Blogs

Blog

The Flashpoint Threat Intelligence Brief: Middle East

Flashpoint’s weekly analysis tracks shifting kinetic and cyber threat radiuses, geopolitical disruptions, and provides critical operational forecasts for the ongoing Middle East conflict.

Following Operation Epic Fury, regional kinetic operations have transitioned into direct, persistent threats against commercial shipping, energy infrastructure, and critical supply chains.

The Flashpoint Threat Intelligence Brief: Middle East cuts through headline noise to deliver tactical, ground-level intelligence for government agencies, corporate security leads, and global logistics teams—turning Flashpoint’s primary source intelligence into proactive risk mitigation.

Here is what your security operations team needs to track this week.

Operational SITREP: Executive Summary

Between September 25 and October 1, 2026, the Middle East conflict continued to expand geographically beyond the Gulf theater while diplomatic efforts stalled. Iranian intelligence activity reached European soil with the disruption of an alleged plot against a UK air base hosting US B-1 bombers, while US military forces completed their full withdrawal from Iraq.

In the Strait of Hormuz, IRGC-affiliated media claimed a massive anti-shipping campaign targeting 19 vessels over two days, though US officials disputed that any ships were struck during that window. On the diplomatic front, President Trump rejected Tehran’s seven-day proposal to reopen the strait in exchange for lifting the US naval blockade, signaling that renewed large-scale bombing of Iran after the November midterm elections remains possible.

In the digital domain, hacktivist collectives stepped up campaign activity under #OpIsrael and #OpUSA, and they have claimed to have compromised dozens of internet-exposed US CCTV systems and signaled imminent targeting of industrial control (SCADA) systems.

Kinetic and Maritime Risk

The physical conflict’s operational footprint has expanded into European staging locations. British police arrested five individuals near RAF Fairford over an alleged Iranian intelligence-backed plot to attack US B-1 bombers using vehicles laden with explosives. UK officials later said evidence indicated the possible linking of Iranian state actors to the attempt. In the Gulf, officials disclosed that eight US Marines sustained injuries—including possible traumatic brain injuries and smoke inhalation—during the September 14 Iranian strike on a US-contracted vessel.

In maritime chokepoints, conflict dynamics remain highly volatile. While IRGC-affiliated sources claimed 19 ships were targeted by anti-ship ballistic missiles and drones near Qeshm Island and Bandar Abbas, US officials disputed these numbers. Meanwhile, along the Red Sea, Ansarallah forces asserted control over key islands and the port of Mokha, prompting French naval escorts to shepherd commercial vessels through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait in recent weeks. Concurrently, US diplomatic pressure left roughly 20 empty Iranian oil tankers stranded off Sri Lanka running short of fuel or resupply.

Cyber and Hybrid Risk

Adversary operations across the cyber domain have shifted toward open-source reconnaissance, surveillance, and industrial control system (ICS) targeting.

Within the last week, a threat actor group published coordinates for an Israeli Air Force squadron and Field Intelligence site, alongside conducting Layer 7 DDoS attacks against US and Israeli targets. In parallel, Iranian state-aligned news outlets claimed cyberattacks had disrupted US-bound oil tankers and domestic refineries, while UAE authorities warned that attacks on port infrastructure were paired with cyber intrusions into connected industrial control systems.

Recommended Risk Posture and Protective Controls

To mitigate exposure across physical, maritime, and digital vectors, security operations leads should implement the following directive controls:

1. Tighten Perimeter Screening at European Installations: Facilities hosting US personnel or military assets across Europe should immediately review vehicle-screening protocols and reporting channels following the RAF Fairford plot.
2. Remove Exposed CCTV Portals & Segment SCADA/OT Networks: Industrial, energy, and logistics operators must take camera management interfaces off the public internet and enforce strict air-gapping/segmentation between IT networks and operational technology (OT/SCADA) environments.
3. Hardening Web Infrastructure Against Layer 7 DDoS: Organizations managing US or Israeli-facing web properties should activate origin-IP protections, Web Application Firewalls (WAFs), and aggressive rate-limiting against TLS-renegotiation and Layer 7 flooding tactics.
4. Reassess Non-Military Personnel Security in Iraq: Following the complete exit of US forces, commercial, diplomatic, and contractor entities in Iraq must update security postures to reflect the absence of co-located military quick-reaction forces.
5. Mitigate Doxxed Facility Exposure: Facilities linked to regional defense or security operations should review physical access controls and perimeter security, assuming published coordinate data is actively circulating among threat actors.

Strategic Outlook: Operational Forecast

The trajectory over the next 48 to 72 hours points to continued friction as diplomatic negotiations remain stalled. With Washington rejecting Iran’s seven-day proposal and signaling potential post-midterm strike campaigns, Iranian forces are likely to maintain high-profile messaging and anti-shipping operations in the Strait of Hormuz to demonstrate blockade-breaking capabilities.

In Europe, further disclosures regarding Iranian intelligence activity against Western staging bases remain probable. In the cyber domain, security teams should prepare for opportunistic probing against exposed SCADA and ICS interfaces, alongside continued low-impact hacktivist DDoS campaigns under #OpIsrael and #OpUSA.

Enhance Threat Intelligence Using Flashpoint

As hybrid threats unfold across the Middle East, passive monitoring is no longer enough to protect assets, personnel, and maritime operations. Rapidly shifting threat radiuses require security operations centers to operate on real-time, primary-source intelligence rather than delayed headline news.

Request a demo to see how Flashpoint equips government agencies, corporate security leads, and global logistics teams with real-time geolocated threat data, primary-source monitoring, and early-warning intelligence. By turning complex regional dynamics into clear, actionable risk indicators, Flashpoint empowers your team to harden defensive postures and mitigate hybrid threats before impact.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is the Flashpoint Physical Threat Intelligence Brief?

The Flashpoint Physical Threat Intelligence Brief: Middle East is a recurring threat intelligence update that translates raw primary-source open-source intelligence (OSINT) and geospatial data into actionable physical security analysis. It focuses on kinetic conflict developments, standoff weapon capabilities, maritime corridor security, and critical infrastructure risks across the Middle East.

How does Flashpoint gather physical security intelligence for the Middle East?

Flashpoint Physical Security Intelligence (PSI) gathers data by combining global open-source intelligence (OSINT), geolocated social media signals, satellite imagery, and primary-source threat monitoring. The platform uses AI-driven natural language processing and geospatial mapping to track kinetic developments, weapon strike radiuses, and physical security threats in real time.

See Flashpoint in Action

Blogs

Blog

Process Parameter Poisoning: Inside a Novel EDR Evasion Technique

In this post, Flashpoint analysts examine Process Parameter Poisoning—a novel EDR evasion technique we validated in Rust—and detail how abusing undocumented process parameters allows attackers to inject code and bypass standard security products.

Modern Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) platforms have made traditional malware injection techniques significantly harder to execute. In most cases, if a threat actor attempts to write malicious code into a process, an alert will fire. However, that sense of security is being actively challenged as cybercriminals and red teams find new ways to blend malicious payloads into standard operating system routines.

Flashpoint’s Intelligence team built and tested a proof-of-concept for a newly disclosed technique known as Process Parameter Poisoning. By compiling a custom payload and layering evasion mechanics, our analysts demonstrated how easily traditional API hooks can be rendered blind in a laboratory environment—achieving zero alerts across tested EDR/XDR controls.

What is Process Parameter Poisoning?

Process Parameter Poisoning is a novel endpoint detection and response (EDR) evasion technique that combines process parameter spoofing and thread execution hijacking to inject code into foreign processes without triggering standard security detection mechanisms.

Discovered by researchers Max Hirschberger and Ogulcan Ugur, Process Parameter Poisoning is designed to inject code in foreign processes without relying on the conventional memory-manipulation workflows that modern security tooling monitors.

To execute process injection, historically security tools and threat actors alike have focused on a small set of well-known Windows application programming interfaces (APIs). Process Parameter Poisoning shifts away from these heavily watched routines entirely. Instead of calling memory-accessing APIs to allocate and write into a target process, the technique hides the malicious payload directly inside standard process initialization structures during the initial creation of a process. The result is a fundamental shift in defense evasion that effectively blinds traditional, API-hooking EDR agents during the initial stages of code execution.

How Does Process Parameter Poisoning Work?

Process Parameter Poisoning allows attackers to bypass suspicious memory-accessing Windows APIs, such as VirtualAllocEx(), WriteProcessMemory(), and MapViewOfFile2(). Security products heavily monitor these specific APIs due to their high rate of abuse in traditional process injection techniques. However, by avoiding these calls, an attacker effectively bypasses the initial primary triggers used by endpoint agents to flag malicious cross-process memory activity.

When using the Windows application programming interface (API), CreateProcessA/W(), the developer can specify parameters such as the command-line to be executed by the new process, environment variables for the new process, current working directory for the process, window title if it is a console application, create a hidden window, create the process in a suspended state, etc. Many of these parameters are passed into CreateProcessA/W() via the STARTUPINFOA/W structure.

Some entries are undocumented and labeled “reserved” by Microsoft. The discovering researchers found that data stored in STARTUPINFO->lpReserved ends up in the Process Environment Block once the new process is initialized in an entry called “ShellInfo.” Below is an example of placing data into the STARTUPINFOW->lpReserved entry in a test application and the data stored in ShellInfo while debugging the newly created process.

†

Validating Process Parameter Poisoning in Rust

Flashpoint analysts created a proof-of-concept (POC) in Rust to test this technique based on the POC C++ source code provided by the researchers:

1. First the necessary data structures are initialized and the shellcode is passed into the STARTUPINFO->lpReserved field.
2. The target process is created with the infected STARTUPINFO and then a short wait to let the program initialize.
3. NtQueryInformationProcess() is used to acquire PROCESS_BASIC_INFORMATION about the newly created process.
4. The PROCESS_BASIC_INFORMATION structure has an entry called PebBaseAddress that provides the location of the process’s Process Environment Block.
5. NtReadVirtualMemory() is used to read the memory address provided by PebBaseAddress to get the PEB for that process.
6. The PEB has an entry called ProcessParameters that holds the structure RTL_USER_PROCESS_PARAMETERS and is where the ShellInfo entry mentioned earlier is stored.
7. NtReadVirtualMemory() needs to be used again to read the RTL_USER_PROCESS_PARAMETERS structure and get the address of the ShellInfo.Buffer entry.

Flashpoint confirmed that after changing the memory to have executable permissions, the threat actors can perform thread hijacking by using GetThreadContext() to acquire information about the current running thread, change the instruction pointer to point to the ShellInfo.Buffer address, and then SetThreadContext() to apply the changes and execute the shellcode.

Flashpoint analysts further confirm that this technique also works with the WindowTitle entry, CommandLine entry using the same series of steps.

The technique also works with the Environment entry but requires additional steps. Environment blocks require a variable name and the variable data separated by an “=.” Environment blocks can contain multiple variable entries in which each entry is ended with a null terminator. Two null terminators are necessary to denote the end of the environment block. This means the payload needs to be embedded in a longer string with a “{NAME} = {VALUE}” format.

Flashpoint analysts note that four null terminators were appended to the shellcode bytes to denote the end of an environment block in Unicode. The resulting payload buffer is then passed into the lpEnvironment variable of CreateProcessW() along with the CREATE_UNICODE_ENVIRONMENT creation flag.

The rest of the process remains the same as reading the PEB and RTL_USER_PROCESS_PARAMETERS structure. The Environment entry is read, but at the offset of the embedded shellcode within the poisoned environment block string. Because four bytes were added to the beginning of the shellcode to make the Unicode environment block, execution needs to begin after four bytes from the beginning of the buffer to begin executing at the shellcode.

Flashpoint notes that the shellcode requires no NULL bytes, and, if using the PAGE_EXECUTE_READ flag, it cannot overwrite itself. This means automated shellcode generators such as MSFVenom might not work either because they contain NULL bytes or use encoders that perform memory writes during execution. Flashpoint analysts wrote custom shellcode to further test this technique. The shellcode downloads and executes an additional payload. The combination of this technique, custom shellcode, and the use of Rust as the programming language proved successful in minimizing initial static detections by security software.

Flashpoint tested this technique with a commonly-used open source EDR platform. The EDR platform itself failed to produce any alerts from executing the malicious binary. However, the XDR component blocked on the initial creation of a new process and COM interactions by the second stage payload.

Flashpoint analysts then combined this technique with the DLL unhooking technique and applied the non-Microsoft block DLL policy during the creation of the sacrificial process. Analysts observed no blocks from the XDR during execution and observed no alerts on the platform.

Associated MITRE ATT&CK

Tactic	Technique ID	Technique Name
Stealth	T1055	Process Injection
Stealth	T1055.003	Process Injection: Thread Execution Hijacking
Stealth	T1564.010	Hide Artifacts: Process Argument Spoofing

Security teams can leverage several detection strategies to identify Process Parameter Poisoning, though each approach carries distinct limitations:

• Analyzing Parameter Entropy and Argument Spoofing (MITRE ATT&CK T1564.010): Security tools can inspect initialization strings within process structures for unusually high entropy, which often indicates the presence of obfuscated or raw binary shellcode embedded within parameters.
• Monitoring Thread Execution Hijacking (MITRE ATT&CK T1055.003): Analysts can monitor for thread context manipulation; however, because Process Parameter Poisoning does not invoke explicit thread suspension or resumption APIs, specific detection rules that depend on those parameters will fail to trigger.
• Detecting Code Execution in Abnormal Memory Locations (MITRE ATT&CK T1055): Detections can flag execution attempts taking place outside the standard executable section, particularly when code executes directly within Process Environment Block (PEB) parameter buffers.
• Auditing Memory Permission Modifications: Tracking instances where memory region permissions are altered to executable states can reveal payload staging. However, enterprise security controls often tune down or avoid these specific alerts due to high volumes of false positives in normal software operations.

Stay Ahead of Process Parameter Poisoning Using Flashpoint

Process Parameter Poisoning demonstrates another advancement in stealthy process injection and the constantly evolving research into evading security products. By using the previously unknown purpose of the lpReserved field within the STARTUPINFOW structure to house shellcode, this technique bypasses standard security product triggers associated with common memory-allocation APIs. While this proof-of-concept was proven successful in lab testing, the technique has multiple opportunities for detection and will most likely require a combination of additional evasion techniques to achieve a higher success rate.

