aiFWall is a firewall protection for AI deployments built to use AI to improve its own performance.
The post aiFWall Emerges From Stealth With an AI Firewall appeared first on SecurityWeek.
Of course, organizations see risk. It’s just that they struggle to turn insight into timely, safe action. That gap is why exposure management has emerged, and also why it is now becoming a foundational security discipline. What the diagram makes clear is that risk doesn’t stay flat while organizations deliberate. From the moment an exposure is discovered and is reachable, exploitable, and known – the clock starts ticking. As time passes, environments change, dependencies grow, and attackers adapt faster. Remediation workflows fall behind. Manual coordination, unclear ownership, and fear of disruption all extend what is increasingly referred to as ‘exposure […]
The post Why Exposure Management Is Becoming a Security Imperative appeared first on Check Point Blog.
Impacting Anthropic’s official MCP server, the vulnerabilities can be exploited through prompt injections.
The post Anthropic MCP Server Flaws Lead to Code Execution, Data Exposure appeared first on SecurityWeek.
The two bugs, an arbitrary file read and an SSRF bug, can be exploited without user interaction to leak credentials, databases, and other data.
The post Chainlit Vulnerabilities May Leak Sensitive Information appeared first on SecurityWeek.
A simple payload allowed attackers to create a new event leaking summaries of the victim’s private meetings.
The post Weaponized Invite Enabled Calendar Data Theft via Google Gemini appeared first on SecurityWeek.
Information sharing is necessary for efficient cybersecurity, and is widespread; but never quite perfect in practice.
The post Cyber Insights 2026: Information Sharing appeared first on SecurityWeek.
We've known that social engineering would get AI wings. Now, at the beginning of 2026, we are learning just how high those wings can soar.
The post Cyber Insights 2026: Social Engineering appeared first on SecurityWeek.
In this post, we break down the 91,321 instances of insider activity observed by Flashpoint in 2025, examine the top five cases that defined the year, and provide the technical and behavioral red flags your team needs to monitor in 2026.
Table Of ContentsEvery organization houses sensitive assets that threat actors actively seek. Whether it is proprietary trade secrets, intellectual property, or the personally identifiable information (PII) of employees and customers, these datasets are the lifeblood of the modern enterprise—and highly lucrative commodities within the illicit underground.
In 2025, Flashpoint observed 91,321 instances of insider recruiting, advertising, and threat actor discussions involving insider-related illicit activity. This underscores a critical reality—it is far more efficient for threat actors to recruit an “insider” to circumvent multi-million dollar security stacks than it is to develop a complex exploit from the outside.
An insider threat, any individual with authorized access, possesses the unique ability to bypass traditional security gates. Whether driven by financial gain, ideological grievances, or simple human error, insiders can potentially compromise a system with a single keystroke. To protect our customers from this internal risk, Flashpoint monitors the illicit forums and marketplaces where these threats are being solicited.
In this post, we unpack the evolving insider threat landscape and what it means for your security strategy in 2026. By analyzing the volume of recruitment activity and the specific industries being targeted, organizations can move from a reactive posture to a proactive defense.
Last year, Flashpoint collected and researched:
On average, 1,162 insider-related posts were published per month, with Telegram continuing to be one of the most prominent mediums for insiders and threat actors to identify and collaborate with each other. Analysts also identified instances of extortionist groups targeting employees at organizations to financially motivate them to become insiders.
The telecommunications industry observed the most insider-related activity in 2025. This is due to the industry’s central role in identity verification and its status as the primary target for SIM swapping—a fraudulent technique where threat actors convince employees of a mobile carrier to link a victim’s phone number to a SIM card controlled by the attacker. This allows the threat actor to receive all the victim’s calls and texts, allowing them to bypass SMS-based two-factor authentication.
Flashpoint analysts identified 12,783 notable posts where the level of detail or the specific target was particularly concerning.
Top Industries for Insiders Advertising Services (Supply):
Top Industries for Threat Actors Soliciting Access (Demand):
The following cases highlight the variety of ways insiders impacted enterprise systems this year, ranging from intentional fraud to massive technical oversights.
| Type of Incident | Description |
| Malicious | Approximately nine employees accessed the personal information of over 94,000 individuals, making illegal purchases using changed food stamp cards. |
| Nonmalicious | An unprotected database belonging to a Chinese IoT firm leaked 2.7 billion records, exposing 1.17 TB of sensitive data and plaintext passwords. |
| Malicious | An insider at a well-known cybersecurity organization was terminated after sharing screenshots of internal dashboards with the Scattered Lapsus$ Hunters threat actor group. |
| Malicious | An employee working for a foreign military contractor was bribed to pass confidential information to threat actors. |
| Malicious | A third-party contractor for a cryptocurrency firm sold customer data to threat actors and recruited colleagues into the scheme, leading to the termination of 300 employees and the compromise of 69,000 customers. |
| Malicious | Two contractors accessed and deleted sensitive documents and dozens of databases belonging to the Internal Revenue Service and US General Services Administration. |
Potential insiders often display technical and nontechnical behavior before initiating illicit activity. Although these actions may not directly implicate an employee, they can be monitored, which may lead to inquiries or additional investigations to better understand whether the employee poses an elevated risk to the organization.
Flashpoint has identified the following nontechnical warning signs associated with insiders:
The following are technical warning signs:
As 2026 unfolds, insider threat actors will continue to be a major threat to organizations. Ransomware groups and initial access threat actors will continue recruiting interested insiders and exploiting human vulnerabilities through social engineering tactics. Following Telegram’s recent bans on many illicit groups and channels, Flashpoint assesses that threat actors are likely to migrate to different platforms, such as Signal, where encrypted chats make their activity harder to monitor.
As AI technologies continue to advance, organizations will be better equipped to identify and mitigate insider risks. At the same time, threat actors will likely increasingly abuse AI and other tools to access sensitive information.
Is your organization equipped to spot the warning signs? Request a demo to learn more and to mitigate potential risk from within your organization.
The post Insider Threats: Turning 2025 Intelligence into a 2026 Defense Strategy appeared first on Flashpoint.
Vibe coding generates a curate’s egg program: good in parts, but the bad parts affect the whole program.
The post Vibe Coding Tested: AI Agents Nail SQLi but Fail Miserably on Security Controls appeared first on SecurityWeek.
