The vulnerability exploited by the Usbliter8 exploit cannot be patched and a PoC exploit has been released by researchers.

The post New Exploit Bypasses Apple’s Boot Defenses, Affects Millions of iPhones appeared first on SecurityWeek.

Four decades of incident response experience suggest that exploits are often the symptom, not the root cause, of today’s cybersecurity failures.

The post No Exploits Required appeared first on SecurityWeek.

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.

Researchers are warning that cybercriminals exploited an Oracle PeopleSoft zero-day vulnerability and potentially infiltrated the networks of more than 100 organizations in an attack spree that largely impacted higher education.

Mandiant and Google Threat Intelligence Group said it became aware of the attacks earlier this month as part of its ongoing monitoring of ShinyHunters operations. The notorious cybercrime group claims it hacked more than 100 organizations and started naming victims and publishing allegedly stolen data Tuesday.

University of Nottingham, one of ShinyHunters’ alleged victims, on Wednesday confirmed a significant amount of student data was stolen during a cyberattack after the threat group leaked some of the school’s data.

The attacks date back to at least May 27, according to Mandiant, and involve the exploitation of CVE-2026-35273, a defect in Oracle PeopleSoft PeopleTools that allows unauthenticated attackers to execute remote code and takeover affected servers.

Oracle disclosed the vulnerability and recommended some steps for mitigation Wednesday, weeks after the attacks were already underway. The vendor hasn’t released a patch to address the defect and did not respond to a request for comment.

Google said it alerted more than 100 organizations of potentially vulnerable endpoints in their environments, but it declined to confirm how many victims are compromised. 

“This campaign is still active. We have observed ShinyHunters sending extortions as recently as today,” Charles Carmakal, chief technology officer at Mandiant Consulting, told CyberScoop Thursday evening. He added that more victims, beyond Google’s visibility, may be impacted.

Most of the potential victim pool is based in the United States and 68% are in the higher education sector, according to Google.

“We have previously observed ShinyHunters target the education sector this year, however it’s possible this targeting is representative of the majority of exposed PeopleSoft instances belonging to the sector,” Carmakal said. 

Oracle PeopleSoft PeopleTools includes more than 40 tools for human resources and customer relationship management.

The attacks come less than a year after the Clop ransomware group exploited a zero-day in Oracle E-Business Suite that affected dozens of victims. The data theft extortion campaign that followed those attacks, which began in August, didn’t get underway until October.

The post ShinyHunters is actively extorting universities after exploiting an unpatched Oracle flaw appeared first on CyberScoop.

Exploiting a race condition in Microsoft Defender, the exploit leads to local privilege escalation to SYSTEM.

The post New Windows Zero-Day Exploit ‘RoguePlanet’ Released appeared first on SecurityWeek.

Public LLM models with safeguards turned off can also build working exploits, increasing patch gap risks.

The post Claude Mythos Turns N-Days Into N-Hours With Rapid Exploit Creation appeared first on SecurityWeek.

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.

The one-click vulnerability allows attackers to execute arbitrary code on self-hosted Flowise servers by tricking users into importing a malicious chatflow.

The post Exploit Code Published for Critical Flowise RCE Vulnerability appeared first on SecurityWeek.

Attackers couldn’t get enough of the vulnerabilities at their disposal last year, making exploits the top initial access vector across more than 22,000 breaches Verizon analyzed in its latest Data Breach Investigations Report released Tuesday.

The massive annual study uncovered a surge of exploited vulnerabilities during a one-year period ending in October 2025. Exploited defects accounted for 31% of all known initial access vectors, jumping from 20% the previous year. 

The uptick in exploited vulnerabilities is a reflection of the “sisyphean cause” of vulnerability management, researchers wrote in the report. “Put quite simply, there are often too many vulnerabilities and not enough time for patching all of them.”

Organizations are struggling to keep up with the torrent of vulnerabilities affecting technology across their systems. This slide is especially worrisome, and declining, among defects in the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s known exploited vulnerabilities catalog.

Only 26% of the critical vulnerabilities in CISA’s catalog were fully remediated by more than 13,000 organizations Verizon studied in 2025, marking a drop from 38% the year prior. 

“There is also a worse result for the median time elapsed for a vulnerability to be fully patched by detection,” researchers wrote in the report. “Our new median time is 43 days, almost two weeks longer than last year’s 32 days.”

Verizon also noted that the median number of KEV vulnerabilities that organizations had to patch jumped from 11 in 2024 to 16 in 2025.

CISA’s KEV catalog contained more than 1,500 CVEs as of February, and 65% of those were exploited during the previous year, according to the report.

