❌

Normal view

Cyber and Physical Risks Targeting the 2026 Winter Olympics

Blogs

Blog

Cyber and Physical Risks Targeting the 2026 Winter Olympics

In this post we analyze the multi-vector threat landscape of the 2026 Winter Olympics, examining how the Games’ dispersed geographic footprint and high digital complexity create unique potential for cyber sabotage and physical disruptions.

SHARE THIS:
Default Author Image
February 5, 2026

The Milano-Cortina 2026 Winter Olympics represent a historic milestone as the first Games co-hosted by two major cities. However, the event’s expansive geographic footprintβ€”covering 22,000 square kilometers across northern Italyβ€”presents a complex security environment. From the metropolitan centers of Milan to the alpine peaks of Cortina d’Ampezzo, security forces are contending with a multi-vector threat landscape.

Kinetic and Physical Security Challenges

The geographically dispersed nature of the Milano-Cortina 2026 Winter Games also creates unique physical security challenges. Because venues are spread across thousands of square kilometers of the Alps, securing transit corridors and ensuring rapid emergency response across different Italian regionsβ€”including Lombardy, Veneto, and Trentinoβ€”is an incredible logistical hurdle. New tunnels, increased train services, and extended bus routes have been welcomed but create new potential targets for physical disruption by threat actors or protestors.

Terrorist and Extremist Threats

Flashpoint has not identified any terrorist or extremist threats to the Winter Olympic Games. However, lone threat actors in support of international terrorist organizations or domestic violence extremists remain a persistent threat due to the large number of attendees expected and the media attention that this event will attract.

Authorities in northern Italy are investigating a series of sabotage attacks on the national railway network that coincided with the opening of the 2026 Winter Olympic Games. The coordinated incidentsβ€”which included arson at a track switch, severed electrical cables, and the discovery of a rudimentary explosive deviceβ€”caused delays of over two hours and temporarily disabled the vital transport hub of Bologna.

Protests

Flashpoint analysts identified several protests targeting the 2026 Winter Olympics:

  • US Presence and ICE Backlash: Hundreds of demonstrators have participated in protests in central Milan to demand that US ICE agents withdraw from security roles at the upcoming Winter Olympics.
  • Anti-Olympic and Environmental Activism: The most organized opposition comes from the Unsustainable Olympics Committee. They have already staged marches in Milan and Cortina, with more planned for February.
  • Pro-Palestinian Groups: Organizations such as BDS Italia are actively campaigning to boycott the games, demanding that Israel not be permitted to participate. Other pro-Palestinian groups have attempted to disrupt the Torch Relay in several cities and are expected to hold flash mob-style demonstrations in Milan’s Piazza del Duomo during the Opening Ceremony.
  • Labor Strikes: Italy frequently experiences transport strikes, which often fall on Fridays. Because the Opening Ceremony is on Friday, February 6, unions are leveraging this for maximum impact. An International Day of Protest has been coordinated by port and dock workers across the Mediterranean for February 6.

On February 7, a massive protest of approximately 10,000 people near the Olympic Village in Milan descended into violence as a peaceful march against the Winter Games ended in clashes with Italian police. While the majority of demonstrators initially focused on the environmental destruction caused by Olympic infrastructure, a smaller group of masked protestors engaged security forces with flares, stones, and firecrackers.

Cyber Threats Facing the 2026 Winter Olympics

The Milano-Cortina 2026 Winter Olympics will be among the most digitally complex global events, making it a prime target for cyberattacks. The greatest risks stem from familiar tactics such as phishing, spoofed websites, and business email compromise, which exploit human trust rather than technical flaws. With billions of viewers and a vast network of cloud services, vendors, and connected systems, the games create an expansive attack surface under intense operational pressure.

Italy blocked a series of cyberattacks targeting its foreign ministry offices, including one in Washington, as well as Winter Olympics websites and hotels in Cortina d’Ampezzo, with officials attributing the attempts to Russian sources. Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani confirmed the attacks were prevented just days before the Games’ official opening, which began with curling matches on February 4.Β 

Past Olympic Games show a clear pattern of heightened cyber activity, including phishing campaigns, distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks, ransomware, and online scams targeting both organizers and the public. A mix of cybercriminals, advanced persistent threats, and hacktivists is expected to exploit the event for financial gain, espionage, or publicity. Experts emphasize that improving security awareness, verifying digital interactions, and strengthening supply chain defenses are critical, as the most damaging incidents often arise from ordinary threats amplified by scale and urgency.

Staying Safe at the 2026 Winter Games

The security success of Milano-Cortina 2026 relies on the integration of real-time intelligence, advanced technological safeguards, and public vigilance. As the Games proceed, the intersection of cyber-sabotage and physical protest remains the most likely source of operational disruption.