Written by: Nic Losby
Mandiant is publicly releasing a comprehensive dataset of Net-NTLMv1 rainbow tables to underscore the urgency of migrating away from this outdated protocol. Despite Net-NTLMv1 being deprecated and known to be insecure for over two decades—with cryptanalysis dating back to 1999—Mandiant consultants continue to identify its use in active environments. This legacy protocol leaves organizations vulnerable to trivial credential theft, yet it remains prevalent due to inertia and a lack of demonstrated immediate risk.
By releasing these tables, Mandiant aims to lower the barrier for security professionals to demonstrate the insecurity of Net-NTLMv1. While tools to exploit this protocol have existed for years, they often required uploading sensitive data to third-party services or expensive hardware to brute-force keys. The release of this dataset allows defenders and researchers to recover keys in under 12 hours using consumer hardware costing less than $600 USD. This initiative highlights the amplified impact of combining Mandiant's frontline expertise with Google Cloud's resources to eliminate entire classes of attacks.
This post details the generation of the tables, provides access to the dataset for community use, and outlines critical remediation steps to disable Net-NTLMv1 and prevent authentication coercion attacks.
Net-NTLMv1 has been widely known to be insecure since at least 2012, following presentations at DEFCON 20, with cryptanalysis of the underlying protocol dating back to at least 1999. On Aug. 30, 2016, Hashcat added support for cracking Data Encryption Standard (DES) keys using known plaintext, further democratizing the ability to attack this protocol. Rainbow tables are almost as old, with the initial paper on rainbow tables published in 2003 by Philippe Oechslin, citing an earlier iteration of a time-memory trade-off from 1980 by Martin Hellman.
Essentially, if an attacker can obtain a Net-NTLMv1 hash without Extended Session Security (ESS) for the known plaintext of 1122334455667788, a cryptographic attack, referred to as a known plaintext attack (KPA), can be applied. This guarantees recovery of the key material used. Since the key material is the password hash of the authenticating Active Directory (AD) object—user or computer—the attack results can quickly be used to compromise the object, often leading to privilege escalation.
A common chain attackers use is authentication coercion from a highly privileged object, such as a domain controller (DC). Recovering the password hash of the DC machine account allows for DCSync privileges to compromise any other account in AD.
The unsorted dataset can be downloaded using gsutil -m cp -r gs://net-ntlmv1-tables/tables . or through the Google Cloud Research Dataset portal.
The SHA512 hashes of the tables can be checked by first downloading the checksums gsutil -m cp gs://net-ntlmv1-tables/tables.sha512 . then checked by sha512sum -c tables.sha512. The password cracking community has already created derivative work and is also hosting the ready to use tables.
Once a Net-NTLMv1 hash has been obtained, the tables can be used with historical or modern reinventions of rainbow table searching software such as rainbowcrack (rcrack), or RainbowCrack-NG on central processing units (CPUs) or a fork of rainbowcrackalack on graphics processing units (GPUs). The Net-NTLMv1 hash needs to be preprocessed to the DES components using ntlmv1-multi as shown in the next section.
Most attackers will use Responder with the --lm and --disable-ess flags and set the authentication to a static value of 1122334455667788 to only allow for connections with Net-NTLMv1 as a possibility. Attackers can then wait for incoming connections or coerce authentication using a tool such as PetitPotam or DFSCoerce to generate incoming connections from DCs or lower privilege hosts that are useful for objective completion. Responses can be cracked to retrieve password hashes of either users or computer machine accounts. A sample workflow for an attacker is shown below in Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 3.
Figure 1: DFSCoerce against a DC
Figure 2: Net-NTLMv1 hash obtained for DC machine account
Figure 3: Parse Net-NTLMv1 hash to DES parts
Figure 4 illustrates the processing of the Net-NTLMv1 hash to the DES ciphertexts.
Figure 4: Net-NTLMv1 hash to DES ciphertexts
An attacker then takes the split-out ciphertexts to crack the keys used based on the known plaintext of 1122334455667788 with the steps of loading the tables shown in Figure 5 and cracking results in Figure 6 and Figure 7.
Figure 5: Loading DES components for cracking
Figure 6: First hash cracked
Figure 7: Second hash cracked and run statistics
An attacker can then calculate the last remaining key with ntlmv1-multi once again, or look it up with twobytes, to recreate the full NT hash for the DC account with the last key part shown in Figure 8.
Figure 8: Calculate remaining key
The result can be checked with hashcat's NT hash shucking mode, -m 27000, as shown in Figure 9.
Figure 9: Keys checked with hash shucking
An attacker can then use the hash to perform a DCSync attack targeting a DC and authenticating as the now compromised machine account. The attack flow uses secretsdump.py from the Impacket toolsuite and is shown in Figure 10.
Figure 10: DCSync attack performed
Organizations should immediately disable the use of Net-NTLMv1.
"Local Security Settings" > "Local Policies" > "Security Options" > “Network security: LAN Manager authentication level" > "Send NTLMv2 response only".
"Computer Configuration" > "Policies" > "Windows Settings" > "Security Settings" > "Local Policies" > "Security Options" > "Network Security: LAN Manager authentication level" > "Send NTLMv2 response only"
As these are local to the computer configurations, attackers can and have set the configuration to a vulnerable state to then fix the configuration after their attacks have completed with local administrative access. Monitoring and alerting of when and where Net-NTLMv1 is used is needed in addition to catching these edge cases.
Filter Event Logs for Event ID 4624: "An Account was successfully logged on." > "Detailed Authentication Information" > "Authentication Package" > "Package Name (NTLM only)", if "LM" or "NTLMv1" is the value of this attribute, LAN Manager or Net-NTLMv1 was used.
This project was inspired by and referenced the following research published to blogs, social media, and code repositories.
Thank you to everyone who helped make this blog post possible, including but not limited to Chris King and Max Gruenberg.
isVerified provides Android and iOS mobile applications designed to protect enterprise communications.
The post isVerified Emerges From Stealth With Voice Deepfake Detection Apps appeared first on SecurityWeek.
The attack bypassed Copilot’s data leak protections and allowed for session exfiltration even after the Copilot chat was closed.
The post New ‘Reprompt’ Attack Silently Siphons Microsoft Copilot Data appeared first on SecurityWeek.
In 2025, cybersecurity researchers discovered several open databases belonging to various AI image-generation tools. This fact alone makes you wonder just how much AI startups care about the privacy and security of their users’ data. But the nature of the content in these databases is far more alarming.