Verizon identified the five most common weaknesses of CISA KEV CVEs in its report as out-of-bounds read, heap-based buffer overflow, use after free, external control of file name or path and access of resource using incompatible type.

Attacker motivations remained relatively consistent last year, with financially-motivated cybercriminals accounting for 88% of all breaches. Espionage-driven attacks from state-affiliated groups made up the remainder.

“Ransomware continues to be among the most disruptive and impactful types of breaches we see. Not unlike the price of everything from fast food to adult beverages in ballparks, it continues to trend upward,” researchers wrote in the report.

Ransomware accounted for 48% of all breaches last year, up from 44% in 2024. Yet, Verizon observed some positive trends in ransomware as well.

Ransom payments continued to decline, with 69% of victims reporting they didn’t pay, and the median payment slid from $150,000 in 2024 to almost $140,000 last year.

Tracking ransomware remains a challenge for researchers and authorities. 

“There is a growing disconnect between what is being reported and the reality of what has occurred, in no small part due to threat actors reusing old breaches, reposting breaches from other criminal partners and making up breaches out of whole cloth to help increase their notoriety in the criminal world,” Verizon wrote in the report. “We’re beginning to think that these cybercriminals might not be entirely trustworthy.”

Yet, despite the lack of indisputable data on ransomware activity, researchers concluded: “Ransomware is still the yoga pants of cybersecurity — ubiquitous, stubbornly popular and appearing in unexpected places near you.”

The post Attackers hit vulnerabilities hard last year, making exploits the top entry point for breaches appeared first on CyberScoop.

The researcher dropped the MiniPlasma exploit that uses the original proof-of-concept (PoC) code targeting the bug.

The post Researcher Drops MiniPlasma Windows Exploit for Unpatched 2020 CVE appeared first on SecurityWeek.

Participants demonstrated exploits for Windows, Linux, VMware, Nvidia, and AI products.

The post Hackers Earn $1.3 Million at Pwn2Own Berlin 2026  appeared first on SecurityWeek.

Introduced in 2008, the critical-severity security defect was patched this week in NGINX Plus and NGINX open source.

The post PoC Code Published for Critical NGINX Vulnerability appeared first on SecurityWeek.

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.

The zero-day was designed to bypass 2FA and it was developed by a prominent cybercrime group.

The post Google Detects First AI-Generated Zero-Day Exploit appeared first on SecurityWeek.

Attackers are hitting Ivanti customers yet again — circling back to a common target and consistently susceptible vendor in the network edge space — by exploiting a zero-day vulnerability in one of the company’s most besieged products. 

Ivanti warned customers that attackers have successfully exploited CVE-2026-6973, an improper input validation defect in Ivanti Endpoint Manager Mobile (EPMM) that allows authenticated users with administrative privileges to run code remotely. The company alerted customers to the threat in a security advisory Thursday while also disclosing four additional high-severity vulnerabilities in the same product.

“At the time of disclosure, Ivanti is aware of very limited exploitation in the wild of CVE-2026-6973, which requires authenticated administrative access to implement,” a spokesperson for Ivanti said in a statement.

Ivanti did not say when the first instance of exploitation occurred, or precisely how many customers have already been impacted.

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency added the zero-day to its known exploited vulnerabilities catalog within hours of Ivanti’s disclosure.

The company released patches for all five vulnerabilities Thursday, including the four additional defects — CVE-2026-5787, CVE-2026-5788, CVE-2026-6973 and CVE-2026-7821 — which it said haven’t been exploited in the wild.

“Ivanti discovered these vulnerabilities in recent weeks through internal detection processes which are supported by advanced AI, customer collaboration, and responsible disclosure,” the company spokesperson said. One of the defects was discovered and responsibly reported to Ivanti by a former employee.

The company suggested at least one of the root causes for the latest zero-day may be traced to lingering risk posed by a pair of separate, critical zero-days — CVE-2026-1281 and CVE-2026-1340 — that were exploited starting in late January. The fallout from those exploited vulnerabilities in Ivanti EPMM spread to nearly 100 victims, including The Netherlands’ Dutch Data Protection Authority and the Council for the Judiciary, by early February.

The latest Ivanti EPMM zero-day “requires authenticated administrative access to exploit, which is why customers who followed Ivanti’s recommendation in January to rotate EPMM credentials are at significantly reduced risk. Customers unaffected by the prior vulnerability are also at a much lower risk,” the company spokesperson said.

