Blogs

Blog

National Vulnerability Database (NVD) Shifts to Selective Enrichment as CVE Volume Surges

In this post, we examine what NVD’s shift to selective enrichment means for vulnerability workflows and how security teams can maintain visibility and prioritization at scale.

The National Vulnerability Database (NVD) is changing how it processes and enriches vulnerability data in response to sustained growth in CVE submissions.

Under a new model announced by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NVD will no longer enrich every CVE. Instead, enrichment efforts will focus on a defined subset, including vulnerabilities in the CISA KEV catalog, software used by the federal government, and software designated as critical.

All other CVEs will remain in the database without additional context unless specifically requested.

Rising disclosure volumes are placing pressure on public vulnerability infrastructure, and it has direct implications for how security teams consume and act on vulnerability data.

What Changed in NVD’s Operating Model

For years, NVD aimed to provide consistent enrichment across all CVEs, including severity scoring, affected product data, and supporting context for prioritization.

That approach has not been sustainable since late 2023.

In 2025, Flashpoint tracked 44,509 disclosed vulnerabilities, 14,593 of which had publicly available exploits (and 1,944 more with proof-of-concepts). 

CVE submissions increased by 263% between 2020 and 2025, with 2026 already tracking higher year-over-year. Even with increased throughput, NVD has not been able to keep pace.

Under the updated model:

• CVEs meeting prioritization criteria will be enriched on an accelerated timeline
• CVEs outside those criteria will be labeled and left without enrichment
• Re-analysis of modified CVEs will occur selectively
• Separate NVD severity scoring will no longer be applied by default

This introduces a significant structural change in how vulnerability data is published and maintained.

The Impact on Vulnerability Workflows

Many security programs rely on NVD enrichment to operationalize CVE data. That enrichment provides the context needed to evaluate risk and determine remediation priorities.

With enrichment applied selectively, teams will encounter a growing number of CVEs that include:

• Limited or no severity scoring
• Incomplete product and version data
• Minimal context on exploitability or impact
• No CPE strings that allow for programmatic consumption of data

At the same time, disclosure volume continues to rise, and exploitation timelines remain compressed. This creates a gap between what is disclosed and what can be acted on efficiently.

Security teams will need to account for:

• Larger backlogs of CVEs without actionable context
• Increased manual effort to evaluate relevance and risk
• Greater variability in data quality across sources

These changes affect vulnerability management, threat intelligence, and security operations workflows simultaneously.

Prioritization Criteria Will Not Capture the Full Risk Landscape

NVD’s updated model focuses enrichment on a defined set of criteria, including known exploited vulnerabilities and software relevant to federal systems.

These categories represent important segments of risk, but they do not encompass the full set of vulnerabilities that organizations encounter in practice.

Modern environments include:

• Open-source dependencies
• SaaS platforms and APIs
• Cloud infrastructure and services
• Third-party and partner integrations

Many vulnerabilities affecting these environments fall outside formal prioritization frameworks or lack immediate classification within public datasets. As a result, security teams will continue to face exposure from vulnerabilities that are:

• Actively exploited but not yet included in prioritized lists
• Missing complete metadata or enrichment
• Relevant to their environment but not captured by federal-centric criteria

Vulnerability Intelligence Requires Broader Coverage and Deeper Context

As public enrichment becomes more selective, organizations will rely more heavily on alternative sources to maintain visibility and context.

Effective vulnerability intelligence requires:

• Coverage across CVE and non-CVE vulnerabilities
• Continuous tracking of exploitation activity and adversary usage
• Context on exploit maturity, and remediation
• Consistent enrichment that can be integrated into operational workflows

This level of detail supports faster and more accurate decision-making in environments where both volume and speed are increasing.

Flashpoint’s vulnerability intelligence model is built to address these requirements, with a dataset that includes over 7,000 known exploited vulnerabilities and ongoing analyst-driven enrichment across global sources.

What Security Teams Should Do Next

This shift in NVD operations does not change the need to track CVEs. It changes how that data can be used. Security teams should evaluate how their current workflows depend on:

• NVD enrichment for prioritization
• CVSS scoring as a primary decision input
• Completeness of public vulnerability data

From there, teams can take steps to strengthen resilience:

• Incorporate sources of vulnerability intelligence that cover CVE and more
• Align prioritization to exploitation activity and environmental relevance
• Validate coverage across software, cloud, and third-party dependencies
• Ensure that enrichment gaps do not delay remediation decisions

A Structural Shift in Vulnerability Data

For many teams, NVD has been a default source of vulnerability context. This change makes clear that its role is narrowing at a time when disclosure volume and prioritization demands are increasing.

At the same time, the role of vulnerability intelligence is expanding.

Security teams need access to data that supports prioritization, not just identification. They need consistent enrichment, faster turnaround, broader coverage, and context tied to real-world activity. As disclosure volumes continue to grow, those requirements become more central to how organizations manage risk.

Flashpoint’s Vulnerability Intelligence provides this level of coverage and context, with analyst-driven enrichment, global visibility across CVE and non-CVE vulnerabilities, and a dataset that includes over 7,000 known exploited vulnerabilities.

Request a demo to see how Flashpoint helps security teams prioritize and act on vulnerability risk with greater precision and confidence.

Begin your free trial today.

Blogs

Blog

Flashpoint Surpasses Cataloging 7,000 Known Exploited Vulnerabilities as Disclosure Volume Accelerates

In this post we explore Flashpoint’s latest milestone of surpassing cataloging 7,000 known exploited vulnerabilities and what this means for security teams.

Flashpoint Vulnerability Intelligence has surpassed cataloging 7,000 known exploited vulnerabilities, surpassing another major milestone as vulnerability disclosures accelerate across the global attack surface.

In 2025, Flashpoint tracked 44,509 disclosed vulnerabilities, a pace that continues to accelerate into 2026. Of those, 14,593 had publicly available exploits (1,944 more with proof-of-concepts), giving threat actors immediate pathways to weaponization.

This pace is shaping how exploitation unfolds, with high-impact vulnerabilities being operationalized within hours or days, particularly when they affect widely deployed technologies or core infrastructure.

Security teams are operating within this compressed environment every day. They are reviewing more findings across open-source software, commercial applications, cloud environments, and third-party dependencies, while working within tighter timelines to assess impact and take action.

Flashpoint’s latest milestone of surpassing 7,000 known exploited vulnerabilities (KEVs) cataloged reflects that reality. It highlights how vulnerability management programs are evolving toward prioritization as a core capability, with a focus on vulnerabilities tied to active exploitation and real-world risk.

What The 7,000+ KEV Milestone Means for You

Security teams are operating in a high-volume environment. Vulnerabilities are disclosed continuously across open-source software, commercial applications, cloud environments, and third-party dependencies. At the same time, advancements in automation and code analysis are increasing the rate at which new findings are surfaced.

Each of these findings enters an already crowded workflow. Teams are expected to determine relevance, urgency, and impact quickly, often with limited context. This is where risk-based decision making becomes essential.

Flashpoint tracks hundreds of thousands of vulnerabilities across thousands of sources. Within that dataset, a much smaller percentage shows confirmed exploitation activity. That concentration of risk informs how effective programs allocate time and resources.