As threat actors continue to refine technique-stacking and exploit overlooked Windows internals, relying on traditional API hooks is no longer enough to protect your enterprise. Staying ahead of modern evasion mechanics requires proactive intelligence and deep visibility into emerging adversary TTPs.

Request a demo today to see how best-in-class threat intelligence can help security teams detect, prepare for, and neutralize advanced defense evasion techniques before they impact your network.

See Flashpoint in Action

Blogs

Blog

Flashpoint Named A Customer Favorite in The Forrester Wave

In this blog we explore the recently published Forrester Wave: External Threat Intelligence Service Providers, Q3 2026 report which named Flashpoint a Customer Favorite, along with naming the organization a Strong Performer with the highest scores possible in the criteria of: Fraud Intelligence, Executive Protection, and Pricing Flexibility and Transparency.

Flashpoint has been named a Customer Favorite and a Strong Performer in The Forrester Wave: External Threat Intelligence Service Providers, Q3 2026. 

The Forrester Wave evaluation is a rigorous, data-driven analysis of external threat intelligence service providers across 23 criteria grouped into two categories: Current Offering and Strategy. Alongside its scoring, Forrester incorporates direct customer feedback into its evaluation, and the Forrester report notes that customers “laud Flashpoint’s white-glove approach to addressing diverse customer needs.”

“Customer obsession has been part of Flashpoint’s DNA from day one. When your customers are protecting financial systems, critical infrastructure, national security, and human lives, their mission becomes your mission,” said Josh Lefkowitz, CEO at Flashpoint. “Forrester has built this likeminded customer obsession into how it evaluates vendors, and it’s why being named a Customer Favorite means so much to us. We believe it reflects customers confirming Flashpoint gives them the intelligence, context, and partnership they need to carry out those missions with confidence.”

The Primary Source Advantage

Flashpoint also received the highest score possible in three criteria: Fraud Intelligence, Executive Protection, and Pricing Flexibility and Transparency. Forrester’s report describes Flashpoint’s Ignite platform as “stand[ing] out for its fraud intelligence capabilities and strong presence across the ecosystem that supports enterprises’ fraud response.” It further describes Flashpoint’s executive protection offering as “structured and comprehensive.” 

At the foundation of these capabilities is Flashpoint Primary Source Collection, Flashpoint’s proprietary approach to collecting intelligence directly from the digital environments where threats originate — providing organizations with access to high-value intelligence from open and hard-to-reach sources, enriched by human expertise and scaled by AI. We believe Forrester’s assessment speaks directly to this strength, stating that “Flashpoint is ideal for customers seeking primary source access intelligence, particularly those in the financial industry.” That strength extends well beyond financial services. Organizations across industries rely on Flashpoint to address cyber threats, vulnerability risk, fraud, physical security, geopolitical risk, and brand protection.

Purpose Built for the Problems Leading Threat Intel Teams Need to Solve

The remit of threat intelligence programs continues to expand as the volume and complexity of threats grows, accelerated by AI. Now, a single incident can cross cyber operations, fraud, vulnerability management, executive protection, and physical security, while ownership of those risks may sit across several teams. Threat intelligence solutions need to provide holistic visibility into external activity and enough context to determine what deserves attention.

Flashpoint Ignite gives those teams a common intelligence foundation. In our opinion, the Forrester evaluation reflects that breadth: Flashpoint received the highest score possible in both the Fraud Intelligence and Executive Protection criteria.

For fraud teams, primary-source intelligence can expose compromised credentials, illicit services, access sales, and emerging schemes before they translate into financial loss. For executive protection and physical security teams, it can connect online activity with potential real-world risk to people, facilities, and events.

“Flashpoint saves us over $80 million in fraud losses every year. Their proactive approach and sharp insights are crucial in keeping our financial institution secure. They’re not just a solution; they’re a strategic partner helping us stay ahead of cyber threats.”

SVP Cyber Operations, Large U.S. Financial Institution

What Security Leaders Should Look for in a Threat Intelligence Partner

Analyst evaluations give buyers a structured view of a complex market. To understand how a threat intelligence platform will perform in practice, security leaders should ask:

• How close is the intelligence to the source? Understand where the data comes from, whether it is gathered from primary sources or aggregated from third parties and scrapers, how access is maintained, and how much original context is preserved.
• How broadly can the intelligence be applied? Evaluate whether the same foundation can support the risks your organization faces across cyber, vulnerability, fraud, and physical security domains. 
• How does the threat intelligence partner work with customers? Look for breadth and depth of expertise, ability to access analyst insights directly, responsiveness, and the willingness to support complex needs as they emerge.
• Can the program evolve with the organization? The platform and services should accommodate new use cases as intelligence requirements change. In parallel, customers should be able to tailor intelligence gathering for even greater visibility into their specific threat landscape — discovering and adding sources in a fast, automated way from within their workflows.

“I have used Flashpoint for several years and continue to be impressed with the quality of their services and the thought put into each new offering. Flashpoint is one of the few vendors that has consistently demonstrated a high level of responsiveness and an in-depth understanding of the needs of any threat/fraud/security analyst. Their services cover a wide range of topics from cybersecurity to physical threats, and they are always looking for ways to improve and widen the scope of intelligence they provide.”

Lead Analyst, Cybersecurity

Read The Forrester Wave: External Threat Intelligence Service Providers, Q3 2026 to explore the evaluation and learn more about Flashpoint’s results.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is The Forrester Wave: External Threat Intelligence Service Providers, Q3 2026?

The Forrester Wave: External Threat Intelligence Service Providers, Q3 2026 evaluates external threat intelligence service providers across their current offering, strategy, and customer feedback to help security leaders assess vendors in the market.

How did Flashpoint perform in Forrester’s latest evaluation of external threat intelligence service providers?

Flashpoint was named a Customer Favorite and a Strong Performer in The Forrester Wave: External Threat Intelligence Service Providers, Q3 2026. Flashpoint received the highest score possible in the Fraud Intelligence, Executive Protection, and Pricing Flexibility and Transparency criteria.

Why was Flashpoint named a Customer Favorite in the Forrester Wave?

Customer Favorite reflects feedback from customers participating in Forrester’s evaluation. Forrester reported that customers “laud Flashpoint’s white-glove approach to addressing diverse customer needs.” 

What capabilities was Flashpoint recognized for in the Forrester evaluation?

Forrester described Flashpoint Ignite as standing out for its fraud intelligence capabilities and strong presence across the enterprise fraud response ecosystem, while describing its executive protection offering as “structured and comprehensive.”

What differentiates Flashpoint’s threat intelligence?

Flashpoint is built around Primary Source Collection, its proprietary approach to collecting intelligence directly from the digital environments where threats originate. This gives security teams access to intelligence from open and hard-to-reach sources, enriched by human expertise and scaled by AI. In its assessment, Forrester stated that “Flashpoint is ideal for customers seeking primary source access intelligence, particularly those in the financial industry.” That strength extends across sectors: Flashpoint supports more than 750 customers across industries, helping organizations address security challenges spanning cyber threat intelligence, vulnerability management, fraud, physical security, and geopolitical risk.

What security use cases does Flashpoint support?

Flashpoint supports security teams across cyber threat intelligence, vulnerability intelligence, fraud, executive and physical security, geopolitical risk, and brand protection. These capabilities are delivered through Flashpoint Ignite, allowing organizations to apply a common intelligence foundation across multiple security and risk functions.

Forrester Disclaimer

Forrester does not endorse any company, product, brand, or service included in its research publications and does not advise any person to select the products or services of any company or brand based on the ratings included in such publications. Information is based on the best available resources. Opinions reflect judgment at the time and are subject to change. This report is part of a broader collection of Forrester resources, including interactive models, frameworks, tools, data, and access to analyst guidance. For more information, read about Forrester’s objectivity here.

See Flashpoint in Action

Blogs

Blog

How Natural Language Search Powers Rapid Physical Security Intelligence

A look at how natural language processing makes searching and refining results in Echosec simpler.

When physical threats manifest in the real world, every minute counts. Whether tasked with Executive Protection, securing critical infrastructure, or monitoring live events, security teams face a constant challenge: turning massive volumes of noisy online chatter into rapid, actionable insight.

For traditional workflows, surfacing relevant situational awareness required complex Boolean query construction, exhaustive lists of regional keywords, and constant tweaking of syntax. But when an operational threat is unfolding, troubleshooting search logic is the least of your priorities.

In a recent live session, Flashpoint’s Alanah Crocker, Head of the Flashpoint Training Academy, demonstrated a major evolution in Flashpoint’s physical security intelligence capabilities: Natural Language Search and AI-driven Search Planning.

Real-World Impact: Minutes Can Save Lives

When it comes to protecting people and infrastructure, security teams need to know what is happening around them. This involves pulling from mainstream social networks, fringe spaces, regional platforms, and illicit chat channels. By layering in geospatial enrichment and analyst-led finished intelligence, organizations gain the insights they need to function in high-stakes environments.

In this live session Flashpoint showed how analysts no longer need to spend time manually building complex syntax trees. Instead, using Flashpoint’s Physical Security Intelligence, analysts can simply describe what they want to discover in plain language.

• “Recent arson attacks against factories in North America”
• “Traffic disruptions in Central London near VIP transit routes”
• “Situational awareness and security chatter around BC Place Stadium”

With this update, analysts no longer need to spend time manually building complex syntax trees. Here’s what an updated workflow looks like using Flashpoint PSI:

1. Plain Language Prompting: Type your operational question or intelligence focus area into the search bar using everyday language.
2. Automated Search Plan Generation: Flashpoint Ignite instantly analyzes current online chatter, identifies relevant regional keywords, assigns date parameters, and applies precise geospatial boundaries.
3. Human-in-the-Loop Review: Review the proposed search plan, tailor keywords, adjust date ranges, or modify the boundary before execution.
4. Rapid Execution & AI Summarization: Execute the query to receive curated results from global sources alongside an executive summary of key takeaways and sentiment.

How Natural Language Search Accelerates Physical Security Triage and OSINT Workflows

By integrating AI-driven search planning directly into Flashpoint PSI, Flashpoint fundamentally changes how security teams move from initial inquiry to tactical triage. When facing unfamiliar threat vectors, analysts need to eliminate the cold start, so that they are not spending needless time guessing local slangs, hashtags, or regional terms to query. Flashpoint’s natural language processing automates this pre-research phase by synthesizing live open-source chatter to surface active jargon and keywords automatically.

Spatial context is equally seamless. Instead of manually looking up street intersections or plotting coordinates on a map, analysts can simply mention a landmark or venue in plain text. Flashpoint PSI understands the geographical intent, automatically constructing precise spatial geofences around the physical asset, event, or VIP travel routes.

Once populated, intelligence gathering becomes a dynamic conversation rather than a static reporting exercise. Analysts can interrogate their data in real-time, asking Flashpoint to isolate video uploads, filter for explicit threats, or hone in on specific operational themes throughout this workflow—all while ensuring the analyst remains firmly in control throughout the entire workflow.

Protect Critical Assets Using Flashpoint

Want to see for yourself how plain-language prompts can build rich, multi-source intelligence workflows? Request a demo, or check out our Product Update page to explore how AI-driven search planning and relevance ranking accelerates OSINT investigations.

See Flashpoint in Action

Blogs

Blog

Cybercrime at Machine Speed: Key Takeaways from Flashpoint’s 2026 Midyear Threat Intelligence Briefing

Threat actors are no longer just using automation to execute tasks, they are leveraging prepackaged, safeguard-free AI, weaponizing stolen session data, and directly targeting defenders’ security stacks.

In our latest webinar, Flashpoint Vice President of Intelligence, Ian Gray, briefed security leaders on the evolving threat environment, providing critical insights from the Flashpoint Global Threat Intelligence Report (GTIR): 2026 Midyear Edition.

The threat landscape has developed at a striking pace with Flashpoint tracking over 22 million illicit AI discussions, 7.4 million compromised hosts yielding 1.7 billion stolen credentials, and over 21,600 disclosed vulnerabilities in just six months. Beyond these staggering numbers, the on-demand session detailed something even more alarming: a fundamental shift in adversary operational tradecraft.

Here are the five critical shifts every cyber threat intelligence (CTI), Vulnerability Management, and SOC team needs to know.

The Death of Signal: Threat Actors are Shifting to “Private AI”

The public discussion surrounding criminal artificial intelligence (AI) has reached a critical inflection point. Early in the AI boom, Flashpoint observed threat actors collaboratively experiment across underground forums, jailbreaking commercial frontier models or advertising surface-level tools like WormGPT and DarkGPT.

Today, adversaries are shifting from public forums to running fine-tuned, open-source models locally on private servers, which greatly hampers traditional signature-based detection. Flashpoint analysts are now seeing attackers generate unique, highly tailored malware variants, flawless phishing lures, and custom exploit scripts at extremely low costs—completely offline and shielded from public monitoring.

“A few months ago, a lot of this was collaborative… public outsourcing. Now what we’re seeing is scarier: pre-packaged cybercrime models run locally on private infrastructure. Malicious code, exploit scripts, and targeted phishing are all being generated inside closed environments.”

Ian Gray, VP of Intelligence, Flashpoint

Weaponizing the Defender’s Own Tooling

Another eye-opening tactical insight shared during the session was how threat actors are repurposing defender infrastructure for automated initial access and extortion. In the webinar, we pointed to recent campaigns where adversaries specifically targeted misconfigurations and zero-day vulnerabilities inside open-source vulnerability scanners, secrets-detection tools, Kubernetes clusters, and Infrastructure-as-Code(IaC) environments.

What this means for defenders is that the attack surface is no longer bounded by traditional enterprise network boundaries: it extends directly into CI/CD pipelines, security orchestration tooling, and third-party SaaS integrations. Security teams are finding themselves in a race against attackers who use automated scanning scripts to weaponize vulnerabilities in the security tools themselves.

The Global Infostealer Threat and Identity-First Attacks

Flashpoint tracked 7.4 million hosts compromised by infostealers in H1 2026—a 27% increase period-over-period—harvesting 1.7 billion credentials and identity information.