A large number of generated pictures in these databases were images of women in lingerie or fully nude. Some were clearly created from children’s photos, or intended to make adult women appear younger (and undressed). Finally, the most disturbing part: some pornographic images were generated from completely innocent photos of real people — likely taken from social media.
In this post, we’re talking about what sextortion is, and why AI tools mean anyone can become a victim. We detail the contents of these open databases, and give you advice on how to avoid becoming a victim of AI-era sextortion.
Online sexual extortion has become so common it’s earned its own global name: sextortion (a portmanteau of sex and extortion). We’ve already detailed its various types in our post, Fifty shades of sextortion. To recap, this form of blackmail involves threatening to publish intimate images or videos to coerce the victim into taking certain actions, or to extort money from them.
Previously, victims of sextortion were typically adult industry workers, or individuals who’d shared intimate content with an untrustworthy person.
However, the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence, particularly text-to-image technology, has fundamentally changed the game. Now, literally anyone who’s posted their most innocent photos publicly can become a victim of sextortion. This is because generative AI makes it possible to quickly, easily, and convincingly undress people in any digital image, or add a generated nude body to someone’s head in a matter of seconds.
Of course, this kind of fakery was possible before AI, but it required long hours of meticulous Photoshop work. Now, all you need is to describe the desired result in words.
To make matters worse, many generative AI services don’t bother much with protecting the content they’ve been used to create. As mentioned earlier, last year saw researchers discover at least three publicly accessible databases belonging to these services. This means the generated nudes within them were available not just to the user who’d created them, but to anyone on the internet.
In October 2025, cybersecurity researcher Jeremiah Fowler uncovered an open database containing over a million AI-generated images and videos. According to the researcher, the overwhelming majority of this content was pornographic in nature. The database wasn’t encrypted or password-protected — meaning any internet user could access it.
The database’s name and watermarks on some images led Fowler to believe its source was the U.S.-based company SocialBook, which offers services for influencers and digital marketing services. The company’s website also provides access to tools for generating images and content using AI.
However, further analysis revealed that SocialBook itself wasn’t directly generating this content. Links within the service’s interface led to third-party products — the AI services MagicEdit and DreamPal — which were the tools used to create the images. These tools allowed users to generate pictures from text descriptions, edit uploaded photos, and perform various visual manipulations, including creating explicit content and face-swapping.
The leak was linked to these specific tools, and the database contained the product of their work, including AI-generated and AI-edited images. A portion of the images led the researcher to suspect they’d been uploaded to the AI as references for creating provocative imagery.
Fowler states that roughly 10,000 photos were being added to the database every single day. SocialBook denies any connection to the database. After the researcher informed the company of the leak, several pages on the SocialBook website that had previously mentioned MagicEdit and DreamPal became inaccessible and began returning errors.
Both services — MagicEdit and DreamPal — were initially marketed as tools for interactive, user-driven visual experimentation with images and art characters. Unfortunately, a significant portion of these capabilities were directly linked to creating sexualized content.
For example, MagicEdit offered a tool for AI-powered virtual clothing changes, as well as a set of styles that made images of women more revealing after processing — such as replacing everyday clothes with swimwear or lingerie. Its promotional materials promised to turn an ordinary look into a sexy one in seconds.
DreamPal, for its part, was initially positioned as an AI-powered role-playing chat, and was even more explicit about its adult-oriented positioning. The site offered to create an ideal AI girlfriend, with certain pages directly referencing erotic content. The FAQ also noted that filters for explicit content in chats were disabled so as not to limit users’ most intimate fantasies.
Both services have suspended operations. At the time of writing, the DreamPal website returned an error, while MagicEdit seemed available again. Their apps were removed from both the App Store and Google Play.
Jeremiah Fowler says earlier in 2025, he discovered two more open databases containing AI-generated images. One belonged to the South Korean site GenNomis, and contained 95,000 entries — a substantial portion of which being images of “undressed” people. Among other things, the database included images with child versions of celebrities: American singers Ariana Grande and Beyoncé, and reality TV star Kim Kardashian.
In light of incidents like these, it’s clear that the risks associated with sextortion are no longer confined to private messaging or the exchange of intimate content. In the era of generative AI, even ordinary photos, when posted publicly, can be used to create compromising content.
This problem is especially relevant for women, but men shouldn’t get too comfortable either: the popular blackmail scheme of “I hacked your computer and used the webcam to make videos of you browsing adult sites” could reach a whole new level of persuasion thanks to AI tools for generating photos and videos.
Therefore, protecting your privacy on social media and controlling what data about you is publicly available become key measures for safeguarding both your reputation and peace of mind. To prevent your photos from being used to create questionable AI-generated content, we recommend making all your social media profiles as private as possible — after all, they could be the source of images for AI-generated nudes.
We’ve already published multiple detailed guides on how to reduce your digital footprint online or even remove your data from the internet, how to stop data brokers from compiling dossiers on you, and protect yourself from intimate image abuse.
Additionally, we have a dedicated service, Privacy Checker — perfect for anyone who wants a quick but systematic approach to privacy settings everywhere possible. It compiles step-by-step guides for securing accounts on social media and online services across all major platforms.
And to ensure the safety and privacy of your child’s data, Kaspersky Safe Kids can help: it allows parents to monitor which social media their child spends time on. From there, you can help them adjust privacy settings on their accounts so their posted photos aren’t used to create inappropriate content. Explore our guide to children’s online safety together, and if your child dreams of becoming a popular blogger, discuss our step-by-step cybersecurity guide for wannabe bloggers with them.
The company will use the fresh investment to accelerate its global go-to-market and product expansion.
The post WitnessAI Raises $58 Million for AI Security Platform appeared first on SecurityWeek.
Written by: Amine Ismail, Anirudha Kanodia
Mandiant is releasing AuraInspector, a new open-source tool designed to help defenders identify and audit access control misconfigurations within the Salesforce Aura framework.
Salesforce Experience Cloud is a foundational platform for many businesses, but Mandiant Offensive Security Services (OSS) frequently identifies misconfigurations that allow unauthorized users to access sensitive data including credit card numbers, identity documents, and health information. These access control gaps often go unnoticed until it is too late.
This post details the mechanics of these common misconfigurations and introduces a previously undocumented technique using GraphQL to bypass standard record retrieval limits. To help administrators secure their environments, we are releasing AuraInspector, a command-line tool that automates the detection of these exposures and provides actionable insights for remediation.