Crossing the 7,000+ KEV milestone goes beyond scale to provide greater precision, deeper context, and stronger confidence in how teams prioritize and act on the most critical vulnerabilities.

• Validated threats: Each KEV entry reflects observed exploitation in the wild by threat actors, including APT groups, cybercriminal operations, ransomware presence, and automated botnets.
• Exploit-aware prioritization: In reality, only a small percentage of tracked vulnerabilities drive real-world incidents. FP KEV provides visibility into that subset so teams can focus remediation efforts where they have immediate impact.
• Human-curated intelligence: Every entry is reviewed, validated, and enriched by analysts, with context on exploit maturity, adversary usage, and remediation pathways when available.

This level of clarity allows teams to move faster without sacrificing accuracy. It supports vulnerability management programs that are built around real-world attacker behavior and aligned to current risk.

How Public Vulnerability Data Fits Into the Picture

Public vulnerability catalogs remain useful reference points for tracking disclosures and confirmed exploitation. The CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog, for example, gives security teams a curated view into a limited set of vulnerabilities that have been exploited in the wild that impact U.S. government stakeholders.

For many organizations, though, that level of visibility is not enough.

Public catalogs capture only part of the picture. They tend to reflect a narrower slice of exploitation activity, with less detail on how vulnerabilities are being used, which actors are leveraging them, and what defenders should do next. They also rely heavily on CVE-based tracking, leaving gaps around non-CVE exposures and other vulnerabilities that still carry operational risk.

Flashpoint’s FP KEV and Vulnerability Intelligence provide a broader and more actionable view. The advantage is visible in both scale and depth. Of the 7,000 known exploited vulnerabilities in FP KEV, over 800 are missing from CVE. That expanded coverage is paired with the context security teams need to prioritize effectively, including exploit maturity, adversary mapping, affected product detail, and remediation guidance.

Dimension	Public KEV Catalogs	Flashpoint FP KEV
Scope	Varies by provider, with coverage dependent on available sources and methodology	Global, cross-industry coverage
Coverage	CVE-based tracking	CVE and non-CVE vulnerabilities
Context	Limited enrichment	Exploit maturity, adversary mapping, remediation
Update Model	Periodic updates	Continuously updated with analyst input

This is what separates a reference list from an operational dataset. Teams need vulnerability intelligence that supports triage, remediation, reporting, and broader risk reduction efforts. Wider visibility and deeper context make that possible.

The Critical Role of Human-Curated Intelligence

Vulnerability data originates from a wide range of sources with varying levels of completeness and accuracy.

Flashpoint’s intelligence model includes analyst validation to ensure consistency and depth across the dataset.

This process includes:

• Reviewing disclosures across public and private sources
• Validating exploit availability and usage
• Enriching entries with technical and operational context

Analyst input supports:

• Accurate classification of vulnerabilities
• Clear understanding of exploitation pathways
• Timely updates as activity evolves

Supporting Decision-Making Across Teams

Vulnerability intelligence feeds multiple functions across an organization. Teams use this data to align technical actions with current threat activity.

Common use cases include:

• Vulnerability management: Align patching priorities with active exploitation trends.
• Threat intelligence: Map vulnerabilities to threat actor campaigns and observed behaviors.
• Security operations: Tune detection based on known exploit techniques.
• Executive reporting: Communicate risk posture using data tied to real-world activity.

Each of these functions relies on consistent, enriched intelligence to maintain alignment.

Proactively Address Vulnerability Risk

Vulnerability discovery continues to expand across software ecosystems, infrastructure, and identity layers.

Security teams require a clear understanding of which issues are relevant to their environment at any given time.

Flashpoint provides primary source intelligence that supports this need through:

• Continuous monitoring of vulnerability disclosures and exploitation
• Analyst-driven validation and enrichment
• Integration-ready data for operational workflows

This approach enables teams to maintain focus, allocate resources effectively, and respond to risk based on current threat activity. Request a demo and learn more today.

Begin your free trial today.

Blogs

Blog

Why Intelligence Requirements Fall Flat and How to Fix Them with a Practical Priority Intelligence Requirements Framework

In this post, we examine why intelligence requirements often fail to drive decisions and how to operationalize Priority Intelligence Requirements to align collection, analysis, and action.

In modern security operations, the “more is better” approach to threat intelligence has failed. Teams are drowning in alerts, not because the tools aren’t working, but because they lack a defined “North Star” to tell them which signals actually matter. 

To move from reactive monitoring to proactive defense, you need Priority Intelligence Requirements (PIRs). 

What is a Priority Intelligence Requirement (PIR)?

Definition: A Priority Intelligence Requirement is a decision-support question that identifies a critical knowledge gap. It defines what an organization needs to know, why it matters, and which specific business decision the information will support.

What Are the Biggest Challenges in Implementing PIRs?

Most teams buy intelligence tools, connect their sources, and immediately hit a wall: What should we actually be looking for?

Without a requirements-driven intelligence model, programs typically suffer from three critical points of friction that teams face every day: 

1. Alert Parity: A low-level credential leak on a forum is treated with the same urgency as a targeted ransomware threat.
2. The “So What?” Gap: Analysts produce reports that leadership finds “interesting” but not “actionable”.
3. Analyst Burnout: Teams spend the majority of their time chasing “exploratory” data rather than defending the business. 

Requirements-driven intelligence changes the starting point. It moves the focus from “What data can we get?” to “What decisions do we need to make?”

The 3-Tier Intelligence Requirements Model: GIR, PIR, and SIR

To operationalize intelligence, you must understand its hierarchy. A PIR is the bridge between executive strategy and technical execution. We recommend structuring requirements across these three tiers:

1. General Intelligence Requirements (GIRs): The “Why”)

These are the big-picture risks that keep your CISO or Board up at night. They focus on trends and long-term posture.

Example: “How is the ransomware landscape evolving for the healthcare sector in 2026?”

Outcome: Informs budgeting and annual security priorities.

2. Priority Intelligence Requirements (PIRs): The “What”

This is the operational heart of your program. PIRs turn strategic concerns into specific, high-impact scenarios.

Example: “Which ransomware groups are actively targeting our specific supply chain partners?”

Outcome: Defines daily monitoring and escalation triggers.

3. Specific Intelligence Requirements (SIRs): The “How”

SIRs are the tactical “boots on the ground” that power your PIRs with granular data.

Example: “Monitor for [Specific Malware Family] indicators or [Specific Actor] infrastructure associated with Group X.”Outcome: Drives threat hunting and automated detection logic.

Why Should You Focus on Building at the PIR Level?

While you need the full hierarchy, your primary effort should live at the PIR layer.

General IRs are often too high-level to automate, and SIRs (technical indicators) change too quickly to manage manually. PIRs are the “Stable Middle.” They are broad enough to capture business risk but specific enough to map to a workflow. By building your program around a library of PIRs, you create a system that is:

• Machine-Readable: Easy to translate into platform automation.
• Stakeholder-Aligned: Written in language that leadership understands.

Action-Oriented: Designed to trigger a specific response every time they are “answered.”

How To Audit Your PIRs (The Stress Test)

Before you commit resources to monitoring, run each requirement through this three-point filter:

1. Is it tied to a decision? If we learn the answer today, what specifically changes in our defense?
2. Does it have an owner? Which specific stakeholder is accountable for acting on this information?
3. Is it time-bound? Is this requirement evergreen, or active during a defined risk window?