Caitlin Condon, vice president of security research at VulnCheck, said the administrative privileges required to exploit CVE-2026-6973 indicates it was possibly exploited as part of an attack chain relying on another method for initial access. 

“No attribution was shared on threat actor exploitation of CVE-2026-6973, but two other 2026 CVEs in Ivanti EPMM — CVE-2026-1281 and CVE-2026-1340 — have been exploited by a range of threat actors, including China- and Iran-attributed groups,” Condon told CyberScoop. 

“Those vulnerabilities notably were code-injection vulnerabilities that were remotely exploitable without authentication, unlike CVE-2026-6973,” she added. “Both CVE-2026-1281 and CVE-2026-1340 appear to have been fixed in today’s Ivanti release. Comparatively, these earlier vulns were of higher initial concern than today’s fresh zero-day vulnerability, which requires admin authentication.”

Attacks involving Ivanti defects are a recurring problem for the vendor’s customers and security practitioners at large, including many vulnerabilities that attackers exploited before the company caught or fixed the errors. 

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency has flagged 34 Ivanti defects on its known exploited vulnerabilities catalog since late 2021. At least 22 defects across Ivanti products have been exploited in the past two years, including five vulnerabilities in Ivanti EPMM in the last year.

During an interview with CyberScoop in March at the RSAC Conference, Ivanti Chief Security Officer Daniel Spicer said the company’s transparency partly explains the high number of vulnerabilities reported and disclosed in its products. 

“My position here at Ivanti is it doesn’t do our customers any good to be quiet about this,” he said, describing the company’s communication stance with the public, CISA and global partners as “very aggressive.”

That’s not always the case with other vendors, Spicer said. “I don’t know that transparency is a core tenant of all other organizations.”

The company, which serves many government agencies and critical infrastructure operators, also routinely notes that highly skilled and resourced attackers, including those backed by nation-states, are often responsible for these waves of attacks on its customers.

Ivanti maintains that it’s trying to consistently improve the security of its products. “Through continued investment in its product security program, including the use of advanced AI paired with human verification, Ivanti is strengthening its ability to identify, remediate, and disclose issues quickly, helping customers stay ahead of an increasingly compressed threat landscape,” the spokesperson said.

The way Spicer put it in March: “We want to make sure that people understand that we are trying to do the right thing.”

The post Ivanti customers confront yet another actively exploited zero-day 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.

Many security leaders are still operating with frameworks built for a different era. For years, success was measured by fixed checkpoints, such as passing audits, closing vulnerabilities, and maintaining compliance. Those markers still have value, but they were designed for a threat landscape that moved in predictable, linear ways.

Today, that landscape is shifting in real time. AI is accelerating how attackers can identify and exploit weaknesses, while cloud environments and autonomous systems are constantly changing the terrain. The result is a gap between how risk is measured and how it actually unfolds, where static signals can’t keep up with dynamic threats.

CISOs are under pressure from two directions: risk is growing, and the tools meant to measure it are struggling to keep up. Traditional indicators often reflect yesterday’s threat landscape, leaving security leaders with an incomplete picture of where they actually stand.

The Mythos signal

Recent reports about Anthropic’s Claude Mythos Preview, described as so effective at vulnerability discovery that access has been restricted, offer a clear signal of where cybersecurity is headed. AI models like this one demonstrate that the speed and scale of exploitation have fundamentally changed. What once took skilled attackers days or weeks can now happen in minutes, and increasingly without human intervention.

That shift matters because attacker capabilities are accelerating faster than most organizations can measure them. The gap between how risk unfolds and how security teams track it is widening. A “passed” audit tells you where you’ve been, not where you are. A posture dashboard reflects a moment in time, not a continuously changing environment. And a pen test is a snapshot, in a world where conditions evolve constantly.

Sharpening the conversation this quarter

If your conversations haven’t evolved to match this new reality, your organization has a significant blind spot. Here are five questions CISOs should be using to turn the current shift into action:

What can we see at runtime without waiting for a report?
Configuration tools tell you what should be true. Runtime visibility tells you what is true right now. (Follow up: If an attacker starts moving laterally in our cloud environment today, how fast do we know, in minutes or days?)

Do we have a complete inventory of identities, including non-human?
Business environments are full of identities beyond employees. Vendors, contractors, service accounts, API keys, automations, machine identities, and cloud principals sprawl across systems. Attackers love that sprawl because stealing credentials is often easier than writing malware.
(Follow up: How many human and non-human identities do we have, and which ones can access sensitive data or modify critical infrastructure?)