While the top infostealer strains remain familiar, law enforcement operations have created vacuums that competitors rapidly fill.

Threat actors are leveraging drive-by downloads, watering holes, and pirated software packages to plant stealers. Once a machine is compromised, the logs capture corporate SSO credentials, active browser cookies, VPN keys, and SaaS session tokens. This enables adversaries to simply log in without having to leverage complex technical exploits.

The Structural Failure of CVE/NVD and the Importance of KEV

The Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) and National Vulnerability Database (NVD) have failed to keep pace with the velocity of AI-assisted vulnerability discovery. As such, vulnerability management teams are facing significant operational delays.

Metric	Flashpoint GTIR Midyear H1 2026 Data	Operational Impact
Total Disclosures	21,667	Remediation volume exceeds defender bandwidth.
Exploit Availability	19% (4,015 CVEs)	Functional code is ready before patches are deployed.
Public Catalog Lag	Growing Backlog (NVD/KEV)	Delay in official scoring leaves teams blind to active risk.

Therefore, waiting for NVD enrichment before prioritizing a patch is a dangerous strategy. To compensate, security teams require Vulnerability Intelligence (VI) that provides primary-source confirmation of weaponization, exploit availability, and actionable mitigation guidance long before public databases update.

Ransomware Evolution: From Encryption to Cloud Extortion

Ransomware-as-a-Service (RaaS) activity surged by 45% period-over-period, reaching 6,256 verified victim postings on data leak sites. However, total on-chain payout revenue dropped by 8% to $820 million, with victim pay-rates hitting a record low of 28%.

Faced with declining payouts and resilient enterprise backups, extortion syndicates are adapting. Rather than relying exclusively on technical file-encrypting malware, groups are executing pure data extortion campaigns—frequently targeting cloud platforms or extracting data through third-party vendor access.

Protect Your Organization Using Flashpoint

Defending against machine-speed attacks requires moving beyond reactive, post-incident telemetry. Flashpoint arms security, CTI, and vulnerability management teams with the primary-source intelligence required to preempt adversary operations:

• Unrivaled Deep & Dark Web Visibility: Flashpoint’s Primary Source Collection actively monitors closed criminal communities, illicit Telegram channels, and private forums, giving you early warning when threat actors build custom AI toolkits or trade credentials targeting your organization.
• Comprehensive Vulnerability Intelligence (VI): Flashpoint tracks zero-days and vulnerability disclosures independently, delivering immediate exploit availability data and threat-informed prioritization so you patch what actually matters.
• Continuous Compromised Credential Monitoring: Instantly surface exposed enterprise credentials, active session tokens, and stealer logs tied to your domain or third-party supply chain before they lead to an account takeover (ATO).

Request a demo, or watch the full on-demand webinar to explore the data shaping today’s risk landscape.

See Flashpoint in Action

Blogs

Blog

The Evolution of Hacktivism in Hybrid Warfare: Modern Tactics and Real-World Impact

In this post we examine how modern hacktivism has evolved into a tool of global hybrid warfare, analyzing crowdsourced attack tactics, media-driven propaganda, and real-world impacts across Ukraine, the Middle East, European Union, and NATO nations.

Hacktivism used to be perceived as digital graffiti, with lone-wolf threat actors defacing government websites or temporarily crashing banking portals to make a political point. However, Flashpoint is tracking a fundamental shift in how these groups operate.

Modern hacktivism is evolving into a disciplined component of global hybrid warfare, capable of bridging digital disruptions with tangible real-world impact. Today, these operations blur the line between volunteer activism and coordinated state interest, leveraging crowdsourced infrastructure to disrupt critical utilities, manipulate media narratives, and target public infrastructure on a global scale. Unpacking these modern hacktivist collectives reveals what their tactics look like in practice and their far-reaching consequences across dozens of nations.

What is Hacktivism?

Hacktivism is the use of cyberattacks to promote or advance a particular political or social cause, leveraging a wide range of tactics such as website defacement, distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks, and data breaches. Modern hacktivist collectives serve as the loud, high-visibility arm of cyber conflict—frequently aligning with state geopolitical interests, as seen most prominently in recent pro-Russian operations and Iranian-aligned cyber campaigns.

These pro-Russian hacktivist groups, such as NoName057 and Killnet, alongside pro-Iranian collectives and proxy ecosystems like Handala Hack, often react to the news cycle and target countries designated by state media or ideological narratives as enemies. As such, modern hacktivist campaigns are opportunistic and tied to global events—from the escalation in the Middle East following military operations like Operation Epic Fury, to the Milan-Cortina Winter Olympics and new aid packages to Ukraine. These groups’ justification narratives typically mirror state messaging.

Modern Tactics: Gamifying Cyber Warfare

In tracking modern hacktivist groups, Flashpoint analysts identified a new method these groups are utilizing to convert ordinary devices into tools for hybrid warfare—the gamification of cyberattacks. Flashpoint has observed groups like NoName057 turning DDoS attacks into community-based “patriotic online games,” such as their “DDoSia Project,” with participants earning military-style ranks and cryptocurrency rewards for overloading the websites of government institutions, banks, and various infrastructure across various countries.

This model has enabled the scaling of operations by utilizing a large, low-skilled participant base rather than having to rely on sophisticated technical tradecraft. The model’s decentralized structure and ideological appeal continue to pose a significant challenge for international law enforcement.

The Propaganda Engine: Media Amplification and Validation

Beyond technical disruptions, publicity is the primary currency of modern hacktivism. Hacktivist groups demonstrate a consistent pattern of media-seeking behavior and self-promotion, likely intended to amplify their perceived impact and reinforce notoriety within the broader cyber threat landscape. Many of these groups repeatedly repost media coverage and news articles referencing themselves.

This serves as a curated self-promotion mechanism, allowing the group to selectively showcase external validation of its operations, including coverage from mainstream and security-focused outlets, to its followers. This behavior aligns with a broader trend observed with especially pro-Russian hacktivist collectives, in which media visibility is treated as a measure of operational success independent of verified technical impact. It also serves as a deliberate tactic for engagement and recruitment that reinforces “patriotic” branding and sustains participant morale and visibility.

Beyond Propaganda: Aligning Cyber Disruption with Military Objectives

In some cases, the digital targeting of hacktivist collectives is more aligned with kinetic objectives, rather than public perception or propaganda initiatives. This is especially true for Iranian-aligned hacktivists and proxy groups who are more deeply intertwined with military operations in the Middle East. These groups have expanded their operations from website disruptions into claims of large-scale data wipers, extortion, and cyberattacks targeting key infrastructure across the Gulf.

The Far Reach of Modern Hacktivism

Major geopolitical flashpoints in the Middle East have triggered waves of hacktivist activity that has spread across North America, with threat actors targeting supply chains, financial infrastructure, and operational technology and control systems.

Simultaneously, pro-Russian hacktivist groups, particularly NoName057, have been extremely prolific within the last year—carrying out two major illicit campaigns heavily targeting Ukraine, which then spilled over to more than 30 nations globally. The following breakdown contains statistics and targeting dynamics of pro-Russian hacktivist groups observed between July 2025 and 2026:

The Continuous Campaign Against Ukraine

Ukraine has been the primary target for pro-Russian hacktivist groups who seek to damage Ukrainian infrastructure and morale. Anti-Ukrainian content is constantly distributed through dedicated per-language channels, making it the most linguistically developed target spanning six languages. Involved channels each post near-identical translated content within minutes to hours of the Russian original, down to the same image file with identical SHA1 hashes, which suggests a sustained propaganda distribution operation.

This has resulted in alleged data breaches impacting Ukrainian General Staff, military enlistment offices, medical, and morgue databases to push a casualty-count narrative. It also has resulted in the defacement or disruption of websites of regional capitals and administrative centers, energy plants, water and power-adjacent infrastructure, and many more.

Spilling Over: Impact Across EU and NATO Allies

However, Ukraine is not the sole casualty of modern hacktivism. Recent pro-Russian hacktivist campaigns have spread to other EU nations and NATO members. Germany, the United Kingdom, and Spain have been observed to be priority targets, with threat actors targeting public transportation, federal and security agencies, municipal government and utilities, financial markets, and other infrastructure. In some cases, hacktivist campaigns manifest in the real-world, with physical sticker drives on municipal streets, alongside doxxing operations releasing alleged personal data and automated scans hijacking exposed CCTV camera systems across Europe.

Defend Against the New Wave of Hacktivism Using Flashpoint

As hacktivist operations continue to blur the boundary between digital disruption and real-world interference, organizations can no longer view DDoS attacks or low-level intrusions as simple background noise. Protecting critical assets requires proactive visibility into threat actor networks, early detection of targeting narratives, and primary source threat intelligence.

Request a demo today to see how Flashpoint provides actionable intelligence to help security teams, government agencies, and infrastructure providers identify, monitor, and mitigate emerging hacktivist campaigns before they impact operations.

See Flashpoint in Action

Blogs

Blog

Insider Threat Report: Dark Web Recruitment & Access Trends

Flashpoint’s monthly analysis of insider threat recruitment, illicit access advertising, and threat actor activity targeting enterprise environments.

Unknowingly, a member of key personnel is living two separate lives. On the clock, they are a highly-trusted systems administrator, but in their personal time, they moonlight on the deep and dark web, advertising their trust and access to the highest bidder. One day, they get a simple offer: $15,000 in the crypto of their choice to approve a single push notification at 2 AM. They accept. By morning, the attacker walks away  with active domain admin credentials without the need for malware or cracking firewalls.

This is just one example of how insider threats lead to modern enterprise breaches. This year, Flashpoint uncovered 7,282 unique insider threat posts, with an average of 34 unique posts being posted daily. As perimeter security, EDR coverage, and other security tools mature, threat actors are finding it faster—and cheaper—to target the human element and simply buy an insider’s credentials or pay an employee to open the front door.

In a threat landscape where identity is becoming the primary attack surface, monitoring illicit marketplaces and recruitment efforts is critical. This new monthly report leverages Flashpoint’s Primary Source Collection (PSC) to analyze insider threat tactics, tracking active recruitment and advertising on dark web forums and encrypted networks.

The Insider Threat Landscape: July 2026

In July 2026, Flashpoint analysts identified a total of 12,653 insider posts. These communications include both threat actors attempting to recruit insiders in target organizations, as well as insiders advertising their services on illicit forums and marketplaces.

Of these total communications, Flashpoint observed 1,132 unique posts in July 2026.

Where Insider Threat Activity is Concentrated

Historically, the Telecommunications, Retail, and Financial industries are most adversely affected by insider threat activity. However, July 2026 findings noticeably deviate from this trend. Flashpoint found 58.6% of total insider threat posts affected “Other” industries—suggesting adversaries are diversifying their target base. Threat actors may be attempting to recruit within supply chain partners, logistic hubs, manufacturing platforms, and specialized service providers to find alternative entry points into target networks.

The following table shows a breakdown of unique insider posts by industry in July 2026:

Industry	Posts
Other	663
Financial	150
Retail	112
Technology	84
Telecom	74
Public Sector	43
Healthcare	3
Media	3
Total	1,132

Insider Threats: Recruiting vs. Advertising

Active insider threats work in two ways: an insider is “recruited” by a malicious outside party, or a malicious insider “advertises” their access and skills to an interested threat actor. Regardless, by leveraging this connection, insiders assist adversaries by exfiltrating valuable data, installing malware, sabotaging IT systems, or performing SIM swaps.

In July 2026, Flashpoint found that over 75% of unique threat actor posts came from insiders advertising their access to malicious third parties. This indicates a highly motivated internal threat landscape where disgruntled employees actively seek out buyers for corporate data and network entry points.

Protect Against Insider Threats Using Flashpoint

Insider threats are inherently difficult to detect using internal security controls alone because the malicious activity relies on valid credentials and legitimate access privileges. Relying solely on internal logs means security teams often only detect an insider threat after data exfiltration or system sabotage has already occurred.

Flashpoint protects organizations against insider threats through our Primary Source Collection (PSC) and specialized intelligence platforms:

• External Threat Intelligence & Early Warning: Flashpoint monitors deep and dark web forums, invite-only threat communities, and encrypted chat platforms to identify employee solicitations, stolen corporate domain mentions, and active recruitment attempts before an intrusion develops.
• Identity Protection & Infostealer Tracking: By tracking illicit marketplaces and infostealer activity, Flashpoint identifies compromised corporate credentials and active session tokens, preventing threat actors from utilizing purchased access.
• User & Entity Behavior Context: Flashpoint’s intelligence equips SOC, Security Operations, and Risk Management teams with adversary TTPs, enabling security operations to look for anomalous data downloads, off-hours access, or unauthorized software installation.

To learn more about how Flashpoint can help protect your enterprise from insider risk and monitor illicit underground communities, Request a Demo Today.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is the Flashpoint Insider Threat Report?

The Flashpoint Insider Threat Report is a monthly intelligence brief that analyzes trends, volume, targeted industries, and tactics surrounding insider threat recruitment and illicit access advertising on the deep web, dark web, and encrypted chat channels.

How does Flashpoint collect insider threat data?

Flashpoint collects data using its Primary Source Collection (PSC) engine, which actively monitors thousands of dark web forums, illicit marketplaces, and underground chat networks where threat actors and malicious insiders communicate.

What is the difference between insider recruitment and insider advertising?

Insider recruitment occurs when an external cybercriminal attempts to entice a corporate employee into assisting with a cyberattack. Insider advertising occurs when an employee or contractor proactively lists their legitimate access or services for sale on illicit marketplaces.

See Flashpoint in Action

Blogs

Blog

Navigating AI-Driven Cyber Threats: Insights from Flashpoint’s 2026 GTIR Midyear Edition

In this post, we preview the critical findings of Flashpoint’s Global Threat Intelligence Report: 2026 Midyear Edition.

In the first half of 2026, the global threat landscape reached a clear operational inflection point: threat operations have fundamentally transitioned from human-led campaigns to machine-speed, AI-driven exploitation. As threat actors gain commoditized access to open-source AI technologies and actively deploy automated, safeguard-free tooling locally on private infrastructure, organizations face an accelerating hybrid risk environment.