For a more comprehensive view of your full threat intelligence picture, take the Threat Intelligence Capability Assessment.

Frequently Asked Questions About Priority Intelligence Requirements

What is the difference between PIRs and general monitoring goals?
PIRs are decision-driven requirements tied to specific risks. Monitoring goals (like “watch the dark web”) describe activities without defining a clear outcome.

How often should PIRs be updated?
PIRs should be revisited when decisions are made, risks shift, incidents occur, or strategic priorities change.

Can small security teams implement PIR frameworks?
Yes. In fact, smaller teams often benefit most because requirements help prioritize limited resources.

How do you measure PIR effectiveness?
Indicators include reduced alert noise, clearer reporting alignment, faster investigations, and improved stakeholder satisfaction.

Join the Webinar: How to Build and Operationalize Priority Intelligence Requirements

Register to learn how to define actionable PIRs that stakeholders actually care about and align intelligence to real business decisions.

Register now for the webinar.

Note: Attendees will receive our exclusive “Priority Intelligence Requirements Starter Kit,” which features a practical workbook and a PIR library.

Begin your free trial today.

Blogs

Blog

The Phishing-as-a-Service Pipeline: How a Scalable Fraud Ecosystem Is Driving Global Attacks

In this post, we examine how phishing-as-a-service (PhaaS) has evolved into a structured cybercrime ecosystem, how threat actors collaborate across infrastructure, delivery, and monetization layers, and why this model continues to drive large-scale financial fraud targeting global organizations.

Phishing is no longer a standalone tactic. It has matured into a service-based ecosystem where specialized actors provide each component of an attack lifecycle, from infrastructure and delivery to credential harvesting and cash-out.

Flashpoint analysts, working with partner financial institutions, have observed a growing number of PhaaS operations operating with a level of coordination and specialization more commonly associated with legitimate software platforms. These ecosystems bring together phishing kit developers, infrastructure providers, spam delivery services, and financially motivated actors into a single, scalable pipeline for fraud.

This shift has significantly lowered the barrier to entry for cybercriminals while increasing the scale, efficiency, and success rate of phishing campaigns.

From Phishing Kits to a Service-Based Fraud Economy

PhaaS emerged from early phishing kits into a full cybercrime-as-a-service model built on commercialization, modular tooling, and operational scalability.

Early phishing activity relied on standalone kits — basic login pages and scripts that allowed attackers to collect credentials. Over time, operators began centralizing these capabilities into subscription-based platforms offering hosting, domain management, campaign tooling, and ongoing support.

Modern PhaaS platforms now operate similarly to legitimate SaaS providers:

• Subscription-based pricing models
  
• Prebuilt templates for major brands and services
  
• Integrated delivery mechanisms (email, SMS, QR phishing)
  
• Real-time dashboards for campaign tracking and credential harvesting
  

This model has made sophisticated phishing accessible to low-skill actors. Kits can cost as little as US$10, while full platforms enable large-scale campaigns for relatively modest monthly fees.

MFA Bypass and AI Are Reshaping Phishing Capabilities

As organizations adopted multifactor authentication (MFA), PhaaS operators adapted.

Modern platforms increasingly rely on adversary-in-the-middle (AiTM) techniques, using reverse proxy infrastructure to intercept login sessions in real time. This allows attackers to capture not only credentials, but also MFA tokens and session cookies, effectively bypassing traditional authentication controls.

At the same time, AI is accelerating the scale and effectiveness of phishing campaigns.

Threat actors are using AI to:

• Generate convincing, localized phishing lures
  
• Clone brand interfaces with high fidelity
  
• Optimize campaigns through automated testing and iteration
  

This combination of MFA bypass and AI-driven automation has transformed phishing from a volume-based tactic into a precision-driven access vector.

The PhaaS Pipeline: How the Ecosystem Operates

What distinguishes modern phishing operations is not just tooling, but coordination.

A typical PhaaS campaign follows a structured lifecycle:

This pipeline is supported by a network of specialized providers, each responsible for a different stage of the attack lifecycle.

Infrastructure, Delivery, and Exfiltration Are Increasingly Specialized

Flashpoint analysis highlights how different actors focus on distinct parts of the ecosystem.

Infrastructure and Kit Development

Phishing kit developers provide increasingly sophisticated tooling, including:

• Reverse proxy (AiTM) capabilities for MFA bypass
  
• Anti-bot protections to evade researchers
  
• “Live panels” enabling real-time interaction with victims
  

Platforms such as GhostFrame, Rapid Pages, and MUH Pro Admin illustrate how these tools are being productized and distributed at scale.

SMS Delivery and Spoofing

Smishing has become a critical delivery vector.

Threat actors operate dedicated SMS gateway services capable of sending large volumes of messages via APIs or bulk uploads. Others actively seek advanced spoofing capabilities to bypass authentication controls such as SPF, DKIM, and DMARC, enabling phishing messages to appear legitimate at the protocol level.

Credential Exfiltration and Telegram Integration

Credential collection is increasingly automated and centralized.

Many campaigns exfiltrate stolen credentials directly to Telegram bots or channels, enabling real-time access to victim data. This infrastructure also allows for rapid scaling and coordination across actors participating in the same campaign or ecosystem.

From Credential Theft to Financial Monetization

The ultimate goal of PhaaS operations is monetization.

Stolen credentials are used to enable account takeover (ATO), which allows attackers to:

• Access financial accounts
  
• Lock out legitimate users
  
• Initiate fraudulent transactions
  
• Launch follow-on scams
  

Flashpoint analysis of actors such as “JUN JUN,” associated with the Squirtle group, illustrates how these operations extend into structured financial fraud and laundering.

Observed activity shows a progression from acquiring phishing logs (“fish material”) to targeting high-value accounts and ultimately laundering funds through complex mechanisms, including tax fraud and credit card repayment schemes designed to recycle illicit funds.

This highlights how phishing is only the entry point into a broader fraud pipeline.

A Distributed Ecosystem of Threat Actors

The PhaaS landscape is not controlled by a single group, but by a network of loosely connected actors and clusters.

Examples include:

• Fluffy Spider: Focused on large-scale infrastructure deployment and domain generation
  
• IVAN: A more exclusive, high-tier operation leveraging SEO poisoning and advanced evasion techniques
  
• Smishing Triad: A highly coordinated group conducting global SMS phishing campaigns
  
• System Bot: A modular phishing toolkit with credential harvesting and OTP bypass capabilities
  

These actors operate across different regions and languages but demonstrate comparable levels of technical capability and operational maturity.

Many of these groups function with enterprise-like structures, including support teams, affiliate models, and performance-based operations, further reinforcing the industrialization of phishing-driven fraud.

Law Enforcement Pressure Is Increasing, but the Model Persists

Recent takedowns, including operations targeting platforms such as Tycoon 2FA, demonstrate growing coordination between public and private sector defenders.

These efforts have:

• Disrupted infrastructure
  
• Increased operational costs for threat actors
  
• Accelerated collaboration between intelligence providers and law enforcement

However, the underlying PhaaS model remains resilient.

Even as major platforms are dismantled, operators frequently rebrand, migrate infrastructure, or fragment into smaller services. The demand for scalable, low-cost phishing capabilities continues to sustain the ecosystem.

