More than 300 servers and 100,000 SIM cards designed to mimic cellphones and overwhelm networks.

The post A Massive Telecom Threat Was Stopped Right As World Leaders Gathered at UN Headquarters in New York appeared first on SecurityWeek.

Sean Cairncross took his post this week as national cyber director at what many agree is a “pivotal” time for the office, giving him a chance to shape its future role in the bureaucracy, tackle difficult policy issues, shore up industry relations and take on key threats.

The former White House official, Republican National Committee leader and head of a federal foreign aid agency became just the third Senate-confirmed national cyber director at an office (ONCD) that’s only four years old. He’s the first person President Donald Trump has assigned to the position after the legislation establishing it became law at the end of his first term.

Two people — House Homeland Security Chairman Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y., and Adam Meyers, senior vice president of counter adversary operations at CrowdStrike — specifically used the word “pivotal” to describe this moment for Cairncross and his office, while others said as much in other ways.

“It’s a new organization, and with any new organization, you’ve got to build up the muscle memory of how ONCD fits into the interagency process and what it means to set a unified national cybersecurity agenda, the language the director was using in his nomination hearing,” Nicholas Leiserson, a former assistant national cyber director under President Joe Biden who worked on the legislation to create the office as a Hill staffer, told CyberScoop. “We need to make sure that ONCD is the center of the policymaking apparatus. … That is going to be critical to his success.”

Brian Harrell, a former infrastructure protection official at the Deparment of Homeland Security and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency in Trump’s first term, said that with personnel reductions at CISA and change elsewhere, Cairncross has a big opportunity.

“ONCD must be seen as the air traffic controller on all things cyber moving forward,” he said via email. “Given the agency rebuild happening at CISA, and new leadership at FBI and NSA cyber, now is the time to build influence and patch struggling relationships. Add to this, a private sector that is unsure where to turn to during a crisis … Sean must be seen as a convener and facilitator to get the President the right information to make key decisions.”

On the policy front, Leiserson, now senior vice president for policy at the Institute for Security and Technology, said Cairncross has a great opportunity to work through the thicket of federal cybersecurity regulations and disentangle them in a harmonization effort that began under Biden and has bipartisan support. Some seasoned staffers who worked on the issue then remain in the federal government, Leiserson said.

Garbarino also brought up harmonization in a written statement as an issue he wants to see Cairncross address, along with leading the charge renewing the 2015 threat data sharing law known as the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, set to expire next month. Jason Oxman, president of the Information Technology Industry Council, said in a press release congratulating Cairncross that renewal of that law was “essential to help ONCD achieve its cybersecurity mission.”

USTelecom President and CEO Jonathan Spalter said enhancing the government’s relationship with the private sector, a subject Cairncross brought up in his confirmation hearing, was also vital. Dave DeWalt, CEO of NightDragon, a venture capital and advisory firm, said of Cairncross in a statement to CyberScoop: “I know that under his leadership, public-private partnership will continue to strengthen and secure our future.”

Those policy challenges, as well as the challenges of strengthening the national cyber director’s standing within the federal government and fortifying the public-private partnership, go hand-in-hand with the threats Cairncross will have to confront.

“The mission of the Office of the National Cyber Director has never been more critical: advancing a unified, strategic, and forward-leaning approach to the cyber threats facing our increasingly digital society,” Frank Cilluffo, director of the McCrary Institute for Cyber and Critical Infrastructure Security at Auburn University and a former member of the Cyberspace Solarium Commission that recommended that Congress create the office, said in a written statement.

Leiserson said threats like the Chinese hackers known as Salt Typhoon penetrating telecommunications networks surely would be at the forefront of Cairncross’s concerns — a threat Cairncross brought up at his confirmation hearing. Harrell mentioned the looming possibility of a Chinese attack on Taiwan.

Oxman raised the threats to U.S. critical infrastructure and the supply chain. CrowdStrike’s Meyers, in a statement to CyberScoop, said the pivotal moment of Cairncross’s confirmation comes as “threat actors weaponize AI and the threat landscape continues to evolve at machine speed.”

Cairncross comes into the job with far less cybersecurity experience than many who have held federal cyber leadership posts. And he comes in with other potential disadvantages, too. At his nomination hearing, Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., pointed to deep budget cuts at CISA, telling Cairncross that “you will oversee the single biggest cut in federal cybersecurity dollars.”

But Leiserson said it was encouraging that Trump’s fiscal 2026 budget proposal would keep funding for the Office of the National Cyber Director pretty level.

There are other reasons to be optimistic about the view from federal leaders on the office, too, some pointed out. Cilluffo noted that the 59-35 vote for Cairncross in the Senate suggested some bipartisan support. Leiserson observed that Cairncross was one of the few nominees to escape the nominee backlog in the Senate before lawmakers went on recess.

As for his relative lack of cyber experience, Cairncross has talked about surrounding himself with the right people, Leiserson said.

“You want the unicorns who are incredibly politically astute and who have very deep cyber knowledge,” he said. “These people are hard to come by. We’ve had real cyber experts on the job. Now we’ve got someone who … is going to have an easy time navigating the West Wing. That is a skill set that is vital for running a White House organization, and shouldn’t be discounted.”

The post New National Cyber Director Cairncross faces challenges on policy, bureaucracy, threats appeared first on CyberScoop.

Ukraine has seen nearly one-fifth of its Internet space come under Russian control or sold to Internet address brokers since February 2022, a new study finds. The analysis indicates large chunks of Ukrainian Internet address space are now in the hands of shadowy proxy and anonymity services that are nested at some of America’s largest Internet service providers (ISPs).