Flashpoint’s Global Threat Intelligence Report: 2026 Midyear Edition

The Flashpoint Global Threat Intelligence Report: 2026 Midyear Edition anchors security leaders—from threat intelligence, vulnerability management, to executive leadership—in the data required to navigate this evolving threat landscape. Covering the period from January 1 to June 30, 2026, the report delivers timely insights backed by Flashpoint’s proprietary primary-source collection from over 3.9 petabytes of continuously monitored illicit sources.

Our midyear findings reveal several key metrics that highlight the speed and scale of the H1 2026 threat landscape:

• 22M+ threat actor posts discussed, shared, or advertised artificial intelligence toolkits for criminal deployment.
• 1.7B credentials and identity data points extracted across more than 7.4M unique compromised hosts globally.
• Nearly one-in-five (19%) of all vulnerability disclosures dropped with ready-made, functional exploit code.
• 45% period-over-period surge in Ransomware-as-a-Service (RaaS), with total victim volume reaching 6,256 even as victim payout rates dropped to a historic low of 28%.

Download the Flashpoint Global Threat Intelligence Report: 2026 Midyear Edition to gain:

1. A Clear Understanding of the Convergence Between AI and Cyber Threats
   From generating flawless phishing campaigns to automating vulnerability scanning and code obfuscation, discover how adversaries are optimizing for speed and cost-efficiency — utilizing AI as a force multiplier in their various illicit campaigns.
2. A Comprehensive Top-Down View of the Evolving Threat Landscape
   Gain full visibility of the threat landscape with Flashpoint’s primary-source collections and real-time threat intelligence.
3. Strategies for Proactive Defense and Risk Mitigation
   Move your organization beyond reactive incident response by leveraging Flashpoint’s comprehensive threat intelligence. Gain the foresight needed to strengthen defenses and optimize your security posture.

“AI is compressing the time between opportunity and exploitation. Capabilities that once took significant expertise, coordination, and time to develop are becoming faster to build, easier to scale, and harder to detect. Security teams are facing an adversary ecosystem that can use AI to iterate at unprecedented speed — the only way to keep pace is with primary-source intelligence that surfaces adversary behavior before attacks unfold.”

Josh Lefkowitz, Flashpoint Co-Founder & CEO

The Four Driving Themes Shaping the 2026 Threat Landscape

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Threats

During the first half of 2026, Flashpoint captured over 22M illicit posts discussing or advertising AI for criminal-related activities. By stripping ethical safeguards, custom malicious LLMs allow unsophisticated threat actors to automate complex phases of the attack lifecycle, including target profiling, malware evasion script creation, and zero-day exploit generation.

Information-Stealing Malware Threats

Infostealer malware harvested 1.7 billion credentials across 7.4 million compromised systems in H1 2026 alone, turning digital identity into the main entry point for enterprise intrusions.

Vulnerability Intelligence and Patching Management

19% (4,015) of all H1 2026 vulnerability disclosures arrived with ready-made exploit code. Adversaries deploy automated replication scripts almost immediately upon disclosure, eliminating manual remediation windows.

Ransomware Operations, Multi-Extortion Cartels, and Financial Risk

Despite a 45% surge in victim volume (6,256 overall), total on-chain revenue fell by 8% to $820M. Improved enterprise backups and incident response have driven payout rates down to 28%, prompting syndicates to demand larger sums from paying victims.

Proactive Security in 2026 and Beyond

The data shows that traditional enterprise security organizations are struggling to keep pace with modern threat cycles that are accelerated by illicit uses of AI. This continued convergence of AI engines and initial access vectors have further compressed attack timelines, making it nearly impossible for security teams to defend against them—especially if they are limited by traditional approaches to threat intelligence.

Equipping your team with primary-source threat intelligence is critical for protecting critical assets in 2026. Download the Flashpoint Global Threat Intelligence Report: 2026 Midyear Edition to gain the visibility and strategic clarity required to defend your organization.

See Flashpoint in Action

Blogs

Blog

Data Center Physical Security: Mitigating FPV Drone Threats

In this post, we explore how shifting online sentiment and low-cost First-Person View (FPV) technology are creating an unprecedented airborne threat vector for critical data center infrastructure.

Data centers have become a driving force in the modern digital economy—powering cloud services, global enterprise operations, and the explosive growth of artificial intelligence (AI). However, due to growing negative public discourse, data centers are facing a new physical threat vector: low-cost, payload-capable drones.

According to Flashpoint research, shifting public sentiment surrounding AI development, combined with the extreme accessibility of First-Person View (FPV) drone technology, is creating an unprecedented hybrid threat to physical critical infrastructure.

Here is what you need to know about this emerging threat landscape and what it means for physical security teams protecting critical assets.

Growing Online Sentiment and Anti-AI Hostility

Organizations tasked with protecting critical data infrastructure need to understand that this growing threat is not developing in a vacuum. Across both clearnet and Deep and Dark Web (DDW) forums, online discussions regarding data center expansion have intensified, with a significant portion bordering on hostility. Key drivers of negative sentiment include:

• Environmental & Local Concerns: Debates over massive energy consumption, water usage, noise, and localized quality-of-life impacts.
• Backlash against AI: Discontent directed at tech companies driving the rapid deployment of AI infrastructure.
• Perceived Regulatory Inaction: Frustration among activists who feel local and state governments are failing to halt or regulate new construction.

While much of the current online chatter currently revolves around organized protests and aspirational threats, Flashpoint analysts note a troubling uptick in rhetoric targeting corporate tech executives and data center infrastructure.

The Evolving Data Center Threat Landscape

Data centers across the United States are seeing a rapid increase in physical and operational threats. Vandalism and property destruction have become common topics in illicit online spaces when discussing data centers and their impact on everyday life. Flashpoint research highlights two primary force multipliers driving this threat:

DIY Drones & Low Barriers to Entry

Historically, kinetic airborne strikes required specialized equipment and advanced training. Today, that barrier to entry has virtually collapsed. Rapid improvements in drone manufacturing have made payload-capable aircraft extraordinarily accessible. In today’s market, an individual can purchase an off-the-shelf system or assemble a customized drone for under $1,000 USD.

Inspiration for these tactics is also readily available; widespread footage of FPV drones operating in conflict zones like Ukraine has demonstrated to online audiences how easily and effectively low-cost aircrafts can be weaponized. Threat actors view this as a high-yield investment, especially given the capability to deploy multiple drones in quick succession.

Protests as Cover for Physical Operations

Organized protests to stop data center development remain prevalent, and large crowds can easily overwhelm contracted security personnel, diminishing the effectiveness of a response to an aerial threat. A malicious actor could use a protest at a data center as cover to cause physical damage to the facility while security resources are spread thin. For example, on July 19, 2026, activists threw balloons filled with acetic acid at a data center construction site in Amsterdam. In its aftermath, Flashpoint analysts captured individuals online discussing the use of drones to deliver similar payloads.

Regulatory and Defense Measure Challenges

Current federal regulations limit the ability to effectively deter or stop an incoming drone threat because the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) classifies drones as aircraft. Therefore, organizations specializing in the physical security of data centers will likely need to increase their operational capabilities and advise companies on potential hardening to deter attacks.

Traditional foot patrols and monitoring perimeter access control points will be insufficient in mitigating overhead threats. The majority of data centers are currently not equipped with the specialized Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Systems (C-UAS) equipment, specialized training, or legal authorization needed to respond effectively to airborne incursions.

Protect Critical Infrastructure Using Flashpoint

Defending against aerial incursions requires moving from reactive security to proactive, intelligence-led physical protection. Physical security teams cannot afford to rely solely on ground-level surveillance when threat actors are leveraging open-source hardware and coordinating online.

Flashpoint Physical Security Intelligence (PSI) equips security teams and executive protection units with real-time visibility into emerging physical threats before they reach your perimeter:

• Early Warning Indicator Tracking: Monitor chatter across mainstream social platforms, fringe networks, and illicit DDW forums to identify probe attempts or the targeting of specific data center facilities and executives.
• Geospatial Threat Mapping: Overlay real-time intelligence onto physical assets using customizable geofencing to detect active incidents, protest activity, and drone-related discussions near sensitive sites.
• Actionable Counter-UAS Insights: Receive finished intelligence and analyst support to benchmark threat actor TTPs (Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures), enabling your organization to harden physical structures and justify operational investments.

To learn more about how Flashpoint helps safeguard critical infrastructure, executives, and high-value assets against physical and cyber threats, request a demo today.

See Flashpoint in Action

Blogs

Blog

Beyond Cyber: How CTI Teams Are Solving Converged Threat Use Cases

In this post we explain how cyber threat intelligence teams are being expected to take on physical risk, how tradecraft overlaps, and how Flashpoint bridges the gap.

For years, the mandate of Cyber Threat Intelligence (CTI) teams has been narrow and well understood: track cyber threat actors, monitor for indicators of compromise, and defend the network. However, that mandate is widening. In today’s interconnected threat landscape, more CTI teams are being tasked with physical security, geopolitical and protective intelligence. Whether that is monitoring and securing executive travel, a facility, or an event, data shows that this new informal expansion is becoming an industry-wide shift.

What the Data Says About Cyber-Physical Security Convergence

The SANS 2026 CTI Survey affirms that CTI programs are being asked to cover more ground, including physical and geographical risk, without a proportional increase in headcount. Survey findings additionally emphasize that the risks CTI teams navigate increasingly span cyber, physical, and geopolitical domains simultaneously, rather than staying contained to the network.

Industry research confirms this shift from every angle:

• ASIS International: The security standards body developed formal Enterprise Security Risk Management (ESRM) guidance specifically to address how organizations struggle to unify physical and cyber risk into a single program with shared visibility.
• 2026 Physical Security Trends: Market analysis consistently identifies cyber-physical convergence and unified security operations as mainstream mandates rather than fringe concepts.
• International Security Journal: Analysis highlights a fundamental shift from reactive to proactive security, driven by the reality that digital and physical systems are now so closely linked that a compromise on one side rarely stays contained.

Taken together, the picture is consistent across independent sources: intelligence teams are being pulled toward physical and human risk, and most organizations are still early in closing the gap between that mission and the tooling built to support it.

Why Physical Security is a Natural Extension

It might seem like a jump from tracking ransomware to monitoring executive travel risk, but the underlying methodology is similar. Both rely on:

1. Situational awareness: Understanding the context around an event, whether digital or physical.
2. Data aggregation: Bringing together disparate sources into a coherent picture.
3. Predictive analysis: Identifying indicators of risk before they become incidents.

CTI analysts are already well positioned to bridge this gap. When an executive’s safety or a physical location’s security is at risk, the earliest warning signs are frequently digital via social media sentiment, localized chatter, and open-source discussions. Treating physical security as an adjacent mission means pointing skills a team already has at a new question, rather than starting net-new.

The Strategic Advantage: Breaking Down Operational Silos

Bringing these missions together has a practical benefit beyond the workload—it prevents security silos where digital and physical intelligence teams operate in isolation. When the same team that monitors cyber threats also informs physical security decisions, the organization achieves a more complete view of risk, reducing the chance that threats fall between the gaps of two disconnected functions.

Extending CTI to Physical Security with Flashpoint

Facing this convergence head-on doesn’t require a new platform, a new vendor evaluation, or creating a new discipline. Organizations leveraging Flashpoint Ignite already have the foundation needed to seamlessly extend their visibility into physical and geopolitical threat landscapes.

Using both Flashpoint Cyber Threat Intelligence (CTI) and Flashpoint Physical Security Intelligence (PSI), security teams can answer two essential questions: “what is this threat actor doing” and “what is happening right now around this specific person or place.” Both draw on much of the same underlying data and OSINT tradecraft, so extending into physical security only requires a change in Intelligence Requirements, not mastery of new systems or tools.

With Flashpoint PSI, organizations gain real-time access to mainstream sources where conversations about fast-moving events tend to surface first, plus a geospatial layer that maps that activity to a specific place. Analysts can also draw boundaries around geographic locations to monitor mentions of an executive within that area, or observe a venue on event day, seeing relevant activity as it surfaces. All of this can be accomplished using plain language, removing the need to learn secondary query syntax or lengthy manual processes to get started.

Navigating the Future of Converged Intelligence

The distinction between cyber and physical intelligence will likely keep blurring and Flashpoint is helping security teams on the ground level integrate these two functions. CTI teams that take on physical security as part of their mission shouldn’t be expected to abandon their core discipline. Instead, they should be given the workflows to apply it to a wider set of questions, using tools built to extend rather than replace the way they already work.

See how Flashpoint supports converged cyber and physical missions from a single platform. Request a demo to see what this could look like for your team.

See Flashpoint in Action

Blogs

Blog

Flashpoint EASM: Industry-Leading Vulnerability Intelligence, Mapped to Your Internet-Facing Assets

Catch exposures before threat actors do. Here is how Flashpoint’s new module works and the top questions answered from our live demo.

Security teams don’t lose ground because they lack tools. They lose ground because they can’t see everything an attacker can.

This is the challenge we addressed in our latest Demo Day webinar introducing Flashpoint External Attack Surface Management (EASM), a new module inside our Ignite platform that gives security teams a continuous, attacker’s-eye view of their external attack surface, mapped directly to our proprietary vulnerability intelligence.

The Problem: Too Much Noise, Not Enough Context

Most security teams are dealing with three compounding problems:

1. Disconnected Data: Vulnerability data lives isolated from actual infrastructure. Knowing a CVE exists doesn’t tell you whether it affects your active environment.
2. Alert Fatigue: CVSS-only prioritization treats every “critical” score as an emergency, even when an asset isn’t internet-facing or exploitable.
3. Accelerated Threat Cycles: AI is speeding up how quickly threat actors discover and exploit vulnerabilities, making manual tracking impossible.

Layer on top of that the reality that most teams still track their perimeter with spreadsheets or a static CMDB, and you get a widening gap between what security teams think they own and what is actually exposed. This gap has a name: shadow IT.

Shadow IT Is a Growing Blind Spot

Shadow IT covers the domains, subdomains, and cloud instances that get spun up to get work done, without IT’s knowledge or approval. It’s not a fringe issue. According to Gartner, by next year, 75% of employees will be acquiring, modifying, or creating technology outside their IT department’s visibility, up from 41% just a few years ago.