What This Means for Security Teams

Phishing-as-a-service has evolved from a tactic to an ecosystem that industrializes fraud.

Flashpoint assesses that the increasing coordination between phishing kit developers, infrastructure providers, and financial fraud actors will continue to drive large-scale credential harvesting and account takeover activity targeting global organizations.

For defenders, this means that effective mitigation requires more than user awareness and traditional controls. Organizations must account for:

• MFA bypass techniques such as AiTM
  
• Rapid infrastructure rotation and evasion
  
• The integration of phishing into broader fraud and access broker pipelines
  

Protecting Your Organization from the PhaaS Ecosystem

Understanding how phishing ecosystems operate — from infrastructure and delivery to monetization — is critical for disrupting attacks before they result in fraud.

Flashpoint provides intelligence that helps organizations track phishing campaigns, identify emerging threat actors, and detect compromised credentials in real time. By correlating activity across the full attack lifecycle, security teams can better anticipate threats and respond before they escalate.

To learn how Flashpoint can support your team with actionable intelligence on phishing and fraud ecosystems, schedule a demo.

Begin your free trial today.

Blogs

Blog

Tax Refund Fraud in 2026: How Threat Actors Exploit Identity, Verification, and Cash-Out Channels

In this post, we examine how threat actors are executing tax refund fraud schemes, from sourcing identity data to bypassing verification and cashing out fraudulent returns, and what these patterns reveal about evolving fraud ecosystems.

Tax refund fraud remains a persistent and evolving threat within cybercrime and fraud communities. Threat actors actively advertise and refine schemes designed to file fraudulent returns and intercept refund payments from legitimate taxpayers.

Across illicit forums, Telegram channels, and marketplaces, discussions point to a structured ecosystem built around identity data, social engineering, verification bypass, and increasingly sophisticated cash-out methods.

For intelligence teams, these conversations provide insight into how fraud operations are scaling and where defenses are being tested and adapted.

The Structure of Modern Tax Refund Fraud Schemes

At a high level, most tax refund fraud schemes follow a consistent model: obtain identity data, file a fraudulent return, bypass verification, and extract funds.

Flashpoint analysis shows that threat actors focus on several key stages:

• Sourcing victims or identity “fullz” (complete PII packages)
• Obtaining or bypassing identity and return verification
• Leveraging social engineering to support fraud workflows
• Using tutorials and shared methods to maximize refund amounts
• Converting refunds into cash or cryptocurrency

These stages are not isolated. They are supported by overlapping communities that specialize in identity theft, financial fraud, and account access.

Identity Data as the Foundation of Fraud

The success of tax refund fraud depends heavily on access to high-quality identity data.

Threat actors typically rely on “fullz,” which include a victim’s name, date of birth, address, and Social Security number. In some cases, fraudsters also recruit “clients” or “tax heads” — individuals who knowingly or unknowingly provide accurate tax documents and assist in bypassing verification steps.

This distinction is important. While fullz can be purchased or harvested at scale, clients often provide more reliable and current information, increasing the likelihood that a fraudulent return will be accepted.

Threat actors also seek additional data points to legitimize filings, including:

• Identity Protection (IP) PINs
• Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) from previous tax years
• Access to tax preparation accounts or IRS records

These elements are frequently obtained through compromised accounts, social engineering, or access to verified identity platforms.

Verification Bypass as a Critical Enabler

Filing a fraudulent return is only part of the process. Successfully passing identity and return verification is often the deciding factor.

Threat actors place significant emphasis on accessing or creating verified accounts tied to identity systems used by government agencies. These accounts allow fraudsters to:

• Retrieve tax transcripts and historical data
• Respond to IRS verification requests
• Validate identity during filing and follow-up processes

In many cases, fraudsters rely on social engineering to obtain this access. Common approaches include:

• Creating fake job postings or tax preparation services to collect documents
• Running romance or employment scams to gather personal information
• Coercing victims into creating or sharing verified accounts

Threat actors also prepare for additional verification steps, such as responding to IRS letters or completing phone and in-person identity checks. These workflows often involve scripts, impersonation tactics, and coordination with cooperating “clients.”

Fraud Tactics Are Increasingly Systematic

Beyond basic filing, threat actors share detailed tutorials and playbooks designed to maximize refunds and improve success rates.

These often include:

• Using real or falsified income data to inflate returns
• Targeting specific tax credits, such as the Child Tax Credit (CTC), Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), or Employer Retention Credit (ERC)
• Claiming dependents or benefits that increase refund amounts
• Adapting methods based on state-specific programs or eligibility requirements

A notable development is the use of fraudulent income submission schemes, where threat actors pre-populate tax records with inflated income and withholding data before filing a return.

This process typically involves:

1. Submitting false wage data to the IRS or Social Security Administration using employer identifiers
2. Waiting for the data to appear on official tax transcripts
3. Filing a return that matches the fabricated figures

By aligning submitted data with filed returns, fraudsters increase the likelihood that filings will appear legitimate during verification.

Social Engineering Extends Beyond Victims

Social engineering plays a central role throughout the fraud lifecycle—and not just at the initial data collection stage.

Threat actors also target:

• IRS representatives, attempting to verify fraudulent returns over the phone
• Clients, persuading them to attend verification appointments or share official correspondence
• Government offices, including outreach to congressional staff to resolve refund holds

In some cases, fraudsters use AI-generated communications to scale these efforts, including drafting messages designed to appear legitimate and urgent.

These tactics highlight how fraud operations extend into real-world processes and human interactions, not just digital systems.

Cash-Out Methods Continue to Evolve

Once a fraudulent refund is secured, the focus shifts to converting funds into usable, untraceable assets.

Common cash-out methods include:

• Direct deposits into accounts controlled by the fraudster
• Accounts opened by “clients” on behalf of the operation
• Digital banking platforms and payment apps
• Prepaid cards and alternative financial instruments

Increasingly, threat actors are moving funds into cryptocurrency to reduce traceability. This often involves:

• Using verified exchange accounts to pass KYC requirements
• Converting refunds into Bitcoin or other assets
• Transferring funds to wallets controlled by the fraudster

In some workflows, the entire process — from filing to conversion — can occur within a single mobile or digital ecosystem.

Fraud Communities Enable Scale and Adaptation

Tax refund fraud does not operate in isolation. It is embedded within broader fraud ecosystems where identity data, tools, and tutorials are continuously shared.

Telegram remains a central hub for this activity, with large channels distributing:

• Screenshots of successful refunds
• Tutorials and “sauce” (paid or free methods)
• Listings for identity data and services

Dark web forums also host discussions, though typically with lower volume and higher signal.

The structure of these communities allows fraud techniques to spread quickly, adapt to changing controls, and persist across multiple platforms.

What This Means for Threat Intelligence Teams

Tax refund fraud reflects a broader shift toward operationally mature, community-driven fraud ecosystems.

Flashpoint analysts assess that these schemes are becoming more structured, with clearly defined workflows for identity acquisition, verification bypass, and monetization.

For security and intelligence teams, this has several implications:

• Identity data remains a critical point of exposure across multiple fraud types
• Verification systems are actively targeted and tested by threat actors
• Social engineering continues to bridge technical and human vulnerabilities
• Fraud techniques are rapidly shared, refined, and scaled across communities

Understanding how these components connect is essential for identifying emerging fraud patterns and anticipating how threat actors will adapt.