The findings come in a report examining how the Russian invasion has affected Ukraine’s domestic supply of Internet Protocol Version 4 (IPv4) addresses. Researchers at Kentik, a company that measures the performance of Internet networks, found that while a majority of ISPs in Ukraine haven’t changed their infrastructure much since the war began in 2022, others have resorted to selling swathes of their valuable IPv4 address space just to keep the lights on.

For example, Ukraine’s incumbent ISP Ukrtelecom is now routing just 29 percent of the IPv4 address ranges that the company controlled at the start of the war, Kentik found. Although much of that former IP space remains dormant, Ukrtelecom told Kentik’s Doug Madory they were forced to sell many of their address blocks “to secure financial stability and continue delivering essential services.”

“Leasing out a portion of our IPv4 resources allowed us to mitigate some of the extraordinary challenges we have been facing since the full-scale invasion began,” Ukrtelecom told Madory.

Madory found much of the IPv4 space previously allocated to Ukrtelecom is now scattered to more than 100 providers globally, particularly at three large American ISPs — Amazon (AS16509), AT&T (AS7018), and Cogent (AS174).

Another Ukrainian Internet provider — LVS (AS43310) — in 2022 was routing approximately 6,000 IPv4 addresses across the nation. Kentik learned that by November 2022, much of that address space had been parceled out to over a dozen different locations, with the bulk of it being announced at AT&T.

Ditto for the Ukrainian ISP TVCOM, which currently routes nearly 15,000 fewer IPv4 addresses than it did at the start of the war. Madory said most of those addresses have been scattered to 37 other networks outside of Eastern Europe, including Amazon, AT&T, and Microsoft.

The Ukrainian ISP Trinity (AS43554) went offline in early March 2022 during the bloody siege of Mariupol, but its address space eventually began showing up in more than 50 different networks worldwide. Madory found more than 1,000 of Trinity’s IPv4 addresses suddenly appeared on AT&T’s network.

Why are all these former Ukrainian IP addresses being routed by U.S.-based networks like AT&T? According to spur.us, a company that tracks VPN and proxy services, nearly all of the address ranges identified by Kentik now map to commercial proxy services that allow customers to anonymously route their Internet traffic through someone else’s computer.

From a website’s perspective, the traffic from a proxy network user appears to originate from the rented IP address, not from the proxy service customer. These services can be used for several business purposes, such as price comparisons, sales intelligence, web crawlers and content-scraping bots. However, proxy services also are massively abused for hiding cybercrime activity because they can make it difficult to trace malicious traffic to its original source.

IPv4 address ranges are always in high demand, which means they are also quite valuable. There are now multiple companies that will pay ISPs to lease out their unwanted or unused IPv4 address space. Madory said these IPv4 brokers will pay between $100-$500 per month to lease a block of 256 IPv4 addresses, and very often the entities most willing to pay those rental rates are proxy and VPN providers.

A cursory review of all Internet address blocks currently routed through AT&T — as seen in public records maintained by the Internet backbone provider Hurricane Electric — shows a preponderance of country flags other than the United States, including networks originating in Hungary, Lithuania, Moldova, Mauritius, Palestine, Seychelles, Slovenia, and Ukraine.

Asked about the apparent high incidence of proxy services routing foreign address blocks through AT&T, the telecommunications giant said it recently changed its policy about originating routes for network blocks that are not owned and managed by AT&T. That new policy, spelled out in a February 2025 update to AT&T’s terms of service, gives those customers until Sept. 1, 2025 to originate their own IP space from their own autonomous system number (ASN), a unique number assigned to each ISP (AT&T’s is AS7018).

“To ensure our customers receive the best quality of service, we changed our terms for dedicated internet in February 2025,” an AT&T spokesperson said in an emailed reply. “We no longer permit static routes with IP addresses that we have not provided. We have been in the process of identifying and notifying affected customers that they have 90 days to transition to Border Gateway Protocol routing using their own autonomous system number.”

Ironically, the co-mingling of Ukrainian IP address space with proxy providers has resulted in many of these addresses being used in cyberattacks against Ukraine and other enemies of Russia. Earlier this month, the European Union sanctioned Stark Industries Solutions Inc., an ISP that surfaced two weeks before the Russian invasion and quickly became the source of large-scale DDoS attacks and spear-phishing attempts by Russian state-sponsored hacking groups. A deep dive into Stark’s considerable address space showed some of it was sourced from Ukrainian ISPs, and most of it was connected to Russia-based proxy and anonymity services.

Spur’s Chief Technology Officer Riley Kilmer said AT&T’s policy change will likely force many proxy services to migrate to other U.S. providers that have less stringent policies.

“AT&T is the first one of the big ISPs that seems to be actually doing something about this,” Kilmer said. “We track several services that explicitly sell AT&T IP addresses, and it will be very interesting to see what happens to those services come September.”

Still, Kilmer said, there are several other large U.S. ISPs that continue to make it easy for proxy services to bring their own IP addresses and host them in ranges that give the appearance of residential customers. For example, Kentik’s report identified former Ukrainian IP ranges showing up as proxy services routed by Cogent Communications (AS174), a tier-one Internet backbone provider based in Washington, D.C.

Kilmer said Cogent has become an attractive home base for proxy services because it is relatively easy to get Cogent to route an address block.

“In fairness, they transit a lot of traffic,” Kilmer said of Cogent. “But there’s a reason a lot of this proxy stuff shows up as Cogent: Because it’s super easy to get something routed there.”

Cogent declined a request to comment on Kentik’s findings.