To stay safe at this year’s Games, participants should:

  1. Download Official Apps: Install the Milano Cortina 2026 Ground Transportation App and the Atm Milano app for real-time updates on transit, road closures, and β€œguaranteed” travel windows during strikes.
  2. Plan Around Friday Strikes: Be aware that transport strikes (Feb 6, 13, and 20) typically guarantee services only between 6:00 AM – 9:00 AM and 6:00 PM – 9:00 PM. Plan your venue transfers accordingly.
  3. Secure Your Digital Footprint: Avoid public Wi-Fi at major venues. Use a VPN and ensure Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) is active on all your ticketing and banking accounts.
  4. Stay Clear of Protests: While most demonstrations are expected to be peaceful, they can cause sudden police cordons and transit delays.
  5. Respect the Drone Ban: Unauthorized drones are strictly prohibited over Milan and venue clusters. Leave yours at home to avoid heavy fines or interception by security units.

Stay Safe Using Flashpoint

While there are no current indications of imminent threats of extreme violence targeting the Milano-Cortina 2026 Winter Olympics, the event’s vast geographic footprint and digital complexity demand constant vigilance. Securing an event that spans 22,000 square kilometers requires more than just a physical presence; it necessitates a multi-faceted approach that bridges the gap between digital and kinetic risks.

To effectively navigate the intersection of cyber-sabotage, civil unrest, and logistical challenges, organizations and attendees must adopt a comprehensive strategy that integrates real-time intelligence with proactive security measures. Download Flashpoint’s Physical Safety Event Checklist to learn more.

Request a demo today.

The post Cyber and Physical Risks Targeting the 2026 Winter Olympics appeared first on Flashpoint.

Burner phones and lead-lined bags: a history of UK security tactics in China

Starmer’s team is wary of spies but such fears are not new – with Theresa May once warned to get dressed under a duvet

When prime ministers travel to China, heightened security arrangements are a given – as is the quiet game of cat and mouse that takes place behind the scenes as each country tests out each other’s tradecraft and capabilities.

Keir Starmer’s team has been issued with burner phones and fresh sim cards, and is using temporary email addresses, to prevent devices being loaded with spyware or UK government servers being hacked into.

Continue reading...

Β© Photograph: Simon Dawson/Simon Dawson/10 Downing Street

Β© Photograph: Simon Dawson/Simon Dawson/10 Downing Street

Β© Photograph: Simon Dawson/Simon Dawson/10 Downing Street

What is the β€œyear 2038 problem”, and how can businesses fix it?

19 January 2026 at 18:22

Millions of IT systems β€” some of them industrial and IoT β€” may start behaving unpredictably on January 19. Potential failures include: glitches in processing card payments; false alarms from security systems; incorrect operation of medical equipment; failures in automated lighting, heating, and water supply systems; and many more or less serious types of errors. The catch is β€” it will happen on January 19, 2038. Not that that’s a reason to relaxΒ β€” the time left to prepare may already be insufficient. The cause of this mass of problems will be an overflow in the integers storing date and time. While the root cause of the error is simple and clear, fixing it will require extensive and systematic efforts on every level β€” from governments and international bodies and down to organizations and private individuals.

The unwritten standard of the Unix epoch

The Unix epoch is the timekeeping system adopted by Unix operating systems, which became popular across the entire IT industry. It counts the seconds from 00:00:00 UTC on January 1, 1970, which is considered the zero point. Any given moment in time is represented as the number of seconds that have passed since that date. For dates before 1970, negative values are used. This approach was chosen by Unix developers for its simplicityΒ β€” instead of storing the year, month, day, and time separately, only a single number is needed. This facilitates operations like sorting or calculating the interval between dates. Today, the Unix epoch is used far beyond Unix systems: in databases, programming languages, network protocols, and in smartphones running iOS and Android.

The Y2K38 time bomb

Initially, when Unix was developed, a decision was made to store time as a 32-bit signed integer. This allowed for representing a date range from roughly 1901 to 2038. The problem is that on January 19, 2038, at 03:14:07 UTC, this number will reach its maximum value (2,147,483,647 seconds) and overflow, becoming negative, and causing computers to β€œteleport” from January 2038 back to December 13, 1901. In some cases, however, shorter β€œtime travel” might happenΒ β€” to point zero, which is the year 1970.

This event, known as the β€œyear 2038 problem”, β€œEpochalypse”, or β€œY2K38”, could lead to failures in systems that still use 32-bit time representationΒ β€” from POS terminals, embedded systems, and routers, to automobiles and industrial equipment. Modern systems solve this problem by using 64 bits to store time. This extends the date range to hundreds of billions of years into the future. However, millions of devices with 32-bit dates are still in operation, and will require updating or replacement before β€œday Y” arrives.