Aura is a framework used in Salesforce applications to create reusable, modular components. It is the foundational technology behind Salesforce's modern UI, known as Lightning Experience. Aura introduced a more modern, single-page application (SPA) model that is more responsive and provides a better user experience.
As with any object-relational database and developer framework, a key security challenge for Aura is ensuring that users can only access data they are authorized to see. More specifically, the Aura endpoint is used by the front-end to retrieve a variety of information from the backend system, including Object records stored in the database. The endpoint can usually be identified by navigating through an Experience Cloud application and examining the network requests.
To date, a real challenge for Salesforce administrators is that Salesforce objects sharing rules can be configured at multiple levels, complexifying the identification of potential misconfigurations. Consequently, the Aura endpoint is one of the most commonly targeted endpoints in Salesforce Experience Cloud applications.
The most interesting aspect of the Aura endpoint is its ability to invoke aura-enabled methods, depending on the privileges of the authenticated context. The message parameter of this endpoint can be used to invoke the said methods. Of particular interest is the getConfigData method, which returns a list of objects used in the backend Salesforce database. The following is the syntax used to call this specific method.
Login
{"actions":[{"id":"123;a","descriptor":"serviceComponent://ui.force.components.controllers.hostConfig.HostConfigController/ACTION$getConfigData","callingDescriptor":"UNKNOWN","params":{}}]}An example of response is displayed in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Excerpt of getConfigData response
Certain components in a Salesforce Experience Cloud application will implicitly call certain Aura methods to retrieve records to populate the user interface. This is the case for the serviceComponent://ui.force.components.controllers. Aura method. Note that these Aura methods are legitimate and do not pose a security risk by themselves; the risk arises when underlying permissions are misconfigured.
lists.selectableListDataProvider.SelectableListDataProviderController/
ACTION$getItems
In a controlled test instance, Mandiant intentionally misconfigured access controls to grant guest (unauthenticated) users access to all records of the Account object. This is a common misconfiguration encountered during real-world engagements. An application would normally retrieve object records using the Aura or Lightning frameworks. One method is using getItems. Using this method with specific parameters, the application can retrieve records for a specific object the user has access to. An example of request and response using this method are shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Retrieving records for the Account object
However, there is a constraint to this typical approach. Salesforce only allows users to retrieve at most 2,000 records at a given time. Some objects may have several thousand records, limiting the number of records that could be retrieved using this approach. To demonstrate the full impact of a misconfiguration, it is often necessary to overcome this limit.
Testing revealed a sortBy parameter available on this method. This parameter is valuable because changing the sort order allows for the retrieval of additional records that were initially inaccessible due to the 2,000 record limit. Moreover, it is possible to obtain an ascending or descending sort order for any parameter by adding a - character in front of the field name. The following is an example of an Aura message that leverages the sortBy parameter.
{"actions":[{"id":"123;a","descriptor":"serviceComponent://ui.force.components.controllers.lists.selectableListDataProvider.SelectableListDataProviderController/ACTION$getItems","callingDescriptor":"UNKNOWN","params":{"entityNameOrId":"FUZZ","layoutType":"FULL","pageSize":100,"currentPage":0,"useTimeout":false,"getCount":false,"enableRowActions":false,"sortBy":"<ArbitraryField>"}}]}The response where the Name field is sorted in descending order is displayed in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Retrieving more records for the Account object by sorting results
For built-in Salesforce objects, there are several fields that are available by default. For custom objects, in addition to custom fields, there are a few default fields such as CreatedBy and LastModifiedBy, which can be filtered on. Filtering on various fields facilitates the retrieval of a significantly larger number of records. Retrieving more records helps security researchers demonstrate the potential impact to Salesforce administrators.
To optimize performance and minimize network traffic, the Salesforce Aura framework employs a mechanism known as "boxcar'ing". Instead of sending a separate HTTP request for every individual server-side action a user initiates, the framework queues these actions on the client-side. At the end of the event loop, it bundles multiple queued Aura actions into a single list, which is then sent to the server as part of a single POST request.
Without using this technique, retrieving records can require a significant number of requests, depending on the number of records and objects. In that regard, Salesforce allows up to 250 actions at a time in one request by using this technique. However, sending too many actions can quickly result in a Content-Length response that can prevent a successful request. As such, Mandiant recommends limiting requests to 100 actions per request. In the following example, two actions are bulked to retrieve records for both the UserFavorite objects and the ProcessInstanceNode object:
{"actions":[{"id":"UserFavorite","descriptor":"serviceComponent://ui.force.components.controllers.lists.selectableListDataProvider.SelectableListDataProviderController/ACTION$getItems","callingDescriptor":"UNKNOWN","params":{"entityNameOrId":"UserFavorite","layoutType":"FULL","pageSize":100,"currentPage":0,"useTimeout":false,"getCount":true,"enableRowActions":false}},{"id":"ProcessInstanceNode","descriptor":"serviceComponent://ui.force.components.controllers.lists.selectableListDataProvider.SelectableListDataProviderController/ACTION$getItems","callingDescriptor":"UNKNOWN","params":{"entityNameOrId":"ProcessInstanceNode","layoutType":"FULL","pageSize":100,"currentPage":0,"useTimeout":false,"getCount":true,"enableRowActions":false}}]}This can be cumbersome to perform manually for many actions. This feature has been integrated into the AuraInspector tool to expedite the process of identifying misconfigured objects.
A lesser-known component is Salesforce's Record Lists. This component, as the name suggests, provides a list of records in the user interface associated with an object to which the user has access. While the access controls on objects still govern the records that can be viewed in the Record List, misconfigured access controls could allow users access to the Record List of an object.
Using the ui.force.components.controllers.lists. Aura method, it is possible to check if an object has an associating record list component attached to it. The Aura message would appear as follows:
listViewPickerDataProvider.ListViewPickerDataProviderController/
ACTION$getInitialListViews
{"actions":[{"id":"1086;a","descriptor":"serviceComponent://ui.force.components.controllers.lists.listViewPickerDataProvider.ListViewPickerDataProviderController/ACTION$getInitialListViews","callingDescriptor":"UNKNOWN","params":{"scope":"FUZZ","maxMruResults":10,"maxAllResults":20},"storable":true}]}If the response contains an array of list views, as shown in Figure 4, then a Record List is likely present.
Figure 4: Excerpt of response for the getInitialListViews method
This response means there is an associating Record List component to this object and it may be accessible. Simply navigating to /s/recordlist/<object>/Default will show the list of records, if access is permitted. An example of a Record List can be seen in Figure 5. The interface may also provide the ability to create or modify existing records.
