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

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

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

The security product became the attack vector

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

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

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

Why the standard response falls short

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

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

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

Making the endpoint harder to exploit

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

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

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

The lesson before the next directive

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

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

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

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

While Washington D.C. frets over the potential impact of Anthropic’s Claude Fable 5, security researchers continue to track how the integration of frontier AI tools are transforming the digital security landscape for malicious hackers and defenders alike.

The breakneck speed of model releases may be creating short, silent security gaps for developers who must choose between performance and security, according to a new report.

Researchers at Backslash Security pored through update logs for Claude Code, Anthropic’s flagship coding model, finding the company was patching dozens of newly discovered security vulnerabilities in the program between April and early June 2026.

The logs revealed the details of more than 30 security relevant patches implemented over that timeframe, but Anthropic did not publicize them. Instead, Backslash Security researchers found them by reviewing update logs for every new version of a Claude Code release in the last two months, noted the security-relevant fixes and traced each one back to the version and date it shipped.

The patches included fixes for data poisoning, prompt injection and arbitrary code execution vulnerabilities. One bypassed core safeguards put in place to prevent Claude Code from accepting catastrophic deletions commands, such as erasing an entire codebase, by adding a single backslash to the command. Another leaked user OAuth credentials, while a third allowed an AI agent to plant a backdoor in shell startup files.

There is nothing inherently odd about this: most companies regularly update and patch their software  and anyone who had auto-updates turned on would automatically be switched to the newest, secure version of Claude Code.

But Yossi Pik, co-founder and chief technology officer at Backslash Security, told CyberScoop that the research concluded “the way AI agents are released is different than previous software.”

“We debated internally, because when I originally said I wanted to write about this, I was told ‘Okay, every company has the [same] issue, then they patch and fix,” he said. “This is the nature of software, but I think that what makes this unique is the cadence and frequency of the releases.”

AI companies keep a ferocious pace when updating their models. Claude Code’s changelog indicates there have been 16 different versions through the first half of June, while OpenAI’s Codex was updated 6 times.

Because model updates often bring short-term performance and stability issues, software developers typically wait a week or more before upgrading to a new version.

These time gaps create small windows of vulnerability and force developers to choose between security and performance. The report identifies several reasons why developers don’t automatically update their AI models, including companies that may rely on internal vetting or release schedules, operate in regulated or air-gapped environments where model versions are frozen, and the need to maintain long-running sessions or use manual installations.

Pik said some IT and security teams have also told him they prefer not to install any new version of an AI model without letting it run on other environments first.

“You don’t have that much flexibility, either I go to the latest and I’m getting a less stable version [of the model] or I’m waiting for a few days or a week until I can install it, and hope that nothing would happen during this time,” said Pik.

The Backslash report is not intended as a dig at the security rigor of Anthropic, noting the company tends to “patch fast and document more than anyone” and has addressed every issue and vulnerability identified in the report.

Rather, it’s to highlight the series of mostly silent and persistent security exposures that an organization faces when adopting AI into their workflow.

Other software programs and technology products face similar tradeoffs through different updates, but most of the vulnerabilities detailed in the change log – such as getting an agent to leak data or accept malicious prompts – are unique to large language models and AI systems.

That means integrating AI tools can bring new security problems to an organization, both from outsiders who can poison or influence the model and insiders who can maliciously or accidentally direct the model to access or leak systems, data and identities.

For most Claude Code users, this process runs automatically in the background. Yet Yik points out that just as AI is transforming work itself,  it’s also changing how we need to approach software security and updates.

“It should not be compared to [Microsoft] Office that is installed and gets patched once in a while,” he said. “It’s a completely different beast that keeps evolving, and we don’t want to limit it…I think that it’s great for everyone. We just need to make sure that we do it in a secure way, and every organization should understand what that means for them.”

The post AI’s constant patching treadmill can be a security problem appeared first on CyberScoop.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kent Ickler & Jordan Drysdale // Preface We had a sysadmin and security professional “AA” meeting on November 8, 2018. We met and discussed things that seem to be painfully […]

The post WEBCAST: Blue Team-Apalooza appeared first on Black Hills Information Security, Inc..