fights.

“Those are weird kind of random hops that seem to be in response to this broader picture of the big tariff decision that came out,” the official said.

The post Critics call FCC router rule a ‘big swing’ that could create more supply chain uncertainty appeared first on CyberScoop.