Figure 5: Default Record List view for Account object
Home URLs are URLs that can be browsed to directly. On multiple occasions, following these URLs led Mandiant researchers to administration or configuration panels for third-party modules installed on the Salesforce instance. They can be retrieved by authenticated users with the ui.communities.components.aura.components.communitySetup.cmc. Aura method as follows:
CMCAppController/ACTION$getAppBootstrapData
{"actions":[{"id":"1086;a","descriptor":"serviceComponent://ui.communities.components.aura.components.communitySetup.cmc.CMCAppController/ACTION$getAppBootstrapData","callingDescriptor":"UNKNOWN","params":{}}]}In the returned JSON response, an object named apiNameToObjectHomeUrls contains the list of URLs. The next step is to browse to each URL, verify access, and assess whether the content should be accessible. It is a straightforward process that can lead to interesting findings. An example of usage is shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6: List of home URLs returned in response
During a previous engagement, Mandiant identified a Spark instance administration dashboard accessible to any unauthenticated user via this method. The dashboard offered administrative features, as seen in Figure 7.
Figure 7: Spark instance administration dashboard
Using this technique, Salesforce administrators can identify pages that should not be accessible to unauthenticated or low-privilege users. Manually tracking down these pages can be cumbersome as some pages are automatically created when installing marketplace applications.
Over the last few years, Salesforce has increased the default security on Guest accounts. As such, having an authenticated account is even more valuable as it might give access to records not accessible to unauthenticated users. One solution to prevent authenticated access to the instance is to prevent self-registration. Self-registration can easily be disabled by changing the instance's settings. However, Mandiant observed cases where the link to the self-registration page was removed from the login page, but self-registration itself was not disabled. Salesforce confirmed this issue has been resolved.
Aura methods that expose the self-registration status and URL are highly valuable from an adversary's perspective. The getIsSelfRegistrationEnabled and getSelfRegistrationUrl methods of the LoginFormController controller can be used as follows to retrieve this information:
{"actions":[{"id":"1","descriptor":"apex://applauncher.LoginFormController/ACTION$getIsSelfRegistrationEnabled","callingDescriptor":"UHNKNOWN"},{"id":"2","descriptor":"apex://applauncher.LoginFormController/ACTION$getSelfRegistrationUrl","callingDescriptor":"UHNKNOWN"}]}By bulking the two methods, two responses are returned from the server. In Figure 8, self-registration is available as shown in the first response, and the URL is returned in the second response.
Figure 8: Response when self-registration is enabled
This removes the need to perform brute forcing to identify the self-registration page; one request is sufficient. The AuraInspector tool verifies whether self-registration is enabled and alerts the researcher. The goal is to help Salesforce administrators determine whether self-registration is enabled or not from an external perspective.
Salesforce provides a GraphQL API that can be used to easily retrieve records from objects that are accessible via the User Interface API from the Salesforce instance. The GraphQL API itself is well documented by Salesforce. However, there is no official documentation or research related to the GraphQL Aura controller.
Figure 9: GraphQL query from the documentation
This lack of documentation, however, does not prevent its use. After reviewing the REST API documentation, Mandiant constructed a valid request to retrieve information for the GraphQL Aura controller. Furthermore, this controller was available to unauthenticated users by default. Using GraphQL over the known methods offers multiple advantages:
Standardized retrieval of records and information about objects
Improved pagination, allowing for the retrieval of all records tied to an object
Built-in introspection, which facilitates the retrieval of field names
Support for mutations, which expedites the testing of write privileges on objects
From a data retrieval perspective, the key advantage is the ability to retrieve all records tied to an object without being limited to 2,000 records. Salesforce confirmed this is not a vulnerability; GraphQL respects the underlying object permissions and does not provide additional access as long as access to objects is properly configured. However, in the case of a misconfiguration, it helps attackers access any amount of records on the misconfigured objects. When using basic Aura controllers to retrieve records, the only way to retrieve more than 2,000 records is by using sorting filters, which does not always provide consistent results. Using the GraphQL controller enables the consistent retrieval of the maximum number of records possible. Other options to retrieve more than 2,000 records are the SOAP and REST APIs, but those are rarely accessible to non-privileged users.
One limitation of the GraphQL Controller is that it can only retrieve records for User Interface API (UIAPI) supported objects. As explained in the associated Salesforce GraphQL API documentation, this encompasses most objects as the "User Interface API supports all custom objects and external objects and many standard objects."
Since there is no documentation on the GraphQL Aura controller itself, the API documentation was used as a reference. The API documentation provides the following example to interact with the GraphQL API endpoint:
curl "https://{MyDomainName}[.my.salesforce.com/services/data/v64.0/graphql](https://.my.salesforce.com/services/data/v64.0/graphql)" \
-X POST \
-H "content-type: application/json" \
-d '{
"query": "query accounts { uiapi { query { Account { edges { node { Name { value } } } } } } }"
}This example was then transposed to the GraphQL Aura controller. The following Aura message was found to work:
{"actions":[{"id":"GraphQL","descriptor":"aura://RecordUiController/ACTION$executeGraphQL","callingDescriptor":"markup://forceCommunity:richText","params":{"queryInput":{"operationName":"accounts","query":"query+accounts+{uiapi+{query+{Account+{edges+{node+{+Name+{+value+}}}totalCount,pageInfo{endCursor,hasNextPage,hasPreviousPage}}}}}","variables":{}}},"version":"64.0","storable":true}]}This provides the same capabilities as the GraphQL API without requiring API access. The endCursor, hasNextPage, and hasPreviousPage fields were added in the response to facilitate pagination. The requests and response can be seen in Figure 10.
Figure 10: Response when using the GraphQL Aura Controller
The records would be returned with the fields queried and a pageInfo object containing the cursor. Using the cursor, it is possible to retrieve the next records. In the aforementioned example, only one record was retrieved for readability, but this can be done in batches of 2,000 records by setting the first parameter to 2000. The cursor can then be used as shown in Figure 11.