Supporting Security Teams with Threat Intelligence During Tax Season and Beyond

Understanding how tax fraud schemes are executed from identity sourcing to verification bypass and cash-out provides critical context for detecting and disrupting fraudulent activity.

Flashpoint delivers leading intelligence that helps organizations monitor fraud communities, track evolving tactics, and identify emerging schemes before they scale. By combining primary source collection with contextual analysis, security teams can move from reactive detection to proactive defense.

To learn how Flashpoint can support your team with real-time intelligence and analysis, request a demo.

Frequently Asked Questions About Tax Refund Fraud

What is tax refund fraud?

Tax refund fraud is a form of identity-based financial crime in which threat actors file fraudulent tax returns using stolen or manipulated personal information to obtain refund payments before the legitimate taxpayer files.

How do threat actors obtain the information needed to commit tax fraud?

Threat actors typically rely on stolen identity data, often referred to as “fullz,” which includes a victim’s name, date of birth, address, and Social Security number. This information is sourced from infostealer malware logs, phishing campaigns, data breaches, social engineering, and illicit marketplaces.

In some cases, fraudsters also recruit “clients” who provide real tax documents or assist in verification processes.

How do fraudsters bypass identity verification for tax returns?

Fraudsters use a combination of tactics to bypass identity and return verification, including:

• Accessing or creating verified identity accounts used for tax authentication
• Obtaining prior-year tax data such as adjusted gross income (AGI)
• Using stolen or socially engineered identity protection (IP) PINs
• Responding to IRS verification requests using scripts, impersonation, or cooperating individuals

These methods allow fraudulent returns to appear legitimate during processing.

What are common tax fraud tactics used by threat actors?

Common tactics include:

• Filing returns using stolen personal information
• Inflating income or tax withholding amounts to increase refunds
• Claiming fraudulent dependents or tax credits
• Submitting false wage data to government systems before filing
• Using real tax forms combined with manipulated data

These approaches are often shared and refined within fraud communities.

What is a “fullz” in tax fraud?

A “fullz” refers to a complete set of personally identifiable information (PII) about an individual, typically including name, date of birth, address, and Social Security number. Fullz are used by fraudsters to file tax returns, open accounts, and conduct other identity-based financial crimes.

How do fraudsters cash out fraudulent tax refunds?

After a fraudulent return is accepted, threat actors typically attempt to convert the refund into usable funds through:

• Direct deposits into controlled or intermediary accounts
• Accounts opened by recruited participants
• Digital banking platforms or prepaid cards
• Cryptocurrency conversion using verified exchange accounts

The goal is to move funds quickly and reduce traceability.

Why is tax refund fraud difficult to detect?

Tax refund fraud can be difficult to detect because it leverages legitimate systems and processes, including real identity data, authentic tax preparation services, and verified accounts. Fraudsters also adapt quickly by sharing new techniques and bypass methods across online communities.

How do fraud communities support tax refund fraud schemes?

Fraud communities, particularly on platforms like Telegram and dark web forums, enable threat actors to share tutorials, tools, and identity data. These communities accelerate the spread of techniques, allowing fraud schemes to scale and evolve rapidly.

What should security and fraud teams monitor to detect tax fraud activity?

Teams should monitor for:

• Unusual access to identity data or tax-related accounts
• Indicators of compromised credentials or identity verification systems
• Discussions of tax fraud methods, tutorials, or cash-out techniques in illicit communities
• Patterns in fraudulent filings or refund activity

Incorporating intelligence from fraud communities can provide early visibility into emerging tactics.

How does Flashpoint help organizations detect and prevent tax refund fraud?

Flashpoint helps organizations detect and respond to tax fraud by providing intelligence on how threat actors source identity data, bypass verification systems, and cash out fraudulent returns.

Through primary source collection across platforms like Telegram and dark web forums, Flashpoint enables teams to monitor fraud communities, identify emerging tactics, and understand how schemes are evolving. This intelligence helps organizations move from reactive detection to more proactive identification of fraud risk.

Begin your free trial today.

Blogs

Blog

The Language of Emojis in Threat Intelligence: How Adversaries Signal, Obfuscate, and Coordinate Online

In this post, we examine how threat actors use emojis across illicit communities, how these symbols function as a form of coded language, and why understanding this form of communication is increasingly critical for threat intelligence teams.

As threat actor activity continues to shift toward informal, fast-moving communication platforms such as Telegram and Discord, the way adversaries communicate is evolving. Emojis, often dismissed as casual or nontechnical, have become a meaningful part of that evolution.

Across illicit forums, messaging apps, and closed communities, emojis are used not just for expression, but for signaling intent, categorizing activity, and, in some cases, obscuring meaning from outsiders. For analysts, this introduces an additional layer of context that can influence how communications are interpreted, prioritized, and actioned.

Emojis as a Functional Layer of Communication

Within threat actor communities, emoji usage is often structured and repeatable.

Rather than replacing language entirely, emojis act as a functional overlay — reinforcing key concepts, highlighting important information, and accelerating communication in high-volume environments.

This is especially common in:

• Telegram fraud channels
  
• Phishing and carding communities
  
• Service marketplaces and access broker groups

In these environments, speed and clarity matter. Emojis allow actors to quickly scan messages, identify relevant content, and engage without parsing long text-based posts.

Common Emoji Categories and What They Signal

Flashpoint analysis of illicit communities shows that emoji usage tends to cluster around a set of recurring categories. While meanings can vary slightly by group, several patterns appear consistently.

Financial Activity and Monetization

Emojis related to money are among the most frequently used.

Common examples include:

• / — Profit, successful fraud, or payouts
  
• — Credit cards, carding activity, or stolen payment data
  
• — Banks or financial institutions
  
• — Cryptocurrency-related activity
  

These symbols often appear in sales posts, fraud logs, or success claims, helping actors quickly identify opportunities tied to financial gain.

Access, Credentials, and Compromise

Another cluster of emoji usage centers on access and account compromise, where symbols are used to signal the availability of credentials, successful intrusions, or control over compromised systems.

Examples include:

• — Credentials or account access
  
• — Successful breach or unlocked account
  
• / — Data exfiltration or transfer
  
• — Databases or collections of stolen data
  

In many cases, these emojis are used in combination with minimal text, allowing actors to advertise access or share results without detailed descriptions.

Tools, Automation, and Services

Emojis are also used to signal tooling and service offerings.

Examples include:

• — Bots, automation tools, or malware
  
• — Configuration, setup, or infrastructure
  
• — Toolkits or bundled services
  
• — Infrastructure, communication channels, or delivery mechanisms
  

These are commonly seen in phishing-as-a-service, SMS gateway services, and malware distribution communities.

Targets and Geography

Threat actors frequently use emojis to represent targets or regions.

Examples include:

• — Corporate or enterprise targets
  
• — Targeting or “hits”
  
• — Specific targets, drop locations, or points of interest
  
• — Global campaigns
  
• Country flags — Specific geographic targeting
  

This allows actors to signal targeting scope quickly, particularly in multilingual or international groups.

Urgency, Success, and Status

Some emojis are used to communicate momentum or importance.