These unmanaged assets sit outside inventory and outside the reach of any scanner that only looks at what’s already known. That makes them exactly the kind of infrastructure an attacker finds first, and exactly the blind spot Flashpoint EASM is built to close.

What is Flashpoint EASM?

Flashpoint EASM gives security teams a continuous, attacker’s-eye view of their external attack surface and maps that view directly to Flashpoint’s vulnerability intelligence. Instead of your team asking “are we affected by this?”, every time a new vulnerability is disclosed, EASM answers that question continuously, often before the answer is obvious anywhere else.

Flashpoint EASM is built on three capabilities that work together:

Continuous Asset Discovery

Flashpoint EASM continuously discovers and monitors internet-facing assets: domains, subdomains, and IPs. New discoveries flow into a dedicated triage inbox, so security teams can quickly accept and focus on what’s actually relevant instead of drowning in noise.

Vulnerability Mapping

Every discovered exposure is mapped to Flashpoint’s proprietary vulnerability intelligence, including our pre-NVD findings, KEV (Known Exploited Vulnerabilities) status, ransomware likelihood, and exploit maturity. This provides organizations with immediate context into the vulnerabilities that pose the most risk.

Customizable Alerting

Using EASM, security teams get alerted to the exact moment a new asset or vulnerability is detected. This alert is fully customizable by severity and is available inside one unified workflow via Flashpoint Ignite.

Discover, map, and alert. This loop gives organizations an intelligence-led view of their perimeter, so they can proactively outpace threat actors instead of being forced to react.

How Flashpoint EASM Works

In our live demo, Flashpoint walked through the EASM workflow, which can be found under “Assets and Identifiers” in the Ignite Platform.

Here’s how it works:

Step 1: Submit Seed Keywords

Onboarding starts with keywords, meaning domain and IP address assets your organization actually owns. Any already set up asset is automatically surfaced in Flashpoint Ignite—such as through our compromised credential monitoring—ensuring no duplicated setup work.

Step 2: Triage Discovered Assets

Once keywords are approved, EASM iterates on them to surface additional related infrastructure, domains and IPs alike, along with a discovery graph showing exactly how each asset was found. That traceability makes it easy to judge relevance at a glance.

Every discovered asset lands in one of three statuses:

• Owned: Assets in your tech stack. EASM continues discovering related infrastructure from these and links vulnerabilities to them.
• External: Assets relevant to you, but where you don’t need further discovery, just vulnerability linkage.
• Discarded: Assets you don’t need, removed from the triage feed entirely.

Step 3: Review the Vulnerable Assets Overview

In the main dashboard, the Vulnerable Assets page, security professionals can view total asset count, number of exposures, unique vulnerabilities affecting them, and total potentially vulnerable assets—in addition to criticality breakdowns for both domains and IPs.

From there, security teams can drill into:

1. Unique vulnerabilities, filterable by CVE or severity
2. Domains with vulnerabilities, showing exposure counts by severity and the last exposure date
3. Individual asset detail pages, showing products, versions, vendors, and ports, with vulnerabilities linked directly to the specific product version affected

Diving deeper into a surfaced vulnerability provides technical descriptions, solution information, and other affected products. Additionally, Flashpoint’s vulnerability database includes over 105,000 pre-NVD vulnerabilities, giving vulnerability management teams actionable indicators well before they show up in public sources.

Step 4: Set Up Alerting

Flashpoint EASM gives teams full control over signal versus noise. Whether that means getting notified the moment a critical vulnerability is disclosed, or reviewing a daily summary of your own schedule, EASM offers two alert types:

• Asset discovery alerts, either per-asset or as a daily rollup
• Vulnerability alerts, filterable by criticality (critical, high, medium, low), with the option for in-app only or in-app plus email, and available as a daily rollup

Why Flashpoint EASM Matters

1. Flashpoint EASM isn’t just another scanning tool. The intelligence underneath it is the differentiator: discovery tells you what’s out there, Flashpoint provides the much-needed context to tell you what’s dangerous right now.
2. The intelligence includes coverage that can’t readily be found elsewhere: Flashpoint’s independently researched data includes pre-NVD findings, improved KEV coverage, ransomware risk scoring, and exploit maturity.
3. It closes a blind spot teams have quietly lived with: EASM closes shadow IT gaps and surfaces assets sitting outside inventory entirely.

Flashpoint External Attack Surface Management gives security teams a continuous, intelligence-led view of everything a threat actor sees, so organizations can find and fix exposures before they’re exploited. To see it in action in a personalized walkthrough of your own environment, reach out to schedule a demo.

EASM Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs): What Security Teams Want to Know

What makes Flashpoint EASM different from other EASM solutions?

Most EASM tools stop at raw discovery, telling you an asset exists without telling you whether it matters. Flashpoint EASM pairs continuous asset discovery with a triage inbox to cut noise, then maps every asset directly to Flashpoint’s proprietary vulnerability intelligence, all natively inside Ignite alongside CTI and Vulnerability Intelligence. That combination means prioritization is based on real attacker activity, not just an asset inventory, giving remediation teams the exact context they need to proactively address risk.

What makes Flashpoint’s vulnerability intelligence unique?

Flashpoint’s database covers 400,000+ vulnerabilities, including 105,000+ not found in NVD or CVE, often surfaced up to two weeks earlier than public sources. Every entry is enriched with threat-informed context like EPSS scores, ransomware likelihood, exploit maturity, and MITRE ATT&CK mapping, then reviewed by human analysts, not just automated feeds. The result is prioritization based on real-world exploitation risk rather than CVSS alone.

Can existing monitored assets be imported into Flashpoint EASM?
Yes. EASM integrates closely with Flashpoint’s existing assets module, so assets already set up (for example, for compromised credential monitoring) surface automatically during onboarding.

Is there a limit on discovered assets, beyond the 30-keyword cap?
No. The 30-keyword limit only applies to initial seed keywords, to keep that starting set relevant. Once assets are marked owned or external, there’s no cap on ongoing discovery.

How does continuous polling compare to traditional scanning?
Traditional scanners give you a point-in-time snapshot. EASM continuously discovers assets and vulnerabilities, giving you a moving view of your exposure, essentially the same view an attacker would have in real time.

Does EASM identify compound risk, where multiple weaknesses increase exploitability together?
The Vulnerable Assets view surfaces how many vulnerabilities are tied to a given asset, so teams can quickly spot assets carrying disproportionate risk and prioritize accordingly.

Does EASM overlap with SBOM alerting?
Not exactly. SBOM alerting monitors vulnerabilities in assets you already know about. EASM is focused on discovering the assets you don’t know about yet. Most mature security programs benefit from running both in tandem.

See Flashpoint in Action

Blogs

Blog

Demystifying The Com and Nihilistic Violent Extremism: What You Need To Know

In our latest webinar, we explore the rise of Nihilistic Violent Extremism and unpack the digital-to-physical threat landscape of The Com.

Most threat intelligence frameworks were built around clear, recognizable motives—advanced persistent threats seeking intelligence, financially motivated ransomware syndicates, or ideological extremists pursuing political or religious goals. However, security practitioners and physical security teams are facing a vastly different and highly volatile new vector on the threat landscape: Nihilistic Violent Extremism (NVE).

Operating across surface web platforms, niche gaming servers, and encrypted messaging channels, NVE actors seamlessly blend traditional cybercrime, physical violence, real-world property destruction, and severe digital extortion. 

In a recent Flashpoint webinar, our analysts took a deep dive into this complex digital threat, fully breaking down the inner mechanics of NVE, its warning indicators, and how cross-functional security teams can proactively monitor and mitigate these dangerous digital-to-physical threats.

Here are the core takeaways from our on-demand webinar that organizations need to understand.

What is Nihilistic Violent Extremism (NVE)?

Nihilistic Violent Extremism (NVE) defines criminal conduct driven by a deep misanthropy and a desire to trigger societal collapse through random acts of chaos, psychological cruelty, and violence. While casual observers might dismiss these activities as extreme “internet trolling” or adolescent angst, Flashpoint recognizes NVE as a digitized, accelerated evolution of long-standing extremist and occult philosophies.

NVE draws heavily from the Order of Nine Angles (O9A), a paramilitary philosophy originally established in the United Kingdom. Unlike traditional movements seeking political control, O9A advocates for the total destruction of modern civilization to force a return to social darwinism.

How NVE Transitioned from Ideological Literature to Gamified Online Terror

The transition of reclusive occult literature into digital networks followed a deliberate path of gamification. Threat actors stripped away the theological texts, replacing them with fast-paced, highly visual media designed to engage younger audiences on gaming platforms and encrypted messaging apps.

These repackaged materials were then adopted by the various groups within The Com, such as 764 and other scavenger cults. By wrapping graphic violence and extremist symbology in internet humor, these groups lower a recruit’s psychological defenses, accelerating their desensitization and drawing them rapidly into higher-harm activities.

Key Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTPs) of NVE

NVE networks represent a primary example of digital-to-physical convergence, where virtual harassment directly manifests as physical security risks. For NVE actors, violence that remains private is considered wasted effort—because their focus is on generating public fear, breaking taboos, and winning peer status polls, publicity is an operational requirement.

Recorded acts of violence serve as the primary currency across all three pillars of “The Com”. To build status, gain access to private channels, or enforce extortion, threat actors rely on a distinct set of operational tactics to create a societal environment of fear and discord, elaborated on in our expert webinar.

The Demographic Realities and Accessibility of NVE Groups

A critical takeaway from the webinar was the demographic profile and accessibility of NVE networks, with participants—both perpetrators and victims—being overwhelmingly young, typically ranging from ages 11 to 22, with a high concentration of juveniles. Additionally, because extreme coercion and abuse are normalized in these spaces, victims are frequently pressured into becoming enforcers against others as a condition to cease their own victimization.

Because of this young demographic, most NVE actors do not rely solely on Tor hidden services. Instead, they recruit, coordinate, and broadcast activities across mainstream social media, open messaging apps, and popular online gaming platforms.

Protect Against NVE Risk Using Flashpoint

Tracking a highly decentralized threat ecosystem where groups form, rename, and dissolve within hours requires specialized, multi-disciplinary intelligence capabilities. Flashpoint provides enterprise security teams, physical safety leads, and CTI analysts with the visibility required to identify and mitigate NVE activity.

To explore the complete webinar discussion, which includes deeper analyst breakdowns of threat actor activity, behavioral indicators, and enterprise mitigation strategies, watch the on-demand recording today.

See Flashpoint in Action

Blogs

Blog

The Flashpoint Method: Prioritizing Vulnerabilities in an Era of AI-Accelerated Discovery

We outline Flashpoint’s practical, repeatable framework for prioritizing vulnerabilities based on real-world risk, exploitability, and business impact.

Organizations are gaining new ways to identify vulnerabilities at scale, thanks to new generations of powerful AI models. However, security teams still face the same fundamental question: which vulnerabilities actually matter?

Vulnerability management teams have increasingly struggled to keep pace with growing disclosure volumes. From January 1, 2026 to June 30, 2026, Flashpoint tracked 21,667 vulnerabilities, an 8% period-over-period increase, with one-in-five containing publicly available exploit code at time of disclosure. At the same time, the gap between disclosure and exploitation continues to shrink, with some vulnerabilities weaponized in as little as 24 hours.

Flashpoint’s Method for Threat-Informed Vulnerability Prioritization

Recent developments such as Anthropic’s Mythos model have highlighted the growing potential for AI-assisted vulnerability discovery. As advances in code analysis enable researchers and organizations to identify software flaws at unprecedented speed and scale, the volume of discovered vulnerabilities is set to potentially increase significantly across software ecosystems.

That’s why we created this guide, The Flashpoint Method for Threat-Informed Vulnerability Prioritization, a practical, intelligence-driven framework designed to help vulnerability and exposure management teams cut through the AI-driven noise and focus on the vulnerabilities that matter most. By incorporating real-world exploitation activity, threat actor behavior, asset exposure, business context, and remediation considerations, organizations can make faster, more informed decisions and reduce risk more effectively.

Download to gain:

1. A clear, threat-informed prioritization framework: How to assess which vulnerabilities demand immediate attention, and why — moving beyond static severity scores alone.
2. Core and expanded prioritization checklists: Criteria spanning asset criticality, active exploitation, CVSS severity and ransomware risk, social risk and community chatter, business context, compensating controls, zero-day status, KEV inclusion, EPSS scoring, ease of remediation, and vulnerability age.
3. How to operationalize prioritization at AI scale: Insight into how Flashpoint’s vulnerability intelligence platform and analyst expertise help teams keep pace as AI-assisted discovery accelerates disclosure volume.

Prioritize Vulnerabilities More Effectively and Faster Using Flashpoint

While increased visibility into vulnerabilities is ultimately a positive for defenders, it amplifies a challenge security teams already face—separating which vulnerabilities represent meaningful risk to your environment and require immediate action.

Download The Flashpoint Method for Threat-Informed Vulnerability Prioritization to learn how Flashpoint’s vulnerability intelligence helps organizations triage, prioritize, and remediate risk more effectively.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

What is threat-informed vulnerability prioritization?

Threat-informed vulnerability prioritization is the process of evaluating vulnerabilities based on real-world risk rather than severity scores alone. It incorporates factors such as active exploitation, exploit availability, threat actor activity, asset exposure, business context, and remediation considerations to determine which vulnerabilities require immediate attention.

Why is vulnerability prioritization important?

Organizations face thousands of newly disclosed vulnerabilities each year, while security teams have limited time and resources to remediate them. Effective vulnerability prioritization helps organizations focus on the vulnerabilities most likely to be exploited and most likely to impact their environment.

How is AI changing vulnerability management?

AI-assisted code analysis is enabling researchers and organizations to identify software flaws faster and at greater scale. While increased visibility into vulnerabilities benefits defenders, it also increases the volume of vulnerabilities that security teams must evaluate, making effective prioritization even more important.

Why isn’t CVSS enough for vulnerability prioritization?

CVSS provides a standardized measure of technical severity, but it does not account for whether a vulnerability is actively being exploited, relevant to your environment, or likely to impact your business. Effective prioritization combines severity with threat intelligence and organizational context to assess real-world risk.