Figure 11: Retrieving next records using the cursor
Here, the cursor is a Base64-encoded string indicating the latest record retrieved, so it can easily be built from scratch. With batches of 2,000 records, and to retrieve the items from 2,000 to 4,000, the message would be:
message={"actions":[{"id":"GraphQL","descriptor":"aura://RecordUiController/ACTION$executeGraphQL","callingDescriptor":"markup://forceCommunity:richText","params":{"queryInput":{"operationName":"accounts","query":"query+accounts+{uiapi+{query+{Contact(first:2000,after:\"djE6MTk5OQ==\"){edges+{node+{+Name+{+value+}}}totalCount,pageInfo{endCursor,hasNextPage,hasPreviousPage}}}}}","variables":{}}},"version":"64.0","storable":true}]}In the example, the cursor, set in the after parameter, is the base64 for v1:1999. It tells Salesforce to retrieve items after 1999. Queries can be much more complex, involving advanced filtering or join operations to search for specific records. Multiple objects can also be retrieved in one query. Though not covered in detail here, the GraphQL controller can also be used to update, create, and delete records by using mutation queries. This allows unauthenticated users to perform complex queries and operations without requiring API access.
All of the issues described in this blogpost stem from misconfigurations, specifically on objects and fields. At a high level, Salesforce administrators should take the following steps to remediate these issues:
Audit Guest User Permissions: Regularly review and apply the principle of least privilege to unauthenticated guest user profiles. Follow Salesforce security best practices for guest users object security. Ensure they only have read access to the specific objects and fields necessary for public-facing functionality.
Secure Private Data for Authenticated Users: Review sharing rules and organization-wide defaults to ensure that authenticated users can only access records and objects they are explicitly granted permission to.
Disable Self-Registration: If not required, disable the self-registration feature to prevent unauthorized account creation.
Follow Salesforce Security Best Practices: Implement the security recommendations provided by Salesforce, including the use of their Security Health Check tool.
Salesforce offers a comprehensive Security Guide that details how to properly configure objects sharing rules, field security, logging, real-time event monitoring and more.
To aid in the discovery of these misconfigurations, Mandiant is releasing AuraInspector. This tool automates the techniques described in this post to help identify potential shortcomings. Mandiant also developed an internal version of the tool with capabilities to extract records; however, to avoid misuse, the data extraction capability is not implemented in the public release. The options and capabilities of the tool are shown in Figure 12.
Figure 12: Help message of the AuraInspector tool
The AuraInspector tool also attempts to automatically discover valuable contextual information, including:
Aura Endpoint: Automatically identifying the Aura endpoint for further testing.
Home and Record List URLs: Retrieving direct URLs to home pages and record lists, offering insights into the user's navigation paths and accessible data views.
Self-Registration Status: Determining if self-registration is enabled and providing the self-registration URL when enabled.
All operations performed by the tool are strictly limited to reading data, ensuring that the targeted Salesforce instances are not impacted or modified. AuraInspector is available for download now.
While Salesforce Experience Cloud applications often make obvious requests to the Aura endpoint, there are situations where an application's integration is more subtle. Mandiant often observes references to Salesforce Experience Cloud applications buried in large JavaScript files. It is recommended to look for references to Salesforce domains such as:
*.vf.force.com
*.my.salesforce-sites.com
*.my.salesforce.com
The following is a simple Burp Suite Bcheck that can help identify those hidden references:
metadata:
language: v2-beta
name: "Hidden Salesforce app detected"
description: "Salesforce app might be used by some functionality of the application"
tags: "passive"
author: "Mandiant"
given response then
if ".my.site.com" in {latest.response} or ".vf.force.com" in {latest.response} or ".my.salesforce-sites.com" in {latest.response} or ".my.salesforce.com" in {latest.response} then
report issue:
severity: info
confidence: certain
detail: "Backend Salesforce app detected"
remediation: "Validate whether the app belongs to the org and check for potential misconfigurations"
end ifNote that this is a basic template that can be further fine-tuned to better identify Salesforce instances using other relevant patterns.
The following is a representative UDM query that can help identify events in Google SecOps associated with POST requests to the Aura endpoint for potential Salesforce instances:
target.url = /\/aura$/ AND
network.http.response_code = 200 AND
network.http.method = "POST"Note that this is a basic UDM query that can be further fine-tuned to better identify Salesforce instances using other relevant patterns.
Mandiant Consulting can assist organizations in auditing their Salesforce environments and implementing robust access controls. Our experts can help identify misconfigurations, validate security postures, and ensure compliance with best practices to protect sensitive data.
This analysis would not have been possible without the assistance of the Mandiant Offensive Security Services (OSS) team. We also appreciate Salesforce for their collaboration and comprehensive documentation.
Threat actors are hunting for misconfigured proxy servers to gain access to APIs for various LLMs.
The post LLMs in Attacker Crosshairs, Warns Threat Intel Firm appeared first on SecurityWeek.
The company will use the investment to accelerate platform adoption and expansion into the federal market.
The post Torq Raises $140 Million at $1.2 Billion Valuation appeared first on SecurityWeek.
Our first story of 2026 revealed how a destructive new botnet called Kimwolf has infected more than two million devices by mass-compromising a vast number of unofficial Android TV streaming boxes. Today, we’ll dig through digital clues left behind by the hackers, network operators and services that appear to have benefitted from Kimwolf’s spread.
On Dec. 17, 2025, the Chinese security firm XLab published a deep dive on Kimwolf, which forces infected devices to participate in distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks and to relay abusive and malicious Internet traffic for so-called “residential proxy” services.
The software that turns one’s device into a residential proxy is often quietly bundled with mobile apps and games. Kimwolf specifically targeted residential proxy software that is factory installed on more than a thousand different models of unsanctioned Android TV streaming devices. Very quickly, the residential proxy’s Internet address starts funneling traffic that is linked to ad fraud, account takeover attempts and mass content scraping.
The XLab report explained its researchers found “definitive evidence” that the same cybercriminal actors and infrastructure were used to deploy both Kimwolf and the Aisuru botnet — an earlier version of Kimwolf that also enslaved devices for use in DDoS attacks and proxy services.
XLab said it suspected since October that Kimwolf and Aisuru had the same author(s) and operators, based in part on shared code changes over time. But it said those suspicions were confirmed on December 8 when it witnessed both botnet strains being distributed by the same Internet address at 93.95.112[.]59.
Image: XLab.
Public records show the Internet address range flagged by XLab is assigned to Lehi, Utah-based Resi Rack LLC. Resi Rack’s website bills the company as a “Premium Game Server Hosting Provider.” Meanwhile, Resi Rack’s ads on the Internet moneymaking forum BlackHatWorld refer to it as a “Premium Residential Proxy Hosting and Proxy Software Solutions Company.”