In this context, 32 and 64 bits refer specifically to the date storage format. Just because an operating system or processor is 32-bit or 64-bit, it doesn’t automatically mean it stores the date in its β€œnative” bit format. Furthermore, many applications store dates in completely different ways, and might be immune to the Y2K38 problem, regardless of their bitness.

In cases where there’s no need to handle dates before 1970, the date is stored as an unsigned 32-bit integer. This type of number can represent dates from 1970 to 2106, so the problem will arrive in the more distant future.

Differences from the year 2000 problem

The infamous year 2000 problem (Y2K) from the late 20th century was similar in that systems storing the year as two digits could mistake the new date for the year 1900. Both experts and the media feared a digital apocalypse, but in the end there were just numerous isolated manifestations that didn’t lead to global catastrophic failures.

The key difference between Y2K38 and Y2K is the scale of digitization in our lives. The number of systems that will need updating is way higher than the number of computers in the 20th century, and the count of daily tasks and processes managed by computers is beyond calculation. Meanwhile, the Y2K38 problem has already been, or will soon be, fixed in regular computers and operating systems with simple software updates. However, the microcomputers that manage air conditioners, elevators, pumps, door locks, and factory assembly lines could very well chug along for the next decade with outdated, Y2K38-vulnerable software versions.

Potential problems of the Epochalypse

The date’s rolling over to 1901 or 1970 will impact different systems in different ways. In some cases, like a lighting system programmed to turn on every day at 7pm, it might go completely unnoticed. In other systems that rely on complete and accurate timestamps, a full failure could occurΒ β€” for example, in the year 2000, payment terminals and public transport turnstiles stopped working. Comical cases are also possible, like issuing a birth certificate with a date in 1901. Far worse would be the failure of critical systems, such as a complete shutdown of a heating system, or the failure of a bone marrow analysis system in a hospital.

Cryptography holds a special place in the Epochalypse. Another crucial difference between 2038 and 2000 is the ubiquitous use of encryption and digital signatures to protect all communications. Security certificates generally fail verification if the device’s date is incorrect. This means a vulnerable device would be cut off from most communications β€” even if its core business applications don’t have any code that incorrectly handles the date.

Unfortunately, the full spectrum of consequences can only be determined through controlled testing of all systems, with separate analysis of a potential cascade of failures.

The malicious exploitation of Y2K38

IT and InfoSec teams should treat Y2K38 not as a simple software bug, but as a vulnerability that can lead to various failures, including denial of service. In some cases, it can even be exploited by malicious actors. To do this, they need the ability to manipulate the time on the targeted system. This is possible in at least two scenarios:

  • Interfering with NTP protocol data by feeding the attacked system a fake time server
  • Spoofing the GPS signalΒ β€” if the system relies on satellite time

Exploitation of this error is most likely in OT and IoT systems, where vulnerabilities are traditionally slow to be patched, and the consequences of a failure can be far more substantial.

An example of an easily exploitable vulnerability related to time counting is CVE-2025-55068 (CVSSv3 8.2, CVSSv4 base 8.8) in Dover ProGauge MagLink LX4 automatic fuel-tank gauge consoles. Time manipulation can cause a denial of service at the gas station, and block access to the device’s web management panel. This defect earned its own CISA advisory.

The current status of Y2K38 mitigation

The foundation for solving the Y2K38 problem has been successfully laid in major operating systems. The Linux kernel added support for 64-bit time even on 32-bit architectures starting with version 5.6 in 2020, and 64-bit Linux was always protected from this issue. The BSD family, macOS, and iOS use 64-bit time on all modern devices. All versions of Windows released in the 21st century aren’t susceptible to Y2K38.

The situation at the data storage and application level is far more complex. Modern file systems like ZFS, F2FS, NTFS, and ReFS were designed with 64-bit timestamps, while older systems like ext2 and ext3 remain vulnerable. Ext4 and XFS require specific flags to be enabled (extended inode for ext4, and bigtime for XFS), and might need offline conversion of existing filesystems. In the NFSv2 and NFSv3 protocols, the outdated time storage format persists. It’s a similar patchwork landscape in databases: the TIMESTAMP type in MySQL is fundamentally limited to the year 2038, and requires migration to DATETIME, while the standard timestamp types in PostgreSQL are safe. For applications written in C, pathways have been created to use 64-bit time on 32-bit architectures, but all projects require recompilation. Languages like Java, Python, and Go typically use types that avoid the overflow, but the safety of compiled projects depends on whether they interact with vulnerable libraries written in C.

A massive number of 32-bit systems, embedded devices, and applications remain vulnerable until they’re rebuilt and tested, and then have updates installed by all their users.