How does Flashpoint help organizations prioritize vulnerabilities?

Flashpoint combines analyst-driven vulnerability intelligence with real-world exploitation data, threat actor insights, asset exposure, and business context to help organizations identify the vulnerabilities that pose the greatest operational risk. This intelligence supports faster, more informed remediation decisions and operationalizes threat-informed vulnerability management at AI scale.

See Flashpoint in Action

Blogs

Blog

Understanding Illicit Ecosystems: Inside Rehub’s Rise as a Primary Ransomware Marketplace

As part of our ongoing series, Flashpoint intelligence tracks Rehub, breaking down its migration, infrastructure, and the various RaaS groups sponsoring and partnering with it.

What is Rehub?

Rehub, also known as ReHub or RehubCom, is a Russian-language cybercrime forum founded in August 2025 by a former XSS moderator following its shutdown in the summer of 2025. Rehub dedicates itself to the commercial and marketplace use of ransomware, while its counterpart, DamageLib, serves as a knowledge base archive and exchange.

Operating both on Clear Web domains and an onion domain, the forum positions itself as free from state and law enforcement interference, framing existing XSS iterations as compromised. After law enforcement seized the RAMP (RAMP4U) forum in January 2026, Rehub absorbed a significant portion of the displaced cybercriminal community and became one of the primary destinations for ransomware operators.

Who Are Known Members of Rehub?

There are many notable threat actors among Rehub moderators and users, including ransomware operators, vendors, and other prominent threat actors active across several illicit communities. Several current or ex-Rehub moderators were also maintainers of other illicit forums such as XSS, DamageLib, and RAMP.

Notably, Ransomware-as-a-Service (RaaS) groups such as DragonForce have maintained an active presence on the platform to market their affiliate programs. Flashpoint assesses that DragonForce is likely the forum’s primary sponsor or partner, as their banner is permanently displayed on the forum’s home page, with both logos merged—similar to its previous placement on RAMP. 

Other active RaaS include:

• The Gentlemen
• CHAOS ransomware
• Anubis
• LockBit
• DevMan

What Does Rehub Infrastructure Look Like?

As of July 2026, Flashpoint intelligence observes over 8,300 active users, 15,000 posts, and nearly 3,000 threads. Despite being free to join, Rehub practices a zero trust policy, which was established in mid-April 2026. Under this system, the forum restricts newly registered users from accessing any section other than its Sandbox. Users can also purchase paid upgrades:

• Premium status (gold rank): Costing US $100 per year, this rank grants distinctive color, custom title, nickname changes, unlimited post editing/deletion, extended signature, unlocks all hidden text regardless of post count, likes, join date, ability to bump commercial threads, and inherits all lower-tier perks. 
• Patron status (pink/magenta rank): Costing US $5,000 per year, this rank grants custom title editing, a personal profile link, custom styling for posts, profile, and postbit, and inherits all “Premium” perks.

What are the Various Rehub Forum Sections?

Rehub sections, similar to other forums, are grouped by major activities, separating the knowledge base from commerce and from general discussions.

Sandbox

Serves as an entry-level general discussion area and a place for community questions. Main activity consists of queries about operational security, introductory networking, and entry-level fraud or malware logistics.

Technical

Covers threads ranging from traditional network infrastructure vulnerabilities to emerging technologies such as AI jailbreaking and deepfake social engineering. Highly active, most communications focus on network vulnerabilities and carding.

Programming (Development)

This is a dedicated space for discussions on software engineering, system administration, and web optimization within the forum. Primary activities include sharing programming language tutorials, comparing backend technologies, and developing specialized automation tools.

Library

Serves as a repository of resources for the forum, hosting the most threads and community engagement. Users share operational materials, leaked databases, and utility software. Additionally, this section aggregates cybersecurity and tech industry news and articles.

Supermarket

This is a commercial section featuring ransomware affiliate programs, compromised network access, malware tools, stolen financial data, bulk spam infrastructure, forged documents, anonymous hosting, and crypto laundering services.

Arbitration

Serves as the forum’s internal justice system, where members resolve financial disputes and flag scammers. The “Black List” subsection functions as a public record of bad actors and scam sites.

Administration

This is where forum staff post announcements, policy updates, and operational notices, including rules, official domains, forum news, moderator applications, and 2FA requirements. Members use it to ask questions, request escrow services, propose features, and raise concerns about the forum’s public image.

Monitor Illicit Marketplaces Using Flashpoint

Flashpoint will continue to monitor Rehub’s marketplace activity and infrastructure updates. Rehub’s rapid evolution from a post-XSS refuge to a heavily sponsored ransomware marketplaces demonstrates the resilience of the cybercrime ecosystem. 

Positioning itself as the primary ransomware marketplace, Rehub has built a high-barrier, high-reward environment for sophisticated threat actors. Request a demo to learn how Flashpoint delivers visibility into illicit communities—empowering security teams to track threat actors, identify exposed assets, and mitigate ransomware risks.

See Flashpoint in Action

Blogs

Blog

Inside Qilin Ransomware: Custom Rust Loader and Kernel-Level EDR Killer

In this post we analyze Qilin ransomware’s new custom Rust loader, break down the inner workings of its sophisticated kernel-level EDR killer, and explore how organizations can defend against these aggressive defense evasion tactics. Flashpoint customers can access the full intelligence report—complete with deeper technical analysis and all associated IOCs—directly within Flashpoint Ignite.

Qilin ransomware is a highly active and sophisticated ransomware operation that has rapidly modernized its evasion techniques. Historically focused on file encryption, the ransomware-as-a-service (RaaS) group has expanded its operations to include aggressive, kernel-level defense evasion. By deploying a specialized toolkit, Qilin now focuses heavily on blinding and permanently disabling endpoint security products before its main ransomware payload is executed on a victim’s network.

Flashpoint has observed Qilin quietly deploying a previously unreported custom packer, which has been actively observed in wild samples since May 2024, with continuous use detected as recently as last month.

Here’s how Qilin works:

How Qilin Ransomware Uses a Custom Rust Loader for Reflective PE Loading

Flashpoint analysts observed a custom Rust-written loader that performs reflective Portable Executable (PE) loading of the ransomware payload. After deobfuscation, the code execution jumps to the newly unpacked executable within the same process, avoiding noisier process injection techniques. The following is an overview of the decompiled unpacking routine:

The unpacking routine then reads each DWORD from the embedded bytes, allocates it on the heap, and performs multiple mathematical operations to deobfuscate. Flashpoint notes that the calculations and values used were unique to each sample, but the underlying methodology remained the same.

Manually performing the calculations in the sample confirms the presence of the embedded binary, with the first deobfuscated DWORD yielding an ‘MZ’ header in little-endian format.

To better understand Qilin, Flashpoint analysts created an automated unpacker and configuration extraction script that uses CPU emulation to address the issue of unique calculations per sample. This script uses pattern matching to locate the unpacking routine within the binary. It then reads the disassembly, identifying specific points in the code at which emulation should start and stop.

Reading the disassembly directly avoids issues arising from hardcoded offsets, such as when threat actors add or remove code, or when the compiler introduces changes. Additionally, it provides a smaller set of instructions for emulation, avoiding WinAPI calls and other invalid memory errors that often occur when emulating a full binary.

After additional setup, including mapping the sample into the emulator’s memory and creating a fake heap, the unpacking routine runs successfully.

The script then performs configuration extraction from the deobfuscated bytes produced by the CPU emulation, achieving a 100% success rate.

How Qilin’s New EDR Killer Blinds Security Products

An additional update with Qilin is its new endpoint detection and response (EDR) killer, which Flashpoint found to be sold on illicit marketplaces for US $2,000. This is packed via the Shanya packer—which was sold on XSS for US $100 to US $150 back in 2024. The packer is highly sophisticated, and uses several techniques that make it difficult to analyze, such as junk code, application programming interface (API) hashing, IAT hooking, pattern scanning, and VEH code execution flow.

Once unpacked, the EDR killer starts by using dynamic API hashing and PE walking to resolve a number of useful NTAPI functions it will use throughout the process, and stores them in a structure located within the GdiHandleBuffer within the Process Environment Block (PEB).

The structure stored in the PEB itself looks as follows:

The API hashing algorithm is simple: it performs a bitwise OR of each character of the API name with hexadecimal value 0x20 to convert any and all uppercase characters to lowercase, then performing additional simple calculations.

The EDR killer compares the returned locale to a known locale blacklist to avoid attacking any Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) countries such as Russia and Belarus.

The malware then attempts to give itself the following privileges by dynamically resolving and calling RtlAdjustPrivilege():

• SE_PROF_SINGLE_PROCESS_PRIVILEGE
  • Required to gather profile information for a single process.
  • Used later to create a map of the victim machine’s physical memory space.
• SE_DEBUG_PRIVILEGE
  • Required to debug and adjust the memory of a process owned by another account.
• SE_LOAD_DRIVER_PRIVILEGE
  • Required to load or unload a device driver.

Abusing Vulnerabilities to Map Physical Memory

The EDR killer then writes a vulnerable driver to disk and loads this driver via Service Manager. This driver is the ThrottleStop driver from TechPowerUp LLC’s free and legitimate application of the same name, used to bypass CPU throttling. However, the driver suffers from a vulnerability, allowing the malware to map physical memory to kernel-mode virtual memory to perform direct kernel read and write operations.

Qilin weaponizes this vulnerability by feeding its EDR killer physical memory addresses, as the driver relies on the API to map physical memory to a kernel-mode virtual address. To achieve this, the EDR killer builds a physical memory map using a Windows memory management service that preloads frequently used applications into RAM.

1. First it gathers baseline information about all physical memory blocks. Because memory pages (typically 4KB) are allocated to physical blocks, hundreds of virtual pages can point to a single physical range.
2. It then calls the service to obtain detailed Page Frame Number (PFN) details. The malware stores this complete mapping in a global variable, giving it a reliable, built-in translation table between virtual and physical memory spaces.

Bypassing Driver Signing Checks

To run its own malicious tools, the EDR killer must first bypass Windows’ driver signing enforcement. Normally, Windows uses a built-in verification check to block unsigned or blacklisted drivers from loading. The malware tricks Windows into disabling this gatekeeper using a simple swap:

1. The malware finds a specific kernel function and uses its physical memory map to pinpoint its location.
2. It commands the vulnerable driver to scan this memory area for a specific byte signature. This leads directly to the Code Integrity callback table.
3. Within this table, the malware locates the built-in verification check and “patches” it with a harmless, dummy function.

Blinding Security Products

With driver signing checks completely bypassed, the malware uses its read/write primitives to dismantle system callbacks, it identifies and targets:

• Process notify callbacks
• Thread notify callbacks
• Image load notify callbacks
• Registry callbacks and minifilters

Rather than conducting a blanket unlinking of all system callbacks, the EDR killer checks the address of each callback. If the address falls within a memory range owned by a security product on its hardcoded blacklist, Qilin surgically unlinks it by zeroing out the pointer with null bytes.

Next, the EDR killer drops and loads its own custom driver, which appears to Windows as purpose-built. Once loaded, the Qilin EDR killer gets all relevant running processes. For any processes running that match a hardcoded list, it stores the Process ID in a vector.

For every PID found, the malware sends a message to a driver. At a high level, the driver finds the full path of the target executable, makes it unreadable, unwriteable, and undeletable to any and all users, and then terminates the process.

Interestingly, the Qilin EDR killer performs a Discretionary Access Control List (DACL) modification on the target security product executable. The driver creates a new empty ACL header and sets the flag SE_DACL_PRESENT to TRUE. This is significant because a null DACL and empty DACL are not the same. A null DACL grants everyone access, whereas an empty DACL grants no access. This process makes it so that the security product’s executable can no longer be executed without needing to delete the file like other EDR Killers. Once the driver then terminates the executable, it can’t be restarted.

Once everything is completed, the EDR killer unpatches the Code Integrity Check to avoid triggering PatchGuard and then exits.

Defend Against Qilin Using Flashpoint

The sophisticated kernel-level manipulation highlights a rapidly expanding trend in the broader threat landscape: the proliferation of highly effective malware designed purely to disable enterprise-level security products. Qilin’s integration of these techniques demonstrates how the EDR killer market is maturing in the cybercrime underground, transitioning from a niche capability into a standard prerequisite for high-impact ransomware operations.

As security platforms continuously improve their detection mechanisms, Flashpoint believes the threat landscape surrounding anti-EDR tools will only grow larger and more aggressive, forcing organizations to focus on protecting the kernel and detecting rogue driver deployments. To learn more about Qilin and the latest advancements in ransomware, request a demo.

See Flashpoint in Action

Blogs

Blog

Understanding Illicit Ecosystems: How Dark Web Forums Structure Cybercrime

As part of our ongoing series, we analyze how dark web forums operate, breaking down Flashpoint’s tiered classification system and examining how specialized, hybrid platforms function together as an interconnected cybercrime supply chain.

When a high-profile data breach hits headlines, the default assumption is often to view the dark web as a single, centralized marketplace where any illicit service or tool can be bought. While many illicit forums aspire to be seen as a “one-stop shop,” the reality is that the underground economy relies on an interconnected network of specialized hubs that each align with distinct phases of the cybercrime lifecycle.

To understand how cybercrime thrives, it is vital to learn how these online spaces survive and how they play their parts in graduating threat actors from entry-level novices to sophisticated adversaries.

Navigating the Cybercrime Ecosystem: Entry Barriers and Forum Tiering

An illicit community’s survival hinges on its operational value and culture, which is ultimately created by its supporters. In a low-trust environment filled with cybercriminals, hidden law enforcement, and security researchers, these digital spaces are inherently defensive. To protect their communities from competitors’ attacks, surveillance, and eventual takedowns, forums implement rigorous gatekeeping mechanisms.

As such, Flashpoint organizes the cybercrime ecosystem into a tiered structure, separating them into low, mid, or top-tier forums, defined by several key factors such as: 

• Entry Barriers: The financial or reputational requirements for a user to join the community, indicating the forum’s exclusivity.
• Technical Expertise: The collective technical skills and proficiency of the forum’s members.
• Trade Quality: The quality and value of illicit goods and services exchanged, such as advanced hacking tools or high-value data leaks.
• Operational Security (OP SEC): The extent to which the community upholds strict security protocols and practices.