Resi Rack co-founder Cassidy Hales told KrebsOnSecurity his company received a notification on December 10 about Kimwolf using their network “that detailed what was being done by one of our customers leasing our servers.”
“When we received this email we took care of this issue immediately,” Hales wrote in response to an email requesting comment. “This is something we are very disappointed is now associated with our name and this was not the intention of our company whatsoever.”
The Resi Rack Internet address cited by XLab on December 8 came onto KrebsOnSecurity’s radar more than two weeks before that. Benjamin Brundage is founder of Synthient, a startup that tracks proxy services. In late October 2025, Brundage shared that the people selling various proxy services which benefitted from the Aisuru and Kimwolf botnets were doing so at a new Discord server called resi[.]to.
On November 24, 2025, a member of the resi-dot-to Discord channel shares an IP address responsible for proxying traffic over Android TV streaming boxes infected by the Kimwolf botnet.
When KrebsOnSecurity joined the resi[.]to Discord channel in late October as a silent lurker, the server had fewer than 150 members, including “Shox” — the nickname used by Resi Rack’s co-founder Mr. Hales — and his business partner “Linus,” who did not respond to requests for comment.
Other members of the resi[.]to Discord channel would periodically post new IP addresses that were responsible for proxying traffic over the Kimwolf botnet. As the screenshot from resi[.]to above shows, that Resi Rack Internet address flagged by XLab was used by Kimwolf to direct proxy traffic as far back as November 24, if not earlier. All told, Synthient said it tracked at least seven static Resi Rack IP addresses connected to Kimwolf proxy infrastructure between October and December 2025.
Neither of Resi Rack’s co-owners responded to follow-up questions. Both have been active in selling proxy services via Discord for nearly two years. According to a review of Discord messages indexed by the cyber intelligence firm Flashpoint, Shox and Linus spent much of 2024 selling static “ISP proxies” by routing various Internet address blocks at major U.S. Internet service providers.
In February 2025, AT&T announced that effective July 31, 2025, it would no longer originate routes for network blocks that are not owned and managed by AT&T (other major ISPs have since made similar moves). Less than a month later, Shox and Linus told customers they would soon cease offering static ISP proxies as a result of these policy changes.
Shox and Linux, talking about their decision to stop selling ISP proxies.
The stated owner of the resi[.]to Discord server went by the abbreviated username “D.” That initial appears to be short for the hacker handle “Dort,” a name that was invoked frequently throughout these Discord chats.
Dort’s profile on resi dot to.
This “Dort” nickname came up in KrebsOnSecurity’s recent conversations with “Forky,” a Brazilian man who acknowledged being involved in the marketing of the Aisuru botnet at its inception in late 2024. But Forky vehemently denied having anything to do with a series of massive and record-smashing DDoS attacks in the latter half of 2025 that were blamed on Aisuru, saying the botnet by that point had been taken over by rivals.
Forky asserts that Dort is a resident of Canada and one of at least two individuals currently in control of the Aisuru/Kimwolf botnet. The other individual Forky named as an Aisuru/Kimwolf botmaster goes by the nickname “Snow.”
On January 2 — just hours after our story on Kimwolf was published — the historical chat records on resi[.]to were erased without warning and replaced by a profanity-laced message for Synthient’s founder. Minutes after that, the entire server disappeared.
Later that same day, several of the more active members of the now-defunct resi[.]to Discord server moved to a Telegram channel where they posted Brundage’s personal information, and generally complained about being unable to find reliable “bulletproof” hosting for their botnet.
Hilariously, a user by the name “Richard Remington” briefly appeared in the group’s Telegram server to post a crude “Happy New Year” sketch that claims Dort and Snow are now in control of 3.5 million devices infected by Aisuru and/or Kimwolf. Richard Remington’s Telegram account has since been deleted, but it previously stated its owner operates a website that caters to DDoS-for-hire or “stresser” services seeking to test their firepower.
Reports from both Synthient and XLab found that Kimwolf was used to deploy programs that turned infected systems into Internet traffic relays for multiple residential proxy services. Among those was a component that installed a software development kit (SDK) called ByteConnect, which is distributed by a provider known as Plainproxies.
ByteConnect says it specializes in “monetizing apps ethically and free,” while Plainproxies advertises the ability to provide content scraping companies with “unlimited” proxy pools. However, Synthient said that upon connecting to ByteConnect’s SDK they instead observed a mass influx of credential-stuffing attacks targeting email servers and popular online websites.
A search on LinkedIn finds the CEO of Plainproxies is Friedrich Kraft, whose resume says he is co-founder of ByteConnect Ltd. Public Internet routing records show Mr. Kraft also operates a hosting firm in Germany called 3XK Tech GmbH. Mr. Kraft did not respond to repeated requests for an interview.
In July 2025, Cloudflare reported that 3XK Tech (a.k.a. Drei-K-Tech) had become the Internet’s largest source of application-layer DDoS attacks. In November 2025, the security firm GreyNoise Intelligence found that Internet addresses on 3XK Tech were responsible for roughly three-quarters of the Internet scanning being done at the time for a newly discovered and critical vulnerability in security products made by Palo Alto Networks.
Source: Cloudflare’s Q2 2025 DDoS threat report.
LinkedIn has a profile for another Plainproxies employee, Julia Levi, who is listed as co-founder of ByteConnect. Ms. Levi did not respond to requests for comment. Her resume says she previously worked for two major proxy providers: Netnut Proxy Network, and Bright Data.
Synthient likewise said Plainproxies ignored their outreach, noting that the Byteconnect SDK continues to remain active on devices compromised by Kimwolf.
A post from the LinkedIn page of Plainproxies Chief Revenue Officer Julia Levi, explaining how the residential proxy business works.
Synthient’s January 2 report said another proxy provider heavily involved in the sale of Kimwolf proxies was Maskify, which currently advertises on multiple cybercrime forums that it has more than six million residential Internet addresses for rent.
Maskify prices its service at a rate of 30 cents per gigabyte of data relayed through their proxies. According to Synthient, that price range is insanely low and is far cheaper than any other proxy provider in business today.
“Synthient’s Research Team received screenshots from other proxy providers showing key Kimwolf actors attempting to offload proxy bandwidth in exchange for upfront cash,” the Synthient report noted. “This approach likely helped fuel early development, with associated members spending earnings on infrastructure and outsourced development tasks. Please note that resellers know precisely what they are selling; proxies at these prices are not ethically sourced.”