Examples include:

• — High-value or trending activity
  
• — Verified success or working method
  
• — Urgent update or active campaign
  
• — Growth or increased results
  

These signals are particularly important in fast-moving channels where actors compete for attention.

Emojis as a Tool for Obfuscation

Beyond signaling, emojis are also used to evade detection.

Threat actors may substitute emojis for keywords associated with:

• Fraud techniques
  
• Financial activity
  
• Specific platforms or services

For example, replacing “credit card” with or “bank” with can help bypass basic keyword filters or reduce visibility in automated moderation systems.

When combined with slang, abbreviations, and multilingual phrasing, this creates a layered form of obfuscation that complicates large-scale monitoring efforts.

Building Identity and Reputation Through Emoji Patterns

Emoji usage is not just functional. It can also be behavioral.

Over time, actors often develop recognizable patterns in how they use emojis:

• Consistent combinations in sales posts
  
• Repeated formatting styles
  
• Unique ways of structuring messages

These patterns can serve as lightweight identifiers, helping analysts:

• Track the same actor across different channels
  
• Identify reposted or syndicated content
  
• Link activity between platforms

In ecosystems where aliases frequently change, these subtle patterns can provide additional attribution signals.

Cross-Language Communication in Global Threat Ecosystems

Illicit communities are inherently global, spanning multiple languages and regions.

Emojis provide a shared visual layer that allows actors to communicate core concepts without relying entirely on text. This is particularly valuable in:

• Large Telegram channels with international membership
  
• Cross-border fraud operations
  
• Decentralized marketplaces
  

For example, a combination of + + can communicate “global carding opportunity” without requiring a shared language.

This ability to compress meaning into visual shorthand helps scale operations and coordination across diverse actor networks.

Context Still Determines Meaning

Despite these patterns, emoji usage is not universal or fixed.

The same emoji can carry different meanings depending on:

• The platform (Telegram vs. Discord vs. forums)
  
• The specific community
  
• The surrounding text and context
  

For example, may indicate “high value” in one group, but simply “active discussion” in another.

For analysts, this reinforces the need to treat emojis as contextual signals, not standalone indicators. Accurate interpretation depends on understanding the broader communication environment.

What This Means for Threat Intelligence Teams

Emoji usage reflects a broader shift in how threat actors communicate toward faster, more visual, and more adaptive forms of interaction.

Flashpoint assesses that incorporating emoji analysis into intelligence workflows can enhance:

• Detection of emerging campaigns
  
• Identification of high-value activity
  
• Attribution and actor tracking
  
• Interpretation of intent and sentiment
  

While emojis alone are not decisive indicators, they provide an additional layer of signal that can strengthen overall analysis.

Supporting Security Teams with Threat Intelligence

Understanding how threat actors communicate down to the symbols they use provides critical context for identifying and interpreting emerging threats.

Flashpoint delivers intelligence that helps organizations monitor illicit communities, track evolving communication patterns, and translate raw data into actionable insights. Within the Flashpoint platform, analysts can search across environments like Flashpoint Ignite and Echosec using emojis alongside keywords—enabling more precise discovery of relevant conversations, signals, and emerging activity that might otherwise be missed.

This approach allows teams to capture nuance in how threat actors communicate, improving detection, attribution, and overall situational awareness.

To learn how Flashpoint can support your team with real-time intelligence and analysis, request a demo.

Begin your free trial today.

Blogs

Blog

Forrester Threat Intelligence Landscape: Key Takeaways for Security Leaders

Key insights from Forrester’s External Threat Intelligence Service Providers Landscape, Q1 2026 and what they mean for security teams.

Forrester recently published The External Threat Intelligence Service Providers Landscape, Q1 2026, an overview of 34 vendors in the external threat intelligence market — defining market maturity and outlining key dynamics and use cases.

For security and risk leaders, the report offers a clear picture of how the market is evolving and where organizations should focus as they evaluate and operationalize threat intelligence.

The Market Has Moved Beyond Undifferentiated Data Collection

One of the clearest takeaways from the report is how significantly the market has matured.

Threat intelligence is no longer simply about collecting indicators or monitoring feeds. The expectation is now:

• Contextualized analysis
• Relevance to specific business risks
• Direct applicability to detection, response, and decision-making

In our experience, turning data into action is among the most pressing challenges for security leaders. At RSA Conference 2026, Flashpoint introduced new capabilities designed to address this gap by connecting adversary activity directly to business priorities, assets, and investigations.

Intelligence Is Only Valuable When It’s Operationalized

The report also calls out a central challenge: gaps in operationalizing intelligence and aligning it to business context.

Forrester notes, “Gaps in operationalizing intelligence and aligning it to business context are the primary challenge in this market. As the industry shifts from static IOCs to TTPs, scaling operational use becomes difficult when intelligence is not tightly integrated into existing detection, response, and investigation workflows.”

This reflects what we consistently see across teams:

• Intelligence exists, but sits outside workflows
• Insights don’t map cleanly to assets, users, or priorities
• Teams spend time interpreting instead of acting
  

This alignment of collection and operationalization is defining the next phase of the market.

AI Is Accelerating, But Not Replacing, Intelligence Workflows

Another key theme is the role of AI.

The Forrester report points out, “The main trend in this market is agentic AI being embedded into threat intelligence workflows to improve effectiveness and efficiency… While AI is reshaping the threat intelligence industry, human expertise remains essential to interpret intelligence, apply it to an organization’s unique risk profile, and design, validate, govern, and maintain even highly automated systems over time.”

This balance is critical.

AI is improving how teams operate day to day. Our customers largely credit AI for optimizing:

• Correlation across disparate signals
• Speed of triage and enrichment
• Detection engineering and threat hunting
  

At the same time, customers do not believe that it can replace:

• Contextual understanding of adversaries
• Business-specific risk interpretation
• Decision-making under uncertainty
  

Security teams that treat AI as a force multiplier tend to see the most impact. We explore this further in our recent work on AI and threat intelligence.

Where Flashpoint Fits Into The Threat Intelligence Landscape

In The External Threat Intelligence Service Providers Landscape, Q1 2026, Flashpoint self-reported the extended use cases of fraud, financial abuse, counterfeiting, and piracy, threats targeting physical assets, and vulnerability and exposure prioritization as the top three use cases for which clients select them.

From our perspective, the direction outlined in the report closely aligns with how we see the market evolving. Flashpoint is designed to operationalize the capabilities described in the report by linking adversary activity to business context, assets, and decision-making workflows.

From our experience as the largest private provider of threat intelligence, effective threat intelligence today requires:

• Primary source collection at scale: Direct access to adversary communications, illicit marketplaces, and closed communities — not just aggregated feeds
• Contextualized, finished intelligence: Analysis that connects activity to real-world impact across assets, people, and operations
• Operational integration: Intelligence that maps directly into workflows and investigations
• Cross-domain visibility: Coverage that spans cyber, physical, and geopolitical risk — not treating them as separate problems

What Security Leaders Should Take Away

Based on our experience working with security teams, we see a few consistent priorities for those evaluating threat intelligence providers:

1. Prioritize outcomes over inputs: The volume of data matters less than its relevance and usability
2. Look for operational alignment: Intelligence should integrate into detection, response, and investigation workflows
3. Evaluate context, not just coverage: Breadth of collection matters — but depth of analysis is what drives decisions
4. Plan for convergence: Cyber, physical, and brand risks are increasingly interconnected
5. Treat AI as an accelerator, not a replacement: Automation improves scale, but expertise drives impact

Final Thoughts

We believe Forrester’s overview reflects a market that is maturing quickly, but highlights the continued need for security teams to focus on turning intelligence into action.