By analyzing these vectors, the ecosystem naturally separates into three distinct operational tiers.

Low-Tier Forums

These communities are easily accessible, often requiring a small fee or completely free registration with little to no vetting. They host less sophisticated users, beginner hackers, and minor data brokers seeking free material. Because the technical barrier is low, these spaces primarily share low-cost, high-volume data, including large data leaks, generic phishing guides, unchecked stolen accounts, and cracked software.

Consequently, these environments face a persistently high risk of scams and poor quality data. Within low-tier forums, reputation is often built by sharing free data or purchasing a rank or upgrade which is viewable by other users.

Mid-Tier Forums

Moderately accessible via both Tor and the clearnet, entry into these spaces typically require a vouch from an existing member, a minimal registration fee, or an initial deposit. These platforms concentrate on large-scale fraudulent activity and the exchange of various datasets—including bulk carding data, stolen credentials, stealer logs, phishing kits, botnets, and various malware.

The user base includes a mix of vendors, experienced threat actors, affiliates of larger groups, and aspiring cybercriminals looking for training. To protect users from internal fraud, these forums heavily prioritize integrated escrow services and reputation systems, which can be improved by purchasing an internal high-tier status.

Top-Tier Forums

These are highly exclusive platforms dedicated to high-value, highly technical, and targeted criminal operations. New applicants face a stringent vetting process, typically demanding either a formal invitation or a substantial registration payment. This exclusive layer hosts highly skilled, professional threat actors, malware developers, and key decision-makers within major illicit groups.

This is the ecosystem where adversaries build trust through valuable technical contributions or community reputation points and execute complex money laundering schemes, trade zero-day exploits, facilitate ransomware-as-a-service (RaaS) partnerships, and conduct large-scale initial access broker sales.

What Are the Different Types of Dark Web Forums?

Once a community establishes its tier, it usually functions as a specialized hub linked to a specific stage in the overall cybercrime lifecycle. They do this to cultivate talent and expertise, which naturally bridges communities together, creating a supply chain where different forums handle distinct operational and structural needs.

General Information and Community Boards

Modeled after surface-web sites like Reddit, these platforms serve as social and informational hubs. Discussions prioritize coordination, reputation management, and the propagation of best practices regarding OPSEC. Users share news about cybercriminal arrests, look for advice on how to remain anonymous, report potential exit-scams, and provide detailed reviews of specific vendors, particularly those selling illicit drugs.

Financial Theft and Carding Forums

These semi-structured environments blend marketplaces with social networks, utilizing a professionalized supply chain for selling stolen cards, dumps, and fullz. To reduce internal fraud, they rely heavily on reputation-building tools like verified seller statuses and integrated refund systems for invalid data. To ensure operational longevity, they are typically hosted on bulletproof infrastructure located in states that do not comply with international takedown requests, such as the Russian Federation.

Data Leak Forums

Depositories for stolen databases where raw breach information is structured into a tradeable commodity. Leaks are listed by victim name and sector, allowing actors to quickly find credentials or corporate records to repurpose for credential stuffing, extortion, or identity fraud.

Cracking and Hacking Tutorials (Knowledge Bases)

Existing entirely for knowledge exchange and offensive techniques, threat actors share methods, tutorials, fraudulent schemes, and bypass techniques, often encouraging educational sharing through competitions.

High-Skill Exploit and Access Forums

Top-tier platforms hosting the “upper echelons” of the community, such as initial access brokers, exploit developers, and malware creators. They rely heavily on strict arbitration systems, mandatory vendor deposits, and escrow mechanisms to safely conduct high-impact transactions and corporate intrusions.

Low-Barrier Retail Forum

High-traffic segments trading mass-market digital goods like cracked subscription accounts, premium software, and online gaming assets. Characterized by an exceedingly low barrier to entry and a relatively young user base seeking quick profit without the capability for advanced, complex operations.

Map the Illicit Pipeline Using Flashpoint

What makes the cybercriminal ecosystem truly cohesive is that the lines between these various types of forums and communities constantly blur. Most illicit communities are hybrid and transitional, intentionally or naturally blending categories to cater to each other’s needs and boost monetization.

Hybrid forums frequently connect the how-to tutorials with actual stolen data and network access, effectively creating a structural pipeline for threat actor progression. Platforms like BreachForums combine the attention-grabbing aspect of a data leak site with a structured marketplace for selling logs and other sensitive data. This type of hybridization allows a threat actor to progress from a beginner reading tutorials to an active criminal deploying stolen data.

Monitoring these fluid structures and transitions is the only way to understand how threat actors develop, and how the interconnected cybercrime landscape shifts over time. Therefore, it is essential for security teams to look beyond cyber threats as isolated, and recognize the multi-platform strategies these actors employ. Request a demo to gain visibility into these threat actor communities and proactively defend your organization from across the entire cybercrime supply chain.

Check out the rest of our “Understanding Illicit Ecosystems” series:

Understanding Illicit Ecosystems: The Hybrid Threat of “The Com”

Understanding Illicit Ecosystems: XSS and the Current State of the Russian-Speaking Underground

Understanding Illicit Ecosystems: Weaponizing Mainstream Apps and Social Infrastructure

See Flashpoint in Action

Blogs

Blog

AI, Trust, and the Future of Threat Intelligence

In this post, we explore how AI is reshaping cyber threat intelligence and why governance, transparency, and trust are becoming increasingly important as organizations rely more heavily on AI-generated insights and autonomous capabilities.

Artificial intelligence has quickly become embedded across cyber threat intelligence workflows.

Throughout research and analysis, enrichment, prioritization, and operational response, AI is helping organizations process large volumes of information and move more quickly from collection to action. As these capabilities mature, the conversation is moving beyond what AI can do, toward how organizations can trust, validate, and govern AI-generated intelligence.

Flashpoint has been recognized in the 2026 Gartner® Top 5 Vendors for AI Capabilities in Cyberthreat Intelligence Technologies: Governance & Trust research. Flashpoint was also named a Challenger in the 2026 inaugural Gartner Magic Quadrant for Cyberthreat Intelligence Technologies. The report recognizes five top vendors, including Flashpoint, across AI foundational elements within CTI and examines the governance, oversight, and trust mechanisms that help organizations use AI responsibly within intelligence operations.

Gartner notes in the report that “as organizations increasingly depend on autonomous agents from CTI vendors, the need for robust governance and trust frameworks has become critical.”

Trust Has Always Been the Foundation of Threat Intelligence

For intelligence teams, trust is not a new concept.

Analysts regularly evaluate the credibility of sources, validate claims, assess confidence levels, and determine whether reporting is relevant to their organization’s mission. The quality of intelligence has never been determined solely by how much information is available. It depends on whether that information is precise, timely, and accurate enough to move the needle and safely drive an operational decision.

AI, however, introduces a new layer to that process.

Organizations are increasingly leveraging AI to assist with enrichment, summarization, prioritization, and analysis. Those capabilities can accelerate workflows significantly, but they also introduce new questions. 

• How was a recommendation generated? 
• What evidence informed it? 
• How confident should an analyst be in the result? 
• What safeguards exist when the output is used to drive operational decisions?

Ultimately, these are questions of operational risk and data integrity, not just technology features. Analysts must be able to interrogate a system’s reasoning just as they would any other source.

Governance Is Becoming a Core Requirement

Establishing analytical trust is essential, but it requires strict operational guardrails to function safely at scale. This is where governance moves from an item on a checklist to a core requirement.

Many of the conversations around AI in cybersecurity focus on capability. 

• Can an AI system summarize faster? 
• Can it identify relationships that would otherwise be missed? 
• Can it reduce analyst workload?

While speed and scale are essential, they only tell half the story. As organizations move AI closer to daily operational workflows, a second, more critical set of questions is emerging centering around control.

As Gartner explains, “Agent governance and trust ensures that only authorized users and agents can access and manage sensitive threat data through role-based permissions and approval workflows.”

From our experience, by implementing these structural protections — alongside comprehensive audit logging — security leaders can ensure that AI-driven actions remain fully transparent, secure, and accountable. Governance isn’t about slowing down automation; it’s about establishing the administrative guardrails that dictate exactly who—and what—is allowed to execute a sensitive operation within the enterprise. 

This oversight is becoming a foundational necessity as threat intelligence breaks out of traditional security silos. Because CTI increasingly informs vulnerability management, fraud investigations, executive protection, security operations, and enterprise risk programs, the downstream impact of an inaccurate recommendation can disrupt an entire enterprise. This underscores the importance of understanding not only what an AI system recommends but also how it arrived at that recommendation in the first place.

AI Changes the Scale (and Reaps the Context) of Intelligence Operations

One area where AI has a massive, immediate impact is scale.

Threat intelligence teams today are completely inundated with data. Malicious activity spans encrypted messaging platforms, illicit criminal marketplaces, forums, social media, vulnerability disclosures, and vast streams of infrastructure telemetry. Even the most mature, well-resourced teams struggle to manually ingest and process this sheer volume of information.

When applied appropriately, AI elegantly solves this bottleneck. Automation acts as an incredible force multiplier — accelerating time-consuming foundational tasks like research, cross-language translation, data enrichment, summarization, clustering, and correlation. Large language models can process information at scale, reducing the manual effort required to move from collection to analysis.

The critical challenge, however, is ensuring that this massive injection of speed does not come at the expense of context.

Threat intelligence is fundamentally a contextual discipline. A standalone indicator, isolated vulnerability, or single threat actor reference rarely carries meaning on its own. To act safely, analysts must understand exactly where information originated, who is discussing it, how widely it is being shared, and how it relates to broader activity across the threat landscape.

What AI cannot do independently is establish that context. While machines are exceptionally effective at identifying patterns across vast datasets, they inherently lack source validation, analytical rigor, and nuanced judgment. If an AI accelerates the data pipeline but strips away the underlying context, assessing confidence becomes impossible, making informed decision-making even harder.

This is why Flashpoint champions a “human-led, AI-scaled” model. True scalability isn’t about replacing analysts with autonomous bots; it’s about using machines to conquer the overwhelming noise of the threat landscape while keeping the resulting intelligence heavily grounded in expert-reviewed sources. As AI capabilities continue to mature, context becomes more important, not less. The organizations that derive the most value from automation will be those that pair machine-scale processing with human-in-the-loop review to ensure every output can be validated, contextualized, and confidently acted upon.

What Security Leaders Should Be Evaluating

As AI becomes a larger component of cyber threat intelligence platforms, security leaders have an opportunity to evaluate these capabilities through a broader lens than automation alone.

The Gartner report provides a useful framework for thinking about these questions, particularly around governance and trust. Rather than focusing exclusively on what an AI system can do, Flashpoint recommends that organizations rigorously evaluate how those capabilities are managed, validated, and controlled. 

Some of the most important areas to evaluate include:

Explainability

Question to ask: Can analysts trace how an AI-generated recommendation or conclusion was produced?

The ability to review supporting evidence, understand contributing factors, and see outputs back to underlying intelligence sources is becoming increasingly important as AI is used to support operational decisions.

Confidence and Validation

Question to ask: How does the platform communicate confidence in AI-generated outputs?

Threat intelligence has always relied on confidence assessments. As AI-generated insights become more common, organizations should look for configurable confidence thresholds that allow them to tailor automated actions to their corporate risk tolerance.

Governance and Oversight

Question to ask: What controls exist around the use of AI?

Capabilities such as role-based permissions, approval workflows, and audit logging are critical governance mechanisms for organizations seeking to maintain accountability and trust in AI-driven processes.

Operational Impact

Question to ask: How does AI improve intelligence workflows in practice?

The most valuable AI capabilities are often those that help analysts spend less time on repetitive tasks and more time on investigation, analysis, and decision-making. Understanding where AI fits into the intelligence lifecycle can help organizations distinguish between meaningful operational improvements and isolated feature enhancements.

Looking Ahead

The conversation around AI in threat intelligence is still evolving, but the direction of travel is becoming increasingly clear. Organizations are looking beyond standalone AI features and placing greater emphasis on governance, transparency, and accountability.

Taken together with broader industry trends, this points to a threat intelligence market that is becoming increasingly sophisticated. Organizations are evaluating not only the quality and uniqueness of intelligence itself, but also how that intelligence is operationalized, how AI is applied, and how trust is maintained throughout the process.

We believe that shift reflects the realities of modern intelligence work. Speed and scale remain important, but neither replaces the need for context, validation, and informed decision-making.

For security leaders evaluating AI capabilities within cyber threat intelligence platforms, Gartner’s research offers valuable insight into how the market is evolving and what requirements are likely to become increasingly important in the years ahead.

Gartner subscribers can read the full report to explore the governance, trust, and AI capability trends shaping the future of cyber threat intelligence.

Gartner Disclaimer

Gartner does not endorse any company, vendor, product or service depicted in its publications, and does not advise technology users to select only those vendors with the highest ratings or other designation. Gartner publications consist of the opinions of Gartner’s business and technology insights organization and should not be construed as statements of fact. Gartner disclaims all warranties, expressed or implied, with respect to this publication, including any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. 

Gartner, Top 5 Vendors for AI Capabilities in Cyberthreat Intelligence Technologies: Governance & Trust, Jonathan Nunez, Jaime Anderson, June 15, 2026.

Gartner, Magic Quadrant for Cyber Threat Intelligence Technologies, Jonathan Nunez, Carlos De Sola Caraballo, Jaime Anderson, May 4, 2026.

Gartner and Magic Quadrant are trademarks of Gartner, Inc., and/or its affiliates.

Blogs

Blog

Remus Stealer: A New, Not-So-New Infostealer

In this post, we explore the emergence of Remus Stealer, analyzing its structural and behavioral similarities to the infamous Lumma malware.

The underground marketplace rarely stays quiet for long. A new information-stealing malware dubbed Remus Stealer has surfaced in the cybercrime underground, exhibiting significant similarities to the notorious Lumma malware family across its administration panel, stolen log files, and core code structure.

Despite parallels in its code and functionality, threat actors are eagerly buying into the platform. In addition to its familiar features, it provides attackers with a distinct, modern command and control (C2) and networking infrastructure designed to slip past current security perimeters.