Various organizations and enthusiasts are trying to systematize information on this, but their efforts are fragmented. Consequently, there’s no β€œcommon Y2K38 vulnerability database” out there (1, 2, 3, 4, 5).

Approaches to fixing Y2K38

The methodologies created for prioritizing and fixing vulnerabilities are directly applicable to the year 2038 problem. The key challenge will be that no tool today can create an exhaustive list of vulnerable software and hardware. Therefore, it’s essential to update inventory of corporate IT assets, ensure that inventory is enriched with detailed information on firmware and installed software, and then systematically investigate the vulnerability question.

The list can be prioritized based on the criticality of business systems and the data on the technology stack each system is built on. The next steps are: studying the vendor’s support portal, making direct inquiries to hardware and software manufacturers about their Y2K38 status, and, as a last resort, verification through testing.

When testing corporate systems, it’s critical to take special precautions:

  • Never test production systems.
  • Create a data backup immediately before the test.
  • Isolate the system being tested from communications so it can’t confuse other systems in the organization.
  • If changing the date uses NTP or GPS, ensure the 2038 test signals cannot reach other systems.
  • After testing, set the systems back to the correct time, and thoroughly document all observed system behaviors.

If a system is found to be vulnerable to Y2K38, a fixing timeline should be requested from the vendor. If a fix is impossible, plan a migration; fortunately, the time we have left still allows for updating even fairly complex and expensive systems.

The most important thing in tackling Y2K38 is not to think of it as a distant future problem whose solution can easily wait another five to eight years. It’s highly likely that we already have insufficient time to completely eradicate the defect. However, within an organization and its technology fleet, careful planning and a systematic approach to solving the problemΒ will allow to actually make it in time.

How to Avoid Holiday Shopping Scams (From a Former Cyber Detective)

11 December 2025 at 16:53

Christmas is the time where we allow our imaginations to run wild, it’s the season of goodwill, high spirits and Christmas joy. However, cybercriminals don’t take holidays. We still have to be on our guard, and question what is real and what is not. Common Holiday Scams Fake Online Stores Around this time of year, […]

The post How to Avoid Holiday Shopping Scams (From a Former Cyber Detective) appeared first on Heimdal Security Blog.

β€˜Mortified’ OBR chair hopes inquiry into budget leak will report next week

Reuters news agency says it obtained document after visiting URL it predicted file would be uploaded to

The chair of the Office for Budget Responsibility has said he felt mortified by the early release of its budget forecasts as the watchdog launched a rapid inquiry into how it had β€œinadvertently made it possible” to see the documents.

Richard Hughes said he had written to the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, and the chair of the Treasury select committee, Meg Hillier, to apologise.

Continue reading...

Β© Photograph: Kirsty O’Connor/Treasury

Β© Photograph: Kirsty O’Connor/Treasury

Β© Photograph: Kirsty O’Connor/Treasury

What is Managed ITDR? Key Definitions, Features, and Benefits

4 November 2025 at 16:50

Key takeaways: MITDR explained: Managed ITDR combines identity threat detection with expert-led response. Why it matters: Get better protection and lower costs without building a full in-house team. What to look for: Prioritize behavioral monitoring, real-time response, and expert oversight You’ve got the ITDR solution. That’s a good step towards effective account and identity-based threat […]

The post What is Managed ITDR? Key Definitions, Features, and Benefits appeared first on Heimdal Security Blog.

Cybersecurity Has a Motivation Problem

28 October 2025 at 14:29

I’ve worked in cybersecurity long enough to see that our biggest challenge isn’t a technical one, it’s motivational. We can build the strongest firewalls, design the smartest detection systems, and run endless awareness campaigns, but none of it matters if people don’t want to care. That’s the uncomfortable truth; cyber security has a motivation problem. […]

The post Cybersecurity Has a Motivation Problem appeared first on Heimdal Security Blog.

Techno Security & Digital Forensics Conference: October 27-29, 2025

1 October 2025 at 06:47

Hi everyone! I partnered withΒ Techno Security & Digital Forensics ConferenceΒ as anΒ Industry Supporter. The West edition of the Techno Security & Digital Forensics Conference will take place October 27-29, 2025 at the Town & Country...

Starmer to unveil digital ID cards in plan set to ignite civil liberties row

β€˜Brit card’ already facing opposition from privacy campaigners as government looks for ways to tackle illegal immigration

All working adults will need digital ID cards under plans to be announced by Keir Starmer, in a move that will spark a battle with civil liberties campaigners.

The prime minister will set out the measures on Friday at a conference on how progressive politicians can tackle the problems facing the UK, including addressing voter concerns around immigration.

Continue reading...

Β© Photograph: Alberto Pezzali/AP

Β© Photograph: Alberto Pezzali/AP

Β© Photograph: Alberto Pezzali/AP

❌