For organizations evaluating providers, the question is not solely “Who has the most data?”

Organizations must also consider “Where does that data come from, and who can help us make better decisions, faster and with confidence?”

To see how Flashpoint supports this in practice, schedule a demo.

Required 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. For more information, read about Forrester’s objectivity here.

Begin your free trial today.

Blogs

Blog

Connecting Threat Intelligence to Decision-Making: How Flashpoint Is Operationalizing Intelligence in 2026

At RSA Conference 2026, Flashpoint introduces new capabilities that enable security teams to move from visibility to defensible action by connecting adversary activity to business priorities, assets, and investigations.

Most organizations are not lacking visibility, but they are drowning in large volumes of information that are difficult to prioritize and even harder to tie back to clear action. In practice, this creates a familiar problem.

They can see what vulnerabilities exist.
They can track threat activity.
They can monitor alerts across their environment.

But the questions they struggle to answer are more important:

Which of these exposures actually matter?
What do we fix first — and why?
How does this activity translate to risk for the business?

As a result, teams fall back on patching cycles, compliance requirements, or best-effort prioritization and are left making decisions based on incomplete context.

This gap between data and decision-making has become one of the most persistent challenges in modern security operations.

At RSA Conference 2026, Flashpoint is sharing how we are addressing this gap directly — connecting adversary activity to assets, investigations, and defined business priorities so teams can make more consistent, defensible decisions.

“The industry has reached a tipping point where security teams are drowning in data that fails to align with their most important business requirements and decisions. Visibility alone is no longer a victory; it’s a baseline. By connecting underground adversary activity to an organization’s specific attack surface and strategic requirements, Flashpoint is raising the bar beyond passive observation. We are enabling defenders to stop asking ‘what do we own’ and start answering ‘what do we fix first, and why,’ turning raw data into an engine for risk reduction at speed.”

Josh Lefkowitz

What Flashpoint is Showcasing at RSA Conference 2026

Flashpoint is introducing a set of capabilities designed to connect threat intelligence directly to business risk, assets, and investigations:

• Threat-informed External Attack Surface Management (EASM)
• Business-Aligned Priority Intelligence Requirements (PIRs)
• Managed Attribution browser for anonymous investigations

Together, these capabilities enable organizations to move beyond passive monitoring and toward intelligence-driven action.

What Is Threat-Informed External Attack Surface Management (EASM)

Most organizations maintain an inventory of their external assets, but prioritizing them is a persistent challenge. Traditional EASM tools identify what you own but often fail to answer the critical “so what?”. Without contextual risk, prioritization is often driven by static severity scores, patch cycles, or compliance requirements rather than real-world attacker behavior. As a result, teams are left managing stale data through manual CSV uploads and struggling to determine which exposures actually matter.

Flashpoint’s EASM module transforms this stream of exposure data into a prioritized action plan. It continuously discovers a customer’s external attack surface, including domains, subdomains, and IP addresses, and automatically maps this live inventory directly to Flashpoint’s industry-leading vulnerability intelligence.

This allows security teams to:

• Maintain a Dynamic Inventory: Eliminate manual uploads and stale CMDB exports with an always-current map of internet-facing assets.
• Contextualize Risk Immediately: Go beyond simple asset discovery by mapping the specific software running on each asset to known vulnerabilities, including pre-NVD findings.
• Prioritize with Precision: Connect the asset to the actual risk, showing teams not just their external exposure, but where they are truly vulnerable and what needs to be fixed first.

By layering deep vulnerability intelligence onto live asset discovery, Flashpoint enables defenders to move from reactive analysis to proactive, intelligence-driven risk reduction.

Why Priority Intelligence Requirements (PIRs) Are Foundational

Many intelligence teams operate without a formal structure that defines what their work is intended to support.

In day-to-day operations, this results in:

• Reactive investigation of incoming alerts
• Reporting driven by the availability of information rather than the need
• Difficulty demonstrating how intelligence outputs influence decisions

Priority Intelligence Requirements (PIRs) are designed to address this, but in many organizations, they are not integrated into operational workflows.

In May, Flashpoint is introducing in-platform Intelligence Requirements to formalize this structure and embed it directly into the way teams work.

Alerts, investigations, and reporting can be tied to defined requirements, allowing teams to:

• Focus on activities that directly align with defined business risk priorities
• Maintain consistency in what is tracked and reported
• Provide a clearer justification for the intelligence work being done

This creates a more structured intelligence program. Instead of producing outputs based on what is observed, teams can align their work to defined objectives and decision-making needs.

Enabling Safe, Scalable Investigations with Managed Attribution

Accessing adversary-controlled environments such as forums, marketplaces, and encrypted platforms is a core part of many intelligence workflows.

However, doing so safely requires careful setup. Analysts typically need to:

• Use isolated infrastructure
• Manage attribution and identity exposure
• Avoid introducing risk to internal systems

This creates operational overhead and can slow down or limit investigation.

The new anonymous browser capability within Flashpoint Managed Attribution is designed to address this by providing a non-persistent, isolated environment for research and immediate triage. This removes setup friction and allows analysts to move immediately from detection, to investigation, to deeper analysis in the same environment.

Analysts can:

• Access underground communities
• Open suspicious links or files
• Engage with threat actors

Without exposing their identity or internal infrastructure.

By removing the need for manual setup, this allows analysts to move directly into investigation while maintaining operational security. 

See it at RSA Conference 2026

Security teams are being asked to do more than identify threats. They are expected to prioritize, act decisively, and justify those decisions.

That becomes difficult when the inputs — vulnerabilities, alerts, threat reporting — are not clearly connected to each other or to the business.

​​Intelligence needs to be tied to assets, aligned to defined priorities, and usable in day-to-day workflows. That’s the focus of Flashpoint’s updates this year.

At RSA Conference 2026, we’ll be walking through how this works in practice—how teams are connecting adversary activity to what they own, what matters, and what they do next. Flashpoint will be sharing more on these new innovations, including threat-informed EASM, in-platform Intelligence Requirements, and the Managed Attribution browser.If you’re attending, stop by Booth S-3341 to see how teams are moving from visibility to action. For a personalized demo, schedule a meeting with us.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Flashpoint showcasing at RSA 2026? 

Flashpoint is showcasing how its primary-source threat data connects directly to business assets and priorities. At the booth, attendees can get a sneak peek of the upcoming in-platform Priority Intelligence Requirements (PIRs), which formalize how security teams tie investigations to business risk. Flashpoint will also be discussing the upcoming general availability of threat-informed EASM for asset discovery and risk prioritization, alongside the Flashpoint Managed Attribution browser, designed for secure underground research.

What is Flashpoint Threat-Informed EASM? 

Flashpoint External Attack Surface Management (EASM) goes beyond simple asset discovery by automatically mapping your external footprint to our industry-leading vulnerability intelligence. This allows teams to prioritize remediation by identifying which software versions are actually running on key assets, flagging critical risks often missed by public databases.