What We Know About Remus

Flashpoint first observed Remus appearing for sale within illicit communities in March 2026. The malware listing offers similar functionality to other popular Malware-as-a-Service (MaaS) offerings, including Google OAuth cookie restoration and Telegram channel integration for logs.

Much like the Lumma malware family, the Remus subscription service operates on a three-tiered access model:

• Basic: US$250
• Pro: US$500
• Enterprise: US$1,000

At this time, Remus has no additional channels or automated bots associated with its sale or distribution. Despite undeniable similarities to Lumma, its developer claims to not be a rebrand of the Lumma project.

Since March 2026, Remus has continued its operations mostly unhindered by negative associations associated with Lumma—particularly the doxxing of its panel in August 2025.

Similarities to Lumma

Similarities can be observed in the Remus and Lumma panels in both aesthetics and functionality. Both panels use similar assets for tab icons and have embedded advertisements for other illicit services such as packers and log clouds. Harvested logs also share extremely similar directory structures in log files, including unique identifiers.

Code-Level Overlaps

Remus is a 64-bit compiled binary, and Lumma was a 32-bit binary. However, major similarities between the code bases of both malware can be observed.

Upon execution of an unpacked sample, both Remus and Lumma will send warning messages to the user that the build is unpacked. This was a unique phenomenon first established by Lumma several years ago. In both Remus and Lumma samples, the pack check and window message are performed before the main functionality of the malware.

In both Remus and Lumma, a function is used first to check if the sample is packed, and a second function is used to send the window error message.

Remus uses similar string obfuscation methods to Lumma, in which each string has been uniquely encoded and then decoded during runtime. Deobfuscation occurs by looping byte by byte through encoded blobs. Each encoded string is obfuscated by a unique pattern. This can be seen in the code samples below:

Of note, both samples have at least one NOP instruction between the encoded blob being moved onto the stack and the deobfuscation loop.

Another unique feature of Lumma is the presence of a plaintext identifier string used to link customers to specific build generations. In Lumma, this string was referred to as the LID (Lumma ID), and this ID method appears in Remus as well as a “tag.”

Like the Lumma LID string, the Remus tag could be leveraged to attribute variant builds and campaigns to single threat actors or groups.

Additionally, both Remus and Lumma exhibit similar control flow obfuscation by replacing direct jumps with indirect jumps read from offsets that have been moved onto the stack, jumps computed from a jump table, and jumps resolved by a pointer.

Differentiators of Remus

Although Remus bears remarkable similarities to Lumma, its main differences lie in its C2 beaconing.

Before performing main stealer functionality, Remus will beacon out to its C2 infrastructure. It will attempt to resolve several domain:port combinations via POST requests, and attempt a final connection to find the C2 server using EtherHiding. If it is unable to connect, the malware will terminate.

After a connection is established, the stealer sends a POST request to the C2 in order to receive an access token. Once received and decoded, this access token is used to receive encrypted config data used by Remus to target assets on the victim system. Data collected for logs is then exfiltrated as encrypted POST data.

Protect Against Infostealers Using Flashpoint

Remus stealer represents a sophisticated continuation of the MaaS infostealer model left behind by Lumma’s collapse. While the developer asserts independence, the overwhelming code overlaps, matching obfuscation techniques, and administrative panels indicate that Remus is either heavily inspired by, or derived from the Lumma codebase. These traits have allowed it to thrive, providing threat actors with a familiar, robust alternative that sidesteps the reputational baggage and law enforcement scrutiny of its predecessors.

Flashpoint continuously tracks the latest developments in illicit communities, hard-to-reach adversary spaces, and malware repositories to identify emerging threats. Request a demo to learn how Flashpoint’s primary source collections and analyst insights empowers your security teams.

See Flashpoint in Action

Blogs

Blog

America250 Fourth of July Threat Assessment

In this post we break down the intersecting cyber risks, physical security strains, and operational challenges shaping the security landscape for the historic Semiquincentennial celebrations.

As the United States prepares to mark its 250th anniversary this Fourth of July, the convergence of historic national celebrations, sprawling public events, and simultaneous high-profile sports tournaments is creating an exceptionally complex threat landscape. The multiyear national initiative “America250,” features over 1,200 synchronized grassroots gatherings under the “America’s Block Party” umbrella, with flagship events taking place in Washington DC, Philadelphia, Boston, New York, and Los Angeles.

Key Takeaways

While public sentiment surrounding America250 remains broadly positive, Flashpoint analysts have assessed the physical, cyber, and operational threat vectors that organizations, security teams, and municipalities must navigate during this high-visibility holiday weekend.

America250 Threats & Security Challenges:

1. Distributed Physical & Infrastructure Strain: Massive tourism influxes will collide with ongoing 2026 FIFA World Cup matches in Houston and Philadelphia on July 4, putting historic operational pressure on metropolitan transit grids and soft targets.
2. Elevated Iconicity and “City of Concern” Status: Although no specific, credible plots have been confirmed, the National Mall events in Washington, DC have received their first-ever National Special Security Event (NSSE) designation. Meanwhile, the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) has officially designated Philadelphia a “city of concern” due to the volume of synchronized events.
3. Ideological Protest Dynamics: Activist groups are organizing a significant anti-authoritarian march in Philadelphia. While expected to be peaceful, open-source chatter indicates a portion of attendees plan to exercise their license to carry firearms.
4. Disruption & Cyber Threat Vectors: Cyber threat groups, ransomware operators, and hacktivists are expected to attempt to exploit thin holiday IT staffing. Threat vectors range from mass public-transit ticketing fraud to high-consequence digital hoaxes involving rogue cellular infrastructure.

Physical Threat Vectors

Transportation and Infrastructure

Flashpoint assesses that “lone wolf” actors motivated by various ideological grievances, including those inspired by foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs), pose the most likely threat of disruptions to transportation infrastructure during America250 events. This threat is likely to apply to all major transport hubs during the event, including Washington DC, Philadelphia, New York City, and Boston. Attendees can expect to see an increased police and military presence near transit hubs at major events.

Event Threats

While no specific credible threats targeting America250 events have been identified, the July 4th events taking place on the National Mall in Washington DC, have been given a National Special Security Event designation, which is typically reserved for events deemed potential targets for terrorism or other criminal activity. This is the first time such a designation has been given to July 4th celebrations on the National Mall.

Memos released by the National Counterterrorism Center to security agencies also identified Philadelphia as a “city of concern” regarding potential targets for terror attacks due to the number and scale of events taking place on July 4th. Law enforcement officials have indicated that while no specific threats have been identified, increased security measures will be in place throughout the city.

Planned Protest

The Fayetteville Resistance Coalition, alongside Veterans Against Fascism, and the Women’s March is organizing an anti-authoritatian protest march in Philadelphia on July 4th—being the largest mobilization of military veterans in decades.

Flashpoint has identified chatter indicating that march attendees may be armed. However, Flashpoint has not identified any calls for violence at this protest and deem that actions will likely remain peaceful. Despite this, arrests may be possible if attendees gather in unauthorized areas or engage in civil disobedience.

Cyber Threat Vectors

Ransomware and Operational Technology (OT) Disruptions

Financially motivated threat actors frequently deploy ransomware during major US holiday weekends when corporate and municipal IT security staffing is historically thin.

Flashpoint analysts assess that attackers could target automated ticketing systems, regional rail signaling, and digital municipal transit grids. Disruption to public transit during the high-density travel window surrounding major events could induce logistical gridlock. Secondary targets include municipal water treatment facilities, local power grids, and emergency response (911) dispatch systems in primary host cities.

Hactivism

With hundreds of thousands of spectators gathering at prominent national landmarks, hacktivist groups seeking political leverage or global media visibility pose an elevated threat to public messaging infrastructure.

Compromising the digital billboards, stadium screens, or viewing decks used for America250 events presents an attractive vector for defacement. Adversaries may attempt to display political propaganda, anti-war messaging, or explicit content to captive, high-density crowds.

Event App Vulnerabilities and Data Harvesting

The decentralized nature of “America’s Block Party,” featuring over 1,200 grassroots events managed via localized apps, introduces software supply chain vulnerabilities.

Cybercriminals may target the ticketing infrastructure of high-profile, restricted-access events. Phishing campaigns, credential stuffing, or application programming interface (API) vulnerabilities within event-specific mobile applications could result in mass ticketing fraud, legitimate attendees being locked out, or crowd-control issues at venue gates.

Additionally, malicious actors frequently deploy spoofed public Wi-Fi networks around high-density tourist hubs to harvest sensitive personal data, financial credentials, and biometric profiles from unsuspecting attendees.

Protect People Using Flashpoint

To ensure attendee safety, safeguard operations, and protect public-facing brands, Flashpoint recommends implementing the following proactive measures:

1. Secure Public-Facing and Display Infrastructure: Implement strict access controls, multi-factor authentication (MFA), and offline fail-safes for all internet-connected digital signage, stadium screens, and public notification systems to prevent hacktivist defacements.
2. Audit Event Applications and Mobile Endpoints: Conduct rigorous vulnerability scans on event-specific APIs and ticket validation platforms. Advise personnel and contractors against posting photographs of official credentials, badges, or operational passes on public social media channels.
3. Establish Out-of-Band Incident Response Protocols: Prepare alternative communication channels and verified public-address messaging to immediately counter potential rogue emergency broadcasts, digital hoaxes, or localized telecom disruptions that could cause public panic.
4. Monitor High-Risk Overlap Zones: Cross-reference physical security deployment schedules in cities like Philadelphia where World Cup traffic, official America250 parades, and armed protest routes intersect near major transit networks.

Ensure your security team has full visibility into the cyber and physical threat vectors shaping this historic holiday weekend. Request a demo and see how Flashpoint equips organizations with the intelligence needed to detect, analyze, and mitigate emerging risks.

See Flashpoint in Action

Blogs

Blog

Unmasking the Digital Trail: Essential Techniques for Vetting AI-Generated Content

In our latest on-demand webinar, we outline the practical, human-driven techniques threat intelligence teams must deploy to detect synthetic media, protect corporate RAG ecosystems, and filter through the noise of AI-polluted networks.

In the era of generative artificial intelligence (AI), threat intelligence is facing a profound signal-to-noise challenge. AI has introduced a massive paradigm shift to threat actor operations—making execution extremely easy while simultaneously dramatically complicating the task of verification for security teams.

In our latest on-demand webinar, Matt Edmonson, SANS Senior Instructor and founder of Argelius Labs, joined Flashpoint to discuss the intersection of Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) and AI. Drawing from his vast federal law enforcement experience, he shared actionable, human-driven techniques for detecting and vetting AI-generated online content.

Neutralizing the Automated RAG and Vector Database Trap

Before deploying any human-driven vetting techniques, an analyst must understand the specific structural trap threat actors are laying. Adversaries are no longer just using AI to spin up isolated phishing copy; they are using it to corrupt the automated defense pipelines that security teams rely on.

Modern threat intelligence workflows utilize automated ingestion to feed open-source data directly into local vector databases and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) models. Aware of this, sophisticated threat actors deploy a coordinated infrastructure strategy: they register multiple lookalike domains simultaneously to broadcast the exact same AI-generated disinformation narrative.

When automated security tools ingest this data, the system flags multiple distinct “sources” confirming the story as truth. This structural echo chamber completely bypasses automated verification safeguards, polluting corporate databases with validated lies. We have seen this play out via:

• Long-Game Credibility Building: Edmonson highlighted an active Foreign Malicious Influence (FMI) campaign utilizing a French lookalike news site called Verite Cache (“The Hidden Truth”). The threat actors scrape legitimate Western news, use AI to rewrite it to build structural domain authority over time, and then manipulate narrative outcomes the moment a critical geopolitical event or election occurs.
• Simultaneous Infrastructure Deployment: This pattern was mirrored in Southeast Asia, where Singapore recently banned six lookalike news sites targeting regional discourse. Upon technical inspection, five of those six distinct domains had been registered on the exact same day to broadcast a unified narrative.
• Organic-Looking Algorithmic Surges: The scale of these operations can shift political landscapes in a matter of days. Romania recently took the extreme step of canceling and restarting its presidential election due to a covert, highly coordinated Russian-backed social media campaign. The operation used synthetic assets to trigger algorithmic recommendation engines, driving an intense, seemingly organic surge for an underdog candidate.

Triangulating AI Flaws and Anomalies Across Modalities

Vetting AI content relies on compiling a cluster of intersecting indicators across text, images, audio, and video until a definitive analytical confidence level is reached. While generative tools have grown highly sophisticated, they are still bound by mathematical constraints and architectural limitations. Catching these errors and inconsistencies requires analysts to identify a cluster of intersecting indicators across text, images, audio, and video:

• Textual Analytics (Linguistic Quirks and Filler Text): Large Language Models (LLMs) leave distinct behavioral footprints. Analysts should look for commonly-used AI wordings and “portable sentences”, as well as automated translation leakage that reveals a threat actor’s native language mechanics.
• Visual Logic Flaws (Physics and Seams): AI models frequently fail to grasp the fundamental physics of the real world. Analysts should closely inspect image logic for anatomical blunders (such as inverted hand structures), impossible geometry, or objects with extreme structural flaws. Additionally, AI struggles with “texture seams”—the exact boundaries where distinct textures meet.
• Auditory and Video Glitches (Cadence and Duration): Human speech is inherently messy, characterized by breathing pauses, environmental background noise, and shifting cadences. Synthetic speech is often locked into a perfectly uniform, monotone rhythm. Furthermore, high-fidelity deepfakes are incredibly resource-intensive to sustain over long durations. While an actor can fake 10 to 15 seconds of synthetic video convincingly, a five-minute video will almost always display jarring cuts, visual artifacting, or avatars clipping out of frame.

Empowering the Human Layer | Watch the Full Webinar

Human analysts remain the most critical layer of defense against illicit uses of AI. Empowered by comprehensive threat intelligence, OSINT, and AI technologies, security teams can hunt for clusters of intersecting indicators across text, images, audio, and video to assess authenticity. To learn more and to gain more essential techniques, watch the full on-demand webinar. Using Flashpoint, organizations can filter through noise, execute critical data premortems, and neutralize sophisticated disinformation campaigns.

See Flashpoint in Action