Maskify did not respond to requests for comment.
The Maskify website. Image: Synthient.
Hours after our first Kimwolf story was published last week, the resi[.]to Discord server vanished, Synthient’s website was hit with a DDoS attack, and the Kimwolf botmasters took to doxing Brundage via their botnet.
The harassing messages appeared as text records uploaded to the Ethereum Name Service (ENS), a distributed system for supporting smart contracts deployed on the Ethereum blockchain. As documented by XLab, in mid-December the Kimwolf operators upgraded their infrastructure and began using ENS to better withstand the near-constant takedown efforts targeting the botnet’s control servers.
An ENS record used by the Kimwolf operators taunts security firms trying to take down the botnet’s control servers. Image: XLab.
By telling infected systems to seek out the Kimwolf control servers via ENS, even if the servers that the botmasters use to control the botnet are taken down the attacker only needs to update the ENS text record to reflect the new Internet address of the control server, and the infected devices will immediately know where to look for further instructions.
“This channel itself relies on the decentralized nature of blockchain, unregulated by Ethereum or other blockchain operators, and cannot be blocked,” XLab wrote.
The text records included in Kimwolf’s ENS instructions can also feature short messages, such as those that carried Brundage’s personal information. Other ENS text records associated with Kimwolf offered some sage advice: “If flagged, we encourage the TV box to be destroyed.”
An ENS record tied to the Kimwolf botnet advises, “If flagged, we encourage the TV box to be destroyed.”
Both Synthient and XLabs say Kimwolf targets a vast number of Android TV streaming box models, all of which have zero security protections, and many of which ship with proxy malware built in. Generally speaking, if you can send a data packet to one of these devices you can also seize administrative control over it.
If you own a TV box that matches one of these model names and/or numbers, please just rip it out of your network. If you encounter one of these devices on the network of a family member or friend, send them a link to this story (or to our January 2 story on Kimwolf) and explain that it’s not worth the potential hassle and harm created by keeping them plugged in.
Continuous Threat Exposure Management (CTEM) is a continuous program and operational framework, not a single pre-boxed platform. Flashpoint believes that effective CTEM must be intelligence-led, using curated threat intelligence as the operational core to prioritize risk and turn exposure data into defensible decisions.
Table Of ContentsSince Gartner’s introduction of CTEM as a framework in 2022, cybersecurity vendors have engaged in a rapid “productization” race. This has led to inconsistent market definitions, with a variety of vendors from vulnerability scanners to Attack Surface Management (ASM) providers now claiming to be an “exposure management” solution.
The current approach to productizing CTEM is flawed. There is no such thing as a single “exposure management platform.” The enterprise reality is that most enterprises buy three or more products just to approximate what CTEM promises in theory. Even with these technologies, organizations still require heavy lifting with people, process, and custom integrations to actually make it work.
A functional CTEM approach typically requires multiple platforms or tools, including:
In some cases, organizations may also use an ASM vendor for shadow IT discovery, a CMDB for asset context, and ticketing integrations to drive remediation. This multi-platform model is the rule, not the exception. And that raises a hard truth: if you need three or more products, plus a dedicated team to implement CTEM, you need an intelligence-led CTEM program.
The narrative that CTEM can be packaged into a single product breaks down for three critical reasons:
You cannot buy a capability that requires full-stack asset visibility, contextualized threat actor data, real-world validation, and remediation orchestration from one tool. Each component spans a different domain of expertise and data. A vulnerability scanner, alone, cannot validate exploitability, a pentest service has a tough time scaling to daily monitoring, and generic threat intelligence feeds cannot provide critical business context.
However, CTEM requires orchestration of all these components in one operational loop. No single product delivers this comprehensively out of the box; this is why CTEM must be viewed as a continuous program, not a one-size-fits-all product.
Vendors often advertise automation, however, key intelligence functions are still powered by and reliant on human analysis. Even with best-in-class AI tools in place, security teams are depending on human insights for:
In other words, exposure management today still relies on human insights and expertise. So while vendors advertise “automation and intelligence,” what they’re really delivering is a starting point. Ultimately, AI is a force multiplier for threat analysts, not a replacement.
Most platforms treat exposure like a math problem. But real risk isn’t just CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) scores or asset counts, it requires answering critical, intelligence-based questions:
These answers require intelligence, not just data. Best-in-class intelligence provides security teams with confirmed exploit activity in the wild, context around attacker usage in APT (Advanced Persistent Threat) campaigns, and detailed metadata for prioritization where CVSS fails. That is why Flashpoint intelligence is leveraged by over 800 organizations as the operational core of exposure management, turning exposure data into defensible decisions.
If your risk strategy requires continuous penetration and exploit testing, vulnerability management, threat intelligence, and manual prioritization and validation, you’re not buying CTEM; you’re building it. At Flashpoint, we’re helping organizations build CTEM the right way: driven by intelligence, and powered by integrations and AI.
Flashpoint treats CTEM for what it really is, as a program that must be constructed intelligently, iteratively, and contextually.
That means:
Using Flashpoint’s intelligence collections, organizations can achieve intelligence-led exposure management, with threat and vulnerability intelligence working together to provide context and actionable insights in a continuous, prioritized loop. This empowers security teams to build and scale their own CTEM programs, which is the only realistic approach in a cybersecurity landscape where no single platform can do it all.
If you’re evaluating exposure management tools, ask yourself:
The answers may surprise you. At Flashpoint, we’re helping organizations build CTEM the right way, driven by intelligence, powered by integration, and grounded in reality. Request a demo today and see how best-in-class intelligence is the key to achieving an effective CTEM program.
The post Why Effective CTEM Must be an Intelligence-Led Program appeared first on Flashpoint.
As businesses and service providers deploy AI tools and systems, having strong cyber security across the entire AI pipeline is a foundational requirement, from design to deployment. Even at this stage of AI adoption, attacks on AI infrastructure and prompt-based manipulation are gaining traction. Per a recent Gartner report, 32% of organizations have already experienced an AI attack involving prompt manipulation, while 29% faced attacks on their GenAI infrastructure in the past year. Nearly 70% of cyber security leaders said emerging GenAI risks demand significant changes to existing cyber security approaches. And a recent Lakera survey found that only 19% of organizations […]
The post Check Point Secures AI Factories with NVIDIA appeared first on Check Point Blog.