How do Flashpoint Priority Intelligence Requirements (PIRs) help security teams? 

Flashpoint PIRs provide a formal in-platform structure that ties security alerts and investigations to specific business risks. This helps teams move away from reactive “activity-based” work and toward “decision-based” intelligence that is defensible to executive stakeholders.

What are the benefits of the Flashpoint Managed Attribution browser? 

The Flashpoint Managed Attribution browser allows threat analysts to safely research the web using a disposable, anonymous environment. This prevents the analyst’s identity from being exposed and protects the corporate network from malware while conducting underground research.

How does Flashpoint’s new offering support a Continuous Threat Exposure Management (CTEM) framework?

Flashpoint facilitates the CTEM lifecycle by providing the primary source data necessary to move beyond traditional point-in-time scanning. EASM enables organizations to start focusing on the specific vulnerable software and high-risk exposures that threat actors are actively targeting.

Begin your free trial today.

Blogs

Blog

Iran-Aligned Militias Signal Expanded Regional Risk Amid US–Israel–Iran Conflict

In this post, we examine how Iran-aligned militias and foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs) responded to the current US–Israel–Iran conflict, what their statements suggest about operational intent, and why this points to a wider risk environment for US and Israeli interests across the region.

The current phase of the US–Israel–Iran conflict is generating more than rhetorical support from militant actors aligned with Tehran. Public messaging from groups across Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, and Gaza indicates a coordinated effort to frame the conflict as a regional, long-term confrontation rather than a contained exchange.

For threat intelligence teams, these statements matter not only because of what they say, but because of what they signal. Across multiple theaters, Iran-aligned groups are using similar language, emphasizing shared objectives, and in some cases pointing to an expanded target set that reaches beyond their traditional operating areas. Taken together, this messaging suggests continued alignment across militant networks and a heightened likelihood of retaliatory or opportunistic activity targeting US and Israeli interests.

Leadership Losses Are Being Used to Reinforce Mobilization

Several militant statements referenced the reported deaths of senior Iranian officials in strikes in Tehran, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Defense Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh, and IRGC Commander Mohammad Bagheri. These losses were framed not simply as blows against Iran, but as attacks on the broader resistance movement.

That framing is important. By portraying the strikes as an assault on a shared regional project rather than a national leadership event confined to Iran, these groups are reinforcing the rationale for broader mobilization. Statements from actors such as Akram al-Kaabi of Harakat al-Nujaba and Abdul-Malik al-Houthi of Ansarallah reflect that posture, emphasizing retaliation, readiness, and continued support for Iran.

This kind of messaging is consistent with efforts to maintain cohesion across the so-called resistance network during periods of escalation. It also helps set the informational conditions for follow-on activity by justifying future attacks as part of a collective response.

Messaging Points to a Longer Conflict Horizon

Some of the clearest signals in the reporting come from groups that described the conflict as a prolonged struggle rather than a short-lived escalation.

Kata’ib Hizballah called on fighters to prepare for a “long-term war of attrition,” while Kata’ib Sayyid al-Shuhada similarly urged readiness for a “long battle.” These statements go beyond symbolic solidarity. They suggest that at least some actors within Iran’s aligned militant ecosystem are preparing their audiences and personnel for sustained operations over time.

That distinction matters for defenders. A messaging environment centered on endurance, attrition, and regional confrontation raises the likelihood that groups will seek to maintain operational tempo across multiple fronts rather than respond with a single retaliatory action.

Militant Activity May Extend Beyond Traditional Operating Areas

Another notable feature of the reporting is the implied expansion of targeting scope.

Claims and statements referenced possible or actual activity in locations including Jordan, the Red Sea, and Israeli military sites near Haifa. This suggests that militant responses linked to the conflict may not remain confined to the actors’ most established operating environments in Iraq and Syria.

The claim by Rijal al-Bas al-Shadid of a drone strike on Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan is one example. Hezbollah’s claim of a strike south of Haifa is another. Together, these claims reinforce the broader picture presented in the messaging: a conflict environment in which Iran-aligned groups are attempting to demonstrate reach across multiple geographies and domains.

Even where operational claims remain difficult to verify independently, the messaging itself is still analytically significant. It helps illustrate how these groups want the conflict to be understood — as regional, coordinated, and capable of generating pressure well beyond a single front.

Responses Across the Network Reflect Coordinated Alignment

The organizational responses themselves show a high degree of consistency in tone and framing.

Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis

Hezbollah claimed a strike on the Mishmar HaCarmel missile defense site south of Haifa using missiles and drone swarms, presenting the operation as a legitimate response within the broader confrontation. Although Hezbollah is actively engaged in countering the Israeli ground offensive into Southern Lebanon, the group could still pose a regional threat. Al-Qassam Brigades issued a eulogy for Iranian leadership figures and indicated that their deaths would intensify resistance rather than weaken it. Ansarallah declared full readiness for further military developments and signaled preparedness to target US bases and Israeli interests across the region.

Iraqi Militias and FTOs

Harakat al-Nujaba condemned the strikes and called for military retribution. Kata’ib Hizballah emphasized long-term attritional conflict. Saraya Awliya al-Dam declared maximum readiness and stated that it was prepared to target US military sites inside and outside Iraq. Kata’ib Sayyid al-Shuhada warned that US presence in the Middle East would lose any safe foothold as the conflict develops.

Specialized and Emerging Actors

Rijal al-Bas al-Shadid claimed a retaliatory drone attack in Jordan. Shabab al-Wa’ad al-Sadiq Forces announced its formation as a new entity aligned with Iran and the resistance axis. Ajnad Beit al-Maqdis used its first official statements to announce allegiance to al-Qaeda, tying that move to the current conflict and broader anti-US and anti-Israel narratives.

Taken together, these responses highlight not just ideological alignment, but messaging discipline. Similar themes appear across multiple organizations: retaliation for leadership losses, preparation for sustained conflict, and a shared portrayal of the United States and Israel as part of a unified adversarial front.

What This Means for Threat Intelligence Teams

From an intelligence perspective, the most important takeaway is not any single statement or claim. It is the degree of coordination visible across the messaging environment.

Flashpoint analysts assess that the current US–Israel–Iran conflict is generating aligned signaling among multiple militant organizations across the Middle East. This messaging indicates continued support for potential operations targeting US and Israeli interests and will likely contribute to increased militant activity across Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, Yemen, and surrounding areas.

For security and intelligence teams, that means monitoring should extend beyond traditional flashpoints and beyond one-for-one retaliation models. The current environment suggests a broader risk picture shaped by networked militant cooperation, narrative synchronization, and the possibility of operations emerging across several theaters at once.

Supporting Security Teams with Threat Intelligence

Understanding how Iran-aligned militant networks communicate, coordinate, and signal intent is critical for anticipating how conflict dynamics may translate into real-world activity.

Flashpoint provides primary source intelligence that helps security teams track emerging threats, identify shifts in adversary behavior, and contextualize risk across regions and domains. From monitoring militant group messaging to analyzing operational indicators, our intelligence enables organizations to move from reactive response to informed, proactive defense.To learn how Flashpoint can support your team with real-time intelligence and analysis, schedule a demo.

Begin your free trial today.