Where are we over-permissioned, and how quickly can we reduce it?
Over-permissioned accounts act like master keys: convenient until they’re compromised. Least privilege must be measurable, not aspirational. (Follow up: Can you show me the highest-risk access paths and what we can remove or tighten in 30 days?)

Are we using AI to reduce noise and speed decisions or just adding another screen?
Many teams are drowning in alerts. AI can help by adding context (connecting a risky identity + vulnerable workload + exposed secret) so responders can act quickly, instead of chasing disconnected warnings. (Follow up: What’s our alert volume, what percentage is actionable, and what’s improved response time?)

Can you walk me through a realistic incident end to end, with decision points?
Prevention matters, but resilience is what separates organizations when something gets through. Incidents are inevitable. What matters is detection speed, containment, recovery, and communications. (Follow up: Pick a scenario — credential theft, ransomware, vendor compromise — What happens here, who decides what, and when does executive leadership need to know? What do customers need to know?)

What to do with the answers

If these questions surface gaps, the path forward is usually practical. Start by prioritizing runtime visibility on systems that support critical services and sensitive resident data. Treat identity like infrastructure — inventory it, right-size permissions, and monitor continuously. Shift measurement toward outcomes like time to detect, contain, and restore, rather than activity metrics like tickets closed or controls checked. And rehearse the hard day with both technical teams and leadership, including communications.

In an era where threats move at AI speed, the advantage belongs to teams that can see clearly and act immediately. The defining question now is how quickly you can identify a risk, understand its impact, and respond before it escalates.

Rinki Sethi is the chief security & strategy officer at Upwind Security, holding over two decades of cybersecurity leadership experience from roles at Twitter, Rubrik, BILL, Palo Alto Networks, IBM, and eBay. She is a founding partner at Lockstep Ventures, serves on the boards of ForgeRock and Vaultree, and is widely recognized for her contributions to the cybersecurity community, including developing the first national cybersecurity curriculum for the Girl Scouts of USA.

The post The AI era demands a different kind of CISO appeared first on CyberScoop.

Fortinet released an emergency software update over the weekend to address an actively exploited vulnerability in FortiClient EMS, an endpoint management tool for customer devices.

The zero-day vulnerability — CVE-2026-35616 — has a CVSS rating of 9.8 and was added to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s known exploited vulnerability catalog Monday. 

Fortinet said in a Saturday security advisory that it has seen the vulnerability being actively exploited in the wild.  The company issued a hotfix and plans to release a more comprehensive software update later, though that update is not yet available.

The security vendor did not say when the earliest known exploit occurred nor how many instances have already been impacted. 

Unknown attackers were first observed attempting to exploit the vulnerability March 31, Benjamin Harris, founder and CEO at watchTowr, told CyberScoop. 

“Exploitation attempts and probes were initially limited, reflecting typical attacker desire to try and keep usage of a zero-day from discovery and observation,” he added. “As of April 6, given attention and Fortinet issuing a hotfix, exploitation has ramped up, indicating growing attacker interest and likely broader targeting.”

Shadowserver scans found nearly 2,000 publicly exposed instances of FortiClient EMS on Sunday. It’s unclear how many of those instances are running vulnerable versions of the software.

The recently discovered zero-day shares similarities with CVE-2026-21643, another unauthenticated FortiClient EMS defect that Fortinet disclosed Feb. 6. The vendor and cyber authorities last week warned that CVE-2026-21643 has been exploited in the wild. 

Researchers have yet to find any significant link between the vulnerabilities or attribute the attacks to known threat actors, but both defects were actively exploited in a short timeframe and both allow attackers to execute code remotely. 

“Fortinet solutions are popular targets for threat actors generally, so exploitation isn’t necessarily surprising,” said Caitlin Condon, vice president of security research at VulnCheck.

CISA has added 10 Fortinet defects to its known exploited vulnerabilities catalog since early 2025. 

While there is no full patch for CVE-2026-35616, Harris credited Fortinet for rushing out a hotfix over a holiday weekend, adding that it reflects how urgently the company is treating the matter. 

“The timing of the ramp-up of in-the-wild exploitation of this zero-day is likely not coincidental,” he said. “Attackers have shown repeatedly that holiday weekends are the best time to move. Security teams are at half strength, on-call engineers are distracted, and the window between compromise and detection stretches from hours to days. Easter, like any other holiday, represents opportunity.”

A Fortinet spokesperson said response and remediation efforts are ongoing and the company is communicating directly with customers to advise on necessary actions.

“The best time to apply the hotfix was yesterday,” Harris said. “The second-best time is right now.”

The post Fortinet customers confront actively exploited zero-day, with a full patch still pending appeared first on CyberScoop.