Cybersecurity | Breaking Cybersecurity News | The Hacker News

Safeguarding the sensitive information within your Microsoft 365 environment is more important than ever. From accidental deletion and ransomware attacks to costly compliance failures, the consequences of inadequate data protection can be severe. It's important to understand the Shared Responsibility Model. The Model explains that Microsoft secures and ensures the uptime of its infrastructure, while you're ultimately responsible for correctly configuring settings, protecting against accidental data loss, and ensuring compliance with relevant regulations. Microsoft 365 provides powerful services, but a comprehensive backup of your data is not included in a standard Microsoft 365 license. Having an effective data protection strategy and comprehensive data backups are your best defense against these invisible dangers. In today's digital era, the necessity of modernizing data protection solutions cannot be overstated. The 2024 Data Protection Trends Report revealed that 75% of org

So you're going on a threat hunt…and you want to catch a big (malicious) one. Identifying malicious infrastructure can be a particularly daunting threat-hunting objective. Attackers who are intent enough on setting up things like C2 networks, phishing sites, and impersonated domains, are also, not surprisingly, often very good at hiding their tracks with tactics ranging from the use of proprietary VPNs to compromised intermediary services. So even when malicious infrastructure is visible, source attribution can remain a thorny problem. That said, there are tools like Censys Search that can make the challenge of tracking and understanding malicious infrastructure more achievable. Consider the following user stories, how-to articles, and videos for insights you can use to inform, inspire, and even supercharge your next investigation into malicious infrastructure. 7 Resources Worth a Read (or Watch) 1. How to Identify Malicious Infrastructure: Demo Let's start with a quick video

Open-source libraries allow developers to move faster, leveraging existing building blocks instead of diverting resources to building in-house. By leaning on existing open-source packages, engineers can focus on complex or bespoke elements of their products, using package managers and open-source maintainers to make it easy to pull everything together.  However, you can't deny that building software using open source makes your applications more vulnerable to security risks. In an open-source library, attackers have direct access to code, and can search for current and historical vulnerabilities, as well as any issues and tickets managed on websites such as GitHub or GitLab. This helps threat actors to quickly find packages that are vulnerable and launch an attack.  This is where Software Composition Analysis (SCA) comes in, with the purpose of scanning packages and uncovering vulnerabilities. SCA compiles and manages a catalog of software packages, alongside details such as their

In today's dynamic web threat landscape, staying a step ahead of risk is crucial. Businesses want to keep improving their websites with the latest customer service experience while maintaining a strong security posture and complying with strict privacy rules. With the help of a new risk assessment tool - Exposure Rating - we have calculated the risk exposure for nine leading customer service chatbots compared against each other. For the full chatbot ratings report, click here . But first, what is an Exposure Rating risk assessment tool? Contextual Risk Assessment for the Web Exposure Rating goes beyond traditional website security solutions. It delves deeper, providing a comprehensive assessment of your web risk exposure, benchmarked against industry leaders. The rating system analyzes every website, application, and domain within your environment, giving you a clear picture of your threat landscape. But Exposure Rating is more than just a report card. It's a powerful to

Security has always been a game of risk management, not risk elimination. Every decision to address one threat means potentially leaving another unattended. That deciding of which threat to address – and in what order – is the name of the game. In this triage process, abuse vulnerabilities,  i.e. , exploiting legitimate features of a platform in unintended ways to conduct digital misdeeds such as phishing campaigns, can get pushed down the priority list of security issues. I would like to argue that it's time we stop separating the concept of abuse vulnerabilities and security vulnerabilities.  Unlike security vulnerabilities that are, in essence, exploited loopholes or bugs in the code, fixes for abuse vulnerabilities can be slow to come. Yet these openings for abuse can easily lead to disaster if left unattended. Recent figures show that  68% of breaches  originate from these exact types of exploitations involving the human element making a mistake such as phishing attempts or abu

There is a lot of frustration by security experts and legislators, with device OEMs not implementing security measures. Apparently, many OEMs balk at the ongoing effort and expense to create and manage a security team to verify and fix problem reports and to communicate their actions according to the requirements of various security agencies. On their side, OEMs probably prefer a one and done approach to security. I think that I have a solution for this conflict. It is not a perfect solution, but it is a half-step in the right direction. The solution is partitioning. We have found that it is possible to achieve strong isolation between software partitions for the Arm Cortex-M architecture with memory protection units. It is possible to do this without excessive memory waste or processor overhead for both the v7M and v8M architectures. Tasks in one partition cannot access resources in another partition. They must go through  portals . Tasks in client partitions send  protected messag